1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE - US ...

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5067 PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows;

950. Resolution of tlle Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburgh, indorsing the suggestion that the hundredth anniversary of the birth of Stephen Collins Foster be signalized by the issuance of a special postage stamp or coin ; to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

951. By Mr. ACKERMAN: Petition of sundry citizens of the State of K ew Jersey, opposing the passage of House bill 5000 and Senate bill 291, which provides for a department of education ; to the Committee on Education.

952. By Mr. ARNOLD: Petition from various citizens of Lawrence County, Ill., protesting against the passage of House bills 7179 and 7822, providing for compulsory Sunday observance in the District of Columbia ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

953. By Mr. CARTER of California: Petition of California Academy of Sciences, opposing any legislation adverse to the efficient maintenance and management of the national forests and national parks; to the Committee on the Public Lands.

954. Also, petition of Los Angeles district executive board of the California Federation of Women's Clubs, indorsing Senate bill 774; to the Committee on the Public Lands.

955. By Mr. CHINDBLOl\1: Petition of l\Irs. C. M. Rohr and 110 other citizens of Chicago, Ill., opposing legislation for compulsory Sunday observance law; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

956. By Mr. CRAMTON: Petition signed by Robert Lane and other residents of Port Huron, Mich., protesting against compulsory Sunday observance bill; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. · 957. Also, petition signed by C. L. Wonch and other residents of Port Huron, :1\lich., protesting against the compulsory Sunday observance bills; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

958. Also, petition of C. D. Amadon and other residents of Port Huron, Mich., protesting against the compulsory Sunday observance bills ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

9513. By Mr. DRANE: Petition of citizens of Tampa, Arcadia, and Sarasota. Fla., opposing the passage of the so-called compulsory Sunday observance law; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

960. By Mr. GARNER of Texas: Petition from citizens of McAllen, Tex., against compulsory Sunday observance legislation ; to the Committee on the .District of Columbia.

961. Also, petition from citizens of Medina County, Tex., against compul ory Sunday observance legislation; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

962. Also, petition of sundry citizens of the State of Texas, opposing the passage of any compulsory Sunday observance laws; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

963. By 1Ur. HARRISON: Petition of sundry citizens of the State of Virginia, opposing the passage of the compulsory Sun~ day observance law; to the Cominittee on the District of Co~ lumhia.

964. By Mr. HERSEY : Petition of Ephraim Eisenberg and 34 other citizens of Westfield, Me., protesting against the passage of House bills 7179 and 7822; to the Committee on th'e District of Columbia.

965. Also, petition of 0. S. Barrows and 11 other residents of Westfield, 1\le., protesting against the passage of House bills 7179 and 7g22, compulsory Sunday observance law; to tlie Committee on the District of Columbia.

966. Also, petition of Leon P. Belyea, of Easton, 1\le., and five other citizens, protesting against the passage of House bills 7179 and 7822, compulsory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

967. By :Mr. HOOPER: Petition of Elder P. C. Hanson and 19 other residents of Hillsdale County, l\iich., protesting against the passage of compulsory Sunday legislation ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

068. By l\Ir. KIEFNER: Petition of residents of Sabula, 1\lo., protesting against the passage of compulsory Sunday observance bills (H. R. 7179 and H. R. 7822) or any other national religious legislation which may be pending ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

969. By Mr. KVALE: Petition of 150 signers, opposed to the Curtis-Reed bill; to the Committee. on Education.

970. By Mr. McDUFFIE: Petitions of citizens of Mobile, Crichton, and Whistler, opposing proposed Sunday observance bill ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

971. By Mr. ~!AGEE. of New York: Petition of citizens of Syracuse, N. Y., in opposition to House bills 7179 and 7822; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

972. By Mr. l\I.A~DOVE: Petition of 73 residents of 1\Iilo, 1\fo., pledging loyal support of the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

973. By l\Ir. MOONEY : Petition of certain members of the city council of Cleveland, protesting beer and wine resolution adopted by that body on February 15, 1926 ; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

974. By 1\Ir. O'CONNELL of New York: Petition of citizens of Brooklyn, N. Y., opposing the passage of House bills 7179 and 7822, Sunday observance legislation; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

975. Also, petition of William W. Allen, United States Vet~ erans' Bureau Hospital, No. 98, Castle Point, N. Y., favoring the Knutson bill (H. R. 8132) to increase Spanish War pen~ sions ; to the Committee on Pensions.

976. Also, petition of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, opposing the Wadsworth-Perlman bill (S. 2245 and H. R. 5) amending the immigration act; to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

977. Also, petition of the Intermediate Rate Association of Spokane, Wa~h., favoring the passage of the Gooding-Hoch bill; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

978. Also, petition of residents of Providence, R. I. protesting against House bills 7179 and 7822, compulsory Sunday observance ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

979. By Mr. PERKINS : Petition of sundry citizens of the State of New Jersey, opposing the passage of the Sunday observance law; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

980. Also, petition of sundry citizens of the State of New Jersey, opposing the passage of House bill 5000 and Sen9.te bill 291, which provide for a department of education · to the Committee on Education. '

981. By Mr. ROBINSON of I~wa: Petition of various citizens of Hampton, Iowa, against compulsory Sunday observance ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

982. By l\.Ir. SINCLAIR: Petition of 61 residents of Dickinson, N. Dak., protesting against legislation compelling compulsory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

983. By Mr. THOMPSON: Petition of F. J. Ulrich, president, on the part of the Affiliated Societies of the Catholic Union of Ohio, protesting against the Reed bill; to the Committee on Education.

SENATE FRIDAY, March 5, 19~6

(Legisl4ti·ve day of Wednesday, March 3, 1926)

The Senate reassembled at 12 o'clock meridian, on the expiration of the recess.

MESSAGE FROM TIIE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives by l\.Ir. Halligan, one of its clerks, announced that the House insisted on its amendments to the bill (S. 1129) authorizing the use for permanent construction at military posts of the proceeds from the sale of surplus War Department real property, and authorizing the sale of certain military .reservations, and for other purposes, disagreed to by the Senate; agreed to the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that l\.Ir. JAMES, Mr. HILL of Maryland, and Mr. FISHER were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

The message also announced that the House insisted on its amendment to the bill (S. 1343) for the relief of soldiers who were discharged trom the Army during the World War because of misrepresentation of age, disagreed to by the Senate : agreed to the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. REECE, Mr. GLYNN, and Mr. HILL of Alabama were appointed managers on the part of -the House at the conference.

THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATION

Mr. McKINLEY. 1\Ir. President, to-day America is facing a serious situation because its greatest industry is not in proper adjustment with the other economic groups. During the past few months I have made some careful study of the agdcultural situation for the country as a whole and particularly of my own State. I have been more th~n alarmed at what I have found.

The Congress is being earnestly besought to provide a remedy which will bring products of the labor of the farmer into a fair relationship with products of the labor of other groups. I feel that we can not turn our attention to a more

. ~

5068. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MARan 5 serious problem, nor one more needing our attention and immediate action.

It is not to be questioned that the farmer is not getting a fair share of the national income. Economists bold that corporate organizations and the operation of modern laws tend to divert a larger share of income into towns or cities than is just. All who have studied agricultural problems recognize this fact to-day. .

I do not believe that this is a problem concermng the farmer alone. The national prosperity itself is not secure unless this situation is speedily remedied.

In a brief analysis of the situation in my own State, I find that the 30,736,000 acres in farms which were worth, land and buildings $187.59 an acre in 1920, are worth to-day on an average ~f only $136.79, a depreciation in value of $50.80 an acre, or a total loss to the farmers of Illinois of more than $1,500,000,000.

The land alone, leaving out of consideration the buildings and improvements, was valued in 1920 at $164.20 an acre. To-day its value is $111.53.

Those are the cold figures, which tell the dollars and cents side of the story. But in making the study of my State I have· not forgotten that dollars and cents ar~ ~ot ~ll . . T~e~e are men and women to be considered. One m1ll10n mnety-e1ght thousand of these men and women I~:ve on .the farms of Illinois. Two million eighty-two thousand _live on farms and in country towns, and many hundreds of tb~usands more are directly dependent upon the products of the soil

This is not the farmers' problem alone. It is the problem of the Nation. It is our problem. The problem is complex. Progress bas been made in past years in solving it. Action of this body in recently amending the pure food and drug act to permit without embarrassment the use of cor~ sugar has relieved one immediate perplexing problem. Durmg the past few years other legislative measures have been drawn up and passed by Congress, which have helped. We have legal~.zed the ·establishment of cooperative-marketing groups. Efficient_ cooperative distribution has done much for the farmer. It has raised the standard of the quality of farm _products and has protected the buyer. Through the farmer's own· marketing agency he is to-day being taught to produce what the ma1:ket demands. This is the first step toward orderly marketmg. Cooperative marketing as ociation are enabling the farmer to escape from the disastrous effects of dUlllping his products on the market immediately they are produced. Qur Secretary of Agriculture rec~ntly esti~ated that in 1!>25 cooperative associations transacted approximately two and a half billion dollars of business. .

Some results have also been obtained during the past few years in obtaining for agriculture a more favorable transportation rate.

These things ha\e been good and ha\e helped. But they are not enough. We are now confronted with a peculiar problem. The whole Nation has aided in expanding agriculture to the point that there is a normal surplus over what the whole market consumes. This normal surplus sets the price on what the home market takes. Thus we find the farmer receiving a world price for his product and buying at borne products at an American price, artificially maintained by various legislative and governmental measures.

The. American farmer, as I understand it,- does not desire thi. American price changed. His one plea to us is to provide a means which will give him and his product an American price, so that he can enjoy an American standard of living on an equality with the other American groups.

To provide this equality for agriculture is wise from every standpoint. It is well to remember that some 40 per cent of our population is agricultural, and it is also well to remember that much of our commerce and our industry depends upon the welfare of our basic industry-agricultm'e.

There are now such a multiplicity of proposals before Congress that the i sue is confused. Some of the sugge tions come from earnest and miEguided zealots. Others are introduced with the evident intention of confusing and defeating the proper demands of agriculture.

It is necessary that we cast aside these half-baked suggestions to determine what agriculture wants and should have and enact into legislation measures which will provide the machinery to give agriculture the equality which it must have. I am in daily conference with the farm leaders in my own State and with national farm leaders. I have here the resolution adopted at the ·recent annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation, which is as follows:

We indorse the enactment of a Federal law based on the principle of a farmers' export corporation providing for the creation of an agency

with broad powers for the purpose of so handling the surplus of farm crops that the American producer may receive an American price in the domestic market, and we instruct our officers and representatives to work for the early enactment of such a law founded on sound economic policy and not involving Government subsidy.

I also have a resolution adopted by the Illinois Agricultural Association, the State Farm Bureau of Illinois. This resolution is as follows :

The unfavorable situation of agrtc131ture since the war has been due in large part to the working out of national policies which have expanded farm production to the utmost above domestic needs, on the one band, while they have maintained a high level of farm production costs, on the other. Because of this the responsibility of establishing a new national policy aimed to ·correct existing disparities and to promote economic equality for agriculture rests on the Nation as a whole. Attempts to include the American farmer in the protective system by tarifl's have been largely futile because the normal surplus of the important cash crops holds the domestic price to world levels, regardless of tariffs.

Therefore the farmers of Illinois join with the farmers of the other agricultural surplus States in asking the Sixty-ninth Congr~ss, as part of a definite national farm program, to create an export board or . corporation under which producers · can, at their own expense, control the marketing of their sm;pluses abroad in such manner as to sustain an American price for that portion consumed in America.

Many plans for dealing with the surplus problem have been proposed to Congress, some . of which are now in the form ot bills providing for export bounties, foreign credits, and other means and agencies.

The Illinois Agricultural Association, while reiterating its willingness to support any sound and workable plan to accomplish the desired endS, recognizes its responsibility to express its general judgment on the relative value of the several plans, some of whicp are :

1. Export bounty on each of several farm commodities approximately equal in amount to the import duty provided in each case, financed by an excise tax on the units of each commodity that move in trade.

2. Export bounty on each of several farm commodltieupproximately equal in amount to the import duty provided in each case, the bounty payable in form of due bills acceptable by the United States Treasury in payment of import duties.

3, Government loans to buyers abroad to provide funds for foreign purchase of our farm surplus.

4. Federal board to assist farm producers to control, segregate, or dispose of surpluses abroad or at home, the actual buying and selling to be done wherever practicable through corporations created by associations of produce.rs themselves, but financed as to sales abroad by an equalization fund from an excise tax similar to that proposed for the export bounty.

An export bounty, not administered by a central body empowered to segregate and control the surplus movement, would, in our judgment, be less effective than other proposals in adjusting domestic supply and demand at a fair price. The plan to finance bounty payments either from the United States Treasury or trom diverted import duties in effect proposes a public subsidy against which the American Farm Bureau Federation bas gone on record. The plan to loan additional funds to finance foreign purchases could not materially change the world price level at which the sales would be made, could not operate to maintain an American price for that portion consumed in America, and does not appear to be a proper solution, for the further rea on that since the war our farm exports have not been curtailed, but on the contrary have found ready buyers at a world price and in volume greater than pre-war. The bounty and loan proposals do not tend to bring the organized producers into the market in control of the handling of their surplus.

Therefore be it Resolved, That the Illinois Agricultural Association Indorse the gen

eral principles set forth in the Dickinson bill now before Congres~, a measure which provides for a Federal board to administer an equalization responsibility for the surplus farm commodities, the finances to be put up by the producers themselves in the most practical man~er, ·

·through excise tax or equalization fee, and the actual buying, stormg, and selling involved in handling the surplus to be done, with the support of the board, by corporations created and conb·olled by the producers themselves.

I am in accord with the Illinois Agricultural Association. OLDROYD COLLECTION OF LINCOLN RELICS

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Pre~ident, because I shall probably be absent when the Senate bill 957, providing for the purchase of the Oldroyd collection of Lincoln relics, introduced by myself, is reached on the calendar, and because I shB;ll tberef~re be unlikely to be able to make a statement concernmg the b1ll, in the enactment of which I am very greatly interested, I ask permission to have printed i,n the R~coRD at this point a brief editorial article from to-days Wasbmgton Post.

\

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-.SENATE 5069 There being no objection, the editorial article was ordered

to be printed in the RECORD, as follows : A bill introduced by Senator WrLr.Is, of Ohio, for the purchase of

the famous Oldroyd collection of Lincoln relics, now in the house at 516 Tenth Street NW., where the great President died, is now on the Senate calendar. A similar bill was passed by the Senate last year, but died in the House. This is the last opportunity Congress will have to secure and keep in Washington this great collection, as Colonel Oldroyd has been offered $50,000 for it by the State of Illinois, and a larger sum by Henry Ford. Here, where Lincoln served his country and where be died, is the place for this unequaled. collection of relics. r

The House should not neglect the opportunity to provide for their purchase.

CALL OF THE ROLL Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President, I suggest the

absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Sena

tors answered to their names : Ashurst Fletcher · McU!an Bayard ~ Fraz.J.e.r McMaster Bingham George McNary lnease Gerry Mayfield Borah Glass · Means Bratton Goff Metcalf Brookhart Gooding Moses Broussard Greene Neely llruce Hale Norbeck C,ameron Harreld Norris Capper Harrls Nye Caraway Heflin Oddie Copeland Howell O.verman Couzens Johnson Pepper })ale Jones, Wash. Phipps Deneen Kendrick Pine · Dill King Pittman Ernst La Follette Reed, Pa. Ferris Lenroot Robinson . .Ark. Fess McKinley Robinson, Ind.

Sackett Sheppard Shortridge Simmons Smith Smoot Stanfield Stephens Swanson Tyson Wadsworth Walsh Warren Watson Whf'eler WHUams Willis

Mr. JONES of Washington. I wish to announce that' the senior Senator from Kansas [Mr. CURTIS], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER], the Senator f1;om Maine [Mr. FERNALD], and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. KYrrEB] are detained from the Senate because of illness.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Seventy-seven Senators having answered to their names, a quorum is present.

REGULATIO:V OF RADIO TRANSMISSION The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following

concurrent resolution of the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, which was referred to the Committee on Interstate Commerce: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2 flsking Congress to efl'ectively regu

late stations for the transmission of radio communictions or energy in th~ United States, introduced February 2, 1926, by Mr. Case and referred to committee on judiciary Whereas the Radio Corporation of America or the Westinghouse Elec

tric & :Manufacturing Co. has established a superpower radio broadcasting station near Bound Brook, N. J., in the center of the residential suburban community ln this State, which station bas for its purpose the broadcasting of radio communications to distant points with the least interference to New York City and entirely without regard to the effect of such broadcasting upon the many suburban C<>mmunities located in the counties of :Middlesex, Union, and Somerset and adjoining counties in this State; and .

Whereas the operation of said superpower radio station will constitute an intolerable nuisance to the citizens of said communities who use radio receiving sets or who operate radio broadcasting stations; and

Whereas the governing bodies of numerous cities and towns located in said counties have passed resolutions calling upon the governor of this State and upon the legislature to take all steps necessary to limit the signal strength of said broadcasting station so that it will not be operated so as to create such nuisance; and

Whereas the Congress of the United States bas pending before lt bills ile3lgned to more effectively regulate the transmission of radio communications and energy:

Be it t-esolt•ed. by the senate (the hou-se of assembly concurring), That the legislature urge upon Congress the necessity for the enactment of legislation which will vest in the Secretary of Commerce adequate control of all stations transmitting radio communications and energy in interstate commerce and that such legislation may embody provisions giving to _persons or corpora tlons atrected or to be affected by the · operations or proposed operations of such broadcasting stations an opportunity to be beard before the Secretary of Commerce prior to the licensing of such stations and an opportunity to apply to such Secretary for the revocation of the license of any such station for violation of law or of the regulations of such Secretary and an opportunity to appeal from the action taken by such Secretary affecting such person or corporation; ~Hfuillu •

Resolved., That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the Senate of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to each of the Senators and Congressmen from this State.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPAR'.rMENT OF STATE.

I, Thomas F. Martin, secretary of state of the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 2 as the same is taken from and compared with the original filed March 2, 1926, and now remaining on file and of record ln my office. ·

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal at Trenton this 4th day of March, A. D. 1926.

(SEAL.] THOMAS F. MARTIN,

Secretary of State.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES Mr. STEPHENS, from the Committee on Claims, to which

were referred the following· bills, reported them each without amendment and submitted reports thereon :

A bill ( S. 102) to carry into et.fect the findings of the Court of Claims in the claim of Elizabeth B. Ed!ly (Rept. No. 264) ; and · · .

A bill ( S. 767) for the relief of Annie H. Martin (Rept. No. 265).

Mr. CAPPER, from the Committee on Claims, to which were referred the following bills, reported them severally without amendment and submitted reports thereon:

A bill ( S. 1304) for the relief of Hunter-Brown Co. (Rept. No. 266) ;

A bill (S. 1451) for the relief of ·William Hensley (RepL No. 267);

A bill (S. 2242) for the relief of Mark J. White (Rept. No. 268); and · A bill ( S. 2992) for the relief of the Royal Holland Lloyd, a Netherlands corporation of Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Rept. No. 269).

Mr. CAPPER, also from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the bill (S. 2200) for the relief of James E. Fitzgerald, reported it with amendments and submitted a report (No. 270) thereon.

Mr. STANFIELD, from the Committee on Claims, to which was referred the bill ( S. 769) for the relief of the estate of Benjamin Braznell, reported it without amendment and submitted a report (No. 271) thereon.

Mr. MOSES, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, reported a bill (S. 3429) authorizing the Postmaster General to remit or change deductions or fines imposed upon contractors for mail service, which was read twice by its title, and he submitted a report (No. 272) thereon.

Mr. CAPPER,. from the Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (S. 3012) to cha-nge the name of the "trustees of St. Joseph's Male Orphan Asylum" and amend the act incorporating the same, reported it without amendment and submitted a report (No. 273) thereon.

BILLS INTRODUCED Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unani

mous consent, the second time, and referred as follows : By Mr. McKINLEY: A bill ( S. 3415) granting an increase of pension to John H.

Crim ; to the Committee on Pensions. By Mr. KING . (by request) : A bill (S. 3416) to provide for the disposition of asphalt.

gilsonite, elaterite, and other like substances on the public domain; to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

A bill (S. 3417) to amend the act entitled "An act to establish a code of law for the District of Columbia," approved March 3, 1901, as amended ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By 1\Ir. BRUCE : A bill ( S. 3418) to .create an additional judge in the district

of Maryland; to the Committee on the Judiciary. By 1\Ir. NEELY: A bill ( S. 3419) granting a pension to William J. Smith; to

the Committee on Pensions. A bill (S. 3420) for the relief of James Monroe Gate~; to

the Committee on Military Affairs. By 1\Ir. SACKETT: A bill ( S. 3421) to authorize the construction of a George

Rogers Clark Memorial Lighthouse on the Ohio River at or adjacent to the city of Louisville, Ky.; to the Committee on the Library.

By 1\Ir. PEPPER: A bill ( S. 3422) for the promotion and retirement of Wil

liam H. Santelmann, leader of the Marine Band; to the Com~ plittee on Naval Affairs.

5070 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE ¥AEon P. · A bill ( S. 3423) authorizing the removal of the Iiartholdi Fountain from its present location and authorizing its reerection on other public grounds in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on the Library. .

By Mr. CAPPER: A bill ( S. 3424) granting a pension to Nancy J. Nichols

(with accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Pensions. By Mr. KENDRICK: A bill ( S. 3425) to authorize aided and ·directed settlement

on certain Federal reclamation projects, and for other purposes ; to the Committee on Irrigation and Reclamation.

By Mr. STANFIELD : A bill (S. 3426) to accept the cession by the State of Ar

kansas of exclusive jurisdiction over a tract of land 'within the Hot Springs National Park, and for other purposes;

(By request.) A bill (S. 3427) to revise the boundary of the Yellowstone National Park in the States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, and for Qther purposes ; and

(By request.) A bill ( S. 3428) to revise the boundary of the :Mount Rainier National Park in the State of Washington, and for ot}ler purposes ; to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys. . By Mr. CAMERON:

A bill ( S. 3430) to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and maintain an agricultural experiment station in the Colorado River Valley near Fort Mohave, AriZ., and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

A bill (S. 3431) to amend the acts of February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. p. 795), and the act of May 29, 1924 ( 43 Stat. p. 244), providing for the leasing of unallotted Indian reservation land for oil and gas mining, and for other purposes ; to the Com-mitfee on Indian Affairs. ·

By Mr. WILLIS : A bill (S. 3432) granting ·an increase of pension to Mary

Larimer (with accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. STANFIELD (by request): A bill ( S. 3433) to revise the boundary of the Grand Canyon

National Park in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

By Mr. WILLIAMS: A bill ( S. 3434) granting an increase of pension to Edith

Quick (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Finance.

VALIDATION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND ENTRIES

Mr. STANFIELD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill ( S. 3223) validating certain applications for and entries of public lands, and for other purposes, which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys and ordered to be printed.

MUSCLE SHOALS

The Senate resumed the consideration of House Concurrent Re olution No. 4, providing for a joint committee to conduct negotiations for leasing Muscle Shoals.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I desire to prefer a unanimous-consent request. On yesterday, as Senators will remember, on the suggestion of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRIS] and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH], I permitted this matter to go over. I wish to see if we can not ag1·ee this morning on some hour when we may have a vote upon the pending concurrent resolution and all amendments thereto. I ask unanimous consent that we may proceed to vote thi afternoon. I believe there is a special order for 3.30 o'clock this afternoon, and I wonder if we could agree to yote at 2.30 o'clock? ,

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Alabama requests unanimous consent that the vote be taken on the pending resolution at 2.30 o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. BLEASE. Mr. President, I object. The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection is made. Mr. HEFLIN. Now, Mr. President, I prefer one other re

quest. I have no desire to cut off debate upon the question. As I stated yesterday, this subject has been gone over many times in the Senate and every phase of it has been discussed. I wonder if we could not agree to proceed to vote on the resolution to-morrow afternoon at 3 o'clock? I hope the Senator from South Carolina will not object to that. It is very important that we should get through with this resolution as early as possible if we are going to adopt it, for at best the committee will have but a few days to get bids and to report them back. ·

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. President, I shall not object, but I inquire of the Senator whether he would consider the feasibility of setting the vote for Monday next? I am selfish in that, I

admit. I am compelled to be absent from the Chamber tomorrow, and I should like to vote upon this question. It seems to me that the matter would not be delayed by voting on the resolution, say, at the snme hour on Monday. · However, I shall not object to the request, though I dislike to be prevented from voting on the measure.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has suggested that a vote shall be taken on Monday and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BLEA.SE] has objected to a vote being taken to-day. I ask unanimous consent, then, that at 3.30 o'clock on Monday we may proceed to vote upon the resolution and amendments thereto without further debate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? 1\fr. JONES of 'Va hington. I desire to say that, as a general

rule, I should object to fixing a time for voting on a measure and an arrangement under which amendments might be offered without any opportunity to discuss or explain them. I am, however, not going to object to this request, but I wish it understood that I shall not h·eat it as a precedent hereafter.

Mr. HEFLIN. No. Mr. JONES of Washington. Because I am opposed to agree

ments of that sort. 1\lr. BLEASE. I understand that the request includes votes

on the amendments that .have already been offered to the resolution? .

Mr. HEFLIN. Oh, yes ; it includes all amendments pending at the time fixed for the vote.

Mr. BLEASE. It does not shut them out? l\!r. HEFLIN. No. Mr. SMOOT. Will not the Senator from Alabama modify

his request so as to provide that the vote shall be taken not later than 3.30 o'clock on Monday, so that if the discussion shall end earlier than at that hour we may proceed to vote and not be compelled to lay the resolution aside until the time to vote upon it shall arrive?

M-r. GEORGE. Mr. President, I hope that there will be no modification of the request of the Senator from Alabama, because, as I wish to explain, some of us are now busily engaged in the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The work on that subcommittee is such that it requires our constant attention. It is necessary that we shall remain continuously in the committee room in order to expedite the consideration of the contest which has been filed by Daniel F. Steck against SMITH W. BROoKn~r. the Senator from Iowa. I, therefore, hope that the Senator from Alabama will allow his request to stand as he has preferred it, fixing a definite hour at which the vote is to be taken.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, in view of what the Senator from Georgia has stated, I hope the Senator from Utah [Mr. SMoOT] will not insist on his suggestion, for, if a definite hour for the vote be fixed, Senators will then be present.

Mr. SMOOT. The only object I had in making the suggestion was that I thought, perhaps, if agreed to, it might hasten the time for taking the vote on the resolution.

Mr. HEFLIN. Should the debate on the resolution terminate earlier than the time fixed for a vote, other business may be taken up and considered.

Mr. SMOOT. I shall not insist on my suggestion. I only offered it in the interest of saving time.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the unanimousconsent agreement requested by the Senator from Alabama [MI·. HEFLIN] is entered into.

The agreement was reduced to writing, as follows : Ordered, b-y unanim-ous consent, That on the calendar day of Monday,

March 8, 1928, at 3.80 o'clock l). m., the Senate proceed to vote without further debate upon any amendment that may be pendJng, any amendment that may be offered, and upon· the resolution (H. Con. Res. 4) providing for a joint committee to conduct negotiations for leasing Muscle Shoals.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, under the terms of the pending resolution initial steps are proposed for the disposal to private interests, for at least 50 year., of the Government's great hydroelectric power plant at Mu. cle Shoals, including an auxiliary 80,000-horsepower steam plant, a 40,000-ton fL"Yed-nitrogen cyanamide plant, and other incidental property, all together costing in excess of $150,000,000.

It is further proposed that the private interests leasing this property shall agree to manufacture commercial fertilizer, " according to demand," to the extent of at least 40,000 tons of fixed nitrogen per annum, at a net profit of not to exceed 8 per cent of the co t of production.

From the tenor of the pending resolution and the terms referred to therein, together with tile arguments that have bE'en presented in favor thereof, it would appear that the following ~ssumptions are accepted to be facts :

; 1926• ·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE 5071 First. That an Increase in-the production of artificially fixed

nitrogen will necessarily result in a material reduction in the price of nitrogenous fertilizers, thus affording a marked saving to farm operators throughout the country.

Second. That fixed nitrogen suitable for fertilizer purposes can be produced by the 40,000-ton cyanamide plant _at Muscle Shoals at a cost less than such fixed nitrogen can be produced elsewhere in this country.

Third. That to-day the production of cheap artificially fixed nitrogen is dependent upon the utilization of lftw-cost electri(al energy, and hence upon some great hydroelectric-power development such as that at Muscle Shoals.

Fourth. And that the GoverniJlent's great investment at Mu&cle Shoals can afford the greatest possible service to the Nation by apparently dedicating it to the production_ of fertilizers for the benefit of the farmer in the bAnds· of a private corporation

, that agrees to manufac-ture . commercial fertilizers; " according -to demand," to the extent of at'.least 40,000 tons of fixed nnro--gen per annum at a net profit ~ot to exceed 8 per cent of the cost of production.· ·

If these assumptions, or certain thereof, are not valid the chief arguments for the adoption of the present resolution fall,

. and it is rendered evident that many, in and out of Congress, are laboring under a misconception of the purposes of the vart-

. ous great interests that have been endeavoring to secure a lease of this property. Moreover, if these chief arguments fail there is but one conclusion to be drawn, and that is that the. opponents of this resolution are correct in insisting that at this time the great Muscle Shoals- development is essentially a hydroelectric-power proposition, and that it is so regarded by the great interests that are endeavoring to .secure a lease of the property. Further, that if this property is !eased as proposed the great dam, power house, and auxiliary steam plant will be largely utilized for the development, distribution, and sale of electrical energy, and that . the production of fertilizers will be practically a separate and distinct enterpr~e based upon the utilization of coal and coke in accord with the latest practice throughout the world.

Therefore, Mr. President, let us consider these assumptions in detail. Assumption l-and it seems to be very generally accepted by certain Members of this body-is that an increase in the production of artifically fixed nitrogen will necessarily result 1n a material reduction in the price of nitrogenous fertilizers, thus affording a marked saving to farm operators throughout the country.

Last year the United States consumed 7,500,000 tons of mixed fertilizer, and, in addition thereto, there was consumed about 40,000 tons of nitrogen in the form of sodium nitrate.

1\Ir. COUZENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HOWELL. Yes. Mr. COUZENS. Does the Senator intend to show · what

proportion of that 7,500,000 tons of fertilizer is filler, the usual filler used in fertilizer, which is not really productive of fertilization?

Mr. HOWELL. I will take up the composition of fertilizer shortly in a manner in which I think will answer the Senator's question.

Mr. COUZENS. Very well. 1\fr. HOWELL. Of this 7,500,000 tons of fertilizer 55 per

cent, or 4,150,000 tons, did not contain any nitrogen whatever. Mr. SMITH. Or any plant food. Mr. HOWELL. It contained plant food. Mr. SMITH. No. Mr. COUZENS. But it did not contain any nitrogen what

ever. Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me,

.I think, if he will examine carefully the analysis, he will find that 50 per cent or more contained no plant food whatever. There was no element of plant food in if, as I think .he will ascertain if he will investigate the analyses.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, I do not propose to dispute the Senator's statement, and his statement is not at variance with my statement to the effect that 4,150,000 tons, or 55 per cent of the total consumption of mixed fertilizer in this country last year, did not contain any nitro~n.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I have a table that has been worked out carefully by the Bureau of Soils, which later I will submit. Without giving percentages, there is not in excess of 300 pounds of plant food in the ordinary ton of commercial fertilizer, which makes 1,700 pounds out of the 2,000 pounds that

-is what is called filler, that has no food properties or commercial value whatever. So that the percentage of the 8,000,000 tons consumed in this country is as 300 to 1,700.

Mr. NORRIS. 1\Ir. President, will my colleague permit an interruption there? :

Mr. -HOWELL: Certainly. Mr. NORRIS. I think the particular question raised by the

Senator from South Carolina [l\1r. SMITH] is perhaps unimportant· as far as the discussion that the Senator from Nebraska is bringing out is concerned. He is discussing the production of nitrogen down at Muscle Shoals. His statement is absolutely correct. There is not any nitrogen in that part of it. I will say to my colleague, however, that I think the evidence disclosed that the Senator from South Carolina is likewise correct in his statement that 1,700 pounds ·out of 2,000 pounds of every fertilizer product contains no plant food whatever, but my colleague is certainly . right. I . thought the figures were a little more than _ he has given. · Nobody can question those figures, however. in regard to nitrogen.- .

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, . the remaining 3,750,000 tons contained on an average about 3* per cent of nitrogen, or a total of about 110,000 tons of nitrogen. In addition, as stated before, there was used last year, as nearly as the departments are able to estimate, about 40,000 tons-of nitrogen unlnixed in the form of sodium nitrate, making ·the total nitrogen used 'for fertilization pilrposes in this country last year about 150,000 tons, and of this · but 50,000 tons was in the form of artificially fixed nitrogen-that is, in the form of ammonium sulphateand 100,000 tons was in the form ·of sodium nitrate obtained from Chile.

Why is it that but 50,000 tons of fixed nitrogen produced in this ·country was used last year for fertilizer purposes? - Is it because there -was no more produced? · No; there was about 100,000 tons of nitrogen produced in this country in the form of sulphate of ammonia. Fifty thousand tons went into fertilizer, and about 25,000 tons went into miscellaneous uses; ~tnd it was necessary to export, to get rid of, outside of this country, 25,000 tons more. -

This indicates that the market here is now supplied with adequate quantities of artificially fixed nitrogen, but that for some reason it does not take the place of sodium nitrate. Is it because it is more expensive than sodium nitrate? No. You can get the same quantity of nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulphate for 80 per cent of what it costs in the form of sodium nitrate obtained from Chile. Such being the case, then, why is it that two-thirds of our nitrogen used for fertilizers in this country is exported from Chile? It is because that form of nitrogen is preferred by the agricultural industry; not because it is cheaper, but because it performs the service required of a fertilizer. It is directly assimilable by- plant life, whereas nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulphate has to go through certain transformations in the ground before it becomes plant food.

In other words, there are two sources of nitro-gen that are utilized by the fertilizer industry. One is sulphate of ammonia; the other is sodium nitrate. They have been used for years. They w1ll be used for years to come. The trade demands this character of nitrogen. It has been found to be the most satisfactory for agricultural purposes; and, Mr. President, if the price of ammonium sulphate were reduced so that it were 40 per cent cheaper than sodium nitrate, no more ammonium sulphate would ]?e used, in all probability, than is used to-day. Yet is is proposed in this concurrent resolution to provide for the production of 40,000 tons more of fixed nitrogen annuallyat least, that would be inferred from this concurrent resolution, if not carefully read-with the idea that this surplus production would reduce the cost of nitrogenous fertilizers in this country. How much could we expect such proposed production to reduce the cost of nitrogenous fertilizers?

Last year there was imported into this country 6,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia, and the tariff was just about 10 per cent of its cost. It would seem that in Germany and other countries of Europe where they have cheap labor, where they have had more experience with the production of fixed nitrog-en than we have, where they have developed the direct synthetic method, they can manufact ure it more cheaply than we can, and export it to us, paying the tariff; but evidently the measure of the differential is that $5 a ton. Therefore, 1\Ir. President, under the most favorable circumstances I doubt if sulphate of ammonia can be produced for less than 10 per cent under the market price in this country to-day, even if all that they say and would lead us to infer respecting Muscle Shoals were true. -Such being· the case, what might we expect would be the saving to the farmer if the price of ni trogen in the form of sulphate of ammonia we1·e reduced 10 per cent?

On the basis of the present market price of nitrogen in that form it costs about $250 a ton. Therefore a 10 per cent reduction would mean a reduction of $25 per ton. How many tons

-.

5072 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT}J ~OHQ are used in this country? About 50,000 tons. Therefore it is evident that the possible saving would be comparatively small.

That amount, 50,000 tons of nitrogen, would cost about $12,500,000. There are 6,300,000 farm operators in this country. Divide that number into the total cost of all the fixed nitrogen used in this country in the form of ammonium sulphate, and it amounts to $2 for each farm operator 1n the United States. That is the total cost if you wipe out the entire cost of what is being used t<Hlay. But suppose you wipe out only 25 per cent-what does that amount to? Fifty cents for every farm operator in the United States; and this concurrent resolution is being urged before Congress upon the ground that it will mean a tremendous saving to agriculture!

Why, Mr. President, the total nitrogen used in this country last year cost about $42,500,000. That includes not only nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulphate, but also nitrogen in the form of sodium nitrate. Divide $42,500,000 by the total number of farm operators in this country, 6,300,000, and we find that the stake of each farmer is $6.75 if it involved the whole cost; but it could not possibly involve more than 25 per cent of that cost, and what does that amount to? One dollar and seventy cents for every farm operator in the United States! That is a measure of the agricultural factor of the problem that is before the Senate at this time.

Mr. President, the production of an additional surplus of sulphate of ammonia will riot mean any particular reduction in the price of sodium nitrate. The use of that fertilizer is too well fixed in this country, and its advantages are too well known. Farmers will utilize it because they find that results are obtainable. They can stimulate plant growth in the co~ ton fields so that it is observable in a day. This fertilizer is of great value under certain circumstances in circumventing the depredations of the boll weevil. To assume that the production of a large additional tonnage of sulphate of ammonia will tend to supplant sodium niti·ate and thus mean a great saving to the farmers in the United States is without justification in my opinion.

As to the second assumption which seems to have been accepted by a number of Senators, to wit, that fued nitrogen suitable for fertilizer purposes can be produced by the 40,000-ton cyanamide plant at Muscle Shoals at a cost less than that at which such fixed nitrogen can be produced elsewhere in this country. We are told that we ought to turn this cyanamide plant over to a great corporation, together with the Muscle Shoals water power and the steam plant, so that it can be utilized to cheapen fertilizer in this country.

It was in 1910 that the fixation of nitrogen by artificial means was initiated on a commercial scale. There were two processes which bid for public recog¢tion. One was the arc method. The other was the cyanamide method. Both methods were employed until 1913, and in that year only 50,000 tons of nitrogen were produced by plants using these two processes.

Then . the Germans discovered a new method. It is known as the direct, synthetic method. It consists of producing pure hydrogen and combining it with nitrogen in bombs by means of a catalyst at a red heat, forming ammonia. That process was such an advance over the first two that its use proceeded by leaps and bounds.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator at that point?

Mr. HOWELL. Certainly. Mr. NORRIS. I may be anticipating the Senator, but it

seems to me I should make a statement in connection with what the Senator is so clearly saying. The arc process, which came before the cyanamide ptocess, took a great deal more power than did the cyanamide process.

M.r. BOWELL. I intend to take that up. Mr. NORRIS. In-turn, the cyanamide process took a great

deal more power than what would be consumed in the third process. The Senator is going to cover that, however?

Mr. BOWELL. Yes, I shall cover that. Mr. NORRIS. I did not want it omitted. Mr. HOWELL. I propose to go into that later. Within four

years ·105,000 tons of nitrogen were being produced annually by the synthetic method, and the cyanamide process had reached its p'eak-240,000 tons. From that time on, production by the cyanamide process decreased, whole production by the synthetic process still grew by leaps and bounds, the production by the arc method practically standing still. In 1923 there were produced about 500,000 tons of fixed nitrogen. Three hundred and twenty thousand tons of that was by the direct synthetic method. In the meantime the production by the cyanamide process dropped from its peak of 240,000 tons to 145,000 tons. The difference growing greater every year.

The cyanamide plant installed at Muscle Shoals was commercially obsolete at the time it was installed, and was so regarded. In support of that statement, I propose to read from a lectur'e by Dr. Frederick G. Cottrell, chairman of the division of chemistry and chemical technology of the National Research Oouncll, before the Institute of Technology in Boston last year. I shall quote him merely in part.

To summarize this • • • situation briefly, at the outbreak ot the war the U~ted States found itself without adequate provision for an emergency supply of fixed nitrogen within its own border's, and Incidentally far behind Germany and some other European conn· tries in the development of nitrogen fixation as an element in the national agricultural policy. Under the sudden urge of military necessity-

And action by Congress-a careful survey of the situation by the nitrate supply committee soon narrowed the immediate question of nitrate preparedness down to a choice between the cyanamide and the direct synthetic ammonia processes. It was clearly realized even at this time that from an economic standpoint. at · least as far as new plants were concerned, the cyanamide process has practically become obsolete, due to the success of the Haber plant at Oppau, Germany, which started up in 1913, with an annual production of 7,000 metric tons of nitrogen, and has since been increased to 100,000 tons per year, while a second plant of twice that size had already been commenced at Werserberg, Germany. On the other hand, while we had tu.ll knowledge and experience in this country regarding the construction and operation of the cyanamide process, such .knowledge and experience, especially with regard to large-scale operation, was almost wholly lacking on the direct synthetic-ammonia process, which was also known to be :tar more delicate and difficult to control than the ·cyanamide.

As a result, the officers of the Government determined to construct a 7,000-ton synthetic, or Baber, plant at Sheffield, near Muscle Shoals, it being hoped that such a plant might be made to work notwithstanding lack of experience in this country. Later, in October, 1917, the Ordnance Department was confronted with a very large deficiency in supplies of materials for. explosives, and hence it was determined not to depend upon the synthetic plant, but to provide immediately for the construction of a. cyanamide plant of 40,000 tons, although the method was deemed to be practically obsolete. However, experience in this country with such a plant was such as to insure certainty of successful operation of this new enterprise. The course taken was ultimately justified, as the synthetic plant never did work successfully, and the cyanamide plant proved a success in actual operation, although only completed a few days before the signing of the armistice.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, may I interrupt my colleague again?

Mr. BOWELL. Certainly. Mr. NORRIS. I want to assure my colleague that these

interruptions have no other object than to throw a Uttle additional light on what he is discussing. I think we ought to have the picture before us. ·wben these plants were constructed we were at war. The object was explosives, a supply of which we did not have. The cyanamide process was well known and well understood, and there was no doubt but that we were able to construct on a.hy scale, large or small, a plant for the production of nitrogen from the atmosphere by the cyanamide process. But our people did not understand the synthetic or Baber process. They knew there was such a process in successful operation in Germany, and that accounts for the fact that in the construction of those two plants down there the cyanamide process was the larger one, because, regardless of expense, we needed explosives. A plant for the production of nitrogen by the cyanamide process was constructed, with a capacity of 40,000 tons of nitrogen per annum.

The other process, the Baber process, constructed near there, at Sheffield, was more or less experimental, although on such a large scale that it would have a sisted materially. I think the capacity of the plant was to be between seven and eight thousand tons. They constructed a steam plant in connection with it, as they did with the other plants, large enough to operate it, with a. capacity of 5,000 horsepower, as I remember.

The Haber process plant was a failure, no nitrogen ever being pro<luced in it. Bence the money spent for it, outside of the building, which was a very :fine, fireproof building, was lost. The building stands there yet, unused. The Baber process now is understood by our people, but it would require the scrapping of all the machinery, practically, in that build· ing 1n order to go ahead with that process.

' 926 CO.NGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5073 In tbe bill wbieli l have introduced I have provided for

the use of this smaller plant as an experimental institution in the production of nitrogen from the air, and it would make it on a larger scale than any that has ever been attempted anywhere in the history of the world.

Tbe other plant, the cyanamide process, .while a dead loss in time of peace, is still capable of producing and is in fine order in every respect to produce 40,000 tons of nitrogen per annum. The ()nly excuse we have for keeping it there and maintaining it is as a war proposition. It is utilized now, however, and ever since we have had Muscle Shoals under dis.cussion as a method of deceiving the farmers of America and makinO' them believe that we have something there that might produ~ fertilizer much more cheaply than it .can. be produced now. Every scientific man who has ever studied 1t and knows anything about it has admitted before the committee and e~ry· where else that it can not be done, and that as to the fertihzer proposition, if nitrate plant No. 2 were tu:ned over without cost, it still would not be able to produce rutrogen to be used in America as a fertilizer proposition, considering the· expense that would be necessary to put in the machinery~ in sufficient .quantities to reduce the cost one cent to the farmer. It must be understood that the cyanamide process at plant No. 2 and the production of nitrogen from the air to be used .there as a fertilizer or as an explosive. goes along a certam channel where it will be just the same for fertilizer as it will be for explosives, but it gets up to a point whe:e we go one way for fertilizer and another way for explosives, and we have never yet put in the machinery at nitrate plant No. 2 to utilize it for the production of nitrogen in a different form from that which they would use to produce it for explosive purposes.

It would cost, as I remember it, $2,000,000 for additional machinery to put in condition nitrate plant No. 2 if we were going to utilize it as a fertilizer proposition. There .are two objects in crying before the American people that we should utilize cyanamide plant No. 2 for the production of nitrogen in time of peace. Thel'e can be but one of two objects, or both. One is for the temporary purpose of deceiving the farmers of America and making them believe there is something in atore through that plant in the way of cheap fertilizer. The other is that cyanamide plant No. 2, if it could be operated, would tal{e practically all of the power that is developed at Dam No. 2, and the power trust or the electric trust would be well satisfied if we would keep that power off the market and use it fo1· the production of nitrogen there that would be of no use to anybody after it was produced.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, as the senj.or Senator from Nebraska has made very clear, the cyanamide plant at Muscle Shoals was constructed to supply with certainty necessary combinations of nitrogen for the manufacture of explosives during the war. We knew how to construct such a plant. We had such a plant in this counb·y1 and although we recognized the fact ·that at that time such a plant was obsolete we constructed the plant so as to be sure of having a plant that would operate, and that did ultimately operate. They evidently did not construct that plant with any thought of using it for fertilizer purposes. I wish to make that very clear, and to do so I shall quote again from that great authority upon nitrogen fixation,. Dr. Frederick G. Cottrell, chairman of the division of chemistry and chemical technology of the ~:'tional Research Council. I shall read from a statement that he made in a lecture at the Ma.ssachu etts Institute of Technology.

Mr. COUZENS. Wben did he make the statement? Mr. BOWELL. It was last year some time. I can not give

the Senator the exact date. .As plant No. 2 was in thorough operating conilltlon

Plant No. 2 is the cyanamide plant-

with power at two mills per kilowatt-hour, it was. estimated that th.fs plant, if run at full capacity, could make cyanamide at a cost of 9 cents per pound of nitrogen fixed, which is decidedly bel<lw current prices of nitrogen in other forms.

I may add that the price is about 12 cents for nitrogen in the form of sulphate of a.punonia now and about 15 cents for nitrogen in the form of sodium nitrate.

But, unfortunately, cyanamide_ can. only be used in a. very limited quantity in our present fe1'tilizer practice, because when mixed in larger proportions with superphosphate, which is the backbone of the present fertilizer industry, it not only causes reversion on the part ()f the phosphate to an insoluble form but is itself also converted ]lartly into diocyanamide, whi~h bas, wben present in sufficient Quan· tity, a distinctly toxic action on plant growth.

LXVII-320

Thus t.hls- great authority makes it clear that niti"Ogen in lliis form is not suitable for fertilizer purposes, and that is the reason why it is not found offered for that purpose in the markets of the world. Then he proceeded :

On the other band, if cyanamide must be converted into ammonium snlphat~

That is one of the two forms of nitrogen which I have been discussing-little if any margin of saving would be left as compared with present prices.

In short, Mr. President, the cyanamide plant wa not constructed for fertilizer purposes. It was constructed to produce nitric acid for ammunition purposes. It is not suitable for fertilizer purposes to-day, and if we should transform the cyanamide produced into ammonia and then into ammonium sulphate, we would have a cost equal to and eerk'linly, if we took into account the investment, above the cost of producing ammonia by the direct synthetic method, now superseding all other proeesses.

l\1r. NORRIS. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LA FoLLETTE in the chair).

Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to his colleague? Mr. HOWELL. I yield. Mr. NOHRIS~ I think it is fair to state that Doctor Cot

trell's estimate, while it took the power investment into consideration by figuring the price at 2 mills per kilowatt-hour, bad no estimate whatever of the cost of the nitrate plant itself. He took that for nothing without any capital charge whatever, as I understand it.

Mr. HOWELL. Yes; and he figures the power at about $18 per horsepower per annum.

M:r. SHORTRIDGE. How much would the plant cost? Mr. HOWELL. The plant cost about $66,000,00(). Mr. NORRIS. Of course, it ought to be said in this connec

tion that the plant could be built more cheaply to-day than that price. I do not know how much more cheaply than during the war it could be buil~ but nobody would build that kind of a plant now. While the plant in that system is just as good as anybody can build, and I am not criticizing it at all and I think they were justified in building it, yet if the Government were doing it now, with what it knows about the Haber process, it would not construct that plant there. It would have constructed a. Haber proce s plant, but as a matter of fact would almost enfu·ely, under the synthetic process, eliminate the question of power. Where they have it in Germany, they do not use even the water -power.

Mr. SACKETT. Where they figure the horsepower at $18, would that pay the interest upon the construction of the dam?

Mr. NORRIS. I have not figured it out, but I am inclined to think it would. But the power at $18 per- annum is very cheap power.

Mr. SACKETT. Would that pay the interest upon the construction of the dam at .Muscle Shoals and the machinery, and so forth?

Mr. HOWELL. The senior Senator from Nebraska is familiar with that and I will ask him fo answer the Senator's question.

Mr. NORRIS. I am speaking only from recollection now, but I think it is a little under the price. I am orily speaking from recollection and I do not have the figures before me, but they are in the REcoRD.

Mr. HOWELL. I wish to say that some of the lowest prices made for power at Niagara. Falls are about $20 per horsepower. Taking everything into consideration, including the cost of the Wilson Dam, I can not believe that even the Government could sell the power and pay the cost of operation, maintenance, and depreciation and a return upon the money for $18 per horsepower.

Mr. SACKETT. That is what I wanted to ascertain. Mr. HOWELL. Therefore, as Doctor Cottrell's estimate of

cost is based upon $18 per horsepower and probably takes no account of interest upon the investment, it can be seen that it is indeed an obsolete plant and that no commercial bidder would make an offer for Muscle Shoals upon the basis of the operation of the cyanam.nie plant to produce 40,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia a year.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ne

braska yield to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. HOWELL. I yield. Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator certainly knows that whoever

gets Muscl~ Shoals will not be required to use the cyanamide process? He can use any kind of process that he chooses to

5074 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MABorr 5 use. He can make nitrogen solely or he can make complete fertilizer if he wishes to do so. Whoever shall lease the plant v.~ill have the phosphate fields of Tennessee close by, he will have the green potash shales in Georgia, and the air overhead is full of nitrogen.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, I thoroughly understand that under this resolution a lease may be made in conformance therewith that will enable the lessee to make just what ferti· lizer he sees fit and utilize the power exactly as he sees fit. But I am pointing out to Senators that no bid made upon a commercial basis will be received for Muscle Shoals because the cyanamide plant is there. The lessee will seemingly accept the cyanamide plant and agree to make a fertilizer in order that he may get the great hydroelectric power. That is the prize. ·

Let me say further that the lessee can now install a direct synthetic process plant at .Muscle Shoals for about $250 a ton. If the bidder shall proceed to construct a 40,000-ton plant on that basis, it would cost him $10,000,000. When the plant is completed it will be of the latest type, and during the period of his lease if he sets aside $66,000 annually in a sinking fund at 4 per cent interest he will amortize the cost of that plant by the end of 50 years.

Therefore, l\Ir. President, it seems to me that, in view of these facts, this assumption is absolutely without foundation, to wit, that fixed nitrogen suitable for fertilizer purposes can be produced by the 40,000-ton cyanamide plant at Muscle Shoals at a cost less than such fixed nitrogen can be produced elsewhere in this country; and yet that is what, by inference, we have been led to believe. It seems to be fixed in the minds of some of the Senators that this assumption is correct. It is not correct; it has no foundation whatever.

1\lr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, will the Senator permit an interruption at that point?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from Alabama?

Mr. HOWELL. Certainly. Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. Hooker, of New York, who manufactures

fertilizer, testified that he thought the lessee could make fertilizer for half the price at which it is now selling. Mr. Mayo, who was chief engineer for Mr. Ford, stated the same thing.

Mr. HOWELL. Just a moment. Did the gentleman say a lessee could make fertilizer with the cyanamide plant for that price?

Mr. HEFLIN. They did not say anything about that. The lessee will not have to use the cyanamide process, an·d he probably will not do so.

.Mr. HOWELL. That is the point I have been making. The lessee does not need to use the cyanamide plant; be can well afford to put $10,000,000 into a new plant, amortize it at the r.ate of $66,000 a year for the 50 years of the lease. fulfill, if necessary, even the maximum reqtlirements suggested for the lease, and thus secure that great power that will bring him millions of dollars a year.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Nebraska a question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from California?

Mr. HOWELL. Yes. Mr. SHORTRIDGE. But could the lessee make fertilizer?

Is there now any known process by which he could make fert.ilizer? That is what we are seeking, is it not, I will ask the Senator from Nebraska? If there is any way to make fer~lizer-perhaps the Senator bas previously stated it-1 should he glad to know the state of the science in that respect. I beg ~1e Senator's pardon for asking the question if he has already tovered that field.

Mr. HOWELL. I shall be glad to cover it again briefly. We are producing in this country about 100,000 tons of fi~ed nitrogen per annum by artificial means, and about 50,000 tons of that is now going into fertilizer. This cyanamide plant might produce that nitrogen, but to so produce it would cost much more than by the new German direct synthetic proces&.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. It is not proposed, then, is it, that the Ie. ·ee should undertake to use the discredited or superseded process? No one proposes that, does he?

:Mr. HOWELL. No, Mr. Presidtfnt; and I have tried to make plain that whoever takes over the plant at Muscle Shoals will not take it over because the cyanamide plant is there or that a lessee will use the cyanamide plant, but that if he produces fertilizer he will put in a new plant of synthetic character, at a cost at the present time of about $10,000,000, and that by setting aside a fund of $66,000 per year at 4 per cent interest he will have wiped out at the end of his lease the cost of the plant. Thus, if he sl1ould merely earn interest on the

plant, $66,000 per year will be the cost t.o him of the great Muscle Shoal development, so far as fertilizer is concerned.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. I suppose we shAll take all those facts into consideration in passing upon any offer to acquire this property under lease, would we not, I will ask the Senator from Nebraska? Assuming those things to be facts-and I am not disputing them-we would take them into consideration, would we not?

Mr. HOWELL. But the point I am making is that the coun· try is being led to believe that this is a fertilizer proposition. It is not a fertilizer proposition, and I am trying to show that it is not a fertilizer proposition ; that that is simply an incident, and that, as an incident, it is being used to prevail upon Congress t9 lease this plant because such a course might help the farmer.

Mr. COUZENS. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ne

braska yield to the Senator from Michigan? Mr. HOWELL. Certainly. Mr. COUZENS. I should like to have the Senator state, if

he will, the amount of horsepower that would be used if a plant were put in to produce under the new German process in comparison with the horsepower to be used to operate the old plant.

1\Ir. HOWELL. I am going to proceed with that now. Mr. SACKETT. Mr. President--The PRESID1NG OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ne

braska yield to the Senator from Kentucky? Mr. HOWELL. I yield. Mr. SACKETT. Before the Senator proceeds to do that,

for a matter of information I should like to ask him a ques· tion. I gather from the Senator's remarks that if the lessee were to build a new plant for $10,000,000, he would still produce ammonium sulphate, would he not?

Mr. HOWELL. At the present time there is no other practicable form of fixed nitrogen.

Mr. SACKETT. If the lessee should produce the ammonium sulphate, the demand for it in all probability would be no larger than it is at the present time for fertilizer?

Mr. HOWELL. In all probability that is a fact, and they would have to find a market abroad for that much more.

1\Ir. SACKETT. At the present time in this country we are producing all we need, are we not?

Mr. HOWELL. We are not only producing all we need, but we exported last year about 120,000 tons of sulphate of ammonium. We could not use it in this country.

Mr. SACKETT. I should like to ask the Senator one other question. Does the Senator know for what they are using the ammonium sulphate which they are producing under the Haber process in Germany to-day?

Mr. HOWELL. They are using it for the production of ammonia ; they are using it in chemical processes, and they are using it also for fertilizer.

Mr. SACKETT. Does the Senator know what amount is used for fertilizer in Germany?

Mr. HOWELL. I have not the statistics in connection therewith.

Mr. TYSON. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ne

braska yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. HOWELL. I yield. Mr. TYSON. I should like to ask the Senator a question.

He says that it is not a fertilizer proposition. What kind of a proposition does the Senator think it is?

Mr. HOWELL. I look upon it as purely a hydroelectric. power proposition, and in my discussion of the next assumption I will give my reasons for so believing.

The third assumption, to which I have already referred and which seems to have been accepted as a fact by a number of Senators and others without this body, is that to-day the pro· duction of cheap artificially fixed nitrogen is dependent upon the utilization of low-cost electrical energy and hence upon some great hydroelectric power development such as that at l\Iuscle Shoals. Thls assumption seems to have been considered a fact both in and out of Congress, and it is very clear why such is the case. The first method of fixation of nitrogen was that of the arc process, and it required about 65,000 kilowatthours to produce a ton of fixed nitrogen. At 1 cent per kilo· watt, that would mean that for a ton of nitrogen the power alone would cost $650; and that at two-tenths of a cent per kilcwatt-hour it would mean $150 a ton for energy alone. Of course, under such circumstances the only practicable develoPment of such a process waS' in connection with some great water power located at some point where the raw materials could be

-1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5075 easily obtained and power was worth compai'atively little because of lack of population. . Mr. SACKETT. Mr. President, will the Senator _yield to me for a moment?

Mr. HOWELL. Certainly. Mr. SACKETT. Can the Senator tell me whether the Haber

process in Germany is using water power to any extent? 1\Ir. HOWELL. No, sir; it is not. Mr. SACKETT. Under- that process coal is being used. is

tt not? . Mr. HOWELL. Coal is being used entirely. . The cyanamide process came on. It was more complicated

than the arc process. Other expenses were connected with it that did not accompany the arc 12rocess; but it used only about one-fourth of the powe:J,". As a consequrn~e. the arc process did not continue to develop. The CY_anannde process did develop ; but, as I pointed out a short time ago, m ~913 the German synthetic process appeared, and that reqmres only one-sixteenth of the power necessary for the arc process. As a matter· of fact under this synthetic process power becomes a ·mall, min~ factor. The important .things are coal and coke. Prior to the development of this process they placed an arc-process plant beside a great :vaterfall or ot~er power possibility. Now, when they are loo~g for a location for an ammonia plant, they hunt an available coal mine. That is demonstrated by the fact tha~ the du P~nts are ·developing a great nitrogen plant now, not near a waterfall, but at the shaft of a great coal mine.

Not long ago the De-partment of Commerce i sued Trade Information Bulletin No. 372, and I propose to read from that bulletin a short extract that is in point. This ertract is subheaded: "Waterpower and fertilizer production.''" It runs as- follows :

Due to the fact that the first successful nitrogen.-fixation plants were operated in Norway an.d depen.ded for their success upon the very cheap hydroelectric power available there, the idea that nitrogen fi~ation can be accomplished economically only -with cheap power has become very firmly rooted in. the ,minds of mos.t persons. So long as the arc process remained the sole means for fixing nitrogen commercially this idea was correct; but in the 20 years that have passed since the first ll.rc plants were set up great progress has been made in the art, and to-day there .are methods of nitrogen fixation requiring only one-fifteenth as much power as the arc proces . The. art of nitroge!f .fixation has therefore been largely freed from the old limita-tion of cheap power. . - .

Electric powe1; ·is a power in a form particularly adapt~ for public- , 'utility . service; that is, for ge~eral distribution for lighting and power. -:Nih·ogen ·can be fixed by chemical processes using coal, water, and air as the raw materials and requiring relatively small amounts of power per ton of nitrogen. With such proce~ses available, an air-nitrogen industry can not compete in . the market for electric power, either with the general public demand for current or with those chemical indu tries which can not use other than electric power.

What is true of nitrogen will also hold for other fertilizer materials subject to manufacturing pro(!esses. _ Just .at present we hear much of cet·ta.in electric-furnace methods for producing phosphor!c acid. While these may have a period of usefulness at points where new hydroelectric installations have been. made, an<I; the general domestic and industrial demand has not yet absorbed the po,wer, neYertheless it appears inevitable that electric-furnace processes must 1n the long run be limited to those requiring such high temperatures as to make them difficult without the use ot electric power.

In the field.<J of fertlllzer manufacturing we must regard the use ol hydroelectric power as a temporary expedient and expect that eYentually this power must be relinquished for more profitable uses.

That is exactly what this concmrent resolution has in mind, so far as its ultimate originators are concerned. They know that this is a great power project at Muscle Shoals; that it no Iongel' has any necessary connection with the production of fertilizer ; that no longer are hydroelectric power and cheap fertilizer synonymous terms.

But Mr. Preside-nt, for evidence we need not stop- with the Department of Commerce. Again, I will quote from that great authority Dr. Frederick G. Cottrell, chairman of the division of chemistry and chemical technology of the National Research. Oouneil This is from a lecture delivered before the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He says in part : The public has come to think o! nitrogen fixation as necessarily

implying water power. But this assumption we must • • • ex' a'mi n e with ca.re. • • •

The first commercially successful attempt to fix nitr-ogen was by the arc proce· s some 20 years· ago. This was Quite naturallJ the

first process to_ develop bec;tuse of its simplicity,. CQDsisting, as it does, essentially in passing air through a powerful electric are. • • •

I am quoting him merely in part.

The process, though extremely simple, has an enormous power consumption (about .65,000 kilowatt-hours per ton of nitrogen fix-ed), and consequently 1s only applicable where excessively cheap electric power is available. Thus the public came naturally, and correctly enough in those early days, to thing of nitrogen fixation as necessarily dependent upon the development of large, new water-power projects. In the meantime research and development have vastly altered the situation, but the publlc mind has not kept pace with these ch3.ngeS', and this has naturally been . reflected by those responsible for guiding our industrial and national policies. ·

And, Mr. President, that applies right here in the Senate. The farmer, the business man, and the legislator can not be ex

pected to delve deeply into the technique of these scientific processes.

He then goes on ; I will quote just a few paragraphs m~re: On the heels of the arc came the cyanamide process. Then, though

considerably m~re complicated- than the arc process., required only about one-fourth as much electrical energy for its operation; but even here, the power consumption is still so large that commercial success has only been possible whe.re very cheap powe:t: was available. _

Finally, however, In 1913 in Germany ca1D-e the. first commercially successful Haber-Boseh plant for the direct synthesis of ammonia from Its elements, hydrogen and nitro-gen. It was this plant and process which for the first time released the nitrogen fixation industry from ito; former absolute dependence upon cheap eleetric power. The power requirements of this P:t:ocess are only about o~e-fourth of those of the cyanamide, or a sixteenth o! those o! the arc. • • •

Thus, starting with the arc process, which we may roughly say used only electric power, air and water, we- come nex-t to t~e cyanamide p~:ocess, largely cutting down the power consumption, but beginning to use more raw materials 1n the fQrm of coal, coke, and limestone, and finally reach the direct synthetic ammonia process where the consumption of electrical or mechanical energy, as such, becomes relativ-ely insignificant, and the driving energy ~o put through the chain of the necessary reactions is derived directly from coal by chemical processes without the necessary use of electrical power.

1\Ir. Preside-nt, certainly it ought to be clear that no longer are cheap fertilizers necessarlly' the effect of which cheap electrical power must be the cause. The industry has been released from the necessity of cheap power. -

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Pre ident, may I ask the Senator a question?

Mr-. HOWELL. Certainly. Mr. WATSON. Do I understand the Senator to say that

they do not make at Mnscle Shoals th-e kin:d of nitrogen that is required for the manufacture .of fertilizer?

Mr. HOWELL. That is my statement. Mr. WATSON. Will the Senator explain that? What is the

difference between that and the other kind that they do- use for manufacturing fertilizer? I am . asking just for information.

Mr. HOWELL. I can answer that question in a very few words by quoting from Doctor Cottrell. This is a quotation which I have already made, Mr. President :

As plant No. 2 (the cyanamide plant at Muscle Shoals) was in thorough operatib.g condition, • • • with power at 2 mills per kilowatt hour, it was estimated that this plant if run at full capacity could make cyanamide at a cost o! 9 · cents pe-r pound of nitrogen fixed. • • • Cyanamide can only be used ln ·very llmit<:!d quantities in our present fertilizer practice, becimse when mixed 1n larger proportions with superphosphate, which is the backbone of the p.resent fertilizer industry, it not only causes reversion of parts of the phosphate to insoluble forms, but is itself also con;erted partly into dicyanodiamide, which has when present in sufficient quantity distinctly toxic action on plant growth. On the other hand, 1f the cyanamide must be converted into ammonium sulphate--

That is the form in which fixed nitrogen is sold in this country-little, if any, margin of saving would be left as compared with present prlees.

In other words at a cyanamide plant, after producing cyanamide it is necess~ then to transform the cyanamide into ammonia and neutralize it with sulphuric acid to produce ammonium sulphate.

1\Ir. SACKETT. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator? Mr. HOWELL. I yield. Mr. SACKETT. What is the efi'ect of the use of nitrate of

soda upon plants-that is what I think the Senator from Indiana wants to get at-as compared with ammonium sui-

5076 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE lfARcH 5 phate? Professor Cottrell there states that if ammonium sulphate is used as a fertilizer, you run into these difficulties.

Mr. HOWELL. No; if you use cyanamide direct. 1\Ir. SACKETT. If you use ammonium sulphate, what is the

situation? Mr. HOWELL. Ammonium sulphate is used in fertilizers to

the extent of about 50,000 tons of nitrogen a year i.n this country.

Mr. SACKETT. That is all the demand there is for it? Mr. HOWELL. That is all the demand there is for it for

that ·purpose at the present time, and we produce about 100,000 tons.

Mr. WATSON. For what do they use it? Mr. HOWELL, They use it in the manufacture of ammonia

and in certain chemical processes. About 120,000 tons of ammonium sulphate were exported in 1924.

Mr. WATSON. But they do not use it in the manufacture of fertilizer?

Mr. HOWELL. Oh, yes. They use about 232,000 tons of ammonium sulphate a year. About one-third of the nitt·ogen used in this country for fertilizer purposes comes from ammonium sulphate, and two-thirds is imported from Chile in the form of sodium nitrate..

Mr. WATSON. Nitrate of soda? Mr. HOWELL. Yes. Mr. SACKETT. What is the effect of that nitrate of soda

on the land as compared with the other? Mr. HOWELL. Nitrate of soda is in a form which can be

immediately absorbed by plant life, whereas ammonium sulphate is in a form, as I understa~d it, that bas to be first acted upon by bacteria before absorption. Thus, in a cotton field, if the plants have reached a certain stage, the planter may largely thwart the boll weevil by stimulating growth through the application of nitrate of soda. · Mr. WATSON. Are we to understand that no nitrogen is being manufactured at Muscle Shoals which can be used in the production of fertillzer?

Mr. HO"'ELL. No; and there never has been. The plant is an obsolete plant, a fact which ! ·think I have demonstrated this afternoon. · It can be used for the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia, but they first have to make cyanamide, then ammonium, and then sulphate of ammonia, whereas with the Haber process-the synthetic process-they first make pure hydrogen, then isolate and purify nitrogen, assemble the two gases -in a bomb at a pressure of 1,500 to 3,000 pounds per square inch, or even more, and pass the gases through a red hot catalyst, and the result is a combination of nitrogen and hydrogen.

Mr. SACKETT. It can be done by the use of coal, just as well as by the use of water power?

Mr. HOWELL. They need scarcely any power except for compression. Power does not amount to 10 per cent of the cost of production, where formerly it was 60 per cent of the cost of production. So that to-day the fertilizer industry is relieved from the necessity of finding cheap power. · Mr. President, it ought to be clear to ~nyone who studies this proposition that any suggestion that the farmer is to benefit in the way of cheap fertilizer by the transferring of this great plant to some corporation that is m~rely to agree to make fertilizer which can be disposed of up to 40,000 tons of fixed nitrogen per annum is without foundation.

As I have studied thia subject, I have gleaned much I did not know, and I assume there ar~ some Senators here who may not have given any more attention to the matter than myself, or there may be those who still have it fixed in their minds that the prodHction of cheap fertilizer requires cheap electdcal energy, and hence by dedkating the great Muscle Shoals plant to the production of fertilizer, we would do something .for the farmers. However, in view of the facts elicited, I believe it must be apparent that there is now no necessary connection between Muscle Shoals and fertilizer. That is indicated by the fact that the du Ponts, now developing one of the greatest nitrogen fixation plants in the country, are not locating that plant beside a water power, but at the mouth of a coal pit. This indicates the future of fertilizer production in this country.

Why, then, are those who know all about the situation, those who have been preparing the way for bids on this project, allowing the people of the country to believe that the bids are to be for the privilege of making fertilizer down at Muscle Shoals and not for the great power? It is the power the bidders will seek. There is the water power there which for 360 days of the year will produce 125,000 horsepower. Over there on the wall of the Senate Chamber are photographs of the great dam, the greatest continuous piece of concrete in the world, I am told. Muscle Shoals is the superpower between the Rocky Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean and Niaga!a Falls ~nd the

Gulf. There have been expended there about $150,000,000. It is a prize which belongs to the people, and it is a prize that is now being sought by commercial interests. I am not condemning such commercial interests for seeking the prize. But I think we ought to consider and understand exactly what a prize it is and what those interests have in mind, and not be misled into believing that by alienating this property we will be doing something great for the farmers in reducing the cost of fertilizer. . I waut to .state again the total that is involved, so far as the fixation of nitrogen and its use for fertilizer in this country is concerned. We used 150,000 tons of nitrogen this past year. It cost the farmers $42,500,000, and there are 6,300,000 farm operators in the United States. In other words, they were interested to the extent of $6.75 on an average. That is the whole amount of nitrogen that was used on all farms as a fertilizer this last year.

Of course, we could not expect to relieve the farmer of this cost entirely. Suppose we should succeed in relieving him of 25 per cent of the cost. Certainly, I think, we would be optimistic in assuming that much. What would that amount to? It would be about $1.70 on an average to each farm operator in the United States.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Why does the Senator figure on distributing that among aU the farmers? We do not use fertilizer in Missouri.

Mr. HOWELL. I thought probably it might be suggested that it ought not to be distributed among all the farmers, so I took the State of Alabama, and found that this last year they used of mixed fertilizer 4,500 tons of nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulphate. The total cost of this nitrogen in Alabama was $1,125,000 for that 4,500 tons. There are about 250,000 farm operators in Alabama; so they paid for the nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulphate in mixed fertilizers about $4.50 per farm operator. If they reduced the cost of that 25 per cent, it would amount to $1.13 for each farm operator in Alabama.

Mr. STANFIELD. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TYSON in the chair).

Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. HOWELL. I yield. Mr. STANFIELD. I would like to suggest to the Senator

from Nebraska that there are a great many farmers in Alabama who do not use fertilizers, and in order to make a fair comparison he would have to distribute that consumption of fertilizer among the farmers who actually use fertilizer or he would have to reduce it to acreage and to the per acre average for fertilizer use in order to make a fair comparison.

Mr. HOWELL. I wish the Senator from Oregon to understand that I am not adducing these figures in the belief that they will be accepted as actual measures, but merely to give a general notion of the relative importance of the fertilizer factor in this problem.

Mr. STANFIELD. It seemingly would be a very small burden where distributed among all the farmers or among the farmers of a particular State, but we know as a matter of fact that with reference to the certain farmers who are compelled to use fertilizer it is a very heavy burden, and the relief that they would receive as individuals might run into large sums of money.

Mr. HOWELL. There is no question that there would be those whose cost for artificially fixed nitrogen would be very much in excess of this figure, but such data does give somewhat of a bird's-eye view of the situation and the meaning relatively of such a reduction as 25 per cent in the cost of sulphate of ammonia or of the amount of such nitrogen used in mixed fertilizers in the State of Alabama.

Mr. President, it is very evident that whoever secures Muscle Shoals, if it is leased to some great industrial concern, will utilize the resources of that great power so as to accomplish the greatest economic result possible from a profit standpoint and they will do so properly. The results to such an organization will be tremendous. In order that we may realize that such is the case· I want to call attention to what water power means to a community when it iS developed and distributed for the benefit of that community, and what it means to a community when it is developed and distributed for private profit.

Last fall I took advantage of an opportunity to pass through Ontario and investigate, so far as possible with the time at my disposal, the hydroelectric development in that province. I was amazed to find that since 1911 every municipality in Ontario has taken over its privately-owned electric plant Ol' built its own electric distribution system and is now distributing electricity to the community. In Ontario there are about .2,900,000 inh~blta~ts, !lnd there fl!e 393 CO!lliDU~ties which own

1926 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 5077 their own distribution systems SUJ>plied by the Hydroelectric Commission of Ontario which is merely a board of directors of a great power district, distributing electric- energy from 20 different powe .. · plants.

The fir t night I spent in Ontario was at a little city called Woodstock, with some 10,000 inhabitants. I arrived there in time for dinner and later talked with the hotel clerk. He said that at his home they utilized electricity from the hydroelech·ic plant distributing energy in Woodstock. In fact, there wa no other sy tern from which to obtain elec-trical energy. He said that they used the energy for all purposes, including cooking and ironing, and that his bill ran about $1.50 to $2 a month. Shortly afterwards the hotel proprietor himself appeared. I asked him if he had a bill for a month's use of electricity at the hotel. The hotel had 50 rooms. He got out his bill file and at random picked out a bill. It was for the month of April, 1925, the use being 2,659 kilowatts for that month. He not only used electrical energy for lighting, but for all laundry work, dishwashers, and so on. It was about his u ual bilL .The net amount cha!-'ged for 2,659 kilowatts was $24.48, or about 0.92 of a cent per kilowatt-hour.

In Alabama, the State. where this great Muscle Shoals hydroelectric power is locate-d, where the Alabama Power Co. supplies Birmingham and other cities with electrical energy developed by water power-that great power company that has its eyes on Muscle Shoals-the people of Birmingham are supplied electric energy developed by water power, as is the little dty of Woodstock, 100 miles away from Niagara Falls; but the same amount of electrical energy-2,659 kilowatt-hours-would co t 123.85, or nearly $100 more per month than is charged in Woodstock. For the- purposes of comparison I asked for the amount of · a bill for 40 kilowatts a month, a consumption that would not be unusual for a five or six room house in Washington. The bill in Woodstock for that amount of energy was 97 cents. In Birmingham, Ala., supplied by the Alabama Power Co., it would be $3.16.

Again I asked to see a bill for a month rendered to a home where they used electricity for laundry work, dish washing, and cooking, and the manager of the electl'ic plant in Woodstock handed me such a bill. If was for 311 kilowatts for . the :inonth. It cost $3.51 for 311 ·kilowatts in Woodstock. In Birmingham, where the Alabama Power Co. controls, 311 kilowatts C'ost $20.17. In Atlanta, where the Atlanta Power Co. controls, 311 kilowatts cost $22.19, and Atlanta is supplied with water power. In Chattanooga the cost was le s, $14.85. But the cost' for that amount of power in Woodstock is $3.51.

Mr. President, we do not need to go to Canada for an example of what can be done for the public. Of course the example afford~d by Ontario is remarkable. I found that of the 393 municipalities that had united and cooperated to supply themselves with eleCtrical energy, 39 were already practically out of debt at these rates, and 24 others were nearly out of debt-only owed a few thousand dollars . each over and above their quick assets. But, as I said, we do not need to go to Canada to see what can be done for the people so far as electrical energy is concerned.

Consider Cleveland, Ohio. Since about 1912, down to the present time, all through the World War, 40 kilowatts per month in Cleveland have cost $1.20 as agaj.nst 97 cents in Woodstock and $3.16 in Birmingham. Consider a bill for 311 kilowatt hours; we find that in Cleveland it would be but $9.33, and in Birmingham, Ala., supplied by water power, it would be $20.17.

Again we find that in Cleveland 2,659 killowatt-llours would cost $79.77. There electricity is developed by steam and steam only. In Birmingham, Ala., that bill would be, though the energy is develor ed by water power, $123.85. - Mr. President, ·~vhy these great variations? It is not the cost of electric energy on the switchboard that fixes the price of your electric-light bill and mine; it is the cost or rather what is charged for di tribution. At Woodstock the town paid about four-tenths of a cent a kilowatt-hour for its energy and then distributed it. It does not cost the Potomac Electric Power Co. here in Washington more than seven-tenths of a cent a kilowatt-hour to produce electricity by steam; but a private company, operated for profit, distributes it. The difference between what the people in Woodstock pay and what it costs here on the switchboard is three-tenths of a cent, but when one comes to compare these bills for a month for 40 kilowatts he finds it is about $3 here, 97 cents in Woodstock, and $1.20 in Cleveland. Why? Because both in Woodstock and Cleveland the distribution is controlled by the people.

A tremendous benefit can be conferred upon the- people in the United States if we finally determined to experiment a ·uttle with the great Muscle Shoals power. We could do exactly what has been dont\ in Ontario. We could provide for a board

of directors to operate the plant. It would not need any further appropriations for construction. Let the board of directors have the income to further develop the plant and ultimately to amortize its cost-not merely of the dam but of all that has been expended at Muscle Shoals. Let them deliver this energy by transmission lines to the limits of municipalities in that region and say, " Distribute for yourselves," as is done in Ontario, and they can have ultimately the same kind of rates the people enjoy in Ontario.

There is no magic in this plan, but it will work like magic. The trouble with the Muscle Shoals problem is that the great

electrical corporations of tb.is country do not want that kind of an example e tablished. Why? They know what has taken place on the other side of Lake Erie. They know that nearly every privately owned electric-light plant in Ontario is out of business.

The investment at Muscle Shoals is relatively a trifle, so far as the Government is concerned, but, Mr. President, this Con· gress and President Coolidge could perform a tremendous service for the Nation by announcing that Muscle Shoals should never be aliened; that this, the greatest water power between the Rocky Mountains and the Atlantic Ocean, between the Canadian border and the Gulf · of Mexico, should be ever retained by the people of the United States to be utilized for their benefit to the uttermost.

It is for that reason, Mr. President, that I do not think this resolution should pass.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, may I interrupt my colleague? · The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the junior Senator from

Nebraska yield to his colleague? -1\Ir. HOWELL. I do. Mr. NORRIS. 1\Ir. President, the junior Senator from Ne

braska was speaking of the town of Woodstock, in Ontario, and giving some very illuminating illustrations. I think it would be of interest if at this point I should, through the cour· tesy of my colleague, give to the Senate some statistics in regard to the cost of electric Ugh t ~ the town of Woodstock, particularly for the last year.

The people in the town of Woodstock have been using the electric current . supplied by the hydro commission since 1913. Prior to that time they were getting their electricity from a private corporation, o.nd paying 8 cents a kilowatt-hour plus a service charge-that is, for domestic service-and that is the kind of service about which my colleague has been talking,

For the calendar year ending October 31, 1924, the net cost per kilowatt-hour to tha domestic users of electricity in Woods~ock was less than 2 cents; to be exact, it was 1.6 cents per kilowatt-hour. The average consumption of all the consumers for domestic service in that town was 102 kilowatt-hours per • month, more than twice the average in a similar town in the United States. The average monthLy bill for all of the domestic consumers in Woodstock for that large amount of electricity was $1.68 per month. There were 2,409 domestic consumers. · .

And now, with the permission of my colleague, so that we might avoid any possibility of somebody saying that low rates apply only to the homes, I should like to give the statistics for Woodstock for commercial lighting, .for stores, and so forth. There were 428 such establishments in that little town. The average consumption of those business concerns was 242 kilowatt-hours per month, which, as the Senator knows; is much more than would be consumed here where we pay a higher price. The average bill of all the commercial corrsumers was $4.43 a month. The net cost per kilowatt-hour was 1.8 cents.

Then, going still further, to show that these reduced prices not Only apply to the homes and to the business houses but aiso ") to tliose who use power, I should like to give to my colleague, and through his courtesy to the Senate, the rates they have to pay for power. It is said by some that Ontario has a low price for one class and a higher price for the others. There were in 1924 in Woodstock 86 customers taking the power service. The average horsepower consumed per month was 2,048 and the average cost per horsepower was $20.79.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Nebraska has cited some data that make it plain that low electric rates in Woodstock and elsewhere in Ontario are not enjoyed merely by householders. I have not gone into the power charges in Ontario to-day, but at some future time it is my intention to take up this matter at greater length. It is now my purpose to close, again stating that there is no connection necessary between cheap fertilizer and the power at Muscle Shoals. That might have been true 20 or 25 years ago, but to-day it is not true, and whenever the suggestion of fertilizer is made as a reason why we should alien this great power it is proposed either through a misunderstanding of the situation or problem or with a deliberate intent, as, I believe,

5078 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE ~fARCH 5 on the part of certain great interests to mislead the public to the end of securing this great power under false pretenses. Therefore, Mr. President, I trust that this resolution will not prevail. BIG SANDY RITER BRIDGE, KENTUCKY-WEST VIRGI~I.A (S. DOC. No'. 76)

Mr. BINGHAM. l\Ir. President, I ask unanimous consent for the reconsideration of the votes whereby the Senate yesterday pas ed House bill 5043, granting the consent of Congress to the construction of a bridge across the Big Sandy River between Kentucky and West Virginia. If,this reconsideration is granted I propose to a k una~imous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill and an amendment thereto. The reason for making the request at this time is in order that the bill as amended may go over to the Hou ·e to-day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request for a reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was passed? · The Chair hears none; and without objection, the vote by "Which the bill wa ordered to a third reading and read the third time will be recon idered.

l\Ir. BINGHAM. I now ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill, and for the consideration of an amendment which should have been made yesterday.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut will be stated.

The "LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, lines 22 and 23, it is proposed to strike out the words " for the purpose of maintaining and operating such bridge as a free bridge."

l\Ir. BINGHAM. Mr. Pre ident, I may sny that this is in accordance with the policy of the committee that when a State or a subdivision thereof takes over a toll bridge, there should be no stipulation as to when it shall be made a free bridge, but that should be left entirely to the local authorities and taxpayers of the State or district concerned.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agr_eeing to the amendment. ·

The amendment was agreed to. The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to

be read a third time. The bill was read the third time, and pas ed. . Mr. BINGHAM subsequently said: Mr. President, since · the

call for a quorum there are a numbe1· of Senators now present who are interested in the question of bridge bills and the question of granting to private companies the right to build toll bridges. As the Committee on Commerce took definite action yesterday with regard to the policy which it should recommend to the Senate in regard to all toll bridges, and this policy was expressed yesterday in the RECORD at the end of the day at pages 4995 and 4996, I take this opportunity of calling to the attention of Senators interested in bridge bills the fact that on those pages they will find the policy of the committee expressed.

Mr. LENROOT. Mr. President, I should like to suggest to the Senator from Connecticut, as there will be many inquiries in regard to that matter, whether it would not be advisable to have that policy printed in the form of a document which we might send out?

Mr. BINGHAM. I shall be very glad to make such a request. Mr. SWANSON. 1\fr. President, I suggest that it will be well

to have it made a public document, so that it can be available to Senators,· just the same as to the parties who ru.-e desirous of having bridge bills introduced and passed.

Mr. BINGHAM. I make that request, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so

ordered. THE AGRICULTURAL SITUATIO~

Mr. HARRIS. l\Ir. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcoRD a letter from Mr. Don W. Wilson, one of the leading bankers of my State, in regard to agricultural conditions.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TYSON in the chair). Is there objection? The Chair hears none.

The rna tter referred to is as follows :

llon. WILLIAM J. HARRIS, Wa.shington.

BANK OF DULI!TH,

Duluth, Ga., Marcil 1~ 1926.

DEAR MR. HARRIS : From our news reports there seems to be lots of legislation contemplated to handle the surplus crops. I have been studying the cotton situation for some time, and what I learn through the last 50 years it is a wonder that any farmer raising cotton has survived the " ups and downs " of prices in each year.

To-day the farmer is being urged to reduce acreage, which is not going to be done until they break the price below where it is possible to raise cotton. In this section it was virtually a failure last year. A lat·ger crop is the only way out to the average farmer. In the past to ask him to reduce acreage has been accepted as an invitation to work less. He plants everything else on a maximum-yield basis, but rarely harvests that way. Knowing that, he hesitates to reduce his cotton crop.

I can see no legislation to benefit the cotton farmer, with his education and training, except a law placing a minimum price on cotton, maintaining the same in a surplus year by the Government buying and storing the surplus, a!ld then taxing directly the farmet· the value of the surplus before planting another crop. I have tried to work out a plan that is practicable, using the cost basis now worked out by the Agricultural Department, both as a price-fixing and as a tax-paying standard.

It is only a question o! time when the eastern part of the lx>lt must have some protection from wide fiuctuating prices or go broke. The virgin soil is about used up, the fertilizer bills are getting heavier, and insect pests are finishing the balance. In five years the West will raise all the cotton the world needs to-day and a surplus sufficient at the same time to lower the price to where it will break the farmer. They can never stand the shocks that the eastern farmer has stood. I believe the ldnd of legislation mentioned would save us all, ailow us time to get back our confidence, and improve our standard of cotton staple to where we can compete with other nations on q1:1ality. At present we are raising inferior staples for quantity production, realizing that it is all too uncertain to start a slow process of upbreeding.

My letter is alt·eady too long, but if you feel that any such legi.slntion is practical and constitutional and would have the support of lhe agricultural States, would like to see you place it before Congre s. Other countries are doing this for coffee and rubber. Other surplus crops might be handled the same way, but my idea is that when the cotton farmer is put on a safe, sane basis he will be able to use other surplus crops that go begging now.

Too, speculation would be stopped when a surplus was established. When I see what tariff protection has done for industry in America I can hardly see where there is anything revolutionary in the su"'gestions.

Yours very truly, D. W. WILSON.

GOVER~ME~T 01!' THE PHILIPPINE ISLA ~OS (S. DOC. NO. 77)

1\Ir. WILLIS. 1\Ir. Pre ident, one of the question upon which the Congress probably will be called upon to act at some time in the future, and perhaps in the near futw·e, is the que tion of the relationship of this Government to the Philippines. The President of the United States has sent to Bon. :Manuel Roxas, the chairman of the Philippine Commi ion, an important letter bearing upon that question. I have had some calls for it, and it seems to me that it is of such importance as to warrant its being made available for distribution. I ask, therefore, that this letter may be printed in the RECORD at this point, and that it also be printed as a Senate document. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SACKETT in the chair). Without objection, it will be so ordered.

The letter is as follows : THE WHlTE ITOUSE,

Washington, FebrtJai'JJ 21, 1924. MY DEAR MR. RoxAs: The resolutions adopted by the Senate and

llouse of Representatives of the Philippines, touching upon the relations between the Filipino people and the Government of the United States, have been received. I have noted carefully all that you have said regarding the history of the e relations. I haYe sought to inform myself so thoroughly as might be as to the occasions of cmTent in·itation between the Ikgislature of the Philippines and the executi>e authority or the islands.

In your presentment you have set forth more or less definitely a series of grievances, the gravamen of which is that the present execu· tive authority of the islands, designated by the United States Government, is, in your opinion, out of sympathy with the reasonable national aspirations of the Filipino people. If I do not mi interpret your protest, you are di:;po ed to doubt whether your pt>ople may reasonably expect, if the pre ent executive policy shall continue, that the Government o! the United State will in reasonable time justify the hopes which your people entertain of ultimate independence.

The declaration of the commission of independence charges the GoT"ernor General with illegal, arbitrary, and undemocratic policies, in consequence of which the leadet·s of Filipino participation in the government have resigned and their resignations bare been accepted by the Governor General.

The commission of independence declares that it is neceRsary "to take all needf11l steps and to make use of all lawful means within onr power to obtain the complete vindication of the liberties of the country now violated and invaded." It proceeus: "And we declare, finally, that this event, grave and serious as it is, once more demonstrates that

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENAT:m 5079 the immediate and absolute independence of the Ph11ipplnes, which tbo whole country demands, is the only complete and satisfactory settlement of the Philippine problem."

It is occasion for satisfaction to all concerned that this declaration is couched in terms of moderation, and that It goes no further than to invoke "all lawful means within o.ur power." So long as such diFcussions as this shall be confined to the consideration of lawful m ans there will be reason to anticipate mutually beneficent conclusions. It is therefore a matter of congratulation, which I herewith extend, that you have chosen to carry . on this discussion within the bounds of lawful claims and means. That you have thus declared the purpose to restrict your modes of appeal and methods of enforcing it is gratifying evidence of the progress which the Filipino people, under Aqtet·ican auspices, have made toward a demonstrated capacity for self-government.

The extent to which the grievances which you suggest are shared by the Filipino people has been a subject of some disagreement. The Amerkan Government bas information which justifies it ·in the confidence that a very large proportion, at any rate, and possibly a majority, of the substantial citizenry of the islands does not support the claim that there are grounds for serious grievance. A considerable section of the Filipino people is, further, of th~ opinion that at this time any change which would weaken the tie between the Filipinos and the Amel"ican Nation would be a misfortune to the islands. The world is in a state of high tension and unsettlement. The possibility of either economic or political disorders, calculated to bring misfortune if not disaster to the Filipino people unless they are strongly supported, is not to be ignored. It should not be overlooked that within the past two years, as a result of international arrangements negotiated by the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armament and problems of the Far East, the position of the Filipino people has been .greatly improved and assured. For the stabilizing advantages which accrue to them in virtue of the assurance of peace in the Pacific tbey are directly indebted to the initiative and etrorts of the American Government. They can ill aft'ord in a time of so much uncertainty in the world to underrate the value of these contributions to their security. By reason of their assurance against attack by any power, by reason also of that financial and economic strength whlch inevitably accrues to them, by reason of the expanded and stlll expanding opportunities ior industrial and economic devclo.pment-because of all these considerations the Filipino people would do well to consider most carefully the value o.f their intimate association with the American Nation. Although they have mad~ wonderful advances In the last quarter century, the Filipino people are by no means. equipped, either in wealth or experience, to undertake the heavy burden whlch would be imposed upon them with political independence. Their position in the world is such that without American protection there would be the unre4

stricted temptation to maintain an extensive and costly diplomatic service, and an ineffective but costly military and naval service. It is to be doubted whether with the utmost exertion, the most complete solidarity among themselves, the most unqualified and devoted patriotism, it would be possible for the people of the islands to maintain an independent place in the world for an indefinite future.

In presenting these considerations it is perhaps worth while to draw your attention to the conditions in which some other peoples find themselves by reason of lacking such guaranties and assurances as the Filipino people ·enjoy. The burdens of armament and o! governmental expenses which many small nations are compelled to bear in these times are s0 great that we see everywhere the evidence of national pro perity and community progress hindered, if not destroyed, becaUBe of them. During the World War the FiUpino people were compara· tively undisturbed in their ordinary pursuits, left free to continue their fine progress. But it may well be doubted whether, if they had been shorn of the protection afforded by the United States,· they could have enjoyed so fortunate an experience. :Much more probably they would have become involved in the great conflict and tlieir independence and nationality would have become, a.s did those of many other peo· pies, pawns in the great world reorganization. There could be no more unfortunate posture in which to place a people such as your own. You have set your feet firmly in the path of advancement and Improvement. But you need, above all else, assured opportunity of continuing in that course without interference from the outside o..- turmoil within. Work· ing out the highest destiny of even the most talented and advanced of peoples is a matter of many generations.

A fair appraisal of all these considerations, and of others which sug· gest themselves without requiring enumeration, will, I am sure, justify the frank statement that the Government of the United States would not feel that it bad performed its full duty by the Filipino people, or discharged all of its obligations to civilization if it should yield at this time to your aspiration for national independence. The present relfttionship between the American Nation nnd the Filipino people arose out of a strange, an almost unparelleled, turn of international affairs. A great responsibility came unsought to the American people. It was not imposed upon them because they had yielded to any designs of imperialism, or of colonial expansion. The fortunes of war brought American power to Jour islands, playing the part of an unexpected and

n welcome deliverer.· You may be very sure that the American people have never entertained purpose of exploiting the Filipino people or their country. There have indeed been different opinions among out own people as to the precisely proper- relationship with the Fillptnos. There are some among us, as there are some among your people, who believe that immediate independence of the Philippines would be best for both. I should be less than candid with you, however, if I did not say that in my judgment the strongest argument that has been used in the United States in support of Immediate independence of the Philippines is not the argument that it would benefit the Filipinos, but that it would advantage the United States. Feeling as I do, and as I am convinced the great majority of Americans do regarding our obliga-tions to the Filipino people, I have to say that I regard such arguments as unworthy. The American people will not evade or repudiate the responsibility they have assumed in this matter. The American Government is convinced that it has the overwhelming support of the Amertca.n Nation in its conviction that present independence would be a misfortune and mjght easily become a disaster to the Filipino people. Upon that conviction the policy of this Government is based.

Thus far I have suggested only some of the reasons related to inter· national concerns, which seem to me to urge strongly against independence at this time. I wish now to review for a moment some domestic concerns of the Philippine Islands, which seem also to argue against present independence. The Amelican Government has been most liberal in opening to the Fllipino people the opportunities of the largest practicable participation in, and control of, their own administration. It has been a matter of pride and satisfaction to us, as I am sure it must also have been to your people, that this attitude has met with so fine a response. In education, In cultural advancement, in political conceptions and Institutional development, the Filipino people have demonstrated a capacity which can not but justify high hopes for their future. But it would be idle and insincere to suggest that they have yet proved their possession of the completely developed political ca, pacity which is necessary to a minor nation assuming the full responsibility of maintaining itself in the family of nations. I am frankly con· vineed that the very mission upon which you have addressed me is itself an evidence that something is yet lacking in de'>'elopment of political consciousness and capability.

One who examines the grounds on which are based the protests against the present situation is forced to conclude that there has not been, thus far, a full realization of the fundamental ideals of democratic-republican government. There have been evidences of a certain inability, or unwillingness, to recognize that this type of governmental organization rests upon the theory of complete separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions. There have been many evidences of disposition to extend the functions of the legislature, and thereby to curtail the proper authority of the executive. It has been charged that the present Governor General has in some matters exceeded his proper authority; but an examination of the facts seems rather to support the charge that the legislative branch of the insular government has been the real offender, through seeking to extend its own authority into some areas of what should properly be the executive realm.

The Government of the United States bas full confidence in tbe ability, good intentions, fairness, and sincerity of the present Governor General. It is convinced that he has intended to act, and has acted, within the scope of his proper and constitutional authority. Thus convinced, it is determined to sustain him; and its purpose will be to encourage the broadest and most intelligent cooperation of the Filipino people in this policy. Looking at the whole situation fairly and im· partially,_ one can not but feel that if the Filipino people can not cooperate in the support 1tnd encouragement of as good an administration as has been afforded under Go.vernor General Wood, their failure will be rather a testimony of unpreparedness for the full obligations of citizenship, than an evidence of patriotic eagerness to advance their country. I am convinced that Governor General Wood bas at no time been other than a hard-working, painstaking, and conscientious administrator. I have found no evidence that be bad exceeded his proper authority, or that he bas acted with any other than the purpose of best serving the real interest of the Filipino people. Thus believing, I feel that I am serving those same interests by saying frankly that it is not possible to consider the extension of a larger measure of autonomy to the Filipino people until they shall have demonstrated a readiness and capacity to cooperate fully and effectively with the American Government and authorities. For such cooperation, I earnestly appeal to every friend of the i lands and their people. I feel all confidence that in the measure in which it shall be extended, the American Government will be disposed to gnnt in in· creasing degree the aspirations of your people. Nothing could more regrettably affect the relations of the two peoples than that the Filipinos should commit themselves to a program calculated to inspire the fear that possibly the governmental concessions already made have been in any measure premature.

In conclusion, let me say that I have given careful and somewhat extended cons.ideration to the representations you have laid before me. I have sought counsel of a Jarge number of men whom I believed

5080 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MARon · 5 able to give the best advice. Particularly, I have" had in mind always th.at the American Nation could not entertain the purpose of holding any other people in a position o:t vassalage. In accepting the obligations which came to them with the sovereignty o:t the Philippine Islands, the American people had only the wish to serve, ad vance, and improve the condition of the Filipino p_eople. That thought has been uppermost in every American determination concerning the islands. You may be sure that it will continue the dominating factor in the American consideration o:t the many problems which must inevitably grow out of such relationship as exists.

In any survey o:t the history of the islands in the last quarter century, I think the conclusion inescapable that the Filipino people, not the people of the United States, have been the gainers. It is not possible to believe that the American people would wish otherwise, to continue their responsibility in regard to the sovereignty and administration of the islands. It is not conceivable that they would desire, merely because they possessed the power, to continue exercising any measure of authority over a pe15ple who would better govern themselves on a basis of complete independence. If the time comes when it is apparent that independence would be better for the people of the Philippines, from the point of view of both their domestic concerns and their status in the world; and if when that time comes the Filipino people desire complete independence, it i.s not possible to doubt that the American Government and people will gladly accord it.

Frankly, it is not felt that that time has come. It is felt that in the present state of world relationship the American Government owes an obligation to continue extending a protecting arm to the people of these islands. It is felt, also, that quite aside from thi.s consideration, there remain to be achieved by the Filipino people many greater advances on the road of education, culture, economic, and political capacity before thl:'y should undertake the full responsibility for their administration. Tile American Government will assuredly cooperate in evet·y way to encourage and inspire the full measure of progress which still seems a necessary preliminary to independence.

Yours very truly, CALVIN COOLIDGJ!I.

Ron. MANUEL ROXA.S,

Ohairman The Philippine Mission, !034 Tuxmticth St1·eet, Washington, D. 0.

MUSCLE SHOALS

The Senate resumed the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution No. 4, providing for a joint committee to conduct negotiations for leasing Muscle Shoals. •

.Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. HARRIS] suggested to me that he thought it would be a good idea if we could get an agreement that no Senator should speak over 10 minutes on any one amendment on Monday. Personally, I should have no objection to that.

Mr. FESS. That would be rather unsafe at this time, would it not? We have already made one agreement.

1\fr. BLEASE. I have not any objection, but I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senator answered to their names : Bingham Frazier McNary Robinson, Ind. Blease George Mayfield Sackett Bratton Gerry Ueans Schall Brookhart Glass Metcalf Sheppard Brous nrd Goff Moses Shortridge Bru-::e Hale Neely Simmons Cameron Harris ·Norris Hmith Capper Heflin Nye Swanson Caraway Howell Oddie Tyson Cummins Johnson Overman Wadsworth Dale Jones, Wash. Pepper Walsh Deneen Kendrick Phipps Warren Ferris La Follette Pittman Weller Fess Lenroot Reed, Pa. Willlams Fletcher McMaster Robinson, Ark. Willis

Mr. NORRIS. I was requested to announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. SHIPSTEAD] is detained at his home on account of illness.

Mr. ODDIE. I desire to state that the Senator from Oregon [1\fr. STANFIELD] is presiding over a meeting of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SACKETT in the chair). Sixty Senators having answered to their names, a quorum i.s present.

1\Ir. HEFLIN. l\Ir. President, some Senators have suggested that we change the request for a limitation upon debate on Monday, and have it read that no Senator shall speak over 15 minutes upon any amendment to the concurrent resolution.

1\fr, ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, was not an agreement entered into?

Mr. HEFLIN. A point of no quorum was made. Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. It was not e!!-tered into, then?

Mr. HEFLIN. No; a limitation of 10 minutes was suggested then, and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE] has suggested that it be made 15 minutes. I do not care myself, Mr. President, if Senators want to limit the time, what · the limitation is.

Mr. NORRIS. I should not object, so far as I am concerned, to limiting it to five minutes; but I hardly think it would be fair, having made an agreement to close debate and everybody taking it for granted, I suppose, when we set a time for closing debate, that no further limitation would be made.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. That is what I asked. I asked if an agreement had not already been entered into.

Mr. NORRIS. An agreement has been entered into, and it does not seem to nie that we ought to modify it now.

1\fr. HEFLIN. I thought the Senator from Arkansas meant to ask whether the agreement proposed a few minutes ago bad been made, about a 10-minute limit on debate. The other agreement that was entered into was with regard to voting on the concurrent resolution and all amendments thereto at 3.30 o'clock on Monday without further debate.

l\lr. WILLIS. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator whether it is proposed now to change that time, already agreed upon?

Mr. HEFLIN. Not at all; so if there is objection, I will withdl·a w the request.

.Mr. WILLIS. I am not objecting; I simply want to know what it is that the Senator is proposing.

:Mr. HEFLIN. I see that there is some objection to it, however.

:Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, unless some Senator objects to this proposal, I hope it will be agreed to. I have heard the Senator from Nebraska heretofore complain of making an agreement limiting the time, because one Senator can get up here on Monday and take all the time. My colleague [Mr. GEORGE] has an amendment and the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH] has an amendment; and it is not fair for some one Senator to take all the time of the Senate before we vote on the whole measure and all amendments thereto.

l\1r. NORRIS. All that is true. I have always advocated that. I did not think this agreement should have been made. I think agreements ought to limit debate, but we did not do that in this instance. We made an agreement, and I submitted to it. I did not want any controversy, and did not care particularly. As far as I was concerned,. we could have voted at once . . We made the agreement, and many Senators who were here when the agreement was made are not here now. The colleague of the senior Senator from Georgia told me to-day he wanted to speak, but he could not very well be here to-day on account of the Committee on Privileges and Elections being in session. It seems to me a matter of protection to those who were here when the agreement was made that we should not modify it now.

Mr. HEFLIN. I will say to the Senator from Nebraska that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE] came into the Chamber a moment ago and told me that if we fixed the limitation at 15 minutes he would have no objection. That is the reason why I changed it.

Mr. NORRIS. I do not want to take the responsibility. As a matter of fact, I would like this modified agreement better than the other. I have always contended for a limitation. Fixing a definite time for a vote and thus cutting off some who might wish to debate is not the proper way to legislate. Limiting speeches to 15 minutes is much better ; but we did not do that in this instance.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. There is no proposal now to change the time fixed for a vote. The question now is on agreeing that no Senator shall be permitted to speak more than once nor longer than 15 minutes.

Mr. NORRIS. Nobody can tell now but that on Monday no Senator will want to go on except one who wants to make a long speech. I do not know of such a Senator, but I dislike to make an agreement to-day and make a modification of it to-morrow which might conflict with the plnns of some Senators who are absent and who agreed to the original proposal in good faith. I do not think the Senator ought to press it now.

1\Ir. HEFLIN. I will withdraw the proposal for the present, Mr. President. ·

Mr. NORRIS. Let the mutter go over until :Monday, and then,we can limit the time if we want to do so.

1\Ir. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to say just a few WCL'ds with regard to some of the things the Senator from TenneEsee (Mr. McKELLAR] stated yesterday. The Senator discussed House bill 518 and contended seriously before the Senate that the Ford bid, which was in the McKenzie bill, which passed the House, was not the bill referred to in the concurrent resolution. I hold in my hand a copy of the McKenzie bill, House bill 518, before it was changed by the acceptance of the bill of my col-

1926 CONGRESSIO-NAL RECORD-SENATE 5081' league [Mr. UNDERWOOD] as an amendment, or by the ac~ptance of the bill of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRIS] as an amendment. This bill, which was_ known as the bill containing the Ford offer, wa the one which passed the House, and is tile bi1l referred to in the concurrent resolution now pending a,1d which I have before me. The Senator from Tennessee contended that that was not the case, that the bill referred to was the Underwood bill. That is not the case, as Senators wbo bear me well know.

Hou e bill 518 was changed and the bill of the Senator frcm Nebraska substituted for it. Then the Senate struck that dUt and substituted the Underwood bill. The Underwood bill was the bill which went to conference under the designation House bill 518. Am I not correct about that?

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me? Mr. HEFLIN. Yes. Mr. NORRIS. I think the Senator is correct, but since the

Senator from Tennessee is not here I would like to state my understanding of the matter.

House bill 518, introduced by Mr. McKenzie in the House, passed the House and came to the Senate. When it came bt:re all after the enacting clause was stricken out and the Underwood bill put in its place. Then, in the course of the debate, all of the Underwood bill was stricken out and the bill introduced by me was put in its place.

Mr. HEFLIN. That is correct. Mr. NORRIS. Later on that was all stricken out and a

modified form of the Underwood bill was put in its place, and in that form it passed the Senate. Then it went to conference, came back from conference a different bill, but every one of those bills bore the same number; it was House bill 518.

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator is right about that Mr. NORRIS. I agree with the Senator that the authors of

the resolution referred to the bill as it passed the House. Mr. HEFLIN. There can be no serious disagreement among

Senators about that. Mr. NORRIS. But still it is fair to say-and I only say it

because the Senator from Tennessee is not in the Chamberthat every one of the other bills I have mentioned was at one time officially before the Senate under that name and that title.

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator from Nebraska is absolutely right, and I am sure that my friend from Tenne ·see was misled by the three changes made in House bill 518 when other bills were substituted for it under the same title and number that came over from the House. He was not as familiar with the history of that legislation as is the Senator from .Nebraska and my elf.

I went further in my investigation and talked to the minority leader in the House, Mr. GARRETI' of Tennesse.e. He said that House bill 518 is the one they referred to in the resolution, and he said that if they had had in mind the other proposition they would have said, "House bill 518, as amended by the Senate.'' But they referred to the bill which pas ed the House without any of the e Senate amendments upon it, and in the resolution which passed the House referring to that bill they named specifically House bill 518. That was the bill which contained legislation for the Ford offer. There can. not be any question about that, and my friend from Tennessee was absolutely wrong in the position he took.

I hold in my hand the concurrent resolution which passed the Hou e. I took that up with some Members of the House and !talked to the minority leader, Mr. G.ARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. MADDEN, of Illinois, introduced the resolution, and Mr. SNELL, of New York, chairman of the Rules Committee, and the minority leader, Mr. G.ARBETT of Tennessee, were requested to examine it and report on it They did so, and this is the resolution as they reported it, and as it passed, and as the Committee on Agriculture of the Senate reported it.

Mr. FESS. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ala.

barna yield to the Senator from Ohio? Mr. HEFLIN. I yield. Mr. FESS. I understand that it was pas ed within two

hours after the consideration was begun. :Mr. HEFLIN. In the House? Mr. FESS. Yes. Mr. HEFLIN. Yes; a very short time. Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator why

it took such a long time? Mr. HEFLIN. That was a long time. Considering the fact

that the committee provided in this resolution will not have any authority except to receive bids and report them back to Congress for its a-Ction, it seems to me that under the' circumstances it should have pas ed the Senate some time ago.

Mr. CARAWAY. Will the Senator yield to me right there? Mr. HEFLIN. I yield.

Mr. CARAWAY. I think the Senator is laboring under a very grave misapprehension as to what this resolution would

' do. There is to be no report back to the House. The resolution provides that this committee shall go out and negotiate a contract, which shall be reported to the House in the nature of a bill to accept it. That measure then will not go to any standing committee ; it will go upon the calendar of the House, with a privileged status. It will be absolutely impossible to change one word of it, because it will be the contract There will be no kind of report to the House to the effect that certain bids have been offered, giving the House a chance to decide as to whether they want to accept them. It will be a concluded contract, except for ratification, which will be in the nature of a bill, which will go, not to any standing committee, but actually on the calendar of the House, with a privileged status ; and that will be the end, of it.

Mr. Sl\IITH. If the Senator will allow me, with no possi· bility of amendment, because it is in the form of a contm.ct.

Mr. CARAWAY. Not a bit, because it will be a contract between the Government on one side and some bidder on the other side, which must be accepted or rejected verbatim.

Mr. SMITH. Exactly. 1\Ir. CARA\VAY. And no committee will have a chance to

pass upon it. hlr. HEFLIN. I submit there is nothing unfair about that. Mr. CARAWAY. It just happens to· be the fact. Mr. HEFLIN. If it is not a good bid but a bad bid, the

sooner they can report it to the House and the quicker the House can act on it and reject it the better it will be. But I submit that if it is a good bid and the House wants to accept it, it has the right to act upon the proposed bid and to act upon it :promptly.

Mr. CARAWAY. I called attention to that because the Senator's plea the other day was, in addition to the necessity of standing by the President, that if we wanted to make any amendment, we could offer it after the committee reported. But there can be no amendment to their report. It must be accepted or rejected in its entirety and without consideration.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am sure that · the provision placed in the resolution for the guidance of the House when the bids shall be returned were made in order to make certain that the House could take action upon the question at this session of Congress.

Mr. SMITH. Right or wrong. Mr. HEFLIN. Not at all. But I submit that Congress

has the Iight to do and it is charged with the responsibility of doing what it thinks is right and best. I do not believe that Congress is 1-eany to make my friend from South Carolina and my friend Mr. McKELL.AR, from Tennessee, and a half a dozen others the conscience keepers of Congress.

Mr. CARAWAY. I wonder how they would get along if the Senator did not keep them.

l\Ir. Sl\IITH. God knows mine is bad enough, but I would not want to keep the consciences of some gentlemen who are mixed up in this thing.

Mr. HEFLIN. My friend from South Carolina and my friend from Arkansas and I are very frequently together on meas~es that come up for consideration here.

Mr. CARAWAY. May I ask the Senator ·a question? Tbe Senator suggested that half a dozen people are trying to keep the consciences of the House and the Senate. Would the Senator mind telling us what he is doing?

Mr. HEFLIN. I will tell the Senator, Mr. President, and be glad to do it. I am not trying to keep anybody's conscience. I supported the Ford offer, and my friend from Arkansas did the same thing. The Senator from South Carolina did the same thing. I wanted the Government to lease this property to a private individuaL I have always stood for that. I have never taken any socialistic position on this question. I repeat, I am not a sociali-st; I am a Democrat, and the day is not far distant when the Democratic States in the South are going to want to know of men ent here to represent them in the House and Senate whether they are coming here to safeguard the States in their sovereign rights, or whether they are coming here to surrender them.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. HEFLIN. Certainly. Mr. CARAWAY. Who appointed the Senator to safeguard

the rights of all the States? Mr. HEFLIN. Nobody, Mr. President; but I have a solemn

duty to perform to all the States, and particularly to my own State.

Mr. CARAWAY. What is the Senator seeking to do? He is threatening to defeat all of us who do not vote with him--

5082 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MARCH 5 Mr. HEFLIN. Not at all. No such thought has entered my

mind. Mr. CARAWAY. And I will take my chances. Mr. HEFLIN. Each Senator's constituents will have to at·

tend to their duty in the premises. Mr. CARAWAY. I thought the Senator was attending to it.

The Senator was just telling what was going to happen. 1\Ir. HEFLIN. Yes; I did say what would happen, and I

repeat it: The day is not far distant, it is already manifesting itself in the South, when the South is going to want to know of Senators whether they are going to stand here and defend and safeguard them in their sovereign rights and powers, or whether they are coming here to consort with socialism and traffic those rights away.

Mr. CARAWAY. I suppose that is the reason the Senator is urging us to stand by the President; he sees the storm coming.

l\fr." SMITH. And private corporations? Mr. HEll'LIN. I am standing where I have always stood. Mr. CARAWAY. By the President. 1\Ir. HEFLIN. I want this plant leased to a private con·

cern. I supported the Ford offer. I repeat, the Senator from South Carolina signed the report. ~'he Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKELLAR] supported it. I have it on my desk. We recommended turning Muscle Shoals over to Henry Ford, not for 50 years but for 100 years, not only Dam No. 2 but Dam No. 3, and we were to turn it over to Henry Ford to do what he pleased with all the surplus power from both dams. Have you forgotten that, Senators? And yet certain Senators charge now that we are trying to form a combination with the President. The P1·esident has declared in favor of the position that I and other Senators have occupied all along. A number of Senators on the other side have favored leasing the Muscle Shoals Dam just as I have. The President came over to the Senators on both sides who favored leasing the dam. I believe that if Ford had not withdrawn his offer his bid would have been accepted.

1\fr. CARAWAY. 1\Ir. President, will the Senator let me ask a question?

Mr. HEFLIN. Certainly. . Mr. CARAWAY. Of course, we are all glad to know the

President changed his position and is standing with the Sena· tor from Alabama. What I want to suggest is that when we were supporting the Ford offer we knew who was going to get it, but now we are asked to support an offer without being told who it is that is going to have the property.

Mr. HEFLIN. I do not know who will get it. 1\Ir. CARAWAY. That is what we want to know. Mr. HEFLIN. I do not know what Congress will decide

about that, but Congress has the right to decide and will deride that question.

Mr. CARAWAY. Oh, I thought the Senator from Alabama was going to do that. [Laughter.]

Mr. HEFLIN. No; but I am going to help decide it, and the few Senators who are trying to keep us from disposing of this question at this session of Congress will not be able to do so. 1 am going to stand by the farmer, as I have from the begin~ ning, in this Muscle Shoals matter.

1\fr. CARAWAY. Oh, no; the Senator is standing by the President.

Mr. HEFLIN. The farmers' cooperative marketing organization is for the resolution. The Farm Federation Bureau of the United States is for the resolution. The National Grange indorsed the resolution. They are all for it without amendment. They were for the Ford offer. I am still where I was, and those Senators who are floundering around in their dis~ comfort can not disturb me in the position I hold and have long held. The farmers themselves know. They are not-they can not be-deceived about this thing.

Mr. Sl\IITH. Mr. President--1\Ir. HEFLIN. I yield to my friend from South Carolina. 1\Ir. SMITH. The Senator said the farmers were for the

Ford offer and that they are for "the resolution." Which resolution is the Senator talking about?

Mr. HEFLIN. I am talking about the Ford offer referred to 1n this concurrent resolution, which requires that at least 40,000 tons of fixed nitrogen shall be made annually and that they shall make nitrates for the Government in time of war and that they shall not charge over 8 per cent profit on the fertilizer sold to the farmer.

1\Ir. SMITH. I understand that, but is there another con-tract ready?

Mr. HEFLIN. I do not know. Now, I want to answer that suggestion. I do not think that anyone in the ~enate knows. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKELLAR] talked about what he thought with regard to bids be4lg already prepared.

I do not think that there is any foundation . But if some American citizen desiring to lease this property in accordance with the suggestions of tile President and Congress, I submit that he would be guilty of no wrong doing if he should write out his bid in advance 1\nd be ready to tell Congress and th~ country just what be is willing to do. But what I can not understand, and what I do not intend shall go by unnoticed, is the sudden change that certain Senators have made on this question. They were on another occasion with those of us who favored, as we do to-day, leasing Dam No. 2 to some private citizen. To-day they are on the other side of the question.

1\fr. BLEASEJ. Mr. President--The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama

yield to the Senator from South Carolina? Mr. HEFLIN. I do. Mr. BLEASE. I would like to ask the Senator if he knows

in this country of a more prominent farmer than the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH]?

Mr. HEFLIN. No; but I know some farmers who cultivate more acres and produce more farm products than does the senior Senator from South Carolina. He is a good farmer and a good friend of the farmer. But the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKELLAR] said that we were wrong and Utat he feared that we did not understand the situation. I am sure that he will be charitable enough to permit us to say that he and the few who share his view are themselves misled c.nd deceived about this matter.

Mr. President, if the Muscle Shoals property is leased and we put it in the contract that they shall make fertilizer and not charge over 8 per cent profit, we will save to the farmers of North Carolina on their fertilizer bill $18,500,000 yearly; we will save to the farmers of Tennessee $6,000,000 and to the farmers of Georgia between $15,000,000 and $16,000,000 ; we will save to South Carolina from $12,500,000 to $14,000,000; we will save to my State, Alabama, $10,000,000 and to Louisiana about $5,000,000, and so on throughout all the States. And yet, strange to say, a few Senators get up here and say a committee is about to turn this property over to somebody, and there -will be no way for Congress to- act upon it. That argument is unjustified; it is utterly ridiculous. What are the facts? The joint committee is to be appointed. It is simply going out to represent the American people's Congress. It will find out if any American citizen wishes to submit to Congress a bid for Dam No. 2 at Muscle Shoals. It will come back and lay before the Senate and the House the blds, and the Senate and the House will vote to accept or reject any one or all of them.

Mr. President, in view of these facts I can not understand why it is that they are opposing this resolution and trying to hold it back when they know that the bids must be repor(~d back to Congress. •

I said yesterday to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Me~ KELLAR] and I want to repeat it now that if the resolution empowered the committee to make a lease and close the deal I would not vote for it. But it simply authorizes them to go out and act for us, for the Congress of the United States, and get bids, if any are to be made, and do what? To dispose of or lease to the best advantage Government property that cost $150,000,000, and Congress, not the committee, will either accept o~ reject the bid.

I interrupted my friend from Tennes ·ee [Mr. McKELLAR] when he was speaking about this war project and about turning it over to somebody and losing all the money that the ta~-payers of the United States have put in it, to remind the Senator that during the World 'Var the Government esta.b· lished a powder plant in his State costing $88,000,000, and when the war was over it was sold as best it could be sold, I suppose, and the Government received only $4,500,000 for it, a net loss to the Government of $83,500,000. I say to Senators that this project in my State is going to be made a paying project. I make this assertion now that it is the only project amongst all the war projects that will actually pay for itself under the plan that we here propose. In the face of this fact a few Senators stand up and talk about us trying to give this property away to somebody. We will pro~ duce cheaper fertilizer for the farmer and in 50 years we ex· pect the Government to get more money for the use of that plant and that dam than the whole thing cost. Can anyone here say as much about any other war project? I challenge any Senator here to refute that proposition. There is no Senator here who can do it.

Then some Senators talk about us trying to give something away down in my State and they talk about providing by law for equitable dish·ibution of surplus power. Who will determine what is equitable distribution? Do you want to lease

1926 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN~-~ 5083 this property? If you do, you· must let the man. who is going to lease it and pay for it have some say about what he isgoing to do ·with it. Are. we going to say to him, "You have got to transmit power ovei yonder, and power over here, and power over there, and in all the States round about, equitably distribute power"?

Suppose he would say, " Under those conditions I do not care to make any bid. I would not lease it if I did not expect to make some money out of it. I would not pay the Government for the use of it if I did not expect to make some money by doing so." To those who plead for equitable distribution, I submit this proposition, which is fair and logical. If the States roundabout are entitled to have it named in the bond and fixed by law that we shall have an equitable distribution of power amongst the States that can be reached by the electricity, I submit that those of the 48 States in the Union that can not be reached by the electricity are entitled to share in the funds for which the · electricity is sold. Can anyone an wer that argument?

Mr. BROUSSARI Mr. President--The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama

yield to the Senator from Louisiana? Mr. HEFLIN. Certainly. Mr. BROUSSARD. If there is a rental paid, and it goes

into the Federal Trea ·ury, does it not retm·n to every State in the Union?

Mr. HEFLIN. I am talking about the immediate benefit to be derived by the people of the States directly. In other word , if through what they call equitable distribution $5,000,000 is paid for electricity sent out from Muscle Shoals, how are we to divide it up among t the people in the 48 State in the Union? When we analyze the arguments made again t this resolution there is nothing in them.

Senators talk about the plant at Muscle Shoals being obsolete and say that the cyanamide process will not work. Nobody here has contended that they shall u e the cyanamide IJrocess. We have always said, and continue to say, that they can use any process they please. They can make fixed nitrogen alone or they can make the completed fertilizer.

As I said a moment ago, we have the phosphate rock in Tenne see near by Muscle Shoals, and we ha-re the green shale potash near by right over in ·the State of Georgia, and air overhead teeming with nitrogen. It is the most ideal spot in the United States to make cheap fertilizer. But Senators say it ean not be done, but they are the same Senators who said it eould be done when they wa.nted Ford to have it. They change so frequently that it reminds me of the old fellow who sent a negro boy down in the pasture to look for a cow. He came back and said he had gone all around and could not find her. The old fellow said, "Go back and take Rastus with you. You go down one side of the branch and let him go dow:n the other side, becau e she ·is liable to be on both sides." [Laughter.] Some Senators have been on both sides of this question.

I have not changed. I stand where I have always stood, for leasing this IJroperty to private individuals. When my colleague [Mr. Ul\-nERwoon] made a fight two years ago to embody the Ford offer in his bill, the same subsidized newspapers -with these little hickory nut headed scribblers were charging that be was in a combination with President Coolidge and the RepublicanS. Now he is sick and can not be here to help put through this meritorious measure, and they are charging that I have formed a combination with President Coolidge and the Republicans.

If some of these Senators do not change their conduct here somebody will form a combination back home that will make them sit up and take notice. Talk about doi,ng something in the interest of the farmer! Were they telling the truth, were they sincere, when they said the Ford offer was in the: interest of the farmer? Were they telling the truth, were they sincere, when they said we could make cheap fertilizer at Muscle

hoals? Were they telling the truth, _were they sincere; when they said that was the best disposition that could be made of Muscle Shoals? It is getting to be a very tiresome thing to see these Senators, who are frightened by the ghost of their former position, accusing us who have stood for the farmer like the Rock of Gibraltar from the beginning. I repeat I have neyer changed my position. I have always been for leasing l\fuRcle Shoals, but those Senators have rushed off and left us, and they are now standing up trying to make themselves believe that they are fighting for the farmer. They can not get away with that and they must not reflect on those of us who have stood with the farmers all along in this matter.

It is said by some Senators that we can not make nitrogen with the cyanamide process at Muscle Shoals. I say that we have already made it. I have seen it, and that is not all- they have seen it, too. We had it before the Committee on Agricul-

tare and Forestry. Senators talk about what we can not do down there. I remember when the pessimistic prophets of a few years ago made fun of the Wright boys when they said they would make an airplane heavier than air and make it fly like a bird. They laughed at the Wright boys and said they were crazy, that it could not be done. I saw the Wright boys break the world's record at Fort Myer just a few years after that. Years ago Carnegie, the g1·eat steel magnate of America, came to Birmingham and told our people, to their dismay and consternation, that we could "never make steel at Birmingham." But he was mistaken. To-day we are competing with the steel producers of the world. We are selling steel abroad in competition with the steel plants of the Old World. So to those who stand here and grow eloquent as they tell us that "e can not do· this thing or the other thing down yonder regarding fertilizer, I would not say, "Get behind me, Satan," but I would say, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'' [Laughter.]

Mr. Pre.·ident, I am thankful for one thing. I am thankful that certain Senators can not move Muscle Shoals out of Alabama.

Mr. BROOKHART. l\Ir. President--The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from .Alabama

yield to the Senator from Iowa? Mr. HEFLIN. I yield. 1\Ir. BROOKHART. I think the Senator may be a little

"previous" about being thankful on that scm·e. I remember once when ·we had the greatest water power in the world in my State-the Mississippi River Dam at Keokuk. I was thankful that one end of it was in Iowa, but they moved it all down to St. Louis ; it has never helped Iowa a particle.

l\Ir. HEFLIN. .Mr. President, I am hoping the Senator from Iowa is going to help us lease this dam down in Alabama. He lives, I suppose, about 1,500 miles from l\Iusole Shoals.

Mr. BROOKHART. How far? Mr. HEFLIN. About a thousand miles or more. Row far

is it? 1\lr. BROOKHART. Three thousand miles is a long way. 1\lr. HEFLIN. Yes; and "it is a long way to Tipperary/'

too. [Laughter.] How far is it from Muscle Shoals to Iowa? Mr. BROOKHART. I presume it is 600 miles. l\Ir. HEFLIN. The Senator from Iowa ·says it is 600 miles.

It is more. But think of that, 1\lr. President-a dam 600 miles or more away from Iowa and yet the Senator is proposing to tell us down in the Southern States how to regulate it! When matters come up here which affect the Senator's constituents, I always like to help out the West, and I do so, but when we have something down in my section of the country which we want to do in the interest of the farmers, some Senators from the West seem to forget that they have been helped by us in matters which vitally affect their people, and they line up against us and seek to force some socialistic proposition upon us. This Senate is not for going int.o any socialistic business; the House of Representatives is not for it. I want this thing to be tried out, •tested to- the bottom. The President has already appointed a commission; they have made inquh·y and reported valuable facts. They have recommended that Congress go out and try to get bids. Is there -anything wrong in that? Congress has responded to the recommendation of the President's commission. A resolution has passed through the House and I think we shall soon adopt it here. We are going out to see whether or not we can obtain bids. If we can not obtain bids which are worthy and satisfactory, we shall reject them. Then there may not be anything to do but to turn around and say, "Although I am OIJposed to any of these governmental operations, that appears now the only thing left to be done in this particular instance, because we have tried and tried hard to get a good bi~ and we have been unable to do so. There is nothing else left to do." Then every Member of the Senate and House will have a reason and an excuse for doing that if he finds that he can not lease it to a private individual.

EXECUTIVET SESSION

Mr. JO~~S of Washington. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive bu..~ess.

The motion was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After 1 hour and 45 minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened. BRONZE GUNS FOR GRANT MEMORIAL BPJDGE, POINT PLEASANT, OmO

Ml·. WADSWORTH. From the Committee on Military Affairs I report back favorably without amendment the bill (H. R. 7019) to provide four condemned ~potLnder bronze guns for the Grant Memorial Bridge at Point Pleasant, Ohio, and I . submit a report (No. 274) thereon. I ask unanimous consent for the pre..;ent consideration of the bill

5ft85t ·. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MAROH 5 There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill and it was read, as follows:

Be it enacted, eto._ That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to deliver to the U. S. Grant Memorial Association of Ohio four condemned 12-pounder bronze guns at the Rock Island Arsenal, nock Island, ill., to mark the Grant Memorial Bridge on the Atlantic and Pacific Highway at Point Pleasant Ohio: P1·ovided, That no expense shall be incurred by the United States through the delivery of these guns.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

.ADJOURNMENT Mr. WATSON. I move that the Senate adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 15 minutes

p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, March G, 1926, at 12 o'clock meridian.

CONFIRMATIONS

Execu.tive twmination confin.nea by the Senate MMch 3, 1926

( Ontittea from Record of March 3, 1926) UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Edward E. Hindman, United States attorney, southern district of Mississippi.

Executive nqminati-ons confirmed by the Se1wte March 5 (legi.slative day of March 3), 1926

UNITED STATES MARSHAL Chester N. Leedom to be United States marshal, district of

South Dakota. POSTMASTERS

IOWA Elda B. Sparks, Buffalo Center. Edgar A. Cupp, Corning. Vellas L. Gilje, Elkader. Leonidas L. Greenwalt, Hastings. George McNeish, jr., Kanawha. W'illiam R. Weaver, Lewis.

. J obu Harden, Linden. Bruce E. Harlow, Onawa. Andrew C. Ries, Ringsted. Wayne C. Ellis, Rippey. Edith J. DeLong, Truro. Leonard G. Kelley, Wall Lake. Boyd w. Smith, Waukon. John L. Addington, Webb.

· Edith H. Ashby, Wellsburg. Henry C. Ficke, Wheatland.

MARYLAND Charles D. Routzahn, Mount Airy.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FnmAY, M m·clt 5, 1926

The House met at 12 o'clock noon. Tile Chaplain, Rev. James Shera .Montgomery, D. D., offered

the following prayer:

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, without whose help life is a disappointment and all labor is useless, direct us in our studies, our inquiries, and o_ur decisions. Leave us not to ourselves, lest the way becomes· obscure and we faiL For all the daily benefits and comforts we give Thee thanks and praise. Help us to be strong in all good work, and may we never turn aside from the tasks which are given us. Lead us forward in the spirit and might of Him whose precepts should lead the world. Bestow upon us that spirit that transcends analysis and explanation and is experienced rather than explained. Oh, hear us, blessed Lord, in the name of Him who prayed for llis enemies, wept with His friends, and would not scorn a little child. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

THE WORLD COURT 1\Ir. WILLIA]! E. HULL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous

consent to extend my remarks in the RECoRD by printing a speech by Senator McKINLEY on the World Court.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois asks unanimous com·ent to print in ihe RECORD a speech by Senator McKINLEY on the World Court. Is there objection?

1\Ir. BLANTON. Reserving the right to object-but I am not going to object-! want to say that this is the first time since I have· been in Congress that a distinguished Senator had to come to the House to get his speech in the RECoRD.

Mr. BLACK of Texas. Reserving the right to object, where was this speech delivered?

Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. In Chicago. It merely explains the World Court.

Mr. BLACK of Texas. Is the gentleman sure that tlle speech has not been inserted in the RECORD in the Senate?

Mr. WILLIAM E. HULL. It has not. Mr. BLACK of Texas. I have no objection. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection. 1\Ir. WILLIAM E. HULL. 1\Ir. Speaker, under the leave to

extend my remarks in the RECORD I include the following speech by the Hon. WILLIAM B. McKINLEY, Senator from the State of Illinois, delivered at Chicago, on the World Court:

In 1896 William J. Bryan's campaign issue, the free and unlimited coinage of silver at 16 to 1, almost swept the country off its feet, but the country was wrong, as time. demonstrated. This Nation at that time narrowly escaped making a tremendous blunder.

A great reaction against war later almost led the country into the League of Nations. A conservative group in C<>ngress saved us from that. That same majority is working together now passing needed legislation, but almost always after combating a small bloc of objectors and obstructionists, banded together, as is well understood in Washington, trying to increase their power to a point where they can control legislation by the French bloc method. They arc right now pushing what they conceive to be their great opportunity.

President Coolidge and the conservative majority go right along with their work. In his last message to Congress the President made 21 specific recommendations. Two outstanding recommendations, those for

1 membership in the World Court and the passage of a tax reduction bill, have already been enacted. This bloc of objectors opposed both these measures. In addition the House has passed the farmers' cooperative bill and the McFadden branch bank bill. It will be a session of exceptional benefit to the country. I have stood with my conservative colleagues in the Senate in helping bring this about.

In the past five years Federal taxes have been cut in half, and the tax law just agreed upon makes a further reduction of 12 per cent, while at the same time State and county taxes in many States have been doubled. A conservative majority in Congress has made possible this leaving of the people's money in their own pockets.

The principle of settling disputes between nations by arbitration instead of by war has been developed as civilization has progressed. The Hague Tribunal is a court of arbitration, and the United States has been a member since 1907, but The Hague Tribunal did not provide the proper machinery to work out its intentions. The World Court has improved this machinery. The United States has been a member for nearly 20 years. It is nothing new.

It ls inconceivable that this now much-discussed World Court, which has been so earnestly advocated by our last five Presidents and two Secretaries of State, as also by many organizations and individuals, including the American Legion, could be the dangerous thing which its opponents would have us believe. The 76 Members of the Senate and 301 Members of the House, who voted for the World Court, are .American patriots. These 377 Congressmen and Senators, who voted

. "yes," are right. Remember 377 voted "yes," and 45 voted "no." They do not desire our country to become invoh•ed in " foreign entanglements" in the dangerous sense of that term as used by President Washington a century and a half ago. But we are now a world power beyond the dream of Washington. We are the banker and credItor Nation of the wot·ld. To continue prosperous, we must have the world markets in which to s~ll our surplus foodstuffs, farm, and manufactured products. We want other nations to prosper, so they may be able to buy from us and pay us in 100 per cent money. We. can not have all these good things and yet take no part in helping our foreign customers to attain such prosperity as will enable them to buy from us and pay.

In this we are selfishly and commercially interested, to say nothing of the broader humanitarian purpose, that foreign wars as well as our own shall cease forever. Our entry into the World Court is a hopeful start toward that end. With the reservations adopted as safeguards we are in no danger. Our country will never consent to submit the Monroe doctrine to this or any other court; nor is there any chance of our submitting our immigration or other domestic problems. What rights the Japanese or any other alien people shall have to come into our country is a purely domestic question which we will never submit to arbitration nor to any court anywhere. Such problems we always have and always will settle for ourselves; and all other nations will do likewise with their domestic problems. This World Court has no concern with such.

The World Court, whether we join it or not, is a forward step in the peaceful adjustment of international differences without resort to

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5085 bloody war ; the reservations attached in our adherence fully protect our Nation in its Monroe doctrine and makes clear our rejection of both the league and entangling alliances with any foreign power.

We are in the midst of an important campaign, 'and 1t is surprising that gentlemen from Missouri, Idaho, and Minnesota should go from Washington to Chicago to tell Republicans whom to nominate as their party candidate for the United States Senate. It is not to be presumed that they paid their own expenses out there in order to work for the benefit and success of the Republican Party.

A Chlcago paper, speaking of the speech by the orator from Idaho, said : "Coming only a few hours after the ringing oration of the gentleman from Missouri, who also burned all his party bridges and took an independent stand, gave rise to the suggestion that the summer may witness the launching of a new party, led by these gentlemen." If Uris is so, why should these men be interested at thi~ time in helping S"elect candidates for the United States Senate on the Republican ticket? I am a Republican, and shall continue to be. I am voting with the administration and the Republican majority in Congre s, and shall continue to do so. I am going to stand or fall u_pon that proposition. Tho e who want to organize a new party are at liberty to go ahead as t;hey have started, but they ha.-ve no right to select Republican candidates in Illinois.

The scare of th.ese campaigners is predicated upon our next step being that of joining the League of Nations-. This is cuttlefish politics designed to muddy the waters. The World Court and the League of Nations are wholly divoergent. Assume that two years from now some one has the hardihood to propose in the Sena_te our joining the League of Nation.s. This same large majority that accepted the World Court would stand just as firmly against the League of Nations in any form, just as they did when a former admin.Lstration tri~ it. I should oppos.e it. I always have been, am now, and shall continu(l to be oppo ed to the League of Nations: __ _

These gentlemen as ert they have inaugurated a campaign which contemplates defeating all present Senators who voted for the World Court and who are up for election in the spring primaries. What they are going to do to the 801 Members of the lower House who voted for it has no-t been disclosed. This bloc of objectors and obstructionists is w~ll ktiown to the country. They think they see_ an opportunity to add to their bloc and are pushing the opportunity. They would wipe out the regular party majorities in Congress. I stand first in their path because the illinois primaries come first. · In reference to the World Court, about which so much · misrep

re entation of facts has been made, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party had both pledged themselves to it as a step toward perpetual peace and against war. Representatives from millions of our people had petitioned Congress for it. It had, some time before, been indorsed by the lower House of Congress by a vote of 301 to 28, and with the approval of the people. I am .not prepared to believe that all these are weak minded or are traitors to the best interests of our common country. This bill was the only thing on the subject before us. Reservations had been' provided forever guaranteeing the integrity and the independence of the United States. It came as an administration meas'ure in accord with the party platform pledge. I voted " yes " along with 78 of those Members of the Senate who are doing the thinking, the working end, · and -the legislating for the country, as against lS.

I could have dodged the issue, but 1 didn't do so. I voted for the World Court and shall stand by my action until something better iff proposed for the great humanitarian purpose of protecting our Nation against war. The World Court resolution was before the Senate from December 17 to January 27-40 days and 40 nights.

If these objectors, now so loudly declaiming, are interested in saving the country, har:l something better to offer, why did not they bring it forward then when the matter was before Congress instead of now when 1t is behind us? What eo they propose even now? Nothing.

The Republican convention, the Republican platform, the American Legion, tbe American Federation of Labor, the National Bankers' Asso· elation, the Federation of Christian Churches, all those people who peUtioned Congress and the great majority of the Members of Congresl$ may be mistaken in everything about this excepting their great desire for something to keep us out of war. If experience demonstrates that this is so, then I stand just as ready to adopt the new-found idea, but in the meantime I am going to devote my time with the administration In taking up and advancing those things that are pressing for the country's welfare.

APPROPRIATION BILL FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND .JUSTICE AND FOR THE .TUDICIABY, AND FOB- THE DEPARTMENTS OF COM

MERCE .AND LABOR

Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Honse resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H. R. 9795) making appropriations for the Departments of State and Justice a.nd for the judiciary, and for the Departments of Commerce and Labor for tbe fiscal year 1927. And pendi,ng that

I wish to ask the gentleman from Alabama if we can not agree upon a time for closing general debate.

:Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. I am sure the gentleman is in the same position that I am ; that he has requests that he has not been able to grant.

Mr. SHREVE. That is true. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. In view of the fact that the

House appare,ntly feels fairly well satisfied with the bill whjeh the gentleman's committee · has reported and that there is no real controversial item in the bill and we can quickly dispose of it, I suggest that we cpntinue general debate to-day and not more than one hour to-morrow.

Mr. BLANTON. We can read the bill scientifically. Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask UllaAimous consent that

general debate be continued to-day and one hour to-morrow. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Penn ylvania asks

unanimous consent that generai"debate be continued to-day and not exceeding one hour to-morrow. Is there objection 'l

There was no objection. The motion of Mr. SHREVE was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union, with l\Ir. TINcHER in the chair.

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GILBERT].

Mr. GILBERT: Gentlemen of the Congress, I wish at this time to discuss the Philippine situation. My rea on for SO'

doing is that last su)lllller I visited those islands on a GoverJlAment transport and feel it incumbent on me to report my im~ pressions and concl!Jsions. Most of the gentlemen who accom· panied me ha-ye alrea~y _spoken in this House and elsewhere.

In correspondence with the Secretary of the Navy I took the position that so long as the United States had the responsibility of government over remote islands of the sea her legis· lators should have the privilege of visiting them at small costJ and that it was more important for the Members of the House' and Senate to be carried on these transports than it was to carry unnecessary naval officers in time of peace. Wheth~r or not that conclusion is sound, I leave to the country.

Mr. LINTIDCUM. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILBERT. Yes. Mr. LINTIDOUM. The gentleman says he thinks it advis·

able to carry Members of the House and the Senate on transports-to Honolulu?

Mr. GILBERT. To tl1e Philippines. Mr. LINTIDCUM. I think about three years ago I tried to

get on one of the transports, and went to the War Department. They said that they were full; that they had so many naval officers and Army officers that it was impossible to give me any accommodations. I went to the present Secretary of War~ who was then Assistant Secretary, and he took no interest in it. So I went on the Pacific Mail, and when I got to San Francisco I found there was plenty of room on the transport whiCh had sailed that day, and so they did not know at this end what the situation was.

Mr. GILBERT. I think it is important that we who have the destiny of these islands in our hands should have an opportunity to know conditions there.

On February 22, when we were celebrating the birthday of George War:;hingt_on, who played t)le biggest part in obtaining our independence, I read in the press this article : - _

lliNILA, P. I.-Throughout the Philippines men; women, and children gathered in mass meetings to-day to pray tor independence~

As a last preliminary in the demonstration, a lar.,.e gathering here last night was addressed by Quezon and other. members of the independence movement. They urged every person pi the islands to cooperate, and said they wanted the world to witne s the spectacle of a nation ot 11,000,000 dropping to its knees ~nd asking for deliverance.

Burns said : Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.

History records that the sympathy of a people for an ideal fs dependent upon their relation in respect thereto. The PllgrimB sought our distant shores in order that they might wor· ship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, free from the domination and persecution of the established church; yet no sooner had theirs become the established church in the new land than they inflicted upon nonconformists to them greater cruelties than they themselves had suffered, and to save his life Roger Williams, who only sought to worship God as his conscience dictated, must flee in the night and in _ the snows of a bleak New England winter.

Likewise, but a few years ago in the lives of nations tbe people of this country were- proclaiming that government

5086 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARcH 5 without the consent of the governed is tyranny, and yet within a short time, their own freedom secured, and having assumed the role of master instead of slave, we unblushingly continue the relationship which but recently, when exercised against u , we so earnestly denounced. It was but yesterday, in 1917, when we vociferously railed against Germany because she declared a treaty, under which we benefited, a scrap of paper, and to-day, in 1926, we are openly advocating a violation of our pledged word and faith to the Filipinos.

Does the Republican Party ever intend to grant independence to the Philippines, and is this country pledged so to do? That the present occupant of the White House has no sympathy with that suggestion may be seen from his message on February 21, 1924, to the Hon. Manuel Ro:x:as, speaker of the Philippine House of ~epresentatives, wherein. he said:

Thus believing, I !eel that I am serving those same interests by saying frankly that it ls not possible to consider the extension of a larger measure of autonomy to the Philippine people until they shall have demonstrated a readiness and capacity to cooperate fully and effectively. with the American Government and authority.

In other words, this means until they demonstrate that they do not want it, it shall not be tendered to them. [Laughter.] The gentleman from Massachusetts [1\fr. UNDERHILL] on February 18, in ably addressing himself to this subject before the House, took that same position. To use his own statement, " there are times when the public interest is paramount to public opinion," and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BEGG], in Louisville, Ky., the other day, in an address with frankness even to bluntness and without circumlocution, said, "American sovereignty must remain in the Philippines."

Let use see if that is in compliance with our promise to these people. Until quite recently such a position was not openly advocated by anybody. From what authority do these responsible members of the Republican Party take that position? The Republican platform of 1924, like the platform of all the parties up to that time, and including that time, provided in substance that the Philippines should have independence when deemed to their best interest. What is the cause of this sudden change of front? Has rubber anything to do with it? I do not know, but it is a coincidence that at the time Great Britain and her colonies, which are the great rubber producers of the world, raised the price of rubber that the United States, which is the great rubber consumer of the world, was advised for the :first time that American sovereignty must remain in the Philippines. There were other material mercenary reasons which entered into the consideration. There neV'er was a time when the policies of this country were so completely dictated by the dollar and so little influenced by the principle involved. [Applause.]

The islands were obtained during the administration of President 1\fcKinley, as a result of the Spanish-American War, like Cuba and other islands, which have long since had their independence granted. President McKinley announced our policy in these words :

The Philippines are ours, not to exploit but to develop, to civilize, to educate, to train in the science of self-government.

In his instructions to the first Philippine Commission, on the 20th of January, 1899, he expressed the hope that the commissioners would be received as bearers of " the richest blessings of a liberating rather than a conquering nation."

Doctor Schurman, president of the first Philippine Commission, construed our policy as follows :

Ever increasing Uberty arid self-government • • • and it 1s the nature of such continuously expanding liberty to issue in Independence.

President Taft, while civil governor of the Philippine Islands, on the 17th of December, 1903, said:

The Philippines are for the Filipino, and that the Government o! the United States is here for the purpose of preserving the Philippines !or the Filipinos, for their benefit, for their elevation, for their civilization.

Later in A.pril, 1904, Mr. Taft, then Secretary of War, said: When they-the Fil1pinos-have learned the principles of successful

popular self-government fL·om a gradually enlarged experience therein, we can discuss the question whether independence is what they desire and grant it.

President Roosevelt, in 1908, in his message to Congress, said:

I trust that within a generation the time will arrive when the Filipinos can decide for themselves whether it is well for them to

become independent or to continue under the protection of a strong and disinterested power, able to guarantee to the islands order at home and protectlo~ from foreign invasion.

On December 6, 1912, President Taft, in a message to Congress, again said :

We should • • • endeavor to secure for the Filipinos economic independence and to fit them for complete self-government with the power to decide eventually, according to their own lar~est good, whether such self-government shall be accompanied by independence.

On October 6, 1913, President Wilson, in a message to the Filipino people, said:

We rt>gard ourselves as trustees acting not for the advantage of the United States but for the benefit of the people of tbe Philippine Islands. Every step we take wlll be taken with a view to the ultimate independence of the islands and as a preparation for that indept>ndence.

And again in 1913, in December, President Wilson in his message to Congress said : · By their counsel and experience rather than by our own we shall learn how best to serve them and how soon it will be possible and wiee to withdraw our supervision.

Ex-President Roosevelt, in discussing the Philippine situation in 1915, said : ·

The present administration has promised explicitly to let them [Philippines] go, and by its action has rendered it difficult to hold them against any serious foreign foe. These being the circumstances, the islands should at an early moment be · given their independence, without any guaranty whatever by us and without our retaining any foothold in them.

So that every President, regardless of party, since their acquisition, has taken the position that when the Philippine people were ready for it and desired it their independence should be granted.

No political party has in its platform ever advocated any other position. So that, gentlemen of the House, every President, regardless of party, from the acquisition of the islands to the present occupant of the White House, has taken the same view, that we should grant the Philippines independence when they were prepared for it and desired it. But you may say that that is not a question for Executive declaration. Then let us see what Congress itself has said by its own enactment.

1\ir. TILSON. 1\fr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILBERT. Yes. Mr. TILSON. The gentleman is making a real contribution

to this question. At this point I wish to ask him whether the real difficulty is not that the phrase " Filipino people" fails to describe a homogeneous, cohesive people? In other words, "Filipino people" does not mean anything specifically.

Mr. GILBERT. Oh, the gentleman is wrong. There is not much greater difference in that respect, so far as the Philippine Islands are concerned, than there is with respect to the coadition that exists in the United States to-day. There are a.s many diverse elements in our civilization in the United States as there are in the Philippines, with the one exception of the Moros, who are Mohammedans, and who number about 850,000 of the 11,000,000 people. The rest are a homogeneous, Christian people. So far as I am advised they are the only people that were ever converted as an entire race from Mohammedanism to Christianity.

Mr. TILSON. Is it not a fact, however, that the 1\foro people live in a territory more or less definitely bounded, and that within this territory they are suprem~?

Mr. GILBERT. That is true. 1\fr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? 1\fr. GILBERT. Yes. Mr. JONES. In view of the definite outline of policy which

this country, as the gentleman has shown, has evidently made with reference to the Philippines, does not the gentleman think ·that the man who is in charge or who is at the head of our government in the Philippines should be a man who is in sympathy with at least ultimate independence for the Filipinos, and who will govern his policies accordingly?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes; I think so, and I wish to discu.:;s that if my time permits a little later on. I have now discussed Executive declarations and wish to discuss an act of Congress.

Mr. DYER. Will the gentleman yield for a moment before he goes to that?

l\Ir. GILBERT. Yes. 1\Ir. DYER. I would like to state in reference to a question

or two that has been propounded to the gentleman as to the Filipino people being united, the people of the Philippine Islands, and say that I have visited the Philippines and have

1926 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD~HOUSE • 5087 been before their legislature, both the senate and the house, and I found them united, working harmoniously together, and the only opposition in' the Philippines-and I have been throughout the country, of course they prefer their own affairs managed by the~~elves than somebody else perhapsbut I found complete harmony, and with possibly a little exception the only object to the people of the Philippines now having their own Government are the few Americans who have made their homes in the Philippines and are in business and will never be in favor of their independence, and the objection the Army and Navy make because they wish to be a:;;signed there; with that exception there is a united purpos£> among the people of the Philippine Islands.

Mr. GILBERr.r. The gentleman's opinion agrees exactly with mine. I want to say that the gentleman fl'om Missouri, wbo has ju t taken his seat, made quite a valuable conb:ibution to this subject when on January 5 he in::;erted in the RECORD the addre s of the Hon. Servio Osmena, President of the Philippine Senate, which I commend to your consideration. Now, let us see what Congress itself has said on this subject. We find, by solemn enactm~nt of Congress, the attitude of the United States toward the Philippines, declared as follows:

Whereas it was never the intention of the people of the United States in the incipiency of the war wlth Spain to make it a war of conquest or for territorial aggrandizement; and

Whereas it ia, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of tbe United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein.

So you see that by Executive announcement as well as by act of Congre s the declaration "American sovereignty must remain in the Philippines" is an unblushing advocacy of a violation of our promise. Now, in conversation with Governor General Wood I said to him, " Suppose you do believe that it is to the interest of the United States to retain the Philippines, and suppose you do believe it is to their interest that we retain them," yet I would like to ask you the question put by Senator BoRAH, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate:

That in view of our promises to grant independence if they wanted it, bow can we in common honesty deny it?

General Wood said to that: We have never given them a definite promise of independence.

I maintain that those words tllat I have read do contain a definite promise of independence when a stable government can be formed therein.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILBERT. I will. Mr. WOODRUFF. When was that resolution passed by

Congre s? Mr. GILBERT. It is known as the Jones Act. It was dur-

ing tlle Wilson administration; I do not remember the exact date.

Mr. JONES. In 1916. Mr. GILBERT. But if we had not made them a definite

promise of independence, I say we are now estopped from taking that position. In that connection I wish to read President Roo evelt on that position. In 1915 in writing of this situation in Everybody's Magazine, President Roosevelt said :

But we can not taint it with bad faith. If we act so that the natives understand us to have made a definite promise, then we should live up to that promise.

In my opinion, not to be offensive, that clearly shows the difference between the attitude of a great man and a little man. Under that act we were to grant independence as soon as a stable government was formed. Now, what is a stable government? Elihu Root and the other g1·eat international lawyers define a stable government to be-

A government elected by the sut'lrage of the people, which is supported by the people, and which is capable of maintaining order and of fulfilling its international obligations.

Now, by what measure are we to ascertain that? It is a question of fact. Is it fair to adopt the standard of the United States as to whether or not their government is sufficient? The English-speaking people are as outstanding in matters of government in the modern world as the Romans were in the ancient world, and, of course, it is not fair to apply the standard of that government which has the greatest capacity for governing. Wben was such a standard ever contemplated or employed? It is fair and reasonable to apply that standard of government in which the least capacity to govern existB. Has Mexico a stable government?

South of the United States every government on the Western Hemisphere is an independent government, and I say to you there is not one among those governments wherein there is greater stability of government or where the people are more capable of self-government than in the Philippines. Is Panama a stable government? Are the Panamanians capable of self-government? I have visited both countries, and many of you have, and I ask any man here to say if the Panamanians are more capable of self-government than the Filipinos. Now let us discuss for a few moments the people of the Philippines.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILBERT. I will. Mr. LINTHlCUl\f. I want to ask to what extent does the

United States control the freedom of action and of self-taxation of the Filipino people? I would like to have a little information on that subject.

Mr. GILBERT. Well, the other day the Governor General v-etoed on one day 24 bills. 'rhe Governor General has the P?wer of. vetoing; and if that veto is overridden by the Philippme Legu;lature, then it is up to the President of the United States to sustain either the Philippine people or the Governor General, and he has always sustained and, of course, will always sustain the Governor General.

The Governor General not only controls freedom of action, but freedom of speech. The other day a Filipino was put in jail for making a remark about the Governor General in a political debate. This remark was not so offensive as I have heard made on this floor against the President of the United States.

The Philippine people, next to the Japanese, are the most ambitious people in the Eastern world. Even the elevator ~oys and the other menials, while waiting to serve, were readmg books. I asked the assistant of Governor General Wood having charge of schools if there were any compulsory educational laws in the Philippines. He said, " Why, Lord, no. In such numbers do the pupils come that we can no.t furnish teachers and schoolhouses sufficient to accommodate them." Over 80 per cent of the people in the Philippines who are entitled to vote participate in the elections. Nearly 90 per cent in the last election of all those with the right of suffrage exercised it, while in the United States less than 50 per cent exercised it

Mr. KEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILBERT. Yes. Mr. KEARNS. I wonder how long the Philippine boys

and girls have been reading these books. Who got them into the notion? In other words, were they reading 25 or 30 years ago?

Mr. GILBERT. Of course, the United States has been of wonderful assistance to the Philippine people. I am not trying to speak in derogation of the vast benefits that have been conferred upon them. But when we began to educate them, we told them that when they had qualified themselves for selfgovernment we would give it to them.

Are the people of the Philippines capable of great elevation both in literature and in the arts and in science? According to Dean Howells and other foremost literary men of this country to-day, the greatest novel that has been written in the last 75 yeaTs is Noli Me Tangere, written by Rizal, the Philipr pine martyr and patriot. The speech made by Hon. Servio Osmena, president of the Philippine Senate, which was copied into the REcORD of tllis House on January 5--and I invite your attention to it-is, for exalted thought, scholarly attainment, and real statesmanship, the equal of any speech delivered in either House of Congress since I have been a Member.

One of the causes of friction between the Governor General and the leaders of the Philippines is, speaking frankly, that bemg unable to match them in wit he, without tact, pursues that bent dictated by his military experience. This evidences what we on this side so often insist-that no military chieftain should be put in charge of a civil government [Applause.] •

Mr. BANKHEAD. 1\Ir. Chairman, will my friend yield for a question without disturbing him?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes. Mr. BANKHEAD. Is it the gentleman's intention to discuss

the capacity of the Filipinos to handle their finances in the event they should be given their independence? There has been criticism tending to show their inability to take care of their financial concerns, such as taking care of their bonded debt, that would tend to indicate they are not yet ready for self-government, showing their incapacity along that line.

Mr. GILBERT. Well, they have not had much experience along that line, yet with but one exception they have done

5088 . • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARcH 5 well, and that was they did have a failure of their national I do not believe in war; I do not believe in jingoism; and I bank or-er there, and that is the cause of the criticism we have do not believe we are going to have a war with Japan; but, heard here. But while that bank failed in the Philippines frankly, the majority of those who bellev~ that the United there were hundreds of banks that failed in the United States States will have a future war believe that in that sad event it for the same reason. It was at the time of deflation, when will be with Japan, and in the event of war with Japan the many banks at home were sorely distressed. But being Philippines would be a serious disadvantage, because necessaequipped and being capable in every other way, I see no rily they would become the fighting ground, and we would have reason why they would not be equally capable of taking care to maintain the war at Japan's door and around the world from of their financial matters. us. I am not a military man, but President Roosevelt, who

Mr. 1\fANSl!,IELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield gave this subject more attention than any other President, and there? who was qualified to speak, entertained that view and spoke to

Mr. GILBERT. Yes. this country in words ringing not only with patriotism but with Mr. MANSFIELD. Was the management of that bank foresight when he warned this country that the Philippines

wholly by the Philippine people or partly by Americans? were a distinct national weakness. Mr. GILBERT. There is some disagreement about that. If we are going to retain the Philippines, we must retain

While the Filipinos were in apparent control they were no them nt all hazards and at any cost, not only of American doubt influenced by Americans largely. One of the troubles dollars but of American lives. From our experience there, is to get at the exact facts in the Philippines. I see present when it took years to subjugate those islands, I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. UNDERHILL] who made President Roose\elt that if they are backed by any great fora speech the other day on this subject, and to that I refer. He eign power we can not hold them. The cost in money would was in the Philippines longer than I was, and I was astounded be beyo:ad all comparison to their value and the cost in llves at some of the statements he made. He got his facts from the of American boys would be indefensible and unspeakaule. Americans there in Manila, or at least they coincide with what Let us live up to American traditions; let us grant independ-I was told by the American contingent in the Philippines. So ence to the Philippines while they are our friends. persistent were they in railing against Philippine independence Shades of Patrick Henry! Can you think of 11,000,000 people that on one occasion their enthusiasm carried them far from on bended knee begging the United States for independence1 accuracy, as was pointed out to them. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky MESSAGE FRO:M THE SENATE has expired. The committee informally rose; and the Speaker having re-

l\fr. GILBERT. May I have 15 minutes more? sumed the chair, a message from the Senate, by Mr. Craven, Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. I can accommodate the gentleman one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had p.assed with

with 10 minutes more. amendments House Concurrent Resolution 11, to tender the The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recog- thanks and appreciation vf the Congress of the United States

nized for 10 minutes more. for heroic service rendered by the officers and crews of the Mr. GILBERT. The gentleman from Massachusetts said that steamships P1·eside1tt Roose,veZt, P1·esident H(M'ding, American,

the Filipinos did not want independence. This was frequently Trader, Re]Jttblic, and Oameronia., in which the concurrence of said by those American business men there solely to get rich the House of Representatives was requested. by exploiting thoSe islands. The Filipinos are unanimOUS in APPROPRIATIONS FOR THFJ DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND JUSTIOE their desire for independence. And hOW any one can deny it, Al'\D FOR THE JUDICI.A.RY, .AND FOR THE DEJ>ARTMENTS OF COM-in view of these admitted facts, I do not know. The admitted MERCE AND LABOR fact is that there were formerly in the Philippines three par- The committee resumed its session. ties, two of whom favored immediate independence and one Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Ur. Chairman, 1 yield 10 minutes favored it but favored postponing it. That party which to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BYRNS]. [Applause.] favored postponement of independence was literally swept out 1\fr. BYRNS. Mr. Chairman, immediately after the Presiof existence, and that party which, in the opinion of the Fill- dent signed the tax reduction bill, which carried an estimated pino people, is most sincere in its desire for independence and reduction of something over $387,000,000, publications ap-most apt to obtain it always wins in the elections. peared in a number of newspapers relative to the economy

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? which the President hoped would be exercised by Congress Mr. GILBERT. Yes. during the remaining part of the session. 1\fr. KING. What was the object of General Wood in deny- My attention has been directed to two newspapers which

ing a referendum on that subject? carried publications of that kind, and those publications are Mr. GILBERT. General Wood admitted to us on his porch wholly misleading and chock full of misinformation.

that the Philippine elections were not only fair but more ac- Of course, it is the unwritten rule that the President is curately expressed the sentiment of the Philippine people than never directly quoted. I do not say that this information elections in America, and a referendum on that subject would came from the President himself nor do I believe it came from establish the fact that they are unanimous in their desire for his very able and efficient secretary, whom we all admire and independence, and General ·wood, while denying that they want respect. But there seems to be some party connected with it, does not dare to hold an election to find out. _ the White House, a publicity man, who evidently is charged

For a full and accurate statement of the entire situation I with the disseminativn of information from the White House, refer you to the exhaustive report of the gentleman from Ar- an·d although this misinformation does not have the direct kansas [1\Ir. RAGON] on House bill 8856, Sixty-eighth Congress, stamp of approval on the part of the President, nevertheless from which I have quoted herein. when it is stated upon the face of the publication that the in-

The gentleman from Massachusetts refers to me frequently formation emanates from the White House, it, of course, earas an idealist. If he means by that that I believe in fulfilling ries all the weight it would carry if it were a direct quotation a promise to the letter, I plead guilty. But from a purely busi- from the President. ness standpoint, from a selfish standpoint, we should now grant Only a few days ago I recall a publication to the effect that that independence which no one denies that we promised. when Colonel l\Iitchell was to speak in Detroit that those rep-

'Ve do not need the Philippines for their products. With our resenting him had secured the hall of the Union League Club, vast resources and with om· neighboring tropical islands we do a big Republican organization in that city, and on the very not need them. On Mindanao, where they claim they are goin -eve of his address he was notified that he would not be perto grow all this rubber, rubber is not now grown to any appre- mitted to use the hall, and It was stated that thi.s consent was ciable Extent, and it is problematical to what extent it will withdrawn on request of the 'Vhite Hvuse. Mr. Sanders, the become a rubber-producing island. We can conse~e our for- Secretary to the President, very promptly denied it, but the ests and not require their lumber. statement was made that in some way the request did come

The cost to our Government in keeping the Philippines is from some one connected with the White House. I presume enormous. At Fort McKinley there are over 12,000 soldiers from this individual to whom I have referred. stationed at the present time. You must make up YQUr mind Now, the article to which I wish to call particular attention to this proposition, that if we are going to retain the Philip- appeared in the Washington Star immediately after the signpines we must have the biggest Navy in the world and naval ing of that bill. My attention has been directed tv a similar stations all over the world. article in the New York Times, both of which papers have

We have a treaty with England, France, and Japan. guaran- very justly earned the reputation of being reliable and trustteeing peace in the Pacific. We can further extend that to I worthy newspapers, and I do not attach any criticism to these agree on Philippine sovereignty, and then those islands would newspapers for the publication of the information which was have the same status as other small neutral countries all over furnished from the ·white House. The article in the Wash-too world whose peace and integrity no nation yiolates.. ingto!! Sta~ !s headed:

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5089 Cut in fund b1lls to meet tax slash asked by Coolidge--President j added in some few particulars increases to these bills when

counts on House and Senator leaders to prune appropriations. they came on the floor of the House. The opening paragraph reads as follows: Mr. LI~TTHICUM.. But the House has practically saved

$11,000,000 by reducmg the recommendations of the Budget. Is not that right? President Coolidge expects Congress materially to reduce some, 1f not

all, of the pending appropriation bills to offset the big slash made in taxes by the revenue reducing bill which 1s expected to become a law before the end of the week.

The President has made known his feelings to party leaders in the Senate and the House regarding the tax reduction, which he has no hesitancy in declaring is considerably larger than be thought was. practicable or possible. He bas directed these party leaders to use their Influence in discouraging increased appropriations and, where possible, to effect reductions.

Of course, I do not know just what the President said to his party leader· upon the floor of the House and Senate. "\Yhatever he may have said has not been communicated to the !louse or to the Senate, so far as I know and so far as the RECORD .. :bows. There is a method by which the President may communicate to Congress, a method provided by the Constitution ; and if in these pending big supply bills there are reductions that can be made in the estimates and requests which he submitted for appropriations for the year 1927, and if the President is convinced that his estimates and requests submitted to the Congress last December for appropriations for 1927 can be materially reduced or reduced in any particulars, then I suggest that it is the privilege of the President and, I respectfully suggest, his duty, to communicate that fact to Congress in the regular way provided, namely, by a message fo1·mally sent to the House and to the Senate.

Now, I have heretofore called attention to the fact that the estimates for 1927 total $3,897,207,921.66. Since that time there have come to Congress various supplemental estimates, the largest of which was the $10,000,000 supplemental estimate for rivers and harbors, which increased the estimate to $3,907,-207,921.66 for the fiscal year 1927. The total appropriations made for 1026 were $3,741,787,060.31, showing an increase in the estimates for 1927 over the appropriations for 1926 of $165,420,861.35. In addition to the ·e estimates, the President has forwarded to the House estimates for the first deficiency bill totaling $381,772,583.60 for supplemental appropriations for the year 1926 and for deficiencies for prior years.

This makes a total. of estimates for appropriations submitted by the President since December 1 of $4,28.8,980,505.26.

There are nine regular supply bills. Only one of them has passed both Houses of Congress and become a law-the Treasury and Post Office Departments appropriation bill The Committee on Appropriations of the House has reported to the House seven of the supply bills, one of which is now pending before the House. Six of them have passed the House.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee has expired.

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 10 more minutes.

Mr. BYRNS. As reported by the Committee on Appropria· tions these bills can-y a reduction in the estimates of the ,President totaling $11,404,986.48. In other words, as reported to the House by the House Committee on Appropriations, under the very able and effective leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [l\lr. MADDEN] its chairman, whose interest in economy we all recognize and appreciate, the House Committee on Appropriations has recommended $11,404,986.48 less than the President himself asked Congress to appropriate.

I repeat if the Pres!dent finds now that he made requests which were not justified, or if the President finds now that the requests which he submitted for money to run the departments of the Government were too large and can be reduced, then there is but one way, and only one proper way, by which he can inform Congress, and that is to let Congress know ju.·t where the appropriation can be reduced; and there is not any question but that Congre::;s wi,ll adopt his suggestion and reduce the appropriations.

1\Ir. LINTHICUM. ·wm the gentleman yield? 1\Ir. BYRNS. Yes. llr. LINTHICUM. I presume in speaking of the President's

estimates the gentleman refers to the Budget; is that correct? Mr. BYRNS. Yes; the Budget estimates as submitted by

the President, and for which he is responsible. Mr. LINTHICUM. As the gentleman knows, there are a

great many articles appearing in the papers now stating how much the Budget has saved the country, when the fact is Congre, s so far has saved the country $11,000,000 more than the Budget alone would have saved it.

Mr. BYRNS. I am speaking now of the recommendations made by the Committee on Appropriations. The Hou~e bas

LXVll-321

Mr. BYRNS. It will not amount to quite that much, because only the other day $4,500,000 was added for the merchant marine, at the express request and instance of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. WOOD], who was in charge of the bill, and who said at the time that, in the light of the facts presented, unless the additional appropriation was allowed the merchant marine woulrt be in effect smothered ; and some of us who favor the merchant marine have wondered why the President in the fir t instance requested a smaller appropriation than was absolutely necessary.

1\lr. LINTHICUM. Then up to this time we have saved around $7,000,000; is that correct?

Mr. BYRNS. Yes; it will amount to about that. Mr. LI~THICUM. Will the gentleman tell me how much

the Congress reduced the Budget estimates for the fiscal year 1926?

Mr. BYRNS. I could not tell the gentleman at the moment. I made some remarks some time ago in which I gave those figures.

Mr. LI~"'THICUl\I. Will the gentleman insert those figures in the RECoRD as a part of his remarks?

Mr. BYRNS. I will be glad to do that. It was over $12,000,000. .

This article, after referring to the majority leader, our friend the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. TILSON] and his interview with the President, goes on to say:

There are any number ot Items in the regular supply bills which call for appropriations either larger 1n size than the estimate of money approved by the Budgf't Bureau or else not at all approved by it.

And get this : These, if totaled, would run up into the hundreds of millions, and

1n the opinion of the President could be reduced gre.'ltly. Many of these items, be contends, could be very well eliminated entirely.

Gentlemen, that statement is just hundreds of millions incorrect. I have examined these bills as they have been recommended to this House by the Committee on Appropriations, and I find that the committee recommended to the House increases, and they were approved by the House, over the Budget in certain particular items amounting to $4,843,717.66, which includes $1,000,000 for immigration and nearly $700,000 for the eradication of tuberculosis and cattle tick among cattle.

1\fr. OLIVER of Alabama. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. BYRNS. Yes. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Perhaps this explanation should

be offered in connection with the appropriation for immigration for 1927: The Budget submitted an estimate of $600,000 for the first deficiency bill to supplement the 1926 appropriation. Since it did not include that in the estimates for 1927. and since it appeared to the committee that in building up a border patrol and the other agencies of the Government to hasten deportation, it would absolutely be essenti~ to bring it to Congress in December; therefore we included that item simply in advanee of another supplemental estimate based on what the Budget Bureau itself estimated would be necessary.

1\Ir. BYRNS. I am glad to have that statement of the gentleman.

Mr. LINTHICUM. What did the gentleman say about the eradication of tuberculosis among cattle 7

l\!r. BYRNS. The increase over the Budget for that purpose amounted to $:>60,000. The appropriations which were recommended by the committee and made by the House, and which were not estimated for in the Budget, amounted to $229,430. This makes a total of a little over $5,000,000 of increases in certain items of appropriations, but I want to call your attention to the fact that while the Budget was i.ncreased in these particular items, for reasons satisfactory to the committee and to the House, in the sum of $5,000,000, other items were reduced something 1ike $16,500,000 as reported by the committee. The ultimate result was that these bills as they have come ft·om the committee, consisting of all the supply bills except the District of Columbia and the legislative bills, which combiued will carry less than $50,000,000, show a reduction, as I have stated, of over $11,404,000 in the Budget submitted by the President and the appropriations which he urged upon Congress.

Yet these articles emanating from the White House. or.from some mysterious source about which we do not know, state that

5090 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MABen 5 items of the Budaet have been incTeased by the Congress hundreds of millions e of dollars. A plainer misstateme.nt of facts was never made. This statement has been published throug}lout the country. I have editorials here which h!lve been wntten based upon the misinformation which was giVen as I have stated.

I have taken this time simply to call attention to these facts and to insist that if the President feels that his estimates and his requests for money can be reduced, then he ought to send a message to this Hou e and tell the House where those reduction can be made and undoubtedly, even though some of the bills may have pa~sed, joint resolutions can be introduced and passed making the necessary reductions. Congress acts. on the Budget of the President He tells Congress what he thmks he will need for the executive departments. We act upon that uRing our best judgment as to whether or ~ot the money as~e~ for should be granted. When we grant h1s request, reducme them over $11,404,000, it does not come with g?od grace to publish over the country that the President has privately told some leader of his party in the House and the Senate that C~mgress ouaht to make heavy reductions in the regular supply bills and th; estimates submitted by him. .

Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Uichigan. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BYRNS. I will. Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan. The gentle~an might prop

erly say because it is true, that at every sessiOn of Congress since th~ Bureau of the Budget was organized, the total appropriations are materially less than the total of the .recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. BYRNS. That has been h·ue every year since the Budg~t law was enacted, and they will total, excluding those at this session, something like $345,000,000.

Now o-entlemen, I have simply made these remarks for the purpos~ "'of protesting against this misinformation which, it is said was given out at the White House, and which seeks to mng~fy the economy of the administration, and does a great injustice to Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, which I have often said is the on~ instrumentality which stands between the taxpayer and the high cost of government, and also the Committee on Appropriations that has spent so many weeks and months in conducting hearings on appropriations. I hope that hereafter when correspondents of reliable and trustworthy newspapers secure this information they will be a little more careful, and possibly a little more suspicious of the information thus· received until it has been fully investigated. The newspapers of the country are the educators of the people as to current news. The people naturally look to the newspapers for correct information upon which they form their opinions and I am quite sure that no reputable newspaper wants to mislead the people. But this article shows they can not afford to rely implicitly on the publicity agent of the White House.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Will the gentleman yield? Mr BYRKS. Yes. Mr. LINTHICUM. I did not understand the gentleman's

reply to the gentleman from Michigan about the Budget-the gentleman said that it would total $345,000,000. V\7hat does the gentleman mean?

Mr. BYRNS. I meant that the reduction made by Congress from the estimates submitted by the Budget since it was inaugurated, excluding this year, would amount to som~thing like $345,000,000.

Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BYRNS. I will. Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan. That figure of $345,000,000

which the gentleman gjves might reasonably be made a higher figure, because the Congress at one time during the yea.rs of which he sp'eaks passed, without the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget, a bill universally approved all over the country carrying $90,000,000 for highways, and Congress found it necessary for five years to appropriate $38,000,000 each year to provide a $20 a month bonus for employees whose salaries were miserably low under laws passed before our country entered into the war. Taking those $38,000,000 for five years and the $90,000.000 for roads, universally approved, and add that to the $345,000,000 and yo~ actually get the amount by which the appropriations from Congress are less than the estimates of the bureau, because if the bureau had been called upon it certainly would have made recommendations for the appropriations for those matters of which I speak.

1\lr. BYRNS. Now, I want to call attention to another matter. In the article from which I have read is this statement: -

Among some of the appropriations that are likely to bear the brunt of this ·pruning p1·ocess in the House and Senate are the public build-

ings bill ; increa ell pen ions for veterans, especially those of the Spanish War; good-road development; and rivers and harbors improvement.

It is well known that the public buildings bill was an administration measure recommended by the President in a message which he submitted to Congress in December. It was a party measure and put through the House as an a.dminisb·ation measure. It is now pending in the Senate. If the President feels that that bill should be reduced I again respectfully suggest that there is a method by which he can indicate that fact to Congre s. As to the veterans of the Spanish War I know there is only a comparatively few of them and as usual they are to receive the brunt of any economy sought to be practiced. As to the good-roads deYelopment, the President in a message to Congress in December intimated, if he did not say it, that the time had come when some of the Federal aid given to good roads should be withdrawn. He said that in the face of the fact that in the same message he recommended $50,000,000 for public buildings in the city of Washington, and in face of the fact that in a previous Congress he recommended putting through Congress an appropriation of $15,000,000 for a memorial bridge across the Potomac River in Washington, to be paid for wholly out of public funds.

So far as r~vers and harbors are concerned, Congress did not appropriate a dollar more than was asked for by the President, because in addition to the $40,000,000 originally estimated he submitted a supplementary estimate for 10,000,000, and Congress acceded to his request in the estimate so submitted. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has again expired.

1\lr. SHREVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 40 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. UNDERHILL].

.Mr. UNDERHILL. Mr. Chairman, when I ca.me to Congress the first warm and intimate friendship which I made with my colleagues was made with RALPH GILBERT, of Kentucky. That friendship bas continued and I trust will continue not only throughout our service in Congress but as long as we both shall live. I hope it has been mutually advantageous. 1 am sure that as far as I am concerned it has been beneficial. I found RALPH GILBERT one of the most sincere, honest gentlemen it was ever my privilege to meet. [Applause.] In addition to that I found that he has a qualification which I lack lamentably. He is an idealist, he is a dreamer, he is a man who has implicit confidence in all of his fellow men. Perhaps that is due to his early environment. He was born and raised and always has lived "far from the madding crowd." Those with whom he has been acquainted have been his neighbors a.ad his friends, law-abiding, virtuous people living in the State of Kentucky. My training and environment differ, inasmuch as I was thrown in with the hodgepodge, the hoi polloi, the hard, laborious worker, the roughneck, the man who has little idealism in his make-up and less faith in the idealism of others. Therefore I became intensely practical, while he still retai,ned his delightful idealism. My associations with l1im, however, brought me into a closer union with some of his ideals, but it has not destroyed my practical viewpoint. I • trust that in time I may influence him to take a practical view of some matters which now appear to him to have their abode only in the sun or in the clouds.

Before I begin my main remarks I want to quote from a former judge in the Philippines who acted as Governor General from 1912 to 1913. He said :

Once upon a time I used to speak ot the Philippine question w1tll my head tn the clouds. I never stopped to reckon where my feet were. Now I think I can say, after analyzing the question in its multiple phases, that my feet are on the ground. I am for a program that can be worked out. The improvident employment of sentlmentnlism in this eminently practical question leads only to misunder t..'1nding and contusion.

Mr. Chail·man, I want it distinctly understood, even at the risk of redundancy, that I have no friends to reward and no enemies to punish in the.Philippines, but I was not blind to the facts which I met on every hand, and those facts I tried to present to the House a few days ago. For fear that those facts might be controverted I do not ask the Members to take my word but I h2.ve compiled from numerous letters which I received from men and women of high standing the opinions that I expressed at the time and the facts which I pre ented to you.

Before going into that, I want to comment on a few of the suggestions or remarks made by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GILBERT], and bring to his attention that an independent government is not necessarily a stable government; that his illustration of South American republics was rather unfortu-

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5091 nate as an illustration, because all of us know that although Mr. WINGO. If the gentleman will yield for a question they are independent governments none of them is a stable there. Does the gentleman understand that the open door in government. His reference to Panama was particularly un- China is predicated upon our retention of the Philippines? fortunate, because if you will let your mind wander backward Mr. UNDERHILL. I think that our position is substanti-for a few years you will realize that it was through the great ated and strengthened by the retention of the Philippines. Roosevelt, whom the gentleman quoted here on the floor, that Mr. 'VIN'GO. The gentleman suggested., though, we would Panama was set off from the mother country much against have no right to assert or have any interest in eastern affairs the wishes of that country; but it was for the benefit of hu- if we withdrew from the Philippines. Does the gentleman then manity and progress and of economics and of commerce contend and say we were interlopers with our activities in the throughout the world. east before we got the Philippines?

The gentleman speaks of the veto of Go'\"ernor General 1\Ir. UNDERHILL. We have the right to do anything we Wood. I wish he had gone a little further and explained t:o can finish. you that the legislature of the Philippines, after sitting for Mr. WINGO. But what war? The gentleman says it wo-qld many months, had failed to pass a single piece of legislation invite war. Between whom, what war? until the day before they were to adjourn, and that they then Mr. UNDERHILL. I mentioned there would be trouble in lumped this whole mass of undigested legislation and passed the Philippines. I am not a prophet-nor is there any way of ·. it almo t en bloc and submitted it to the Go'\"ernor General. substantiating this statement-there would be immediate trou-and following out the duties of his office with regard to the ble in the Philippines. Japan and England both would like veto power .. be vetoed of this immense amount of legislation to own the Philippines. There may be some internal question, some 24 bills. He had urged the legislature throughout its nonpayment of dues, or killings, such as occurred only a short sitting to expedite its business, to follow the rules and regu- time ago, of some 50 Japanese, and that excuse would be taken lations laid down by the Jones Act, and submit this legisla- just as Japan has taken advantage of every excuse in China tion to him, and to keep a record of their proceedings. They to extend her domain. It may be by benevolent assimilation, had failed to do that, and so there was nothing left for the or only temporary occupation, but you would find before long Governor General to do but to veto these propositions which in it would be permanent occupation. effect would have brought a great hardship to a greater JlUID- Mr. WINGO. Between what nations will the war come, ber of people in the Philippine Islands. can the gentleman predict?

The gentleman speaks about the possibility of a war with Mr. UNDERHILL. I will leave that to any one's imagina-Japan. I think he and I really at heart hold the same. opin: tion. I would not want to involve anybody by any suggestion ions with regard to that. I have stated to him, and I think I might make. I would rather finish, if I may be permitted. he agrees with me, that there is no present possibility of Mr. WINGO. I do not think any statement that either the a wa: with Japal?-. I a~ree with him .that should there be a gentleman or myself could make wouid precipitate or prevent war, 1t would be 1mposs1ble for the Umted Stat~s Government a war between any of those nations, and I merely out of forces to hold the Philippines. I agree that It would be a curiosity wanted to know what nation would be apt to go to tragedy for the Government to attempt to hold the Philip- . war. · pines ; but if we lose the Philippines, we would lose nothing I l\1r. UNDERHILL. If the gentleman wants my uwn opinion, ?f advantage to us, particularly,. and Japan would gain noth- without further colloquy on our part, I will say it would inmg b~t a handful of trouble _ for herself, and that only tern- volve all nations of the earth before we got through with it. porarily, beca~se ?ne can n?t conte.mplate such a catastrQp.he Mr. BEEDY. I wish the gentleman would yield to the gen-wi~hout also m his own mmd realizmg the ultimate and m- tleman from Wisconsin who rose a moment ago. ev1table result. . . Mr. UNDERHILL. I would ask, please, that I may be

Now, we have the same agre~ments Wlth the grea~ ~at~ons ?f allowed to continue without interruption until I cover at least the. earth that he. suggested w~th re.gar~ to the Phillpp~nes m . part of what I desire to submit. Chma, and wh~t lS the re~ult m Chma · The gr~: natio~ of I I take issue with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. GILthe ear~b ~uaran~eed nonmterferenc~ in the affaus. of Ch:na, I BERT] on the question of a stable government in the Philip~n? Ghma m all Its a~es never was m. such a. chaotic state: as ! pines, and I would refer you to my last speech for proof that 1t 1s to-day, and the lives and treasure, particularly the L.~e- i they have not a stable government, that they have failed in blood of those people oyer there, ~ever was .held in ~o l~w. an practically everything that they have undertaken up to the este~m and safety. Cluna to-day IS a .seethmg mas.s of m::;ur- present time. But I want to substantiate my statement with recbon, of revolutioJ?-. of war, of ~amme and pestilence, a~ld the statements of others, notably that of a man who lived six yet ~11 the great nations of the earth have guaranteed her m- years in the Philippines. He says: tegr1ty. What does that guaranty stand for? If that guaranty stands in the way of Russia and the Soviet Government it I ha-re been able to observe carefully the wonderful improvement would rank with the German "scrap of paper." The soviets go made by our G<>vernment ln conditions. I have been able to art·ive at in there and incite and excite all of tliese disturbances, and positive conclusions of the possibilities to be atio1·ded by self-governwith their money and their power are trying to make of ChiiJa ment by the Filipinos through conversations with the middle-class a vehicle to establish throughout the world their pernicious natives, who were real fighters during the insurrection-those who form of Government. They have failed in the west, and now fought in the Philippines and not from Hongkong or Paris-and they they have turned their attention to these countless millions of were one and all of the opinion that it would be a mistake to turn people in China, and I hope that God will forbid any such to the helm a lot of half-baked Filipino politicians, who would govern catastrophe occurring to the world. The gentleman's view, the Philippines for their own selfish intere.sts only. however, differs from mine. My view is that us long as the Now, I quote from one who lived for 15 years in the Philip-United States has control in the Philippines and has its Govern- pines. He says: ment in the Philippines that it is a guaranty of peace in the Far East, but the moment we give up our jurisdiction over I know they are facts, as I resided in the islands for 15 years, came there we invite war not only for ourselves, but practically for in contact with the natives of aU dasses, and conversed with them in all the nations of the world. their <>wn language.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Will the gentleman yield for a questlJn? I agree with you that in the event of "independencia " the poor Mr. UNDERHILL. I will. "barefoot" would have no show whatever and would be exploited by Mr. LINTHICUM. I noticed the gentleman says the Gc.v- the "illustrados." Such a condition would be even worse than under

ernor General vetoed 24 bills. How many did he sign? 'Vhat Spanish rule. proportion was that to the whole number? Personally, I have no interests in the Philippine Islands, but have

Mr. UNDERHILL. About a 50-50 proposition. an interest in the welfare of the natives. Mr. WINGO. Will the gentleman yield? I quote the following-what a woman who has J'ust returned Mr. UNDERHILL. I will. 1\fr. WINGO. I was interested in the gentleman's last state- from the Philippines said:

ment that if we give up our jurisdiction of the Philippines it If It were not a cruel thing to do, the best way to cure the Filipinos would invite war. Between whom? of their desire for independence would be to grant them independence.

:Mr. UNDERHILL. The retention of the Philippines estab- Gov. Gen. Leonard Wood is loved by the Filipinos as a whole, but lishes our right in the Far East to mingle in their affairs, to hated by the "cheap, professional politicians" of the islands, who have present our views, to enforce them if necessary. !f we wlth- their own interests at heart instead of their country's. draw from the Philippines we have really no concrete interests Conditions are at a standstill in the Phillpplnes at present, as everyor concrete position. Consequently, why should we sit dt~wn body is waiting to see what Congress will do. The Congressmen who with Japan and England, France, Germany, and China-such visited the islands last summer refused to commit themselves one way as there is left of China-and try to dictate to them what their j or another, but did promise to bring the issue to a head at this session. policies shall be in the Far East? Now the country is waiting for that issue to materialize.

5092 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE The foregoing sre some of the observations made by Mrs. Caroline B.

Eager, writer, philanthropist, and world traveler, • • "' after a stay of r.even months in the Philippines, where she established a school at Baguio. Urs. Eager is taking back with her Miss Vicenta Jamais, a school-teacher in t!Je islands, and .lames Elver, an Igorote boy of 17, whom she intends to send to school in the States. Mlss Jamais hopes to enter the University o! Southern California.

About the Philippines? Well, I say to give them independence right now would be a cruel thing, but it would also swiftly teach them that they are better off under the control of the United States.

, There are many well-educated and intelligent Filipinos capable of running the country, but unfortunately these men are not in power nor in a position to get into power.

Tho e are almost the same words I uttered on the floor of this House a week or two ago. I read further:

The ·men wbo are " running" the country are a crowd of cheap professional politicians, who have nothing but their own interests at heart. They are grafters and abo.ut everything a low politician can be. To turn the Government over to them would be a cruelty, for they are little better than wolves in sheep's clothing. They are anything but repre entative Filipinos, and are the me tizos, or part Spanish. It is from this class that the politicians breed. They are cunning, cruel, and selfish . .

GEXERAL WOOD PRAil:>ED

Asked about General WCt9d, Airs. Eager declared that he is a fine man and that he bas done wonderful work in the Philippines. "The Filipinos themselves love and respect him for what be has done and i~ doing fo.r them. It is the other class who are bitterly opposed to him."

Now, this ladyJ Mrs. Caroline B. Eager, a well-known writer, traveler, and philanthropist, had been over in the Philippines for seven months. She had been establishing a school in Baguio with her own money, ller own funds. She was accompanied to this country by two Filipinos, one a boy and one a girl, whom she was bringing to this country to educate. Is she biased in behalf of the Philippines or against the Philippines? The evidence shows that she is doing everything she can to aid them in their march of pro!n'ess.

I do not know that any of these correspondents have had a financial interest in the Philippines. . I have purposely refrained from speaking of our financial interest there. I think that is the only unselfish position to take with regard to the people of those islands. Now, I quote a prominent lawyer of New York and former judge. in the Philippines: PROMINENT LAWYER IN NEW YORK FORYER .JUDGE IN THE PillLIPPINES

The American people have confidence in General Wood. The Jones Act in a large measure stripped our Government ot executive conh·ol of the islands. It is not realized that this act has prevented General Wood from doing little more than check the plundering by Filipino politicians of our insular treasury and our Governmentmanaged corporations in the islands, and this has been accomplished with one band tied and the ·other hand only partially free.

I

Now, listen to this: You will remember at the last session of Congress a group of .Ameri

can capitalists here in New York, who are closely and intimately identified with the Filipino political leader, procured the introduction into Congre s of a bill (the Fairfield bill) looking to the turning of the administration of the islands over to the Filipino politicians and ultimately to the granting of independence. This was a raw, crude, indefensible proposition from every standpoint * * •. The group of .American business men above referred to have conceived the view that their interests in the Philippines, which are large. can best be sub erved by placing the Filipinos in power and 11 working along with them." You know what this means. It may be defensible for Amel'ican business men to " work along with " adminlstrative offi.cers in Latin American Republics, or even in Cuba, but such a thing can not possibly be countenanced by our Government in connection wlth the adminlsb·ation of one of our own Territories.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman~ will the gentleman yield there?

Mr. UNDERHILL. Yes. Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Is that the so-called Fairfield bill? Mr. UNDERHILL. Yes. Ask some of the big business interests over there what is

meant by" working along with them"? I have had man after man tell me if we got this thing settled and agreed upon that the Philippines shall have their independence in 10 years or 15 years, we will make our fortunes before tbat time comes. They know they can work along with the politicians, and you know what that involves.

Mr. KNUTSON. M:r. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? :Mr. UNDEBffiLL. Yes.

llr. KNUTSON. The gentleman knows that the Fairfield bill was drawn with the assistance of the Insular Bureau and that it had the approval of the administration? .

1\fr. UNDERHILL. I do not always follow along with the Insular BureatL

Mr. WINGO. .Mr. Chairman, will· the gentleman yield? Mr. UNDERHILL. I would rather not yield to the gentle

man. He alway gets into a colloquy with me. Mr. WINGO. I did not know but that the gentleman might

have the facts upon which he ba es that statement. Mr. KNUTSON. When we held hearings on the Fairfield

bill all the bu iness men who appeared before the committee appeared in oppo ition. That is the record.

Mr. UNDERHILL. I take that statement for what it is worth.

Mr. GILBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. UNDERHILL. Yes. Mr. GILBERT. Every foreigner in the Philippines is unani

mous against independence, and the American contingent was so zealous in their opposition to the idea of Philippine independence that we caught them in many transparent misrepresentations.

Mr. UNDERHILL. oli, they all concurred with the statement that independence should come in a definite time, with the idea that they would make their fortunes before that time came.

Satement by a man who lived in Manila for 25 years, went out in 1898- as a volunteer soldier, and now is a prominent business man r~sident in California :

The continued agitation for independence, together with our seeming quiescent attitude, has created an atmosphere of uncertainty that stands, and has stood from the first, as an effective barrier to progress and development in the islands. The high-up Filipino leaders do not want it but feel obliged to keep up the cry in order to h<>ld their following. The responsible element among the people and praf,!tically all who know conditions as they are have a mortal dread of what would ensue were we to witlidraw, but what can they do?

The only info.rmn.tion they · have from offi.cial quarters is thnt .American tenure iS temporary, which they are forced to construe as meanil1g that the United States will, and possibly in the near future,. withdraw and relinquish control. It is not difficult to understand how they have be~ made to feel anxious to avoid antagonizing the native politicians. Confronted by the situation as be sees it the intelligent Filipino is forced to rea on that if to-day he openly opj>o es independe.nce and to-morrow it should come, the next day would see him crucified. .And lt is in this position that we have placed him.

There is not a plausible point in any argument again t our permanent retention ot the Philippines and there is every reason why we should retain them, from the standpoint of their interests as well as our own. It nattrrally follows that there must be some autborita· tlve declaration to the effect that they are American territory and will so remain. Action along these lines should have been taken long ago. Further delay is not alone foolish and unwarranted; it is not less than criminal.

Then I have another one from the editor of several midWest newspapers who spent many months in the Philippines. He said:

True there is a certain demand for independence in the islands, but it is mainly made by the native politicians, who would be freed of all restraint, and with what results you have but to remember the re-volutionary history of most tropic countries. •

In point of fact, tile Filipinos are not fitted for wisely using the partial governmental control which has already been given them, much less complete mastery of the islands. • •

However, the gravest question of all is our moral responsibility to this people, a people that we liberated from the tyranny of Spain and now propose to turn loo e to probably self-destruction or the questionable merc1es of Japan. We have done them much good; we should continue to teach and develop them ~ it is a plain case of moral obligation as well as good business. If we wish to avoid war about tbe Philippines, we should make them a permanent, integr·al part of the United States ; if we wish to invite war concerning them, a sure way is to throw them on their own childish resources, then attempt to protect them from other nations.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ~1r. UNDERHILL.. I regret I can not yield. Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman give the name of that

newspaper man? Mr. UNDERHILL. I will give it later. A prominent former

j~dge in the Philippines says : I am not thinking so much of General Wood but of his succe sor.

Unless. you succeed In what you are trying to do the President wi11 find it diffieult t<> get a good man to go out there as Governor General. No good man will go out there and subjeet him elf to the domination

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5093 of these politicians. It is a thankless task at best, and unless a man can see an opportunity to do some good and make some headway in advancing the Filipino people and in developing the islands he is n()t likely to accept the position.

I would not condemn these people or substantiate my own statements by quoting those who have visited the islands;

. tilose, perhaps, to whom might be charged some ulterior motive or some degr~e of prejudice, but I am going to condemn them out of their own mouths. I want to show, first, that Mr. Quezon is all that I tried to present to you when I spoke formerly on this question. He is unreliable ; he is unjust; he is unpatriotic ; and he is everything we can, with propriety, call him on the ftoor of this House. That man betrayed the one who was closest to him ; who had given him his opportunities, yet in 1921 he overthrew Mr. Osmena, who was really and honestly trying to bring the Philippines out of their chaotic condition. He disrupted his own party and wrote this letter to Osmena, of which h~ has never denied the authorship:

Since the government of the Philippines was established by virtue of the Jones law, the members of the legL<;lature, as well as the nacionalista members of the cabinet, permitted that you control and direct legislation in our country on the one hand and the administration of public affairs on the other. It may be said that practically all measures which received your approbation were transformed into laws, and no law could ~e approved without your consent. The department secr~aries, individually and collectively, guided their course of action under your inspiration and nothing that was against your opinion was ever done by them. Recommendations on appointments made by the secretaries to the Governor General were made upon your initiative, at least "1th your consent. Your veto in these cases was definite. • • • This practice put the executive and legislative powers of the government of the Philippines in the hands of one man, or at the utmost in the hands of two men. I say two, because all this was allowed to go on with my knowledge aud consent, or at least with my approval. ·

That is the way government in the Philippines is carried on by an autocratic oligarchy that will not allow the executive to perform his legal functions. They -interfere in every way, shape, and manner they, can with the development ofthe Philippines in order to attain their own selfish ends.

I wonder whether he had anything to do with the later dispatch received recently from the Philippines.

Mr. BEEDY. Will the gentleman tell us whether that letter was from Quezon to Osmena?

Mr. UNDERHILL. From Quezon to Osmena. I cut the following from the papers only recently :

PHILIPPINlil LEGISLATORS OMIT ALLEGIANCE OATH

(Special Cable Dispatch)

1\!ANILA, February 25.-That the enth·e lower house of the Phillppine Legislature, consisting of more than 90 members, failed to take the oath of allegiance to the United States in their last session was discovered by Benjamin F. Wright, insular auditor, dudng the authorization of salary vouchers yesterday.

It appears that the legislators did not take the prescribed oath necessary to quality for seats, but substituted a revised form of their own, a. concoction in which the clause referring to allegian.ce to the United States was omitted.

I wonder whether that had its origin in the busy brain of Mr. Quezon? I wonder whether that was one of his ways of undermining what Governor General Wood is trying to do? I wonder whether that was one of his ways of insulting the American people through an insult offered to their authorized representative, Governor General Wood?

Oh, they are subtle ; they are treacherous, and they can make their effect felt from afar. This is one of the things to bring ridicule upon the United States and to bring ridicule upon Governor General Wood. This is one of the cute, brainy things which my friend from Kentucky [l\fr. GILBERT] says they are able to do and that Governor General Wood can not meet. '

Now, what does the Debate say, the Philippine paper of independence? This is the paper that is widely read by the politicos and not much by anybody else, because in spite of the statement that 60 per cent of the people there are literate, the fact is that only about 35 to 40 per ce'nt in the islands are literate, and in spite of the statement, which is correct, that 90 per cent of those authorized to vote, do vote, but that statement is not followed up with the explanation that only 15 per cent of the population are eligible to vote. The idea of letting a half million politicos, a half million selfish men, and a half million men who have grown great on the meat upon which they have fed, to exploit eleven and a half or twelve million

others and do that in the name of independence. Well might we exclaim, " Oh, liberty, how many crimes are committed in they name! , This Debate says:

In view of the plans • • to despoil the senate of its power to confirm appointments made by the Governor General, • • • Pro tempore Senate President Clarin stated that if the bill announced by the cable is passed, he will im~diately introduce a resolution to the eft'ect that the senate be dissolved • • •. Pro tempore President Clarln states that a measure such as Is proposed would be a dis· approval of the proceedings of the senate, which could hardly be tolerated by the members of the senate, who compose the same • • •. These statements, which are as energetic as frank made by Senator Clarin, are noteworthy an.d important in that they issue from a man who will most probably preside over the higher body during the first. session of the next legislature. It is believed that when the next legislature conyenes President Quezon will still be in the United States.

·Now, gentlemen, listen to this: Senator Clarin • • • was called to Manila for a conference by

President Quezon, so we understand, probably to hand over to him the political "last will and testament." • • •

To hand over to one man, the president of the Philippine Senate, the last will and testament of another man who has usurped the powers and prerogatives of the authorized representatives of 110,000,000 American people.

President Quezon leaves for the United States, and naturally, as pro tempore senate president, be needs this conference to discuss what is to be done here during the absence of the former.

Kow, what is ·it that excited the president of the senate to declare that he would offer a resolution to dissolve the senate? I have no doubt that would be the best thing that could be done, but what was it? It was a telegraphed or written suggestion of my own. I do not · criticize unless I can offer· sqmething constructive in the place of that which exists. So after my visit to the Philippine Island& I made these suggestions, which I hope to see embodied in a bill, and I suggested them to some of my colleagues who were over there, not at the same time but later than I was.

}.,irst. Departmental secret.a.ries · are responsible direct to the Governor General and under his control and supervision. He should have a free hand in the appointment of these secretaries and they should not be subject to confirmation on the part of the senate.

The politicos will not confirm them unless they are politically of their own faith, and pledge their allegiance to the legislature dominated by the politicos.

Second. He should have full authority to appoint gover~ors of non-Christian Provinces without confirmation.

Refer to my remarks made a day or two ago and see what has been the result of trying to Philippinize these non-Christian Provinces; the blood that has · been shed and the horror. that has occurred. These people want American governors but the senate refuses to confirm any American nominated by the Governor General. The senate refuses to confirm any American no matter how friendly he may be, no matter bow able he may be, and no matter how altruistic or idealistic he may be. What an insult to the American public.

Third. There should also be a general declaration that American citizens who have the proper qualifications should be eligi-ble to hold any office or fill any position. .

I just make that as a declaration and not a part of the law, so that those who are willing to go over there, as Governor General Wood and others have, and give their services to the uplift and progress of these people and the progress of the world, may not be discriminated against by this gang in the Senate of the Philippines. ·

·Fourth, the Governor General should have the power to appoint all constabulary officers. These officers should not. in any way be dependent on political favor.

The Governor General is commander in chief of the force and appointments to it should be made by his order.

Why, the most ardent idealistic supporter of independence could not deny that that is a good proposition. The Governor General is commander in chief of the forces, and appointments to it should be made by his order.

The loss of pretty much all of the old American officers has weakened the force, and should it dr.Ut into politics the governor would be up against a very serious situation.

Just think of that situation. They are the protective forces of the Islands. Heretoiore they have been governed by American officers. They have reached a high degree of efficiency. They are 100 per cent in marksmanship and in drill. They are loyal, every man of them, at the present time, to the American flag, and hope to see it remain over the Philippines, but let

5094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARcrr 6 politics creep in there, the same as in the health department, in the banking and currency department, in agricultore, and in everything that it got into, then comes that insidious_ boring from within, that destruction of that which has been built up by hard labor, that subversion of civic. service to political preferment, and I will tell yoti it is a serious matter.

The CRA.ffiMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.

lUr. SHREVE. 1\!r. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 10 more minutes.

Mr. UNDERHILL. These are the suggestions which apparently brought about this later situation, where they refused to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, the Government that bas done so much for them in the past, and threatened to dissolve their legislative body, unless they are left at liberty to work their own will and pleasure upon these defenseless people.

These are mild propositions. Would any of you object to them under similar circumstances? I trust not. Give independence to the Philippines to-morrow, but as long as our flag waves above tho e Islands, for God's sake protect the representatives of the American people and your own dignity. Do not let them wipe their feet on you and take your licking lying down. [Applause.]

A lot bas been said here about General Wood and his militarism. I want to read you just one little paragraph from a letter that was sent to General Wood fi•om Cuiion. Culion is the refuge where all the lepers are segregated. I told you that when General Wood came to Manila, in spite of the law whicll required these cases to be segregated, he found over 300 of them upon the sh·eets of Manila. He was criticized for sending them to Culion. What do they say down there about him? Fourteen hundred of th'ese lepers sent this letter to General Wood, and I copied it from a report on the Philippines, not from General Wood :

We have full confidence that whoever may succeed you as chief executi~e of these islands be will not take any backWard step relative to the policy you laid out for Culion, but the world can never deny before you came our newly risen star of hope was not known then, the world cared very littie for our sufferings and miserable existence, and we were left only to take out our misfortune to the gaping jaws ot an open grave claiming us as its prey.

However, conditions have now changed considerably, tllanks to the timely arrival of your excellency, tbe acclaimed savior of lepers.

When you leave our shores please -be assured that you shall carry with you the everlasting gratitude and fond memories of these unfortunates who have found in your excellerrcy the angel and - conductor; their alleviation and hope for better days to come. We shall always treasure your most venerable name, and your benevolence shall serve always as our comfort in our bQurs of grief and distress.

Lastly, please allow us to wish you and your family the blessing ot God for your kind-heartedness and humanitarian and noble work so far bestowed upon us, and beg to remain, with due respect.

Signed by the chief and 1,400 of these poor, suffering people down on the island of Culion.

How many of you have ever visited a leper colony 1 I have. They have a community just the same as we have here in Washington; not so large in numbers, but nevertheless influenced by all of those emotions to which we are subject. They have their churches and their schools. They have their markets, they have their playgrounds, they have their athletic :fields, they have their amusements. They have everything except freedom and health. I visited a colony of lepe-rs, and the health officer asked if one of them would just say a word and offer any criticism or suggestion to the Congressman which might be of service to him or to them.

One woman about 45 years of age, I should judge. rose to her feet and in beautiful language thanked the Congressman, or thanked, rather, the Congress, through the Congressman, for it· interest,· and asked for a further extension of United States Health Department work. I was asked to respond to this. I did so and promised to the best of my ability to assist them whenever their case should co-me before mer for I certainly was filled with sympathy at their situation.

Gentlemen, that body of afflicted people, not long ago sen tenccd to death, but :EOW under their newly ru·isen star of hope, did they raise their voices, like the Savior on Calvary, who in his lamentations cried, "My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me." No; they a1·ose without previous arrangement, without suggestion of any kind, and lifting their faces to heaven, sang, " Praise God, from whom all blessings flow; praise Him all creatures here below."

My friends, I stood dry-eyed on the verge of eternity at the volcanoes, awed at the handiwork of God in the making of the world, but there I saw the making of a soul, and my emo·

tions were so stirred that I could hardly see out of my eyes. If General ·wood n{'ver did another thing in all his life to entitle him to a place in the hall of fame, to entitle him to a place in the hearts of all of his countrymen, that which he has done for the poor suffering people on the island of Oulion would entitle him to such honor. [Applause.]

I hold no brief for General Wood. I did not know him until I went to the Philippines. I only met him on two occasions · while I was there. I have never been a political supporter of General Wood. I have admired his work in the Philippines, in Cuba, and elsewhere, but let me tell you, my friends, what did strike me, and that was this. No red-blooded American citizen, I do not care what his politics may be, I do not care if he is even a communist, if he is a socialist, if be is a bolshevi.Bt, can. not help but admire the patience, can not help but admire the diplomacy, can not help but admire the indifference to insult that General Wood displays over there for the good of humanity and for the love he bears the American flag. [Applause.]

My frien~ it is not what you or I think of General Wood but what you and I may think about ourselves. To-day we pride ourselves and praise our Government not only in these halls but elsewhere. We tell what a wonderful people we are and how we lead the world, but if we lose our self-respeet, we rose everything. We may lose our money, we may lose our friends, we may lose our dear relatives and have only the sweet memory left, but when we lose our self-respect we lose everything. [Applause.]

My good friends, make a visit to the Philippines and ee the way that the politicos discredit the American :flag, the rights of the American people, and then if you are not stirred by the same emotions I was, you have lost your self-respect and everything that goes with it.

Now, my friends, I am through with this question until it comes up irr the proper form in Congress. I have an immense amount of information that I have gathered, and once again I repeat that I have no friends to reward, I have no enemies to punish, but I protest against this theory, this idealism, that would place twelve and one-half million people at the mercy of half a million of cheap politicians. [Applause.]

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman fi·om West Virginia [:Mr. TAYLOR].

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the- committee, two years ago when the appropriation bill dealing with the Bureau of Mines was up for consideration I took occasion to call attention to the great work that was being done by the Bureau of Mines, and I suggested in the interest of the bm·eau and in all fairness to the men doing that great work that there should be an increase in the appropriation in order that more of the same kind of work might be done. I recall that when the bill came up under the fiveminute rule $359,000 had been allowed for the investigation of mine explosions by the bureau. In the hearings Doctor Bain stated th~t they were falling down in the work of investigating mine explosions, and I moved to increase th'e appropriations to $400,000 that the good work might be e:xpandetl and contin11ed. My efforts failed by a very small vote.

Last year when this bill came up again I noticed with satisfaction that the item of $400,000, which I had asked for in the previous year, was at the time carried in the bill for the purpose of investigating mine explosions. I took occa ion to com· mend the Committee on Appropriations becau e of the fact that they did seem to have $400,000 in the bill for that pm-pos .

After the bill passed it was pointed out by an official of the Bureau of Mines that in reality the bill provided that of this sum of $400,000, $58,000 should be expended for personal services in the District of Columbia, and so in reality instead of there being an increase in that item, as there seemed to be, there was a decrease of $17,000 for this great work of carrying on investigations relative to mine explosions, which had caused great loss of life throughout the country.

I have prepared here a table, to which I call your attention, showing a list of deaths in States that produce coal. In 1925, for example, there was in the State of Alabama, from which my good friend Mr. OLIVER comes, 50 deaths from falls of roof and coal, 64 from mine explosions, and 47 from other causes. ma.king 161. So as you come down the line of States you will find that there have been in the last year 345 deaths causetl from mine explosions. I believe that the Bureau of :Mines should be given more money with which to investigate mine explosions in order that they may carry on the work in which they have been engaged for a number of years.

Some years ago it was a disputed que tion whether coal dust was explosive; but within the past few years after n study of the question experts have come to realize that coal _dust will eA"Plode, and during the past two o1· three years the

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5095 operators of the country have been furnished with bulletins showing how to prevent coal-dust explosions by rock dusting.

Mr. McKEOWN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Yes . .Mr. McKEOWN. I notice by the table that the deaths in

Oklahoma were 13 in 1925. Does the gentleman take into consideration the loss of 93 men in one explosion?

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. That disaster probably occurred after the first of this year. These figures were given to me by the Bureau of Mines, and I think they are authentic for the year 1925. While we are appalled at the great number of deaths which occur from mine explosions, we fail to take into consideration another prolific source of mine deaths. This chart shows that while we had 345 deaths from mine explosions in 1925, there were 1,075 deaths caused by falls of roof and coal. We talk about mine explosions because they make great news for the papers, and the attention of the people is riveted to mine explosions because they are played up by the newspapers; but while 345 deaths have been caused by that, there have been 1,078 deaths from falls of roof and coal. Almost 50 per cent of the deaths which occur in the coal mines of the country are due to the falling of roof and coal, and this prolific source of mine deaths has received no special consideration at the hands of the Bureau of Mines because that bureau is cramped for lack of funds. I had hoped that this year the appropriations for the bureau might carry some little increase, but I am disappointed to find that instead of there being an increase for this important work tbere are further decreases over the appropriations of last year. For example, there has been a decrease of $430 in the item of the investigation of mine explosions ; and for the operation of mines, rescue cars, and so forth, there has. been a decrease of $1,910; and in the it~m of mining experiment stations there has been a decrease of $25,300.

Mr. Cha:irman, I am just ~s much in sympathy with the economy program of the administration as any gentleman in the House, but I do not believe that we should attempt to economize at the expense of life and limb on the part of the men who go· into our mines and who do the useful work of the world in keeping the Nation warm and the wheels of industry moving ; and on behalf not only of the 34,000 miners who live in my district but the 87,728 miners who live in my State, and in behalf of the 731,162 miners who are employed throughout the United States I protest against the further curtailment of the appropriations for the Bureau of Mines, because that burea~ is engaged in a very important work.

Mr. SHREVE.- Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Yes. Mr. SHREVE. Is the gentleman aware of the fact that all

of the reductions that he has referred to were recommended by the Bureau of the Budget?

1\fr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. That may be true. The Bureau of the Budget follows the lead of those who set the fiscal program for this country, in an effort to make a great record for economy, but can we afford to make that record at the expense of the lives and the limbs of men who enter the mines?

Mr. SHREVE: The gentleman did not make any effort to present the facts to the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I did not. I have been led to believe by the statement of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON] on the floor of the House last year that we might expect further increases in behalf of the Bureau of 1\Iines, which was then under the Interior Department. I called attention at that time to the fact that we seemingly had an increase of some several thousand dollars for this specific purpose, and the gentleman stated at that time that we might reasonably expect to have other increases for this very important work. Yet I find that there has been no increase, but there has been a decrease in the amount of money which is allowed the Bureau of Mines, and I am informed by an official of that bureau that word had come down to them that this is to be a lean year in the matter of appropriations, and that they have not the money with which to carry on the experimental work they hope to do. It seems to me the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHREVE] should be interested in this matter because his State ranks next above mine in the production of coal and he has in his State 297,000 men employed in mining coal, and in his State during the year 1925 there was a total of over 700 deaths from the causes which I have cited.

Mr. SHREVE. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this thing. The policy of the subcommittee is to never exceed the estimates made by the Bureau of the Budget and in the aggregate we are $59,000 under the estimates. The

place for the gentleman to take hls trouble is to the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. That time has passed. The ·only thing that I can do now is to ta..ke it to this House and point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania thn.t his State is vitally interested in this matter, and to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OLIVER] that his State is vitally interested in this matter because he has 26,204 miners in his State.

Mr. BOX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Yes. Mr. BOX. Does the gentleman feel that a Member of the

House, with its power to make these appropriations, ought to be compelled to go to the Chief of the Bureau of the Budget to beg for appropriations? Does not . the gentleman feel that he is presenting this question to the people who have a right to consider it? ·

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I think so, sir. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, will the gentle

man yield.? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Yes. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. What amount does the State of

West Virginia appropriate for this same purpose? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Let me answer the gentle

man from Alabama in this way: I have the honor to represent in part a great coal-producing

State, and the fame of West Virginia coal has recently been proclaimed throughout the length and breadth of the country, not by those who produce it, but by those who consume it. Realizing its great importance in its contribution to the wealth of the Nation, my State makes generous appropriations for the upkeep of the State department of mines. Frequent inspection is made and safety practices and first-aid principles are instilled into the minds of the miners. The New River Co., operating 15 mines in my district, mining the celebrated New River smokeless coal, and employing about 4,000 Ihiners, it) one of the leaders in my State in first-aid, mine rescue, and safety work. Each operation has a first-aid and mine rescue team, and first honors have more than once been taken . at international meets. A safety director is employed and more than the usual attention is given to .safety and first ald. The monthly magazine has much to say about safety, and a blank sheet, on which miners are urged to make report of any unsafe practices or · conditions, is a special feature of each issue. The BerwindWhite Co., another large coal company, with a number of mines, has similar precautions for mine safety, and I find that -practically all of the operators of my section join willingly in an attempt to reduce mine accidents, yet in the face of all of this precaution accidents which take a toll of life are of daily occurrence in my State as well as elsewhere, and I believe that the remedy lies in a greater interest in the scientific study of these questions by the Bureau of Mines, and this greater interest can not be forthcoming on a curtailed appro"priation of money each time the bureau is to be provided for.

We in West Virginia~ the second largest coal-producing State in the Union, have a right to know what precautions are taken for mine safety in Pennsylvania, in Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, · and every other State where operators and mine departments are working hand in hand to reduce mine accidents. If you have any practices which will save the lives of our miners, we have a right to know it. If we have any safety practices which will save the lives of miners in other States, lt should be told to them. The Bureau of Mines, work· ing in conjunction with the State mine departments of all our coal-producing States, should be the one big clearing house for safe mining knowledge, and it can be if we will give it the money with which to function.

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. TAYLOR o:t West Virginia. I will. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. I think Members of Congress

recognize that this is a very important work carried on by the Federal Government, yet it is merely a cooperative service. The Federal Bureau of Mines has absolutely no authority in a State except such courtesies as the State extends. There have been no overtures by any State, so far as the committee knows, asking an increase of Federal appropriations. ·

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Perhaps true. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. It would be interesting if the

gentleman could all8wer what his own State has contributed to this very important work over which it has sovereign control?

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I regret that I can not give the exact figures, but must content myself with the answer previously given with respect to liberal appropriations being made. Yet in spite of liberal appropriations in my State and other States, we find dur-ing the past year 1,078 men wer~

5096 GONGEESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE MARcn 5. killed by falls of roof and coal. What a.re we going to do about it? I believe we should do something to enable the Bureau of Mines to make a scientific study of this very important question, cooperating with the several coal-producing States of the Union, in order that West Virginia may know what Pennsylvania is doing, and in order that Pennsylvania may know what Alabama is doing, and in order that Alabama may know what Ohio is doing, and all the coal-producing States of the Union, so that we can have information in order to lessen the great number of deaths.

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. There seems to be no doubt but what the Bureau of Mines has made studies and investigations along all the lines to which the gentleman has referred and has published many interesting and informing bulletins. Too often owners of mines do not carry out the recommendations ot Federal experts, and large judgments have been rightfully rendered against some mine owners for failure to carry out not only recommendations of the Federal Bureau of Mines but those of the States.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I will say to the gentleman that is not true in my State. I , think the Department of Mines and the mine operators of my State have met the Federal Government half way in every proposition. I want to call attention to this fact. In the last column of this table I have given the number of l\Iembers of the House from those States which produce coal, and I find that 270 Representatives here are from coal-producing States. If you eliminate those from the States which have less than 10,000 miners, I still find that there are 166 Members in the House of Representatives from States which have more than 10,000 miners, a number sufficient, if interested, in the miners in their respective States to protect them by giving sufficient appropriations to the end that they can investigate the causes of mine explosion and the causes of falling roof and coal.

Mr. WYANT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I will. Mr. WYANT. Has the gentleman made a study of the per

centage of .fatalities in other industries compared with that of the mining industry? It is a very interesting study.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. No; I have not. I wi!l say I came here to plead the cause of the miners to-day, because of the fact that I realize that mine accidents are increasing, and we want to do something that will avoid that.

Mr. SHREVE. If the gentleman will yield, in order to keeu the record straight I want to say this committee this yeai· increased the appropriation over last year by $43,390.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Will the gentleman shew me where that is indicated in the statistical table?

Mr. SHRIDVE. It is found on page 47 of the report of the committee. Another thing that I want to mention is that we got a great deal of assistance from the outside.

M:r. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Will the gentleman explain these figures to me?

Mr. SHREVE. Yes. Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. On page 47 of your com

mittee report, where increases and decreases in the bill are noted, as compared with the appropriations for 1926, . I find the following:

Bm·eat' of Mines Salaries and general expenses, decrease _____________________ $1, 320 Investigating mine accidents, decrease_____________________ 430 Operating mine rescue cars, decrease______________________ 1, 910 Mineral mining investigations, decrease_____________________ 680 Expenses of mining, experiment stations, decrease ____________ 25, 300 Oil shale investigations, decrease_________________________ 150

I get these figures from the report of the gentleman's committee.

Mr. SHREVE. Those are details. Here is one, which I submit for the information of the gentleman--

.Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Has there been an increase? If not, why is it not shown in the report?

Mr. SHREVE. There is $75,000 increase for helium alone in this bill.

Mr. TAYLOR of Wet Virginia. I am spealdng of coal mining, not the production of helium.

Mr. SHREVE. These matters have not been presented to us in detail, and have not been presented to the Bureau of the Budget. The gentleman is unfair in complaining of the action of the committee.

Mr. T.AYLOR of West Virginia. I am just calling attention to this fact--

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia has expired.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. May I have a little more time?

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman five minutes.

The CHaiRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for five minutes more.

Mr. TAYL-oR of West Virginia. I simply call the attention of the Members of this House to the fact that the number of mining disasters is increasing.

Quite frequently during the past 20 years I have stood amid weeping women and children about the drift mouth of the mine shaft and have seen the lifeless forms of hundreds of miners carried forth to their final resting places on the hillsides. I know at fu·st hand of the horrors of a mine explosion, of the hope, of the uncertainty, of the dread while loved ones on the out~ide waited through the long night for word of men impri oned by a mine explo ion, hoping against hope that by some miracle the earth which swallowed them the morning they went to work might, in its kindne s, give them back alive.

The life of a miner is a hard one, even at the best. Working far underground, always by artificial light, exposed hourly to the hazards of explo ion or the sudden and unexpected falls of roof and coal, he is entitled to every consideration at our hands and to every afeguard that we can throw about him by the expenditure of money or the enactment of law. I am for strict economy, but I can not consent to economize at the cost of a life of a single miner. There are other places where economy can be practiced without endangering life.

I think this chart should have an appeal particularly to men coming from States where as many as 10,000 miners are employed. The gentleman's State, Pennsylvania, employs the greatest number. In the bituminous and anthracite regions there is a total of 297,345. My own State of West Virginia em· ploys 87,728; the State of Illinois comes next, with 82,000; the State of Alabama has 26,204; the -State of Indiana bas 29,000 ; the State of Iowa has 12,809; the State of Kan as has 10,272; the State of Kentucky, 44,269; the State of Missouri, 9,500; the State of Ohio has 47,789; and so on.

The industry is a great one. It contributes much to the wealth of this great Nation of ours, and it seems to me that it is a poor policy and poor economy on the part of the Bureau of the Budget, in making its recommendation to the Committee on Appropriations, to recommend such low figures as these to the Committee on Appropriations. I believe that the lives of the men who go underground to dig the coal and keep this Nation going should be safeguarded in every partic'tllar.

l\Ir. WOODRUFF. 1\fr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Yes. ~fr. WOODRUFF. Is there anything in the law creating and

governing the Bureau of the Budget that prohibits the •Com· mittee on Appropriations of this House from increasing the appropriations above the e timates made by the Budget?

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I do not know of it. We can increase them and give them more money with which to carry on their investigations.

Mr. WOODRUFF. It seems to me the gentleman has made a very fine statement of the situation existing in the coal mines of the country, and it seems to me the House should increase the appropriation for the purpose of doing away with, or minimizing, if we can, these accidents that occur in the mines.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I agree with the gentleman from Michigan. This House has control of the money, and it seems to me in the interest of these men who toil and whose lives are not very rosy anY.how we should do everything we pos ibly can to help them along.

Mr. WOODRUFF. The gentleman has called our attention to the fact that accidents in mines have been increasing.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Yes. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. WOODRUFF. During the many years that I have takeu occasion to observe mine accidents I have not seen as many or of as horrible a nature as those which have occurred in the last few months. I think it is outrageous for Congress to leave anything undone that could prevent, or help to prevent, these disastrous accidents.

1\fr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. The gentleman is quite right about it.

Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I will. . Mr. SHREVE. I desire to say that the small items men

tioned by the gentleman simply have to do with the equalizing of the forces. For instance, in one place there was a clerk at $1,300 that was let go, but the item of $25,000 for mining experiment stations has received consideration. I want to read from the hearings.

Mr. LYON. This appropriation provides funds for the following types of work:

Mine explosions and fires occurring in the United States a.re investigated to determine the causes and other pertinent facts regarding them with a view to preventing similar occurrences in the future. Suppht·

1~26 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5097 mentnry studies are made in the laboratory or at the experimental mine.

'Through cooperation with the British Government the Bureau of Mines maintains observers in the laboratories of the British Safety in Mines Research Board and the board maintains observers in the laboratories of the bureau, thus the work of each becomes available to the other and tor an expenditure of a small sum the bureau receives the full benefit of about $200,000 spent by the research board tn the investigation of mine accidents.

Now, it is all done within the bureau. The recommendations came to this committee from the Bureau of the Budget and from the Department of Commerce and we have carried out to the last letter the idea as presented to us. I say again U is proper, and I yield to no man in my sympathy for those men who go down into the ground and dig the coal that warms the firesides of the Nation, because we have more of them in my State than in any other State that I know of, and possibly I know more about it than some of the other gentlemen. I have had something to do with niines and mining for a good many years and I am in full sympathy with an~thing that tends to protect these men. But here was a situation where no one came before the committee and asked for $1 extra. The Bureau of the Budget made certain recommendations and the Secretary of Commerce made certain recommendations, so there was nothing left for us to do but fo1low their recommendations. As I say, there has been no demand that the sum should be increased. I want the me:rp.bers of the committee to understand that.

1\Ir. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I would like to say that I called at the Bureau of 1\Iines, and I asked whether there was enough money appropriated in the present bill for the Bureau of ·uines. This answer came back to me: " What sort of an answer would you expect to a question like that?" I said, " Of course, I know you are precluded from asking for more meney, because of the fact that the fiscal policy has been arranged by those higher up." However, they told me at the Bureau of Mines that word had come to them that this would be a lean year in the Bureau of 1\Iines, and that they were to cut the appropriations to a minimum. They also said that they could not do the kind of work they had hoped to do because of the fact that they were limited as to money. Of course, I am not blaming the gentleman from Pennsylvania at all. Be took his figures from the Budget; but I do say that the men who were in charge of the Bureau of Mines are better authorities as to what is needed than some others.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia has again expired.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield me some more time so that I may answer him further?

Mr. SHREVE. l\Ir. Chairman, I yield the gentleman five additional minutes.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I would like to say that the Bureau of Mines, of course, must take what is suggested to them by those higher up in the Department of Commerce. I am not blaming this committee at all ; I am simply calling the attention of the Members of this Bouse to the fact that deaths from mining accidents are on the increase and that we should do something in order to avoid that if it is possible so to do.

1\Ir. SHREVE. The gentleman made certain statements about some remarks that have come to him about these appropriations. I think it would be only fair to tell the Bouse whether those remarks were made by the Secretary of Commerce or by the Director of the Bureau of Mines.

Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia. No. I went to the Bureau of Mines. I went to the fountainhead for my source of information. It is enough for me to say that I talked to a gentleman at the Bureau of Mines, and I think I talked to the proper official. I do not care to mention any names on the floor of the Bouse, but I do wish to say that the Bureau of l\Iines.needs more money.

Mr. SHREVE. Does the gentleman know of any bureau that does not need more money? , 1\Ir. TAYLOR of West Virginia. ·well, I know of bureaus that are getting more money than the Bureau of Mines and bureaus not concerned with human life, as is the Bureau of Mines.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Will the gentleman from West Virginia yield to me in order that I may ask a question of the chairman of the committee?

1\Ir. TAYLOR of West Virginia. I will. Mr. WOODRUFF. The gentleman's explanation of the rea

son which led the committee to limit this appropriation is very clear to me, and I think it puts the committee in a fair light before the membership of the House. The chairman read a quotation from a letter written by the Sec~etary of Commer<:e,

wherein he stated that this work would be carried on in some other way. Now, did the committee attempt to elicit from any of the witnesses information as to just how this work was supposed to be carried on, as indicated by the Secretary of Commerce?

Mr. SHREVE. Yes; that is ceramic work and is work that is moved over into the Bureau of Standards. You will remember that the Bureau of Mines has never been in the Department of Commerce until this year, and there were certain acthitie3 moved over to the Bureau of Standards, where they properly belong, and where they will be conducted from now on. I think sufficient appropriations were made to take care of those activities. -

l\fr. WOODRUFF. Can the chairman tell the Members of the B ouse just what appropriations have been made or are contemplated for this work in the Bureau of Standards ?

1\Ir. SHREVE. It was the entire ceramic work that they were doing in the Bureau of Mines, whatever that appropriation was.

1\Ir. WOODRUFF. What appropriations were made for this purpose?

Mr. SHREVE. The same as for the last year. 1\Ir. WOODRUFF. There has been no increase? Mr. SHREVE. No. Here was the situation: We found, and

we have been finding, as I said to the gentleman, numerous activities that are interlocking.

Here would be two activities doing the same thing, and we found in the case of ceramics the Bureau of Standards was doing a certain work and the Bureau of ::\lines was doing the same kind of work. There was no use carrying on the two activities beeause there would be duplication. We found such things last year also, and the gentleman from Michigan [lUr. CRAMTON] and I talked the matter over and made some adjustments at that time. This is simply doing away with a certain service that is already being done in some other bureau. All of this work will go on in the Bureau of Standards the same as it has been going on in the Bureau of Mines.

Mr. WOODRUFF. I agree entirely with .the chairman that it is in the interest of economy to consolidate these activities, but at the same time I hope the Bouse either has or will grant an increase of appropriations for this work, because, as the newspapers tell us from day to day, the loss of life as a result of accidents in mines is constantly increasing. There was never known in all the history of mining, so far as I have known of it, as many accidents of this character as have happened in the last few months.

1\ir. TAYLOR of West Yirginia. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this statistical table will be put in the RECORD along with my extension of remarks, and I invite the attention of all the Members of the House to this table because I believe it ooows the condition accurately and concisely. [Applause.]

The table referred to is as follows : Ooal-mine deaths, 19~-25

Num-Brralls 0 roof, By gas All Total, Totil, rock, or .coal other all all coal,_ dust. ex- causes, causes, causes,

ber of Repreminers senta-

and pii- plos10n, 1925 199-5 19"24 em- tives in

lar coal, 1925 1925

ployed, HoUS6 1925

------,---1------------t-Alabama ________ ------- 50 64 47 161 77 26, 204 10

6 3 4 13 9 3, 771 7 Arkansas ______________ _ Colorado ______________ _ Georgia and North Car-

31 4 21 56 44 12, 469 4

Ill~~i~~-~=============== -----6i- ~ 47 : 17~ 82, ~~ Indiana_________________ 27 60 16 103 48 29, 149 Iowa.------------------ 13 -------- . 6 19 15 12,809 Kansas_________________ 5 3 3 11 7 10,272

Kentucky-------------- l1l 34 3!l 1!l4 146 44,269 Maryland______________ 8 -------- 4 12 9 5, 168

~t~~~t:::::::::::::: ~ ======== ~ 1~ ~ ~: ~~ Montana_______________ 3 -------- 3 6 15 3, 705 New Mexico____________ 12 -------- 6 18 16 3, 525 North Dakota__________ 2 -------- 4 6 3 1, 143 Ohio____________________ 48 -------- 47 95 98 47,789 Oklahoma______________ 3 4 6 13 12 7, 811 Pennsylvania (bttumi- I p~;:llvaiifa--(a.iitilra:- 181 122 309 349

297,345 cite)__________________ 170 43 187 400 496

Tennessee______________ 10 13 3 26 22 12,226 Texas___________________ 2 -------- -------- 2 -------- 3, 112 Utah___________________ 17 -------- 7 24 199 3, 725 Virglnia________________ 34 -------- 12 46 39 12, 418 Washington.----··----- 16 5 • 11 32 26 5, 454 West Virginia__________ 253 40 185 478 . 514 87,728

22 25 13 11 8

11 6

13 16 2 1 3

22 8

36

10 18 2

10

Wyoming______________ 10 1 6 17 69 6,674 1

Total _____________ I:078 345!797 2,230 -;,300j731.162j-;Q

5098 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-HOUSE MARon 5 Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 25 min

utes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. GRIFFIN], a member of the committee. [Applause.]

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman ancl gentlemen, seven years ago there was injected into the organic law of our land a police regulation which, like a foreign substance in the human body, has induced a continuous ferment analogous to a disease in the body politic. Palliatives are of no avail. There can be no cure until the cause is removed.

There may seer1 to be no prospect of removing the eighteenth amendment, but I confess very candidly that I would like to see it repealed. I would like to see it eliminated because I believe it was introduced into the Constitution of the United States upon a basically erroneous theory. Look at it; observe its phra ing. It is, in short, a police ordinance put into the American Constitution; an instrument which was fundamentally intended only to create the framework of go"Vernment and to pre~cribe the powers of its members.

I llnve heretofore said that the eighteenth amendment was the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States which curtailed human liberty. All the other amendments to the Constitution were intended to enlarge human liberty, to extend individual rights; but this amendment, of all of those added to the original instrument since its adoption, is the only one which curtails, diminishes, and circumscribes individual liberty. In my speech on July 8, 1919, when the Volstead bill wa. before the Hou e, I summarized the situation in the following language :

This amendment is clearly antagonistic to the spirit of the Constitution, the principles which governed its creation and guided its gradual modification for over 130 years. It has broken ground in a new direction, establishes a new precedent which is fraught with many dangers, and may lead to efforts tn the future to engraft upon our Constitution further trespasses upon personal rights. It is an unhappy augury of the future that we have abandoned the wise maxim of our forefathers that the Federal Government may enlarge but shall not diminish individual liberty.

I know I shall be charged with being a nullificationist, but I base my views on strictly philosophic and patriotic grounds. I have arri"Ved at my conclusion through a careful study of the origin of our Government. I commend to my colleagues who are active in the agitation for the preservation of the prohibition idea a study of the debates in the constitutional convention which framed the organic law of our land. I urge them to read the Federalist and to look into the political philosophy upon which our Constitution was built.

ELEllENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIO:N

This is the point I emphasize, the Constitution of the United States was something new in the history of free government. It was a tremendous "Venture, undertaken by broadminded, able men familiar with the tribulations of democracies in past ages. They were seeking a basic law for the government of a democracy, and when they got down to that task they saw that they must concern themselves chiefly with fundamentals. First, the framework-how the country should be governed ; the character and duties of it-; Executive. Second, its parliamentary system, whether it should be a single chamber or bicameral, and you will observe that they were careful in circumscribing and limiting the powers that should be given to the Congre~s, taking care that the reserved rights of the people and of the States were not encroached upon. 'rhird, the judiciary-and that was the least elaborated of them all, because they felt that the dangers of free government were to be found chiefly in the possible encroachments of the legislative and executive branches. They stuck rigidly to the fundamental idea that the Constitution should contain only a framework of government, prescribing and limiting with meticulous care the powers that were intrusted to its particular branches.

They studiously avoided the introduction into the instrument of anything in the nature of substanti"Ve law, with the result that when the Constitution was finally framed and submitted to the Colonies a great agitation ensued throughout the country because they had failed to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Great men of the day opposed it, among them Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton's opposition was finally quelled by a more careful study of the document, which, indeed, he undertook to defend in the Federalist, along with 1\ladison.

THE BILL Oli' RIGHTS .

The sentiment throughout the 13 Colonies was that the organic law of the country should have stipulated specifically within its confines reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights. A bill of rights has been characterized as a contract between the king and his peopl~ containing the reservation of rights not surrendered to tbe crown. Such was the Magna Charta which was wrested

from King John, an agreement that the subjects should be secure in their lives, in their liberty, and in their property, enumerating ce1·tain safeguards. So likewise was the petition of right drawn fr.9J!l Charles I in the beginning of his reign, only to be later repudiated. But, mark you, the repudiation did not destroy the right. That survived all encroachments. Then there was the declaration of rights, which was assented to by the Prince of OraDge in 1688, before the people would intrust him with the crown. For double secm·ity it was afterwards put in statute form as an act of Parliament, commonly called the Bill of Rights. But that, in my opinion, did not add one iota to its value.

The basic covenants securing individual life liberty and property, the trial by jury, and the other safeguards df the Bill of Rights were always considered as the fundamental unwritten law of England. King John and Charles I did not violate written laws. They violated the unwritten, basic lnw of the land. In England the unwritten law is the constitution and that constitution is the Bill of Rights. Parliament ca~ pa s no law in violation of the Bill of Rights.

However, the sentiment for the injection of the Bill Gf Rights into our Constitution grew apace. They bad the experience of King John and Charles I before them and they wanted the "contract to be in writing," as it were. In many of the Colonies, when the question was submitted, the assent of the legislatures of the Colonies was secured only upon the promise and agreement that the Bill of Rights would be in erted in the Constitution by the pa sage of an amending resolution, so tbat it could be submitted to the State legislatures at Lheir lirst meeting after Congress had taken the action. Yet Hamilton took the view that it was not necessary to put in the basic law of the land a bill of rights. His argument upon that point is worth our consideration to-day, becau~e it displays the rem~~..rkable acumen of the man, his wonderful wisdom, and his farsightedness in foreseeing consequences.

HAMILTON'S VIEWS

I want to read you Hamilton's argument in the Eigttyfourth Federalist. He said :

I go further and afllrm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They W\>uld contain various exceptions to powers not granted, and on this very account would afl'ord a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

Now, mark the keenness of this reasoning: For why declare that things shall not be done which tilere is no

power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press s.hall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

Continuing, he says: I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulat

ing power; but it is evident that 1t would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not t;> be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights. (The Federalist, No. LXXXIV, p. 439, McLean ed., New York, 1788.}

Notwith tanding Hamilton's argument the Bill of Rights was inserted in the Constitution. Now observe what bas happened. There was no amendment introduced or adopted which threatened to confirm or justify Hamilton's fears until we come down to the eighteenth amendment, the amendment which embodies in its terms the features of a sumptuary act restraining individual liberty and prescribing the things that may not enter into the diet of the people.

THE OLD SUMPTUARY LAWS

The old sumptuary laws of barbaric days prescribed that the mechanic had to keep his place ; he could not wear broadcloth or silver buckles on his shoes. If he was a carpenter he had to wear the insignia and apparel of his trade. If he was a shoemaker he had to adhere to that. He had to live within his means and keep his place-a good thing in itself ; but a bad thing when coerced by law. But those ideas of medieval days have passed into the darkness of oblivion. Civilized men have abandoned them, and no king or potentate, nor any government, by mere majority of mass, or power, or strength can ever successfully or for long revive them.

The amendment was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and by a 7 to 2 decision the amendment itself

1926 CONGRESSIONAL _RECORD-HOUSE 5099 and the Volstead Jaw predicated upon it were affirmed and held valid. Three of the judges wrote separate- concurring opinions and two wrote dissenting opinions. Now observe the import of thi::; decision. The Supreme Court substantially holds that a guaranty contained in the Bill of Rights can be superseded, nullified, or repealed.

DANGER AHEAD

With thi decision as a precedent a constitutional amendment: providing for the establishment of a State religion would be perfectly valid. If Hamilton's advice had been followed and the Bill of Rights, precious as we have deemed its guarantie in the past, had r~oot been added to the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States would not have dared to l10ld that the fundamental rights of mankind could be repeale1l by a constitutional enactment. That is a power that is not given Congress, to courts, or to majorities. But by t~is decision, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and trial by jury-all are imperiled.

The object of the Bill of Rights and of all of its safeguards was to pre erve human liberty safe from coercion, and to uphold it against the mandates of kings, as well as from the danger of oppres ion by a temporary majority.

If this precious Bill of Rights had not been a part of the Constitution it never would have been held subject to amendme,nt under the fifth article of the Constitution. But, as the case now stands, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and, ],ike the main body of the framework, is subject to amendment the same as its other provisions.

I was ·in hopes that my friend from Georgia would be here to-day, because I have a few comments to make with respect to his uniform attitude in discussing this subject before the House. I will try to avoid deprecatory language or anything that might provoke asperity. I am not goi.ng to criticize the man ; it is my purpose only to criticize his ideas. He was very much flustered yesterday over the charge that the Anti-Saloon League or the prohibitionists were guilty of misrepresentations.

Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield 7 1\fr. GRIFFIN. For a question. Mr. BLANTON. W-hat brought that about was this. 1\fr. GRIFFIN. I know what brought it about. Mr. BLANTON. A very smart woman announced herself as

a candidate for Congress in a certai,n district and said she was wet and wanted wine and beer. We had as a result a resolution to investigate the Anti-Saloon League and all that came afterwards.

1\Ir. GRIFFIN. I suppose so; but the contest has been going on for a long time and throughout the controversy there has bee,n evidence of a series of misrepresentations. I would put the misrepresentations of the Anti-Saloon League into four classes:

FIRST CABDINAL MISREPRESE~TATION

First and foremost among the misrepresentations is their name, "The Anti-Saloon League." In the beginning, before prohibition was adopted, they could perhaps justly claim the title "Anti-Saloon League," but sLnce the eighteenth amendment has been adopted I leave it to the fair mind of any gentleman here whether they can be justly called the "Anti-Saloon League."

Mr. BLANTON. Will the distinguished gentleman yield further? If, as a matter of fact, there are saloons, not like the old ones but like the new ones, in Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and in New York, has not this organization a right to still retain its name against the places that dispense intoxicating liquor?

Mr. GRIFFIN. They are not saloons? Mr. BLANTON. The saloons have been put out of business.

If there are places that dispense intoxicating liquor, the organization has a right to denominate itself the "Anti-Saloon League."

Mr. GRIFFIN. That situation is the one I want to emphasize.

Mr. BLANTON. If the gentleman has a more appropriate name, I am sure the organization would adopt it.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am ready to give it to the gentleman right now: "Total Abstinence League," because its program is : " Total abstinence for everybody," no matter how they feel about it personally. I do not mean to go so far as to admit that they carry it out themselves in their personal lives, but they want total abstinence for others. That is their aim. They want to make this country absolutely dry; they want to not only close the saloons but they want to close the borders ; they want to patrol the coasts to prevent the possibility of any drop of the hated stuff entering this beloved land of ours.

Mr. BLANTON. They want to uphold the fundamental law of the fand, which is the Constitution. ·

Mr. HILL of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. Mr. HILL of Maryland. Ur. Chairman, the gentleman from

Texas [Mr. BLANTON] the other day on the floor of the House claimed to have personal knowledge of over 400 of what he called saloons in Baltimore.

Mr. BLAl~TON. No; not personal knowledge. I said that I had evidence of the existence of 50, and that one colleague claimed there were 400 there. But I did not claim that I had personal knowledge of them.

Mr. HILL of Maryland. Please do not interrupt me. I am not yielding to the gentleman.

Mr. BLANTON. I do not want the gentleman to misquote me. He will remember that I asked from the floor whether our colleague from Maryland [Mr. LINTHICUM] would deny that there were 50 saloons there, and he would not deny it.

Mr. HILL of Maryland. The gentleman claims to have knowledge. I do not know whether it is personal or not; but when a gentleman gets up on the floor of the House and says that he knows of such and such things existing, we assume he knows it from personal knowledge, and especially when the gentleman is a gentleman of such thoroughness of investigation as the distinguished gentleman from Texas. If the gentleman from Texas has any reason to believe that there are in existence what he calls saloons, is it not his duty under the Constitution, which he has sworn several times to support, to report that information which he claims to ha-ve to the local United States district attorney?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think he ought to put it in the RECORD. Mr. HILL of Maryland. Yes; I think he ought to put it into

the RECORD. Mr. BLANTON. Then I will put one in the RECORD. If the

gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HILL] will go to Baltimore this evening and go to what is called "Abe's Sea Food Place," for that is the sign in front of the cafe, he will find that in front there is a cafe but in the rear there is a saloon, and that he can get there all the whisky he wants at 50 cents per drink.

l\fr. HILL of Maryland. How does the gentleman know it? Mr. BLANTON. I have been there. An officer in the United

States Army took me there to show me; but, of course, I did not drink anything. But the Army officer did, and he paid 50 cents per drink for it.

Mr. HILL of Maryland. Will the gentleman yield for just one brief statement? The gentleman from Texas states that he has been to a saloon in Baltimore. Why does he not tell the district attorney what he learned there, if he learned any· thing?

Mr. BLANTON. If the gentleman knew all that I have been telling the authorities he would know more than he could hold under that No. 8 hat which he wears.

Mr. HILL of Maryland. Why does not the gentleman go and tell it to the United States district attorney?

1\fr. BLANTON. I have been telling lots of information from this public forum. I am a legislator, not a detective or public informer.

Mr. HILL of Maryland. I have never seen any results from it.

:Mr. COOPER of Ohlo. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. Mr. COOPER of Ohio. I do not know whether they have

any saloons in Baltimore or Philadelphia or New York, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON] says, but I did notice in the p.ewspapers a few days ago that in the city of New York they have substituted the bathtub for the old bar room.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I come now to the second cardinal misrepr_esentation of the Anti-Saloon League.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. GRIFJ<''IN. I wonder-if I could get a little more time? M:r. OLIVER of" Alabama. The gentleman will remember

that he ga-ve up five minutes of his time yesterday to the gentleman from Georgia [1\fr. UPSHAW].

:Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; I did, in the fullness of my heart. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. I have a number of requests, and

since the gentleman asked for only a limited time, I can yield him only five minutes more.

Mr. GRJF]j'IN. That will give me an opportunity to proceed with my euumeration.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield the gentleman five minutes additional also.

SECOND CARDI~AL i\HSREPRESE=-<TATION

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will ask gentlemen not to take up any more of my time, please. The second cardinal misrepresentation of the Anti-Saloon League, or Total Abstinence League,

5100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ~URCH 5 · which I feel sure they would prefer to adopt now, is that the eighteenth amendment was fairly and justly adopted.

I charge that the eighteenth amendment was not fairly adopted. .At the time it was submitted there were 32 States out of the 48 States that had prohibition in their constitutions, and I .;ubmit to any fair-minded man whether he would care to go Lefore a jury of 48, with 32 men in the box obviously biased against him. It was not a fair submission to the American people.

Mr. OA.RTER of Oklahoma. The gentleman will admit that it was submitted in accordance with the Constitution?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes; but I am dealing with principles of ethics that are eternal. . ·

Mr. llUDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. Mr. HUDSON. Would .the gentleman mean that it should

have been submitted before any of the 32 States had pro-hibition? '

TEITRD CARDI. AL MISREPRESENTATION

Mr. GRIFFIN. No. That"is a long story, and I can not go into it now, but I shall answer that later. The third cardinal misrepresentation of the .Anti-Saloon League is calling their opponencs "wets." That is an odious term. - I do not like it personally. I do not like being put in that category, because I consider that I am a reasonably temperate man and always have b~en. I do not like to be classified with men by a term that is odious and suggestive. of drunkenness and carousing and ribaldry and all sorts of mean and low things, and I think that while it may be justifiable in the heat of argument to use a term of that kind, I submit to the .Anti-Saloon League that if they want to make friends with the .American people they should abandon that odious ter:m of "wet."

FOURTH CARDL~AL MISREPRESE:<fl'ATION

. The fourth cardinal misrepresentation of the Anti-Saloon League ,is that the" wets" are in league witli the brewers. We are not in league with the brewers. We are fighting. this battle on higher ground. We do riot want to bring back the saloons.

They have no place in our economy, and they were fast disappearing at the time the eighteenth amendment came into existence. Now if the wets, so-called, want to be nasty, they could retort that the drys are in league with the bootlegger. Let me show some figures in reference to bootlegging. They will prov~ very intere ting to the gentleman from Texas, and I know to the gentleman from Georgia; but before I get to that, permit me to refer to Georgia.

GEORGIA'S EXPERIE~CE

Georgia adopted prohibition in 1733-August 11, 1733. But the stills flourished, and bootlegging went on to such an extent that John Wesley, founder of Methodism, was brought into the country to see what he could do by personal uasion. After working 16 months in Georgia, he was forced to abandon it as a bad job.

In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1924, the reports of the Treasury Department show that over 17,000 illicit distilling plants were closed up or captured in Georgia. I am going to put into the RECORD a summary from the Treasury's statistics for the last fi~cal year concerning intoxicating liquors.

Mr. LANKFORD. Will the gentleman yield? How many were closed up in New York State in the same time?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will give the figures in New York State, but I am gofng to honor Georgia first. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, there were illicit distilleries and distilling apparatus seized as follows: There were 737 distilleries, 1,472 stills, and 549 still worms, and 16,389 fermenters-in Georgia after 200 years of prohibition.

-Mr. HERSEY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRIFFIN. Take New York-I will giv-e Maine in a

moment.

Mr. HERSEY. I hope so, bu£ I wanted to ask a question about Georgia. Will the gentleman answer me?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I will if I can get more time. Mr. HERSEY. I wanted to know whether the gentleman

approves of that. Does the gentleman approve of doing that? Mr. GRIFFIN. Seizing stills? Mr. HERSEY. Putting them out of business. Mr. GRIFFIN. Certainly I do. But the vast quantity of

stills in existence in the State of my friend from Georgia after 200 years of prohibition ought to teach orne lesson. I shall show what happened in New York State, with a population over three time as great as Georgia. In New York there were seized 260 distilleries, 106 stills, 13 still worms, and 1,146 fermenters. There were 13 still worm as again t 549 in Georgia. There were 1,146 fermenters as again t 16,389 in Georgia, and so on down all along the line. Now, take the other States contiguous to New York; for instance, the State of my friend from Maryland. Let us see tho e figure .

Mr. LANKFORD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRIFFIN. In Maryland 37 distilleries were seized, 1G2

stills, and only 2 fermenters, and the gentleman from Maryland [:Mr. !IILL] had one of them. [Laughter.]

Mr. HILL of Maryland. Will the gentleman yield for an observation? I would like to say in the case of the United States against Hill, affirmed in the case of Eisner, plaintiff in error, against the United States, that fermenter was returned back to me and held that I acted in entire legality.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I hope the figures will be corrected. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has again ex-

pired. Mr. OLIVER of .Alabama. I yield the gentleman two min-

utes. Mr. GRIFFIN. Yesterday a triumvirate was mentioned,

consisting of_ the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman from Massachusetts, or rather the two gentlemen from Massachusetts. Now, h~t us see what the figures were for the seizure of illicit distilling machinery in Massachusetts. There were no distilleries whatever seized. [Applause.] There were 565 stills, as against 1,472 in Georgia. There were 277 still worms, as against 549 in Georgia. There were 436 fermenters, as against 16,389 in Georgia. [Applause.] But wait till you see the figures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1925. In the e Georgia surpasses herself. Her bootlegging distilling plants ran up to 31,031, as against 1,658 in New York and 443 in Ma sachu etts.

Mr. LANKFORD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. LANKFORD. Will not the gentleman give a list of

those cases ·where the law has been enforced and not those cases where the law has not been enforced?

Mr. GRIFFIN. The law had to be broken before it could be enforced.

DRY STATES DRIPPD<G WE'l'

The gentleman fails to get the import of these figure , which show that the law is more generally violated in the ury tates than it is in the s<realled wet States. In other word , the wet States are really dry, while the dry States seem to be dripping wet. (See table on next page.)

Mr. BLANTON. The gentleman is surely in favor of the antinarcotic law, which, according to his interpretation, interferes with the per:::onal liberty--

1\Ir. GRIFFIN. The limitations on per onal liberty are clearly defined, and ought to be kept in the gentleman's mind, but I have no time to go into that. In brief, howev-er, I will say that the drug traffic is regulated by an act of Con~ress, and so could the liquor traffic hav-e been regulated if we had only given Congress the power. It was not necessary to tack .n. sumptuary amendment on the Constitution to effect your object~

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has again ex-pired.

EXHIBIT A

Summar11 of prohibition ffl/oru:ment durtno fiscal year ended Junt 30, 19t5

State

Alabama ______ --------------------------------------------Arir;ona _________ ------------------------------------------A rlransas __________________________________ ---- ___ - -- _____ _ California ____ ---------J---- -----_ ----- ___ ------------ ___ _ Colorado __ ---------------------------------------------Connecticut __________________ -------------~-_-------------Delaware _________ -----------------------------------Dls.trict of Columbia ___ ----------------------------------Maryland_----- __ ---------------------------------- ____ _ Florida _________________ ----_----- __ --- ____________ •• ---- __

G eotiia ••• __ •• _ --···---· ------ --·· ---•••••••••• --··- --- ----

lllicit distilleries and distilling apparatus seized

Population Distilleries

2,34'r,295 610 333,273 119

1, 750,995 135 3,426,536 3

939,376 6 1,380,585 8

223,003 ---------

1 ~~·~"All - 719 ' 966: 296 4.56

2, 894, 683 2, 824

Still Fer-worms menters Stills

793 21 9, 806 105 77 303 33 17 1,600

395 102 259 3 675

22 ----------10 21 90

884 -603 10,191

743 1, 13i 11, 278 2, 266 9H 26, 027

Total

11,230 604

1, 785 500 942 30

121

12,397

13,608 31,031

Spirits seized (wine

gallons)

8, 755 1,306 1, 938

34,681 4, 922

10,091 1,446

85,085

18,688 35,431

Malt liquor seized (wino

gallons)

zoo 1,464 2, 103

21,345 m

10,827 78,656

87,474

3,387 2, 243,198

Mash seized (wine

gallons)

860,613 32,934 74,805

252,878 60,751

305 1,015

1,264,275

634,842 602,025

Pers<lll! arrested

1,232 650 989

3, 781 1, 06/i

528 215

4,502

1,432 2,342

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5101 Summarv of prohibition enjor(}ffflent du.r in!l fiscal vear endd Jun" SO, 19M-Continued

I illicit distilleries and distilling apparatus seized

Spirits Malt liquor Mash State Population seized seized seized Persons

Distil- Still Fer- (wine (wine (wine arrested leries Stills worms menters Total gallons) gallons) gallons)

------Idaho ---------------- ____ -------------------------------- 431,820 78 116 109 432 735 1, 664 784 14,135 879 lllinois ••• ___ -------------------------- ------------------- 6, 485, 098 170 2, 520 40 . 2, 730 22, i98 95,883 364,295 1, 742 Indiana----------------- ____ ------------------------------ 2,930,544 6 271 255 230 762 25,043 11,771 88,398 1, 694 Iowa ___ ---------------------------------------- ----~--- - - 2,403,630 ---------- 124 12Q ---------- 253 4, 189 1,122 20, 640 2, 780 Kansas _ -------------------------------------------------- 1, 769,257 --------·- 78 9 """iii;238- 87 7,043 173 25,590 245

t:~t;t;~ ~ _-~= :::::::::: === ::::::::::::::::::::: ~======:: 2,416, 013 549 580 329 11,695 31, 138 75.198 343, 131 3,699 1, 767, 798 30 132 95 1, 661 1, 918 60,572 11, I97 66,329 1,305

M!llnc ____ . _____ ------ _________ ------------- _______ ------ 768,014 -------i6" ------i42" ---------- -------·-- ---------- 19,967 11 500 321 Ml~SS8{:bnsetts __ ------ : __ ______________ • ----------------- 3, 852, 356 65 220 443 79,066 99,985 17,097 2, 167 Michigan _______ --- ______________ • _ ----------------------- 3, 667,222 7

El~!~r~~-=~==================================~======= 2,386, 171 126 1, 789, 384 126 3,4.03, 547 234

1\fontana ___ -------------------------------------------- 547, 593 ------- ---Nebraska ______ ------------------------.------------ ______ 1, 2e5, 502 -------- -· Nevada __________ ------- _____ -------------------------- __ 77,4.07 38 N ew Hampshire--------------------------: _____________ 443,033 0 New Jersey _- ------------------------------------------- 3, 155,374 168 New -1Iexico __ ------------------------------------------- 360,247 9 New York __ --------------------------------------------- 10, 384, 144 223 North Carolina ___ ---------------------------- ___ ------ 2,556, 486 839 North Dakota _________________________ ---- ____ -------- - 645,730 20 Ohio . __ .. ------------------------------------------------ 5, 759,368 122 Oklahoma -------- _____________________ ----------------- 2, 027,564 341 Oregon . ______ ------------------------------------------- 783,389 -------- --Pennsylvania ------- _______ ---- _____ ---------------------- 8, 720,159 26 Rhode Island ____ ----------------------------------------- 604,397 1 South Carolina------------------------------------------ 1,683, 662 575 South Dakota_----------------------------------------- 635,839 106 Tennessee __ --------------------------------------------- 2,337, 4.59 1,107 Texas __ ------------------------------------------------. 4,661 , 027 363 Utah _____ ---- •••• ---- ____ -------------------------------- 449,446 69 Vermont __ --------------------------------------------- 352,421 ----i:aoo· Virginia __ ---------------------------------------------- 2,306,361 Washington . _ ------------------------------------------- 1, 366,316 88 west Virginia __ ---------------------------------------- 1,463,610 162

·Wisconsin __ ----------------------- _____ ------------------ 2,631,839 2

Wyoming _- --------------------------------------------- 194,402 171

ti:V~~i -_ --== == = = :: :::: ==: = ::~ ::::::::::: ::::: === :::: :::::: 70,000 2

255,912 61 Porto Rico---------------------------·------------------ 1,299, 737 ----------

Total -------------- ---~- ---------------------7------105. 683. 108 12,0ZJ ..

1\lr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. STEVE..~SON].

1\fr. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested, especially in the opening r emarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. GRIFFIN] in which he decried the assault upon the liberties of the people by the gathering in the hands of ·congress .of the police power to. regulate liquor. His tears were metaphorically very large and profuse, and yet when I took a glance at the vote by which the child labor amendment was submitted to the people of the United States, an amendment w-hich undertook not only to take the police power but the parental power of the people and lodge it in Congress and the minions of Congress, I find the gentleman from New York voting for it, so that it does seem to me there is more of tears than there is of sorrow about this thing; that the gentleman is merely talking to hear himself, and not talking because he recognizes the right of the people in this matter that have had their rights taken away from them when he delibetately s~pported and voted for an amendment which took away the right of parental control of the child and would not permit him to work until he is 18 years of age, regardless of whether he wanted to or not.

Now that strikes me as a piece of fine-spun hypocrisy upon which to base an a · ault upon the Constitution of the United States, duly adopted and duly ratified by the States.

"Oh," the gentleman says, "if we had not adopted the Bill of Rights Congress neYer would have dared to invade the rights. of the people." What does he know about the Bill of Rights? The first 10 amendments were adopted as the Blll of Rights. I want to call attention to the tenth alone:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are r eserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

Without that one of the Bill of Rights, which was inserted by the very first Congress that met, Congress was not bound at all to acknowledge rights which were not expressly •reserved to the people in the Constitution, or which were not reserved to the people of the States, and Congress could have legislated on subjects which are not prohibited and retained by the Constitution.

Now, I want to tell the gentlemen a little about the invasion of the rights of the people of the States. In the year 1893 the State of South Carolina undertook to go into the liquor busi-

182 4.1 --------·- 230 87 46 ---------- 259 98 87 1,484 1, 705

109 81 5 m 189 187 761 1,137 160 120 ---------- 280

76 oil 385 558 10 3 0 13

327 265 16 776 97 11 39 156

105 24 1,306 1,658 1, 917 686 18,340 21,782

193 214 258 685 35 2 0 159

192 36 4,830 5,399 116 112 466 694 268 48 0 342 30 w 168 211)

551 14f 5,388 6,661 45 47 794 992

750 428 12,556 14,840 336 229 3,037 3,965 103 73 135 380

2 ------769" ---"9;()29" 2 1,109 12,206

200 176 870 1,334 100 7 960 1,229 107 6 4 119 37 7 1,678 1,893 35 35 1 73 25 2 510 598

790 12 ---------- 802

17,854 7,850 134;810 172,537

3,630 119,648 55,473 2,072 6, 906 1, 785

20,319 31, 497 3.633 3, 652

17,777 3, 335 1, 714 2,213 4,477 1,190

58,732 241,349 1, 789 11

140,657 486,111 18,272 3, 721 1,879 677

16,004 55,125 5,229 3,106 2,067 636

78,482 1,599,027 30,263 31,727

102,286 0 1,839 183

13,560 107,857 8,534 6,194 1, 84.1) 2,515

750 2,096 W,146 0 11,115 8, 745 4,134 1,270 4,186 61,878 7,233 1,889

792 1,938 1,392 3,8M 3,823 0

1,102, 787 7,040,537

161,926 126,840 152, !)65 951,499 68,979 63,123 19,955

478 58, f>62 49,101 60, 105

300, 400 ll, 774

53,574 100, 635 37,694

215,038 3, 281

4.01,807 42,296

906,107 112,635 29,707

11 814,440 128,1W .51,264 44,088 44,543 3,098

19,.S7!l 112,745

9,828, 925

1, 5'!7 1,517

452 3,698

527 1,326

383 401

2, 537 516

11,426 1, 231

688 2, 271 1, 777

405 7G 2 29 4

661 446

2,127 2,587

4. 80 2 9

14. 3,08 1,517 1,561

271 484 244 354 863

77,138

ness and put the barkeepers effectively out of business. It was a measure which I did not approve of, and one which naturally brought about great corruption. ·But what did we have? The very fi"rst move that the liquor dealers made was to get a case into the United States court; first, to assail the constitutional right of the State of South Carolina to deal with the liquor business ; and, second, to establish the right of a nonresident dealer in liquors to establish original-package houses and sell liquor in original packages in every town in South Oarolina, and they protected it by an injunction from the Federal court. The Baltimore liquor dealers and the Oincinnati liquor dealers flooded the State of South Carolina in defiance of the statutes of the State, and in defiance of the power of the State to exercise its powers in the liquor business.

That is one of the things that brought about the eighteenth amendment, and that is because the States had no recourse in the protection of their rights, and they had to come to Congress in order to tie up the fellows who were determined, regardless of State legislatures and regardless of State rights and the rights of citizens, to tie them up, so that they could not flood our State with liquor just because they had it and had an interstate commerce law providing that they could ship it in. [Applause.]

The gentleman complains that when the eighteenth amendment was submitted to the States 32 of them were dry already and it was a packed jury-well, of the 16 wet States 13 ratified the amendment, so that if submitted to the wet States alone it would have been ratified, and New York and l\faryland were two of those ratifying it.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Oarolina has expired.

Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. CooPER].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I was unable to be in the House Chamber on Tuesday afternoon last when the House was debating the provision in the appropriation bill concerning the Tariff Commission. I had been called out of the Chamber by constituents from my home city. In the RECORD of that day there is a dialogue which I regret that I did not hear. The debate was on the proposed app~priation for the Tariff Commission and its

5102 !)_O;NGRESSIONAL RECOR:Q--HOUSE MARcH 51

alleged failure to make a report on the butter investigation, and on page 4863 I find this language :

Mr. WooD. I simply state that ·the m·ajority is ready to report. Mr. KNUTSON. They have made a majority report. Mr. lloTLER. When did they make it 7 l'!r. KNUTSON. Last Saturday. Mr. WooD. I urn glarl to be informed that they have made the report.

I knew that it was ready and was being held up by Costigan. Mr. CLAGUE. Let me state to the gentleman from Indiana that the

majority report was made last Saturday, but that M.r. Costigan is holding it up, asking that he be allowed a tew days -in which to file a minority report, and he has held up this report for months.

That is a very serious accusation to make against a public servant of the character and efficiency of Mr. Costigan. He is my personal friend. I admiTe him. I knew nothing of these charges lmtil I received a letter from him yesterday. I tried yesterday afternoon to get the floor, but could not until so late an hour that I decided to wait. To-day, through the courtesy of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHREVE], I have this opportunity. I will read the letter, gentlemen:

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION, Washington, Ma·rch ~. 1926.

DEAR M:R. COOPER : According to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of March 2, '1926 (p. 4863), during the debate on the independent offices appropriation bill, Representative MORGAN, of Ohio, asked the question whether the minority members of the Tariff Commission have refused to report in the butter investigation. Representative Wooo, of Indiana, replied, in etfect, that one member of the commission, specifying me by name, is holding up the butter report, and Representative CLAGUE, of Minnesota, added that I have "held up" the report "for months."

Each of these assertions-the one by Mr. Woov, the other by Mr. CL.AGUE--was a direct misstatement of fact with reference to official action. I trust, therefot·e, you will cons1der it proper to ask a correction in the RECORD. At the time these gentlemen were speak.ing both the butter report and my separate statement with respect to 1t were at the White HoUBe, where the~ were joined later ln the afternoon by a supplemental opinion submitted by Chairman Marvin and Commissioners Glassle. Baldwin, and Brossard.

The only possible basis for either of the foregoing charges made -on the floor of the Hou e of Representatives is that when the majority report of the commission in the butter investigation was transmitted to the White IIouse last Thursday it was indicated to the President by the commission that he might desire to await the receipt, within the next "three or four days," ot a separate statement from me on the record as transmitted. The reasonableness of this suggestion, which was, however, not binding on the President, will hardly be

. denied by any one familiar with the responsible duties imposed on the Tariff Commission by the Congress. As shown in a memorandum which accompanied the commission's report to the President, special circumstances surrounding the completion of that report justified that suggestion. In order, however, that the President, it he preferred to proceed, might not be delayed that memorandum outlined the essential views which were to be elaborated in my later separate statement.

Concerning the delay in: transmUting the butter report to the President, I may say that, although a member of the commission, I have myself never understood the reason for a large part of such delay. The suggestion that one of the six comnrls.sloners has been responsible is about as amusing as 1t is mistaken. I have been ready and willing for months, whenever the commissioDr or a majority of it, saw fit to report, to submit promptly my views upon any such reportr I have never requested delay in completing or forwarding the commission's information to the President. On the contrary, the commission's records show that I endea-vored to persuade the coaunission to adopt a course of procedure which would have resulted 1n the much prompter preparation of the commission's material for the President. The majority of the commission, which has at all times bad the butter report under its control, did not see fit to approve my suggestion. Instead, it followed a different policy for which, whether wise or otherwise, it must be charged with responsibility.

If there be any doubt as to the accuracy of what is here said, a. review of the entire record of the commis ion in the butter investigation is in order and is invited.

Very sincerely, E. P. COSTIGAN.

H on. HENRY ALLE~ COOPER, Ho1rse of Representatives, Wasliington, D. 0.

As I said, I felt it was my duty to rea.d this letter to the committee. I have known Mr. Costigan by reputation for years. I have known him personally a lesser time but sufficiently long to enable me to form a just estimate of his character and qualifications. He is a man of unusual ability hi"'hminded, efficient in tbe publi.c service, and cf unpurchasa.'ble Integrity. ·ne does his duty as he sees it under his oath of office

in any clrclllll.Stances that may confront him. To be charcred as he was, with preventing the presentation of a report in bwhfch every farmer and every consumer of butter in the country is interested was to charge him with being shamefully recreant to public duty. The charge was made in this Chamber a circumstance which, under the Constitution, makes it impossible for him to take action in com:t against the defamer of }lis charac.ter. Th~·efore, as he is my f~iend, I have deemed it my duty, rn the discharge of my public duty, to have his letter read into the RECORD. [Applause.]

Mr. COLTON. Will the gentleman yield? 1\Ir. COOPER of Wisconsin. I will. Mr. COLTON. I think the letter referred to the fact that a

full investigation of the facts would bear out the statement made by Mr. Costigan.

.Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. .A. full examination of the record of the commission in the butter investigation?

l\1r. COLTON. Will the gentleman tell us whether or not those minutes are published or are available for publication?

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I do not know about their being available for publication, but I think, that being a public record, any Member of the House of Representatives has the right to see them. That is my understanding.

Mr. COLTON. Is that so of all of the minutes of the commission?

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I was only referring to this butter investigation.

Mr. COLTON. I will say to the gentleman that I happen to know that there have been statements made here civin"' partial quotations of the minutes of the Tariff Commissi~n. I do not know where that information was obtained but I am thoroughly satisfied that a complete examination of all of the minutes and all of the records .in the case would establish an entirely different set of facts than that which was established by r_eason of giving only a part of the record, and I am wondering whether that is true of this butter investigation.

Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I do not Itnow about any other investigation, but Mr. Costigan writes that an investigation of the record of the butter investigation " would be in order and is ~vited." Those are his words. He asks· that in justice to hrmself there be an investigation, and I wish that one might be carried on by th·e Committee on Agriculture.

1\Ir. KNUTSON. Will the gentleman yield? ~r. COOPER of Wisconsin. I will. Mr. KNUTSON. As early as May of last year I took up

with the commission the question of the butter tariff, and was assured by the chairman of the commission that they would probably have a report ready for the President by September. In September I wrote the commission and asked whether the report had been made; it dragged along, and when I returned

_to Washington in November I went down personally and called upon the chairman of the commission ; he then told me he hoped to have the report ready in three weeks; but it draggecl on and dragged on, and the report was made to the President only last Saturday, and even now the President can not . act upon the report because Mr. Costigan has asked time in which to submit a minol'ity report.

Mr. BLANTON. He has already submitted it. Mr. KNUTSON. When did he submit it? Mr. BLANTON. Last Saturday. Will the gentleman from

Wisconsin yield to me? Mr. COOPER of Wisconsin. I will. Mr. BLANTON. May I say this to the gentleman from Utah

that any Representative in this Congress can go down to th~ Tariff Commission or to any other commission and demand to see their minutes, and they will show their minutes to the Representative. The gentleman will not find a commission in Washington that will deny a Representative the right to look at the minutes.

Mr. COLTON. I will say to th·e gentleman that I have investigated some of those statements, and a complete reading.of the entiTe minutes does not justify some of the statements that have been made in the other body with reference to the Tariff Commission.

Mr. BLANTON. They are open to Members of Congress. The CH..A!BJ.YIAN. The time of the gentleman from Wis

consin has expired. 1\.fr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 min

utes to the genrteman from Virginia [:Mr. WoonnuM]. [Applause.}

1\Ir. WOODRUM~ Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I have asked for this time in order to direct the attention of the committee to a question sugge ted when the gentleman trom Indiana [Mr. Woon] was addressing the House the other day and served notice on us that the Hou ·e would shortly be called upon to consider legislation with reference to return-

J

/ 1926 CONGRESSION.A_L RECORD-HOUSE 5103 ing to the German nationals the property that is now being been damaged in their persons or property because of the activiheld by the Alien Property Custodian. The gentleman from ties of the German Government through its several agencies. Indiana said: Among the character of claims over which this commission was · I am glad to say to the committee it is the policy of the present administration of the Alien Property Custodian's office to conclude its activities when affirmative legislation comes from this Congress containing authority to this end; and such legislation ought to be enacted.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that ought to engage the serious attention of every Member of Congress. We ought not to wait until it is brought on us here on the spur of the moment, probably under suspension of the rules or under a rule limiting debate. We ought to give serious consideration to it because, in my judgment, it is a matter of very great importance to the taxpayers of this country, and some of us ought to be thinking about the taxpayer and the part he may be called upon to play. It appears that in pursuance of the trading with the enemy act, passed in October, 1917, there came into the hands of the Alien Property Oustodian something over $500,000,000 in property belonging to Ge~man nationals. A great deal of that property has from time tune, and under provision of law, been retm·ned to tho e nationals, but we are told that at the . present time about $300,000,000 of this property is in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian. From time to time legislation has been introduced, looking to the returning of tllat property to the German nationals. We were told by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. NEwTON] a few days ago, in a speech to which he doubtless gave a great deal of· thought, that the Secretary of the Treasury bad a plan that would be presented to Congress shortly looking to the restoration of this property, and in substance that plan, so stated the ?entleman, proposed to return this property to the German natwnals and leave the Federal Government issue 25-year 5 per cent bonds, through a trustee, pay the American claimants, and look to the reparations coming from the Dawes plan to satisfy those bonds; those bonds to be guaranteed by the United States Government.

In the first place, this property is being held by the Alien Property Custodian under the provisions of a treaty witn Germany. This treaty, as we know or will recall, in its provisions carried almost v-erbatim the language of the peace resolQtion passed by the Congress in July, 1921, declaring a state of peace between Germany and America. This language was adopted almost verbatim in the treaty of Berlin ratified in August, 1921, wherein Germany agreed with America that the property of the German nationals now in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian should remain there as security for the benefit of American citizens who had~ claims against Germany.

Of course it will be immediately suggested that the German Government had no right to pledge the property of its nationals. It will be again suggested that the United States Government is morally bound, if not legally bound, to respect the provisions of old treaties with Germany dating back as far as 1785, the first Prussian treaty, and later treaties of 1799 and 1828 wherein America agreed to protect the property of German' citizens here. But I call your attention, gentlemen, to this fact. The Supreme Court of the United States has de· cided in a recent case, Stoehr v. Wallace (255 U. S. 239), decided February 28, 1921, that these treaties with Germany did not apply to German citizens living in Germany who had made investments in America, but that they only applied to " rights of merchants of either country residing in the other when the war arises." And recall this fact, if you please. All of the property of the German nationals who were living in America hru:~ been returned to them. I think I can state that as a fact. If .I am wrong, I will be glad to be corrected, but I understand it is a fact that all the property in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian that was taken from German nationals living in America has long since been returned to them.

Now what has happened? It has been recognized by the jurists' of Germany for 300 years that under their system of government and under the specific provisions of their constitution they have the right of expropriation of th"e property of their citizens in case of war. That is a fact clearly established, and there was inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD some time ago a splendid brief, setting out the fact that the German Government has the right to take the property of its citizens in case of any emergency and pledge it for any debt ( Cong. Rec., 68th Cong., 2d s·ess., part 4, p. 3434). · By an Executive agreement entered into on the lOth day of August, 1922, between the United States of Amelica and the former Imperial Go-rernment of Germany, the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, was specially created a tribunal for the purpose of hearing, determining, and adjudicating the cla~ ot .AJ;nerica!! citize!!S who h~d

given jurisdiction were the following: (1) Claims of American citizens arising since July 31, 1914, 1n

respect of damage to ot· seizure of their property, rights, and interests, including any company or association in which they are interested, within German territory as it existed on August 1, 1914;

(2) Other · claims for loss or damage to which the United States o:r. its nationals have been subjected with respect to injuries to persons, or to property, rights, and intereSts, including any company or association in wblch American nationals are interested, since July 31, 1914, as a consequence of the war;

(3) Debts owing to American citizens by the German Government or by German nationals. ·

The 1\lixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, immediately proceeded to hear and determine claims, and approximately 13,000 claims have from time to time been submitted to the commission, the aggregate amount of the claims running nearly one and one-half billion dollars, including the cost incident to the American Army of Occupation on the Rhine. Approximately 200 of these cases were predicated on the loss of life and personal injuries due to the sin.b.."ing of the Lusitania on 1\lay 7, 1915. 'l'he commission in setting up rules of decision, among other things, provided " That no exemplary, puniti¥e, or vindictive damages can be assessed." Hence it will be obser-recl that such claims as have been adjudicated by this commission are based on actual pecuniary loss to the claimant and that no question of penalty or punishment enters into the amounts awarded.

l\Iore than 11,000 claims involving _various bases of liability have been disposed of by the commission. It is stated that the commission will have completed its labors within a fe\v months and that the total awards entered in claims against Germany will approximate $250,000,000.

It is now nearly 11 years since the sinking of the Lusitania and nearly 4 years since the constitution of this tribtmal, which has virtually completed its work, and yet the beneficiaries of the awards that have been given have received nothing in satisfaction of their claims, nor, so far as I am a-ble to find out, is any plan in the process of consummation which will in any reasonably satisfactory way liquidate this indebtedness.

Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WOODRU~l. In just a moment I will be glad to yield

to the gentleman. I first want to finish this statement. Desiring to find out whether or not any effort was being

made by the United States Government through the Department of State to bring about the consummation or any arrangement for the satisfaction and liquidation of these awards, on the 15th .day of January, 1925, I addressed a letter to the Hon. Charles E. Hughes, the then Secretary of State, making tbat inquiry. On the 24th day of January, 1925, the Secretary replied as follows :

JANUA.RY 24, 1925, The Hon. CLIFTON A. WOODRUM,

House of Representatives. Srn: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter ot

Januar·y 15, 1925, relating to the claim of Urs. Mary C. Brown, of Roanoke, Va., against the Government of Germany for indemnity for the loss of life of her son through the sinking of the steamship Mann(J. You state that the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Grr· many, has made an award in the claimant's favor in the amount ot $8,000, and request to be informed whether any steps are being takrn by this Government looking to the payment of such awards.

The payment ot awards made by the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, is receiving the department's very careful consideration. While no definite plans for the satisfaction- of ~:~uch awards have yet been completed, you may assure Mrs. Brown that w!Jcn payment ot awards is made her case will receive every appropriate consideration.

I have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant,

CHARLES E. HUGHES.

Again, more than a year having elapsed, on the 19th day of February, 1926, I addressed the following communication to the Hon. Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State:

FEBRUARY 19, 1926. Hon. FRAN It B. Kl!ILLOOO,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. 0. MY DEAR MR.· KELLOGG: On January 15, 1925, I addressed a letter

to the Hon. Charles E. Hughes, then Secretary of State, relating to the claim of Mrs. Mary C. Brown, of Roanoke, Va., against the GovernD!t-nt of Germany for indemnicy for the loss of life of her son through the

5104 CONGRESSION .AL RECORD-HOUSE MARCII 5 sinking of the steamshlfl Ma1·i·ua.. I take the liberty of quoting herewith a portion of the reply I received from the Secretary under dat:J of January 24, 1925 :

"Tl1e payment of awards made by the Mb:ed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, is receiving the department's very careful considt>I-ation. While no definite plans for the satisfaction of such awards have yet been completed, you may assure Mrs. Brown that when payment of awards is .made her case will receive e-very appropriate consideration."

I am advised by the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, that their work has nearly been completed, and yet, so fa1• as I am able to learn, there is no immediate prospects of any settlement being made with the beneficiaries of the e awards. I respectfully request that you write me the present status of the matter, and what arrangements, if any, are being made for the liquidation of these claims.

Yours very truly, C. A. WOODRUM.

And under date of March 2, 1026, the Secretary of State replied as follows :

UABCH 2, 1926. The Ron. CLIFTON A. WOODRUM,

House of Representatives. SIR: I have the honor to a.cknowledge the receipt of your letter of

February 19, 1926, in which, referring to the department's letter of January 24, 1925, regarding the payment of awards rendered uy the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, you ask to be advised concerning the present status of the matter.

I regret to inform you that I can a.dd nothing at this time to the statement contained in the department's letter of January 24, 1925, coneerning the satisfaction of awards made by the Mixed Claim<> Commission.

I have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant,

FRANK B. KELLOGG.

Thus it will be observed that although we are abont to lJe asked to return to German Nationals the property pledged by treaty as security for the American claimants, our own Government is making no Serious effort to collect the debts due om citizens by the German Government.

It will be recalled, of course, that under the treaty of Berlin and the executive agreement creating the Mixed Claim Commission the commission's jurisdiction ends upon the making of an award. The matter of providing the means for the collection of these awards is entirely separate and apart from the jurisdiction of the Mixed Claims Commission, and unless the United States Government by treaty, agreement, or otherwise provide:; some means for the collection of the e debts, the splendid wo1·k of the Mixed Claims Commission will have been entirely in vain. .

The beneficiaries of these awards are entitled to have their Government take snch prompt and emphatic action as may be consist~mt with diplomacy and international relationship to ·secure a settlement of this indebtedness. I am informed that quite a number of the beneficiaries are dead, and other circumstances are arising that suggest that the indefinite delay in collecting the amounts awarded American nationals will virtually, if not completely, nullify the effectiveness of the work of the Mixed -Qaims Commission.

There is in the bands of the Alien Pt·operty Custodian, the agent of the United States Government, about $300,000,000 worth of property belonging to German nationals, seized by the American Government under the authority and provisions of the u trading with the enemy act" of October 6, 1917. The German Government has requested. the return of this property to its owners, and legislation is now pending before Congress suggesting various plans for its return.

It is proper to recall that the resolution of Congress of July 2, 1921, declaring a state of peace between the United. States and Germany made specific provision that all sequestered property of the enemy should be held by the American Government until the German Government should make suitable and proper arrangements to satisfy the American claims. The pertinent language of the resolution referred to is as follows:

All property of the Imperial German Government, • • • and of all German nationals, which was on April 6, 1917, in or has since that date come into the possession or under control of, or has been the subject of a demand by the United States of America * * • shall be retained by the United Stat<'s of America and no disposition thereof made, * * * until such time as the Imperial German Government • • • shall have • • • made suitable provision. for the satisfaction of all claims against said Government (s), • • •

of all pet:Sons, wheresoever domkiled. who owe permanent allegiance to the United States of America and who have suffered • • • loss, damage, or injury to their JYel·sons or property, etc. '

The rights asserted in this act of Congress were specifically ~ecognized ill the Treaty of Berlin, of Angnst 5, 1921, wherein It was provided that the property in que tion was to be held as security for the .American claimants. . If the English langua.ge means what it says, the property rn the hands of the Alien Property Custodian is specifically pledged as a security for the payment of the claims of America? citizens again t the. Government of Germany. It is inconceivab.le tha_t the America~ Congre s could seriously consider releasmg t~ property until the German Government bas first performed Its part ·of the transaction, to-wit, until it-

Shall have made suitable provision for the sati faction of a.ll claims against it by all persons, etc.

In fact, it has recently been specifically decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the German Securities Case, .l!rank Whit~, Treasurer, United States v. Mechanics Securities CorporatiOn et al. (decided December 14 1925 70 L. Ed.), that America has a legal right to hold tb~ prop~y in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian until the claims of Americ~ citizens are satisfied. Whether or not Ame1·ica s~ould deSire to exercise that right, is not necessary here to discuss, furt~er than to state that the American Government owes a specific duty to · its own citizens to offer them every rea_s?nable pr?tection and safeguard for the payment of their legitimate cla.u:n.c.l.

So far as I am able to learn, no arrangements whatever have bee~ made by Germany to liquidate the claims of American na~wnals, otller. ~an th.e plan. adopted by the conference of allied .finance mrntsters rn Pans something more than a year ago. The so-called Dawes plan provides that-

Two and one-quarter per cent of all receipts from Germany on account of the Dawes annuities available for distribution as reparation providing that the annuity resulting from this percentage shaH not exceed the sum of 40,000,000 gold marks-

shall b~ u~e~ in pa~ent of the claims of American nationals. If the Individual clru.mants must depend exclusively upon th~ a~uities provided for by the Dawes plan, they would probably watt more than half a century for the .finul payment of their awards. The a.monnt\ . .o paid under the said plan would be only a small per cent of the 'biterest on the claims.

Much bas been ~aid up to the pre ent time about the return to German ·nationals of the property now in the hands of the ~en Property C~st~dian. Eloquent and forceful appeal are berng made for JUStice and fair treatment on behalf of the Germ~n nationals. For my p~rt, I would like to see the property m the. hands of the .Alien Property Custodian speedily returned to Its owners, but I am also interested in seeinO' a fair measure of justice and fair treatment meted out to the o American citizens who are now holding judgments again t the German Government for actual damages sustained, and for the security of which said judgments the German Government has agreed that America shall hold and retain the property in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian.

I have introduced in the House H. Res. 158, which has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and which is as follows:

Resolved, That the Secretary of State is directed to inform the H(juse of Representatives, if not incompatible with the public intere t, what action, if any, bas been taken l>y the State Department to provide for the payment of awards made and to be made by the Mixed CJa.ims Comml sion, United State:s and Germany, under the agreement of August 10, 1922, between the United States and Germany.

I shall endeavor to get an immediate consideration of this resolution.

The CHAIRMAN. Tbe time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.

Mr. OLIVER of .Alabama. I yield the gentleman three minutes more.

Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield? I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. WOODRUM. All right; go ahead. Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. Is tbe gentleman in favor of

confiscating the property of the German nationals invested in this country?

Mr. WOODRUl\I. No question of confiscation is involved in this case, because the German Government had the constitutional right to expropriate the property of its nationals as security for tbis debt. It did that, and if there is a question of confiscation it is a question between the German Govern-

·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5105 ment and its citizens whose property it has taken and has pledged for this debt

:ur. NEWTON of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. WOODRUM. Yes, sir. Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. Does the gentleman think the

American people want to apply that rule to our property in · Mexico if somebody crosses the border again?

Mr. WOODRU:M. · I am not talking about Mexico, I am talking about Germany. I am thinking particularly now about that old gray-haired mother down in Virginia whose son sleeps on the coral beds of the .Atlantic on account of the ruthless submarine warfare waged by Germany. I am thinking about the judgment entered several years ago for that mother by the Mixed Claims Commission, and the efforts I have made to find out from the State Department if the Government intends to make a serious effort to collect that award for its citizens. I have introduced· a resolution asking the Secretary of State to inform the Congress what he intends to do to collect these claims against Germany. I think we ought to have this information definitely and unequivocally before we are asked to turn back the property pledged by Germany as a security fo1· these debts. [.Applause.]

Mr. OLIVER of .Alabama. l\Ir. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McSwAIN].

Mr. McSWAIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee when on March 1 what is known as the War Department ~eal estate bill was under consideration, it was impossible for me in the seven minutes allotted to me to set out the reasons that I had for opposing the motion to suspend

·the rules and pass the bill unamended. I want the com. mittee and the House to realize that I had substantial reasons, that I had two very important amendments that I think would have protected the Government to the extent perhaps of $10,000,000, if those amendments had been enacted into a law along with the bill.

You may say, "Well, you are a member of the committee; why had not you offered your amendments in the committee?" Because gentlemen, you know how. the rush and huny in those matters' go on. The bill had been before the committee twice, had been reported once, and the committee having realized that in its haste it had made a grievous error, asked that it be sent back to the committee; and when it came back, 17 more amendments were made to it, and then after a favorable report had been made, to which I reserved all my . rights, other amendments occurred to me to be necessary, in view of the history of this country in the last six or seven yeai·s, relating to the disposal of surplus war material and the disposal of camps and cantonments about which I believe there can be but ·little difference of opinion, that the Government lost tens of p1illions, probably a hundred million, of property value by reason of incapable, inefficient, unbusinesslike methods pursued under the discretion of . the department without adequate direction by law.

Now these amendments that I had hoped to have submitted to this House provided in substance for the exclusion of the possibility of connivance and collusion between the appraisers and the bidders.

You gentlemen of experience know that when bidders know what property is appraised at, they make that appraised price not only the minimum price, but they make it as near as possible the maximum price. They offer the l,>lds creeping along a little above the appraised price, but no further up than they think may top the bids of the rival bidders.

An experience of six or seven years as a referee in bankruptcy, handling many estates, not only goods and merchandise but parcels of real estate of considerable value, convinced me 'that it Is absolutely necessary for the protection of the interests of the estate that the report of the appraisers shall be kept confidential. So the amendment I proposed to submit would correct that thing. So I hope that this property, gentlemen, consisting of 42 parcels of real estate, situated in 14 States, and perhaps worth thirty or forty million dollars, 1f adequately and properly handled in a businesslike way, will not be sacrificed. Fearing it might sell for twenty million or less, because as r called your attention to the fact that preliminary .etsimates of its value by the War Department aggregated only about seven million dollars, and then by a subse-

. quent estimate In gross said it was worth about twenty million dollars, I am seeking to · prevent a huge loss. From a little study I made of it, I believe that, if handled right, it would · bring thirty or forty million dollars. Yet I predict to-day that unless something is done to prevent it, and the old slipshod methods are continued in its disposal, it will not bring more

LXVII-322

than twelve or fifteen million dollars, with the result that they will come clamoring back here for money ou of the pockets of the taxpayers to build hospitals and barracks for the enlisted men. Of course we know that if it is not carefully guarded by a provision of law, much of it will go for fine brick houses for officers and magnificent club houses, in which officers will disport and enjoy themselves, while the real hard work of the .Army is being done by the noncommissioned officers and enlisted men.

Here are the provisions that I proposed to insert-that the laws should provide that there shall be three separate appraisers for each separate parcel of property, and that in addition to that the Secretary of War should make inquiry from Members of Congress, United States marshals, collectors of internal revenue, and postmasters in the vicinity of the country where the pro~rty is located as to their opinions of its value, and should collect and assemble the data thus obtained and form a judgment as to whether or not he should approve the appraisal made by the three appraisers, and that these three appraisers shall be sworn, not only to make fair and impartial appraisements, but that they shall keep confidential as between themselves and all other persons except the GQvernment itself, the appraisal that is put on the property. Do you know the practice that has prevailed in the War Department? I hope that my criticisms are constructive. .After the argument and vote on March 1 a representative of tbe War Department accosted me and said he would like to know what amendments I proposed to offer. I explained them to him, and he said that they were entirely reasonable, and he wished that I would make the suggestion to the Secretary of War, and perhaps that he would put them into operation without force of law .

Later the same officer called on me and insisted I write tho letter and, consequently, yesterday I wrote it and shall place it in my remarks by your permission and have it printed in the RECORD to show that my suggestions are constructive rather than destructive, that they ai'e made in the interest of realizing every possible dollar of value for this property rather than merely for the purpose of trying to heckle and hinder or delay or put anything in the way of the administration of any department of the Government.

The method that has heretofore been employed by the War Department as 1·evealed by the testimony is to have one appraising firm appraise all the property that is sold. If one appraising firm is to appraise all of the property all the time, then everybody will know who that appraiser is, and it is very easy for a bidder who wants to buy, say, 26,000 acres of land in Florida on which to institute a magnificent development, or any part of the 26,000 acres, to go to the appraiser and ask him at what price he appraised the property. There is no provision of law at present nor any regulation of the department that limits the power or restricts in any way this appraiser from disclosing the fact that he appraised the property at such and such a figure.

On March 2 I introduced House bill 9913, to provide a general law regulating the procedure for the sale by the War Department of any real estate. I hope the gentlemen of the House will consider this bill very carefully. It has been submitted to the War Department with the request that it make a prompt report, either favorable or unfavorable to the committee, and in any event it is my hope to obtain a favorable report from the Committee on Military .Affairs, with amendments, if necessary. The bill itself is herewith submitted: A bill (H. R. 9913) to regulate the sale of real estate by the War

Department

Be it enacted~ etc.~ That in every case where the War Department shall hereafter sell real estate, whether such sale be already or shall hereafter be authorized, each parcel of such real esta.te to be sold shall be first appra.i.sed by three disinterested appraisers, appointed from .among civilians, who shall first be sworn to make a fair and just appraisal, and to keep secret the appraised price of such property, and no single appraiser shall receive for his services exceeding $100 for each parcel so appraised, and the necessary living and traveling expenses, and shall be paid for his services such sum less than $100 as shall be agreed upon ill advance, considering the value, nature, and situation of the property so appraised, and no such appraisal shall be final until approved by the Secretary of War, who may, at his discretion, order a reappraisal of said property.

SEc. 2. That the Secretary of War shall conault the various officers and agencies of the United. States Government in the section of the country where the property is situated, such as the district attorneys, marshals, clerks of court, collectors of internal revenue, repre entatives and agents of the Department of Agriculture~ postmasters, and Members of Congress, as to tho reasonable sale value of. each such

5106 _co NGRESSI0_~:4-L RECOR:Q-. H_OUSE parcel of real estate, and shall seek to obtain from such officers and agencies and from other persons the names and addresses of all possible and prospective bidders, and such property shall thereafter be advertised, either locally or nationally, or both, considering the nature, value, situation, and proper uses of the pt·operty, and all prospective bidders, whose names and addresses are known, shall be notified by letter of the time, place, and terms of sale, and the right to reject any and all bids shall be reserved, and if no satisfactory bid be received, said property shall thereafter be advertised in the manner aforesaid, and by letters as aforesaid, for sale at public auction to the highest bidder for cash, but the Secretary of War may or may not, at his discretion, confit·m any such highest bid, and no sale shall be made under any circumstances for less than the appraised price.

SEc. 3. If any conveyance of any such property be made in pursuance of any such sale, and if thereafter, within six years from the date of such conveyance, the Secretary of War shall learn that any fraud or undue deceit or any device, scheme, or plan, herein declared unlawful, was practiced in connection with either the appraisal or the sale of such properties so sold, and if it appear that the purchaser was in any way a party to such unlawful practice, then the Secretary of War shall declare such sale null and void and shall return to the purchaser the purchase price so paid, and if necessary shall institute legal proceedings to recover the possession of such property or any part thereof that may remain at such time jp. the hands of said purchase-r, and in such case such purchaser shall not be entitled to any credit or set-off for any betterments or improvements made by him after such purchase.

SEc. 4. It shall be unlawful for any appraiser of such property to disclose the appraised price thereof, or to agree, plan, or ·conspire to depress or minimize such appraised price, and it shall be unlawful for bidders to agree, combine, or conspire to pool their interests at such bidding or to bid in block or to chill the bidding at such sale, and it shall be unlawful for any appraiser to become a bidder for or a purchaser of, either directly or indirectly, of any such property, whether for himself or for any other person, firm, corporation, or association, and it shall be unlawful for any officer or agent of the War Department to divulge or disclose to any person other than to some other officer or agent of the War Department the appraised value of such property, or to combin~, agree, or conspire with any person or persons to minimize or depress the appraised value of such property, or to chill, discourage, hinder, or delay bidding on such property, or to be financially interested, either directly or indirectly, in the purchase of any such property, or to receive any fee, comiJlis.sion, present, gift, or reward from any person in connection with the appraisal or sale of such property, and it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, whether appraisers, or their agents, or bidders, or officers, or employees of the War Department, or any other person, to bring about, either separately or collectively, either individually or by combination, any situation or state of facts calculated or intended to cause such property to sell for less than the reasonable market value thereof, and any per-son violating any of the provisions of this act shall, upon indictment, trial, and conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to be imprisoned not exceeding 10 years, or both, at the discretion of the court.

The following is the lette·r hereinbefore referred to as having been written to the Secretary of War: ·

MARCH 4, 1926. Hon. DwiGHT F. DAVISA

Secretary oj War, Washington, D. 0. MY DEAR Mn. SECRETARY : I write at the suggestion, in fact, at the

request of Colonel Hammond, who is War Department representative in connection with the Committee on Mllitary Affairs of the House of Representatives. I also beg, in the beginning, that this letter be called to the personal attention of the Assistant Secretary of War, who did me the honor to call upon me two or three days ago and who agreed with me that the strictest care should be observed to see that the real estate which is to be sold shall bring as nearly as possible its actual market value.

Further, in beginning, let me repeat in all sincerity what I have -often said, that our Government and country. are to be congratulated that we have at the bead of the War Department two gentlemen who have had actual experience in competitive business and therefore know the value of a dollar and know bow to meet the keen methods and devices of those business men that have business transactions with the department, either in the sale of munitions and supplies or in the purchase by such outsiders of surplus war materials or of surplus real estate.

I have just introduced into Congress a bill, II. R. 9913, for the purpose of regulating the sale of real estate by the War Department. This bill represents thooe ideas which I had hoped to have incorporated into S. 1129, but the same was passed by the House under a suspension of rules, whereby amendments were not in order. I inclose two copies of H. R. 9913 and ask your most careful consideration of same. I have requested the chairman of the Military Affairs Committee of the House to submit · this bill to the War Department" a attention, with a request that tho same be promptly con-

sidered and that the department return its comments, either favor· able or unfavorable, to the committee at the earliest possible moment, by messenger, without waiting for the slow process of the mall. I therefore trust that the War Department will very promptly return its recommendations to the Committee on Military Affairs so that I may have the bill up for consideration. It is my hope that the committee will report this bill favorably, in which event' I intend to seek to have the bill passed by unanimous consent. If that falls, then I intend to give every member of the House an opportunity to vote for a motion to suspend the rules and to pass the bill. The provisions of the bill are so manifestly in the interest of the Gov· ernment, designed for the purpose of insuring a greater security to the Government, by preventing the possibility of collusion between any appraiser and any bidder and any faithless officer or employee of the War Department. Such proposition is not intended as a reflection on the honesty of anyone. I take it that there is reflection upon my honesty or standing for law and order, that there are statutes on our books, both State and national, against larceny, robbery, fraud, arson, and murder. I do not intend to dig up any unpleasant history, except to point a moral. It is a fact that in every war that our country has gone through profiteering, selfishness, and even breach of trust have been practiced to an alarming degree, both by civilians and officers of the Government. It would seem that during the stress of war when some are suffering and some dying for their country all should have their hearts freed from selfishness and love of greed. But history is .to the contrary. Therefore it is not surprising that in times of peace there should be faithless, selfish, designing, and corrupt men willing and conspiring to defraud the Government of some of its resources. In view of this sad fact, it is necessary that the innocent should be protected by the imposition of penalties upon the dishonest. If aU men were perfectly honest, of course, there -woulQ be no need either of penal laws or of government itself. Therefore I make no apology for aiming the provisions of this bill at the possibility that corrupt and designing men may conspire to apprai.Be this real estate at less than its reasonable market value in order that it may be sold at less than its market value. .

Therefore I am making a suggestion of some matters that you may consider in connection with the promulgation of orders of the procedure to be observed by the department in the sale of this real estate. In this connection I respectfully call your attention to my speech made on the floor when the motion to suspend the rules to pass S. 1129 on March 1 was before the House. You will easily find this speech in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. My suggestions are as follows:

1. I would write to each Member of Congress and to such Federal officials as United States marshals, postmasters, collectors of internal revenue, _ living in the section where the property is located, asking in· formation on these points:

(a) Their respective opinions of the value of the parcel of land in question.

(b) The names and addresses of suitable disinterested business men to appraise the property.

(c) A list of the names and addresses of persons who may be intet·ested in buying the property.

(d) Request their cooperation in your efforts to have the property bring its reasonable market value.

2. I would advertise the important and very valuable parcels of land in papers and magazines having a national circulation, such as the Literary Digest, Collier's Weekly, and a few dailies, setting forth briefly that the department has " 42 tracts of land in 14 different States for sale, aggregating in value perhaps $30,000,000, and suitable for various purposes, such as manufacturing, fruit growing, farming, commerce, etc., and invite all persons who might be interested to correspond with the department," and from these letters thus received you will be able to compile a very valuable mailing list, to whom, from time to time, you may mail out circular letters of the time, place, and terms of sale of the several parcels. Do not be in too great a burry, and by every possible means invite correspondence, because every man who may write to make inquiry is a prospective bidder, either directly or for his friends or business associates.

3. I would not permit one firm to appraise all the property, as was indicated by the testimony of the Secretary of War before the ·committee on Military Affairs. The name of this single firm making the appraisement will become known to all bidders and they will obtain the information from them. I suggest that the appraisers be widely scattered and sworn to secrecy and disqualified from bidding thP-mselves or from being in any way financially interested in the hids. For that reason I have suggested three different appraisers for each separate parcel.

4. Instruct the appraisers before their appointment that neither they nor their business associations can buy any of this property when sold, and require the appraisers to take an oath in advance that they will keep secret the re8ult of their appraisement. If the appraised price should at any time be matle public, it should be made public by you and not by the appraisers. My several years experience

1~26 CONGRESS! ON A·L RECORD-HOUSE 5107. as referee in bankruptcy, handling the sale of many, many parcels of property, has convinced me that If the bidders know what the ·property bas been appraised at they will make the appraised price not only the minimum but the maximum price approximately. In other words, they will bid but a very few dollars more than the appraised price.

5. I would offer to sell every piece of property first by sealed bi-ds, reserving the right to reject all bids. From the bidders the department may be abfe to compile a very valuable list of names, who should be circularized for every succeeding sale of other and different parcels of property. A man interested in one parcel of property would very probably be interested in other parcels. If all the sealed bids are rejected, then you can proceed, in due season, to advertise for the sale of ' the property at pubUc auction.

6. I would not sell all of the 42 parcels, nor many of them on the same day, but would sell different parcels, or small groups of parcels, at intervals of one or two weeks, so that bidders may move from one parcel to another and from one section, or one State, to another. Of course, alJ bidders, both at sealed bids and public auction, should be required to make a cash deposit, or its equivalent, to guarantee good faith, the amount to vary in each case ·according to a general classification of parcels as to value and might, In a rough way, be represented by deposit of either $1,000, $10,000, $25,000, $50,000, or $100,000. Use every possible means of obtaining lists of prospective bidders to whom letters should be sent advising of all sales to be made.

7. I would instruct the appraisers in advance of their labors to regard franchises and licenses on the property, not as liabilities to detract from the value, but as assets to add to the value, for the reasons stated in my speech and briefly because the buyer can make new terms with these licensees and collect from them large sums of money in order to be allowed to continue their privileges.

There is not a parcel of this land to be sold located in South Carolina, and I have never seen any of the parcels, save the one in this city at 913 E Street NW. Perhaps I have seen the property to be sold at Newport News, as I salled from there in August, 1918, and returned through there in March, 1919, but I am not sure of its exact location. However, I feel that unless very unusual precautions are taken to protect the interest of the Treasury great sacrifices will be made of much of this property. ·This feeling is not based upon imagination, but Is based upon what I have seen happen since the war in the sale of surplus war materials and 1n the sale of camps and cantonments and other parcels of real· estate.

I beg, therefore, that my writing this letter may not be regarded as presumptuous, but as prompt~d by the deep interest I feel for the protection of the taxpayers, and especially on account of the pleasant conversation I have bad with Colonel MacNider and Colonel Hammond.

With great respect, I am, Yours sincerely,

J. J. McSWAIN.

On a previous occasion I mentioned to the House the fact that this Government was saved $281,440 in connection with the purchase of additional land to be used in the training of troops at Fort Bliss, El Paso, Tex. I have recently been very much gratified to receive from the Hon. John C. McKenzie, who was then chairman of the Committee on Military Affatrs, the following letter. I feel sure that you gentlemen will agree with me that few Members with a higher sense of honor, with a sterner resolution to do his duty, however unpleasant, ever served in this body. He is a typical Scotchman. He has ability of a very high order, and manifested great administrative powers in his service as chairman of that committee. Naturally, I am very proud that such a man has thus testified as to my part in saving money to the Treasury : Ron. J. J. McSWAIN,

Washington, D. 0. DEAR FRIEND Me : It is impo'ssible for me to forget my associa

tions with the members of the Committee on Military Affairs, and naturally I am interested in following the work of the committee, notwithstanding I am far away. I am especially pleased to note that through your etrorts to guard the interest of the Government 1n the motion you made in connection with the Fort Bliss land bill in the last session has resulted in saving the people of our Government the

/ snug sum of $281,440 and 1n the acquiring of •,532 acres, thus giving us 900 acres ~ore than was proposed in the bill submitted to us. Such an achievement Is surely worth while and only demonstrates the necessity of the members of that great committee being ever diligent in protecting the GQvernment's interests. You can feel that in being alert and S'Ubmitting the p.roper motion at the time, you saved enough to warrant the retaining you in Congress the remainder of your Ufe. I often think ot you and all the boys and I wish you all well and hope that you all will be on guard to head otf not only land exploiters but personal exploiters of which there are many, With kind personal regards, I am,

Your friend,

Mr. WOODRUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 miilutes to the gentleman fr{)m Texas [Mr. HUDSPETH].

Mr. HUDSPETH. 1\ir. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, the American National Livestock Association and other 1

livestock associations filed a complaint on March 14, 1924, with the Interstate Commerce Commission against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. and other carriers, asking reduction in rates on shipments of livestock in what is known as the

1 western district, this district comprising a large portion of 1 the livestock-growing section of the United States west of the Mississippi River; and, as I understand it-while I have not the exact language of the application before me-the prayer was for reduction of rates on livestock in the western district to the basis in effect when General Order 28, made by the Railroad Administration, took effect June 28, 1918, 1Uld subsequently, at hearings held at Fort Worth, an amended petition was .filed asking that the rate basis be made the same as it was next before General Order 28 took effect, or, in other words, that pre-war rates be restored.

Subsequently other livestock associations .filed complaints involving the same questions, and several of these cases were heard together. Interveners and witnesses representing all sections of the livestock industry of the West forined· almost a regiment in number. William A. Disque, examiner for the Interstate Commerce Commission, conducted the hearings.

Following this a case was instituted on the commission's own initiative to determine what reductions it would make, if any, in the western district on products of agriculture, . including livestock. Hearings were held on this case at Chicago, beginning in September, 1925, then at Denver, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Dallas, and were concluded at Kansas City in January of this year.

Now, as stated, hearings have recently closed at Kansas City on the case instituted by the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine what reductions it would make, if any, under the provisions of the Hoch-Smith resolution, direeting the lowest possible lawful rates-and I may state the wor<l "lawful" does not necessarily mean "reasonable," applyirig the language of the aforesaid Hoch-Smith resolution, and I do not think anyone will dispute this statement or challenge my position. ·

At some of the hearings, as shown by the transcript of testimony, prominent cattlemen of Texas testified-men whose veracity and reputation for giving facts can not, and will not, be questioned· by any representatives of the railroads in this country, nor their knowledge of the cattle industry, nor· 'the experience· upon which they base their information. · And -I refer to such outstanding r~presentatives of the livestock hldustry from my State as Hon. Herbert Kokernot, president of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers' Association; Mr. Lee Bivins, of .Amarillo; J. H. Nail, of Fort Worth; J. M. Reynolds, D. T. Hobart, Pat Landergan, George Armstrong, of Fort Worth, who has made a lifetime study of the business ; and Hon. Berkley Spiller, who has been secretary of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers' Association for many years, and a man qualified as thoroughly as a person could qualify, or as fully as any of the railroad witnesses were qualified, as to a competent knowledge of railroad rates and the conditions pertaining to livestock shipments ; also men from the State of Kansas, like Hon. J. H. Mercer, livestock commissioner; C. A. Stephenson, Arnold Berns, Earl Barker, Rodney A. Elward, and many others from that State, whom I will make bold to say would be vouched for as to their integrity and truthfulness by Congressman TmoHER, of KansaS', chairman of this committee; also Mr. A. Sykes, of Ida Grove, Iowa, president of the Corn Belt Meat Producers' Association, whom many of you gentlemen have met and who has been before the Agricultural Committee in behalf of legislation for the relief of the farmers and livestock producers; also Ron. T. E. Cessna, State senator, of Grinnell, Iowa; and many others I could name by further taking up the time of the House and consuming space in the RECORD, all of whom, without a single exception, gave testimony as to the depressed condition existing since 1920 in the cattle business, many of them stating that hundreds of heretofore prosperous cattlemen had been forced into bankruptcy, and all protesting against the excessive rates on livestock shipments, especially since General Order 28, raising the rates on livestock shipments from 25 to 40 per cent, became effective.

And I desire also, in view of the adverse report of Examiner Disque, to quote the testimony in brief of :Mr. Spiller, secretary of the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers' Association, and Mr. Tomlinson, secretary of the American National Livestock Association.

Mr. Spiller stated th·at the business is unprofitable and has been since 1920; that it has bee~ on the retrograde since 1921

5108 OONGRESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE MARcii 5 and a great many cattlemen have been forced out of business, and others have had their financial condition so impaired that

·they have had a hard time staying in the business; that the industry, carried on in the usual manner of borrowing money and purchasing holdings and cattle, and paying interest thereon, was such that they had not been able to weather the storm. -Mr. Spiller pointed out that this condition e:rists very generally throughout the industry.

Mr. Spiller testified that he, as secretary of the association, had been acquainted with the cattle-rate business for several years, and believed these rates should be reduced, because they were excessive and an intolerable burden upon the business in its

_present condition; that he had been manager of the Cooperative . Commission Co., operated by the Cattle Raisers' Association at Fort Worth, and that he observed publications by the railroads indicating that freight rates represented only 3 or 4 per cent of the-gross proceeds from cattle, which figures were compiled

. by the American Railway Association, but that _ the result of the Cooperative Commission Company's experience in ship-

. ments was that the freight takes between 8 and 9 per cent of gross proceeds and 9 to 10 per cent of net proceeds; that _the manner in which cattle are raised and handled in the western country-Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona-and through the

-range country northward shows that in the life history of a 3 or .f year old steer, when it finally reaches the slaughter pen,

_it has taken at least three journeys, and often more movements than that; that the aggregate gross receipts paid to his company on the market on the sales of livestock at Fort 'Vorth

. were $3,599,000 for the year 1924, and the freight charges paid -thereon were $302,000, or something like 10 per cent. This -included sheep and hogs. 1\Ir. _Spiller had no estimate with respect to receipts trucked in, which, of course, are known to constitute a factor of some extent.

Mr. T. W. Tomlinson, secretary of the American Nation:)] Live Stock Association, Denver, Colo., with 20 years' experience

- in that service, and for many years previous in transportation matters, representing the Chicago Live Stock Exchange, the Chicago Junction Railroad, and the Santa Fe Railway, testified at length.

He . .stated that he bad for years been engaged in many important hearings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, involving livestock rates of the West, and had given extensive study to the livestock producing business throughout the western district and all of the matters pertaining to it. He stated that during the war and immediately afterward there was an expansion of the business due to various causes and the Government's representations of the world shortage in meat products, and during that time there was free advancing of money for production by loan companies and others. Following this there was a period of deflation. Liquidation naturally followed this with such reduced prices that the security was not worth the money loaned on it. He pointed out that the range cattle industry was probably in worse shape than at any time in its history, referring to the low prices, freakish weather conditions, and increase of overhead expense, high railroad rates,

. taxes, grazing fees, and cost of supplies, so that the majority of the range cattlemen are broke, or very near it, and many of

_them have been driven out of business. While that was more particularly the case with the cattle

business, Mr. Tomlinson stated that still the sheep business, which he was directed to represent for the National Wool Growers' Association, had suffered a tremendous deflation preceding the cattle deflation, and while it had not lost so heavily as the cattle business, still it put many of the sheepmen out of business; that the liquidation was drastic, and sheepmen bad not by any means recovered, although the price of sheep

. and lambs had gone up considerably higher than at the lowest

. period of deflation. Mr. Tomlinson further testified that the special service given

during the war for 20 or 30 cars is not now furnished, and after the 28 hours was extended to 36 for unloading, there was a lessening of the speed of trains, so that they did little more than formerly was performed in 28 hours; that based upon a comprehensive investigation, the speed of livestock transportation to-day is less than it was 15 or 20 years ago ; that formerly the competition in securing the business induced better service, but that from extensive investigation of wheel reports, train com;ists, and other data of like character, he was convinced that livestock does not now move on the average any faster

. than the average through freight on other commodities between

. division points. lie stated further that stock trains do not move as such, but

are generally filled out with other kinds of freight, as to which he giYes full exptanation, which accords to the other freight the same character of movement. He explains that heretofore ther~ were numerous cases where dead-freight trains, liyestock

trains, "red-ball" trains, perishable-freight trains, and others -made excellent speed between some division points, and in some instances a separate train of livestock made extraordinary speed, but that now it is handled on the trains that carry other classes of freight between division points; that low-grade freight does not receive the good service that the "red ball" • perishable, and special freight receive; that out of Denver, f~r example, all of the leading lines handling livestock east such as the Burlington and the Union Pacific, handle everythlng on their freight trains, and that they are not confined to livestock.

Mr. Tomlinson stated that in one of the cases in which he took an active part he got a lot of Union Pacific consists and they had a number of coal cars on the trains carrying livestock, and in that case they gave coal expedited service, just as much as livestock. They meet the situation, he said, as they find it. He stated that on the average none of these trains are loaded up to potential-engine capacity, although that happens in cases, but the average is around 60· _per cent for all trains, and that this applies to livestock and other trains .

Mr. Tomlinson proceeded with extensive testimony with respect to the condition of the livestock industry and the matter of service. Referring to Montana, he explained:

Montana, along with the rest of them, liquidated her range cattle, and there has been a tran~:~ition in that State, due to settlement by a lot of dry farmers, m·any of whom ultimately had to move out on account of crop fallures from drought conditions. Here the llvestock is now in smaller holdings, the big herds being cut down. There are fewer range cattle in Montana to-day than there were 10 years ago or even 3 years ago.

Mr. Tomlinson also stated that the feeding of cattle had proved a loss to the feeders.

He testified that the livestock traffic in the western country was contributing more than its fair share of the transportation and believes that the rates in effect prior to General Order 28 should be restored, and that it would still pay its fair share of the tr~nsportation burden, referring in particular to the many journeys made by cattle before final marketing. He stated that the business had not been sufficiently profitable to afford the continued movement to the Northwest to warrant the _people in shipping from the Southwest and paying the high freight rates; that by the time a steer raised in New l\Iexico, Arizona, or west Texas makes these journeys a large percentage of the price is absorbed for freight, and that if the rates were restored as before the war, the roads would earn substantially above the "out-of-pocket " expense; that it is a matter of economic ad· justment; that there can be no such thing as an equivalent of profit in the traffic by which to measure the rates.

Agricultural colleges, farm bureaus, and State railroad commissions at the hearings also gave indisputable evidence of the depressed and desperate condition of agriculture generally, including, of course, the livestock industry, throughout the Corn Belt and the West.

And notwithstanding it was shown by Attorney Sam H. Cowan for the American National Live Stock Association, by railroad reports and statistics, that demonstrate to my mindand I am sure would have to any unprejudiced mind be'yond possibility of dispute-that the handling of livestock by the railroads is no more expensive per 100 pounds ' than the average traffic, while the livestock shipments pay 50 per cent more freight; and that, considering the heavy trains in which it is nearly always moved, it is handled more cheaply, and the figures shown demonstrate that the rates as they existed next before the war were sufficient to meet the basis declared by the Hoch-Smith resolution; and also that the proposed 5 per cent advance should be put out of existence. ·

And notwithstanding that the railroads claim that the rates asked to be established would amount to $35,000,000 in the western district per annum-and my deduction from the testimony is that this was based upon inflated values, and if lt is a fact that it would decrease the revenue by establishing this rate $35,000,000-the brief and testimony offered by the livestock people shows that the stockmen are paying at least that much more than they ought to pay, as provided in the Hocb-Smith resolution, which passed this b_ody by a large majority and also passed the Senate by an increased majority.

And notwithstanding, gentlemen, that it was shown-as I conclude and as, I am sure, you would likewise conclude if you had the testimony before you-that the contention of the representatives of the railroads that it cost more per gross ton-mile to ship livestock than other commodities, the representatives of the livestock industry showed that it was the same per ton-mile and practically the same per car-mile for the shipment of livestock as other commodities, and as I recall some of the testimony now, it was less per ton-mile. And I do know thaj it was shown that the livestock shipments

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--HOUSE· -5109 moved in carload lots of lllh tons per car, while the average carload of all other commodities weighed ·21.46 tohs, or nearly twice as much. ·

Certainly· it did not require the same amount of fuel and did not incur an equal amount of wear and tear and damage

· upon the cars and trackage to ship livestock as that of other commodities weighing twice as ·much per car. And notwithstanding the representatives of the livestock companies were not given full access to the books of the railroad companies, their data, and so forth, and had not sufficient money to pro-

·cure experts having a peculiar and thorough and technical knowledge of the way the railroad- companies juggled their figures in order to get all testimony. that could have been gotten, with all these facts before him the said Mr. Disque,

. examiner for the Interstate Commerce Commission, in the report that I hold in my hand, denied the application in every instance, and I quote his remarkable conclusions in his state. ment and recommendations to the Interstate Commerce Com-mission:

The rates assaUed are not shown to be unreasonable or unduly prejudicial.

The complaints in all the cases should be dismissed.

So you will conclude from Mr. Disque's remarkable statement in the document I hold in my hand, containing his full report to the Interstate Commerce Commission upon the hearings had at "Fort Worth and other places, that the cattlemen were beginning to get very prosperous and that the roads were getting poorer every day, that everything would soon be lovely

. with the livestock producer, and that the goose was hanging clear to the top of the sycamore tree.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; I yield to my colleague from Texas. Mr. JONES. I would like to know if that mAn put into the

record or made the statement openly that the livestock men · were ·making money and the railroads were getting poorer.

Mr. HUDSPETH; . We11,. you might conclude that from his statement, and I quote a portion of same, where he says : .

The studies of defendants' statisticians u.nd agricultural economists, incorporated in the record, seem to have convine<.'<l the carriers that the future holds bright prospects for the cattlemen.

Quoting further frorli his sfatement: Substantially fewer cattle u.re on the farms this year tban there

_ have been for some years past, possibly reflecting a tendency to restrict production. With the supply curtailed prices may go higher. Price changes since- the hearing have been upward in conformity with the predictions of defendants' witnesses. One of . the cyclical swings which have characterized price movements of the past is sllid to be now under way.

'1\Ir. JONES. Did he cite any testimony to warrant that? Mr. HUDSPETH. Only the statements of the carriers and

the " cow9logists " and hare-brained theorists produced by the railways, so-called "professors " who appeared there and told Mr. · Disque that the cattlemen were making money, and such gentlemen were certainly eminently qualified ( ? ) to tell cattlemen like Mr. TINCHER, 1.1r. WHITE of Kansas, and myself, who know something about the business, how to run our business and make money.

And, notwithstanding the many real livestock producers who testified, it is expected that the Interstate Commerce Commission should find, as Mr. Di-sque seems to have found, that despite the multitude of such witnesses, who are in the business and testified that it is conducted at a loss, the "professor" theorists contend that speculation must be · relied on against facts, and i call to your attention that not one of them could point to a single instance of profit in either raising or feeding cattle for five years, except in an agricultural report of feeding in one season in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, and it was only done in this instance by counting the fertilizer as showing a profit. -

Mr. Morehouse, operating a service for agricultural employment concerns, bankers, and mail-order houses, who seems to be at the head of the Howard-Morehouse Senice, and also said to belong to the farm bureau organization, was ei.Qployed by the railroads to make a study and tell the examiner-and did probably so tell him-that the stock raisers and farmers are making money, yet on cross-examination by Mr. Cowan he was forced to admit that he did not know a thing about it.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; I yielrl to my collea~ue from Texas. Mr. BLANTON. And it is a fact that every cowman in the

United States knows that those who have not been forced out of busin~ss under the deflation are just now barely getting back on their feet.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; those that were· not forced out of business by. the deflation· and liquidation of cruel loan companies are just now getting their heads above water. And the gentleman knows some of these witnesses who are qualified to speak for the livestock producers, such as Mr. J. M. Reynolds, of Fort Worth, and other gentlemen from our State who appeared and gave testimony at this hearing.

Mr. CARTER of Oklahoma. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; I yield to my friend from Oklahoma. Mr. CARTER of Oklahoma. The gentleman mentioned the

State of Oklahoma. Did this investigator--Mr. HUDSPETH. Let me state, before answering the ques

tion of my friend from Oklahoma, that J.\.!r. Disque quotes the railroads' representatives as stating that the old farmer's and livestock p1·oducer's dollar was worth more in 1924 than ever before.

I see my friend from Kentucky [Mr. KINCHELOE] on the floor, and I wonder what his reaction is to this statement, as I observe that he quoted the Department of Agriculture recently, wherein it was shown that the purchasing power of the farmer's and livestock producer's dollar was now about 60 cents.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I will ·say it does not agree with the statement of that department, and I will say that it is only worth now about 60 cents in purchasing power.

Mr. CARTER of Oklahoma. If this gentleman claims there is any degree of prosperity among the cattlemen in the State of Oklahoma--

J.\.Ir. HUDSPETH. ·wen, you can take his report, and you can not conclude otherwise than that it was his very strong impression that there was considerable ·prosperity among the livestock producers at the present time in the western district, wherein the freight rates were asked to be reduced, and I am quite sure t11at Oklahoma is in the western district.

·Mr. CARTER of Oklahoma. Having had considerable experience in the stock business my elf and being in full touch with the stockmen of Oklahoma, I will say I can only think of two or tllree stockmen in the State of Oklahoma who .are not on the verge of bru:ikruptcy. The Miller Bros. might be cited as one, and Jim Miller told me a year or so ago that the stock business was such a losing proposition that he bad to start up a circus in order to keep the stock business ·going. There was a firm of Wiseheimer & Dauby, a large firm engaged in the mercantile, wholesale, and retail business, and owning livestock, who told me just before leaving home, Mr. Dauby speaking, that if it .had not been for the mercantile and oil busine s they would have run into bankruptcy long ago. Another livestock producer who might be on safe ground is ·an old Indian citizen, Felix Penner, who bas never borrowed anything on his livestock.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Now, as to this great prosperity that you were informed from Mr. Disque's report exists among the -live. stock producers-for certainly he must have concluded they were making money and able to pay these exorbitant rates, or he would not have found against them-1 much prefer to take the statement of my friend from · Oklahoma rather _ than the statement .and conclusions of Examiner Disque, who was out there and heard this great volume of testimony, and he intimates in his statement that nobody but rich cattlemen appeared in behalf of the livestock shippers. Certainly the poor fellow who has been forced out of business could not appear there, for he had not anything to pay his expenses.

And, notwithstanding Mr. Disque's statement that the carriers could not stand a reduction in livestock rates, I will show, by quoting a portion of the brief of Mr. Cowan, representing the American Live Stock Producers, and 1\Ir. Dayton Moses, representing the Texas Cattle Raisers' Association, that oil trainloads of livestock covering a distance of 259 miles the raili·oads made a net profit of $846.

Now I yield to my colleague from Texas [Mr. CoNNALLY], who seems to desire to interrogate me.

Mr. CONNALLY of Texas. Probably this Mr. Disque had been reading some of the speeches of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. TINCHER] and others showing how prosperous the tariff bad made the cattlemen.

J.\.Ir. HUDSPETH. I will not take up the tariff question at this time and discuss it with the gentleman, and I take it that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. TINCHER] will discuss that question with my friend from Texas at any time he may desire. But I am now after this Mr. Disque, who denied all our applications for relief, and I am attempting to show the fallacy and unsoundness of his argument. ·

Now, Mr. Disque says that the rates are not shown to be unreasonable nor unduly prejudicial and that the railroads could not stand a reduction and make a reasonable profit on their investment, notwithstanding the resolution of my good

5110 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-HOUSE MARon 5 friend from Kansas [l\Ir. HocH] was cited to Mr. Disque after the hearings had been begun, which provides for the lowest lawful rate instead of a rate necessarily producing a reasonable return on the investment.

And I also call to your attention that I saw a statement which I have never seen controverted by the railroads that last year the railroads of the country, as a whole, made over 6 per cent on their total investments.

Now, I want to ask you gentlemen who are familiar with the cattle business, if you know of a single cowman for the past five years who has made as much as 2 per cent net on his total investment? And I will say to this distinguished gentleman, 1\Ir. Disque, who, to my mind, shows throughout his report a very considerable bias toward the railroad companies, that ~ the railroads are making anything like the amount upon theu investments as quoted, they certainly should share a small portion of it with the struggling cattlemen in the way of rate reductions.

Mr. CARTER of Oklahoma. Does the gentleman know of any cattlemen in any section of the Southwest that are enjoying any degree of prosperity? ,

l\Ir. HUDSPETH. I do not. There has been, as I have stated heretofore, some raise in values occurring principally in the last six months, but not sufficient to place the cattlemen back on sound footing, and certainly not sufficient to pay what I term the unjust raise in freight rates provided for under General Order 28 and subsequent raises as provided in " Increased rates, 1920," effective August 26, 1920.

Now, let me say that the petition for reduction in rates .by complainants in No. 15686 was filed long before the Hoch-Smlth resolution was passed, challenging the rates on livestoc~ in the western district, both State and interstate, and would have been as it has been, heard independent of that resolution, the co~ssion is required to decide it in accordance therewith, and it is therefore the law of this case. I quote that part of the resolution, as follows :

In view of the existing depression In agriculture, the commission is hereby directed to et!ect \"lith the least practicable delay such lawful changes in the rate structure of the country as will promote the freedom of movement by common carriers of the products of agriculture affected by that depression, including livestock, at the lowest possible lawful rates compatible with the maintenance of adequate transportation service: Provided, That no investigation or proceeding resulting from the adoption of this resolution will be permitt~d to delay the decision of cases now pending before the commission involving rates on products of agriculture and that such cases shall be decided in accordance with this resolution.

I will state to you gentlemen, who view this matter as ..:. do, that I have made an investigation at the Interstate Commerce Commission and have ascertained that the matters embraced in the hearing before Mr. Disque, with also the testimony taken by the Interstate Commerce Commission on its own initiative will probably be set down for hearing in April, and, if not n~t later than 1\!ay, for argument, and I feel it is incumbe'nt upon every man here who represents a livestock district to go before the Interstate Commerce Commission at that time and show the absolute fallacy of the findings made by Examiner Disque.

Mr; HOCH. 1\fr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield right there?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas, who has shown himself to be a real friend of the livestock producer and the farmer, and who is a joint author of the Hoch-Smith resolution, declaring that the livestock business is in a depressed condition, and further declaring that the railroads should make the lowest lawful rate possible on livestock shipments.

1\Ir. HOCH. I would like to say that it is the testimony of men from my State that this man Disque is altogether prejudiced and biased. I have talked with men who are identified to-day with the livestock industry, men who attended all these hearings, and they complained of the biased attitude that this man assumed all the way through the hearings.

l\lr. HUDSPETH. I will say to my friend from Kansas that a careful reading of his report discloses this condition indubitabl~ to my mind. There were many witnesses from the State of my friend from Kansas, men of prominence, men who have been engaged in the cattle business all their lives, and you will find a statement from one of them, Hon. J. H. Mercer, representing the Kl).nsas State Livestock Association, having held that position for many years, and also being a member of the State livestock sanitary commission. He states that cattle dress out about 56 or 57 per cent, and finally the total freight charge, independent of other expenses, is 372 to 472 cents per 100 pouuds added to the co~t of the meat to the consUI!le~.

He says that the cattle business was stable prior to the issuing ot General Order 28, but that at no time in the commission's history of 25 years past were there such demoralized conditions as have taken place since the issuance of this order.

He furthermore states that, according to his belief, the owners that are not insolvent are engaged in some other business that is compelled to carry the livestock end, and he further states that the Santa Fe Railway Co. had filed a petition with the Utilities Commission of Kansas that their lines operating in Kansas be permitted to put in rates to move pure-bred livestock at one-half what they are asking because of the demoralized condition of the pure-bred livestock industry.

And I want to state to my colleague from Texas [:Mr. JoNEs] that a reputable gentleman from Kansas, who is a cattle buyer, stated that he bought cattle in the Panhandle, in my friend's district, and drove them to his ranch in Kan as, in the neighborhood of 400 miles overland, rather than pay the exorbitant freight rates that the railroads enjoin upon him.

Now, gentlemen, think of going back to the old-fashioned trail-dliving method of transporting cattle of 40 years ago, when the country is now checkerboarded with railroads. And yet, when men are forced to drive cattle hundreds of miles over the trail on account of excessive freight charges, Mr. Disque, in his conclusions, indicates that the railroads are unable to reduce said charges, and in reading his report you will also see where the railroads, instead of reducing the freight rates, are asking at the present time for a 20 per cent additional raise in freight rates, and I have no doubt if 1:he matter is put up to 1\lr. Disque he would approve this additional raise. He is so fearful that the poor downtrodden railroads will be imposed upon by the prosperous cattlp, producers of the country!

Mr. JO.l\TES. Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield? 1\!r. HUDSPETH. Yes. Mr. JONES. I know of several instances like that, and I

also know of cases where they drive cattle from the gentleman's section to the section wuere I live. I would like to know if my friend from Texas, when he was down at the Interstate Commerce Commission, inquired as to when hearings would be held on the Smith-Hoch resolution?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; I presume my friend means when the argument will be heard before the commission on the SmithHoch resolution. When I was there I inquired as to when a1·gument would be heard upon the report of 1\lr. Disque, and I was informed that the argument on the livestock rate hear· ings had been joined with that on the Smith-Hoch resolution and would be heard not later than about the 1st of May.

1\Ir. JONES. Did they know that the Smith-Hoch resolution calls for a reduction of rates on livestock and agricultural products?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; I think they do. nut the celebrated Mr. Disque, in his famous report that I hold in my hand, made the statement that a reduction had been made of 10 per cent on livestock rates, first voluntarily by the railways covering a short period1 and then afterwards made permanent by the Interstate Commerce Commission. But, as I understand it, this decrease only appUes where the rate in existence was more than 50 cents per 100 pounds, and the short-haul fellows would not get any benefit theref-rom on hauls of less than 500 miles.

I see before me my good friend from Kansas [Mr. HAYS WHITE], who has always on this floor shown himself to be a real friend of the cattleman. The people in his district whose markets are less than 500 miles would not get any benefit from this decrease, but it would only apply on what is known as the long-haul shipments. And this calls to my mind a statement of 1\lr. Disque seeking to justify the lower rates on long hauls by stating that there was a greater expense attached to long hauls than short hauls. l\ly experience and observation are just to the contrary. On short hauls covering a distance of less than 500 miles the railro'ads are not put to the expense of unloading, watering, or feeding, and certainly the expense should be less on the short haul as far as the railroads are concerned than on t11e long hauls.

I will insert at the end of my remarks a statement taken from the brief of Hon. S. H. Cowan, attorney for the Ameri· can National Livestock Association, and other complainants, giving representative rates on cattle from representative points to market.

Mr. WHITE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentle· man yield for a question?

Mr. HUDSPETH. Yes; I yield to my good friend from Kansas.

1\lr. WIDTE of Kansas. Does the gentleman also know that in the order making a general 10 per cent reduction grain and wheat and coarse grain were excepted from that order?

1\Ir. HUDSPETH. Absolutely. The reduction, as I have stated, applies only to the long hauls, and I am glad my friend from Kansas emphasized the injustice of same as ap.

1926 CONGRESS! ON AL RECORD-HOUSE ·. 5111 plying to grain and other farm products. Your territory, I will state to my fl'iend from Kansas, did not get any benefit from this 10 per cent reduction so greatly emphasized by Mr. Disque in his remarkable report.

I take it that the distance covered by your shippers is less than would give them the benefit ·of tbe 50 cents per 100 pounds, so that you did not get any reduction at all. But Mr. Disque cites this in justification of his denial of the application for reduction in freight rates as prayed for by the livestock producers all along the line. [Applause.]

.As showing discrimination against the shipments of sheep and goats, I quote you the following from a statement made recently at a meeting of the executive committee of the Sheep and Goat Raisers' Association at Del Rio, Tex.:

Figures alleging discrimination against the livestock trom this seetion of Texas were quoted by A. H. Priest, of the Livestock Traffic Commission of Fort Worth. This district was said to be the only· section in the United States on which the rate on a double-deck car of sheep is higher than the rate on a car of cattle.

Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana were said by liir. Priest to have a decided advantage over southwest Texas in the matter of rates to. the northern markets, the Texas shipper paying more a car than the shippers of these States. The sheepmen are discriminated against also, in that while stocker cattle and hogs enjoy a special rate stocker sheep and goats do not, Mr. Priest asserted.

This matter was unquestionably presented to Mr. Disque, but . no reference given by him in his report.

Now, Mr. Disque makes the statement in his report, which I quote, as follows :

For all practical purposes it may be said that complainants' evidence in the present case relates wholly to the condition of the cattle industry-

thereby implying that complainants produced no testimony whatsoever as to the revenue derived by the railroads from livestock shipments or the net earnings from same.

Now, I quote you a statement from the reply brief of Hon. S. H. Cowan, attorney for the American National Livestock .Association, and Hon. Dayton Moses, attorney for the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Rai er · Association, showing the net earnings on a train of livestock a distance of 310.55 miles.

If the livestock rates be reduced to pt·e;war level estimated at 85 per cent, that would bring the per train earnings down to $3,131.25 for the train of 630 tons, as shown by-Felton's Exhibit 88 and Exhibit B, our brief; average dis-

tance, 310.55 mileS----------------------------------- $3, 131. 25 Deducting expenses, maintenance, equipment, and transporta-

tion------------------------------------------------ 1,636.59

Excess earnings over cosL------------------------------ 1, 494. 66

Deducting total operating expenses per train_____________ 2, 310.49

Leaves profit------------------------------------------ 820.76 Twenty-six per cent of train earnlngs.

Now, mind you, this would be the result if the decrease prayed for had been granted.

Now, I leave it to the judgment of the Members of this House as to whether or not Mr. Disque was justified in denying this application of complainants praying for reduction in the exorbitant rate on livestock, in view of the preponderance of evidence produced by complainants showing same to be excessive, unreasonable, and exorbitant, and beyond that which the livestock producers, and especially the cattlemen, can pay and maintain the business.

I do not state that the plight of the cattlemen and the livestock producers is due wholly to these exorbitant rates, but I do state that they contribute in a large measure to his inability to make anything like a reasonable return on his investment. And I feel sure the splendid men comprising the Interstate Commerce Commission will repudiate the biased and ill-founded report of Mr. Disque and grant the livestock producers the reductions prayed for, which by a preponderance of evidence were shown to be reasonable and fair to the carriers. [Applause.] REPRESEYTA.TlVE RATES ON CATTLE FROM REPRES'L~TATIVE POINTS TO

MARKET

Fort Worth, Tex::- to Kansas City, Mo., 507 miles; rate 49 cents; per car-mile, 21.3 cents; per ton-mile, 1.93 cents.

Fort Worth to Oklahoma City, Okla., 202 miles; rate 29lh cents; per car-mile, 32.1 cents ; per ton-mile, 2.92 cents.

San Antonio, Tex., to Fort Worth, 276 miles; rate 35 cents; per carmile, 27.9 cents; per ton-mile, 2.64 cents.

• San Antonio, Tex., to Kansas City, Mo., 783 miles; rate 60 cents; per car-mile, 16.9' cents; per ton-mile, 1.54 cents.

From Amarillo, Tex., to Fort Worth, 335 miles; rate 38th cents; per car-mile, 25.3 cents; per ton-mile, 2.3 cents.

From Dalhart, Tex., to Kansas City, 525 miles; rate 47 cents; per car-mile, 19.7 cents; per ton-mile, 1.79 cents.

From El Paso, TeL, to Kansas City, 949 miles; rate 64lh cents; per car-mile, 15 cents ; per ton-mile, 1.37 cents.

From Woodward, Okla., to Kansas City, 389 miles; rate 40 cents; per car-mile, 22.6 cents ; per ton-mile, 2.05 cents.

From Oklahoma City to Kansas City, 384 miles; rate 40 cents; per car-mile, 22.9 cents ; per ton-mile, 2.08 cents.

From Roswell, N. 1\Iex., to Kansas City, 772 miles; rate 54 cents; per car-mile, 15.4 cents; per ton-mile, 1.49 cents.

From Victoria, Tex., to St. Louis, Mo., 925 miles; rate 60 cents; per car-mile, 14.3 cents; per ton-mile, 1.3 cents.

From Longview, Tex., to St. Louis, 585 miles; rate 501h cents; per car-mile, 19.1 cents; per ton-mile, 1.74 cents.

From Shreveport, La., to Fort Worth, 222 miles; rate 31 cents; per car-mile, 30.7 cents; per ton-mile, 2.8 cents.

From Shreveport to St. Louis, 465 miles ; rate 48lh cents ; per carmile, 22.9 cents; per ton-mile, 2.08 cents.

From Harlingen, Tex., to Fort Worth, 511 miles; rate 47lh cents; per car-mile, 20.5 cents; per ton-mile, 1.87 cents.

From Harlingen to Kansas City, 1,018 miles; rate 70th cents; per car-mile, 15.2 cents; per ton-mile, 1.38 cents.

From Houston, Tex., to Oklahoma City, 463 miles; rate 47th cents; per car-mile, 22.6 cents ; per ton-mile, 2.05 cents.

From Amarillo, Tex., to Omaha, Nebr., 756 miles ; rate 53lh cents; per car-mile, 15.6 cents; per ton-mile, 1.42 cents.

From Quanah, Tex., to Omaha, Nebr., 711 miles; rate 53lh cents; per car-mile, 16.6 cents; per ton-mile, 1.51 cents.

The foregoing rates are on 36-foot ears, 22,000 pounds minimum weight, shown in Pelton's Exhibit No. 1, with the tariff references.

These rates to Omaha, Kansas City, and St. Louis are the rates established in the cattle raisers' case with the increases made under General Order 28 and the increases made in ex parte 74, with the decrease of the rates under Docket 12146, where the rates were above 50 cents per 100 pounds with a minimum of 50 cents, and the 10 per cent decrease put into effect first by the voluntary action of the railroads January, 1922, and continued by order of the 'commission in 13293.

The rates other than to the Missouri ~iver points and St. Louis above noted were based upon Invesfigation and Suspension 958 with the increase under General Order 28 and ex parte 74 and given application under the scale known as 2797, applicable within the States of Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and intermediate and to Wichita, Kans., and Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, likewise applicable eastern New Mexico to those points.

There was also introduced Pelton's Exhibit No.2, which gives list of the stock-cattle rates from New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona points to points in Wyoming, South Dakota, l\Iontana, and Nebraska.

A few representative rates will be sufficient to point out what they are:

Amarillo, Tex., to Cheyenne, Wyo., 585 miles, rate $109.50 per car ; 18.7 cents per car-mile, 1.87 cents per ton-mile.

M.idland, TeL, to Cheyenne, Wyo., distance 932 miles, $140 per car; per car-mile, 15 cents; per ton-mile, 1.5 cents.

Alpine, Tex., to Cheyenne, Wyo., 1,131 miles, rate $165.50 per car; per car-mile, 18.2 cents; per ton-mile, 1.82 cents.

Clovis, N. Mex., to Cheyenne, 692 miles, per car $113; per car-mile, 16.3 cents; per ton-mile, 1.63 cents.

Winslow, Ariz., to Cbeyenne, 1,404 miles, rate per car $165./ro; per car-mile, 12 cents; per ton-mile, 1.2 cents.

From Amarillo to Miles City, Mont., 1,281 miles, $149 per car; per car-mile, 11.6 cents; per ton-mile, 1.16 cents.

The foregoing has reference to 36-foot cars with an estimated minimum weight of 20,000 pounds.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas bas expired.

M.r. SHREVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WATSON].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the committee to speak on the tariff, a worn-out subject, I admit, but one that seems to have been revived by gentlemen of the Hl>use advocating lower rates of duties. Nations are increasing tariff rates rather than reducing them, if we can be guided by commercial reports, and I doubt if lower tariff rates than now exist will be placed upon our statute books during the present generation, especially since the textile industries are building up the wealth of the Southern States, changing agricultural districts into industrial sections, growing raw products on one

5112 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ·· MARcH 5

side of the chandise.

road, on the other manufacturing them into mer- nations at war that maintained its par value. I would praise the policies that produced these conditions rather than condemn them, as the gentleman from Tennessee deems wise in his philosophy.

Mr. ALLGOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? ·Mr. WATSON. Yes. Mr. ALLGOOD. While it is a fact that the nations through

out the world are raising their tariffs, is it not also a fact that · the cost of living throughout the world is increasing?

Mr. wATSON. No; I think not, because of the national policy of America of levying a protective tariff.

Mr. ALLGOOD. You say the cost of liviug has not increased?

Mr. wATSON. Not altogether the cause of the protective policy.

:Mr ALLGOOD. It has in this country. Mr: W ATSO~. The first Congress of the United States was

summoned to meet in New York on March 4, 1789. It required 35 days to organize the House and adopt " Rules and Or~ers " to govern the legislative proceedings. On the 8th of April the House resolved itself into a "Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union" to consider the first tariff bill. The caption was as follows :

Whet·eas it is necessary for the support of the Government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of the manufacturers, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandise imported.

1\Ir. Madison, in presenting the bill, opened his speech as follows:

I take the liberty, Mr. Chairman, at this early stage of the business to introd\lce to the committee a subject which appears to me to be of the greatest magnitude, a subject, sir, that requires our first attention and our united efforts.

The tariff act of 1789 covered one and a half pages; that of 1922 147. The first item iu the 1789 bill, without alphabetical orde~ was Jamaica proof--described afterward as Jamaica rum~imported from any kingdom or country whatsoever, per gallon, 10 cents.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield there? Mr. WATSON. Yes. l\Ir. COLE. Was Mr. Madison the author of that bill? Mr. WATSON. I think not. He was evidently the chair

man of the committee that framed and introduced the bill. Mr. COLE. He was a Democrat, was he not? Mr. ·wATSON. Well, it does not make any difference

whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. He had good ideas on the protective policy.

What great changes have taken place in the development of our Government; what great controversial battles have been fought· what grave questions have been debated in this body by the' ablest men of the Representatives siuce the first tariff act, that have influenced the social and commercial course of empires.

In the virtue of true political light I hold that a protective - policy has accomplished more toward the development of our

natural resources, more to increase the wealth of our Nation, more to give to our wage earners comfortable and happy homes, and more to establish our Republic as the banker of the world than any other one policy that has been adopted by the Congress of the United States. If we take time to read Ul'e speeches on tariff issues from the early period of our history to the present, we find no .new arguments, whether they be on a tariff for revenue, protection, or free trade. The greatest a.nd strongest argument that has ever been made in favor of protection can be said ill three words " Prosperity follows protection," and proven by the well-known axiom, "Selfevident truth."

The distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. HuLL] said, quoting that the output of manufacturers increased from twenty-four billions in 1914 to sixty billions in 1923:

'l'be late war profoundly affected and completely reversed all the pr~>-war conditions on which higher tariffs were predicated. America emerged as a great creditor nation, an industrial giant, with a productive capacity largely in excess of domestic needs and with 'manufacturing skill and efficiency far outstripping that ot the disorganized, dislocated, and impoverished industries of Europe.

Gentlemen, protective policy made it possible to develop our industries that we could supply the world with goods. The gentlemen cau not fail to admit that we loaned our allies $10,000,000,000, with the accumulating interest of two and a half billions more, to carry on the war, and our wealth mado it possible to settle the war debts by discounting them more than one-half. The increase of exports that supplied the wants of tl1e people when foreign factories were closed naturally increased our production. It was the reversed result during the 1812 war with England. We must not fail to .note that the American dollar was the only medium of eKchange of !J.ll the

Shall the economic life of the world during coming years be developed under American leadership on the basis of high tarill'-

Inquires the gentleman from Tennessee. I reply, yes ; and the Southern Tariff League, composed of 16 Southern Stutes, also answers with me yes. Our great Republic was founded as au independent Nation because the laws of England forbade the American Colonies to buy any manufactured article except made in Eugland. A Colonial farmer at one time was not permitted to make a hat from an opossum skin, although the opossum might be trapped on his own farm. The gentleman from Tennessee further said :

It is amazing to see our country still confined to the old economic ruts.

That was the same argument in 18'12 and dowu to the p!'esent time by the advocates of low tariffs. Yes; we are in the same old economic ruts that made our Nation the wealthiest, the mightiest, and the greatest of all the universe. I want to travel in the same old ruts. There was only slight oppo ition to the duties on imports, and its policies continued until 1812. The war between Great Britain and America cloRed the foreign commercial relations, and after the war ended the imports were doubled, at the expense of the American manufacturers.

Alexander Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, made' a report on the tariff, in which he said :

The expediency of encouraging manufacturers in the United States, which was long since deemed very questionable, appears at this time · to be pretty generally admitted.

Protection is as important to-day as at any period within the history of our Republic, in order to maintain the wages of our workmen and for the development of our country. To truce the history of tariff bills down to the present hour would he only to show that in every instance, save between 1853 to 1855 and 1872, prosperity ruled the country under protection and reversed under a tariff for revenue only. · The Crimean War, between 1853 and 1855, was a blockade to imports. The building of railroads at that period and the electric telegraph and the public lands that were developed by the pioneers gave impetus to trade. Twenty-six thousand three hundred and forty miles of railroad were constructed between 1846 and 1860. This alone was sufficient to give pr<isperity to our country. There was another exception in 1872. This was a period of speculation in fanciful projects that never matured. The building of railroads iuto the far West, a country that had not been developed beyond the Indian trails; millions of dollars dra-vn into enterprises, upon which no iuterest was paid. It was a period of promoters; the commencement of the ending of "wildcat" schemes. The 1872 act repealed the duty on coilee, raw hides, and so forth, and reduced an ad valorem rate of 10 per cent on a very large list of commodities. In 1875, 10 per cent ad valorem reduction was repealed and there was immediate evidence of prosperity. Taussig remarked in his book on the tariff, "No satisfactory investigation of the period preceding the crisis of 1873 has yet been made." Protection also encourages competition, and competition reduces prices. Previous to the World War farm implements were cheaper than at any time within their history, and this, of course, enabled farmers to purchase them ; the result, more acres under cultivation, OYer production, and lower prices. Lifting the embargo of protection in order to increase the importation of grain, potatoes, and other food essentials, would further decrease the prices and again add distress to the farmer. The emergency bill, into which I have gone somewhat into detail, proves this statement.

I favor protecting and taking care of our own people rather than those of other nations. Do not open the customhouse doors and permit the influx of goods from foreign spindles and looms; this would keep their factories busy and their workmen employed. Let us take care of ow· own people and give our workmen employment ; let us build up our own industries and increase the sources of taxation rather than to extend these opportunities to our foreign neighbors; let us encourage our own iudustries in order to add to the wealth of our Nation under the stimulating influence of protection. Productive labor is and always will be the financial keynote of a country. It is well to observe that England did not grow into commercial importance until after the enactment of protective laws under Edward III; not until after the introduction of protection was England fiuancially able to commence to build he1· mer- • chant marine, which became the greatest of all the world; it w~ !!Ot until after the policy of protection that the English

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE _5113 Navy was a power en the seas. Protection as applied to America has accomplished more than any other policy to encourage the self-respect of her wage earners by building homes, and blazing the pathways to success, honor, and domestic happiness. America has prospered 92 years under the incentive effe.ct of high tariff and 48 of industrial disturbance brought about by free-trade speeches and free-trade policies. No nation within the history of man can show a semblance to the financial growth of America since the passage of the tariff act of 1922. 'Vithin three years the savings banks have increased their deposits from $6,617,998,000 in 1921, with 10,738,000 depositors, to $8,439,850,000 in 1924, with 13,972,000 depositors. The total deposit of all banks in 1921 was $34,884,572,000, and in 1924 they had increased to $42,954,121,000.

The building operations from 1923 to 1925 amounted to $16,505,202,000.

The output of automobiles since 1921 has been 1,514,000 passenger cars, and in 1924, 3,243,285. The total number of registrations in 1924 was 15,460,649.

It is estimated that 90 per cent of homes in the United Sfates are equipped with radios, and thus the people of America get in touch with the intellectual pulsations of the world.

Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WATSON. Yes. Mr. BLANTON. The gentleman spoke of free trade. I

' do not believe that in this House of 435 Members the gen. tleman can find 5 Congressmen who are free traders.

Mr. WATSON. Well, let me tell the gentleman that there has never been a free trade bill written · in the House, but there has always been the policy of rai ing revenue. However, there has never been a revenue bill that did not have the protective policy in it. Let me say to the gentleman that it is a remarkable fact there is very little difference between the_ revenue derived under a low tariff bill and the revenue derived under a high tariff bill. Now, on commodities which paid a duty and commodities which came in free, there was only a difference of four-tenths of 1 per cent between 1921

. under a low tariff bill, and 1924, under a protective bill, and one reason for that is under the tariff measure of 1922 there

. are many .commodities on the free list. l\1r. BLANTON. The gentleman · surely can not call the

bill of l921, or the law under which we were- opei·ating then, a free. trade law, because it brought in $375,000,000 of revenue. Mr. WATSON. That is what I am explaining to the gen

tleman: There is very little difference regarding customs . duties between a free trade bill, what is generally called a

bill for raising revenue only, and a high protective tariff bill. Mr. BLANTON. The law of 1921 was not a free trade law? Mr. WATSON. What wa:J it? Mr. ·BLANTON. It was a tariff bill for revenue only. Mr. WATSON: There has never been a bill that has been

written that did not have some provision in it for raising revenue. and such a bill can not be written. There is no such measure, and what I wanted to show the gentleman was that there is very little difference between a high tariff bill and a low tariff bill, especially as to the revenue derived, according to the percentage of those commodities which are entered free of duty.

Mr. CROWTHER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WATSON. Yes. Mr. CROWTHER. The gentleman will recollect that some of

· the orators on this side in the last few weeks suggested that they would be in favor of lowering the duties in the Underweod bill.

Mr. WATSON. Yes. Mr. CROWTHER. On the theory that it was somewhat of a

protective measure, but the gentleman will remember that one of the authors of that bill, whose name it carries, Senator UNDERWOOD, said :

Here is a bill and there is not an ounce of protection in it.

Of course that has been set aside by the declaration of m-::mbers of his own party, who thought there was so much protec~ tion in it that they wanted to reduce the rates in it. Now, does · the gentleman make his statement as to the difference between a low revenue bill and a high tariff bill apply over a long _period of time or for one year? _

Mr. WATSON. I only made the comparison for 1921 and 1924, but I will put in my remarks statements which cover quite a number of years.

Mr. CROWTHER. I think tbe average under the Underwood bill for eight y.ears was $277,000,000, whlle the average so far under t.he Fordney bill is $560,000,000.

Mr. WATSON. Yes; I think the amount collected last year was something over $560,000,000.

One hundred and thirty-seven years ago the foundation of this Nation was laid by the adoption of a Constitution which, w~th few amendments, is still operative to-day. To the group of statesmen representing the varied views of the 13 Colonies uo visions came that ·could possibly foreshadow the tremendous growth in size, population, and world power. It is well to recall the small beginnings. In ~ 789 one of the first acts of the Congress was to order a census of the inhabitants of the new Republic, and in 1790 it was reported that the total population was 3,929,214, and that the area of the States was 892,-135 square miles, of which the land portion consis~ of 867,-980 square miles. By 1830 the population had increased to 12,866,020, and the total area comprising the States had become 1;792,223 square miles. In 1880 the population passed the -'50,000,000 mark, and the United States had attained its present area. For the year 1924 it is estimated that the population is more than 112,000,000. When the country was founded, agriculture was the most important. Manufacturing was in its infancy, the factory system being practically unknown. Because of the policy observed by England toward the Colonies, each household was almost an independent economic unit. A typical farm household of the time raised or made what its occupants consumed, and bought little save salt and a few necessary tools. Spinning, weaving, manufacturing of food products, were all carried on within the- home. In the latter part of the eighteenth century less than one-eighth of the working population was engaged in _manufacture, fishing, navigation, and trade. It is true that the absence of. adequate means of transportation was largely responsible for the selfsufficing economic system followed by the great bulk of our ancestors. Little is known of the early history of manufacturing industries. In 1810 Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the United States Treasury, reported that the total value of the manufactures .for that year was $172,762,676. The State of Pennsylvania led in the production of manufactures, . the value reported being $33.691,111. In that year Mr. Gallatin states that families manufactured 16,581,299 yards of cotton goods, while only 146,974 yards were made in manufacturing establishments. This ratio also held true in the case of woolen cloth, of which 9,528,266 yards were made by families and 71,0~6 yards by factories. Contrast the manufactures reported for 1810, for all the States, valued at $172,000,GOO, with the value reported by the census, 100 years later, in · 19:1,0, as -$20,672,051,870, and with the recent data just issued by the United States census for the business year of 1923, when the value of the products manufactured reached the stupendous total of $60.555,998,000.

Although the manufacturing industries of the country were c.anvassed at the census for the years ending 1810, 1820, and 1840, the data obtained is not comparable with inquiries of the manufactures made in 1850 and subsequent census years. In early enumerations the methods adopted did not yield accurate data as to the number of wage earners, capital invest~ ment, wages, and other items covered by the enumerations made beginning with 1850. In the following table is a srimmary of all manufacturing industries for the United Statea from 1849 to 1923 :

General8tati&tics for all f7Ul.nufacturiny industries i'll the United Statu

[Source: United States Census}

Number of Wage earners Cost ofma- V~ueof Value added establish- (average Capital (000 Wages (000 terials (000 products bymanufac-

ments number) omitted) omitted)- omitted) (000 ture (000 omitted) omitted)

'

Factories and band and neighborhood industries: 18~9- -------------------------------------------------------------- 123,025 957,059 $533,245 $236,755 $555,124 $1,019,107 $4.63, 983 ] 859----------------- --------------- ------------ ----- -------------- 140,433 1,311, 246 1,009, 856 378,879 l,O:U,605 1, 885,862 8M,257 1869--------------------------------------------- --------------:--- 252,148 2, 053, ll96 1, 694,567 620,467 1, 990,742 3,385,860 1,395,118 1879 _______________ :._: ___ _. _________________________________________

253,852 2, 732,595 2, 790,273 947,954 3, 396,824 5,369, 679 1, 972,755 1889.-------------------------------------------------------------- 355,405 4, 251,535 6, 525,051 1,891, 220 5, 162,014 9,372, 379 4, 210,365 1899--------------------------- --------.------ ------------•• --. ---- li12, 191 li,306, 1(3 9,813,834 2, 820,938 7,3(3, 628 13,000,149 5, 656,521

5114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARorr 5 General statistics for aU manufacturing indmtriu in the United Statu-Continued

Number or Wage earners establish- (average Capital (000 Wages (000 Cost of ma

terials (000 omitted)

Value or products

(000 omitted)

Value addod by manufac

ture (000 omitted)

ments number) omitted) omitted)

Factories, excluding hand and neighborhood industries: 1899 __ -----.-------------- -···· ------------------------------------1004.--------------------------------------------------------------1 009 __ ------------.----.-----.-----------------------.-------------1914 __ --- ------- •• -------------------------------.------------ •• --. 1919-----------.--------------------.--•• --------------------------1921 j -------------------------- •• --------------.------------- •• ----

1923 '---- --------------------------------------.-------------------

207,514 216, 180 268,491 T/5, 791 200,105 196,267 100,309

4, 712,763 5,468, 383 6, 615,046 7,036,247 9,096,372 6,~6,570 8, 778,156

$3,975,256 12,675,581 18,428,270 22,700,980 44, 4.66, 594

~:~

$2,008,361 /!,~10, 445 8,427,038 4,078,332

10,533,400 8,200,324

11,009,298

$6,575,851 8,500, 208

12,142,791 14,368,088 37,376,380 25,336,617 34,705,698

$11,406, 9Z7 14,793,003 20,672,052 24,246,435 62,418,079 43,653,283 60,555,998

~ 4, 831,0711 6, 293,695 8, 529,261 9,878,346

25,00,698 18,316,666 25,850,300

t No data for establishments reporting products under $5,000 in value included in 1921 and 1923 statistics. tNot reported

In 1849 the number of wage earners was reported as 957,059 and in 1923 had increased to 8,778,156. It is interesting to note the scale of wages, as shown in the following table :

Average annual 1oage as reported b1J Umted States oensm

1849----------------------------------------------------- $247 1859----------------------------------------------------- 289 1869----------------------------------------------------- 802 1879----------------------------------------------------- 847

}~~~====- -========================:::::::::::::::::::::: l~~ 1901----------------------------------------------------- 477 1909----------------------------------------------------- 518 1914----------------------------------------------------- 590 1919----------------------------------------------------- 1,162 1921----------------------------------------------------- 1,181 1923 _____________________________________________________ 1,254

The wage rate as reported for 1899 is the only case where apparently a fall in the earnings of wage earners had occurred, due no doubt to the nearness of the 1899 census and to the poor financial conditions during the Cleveland administration.

The striking development in manufactures in the relatively short period of our national history is no more remarkable than the increase in the national wealth. In 1850 it was estimated at $7,136,000,000, a per capita average of $308 ~ in 1922 at $320,804,000,000, a per capita of $2,918. There are many ways of determining the prosperity of a nation, but no better has been found than to estimate the condition of the individual citizen.

THI!I EME>RGE~CY AC'f OF 1921 AND THE TARIFF ACT Olr 1922

When the Republican Party came into power ln 1921 the country had been plunged into the depths of an industrial, agricultural, and financial depression with such severity that it is doubtful if it can be compared with any similar period. After the Republicans organized an emergency taritr bill was introduced into the House to give relief, particularly to the agricultural producers of the country. The emergency act of May 27, 1921, increased duties on wheat, wheat flour, flaxseed, corn, beans, peanuts, potatoes, onions, rice, lemons, various edible oils, cattle, sheep, beef and other meats, long-staple cotton, cotton manufactures, wool, sugars and molasses, butter, cheese, condensed milk, cream, wrapper tobacco, apples, cherries, and olives.

The tal'iff act of 1922 was not passed until September 21, 1922, thus the emergency act was in operation for a year and four months. What was the effect of this act which increased sharply the low rates of the Underwood Act? The United States Tariff Commission issued a report on the emergency tariff act of May 27, 1921, in which it analyzed the conditions before and after the passage of this act. The commission found that the emergency tariff act was passed in the midst of the greatest decline of prices that had occurred in many years. Not only were prices fallen in the United States, but a similar movement was going on all over the world ; in fact, the demands for the emergency duties largely grew out of the demoralization of world markets. The emergency tari.ft act did not cause an increase in the price of our domestic products, but it helped to prevent further decline in prices, although in other countries, as Canada and England, the prices of similar commodities reached lower levels. The examples given will show the benefits that resulted in favor of our agricultural producers through the operation of the emergens: tariff act :

Number of sheep and annual wool prodttetwn in the United States

[Source: United States Department of Agriculture]

1910_---. -------------.:---------- • ._ __ :-- ---- --------191 L _________ . _______ ------------------- -----------1912_--------- .. --------- •. ~ --------- --. ------------1913_·_---.- -----.----------- -------.----------------

- 1914_ ------.--.--.-----------.----------------------1915_ ---- ----·----------·---------------------------

Sheep

52,448,000 53,633,000 52,362,000 51,482,000 ~9. 719,000 49,956,000

Wool production (pounds)

321, 363, 000 318,548,000 304, 043, 000 296, 175, 000 290,1112, ()()()

' 286, 726, 000

Number of sheev end a.nnuclwool prorluot'on in the United States-Con.

1916_--.-.- ----------- •• ----------------------------1917-------.----------------------------------------1918------------------------------------------------1919.---.----------. --------------------------------1920_------- -------. ------- -------------------------1921_-- ---- -------- ---------------------------------1922_-------- -----------------------------------.---1923 ____ -----------------------------------------.--1924 _________ ---------------------------------------l925 •• -------------- --------------------------------

1 Preliminary figure.

WinlAT

Sheep

48,625,000 47,616,000 48,603,000 48,866,000 39,025,000 37,452,000 36,327,000 37,223,000 ss, 300,000 39,134,000

Wool production (pounds)

288, 490, 000 281, 892, 000 298, 870, 000 298, 258, 000 277' 005, 000 271, 662, 000 264, 560, 000 266, 830, 000 282, 330, 000

:200,000,000

The Underwood tariff scheduled "wheat" free of duty; the emergency tariff act made the duty 35 cents per bushel. The rrariff Commission stated in its report on the emergency act that-

Under conditions of free trade between the United States and Canada, Winnipeg prices of No. 1 Manitoba wheat normally exceeded the Minnesota prices of No. 1 Northern Spring by 5 or 6 cents per bushel. After the passage of the emergency act, however, Minnesota prices gradually came to exceed Winnipeg prices by 25 to 27 cents per bushel. Therefore, after allowance is made for the higher quallty of the Canadian wheat, · the differential between the prices in the two markets is now almost equal to the duty.

It iB significant, however, that this increase tn the dllferential after the passage of the emergency act is not due to an increase in American prices but rather to a relatively greater decrease in Canadian pricM. Minneapolis prices gradually declined throughout the whole -of 1921, but Winnipeg quotations went down st111 more precipitously, with the result that the differential was about equal to the duty by the ttme the Canadian crop reached the market in the fall of 1921.

The tariff act of 1922 made wheat dutiable at 30 cents per bushel. The Tariff Commission in November, 1923, ordered an investigation as to the cost of producing wheat in the United States and in Canada, the principal competing country. As a result of its cost inv:estigation the duty on wheat was increased to 42 cents per bushel. Under conditions of free trade our do· mestlc wheat sells about the level of the Canadian wheat, making allowances for transportation. At the present time practically all of our domestic wheat is quoted at prices far above Canadian wheat in Winnipeg, and although there bas been a large crop in Canada imports are negligible and the duty has been almost completely effective in raising the price of our domestic wheat above the world level.

CATTLE AND BlllEJ'

Under the tariff act of 1913 cattle and beef were free. The emergency tariff rate for cattle was 30 per cent ad valorem and for beef 2 cents per pound. The Tariff Commission reported that whereas Canadian prices declined precipitately after the enactment of the emergency tariff, American cattle prices held fairly steady at the rates prevailing for several months before the act took effect. In the case of beef it was found that Chicago prices remained relatively constant throughout the year 1921, whereas Winnipeg and Toronto prices showed a steady decline. Prices in Canada, London, and Buenos Aires averaged more than 20 per cent lower after June 1, 1921, while price.s in the United States averaged only 8 per cent lower. In other words, Canadian beef prices followed the world level while American beef remained at a considerably higher level after J one 1.

In the case of mutton and lamb the emergency tariff, which removed these items from the free list and imposed a duty of 2 cents per pound, seemed to have had about the same effec~ as was true in the ca&e of the beef!

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5115 WOOL

The emergency tariff act made wool dutiable at various rates from 15 to 45 cents per pound. Under the act of 1913

vent imports because of the high rate of duties, and thus indirectly cause an automatic decline in exports, since other nations would not be able to exchange their products for ours. In the light of what has happened since the act has been passed, these theories are fairly well discounted. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 1925, exports of American products were 29 per cent gTeater than for the same period three years earlier, when the country was operating under the lower duties of the Underwood Tariff Act. Imports in the meantime had increased 46.6 per cent, but the excess of exports over imports had remained well over $1,000,000,000 as in the earlier year.

it had been free. When the emergency tariff act was passed in the -spring of 1921 there were large stocks of wool on hand in the United States. American woolen mills were operating on short time because of industrial depression. Great stores of wool ready to be marketed at any reasonable price were in the possession of foreign countries, especially the British colonies. Imports were heavy in the first quarter of 1921 in anticipation of the duty. United States wool growers had almost a full clip on hand produced at high cost with almost no market and their credits were stretched almost to the point of c~llapse. In short, the whole wool-growing industry, including the financial institutions supporting it, was faced with financial ruin. Under these conditions the emergen~y tariff act gave immediate relief. Bankers were no longer afraid to make loans on wool when foreign ·wools were prevented from flooding our domestic markets. By January, 1922, , a decided revival had set in and prices rose, the excess of our domestic price over that of London for comparable grades of wool closely approximating the amount of the duty.

The great depression in the woolen industry may be understood when it is .realized that in January, 1921, 59 per cent of the spindles making· woolen goods were idle, and in the case of worsteds 43 per cent were idle. Of carpet and rug looms, 50 per cent were idle. In October, 1921, in the woolen and worsted indm~try the idle spindles were 20 per cent and 8 per cent, respectively, and in the carpet and rug looms 2.7 per cent were idle. Idle spindles and looms fell greatly m number, and were the lowest in years. In 1923, after the act of 1922 had gone into effect all branches of the woolen industry were prosperous. In 1925 there has only been some slight increase in idle spindles and looms, but this has been in part due to labor troubles and to the coal strike.

In a _ general way the emergency tariff act of May, 1921,

In the following table a summary of our international trade in recent years is shown. Particular attention is called to the fact that under the tariff act of 1922 the predicted changes in international trade have not taken place, and the duties collected have been far in excess of the expectations of even the Treasury Department:

United States imports and upot·ts [In thousands of dollars. Source: Department of Commerce]

Calendar year

Exports . Total Imports

Free Dutiable Percent Excess of I Percent imports imports free exports duty

1920_ ---------- $8,228,0161$5,278,4.81 $3,117,011 $2, 161,471 192L __ -------- 4, 485, 031 2, 509, 147 1, 562, ~ 946, 855 1922 ___________ 3, 831, m 3, 112, 747 1, 871,917 1, 240,830 1923 ___________ 4, 167,493 3, 792,066 2, 135,942 1, 656, 124 1924 ___________ 4,590,984 3,609, 962 2,080,096 1,529,866 11125 ___________ 4,909,3961 4,227,995 2,652,020 1,575,975

Utlited States customs receipts [United States Trea'Sury]

69. 1 $2, 949, 535 62.3 1, 975,884 60. 1 719,030 56. 3 375,427 67. 6 981, 022 62. 7 681, 401

40. 9 87.7 39.9 43.7 42. 3 3i.3

Year Fiscal Calendar

se1·ved as a means for stopping American products from falling . · $356, «3, 381 in prices too sharply in sympathy with the general world g_e- ~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5tll. 928, 866

$458, 359,415 582,764, 104 545, 231, 858 670, 829, 059

cline. The emergency tariff act accomplished this in a number 1924---------------------------·-----------:--------- M5, 637,503 of the items it covered, apparently succeeded in raising th~ 1925-----------·-----------------·-·--------------- M7, 661,226 prices of several above the world level, in many cases by an amount approximately the duty. PIG moN

THE T.&niFF ACT OF 1922 Pig iron (with its products, the innumerable types of cast-

The Underwood Tariff Act of 1913 reduced the duties on many ings, steels, and so forth) is the foundation .of the .indusn;ial commodities manufactured by American concerns and put a prosperity of a country. The great growth m the- mdustr·1es, number of agricultural products,· such as wheat, wool, com, railroads and agriculture in our country has been due to the on the free list. The effect of the reduction of the rates of two nece~sary raw materials for the production of enormous duty on the industries of the United States can not be accu- qua,ntities of pig iron. In only four sections of the world we rately measured because of the intravention of the war. We find the combination of large workable deposits of iron ore near do know, however, that in 1914 industrial condition~ in the extensive sources of coal-United States, Great Britain, RuhrUnited States were poor and many unemployed. This, how- Lorraine district, and India . . England, in the eighteenth and ever might in part have been caused by the outbreak of the nineteenth centuries, supplied the world with iron ; her merWorid War and the disturbance in trade channels. In 1920, chant ships and navy controlled the seas. The history of the two years after the war, there was foreshadowed the great growth of industry in America can be traced directly to the collapse that was to come in 1921-imports increased enor- production of pig iron. Let us examine the history and progmously, reaching the total of $5,278,481,000. ~e pressure of ress of the iron industry and see what factors have been this enormous quantity of goods and raw material on a market prominent in its stimulation. The· fashioning of iron into oversupplied by surplus production due to war exigencies shapes began in 1646, when Joseph Jenks made the first castcaused a business collapse. Industrial firms, according to the ings in New England. · The industry made progress, especially c.-ensus report for that year, operated on partial capacity, manu- after the discovery t>f iron in Maryland, Virginia, and · Pennfacturing only 57 per cent of the total possible output. sylvania. In 1750 the English Government prohibited the erec-

Tbe production of iron dropped 20,000,000 tons. About 50 tion of slitting or rolling mills or steel furnaces in the colonies, per cent of the mechanical equipment in textile mills were fearing the Sheffield works would be closed on account of theidle ; even building construction showed a lower output as com-pared with 1920 of almost $800,000,000. plenty and cheapness of wnod whi~h enabled Amefican iron to under-

The emergency tariff act of May, 1921, was of some help sell the British • • •

during this depressed period. Immediately after the tariff The American production of pig iron was increased after act of 1922 business conditions greatly improved, and in 1923 the revolution, owing to the method of manufacturing iron our manufacturing establishments had regained the position from the ore by charcoal, which was much in demand. The lost in 1921. The value of manufactured products for 1923 abundance and cheapness of . wood gave the American iron was $60,555,000,000 as compared with $43,653,000,000 in 1921 masters an advantage over the English producers. Wage earners in 1921 had fallen to a number even less than In 1710 there were 153 furnaces with a total production of in 1914-6,946,000 for all manufacturing· industries; in 1923 -pig iron of 53,908 tons. Pennsylvania produced more than one-the number bad increased to 8, 778,000. b t

1ve all know the prevailing prosperous conditions in in- half of this quantity. The nonintercourse· and em argo ac s du try to-day; nothing better exemplifies it than the trend of and the War of 1812 protected the iron and steel industr·y from building construction in the United States as shown in the foreign co~petition. Immediately after the war, heavy ~-following table: ports of British iron affe~ted th~ developme~t of our domes~Ic

Year buildinu-c011structi.otl value industry. This resulted m passmg the tariff act of 1816 m-920 $3 337 600 ooo creasing protection for American industries.

h~~=========================================== ~: ~~~: ~gg: ggg The duty on pig iron under this act was 20 per cent ad 1923 ------------------------------------------ 4, 768, 100, ooo valorem. In 1818 the duty was raised to 50 cents per 112 pounds.

i&~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::::::::: ~:~~:~&&:&&& ~~ ~~.~e~~r~~~~o~ l~~i[~~sw::d~~int;n$~~a~~ ~n~8~~ Free-traders and low-tariff advocates claim that the tari1f 1842 a further reduction to $9 per ton. Dm·ing the period from

act of 1922 would reduce oUT international trade, it would pre- 1833 to 1845, despite the protective duties, imports of pig iron

5116 OONGRESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE ~lARCH 5 averaged about 10,000 tons annually. In 1846 the Walker tariff act was passed, changing the duty on pig iron from a specific rate to 30 per cent ad valorem. The Walker Tari.tf Act was hailed as a free trade measure, although the ad valorem equivalent of the duty on pig iron per ton was as high as $6.80 in 1846, the lowest being $3.42 in 1852. The general average for the years 1846 to 1856, inclusive, was approximately $6 per ton. This reduction in the tariff, however, came at a most critical period of the iron industry. The English iron masters had just developed a new process .for obtaining pig iron by smelting the ore with coke made from coal. The American industry employed furnaces which utilized charcoal. It was entering into the transition stage from one process to the other, when the duty on iron was again reduced. If the protective rates had been maintained a few years longer, American production would have increased more rapidly, and competition with the British iron could have been successfully met. The reduction in the rates dealt a severe blow to American producers: Imports increased enormously, and by 1854 had reached 143,289 tons. Three things helped to preserve the American industry at that time : the discovery of gold in California; the ·crimean War, which turned the activities of English manufacturers to war needs, and the great expansion of railroads requiring large quantities of iron and steel.

Under the infiuence of the Civil War and the restoration of higher duties in 1864, the production of pig iron made steady progress, and imports declined in relative importance to our production. The duty was gradually reduced, and the act of 1909 scheduled it at $2.50 per ton. In 1913 pig iron was put on the free list. During that period no importations of great amount occurred because of the World War. In 1922 pig iron was again made dutiable at 75 cents a ton, and imports have steadily increased, largely from India. They have been greater in volume than at any time within 20 years. In 1922 the imports amounted to 379,000 tons ; 1923 to 368,000 tons ; 1924 to 209,000 tons, and 1925 to 441,425 tons.

One of the factors that aided the domestic ironmaster during the trying period when imports from Engla.nd were threatening the existence of the American industry was the high cost of transportation from the seaports to inland points of the United States. This same factor to-day is limiting the actual competition with the imports of pig iron to our ports of entry, particularly New York City. The freight from I.ndia to New York for a long ton of pig iron is about $5. The iron is produced by labor paid approximately from 50 to 75 cents per day of 10 or 12 hours, in comparison with wages in the United States seven times as high, with an 8-hour day. The importation of British Indian pig iron is of great significance because of the favorable combination of raw materials for the productio,n of pig iron in large quantities and at low prices.

The production of pig iron in the United States, when examined statistically over a period~t>f many years, is found to be an accurate barometer of the condition of industry in general. There have been but few exceptions. In 1856 the United States production was 788,000 tons; in 1857 it had dropped to 712,000 tons ; in 1858 it was only 629,000 tons. The decrease in production was coincident with the severely depressed industrial conditions of 1857. In 1892 our production had increased to 9,157,000 tons ; 1893 it had decreased to 7,124,000 tons ; and in 1894 was only 6,657,000 tons. Again we find a great drop in production, foreshadowing industrial troubles. In 1913 the domestic production was 30,966,000 tons. In 1914, when the Underwood Tariff Act went into effect, the production dropped to 25,332,000 tons. Thereafter the industry recovered under the stimulus of war demands, and in 1920 the output was 36,925,000 tons, but i.n 1921 it had fallen to only 1~688,000 tons. The general prosperity which came with the passing of the tariff act of 1922 was reflected by the pig-iron output. In 1922 it had increased to 27,219,000 tons ; 1923 it reached 40,361,000 tons. The output in 1925 is close to 37,000,000 tons. The United States produces at least 50 per cent of the world's output of iron ore; no more necessary industry for its business prosperity cun be mentioned. Iron made it possible to build our great railway systeills, constmct our innumerable bridges, and shelter om· population.

If the production of pig iron is an index of the prosperity of our country, and economists appear to agree it is, then we must conclude that during the periods of increased tariffs the production of pig iron indicates the financial thrift of our country. The imposition of low rates of duties on commodities in general has apparently had more or less disastrous effects on business and industry, since in each of these lowtariff periods we find sharp drops in the production of pig iron.

United States production of pig iron-Selected veat·s

Production,

1856---~---------------~~---------------------------1857 _______________________________________________ _

1858------------------------------------------------1859 _______________________________________________ _

1871------------------------------------------------1872 _______________________________________________ _

1873------------------------------------------------

f~~~=========::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1894 _______________________________________________ _

1895------------------------------------------------1896 _______________________________________________ _

1891------------------------------------------------1898 _______________________________________________ _ 1913 _______________________________________________ _

1914------------------------------------------------1919 _______________________________________________ _ 192Q _______________________________________________ _

lil!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1~25------------------------------------------------

WOOL

1ong tons 788, 515 712, 640 629,548 750,5Gu

1,706,7!)3 2, 548,713 2, 560, 96:1 9, 157, 000 7,124,502 6,657,388 9,446,308 8,G:la. 127 9,652,680

11, 773, 934 30,966, Hi2 23,332,24-l 31,015,364 36,925,987 16,688,126 27,219,904 40,361,146 31,405, '190 36,750,000

The early explorers and first settlers had no sheep and depended upon such as could be imported. They were introduced into Virginia in 1609 and into New England in 1625, but did not thrive nor rapidly multiply. Wolves and severe winters, combined with lack of care on the part of owners, depleted the flocks, and in 1642 there were only 1,000 she-ep in Massachusetts. Wool, of course, had to be imported. The authorities in many of the Colonies attempted to enforce measures to increase the raising of sheep. In 1654 Massachusetts -prohibited the exportation of sheep to other Colonies, while measures were also taken to prevent their slaughter and to stimulate the manufacture of cloth. Apparently these efforts met with success, for within 15 years the value of sheep had fallen and their assessed value was reduced three times.

In 1675 Massachusetts prohibited the exportation of wool and the following year the -exportation of sheep. In the early pait of the eighteenth century sheep had greatly increased in the American Colonies. The supply seems to have been sufficient to meet the needs of the time, which were limited to the wants of each farming household, as the growing of wool was a part of the general household economy. The foundation, however, had been laid for an advance of the industry. The English Government in 1699 forbade the Colonies to export wool and woolens either to one anotl:rer or to any other country, and ~ natural but unexpected result of this law was to hasten the spread of sheep.

In the first half of the eighteenth century the colonists were largely supplied with woolen goods from England. The colonists, from the scarcity of commodities, were unable to buy English goods, which was an important factor inducing them to manufacture their own cloth. In 1731 it was reported there was almost no manufacturing except in the households. In 1770 the farmers continued to supply a large part of their own wants with woolens of household manufacture, " without the least design of sending them to market." Virtually all those who were not engaged in agriculture depended on English woolens. The influx of English manufactures between 1700 and 1770 wa~ the greatest hindrance to the sheep industry and flocks suffered severely from neglect.

The Revolution increased the demand for domestic wool, not only by cutting off the supply of foreign wools but the needs of the Army. The existing stock of sheep was insufficient to supply the demand for wool. The Continental Congress made frequent appeals for increased production of wool but its eJiort..~ and those of the various conventions and assemblies in the Colonies were not successful, and the country was compelled to buy woolens in an indirect way from England. After the war British woolens were largely imported. The colonists supplied themselves with coarser goods for their own needs, but the higher grade cloths were obtained from Great Britain since no fine wool was to be found in our domestic clips.

Under the first tariff act wool was free of duty. Little attention was paid at that time to the commercial possibilities of growing wool. Imports of British woolens greatly increased in the period from 1790 to 1799. It was easy to secure woolens from abroad and pay for them from the proceeds of the merchant marine and the exports of agricultural produce. The raising of improved sheep was neglected, with only one or two exceptions; Washington, however, had one of the finest flocks in the country. There were a few flocks in Virginia and New England above the average, but there were no purebred merino sheep in the Colonies. I~ 1788 the manufacture of woolens out·

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE - 5117 side the household was commenced in Hartford, Conn., and at Byfield, .Mass., in 1794, when an attempt was made to manufacture woolens by machinery. The chief obstacle to the flUC-cess of these and other factories arose from the imports of woolens which supplied tbe demand for fine cloth, and the other fabrics were supplied by the household. There was a tariff on woolens, which started at 5 per cent ad valorem in 1789, increased to 10 per cent in 1792, 15 per cent in 1794, and 17lh per cent in 1804:, but it was not until it reached 35 per cent on the outbreak of the War of 1812 that it afforded any substantial aid to the woolen industry.

The advent of merino sheep in 1801 marked the first important step toward the improvement of wooL The introduction of this -variety of sheep encouraged domestic manufacturers to produce finer grades, the cloths from which wool were not comparable to the finer cloths of England. In 1807 woolen manufactures received their first great impetus. Factories rapidly increased, the price of merino wool was high, and the farmers started to raise sheep for finer grades of wool, encouraged by the foreign-commerce relation, the embargo, the nonintercourse act, and the hostile tactics of Great Britain and France. During the War of 1812 the duty on woolens was increased to 35 · per cent, and the manufacturers of woolen goods were extremely prosperous and the demand far exceeded the supply from the household industry. Broadcloth ~old from $8 to $12 a yard, and at one time it is said to have risen to $18. By 1816 it was estimated that the total capital 1n the business was $12,000,000 and the value of the product $19,000,000.

The rapid growth of the woolen fabric factories was partially due to the importation of 20,000 Spanish mednos between April, 1810, and August, 1811. During the war the price of pure merino wool rose to $2.50 per pound, common wool, however, did not exceed 50 cents a pound. It is not to be wondered that the farmer with his limited market for other products should have raised sheep, especially for fine wool, as he had a monopoly on the home market. In 1810 there were 10,000,000 sheep in the Colonies, which had increased 40 per cent by 1812, and the wool clip was 50 per cent higher than in 1810 . . Approximately 14,000 000 pounds were obtained from 7,000,000 sheep. After the peace of 1815 British manufacturers flooded the American market with woolens before the tariff act of 1816 went into effect, and they continued for some time to ship large quantities. Most of our domestic factories closed or operated on part time ·for several years. With the general depression in factory production the market for fine wool suffered a tremendous slump, only slight demand existed, as the fiber could be imported under a 15 per cent duty. In 1815 the price for fleece wool in Boston ranged from 50 cents to $1.50 per pound. In 1816 from 20 to 75 cents per pound, and within another year merino washed wool had fallen between 30 to 40 cents . per pound. The merino breed formerly so popular was neglected for several years. The blooded sheep were sold to butchers at prices as low as $1.25 per head, a few years after 1815, sheep once more became a minor farm enterprise.

In 1820 the influx of Br-itish woolens slackened, and the woolen industry began to improve and was fairly prosperous by 1824, or at least making · good progress in that direction as shown by the increasing volume of raw wool imported. The higher duties under the tariff act of that year allowed both manufacturers and farmers to increase their activities, and the latter turned their attention once more to fine wool. As a re. ult a modified merino sheep from Saxony were imported.

In 1826 a severe pallic occurred in Great Britain; arid English wool manufacturers were forced to dispose of their stocks at very low prices ... America was the most available dumping ground, and English goods were sold in our markets at ruinous prices, often below cost. The foreign shippers gladly paid the duty in order to reduce their stocks. Considerable quantities of wools imported into this country were the product of bankrupt manufacturers.

The woolen manufacturers in the United States suffered severely from this abnormal competition. although specializing in the finer wools. Those using the Saxon and the finest of the merino wool especially suffered, and many mills were forced to close or greatly curtail their production. The price of wool fell sharply. In the eastern markets fine wool, from January, 1824, to April, 1826, averaged 58 cents per pound, medium averaged 43.6; from July, 1826, to October, 1828, fine wools averaged 42.3 and medium 34 cents per pound. As was the case after the War of 1812, fine wools again showed the greater loss, and consequently the boom of the sheep industry lasted only· a short period.

In 1830 there were probably 12,000,000 to 13,000,000 sheep in the United States, practically the same number as in 1825 or 1827, when New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont owned

nearly half the number.. The increase since 1814, when ·they were estimated at 10,000,000, had in large measure resulted from growth in newly settled sections, more than counteracting the general decline in the wool-growing regions. The manufacture of the coarser woolens had become important by 1830, suffering but little from English competition. Household manufacture continued to be an important enterprise, and in 1830 approximately half of the domestic wool clip, which bas been estimated at more than 25,000,000 to 32,000,000 pounds, was used in household manufacture,

~ The cut throat competition with English manufacturers did not abate nntil J.830, :when commercial conditions in Engl:uid were improving. The period of prosperity at that time was marked by a rapid growth in woolen manufactures, and. steady inroads were made by the American factory product into the market formerly supplied by the household industry. The stimulation of the manufacturing industry at that time was due largely to the tariff act of 1828, which increased rates on raw wool and its products, to the application of power, and the introduction of improve,d machinery. By 1837 the woolen manufactures of the country had doubled since 1830, and t.l;le wool market was based very largely on the factory demand. · Large quantities of wool were now imported, nearly all of it at ,a grade valued at less than 8 cents per pound and free of duty. Imports of manufactures of wool showed a relative decrease.

With the woolen manufactur·ers growing so rapidly, an. important change in the status of the sheep industry in the East took place, and eastern flocks increased rapidly after ~ 1830. By 1837 there were about 18,000,000 sheep in the country, and the price had risen to 70 to ·72 cents per pound for fine Ohio washed wool, 60 to 63 cents for medium, and 47 to 50 cents for a coarser grade. _

In 1840 the Middle West began to be important as a wool center, because of the relatively lower prices for other farm products, it was more profitable for the farmer to raise sheep, especially as the transportation cost to the eastern factories was lower compared to the return, than was the case with other farm products. 'l'he manufacturing industry made steady progress under the tariff act of 1842, but was somewhat curtailed owing to the 30 per cent ad valorem duty on wool in the tariff act of 1846. The rates under this act increased the duty on cheaper grades of wool, which did not directly · compete with . the .domestic clip. In 1857 the panic bore severely on many of the mills, but little progress was made until 1860.

Dm·ing- the 20 years from 1840 to 1860 there bad been a steady decline in the number of sheep in the East; At the same time the growing of sheep for both wool and mutton began to receive attention, particularly in regions nearer to the markets of the large cities. The growth of the dairy industry was also a factor in the decrease in the production of wool. In the West the raising of sheep was undoubtedly aided by the facilities for transportation thr-ough the building of canals and rallroads. Between 1840 and ·1854 the ·number of sheep in Ohio increased from 2,000,000 to more than 4,800,000.

In 1850 the census reported 21,723,000 sheep in the United States, of which only 7,900,()()()-...Qr 36 per cent-were in . the New England and Middle Atlanti,c States instead of 11,250,000, or .nearly 60 per cent in 1840. Pennsylvania was th~ only Eastern State where the number increased due to the growths of the flocks in the western counties. The census figures for 1850 are estimated to have been too low by 1,500,000 sheep, thus the total in that year was approximately 23,223,000.

In 1860 the census re!)orted 22,471,000 sheep, while a trifle over 1,.500,000 we1·e estimated to have escaped the enumerators, making a total for the country of practically 24,000,000. New England and the Middle Atlantic States had declined again to 6,500,000. The growing of wool was disappearing in the East and becoming strongly established in the Western States. Many of the flocks in the Eastern States were slaughtered, and there developed the keeping of sheep for mutton as well as wool.

The dominant reason for the abse:o.ce of any appreciable increase in the number of sheep in this country, between 1850 and 1860, was competition of other farm enterprises with the sheep industry. This competition was due principally to the great improvement of the foreign market for foodstuffs. Crop failures in England and Ireland in 1845 and 1846 b.ad resulted in marked lowering of duties on foodstuffs imported into the British Isles from 1846 to 1849, after which time they were nominal. The market thus gained was considerably improved by the Crimean War (1853 to 1856) which closed the Baltic to Russian grain.

The effect of the foreign market on our domestic prices for farm products raised in the Middle West was noticeable imme(]iately~ . In Chicago No. 2 spring wheat had averaged 47.6

5118. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MABen 5 cents per bu bel from 1840 to 1846, inclusive; 57.7 cents during the next six years, and 93.2 cents during the following seven years. During these same periods No. 2 winter wheat averaged 62.2 cents; 73.8 cents and $1.16 per bushel in Chicago. Flour averaged $3.21, $3.52, and $4.68 per barrel in New York City; good to choice beef, live weight, averaged $3.17, $4.62, and $5.05 per 100 pounds in Cincinnati; and fair to good packing hogs averaged $2.78, $3.67, and $5.09 on the same market. The average price of butter on the Boston market was 16.5 cents per pound until 1847, and 21.3 cents from 1847 to 1859, inclusive, while the price of cheese rose from 6.63 cents between 1847 to 1852 to 8.62 cents from 1853 to 1859.

The price of agricultural products other than wool, averaged 32 per cent higher from 1847 to 1859 than during the preceding seven years. Fine, medium, and coarse washed wool of the Boston market averaged 23.7 per cent higher; 23 per cent for the first two grades and 25 per cent for the third grade.

The development of the export markets and the increased · prices caused by the larger demand could not have occurred on such a large scale without a wonderful improvement in our transportation facilities. In 1850, for example, there were about 1,300 miles of railway track in Ohio, Indiana, lllinois, Michigan, and 'Visconsin, but by 1860 the mileage had increased to almost 10,400. Lower freight rates on wheat and similar products as compared' to that on wool in conjunction with the splendid prices being received for wheat, all tended to prevent the expansion of the sheep industry.

Although the sheep industry was almost nil by 1850, the woolen manufactures had continued to advance due to the invention of better machines for combing fine wool. The manufacturing of fancy fabrics was developed about 1843. In 1840 the manufacture of broadcloth was one of the most important branches of wool manufactures. In 1860, however, it had almost disappeared. The broadcloth industry is generally acknowledged as having greatly improved during the years when the tariff of 1842 was in force. At this time importations of cloths were less than during the preceding years in face of prosperity. Duty was raised on cloths but on the cheaper wools was relatively low. The schedules of the tarUf act of 1846 were undoubtedly less beneficial to the broadcloth industry.

The manufacture of carpets commenced in 1823, caused by the successful invention of the first power loom for the weaving of ingrained carpets ; 20 years later it was applied for weaving Brussels carpets. The carpet manufacturers were somewhat hampered by the lack of a domestic supply of raw material, largely dependent on imports. Under the acts of 1832, 1833, and 1841 the cheaper carpet wools were duty free. In 1842 wools valued at not over 7 cents per pound were only dutiable at 5 per cent, but in 1846 all wools regardless of

_.. grade were dutiable at 30 per cent. This heavy duty on wool in 1846 undoubtedly worked a great handicap, not only to the carpet manufacturers, but also to other woolen industries. The tariff act of 1857 was more favorable to the woolen manufacturers, as the duty on wool was increased, but the panic of 1857 closed many of the mills. The woolen industry did not progress so rapidly in the 10 years following 1850 as in the preceding years.

The Civil War had a marked effect on the sheep industry of the united States. There was a great increase in the domestic demand for wool, due to military necessities, and the shortage of cotton called for increasing quantities of wool fiber. The increased demand was followed by a decided price rise and the number of sheep increased rapidly, reaching. 28,500,000 by 1870. Woolen manufactures grew so rapidly that although the domestic wool clip in 1870 bad reached a little more than 100,000,000 pounds, it was not sufficient to supply the demand and imports of cheap wools doubled, while woolen manufactures decreased.

The world situation in raw wool is somewhat interesting for the period 1860 to 1870 . . There was a great shortage of cotton due to the blockading of the southern ports. An enormous increase in the growing of wool in Argentina, South Africa, India, and Australia prevented any great increase in the world wool prices. The world supply of wool increased more than one-third between 1860 and 1870. When the war ended, with cotton more available, there was a sharp slump in wool prices.

In 1866 it had been expected that the tariff on both wool and woolens would be raised, and an enormous quantity of woolen goods was imported. The tariff act of 1867 was the first to fully develop the compensatory system for duties on wool and woolen manufactures. As elaborated in this tariff it remained in operation without e entia! changes-barring the years 1894-1897-until 1913. A duty on wool raises the price of that

material for the American manufacturer and he is compelled to pay more for it than his foreign competitor. Such a duty, however, stimulates the production of home-grown wooL To equalize the competition between domestic and foreign manufacturers it is necessary that a duty be levied on imported woolens equivalent to the increased price of wool used in making domestic woolens. It is analogous to the case of an internal tax placed on a commodity, when an equal tax should be placed on the same commodity if imported, otherwise the importer would .be given an advantage and would undersell the domestic producers. A duty imposed on wool, an equivalent one on its production is known as the compensating duty. This was fixed in general on the suppo~ition that it requires 4 pounds of wool to make 1 pound of cloth.

This large proportion, always surprising to persons who do not know the peculiarities of the industry, is mainly due to the amount of fatty matter contained in wool when clipped from the sheep's back. In scouring wool the loss often varies from 50 to 80 per cent. The kind of wool used most widely in the United States in 1867 lost about two-thirds of its weight in scouring. This was also true of the type of wool expected to be imported. Further allowance had to be made for some wastage in the wool fiber during manufacture. Thus approximately 4 pounds of wool were reckoned to be needed to make 1 pound of cloth; if the duty on wool were 11 cents a pound, the duty on foreign cloth, four times that amount ( 44 cents a pound) would place the foreign manufacturer in the same position as the domestic, who paid a duty on the raw wool. A figure not far from 44 cents a pound appeared as the compensating duty on woolen cloths in all the protective acts from 18G7 to 1909. Some changes and readjustments were made in 1867 to offset the internal taxes left over from the Civil War. In 1883 the duty on wool was slightly reduced, and in 1890 the compensatory duty was graded from, 33 cents on the cheapest to 44 cents on the higher grades. There were but few changes in the wool schedule in the tariff acts of 1897 and 1909.

The compensatory duties on woolen manufactures must. not be regarded as a protective duty; it simply equalized it on the raw material; therefore, in addition to the compensating duty on woolens, a protective duty was added in the form of ad valorem rates. This was designed to protect the domestic industry and to equalize differences in the cost of manufacture at home and abroad. This system of protecting American woolen manufacturers undoubtedly was one of the basic reasons for the rapid development of the manufacture of worsteds in America. In 1860 only. $3,700,000 worth of worsteds were made, as compared with $61,900,000 worth of woolens. The types of wools used for the manufacture of worsteds are not subject to such heavy shrinkage as the finer grades used in the woolens. As a result the importation of the coarser grades of crossbred and combing wools greatly increased. This in combination with changes in style resulted in the establishment of our present great worsted industry.

The growing of wool became more and more a western enterprise after the Civil War. As the frontier advanced, sheep followed because of cheap grazing. In 1893 there were approximately 47,274,000 sheep in the United States. About 50 per cent were in the Western States. Then came the regime of free wool under the Wilson tariff, together with se\ere industrial depression, and about two-fifths of the sheep were disposed of, the low point being reached in 1897, when it was estimated there were 36,800,000 sheep in the United States. The United States Department of Agriculture estimated the number of sheep in New England decreased 43 per cent; in the Middle Atlantic States, 47 per cent; in the South, 31 per cent; in the North Central States, 46 per cent; in the Central West, 26 per cent; and in the far West, 5 per cent, between 1894 and 1897. The production of wool dropped from 398,534z000 pounds in 1893 to 259,153,000 pounds in 1897. Imports df wool increased, reaching 347,424,000 pounds in 1897. With the restoration of duties on raw wool under the Dingley Act of 1897, the production of wool rapidly increased, and in 1910 there were 328,111,000 pounds, the largest clip in the history of our country. When the duty on wool was removed by the Underwood Tariff Act in 1913, the productfon fell and imports greatly increased. In 1913 the imports were 195,293,000 pounds, and in 1918 had increased to 447,426,000 pounds.

As has been detailed in the section devoted to the effect of the emergency act of 1921, in that year wool prices fell sharply. Since then, aided by the rates of duty in the tariff act of 1922, they have increased, and the production of wool in the United States again appears to be on the up grade.

In the following table there is summarized the progress of the woolen manufacturing industry of the United States, in so far as it concerns woolens and worsteds. These two branches

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5119 of the textile industry also suffered, not only during the operation of the Wilson tariff from 1894 to 1897, but also in 1921. The number of spindles and ·looms in operation greatly increased under the act of 1921, although high prices of wool in 1924 and the coal strike in 1925 restricted production. The tariff act of 1922 also placed on the free list wools used in the manufacture of rugs, carpets, or any other floor coYerings, suitable proof being required of such utilization. This was a recognition of the needs of our carpet industry, which requires types of wool of inferior grades not raised in America.

The growth of woolen .manufactures was in part the result of the policy adopted by the early tariffs which protected the infant industries. The necessity of available supplies of the finer wools for the manufacture of the better grades of cloths caused the imposition of duties on certain types of wools in order to stimulate the growing of selected sheep in the United States. Since the act of 1867, with the exception of two periods when wool was on the free list, the duties have been adjlli.ted on a compensatory basis, plus an ad valorem rate intended to equalize differences in cost of production. It is curious to

·note that under .the act of 1913, when wool was placed on the free list a)ld the compensatQrjr element neces arily destroyed, ·the Democratic Party apparently admitted the necessity for giving the American manufacturer a 35 per cent ad valorem rato on nearly all manufactures as a protective measure to equalize differences in the cost of production at home and abroad. Apparently the theory on which rates of the tariff act of 1913 was based scheduling raw material free which could be purcha ed at no advantage or disadvantage, the Ameriean manufacturer still was entitled to a protective duty owing to the high cost of operation in the United States. This system proved disastrous in 1894 to 1897. What might have been the result if the World War had not intervened can only be questioned.

To summarize my remarks, I quote from a speech of Daniel Webster, delivered in the United States Senate in 1846, on a tariff bill then under consideration :

• • The Interest or every laboring community requires diversity or occupations, pursuits, and objects of industry. Tbe more tb.at diversity is multiplied or extended, the better. To diversify empJI)yment is to increase employment and to enhance wages. And. sir, take this great truth, place it on the title page of every book o! political economy intended for the use of the Government, put it in every farmer's almanac, let it be the heading of the column in every mechanic's magazine, proclaim it everywhere, and make it a proverb-that where there is work for the hands of men there will be work for the teeth. Where there is _employment tbere will be bread. It Is a great blessing to the poor to have cheap food, but greater than tllat, prior to that, and of still greater value is the blessing of being able to buy food by honest and respectable employment. Employment f~eds und· clothes and instructs. Employment gives health, sobriety,· and morals. Constant employment and well-paid labor produced in a country like ours general prosperity, content, and cheerfulness. Thus happy have we seen the country. Thus happy may we long continue to ~ee

it. • • * Acti~:ity of tnachLnery in wool tnamJ(acturing establishmen-ts

Spindles Looms t-----:----t---.----1 Carpet

Woolens, per cent idle

Worsted, per cent idle

Wider than

60 inches,

per cent idle

Less than

50 inches,

per cent idle

and rug

looms, per cent idle

---------------------------r-----r---------------~

1919-------------------------------------- 19 23 22 24 46 1920_ - -- ---------------------------------- 28 22 32 ?:l 32 1921:

;ranuary _ ----------------------------- 69 ~ 64 49 liO April_----------.----- __ -------------- 24 13 26 29 54 July---------------------------------- 21 13 20 26 60 Oc::tober __ ---------------------------- 20 8 23 25 ?:l

1922:

~~~=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::·: ?:l 14 34 Zl 22 17 3 40 36 21

July---------------------------------- 16 32 36 34 22 October ___ •• _________________________ 16 11 23 21 17

1923: January_----------------------------- lli 11 19 u H April _________________ --------- _______ 10 6 13 15 u July---------------------------------- H: 9 18 17 H October----- ___ • __ .------------- __ ---- 16 16 23 19 14

1924: January_----------------------------· 19 Zl Tl 19 18 April.-------------------------------- 18 28 29 21 27 July---------------------------------- 26 45 38 Tl 32 October------------------------------- 17 25 28 24 23

1925: January_----------------------------- 19 26 25 25 20 April_-------------------------------- 19 37 32 25 24

Gemral stati.!iiC3 for United Statu manufactures of wookn good8, worsted8, and woolen carpets and ru,g!

Num-ber of estab-lish-

ments

1849.-------- 1,559 1859.-------- 1, 260 1869·------ ~ - 2, 891 1879 _________

1,990 1889 _________ 1,311

1899 _________ 1,035 1904 _________ 792

1909_ -------- 587 1914 ________ 501 1919-------- 560 1921_ ________ 493 1923 _________

513

1859 __ - ------ 3 1869 _________ 102

1879--------- 76 1889--------- 143 1899 _________ 186

~~--------- 226 1909_-- ----- 324 1914 _________ 298 1919 _________ 29~ 192L ________ 321 1923_ -------- 338

1849 _________ 116 18.')9 _________ 213 1869 _________ 215

1879 _________ 195 1889 _________ 173 1899 _________ 133 1904 _________ 139

1909-------- ~ 139 1914_-- ------ 97 1919 _________ 75 1921.-------- 72 1923 _________ 79

1 Not reported.

[Source: United States Census]

WOOLEN GOODS

Wage Cost o Capital Wages earners (!XX) (000 materials (average omitted) omitted) (000 number) omitted)

39,252 $28,119 ---------- $2.5, 756 41,360 30,863 $9,610 36, 58G 80,053 98,824 26,878 96, 433 85,504 96,096 25,836 100,846 76,915 130,990 26,139 82,270 68, 893 124,386 24,757 71,012 72,74.7 140,302 28,828 87,831 52,180 120,320 22,575 65,652 ~.165 107,872 24,204 63,696 62,957 273,974 66,596 217,965 56,434 (1) 62,893 120,276 72,408 (1) 87,314 201,548

WORSTED GOODS

2, 378 $3,230 $5« $2,443 12,920 10,086 4, 369 14,308 18,803 20,374 5,683 22,014 42,978 68,085 H,945 50, 7ffl 57,008 132,168 20,093 77,ffl5 69,251 162,465 26, Z70 109,658

111,012 . 295,05S 47,152 'lJJ7, 787 109,527 281,781 51,749 182,801 103,830 557,721 101,513 447,629 105,930 . (1) 112,001 279,770 122,144 (1) 135,671 421,184

CARPETS AND RUGS OTHER THAN RAG

6,186 $3,853 $1,247 $3,ffl6 6,681 4,722 1, 546 4,418

12,098 12,54.1 4,682 13,578 20,371 21,469 6,835 18,985 28,736 38,209 11, 122 28,M5 28,411 44,449 11,121 Tl, 229 33,221 56,781 13,724 37,948 33,3ffl 75,627 15,536 39, 563 31,309 85,154 14,716 42,280 22,933 119, 197 22,216 67,ll8 22,922 (1) 28,705 50,118 35,217 (1) 48,528 97,473

Value of Value added by products manufac-(()()() tnre (000 omitted) omitted)

$43, 208 $17,452 61,895 25,309

1,15,405 58,973 160,607 59,761 133,578 51,308 118,43.0 47,418 142,197 54,386 107,119 41,467 103,816 40, 120 364,896 146,931 230,945 110,669 36t,288 162,740

$3,701 $1,258 22,090 7, 782 33,550 11,536 79,195 28,488

120,314 43,239 165,745 56,087 312,625 104.,838 Zl5, 668 92,867 700,537 252,008 524,639 244,869 698,271 277,087

$5,400 $2,3T/ 7,858 3, 440

21,762 8,184 31,793 12. !108 47,770 19,125 48, 192 20,963 61,586 23,638 71,188 31,625 69,128 26,84.8

123,254 56,136 103,881 53,763 199,481 102,008

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LANKFORD].

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am the author of H. R. 7179 and wish in the time allotted me to correct, so far as is possible by these remarks. some erroneous ideas concerning this measure.

Many people have the idea that the bill is very extreme and say that it provides for a "blue law." It is urged _that it endangers the religious liberty of the District of Columbia and of the whole people of the Nation. It is far from my purpose to introduce or help in the passage of any bill which would in the least infringe on the rights of anyone to worship God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience.

My bill provides for a day of rest out of every seven, and thereby affords a chance for a greater freedom of religious thought.

I re:'lpectfully innte fl. careful consideration of the bill by all concerned in order that none may be misled by those who oppose the bill and yet who evidently have not read it, for I see no reason why anyone who reads the bill should make false statements concerning the bill, as the true provisions of the bill will appear all the more impressive and certain when those who have been mi led finally find what is the real truth.

I have seen and heard of many telegrams and letters to Members of Congress and am convinced from these telegrams that the parties sending them did not have the real facts concerning this bill.

Most of the newspapers in the District of Columbia apparently do not know what the provisions of the bill are. None of them have printed it in full. Many of them have carried articles condemning the measure and yet not giving the public the bill in whole so that the public could have the chance to decide just whether or not the bill is worthy of support.

Indignation meetings are being held in some of the near-by States in which there are n'Ow Sunday observance laws equal!] as strong as the one proposed for the District of Columbia. The people in these meetings are evidently not told the real truth as to what I am trying to· write into law by my bill.

5120 .CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-·HOUSE MAROH 5 Let me read to yon from a Washington paper of Monday of

this week a clipping, as follows: ADYEN'l'ISTS MOBILIZE TO FIGHT BLUE LA W-FEA.R OF SPREAD TO MARY·

LAND IF DlST:UCT BILL PASSES CONGRESS AROUSES .Jl'OiilS

[Special dispatch to the Star]

BllLl'UIORE, MD., March 1.-Aroused by the fear that the proposed Sunday blue law, if passed for the District of Columbia, will spread to Maryland, members of the Seventh-day Adventists' Church to-day were prl'paring to protest the legislating at Washington.

A mass meeting was held yesterday and resolutions against the bill were passed. Evangelist R. M. Spencer pointed out at the mass meeting that th law would cauf:e cessation of activities by railways, street-car lines, public lighting and Beating plants, r€'6taurants, drug stores, gasoline stations, newspapers, and other business enterprist>s one day a week.

"There is no such thing as Sunday being an American Sabbath," be said. "Only God has a Sabbath. The idea of Puritan blue laws being purely an American institution is impossible, for America has no legal religion."

Here is what my bill, among other things, provides in spite of what others say about it:

SEc. 3. In works of necessity and charity is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health, or comfort of the community, provided the right to weekly rest and worship is not thet·eby denied. The labor herein forbidden on Sunday is servile, employed on public work, not such personal work as does not interrupt or disturb the repose and religious Uberty ot the community. The following shall be legal on Sunday : Labor and business in the connection with the preparation and sale of daily newspapers, of motor oil and gasoline, and in re~Staurants and cafeterias, where meals may be sold to be eaten on the premises, and in drug stores for the sale of medicines, surgical articles and supplil'IS for the sick, and food and beverage!!, but not for articles of merchandise forbidden on Sunday for other stores and merchants; labor and busine~Ss in connection with public lighting, water and heating plants, and for the maintenance of street cars and railroad trains. ·

I am indebted to Canon William S. Chase, ·chairman of legislative committee of the Lord's Day Alliance, for a compilation prepared by him, from which I obtained the following:

SATURDAY HALF HOLIDAY FOR BANKS

' Chapter 6 ot Statutes at Large, volume 27, page 405 (December 22, 1892), an net making Saturday a half holiday for banking and trust company purposes in the District of Columbia.

" For these purposes shall be treated and considered as the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday." .

The following Sunday laws are found In the United States Compiled Statutes in the sections as indicated:

NO STUDIES ON SUNDAY AT THB MILITARY ACA.DEMY ·

2245. The Secretary of War shall so arrange the course of studies at the academy that the cadets shall not be required to pursue their studies on Sunday. (R. S., sec. 1324.)

NO STUDIES ON St'NDAY IN NAVAL ACADEMY

2739. The Secretary of the Navy shall arrange the course of studies and the order of recitations at the Naval Academy so that the students in said institution shall not be required to pursue the.ir studi~s on Sunday. (R. S., sec. 1526.)

POST OFFICES CLOSED ON SUNDAY

SEC. 7199. That hereafter post offices of the first and second classes shall not be open on Sunday for the purpose of delivering mail to the general public, but this provision shall not prevent the prompt delivery of special-delivery mail. (August 24, 1912, ch. 389, par. 1, 3T Stat. 543.)

SEc. 7001. Pay of employees; work on Sunday. The .Public Printer may hereafter, in his discretion, pay printer-linotype operators and printer-monotype keyboard operators at a rate not exceeding 60 Cfonts per hour : Provided, That when the exigencies of the service require that work be performed on Sunday, the Public Printer may, in his discret_ion, pay to the employees not receiving annual salaries not exceeding 50 per centum in addition to the regular rate paid for such work. (March 4, 1909, ch. 299, sec. 1, 35 Stat. 1024.)

SUNDAY REST FOR POS'r-OFFICE EMPLOYEES

7239. Compensatory titne; services on Sundays of supervisory officers, clet·ks in the first and second class offices, any city letter carriers :

" Hereafter for services required on Sundays of supervisot·y officers, clerks in the first and second class post offices, and city letter carriers compensatory time off during working days in amount equal to that of Sunday employment may be allowed, under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe ; but this provision shall not apply to auxiliary or substitute employees." (March 4, 1911, ch. 241, sec. 3, 36 Stat. l339.)

7239c. Compensatory time; services on Sundays or holidays of fore-men and others : "

" Hereafter when the needs of the Postal Service require the employment on Sundays and holidays of foremen, watchmen, messengers, and laborers they shall be granted compensatory time in the same manner as provided by law for clerks and carriers in first and seeond class post offices." (March 3, 1917, ch. 162, sec. 1, 39 Stat. 1062.)

7239e. Compensatory time; certain railway postal clerks : "Hereafter when the needs of the Postal Service require the em

ployment on Sundays and hoUdays of railway postal clerks assigned ,. to terminal railway post offices and transfer offices, they shall be granted compensatory time in the same manner as provided by law for clerks and carriers in first and second class offices." (July 2, 1018, ch. 117, sec. 3, 40 Stat.)

8363. Watches at sea; requirements as to work; right to discharge: " In all merchant vessels of the United States of more than 100

tons gross, excepting those in navigable rivers, harlJors, bays, 1)1'

sounds exclusively, the sailors, while at sea, shall be divided into at least two and the firemen, oilet·s, and water tenders into at least three watches. While such vessel is ... in a safe harbor no seaman shall be required to do any unnecessary work on Sundays or the followingnamed days: New: Year's J)ay, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day." (March 4, 1915, ch. 153, sec. 2, 38 Stat. 1164.)

BARROOMS CLOSED ON SUNDAY

In volume 27 of United States Statutes at Large, chapter 204, section 6, page 565, it is provided that barrooms must be closed on Sunday.

WORLD'S COLUMB~ EXPOSITION CLOSED ON SUNDAY

All appropria Uons made upoa condition that the World's Columbian Exposition be closed on Sunday. (Vol. 27, U. S. Stat. L. pp. 363, 388, 390, August 5, 1892.)

It is with pleasure that I read the following very illuminating article. from the back- of a map showing, in various shades, the relative strength of Sunday laws in the States:

OUR SABBATH LAws (By Rev. R. H. Martin, D. D., director of Sabbath observance, Pres

byterian Church in the ' United States of America)

The map showing the character of the Sabbath laws of the StJ.tes of the United States is based upon a careful examination of these laws and of court decisions interpreting them. In such a difficult matter, it is claimed only that the map represents approximately the true situation.

I. THEIR CLASSIFICATION

1. The States (18) with Sabbath laws that have comprehensive prohibitions of seC'Ular labor, secular business, and secular amuse· ments to which there are no exceptions, save works of necessity and charity (Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee) or few exceptions (Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota. Vermont, and Wisconsin). ·

2. The States (18) with Sabbath laws that have comprehensive prohibitions to which there are a large number of exceptions (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia) and an even larger number of exceptions (Connecqcut, Massachusetts, New York, and Nebraska).

3. The States (8) with Sabbath laws that are inherently weak. In these States the law prohibits only that which " disturbs the peace and good order of society." (Colorado, Illinois, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming.)

4. The States (4) without Sabbath laws. (Arizona, California, Montana, Oregon, and the District of Columbia.) Arizona, Montana, and Oregon have a law which prohibits barbering on the Sabbath. The Montana law also prohibits horse racing, playing pool, and public dancing except in public parks or playgrounds. But these laws were scarcely enacted out of regard for the Sabbath, as such, and are not in any true sense Sabbath laws.

II. THEIR VALUE

1. They protect many millions of workingmen, who would otherwise be condemned to the slavery of unremitting toil, in their right to rest on the Sabbath.

2. They bless millions of families by giving all their members the opportunity of spending one day a week together, strengthening tlie home ties.

3. They minister to business prosperity by keeping the day free for instruction in those moral principles and truths that underlie successful business.

4. They are of inestimable value to the Republlc, in that they protect the day for impianting in the hearts of the people those moral and spiritual truths and values without which democratic government must faiL

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5121 •r

5. They furnish deserved support to the church, giving her the right of way one day in seven, that she may have a fair chance to render her all-importlmt mission to men and society.

In this article Doctor Martin outlines their duty as follows: THE BOARD OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION~

DEPARTMENT OF MORAL WELFARE~

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

1. To protect these Sabbath laws against all enemy attacks. 2. To strengthen Sabbath laws that are weak. 3. To secure the enactment of Sabbath laws in the four States with

out them. 4. To secure the enactment of a Sabbath law in the Capital City

of the Nation and Dl trict of Columbia. 5. To maintai_n and strengthen public sentiment on behalf of our

Sabbath laws.

Speaking further on "The Basis of Our · Civil Sabbath Laws," Doctor Martin says:

Forty-four of the forty-eight States of the Union have laws protecting the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship.

These laws do not require any one to go to church or perform .any religious duty. · They do .require, for the most part, cessation from secular labor and secular amusements on this day. They are not an attempt "to make men moral by law," but to make it possible for them to be moral by law. They are what the garc-:n fence is to the garden. The fence does not make the garden-the gardener does that-but it makes the garden possible by keeping out enemies that would otherwise tread down its tender plants. They are what the dykes are to Holland. They do not make Holland w~th its beautiful scene1·y and fruitful fields-the Dutch do that-but they raise a barrier between Holland and the sea that its waters can not pass and so make Holland possible.

SABBATH LAWS ATTACKED

All t_hrough our history these laws have been the object of attack. Recently powerful commercial and selfish interests and groups have viciously attacked them, seeking to sweep them ft·om our statute books.

Their maintenance 1s essential to the preservation of our Christian Sabbath. The friends of the Sabbath should be armed for their defense.

What is the basis of these civil Sabbath laws? What right bas the State to enact them? What is their value? · · ou·r courts, State and Federal, have almost uniformly sustained these laws. In opinions given in connection with sustaining decisions they have stated the basis on which they rest. A score of court opinions could be quoted for everyone of the following grounds on which they are based : 1. THESE SABBATH LAWS PROTECT FUNDAME;olTA.L RIGHTS OF THE

PEOPLE

One of the chief purposes for which civil governments were instituted is the protection of human rights.

THE RIGHT TO REST

In the country the right of all men to rest one day in the week 1s universally conceded. This right requires protection by the State.

The Sabbath law is the charter of liberty for the sons of toil Multitudes of employees would be required to work on the Sabbath on PB:in of losing the job on which their livelihood depends were it not that the restraining power of the civil law prevents their employers from making this demand of them. ·

Business men, also in the enjoyment of this right, would be put_ at a disadvantage if others engaged in the same line of business were allowed to keep open on the Sabbath. If it were not for the law requiring all to close, they might feel compelled by the laws of competition in business to forego their rights to a weekly rest. Daniel Web·ster said, -"A law of rest for all ts necessary to t~e liberty of rest f<rr each."

THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP

The right to worship God is a right which we regard ns so fundamental that it ls guaranteed in our constitutions of government.

For its proper exercise the Sabbath day bas been set apart. In this country many millions of people assemble tn the churches on this day for the worship of God. Without this day free from secular employment social worship would be practically impossible. Not only the right of worship is safeguarded by law but also the right to worship without molestation. On this poirit the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has said, " It would be a small boon to the people of Pennsylvania to declare their indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience amid the din and confusion of secular employments a:nd with desecrations on every hand of what they conscientiously believe to be hallowed time."

II. THESE SABBATH LAWS PROTECT THE PUBLIC WELl!' ARE

The police powers of the State are very broad. They are for the protection of tbe public welfare, which includes the public health, the public ord~r, and the public morals.

LXVII-323

THE PUBLIC HEALTH

The courts declare that cessation from labor one day in seven is necessary for the preservation of the health of the people.

THE PUBLIC ORDER

They recognize the fact that the Sabbath kept not only as a day of rest but also a day for worship and instruction in the moral and spiritual truths of the Scriptures, will accompllsh more for the good order and peace of the country than all our policemen and soldiers.

THE Pl'BLIC l\IORALS

For the same reason they recognize the Sabbath as an aid to publle morals. They declare that Christianity, as the religion generally accepted by the people, furnishes the best sanctions for that morality upon which the State is dependent for its strength and security. '.rlle Sabbath, as the day on which the precepts of Christianity are taught, is therefore entitled to the State's protection. On this point the Supreme Court of Ohio said. " Without the recurring weekly period of rest there is reason to believe the masses would become morbid in mind, crime would multiply, and degeneracy likely ensue."

Ill. THESE SABBATH LAWS ARE THE STATE'S PROTECTION OF ONE OF ITS

OWN INSTITUTIONS

The Sabbath is a civ'ii or political, as truly as it is an ecclesiastical institution. As an institution of rest-and Sabbath means rest-it is more a civil than an ecclesiastical institution. It is the day for activity, not rest, in the church. Work is suspended in the civil sphere pa:tly that it may go forward in the sphere of the church.

.A CHRISTIAN NATION

Wherever Christianity is the dominant religion of a people, the Sabbath, as a fundamental institution of Christianity, is bound to become a civil institution. Historically we are a Christian people. Christianity has been wrought . into the warp and woof of our entire life. Our -courts uniformly have declared Christianity to be a part of the common law of the land. The Supreme Court of the United StaU>s has officially said: ~·This is a Christian Nation." The Sabbath, therefore, has been interwoven into the texture of our entire life, civil, social, and industrial, as well as religious.

Congress, our legislatures, courts, almost the entire machinery of government, stop on this day. Industrial and social activities suspend. It is therefore a civil institution. The State has to deal with it, and as an institution vital to its welfare, it has the right to protect it. "There is abundant justification," said Judge William Strong, of the Supreme Court of the United States, "for our Sabbath laws, regarding them as a mere civil institution, which they are, and he is no friend of the good order and welfare of societr who would break them down;"

IV. THESE SABBATH LAWS ABB BASED ULTIMATELY O;ol THE WILL OF Goo

The State is God's institution. He commands the State to keep the Sabbath and has laid upon it the responsibility of safeguarding the people in their right to keep it. Not a few of the courts recognize the divine authority for our Sabbath laws. The Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and of Arkansas declare the day to be "set apart by divine command as well as by the law of the land."

President Lincoln, in that famous order for the bt>tter observance of the Sabbath in the Army and Navy, gave as the crowning reason for the order, "due regard for the divine will."

LINCOLN'S FAM:OUS ORDER '

"The President, Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath day by the officet·s and men in the military and naval service. The importance f~or

man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights· of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best senti:. ment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the divine will .demand that Sunday ·labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity."

These Sabbath laws, serving the above purposes, violate no constitutional right of any citizen. They require nothing anyone's con· science forbids and forbid nothing anyone's conscience requires.

Let us join han.ds in maintaining them. We can, if we will.

Mrs. H. Moffatt Bradley, district supervisor of Washington Bible School Association, and evangelistic chairman of District of Columbia Women's Christian Temperance Union, handed me some leaflets, issued by National Women's Christian Temperance Union Publishing House, from which I read:

GEM THOGGHTS OF GRJM.T MEN CONCERNING THE SABBATH

The enemies of tbe Sabbath certainly can not claim that the names here quoted belong in any sense in the category of "blue law" defenders; they are written high in the halls of fame of our own and other countries. Some of them having served well their country and their times have gone to their · reward. It is but fair to suppose that were they in our midst to-day they would be among the staunches t defenders of our Christian Sabb.ath. Let us ponder well their counsel ancl heed their admonitions.

5122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARcii 5 GEN. GEORGE WASHINGTON AT VALLEY FOllGPJ

The commander in chief directs that divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o'clock in each brigade which has chaplains·. Those bl'lgades which have none will attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will by their attendance set an example to their men. While we are duly performing the duty of good soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the highest duties of religion. To the distinguishing characteristics of a patriot it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished characteristics of a Christian.

GEN. JOHN J. PE1lSHING

The s'entiment of this section concerning Sabbath observance should be respected and no marches, except in cases of necessity, be made on Sunday. Opportunity should be provided for religious services, conducted by the chaplain or through community cooperation and dignified publicity of such services should be made;

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

As we keep or break the Sabbath day, we nobly save or meanly lo e the last best hope by which man rises.

DANIEL WEBSTER

The longer I live the more highly do I esteem the proper observance of the Christian Sabbath, and the more grateful do I feel toward those who impress its importance on the community.

TBEODOR~ JlOOSEYELT

Experience- shows that the day of rest is essential to mankind; that it is demanded by civilization, as well as by Christianity.

WILLIAM- HENRY HARRISO!'f

Experience and observation convince me that all who work require the rest which a general observance of the Sabbath only can secure • •. Whether we regard man as an animal or mortal, we should unite in securing for him the rest that body and spirit demand for their best conduct and highest good. Those who do not find the Divine command in the book can not fail to find it in the man.

WILLIAM E. GLADSTONE

From a moral, social, and physical point of view the observance of Sunday is a duty of absolute consequence.

Sill WALTER SCOTT

Give the world one-half of Sunday and you wlll soon find that reUgion bas no stronghold on the other half.

JOH!'f M. HARLAN, UNITED STATES SUPRKME COU1lT

I believe that the due observance of the Sabbath as a day for religious worship and contemplation is required by commandment of God and is vital to the purity and integrity of - the social <lrganism. While the State may not deal with this question in its purely religious aspects, it may deal with it as involved in the right to have one day in seven set apart, under the sanction of law, as a day on which unnecessary labor shall cease upon the part of all, thereby securing for each person an opportunity for that rest of body and mind wbich the public health and the public safety demand.

WILLIAli M'KINLEY

I a:m in favor of Sunday legislation and strict observance of the Christian Sabbath.

JOHN SHERMAN

The Sabbath is an inheritance from our forefathers which should be cherished as a part of the institutions of our Government.

SUPREltE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

The Christian Sabbath, as one of the institutions of religion, may be protected from desecration by such laws. as the legislature, in their wisdom, may deem necessary to secure to the community the privilege of undisturbed worship, and to the day itself that outward respect and observance which may be deemed essential to the peace and good order of society, and to preserve religion and its ordinances from open reviling and contempt, and this not as a duty to God, but as a duty to society and the State.

WILLIAM HOWA1lD TAFT

Religion and morality are the cornerstones of our Republic.

WILLIAM FAIRFIELD WAJlREN

Those who have most worthily hallowed the Lord's Day have most enriched aU other days.

JOSIAH STRONG

The Sabbath is the bulwark of a vital Christianity, and a vital Christianity is the bulwark of the Nation.

JAMES BRAND

It we believe _in Christian civilization for our country, the Sabbath must be kept as a religious institution. The following propositions I hold to be absolutely true: 1. We can not have a Christian civilization with Christ and His precepts left ont. 2. We can not have Christ in our civilization without the Christian church. 3. We can not maintain

the Christian church without the Christian Sabbath. -4. High mol'Ulity and pure patriotism are inseparable, and the lesson of history is that morality and Sabbath keeping also go hand in band. 5. Society is degraded as Christianity is corrupted, and Christianity is corrupted as the Sabbath is perverted.

The following additional gem thoughts of great men concerning the Sabbath were banded me by the Rev. Sam W. Small,

· the noted lecturer and evangelist : EMERSON

The Sunday is the core of our civilization, dedicated to thought and reverence. It invites to the noblest solitude and to the noblest society.

JAMES ll. LOWELL

He who ordained the Sabbath loves the poor. HALLAM

A holiday Sabbath is the ally of despotism.

BROOKE HEREFORD, A FOREMOST' CLEl!GYUAN 011' BOSTON

I think the world of to-day would go mad, just frenzied with strain and pressure, but for the blessed institution of Sunday.

PROFESSOR BLALKUI

The law of the Sabbath is the keystone of the arch of public morals; take it away and the whole fabric falls. The Sabbath is God's special present to the workingman, and one of its chief objects is to prolong his life and preserve efficient his working tone. The savings bank of human existence is the weekly Sabbath.

HE:-<RY L. WAYLA~D, THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHER

Break down Sunday, close the churches, open the bars and the theaters on that day, and where would values be? What was real estate worth in Sodom?

BLACKSTONE

The keeping of one day in seven holy, as a time of relaxation and refreshment as well as public worship, is of Jnestimable benefit to a. state, considered merely as a civil institution. A corruption of morals usually follows a profanation of the Sabbath.

JUSTICE M'LEAN

Where there is no Christian Sabbath there is no Christian morality, and without this free institutions can not long be maintained.

HENRY WARD BEECHER

Sunday is the common people's great liberty day, and they are bound to see t..o it that work does not come into it.

MONT.A.LEMBEJlT

Without a Sabbath, no worship ; without worship, no religion ; and without religion, no permanent freedom.

JOSEPH COOK, GREAT BOSTON LECTURER

I am no fanatic, I hope, as to Sunday ; but as I look abroad over the map of popular freedom in the world it does not seem to me accidental that Switzerland, Scotland, England, and the United State , the countries which best ob erve Sunday, constitute almost the entire map of safe popular government.

T1lYON EDWARDS

To say nothing of the divine law, on mere wordly grounds it is plain that nothing is more conducive to the health, Intelligence, comfort, and independence of the working classes, and to our prosperity as a people, than our Christian American Sabbath.

MACAULAY, ENGLISH HISTORIA~

If the Sunday had not been observed as a day of rest during ;_ the last three centuries, I have not the slightest doubt that we should have been at this moment a poorer people and less civilized.

I wish to further quote from leaflets furnished me by Mrs. Bradley, as follows ;

BIBLE TEACHING ON THE SABBATH

The Sabbath was made for man as a day for rest ancl worship. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Keep the seventh day to sanctify it. as the Lord thy God bath com-

manded thee. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work. But the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou

shalt not do any work. Bles11ings promised in the observance of the Sabbath : Blessed is the man that doetb this, and tbe son of man that layetb

hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his band from doing any evil.

Six days shall work be done, but on tbe seventh there shall be to you a boly day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord.

Hallow my Sabbaths and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.

Keep my Sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary ; I am the Lord. If thou shalt turn away thy foot from tbe Sabbath, from doing thy

pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of

..

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5123 the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor Him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words : Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sabbath day, and not to bear a burden·, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.

WORKS OF NECESSITY AND CHARITY ARE ALLOWED

And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that He went through the cornfields; and His disciples· plucked the ears of corn and did eat, and certain of the Pharisees said unto them, why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath day?

And Jesus answering them said, have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was a hungered, and they which were with him ; bow he went into the house of God and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. On another Sabbath He entered into the synagogue and taught;

and there was a man whose right hand was withered and the scribes and the Pharisees ·watched Him, whether He would heal on the Sab· bath; that they might find an accusation against Him.

Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing: Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do evil? To save life, or to destroy it?

He said unto the man, stretch forth thy hand, and he did so ; and his band was restored whole as the other.

'I'he ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus bad healed on the Sabbath day, and said unto the people: There are six days in which men ought to work; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.

The Lord then answered him, and said : Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath. loose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day.

!1r. Chairman, I furth~r read as follows: To the normal human being the desire to worship and commune

with God is instinctive. All peoples seek some higher power, a God, to whom they may offer incens~ and to whom they may go for help in time of need. Man was created with eyes to look up toward God and His heaven, and a soul to worship Hlm; he was also so created that In body and mind he needs rest and recreation and God bas pro· vided for all his needs. The Son of God Himself set us the example of worship. He went up into the Temple on the Sabbath day and worshipped as was His custom. We have six days in which to labor and to play. Shall we not then devote the Sabbath day to rest, to worship and to doing good according to our Lord's commandment and example? God has given us the Sabbath as our opportunity to gain physical, mental, and spiritual refreshme.pt, and upbuilding. It was evidently not the divine purpose that man should so use that day that when he returns to his affairs on Monday be is worse physically or spiritually, instead of better. We can but wonder sometimes, what manner of rest for body, mind, or soul can be gained from the week-end parties, picnics, ball games, picture shows, and similar diversions with which multitudes of people fill the Sabbath hours. In their mad race for physical enjoyment they miss the mark. The God-given opportunity for physical and spiritual upbnllding is worse than wasted.

Then, too, while we should not only improve to our highest advantage our own opportunities, should we not also refrain from doing thosl' things which must necessarily prevent others from enjoying the same happy privilege? Many seek rest and recreation by patronizing ancl thus upholding institutions that not only make the Sabbath a day of amusement only but commercialize and degrade it. Under such conditions the Sabbath becomes distinctly an un-Christian, and, indeed, an on-American iru;titution. The creator and ruler of the universe gave the commandment "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." Will He hold guiltless those who deliberately trample upon His law? Ancl will He not hold responsible in an even greater degree those who not only fail to revere His day but cause others to err also?

" But," say many, " I see no harm" in this or that amusement or recreation on the Sabbath. Possibly not for you under certain conditions. But what of the ultimate effect upon society if carried on in general? What of the effect upon our youth?

" He that causeth one of these little ones to stumble it were better for him that a mill stone were tied about his neck and he cast into the sea," said the Chriit, the Son of God.

Traversing one of the principal streets of a large city on Sabbath morning we saw on one side a man working on his new house; another working on his automobile; another working in his garden; another mowing his lawn. :Farther on, amusement parks were in full operation and tra.ffic of various kinds going on as usual. Truly may we say God and His law was "not in all their thoughts.'"' ~eed we wonder

that we have "crime waves " or that there is discord, unrest, jealousy. hatred, and war? God's word declares that " the nation and kingdom that will not serve Him shall perish." The nations that have perished were those that forgot God and His law and went their own _selfish, sinful way to destruction. Shall America follow in their train?

Where there is no vision the people peris.h. The Sabbath is a foundation stone in the Christian home, the Christian church and a Christia n civilization. If we undermine the foundations, can we expect the structure to stand firm?

The Sabbath has come to us from remote antiquity, dropping honP.y upon the ages as it has come. Like the pillar of fire that went befvre the children of Israel in the desert, it bas been the torch of God to light the way of the world. The Sabbath-God's opportunity to worship with man ; God's opportunity to build up man; God's opportunity to teach man unselfishness and brotherhood; God's opportunity to uphold the sacredness of the home, the church, and the state, may it ever abide and continue with us, and may we ever strive to make it a sacred and holy day as God would have us do.

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. HAsTINGs]. [Applause.]

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thought that while we had under consideration the appropriation bill for the four departments, State, Justice and the judiciary, Commerce, and Labor, it would be an appropriate time to invite attention to House Joint Resolution 20, which I introduced the first day of this session, proposing an amendment to section 7, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States, permitting the President of the United States to disapprove any item of an appropriation bill passed by Congress.

The joint resolution is pending before the Committee on the Judiciary, and is as follows :

Resolved by the Senate ana House of Representatives of the United States oj America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each Hous6 co1wurring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States, as provided by the Constitution :

Amend section 7, Article I, of the Constitution of the United States by adding the following paragraph at the end of said section :

"EY"ery bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate making appropriations of money embracing distinct items shall before it becomes a law be presented to the President of the United States ; if he approves, he shall sign it, but if he disapproves the bill or any item or appropriation therein contained, be shall communicate such disapproval, with his reasons the1·efor, to the House in which the blll shall have originated. .All items not disapproved shall have the force and effect of law according to the original provision of the bill. Any item or items so disapproved shall be void, unless repassed by a two-thirds vote, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in section 7, Article I, in reference to other bills."

The section of the Constitution which is proposed to be amended by the joint resolution empowers the President to veto any appropriation bill, and before that bill becomes a law it must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both branches of Congress, but his veto power is confined to the whole bill and not to any separate item thereof.

The present proposed amendment, with certain modifications, is taken from the constitution of the State of Oklahoma. We permit the governor of our State to veto separate items of an appropriation bill, and we find that it has worked well and is in the interest of economy.

Some few years ago I wrote the governors of all of the 48 States and sent them a copy of the proposed amendment and asked for an expression of their views upon. it. I received replies from T)ractically all of them and I think without exception all of them commended it.

Every new State has such a provision in its constitution and so far as :ny investigation goes I think that all constitutions of the older States lately revised contain such a provision.

We combine all of the appropriations, aggregating between three and one-half and four billions of dollars in some 10 or 12 large appropriation bills. The Treasury and the Post Office Departments appropriation bills are combined. There is combined in this bill the appropriations for four of the large departments, aggregating $80,011,631.64. In the past there has been much criticism that during the closing days of Congress objectionable items have been added to appropriation bills, aft€r they have passed the House, and our conferees have been compelled to yield either in whole or in part or else have ~he 1 ills fail of passage and the activities of the Government interfered with or a special session of Congress called.

The proposed amendment would relieve us of this criticism. If an objectionable amendment without merit is added and the

5124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MARcH 5 conferees compelled to yield, the President, with his veto power, un( _r this proposed amendment could veto that particular amendment, and only the part vetoed would be returned to Congress for further !!.ction. In other words, the other items of the bill, or the items not vetoed, would become law and the two Houses would pass upon the vetoed items in the same manner as they would now upon a vetoed bill and it would require a two-thirds vote to pa s any vetoed item over the. objection of the President.

Clearly this is in the interest of economy and there should be r:o objc Jtion against the submission of the proposed amendment to the several States. The truth is every item in an appropriation bill should be clearly justified (1) in the estimates sent to Congress through the Bureau of the Budget, (2) by th~ department which expends the money, (3) by the committee JVhicb reports the bill, and ( 4) by Congress itself, and not a dollar should be appropriated which is not necessary. Every item should stand upon its own merits. It should not be concealed in the body of a large bill and carried through as a rider regardless of its _merit.

We have established a Bureau of the Budget. We have been advocating economy in every branch of the Government service. I believe every Member of this House is in favor of economy. I submit that this is a further step in the direction of economy. It will enable the President, by veto, ~o strike from any appropriation bill any objectionable items without vetoing the entire bill.

We naturally ask what objection could be attached to this proposed amendment? None have so far been advanced. The only objection that bas been suggested by anyone is the reluctance to amend the Constitution. I do not r~gard this as any objection at all if the amendment is a good one and in the interest of economy. I do not believe that the Constitution should be amended without good reason, but I am sure that everyone who has studied the appropriations made by Congress will agree that if this amendment had been a part of the Constitution, that untold millions of dollars would have been saved to the taxpayers of the country.

It will be noted that this amendment . only applies to bills making appropriations and to items of appropriation bills and not to legislative bills. Under our rules legislative riders to appropriation bills are subject to a point of order. We can protect these appropriation bills against these legislative riders in that way. The President should have the power to protect appropriation bills against items without merit. We all remember that some few years ago appropriations were held up and an extra session of Congress was necessary ·because of certain filibustering tactics, and on other occasions we remember that it has been necessary for joint resolutions to be passed in order to secure funds to run the Government pending the making of appropriations at the next session. This proposed amendment would obviate that, because it would give the President the power to veto the objectionable items forced upon either branch of Congress by filibustering tactics during the closing hours of Congress. The President can not add to any bill. He can not increase the ·sum appropriated, and it would therefore necessarily result in reducing public expenditures. If any item were increased above that submitted in the Budget, or any item added by Oongress, it would be closely scrutinized and if not clearly justified would be subject to a veto, and the power given to veto separate items would have a wholesome effect in discouraging the offering of questionable amendments in making appropriations for local purposes. In othei' words, it would be a check against extravagance in the legislative branch of the Gove1·nment. It would permit the closest scru-:. tiny to be made of each separate item. As I have ah·eady observed, the country is interested in tax reduction, and, as everyone knows, the surest way to reduce taxes is to see to it that only appropriations are made for the necessary and legitimate expenses of the Government. [Applause.]

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minute.s to the gentleman from Illinois [l\fr. SAB.ATH].

Mr. SABA'l'H. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LA KFORD], who preceded the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. HASTINGS] and who bas been endeavoring to explain his bill with respect to Sunday observance, quoted correctly and made a splendid address. I do not object to people ob erving the Sabbath and to attend church, considering that they in the majority of cases will be benefited, as it can not be detrimental, and in many cases I feel will be beneficial to follow the teachings of a church, as all that I know of teach love of God and fellow man, and I believe it would be better for all of the churches to follow what they preach and devote their time to service of God instead of trying to control the politics of the Nation. I feel no law can be enacted that will compel people to attend church if they are

not inclined to do so, as a law that would· try to force any certain religion upon them, and for that rea~on I think it manifestly unwise to try to enact a law that the gentleman states is on the statute books of 46 States, and notwithstanding that I do not know of a single State that is able to enforce it. I am opposed to legislate or pass laws that can not be enforced. The facts are we have altogether too many laws, and it would be far better for the country if many of these laws that are now on the statute books would be repealed. '

Mr. LAl~KFORD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SABATH. I can not yield ; pardon me. Mr. LANKFORD. Will the gentleman name some laws

that are enforced? Mr. S.ABATH. Oh, yes, indeed; there are a great many

that are enforced and the gentleman knows some that are not. But, Mr. Chairman, that is not the reason I secured the privilege of the floor, the reason being that a few days ago a few gentlemen representing the so-called Better Government Association presented to the Senate a re. olution which the Vice President has submitted and which has been laid before the committee requesting that conditions in Chicago be investigated. In that resolution they have made the accusations and charges against the conditions and certain officials as, no doubt, you have read in the daily papers. This petition was presented, as I understand, by a 1\lr. Davis and 1\Ir. Lee, and in addition to presenting this resolution they have made statements in which they have defamed the fair nnme of the great city of Ohicago. I am informed their trip to Washington has been made by them for political reasons and that these charges have been prepared to injure one group of the Republican Party. Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in either of the Republican groups, nor in the Republican fight, but I am interested in the city of Chicago, and I consider it to be contemptible for any set of men to willfully and deliberately defame the name of the city of Chicago in the Nation's Capitol. Of course, the Senate has properly Tebuffed these men, no doubt having been informed of the underlying reason of their attack upon Chicago and perhaps of their motives. I consider their action outrageous and unwarranted.

I concede and I deplore that the city of Chicago has suffered from certain gang groups who are carrying on a feud between themselves, but I am willing to wager that the city of Chicago has a larger percentage of God-fearing, honest, law-abiding· men and women in proportion to its population than any city or community in the United States. If these gentlemen representing the so-called Better Government Association, in this instance rather "assination," had been -qonest in tJ1eir foolhardy political attempts against the Republican groups that they are opposed to, they would not have connected the name of. our Democratic Mayor Dever in connection with some of the allegations they have made; but they would have been obliged to say . that members of both Republican factions are guilty of refusing to take their orders, or permit them to dictate their policies. But they never were warranted or justified even to insinuate in the slightest degree against the Democratic mayor, who has so strenuously tried at a great expense to the city to give the city a clean administration and enforce all the laws, including the unenforceable Volstead law. I feel that the mayor must now commence to realize that if the police department would be increased tenfold he still would be unable to force the people to comply with the law that they resent, and which is obnoxious to them and which was impo ed upon them against their will.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. I yield the gentleman tlve min

utes more. Mr. SABATH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is not my

pm·pose to make a political speech or to charge at this time this or that faction of the Republican Party and their mis· deeds. This the good people of Chicago will attend to when the proper time comes. Nor do I wish to-day to speak on the question of prohibition. What I desire to bring to the attention of this House and the country, is that the city of Chicago, as I have stated, has been unjustifiably slandered by these professional reformers, but who are also professional prohibitionists, and, as I am informed, for revenue only.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I read this morning in the Chicago papers, although I haYe had some knowledge of it before, that these same gentlemen who were finding fault with the conditions in Chicago have accepted the sum of $27,000 .from one source alone, from the Democratic leader, Mr. George Brennan, to secure their support in bringing about the defeat of the present State's attorney, and they have failed to do what they solemnly agreed to do, to assist the Democrats in their efforts to defeat the present State's attorney, Crowe. I also read in this morning papers that these men will stoop to any.

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5125 thing to secure publidty which would place them in position to secure still larger sums of money from well~meaning but misinformed people of Chicago, for their so-called organization, and to that end I read they have gone to the extreme to have their homes bombed in order to create sympathy and enable them to make an additional drive for more funds.

Mr. Chairman, I am informed that within a few days, since these gentlemen have made the attack against the city of Chicago in the Nation's Capitol, that nearly all of the city organizations and clubs of Chicago have adopted resolutions denouncing the action of these men, and that the mayor, the Hon. William E. Dever, who was misled in believing he could enforce the prohibition law, has, however, given the city a splendid and wonderful and honest administration, and is now preparing an answer to the diabolical charges. _

Personally, I know it is a contemptible falsehood when they charge that foreigners have been· imported into Chicago to carry on illicit liquor traffic, and who are responsible for the violation of the prohibition laws. I am obliged to admit we had som~ bad ones come to Chicago from other sections of the country, but it is a malicious lie that they were foreigners, as stated by these men. - These same gentlemen have not only from time to time assailed the city of Chicago but have assailed many of its citizens, and even the press of Chicago when they failed them in their conceited anQ crazy notions.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do not know these two gentlemen personally, but I have read of them and heard of them often; and if only one-half or one-fourth of what has been stated by the press about them is true, they can not be believed, and you and the country, I -hope, will pay no attention to their statements and charges against the city-I have the honor in part to represent. ·[Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from illinois has expired.

Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON].

Mr. BLANTON. :Mr. Chairman and gentl£;men, since I demonstrated to you in my discussion in Wednesday's RECIJRD the utter unfitness of William Wolff Smith to properly perform the duties of general counsel in the Veterans' Bureau, he has· become very active.

In the Veterans' Bureau to-day he has -been having circulated among the lawyers there an instrument indorsing him and his office, hoping thereby to save his scalp.

We may readily understand just how embarrassing it is to these lawyers who are under the absolute domination of William Wolff Smith, who is their superior, and who could cause their dismissal should they refuse to sign such indorsement.

These lawyers under William Wolff Smith have families to support. They can not afford to lose their jobs. They realize that their jobs probably depend upon their signing such indorsement. They are afraid not to sign such indorsement. And I predict that under such circumstances practically all of them will sign same. No man wants to give up his job wb.en his ·bread and meat depends upon it. But what is an indorsement worth signed under such ch·cumstances?

I have just been informed by a prominent official in the American Legion that many American Legion members object to William Wolff Smith being general counsel, because they say that he is a Christian Scientist, and that naturally he views many ailments of ex-service men from the standpoint of Christian Science. Not that they object to his being a Christian Scientist, if he wants to be one, for he has a perf~t right to be what he prefers, but many of the disabled and sick exservice men prefer methods of treatment and rehabilitation other than those advocated by a Christian Scientist, and they feel, so they tell me, that they do not get the proper sympathy from a general counsel who views their affiictions only from a certain angle. _

Doutbless many ex-service men are themselves Christian Scientists, and would prefer treatment advocated by such sect, and I lodge Yo objections to the general counsel my.:;elf because of his religion. I give every man the right to choose his own religion. My objection to William Wolff Smith is that he is unlearned in the law, that he has not sound legal judgment, that he is inefficient, and that he is wholly unreliable.

Some in Washington have objected to William Wolff Smith, claiming that he was engaged in businesd here as a side lire ; but I have made no such charges against him, and have made no investigations of such claims. But I have investigated many, many cases in the Veterans' Bureau which have convinced me beyond peradventure of a doubt that he is wholly uu.fit for the office he holds, and that his filling that office daily menaces the rights and fair treatment of the loved ones of 4,000,000 brave ex-service men in the United, States.

Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield lG minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [1\Ir. TREADWAY].

Mr. TREADWAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is generally acknowledged that one of the outstanding speeches that has been recently made in this House, and has marked its author as one of the deep thinkers and able debaters of this branch, was made last week when the so-called railroad labor bill was up, by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. NELsoN]. I wish to quote one or two sentences from that address in support of a position that I have advanced on this floor numerous times.

Mr. NELSON of Maine said: I believe that compulsory investigation is in entire harmony with

the genius of American institutions, • • • to focus public attention, to create an intelligent and informed public opinion, to bring to bear upon the oll'ending party the compelling influence of disapprobation.

Then he goes on to say that this is no new idea, that President Roosevelt advocated it in 1905, that President Wilson advocated it in i916, and President Coolidge emphasized the need of machinery for compulsory investigation -in labor difficulties in his r~ference to the coal situation. And further:

Its sole purpose is to discover and report the facts, a purpose of extreme importance, as upon these facts the President may act or Congress legislate.

I commend those sentiments to the gentlemen of this House who are interested in the subject of a fair price to the consumers of anthracite coal. Yesterday a Washington newspaper published an editorial entitled " The anthracite gouge," in which it is stated that anthracite prices are quoted at from 75 cents to $1.50 a ton higher than they were last summer before the strike. That fact means that the owners, the operators of anthracite mines, are making up the loss that they sustained during the five months of the strike at the rate of about $250,000 a day, a very large sum. The coal is being mined at the rate of 800,000 tons per day, and at the rate of 75 cents a ton, it does not take very much of a mathematician to find out who is to be the beneficiary, and how the amount that the operators of the coal mines desire to have paid into their treasury will be restored.

In that connection let me say that no one has claimed that the mjner will receive one cent more of pay since the strike has lfeen declared over, nor is there a higher freight rate charged. Consequently the entire additional profit will go into the pockets of the operator at the expense of the consumer. The writer of the editorial in the ·washington Post. referred to, designates the consumer of anthracite as the goat. We are rightly designated as the goats for allowing this situation to continue.

The reason I call this to the attention of the House at this time is because a few days ago our distinguished floor leader indicated that it was the intention of Congress to adjourn at an early date, perhaps two months hence. It is now three weeks or more since the strike was declared off. On that day, the 12th of February, I think it was, the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce publicly announced that hearings very soon would be begun on the subject of coal legislation. -So far as I know the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has allowed three weeks of the time to elapse since then without a motion of any kind having to do with hearings on that subject.

I am not criticizing either the chairman of the committee nor his colleagues on that great committee, but I am calling the attention of such Members of the House as do me the honor of being present at this late hour to the fact that so far we have not moved. If we consumers of anthracite are to be designated as goats, I say there is exactly as much need of regulation of coal consumption and distribution as there ever has been. I agree heartily with the gentleman from Maine [Mr. NELSoN] that the way to get at this is through public information. Make it compulsory that the information as to the cost of production of coal and the various reasons for increasing of price be made a matter of public record. The President has recommended it. Two previous Presidents recommended the same procedure. We are not talking about compulsory arbitration at all. That is another subject; and the gentleman from Maine dealt very well with that subject also. The coal consuming public is being charged between $200,000 and $300,-000 a day more than they were previous to the coal strike, and they have a right to know where that money is going and why that increase in price. Take the situation here in the District. •

Only a day or two ago a distinguished Senator made the announcement through the Committee on the District of Columbia that even after the coal dealers here had entered into an agreement to open their books to the auditors of the District

5126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE of Columbia Committee, they could not get the desired information.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massa-chusetts has expired.

Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield. the gentleman three more minutes.

Mr. OLIVER of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentle-man yield?

Mr. TREADWAY. Yes. Mr. OLIVER of New York. Unless the committee having this

whole legislation in charge acts very speedily is there not great danger that we will not be able to pass any legislation at this session and that another winter will be upon us?

Mr. TREADWAY. I endeavored to make that very plain in referring to the fact that our leader has said that we are going to adjourn early ; and if possible, I would like to prod up this committee a little, of :which the gentleman from Maine [Mr. NELSON] is a member, as is also the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. SHALLENBERGER], whom ~ see before me. The excitement of llie strike is now over, and the committee can proceed with coolness and deliberation to frame legislation based upon the Coal Commission's report and the President's recommendations. The1·e is ample proof of its need. If anthracite is to be mined and used, the consumers are entitled to all possible puplicity of costs and fair margin of profits. A great public necessity should no longer be used as a means of exacting exorbitant profits from consumers. We insist upon compulsory investigation into all elements of cost, and the fact that this will be re isted to the bitter end is evidence of its need for the protection of the people. So let the proper committee start establishing the right machinery.

In the remainder of the time allotted to me and under permission to extend my remarks I desire to refer to another subject upon which I have urged legislation at this session. The committee having this matter in charge is the Committee on the Territories. We should no longer delay in changing the organic law in regard to the method in which Alaska is governed. A recent article in the National Spectator by Hon. Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior, confirms statements I ba:ve previously made on this floor. The title of the article is "What future bas Alaska? Territory bas made little progress in pas·t few years." His statements are similar to thos~ in his annual report. I quote extracts : WHAT FUTURE HAS ALASKA?-TERlUTORY HAS MADE LITTLE PROGRESS IN

PAST FEW YEARS

By the Hon. Hubert Work, Secretary of the Interior . Alaska, our last frontier, is a Territory with its resources and

national wealth undeveloped. Without the inspiration of sel!-government and freedom, essential

to natural expansion, the eountry is now being retarded by unnecessary activity of Government bureaus, whose officials have been made hesitant b-y limited ·local authority and confused by far-distant direction. Lacking infu!pendence in administration, the white population of Alaska has not developed independence of initiative in developing their adopted country. Production of Its mines, forests, and even of its fisheries wavers and recedes.

This is a plain sketch of Alaska, nearly 60 years after its acquirement ·by the tTnited States, despite popular interest stories written from time to time. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that the almost consuming interest the different departments of government have taken in the al!airs of the Territory, which have led to the establishment and maintenance there of a great number of Federal agencies wbicll might now be correlated, bas been responsible in no small measure for .Alaska's delayed development.

Most of the Government's activities in Alaska should be covered by one department and placed under one Secretary of the President's Cabinet. The situation calls for prompt sympathetic study by Congress. Alaska's resources and possibllities; .the method of government and its eft'ect; the attitude the Federal Government should assume, whether governmental control should be constructive in type or continue to cultivate dependency, or be removed entirely, should be weighed and determined. At least the proposal to merge all activities in one department should have immediate consideration.

Expenditures for the Federal administration in Alaska amounted last year to approximately $10,000 .. 000 and was apportioned among 9 of the 10 executive departments of the Government. There were approximately 3,300 Government employees, which means that more tban onetenth of Alaska's white population is in the Government employ in one capacity or another. The functions performed ' consist of every conceivable p\lase of governmental supervision and jurisdiction.

• • • • • • The biggest single development in .Al9.ska is the Alaska Raill'oad,

built and operated by the Government and costing approximately $60,000,000. The line, completed for operating purposes in 1923,

extends from Seward, on the Gu:U of Alaska, to Fairbanks, on the Tanana River, a tributary of tbe Yukon. It penetrates into the very heart of the Territory for about 500 roUes.

It soon became apparent that the road-the first built and operated by the Government-was not a profitable enterprise. It was eYirlent that it _faced a heavy operating deficit which must be made up by the Government. Last winter a complete survey of the physical condition of the road and the commercial possibilities of the territory coDtributory to it was made by an _expert in railroad construction and operation. The result of the survey showed that, compared with the privately owned railroads in the States, the Alaska line in many places was but a temporary structure, built on freezing and thawing soU and ever-shifting, rapid streams. It also showed that freight and passenger traffic was limited and some years would elapse before the road would be a financial success.

Construction was authorized by Congress in 1914, and the work, laid out by the Alaska Engineering Commission, now known as the Alaska Railroad Commission, was begun in 1915 and continued eight years. · 1When proposed the contention -was that with adequate transportation facilities mines in the interior of Alaska would be opened and flourish. In 1915 these minerals were valued at $32,790,000·. By 1924 they had decreased to $17,457,000.

Production of coal in Alaska in competition with the States has not been feasible, and neither ha.s the production· of other minerals proved sufficiently profitable to attract capital, ·~th the exception of gold, althou~b the Government has provided the means of shipping them out.

With a deficit in ·1924 of $1,739,274, the policy of the railroad was changed and b.usi.ness principles applied. The practice of ope.rapng passenger trains only was abandoned and mixed trains were substi: tuted, requi~g the hauling of freight cars where it was possible to maintain the schedule. Dining and sleeping cars also were discontinued, and freight trains were operated only when sufficient tonnage was available to justify the cost of operation.

Nevertheless, the drain on the Federal Treasury continued and talk of scrapping the road was revived, and has recently been heard again in Congress. Whether the railroad ever should have been built is no,.f beside the question: The Government has it, and to abandon it, despite the heavy loss which can be traced largely to maintenance-ofway expenses, due to tbe hurried and temporary manner of construction, would amo_unt to a rev!ll'sion of the American policy of progress.

To correct this situation the temporary structures should be replaced with permanent construction. In that connection a six-year program, covering the expenditure of approximately $11,878,000, has been proposed, which includes ,reconstruction of the roadlJed in many places, substituting steel bridges for wooden trestles, construction of a tunnel, and other replacements necessary to put the physical condition of the line on a basis which will reduce its yearly maintenance costs to the minimum.

Conversion of the right of way of the railroad to a truck highway and abandonment of the line from Anchorage to Seward entirely, or the use of that division only in summer, largely for tourists, also have been suggested. There is little local commercial use for the railroad between Anchorage and Seward, as both are seaports, and it might be maintained between these two points only in summer as proposed. ,

• • • • • • • We have experimented long enough and have made lavish

appropriations. The Government machinery should be abridged and concentrated under one department in accordance with tb.e S~retary's . recommendations. I, however, do not agree With his suggestion of further large appropriations for railroad construction. ,

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield four minutes to the

gentleman from Kansas [Mr. WHITE]. [Applause.] Mr. WHITE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of

the committee, a little while ago I found on my de k a little pamphlet, ·The Cosmopolitan Empire, by John William Conway, of Norton, Kans., a very able editor and press wl'iter and I read it carefully. I am not here to stand as its pro: ponent, but I think it furnishes a masterful treatment of the subject of world peace. It was first submitted to the American peace award for the Bok $100,000 prize, and I want to· say this in my brief time, that if there is any sentiment which is predominant in the minds of the American people, it is a desire for world peace. I believe it is the unanimous sentiment of America that they abhor war. They are not in favor but are strongly against any war for subjugation or for conquest and only would justify war for defense. And I believe as long as that sentiment exist, and it will exist until every scar in every mother's heart inflicted there by the great World War shall be healed, and it will never be while life exists, for every paternal cry that comes up after every war, "Oh, my son, my son, would God that I had died for thee," that sentiment in the minds and hearts of the American people will be the greatest deterrent of war.

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5127 Now, Mr. Chairman and gentleman, I think it furnishes a

wonderful address on the subject of world's peace, and I am going to ask unanimous consent of this committee that it may be printed in the REcORD. It furnishes a great deal of information, it contains much philosophic wisdom and a great deal of fundamental truth, and while I am frank to say I do not agree with every provision it contains, I think it will be useful to the Members of the House who may have the time to read it and may be of great information to the country.

The CHAIR~IAN. The gentleman from Kansas asks unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks in the manner indicated. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.

Mr. WHITE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following: THE} COSMOPOLI'l'AN EMPIRE-A PLAN TO ACHIEVB L"'lfD PRFJSERVE

WORLD PEACE

By John William Conway

(Fit·st submitted to the American peace award for the llok $100,000 prize, and now offered to the world, trusting to reason in a wiser age)

AXIOMS A...'iD PROPOSITIONS

World peace intim!ltes a compelling world power. World power, the result of human etrort, means the dynamics of

political force- capable of world control. Peace established throughout the world by will-power of political

aggregations of men, must be det·ived and maintained by a coalition of natious adequate to contt·ot all refractory governments and belligerent races.

Peace may be achieved and preserved through . four agenc1es, Qr plans.

I. Force-Arms and the man. II. Arbitration-Adjustments, . agreements, concessions, treaties. III. Education-Cultivation of humane sentiments; broad studies

of Jife . IV. The super state-a cosmopolitan empire, an International re

public, a coalition of nations having administrative abllity.

I. ARMS AND THE MAN

[From the first verse of Virgil's EneidJ

PEACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY VICTORlOUS AimS

The vanquished necessarily accepts, under duress, the terms of peace Imposed by the victor. Such peace endures until the subdued force regains power to resist.

No master need expect submission longer, no dictator dare anticipate tru·ther respect for his conquest or his treaty-forcing peace, than the · period of recuperation required by hls prostrate enemy.

Peace enforced by arms is therefore an armistice, a cessation of hostilities, n postponement of war-not for cooling time but for healing time.

To preserve peace achieved by war requires subjugation through the constant application of armed force.

The tenure of such a peace may be made effective by raising the contending powers to the same strength physically, mentally, and materially ot· by reducing them to the same level of defense and aggression, making an equation of armament.

Coordinate powers covenanted and agreed to maintain peace must restrict the victor from further preparations for warfare, and they must bar the vanquished from fresh accumulations of martial material.

1. Giv~ to each an equal part or the broken sword. 2. Let neither be permitted to add a point to the one nor a hilt to

the other. PEACE l\1A Y BE PRESERVED BY ARMS

Stated as a corallary, it may be concluded that peace will be preserved wlten warlike activities are abandoned by request or agreement; when labor ceases in the work of preparation of all materials of destruction of property and human life; when military science is abolished ot• eliminated to the minimum of national safety.

Arms and the man, the premier agent in the achievement and preservation of world peace, may be regarded as the drastic but essential initial plan of proceeding.

The second and more favorable agency to employ, when conditions permit, is arbitration, which, in connection with education, constitutes the statics of peace.

II. ARBITRATION, THE STATICS OF PEACJD

ARBITRATION MAY ACHIEVE AND PRESERVE PEACE

Only two kinds of arbitration need be considered: Voluntary arbitration and enforced arbitration.

Nations at war, or liable to engage in war, may come to an agreement between each other to place their bone of contention in the hands of a commission selected by themselves, to arb.itrate their differences.

The settlement of controversies in this voluntary manner is practical for engendering the least friction, thereby assuring the minimum of subsequent bitterness and hatred.

Enforced arbitration means interference from an alien source. The question will at once arise : Quo jure?

Even the ocean can not loot landmarks for added jurisdiction, nor the land encroach upon the sea to stake its shore line far out beyond ancient boundaries without affecting human interests.

Much more and forever will a war between massed human beings atiect humanity.

Every worthy interest of mankind should be protected. When such interest is disregarded the injured party ought to have recourse to a. tribunal able to render justice, or be the means of making reparation. Courts of Jaw and equity settle grievances between men. A court of arbitration should be created and empowered to adjudicate disputes between nations.

The accredited and responsible governments of earth should ordain such a court or arbitration from whose decisions and decrees there is no appeal.

The powers of such court of arbitration should be broadened enough to pass judgments in controversies between governments, hostile races, insurrectionary provinces, and to decree executionS' of its will.

The court may function in two ways : 1. It may, on its own motion, summon for trial and investigation

two or more nations at war, or provinces and races in dispute over any question involving world peace.

2. It may be approached by appeal filed by a race, a nation, 1\

province, or a social or religious community suffering injury by thtl acts of other aggregations of men whatso~ver.

III. WORLD PEACE M.!.Y BE ACHIEVED AND PRESERVED THROUGH EDUCA

TION

Education Is the adjustment of body and mind to the processes of life. It means the manipulation of material implements to shape nature, and the utilization of forces to control phenomena.

Knowledge, the accumulations of education, is a power for peace when human sympathies at·e tnined in humane lines of thought.

War and peace alike are excellent because of educatiop. The tiger is educated to fight and kill; the hind, to flee and hide. Both are products of empil"ical education graduated from contrary schools of experience. Man, due to education, is master of both, and regent of his environment.

But man magnifies his importance too much as a factor in the end-les.3 series of elements that make the nniverse. ·

The world must be educated to understand that every life thereon is as much entitled as man himself to a share of it.

Never, except for self-preservation, is any being authorized to take the life of another. Nations and men must be educated to comprehend and to respect this faC!t of common law ruling all existence.

A propaganda of humane education should be inaugurated and successfully carried on among all peoples, to get them in accord with the brotherhood of all organic life, in a peaceful federation of the earth artificially divided for political sway.

The problems of education in adjusting the astounding variatloruJ of human intellect toward harmony ought to be studied scientifically. More of the work of educators must be done in laboratories analyzing the brain and nerve construction of future citizens, sorting them into grades by a physical survey to determine a series of developments from moron to philo!!opher.

Schools should be made responsible to government by certifying that their products are qualified for civil service not only as future pl'esidents but as shoemakers-after life terms in conformatories.

Three branches of education are neglected by the schools, including colleges and universities, although vital to civics, viz, heredity, medical jurisprudence, and criminology.

War is the antithesis or eugenics; it destroys the flower of manhood and thereby liberates the disqualified to propagate their kind. War is the polar opposite of evolution ; it sacrifices the fittest and leaves the unfit to reproduce themselves.

Peace, through education, should cull the unfit and segregate into controllable colonies · persons whose minds are criminally inclined or incapable of sympathetic advancement.

Classified by the laws of heredity, persons who are liable to produce epileptic, imbecile, and insane offspring should be imperatively restricte<l from the privilege of reproduction. ·

Criminology as a study should be urged on courts in order that they may be induced to substitute decrees of science for ancient and obsolete precedents decreeing capital punishment for criminals whose insanity, heredity, character, or social environment constrained their acts.

It is the function of education to anticipate in the schools the probable careers in crimes of pupils and students before the fact.

Nations under cmnpact to police the world for peace and order should . organize an imperial army by establishing schools for the training of youths qualified physically and mentally for superior work

5128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ]dAReR 5. in branches ol learning most utilized for national guardianship, giving expert training in these departments:

1. In arms ; destructive activities : a. Athletics. b. Military science. <1. Aviation. 2. In arbitration; conservation of interests: a. InternatiOJJal law. b. Diplomatic service. c. Sociology. d. Civil government and sanitation. 8. In humane education ; culture of sympathies: a. Biology and entomology. b. Psychology, crlminology, and genetics. c. Languages, eugenics, and heredity. d. Physics and mechanics. 4. In co mopolitan or universal citizenship : a. "One touch of nature makes the whole world kln."-Sbake'speare. b. "The world Is my country, and to do good my religion."-Paine. c. "Empire is peace."-Napoleon. d. "Let us have peace."-Grant. Broadly considered, the peace of the world is disturbed by other

calamities than those of war. T.he destruction of life and property should be reduced by education as far as possible, such as these:

1. Destruction of property : .Fires, . floods, mine disasters, shop explosions, riots, strikes, earth

quakes, cyclones, etc. Destrl;lctlon of life : Diseases, epidemics, plagues, panics, superstitions, famines, ship

wrecks,. preventable accidents, mobs, lynchings, physical degeneracy, religious sacrifices, etc.

These causes of destruction should .be eliminated by education inst1-tutell by all nations, exchanging instructors with one another, and worh-tng in coordination for the . mental and physical peace of the world.

No argument is needed to prove the fact of universal sympathy. The (URasters from earthquakes in San Francisco and in Tokyo .show the wbol<> world responsive to the call .of dis'tress.

No calamity is more cruel than war'. The scope of education includes culture for world-wide peace.

IV The preceding consiocration of the problem given leads to this final

analysi and conclusion : THE SUPER STATE IS THE PARAMOUNT PLAN TO ACHIEVE AND TO PRESERVE

WORLD PEACE

The Articles of Confederution drafted by the thirteen Colonies July 9, 1778, impUed a super state in their " League of Friendship " and perpett>al Union, called the Un_ited States of America.

Every Colony was and continues to be an independent State, retaining its sovereignty, power, right, and jurisdiction in a successful federation.

With such an historic model before the world for imitation in a broader sense, small study is required to agree upon a super state, a world republic--more appropriately styled; because of limitless dominion, a cosmopolitan empire.

The suggestions that follow may be construed as a tentative constitution for such an empire.

CONSTITUTION OF THE COSMOPOLITAN EMPIRE

We, the majority of the nations of the world, in order to achieve and 'to preserve the sure and abiding peace thereof hereby establish the cosmopolitan empire.

ARTICLE 1 SECTION I

1. Tlle cosmopolitan empire shall have for its concern only matters ln all lands pertaining to the peace of the world.

2. Each nation of the empire shall retain at will its own autonomy, and contribute a just, reasonable, and proportionate share of money or its equivalent. arms, and men for the maintenance of peace, for this purpose establishing a propaganda of universal friendship.

SECTION II

1. Any nation unsigned at the adoption of this constitution may become a member of ihe empire on its selection by 75 per cent of the heads of its national factors.

2. No nation shall be privileged to secede except on a like vote granting permission.

3. Any nation having wealth, education, and population sufficient to qualify as an adjunct of peace, prosperity, and humanitarianism that does not accept membership in the cosmopolitan empire may be induced by moral suasion to become an active factor of world tranquility independently. Such a nation shall be encouraged in its propaganda of peace and good will. However, should such nation run counter to the aims of the empire, it shall be subjected to discrimination aga.inJJt it socially, politically, and commercially.

4. It shall be the policy of the cosmopolitan empire to insist thtt all nations .respect three ·cardinal dogmas of government:

First, peace ; stop bloodshed. Second, justice; adjudicate the wrong done. Third, penalization; reform, compel, or crush. 5. When any nation repudiates a law made by the Imperial con

gress or willfully disregards the decision of an adjudicating tribunal, or the decree of the court of arbitration, or commits overt acts in violation of peace, such as-

a. Continuing independent warlike preparations; b. Refusing to quit active warfare; or c. Declaring war by word or act-

then the military powers of the empire shall suppress the belligerent nation and force peace upon it. Its territory shall be ceded, in whole or in part, to peaceful neighboring nations for the cost of the war of suppression or annihilation; and always and forever the costs of any imperial actiqn thus required shall be assessed against the nation or nations at fault.

6. No person of adult age shall be deemed disqualified to function in any branch or department of the cosmopolitan empire on account of sex, religion, race, color, or nationality.

ARTICLE II

SECTION I

1. 'I'he executive power of the cosmopolitan empire shall be vested in a triumvirate whose tenme of office shall be five years, and elected by 60 per cent of the heads or rulers of the national factors of the empire in the following manner:

a. The bead of each nation shall communicate his choice for the triumvirate to the ambassador or minister plenipotentiary of his country stationed at some embassy agreed upon, and appoint such ambassador or minister to cast his ballot and act on an election commiss.lon to canvass all the votes cast by hims.elf and his compeers ; the commission being empowered to make all rules necessary for the guidance of popular elections.

b. Every ballot thus cast by proxy shall contain the names of three desired triumvirs, no two from the elector's own nation. One name shall be that of essentially a military person selected from the division of force. Another name shall be that t?f a jurist statesman, or one otherwise qualified to sit in the court of arbitration. Tbe third name shall be that of an educator.

c. The electoral commi sion shall declare the person named from the division of force who receives a majority of all votes cast to be elected triumvir. In like manner the person nominated from the division of arbitration who receives the major vote shall be declared elected triumvir; and the person from the division of education who receives the majority vote, shall be declared elected triumvir.

SECTION II

1. The decision of two triumviri agreeing shall control the triumvirate in its action or judgment; but no power of veto is granted over legislation.

2. The triumvir elected from the division of force shall ·be commander in chief of the imperial army, embracing all the armed forces of the cosmopolitan empire in divisions of land, sea, and air. lie shall direct the work of creating the imperial army from recruits for all branches of the service furnished, equipped, and drilled by the signatory powers. He shall be ex officio marshal in chief of the court of arbitra,tion and be granted therefor full police power for coordinate service with the local army contingent, which police power he may use, when sufficient, in lieu of invoking martial law.

3. The triumvir elected from the branch of arbitration shall be ex officio a member of the imperial court of arbitration and presiding officer thereof.

4. The triumvir elected from the branch of education shall be speaker of the house of com.mong and ex officio granted full membership therein. He shall be superintendent in chief of all the public and federal systems of education among the signatory nations, but concerned especially with such branches of learning as involve civies, sociology, heredity, sanitation, and the industrial sciences.

5. When a nation in rebellion against the empire is that of the triumvir who is commander in chief of the imperial army, then be shall be temporar1Iy relieved of command rather than be forced to hum1llate himself or bls country. ·The imperial congress and the other two triumvil'i shall name a commander in. chief pro tem.

ARTICLE III

SECTION I

1. The legislative power of the cosmopolitan empire shall be 'Vested in an imperial congress constituted and elected as follows:

a. The presiding officers of every legislative body of the signatory nations shall be ex officio members of the senate of the imperial congress. Their tenure of office shall coincide with their tenure in the home legislature.

b. The legislature of each nation shall elect f1·om among· its own members, from fellow citizens, or from citizens of the cosmopolitan

i926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5129 empire, three persons of adult age who shall be members ·of the house of commons of ~he imperial congress. Their tenure of office shall be three years.

2. The senate and the house of commons shall have coordinate powers over legislation, and all laws passed by both branches of the imperial congress shall rule the empire.

3. Any law enacted by either branch, senate or house of commons, when supported by both the triumvirate and the court of arbitl·ation, shall be in like manner of full force and effect.

SECTION II

1. The imperial congress shall conve!le annually for the enactment of laws in furtherance of the peace of the world, for which purpose it shall cr{'ate a budget by assessment of all the covenanted nations, organize cabinets, bureaus, and make such other provisions as are deemed essential to operate the dominating sway of empire.

2. This constitution may be amended by the imperial congress, given for that purpose two votes, in conjunction with the cQurt of arbitration, gl ven therefor three votes.

ARTICLE IV SECTION I

1. The judicial power of the cosmopolitan empire shall be vested in the court of arbitration elected in the following manner for a term of seven years.

a. The imperial congress in joint session shall elect by a parliamentary majority of individual membership vote~ 36 persons · to be members of the court of arbitration.

b. The congress shall divide these arbiters into four groups of nine members.

2. One group shall deliberate on. controversies arising between countTles over interpretations of treaties and over w~at has been withheld from arbitration because regarded as an impelling cause for war-the personal honor and vital interests of a nation.

3. Another group shall deliberate over disputes between countries touching boundat·les, jurisdictions, commercial rela tlons, colonizations, and immigrations.

4. The third group shall consider questions of appeal; the settlement of debts contracted ; the reports of progress in disarmament. except for the service of the empire; laws interfering with international social relations, the freedom of speech, of the press, and of religious worship; inequalities between countries for laws r pgulating capital punishment for crimes; aud in general questions of civil liberty and domestic relationship that exemplify the discord between localized and cosmopolitan citizenship.

5. The fourth group shall be n. federal court of justice and adjudication sitting in perpetual session, vested with power of inquisition over grievances in all lands, and having the function of a prosecutor.

6. The findings of each group shall be submitted to the whole court assembled for review and discussion, presided over by the triumvir, and the decision handed down shall control the empire and all parties or interests involved by such decision, from which there is no privilege ot appeal granted ..

7. The court of arbitration shall appoint and dissolve at will sub· sidiary coUl'ts and tribunals of adjudication, naming its own members as such or appointing others.

ARTICLE V SECTION I

1. The seat of government of the cosmopolitan empire shall be the home city of any triumvir, or the capital of any signatory nation, when designated in advance by the imperial congress.

2. The court' of arbitration shall be granted full privilege to sit in any city or retreat, ad libitum.

3. The imperial army shall have the freedom of all lands for mobilization. It shall be assembled in loyal territory near the border of any nation threatening hostilities. In the absence of probable insurrection each nation may mobilize, train, and drill the imperial recruits on home territory.

4. The navy of the cosmopolitan empire shall have the freed-om of the seas and ports of the world.

SECTION II

1. The cosmopolitan empire shall proceed to function immediately after its constitution shall have been ratified by a majority of the accredited nations of the world.

COMMENTARY AND ARGUMENT

The subject assigned for plans, as stated in the title, does not include a provision made in the instructions issued by the commission of the American peace award, viz:

" The winning plan must provide a practicable means whereby the United States can take its place and do its share toward preserving world peace, while not making compulsory the participation of the UDited States in European wars, if any such are, in the future, found unpreventable."

Tbis reservation is fatal to any plan of world peace.

No such dilly-dallying option s-hould be granted to any factor in a coalition of nations pledged to end warfare upon earth.

The United States would be, if given this privilege oC evasion, a life-saver high and dry upon the beach directing others to wade in and rescue a drowning companion, himself afraid to get his feet wet.

Such privilege of voluntary exclusiveness ls the refinement of bombastic " King's excuse" in child's play.

Events during recent months exemplify the futility of a formidable compact, like the League of Nations, when action is not imperative and compelling, such as the affair between Italy and Greece called forth.

Are these written pledges merely scraps of paper? Italy, t~ signatory power in the league, scrapped Greece and the

paper both-at once in its act of war. Italy repudiated and dened the League of Nations and ruthlessly

broke its own pledge. All the !3ignatory powers of the league broke . their pledge in fail

ing to compcl a refractory nation to submit such contentions to arbitration before engaging in acts of war-the shelling of Corfu was an act of war.

Italy wears at its girdle the scalp ~f the League of Nations. lying in state as' a corpse at Geneva.

No flowers. Italy has made a whip of scorpions of the tongues it cut out of

the peace commission at The Hague. A whlp with crackers ! Literature is rich with ideals of peaceful governments in the visions

of philosophers; for notable examples, turn to Plato's Republic, Sir Thomas More's Utopia, Willlam Penn's European Parliament, John Locke's Constitution of Georgia, Emmanuel Kant's Congress of Nations, .Jeremy Bentham's International Tribunal, John Stuart .Mill's Federal Supreme Court, the International Peace Tribunal at The Hague, and the League of Nations at Geneva.

Scraps of paper? II

The Irony or fate makes the imperial dreams of peace a vagary. Czar Nicholas II, Emperor of all the Russias, richer than Croesus, more potent than the Caesars, initiated the International Tribunal of Peace, a worthy commission installed at The Hague.

Withal, the World War wrecked his empire, and his own subjects first exiled and then murdtJred the Czar and family.

'fhe sarcasm of time makes phantom dreams of imperial sway also. Kaiser WilUam II, Emperor of Germany, all these years mobilized the fiercest war machine ever known. His genius made vocal, probably, the last word in waste and slaughter.

The Kaiser, seli-tJ:rlled, a cowardly refugee, is the mockery of Mars, hls god.

Nicholas dreamt of friends at his elbow; William, of foes at his feet. Small choice between tho.lr dooms.

Compare the bei.-itage of their empires ; both on one side of the equation call for ciphers. minus quantities, worthless rubl{'s and marks on the other.

Reason, impelled to a conclusion by facts of history, may anticipate the bill of lading of the cargo 1n the ship of state that will lie at anchor in our harbor of to-morrow.

An invincible empire must be contrived when either the commerce or the peace of the world is sought to be controlled.

III

Should the senate and the house of commons disagree, or should either adjourn to avoid meeting an issue, then the other can continue legislation by appeal to the triumvirate and the court of arbitration for indorsement.

Superior and inferior powers are equal as legislative factors. The weaker nations will thereby seek self-preservation by cherishing a potential empire as guardian.

The court of arbitration is made available at all times to hear grievances, or to prosecute injustice,. by the sitting of nine membet·s in perpetual session, theoretically. There should be no postponement of justice. " Eternal . vigilance is the price of liberty."

Unlike the House of Lords of the British Parliament, the imperial senate can not inflate its .membership, because legislatures do not multiply their presiding officers. Because the President pro tempore of the United States Senate is a member of that organic body, he will sit in the imperial senate with the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

This constitution alms to eliminate " national honor and vital interests" from the consideration of powerif to justify war by evasion of appeal to the court of arbitration. The imperial army is set for war when necessary.

The third group .of members of the court of arbitration is given authority to regulate domestic relations. This provision gives the court a chance to harmonize national antagonisms. To illustrate, -polygamy in Palestine wa,s a religious ordinance founded upon the divine command: " Increase and multiply."

Among royalt and crowned heads it. is tolerated as morganatic marriages.

5130 OONGRESSIONAL RECOR])-HOUSE MABen 5. In the United States 1t is bigamy, a felony. An honored guest of

the Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893 was an Indian prince, who was not permitted to bring his harem.

The triumvirate will be broad enough to rule the cosmopolitan empire, each triumvir a specialist participating in the three essentials of government-executive force, lawmaking, and judicial analysis of law and conduct.

The enormous costs to nations caused by supporting the diplomatic and the consular services will be eliminated. The court of arbitration will have jurisdiction over matters now assigned to ambassadors, envoys extraordinary, ministers plenipotentiary, legations, and consuls. Citizens of the signatory powers will be citizens of the cosmopolitan empire also, and may summon to their aid the protecting laws of any land they are privileged to visit. ·

ru:r. SHREVE. ru:r. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having

resumed the chair, Mr. TINCHER, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the. state of the Union, reported that that committee, having had under consideration the bill H. R-9795, had come to no resolution thereon.

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION WITH SENATE AMENDMENTS

House concurrent resolution of the following title was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to its appropriate committee, as indicated below:

House Concurrent Resolution 11, to tender the thanks and appreciation of the Congress of the United States for heroic service rendered by the officers and crews of the steamships President Roose-velt. President Harding, American Trader, Republic, and Oarneronia; to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted Mr. HA WEB (on request of Mr. RUBEY) for the remainder of the week, on account of the death of a dear friend.

.ADJOURNMENT Mr. SHREVE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now

adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o•clock and 1.

minute p. m.) the House adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, March 6, 1926, at 12 o'clock noon.

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

Mr. TILSON submitted the following tentative list of committee hearings scheduled for March 6, 1926, as reported to the floor leader by clerks of the several committ~:

COMMITTEE .ON AGRICULTUBE

(10 a.m.) Bills for relief of agriculture.

COMMITTEE ON ffilliGATION AND RECLAMATION

(10 a.m.) To adjust water-right charges, to grant certain other relief

on the Federal irrigation projects, to amend subsections E and F of section 4, act approved December 5, 1924 (H. R. 9880).

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

(10.30 a. m.) To establish in the Treasury Department a bureau of customs

and a bureau of prohibition (H. R. 8998).

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIO BILLS AND RESOLU'riONS

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, Mr. ZIHLMAN: Committee on the District of Columbia.

S. 2041. An act to provide for the widening of First Street between G Street and Myrtle Street NE., and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 456). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. STALKER: Committee on the District of Columbia. H. R. 4505. A bill to authorize the Secietary of War to permit the delivery of water from the Washington Aqueduct pumping station to the Arlington County sanitary district ; with amendment (Rept. No. 457). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. ZIHL:UAN: Committee on the District of Columbia. H. R. 8656. A bill to vacate certain streets and alleys within the area known as the Walter Reed General Hospital, District of Columbia, and to authorize the extension' and widening of Fourteenth Street from Montague Street to its southern terminus south o.f Dahlia Street; with amendment (Rept. No. 458).

Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. HAUGEN: Committee on Agriculture. H. R. 4070. A bill to provide cooperation to safeguard endangered agricultural and municipal interests and to protect the forest cover on the Santa Barbara, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests from destruction by fire, and for other purpo es; with amendment (Rept No. 459). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. HAUGEN: Committee on Agriculture. H. R. 9039. A bill to amend section 8 of the act approved March .1, 1911 (36th Stat. p. 961), entitled "An act to enable any State to cooperate with any other State or States, or with the United States, for the protection of the watersheds of ·navigable streams and to appoint a commission for the acquisition of lands for the pm·pose of conserving the navigability of navigable rivers"; without amendment (Rept. No. 460). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. WURZBACH: Committee on Military Affairs. H. R. 3921. A bill to authorize the Secretary of War to enter into an a~I?ent ~itb the Clarendon Community Sewerage Co., grantrng It a nght of way for a trunk-line sewer through the Ii'ort Myer Military Reservation and across the military highways in Arlington County, Va., and to connect with the sewer line serving such reservation; with amendment (Rept. No. 461). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. MORIN: Committee on -Military Affah·s. H. Res. 150. A resolution requesting the Secretary of War to report to the House of Representatives the total number of commissioned officers of the Army who are on the retired list, and total amount of pay such officers are drawing annually; without amendment ( Rept. No. 463). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. SCOTT: Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries. H. R. 9971. A bill for the regulation of radio communications, and for other purposes; without amendment (Rept. No. 464). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, Mr. LETTS: Committee on the Public Lands. S. 1938. An

act to issue a patent to John H. Bolton; without amendment (Rept. No. 462). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. UNDERHILL: Commitee on Claims. S. 2091. An act for the relief of Florence Proud; with amendment (Rept. No. 465). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. VINCENT of Michigan: Committee on Claims. S. 2324. An act for the relief of the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co.; with amendment (Rept. No. 466). Referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse.

Mr. VINCENT of Michigan : Committee on Claims. S. 2616 . .An act for the relief of Herman Shulof; without amendment (Rept. No. 467). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. S.A.B.A.TH: Committee on Claims. H. R. 2333. .A bill for the relief of Katherine Rorison; with amendment (Rept. No. 468). Referred to the Committee of the Whole Honse.

Mr. CARPENTER: Committee on Claims. H. R. 2715. A bill for the relief of the widow of W. J. S. Stewart; with amendment (Rept. No. 469). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. WALTERS: Committee on Claims. H. R. 29M. A bill for the rellef of Harry J. Dabel; with amendment (Rept. No. 4 70). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. CARPENTER: Committee on Claims. H. R. 8685. A bill for the relief of Hem·y S. Royce ; without amendment (Rept. No. 471). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. UNDERHILL: Committee on Claims. H. R. 8794. .A bill to credit the accounts of W. W. House, special disbursing agent, Department of Labor; without amendment (Rept. No. 472). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. WALTERS: Committee on Claims. ·H. R. 8846. A bill for the relief of Cyrus Durey; without amendment (Rept. No. 473). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

CHANGE OF REFERENCE

Under clause 2 of Rule XXII, committees were dischargell from the consideration of the following bills, which were I'""& ferred as follows :

'·

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 5131. A bill (H. R. 9409) for the relief of the widow and minor

children of Gordon H. :Meek, deceased ; Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads discharged, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

A bill (H. R. 9982) granting a pension to Phebe Michael; Committee on Invalid Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

A bill (H. R. 6987) granting a pension to Frances E. Andrews ; Committee on Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

A bill (H. R. 9652) granting an increase of pension to Martha Jane Raphfuse; Committee on Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, public bills and resolutions

were introduced and severally referred as follows : By Mr. KIRK: A bill (H. R. 10050) to ame_nd an act entitled

"An act to revise and equalize rates of pensions to certain soldiers sailors and marines of the Civil War, to certain widows,' former 'widows, and children of such soldiers, sailors, and marines, and granting pensions and increase of pensions in certain cases," approved May 1, 1920, and for other purposes ; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. ZIHLMAN: A bill (H. R. 10051) to. amend the a~t entitled "An act for the retirement of public-school teachers m the District of Columbia," approved January 15, 1920, and for other purposes· to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. HAYDEN: A bill (H. R. 10052) to authorize the sale of the Mesa Target Range, Arizona ; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. FREAR : A bill (H. R. 10053) to amend the acts of February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. 795), and the act of May 29, 1924 ( 43 Stat. 244), providing f?r the leasi~g. of unallotted Indian reservation lands for 011 and gas mmmg, and for other purposes ; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. - By Mr. McKEOWN: A bill (H. R. 10054) authorizing the appropriation of $50,000 for the establishment of a fish-hatching and fish-cultural station in the State of Oklahoma; to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. LARSEN: A bill (H. R. 10055) to amend section 77 of the Judicial Code to create a middle district in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes ; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. RATHBONE: A bill (H. R. 10056) giving civilian clerks, Signal Service at large, the same military status as Army field clerks; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By :Mr. BRI'l'TEN: A bill (H: R. 10057) to authorize the granting of leave to ex-service men and women to attend the annual convention of the American Legion in Paris, France, in 1927;. to the Committee on the Civil Service. .

By .Mr. GRAHAM: A bill (H. R. 10058) to authorize notaries public and other State officers to administer oaths required by the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. MADDEN: A bill (H. R. 10059) to regulate subsistence expenses of civilian officers and employees while away from their designated posts of duty on official business; to the Committee on the Civil Service.

By Mr. GARBER: Joint resolution (H. J. Res. 190) to provide for a national agricultural day ; to the Committee on Agriculture.

MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, memorials were presented and

referred as follows : BJ Mr. O'CONNELL of New York: Memorial of the Legis

lature of the State of New York, favoring an all-American ship canal between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean by the way of the Mohawk and Hudson Valleys, through the State of New York; to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, memorial of the Senate of the State of New Jersey, asking Congress to effectively regulate stations for the transmission of radio communications or energy in the United States; to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, private bills and resolutions

were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. BEERS: A bill (H. R. 10060) granting a pension to

?!Untie I\I. Mcllwaine; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. By Mr. BURTNESS: A bill (H. R. 10061) authorizing the

appointment of Homer I. Sands as second lieutenant ln the Air Service of the United States Army; to the Committee on Mill· tary AJiairs. -

By Mr. CHALMERS: A bill (H. R. 10062) granting a pension to John J. Dewey ; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. DRANE : A bill (H. R. 10063) authorizing preliminary examination and survey of the Withlacoochee River, in Florida, with a view to the control of floods ; to the Committee on Flood Control.

By Mr. HOLADAY: A bill (H. R. 10064) granting a pension to Sarah A. Freeman ; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. MORTON D. HULL: A bill (H. R. 10065) granting an increase of pension to Laura E. Waddle; to the Committee on In valid Pensions.

By Mr. JENKINS: A bill (H. R. 10066) granting an increase of pension to 1\Iarinda 0. Gibbs; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 10067) for the relief of Ambrose Hover; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois: A bill (H. R. 10068) providing for the examination and survey of Galena River, Ill., in the vicinity of Galena; to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. LINTIDCUM: A bill (H. R. 10069) granting an increase of pension to Lucretia Hamilton Davis; to the Commit-tee on Invalid Pensions. -

By Mr. MAJOR: A bill (H. R. 10070) granting a pension to William Maze; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. OLDFIELD: A bill (H. R. 10071) granting a pension to Eugene B. Russell; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. PARKER: A bill (H. R. 10072) granting an increase of pension to Rosanna Cushing; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. PORTER: A bill (H. R. 10073) for the relief of Adriano Cruceta, a citizen of the Dominican Republic; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr. RATHBONE: A bill (H. R. 10074) granting an increase of pension to Anna Weishar; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. SWARTZ: A bill (H. R. 10075) granting a pension to Frank L. Rider; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By l\lr. TEMPLE: A bill (H. R. 10076) for the relief of the estate of William C. Perry, late of Cross Creek Township, Washington County, Pa.; to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. TILSON: A bill (H. R. 10077) granting an increase of pension to Harriet E. Perkins; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By l\lr. WILLIAMS of Texas: A bill (H. R. 10078) for the relief of Myron J. Conway, Frank W. Halsey, and others; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By l\1r. WOLVERTON: A bill (H. R. 10079) providing for the examination and survey of Little Kanawha River, W. Va.: to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. KNUTSON: Resolution (H. Res. 160) to pay Walter C. Neilson $1,200 for extra and expert services to the Committee on Pensions by detail from the Bureau of Pensions; to the Committee on Accounts.

PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of Ruie XXII, petitions and papers were

laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as -follows : 984. By Mr. CARSS : Petition of sundry citizens of the State

of Minnesota, protesting against the passage of compulsory Sunday observance laws; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

985. By Mr. CRAMTON: Petition of Walter :McLeod and 48 other residents of Imlay City, Mich., protesting against the compulsory Sunday observance bllls; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

986. Also, petition of E. H. Howland and other residents of Lapeer, 1\fich., protesting against the compulsory Sunuay observance bills; to the Committee o;n the District of Columbia. _ 987. Also, petition of Robert Bacham and other residents of Port Huron, Mich., protesting against the Sunday observance bills· to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

98B. Also, petition of A. J. Pierce and other residents of Lapeer, Mich., protesting against the compulsory Sunday observance bills ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

989. Also, petition of J. A. Van Kirk and other residents of Lapeer County, :Mich., protesting against the compulsory Sunday observance bills ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

990. By Mr. CULLEN: Resolution adopted by the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York, deal\ng with certain waterway development; to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

I

5132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE }fARCH 6 . 991. By 1\Ir. CURRY: Petition of students of Pacific Union College and other citizens of the third California ·district, against the enactment of House bill 7179, proposing a Sunday law for the District of Columbia; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

992. By l\Ir. EATON: Petition of sundry residents of Bound Brook, N. J., and vicinity, against passage of House bills 7179 and 7822; to the Committee on the District of ColWiibia.

993. Also, petition of sundry residents of Bernardsville, N. J., against passage of House bills 7179 and 7822; to the Committee Qn the District. of Columbia. ·

994. Also, petition of sundry residents of Trenton, N. J., and vicinity, against passage of House bills 7179 and 7822; to- the Committee on the District of Columbia.

995. By Mr. FORT: Petition of sundry citizens, residents of Newark and suburbs, State of New Jer ey, protesting the passage of House bills 7179 and 7822 ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

996. By Mr. FULLER: Petition of the C. V. Olson Clothing Co., of Rockford, Ill., and other individuals favoring the passage of House bill 98 ; to the Committee on Pensions.

997. Also, petition of the Barnes Drill Co., of Rockford, Ill., protesting · against the enactment of the Kendall bill (H. R. 4478)·; to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

99 . By Mr. GALLIVAN: Petition of John Jennings, faithful navigator, Bishop Cheverus General Assembly, Knights of Columbus, Boston, Mass., protesting against outrageous persecution and malicious treatment being accorded to Catholic nuns, bishops, and priests in Mexico ; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . 999 .. B_y Mr. GARBER: Petition by citizens of Oklahoma, against compulsory Sunday observance bills (H. R. 7179 and 7822) or any other national religious legislation pending; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1000. By Mr. GIBSON: Petition of · citizens of Windham County, Vt., protesting against pending legislation (H. R. 7179) for compulsory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1001. By Mr. HADLEY: Petition of citizens of Mount Vernon, Wash., protesting against House bill 7179; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1002. Also petition of citizens of Auburn and Enumclaw, Wash., pt;otesting against House bill 7179; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1003. Also, petition of citizens of Sedro Woolley, Wash., and vicinity protesting against House bill 7179 ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia._

1004. Also, petition of citizens of Nordland, Wash., protesting against House bill 7179 ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1005. By Mr. HICKEY: Petition from Mr. Stanley J. Chil~ m.iniak, signed by Mr. Valentine J. Gadaez and other citizens of South Bend, Ind., e~ressing opposition to House bill 5386 which proposes to exclude foreign-language publications from second-class mailing privileges; to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

1006. By Mr. KEARNS: Petition of citizens of Scioto County, Ohio, protesting against the passage of the Sunday ob ervailce bilL~ {H. R. 7179 and 7822) ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1007. By Mr. KING : Petitions signed by Geo. E. Peterson, J. Z. Winkler, Mrs. Rachael Shull, Fred Duke, A. B. Elmore, and 34 other citizens of the city of Galesburg, Ill. ; and Geo. I!"'. Hubbard, Florence Heck, Joseph Heck, and 21 other citizens of Farmington, Ill., protesting against compulsory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1008. By Mr. McDUFFIE: Petition of citizens of Mobile, Prichard, and Whistler, Ala., against Sunday observance bills; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

lOOn. By l\Ir. McKEOWN: Petition of J. N. Baker and E. P. Budd and sundry other citizens of Shawnee, Okla., protesting against the pa"sage of House bills 7179 and 7822, the compulsory Sunday observance bills ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1010. By 1\lr. MAJOR: Petition of certain citizens of Springfield, Mo., opposing the passage of compulsory Sunday observance bills (H. R. 7179 and 7822) or any other national religious legislation which may be pending ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1011. Also, petition of citizens of Sedalia, Mo., opposing the pa~sage of House bills 7179 and 7822, or any other national religious legislation which-may be pending; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1012. By Mr. MAPES: Petition of Mr. George J. Benedict, Grand Haven, Mich., and four other residents of that city and

vicinity, in opposition to the enactment of compul ory Sunday observance laws or any other national religious legislation pending in Congress ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. · ·

1013. Also, ietter of representative printing .firms, members of the Grand Rapids Printers' Association, of Grand Rapids, Mich., indorsing and urging the passage of House bill 4478; to th~ Comillittee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

1014. By Mr. MOREHEAD: Petition of A. J. Meiklejo~, J. H. Clark, and others against compul ory Sunday observance-; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1015. By Mr. MORROW: Petition of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, opposing the Gooding long and short haul bill; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1016. Also, petition of residents of Ma:Arwell, N. Mex., opposing compulsory Sunday observance bills (H.· R. 7179 and 7822) ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1017. By Mr. O'CONNELL of New York: . Petition of the Fulton Bag and Cotton Mills, of Brooklyn, N. Y., opposing the pas age of House bill 4478, known as the Kendall stamped envelopes bill ; to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. _

1018. By 1\Ir. O'CONNELL of Rhode Island: Petition of residents of Pawtucket, R. I., protesting against House bills 7179 and 7822, compulsory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the DistTict of Columbia.

1019. By Mr. ROBINSON of Iowa: Petition of sundry citizens of Cedar Falls, Iowa, protesting against compul ory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the District of Columbia .

1020. By Mr. SHALLE.l\TBERGER: Petition of sundry citizens of Hall County, Nebr., opposing the passage of the compulsory Sunday observance bills ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1021 . .Also, petition of sundry cltiz~ns of Hitchcock and Red Willow Counties, Nebr., opposing the passage of any compulsory Sunday observance laws; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1022. By Mr. SINCLAIR: Petition of 60 residents of Minot, N. Dak., and vicinity, protesting against the passage of legislation compelling compulsory Sunday observance ; also 33 residents of Dogden, N. Dak., protesting against the passage of legislation compelling compulsory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1023. By Mr. TAYLOR of West Virginia: Petition of sun· dry citizens of West Virginia, opposing compulsory Sunday ob ervance legislation; to the Committee on the District of-Columbia. ·

1024. By Mr. TEl\fPLE : Petitions of a number of residents of Washington County, Pa., protesting against the passage of Sunday observance bills (H. R. 7199 and 7822), affecting the Di trict of Columbia ; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. ·

1025. By Mr. TILSON: Petition of Mr. Samuel Brelsfelder and others, against compulsory Sunday observance; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1026. Also, petition of William S. Clancy and other members of Sidney Beach Camp, No. 10, United States Spanish War -veterans, Branford, Conn., in support of Hou e bill 98 and Senate bill 98; to the Committee on Pensions.

SENATE SATURDAY, ;_lfarch 6, 1926

The Chaplain, R~v. J. J. Muir, D. D., offered the followingprayer:

Our Father, it is to us a joy and an honor to come to Thee and to ask from Thee guidance in all the pathways. We bless Thee for this morning. We ble s Tbee for that contemplation of mind as we think of to-morrow. Grant that there may be had by us such a relief from the toil and duty of the everyday responsibilities that it may be a joy to enter Thy bouse and find the privilege of fellowship with Thyself~ and t~us be qualified for what may be our duty through roe comrng week. Hear us, Father. Take us into Thy keeping and help us to honor Thee with all the powers of our being. We ask in Jesus' name. Amen.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of the proceedings of the legislative day of Wedne day last when, on the requ_est of Mr. JoNES of Washington and by unanimous consent, the further reading was dispensed with and the Jour-nal was approved. ·

1926 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE - US ...

Documents