1922. CO~G-RE8SWN~IJ, RfECORD~SFJNATE.

Mr. FOCHT,; Committee on the District of Columbia. S. 2597. An act to amend an act entitled "An act to provide, in the interest of public health, comfort, morals, and · safety, for the discontinuance of the use as. dwellings of bulidings situated in the alleys of the District of Columbia," approved September 25, 1914; without amendment (Uept. No. 1194). Referred to the House Calendar.

PUBLIO BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND MEMORIALS;

Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, bills, resolutions, and memorials were introduced and severally referred as follows :

By Mr. HIMES: A bill (H. R. 12468) to provide a commis­sion to secure plans and designs for a monument or memorial to the memory of William McKinley, late President of the United States: to the Commi1ttee on the Librar1.

By Mr. DICKINSON: A bill (H. R. 12469) to declare a na­tional coal emergency, to create a coal commission, and to pre­scribe their duties in the supervision of the production and dis­tribution of coal ; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. McPHERSON: A bill (H. R. 12470) authorizing the Secretary of Labor to permanently admit in bis discretion and under suitable regulations and upon such requirements as he may prescribe certain aliens who have been temporarily ad­mitted to the United States during and since the year 1914, and who were minors at the date of such temporary admission; to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization..

By Mr. ZIHLMAN: A bill (H. R. 12471) t provide for the establishment in the State of Maryland ot a fisheries station, to be under the direction of the Bureau of Fisheries of the Department of Commerce; to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. WINSLOW: A bill (H. R. 12472) to dectare a na­tional emergency to exist in the production, transportation, and distribution of coal and other ftl.el, granting additional powers­to the Interstate Commerce Commission, providing for the appointment of a Federal fuel distributer, providing for the· declaration of car-service priorities in interstate commerce dur­ing the present and any succeeding emergency, and to prevent extortion in the sale of ··fuel; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. GOODYKOONTZ: A b'ill (H. R. 12473) granting-the consent of Congress to the Wynco Block Coa:l 'Co., a corporation, to construct a bridge across th'e Tug Fork of· Big Sa.ndy- River in l\fingo County, W. Va·.; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. CLOUSE: A bill (H. R. 12474) to authori-ze the 1lppro .. pdation of $20,000,000 for Federal aid in the com;truction of post roads and highways in- the several counties composing the' fourth congressional district of Tennessee, and for other pur• poses ; to the Committee on Roads.

By Mr. BRENNAN: A resolution (H. Res. 415) restricting the use of coal in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce~

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS. Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, private bills. and resolutions

were introdueed and severally referred as follows: By Mr. CRAMTON: A . bill (H. R. 12475) granting a pen­

sion to Frank Carney ; to. the Committee on Pensions. By Mr. KELLEY of Michigan: A bill (H. R. 12476) granting

a pension to Martha L. Harris; to. the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. LAYTON: A bill (II. R. 12477) granting an increase o:fi pension to Willie Lillian Steven.ton; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. McSW AIN: A bill (H. R. 12478) granting an increase of pension. to Francis Marion Cooper ; to the Committee on Pens ions.

By Mr. ROACH: A bill (It. R. 12479) authorizing the. Secre­tary of Labor to permanently admit, under suitable regulations and requirements to be prescribed by him, Jacob Kalaf, son of N. J. Kalaf, a citizen of the United States; to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

By Mr. ROBSION: A bill (H. R. 12480) granting. a pension to Sarah E. Childers ; to the Committee. on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. SCOTT of Tennessee: A bill (H. R 12481) granting a pension to George Peyton Chambers ; to the . Committee on Pensions.

Al o, a bill ( H. R. 12482) granting a pension to Susie !rhra:sher ; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr .. STRONG of Kansas: A bill (H; R. 12483) granting an increase of pension to Rachel E. Kerby i to the Committee pn Invalid Pensions.

PETITIONS, . ETC. Under clause- 1 of. Rule XXII, petitions and papers were1 laid

on the Cl~k's desk and referred as- follows : 6239. By Mr. COLE of Iowa. : Petition of the League of Iowa

Municipalities, relating to the necessity of legislation for the mining and distribution of coal; to the Committee on Inter­stat~ and Foreign Commerce.

6240. By Mr. KISSEL: Petition' of New York Board of Trade and Transportation, New York City, N. Y., regarding The Hague rules, 1921; to the Committee on Foreign .Affairs.

6241. Petition of William B. Kluber, Esq., Brooklyn, N. Y.,, urging the· 40 per cent tariff on wire cloth; to the Committe<t on Ways and Means.

... SENATE. MoNDAY, August 138, 1922.

(Legislative day of Fr·iday, A1tgust 25, 19~2.)

The Senate met at 11 o'clock a. m., on the expiration ot the recess.

OOMPENSATION OF WORLD W AB; VETERANS~

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con­sideration of the bill (H. R. 10874) to provide adjusted com­pensation for veterans of the World War, and for other pur­poses.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence ~f a quorum.

The PRESIDENT -pro tempore. The Secretary wlll call the roll.

The reading clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names : Ashurst Hale Nelson Smoot Ball• Hefiln New Stanfield Borah Hitchcock Nicholson Sterlin.,. Broussard Jones, Wash. Oddie· SutheriAnd Bur sum Kellogg Overman Townsend Cameron Kendrick P-epper Trammell Capper Keyes Pittman Underwood Culberson La Follette Pomerene Wadswotth Cummins Lenroot Ransdell Walsh; Mass. Curtis McCormick Rawson Walsh, Mont. Dial McCumber Reed, Pa. Warren Dillingham· McKellar Robinson Watson, Ga. Gerry McLean Sheppard Watson, Ind. Glass McNary Shields Williama Gooding Myers Simmons Willis

Mr. DIAL. I desire to announce that m:r colleague [Mr. Sl!ITH] is detained on official business. I ask that this an­nouncement may continue through the day.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Sixty Senators having answered to their names, there is a quorum present.

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I desire to preserve the con­tinuity of my remarks, and therefore I must refrain from yield­ing to any Member of the Senate for a question until I shall have concluded.

On J"une 8, 1922, I proposed an amendment to an act to pro­vide adjusted compensation for veterans of the 'Vorld War. Originally the amendment took the form of a bill, having been reported favorably to the Congress by appropriate com­mittees. The legislation proposed by the amendment has the sanction of the Western Reclamation Association, which has representatives in 13 arid and semiarid States, the indorse­ment of numerous civic and commercial associations through.­out the country, and officials high in public life.

Mr. President, I have offered the amendment in question for the reason I believe no legislation fashioned to benefit the former service men is complete or accomplishes that which Congress desires to effect unless it contains a provision cover­ing some practical plan of land settlement.

In every war in which this country has been involved the Government has provided as aid land for the veterans, and in 'my judgment no good reason exists for the abandonment of 1this national policy at this time.

Federal statistics show that 75,000,000 acres of the public do­main was allotted in the form of bounties to soldiers and sailors of our wars preceding the World War. If the veterans of the Great War are to receive land it must first be reclaimed, as the ready-to-plow lands of the Prairie States have wholly been ab­sorbed by private ownerships. Indisputable proof exists that there is a sincere desire for farm homes among thousands of the ex-service men.

Mr. President, a few months ago the able Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Fall, said, in substance, after completing a care­ful survey among the ex-service men, that there is abundant evidence of a sincere desire for farm homes on the part of th& defenders of our country in the late war. The records of the

11840 OONGRESSION AL RECORD-SEN ATE. AUGUST 28,

General Land Office and the Reclamation Service show that hundreds of thousands of inquiries have been received from former service men concerning the possibilities of land settle­ment and employment in the construction of reclamation proj­ects, the inquiries coming largely from farm-trained men who were not appealing for a gratuity but were seeking an opportu­nity to acquire homes on the land. Mr. President, I desire to quote a paragraph from the statement of the Secretary of the Interior:

ress of the work, should it appear to the Secretary that the a~ount of the bonds ~at up is insufficient, he may either curtail the work or require the district to issue additional bonds. · In case too many bonds have been issued the excess bonds, on comp!etion of the project, are to be ca~celed. The bonds. shall be m f?rm approved by the Secretary, to run for a period not exceedmg 40 years and bear annual interest at a rate to be fixed by the Secretary, not exceeding 5 per cent per annum. The bonds are to be deposited with the Federal Farm

The arid and semiarid States show up with a total of 61,340 ex- Loan Board, and when the project cost is known and the value service men interestetl in home making on the land. The southern of all the prop t ·t1 · th di t · t b · States are represented by 27,780, and the eastern States, including er Y wi un e s nc su Ject to assessment for Pennsylvania, by 26,~00. In the northern States of :Michigan Wis- the payment of the bonds shall reach twice the par value of consin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas there are 14,000 veterans who the bonds as found by the board, the board shall offer the have indicated a desire tQ obtain a farm home. bonds at public or private sale at not less than par. The money

This amendment is not novel in any of its provisions. Its r~ceiyed from the sale of the bonds is to be credited upon the purpose and scope is to encourage the development of the ~hsti:1ct cont:act and covered into the reclamation fund, where agricultural resources of the United States through Federal it will constitute a revolving fund, to remain such at the will and State cooperation, giving preference in the matter of em- of the Congress. ployment and the establishment of rural homes to tho e who The unentered and unpatented arid and semiarid lands of ha\e served in the military and naval forces of the United the United States susceptible of reclamation may be included States. in a district and may be subjected, like all other lands within

The legislation involves three existing agencies, the Secre- a district, to all lawful district charges and burdens. Where the tary of the Interior; a district in the nature of a municipal unentered public lands within a district constitute more than corporation, organized under the law of any State to provide 50 per cent in area of the lands therein, the Secretary shall have for the agricultural reclamation of land; and the Federal the right to appoint upon the district board such number of Farm Loan Board. There are in most of the States drainage persons to represent the interests of the United States as shall district laws, and in the arid and semiarid States of the West constitute a majority of the board. All public lands within a there are irrigation district laws. The irrigation district laws district are to be opened under the provisions of the homestead 1f the West are largely an adaptation of the drainage laws of law. The Secretary is authorized to accept, by gift, deed of some of the Middle Western States to the arid-land reclama- trust, or otherwise land within a district and dispose of it tion projects of the far West. In the amendment under con- on terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the grantor or sicleration the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to in- later fixed by the Secretary. ve ·tigate the feasibility of reclaiming lands within a district In the construction of e\ery project the Secretary shall, as far in any State. '.fhe Secretary can not enter into a contract as practicable, utilize the services of veterans. In every opening unless the district, under the law of the State in which j:he or sale of land by authority of the Secretary under this amend­district is located, authorizes the redamation of lands by irri- ment veterans shall have the exclusive right, for a period of 60 gation, drainage, or dikage, with authority to issue bonds, days, to make entry or otherwise acquire land. A " veteran," by which shall be a general charge against all the lands within the terms of the amendment, means any individual a member of the district, and to contract with the United States unde1; this the military or naval forces of the United States in the war with act. The cost of investigation is to be borne equally by the Germany, the war with Spain, or in the insurrection in the Phil­district and by the United States, the total cost, however, to ippines, and honorably discharged therefrom, or placed in the be included in the cost of the project, should it be undertaken Regular Army or Naval Reserve. by the Federal Government. The Secretary, upon determining The amendment under consideration and all amendatory or that a project presented to him by a reclamation district is supplementary acts shall be known as the national reclama­feasible, is authorized under contract with ·the district to tion law, and for the purpose of carrying out its provision construct the neces ary works for the reclamation of the lands there is established in the Treasury a fund to be known as the involved therein, and to operate and maintain such works as national reclamation fund. long as such operation and maintenance, in the opinion of the The amendme:ot, if adopted, contemplates an ultimate expendi­Secretary, is necessary to safeguard the interests of the Gov- ture for reclamation of arid, semiarid, swamp, and overflowed ernment. The total cost of construction and of operation and lands in the United States of the sum of $350,000,000. The maintenance is to be paid by the district to the United States. amendment designates no definite amount which shall be appro-

lt is not the p11rpose of tbe amendment that the Government priated in any one year. All appropriations must originate shall reclaim for an individual a large acreage for speculative under the Budget system and receive the approval of Congress. purposes. Before the Secretary can undertake the construction All moneys received by the United States under this amend­of a project the sizes of the farms therein shall be established, ment shall be paid into the national reclamation fund, and all and an agreement shall be made effectively subjecting not less moneys at any time in said fund shall be available for appro­than 80 per cent of the excess lands to disposal to settlers at priation for the purposes of the act. prices and on terms fixed in advance, the prices and terms The amendment under consideration does not supersede or to be determined with the view of placing a bona fide settler displace the present reclamation law. That law will continue upon each farm with the least possible delay. The term" farm" to operate exclusively in its present field. The fund therein can means an area of land within a reclamation project sufficient be used for many years to come to complete projects already in size to support a family, but not exceeding 160 acres of undertaken and to build further reclamation works. reclaimed land. As the arid and semiarid lands of the West Mr. President, when the Secretary of the Interior, in order and swamp areas of the different States of the Union are ·held to carry out the provisions of the present reclamation law, in comparatively large holdings, there will be under all rec- brought into being the present Reclamation Service, the plan lamation projects a large amount of land which can not be adopted was to sell water rights to individuals and to look to retained by its owners and under this amendment are called them to make, from year to year, partial payments until their " excess lands." Wilen a project is a going concern, having obligations were discharged. This plan resulted in much de­been completed and successfully operated for one sea on, the tail and unnecessary expense and was, and till is, the source total construction cost thereof shall be determined by the Sec- of much complaint and misunderstanding. Of late the Reclama­retary and repaid to the Government within a period not ex- tion Service has sought to deal only with an irrigation dis­ceeding 40 years, with interest thereon not exceeding 5 per trict · that is to sell a water right to a district and the district cent per annum. to divide th~ water among its members. Dealing with a unit

Mr. PO~IERENE. Mr. President-- in this fashion throws the burden of collecting all charges upon Mr. McNARY. I desire to be courteous to the Senator, but the district, and all obligations with the district are dischar~ed

I announced in advance that in order to preserve the continuity by a tax levy which is made and collected through the t8.X1Ilg of my statement I did not wish to yield. · agency of the State, thereby entailing a minimum of exp.ense.

l\fr. PO::\IERE:NE. I was not aware of that fact. I beg the The issuance of dist rict bonds and placing them with the Senator's par<Jon. I Federal Farm Loan Board to be disposed of to the ge~eral pub-

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, preceding any expenditure 1 lie when a project. is a ~oin~ concer~ and the security ample by the United States on account of con truction of a

1 is a new thought m legislation. Tlus pl~n, however, sets up

project, bonds of the district equal in face value to the no new agency, but makes use o.f an ex1stmg one-the Federal amount of the proposed expenditure must be duly is- ! r~.rm Loan Boaru. This board is alrea~Y. successfull! engaged sued and delivered to the United States. During the 1wog- l in the sale of securities, and the i;ecurit1es to be disposed of

1922 .. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE . . 1.1841 by it under the provisions of this alll€1ldment ought to be as present reclamation law. The reserve of such vast wealth in the .safe on a 2 to 1 basis as are the farm mortgages upon a like far West surely justifies the people of that section in asking the basis now being handled by the board. Federal Government to be generous and just in the matter of

The legislation suggested by the amendment is not paternal- reclamation legislation. istic, no.r does it invade the sovereignty of ,any State. Only :Mr. President, t.he practice .of irrigation is of great .antiquity. upon the invitation of the State will the Secretary of the In- The earliest civilized communities, of whom we have any terior even investigate a reclamation project, and lands must lmowled~e, lived in the practically rainless deltas of the Nile be grouped and thrown into a district before even such inves- and Euphrates. The success of tlli!ir agri<!ultural undertakings tigation can be made. Owners of land in severalty wlll not, -depended on efficient irrigation and the control of the rivere. except by reason of an overwhelming necessity, group their 1\Iuch of the history of Chaldea is centered about the great irri­holdings and charge the mass with an obligation, which might, gation accomplishments. From an inscription of one of the through want of skill of a project ·engineer, cause the loss of kings of that country, whose epoch is fairly well. determined. the "last faithful acre" under the general taxing power of we know that some of the great canals were in existence 2,()()() a reclamation district. The amendment only contemplates the . years before Christ. As irrigation was the cause of that na.­Government assisting and doing that which the individual or 1 tion's prosperity, so was the destruction ot this means of pro-­group ot individuals can not do for themselves. Experience duction the chief cause . of its· decline. .From the r.ea.ding of has taught that it is practically impossible to borrow money hieroglyphics of the Pharaohs we are informed that irrigation tor investment where a security is to be created for its repay- was practiced in Egypt at least 2,500 years before the birth ment. As a rule, where money has been so borrowed, too of our Savior, and well may we take an example in the New often, conditions have been imposed resulting in disaster to World-for instance, in Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico­both lender and borrower. I where the remains of reclamation works indicate the practice

M:r. President, 20 years ago Congress passed the basic recla- ' of irrigation before the time of authentic history. In these :and mation act, under whose benign influence there have been added other intermountain States miles of prehistoric irrigation canals to the cultivated area of our country 1,187,000 acres of land have b-een found. Abyssinia, China, and India were all practic­under district Federal reclamation projects, and water has been ing irrigation when the writing of history began. It was not supplied by the Government fo 916,000 acres within irrigation until a fifth of a century ago that the need of national legis­enterprises. These lands before reclamation were largely bar- Iation upon this great subject became apparent throughout the ren, desert waste and unproductive. During 1919, on the 1,187,- country. Then a great statesman, possessing a big heart and 000 acres within the Federal projects crops were grown of a penetrating. vision, President Theodore Roosevelt. with the gro s value of $89,000,000; and on the land in private irrigation aid of a few strong advocates, fixed the minds. of the projects r,eceiving water from Federal project there were grown :Members of Congress upon the possibilities of nati<ma.l wealth crops of a gross value of $64,000,000, or a total of $153,000fOOO, resting in the bosom of the great western section of tha compared with a governmental expenditure of approx:imately country. $130,000,000. As a result of this expenditure there are fixed Mr. President, I do not lend myself to pessimism, but I do properties of a total value of upward of $550,000,000. Great res- deprecate the ever-increasing volume of the fiow of the human ervoirs of local, State, and national taxation have been created. family to the congested cities. If by any feeble effort I can Agi·icultural production has been greatly increased without in· contribute to the sub.,idence of that stream, I shall feel my jury to any section of the country; prosperous homes have 'been work in the Senate has not been without its reward. In my built, towns and cities have grown up, and a great market for all opinion, the country is city crazy, for more than half .our popula:­kinds of manutactured products has been created,. aside from tion are now city dwellers. This should not be so. We can the great addition to the supply of food products. not all live in the cities and towns of our wonderful country.

That the manutacturers of the East and of the Middle West The published report of the Director of the Census Bureau con­have a splendid field in the irrigated districts of the far West tains this statement: tor the sale and disposition of their wares is demonstrat~ by the vast quantities of manufactured goods and products that annually are transported to and sold in the western section of the country, where irrigation is the source of production. Permit me, Mr. President, to instance one typical district. The shipments into Yakima, Wash., for 1918, 1919; and 1920, which in value are as follows!

Value of in.atittfacturea pr<>dueta shipped ifl.to the Yakima (Wash.) irr4gat1on dist1-iot.

Products. 1918 1919 192D

.Automobiles, tire;, and accessorl-es .••... $2,195,000 $3,225,000 '2,600,000 Hardware and building supplies ... u-··· 900,000 1,200,000 1,1-00,000

~~~=:r::::::::::::::::::::.::: 1,750,000 "2,000,000 2,150,000 600,000 750,000 500 000

Ready-to-wear clothing .• _ ·~ •••••• -•••• ~ 1,600,000 2,000,000 lr5(J(.):000 'Shoes •...•..... . - ... -.... -....•.•• -· •••• 700,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Famiture and household supplies •....•. 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,200,000 Cotton and woolen goods. ••...••••.•. _ .. 800,000 1,200,000 1.000,00() Drnir->········ -·······-···-··············· 700,000 1,100,000. 1.200,000 Mil.lfuery, notions, crockery, and eloo-

800,000 1,000,000 ~~~!~miiS:::::::::::::::::::: 950,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,200,000

Total •• _.·---·· ....... ···-·· ••••.. 13,545,000 17,975,000 16,450,000

The i.D.creas~ since 1910 in. the population as a whole was 14.9 per cen~1 but during the decade there has been an increase in that portion of me population living in urban territory of 12,192,826, or 28.6 per cent, and in that portion living in rural territory of 1,518,016. or only 3.1 per cent ; an.d if the comparison is extended to cover the two classes of rural territory 1t appears that that portion living in incoTp:orated p,laces of less than 2 ,500 inhabitants .shows an increase o! 1,745~571, or ii.5 per cent, -whe:rens that portion living in purell country aistricts shows a.n actual decrease of 227 ,355, or six-tenths o 1 per cent.

The causes of the cityw.ard movement are many and varied and operate unhappily throughout the world. No nation is free from its baneful influences. No country has given the world a remedy. However, I have faith that our country shall yet pro­pose a remedy whereby those of its citizens hungry for land may find a home in the countryside.

The amendment to the pending bill is built upan the propu­sition that the Government by extending aid in cooperation with the States can assure a sufficient and prosperous population in the rural sections of the country. To accomplish this great desideratum the policy of the Government must be to lend its every e.ff ort toward encouraging the opening of new farm areas. For 50 years past our farm areas were increased at the annual rate of about 700,000 acres.

Secretary of Agriculture Wallace has lately said that to keep abre-a-st with the demand for food, if the papulati-on of our

The foregoing illustration clearly leads to the conclusion co-untry continues to increase, we wil1 need an additional plow that in the far West there is one of the best markets which acreage of 8,000,000 acres a year. the ·eastern manufacturers enjoy. It is a home market an<j an Many remedies to defeat e.xeessive urbanization have been ever-constant one. If the Government, under the proposed law, suggested by economists and students of sociology, but one will put up a.n underlying capital for the further reclamation helpful remedy lies in g<YVernmental aid in reclamation, by of the western arid lands and the water-logged lands in various which lands are made available for agricultural use upon a States, the markets for eastern products can be readily more long-term plan of payment of the construction charges. Large than quadrupled. areas of swamp lands, subject to drainage and suitable to come

The property held in reserve by the Federal Government within the pro'Visions of the amendment, are located in practi­in the Western f;)tates and Alaska is of fabulous value, the cally every State in the Union, the total extent being in excess figure placed by Secretary Fall in his annual report being $150,- of 96,000,000 acres. Under like conditions are o-ver 20,000,000 .000,000,000~ In several of the Western States the value of the acres of land thirsty for water in the intermountain States and ii.and held in reserve exceeds the value of the property subject in the arid portions of the Pacific Coast States. to taxation. The reserve land bears no expense f.or the mainte- At this juncture, Mr. President, I desire to insert in the REC-nance of State and local government. lfoder such circumstances ORD the table which I send to the desk. few will assert that the money- arising from the disposition of The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so public resources should not be used in the far West under the ordered.

•

•

11842 CONGRESSION AI_J RECORD-SEN ATE. AUGUST 2H,

The table is as follows : Number of acres of arid and wet lands subject to reclamation.

State. Arid land. Wet land. Total. '

Acres. Acres. Acres.

it·11::111::ii11:: !iii ::ii:;: !iii!!! 1: ;: im;m: · ,;' i 1· ,;; 11 ~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ~&:~ ;;J~·~ Iowa ....... ·................................... . . . .. . . ... . . 410, 000 410; 000 Kansas........................................ . . . . . . . .. . . . 302, 000 302, 000

1~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: 10'~;5 10'~~;5 Maryland................................................. 200,000 200,000 Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 60, 000 60, 000

=:s~~a~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ~;~:~ ::~:~ ~=~f-~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::: ~:~;~ ~;~:~ M~b-i:i:a:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2,~:~ :::::::::::: 2,~:~ Ne\ada....................................... 4.00, 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 400, 000

~:: ¥:~¥~-~--:: :: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ai~; ~ J~; ~ ~:: ~~~~-~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ·---~~~·-~J-··100: 000· ~~;888 North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . 2, 7 50, 000 2, 7 50, 000 North Dakota................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . 880, 000 880, 000 0 hlo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200, 000 200, 000 Oklahoma..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . 2'75, OOJ 275, 000

~~~1~aiiia::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: --~·-~:~. --~:~:~ .... ~:~·-~ Rb-Ode Island .................................................................... .

i!i!ii!!!il!l;:!li;i:!!!!!lil:!!i :::~~:::'.:II: ~II Total . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . • • . . . . . . 22, 458, 000 96, 090, 000 118, 548, 000

Mr. McNARY. No student of modern-day industrial and eco­nomic questions suggests that the unsucces ful citizen in the overcrowded cities be induced to migrate to the country and en­gage his activities in rural undertakings. On the contrary, thoughtful observers desire to keep upon the farms the boys and girls who ha Ye a background of farming and who are conversant with farm life, its manifold problems, and the application of scientific methods gained through personal experience and infor­mation obtained at the agricultural colleges in the different States, working in cooperation with the Fe9-eral Government agencies. This idea does not exclude thousands of our citizens who are ready, able, and willing to leave the crowded municipali­ties and go upon the various reclaimed projects, there to build _prosperous and happy communities upon lands theretofore unin­habitable.

Mr. President, the legislation carried in the amendment does not place a heavy burden upon the Treasury, because it specifi­cally designates that the Congress shall decide from time to time and from year to year the amount of money that shall go forth to be employed in the construction of feasible projects, but careful investigation must be made of the feasibility of the projects in all applying districts that desire to come within the benefit of the law. Engineering problems must be solYed, and the Congress must give its approval of every project recom­mended by the Ileclamation Service and authorize the expendi­ture of every dollar that goes into its construction. The money advanced is in the nature of a loan, returnable to the Treasury at the will of the Congress, except as to the contractual terms of the repayment of construction costs.

Mr. President, some sincere students of rural economics have asserted frequently that the opening of additional farm acreage in large areas, as ls contemplated by this amendment, would result in the lowering of land values throughout the States. This argument can not be true. For more than a century land values in the United States have continued to rise. I offer as proof of my statement -the Federal census from 1800 to 1920, showing the steady ascendancy of land values per acre: 1800---------------------------------------------------- $11.14 1860--------------------------------~------------------- 16. 35 1870---------------------~------------------------------ 18.26 1880----------------------------------~----------------- 19.02

1890 ____________________________________________________ $21.31

1118:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~g:gg Nor am I convinced that the products to be grown on new farm

acreage contemplated by this amendment will come into gen .. era~ competition with the products produced on the present agricultural areas. 1\fore particular reference is now made to that section of the country to be irrigated. It is probable that two-thirds of the irrigated land in the far West is devoted to the growing of alfalfa.

There is no place in the. world where this plant grows more Iuxul'ia~tly than in the irrigated districts of the far West wh~re the soil is deep and light, the weather warm, and wher~ moisture can be supplied as needed.

The distribution of the reclaimed areas of the West is such that there is scarcely a sheep or cattle range which is not supplemented by an irrigated area near by. This has resulted in preserving flocks and herds from starvation during the. periods of snow in the mountainous regions. . The live stock from the foothills and elevated benches of the Rocky and Casca9-e Molmtains has furnished a cheap supply of beef and mutton to the Middle West and Eastern States. While this has been going on the farmers of the Mississippi Valley, in the main, have been growing their own cattle and finishing them with corn for the markets at home and abroad.

There can be little question that should the 20 000 000 acres of arid land in the far West yet susceptible of r~la:Uation be placed under ditch, a large proportion of this land would be devoted to the growing of alfalfa, which would be used to feed the stock of those sections for a longer period in the winter, resulting in the live stock not losing its flesh through underfeeding upon the ranges. The farmers in the Middle West, to a great extent, receive the cattle from the West and finish and fatten them upon the corn produced upon the prairies, to the. mutual benefit of all concerned, so that the growing of stock m the West has enlarged the market for the corn of the Middle West. Annually great quantit"es of corn move into the great western country fronf the Central States for millinO" and feeding purposes. As the West adds to its flocks through the extension of its irrigable areas, so will the Middle States expand under the impetus of an increasing demand for its corn.

Again, may we look upon this country and observe other suit­able crops not generally produced throughout the United States. Sugar beets are grown to perfection in the warm, mellow soils rich in volcanic ash. Beets find no competition with any other crop produced in this country, except the sugar cane produced in the Southern States and beets produced upon the moist lands of Michigan and Wisconsin. The average production of sugar beets to the acre may be placed conservatively at 9 tons. A ton of beets will render at least 230 pounds of sugar; consequently we may place the sugar-producing strength of an acre of irri­gated land at 1 ton.

The Department of Commerce statistics for 1921 estimate the consumption of sugar at approximately 100 pounds per capita. This would require the employment of 5,000,000 acres of soil in the production of sugar beets if our country desires to pro­duce all it consumes of this great essential food product. We produce about one-fourth of the sugar we annually consume ; therefore we could well put to use over 3,500,000 acres of our own land to the production of sugar.

Examples similar to the foregoing could be given in crreat detail, showing indisputably that there can be no economice con­flict between the eastern, western, central, and southern sections of our country in the production of foodstuffs. Indeed no substantial competition between the farmers of the New Eng­land and Atlantic States and those of the far West and South does or can exist. The products produced on farms in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and almost every State of the East are greater to-day in value than they were when these State~ had the largest acreage under plow. The increasing popula­tion of the cities has changed the farmer from a wheat pro­ducer to a milk, butter, egg, and vegetable producer, not to his injury but to his benefit. Instead of the Middle West or the eastern sections of the country being injured by the further development of the far West and South a substantial benefit will inure from the reclamation of lands.

Mr. President, the national Republican and the national Demo­cratic platforms of the last · presidential campaign have planks warmly indorsing reclamation, and frequently in the campaign of 1920 this action was stoutly commended. On August 31, 1920, Mr. Harding, in part, said:

We must make our mountain West a country of homes for people who need homes. It has everything that they wil! need. It can pro­vide them with food, with the materials for industry, with lumber from its forests. with metals and minerals from its mines, with power.

1922 .. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 11843 from its streams, and water for irrigation of its land. And the work must be done that it will inure most to the advantage of society and the development of the independent, self-sustaining family unit in our citizenship. There must be proper cooperation and direction in this development, but there must be all care to prevent monopolization of resources and opportunities.

And, in conclusion, Mr. Harding said: It is fit to recall the splendid vision Theodore Roosevelt had of the

vast possibilities of the West. In a chapter of his autobiography devoted to "Natural resources of the Nation," he said: "The first work I took up when I became President was the work of reclama­tion." It was bis judgment "that reclamation, conservation, and proper utilization were all involved in one great plan for the develop­ment of our western country." In the same work President Roosevelt declares : " It is better for the Government to help a poor man to make a living for his family than to help a rich man to make more profit for bis company." ·

Commenting upon this declaration, Mr. Harding said, in his speech heretofore adverted to :

The principle· is particularly sound to-day. We have need to make these areas the seat of millions of new American families, just as we broke up our prairies and distributed them among strong, enterprisi~g, vigorous men, who developed them into the great States of the Mis­sissippi Valley.

Mr. President, a splendid opportunity is here given to the Con­gress to do a grand thing in empire building. Lands that now pant for water can be made fertile, and lands that now are burdened with water can be made free and productive_ The ex-service men who desire to cast their destiny in the open country can find rural fields for the employment of their ener­gies. The social and economic evils that attend the crowding of cities can be partially averted, and a happy and healthful balance between rural and urban life can be maintained.

Authentic history records abundant instances of nations fall­ing to decay on account of their neglect to provide methods for farm betterment and rural enlargement. This country must observe the admonition of history and keep a watchful and sympathetic vigilance over that acknowledged basic industry. If our country shall permit fal'm impairment, or fail to en­courage its development and expansion, all other human in­dustrial institutions will fall as a house built of sand.

Mr. President, in concluding I wish to express the faith that I believe the Members of this body will gi>e the amendment to the pending bill thoughtful consideration, and the majority will praise its virtues by their votes.

l\Ir. OVERl\1.AN. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Oregon yield to the Senator from North Carolina? Mr. McNARY. I yield. Mr. OVERMAN. In North Carolina we have many acres of

swamp land which if dr!.tined would be the richest land in the world, in my opinion. Those lands when drained would be worth from $100 to $500 an acre, but most of them are . owned by individuals, in large tracts_ If a man owns a thousand acres of such land, and it is drained, what plan is to be pro­vided by which the 160 acres can be acquired and given to the soldier who wishes to get that•land and locate on it?

Mr. McNARY. Perhaps the Senator was not present at the time I was attempting to analyze the various provisions of the amendment under consideration. The first thing we must keep in mind is a corporation known as the drainage district. Most States have laws for the formation of such corporations, and when such a corporation is formed it must make applica­tion to the Secretary of the Interior to determine its feasibility for drainage. After a careful survey is made by the Secretary of the Interior, and he deems the project to be a feasible one, one which will inure profitably to those participating therein, then the irrigation district places its bonds with the Federal Farm Loan Board, at which time the Secretary of the Interior receives from the Treasury, provided Congress is willrng to advance the money to secure it, money sufficient to caITy on the formation of the project and complete it. After it is com­pleted, and the bonds have been placed with the Federal Farm Loan Board as security to the Government, the soldier then is given a right of preference of settlement upon all public lands--0f which there are none in the South, and in all excess acreage over and above the farm unit established by the Secre­tary of the Interior, which can not be over 160 acres and may be very much less.

Mr. OVERMAN. How is the soldier to get it? How are you going to take the land away from the owner, land which has increased in value to $500 an acre? How are you going to get it? Are you going to confiscate it?

l\Ir. McNARY. Perhaps I have not made myself clear; I did not touch upon that particular phase of the question. The Secretary of the Interior can not go into a project unless those holding the a~reage in excess of the farm unit established by him agree to sell to the applicants for land at a price agreeable to the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. OVERMAN. What about the price? If the land is drained, it is worth $500; now it is worth $10.

l\fr. McNARY. The price is based upon the cost of the drain­age. When the district is organized, it comes to the Secretary of the Interior and tells him it is willing to put up their bonds, and ask him to make a survey. He says, "All right; I will do. it, provided you men who hold areas in excess of the farm unit will sell at a price which I think the land is worth to-day." That is a matter of detail between the Secretary of the Interior and the owners.

l\1r. OVERMAN. Then it is to be sold to the ex-soldiers at $160 an acre?

Mr. McNARY. At a price which the Secretary of the Interior fixes with the men having excess acreage, plus the cost of con­struction ; that is, the digging of the canals and ditches.

Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President, I will read one. paragraph from the Senator's amendment, which I think wiil answer exactly the question of the Senator from North Caro­lina. The paragraph reads :

SEC. 803. Tbat before construction of a project is commenced the sizes of farms therein shall be established and agreements shall be mad~ effectively, subjecting not less than 80 per cent of the excess lands within the project to disposal by authority of the Secretary to settlers at prices and terms fixed in advance in such agreements_ Such prices a.nd terms shall be determined with the view of placing a bona fide and competent settler upon each farm of the project with the least possible delay.

1\fr. KELLOGG. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Oregon yield to the Sena tor from Minnesota? Mr. McNARY. I yield. Mr. KELLOGG. I think I understand how the irrigation

district is to be handled and the bonds issued, but under what provision of the amendment is the soldier to get the benefit, or does subdivision 7 of the original bill cover it? ·

Mr. l\foNARY. Mr. President, the amendment plainly pro­vides three preferences for the soldier : First, in the way o:t employment and wages received in the construction of the great dams in the West and the construction of the diversion canals. · In all other work connected with the construction of projects, whether they be irrigation or drainage, the soldier is given the preference right of employment, and if the project is to cost several million dollars, and there are many soldiers applying for employment, they get all the money in the way of wages.

Secondly, they have a preference right to settle all public and unentered land upon the public domain. In all excess areas above the farm unit in irrigated and drained land they have for 60 days a preference right. Those are the practical benefits which the soldier will receive under this amendment. I might say to the Senator that it has had the indorsement of the vet­erans of the ·world War, many posts of the American Legion, and the Kansas City convention of the American Legion.

Mr. KELLOGG. But those lands are not used as a gift to take the place of the other provisions of the bill?

Mr. McNARY. Oh, no; the soldier)s only given a preference right, and he must pay the same as anyone; must pay back his ·bonds and pay the Government the money that has been ad­vanced in the construction of these various projects.

l\Ir. POMERENE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the question which I intended to ask earlier in the day, which per­haps the Senator has answered, because I was called out.

Mr. McNARY. I will be very happy to answer, if I can. Mr. POMERENE. What I want to know is how much of the

arid land and how much of the swamp land in the country will it be practicable to improve along the line the Senator has in­dicated? Let me say, in advance, that I am in entire sympathy with any proposition which will develop those lands so that they may be used in the furtherance of the agricultural inter­ests of the country, because that means the interest of the whole country. But, of course, there are certain of those lands which, because of lack of water or because of topography, can not be improved. We loosely speak of the vast amount of arid lands and the vast amount of swamp lands, when all of us know that there is much of the arid land particularly which it is wholly impracticable to improve. What is the amount which would be available for this work? .

Mr. McNARY. I am very happy to say, in reply to the Sena­tor from Ohio, that the figures I gave are of the feasible acre­age. I gave an e timate made by the Reclamation Service as 20,000,000 acres in the West. There are many many hundreds of millions · of acres of arid land. The 20,000,000 are acres which ha,-e been reported as feasible for_ reclamation after care­ful and conservative survey by the Secretary of the Interior.

I gave the area of swamp lanrl susceptible- of drainage as 96,000,000 acres of the many hundreds of millions of acres of

.11844 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE . AUGUST 28,

swamp land, figures supplied me by the Reclamation Service. Mr. STERLI.L~G. Are there not many States which do not None of the figures I have given are mere guesses or assump- :n:rovide either for irrigation districts or fm: drainage districts? pions, without having a basis in fact 1\Ir. McNARY. I do not think so. Drainage has been prac-

Mr. POMERENE. So that, all told, 116,000,000 acres are ticed in a small way- in every State in the Union since the nYailable? settlement of the earliest pioneers, and, at any rate, if a State

Mr. McNARY. That is correct. is not able to accept it at this time, it would only take a Mr. GOODING. Mr. President-- year or two to get its laws: fashioned to go forward. The PRESIDETI\"T pDo tempore. Does the Senator from Ore- Mr. STERLING. I am not hostile to the Senator's proposi-

gon yield to the Senator from. Idaho? 11 tion; it appeals to me strongly:

1\fr. McNARY. I yield. l\fr. McNARY. I appreciate that -Mr. GOODINR As 1 understand it,. the amount of land in l\fr. STERLING. But it occurs to me that irrigation and

the West which can be reclaimed is measured by the available drainage have been carried on in different States under condi­water supply, mid that is estimated at anyw.here from 20,000,- tions so different from the conditions contemplated by this 000 to 22,000,000 acres: That i:s the total a.mount of land pos-

1

, amendment that it will involve legislation on the part of nearly sible of development in the- W esL It is all limited, of course, every State in order· that it may conform to. the requirements of by the water supply~ '.L'hat is information I received from the the amendment. Interior Department. .Just one more question, I want to ask the Senator, to clear

Mr. TOWSEND. Mr. President-- the matter up. In subdivision ( e) on. page 2, we find this: The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ore- The term " excess lands " means all lands in a single holding t.n

gon yield to the Senator from Michigan? excess of one established farm. Mr. McNARY. I yield. That was a little confusing to me-at first, but I think r under-Mr. TOWNSEND. I have not been able to hear all that stand it now. By the " single holding" referred to in that sub­

the Senator has said, and. I a.m curious to know whether the division the Senator refers to the lioldillg of a private indi­amendmen.t- he proposes takes the place of any provision of vidual before the land is taken for this purpose? the adjusted compensation bill, or-wheth·er it is in the form of Mr. McNARY. That is correct. an option, to be employed instead of some other provision. In Mr: DIAL. Mr. President--other words, I want to know what the relation of this amend- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the· Senator b'Om Ore-ment is to the adjµsted ' compensation bill. gon yield to the Senator from South Carolina?

l\Ir. McNARY. It is not an optioil.' in any sense. As a matter Mr. McNARY. As· far as I am concerned, I have yielded the of history, it might be well for me to repeat that the Rouse floor. adjusted compensation bill contained a land-settlement pro- Mr. DIAL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator vision, which the Senat~ Committee on Finance struck out. from Oregon what would be the objection to including all kinds r think that was an extremely impractical Qrovision, and' would of lands? Why is it flillited to arid lands-or to swamp lands? not have afforded the sotdier the benefit which it was hoped It occurs to me that many soldiers would' not care to go to · it might do. Consequently, I offered this amendment, which either one of those places, as there are hundreds of thousands was- originally a· Mll, in the- place of the Hou e amendment, and millions of acres of splendid land suitable for cultivation so that the Senate might have something. upon which:- to work in sparsely settled communities which: could be acquired· for a ie it desired to give the- soldiel.' an OJ;)portunity to go upon the very small sum. When we go to help the soldier get a suitable land. home I see- no objection why an amendment should not be- had

It is not an option. Th~ soldier can not take this in place to allow any community to form a district similar to the irri­of taking cash, or insurance, o-r-- vocational education, or what- gation district or the drainage d1strict and not necessarily have ever the bill may offer, but if he gets his money under some the soldier to leave his local neighborhood or leave his com­plan we may adopt, and wants to take that money and become munity where he has lived all hiB life, when perhaps he would a first-class citizen, and go upon a farm, we are giving him not like to go elsewhere, when in his own neighborhood the an opportunity ta settle down and help build up the country, lands might be better suitable for raising_ the products of the to make a better citizen of' himself, through the preference- soil and would be more profitable perhaps than could be raised rights which r mentioned to the Sena.tor from Minnesota. It on the new lands considered in the arrfendment. i not an option. He does- not have to take this unless he I have an amendment-I da not know whether it will cover wants to. There a.re many actual settlers hungry for Iantf, the situation or not-by which- I am proposing to include other but. as I say, from statistics supplied, there are several hundred kinds of land. I knuw in my State we• have something like thvusand soldiers. who de ir& an epportunity to go upon farms, 9,000,000 acres of' cut-over timberland, a great deal of it very and thi simply furnishes them the opportunity. fertile, amr all it needs is occupation and cultivation. L would

Mr. STERLING. Mr: President-- like very much to have an amendment along that line, and then. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. DoeS' the Senator from' Ore- I thfnk I could support the Senator's amendment; even though I

gon yield to tlie Senator from South Dakota? could not support the bill as a whole. l\fr. McNARY. I yield. I call the Senator's attention, if he: will allow me, to page Mr. STERLING. As r understand the Senato~ from Oreg~n. · 2, line 5, of his amendment a& printed, and suggest, after the

th :s valuable pr~rence right, the 60-day preference right; is in word "dikeage," to insert the words "or othenvise," and then, addition to the soldier's right to a bonusi under the bill? on page 6, line 14, after the word " construction," to strike

Mr. McNARY. It is. the words "but not-" and ins-ert the word . " and." According: Mr. STERLI G. And all the privileges. and options under to my interpretation, it would be applicable then to the acquire-

the bill? ment of any kind of· land where they want tO' form a district of. l\fr. McNARY. That' is corre-ct. that sort and gi-ve the soldiers the preference. I think it wouldi l\Ir_ STERLING. Any one of· which he mayi exercise<. This add greatly to the amendment and would certainly be much

amendment contemplates legislation on the part· of. various more beneficial to the soldiers-, because· we all know that irri­States, does it not? gation is very expensive and drainage is often vecy expensive,

Mr. McNARY. It does not contemplate additional legislation, too. I would like to ask the Senator if he bas any objection to but it suggests that before a State or district can take advan- a.n amendment to cover that type of land? tage of' this splendid opportunity for governmental aid it must Mr. McNARY. The thought of the Senator- is not a new one. org.Rnize irrigation districts either under them constitution or It ls an interesting one. I should be very glad to expre s to under State statute, so to that extent it does require coopera- the S"enator my convictions along that line. As I said, t.he Se~ tion by the States. ator's thought is not a new proposition.

l\Ir. STERLING. In his investigation of the subject, has Mr. DIAL. No; I know that. the Senator found any State which could accept the provisions Mr. McNARY. It has been given consideration by a great of this law without actual legislation? many practical men who have done much to create the amend-

Mr. McNARY. I do not know of any State irr the West, out- ment which I have offered. It was thought wise to limit the side of perhaps one State, which can not come within the pro- form of reclamation to the two which have been tried and visions of this amendment. tested, namely, by drainage and by irrigation. We have not, to

1\Ir. STERLING. Without additional legislation? my knowledge, in this country any organized districts for the l\Ir. McNARY. Without any legfalation. Of the 17 semi- reclamation of cut-over lands. I think I am conversant with

arid and arid States, I think 15 or 16 have laws which. provide the State laws regarding the subject. In my opinion, we have for the incorporation of irrigation districts, making tJiem quasi no laws permitting the organization of districts to reclaim cut­corporations, able to issue bonds and levy assessments fOT the over lands. It has all been done thi:ough drainage and by the payment of the construction charges. application of water. We have found those to be two practlcal

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SE:N"ATE. 11845 methods of reclaiming lands.· There are plenty of such lands to absorb all the money that has been appropriated for projects of this sort, and very much more.

Many who have given the subject more careful consideration than I have believe that the reclamation of cut-over lands is not as practicable as the reclamation of irrigated lands and swamp lands, for this reason : The arid land is strong and con­tains abundant plant food. It is a volcanic ash formation. It can be farmed successfully in an intensified way in small units. The land is perfectly worthless until the water is put upon .it. When the water is brought to the land, then very promptly the average land becomes of immense value. Consequently, it is thought that the land would appreciate so quickly and so rap­idly in its value that tlle bonds would be salable, because the bond is not salable until the land in the district is twi_ce the value of the out tanding indebtedness. The same thing I say of the arid lands is true of the swamp lands. Consequently, the cost of reclaiming cut-over lands is so great as compared with the resulting value that it is thought those bonds would become frozen, would not be liquid, and therefore would pre­vent the u e of the revolving feature of the bill. The revolving feature of the bill is the very heart of the proposed legislation. Senators, of course, understand what the revolving feature pro­vides. The fund would turn over, in the estimation of those who have given it thought, about three times in 18 years, thereby increasing the sum vastly in excess of the authoriza­tion contained in the amendment. To have logged-over lands with bonds that will not move, or bonds that are inert and will not turn it is thought would tie up the appropriation and defeat the best feature of the bill, namely, the revolving-fund feature.

That is the answer I make to the Senator. Personally I have no preference. In my State there are immense quantities of cut-o-rnr land, more than of the arid lands, but from a general standpoint I do not know whether it ~s practicable. I expect, of course, if the Secretary of the Interi?r after care­ful investigation deemed the project was not feasible and that Congress also so believed-for it must come here finally for adjudication-then the project would not go forward. Per­sonally I have not enough objection stoutly to oppose it.

Mr. SIMMONS. l\1r. President, I would like to ask the Sen­ator from Oregon a question.

Mr. McNARY. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina. Mr. Sil\fMONS. Unfortunately I was not in the Senate dur­

ing the last week and have just arrived this morning and did not hear the Senator's speech this morning and have not read his amendment. The Senator is connecting the Government with this by way of giving preference to the soldier. What does that preference to the soldier amount to--that is to say, what advantage has he over any other purchaser under the project of the Senator? I have no doubt the Senator has been over it, but will he explain it to me?

Mr. McNARY. At the expense of being tiresome to Senators who have been present--

1\Ir. ROBINSON. Mr. President, will not both Senators speak louder? We are utterly unable to hear either one of them.

l\:lr. SIMMONS. The question I ask is what advantage there would be to the soldier under the preference given in the amendment of the Senator from Oregon over any other pur­chaser.

Mr. McNARY. A very fair question, and one which I have attempted to answer from an inquiry by the Senator from Min­nesota as well as in my principal speech. The soldier has the prefer~nce upon· all unentered public lands. Of course, that would only apply to the western public-land States, which are 13 in number. He has a preference to all lands in excess of what is called the farm unit, being the size of the farm which the Secretary of the Interior believes a man must have in order to provide himself with a living. It can not be more than 160 acres and it may be very much less, depending upon the char­acter of the soil, climatic conditions, and the products to be grown. He has the preference right to that extent. I perhaps should go further and give an illustration.

A project is incorporated under the laws of North Carolina. The Secretary of the Interior believes it to be feasible. The secretary of state of North Carolina has 500 acres which he wants to come within the district. The farm unit is estab­lished at 100 acres. Before the project can_ go forward, before the Secretary of the Interior will advance any money or com­mit the Government to any obligation, the able Senator from North Carolina must agree with the Secretary of the Interior to sell the excess acreage, which in this case would be 400 acres if he had 500 acres, at a price which the Secretary of the Interior thought it was worth, and when that is done that be-

comes excess acreage and upon that land the ex-service man has first right of entry.

Mr. SIMMONS. The. Senator said at prices fixed by the Sec· retary of the Interior.

Mr. McNARY. Yes._ . . , Mr. SIMMONS. Is that price to the soldier any different

from the price to anyone else? Mr. McNARY. Not at all. The ex-soldier payS' the same

price, but he has a preference right to go there and get that land. He must meet his obligation the same as any other settler. The other provision beneficial to the soldier is that he has the right to be selected above anyone else to do that work. He has the preference right of wage and right of em­p~m~ I

Mr. SIMMONS. Undoubtedly that is a very considerable advantage.

Mr. McNARY. I think so. Mr. SIMMONS. But with reference to the other ·and the

only other advantage, the ex-soldier has the preference in the purchase of the land, but he has to pay the same price that any other individual has to pay.

Mr. McNARY. Oh, yes. Mr. SIMMONS. That is the same preference that the sol­

dier has now with reference to irrigated lands of the West owned by the Government.

Mr. McNARY. Yes. He has that right now. Mr. SIMMONS. The Secretary of the Interior would fix the

price of the land to all purchasers? l\lr. McNARY. That is true. Mr. SIMMONS. And the soldier would have the first call,

and that would be the only advantage he would get? Mr. McNARY. That is all. It is not intended as mere

charitable legislation, but a practical matter based upon the experience of the Reclamation Service in past years.

l\fr. TRAMMELL. Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. I send it to the desk.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report the proposed amendment to the amendment.

The ASSISTANT SECRETARY. On page 3 of the printed amend­ment, in line 13, before the words "per cent," strike out "80" an<l insert in lieu thereof " 40," so that if amended it would read:

SEC. 803. That before construction of a project is commenced the sizes of farms therein shall be established and agreements shall be made effectively, subjecting not less than 40 per cent of the excess lands within the project to disposal by authority of the Secretary to settlers at prices and terms fixed in advance in such agreements.

Mr. TRAMl\fELL. Mr. President, I am heartily in favor of the enactment of some form of legislation which will encourage the reclamation of the arid lands of the West and the swamp and overflowed lands of the South, and since becoming a Member of the Senate I have advocated such policy, but I am doubtful as to the practicability of the measure in regard to meeting the great nee<l for aid in bringing about the reclama­tion of the overflowed lands of the South. The Senator from Oregon is familiar with the western situation and has no doubt so formulated his amendment that he feels confident that the arid lands of the West will enjoy a full participation in the benefits afforded by the amendment. I have offered an amend­ment to his amendment in regard to the question of the per­centage of land that must be subjected to sale under the Secre­tary of the Interior.

I am very doubtful, if we require that at least 80 per cent of all the lands within a drainage district be surrendered to the control and direction of the Secretary of the Interior as to prices, that there would be any great number of districts in the South that would avail themselves of a plan with the 80 per cent limitation. With a largely diversified ownership it would be quite difficult to get 80 per cent of all the landowners within a given territory-territory probably needing and de­manding reclamation by clrainage--to surrender over all of their property rights and the eentrol of their lands to the Secre­tary of the Interior as the amendment proposes. In order to form a district at least 80 per cent of all the property has to be turned over to the Secretary of the Interior for him to carry on the drainage, centralizing in him all power of operation, centralizing in him all power of fixing prices or carrying on negotiations of sale.

Therefore I0

do not believe that in the South where, so far as I know-and certainly it is true within my State--tbe land is owned by a diversity of ownership, the provisions of the meas­ure as worded will accomplish so much as would be true if the 80 per cent requirement was modified. Therefore I have offered the amendment to provide that it will only be necessary to sub­ject 40 per cent of the lands within a project to disposal by authority of the Secretary of the Interior. ·

11846 CONGRESSIONAL :RECORD-SENATE. .A_ UGUST 28,

Mr. McNARY. ?\Ir. President, let me ask the Senator this question : Is not the Senator from Florida ·interested in seeing the large fa.rm tracts in the South broken up into 'Jtractlcal units and given over to settlement to as many people as pos­sible?

Mr. TRAMMELL. Certainly ; Mr. President.. l\Ir. McNARY. If the Senator understands the provisions of

mJ" amendment, that is all it IJrovides for. Mr. TRAMMELL. I understand the Senator's amendment. Mr. McNARY. I do not think the Senator does. l\Ir. T.RAMl\fELL. I understand the object and purpose of

the amendment; but if the proposed legislation is made im­practicable and no drainage districts shall be created under the provision of the proposed law, then we shall not have accom­plished the settlement of the land, and we shall, by restrictions and qualifications, have withheld the benefits of the proposed act from that particular section of the country to which its terms are but poorly adapted. '

Mr. McNARY. Let us see if the Senator understands the proposed legislation. Take 1,000 acres, most of it, we will sa)', owned by four men. The Senator from Florida desires the owners to come in and agree with the Secretary to sell 40 per cent of that acreage to actual settlers and soldiers. Would he want them to go ahead and complete the project for the benefit of these great landholders and landowners? All that my amendment does is to provide that 80 per cent of the privately owned land in large tracts must be subject to the law, providing for the size of the unit, and that it shall be sold to actual set­tlers and soldiers at a price to be determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

l\Ir. TRAl\lMELL. I think that in view of the phraseology of the amendment of the Sena.tor from Oregon upon this par­ticular point, instead of the amendment 'that I propose being in the interest of large landowners, ~ amendment of the Senator from Oregon us it is now worded would be in the in­terest of larg.a landowners, because When the ownership is cen­tralized in a few men they will arrive at an agreement; that they will surrender 80 per cent of all their property if the Sec­retary of the Interior fixes a price at which they are willing to sell the property; but that would not be so feasible where there is a diversity of ownership of lands for the di-ainage of which application is made. Therefore the peculiar wordinJ? of the bill is in the interest of large land ownership; and I think it is not so much in the interest of having the reclamation of land where there is a di¥ersity of ownership.

So far as the question of benefit to the soldier is concerned, I do not think there is very much in the proposed amendment for the soldier. We might just as well, therefore, consider it _put upon the basis of its merits as a reclamation proposition.

As a reclamation proposal, we might accomplish something through a measure of this character ; but the soldier will only base the benefit of 60 days' preference in entering the land at the price fixed by the Secretary of the Interior ; that is all we are doing for the soldier ; as far as I am concerned I think we should do more fro: him. We have laws now that give the sol­dier the preference in regard to homesteads, preference in re­gard to civil-service positions, and preference in regard to em­ployment in connection with road construction. So we shall be .doing nothing very wonderful for the soldier by this am~nd­ment, no more than if we should carry on a reclamation project under a measure which was not tacked on to and made a part of the soldiers' compensation bill. I want the soldier to be given the preference as provided in this measure, but consider the amendment of the Senator from Oregon, not primarily for the benefit of the soldier but primarily a reclamation measure.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--l\1r. TRAMl\fELL. I yield to the Senator .from Montana. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I was endeavoring to follow the

argument of the Senator from Florida in support of hi.s amend­ment to reduce the percentage from 80 to 4D, but I find I have not been able to understand the position he takes. If I under­stand this provision, it may be illustrated by this concrete ex­ample: Ten thousand acres which are own~d by a large num­ber of people are to be reclaimed by a project. We will say that 4,000 acres of the area are owned by 30 di:1Ierent people, each owning a little over 100 acres. Those 30 people are obliged to agree to sell everything they own over and above 100 acres at a price to be agreed upon by the Secretary of the illterior ; and, of course, it will be agreed upon by them and the Secretary; but the other 6,000 acre are owned by three men, each owning 2,000 acres. Would the Senat.or from Florida like to have an irrigation district formed, 3 men owning 6,000 acres and 30 men owning just a little over 100 acres each, and those 30 men a·gree­in!!" to ~ve up tbeir excess, but ·the 8 men holding out the 2,000 acres apiece?

Mr. 'TRAMMELL. Mr. 'Presidtmt, I think that they Shouhl have a right to do that; that we should not take a way from them their pre>perty right just merely because they happen not to constitute the larger number in that district.

l\Ir. WALSH of Montana. We do not take their right away from them.

Mr. TRAMMELL. Mr. President~-Mr. WALSH of Montana. One moment. Tha.t is where the

Senator is in error. We do not take away rights from anybody. Before the district can be formed the owners of the land must agree to sell the excess above the unit at a price which is agreed upon-that is what this proposed legislation means-and agree­ments must be had from the owners of the 80 per cent of the land. That is because it 1s assumed that perhaps 20 per cent will be in the control of executors or of UI).known owners, or something of that kind.

The point is not to permit the creation of a district, the bene­fit of which, and the benefits Oif the ·Treasury aid, will go to ·a 'few men owning large tracts of land. In the case that I have cited the three men will not agree to sell their excess at the price agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior, but tha other people, owning small tracts of land, are so desirous of hav­ing the work go on that they will agree to do so, and the man who owns 150 acres-100 acres, we will say, is the unit-will agree to sell his 50 acres at a price that is agreed upon, and an­other man owning 125 acres will surrender his 25 acres to be sold at a price to be agreed upon; but the three men, each own­ing 2,000 acres apiece, say " No, we will not agree to sell it." Still the district is organized and they get all the benefit out of it. Why should the Senator under those circumstances want to reduce it from 80 per cent to 40 per cent7 The answer to those men each owning 2,000 acres will be, " Very well, you can not have any irrigation district."

Mr. TRAMMELL. Mr. President, I will reverse the case and make an application of it to illustrate my point. Say the three men, owning 2,000 acres each, making an aggregate of . 6,000 acres, are willing to carry on a reclamation scheme for the purpose of promoting a land project, and are willing to surrender for sale at least 80 per cent of their lands; but, on the other hand, the 30 small owners, "8ome of whom would like very much to enjoy the benefits of Go-vernment reclamation, and who have probably 300 acres of land each, say, "We should like to have this reclamation. The big landowners, it is true, owning 2,000 acres each, are willing to surrender 80 per cent of their lands to the Secretary of the Interior in connection with this project and for land sale, but we do not desire to dispose of our small acreage of land over and above the amount for a homestead or a settlement"; yet under the provisions of this bill they have to surrender their rignts and allow the Secretary of the Interior to sell at least 80 per cent of their land before they can enjoy the benefits pro­posed by the measure. That is the reverse of the case under the illustration given by the Senator from Montana.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Under those circumstances there would not be any irrigation district fol'Il).ed.

Mr. TRAl\fMELL. Certainly there would not be any dis­trict formed; that is just the point I am making.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Why should the small owner, owning a small excess over the unit area, be entitled to bold any more than anyone else? He is not obliged to surrender anything; but 20 _per cent of the community could still be obdurate and obstinate about the matter, and the irrigation district would go on anyway and they would get the benefit ~~ .

Mr. TRAMMELL. Mr. President, one out of the thirty small property owners mentioned by the Senator in his illustration could object and defeat the project. I dare say that under the provisions of a 1p.easure of this character the large property owners will be found much more ready to join in an effort to sell their property and to avail themselves of its provisions and to surrender 80 per cent or more of their lands to the Secretary of the Interior for his control in regard to improvement, price tixing, and so forth, than would the small owners.

In my State we have a great drainage project, I think the largest in the United States, involving 4,000,000 acres of land. The land emhraced in that area belongs to thousands and thou­sands of owners, and so far as this measure is concerned they would in all probability have no advantage of its provisions. The 80 per cent requirement would make it probably imprac­ticable, for 80 per cent of all the property of that district would hardly be surrendered to the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of sale. But that is not all. The property placed in the hands of the Secretary Cif the Interior would furnish morP­swamp and overflowed reclaimed land than will be sold to only ~all settlers probably for a quarter of a century, if the owners

1922 .

.have to surrentler 80 per cent of their entil'e d.loLdings .of ·land . I ' t})ink .the ecretary should have., in . .his hand for sale evecy acre of Janel required for the small settler, but .there is no .reason wby be should ha Ye millions of. acres.in excess of. this_.demand.

What I .bad been hoping for was that we- would,work out. a propo;-ition under w.hich the Go-rernment, without havj,ng to make disasti·ous restrictions, would furnish .1inaneial aid and ·-assistance to reclamation projects in a reasonable way,, to , the extent of the ~·ea of land that would probaJ:>ly , be ,-needed fo1· settlement at a reasonably early .date; but · not under re.strlc-

- tions that would preclude, in a very_large ,measure, certain .sec­tio,ns of tbe country from enjoying its benefits. I he-lieve that

=the 80 per cent requirement would to quite . an .extent preclude suc]1 participation.

I have not offered .an. amendment as yet, but. I propose to offer an amendment affecti.J:ig projects. that are already -partially

· operated and being constructed. The pending proposal seems to · contemplate entirely new projects~ unl{lss it reaches out to the alrea-dy existing arid-land pi;ojects, and .there are certain xefer­-ences· in the amendment to othe.c.J.aws which proba.l;>ly bring ex­isting ·arid-land projects within Jts provisions.

I offer the amendment .and hope, that it will .be adopted. I am very _app1ehensive that if an amendment of.this character is not adopted, except -where there are large tracts of. public domain :still held by the Government, as in. many of the arid-land States of the West, other States will not be benefited so much as I. de-

. ·sire under the proposed measure. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will state, so

· that the Senate-- may underst-and it, th~ p1·oposed amendment of • the · Senator from Florida to the amendment.

. 'The A.s.sISTANT SECRETABY. .In the printed amendment of.. the Senator from ·Oregon [Mr. i\IcNARY], on page 3, line 13,.. the Senator from Florida proposes to strike out "80" and in­se1·t " '40."

'Mr. PITTMA . ..r..'l obtained the fioor. The PRESIDENT pro tern.pore. Will the Senator from

' Nevada allow the Chair to . make an ob erv.ation? · Mr. PITTl\fA.i.~. ·certainly. "The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair .is of the .opinion

tbat the .amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon [1\lr. l\IcNARY] is not now proper1y before the Senate and _the record o:ught.to be made clear before the debat~ proceeds further. The Chair is of opinion tl_lat the action 'of the Senate in ,agreeing to the snbstitute for title 8. reported by the committee,

. must'. ·be -reconsidered before the amendment offered by the ·Senator from 'Oregon is in order.

Mr:~l\fcNARY. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for the purpose of proper1y .placing befoi·e the S~nate the amendment in question?

'1\fr. PITT1\IAN. I yield for that purpose. ~fr. l\fCNA..RY. I move a reconsideration of the •ote by

whicb title 8 was stricken out. T The 'PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oi:egon

asks unanimous consent that the vote by which title 8 was stricken out and certain matter inserted in lieu thereof be reconsidered. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the vote is reconsidered.

Mr. l\fcNARY. I now offer my amendment to the. bill. The I?IlESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is of opinion

that the amendment is now in order. 1\fr. 'FLETCHER. And the. amendment of the Senator from

Florida 11\Ir: TRAMMELL] to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon is in order?

'l.'J1e ·PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The Senator from Florida now offers the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Oregon, which has already been..stated, and which is the pending question. The Senator..from Nevada \Vill proceed.

':Mr. PITTMAN. l\1r. President, I. gather from the argument of the Senator from Florida [1\Ir. TRAMMELL] that he under­stands the pro.vision to mean that 80 per cent of the excess land of each owner of land is required to be subjected to dis­po al to settlers by the Secretary. · That is not the fact. It simply requires SQ per cent of the excess land to be subjected to his disposal, whether that is furnished by one or by 100 owners. That is the distinction.

'Ve will assume that one man in a proposed 10,000-acre dis­trict owns 9,000 acres. That one man, by turning over to the Government for the purpose of reclamation and. dispo..,al in farnLunits 8,000 acres, can form the district, while the owners of the other. 1,000 acres, which we will say consist of .five people. having 200 acres each, do not have to give up any excess acreage at all.

In other words, the necessity for the . provision . is siJ;nply ' this: The Government -is not. going .to furnish the money to develop an irrigation district or a drainage distdct . unless. it

:11847J ... .be.,for- the, benefit of a lai:ge, numbu of ~ettlers . on ·at lea:st ·.80 per~ cent or :the,Jan<L.of. the district. That i all that~mea.ns. While there has been no .:experience in the drrunage distriets with·- regard ,.to this provision, , there bas been experience witli r~gaxd to. a similar provision in 1 the irrigation ·ofi alid lands in the West.

For instance, we will take a district in .our··State, ·· where abont half. .of the land .. is in lJl'iv.ate ownership and has .been ;fot- . ~ great ~nY. ' :Years owned •in large tracts, .two or ·tln·-ee thousand acres to the person. 'Illese .people .have held that land for years for speculative purposes. It is" not· worth a 'cen~

. nnless ~ou can-put wate1 ·:-0n it. It,. Js-. worth no ·more.than the swamp lands of Florida if they can not be drained. The great trouble about the individuah acco!Jlplishing the- irrigation ot tbesei -arid.-lands ·- is the i.diffi.mlty of bringing ,aoo:nti an · _agree­ment between .au -of; the ,Janel-Owners in •the district and ·the Government; which .owns the- 'PUblic lands · in the · district. Of course, the Senator from Florida will have no .- public lands ln his ... draina-ge.. .district. tHe wilt have State lands, but e:x:peri­ence in the formation of similar districts for 1the ;pmpose o~

, taking care -of the, arid lands. of the West, where ".})art of the land ~is Govm:nment tlan.d· and 'Part of it is pi:ivatelyr owned, has demonstrated' that it is -perfectly ·practicable ·to can-y out such. a prnv1si'on as is found in .this bill.

It took four or five -years -to accomplish it, · it is true. I remember that~in one 'district in- our State,· which is probal;>ly, one of the richest farming districts .in Nevada, all ot the.. land 11p to a · certain. period -of '.time had been privately irrigated. There-were· -probably 30,000 acres of the richest land in the country under private' il'rigation, b'at the people · who owned that , 30,000 acres of privately trrigated land also owned about

.20,000 acres .of land that they . did not have water to irrjgate. : They desired,. however, to .get the water . to irrigate that 20,000

acres. To do .that would require .the build~ng .of a tremendous reservoir by .somebody, either the- individuals or the Govel.'n­ment. The individuals oould not ·bri,ng it ahont, :because it was difficult to get the proper contribution by hundreds. . of little landowners in that· district. .These little andowners did not have the money to join Jn this .tremendou&,enterpniser.of ,build­ing a large reservoir, and , these wealthy" men with large.rhold­ings1 di<Lnot w.ant to put. up all -of .the m-oneyJ i}ust. as tthe-Gov­ernment under . this prov.:ision .. does .not.want to put ;up .mOJley, for _the purpose of improving the land of i0ne or two , men who may own 60 1per cent ot the land .to -be .benefited. The . Gov­ernment, does not .. desire .to . lend money for the benefit of .I.and owned by two or three people. The only a:r:gument ati.all J n favor of the Government, as a governme:r;i.t, taking. part.in ,these great reclamation .schemes is, in the .first ..place, that .it..can only be accomplished practically through the. Government. and, in the second place, . that it is for. the ·benefit of a -great nnmber of home seekers.

I think . that when you .place in _this bill a requirement that the .Government shall proceed to· lend this mo~ey and consn·.Qct th€se projects when 80 per cent of the lands are. in farm .units, you. hav.e go)le far enQugh. The Government ought to know that at least 80 per cent ofi a district -is going to be .divided up, we will say, in 100-acre farms between a . great number of

_people. It may 1be~wd that the Government may know that the other 20. per cent of that land-is going to be equally. bene­fited, and is owned by one individual. '.:Dhe. Government does

, not want ito do that; . but it has been found, as. .the Senator from Uontana has said, that possibly 20 per. ,cent of that land is so owned that they can not get cooperation .from it.

I am perfectly .confident .that if a provision were placed in this bill asking the Government to furnish .money which . .might be enjoyed 60 per cent by one man and- only 40 per cent by a number of men, the bill would be. vetoed by the President. I can not see that it makes much clifference ,in the practicabj}jty of forming a district whether you. require . 40 .per cent or 80 per cent of the excess land over the farm unit to be distributed. It may require a few more days' time to-,bring them together-. As a matter of fact, unless the services- .of the Government are required_in a certain district, you never will have the district, anyway ; and if the services of the Government. are required for the success of the project, you will ha•e no trouble in get­ting 80 per cent of the excess land disposed of. That has been the experience,. as I tell you, with this same kind of, pro vi ion in the development of projects in our arid-land section. These great holders of large quantities of land did .not .want to give it_ up, of course. ; They wanted the Government to put the water on the land,. -and make.. land that was worth $5- an acre worth $100 aa acre, lmdoubtedly. The Government said, "No; if you. are .willing to .. sell this .la.Dd at $5 an acre, its. present valuet . the Government will take it over, and in turn we will selLit in 100-acre.lots to home seekers, aDd we will .put water

_, .. '

11848 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

on it, and we will put water on the 100 acres that you keep for your elf." That was a fair, legitimate proposition, and any other kind of proposition would be unfair.

l\Ir. TRAMMELL. l\lr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ne­

vada yield to the Senator from Florida? Mr. PITTMAN. I do. Mr. TRAMMELL. Does this measure contain any provi­

sion requiring that this reclaimed land shall be sold only in small tracts to actual settlers?

l\lr. PITTI\1AN. Yes. Mr. TRAMMELL. There is nothing in the bill of that char­

acter. l\Ir. PITTMAN. Oh, yes; there is. Mr. TRAMMELL. The Senator is arguing from that view­

point, but there is nothing in the bill which says that the Sec­retary of the Interior can not dispose -Of 1,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 acres to one land purchaser, if he sees fit.

Mr. PITTMAN. Oh, yes; I remind the Senator of the pro­visions of section 803 :

That before construction of a project is commenced the sizes of farms therein shall be established and agreements shall be made effec­tively, subjecting not less than 80 per cent of the excess lands within the project to disposal by authority of the Secreta.ry to settlers at prices and terms fixed in advance in such agreements. Such prices and terms shall be determined with the view of placing a bona fide and competent settler upon each farm of the project with the least possible delay.

Now turn to the definition in the first part of the bill, and see what "farm" means. This is subdivision ( d), on page 2:

(d) The term "farm" means an area of land wlthin a reclamation project sufficient in size, in the opinion of the Secretary, to support a family, but not exceeding 160 acres of reclaimed land.

Consequently, not over 160 acres could be sold to any one per­son ; not over 160 acres could be homesteaded by any one per­son ; and I may say that the experience in reclamation projects has demonstrated that in a great many cases the unit has been maUe only 80 acres. One hundred and sixty acres is the maximum.

Mr. TRAMMELL and Mr. BURSUM addressed the Chair. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ne­

vada yield further ; and if so, to whom? Mr. PITTMAN. I yield first to the Senator from Florida.

Then I will yield to the Senator from New Mexico. Mr. TRAMMELL. The Senator speaks of homesteading.

Does this bill contemplate that Government land that has been reclaimed can be homesteaded under the homestead law at the regular rate per acre?

Mr. PITTMAN. It does. This bill anticipates that the public lands that are taken in an irrigation district shall be subject to homesteading.

Mr. TRAMMELL. Without the accumulated expense of the reclamation being charged against the homesteader?

Mr. PITTMAN. The homesteader does not pay for the land. During a period of 40 years he pays to the district his propor­tionate part of the expense of constructing the project and of maintaining it. The district then, over a period, we will say, of 40 years, pays back to the United States Government its money for having established the project.

Mr. TRAMMELL. What if the homesteader does not home­stead until 10 years after the completion of the project, and the bonded obligation has been running for a period of 10 years, and assessments have been m.ade against that land for a period of 10 years? Does he still purchase the land at the regular homestead-entry price'!

Mr. PITTMAN. That is to. be arranged entirely by the Sec­retary of the Interior. That difficulty has arisen in the irriga­tion of arid lands. It has only arisen, however, through the mistake of the Government in taking in land that was not really arable; but in the case of the recent projects established by the Government, where the land is arable, experience has taught us that there is a scramble to enter this land, instead of having it lie open for 8 or 10 years after the project starts. It is a very inviting thing for the llomeseeker, and he goes in there. While a condition might arise such as the Senator speaks of, in that case it is entirely within the power of the Secretary of the Interior to require that homesteader to assume the accumulated obligation as against that land in the district.

Now I will answer the question of the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BURSUM. What I intended to call to the attention of the Senator from Nevada and also the Senator from Florida was the fact that while a maximum of 160 acres is allowed to any project, yet experience has shown that the average would be nearer 40 to 80 acres. That is to say, in the intensive culti­vation of a farm under irrigation it is impossible to take care of anything like the acreage that can be cared for in the case

of land which is not cultivated by irrigation and where you do. not get the large returns. Furthermore, any land under a project is automatically arranged so that it would be impos­sible to have any large areas of idle land on account of the annual capital water charge on that acreage. So under all the arrangements and regulations with reference to any project I know of that question would automatically settle itself and be reduced to the small ownerships. ·

Mr. PITTMAN. That completes that portion of the state­ment I wa.s making with regard to the fact that in many cases there were only 80 acres. I have no doubt that the Senator from Florida feels that the requirement that at least 80 per cent of the land in excess of the farm units shall first be turned over for settlement of other people, upon paying, of course, the purchase price, will make it very difficult to organize one of these districts. It is true it would be easier to organize them if only 40 per cent was required. But coming down to the balance of the difficulties, while it is easier to form a district where only 40 per cent of the excess lands over the farm unit must be surrendered for sale, it is impracticable, because the Government will not put up the money where it benefits only a small number of persons. That is what we are up against.

This is not a new question as far as desert lands are con­cerned. It is a new question as far as drainage lands are con­cerned. It is perfectly natural that the Senator's mind should revolve around the same questions which have disturbed the minds of western Senators for several years. ·

As I said just now, here is a great farming valley, in which 30,000 acres are privately irtjgated and privately owned, but there are 20,000 acres of privately owned land not in irriga­tion. There is no water to put on that extra 30,000 acres of land, which is owned by probably 10 people. The only way they can give any value to it is to put water on it, and the only way they can get water is to build an expensive Govern­ment reservoir. The few men who own these 20,000 irrigable acres of land, who have no water for it, do not want to put up all the money to build that reservoir, and at the same time have probably forty or fifty thousand acres of Government land benefited by it. In fact, they would have difficulty in sell­ing their bonds to raise the money to put in that Government reservoir.

What is the result? They find that the only thing they can do is to go to· the Government and say, "Will you cooperate with the State so that districts may be organized under the State law, embracing three kinds of land-land already irri­gated and privately owned, land that is privately owned and not irrigated, and Government land? "

What has happened? Districts were incorporated. But the Government said, " Two or three of you fellows own 20,000 of the 40,000 additional acres which are to be put under cultiva­tion by the building of this reservoir, and we are not going to advance the money where half of the benefit of this whole thing will go to two or three men. Your land is worth $5 an acre to-day without water on it. We will give you $5 an acre for it, all in excess of a farm unit. We will buy it from you, and then we will sell it to homesteaders in 80-acre tracts. Then we will put the water on it, because half of it will not be for the benefit of two or three people, but it will be for the benefit of a great many citizens of the United States." That is the great object of the Government in going into these projects.

We have been delayed four or fiv~ years by that fight. The Government has stood pat, and for four or five years these owners of half of that land have also stood pat. But they could not sell the bonds to develop their own projects, and :finally they had to come to the Government. They had shed their self­ishness, and they have said, "We would rather have a hundred acres each with water on it than to be paying taxes on 20,000 acres with no possibility of getting water on it." So they have turned it over to the Government for ·five or six or seven dollars an acre, whatever the price was, and the Government has turned it over to the homesteader at the same price, with the result that instead of having 30,000 acres under irrigation you have 70,000 acres under irrigation, and instead of having a popula­tion of probably 2,000 people on 30,000 acres of land, you have a population of 20,000 people on 70,000 acres. Instead of bene­fiting a few selfish individuals, you are benefiting the whole country_ by furnishing homes to a great many people and in­creasing the production of your country.

Senators say they do not see how this is going to benefit the soldier. The soldier is entitled to adjusted compensation, but that adjusted compensation will not compensate him, as all of us know. Nothing will ever compensate him for what he has done, although I know that his deeds have been forgotten by many of the people of the country. Hundreds of thousands of those boy~ who are not to-day confined in hospitals are limp-

1922~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~. SENATE. 11849 I

ing around the country in broken health, feeling the effects North Carol1na [Mr. SIMMONS]. It was brought up by the of their terrible ordeal. We should take those boys a:nd, Senator from North Carolina as an amendment to the foreign if there is a power in this Government to d'o it, we shollld fur- war debt funding· bill, and when he brought up the soldiers' nisb them homes in the open air, we should put in their pands' adjusted eompensation bill as an amendment I then offered as the opportunity to live healthfully and to prosper and to be- an amendment to his amendment the original land-settlement eome a part of the great producing citizenry of this country provision of the' House bin, which the Senator from North which they probably saved in that desperate war. Carolina accepted, but at that time both amendments went out

Senators do not see how it is going to help the soldiers? on a point of order: Canada saw how it was going to help the soldiers: Canada, a .Mr. SIMMONS. 1\Ir. President, I wollld be glad if the Sena­country not nearly as rich as this country, loaned as high as tor would very briefly explain the language "in excess of the $2000 to a soldier, put him on a farm, and started him ·out farm unit.'' I have not had an. opportunity to study the amend­wlth horses and teams and plows- and seed. I wonder if the ment carefully. Canadian soldier could see how that could: in any way help him r ~fr. PrI"rUANL The Senator was not in the Chamber when

'Vhat ha Ye we done for the soldie1·?' We ha.ve praised him; I discussed it, but it is worth while, and I shall do it· again. we ha-ve told him we were going to take care of him; we have The way the Government intends, through this provision, to had declarations here in the form of messages and letters from develop irrigation and drainage projects is by doing it through men high in om· Government, most solicitous in recaaTd to the cooperation with the States. Under the· present irrigation law, welfare of the soldier, most assuring with regard to taking as the Senator will remember., the Governmen.t took a lot of care of him. Yet years have gone by, and we hear only the public lands,. withdrew them~ and put them into irrigation echoes o.f those assurances, and in. our hearts we know. that projects. That was all Government land, so the Government i;:ecretly and by stealth and by cunniilg the power of this ad- could do what it pleased with. it_ Then it divided it up into ministration is being massed for the purpose of forever defeat- farm unitsr the size depending upon the richness of the · soil and. ing any compensation to these soldiers. the natural value of the farm unit, the question being how much

Then we say that they are not entitled to adjusted compensa- land would support a famiiy comfortably. The farm units have tion; that they have not earned it; and one who· does not been 40, 80, or 160 acres and no man. may acquire more. The llare say they have not earned it, because he was a soldier purChaser pays annually a certain proportion of the cost of himself, one of the new Senators, says it will not compensate putting the water on that land and maiintaining it there. That them. The salary that Senator receives- probably does not is covered in payments extending ov.er 40 yea.rs. compensate him for the work he does for his Government, and ' There was another character of land that the Government possibly his honorable positfon would be higher and more· re- could not get at that way and that was where part of th~ land spected if he received nothing. in the valley was in private ownership and already being in·i-

W e did not consider that it was a crime or was insulting gated by private water systems, partJ of the. land was· privately when we adjusted the compensation of Government employees. owned! land in the dist:riet, but not under water, because they during the war and have- maintained that adjustment oL com- did not have the water for it, and the rest of it was Government pensation to the present time. But to-day by reason largely of land; three kinds of land. The Government did oot feel like the argument made by the United States Chamber of Com- advancing money for · the benefit of the few individual Iand­merce, a highly intelligent, cold-blooded, heartless organiza- owners, so tt said, "Under the laws of the State' organire a dis­tion, moved entirely by instincts of selfishness and greed, tl·ict and take in those three kinds of land. Then let those many legislators and business men of this country hITTe almost who own the· nonlrrigated Ta~d which1 is going to be benefited come to the conclusion that the soldiers who suffered so muc~ turn over to the Federal Government all in excess of what who gave so much, whose lives were wrecked oy the war, are they own over the- farm unit of 160 acres at a reasonable to-day trying to rob this Government. price.'1 In othe11 words, the Government bought from the

Mr. President, when I think of the $10,000,000,000 made in owners the nonirrigated private land at its worth, all except · e.xcess profits by the profiteers of this country ; when I think 160 acres of it. of the $15,000,000,00Q of profits in addition to the excess profits. Mr. OVERMAN. But there is no such provision in the which were turned by corporati-Ons into capital stock for the amendment. plU'pose of avoiding paying of taxes, I am astounded at the lUr. PITT.MAN. Oh. yes; there is. Then it made the man greed, the heartlessness, and the lack of patriotism of the great who entered the 160 acres pay the same price for it. What is financiers of this country. accomplished is that instead of having two or three people

You could pay this whole thing with a billion five hundred owning the particular land to be benefited-because this land is and some odd million. dollars, Yet the. excess profits earned . all dry and there is no water on it-they make them sell it so during the war were over $10,000,000,000. A little ove1' 10 per that it becomes public land. When it is bought and becomes cent of the excess war profits of corporations alone would pay public land, then it ts open to homesteading just as other Gov­the whole thing. Yet it is a crime. to ask for it! Six billion ernment public Iand. That is the prevision. doliars of excess profits were made by individuals in this coun.- But they have found in practical experience in the West that try during the war and out of the war, yet those· individuals, it is sometime:g impossible to find all the owners of the land in including some of the highest officers of our Government, are excess of the unit. Some man, for instance, has 200 acres, 40 so sel.fi.sh. and inhuman that they are unwilling to give up, we acres m excess. He has not been heard of in 10 years and can will say, 15 per cent of those enormous earnings to pay these not be found. Consequently it has been provided in the amend­soldiers. ment that the district may be organized when 80 per cent of

~fr .. President, Senators say they do not see how: this land- the land to be benefited by the project is turned over to the settlement business will benefit the soldier. The soldiers saw Government, by sale or by other process. In other words, the it. They demanded it when this measure first came before the Government will not start in to benefit the lands unless it has House over two years ago, and the House of Representatives, , control of 80 per cent of it. That is the whole story. They do by an overwhelming vote, adopted title 6 of that. bill, then not confiscate anybody's land. They do not take it away from known as the land-settlement bill. It came O'\"er to the Senate them. They buy it and if they can not buy it then there is no and the Finance Committee of the Senate struck it out. district. The law does not force them to sell. The Govern-

When the adjusted compensation bill passed the House re- ment does not proceed by condemnation methods. It merely cently the land-settlement provision was again put in by the says, "If you who own the excess lands think you can benefit House because the soldiers wanted it and thei House :Knew its. by selling to the Government so we may subdivide it among gr~at benefits. It came over to this hody and aga.in the· Fina.nee homesteaders, all right, we will do business. If you do not Committee struck it out. The bill comes into this body without want to do it, you do not hav~ to do it.'' That is all there is to that provision. As a matter of fact it is the most wholesome it. Tllere is n<Y forcing of the proposition. It is just opening and beneficial provision of the entire bill. But that provision a door through which the Government may assist in bringing adopted by the House ha& been definitely and finally stticken into productivity the swamp lands and arid lands where private out of the bill, and there is no chanc:e to get it back into the owners for years and years have found it impossible to do it. bill. Therefore those of us who believe in the land settlement Mr. FLETCHER. l\fr. President--for soldiers are forced to come back to the amendment which The rRESIDE1'TT pro temp.ore. Does the Senator from has been presented by the Senator from Oregon. Nevada yield to the Senator from Florida?

It is a magnificent amendment. It is as good, probably, as Mr. PITTMAN. I yield. the provision originally adopted by. the House at the request ML FLETCHER. The language is not very clear. Am I to of the soldiers. It accomplishes largely the same purpose. It understand the- Senator's eonceptlon. of it to be that where land looks largely to tlie same end. is already owned by an individual, we will say 1,000 acres in

I offered a land-settlement provision as an amendment at the: · the proposed project, and be is. willing. to go, into the· scheme time the bonus question was brought· up by the Senato1r froll\ tbat 80 per cent of the thousand acres, or 800 acres of his lan<L

11850 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. AUGUST 28,

may be subjected to disposal, as the language is, by authority of the Secretat·y to settlers at prices and terms fixed in the agreement? The question is, Does the man who now owns the 1,000 acres and wants to go into the project get any pay for the 800 acres that be turns over?

l\lr. PITTl\fAN. Why certainly. That is exactly what he gets.

l\fr. FLETCHER. But the price mentioned is to the settler: Such prices and terms shall be determined with the view of placing a

bone fide and competent settler upon each farm of the project with the least possible delay. .

Now, I suppose there may be years elapse before any settlers go in there. This does not seem to provide, but in case a settler is found for a portion of the 800-say, eight settlers, each tak­ing 100 acres-and the price is agreed on as to what they shall pay, does the original owner of the land get any part of that price?

l\fr. PITTMAN. Undoubtedly. There seems to be some uneasiness for fear there is no provi­

sion for the payment of the private owners of the land for the ex­cess area turned over for settlement. I may say, in the first place, that if there were no provision in any bill whatever the private land could not be taken even by the Government except upou payment of just compensation for the land ; but I am not going to that extent now. Listen to the reading of section 803:

That before construction of a project is commenced the sizes of farms therein shall be established and agreements shall be made effectively, subjecting not less than 80 v.er cent of the excess lands within the project to disposal by authority of the Secretary to settlers at prices and terms fixed in advance in such agreements.

That is, agreements with the owners of the excess lands. l\Ir. SIMl\IONS. Now, that is one point I desire to have

cleared up. l\fy colleague [Mr. OVERMAN] made inquiry of the Senator from Oregon. I did not quite get his answer ; but if my colleague understood it correctly-and he has explained his understanding to me--it would mean that the owner of the land would never get more than the value of the land in its natural condition. I do not understand what the Senator has just rend as meaning that. I understand that as meaning-and I want to ask the Senator if I am correct about it-that the Sec­retary of the Interior and the drainage district would confer together with reference to the price to be fixed upon the land and that the price would take into consideration the value of . the land in its natural condition and also the value of the lanu after it has been improved, and the price would be fixed upon the basis of those two factors.

Mr. PITTMAN. We have had practical experience. A pro­vision similar to that contained in the paragraph has been put into force and effect time and again. The agreement is not made with the district. The agreement is made between the Federal Government and the individual, because the agreement must be made before they can organize the district.

l\lr. OVERl\lAN. l\!r. President, before the Senator goes further, as I understood the Senator from Oregon [l\fr. Mc­~ARY], in answer to my question, and the Senator from Wash­ington [Mr. Jol\TES], when the district is formed the person '"ho owns the 1,000 acres of land goes in, and he agrees with the Secretary of the Interior that that land shall be sold at a certain price to settlers; not that the Government buys it at all, but he goes into the scheme, and the Secretary of the In­terior fixes the price at which it is to be sold to the settlers he retaining only 20 per cent. '

l\1r. PITTMAN. That is really the pra~tical operation of it; but, as a matter of fact, the Government IS behind the payment for the land. The entryman either does pay for it, or it goes back to the owner, of course.

Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TOWNSEND in the chair).

Doe the Senator from Nevada yield to the Senator from Wash­ington?

fr. PI'l'TMAN. I yield. l\Ir. J0~1ES of Washington. As I understand the provision

it is that the owner of the excess land practically makes th~ Secretary of the Interior his agent to sell the property for an agreed price.

l\lr. PITTMAN. Undoubtedly. Mr. JONES of Washington. And all of that agreed price

comes back to the owner of the land when it is finally sold. l\Ir. PITTMAN. I have spoken of the Government purchas­

ing, but, as a matter of fact, the Government collects the money from the entryman and turns it over to the other party.

Now, as to the effect of the operation. Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, the point I have in mind is

this : Is the price which is to be fixed by the landowner and the Secretary of the Interior the price of the land in its natural state or is it the price which the land is supposed to be worth

when it has been improved by the expenditure of money neces­sary to drain it or to irrigate it?

Mr. PITTMAN. I will say that the Government in all of its negotiations has contended that the value of the land is its value ·without water . on it; and that the value that is added to the land by placing water on it is paid by the entryman · that is what he pays for. The entryman not only pays the pric~ of the land-that is, where it is excess land turned over-but in addition he pays his proportionate part of the value of the impounding works, the ditches and maintenance. He pa:vs for the increased value of the land through the project and the district, and, therefore, as a matter of fact, the Government has always held that the land value must be fixed at its·value before the water is put on it.

Mr. OVERMAN. Or, in the case of swamp land, before the water is taken off?

Mr. PITTMAN. Yes; before it is drained. That, of course, has been. the subject of extended negotiations. All of the ele­ments of value that have ever been raised have been consid­ered in those negotiations ; and sometimes two or th1·ee years have been required to settle them.

Mr. Sil\fl\fONS. The drainage district is ues bonds, as I understand?

Mr. PITTMAN. Yes. Mr. SIMMONS. And the Government buys those bonds? Mr. PITTMAN. No; the Government takes them and holds

them. Mr. SIMMONS. Or sells them? Mr. PITTMAN. Or sells them; but, of coarse, it does not at­

tempt to ell them until there is a going project. Mr. SIMMONS. Say a man has sold his land embraced in

a drainage district at the price of the land with water on it ; the drainage district is composed of a number of tracts that have been sold in the same way. The drainage district has issued bonds, and the interest has got to be paid on those bonds, I should like to know who pays that interest until the land is sold?

Mr. PITTMAN. The Government advances all the money until the project is a going concern, until it forms adequate se­curity for the district bonds; and then the district, the bonds having been sold, reimburses the Government for the total amount which has been expended by the Government in taking over the entire project .

l\fr. Sil\fl\fONS. Suppose this case: Swamp lands are de­veloped; the owners have sold them to the district at their value before the water was taken off, and before any money was expended on them, and have received their money · but the drainage district has issued bonds, and the interest 'upon those bonds has got to be paid by somebody until the land embraced in the area is finally disposed of ; where is the drain­age district to get the money to pay that interest?

Mr. OVERMAN. At that point, I will ask if the owner has received his money at all? That is what I want to get at. He does not get any money; he agrees to go into the project and then money is appropriated for the purpose of drainage in my section of the country. '

Mr. SIMMONS. That may be so. Mr. OVERMAN. There is no money advanced to him for his

land at all. Under the pending amendment he agrees with the Secretary o~ the Interior that he will go in, and 80 per cent of his land IS taken ~d can be sol~ to Tom, Dick, or Harry for settlemei;it at such price as maJ'.° be fixed by the Secretary of the Interior. The owner gets his money when the land is sold.

Mr. SIMMONS. But the question I have in my mind is who is going to pay the interest upon the bonded indebtednes~ while the lands are being sold?

Mr. PITTMAN. The interest on the indebtedness or the interest on the money advanced-and all the money advanced is furnished by the Government, of course; so it does not make any difference whether it is called interest on a bonu or other­wise--all the accumulated cost of the project, whether it in­cludes cost or overhead charges or what not, is paid for by the man who enters the land. He pays for it in annual in­stallments ; and part of those annual installments go to the former private owner, if the lands were pri•ate lands.

So far as the district bonds are concerned, the district bonds do not issue--and they do not commence to draw interest until they do i sue--until a market has been made for them by the Government.

Mr. SIMMONS. When they do issue. how are they paid? Mr. PITTMAN. When they are issued. from the time thev

issue, of course, they draw interest; but that rnoney is again refunded by the entrymen ; in other words, the sale of the bond pays the Government for what it is out, and the entry-

.•

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11851 man, in 40-year annual installments, pays the ' district for what it is out. So when it comes to the que tion of charges . and payments, all of them fall on the entryman in his proportionate part.

Mr. OVERMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator let me ask him a question right there?

Mr. PITTMAN. Certainly. Mr. OVERMAN. It has been stated here that all this . has

to be done in cooperation with the States. Now, what will the State of North Carolina have to do? •

Mr. PITTMAN. The State of North Carolina will have to pass an act, if it has not one already.

Mr. OVERMAN. I understand the State of North Carolina has a drainage act, but do we put up any money?

1\11•. PITTMAN. The State of North Carolina will not have. to put, up any money; but the State of North Carolina will have to pass a law governing the districts, and providing under what conditions such a corporat ion may exist.

l\fr. OVERMAN. In other words, the Gtate will have to provide the machinery?

Mr. PITTMAN. Yes; but the State may impose such limita­tions as it desire .

Mr. · SIMl\IOKS. The Government furnishes all the money for the purpose of recla iming the land?

Mr. PITTMAN. It has to do so at the start, because there is no credit back of any of the bonds until the projects are in operation.

1\Ir. Sll\Il\IONS. I agree with the Senator that as soon as the l:rnds are old and hecome the subject of private owner­ship, then, of cour e, the entryman will have to pay his part of the interest. But what I had in mind was who would pay. the interest on the bond after they are sold but before the land is sold?

Mr. PITTMAN. I may say, if the Senator please, that in all of these reclamation . cheme the Government has never charged any interest for the advance of its money.

Mr. Sil\.11\fONS. Ought not such a provision to be in the bill?

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, is it not the case that the Interest on the bonds will be paid, as the Senator has stated, correctly. I think, in the first instance by the district? The district is an organiza tion created by State Jaw. The Senator from North Carolina wants to know how the district gets its money to pay the interest. In all of the laws creating drainage districts in the States the power is given to levy taxes on the lands by the owner · of the lands for the purpose of drainage . The money so raised by taxation will go to the district, and the district will use it in paying interest on its bonds, I take it.

l\Ir. SIMMONS. Taat is right where my trouble begins. The lands are sold at a fixed price, and that price is the value of the Janft in .it natural condition. Until the lands are sold the intere t upon the bonds for the money to reclaim them must be paid by somebody, I assume. That interest can be paid only by levying taxes upon the lands. That tax when it is levied upon the land comes out of the landowners, and it seems to me it ought to hf' added to the price of the land.

Mr. PITTMAN. Wait a moment--Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from

Nevada permit me a moment? Mr. SIMMONS. So that the price ought to be not only the

price of the land in its natural state but any tax that the owner of that land, as a member of the drainage district, has to pay up to the time the land is sold.

Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. President, if the Senator from Nevada will permit me, that is exactly what section 804 of the amend­ment provides. It is very plain and simple. Let me read it.

Mr. SIMMONS. I will be very glad to have the Senator read it. ·

Mr. RANSDELL. The provision I have in mind is as follows: SEC. 804. That when, in the opinion of the Secretary, a project has

been fully completed and successfully operated for one season the Sec­retary shall fix the construction cost thereof, whic~ shall include the total cost of investigation, the expense of selling district bonds under section 805 interest at not exceeding 5 per cent per annum upon all sums advan'ced by the United States in the construction thereof-

That is the very point the Senator raises-and the cost of operating and maintaining the project to the date of fixing such cost. This total cost the district shall agree to pay to the United States within a period not exceeding 40 years, with interest thereon at not exceeding 5 per cent per annum.

So, the total cost, I will say to the Senator, including the interest on the cost c.f the project, is added up, and that interest is calculated by the Government itself.

LXII--747

Mr. Sil\IMONS. So that if the individual la'ndowner has been compelled to pay any tax in order to raise money, to pay the interest, he will get that sum back in addition to the price?

1\Ir. RANSDELL. Unquestionably, but he does not have to pay that interest, for the Government, under the plain terms of section 804, pays the charges, including interest on the cost.

Mr. SIMMONS. And the landowner does not pay it? l\Ir. RANSDELL. The Government pays it, and adds that

to the cost of the project. It costs so much to reclaim the land; that is one part of the cost; and the interest on the amount is another part of the co t.

Mr. SIMMONS. I thank the Senator. That clears up the point I had in mind.

Mr. RANSDELL. It is perfectly clear from section 804. Mr. SIMMONS. It would have be.en clear if I had read the

bill, but, as I have said, I returned to the city only a few hours ago, and have not had an opportunity to read the amendment.

I wish to say to the Senator from Nevada right now, · in connection with this amendment and in connection with some observations he had made upon the benefits of the amendment to the soldier, that I agree entirely with him that this is a very valuable concession to the ex-service men. At first blush I was not of that impression ; I thought it gave him nothing more than a preference as a purchaser; but it is very much more that that; it is a pref~rence to purchase lands at what might be termed an abnormally low price, a price that has no profiteering in it. That is very valuable.

To illustrate the value of that, Mr. President, there have been many drainage projects that have been brought to con­summation in the South, some in my State, in the last eight or ten years. When those projects were first completed, and the lands were ready for cultivation, a little extra labor prob­ably being made necessary by the removal of the timber, the first price fixed upon those lands was a moderate price. Gen­erally they were fertile lands. Money is not invested in the South, as elsewhere, in these large drainage propositions unle s the lands are of superior character. Of course we have vast areas of inferior cleared lands that are open to sale. The first price fixed upon those lands bas been a moderate price, a price that probably represented simply the original cost of the lands in their natural condition, plus the expense of improve­ment. If the result of their cultivation was very profitable, as in many instances it has been, the price of the reserved lands was advanced and as more of it was brought under cultivation, and its p~·ofits were further demonstrated, the price advanced again, until the ultimate price of the reserv0 d part of . the lands was exceedingly high.

As I understand, under this bill the soldier will get this land at a price fixed upon it, and that price-measured, probably, by the original cost of the wild land, plus the cost of ;.: <1evelop­ment-will not be advanced.

Mr. PITTI\>IAN. Mr. President, I do not know that it would be accurate to say that he would get it at the original co t price.

l\fr. SIMMONS. I said plus the cost of its development and improvement. ·

Mr. PITTMAN. For instance, you might buy desert land through j:he State at $2.50 an acre. I do not think that in any of the cases I have in mind in our State the price of the land has been fixed at $2.50 an acre; say $5 an acre or $6 an acre.

Mr. SIMMONS. But it would be a moderate price? Mr. PITTMAN. Yes; it would be a moderate price. It would

not be based of course, on the value of the land before the water had b~n put on it, or before the water had been drained off, as the case might be.

Mr. SIMMONS. As I understand this bill, the price of those lands as fixed originally by the Secretary of the Interior and the landowner will not be advanced at any time. All of those lands will have to be sold-that is a part of the contract-at that price, whether they are sold in a year or in 10 years, and the soldier has a preference over other purchasers.

Mr. PITTMAN. For 60 days after it is opened. Mr. SIMMONS. Oh, only 60 days? Mr. TRAMMELL. Mr. President, he -only has 60 days after

it is opened. Mr. SIMMONS. So the Senator from Nevada advises me.

I think that ought to be extended. It is too short. Mr. PITTMAN. Ur. President, the Senator from Oregon

[Mr. McNARY] in his very able peech, called attentiol). to the" splendid help ~ven to the movement for the i~rigation of arid lands throughout the West by the late PresHlent Roosevelt. All western men know of and appreciate that strong and un­selfish support. There is no doubt that his sup )Ort of the

11852 CO:NGRES&IONAL ·RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28, '

legislation for the reclamation of arid lands brought about the There are practical diffiCulties, as mentioned b:r my colleague accomplishment of such legislation much more rapidly than [Mr . . TRAMMELL], o far as Florida is concerned, that would be would otherwise have been the case; and yet I do not want it 1 encountered in connection with section 803. I can not very forgotten that my former colleague from Nevada, the late Sen- well see how that section can be succe sfully applied in Florida. ator Francis G. Newlaruls, gave his whole official life to the It may- be that a plan could be worked out under it. It is enactment and development of the reclamation law. very general in its terms, and it is po sible that there might

When L first became acquainted with Senator Newlands, be some drainage districts where it could be operated satis­years ago-yes, I may say, before I met him ; but when I facto:rily; but in the gr.eat undertaking of the State-to wit, the knew of him-he was then fighting, and fighting practically drainage of the Everglades-I can not quite see how it would aione, for the pas age of the reclamation act which bears his be practical to make application. of thi measure to the con­name. Awa y- back in 1892, 10 years before President Roose- ''1itions there. velt lent his magnificent support to reclamation, Senator New- In the first place there are no Government lands in the swamp lands was at every session fighting for the passage of that and overflowed area. There are some State lands. In the bill in the Hou e of Representatives. Session after session, Everglades the St.ate is- interested in lands which have not Congress after Congress, Senator Newlands offered his. bi1L. l yet been s:old. There are 4,000,000 acres in that area, aU of as an amendment to the rivers and harbors bill, and to every them having been for ages covered practically all the tl.Qle by other• bill that could possibly carry it. He started out by water, and those 4,000,000 acres are in what is called a drain­getting 3 or 4. votes for hi.a amendment. Then, after a yea-r age district. There are over 1,000,000 acres of that drainage or two, he had 5 or 6 votes; and through this slow process his district in one county, the County of Palm Beach. The owners votes increased, and· his patience and his good humor and of these lands are paying drainage district ta.xes. The State his courtesy and gentlemanliness were ne~er disturbed or having already constructed a number of canal.3, and there be­lost. 'He annoyed leaders in Congress by his persistency, and· ing now canals and roads leading into the center of the Ever­yet wherr they look back on it they mnst realize that- it was glades from the coastal regions on both sides, I can not see just that persisteucy alone that accomplished the passage Qf that how the plan proposed in this amendment can be superimposed act at- the time it was passed. I think that as time goes on, upon the plan adopted by the State and upon the system there and the history of statesmen is calmly revie-wed, Senatou New- 1 in. operation. lands will haye. a high position among those men, and his. I With reference to this provision requiring 80 per cent of vision will be. commemorated in: some prQper way: I the excess lands to be reserved to be handled by the Secretary

l\lr. OVERMAN. Mx. President,.. will tha Senator yieICJ · of the Interior by agreement with the owners, another great to me? difficulty: would be encountered. Conditions there differ in all

.:ur. PITT.MAN. I y-ield to the Senatoir fmm- North Caro- sorts of ways. Una. , · For instance, a sugar company will want as much as 100,()()()

Mr. OVER!\IAN. Did Senator· Newla:nds get that measure acres of land. One concern already has more than 130,000, pas ed as- a rider to a bill or as a. separate: proposition? : acres of land, 5,000 acres already planted in sugar cane, and

1\fr. RANSDELL. It finallY' p11ssed as a separate- propo- 11 when r was there about a year ago there were 29 tractors at sition. 1 work extending and enlarging their undertaking. They may

Mr. OVERMAN. That was my recollection, and that brings ' ha:ve in a few years a good'. many thousand acres more added, me to this qnestian-- : and they will want all of that holding themselves. They will

:Ur. PITTl\fAN. In 1902 we passed the Kewlands Act as- '. not want to give up 80 per cent of what they have under actual a separate proposition. . '. cultivation, or perhaps any per cent of their · present holdings •

.Mr. OVERJ.\LAN. That is as I understand. Now; why is In that instance that concern will want a large amount of land. thi attached as a rider to the soldiers' compensation bill? But for a settler who wants to grow .vegetables or fruit, 40 I am. inclined to give my, support to it, but I have doubts ac.Tes, and perhaps 20 acres, would be fully as much as he would whether I ought to vote for it as an amendment to· the ad... , eare· to handle or could handle. justed compensation bill. Why- should this be put on as m '. In that region one man will have his hands full to cultivate rider when. it ha.s so much merit, standing alone, as a separate , 20· aeres of land, and especially there, where they can produce proposition? , four crops a year on the same land. That is done in various ...

l\Ir. PITTMA....~. It took Senator Newlands 10 years o:f work portions of the State. In the potato region around Hastings, along the lines I have stated to get this legislation for the

1 in the celery region around Sandford, and in sections in Mana­

West. I am inclined' to think that we will wait 10 years to tee County and in other counties they produce four crops a get this- additional legislation for the West and the South year, 1 acre yi.eldlng 700 crates of lettuce, for instance, worth unless we take every Qpp01·tunity to pass it when we- ma.y. $5 a crate at the point of delivery, $3,500 being produced on 1

l\1r. OVERMAN. I think the Senator can get it through as acre of land through one crop. That is not an uncommon thing. a separate proposition. It may be that these settlers would not want over 20 or 3()

Mr. PITTMAN., ·I do not think we can. acres each ordinarily, if they are growing veget.ables, fruits, 1\fr. FLETCHER. M.r. President, I quite agree with what the and products of that kind.

Senator from Nevada [1\Ir. PrrTMAN] has just stated in con- On the other hand, if a man wanted to go into the cattle nection with the work and accomplishments of his· late col- business, he would want as much as 1,000 acres. Forty acres league, Senator Newlands; the Newlands Ac.t is a:n everlasting 1l would not suit him at al:l. .As I have said, if he wanted to monument to his memory. It was because of the su{!cessful Ii undertake to grow sugar cane and put . up a sugar mill, he opera tion of that system, and the great amount of good that would probably want 100,000 ac.Tes. So it would be very diffi­had been ac<!omplished in the West tln·ough it, that I wauted ; cult to determfue in · advance the size of the different farms t;o see it nationalized, made nation-wide in applicati<m., if which would be wanted in the area of" a given project. The possible. I think the system ought to be-extended to the recla- districts- have already been divided up, and I doubt very much mation nat only of arid and semiarid lands but of swamp if you can make applicable to those conditions the provisions lands and overflowed lands. I see no reason wh.y reelamation · of this amendment. should not include reclamation. by drainage as well as· reclama- In the Everglades, already in a drainage district, as I have ti.on by irrigation. Hence, some time ago, on April 28, 1921, said, property owners paying drainage taxes all the while, it I introduced a.. bill which was- indorsed by and had the ap- seems- to i:ne it would be almost impo sible to superimpose a. proval a.nd favor of the commissioners of. necrriculture of the system like this upon the existing system of drainage, although various States. They sat hei:e- in. Washington, and devised II I am willing, if it can be. done, to give the people there an the plan embodied in the measure which I then introdu-ced. : opportunity to avail themselves of this plan. There are other

It was more comprehensive than the. pending amendment, I 11 conditions obtaining elsewhere in the State under which per­

think, and I believe that it would have accomplished greater haps. new districts could be organized and this system applied. good, and would have been, perhaus, more-practical in its opera- It is estimated that there are 11,653,000 acres of overflowed tion. However, the committee never acted upon it; and while I lands, principally in the South. It is estimated that there are do not see in this proposal the possibility of very much being ac- some 25,000,000 acres of swamp lands; that is, lands which are complished in the way of reclamation of swamp and over- too wet :for cultivation. In other words, there are 36,000,000 flowed land , if our friends in the West want it, and there is 11 acres of land in this country, lying mainly in the Southern "Some chance. of. its giving opportunities- to for.mer service men. I States, whieh. can be reclaimed, and which when reclaimed are to avail themselves of these fertile swamp lands and over- , most fertile and productive. It is said there are some 152,­flowed lands, as it is in. a way an extension of the system so· 000,000 acres of what. are known as cot-over lands which might as to include, in the language of the bill, "reclamation of lands i be· available for cultivation, but they are not contemplated in by irrigation, drainage, or di.kage," I shall feel disposed to 1i this bill. The bill would, however, afford the possibility ot support it. • reclaiming some 36,000,000 acres of swamp and overflowed

1922. CON GRESSION .A.Ij RECORD-SEN ATE.· 11853 lands, which would be highly productive and which would add greatly to the agricultural resources of the country. A settler could very easily support a family on a few acres of such land, and, transportation and markets being favorable, make hand­some profits.

It may be argued, why go into this at all? We have plenty of lands which are already dry enough to be cultivated or wet enough to be cultivated, and there is no need to spend the money to put water on land or take water off land, because we have plenty of land which can be used for agricultural pur­

·poses without that expenditure. In the first place, these lands, when reclaimed either by

irrigation or by drainage, as proposed in this measure, are most productive lands and susceptible of easy cultivation. The lands we have in excess of the present cultivated areas are lands mostly worn out and exhausted. In various portions of the country the soil has been washed away, and we have neg­lected our lands. We have not followed the course of bur European friends in the older countries, where lands in cultiva­tion a thousand years are better now than they were originally. We have allowed our lands to be washed away and wasted away. In a great many instances all the nitrogen and practi­cally all the fertility are gone, and instead of building up those lands where it is possible to build them up, we have these areas which we can reclaim upon terms which will be advantageous to the settlers and to the country as a whole.

Besides, it will be recalled that from 1850 to 1900 we opened up about 30,000,000 acres of land for agricultural purposes, about 85,000 farms, about 6,()()(),000 acres a year. From 1900 to 1910, however, the number of farms increased only about 10 per cent, and from 1910 to 1920 the increase in farms in this country was only about 1.4 per cent. The population has been moving largely from the country to the cities and towns, so that cities and towns have grown in population seven and a half times as fast as the rural regions. It is pretty easy to calculate that in 20 years from now we will have 85,000,000 people living in the cities and towns in this country, and about 55,000.,000 engaged in agricultural pursuits. So that we are approaching the time when we will need these lands, even if we do not already need them, and if, by reclamation, we can make available more fer-tile lands, which, by intensive cultiva­tion, will increase production at a minimum of outlay and expense and labor, we ought to do it.

I strongly favor facilitating and assisting by e'tery means in our power ex-service men to join the production forces of the country. I would afford to them every possible opportunity to establish themselves permanently in country homes.

The farmers of tl1e country are entitled to every considera·­tion that the Congress can extend to them. Think of it. The farmers of the United States dug out of the soil last year $14,755,000,000. The value of the corn crop in the United States was greater in dollars than the combined earnings of all the railroads leading out of New York. The value of the cotton crop of the United States was enough to establish seven banks as large aB the New York Federal Reserve, and buy 12 more national banks. The hens laid $50,000,000 worth of eggs last year. Take the $2,000,000,000 worth of corn produced in the United States, and nearly that much in dollars in wheat, and nearly that much in cotton, to say nothing of the vegetables and the meats which have been produced by the farmers, ·thus supplying the food of the Nation, and it can be readily seen where are to be found the real factors in our prosperity, the hope, and the sinews of industrial activity, and the source of the Nation's wealth. Not the financiers, not big business, but farmers have caused two tracks of rails to be laid where only one was laid before. These plain people, living out in the woods and in the fields, about whom we hear nothing and know little individually, are the people who keep the balance abroad in our favor, because they are the people who furnish $500,000,000 worth of products for export every year.

These· facts should encourage our young men, brave, as they have shown themselves, strong and home loving, willing to work, ambitious to succeed, to devote their energies to this field of unlimited possibilities. These people, the hope of the country, in war, in peace, who toil in season and out of season, taking all the chances, fighting all the enemies of plant life, having to contend with the seasons, and work without regard to any limitation of hours or conditions, are the people who are entitled to every consideration this Government can extend to them.

While I do not see any great amount of good which can come to Florida or to the South, or to that region where the swamp and overflowed lands lie, from this measure ; our friends in the West want it, and there are some possibilities in connection with it which make me belieYe that it would be of some ad-

vantage in reclaiming lands, both by irrigation and by drain­age, and promoting settlement, and I am going to vote for the measure. ·

With regard t.o my colleague's amendment, I am not so sure but what section 803, if applied to reclamation by drainage, would help development in the Evergla<les, and whether you provide that 80 or 40 per cent of the excess lands shall be turned over and prices fixed by agreement with the Secretary of the Interior is not so very material. What I woulU. prefer would be to add, after the word " subjecting," the words " ex­cept in the case of reclamation by drainage," so as to leave out of the requirement set out in section 803 lands reclaimed by drainage. I do not believe you can make applicable to condi­tions in those regions that principle set .out in section 803, · whether you make it 80 per cent or 40 per cent, and what I would like to see, if it could be agreed upon, would be an amendment excepting reclamation by drainage from the provi­sions of that section. We have the bonds of the district. We have the taxing power back of the bonds. Under the district organization of the different States we need not furnish the money until the values are there upon which to issue the bonds. The bonds are put up with the Government and I do not see but what the Government is protected. While that principle has been found desirable in the West where the reclamation is by irrigation and has worked satisfactorily there, I can see under conditions such as we have in Florida that the difficulties would be almost insuperable if we attempted to follow that plan at all. I would much rather, if the Senator would agree, ex­cept reclamation by drainage.

l\lr. McNARY. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RANSDELL in the chair).

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

Mr. FLETCHER. I yield. Mr. McNARY. May I inquire of the Senator from Florida

the exact place in the proposed amendment where he would insert the language he has in mind?

Mr. FLETCHER. On page 3, in section 803, in line 12, after the word " subjected " insert the words " except ~n the case of reclamation by drainage." So that it would leave that provi­sion applicable to all other reclamation except that by drain­age, which would cover the reclamation with which we have to deal. If the Senator could see his way clear to accept that, I believe my colleague would be willing to have it instead of his amendment.

l\fr. TRAMMELL. I offered mY amendment, but I am agree­able to withdrawing it .. I would be very glad if the author of the pending provision would accept the amendment.

l\Ir. McNARY. I would like to inquire of the senior Senator from Florida concerning the proposed change. There would be no limitation upon the size of the farm unit in the case of reclamation by drainage. A project might be started by three individuals, each owning a thousand acres, which would be only in the interest of the private individual. The pill-pose, as I said to the Senator's colleague, is to permit the Secretary of the Interior to fix a practicable-sized farm unit, one that would sustain a family, in order to bring about the larger settlement of a given area, bringing more settlers from among the soldiers and encouraging intensified production on the farm. That is the reason for the 80 per cent provision. I think it contains much of merit, but under the Senator's proposition there would be no limitation at all in the case of acreage. I would very much prefer the amendment offered by the Senator's colleague, where there is a limitation of 40 per cent, than one without any limitation at all.

Mr. FLETCHER. I think under my amendment the restric­tion would apply everywhere to reclamation by drainage ex­cept as to the reservation of 80 per cent of the land in excess of the farms, no one of which can exceed 160 acres. The other provisions with reference to the size of the farm, the price, etc., would not be eliminated at all. The exception would ap­ply only to the 80 per cent of the excess lands. I had in mind particularly, as mentioned by my colleague, for instance, the whole of the Everglades, 4,000,000 acres, which are now in one district. I do not see how we could specify the size of the farms in that district: As I indicated awhile ago, the man who wants to grow vegetables would not want over 20 acres; the man who wants to grow fruit and vegetables would not want over 40 acres; the man who would grow sugar cane might want 100,000 acres. The man who would want to establish a cattle ranch would want 1,000 acres. I hardly see how we can fix upon the size of the farms within tha.t whole area of millions of acres of land.

l\lr. l\1cNA.IlY. I will say to the Senator from Florida that the definition of the farm unit is found on page 2, and the pur-

11854 OONGRESSION ~~L RECORD- SEN ATE. AUGUST 28,

pose of the limitation of area is to determine in each instance the number of acres in the farm unit. If I make ap­plication with the idea in mind of raising celery, :perhaps .5 acres would satisfy me, while my neighbor who would want to raise oranges would, of cour e, want more land. But there must be some limitation upon the acreage one can hold, other­wi e "the purpose of the bill is entirely destroyed. It is not the purpose to reclaim for a few large landholders. That is not the purpo e of the bill. That must come in another bill

l\fr. FLETCHER. I understand that, but can the Senator gi'rn any reason, for instance, in this vast area if an enterprise is started to produce sugar and 'build a sugar mill, why they . should be limited to 160 acres?

Mr. McNARY. Yes, it is very clear to me. Mr. FLETCHER. They could not accomplish anything with

tha t limitation. It would require a division of the lands in a drainage project into small holdings. To the extent that it would give a chance foT small 'Settlers and facilitate develop­ment by intensive operations with a few acres, it would be helpful. Tbe question in my mind is, Why limit the system in that wny? If we can accomplish the purpose the Senator ha in view and at the same time caver larger operations, why not do it?

1\Ir. McNARY. The land in its present -condition is abso­lutely worthless, as ·are thousands and millions of acres of idle la.OOs in the West. If a man can dispose of his texcess .acreage ancl make profitable the residue, he is a 'Very fortunate indi­vidual; he will 'have omething upon whieh he can ·pay taxes and produce for the national wealth. If the Senator's people would rather have their land remain in its present. condition, they have ·that privileo-e. If they wanrt to come in and dispose of the aCl' ge which they can not use at all, and make some of it profitable that they retain, and thus build up the com­mnnity by elling the balance, then the bill comes within the scope of that desire.

Mr. 1'."'ICHOLSON. 1\Ir. President, I shall appreciate it i1' Senators will refrain from interrupting me while I am briefly discussing tbe pending bill.

1\fr. President, 'the soldiers' adjusted compensati<>n bill was indorsed in the Republican platform of Colorado in 1'920 in the fo1lowing sta:tement:

We favoT the passage of the soldiers' adjusted compensation bill as already adopted by a RepubU-can House <of Representatives in the Sixty-sixth Congre , and now pending in the Senate, 'J;lroviding for liberal options for all ex-Rerrice men on a financial baSls which can be borne by the general public and which will not be seriously reflected in increa ed ta:rntion.

The pr-0 :sions of the bill now under discussion, Mr. Presi­dent, undoubtedly comply wlth the specifications as recited from the Republican platform in Colorado, in that the financial bur<1ens can be borne by the general pubUc without being seri­ously reflected in increased taxation.

The twenty-third general assembly of the Legislature of the State of Colorado, at a special session held as recently as April of this year adopted the foUowlng resolution:

Senate Joint Resolution 4. Be it n isol ved by t7ie Senate of the Twenty-third General Assembly

of t he Stute of Oolorndo (the House concurring), Th11t we regret and deplore the delal in the United States Senate in passing the adjusted com pensation bil for service men of the World Wa.r ; .and be it further

llesolt:ed, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Sen­ators from the State of Colorado and to the President o:t the United States.

·w11eu the call to arms came, Mr. President, we conscripted the young men of the Nation and called th m from their vari­ou occupations. With the exception of the young men who were attending our colleges and universities, all of those con­scripted were receiving compensation for their 1'!ervices far in exees of the $30 per month, the sum allowed them by the Government while in the service of th-e Army and Navy. But let us follow this $30 per month and determine how much of it was actually received by the soldier. There was deducted each month from this $30, $6.40 to pay for his war-risk in.­snrance; there was deducted $15 to apply on the allotment for the care of his dependents; out of the balanee of -$8.60, 75 per cent of the soldiers were obliged to pay 5 per month for the Liberty bonds for which they had sub cribed. S-0 that, as a matter of fact, the average cash reeeived by the soldier was slightly in excess of 3 per month. The service men who bought Liberty bonds at par, confronted by unemployment upon their return home, were compelled to sell them at a heavy lo s. Thoe who had remained at home and rolled up enormous profits by increased dividends on their im-ested capital, bought tb.ese bonds at the low figure, thereby profiting largely at the expense of the service men.

l\fr. President, I was i!urprised to b.ear the argument advanced on this floor a few days ago that this adju ted compensation ~ould be regarded in the light of a gratuity or as a reward for

patriotism. Why, may I ask, Mr. President, was the $30 per month granted to these men as payment for their services? Are tbese men now to understand that the $30 which was paid to them during the time they served in the Army or Navy is to be considered as a price put on their patriotism. or are they to be­lie-ve that this was a just recognition by the Government that they were entitled t-0 this compensation for their services? Will any fair-minded man say that if they were entitled to the $30 per month in the first place that they are not entitled to an adjust­ment of their compen ation now? If the former was ju tified, it is a very difficult matter for me to understand why the latter · is not.

1\fr. President, in sharp contrast with the inequitable basis of compensation which the Government provided for the defenders of the Nation is the -equitable provision which the Government made in conscripting railroad properties.

Tt was agreed that the railroads should receive an adjusted compensation which would equal the average yearly earnings for three years prior to their being taken over by the G<>vern­ment. Further protection was afforded the railroads by the Government in providing that the roads should be returned to their owners at the expiration of governmental operation in as good physical condition as when they were taken over. Thus the railroadB were protected by the Government against loss, both financial and physical, during the period of war or so long as the Government desired to operate them.

No question, Mr. President, has been raised to the settlement of claims arising under the E ch-Cummins Act, by which the railroads were made these guaranties, and these claims in the aggregate amount to more than $1,100,000,000. This amount would very nearly pay in cash the adjusted compensation pro­vided for in this bill.

Mr. President, no such guaranty of equitable compensation was made to those inducted into the military and naval service. Had these men likewise been guaranteed compensation at the average rate for the three years prior to the war, the amount now owed to them by the Gove1'Il.1Ilent would be far in exce s of the so-called adjusted compensation provided in the present bill.

During the war wages and pay of those not in the military or naval service were greatly increas d from time to time, while the labor of the service men was compensated for at the arbi­trary 1·ate fixed in th~ elective draft law.

Mr. President, in a statement covering personal income tax returns, baseQ. llpon the actual tax r-eturns made by individ­uals, the Bur-eau of Internal Revenue reports the total net in· come for 1916 to be slightly in ex{'ess of $6,000,000,000, while in 1918 the amount was nearly sixteen billions, or an increase of over 150 per cent. The Bureau of Internal Revenue further reports that in 1916 there were 437,000 per onal returns re­porting net income, while in 1918 the number had grown to 4,425,000, or ten times as many. Both the growth in the net income reported as well as the large increase in the number ot persons earning net incomes is substantial proof of the general increase in compensation which was paid during the war period of which the service men had no opportunity to take advantage.

Not only did civilian labor and service receive an adjusted compensation., Mr. Pre ident, but capital received exorbitant profits for its employment in activities chiefly growing out of war necessity. Great corporations, such as the United States Steel Corporation and the Standard Oil Co. and its subsidiaries, increased their earnings enormou 1y dnl'ing the war and were enabled to pay greatly increased dividends to their stock· holders.

The United States Steel Corporation in 1917 and 1918 earned a sum, in €Xcess of its normal dividend and interest require- . ment , large en-0ugh to pay the amount of adjusted compensa­tion provided m this bill if it were now paid in cash. Tho common stock of this corporation admittedly at one time had no value. A statement appearing in Moody's 1\Ianual shows that during the war period the average dividend earned on the oommon stock amounted to 40 per cent. Notwithstanding, Mr. Pre ident, the profiteering which these earning on the one­time worthless common stock would indicate, Judge Gary, the chairman of the board of directors of the United tates Steel Corporation, ngorously protest against the granting to the ex­service men the adjusted compensation provided in this bill and which in nowise is to be compared with the extraordinary earnings made by his eorporation at t~ expense of the Nation in her hour of greatest peril.

It should not be forgotten that the other steel companies profited to a similar degree.

l\Ir. WADSWORTH. Mr. President, would the Senntor ob­ject to answering a question at that point?

The PRESIDING -OFFICER (Air. KENDRICK in the chair). Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from New York?

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11855 l\Ir. NICHOLSON. Mr. President, I wish to be courteous-to

the Senator, but I requested when I began my remarks not to be interrupted until I had finished the main portion of my ad­cJress.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I recollect now the Senator's request and I beg his pardon.

Mr. ,_ nCHOLSON. Mr. President, the Standard Oil Co. and its sub~idiaries also profited enormously during the war period through the unconscionable increase in prices charged nut only tlle domestic eonsumer but tbe Government in satisfying its war requirements.

I do not deny, ~r. President, the right of capital to earn a fair return on its investment, but I protest when the heads of great industrial enterprises refu e to recognize the right of the service man to have an adjustment made in his compensation for s rvices rendered during the time their enormous · profits were being made. Their refusal to recognize the claims of the sen-ice man for an adjustment of his compensation seems to me to be especially unjust nnd the very height of selfishness when we remember, l\lr. President, that the labor or service of the retiU'ned soldier was and i his only capital.

Mr. President, the GoYernment's requirements for war ma­terial pro•ided under the cost-plus plan of contract were partly responsible for the vast fortunes thus created and for the swollen dividends thus paid. Employers did not resist requests for incTeased compensation by the workmen for the reason that their profits under the cost-plus plan would be greater after the increases were granted.

The Go"ernment, in the case of its own civilian employees, l\lr. President, recognized the justice of increased compensation when Congress voted an additional compensation of $240 per annum to Federal employees not receiving in excess of $2,500 per year. This equitable adjustment in compensation to Fed­eral employees is properly in effect to-day. This additional compensation of $20 per month amounts to two-thirds of the total compensation paid the service men. Are we, Mr. Presi­dent, to neglect this equitable adjustment in the compensation of the ser...-ice men when we have and are now paying the ad­juste<l compensation to the civilian employees of the Gov­ernment?

l\Ir. President, when the armistice was signed on r~ovember 11, 1918, our boys were gradually musteJ:ed out of the ervice and returned to their homes. \Vhere were the men who, when the boys were marching to the railroad stations to entrain for duty, lined the streets, waving flags and vowing that nothing was too good for crusaders in the cause of democracy?

Democracy and civilization are now saved, and with them the money bags of the profiteer, whether he was the unpatriotic profiteer who overcharged the Government for the goods he old or the workman who drew without shame the wages he

di<'I not earn. Mr. Pre ident, how pitiful, and yet how true it is, that a great

many of our men who had fought and suffered and bled for us r eturned to find their occupations gone, the industrial enter­pri e. requiring their services before their entrance into the war (']of.led down, or, if still operating, the po itions and places left by them when answering the call of the country filled by men inany of whom were successful in having them elves ex­empted from military service.

Upon demobilization and returning home, the ex-service men found the cost of living at its highest peak, and they were con­fronted by unemployment. And, :\fr. President, through the Jack of governmental preparation to meet their needs, over 1,000,000 e.."\'.:-service men at one time were unemployed, and this gave rise to the embarrassing spectacle of charitable agen­cie being called upon to tide the men over the crisis.

Mr. President, in striking contrast to the u·eatment meted out to our returned service men was the pTovision made by the British Go•ernment to take care of its returned soldiers imme­diately upon demobilization and during the period of unem­ployment.

All temporary officers received on demobilization a substan­tial acl<1itional compensation, which was intended to a sist them in returning to civil occupation. The- amount varied ac­cording to length of service and rank held. It was calculated at the rate of four months' pay for the first year of service and two months' pay for each subsequent year or part of a year.

The amount spent is estimated at about £30,000,000. A special war compensation varying from five to thirty-nine

pound according to rank and length of service during the war, was paid to some four and a half million men,

The amount spent is estimated at £82,000,000. Approxi­mately 4,000,000 men were granted four weeks' furlough on full pay and allowances as from date of dispersal to enable them to seek employment. ·

Tbe amount spent is estimated at about £40,00Q,OOO.

Plain clothes, or an allowance in lieu, were given to all men on demobilization.

The· amount spent is estimated at about £10,000,000. (a) During the demobilization period ex-soldiers were pr<r

Vidro with an out--0f-\vork donation policy, valid for a peri:od of one year from the date of· their demobilization, entitling them to out-of-work donation during unemployment for 26 weeks-subsejl_uently extended to 39 weeks.

(b) Subsequent to July 31, 1920, soldiers on discharge are credited with 90 contributions, for which Army funds pay £7 per man, and this entitled them to 15 weeks' benefit during unemployment after discharge.

It will be noted that the various advantages mentioned cost Great Britain approximately $800,000,000 at the present rate ot exchange.

I also wish to call attention, Mr. President, to the liberal treatment accorded by Canada to the men who were in her military service during the World War.

The actual cash compensation paid by Canada to her soldiers amounted to $170,000,000. The war-service period embraces, as in the case of the United Kingdom, 4 years 3 months and 7 days.

l\lr. President, in 191.7 the Canadian Government passed the soldier settlement act to assist returned soldiers in settling upon the land. The main provi ion of this aet granted ex­soldiers 160 acres of land and a maximum loan of $2,500 to assist irr equipping and operating his farm. There are under the provisions- of that act and amendatory acts thereto provi­sions to loan settlers purchasing land through the Canadian settlement board-

1. Four thousand five hundred dollars for the purchase of land.

2. Up to an amount of $2,000 for the purchase of live stock and other equipment.

3. Up to an amount of $1,000 for the erection of buildings and other improvements.

Ex-service men already owning agricultural lands are en­titled to a loan of $3,500 for the removal of encumbrances upon their farms. They are also allowed an additional loan of $3,000 for the purchase of live stock, implements, and improve­ments. The various classes of loans mentioned are received on amortization terms spread over a period of 8 to 25 years.

Over 66,000 men ha.ve applied for these farm advantages. More than 43,000 men have been qualified to receive them. 'I'he total loan to these 43,000 men is $83,884,210.61.

Mr. President, if Canada, a country with such limited finan­cial resources as compared with those of the United States, and which has borne a heavier burden by reason of the W4H, can thu extend to her ex-service men such equitable com­pensation, it is hard to understand the theory upon which the members of the " anvil chorus," who profiteered to such an extent during the war, can urge that our Government should neglect the duty which it owes to the veterans of the World War.

Mr. President, while we bave been neglecting the just obliga­tion we owe to the returned soldier, the various nations to whom we have loaned over $10,000,000,000 deferred the pay­ment of the interest on their loans. In the aggregate this in­terest amounts to over $1,500,000,000 and this money was avail­able to them to take care of their demobilized soldiers . . In ad­dition to the deferred interest payments, our Government, after the armistice, loaned to foreign nations $1,500,000,000 of the money resulting from the sale of Victory bonds and which was a surplus in our Treasury. This amount would have enabled us then and there to discharge in cash our obligation of ad­justed compensation to our returned ex-service men as provided by this bill. Thus, Mr. Pre ident, these countries who were borrowing from us were enabled to adjust the compensation ot their ex-service men at the expense of the ex-service men of the United States.

The gross debt of the United States in August, 19191 exceeded $26,500,000,000. On July 31, 1922, it had been reduced to ap­proximately $23,000,000,000, or an amount, in round numbers, of $3,600,000,000. How can the Secretary of the Treasury de­fend the position he is occupying in opposing the adjusted com­pensation bill on the ground of the financial stress of the Gov­ernment when it has been able to retire over $3,600,000,000 of public debt? This must represent an increase in revenue over expenditures. The Government has retired this substantial amount of public debt while at the same time neglecting a just compensation settlement, long deferred, to those who entered the defense of the Nation in its most critical hour.

l\1r. President, in the light of this fact regarding the debt liquidation of the Nation, object\on to this adjusted compensa~ tion on any financia l grounds must be regarded as an excuse rather than as a substantial reason.

11856 CO.i:TGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

During the last two fiscal years ending June 30, 1922, we re­ceived a net gain of nearly $1,000,000,000 of gold into the coun­try by excess importation, which has practically all found its way into the banking re enes of the Nation. After satisfying all legal requirements, the surplus gold held by the Federal reserve system on August 16, 1922, amounted to $1,695,000,000. This amount of gold would serve as the basis for an extension of credit of approximately $47,000,000,000, and U-is amount of credit does not include an additional amount which could be expended on the basis of reserves held by banks outside of the Federal reserve system.

It has been estimated by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. McCu~mER] that the present cash requirements for the year 19~3 to finance the adjusted compensation under the present bill will amount to no more than $78,000,000. It is not conceiv­able, 1\Ir. President, that such an amount would in any way inYOlYe an inflation of credit or produce a strain on the financial resources of the Nation at the present time. The Treasury has little difficulty in raising many times this amount. In fact, the in>est"ng public, with its surplus funds, would ab­sorb many times this amount, and would be glad to have the opportunity.

Mr. President, on Augu t 8 the Treasury Department an­nounced that $1,000,000,000 of Victory notes outstanding, which do not fall due until l\1ay, 1923, would be retired in December of this renr. To accomplish this funding operation the Treas­my Department has had no difficulty in disposing of Treasury notes, each offering being many times oversubscribed. This in­dica tes the ease with which the Government can obtain money in sufficient amount to meet any obligations which arise under the adjusted compensation bill.

l\Ir. President, I am oppo ed to the cancellation of any part of the debt owE>d to u by foreign countries. The debt owed to U1e L"nited .'tntes by foreign countries amounts in principal to more t lum $10,000,000,000. The amount of principal owed by the British GoYernrnent alone is in excess of $4,000,000,000. It ii' antidpate1J that the British Government, under the re­funtling operations now contemplated, will ask that the more thttn $600.000 000 of interest in arrears to April 15 and May 15 he funded with the principal, but that it will pay the interest from tho e dates in October and November, an amount of ap­proximately lOJ,000,000.

During the month of .July the net importations of gold into the United States exceeded $42,000,000, of which $38,000,000 came directly from England. This Ehipment of gold from Englund is regarded as the initial step in arranging for the payment of interest thi fall in an amount which alone would more than pay for the estimated coi;:t for the year 1923 under the ndju~ted compensation bill. No impairment of debt prin­cipa I is invol•ed iu this transaction. as the interest alone on this Ringle payment on the British debt will more than carry the <:ost.

Mr. President, from these facts with reference to the present status of our financial condition and the prospective revenue to the Government it is •ery apparent that no additional pro­vis:ons wiH have to be made to meet the cash obligations under this bill. No substantial increase in the tax burden will be nece. ary. This remoYes entirely one of the arguments which was formerly made and is now selfishly adhered to by the opponents of this bill who seek to protect their enormous war profits.

Will anyone say, Mr. President, that if we bad been forced to sacrifice 1,000,000 American lives in the World War we would have withdrawn from the conflict? Will anyone say that if the war bad lasted one, two, or three rears more we would have failed to find the resources to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion? Yet there are those who say that we can not find the funds with which to pay this adjusted com­pensation to the defenders of the Nat~on.

It is estimated that during the time these men were train­ing in the cantonments or fighting valiantly for us on the battle line the Nation's wealth increased by some $50,000,-000,000. During this same time the Nation's debt had increased by some $25,000,000.000. On their discharge from military service these men who were denied any opportunity to par­ticipate in this increase in the country's wealth found them­selves confronted by an inescapable burden of taxation arising from the increase in the public debt from $10 per capita to $228 in 1920. As a matter of equity, this adjusted compensa­tion is made more necessary because of these facts.

Mr. President, the Congress compensated the railroad com­panies by guaranteeing pre-war earnings, and protected the properties from physical impairmt"nt to the extent of $1,100,-000,000. Contractors who supplied ships and other war equip-

ment were paid a 10 per cent profit, and the Government has settled and is settling contractors' claims for losses sustained in the amount of millions. The Congress enacted the war minerals relief bill, under w)lich payment bas been and is being made for losses sustained by those who produced war essential minerals. To its civilian employees the Government is paying an adjusted compensation of $240 per annum. The total of this additional compensation for the entire period dur­ing which it has been in effect amounts to $840 for each em­ployee, which, if paid to the 4,000,000 ex-service men, would amount to $3,360,000,000, or more than double the amount of compensation provided for in the present bill if paid in cash.

Mr. President, when the selective service bill was before this body I was not a l\fember of it; but I can not understand why any l\Iember of this body who voted for the selective service bill, and also voted to pay those engaged in every kind of war activity an increased compensation, and protected them from every kind of loss, can now oppose the granting of this ad.iusted compensation to our ex-service men. The Congress should not longer delay the discharge of this just obligation to the ex­service men, who we must admit were the key men in winning the war.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, when the armistice was signed, and the work of repatriation of our sold iers was in progress, the public mind, moved by a sense of gratitude for the splendid work they had accomplished, was directed quite generally into the devising of plans by which the gratitude of the Nation might be exhibited toward them. In that state of mind it was quite natural that some plan of land settlement should have become uppermost in the thought of those who were directing attention to it.

After the CiYil War the ,eterans of both armies-both the Confederate and the Union armies-practically stampeded the vacant lands of the West, and were the chief factor iu- the settlement of the regions west of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. It was realized, however, that all of the available lands capable of tHlage without reclamation had been appro­priated, and accordingly it was recognized that some plan of reclamation should form a feature of the land-settlement project for the benefit of the soldiers.

It will be recalled that the then Secretary of the Interior, the late Franklin K. Lane, wa foremost in calling public atten­tion to the wisdom of this land-settlement plan for the return­ing soldiers. He devoted his abilities to arou ing public senti­ment in favor of a project of that character. He circularizett the soldiers themsel•es and learne<l by ilirect communication with them of the great desire on the part of vast numbers of these soldiers to avail themselves of ome wise land-settlement plan. He secured from the Congress of the United States an appropriation of $100,000 for the purpose of investigating the lands available for reclamation and for settlement; and in sub­mitting a very elaborate report tlrnt he made concerning that subject he said to the Congress of the United States as follows :

Herewith I tran mit a report upon the development of the unusetl lanrls of the country, made under the authority of the last Congress.

This report in much detail gives the possible projects which arc available in the various States. The field has not been fully covered, because the appropriation made was not tmfficient to go further. We have, however, gone far enough to demonstrate that in most of tb1~ States-North, South, and West-there are great bodies of unu ed lands which with drainage or clearing can be made available at a comparatively small co t for farm .

This work bas been carried on in the pro pect that the Congress would see fit to give to our returned soldiers and , ailors an opportunity to go upon these lands under proper guidance and convert them into home farms for themselves. There are one or more bills pending before Con17ress having this end in view. It is a work that must, in my opimon, be undertaken soon if we are to maintain our position as a self-supporting people. And surely no other group deserves this oppor­tunity more than the soldiers in the late war. I would not urge this as an exclusive method of stimulating and recognizing the ambition of our soldieM, but I believe it to be one method that carries good and no harm to the country and to the men themselves.

If the objection is raised that the Federal finances will not support the drain proP,?sed. I beg to advise that I am authoritative!y informed that there w1ll be no difficulty in selling $500,000,000 in Government 3~ per cent nontaxable bonds, which would be ufficient to cover the expenditures contemplated under the , moot-1\fondell bill. This would be in the nature of a reimbursable fund, the whole being repaid over a long period by the farm owners.

Mr. President, from that time down to this the land-settle­ment feature has. I believe, been an essential part of practically every bill providing adju ted compensation for the soldiers of the late war.

I can not understand upon what tlleory the Finance Com­mittee of the Senate should have <leemed it wise to excise that feature entirely from the measure before us. We spent $100,000 in carrying on an in,·estigation into the availability of lands for a land-settlement scheme, and tben the project was sum­marily dismissed without any expla1fation whatever, so far as I

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SE.r:r .A.TE .. 11857 ba ,-e been able to di ·cover. To IDY mind it ought to be a redeeming feature of the measure, even to those who are most strenuously oJ)posed to it in its general aspects. ·

It is suggested, however, as it seems to me rather without force that this measure now offered as ·an amendment to the pemllno- bill bas no pla.ce :upon it because it is not connected mth th-e direct object of the bill. To my mind it is particu­larly appropriate here. The best thought that hus been given to bis ubject has resulted in the measure wllich is now ten­dered as an amendment to the pending bill. ;rt gives io the soldier a very decided and a very substantial advantage. Wi~h respect to all Government lands which may be included within n project he has the right over and -above anybody e~ to enter tho e lands. With respect to all other lands withm a project held in private ownership, -over and above such an amount as shall be considered by the Secretary rof the Inte­rior as adequate to the support of a family, and not to exc~ed 160 acres, he has a preference right to purchase, at the price at which the lands are now worth, before they shall be re­claimed adding thereto only the actual cost to the Government of the ~eclamation of the land. That this is a most substan­tial advantage will be recognized when we realize that upon every opening of Government lands in the West there is always a rush to secure the lands, and ordinarily it is n~e~ry to re ort to some lottery scheme or ether :plan of distributing the choices by chance.

Moreover these reclamation projects, both by irrigation and by drainag~, are very often carried <>n by private ~terprise, with the expectation that when the lands are reclalllled they will be sold at a very substantial profit to tlrose who undertake their reclamation and they a:re ordinarily i:mt upon the market at a very great advance upon -the price. The soldier, thus given an opportunity to acquire these lands at their actual cos~ to the Government, is ,given, as it .seems to me, a very decided ad-vantage and benefit.

I feel some considerable regret that any opposition to this plan is \oiced from this side of the Chambe:t, -and particularly from the South, where I was of the opinion that the ;preject of reclaiming the swamp lands would be regarded as an espe­cially inviting and al1uring one. I can very well understand the opposition that has been voiced to the -provision of the l:>ill to which the Senator from Florida ·desires to make an amend­ment. It is desired that the lands to be reclaimed might be disposed Gf in very large tracts, of possibJy 500 o.r 1,000 or ev~n 10,000 acres, for the culture of sugar cane, or as cattle ranches or something of that kind. Of course, to thuse who look to 'tb.e disposition of lands in that way no particular en­couragement can be found in this bill. That idea is entirety inconsistent with the fundamental idea up.on which this amend­ment is framed; that is, to have the Government aid in the reclamation of these ·waste lands, in order that they might be uh1.ized and appropriated by actual settlexs in sm 11 ure-as, and thus become homes for those who enjoy the benefit of 'the Gov­ernment in this regard. That being tlle case, it would be en­tirely inconsistent with the fun-Oament:al idea of the bip. 1:o leave the area which could be -appropri.ated by any one ind1-

idual, or which cOtild become the property of any one indi­vidual, unlimited in amount.

It was suggested in · the course of the discussion that three individuals owning 5,000 acres of land each could constitute themselves into an irrigation district comprising 15,000 acres, and thus secure the aid of the Govemment as provided in this bill. But we could easily conceive that one man ·owning the entire 15,000 _acres would constitute himself an irrigation <;tis­trict and secure the benefit of tllis act, and baVing improved the land seil the land out at such figure as -was satisfactory· to himself. But it is not contemplated that the Government of the United States should get in for the purpose of aiding in the exploitation of any such real estate scheme, and there­fore it must be provided, if the fundamental idea is to be car­ried out, that those who own lands within a district in ex­cess ef the am<mnt deemed sufficient for the sUJ)port o:{'. a single family should agree to sell those lands at a prke to be ,agreed upon beforehand between them, the Secretary of the Intedor, and tbe actual settlers upon the lands.

That idea has been dominant in this plan of reclamation at flll times, even from the time the reclamation act was passed, in 1902, down to this day. But strangely I ob erve that the Senator from Florida himself .at one time embraced this idea, and incorporated it in a bill which he introduced for the con­sideration of the Senate.

I refer to the senior Senator fJ:o.m Florida [Mr. FLETCHER], who is not 1n the Chamber now, but I dil'ect the attention of his colleague to section 11 of Senate bill 3942,, introduced in th~ Sixty-sixth Congress by tne senior Senator from !lorrna

[l\Ir. FLETCKERl. This was a plan for ~ Tational and State cooperation in the .reclamation of waste lands, the general idea being quite in harmony with that of the amendment now before the Senate. -section 11 reads us follows :

SEC. 11. That owners of land as herein provided, situated in anJ' dlsttict, who may desire to take advantage of the provisions of t~s act, shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary of the lnter.1or to sell, within a period not to exceed 10 years from the completion of the works of such district or such portions of such works as pm· vide for the reclamation of such lands, .all 4ll"eas of f.luch land iu. excess of such maximum -area as he may, in bis discretion, establish for such district; such maximum area, however, not to exceed 160 acres when, 1n h'.is opinion, such land ls most suitable for agriculture, nor 640 acres when, in hia opinion, -such land is most suitable fol' animal husbandry ; and such excess areas shall be sold in farms of such size as will~ in .the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, up­port a family in comfort, at such prices and on such terms of payment as are providoo in ·such agreement ; and such terms of payment shall provide that no transfer, assignment, m.-0rtgage, or lease made during a period of five years from "the date of sale shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, unless full payment of the purchase price of such land shall have been made. Such agreements shall be execufod by the owners of not less tlran 90 per cent of the total area of all holdings within such district which exceed the limits so established by the Secretary of the Interior before such project hall be finally approv~d by him. Such agreements shall confer an irrevo­cable -power of attorney uiron the Secretary of the Interior to sell such land through such agency as .he may designate, in pursuance of the terms thereof, whenever he may deem it for the best interests of the project to e-fl'ect such sale, and to sell any of such land remaining un&old a'fter the m:piration of .such 11) years at such price as tt will bring at public auction.

I do not believe that anyone can controvert the wisdom of the policy expressed in the section of the amendment under consideration. Nor do I believe that "the amendment ought to have the approval of the Senate unless the area which one man ma-y hold within a project is limited as indicated therein. In­deed, I believe that if any amendment of that provision is to be made at all, the amendment ought to be made to make it conform to the views which were entertained by the Senator from Florida in 1920, by increasing the amount from 80 per cent to 90 per cent, rather than reducing it, as now suggested, to 40 per cent, or any a:mount less than 80 per cent.

I am happy to observe that thus far, at least, in the discus­sion of this matt-er, no word has been uttered against the wisdom of the policy of the reclamation of the arid lands of the West. That policy, I believe, has vindicated itself from every point of view, until even the prejudices which were onc-e harbored with respect to it have all but disappeared. However, there appeared in one of the local _papers about 10 clays ago an article concerning the reclamation projects carried on by the Government, which is so un'fair in its character and so mis­leading in its nature that I feel impelled to devote a little attention to it.

It was suggesten in that connection-and the same idea has been advanced on the floor of the Senate from time to time­that the Government has ah·eady eX'pended on the e reclama­tion projects "$132,000,000, and that during a period of 20 years but $13,000,000 of that has been rettrrned to the Govern­ment. It is then added that it was contemplated in the be-. ginning, at the time the act was pas ed in 1902, that the entire amount should be returned to the Government in 10 years, and that now 20 years have already passed since 1902, when the law was enacted, and that during that entire period of 20 years but -$13,<JOO,OOO, 10 per cent of the total amount expended, has be-en returned.

How unfair that is will a.pp-ear at a glan-ce to those w.ho at­tend to the matter. Tbe act was indeed passed in the year 1902, and it provided that the amount which could be expended by the Government for the construction of any reclamation project hould be returned to the Government by the owner or settler upon the 1and in 10 equal annua1 installments.

But, Mr. President, it was necessary at the 9utset to organ­ize the Reclamation Serviee. It was necessary to make a survey of the entire country wifh a view to ascertain what particular project was possible and what was not, and eventually to de­cide upon the -project or projects whi-ch were to be undertaken. Of oeourse that consumed some years before a decisi-on 'vas eventually made and work was begun upon any project at all. Now, Mr. Presi<lent, it was never contemplated that the settl-er or the landowner should begin to pay for the construction before the construction was completed -0r before it was be711n. It was contlemplated that when he got the water he llould tben lYe able to raise crops, and out of the crops thus rai.;:f>cl he should pay back to the Government in 10 annual payments the ameunt expended. So that the great works were under­taken.

In the next place the amount of money available for the prose­cution P()f the projects iWas limited. There was no money avail­able, ,exeept a- .loan of .$20,000,000 made by the Government, except as money should come in from the sale of public lands,

11858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

all of those moneys going into the fund ; and no more was available for the prosecution of the work than was thus coming into the fund from year to year. ·

l\Ir. JONES of Washington. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KENDRICK in the chair).

Does the Senator from Montana yield to the Senator from Washington?

l\lr. WALSH of Montana. I yield. Mr. JONES of Washington. Will the Senator permit me, be­

fore he gets too far away from his suggestion with reference to the fixing of the amount that should be paid, to add that the amount which the settler would have to pay could not be deterrnine<l until the project was completed?

Mr. ·w ALSH of Mohtana. It was my purpose, of course, to refer to that. I want to endeavor at the outset to impress 1\fembers of the Senate who follow me with the idea that this was in the natnre of a stupendous undertaking. Nothing like it, nothing of any such magnitude, had ever been undertaken before in this country. Our engineers were unfamiliar with the conduct of these great enterprises. It should be borne in mind that even before the act was passed in 1902 most, if not all, of the opportunities to irrigate land by means of cheaply con­RtructPd works had already been embraced, and it was only by the construction of works covering great areas and involv­ing huge engineering enterprises that it was possible to work at all. Some of the enterprises were among the great engineer­ing feats of the world. They involved the building of unusually high dams, two of them the Arrowrock of Boise project, Idaho, ~md the Shoshone of the Shoshone project, Wyoming, are the highest in the world. In addition, the Elephant Butte Dam of the Rio Grande project, New Mexico; the Jl,oosevelt Dam of the Salt Itiver project, Arizona; the Pathfinder Dam of the North Platte project, Wyoming~ Belle Fourche Dam of the Belle Fourche project. South Dakota ; and the Lahontan Dam of Newlands project, Ne>ada, are among the largest structures of their kinrl. Besides this, tbe service has constructed Gunnison TunnC'l , the longest tunnel in the world used for conveying irri­gntiou water, being 60 miles long. In addition, the service bas built in connection with its reclamation projects other notable tunnels both n.s to length and size. Among them may be · named lhp ~tra.wberry Tunnel in Utah. more than 3i miles in length, feeding the Strawberry Valley project, Utah; the Corbett Tun­nel. of the Shoshone project in Wyoming, 3!- miles long; besides n number of others from three-quarters of a mile to nearly 1! miles in length. For the conveyance of water to the land, about 500 miles of canal of unusual size, besides thousands of miles of canals forming part of the distribution system, have been built. the total length of canals constructed being 13,400 miles. For the carrying out of works of such magnitude many years of time must be allowed.

'Ve were ohliged to allow much time, and it was not until the ~~ear 1913 when any of these projects were completed. I shnll refpr to that directly.

Now. Mr. Presirlent, it was provirlect. in the law that the cost of the construction of the projects sboulcl be apportioned to the land, which were capable of being irrigated by them, which were to pay proportionately for the construction. Manifestly it wns impo ·sible to dPtermine bow much should be paid by any parti ular tract of land until the entire cost of construction was ascerW.ined. In other words, it was impo ible to tell how much ~he annual installment!:; should be until the project was actually completed. As I said the projects were not com­pleted until in comparatively recent years. The following table give the elates: Boise, Idaho---------------------------------------------- 1917 Carlsbad, N. ~eX------------------------------------------ 1919 Iluntley, ~Iont-------------------------------------------- 1918 Minidoka, Idaho (2 divi ions>------------------------------ 1916 North Platte, Nebr. (1 division>---------------------------- 1915 Okanogan, \Vash------------------------------------------ 1917 Salt River, Ariz------------------------------------------- 1917 ~hosbone. \Vyo. (1 division>-------------------------------- 1918 Uncompahgre, Colo. (but by contract first payment becomes due

D ec. 1. 1923) ---- - -------------------------------------- 1918 Yakima, \Vash. (2 divisions>---------------------------- 1913-1917 Yuma, Ariz----------------------------------------------- 1918

So that, a will be ob ·er\ed, it was impossible to determine how much hoult1 be paid, for instance, by tbe Yakin1a, Wash., dh·isiou until 1913, an<l impossible to determine how much should Le paid by each acre of land under the Boise, Idaho, project until 1917. Accordingly no payments became due on any of the project until they were completed at the dates ''"hieh I ha>e in<liC'ated. Then it was determined and the pay­ments theu , and then only, were !)egun. So that instead of the amonnt.:- which have heen returned having been returned dur­i11g the past 20 yenr~. the amounts as a matter of fact have been returned chiefly ince 1915, no project antedating that e:x:-

cept one division of the Yakima, Wash., project, which was completed in 1913.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. l\Ir. President, will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?

l\1r. WALSH of Montana. Certainly. l\fr. U:l\TDERWOOD. Was not the delay also caused to some

extent by the enactments of Congress providing that in some particular cases payments were postponed?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Those are very recent. That has only occurred in >ery recent years.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That was caused by tbe action of Con­gress and uot by the original plans.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Yes; that was cau ed by the action of Congress, and that was, by reason of the tlepressed condition of agriculture generally throughout the country, only during the last two years. Now, Mr. President, let us see, when the payments became due, how well those from whom payments were due responded. I have here the last number of the Reclamation Record, for the month of July, 1922, containing a table showing the repayments made by the variou project arranged according to the percentage paid of construction charges due. I shall ask leave to print the table in the RECORD; but I invite attention to the fact, as disclosed thereby, that in the case of the Orland, Calif., project every dollar of it that is due has been paid. The payments are 100 per cent. In the Klamath, Oregon-California, project the payments are 99.2 per cent of the amount due. In the case of the Newlands project the payments are 95.6 per cent of everything that is due. In the case of the Umatilla, Oreg., project 95.6 per cent has been paid. In the case of the Yakima, Wash., project 94.5 per cent. In the case of the Huntley, l\font., project 93.8 per cent. Bear in mind that in view of the terrific losses to which the farmers all over the country have been subjected during the last few years. I forebear rending further from the table, but the fact as a whole will be found therefrom. I ask permission to in· elude the table in the ltECORD without reading.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the REconn, as follows :

Repayments arranged acco-rding to per cent pa·kt of constn1ctio1i charges due.

Project. Construction Repay-charges due. ments.

1. Orland, California ... _ .......... _ ........ . 2. Klamath, Oregon-California ... __ ...... __ _ 3. Newlands, Nevada ..................... . 4. Umatilla, Oregon .. _ ...... ....•.......... 5. Yakima, Washington. .. _ ................ . 6. Huntley1 ~fonta.na ..... ·.· ........... _ .... . 7. Yuma, anzona-Califorma. __ ... _ ..... _ .. . 8. Okanogan, Washington ................ .. 9. Minidoka, Idaho ............. _ ......... _._.

10. Sun River1 _Montan~· · -···-·············-ll. Carlsbad, New Mexico ........ . .......... . 12. Strawberry Valley, Utah .......•.•...... 13. Shoshone, Wyoming .. __ ._ ... __ .. _ ..•.. _. 14. Boise, Idaho .......................•..... 15. North Platte, Nebraska-Wyoming ........ . 16. Belle .Fourche, South Dakota._ .. _ .... _._._ 17. Salt River, Arizona .......... ······--···· 18. Lower Yellowstone, Montana-North Da-

kota .................................... . 19. Grand Valley, Colorado ................ . 20. Uncompahgre, Colorado .............. _ .. _. 21. King Hill, Idaho. - ........... __ .... __ .... . 22. Milk River, Montana .................. .. 23. Rio Grande, New Me:xico·Texas ........ . 2!. rorth Dakota pumping, North Dakota ..

$168, 700 $16 '700 479,600 475,900 506,400 4 4,400 315,000 301,200

2,902,400 2, 743,400 365, 700 343, ()()() 8&5,500 820, 700 43,600 40,200

2,570, 500 2,352, 900 148,800 134,600 364,400 319,200 355,800 309,800 684,800 578,300

1,307,500 1,099,400 1,900, 100 1,~,Foo 631,500 1,219,900 609:000-

141,log 141,100 0

0 0 76, 700 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1~~~~~•~~~~-1

Total. •...•..•..•....•••.....•.••••.•• 15,0-18,000 212, 20,300

Per rent paid.

100.0 99. 2 95.6 95.6 M.5 93.8 92. 7 92.2 91.5 00.4 87.6 R7.1 8!.4 8!. l 77.8 72.2 50.0

·····-···o 0 0 0 0 0 ---

85.2

i Accrued and unpaid charges ranceled under contracts with irrigation districts; payment on construction c>harges to begin again in March, 1924.

2 Estimated at $13,000,000 on June 30, 192'l.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I might adq that during the yenr 1916, on all the projects, the amount paid was 88.6 per cent of the amount which was then due. In 1917 the payments were 91.9 per cent; in 1918, 92.3 per cent ; in 1919, 93.5 per cent; in 1920, 95.2 per cent; in 1921, 89.3 per cent; and in 1922, 85.9 per cent. I think the farmers upon the irrigation projects, considering the disaster which overcame agriculture of the country from one end to the other, have done so well ns to bE'! entitled to much commenrlation from the Congre s of the United States for having met their payments to the extent of 85 per cent of the amount that was due. I dare say there is not a line of business which during the last two year can show pay­ment so near the amount that they were entitled to expect.

Now, another thing in connection with this matter. It is pointed out in this connection that during the Inst 10 years crops haYe been raised under these various irrigation projects

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11859 to the amount of $426,000,000. That, it will be observed, is nearly three times the entire amount that has been expended by the Government in the development of the various projects. But that does not tell the whole story. It is shown most vividly by the diagram which is suspended from the wall of this Oham­b r. There are di closed the great communities that have been built up, thriving citie · that have been developed which con­sume enormous quantities of the products of the eastern and mid.die sections of the country, as well as of the South. So that the benefit of the development is not by any means confined to the localitie in which the projects are found, but extend throughout the entire country.

Bnt. l\1r. President, it is said, notwithstanding the facts, that tl;e payment has been the meager sum of $13,000,000. As poi11ted out the payments are being made substantially as fast a . they become due. as fast as they are required to be made under the laws of Oongress. It is a matter of gratification thn t it is o and that the produce is so great. But quite in­con:-<istently with this it is pointed out in the article to which reference has been made that it is insisted that the return from these projects i relatively inadequate. It is conceded that the average return per acre from the lands under the project i of a •alue of something more than $42 per acre. while the awrage throughout the country at large is not to exceed $17 per acre. But it is said that as a matter of fact the average is raised by reason of the excee<lingly high pro­ducti•eness of the Okanogan and Yakima projects in the ..._'tate of Washington, where fruit culture is carried on •ery profitably. That is undoubtedly true, as these two projects return products of the value of $116 per acre in tbe one case and something more than that in the other.

::\fr. WATSON of Georgia. I did not catch the first figures the Senator ga•e as to the value of the products. Will he re­pent those figures'?

.Jlr. WALSH of Montana. The total for 10 years was $-126,-000.000. During the period that the $132,000,000 was expended by the Government, the projects returned products of the value of $426,000,000. But if the two Washington projects are ex­cluded from the computation, the average yield per acre of the lan<ls under these projects is something over $32, almost twice as much as the average yield for the country at large.

Mr. JONES of Washington. l\fr. President--:\'Cr. WALSH of Montana. I yield to the Senator from

Wahington. Mr. JONES of Washington. I would suggest that in the

avern(l'e of the country at large are included the fruit area of other sections of the country.

l\fr. WALSH ·of l\Iontana. Undoubtedly. A very unfair com­parison is made with the yield per acre in the State of Oon­necticut and, possibly, in the State of New Jersey; but it is realized, or it ought to M realized, on all lands that agri­culture in those States consists very largely of truck farming, the yield of which ought to run to $300 or $400 per acre in order to be profitable at all, considering the high rental that is paid and the labor co t in the production of crops of that character.

The work, Mr. President, which is carried on by the Govern­ment in the construction of reclamation projects is one which doe great honor to our country·. It is a policy which I be­lieve is thoroughly approved by the public sentiment of the entire country as expre1sed from time to time by our leading public men, including the successive Presidents of the United State . It would be unfortunate if, through any misleading statements with respect to it, any hesitation should be exhibited toward the -continuance of this policy, and particularly, Mr. Pre. ident, it seems to me it would be singularly unfortunate if we forgot this very appropriate time to give the appro•al of Congre s to it in connection with the measure that is now before us. I belieTe that the gratitude of the people of the Nation could be exhibited to the deserving soldiers in no better wBy than to make provision for the reclamation of waste lands anrl giving them the :first opportunity to acquire them as pro­vided in the amendment teudere<l by the Senator from Oregon [l\fr. McNARY].

l\Ir. RANSDELL obtained the floor. Mr. OURTIS. Will the Renator yield while I submit a re­

quest for unanimous consent? ~Ir. RANSDELL. I am <•lad to yield to the Senator for that

purpo ~e.

l\Ir. OlJRTIS. I a:;:k unanimous consent that wllen the Senate conclude:-: its busine to-day it take a recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Mr. WAD:WOHTH. Let me ask the Senator if it is con­templated to attempt to holU the Senate here this evening?

Mr. OURTIS. There is a desu·e to conclude as much of the debate as possible to-day, and it was hoped that Senators might remain here a little after 6 o'clock and dispose of as many amendments as possible.

Mr . . WADSWORTH. I have no objection to taking a recess as suggested by the Senator from Karn;;as, but I had hoped that Senators in charge of the pending bill would not attempt to keep the Senate here beyond the hour of 6.30.

Mr. OURTIS. I shall later on have a consultation with the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. McOUMBER] who has charae of the pending bill.

The PRESIDING OFFIOER. The Senator from Kansas asks unanimous consent that when the Senate concludes its session to-day it take a recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow. Is there objection'? The Ohair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. TRAMMELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield for a moment before he begins to address the Senate'? I do not desire to interfere with his speech.

Mr. RANSDELL. I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.

l\fr. TRAMMELL. I sent to the desk a little while ago a proposed amendment to the pending bill. I desire to withdraw that and I now send to the desk an amendment covering the same question, and ask that it be read prior to the remarks of the Senator fro;m Louisiana.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read as requested.

The ASSISTANT SECRETARY. On page 3 of the printed amend­ment of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. McNARY], in line 15, after the word " agreements," it is proposed to insert the fol­lowing:

Provided, That in his discretion the Secretary may require not ex­ceeding 50 per cent of the excess lapds within the project to be sub­jected to disposal by authority of the Secretary to settlers.

Mr. RAl'l'SDELL. Mr. President and Senators, I ham given careful consideration to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. McNARY], and I wish to say that I favor it unqualifiedly. I belie\e it is a very wise measure which he suggests, and I sincerely hope that it will be accepted by the Senate and become a part of the adjusted compensation bill. I strongly favor this bill and believe it would be greatly strengthened if the amendment of the Senator from Oregon should be made a part of it.

The amendment proposed by the Senator from Oregon would assi t in pro•iding farms for the soldiers as contemplated by the adjusted compensation bill. Unfortunately, we have no public lands of whicll the soldiers could get possession if they desired to do so. The amendment of the Senator from Oregon would provide lands, and the most . valuable lands in this coun­try, for when the arid lands of the West are reclaimed by irrigation and the wet lands of various sections are reclaimed by drainage they will be just as productive as are any lands in the Union; and the soldiers ought to itake possession of goou lands only; they ought not to be placed on any but very fertile and productirn lands.

Mr. President, I doubt if Senators, unless they have looked very carefully into this matter, especially the Senators from the South, are aware of the wonderful pos ibilities of this measure for the reclamation of vast areas in their own States. Permit me to call to their attention a few figures showing, by States, the areas of arid and wet lands in the Union susceptible of reclamation which have been prepared by the Reclamation Service. I shall summarize and not bore the Senate with many details. I find that, according to the Reclamation Serv­ice, the wet lands of the United States aggregate a little over 94,000,000 acres. Of that 94 000,000 acres, 56,825,000 are ln the Southern States. In other words, sir, a little over three­fifths of all the wet land of the United States lie in the South.

Those lands are located about as follows: In Florida. 19,-000,poo acres; in Georgia, 2,700,000 acres ; in Arkan as, 3,500,. 000 acres; in Louisiana, 10,200,000 acres; in Mississippi, 5,750( 000 acres; in North Oarolina, 2,750,000 acres; in South Caro linn. 3,125.000 acres; in Tennessee. 1,000.000 acres; in Texat 8,000.000 acres; and in Virginia 800,000 acres, or a total, Jet rn, repeat, in the South of 56,825 000 acres. That is a Yery lar~ area.

l\lr. President, f have always been immensely proud of ~ own State; it is a vast area, but it contains only 30,000,oOO acres, while the wet lands of the South alone are nearly double the total area of the entire State of Louisiana.

Mr. SI~IMONS. Mr. President--Mr. RANSDELL. I yield to the Senator from Nortll Carolina. Mr. SIMMONS. I simply wish to aRk the Senator if t11e fig-

ures he has given embrace all of the " ·et and overflowed lands

•

•

11860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

of the South or on1y those portions of such lands in that region which are pos ible of development by drainage?

Mr. RANSDELL. These figures were prepared by the Recla­mation Service, but I will say to the Senator from North Caro­lina that, as I understand them, they embrace those portions of the wet lands of the South which are susceptible of reclama­tion. ju t as the same table, I will say to the Senator, gives the arid lands as aggreaating 24,450,000 acres. Of course, the Senator and all of us know that if the arid lands of the entire 'Vest were included they would amount to a great deal more than 24,450,000 acres; but, as I tmderstand it, the Reclama­tion Service in giving these figures state that there are some­thing over twenty-four and a half million acres in the West which are su ceptible of reclamation by placing water upon them, and in stating 94,000,000 acres as being the area of the wet lands in the entire Union, they mean there are that many acres which are susceptible of reclamation by proper drainage. Does that answer the Senator's question?

Mr. SIMMONS. That answers the question which I asked the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. RAN SD ELL. Mr. President, these figures show that the amendment of the Senator from Oregon contemplates something very large ; it is colossal. The amendment provides for lending the credit of the Government to the extent of 350,000,000. Of course, sir, if we reclaim all of those lands out West, ancl in the North, and the East, and the South, $350,000,000 would not begin to suffice, but it will make a little start. I imagine it would cost ten times as much to reclaim all these arid and wet lands.

This money is to be returned to the Government; it is not to be wasted or thrown away; but is to be carefully invested under the direction and control of the Interior Depai1:ment. It is to be expended during a series of years, and every dollar of it is to come back to the Government. The reclamation cost of reclaiming each acre is to be added to every project, and when the lands are sold the cost thereof, including interest up to the elate of the sale, 1s to be .added to their cost.

In my judgment, sir, it is a wonderfully good business propo­sition. It simply means that the Government is lending its credit for the purpose of developing the waste places of the Nation. ..Away out West ther~ are many arid lands which are now utterly worthless ; and so to a considerable extent in the northern portion of the Mississippi Valley, all along the Atlantic coast, on the lower Mississippi, and on the coast of Texas, where alQne there ru·e 8,000,000 acres of lands needing drainage; there are vast areas which are worse than valuele now, but when improved, sir, as those lands will one day be improved, they will be as fertile and productive as any section of our country.

This is a wise provision, sir. It is an extension, in my judg­ment, of the reclamation act of 1902. I heartily indorse every­thing which has been said by Senators here who have spoken about the beneficent features of that act. When it was before Congress 20 years ago I spoke in favor of it and did all I could to secure its passage. I think it has done a great deal of good; I think it is going to do a great deal m01-e good ; and I should like, Mr. President, to ee the great benefits of the reclamation act as it has been aJ)plled to the West extended so as to become the reclamation act not of the West alone but of A:merica, taking in the wet lands as well as the arid lands.

Mr. President, there is no difference in principle between placing water on lands in order to make them produce when they have not enough moisture, a:nd taking the water off land when it has more moisture than will permit it to produce. The two are exactly parallel-putting the water on land and taking the water off.

I always sympathized with the people out West who have no water for their lands, for I live on the banks of the mighty Missi sippi, and unfortunately I have many times seen too much water down in that section. I have seen that river w)len it was 40 miles wide, from the hills on the east side to the high­lands on the west, before we had great levees to protect our co1mtry as we have now. "A fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind"; and I was anxious, sir, to have some of the water that flowed down there on my section held back in the west, if pos­sible, and used to irrigate the lands out there that needed it. However, the l\Iissi sippi River flood problems have no co.nnec­tion with his reclamation amendment; its leYees do not come in this bill in any way at all, and I have merely referred to them in passing; but I should like very much to have the general principles of the original reclamation act applied to Louisiana.

We have over 10,000,000 acre of this ~o-called wet land in I,oui. iana according to the Reclamation Sei·vice. The total area of the Rtate iR only ~0,000,000 a('reR, and it is a wonderful State. I wish I hncl time to telJ you about it; but if Louisiana

could have, in addition to the 20,000,-000 ·acres now improved, 10,000,000 ae-res . of wet lands well drained and highly culti­vated, more fertrile than that which has been reclaimed there is no telling how rich the State wonld become; and that' would be true of many other States. The wealth of the Nation would be added to enormously. I can not conceive of an investment this Government could make that would be more profitable than to pass this bill and rapidly improve all of these arid and wet lands.

Mr. DIAL. l\Ir. President--Mr. RANSDELL. I yield to the Senator from South Caro­

lina. Mr. DIAL. I should like to ask the Senator why it is neces­

sary to couple up this projeet with a reclamation project? Why is it essential to say that the soldiers shall be placed on ar:d lands or on swamp lands? Could we not advantageously pro­vide in this bill that a district could be formed wherever the owners of the land might desire?

We have in our country a large area of unoccupied land which is fertile, which does not need irrigation, because the Almiahty sends us copious showers; and, as well, we have land that n:eas drainage. It is coD.sidered that where land needs drainage it is somewhat unhealthy; mosquitoes and tadpoles are in abund­ance, and the soldiers would be apt to be carried off some dis­tance from home, from their family ties and connections ; and I see no virtue in tying up this matter with a reclamation proj­ect. I do not see the necessity of it. It does not take that to make it legal or constitutional, so far as I can see; and while I am against the bill in the main, yet, if it is going to pas , I should be ve17 glad for some land ownership to be connected with it, for some way to own a home to be connected with it. I am a. great believer in trying to ene-0urage our people to own homes.

In North Carolina and South Carolina and Georgia particu­larly, I know that there is a large area of cut-over timber Jand that is accessible to railroads, perfectly healthful, and which, at a very smal1 expenditure of money, could be put into culti­vation and would bl"ing forth abundant harvests. While I do not live in that part of the State myself-I live in the footbilJs of the mountains-I know land that a few years ago was selling for from $1 to $10 an acPe, and with the expenditure of perhaps $5 to $10 an acre the stumps have been taken out, and it has been put into cultivation, and to-day that land is bringing any­where from $100 to $500 an acre. I was very much interested last year, out in my section of the State, when friend of mine told me that he went into his own cornfield that had been planted in velvet beans, and he got lost in bis field and went out on the other side.

That particular land wns sold within the last 20 years for $1 an acre, an<l in the Jast 10 years perhaps for $10 an acre. We have wonderful pos ibilities of growing fruit in that section. My friend here from North Oarol:ina [Mr. SIMMONS) know that down about Pinehurst and the Aberdeen section the1'e is one of the great shipping sections of the United States, while only a few years ago there was very little demand for the lnnd. So I do not see any reason for sending soldiers away off to some other State or to ome other part of a State when they might want to f<>rm a district and acquire some land that i practically ready for cultivation and could soon be put into ul­tivation, and would yield a crop in another year. I should like to hear the Senator's objection to an amendment making this bill cove-r that kind of a proposition.

Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. President, I gave the Senator all tbe time he wanted to make his little speech and ha-v e enjoyed what he said.

Mr. DIAL. I thank the Senator. Mr. RAl~SDELL. I do not think the Senator hit the gi t of

the subject, however. We all know that there is a vast ·area of cut-over land in the S(}uth. My own State ha a great many of these cut-over lands, and is trying to lead the .i:Tati011 in re­foresting them. Almighty God intended trees to grow on those lands. The lands that the Senator is talking about, sir, wern forest lands. They were -covered with fine pine trees and timber is becoming very scarce in this country. Let me adv:i e you, Senator, to plant trees on those lands. You can not <lo better. Those lands that you say ell for $1 an acre and grow fine velvet beans and peas, and other things, will grow tl.'ees. The Creator of the universe intended trees to grow there. and trees are needed by the Nation. Plant trees on those land as we are doing in Louisiana. Go to Bogalusa, or to Urania, in my State, adopt the wi e plan followed there by the wide-a wake lumbermen and foresters of those localities, and plant tree on your 1and. Perhaps you can find some moderately g<X?d cut-0ve.r lands in the S011th that have not already been put in cultivation which, by the use of a sufficient amount of nitrate

192~. OO~GRESSION.AL RECORD-SENArr:K 11861 of soda and other things, "ill do to put these soldier boys on; but I am not going to a<lYocate putting ex-service men on cut­over lands in South Carolina or Louisiana or any of those places. I want the soldier boys put on the most fertile lands Jn America, and this bill proposes to reclaim such lands. Some of them are in South Carolina, let me say. There are 3,125,000 acres of these wet lands in that State.

Now, my dear Senator, these soldier boys will not have to go out West to find land to live on. They will not have to go down to Texas, nor even as far as Louisiana. We will reclaim some land in South Carolina for your boys if they love their own State better than any other, and I hope they do, for it is a wonderful State. We are going to reclaim lands in all of these States, and let the boys take them where they like them best.

You ask why we tie up these two reclamation projects. I thought I had said that I could see no distinction between plac­ing water on arid land in order to make it fertile and taking it off wet land in order to make it produce crops. There is no difference in principle. It is the same theory of government. The only difference any man can offer is that out West, when we started the irrigation of arid lands, those lands belonged to the Nation, and the theory was that the Government was going to redeem its own property, was going to make a worthless asset available. That is what we did back in 1900 and 1901 and 1902 when we passed the original reclamation act. We thought we were going to reclaim our own lands ; but we speedily found that those lands had been taken up so rapidly that we must add thereto, in a great many instances, private ownership along with Government ownership, so we worked the two together, and we worked it wisely, we worked it well, we worked it beneficially for the entire Nation. That having worked so well, as shown by the able Senator from Montana [l\Ir. WALSH], the Government is going to get every dollar of it back. There has been no donation to anyone.

Why not apply that same reclamation principle to the 3,000,000 acres of swamp lands in South Carolina, which you say are inhabited by mosquitoes, tadpoles, alligators, and things of that sort? I should like to get rid of the mosquitoes, tad­poles, and alligators in Louisiana. Perhaps you are willing for them to continue to infest South Carolina. I do not want them to stay any longer in Louisiana. I want to get rid of them, and am entirely willing to have the National Government come in and help me to get rid of them as a loan. We are loaning to people everywhere. We are giving the credit of our great Government not only to home folks but we recently loaned ten billions to our allies during the World War.

That is one of the glorious things a government does for its people. We have the great Federal farm loan act, which the Senator is proud of, and I have no doubt he gets his people to borrow freely from their Uncle Sam. Why not have the principles of that great act applied in an indirect way under this McNary amendment?

l\1r. W A.LSH of Montana and l\Ir. DIAL addres ed the Chair. l\fr. RANSDELL. I yield to the Senator from Montana first,

and then I will yield to the Senator from South Carolina. l\Ir. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, the argument of the

Senator from Louisiana has presented to me this thought: He has very properly stated that the original reclamation act was founded upon the principle that the Government was improv­ing its own lands, and therefore the reclamation easily came within the powers of the General Government, and the reclama­tion of the lands within the projects held in private ownership was only a mere incident of the general project. It was argued at that time that the operation of the act ou·ght to be extended to the swamp lands as well ; but it was answered to that that the swamp lands were held in private ownership and the Gov­ernment could not do anything toward the reclamation of those lands ; and that argument may even to-day lie with .some force against that provision of the McNary bill, considered as an independent measure. Now an opportunity is afforded to give to it a constitutional basis. We make it now a means of pro­viding for our discharged soldiers, which easily falls within the war powers of the Government, and we utilize these lands for that purpose. In other words, now, in connection with this bill, you can have a perfectly safe constitutional basis for the recla­mation of your swamp lands. Lose this opportunity, and you may find yourselves confronted with a very serious constitu­tional question.

Mr. RANSDELL. I thank the Senator for his contribution to the discussion. The Constitution ne-rer bothered me- much in matters of that kind. I believe that if we can lend money to farmers, as we do, we can lend it to reclaim arid and wet lands. However, there is great force in the Senator's argument, and I thank him for it.

I now yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DIAL. In answer to the Senator from Louisiana I wish to say that I merely wanted the soldier to have whatever kind of land he wanted-not only the swamp land, but the other kinds as well.

Mr. RA.l'\SDELL. I would not object to that if you wish to offer it as .an amendment to this bill. I want all the good things attached to this bill that I can get. I want to help the ~oldier, and if the Senator thinks it will help him, we will put it on.

Mr. DIAL. I have an amendment of that sort. Mr. RANSDELL. 1\I:r. President, I simply wish to say in

conclusion that I do not expect to see our Government improve all these lands in the next year or so. It is a tremendous thing. Ninety-four million acres of these swamp lands and 24,000,000 a(Tes of arid lands is a vast area. We will not do it in the next 10 years, and I doubt if we are going to reclaim anything like one-half or even one-fourth of the area in any State in the next 10' years. I do not pretend to say, sir, that we will be able to do anything like what · the senior Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER] contemplates down his way in the next 10 years, but I will tell you what I do believe can oo done in Louisiana. I believe, sir, we will get several sample projects, if I may call them so; we will get a project here and anoth~r project there, and one somewhere else, probably 50,000 acres m this tract, 75,000 in that, and 150,000 somewhere else.

We will have these projects conducted under the very best auspices. The finest engineers in the world-because that is what our Government will send to us-with all the lore in the world in regard to reclamation by drainage, will come there, and they will carry those projects on to marked success. People who wish a thousand or a hundred thousand acres reclaimed can look at the projects which the Government has improved, can see how it is done, can derive the benefit of this womlerful example, the great success made in these reclamation projects under the auspices of the Government, and then, Senators, private capital will come in and reclaim wet lands in Florida, Louisiana, and other places in immense quantities.

I am firmly con-rinced that in my State a great many land­holders of the wet lands would be delighted to put them in under the terms of this bill, would willingly agree in advance with the Secretary of tl1e Interior on a fair price at which those lands should be sold and reclaimed in tracts of not to exceed 160 acres to an actual settler.

I am one of those who believe in peasant proprietors. I do not believe in large landholdings. No country was ever perma­nently wealthy unless the lands were divided up into small tracts, and I believe that we should encourage small holdings just as much as possible. This bill will encourage small hold­ings. That is one of the very best things it does. I shall cer­tainly vote for it with very great pleasure.

LAWS AND RESOLUTIONS OF FIFTH PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE. The PRESIDING OFFICER (l\Ir. KENDRICK in the chair)

laid before the Senate the following message from the Presi­dent of the United States, which was read. and, with the ac­companying papers, referred to the Committee on Territories and Insular Possessions: To the Congress of the United States:

As required by section 19 of the act of Congress appro>ed August 29, 1916, entitled ".An act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine Islands,'' I transmit herewith a set of the laws and resolutions passed IJ.y the Fifth Philippine Legislature during its second session, from October 16, 1920, to February 9, 1921, inclusive ; its third session, from October 17, 1921, to February 9, 1922, inclusive; and its special session of 1922, from February 13, 1922, to February 18, 1922, inclusive.

These acts and, resolutions have not previously been trans­mitted to Congress, and it is therefore recommended that they be printed as public documents, as heretofore.

WARREN G. HARDING. THE WHITE HOUSE, .A·ugust 28, 1922.

COMPENSATION OF WORLD W AB VETERANS. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con·

sideration of the bill (H. R. 10874) to pro-ride adjusted com­pensation for veterans of the 'Vorld War, and for other pur­poses.

Mr. STERLING. l\fr. President, just a word now to express my hearty approval of the pending amendment. In voting on the bill it elf I shall probably be found in the minority, but if the bill pas es I desire very much that it shall pass with this amendment included in it.

I think that former Secretary Lane had a great vision in his project for the reclamation not only of the arid lands of the

11862 CO~GRESSION AL RECORD-SE~ ATE. AUGUST 28,

We t but of the cut-over, burned-o•er, and swamp lands place the statement published by him be made a matter ·of i·ec­throughout the country generally. In the main I indorsed the ord. I therefore ask unanimous con ent that there be printed bill which. in pursuance of his suggestions and recommenda- in connecti?n with. my remarks the statement published by ~ir. tions, was reported to the Senate, as I now remember. Munsey this morning.

This reclamation scheme will, of course, be of great benefit T~e PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jol\IES of Washington in the to the West and the emiarid lands of the West. It will also chair). Is there objection? The Chair heal''s none and it is he of equal benefit, I think, if not of greater benefit, to the so ordered. ' people of the South in the reclamation of the swamp lands and The statement refer.red to is as follows: the cut-over lands of the South. I think there are great possi- [From the New York Herald, Monday, August 28, 1922.1 bilities for the whole country, for the Nation at large, in a A F.11:w FACTS THAT ARE Du}J THEl Pt::BLIC.

measure of this kind. It will _greatly add to the national The New York Herald bas opposed the various soldier bonus meas-wealth and, as ha been suggested by some Senators, it will ures because it does not believe in banding a bonus to the young men tend to keep the people of the country from rushing to the of the coun_try for doing the thing that is their right and duty to <lo-

the protection M ·their country. cities, and in that respect both country and city will be greatly The New York Ilerald has op};)osed these measures on the ground benefited. that with the country now car.rying a war indebtedness of $23 000 -

We have but the one irrigation project in South Dakota, ooo0ooo the Congress has no right to put an additional burd~n of known as the Belle Fourche project, not the largest by any I~ ~oouo~~~0n3_fu~ndse~~e~~IT:X 0.n the backs of the American people-­means, nor among the largest, nor perhaps are the returns The New York Heral~ has opposed these measures on the ground from it as great as the returns from other irrigation projects. that they are largely political raids on the Treasury devised and engi­Bu t fl·om land which we termed a few years ago semiarid land, ~~!:c1 by politician statesmen in Congress as an appeal to the soldier

fit only for the grazing of a limited .amount of stock during a With tOO purpose of neutralizing the effect of the fight the New York certain portion of the year, there was produced in 1920, from Herald has made against the bonus, certain men and certain publica-

d 1. $389 g--o f lf tlons have been somewhat carele s or downright malicious in their 59.000 acres an a ittle more, , 1 worth of al a a, fervid charges -against the man !'esponsible fo:r the stand ot the !\ew $108,055 worth of sugar beets, $87,150 worth of wheat, $18,140 York Herald on the bonus grab. worth of p.otatoe , $50,410 worth of oats, and $67,130 worth of That man is myself. Some of the charges are bitter ome of them Pa::;turage, makinl? a total of $832,200 worth of crops produced venomou~ and criminally libelous. Briefiy they amount' to this : That

~ I am a rich man; that I made a large share of my fortune in United from the 59,850 acres under irrigation, or an average of $13.90 States Steel and in munitions stock · •that these teel stocks were per aere. That shows the benefits of irrigation, on a compara- enormously profitable during the war. One newspaper, the Daily :Xews

l f of New York, puts it this way : tively small scale, it is true, but il ustrative in a way o many ".A large part of Munsey' large fortuhe is from investments in of the irrigation projects of the West. United States Steel stock. This steel company made the material for

I hope to see the idea extended much beyond the limit to the guns, bayonets, shells, automobiles, tanks, and so on, which were which it l?Oes now, and for our western country. It is a par- used in the war. Holders of steel stock profited enormously by the

~ makin.g of these weapons. ticmlarly interesting problem to my own State. The turbulent "Such weapons as these killed-killed-five or ix million human l\lissouri River flows through and along the border of my State beings during the war.

di tan f 500 il th th bl in "The process of killing these :five or six milltons and wounding for a · s ce o m es, a menace ra er an a ess g fifteen or sixteen millions more enormously enriched holders of muni­because of its overflows and because of the erosion of the banks. tlons shares. like l\fr. Munsey • • • large owners of munitions But l bope that this will lead to a new interest in the question stock, like Mr. Munsey-well, their profits ra.n up into tens of tnillions. f · d th t f f th t f th' "Furthermore, 'if we recall correctly, 'lir. Munsey was extremely

o irrigation an e s orage o some o e wa ers o IS anxious in bis newspapers for us to get into the war. Ile thought we great river and its tributaries for the purpose of irrigation. In were supine because we didn't do it sooner. He always belie,·ed in the order that we may comply with the .present law anil the powers r~afiirn"ih:~z~~~~;.loung men and shipping them across the ocean of Congress as understood, we may have to make irrigation a There is one truth in this whole utterance; just one-no more; tha t secondary feature, in form, at 1east, but in reality it would be- is that I deprecated America's delay in ta.king her part tn the war. come the principal feature of any improvement of the 1t1i souri With this single exception this malicious utterance is utterly and wholly

false. It bas no shading or sugge tlon' of truth. River. The public will perhaps be intere ted in the facts concerning this

l bope this amendment will carry. Of course, not the least charge and similar charges. The /hublic is always fall· in its jucJg-aruong my reasons for wishing it may carry is the advantage foe~~eafi1'clstsinatru~diiis't:~~e.it has e facts, and the public is entitled it will give to the returned soldier, to the veteran-first, in the The facts that have to do with these charges are these. The for­uffiization of his services in the development of any project tune I have, be it little or big, did not come to any considerable extent

h . h b elected and ag d upon between the Sec etary through the buying and selling of stock . Some years ago when my W IC may e S ree r . income was mounting large from my magazine business, t put some and any reclamation district; secondly, because of the 60 days' of my money then J..ving idle in bank into the security market. Up preference it gives him in the matter of purchasing or making to this time llli my thought and energy bad gone into the upbuilding his entry upon the land. As I said, While I can not conscien- of .£'1~r1:~~a~ig: ~~~~es:~tural sympathy between money earning and tiously support the pending bill as a whole yet, if it ,passes, I money investing. A man may be good at one and good for nothing at hope it will pass with the McNary amendment as a part of it. the other. It was up to me now to handle the money Hooding in from

~Ir. WADSWORTH. Mr. President, like the Senator from my publl Hing interests. My modest initial investments in the street grew ultimately to Important holdings.

South Dakota [Mr. STERLING], I expect to support .the amend- Weird stories have been circulated about my undertakings in the ment offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. ~IcNARY]. I do security markets. Until now they have been good-natured, though, I

· ·1 ·t t t d d't f · must say, gro ly inaccurate. The btt~r charges now, because ot' my so because, pr1mari y, i proposes 0 ex en ere i or a pro- stand on the bonus, -are Ia.rgely founded on these inaccuracies allll ex-cluctive enterprise and, as contrasted with other provisions of aggerations with respect to my security holding . But inaccuracies the bill which is before us, it is sound and will bl"ing a lasting and exaggerations good-naturedly expressed are one thing, aml ma-

l t th h d t k th t · d liciou , bitter, •and wholy unwarranted attacks with the view to dis-benefit not on Y o e men w o un er a e e en erprise, an crediting my newspapers in their fight against the bonus are quite particularly the -veterans, but to the country as a whole. another.

For ome years I have believed that the safety of this While I am on the subjeet I may as well put tbe r ecord strah;ht o th th. f h that well-meaning newspaper men will not hereafter indulge in fan-

Republic depends in e long run on e percentage o ome tastlc pictures in respect of my security holdings when I was in the owners inhabiting its borders, and ·any such measure as this, market. based upon sound principles, avoiding wildcat finance, useless It was l"eeently said that In my tock transactions I acted on in ide exten l·on of creR1·t, and infiati·on of credit and pri·ces· , ""ill information, a sure thing. Tbere has never been a sm·e thin"' in any

u .. of my business activities, or in any of my financial invPstment,.,. 'I always receive my support. I can not, however, support the have always been willing to taken chance on my own judgment, al ays

11 d bonus b ·u been willing to take a loss on my own judgment. so-ca e i · I have never had a business partner in my publishing enterprises

As a preliminary to a discussion of the provisions of the bill, and other interests. I have reasoned out my own problem , done my I desire to say ju t a pas ing word concerning a certain gen- own thinking, and 1 followed this method strictly m my stoek trnns-

•tu f · h h t k l d. t in actions. In dealing in the volatile values ol' Wall Str et I wa:; in-tleman, a consb ent o mme, w o as a en a ea mg par dulging n ~pirit of adventure. But all the while my time was given opposing the bonus bill. I refer to Mr. Frank A. Munsey, of to my publishing interests. Wall Street was a side issue. New York, the publisher Of the New York Herald and the Neither then nor at a:ny time, before ·or l3ince, in my life was I a New York Stm. Senators probably are familiar with his party, directly or indirectly, to putting up, .or putting dow~, value ot

securities. ·And heither then no1· at any time, before or !'llll~e, in my efforts in opposition to this legislation. I shall not recite them. life did r buy or sell securities on tips .or on i::hort spE>ruI:itive mov~­

It so happens, however, that that gentleman has been sub- ments. I bought or sold securities on the underlying bu mess <'On1.h-H · d h tions of the country and the money e<>nditions of the country as I saw jected to bitter attack. is motives an bis character ave them

been traduced to such an extent that, were the practice to I bought always with a view to a long tei·m and not a hort one. become general with respect to any person who had courage Getting in and out of a stock every clay, or e ery few clays, or sever~!

b · · · I f th h times in a day is highly speculative; buying for a Jong term-that is, -enough to stand y his co:r;i':1ctions, ear at grave arm to hold with the expectation of increased values with improving busi-would come to the body politic generally. nei:is con<'litiomi---is like buying and selling real estate. .

Mr. Munsey has replied to his critics. He has done it over I But Wall Str~t never had any real interest for me. l\ly real m-. · · . . tereist and real rum In life has been, and is, to do constructive work,

bis own signature and published it on the front page of his to creatP something wor·tb while. to make two blades or gra grow paper. I think it only due to him that at this time and in this where one grew before. Money coming in from this creative wol'k bas

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11863 the seeming of real money ; money coming in from the marking up and down of stocks isn't the same thing with me.

With sufficient experience in the securitr, market to satisfy me and with some profit-not enough to ~: e-xc1ted about-I withdrew my­capital from the Street and turned to something more dramatic, more worth while, the daily newspaper. My actual net profit from my security holdings wa:s relatively inconsequential compared with the aggregate profit of years from my publishing, real estate, and other intere ·ts.

I have not owned a share of Wall Street securities of any kind what oever in, I should say, something like a dozen years. I owned no Wall Street securities at· the beginning of the war. I owned no Wall treet securities during the war, and I have owned no Wall Street securities since the war. I do not own now, and never have owned, a share in any munition plant of any kind or description. I had no connection, directly or indirectly, with any property or interest that lent itself to profiteering durtng Ol'. after th.e war.

I made no money whatever, directly or indirectly, out of the war or anything associated with the war. On the contrary, my interests, due to the highi co. t of magazine and newspaper making. and the generally d1 turbed condition of affairs, suffered a. very heavy shrink.age during the war and in the inflation period after the war.

This statement, answering the charges that my fortune has, been made largely in . Wall Street and from munition investments a.nd war profiteering, must not be taken to mean that I have any apologies to make for my operations in listed securities. I ventured less into the realm of chance in Wall Street, far less, than I did in nnderta:king to found and build up without capital and without experience ai magazine business in competition with the great established magazine properties of New Yor.k, and I took far less chance than I have taken, and one generally takes, in the daily newspaper field.

The :fortune I have, such as it is1 has come primarily' f'i:om two sources: The $40 capital I brought· w1..th. me from Maine to • New York 40 years ago and the capacity God gave me. for work. There bas been no mystery, no legerdemain, no short cuts to fortune bu.ilding with me. It has been done by fairly sound reasonin~, the courage to put my con­clusions to the test, and by paying the puce in work.

I am a thorough believer in work. r love work and I wish all Ame.ri­ca'lls loved work a-s I lC>'ve it. Generali~ speaking, there is no sueb thing as Jretting something !or notlling. We must pa:y the price inr thought, in care, in watchfulness, in work-inten e, everlasting- work.

If I were a manufacturer of ha.Tdware, or textiles, or shoes, or any­thing else' not linked up with public affairs, this statement in answer to carele an'! viciou charges would not be imperative, though I bold that one who is at ail before the public, whatever his line of endeavor, owes it to the public to correct misstatements and put the truth bero.re the public.

Calumny travels fast and faii, and unle s. apprehended is accepted a:s the truth by the public. The public bas DO> reason to suppose calumny isn't the truth if allowed to stand as the truth.

But with the newspaper owne1• the situation is highly sensitive, as the newspaper is a public institution. The- newspaper< is just" what the man back of it makes it. The newspaper mirrors the man back of it.­mirrors the man who puts himself into it. If his heart is in. the public service his· newspap·er will be a bulwark of strength to the community and to the country. Indeed, with the present. political subserviency to the vote, the best hope for sound government must rest with the well­purposed, independ~nt press.

The attitude of the New York Herald on the bonus question has been­the conscientious attitude of the owner of the New York Kerald. I have no personal or selfish motive in my objection to the bonus. Fifty bonuses might be paid to soldiers and it wouldn't affect me personally.

I have taken my ·Mand against the bonus on the ground that' it ls all wrong in theory, that It degrades the American S<>ldier. It robs him of the spirit of patriotism, the spirit of defense of his country. I have taken my stand against tbe bonus because the Government is 1n no condition to shoulder this additional burden. because tile taxpayers of the coun n·y are in no condition to shoulder this addltional burden, and. becau8e the payment of this proposed bonus to soldiers would be a vicious precedent for future generations to deal with.

FRANK' A. MUNSEY.

Mr. WADSWORTH. As to the pending bill itself, there have been a good many general statements made concerning the veterans of the war, both soldiers and sailors, and some of them may give rise to an inaccurate conception of just what the Government has done in the matter of pay and allowances up to this time. Merely in the interest of reasona)jly accurate history, and not for the purpose of argument, I desire to recite very briefly those measures taken by the Congress a:treeting the soldiers and sailors who were called to the colors duririg the last wa1\

When we went into the war the base pay of the private was $15 per month. In May or June, 1917-1 forget which montll; but I think it was 1\Iay-approximately two months after we entered the war the Congress legislated on the question of pay and the base pay of the private was raised to $30 per month. The impression seems to prevail that $30 a month was the pay of the soldie1' generally. As a: matter of faet, that was but the­base pay of the private soldier, and the privates- comprise- ap­proximately 49 per cent of the enlisted strength of the Army. Prior to our entrnnce into the war the base pay of the private first class was $18 per month. That was raised to $33 per month. The privates, first class, comprise approximately 25 per cent of the Army. Prior to our entrance into the war the cor­poral of the line, so called, received $21 per month, and that was raised shortly after we entered the war to $30 per month. The co-rporals in the aggregate comprise about 9.o per cent of the enlisted strength of the army. Prior to our entrance into the war the duty sergeant received $30 per month. His pay was raised to $38 per month. Tbe duty sergeants and men of Similar grade among the enlisted sti-engtn comprise- about 9.5 per cent:

Mr. WARREN. 1\Ir. President!---

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does· the Senator from New-­York yield to the Senator from Wyoming.?

. Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield. Mr. WARREN. The Senator spoke of the $30 which the

private received. What was the additional pay that he re­ceived when he went abroad!

Mr. WADSWORTH. I was coming to that. I will just finish this statement of the base-pay schedule, very much abbre iated. The battalion sergeant major, prior to our entrance into the war, received $40 a month and during the war that pay was increased to $4.8. The regimental sergeant major received $45 a month prior to otll'" entrance into the war and that non­commissioned officer's pay was raised to $51 a month after our entrance into the war. The sergeant, first class, Medical Corps, received $50 a month before and was raised to $56 a month. The hospital sergea:nt received $65 a month prior to our en­trance into the war and was raised to $71 a month. The quartermaster sergeant, who. ranked among the higµ.est paid grade and is typical of the highest grades as then existing, received $75 a month prior to our entrance into the war and was raised to $81.

It will be seen, therefore, that the soldiers in the lowest grades-the privates and privates, first class, and the cor­porals-received by far tlie greatest increase, measured" by: per­centage of their forme-r pay. It will be seen also that the mere statement that $30 a month was the pay of the soldier is grossly inaccurate, for more than 50 per cent of them got a great deal more than $30, and ' every soldier who went abroad got a 20 per cent increase in his base pay. So that no soldier served in France for as little as $30 a month or anything like it.

Mr. HEFLIN. About what was the average pay, then, for the private soldier?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I have not made an accmate estimate as to the average pay of the men in the Army . . Exclusive of course, of food and hospital care and clothing, I assume 'the average cash pay would run close to $40, and exclusive. also of ' extra 8'.llowances, such as a1·e given for · marksmanship, $2 ' a month; sharpshooter, $3 a mon~; expert rifleman, $5 a month; and corresponding: experts in other branches of the service which are not armed with the rifle but which require. proficiency with some other weapon.

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President--Mr. WADS WORTH. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming. .l'ilr. WARREN. Bearing on that, I ran across some corre-

spondence lately, directed to me and probably to others from the president of the Board of Trade of the United States 'which gives the figures of pay or soldiers serving in France as f~llows: During the 19 months we were at war enlisted men of the var:i'ous nations received the. following total sums: The United States, $570; France, $27.55 ; Italy, $33.06; Russia $7.41; Great Britain, $138.70. Belgium paid a rate slightly higher than France. New Zealand and South Africa paid a rate equal to Great Britain. Canada paid a rate equal to our own. Australia paid its men, all volunteers, the highest rate of any nation, $42 a month.

Mr. NELSON. What did Great Britain pay? Mr. WARREN. Great Britain paid $138.70. Mr. OVERMAN. Per year? Mr. WARREN. No; for 19 months. Mr. BURSUl\I. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Sena­

tor what was the policy of France with reference to her eco­nomic resources and her man power during the war?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Conscription. Mr. W ~REN. So far as France was concerned, her army

was conscr1pted. It is the duty of every young man to serve in the army in Franee at some period for a given length ot' time, and the- pay runs as low at times- as $1 per annum.

Mr. BURSUM. But were the man power of France, her in­dustrial strength, her economie re ources, conscripted?

l\Ir. WADSWORTH. I think that was not done in any coun­try. I never· heard of conscriptibn for any other purpose than a military one being invoked by any nation during the last war, or, for that matter, in any war.

I am not citing these figures in the way of argument, but merely, if I may, to contribute something to a little more accu­rate conception of just what happened, because the impression has been so often given out that nothing has been done, whereas, as a matter of fact, the base pay of the humblest private of the .Army was raised 100 per cent at the very beginning.

As contrasted with the pay of soldiers of other countries­and I would not for a moment urge that: we come down to any such figures as theirs-it is interesting to understand just~ what.­the situation was. As contrasted with GI"eat Britain, the so­called pay of the soldiei• of tlle United States was moYe than1 three times as much, even though soldiers of both-were serving..

11864 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

in a foreign country under exactly the same economic condi­tions, so far as that country was concerned.

I do not imagine for a moment that any Senator or any citizen believes that $30 a month for the private or $33 a month for the private, first class, or $36 a month for the cor­poral was voted for any other purpose than to give to the sol­dier a generous allowance of pocket money. Certainly it was never considered possible to compensate him. · No such thought ever entered the mind of the Senate at the time, nor has any military legislation affecting pay in time of war been built upon the basis of compensation.

I remember very well, I think, the debate which occurred in the Senate at the time we doubled the base pay of privates and made corresponding, although somewhat less, increases in the upper grades of the enlisted force. Canada had established the principle of a dollar a day for her private soldiers ..and Australia had done something of the same sort. The Ameri­can Congress believed that our men should receive and have for their enjoyment just as much pocket money as the soldiers of any other land. If I am not greatly mistaken, that is why the increase was made, and no one complaiued against it. It wa a generous allowance of pocket money compared \vith the allowance made to American soldiers in the wars of the past. I think it was none too much, considering the conditions which our men had to confront, especially when removed so far from home as were those who went to France, and approxi­mately 50 per cent of our men went to France and the other 50 per cent stayed in this country.

·when the men were mustered out, again the Congress .be­lieved that the que tion of pocket money and the facilities which the soldier should have in tiding over that period of time between his discharge and his resumption of civilian em­ployment should be taken care of, and the Congress appropri­ated a sum of money which_, under the statute enacted at the time, gave to each soldier upon discharge $60. That has not been mentioned in this debate.

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, the- Senator from New York will perhaps remember that that amounted to $270,000,000. Cfreat Britain bas g-iven $6,000.000 to her soldiers.

l\1r. WADSWORTH. I have not the British figures at hand, but my recollection is that the $60 given to the men of the Army an<l Navy of the United States upon qiscbarge amounted to about the same sum of money given for similar purposes by the British Government to the British soldier. That again was an effort of the Congress to see to it that the men were comfort­able in the transition stage. It was not compensation. It was ne>er intended to be compensation. In fact, there is no possi­ble way of estimating it as such.

Another matter of far less importance, but wo1•thy of men­tion, was the "proYision made by the Congress that each soldier upon discharge should receive and be permitted to take home and use as he saw fit an entirely new outfit of clothing. Under that provision each man was entitled to take and did, upon his own application, as I recollect it, take the following articles: A pair of shoes, a pair of olive-drab breeches, an olive-drab shirt, an olive-drab coat, a felt hat, and his choice of an overcoat or slicker. No time limit was stated as to the date upon whfch applications should come in from the men. Some of them drew the clothing, if the clothing was available, at the camp from which they were discharged. At many of those camps, of course, such a great reserve of clothing was not in existence, but the men were permitted to write to the Quarter­master General after they reached their homes and ask that this allowance of new clothing be sent to them. Thousands and tens of thousands did so, so much so that not only was the entire available stock of clothing in the bands of the War Department at the close of the war exhausted, but for nearly two years thereafter the Quartermaster General had to con­tin lie to manufacture new clothing to meet the applications that were still coming in. I can not recollect the figures of the appropriations which the Congress made after the war was over to continue the filling and the honoring of these appli­cations. Suffice it to say that in the appropriation bill of a year ago the Congress decided that the applications should cease and that thereafter applications for new clothing should not be honored ; but for two and one-half years at least after the war those applications were honored.

So, l\Ir. P1·esident, in the matter of the comfort provided for the men by Congress in the enactment of the statutes which I have recited, I do not think it can be said that the American Government or the American people were remiss. When we add to the efforts of the Government the efforts of the great associations which were organized on semireligious lines in some cases, and in others on civic lines. to bring "further and additional comforts and relief to the soldiers-I mean by that

the American Red Cross, the Y. ~I. C. A., the Knights of Co­lumbus, the Salvation Army, the Jewish Welfare Society, and such as they-adding their hundreds of mi11ions, literally, I do not think it can be charged by any Senator or any citizen, and I have never heard it charged by any soldier, that the American people as a whole were remiss in endeavoring to pro· vide every obtainable comfort for their men in time of war.

I myself rejoiced at it. I think all those sums were wisely spent. They meant a greater degree of contentment for the men-a higher morale, which means better fighting qualities. They meant a better health rate. There was far less sickness in our Army in the World War than in any army we have ever raised. I think there was also far less discontent; there was less homesickness. The efforts that were made toward enter­tainment and providing comforts both by the Government and outside agencies were worth every penny that was expended and more, too. All those things were done by contributing money; but none of them have the slightest relation to com­pensation for duty performed. This bill is the first effort in the history · of the American Congress, as I read history, to fix: compensation for duty performed and to measure it by dollars and cents.

Mr. OVERl\1AN. May I interrupt the Senator there? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York yield to the Senator from North Carolina? Mr. WADS WORTH. I yield. Mr. OVERMAN. What would the Senator from New York

call the $60 which we gave our soldiers when they came home? Mr. WADS WORTH. As I remember the intent of Congre ,

as evidenced in the debate at the time and in the committee in drafting the amendment, the $60 payment was for the purpo e of facilitating the comfort of the discharged soldier from the day of his discharge until he could take up his civilian em­ployment.

Mr. OVERMAN. I understood the Senator from New York to say that we increased the pay of the soldier from $18 to $30 per month because Canada and Australia had done so?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes; because we wished our men to enjoy the same comforts as the soldiers of those countries enjoyed.

Mr. OVER1\1AN. Did not Canada, when her soldiers came out of the war, appropriate the same amount of money as we did-$60-whether it be called compensation, gratuity, bonus, or what not?

Mr. WADS WORTH. I do not know. Mr. OVERMAN. Has not Canada also appropriated-eall it

compensation, bonus, or what not-a sum av.eraging $600 for each of her soldiers?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I do not know what the aetion of the Canadian Government has been.

Mr. OVERMAN. I think the Prime Minister of Canada, with whom I had a conversation here, told me that the Canadian Government had given to each Canadian soldier a bonus, the amount of which I have forgotten. If we are imitating Can­ada, and if she has given her men a bonus, why should we not also give our men a bonus?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I think it ls a bad example to follow when it goes beyond the point of giving every conceivable com­fort to the man who is serving his country.

Mr. OVERMAN. I understood the Senator to say that our Government increased the pay of its soldiers from $18 to :);30 because Canada did it. If so, why should we not give a bQnus or a compensation because Canada, as well as Australia, did it?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I think the two things are based on entirely different principles. The Senator from 1\linnesota [Mr. NELSON] reminds me, and it should be stated for the RECORD, that the Government also supplied some allowances for those soldiers who left dependents behind them, either wives or de­pendent children. My recollection is that the allowance was based upon a total of $15 for a wife and $5 for each dependent child up to an aggregate of $25 or perhaps $30. I never liked that.

I criticized it several times when the bonus bill, so-called, was previously before the Senate. I do not believe it was right for tlle Government to withdraw from the pay of a soldier any money for the support of his dependents. I think the Gov­ernment owed that in its entirety. If we took a man from civil life and compelled him to go out and fight for his country, and at the same time he had to leave a wife and children behind, and we appropriated money for his pay sufficient for his personal comfort-and that is what the pay of the soldier in time of war is, and that is all it is-we should not have ueducted from that pay one single cent to be sent home to his wife and children; the Government should have shouldered all of it. My original proposal two years ago was, instead of hav-

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11865. ing this indiscriminate di tributwn of cash to all the men who wanted it, whether they needed it or not-for that is hat this bill in its essen.ce means.-that we should return to alL those men who made allotments from. their pay the sum total of the allotments made and squa:ee that account, and thereby finally assume at this late day th.e en.tire financial responsibility for s-npporting the wife and the children. whom the soldier was compelled to leave. .

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from N~w

York yield to the Sena.tor from 1\finnesota? l\1r. WADS WORTH. I yield. l\Ir. NELSON. I think the statement which the Senator has

just made is slightly confusing. As I understand, the Gov­ernment required the soldier to contribute a portion of his pa as an allowance for his dependents, and then the Govern­ment made an equal contribution toward the allowance, so that the entire allowance did not come out of the pay -of the soldier.

Ir. W ADSWO'.RTH. No; not at all. I was remiss in not stating that the Government matched the m.(mey which the soldier put in, dollar for dollar, as I recollect.

Mr. BURSUl\f. Bnt was not the deduction made by the Government, and without any consultation with the soldier? The money was deducted .and was sent to his dependents pur­suant to th declaration whieh the soldier had made when he entered the Army, giving the names of his dependents.

l\1r. WAD SW ORTH. Certainly. l\fr. BURSUM. It became simply~ a ma.tter of administra,..

tion, and the consent of the soldier was n,ot required in order to send the money to his dependents.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Certainly; there was a law placed upon the statute books in neference to the payment of allotments from the oldier's pay to his dependent family, and, also oon­eerning the contributions of the Federal Government to meet or match the amount paid by the soldier. What the Senator from New Me.x:ieo says is perfectly true, but I do not think it changes or impairs the argument I am trying to make, that that was not a generous or a wise or a sound public p@Ucy.

l\Ir. BUilSUM. I ag?ee tho-roughly with the Senator from New York as to that, and that is one o:f the reasons which, in my judgment, entitle the soldier to a ll.efund at this time, which would come uncle£ the pending bill.

l\fr. WADSWORTH. But this bill d,oes. not take into eonsid­e.ratioru anything of the sort; 1t makes no mention of it. The men who made a sacrifice and who sent home $10, $15, or $2@ out -of their pay to their families will not get any more under thi bill than "\',".iJl, the man who neV"~r sent back one cent. That is one of m criticisms of this measure, yet it is called an " ad­justed compensaticm bi.11." There is no adjustment about it.

Mr. N1CllOLSON. Will the Senato:rr yield to me? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator f.rom New

York yield to the Senator from Colorado? l\lr. WADSWORTH. I do. l\Ir. NICHOLSON. The Senator from New York makes men­

tion of men who returned no money to their families. There was a very small percentage of men who went into the Army who did not leave dependents behind them and from wb.Dse pay there was not deducted $15 per month.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Th'e Senator is mistaken. There was a very large number who did not send back anything. They were not required to do so; there was no need for their doing so. I. am not criticizJ.ng men wh{) did not send money home voluntarily or under compulsion of the law, but a large per­centage did not. They did not have to; there was no need of it; and yet they will get jnst as much under this "pawnbroker" arrangement that we have here as the men who did.

Mr. BURSUM. Mr. President-- , The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from· ~ ~ew

York yield further to the Senator from New 1\1e:rlco? l\Ir. WADS WORTH. I yield. Mr. BURSUl\I. Does not the Senator from New York be­

lieT"e that the $7.50 which was deducted from the soldier's -pay on account of insurance during the period in which he was in the service ought to have been paid by the Government d11ring his period of service?

Mr. WADSWORTH. My own personal view is that the Gov­ernment might have shouldered that burden. I have never given much thought to that, but I recollect that when ~he w.ar ri k insurance act was passed it was regarded as the greatest step in advan<:e that had -ever been taken in the matter of securing the future of the country's soldiers and sailors. I do not rec@lleet that the proposal was ever made at that time that the insurance premiums during the period of hostilities should be carried by the Gov.ernment itself; I have never worked that out or studied it out, but as the Senator asks the

question at this moment there does not seem anything un­reasonable in the suggestion implied in his que fum. Howev.er, not all the men took insurance, n.or !in equal amounts, and again where is there any "adjusted eompensa.tion "?

There is no such thing as adjusbnent here. Men are treated with the grossest i.Bequality. The mere indiscriminate distribu­tion of $300 or $400, as the case may be, does not adjust any­thing, and it is confessed that it does not compensate anyone. The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Un.J>EBWOOD] was perfectly clear about that. It can oot be called compensation. There is no Senator here who would walk up to a veteran who had gone through the Argonne and say to him, " Here is what your serv­ic:es were worth ; take $300." I never could understand how the name " ad.justed compensatWn " could be attached to this bill. It is a de~perate effort to get rid of the term ''"bonus" or "gratuity"; but, so long as these men a-re all treated exactly alike in dollars and cents, no matter what their sacrifices were, no matter what their pay, n-0 matter what their service was there is no other name to call it but a " bonus."

l'ilr. BURSUl\1. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from NeW'

York yield to the Senator from New Mexico? Ur. WADS WORTH. I yield. l\I.r: BURSUM. I should like to aslr the Senator one more

question, and that is with reference to the Liberty bonds for which the soldiers subscribed. I am informed that in some divisions eve.ry soldier subscribed for Liberty bonds. The sub­scriptions were arranged through officers of the regiment as a rule, and those bonds were subscribed for by the• soldier and paid for by deducting out of his wage a definite sum each month.

Those bonds in most instances very likely were sold aroilnd 80 t-0 85 eents on the dollar, and some cases for less. Does the Senator believe that it is f.a.ir and ju.st on the part of the­GoYernment to impose upon the soldier the los.s incurred under sueh cireumstances for the finan<!ing of the war in which he was engaged when he was doing the fighting, was hazarding his life, and baring his breast in defense of bis country?

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. President, I do not th.ink it can be said that the men were compelled to subscribe for Liberty bonds I think it unfortunate that such elaborate canvasses were ma.de in tbe .different regiments and brigades. In one particular camp I took occasion to protest against it. The pride of the men was appealed to, and the men in Company A of the Three hun­dred and first Infantry were invited by their officers to, outsub­scribe the men ln Company B, and so on down through the le.tiered cpm:pa.nies to the machine-gun company at the end of the line. I think it mrfortunate that such rivalry was set up as between units and which resulted in many men-not in all, bnt in many men-subscribing for more Liberty bonds than they could really afford to pay for. Yet it is fair to say that whi1e their subscripti()ns were generous, and perhaps in some instances too generous, they were subscribing for something of value ; and they were not alone in having to sacrifice Liberty bonds at a price lower than par, for thousands of people had to do that during the year or two years following the war. Thank Heaven, Liberty loan bonds are now selling at par, and any man who subscribed to those bonds, whether he be ex-soldier or ex-sailor or mere civilian, will get all his money back with interest. That scarcely can be counted in as part of an obligation financially which the Government incurred in its treatment of the soldiers, and can scarcely be deducted from tbe pay of the soldfor as a basis upon which to write bonus legislation.

Mr. President, I 'know full well that Members of the Congress who undertake to oppose legislation of this kind~whkh in­volves Uncle Sam laying from three billions to seven billions of dollars on a counter and inviting any one or all of four and a half million men to step up and take his share, whether be needs it or not-are put down in the minds of many as being enemies of the veteran, or at least falling utterly to appreciate what he went through. I hope I shall not be charged with any such failure of appreciation of what the soldiers and sailors in this war went through any more than I should be charged with failure to appreciate what the soldiers and sailors of former wars went through. War is organized destruction, perpetrated at wholesale. It can not be carried on without the infliction of suffering-suffering untold. The man who goes through with it with a brave smile on his face, and does his duty, and incidentally saves his country and the rest of us who could not go, is the man who will have my respect and adm'iration as long as he lives; but, Mr. President, I hope I shall not again be asked to apprafae the performance of that duty in do1lars and cents. We never ha >e done so in the his.­tory of this country.

Had a bonus bill been introduced and passed at the close of the Civil War, I doubt if this Nation could have borne the

-

fJ.1866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

burden imposed upon it by any such practice as that. We ·staggered for years under the national debt of something like $3,000,000,000 resulting from the Civil War. Suppose the vet­erans of the Civil War, who numbered 2,000,000-a much larger army, in proportion to our population of that day, than the army we raised in the war with Germany-had demanded a bonus such as this, and it had been given them. Could the American people have borne it? Could the great West have been opened up with such alacrity? Could our people, under a burden such as that would have entailed, have spread across the prairies and the mountains and built up this great Nation? I doubt it. That would have been a fearful burden imposed upon 20,000,000 or 25,000,000 people. It would have more than doubled our national debt at that time, and it took us 50 years to whittle down the national debt left from the Civil War to a point where we could say that, practically speaking, it no longer existed.

Mr. NELSON. l\Ir. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York yield to the Senator from l\Iinnesota? -Mr. WADS WORTH. I yield. Mr. NELSON. There was nearly a billion dollars left of that

debt when the Spanish War broke out, and I think a remnant of between eight and nine hundred million dollars was mipaid when the World War broke out.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I think we had not paid it all, but perhaps some of that debt was due to other obligations. Cer­tainly the major portion of it was Civil War debt. Some of it may have b n due to the Spanish War and some to Panama Canal bonds.

Mr. WARREN. l\Ir. President--'l'he PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York yield to the Senator from Wyoming? Mr. WADSWORTH. I do. Mr. WARREN. I suppose the Senator remembers that in the

seventies Congress passed a bill somewhat similar to this which was vetoed by the President of the United States.

Mr. WADSWORTH. President Grant vetoed a bill quite ,.losely resembling this, and the attempt was never made again to pass such a bill applicable to veterans of the Civil War and certainly no such movement arose from the veterans of the Spanish war.

Mr. President, last Friday afternoon I listened with great interest to a colloquy here in the Senate betw~n four or five Senators, discussing the difficulties that are confronting the American people to-day. They discussed the coal strike and the suffering which may and probably will-in fact, some of them asserted that it was a certainty-overtake the people of our great communities as the result of the lack of coal and the lack of railroad transportation. We can sit here in this Senate Chamber and discuss these things in an academic way, but they are mighty real things when you go out among the people. When the average citizen is faced with the practical certainty of going down in his pocket deeper than ever not only to pay taxes but to pay his living expenses in the face of this industrial emergency and at the very moment when the people are wonder­ing how they are going to heat their houses and run their industries and keep their employment-the notice has already gone out from Detroit that 106,000 men in the Ford plants may have to stop work in 10 days-it is not a very cheering thought that will come into those people's minds if, at that very hour, the Congress passes a bill burdening the American people with at least three and a half billions more in taxation.

There will come a time, l\1r. President, when the people can not bear any more burdens. What political party would have the courage or the rashness to-day to introduce here a revenue bill raising the taxes of the people? Neither of them. This bill attempts to get away from that. It is an effort, almost lau(J'hable in its futility, to persuade people that money can be raised without imposing taxes-an utter impossibility.

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. McCUMBERl says it will cost but $78,000,000 in the first year. The Secretary of the Treasury points out that we have a $400,000,000 deficit facing us the first year, and the latest information is that instead of $400,000,000 the deficit will be $500,000,000, and yet lightly does the Senator from North Dakota suggest that we add an­other $78,000,000 to that deficit; and that is to be used only in paying the $50 cash bonus to those men whose so-called ad­justed compensation does not exceed $50.

What relief are we to have as a people? There is none in sight, even if we do not pass this bill We will have to im­pose heavier taxes or issue bonds in any event. The Senator from North Dakota lightly suggests that we suspend the good­roads work over · the country in order to pay this so-called adjusted com~ensa~on. That is simply another way of taxing

the people-depriving them of the facilities for doing Lusi­ness-that is all. What does this amount to when brought down to its essence? It is the many that pay, not the few. Political charlatans· will invent, or pretend to invent, methods and pieces of legislation for imposing taxes in such a way that the few only will pay. foint me to a single taxation policy evolved by any government in the history of govern­ments that has succeeded in imposlng taxes in such a way that the few only bear the burden.

l\Ir. HITCHCOCK. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York yield to the Senator from Nebraska? l\fr. WADSWORTH. I yield. l\Ir. HITOHCOCK. The Senator remembers that one of the

first acts of his party upon coming into power was to relieve from the excess-profits tax the corporations in the United States that were making the highest profits in business, and that in that way $450,000,000 of national revenue was sacrificed--

Mr. WADS WORTH. I do not agree with the Senator's last statement at all. I do not think you can find excess profits to-day.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. And about the same time another $100,-000,000 of revenue was sacrificed by removing the surtaxes on the great fortunes of the United States.

Mr. WADS WORTH. The Senator's question is all - ba ed upon the assumption that high surtax rates on income taxes are paid by the rich man alone. He also bases his question, or must do so, upon the a~sumption that the excess-profits tax is paid by the rich corporation or individual alone. My con­tention is that it is paid by the rich man or the rich corpora­tion in the first instarwe, and then inevitably, in whole or in part, depending upon market conditions, it percolates down through the body politic, and rests its heavy hand, directly or indirectly, upon every man, woman, and child in the country. If you impose taxes such as these in the hope that they will be paid by one selected group alone, you will encounter the proof of the same fallacy which has existed and has been shown time and time again. Prices will be raised to the consumer in order to pay the taxes. It has always been so.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York further yield to tht! Senator from Nebraska? Mr. WADSWORTH. I do. l\Ir. HITCHCOCK. The Senator's argument is quite familiar,

and it is a very entrancing theory; but the fact was that those who brought infi uence to bear upon the Congress to lay aside that $450,000,000 of exce s-profits tax were the corporations that were paying the tax, and the fact is that when we repealed the tax we lost the revenue. I know that it is a beautiful theory, and they added to that theory by saying that if you repealed the excess-profits tax you would improve business; but business has not improved. This is going to be the most disastrous year for business that this country has had, perhaps, in its history.

l\lr. WADSWORTH. Then this is a beautiful time to incur another national debt of $5,000,000,000 I

Mr. HITCHCOCK. And the theory that business could be improved by relieving the highly profitable corporations of $450,000,000 of excess-profit taxes has been proven false. This country this year is going to have the greatest number of com­mercial failures that it bas ever had in its history.

l\lr. WADSWORTH. Therefore, Mr. President, tax them more, according to the Senator!

Mr. HITCHCOCK. No, Mr. President; you do not tax the companies that are in difficulties. Your excess-profits tax falls only upon those corporations that are earning tremendous prpfits. You do not tax the companies that are in difficulties by an excess-profits tax; only those that are rolling in profits.

Mr. BORAH and l\Ir. REED of Missouri addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. WADS WORTH. I yield first to the Senator from Idaho. Mr. BORAH. If you tax the corporations that are rolling in

profits, they are monopolistic corporations, and those corpora­tions can and always do-it has been proven by actual observa­tion-pass the tax on to the consumer.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. President--Mr. W.,A.DSWORTH. I think I have the floor. Mr. HITCHCOCK. That remark was in answer to my state­

ment. Will not the Senator yield to me a moment longer? Mr. WAD SW ORTH. Very well. Mr. HITCHCOCK. The Senator from Idaho is advancing a

very beautiful theory, and it has been frequently asserted that those corporations that were enjoying the excess profits passed the tax on to the people in the shape of increased prices ; but

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 118<}7 the Senator can not point to any reduction in prices by those corporations since you relieved them of the tax.

l\fr. BORAH. Of course not; but if the Senator will go back to the time when we imposed an excess-profits tax upon sugar refineries and other corporations at the time of the Spanish­American War, where we have the history of the beginning and the end of it, he will find that they passed every single dol­lar of that tax on to the consumer. Competitive business, or corporations engaged in competitive fields, can not do so; at any rate not so fully, but corporations enjoying a monopoly can and do. While I voted against repealing the tax, I realize much of it was passed on.

Mr. WADSWORTH. So long as there is a seller's market, it will always be done. •

Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from . New

York yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. WADSWORTH. I should like to proceed. Does the

Senator want to ask me a question? Mr. REED of Missouri. I merely wanted to call attention to

the fact that the Senator states that the Secretary of the Treasury estimates a $450,000,000 deficit for this year. That is the exact amount which the experts of the Treasury esti­mated we would get from the excess-profits tax which was re­pealed. The figures exactly tally.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Yes; and the experts of the Treasury made their estimates while the revenue bill which we last passed was before us. Since then we have awakened to the realization that while we hoped to balance our revenue ac­count, we are going to be four or five hundred million dollars behind it; and the experts' estimates were not worth the paper they were written on at that time.

The truth of the matter is, the business of the country is not making the profits and the income that we expected is not forthcoming. We can add taxes, but there comes a time when taxes cease being productive.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Of course, if we repeal them we will not get the money.

Mr. BORAH. In to-day's New York Times is a very fine illus­tration of the situation which confronts us. The article reads:

A preliminary report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1922, signed by C. P. Smith, acting commissioner, shows that collections from income and profits taxes in 1921 were $3,228,137,673.75 and in 1922 $2,087,946,243.76, a qecrease of $1,140,191,429.99.

Mr. WADS WORTH. May I interrupt the Senator to say that that included excess-profits taxes, which were not repealed as of that fiscal year?

Mr. BORAH. This article continues: The receipts for 1922 include payments of the third and fourth in­

stallments of the 1920 taxes and the first and second installments of the 1921 taxes. There are included also various :Qayments on account of additional assessments an-0. amended returns o·f income and profits taxes for prior years.

The total internal-revenue collections from all sources were $3,197,-451,083 in 1922 and $4,595,357,061.95 in 1921, a decrease of $1,397,-90!'i,978.95.

In every State there was a falling off in income and profits tax payments in 1922 as compared with 1921, while the decrease from 1920 collections was extremely heavy.

In other words, the sources of taxes are drying up, the most deadly form of economic disease with which we can possibly be afflicted.

l\Ir. WADSWORTH. I thank the Senator from Idaho for contributing that statement. He has expressed briefly and comprehensively the very idea I have been trying to enuncia.te. I can point to an instance illustrating the situation perhaps a little more in detail, and I know I shall not have the sympathy of a great many Senators in pointing to it.

Thousands and thousands of people were starving in Russia, and a great relief organization was set up here in the United States, under Mr. Hoover, elaborately organized, and with the very last word of information from the famine-stricken dis­tricts of that unhappy country. An appeal was made to the most generous pe.ople on God's footstool to save the starving Ru sians from certain death. What happened? They did not ha-rn any more money they could give, and the effort failed. Mr. Ho°'·er and his assistants, able and persuasive as they \Vere, could not get any more money. There was none left to spare. Then we taxed the people $20,000,000, and made them gi >e--Our only recourse.

There is no more spare money in this country. Money does not drop from the sky, and you do not pick it up on the street more than once. l\loney is earned in the sweat of men and women who work for a living, and they are the people who pay tuxes-men nncl women who work in all the various strata of life. The dro1:es are IJut an infinitesimal fraction of the Ameri-

T.XTT-- 74S

can people. The overwhelming portion of them work hard day after day, producing, producing, producing, and. it is from the producers only that you can raise billions of dollars in taxes. When you have taken away the surplus over and above what is necessary to sustain themselves and their families, when you have taken away that surplus, you begin to grind them down, down, down ; and no more heinous crime can be committed by any government than to impose an impossible burden of taxa­tion upon its people.

Revolution starts there. Trace the histories of the revolu­tions of the past, and away down underneath nearly every one of them lies that otherwise uninteresting topic of dollars and cents. Taxation without representation accounted for the American Revolution. Overburdensome taxation by the Bour­bons accounted for the French Revolution.

I am not preaching a warning here. I am no such pessimist, but I tell you this question of dollars and cents has become the greatest question that confronts the men and women of America, and I can not understand for the life of me how any man can arise and blithely suggest at this hour in our history the adding of from three and a half to seven billion dollars to our national obligations.

The very men who it is said will be benefited by it will suffer the worst in the long nm. They have the 40 years to live, the period outlined in the bill. Most of us have not. They will have to earn their proportion of this money and they will be the greatest earners, and therefore the greatest con­tributors, among all our people, for the next generation and a half. Theirs is the energy, theirs is the enterprise, theirs is the physical and mental strength, and you say to them " Here is $250 or $300 as adjusted compensation for what you did for your country during the war." You do not say to them, as you should say, that they will have to work all the harder, that their wives will have to work all the harder, that their sons and daughters, when they grow up, will have to work all the harder to pay the money back in the form of taxes.

Mr. President, for the moment the indiscriminate distribu­tion of cash from the Treasury may have its attractive side to the recipients, but it will not be attractive long. The 'Senator from North Dakota has referred to this so-called com­pensation as the giving of a " few paltry dollars " to these men. He said it when he said that; a few paltry dollars "! That is just what it will be to each and every man, but to the Nation it is billions.

I suppose the amounts of adjusted compensation, so called, under this bill, will average someth.ing like $300 per man. What does this bill propose? That a certificate to that effect will be. handed to the soldier, if he wants it, whether he needs it or not. It makes no difference whether be -is able-bodied or otherwise, rich or poor; he is invited to come and take it. It will be handed to him. The Congress does not dare impose the taxes now to pay for the face value of that certificate. So we are going to defer the taking of the money out of the Treasury of the United States and defer and avoid for a little while the imposition of very heavy taxes.

We say to the man, " You can take this certificate ~nd go to your little country bank, if you live in a little country town, step up to the cashier's office, and borrow 50 per cent of its face value, and if you have not paid that loan back to the bank at the end of three years the Government will make the bank good."

What a way to treat self-respecting veterans! The Senator from New Mexico, I think, calls it a pawnbroker arrangement. It is, with the intimation that the note signed by the veteran, supposedly and most assuredly a self-respecting man, will not be paid; with the intimation given to him by suggesting in this bill that he can later repudiate the note and his Government will pay. That is the way he is going to get the cash, or 50 per cent of it, by going back on his own obligation. What an at­tractive way to educate the young men of this country.

1\1r. BURSUM. 1\1r. President, I suggest to the Senator from New York that a very easy way to obviate that embarrassment is by adopting the amendment which I have offered.

l\fr. WADS WORTH. The Senator from New Mexico has in­troduced an amendment which, as I understand it, will give the soldier 50 per cent in cash outright on the certificate, and the rest he can borrow.

Mr. BURSUl\1. No ; he can not borrow on his certificate. Mr. WADS WORTH. In any event, the money is to be paid,

and eventually it will be paid, by the imposition of taxes. Mr. BURSU1\I. A debt can ne•er be paid except by money or

the giving of a note. Mr. WADSWORTH. Does the Senat"r belieYe- that a debt

can be paid by the giving of a note? There has been too much

•

•

~11868 CONGRESSIO.L AL RECORD-SENATE. .AUGUST 28,

of that doctrine. That is the spirit back of this bill. These people have squirmed and wriggled and wriggled and squirmed to invent a way of giving money to these men without it cost­ing anything to anybody.

Ur. BURSUl\I. Mr. President, the Senator recognizes that on acconnt of obligations incurred during the war-and this is one which might very well be charged to the war-it beeame necessary to borrow money. Ninety-five per cent of the com­mercial business of the country is conducted on a basis of credit. Credit becomes necessary at times, especially in these times, when matters are depressed on account of the universal idleness all over the country, which naturally curtails the· ordinarily available supply of money, and credit becomes more essential. I think, if the facts were known, if the amount of the losses in production during the past several months on ac­count of the strikes in this country were computed, it would seem that we have lost more money than what would pay this bonus twice over. Yet the country is not going bankrupt. It is simply a case of deciding whether we owe these veterans the money. If we owe them, we ought to pay them; and if we have not the money, we ought to use our credit to get it. There ;will be no less money or any more money in the country by reason of this payment. It will all remain inside of the borders of the United States.

l\fr. WAD SW ORTH. There will be more paper money in the country. There will be an inflation ot credit by just the amount that is borrowed for unproductive enterprise. That is .where we · have to draw the line as to the soundness or nn· soundness of a financial undertaking involving the extension of credit: Is the credit to be extended for the fostering of a

1 produc1:ive enterprise? If so, then, other things being equal, • tfiat is a sound form of credit extension; but if credit is to be

extended merely for the purpose of indiscriminate distribution pt cash, with no productive enterprise assured and in sight, then, instead of helping the country, you are inflating credit and inflating prices. What are these men gomg to do with . w~at the Senator from North Dakota calls their "few paltry dollars,. ?

How large a percentage of this distribution among hundreds 'of thousands of' men will be inve ted in productive enterprise and thereby justify the expansion of credit? What can be done with a capital of $100? It may be used to make the last payment on a "flivver."

l\fr. REED of Missouri. Or it might be used to make the last payment on a cook stove or some household goods to enable a man to take care of his family and keep them warm.

Mr: WADSWORTH. Possibly so. Any number of instances can be found of that character, but I do not think it can be contended-and the Senator from New Mexico himself will not contend-that this form of credit is comparable with the form of credit to which he alluded a moment ago. The money will be distributed in such fashion that it can not: bring about, in the long run, that return which the man himself has a right to expect. How is he going to do it? It is a few paltry dollars, just as the Senator from North Dakota said. It differs vastly from the expansion of credit for- the purpose of giving to the veteran aid in the establishment of a farm or a home. That is legitimate from the standpoint I am trying to occupy. That hrings the man something in the end that is well worth while. It brings the country something. It does show our apprecia­tion for his service.

Mr. STANFIELD. Mr. President--1\fr. WADSWORTH. I yield to the Senator from Oregon. l\Ir. STANFIELD. Why does the Senator presume that the

yeteran will not use- this money in improving his situation? Mr. WADSWORTH. I think in the overwhelming majority

<>f the cases the amount will be so small that it ean not be used for any useful purpose.

Mr. STANFIELD. The Senator from New York ts surely only presuming that the veteran is going to spend the money in a wasteful manner. Of course, the fact of the matter is that the veteran may use it for a very beneficial purpose.

Mr. WADSWORTH. But so many of the payments will be so small that they will not be able to use it in that way. At I ast that is my judgment of it. I have heard that expression from many veterans-.

Mr. STANFIELD. The Senator is basing it wholly on his judgment that they will not use it in a useful way. These .veterans are not spendthrifts. In fact the great majority of them are men of frugal habits. This money may be the means of enabling many of them to construct a home or to furnish a home or to accomplish some such useful purpose>.

1\1r. WADSWORTH. If we would confine our efforts to something like the amendment suggested by the se-nior Senator-­from Oregon [l\lr . .McNARY] and perhaps even make that more

generous with respect to the ex-service men we would really ac­complish something for them and for the country ; but I ean not believe that this method of distribution is going to do any considerable number of them any permanent goou. It is per­fectly apparent that the supporters of the bill do not dare at this time, nor for three years to come, give them all the money. They are going to urge the young man to borrow half of it at a bank.

l\Ir. REED of Missouri. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield. Mr. REED of l\fissouri. The Senator knows why they post­

poned payment for three years? Mr. ~SWORTH. To avoid taxation. Mr .. REED of Missouri. No; to wait for the Democrats to

come in and raise the money. That is the idea, I think. Mr. WADSWORTH. The Senator froin Missouri is the first

Senator in the debate who has been entirely frank and injected a political thought into the discussion. I had hoped to steer clear of that. I remember the Senator from Montana [Mr. MYERS] semething like a year ago said one evening here when we were having a rather heated debate upon the so-called bonus bill that there would not be nearly as much excitement about it if there were not 4,000,000 voters asking for it. I am sure that is not a controlling motive with Senators who are going to vote for or against the bill, and yet there have been efforts to push it into politics. I have seen efforts made to get some political advantage for one party as against another, efforts which I decry as strenuously as I may, because the men who fought for us knew no party. They belonged to every conceiv­able political aggregation. I do not believe they come here as members of a party either to oppose or to ask for tlle legi . lation, and I shall hope tfiat the two great political' parties may manage to keep that consideration out of the discussion.

Mr. President, much has been said concerning the over­whelming opinion of the veterans of the war that the bill should pass .

Mr... BURSU.l\f. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York yield to the Senator from New Mexico? l\lr. w ADS WORTH. r yield. l\1r. BURSUM.. I merely desire for a moment to bring up

the matter of expansion before the Senator gets off of that subject. I agree, of course, that what~ver is appropriated and whatever is paid out will inflate the currency to that extent. But . the Senator will recan that during- the war the country became inflated very greatly and was inflated at a very rapid rate; that in 1920 there were sudden curtailments of credit, curtailments which were so severe in their influence upon the industries of the country and upon the banks of the countrT that in 1921 it became necessa.i·y > in order to stabilize and save the agricultural industry and to save the banks of the country, to reinflate by creating a credit of. so-mething over $600,000,000, which was made through the War Finance Corporatfon.

At the present moment we are living under a condition of depression on account or industrial controversies all over the country-the strikes; the coal strike, the railroad strike-and in sympathy with those strikes and on aecount of the fnfluence which those strikes have upon other mdustries, othe-r industries are paralyzed. In consequence of all this there has been a great lo s of prodllction, and tbat has con-espondingly deflated the country to the extent of that loss of production. If we should have an inflation of six or seven hundred million dollars it would not be an injury, but rather it wouid be a stimulus to the business of the country. It would not hurt any.

Mr. WADSWORTH. That infiation wm do us good is an eeonomiC' doctrine I have ne'\"er heard put fo11:h before.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. l\Ir. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New

York yield to the Sena.tor from Nebraska? 1\Ir. WADSWORTH. I yield. l\Ir. IDTCHCOCK. I would like to calI the attention of the

Senator to the fact also that the drastic deflation which began in 1920 and ran through 1921 and did so much to ruin the cot­ton growers in the South and the agriculturists of the West w:as a policy which was followed because of the Republican platform adopted in Jone, 1920. The Republican platform de­nounced the expansion which the Senator from New l\Iexico [Mr. BURSUM] says produced such prosperity followinO' the war ; it denounced the Democratic policy of credit~ and cur­rency expansion. and demanded and promi ed on the part of the Republican Party a drastic deflation, which it has can-ied out. Does the Senator remember that?

l\Ir. WADSWORTH. Is the Senator addressing the Senator from New Mexico or the Senator from New York?

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11869 Mr. HITCHCOCK. I would be glad to have either Senator

of the Republican Party recall the fact. Mr. WAD SW ORTH. No ; I do not recollect it in that way

at all. Mr. HITCHCOCK. Will the Senator permit me to read the

plank? Mr. WADSWORTH. Oh, the Senator can read nationai

platforms--Mr. HITCHCOCK. I hope the Senator will let me read it. l\Ir. WADSWORTH. I have not said anything about a policy

of deflation at all. l\fr. HITCHCOCK. But the Senator's party did. His party

demanded it. His party demanded the very thing that brought ruin upon the country.

Mr. WAD SW ORTH. Mr. President, is it not reasonable to expect the Senator from Nebraska to make his political speech in his own time?

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I will confine it to reading the Senator's party platform.

The PRESIDLJG OFFICER. The matter rests entirely with the Senator from New York whether he will yield or not.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Very well; I yield. Mr. HITCHCOCK (reading) : The prime cause of the " high cost of living" has been first and

foremost a 50 per cent depreciation in the purchasing power of the dollar, due to a gross expansion of our currency and credit. Reduced production, burctensome taxation, swollen profits, and the increased demand for goods arising from a fictitious but enlarged buying power have been contributing causes in a greater or less degree.

I will omit the next paragraph and come to the gist of what it said:

There is no short way out, and we decline to deceive the people with vain promise or quack remedies. But as the political party that throughout its history bas stood for honest money and sound finance, we pledge ourselves to earnest and consistent attack upon the high cost of living by rigorous avoidance of further inflation in our Government borrowing, by courageous and intelligent .deflation of over­expanded credit a11d currency.

That was the pledge of the Republican Party, and in the same plank it denounced the Democratic Party for the expan­sion of credit and cmrency which produced the two wonder­fully prosperous years following the war.

Mr. WADSWORTH. Well, l\lr. President, just what the declaration of the two great parties in their last national con­ventions have to do with the subject in band I am not aware. I am not going to discuss the thing from the standpoint of a Republican or Democrat. I only know this, Mr. President, that the country is facing an immense deficit in its revenues. liJvery conceivable effort must be made to cut down the ex­penses. Tremendous strides ha 'e been made in that direc­tion already. It seems to me as if even greater strides must be made in the next year or two before our Buuget will bal­ance. Indeed, desperate efforts must be made, even to the extent of abandoning what otherwise would be considered abso­lutely necessary projects. I need not remind Senators of the steps which already have been taken and how grave is the disappointment of the people in many parts of the country in that the Government has been unable to carry out those func­tions which the people believe are useful, constructive functions. The situation will be infinitely worse and will be extended over an indefinite period if action as contemplated in this bill is taken.

I need but remind Senators of one of the sacred obligations of the Government and that is the care of the disabled man. The cost of his hospitalization, his medical treatment, his com­pensation for injuries incurred in line of duty, and his voca­tional training this fiscal year will amount to $600,000,000 and we are but four years after the· war. I do not begrudge one penny of the $600,000,000. At the same time we must recol­lect, if we have any memories at all, that after every war charges and obligations such as that increase inevitably. As the years go by that $600,000,000 will increase to $700,000,000, $800,000,000, $900,000,000, $1,000,000,000 a year. It is a burden which the American people will bear cheerfully, and yet no man will deny that it is a very, very heavy burden.

If we add to that the other legitimate expenses of the Gov­ernment for carrying on those functions which the Government ought to perform, and then add the obligation contemplated in this bill, involving at least three and one-half billion dollars, and possibly as much as $7,000,000,000, and remember, at the same time, that this may not be the end of demands of this kind, I think every man who bas some regard for the future content­ment of the people, their happiness and their prosperity, will make up his mind that this constitutes a burden greater than can be borne. There is a limit, Mr. President; we have already reached it, as the figures show. We can not contrive taxes to­day that will balance our budget unless at the same time we

abandon many activities that are necessary for the progress of America. ·

Mr. President, I merely wish to make this further observa­tion: Much has been said about the number of the veterans who are in favor of this legislation. It is impossible, of course, to take a poll and ·develop thereby the sentiment of the veterans of the war. We receive conflicting reports. I have receiYed hundreds and hundreds of letters supporting the proposed legis­lation, although I have been opposing it since the political cam­paign of 1920; I have likewise received hundreds of letters from veterans opposing it. In conclusion, as a sample of this opposi­tion, I ask that the Secretary be allowed to read a letter ad­dressed to me under date of August 17, 1922, from the com­mander of an American Legion post in the State of New York.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Ohair hears none, and the Secretary will read as requested.

The reading clerk read the letter, as follows : AUGUST 17, 1922.

Senator JAMES w. WADSWORTH, Jr., United States Senate, Washington, D. 0.

MY DEAR SENATOR: This is to advise you that the Leonard S. Mo­range Post, No. 464, .American Legion, of Bronxville, N. Y., is unani­mously oppos€d to the enactment of legislation intended to give a bonus or gratuity or so-called financial adjustment of compensation to vet­erans of the late war who sufiered no disability therefrom and are not dependent on gratuities for their maintenance and support.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that at the -end of this legisla­tive session an attempt will be made to dragoon the Senate 6f the United States into passing certain legislation now pending which will give effect to the bonus system for military service rendered in time of war against the public enemy.

Our post invokes your opposition to such legislation. It can not be said that the action taken by this post is either casual

or remote in time. Every individual member has been afforded ample opportunity within the past six months to consider the terms of the proposed legislation and has voted as an individual over his own signature to define his position on this matter. This post also furnished a: ballot to each of the few veterans of the World War who are re idents in Bronxville and its vicinity and who are not affiliated with the .American Legion, and the post has counted the ballots which have been cast ~Y this element as if they were the votes of members.

This ballot has been watched with keen interest by the residents of the community, and the results thereof approved publicly without a single dissenting voice. The whole matter is one in which the people of Bronxville are keenly alive, and there can be no question about their undivided opposition to the enactment of any bonus legislation.

I have heard the argument advanced that those who are opposed to the bonus need not accept it, but have also heard that argument answered to the effect that if bonus legislation is passed it will be almost necessary for many of the beneficiaries thereunder to accept the bonus in order to pay the increased taxes which must be levied.

Respectfully yours, DOUGLAS I. MCKAY,

Commander Leonard S. Morange Post, No. 464, American Legion.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President, I desire to inquire of the Senator in charge of the pending bill whether he desires to go on to-night?

1\1r. CURTIS. Yes, Mr. President; it is desired to go on to-night.

l\Ir. REED of Missouri. I wish to make some remarks in reference to the bill, but I should much prefer to make them to-morrow morning.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I desire to suggest to the Senator from Missouri that if he does not wish to go on now I shall make a few remarks on the bill. •

Mr. REED of Missouri. I shall yield to the Senator from Alabama and discuss the bill to-morrow.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.

l\lr. SIMMONS. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to me, in order that I may present an amendment to the pending bill?

l\Ir. HEFLIN. Does the Senator from No1itb Carolina merely desire to present an amendment so that it may be offered later?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. l\ir. HEFLIN. I yield to the Senator for that purpose. Mr. SIMMONS. I submit the amendment which I send to

the desk, and which I intend to offer to the bill at the proper time. I ask that the amendment may be printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina offers an amendment to the pending bill, which will be printed and lie on the table.

Mr. DIAL. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to me, in order that I may present an amendment to the pending bill, and ask that it be printed?

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

l\Ir. HEFLIN. I yield. Mr. DIAL. I submit an am~ndruent to the pcnrling bill and

ask that iit may be printed and lie on the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be so ordered.

11870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

Mr. HEFLIN. l\Ir. President~ the Senator from New Yo._rk [Mr. WADSWORTH] has called attention to a newspaper state­ment te> the effect that several thousand people- will soon- go ~Ht of employment who are now working in the plants. of Henry Ferd; but the Senator from New York failed to tell us what Mr. Ford said was the reason for that. Mr. Ford said he waa forced to that action b_ecause of conditions produced by Wall Street financiers and permitted under the reign of the- Repub­lican PaYty.

Mr. President,. I hold in my hand a statement from the New York World of to-day, which rerula as follows:

MELLON BACKS' RABDING~

(Speclal to the World.) WA.SHINUTON, August 2.'l--Secretary Mellon hr urging the reappoint­

ment of W. P. G. Harding as governor or the Federal Reserv.e Board. The President bas inclined to some other candidate, especially Comp­troller of the Currency Crissinger, but there is opposition to Crissinger among Republican Senatoi:s.

Secretary Mellon's views it is believed, will go far in gu1ding the selection and may outweigh all other considerations. The announce­ment from the White House that the President shares none ot the­animosity against Mr. Harding is taken as an indication that the latter 1s leading for the place.

l\fr. President, I also have before m& an article which appeared in the Washington Evening Star o.f last Saturday, I believe, under the caption " Opposed by farm bloc,'r and which reads:

Opposition to the reappointment of former Governor Harding, ac­cording to some close observers of Reserve Board developments, 181 mainly from the aection of the country i·ep:i:esented in Congress by the farm bloc, while business sentiment. on the other hand, 1s said to be opposing Mr. Crissinger because of his !iUggestion. for a 3i per cent rediscount rate on farm paperf contingent upon not more than 6 per cent being charged on original oan by banks.

I wish te> bring to the attention ot the country the fact that Mr. Mellon. the Secretary of the Treasury, ha& opposed the appointment of a farmer upon the Federal Reserve Board, and now we are told that the financiers of Wall Street-fer that ilr wbat it means-do not want Mr. Crissinger aJJpointed because he favors. a reduction in the redisconn.t rate.

l\Ir. President, the Bank of England has reduced its redis­connt rate and interest r.ate to 3 per cent, whei:eas the Federal reserve system in the- United States has reduced the rate only to 41 and 4 per cent. We are insisting that the rate ought to be reduced here; that on loans through our banks, whether on ag1·icultural paper or other kinds of paper, 3 per cent rediscount at Federal reserve banks is Bllfficient in these hard times.

I wish to call the attention of the Senate to what has been going on. under the- high interest rate- charged by the Federal reserve system during the deflation drlve conducted by Governor Harding I am going to. read some startling statements from a letter of John Skelton Williams, former Comptroller of the­Currency, addressed to the Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT]1 In the concluding. portion of his letter :Mr. Willlams says :

Let me in conclusion bring to your attention the simply t;utrageom~ increase which has taken. pla.ce in the sala.ries paid by the 12 reserve banks since 1918. In that xear the total amount o! salaries paid,, as officially reported, amounted to $4,768,449. In the 12 months enmng June 30, 1922, the Federal reserve banks in their most important de­partments did a smaller business than in 1918. FOl' example, there WllS a tremend-0us falling off in the work involving the handling- o! the. Lib~ty bond Issues, no new Libe-rty bonds being- brought out in the past 12 months, and there was also a heavy :tallinir off- in the amount o! loans, discounts, and bought paper held by the 12. reserve banks. The average amount beid for the 12 months ending June 30, 1922~ was about $250,000,000 less than for the calendar year 1918 ; and yet the official reports just published show that the 12 reserve banks paid out 1n salaries for the 12 months endin~ June 30, 1922, the huge sum o1 $19 987 559, an increase over the calendar year 1918, when business in the most important departm-entS" was. larger than it was in the past 12. months, of $15,.21-9,110.

I call the especial attention of Senators to the following state­ment:

The increase alone in the sal1Iries pldd in the> past 12 months as compared with the calendar year 1918, amounts to more than thr;e> times the total 01' the salaries paid during the past yee.r to all the Members of the United States Senate, all the Members a! the United States House of Tu?presentatlves, the President of the United States, the Vice President, the Chiet Justice· of the- Supreme Court, all members of the Supreme Con.rt. all United States. circmt judges, all members o! the President's Cabinet.I all meml)ers of the Interstate Commerce Com­mission, all members ru: the Federal Trade Commission, all members of the War Finance Commii;;sion, the General of the United States Army, and the Adm1ral of the Navy.

Senators, these facts are simply astounding and shocking. A.. deflation policy that destroyed business was at the same time accumulating millions through usurious interest rates and using it to increase the salaries ot agents, clerks, and other officials of the Federal reserve banks. All this was done under the approving eye of W. P. G. Harding.

And yet we are told that the Secretary of the Trea5Ury is begging the President of the United States to reappoint him and that the Secretary is likely to have his way about it. Who. is it that is demanding this man's. reai>pointment? Wall

Street, the men whose financial policy is driving Henry Ford, a man of immense wealth himself, to shut down, the men who will not permit the Federal Reserve Board to reduce the re­discount rate at least to the figure· set by the Bank of England of S per cent. If Great Britain can afford, with all the vexing problems that confront her, to reduce the rediscount rate in the Bank of England tn 3 per cent, why is it that the Govern· ment of the United States will permit the system here to hold it at 4i per cent upon tile common man and 4 per cent to cer­tain other interests?

What have we found, Mr. President? We found this pro­gressive: interest rate applied, and while the country was in distress. and its business was going to ruin, credits were with­drawn, currency was withdrawn, and the work of destruction went on until ruin was spread all about the country. What were these bankers doing during that time? Charging inex­cusably high interest rates; making tremendous profits." What were they doing with those profits?

Increasing their salaries by leaps and bounds-an increase of over $15,000,000 over the salaries paid in 1918 when the banks did more business than in the year just ended. Why. Mr. President, I have shown here before that in New York they increased the salaries of clerks who were drawing $1.200 to $12,000; clerks drawing $1,600 to $16,000; clerks drawing $1,800 to $18,000; clerks drawing $2,500 to $25,000; and in the case of the governor of the board they raised his salary to $50,000 ! Who was paying that? The people of the United States, whose business was d:ying-literally dying-under that miserable drastic, destructive deflation policy. What else did they do? Out of the profits they made from charging an interest rate ranging from 7 per cent to 87! per cent they accumulated this money. Sixty per cent of it would go into the Public Treasury after running expenses and dividends were paid. With all that accumulation of money they did not turn the Government's part into the- Treasury. They took it and used it They said~ "Here ls the time to feast," and they proceeded to set apart over $20,000,000 to build a bank palace in the Wall Street dis­trict in New York City costing more money than this Capitol, the Senate Office Building, the House Office Building, and the State, Wa_r, and Navy Building, all four combined. That is what has been going on while the business of the people was going to ruin. The people could not get money to meet their busi­ness needs. They could not get credits extended to save their business from ruin. Why, during that time of destructive de­flation, under the direction of Governor Harding these bank officials took out of circulation $14 per capita when they ought to have had twice $14 pe1· capita. •

How much did that $14 per capita amount to? Multiply 110,000,000 of people by $14, and you have a billion and a half dollars taken out of circulation, when we needed more money and credits to meet the requirements of business.

Was the Federal reserve system able to extend more credits? Governor Harding said it was. In his, report of 1920, before he had heard the siren song of the financiers of Wall Street, before he had looked longingly at the promised land of incoming Republicans, he made a statement in his annual report in which he said: "We have met the requirements o:f the war without encroaching upon our reserves. We can expand still more without doing so, and we can expand very much more by resorting to the emergency provisions of the act." That is in his report. If he could do that, and John Skelton Williams says that he could, why did he not do it?

l\fr. President, I have said here dozens of times that it was because Wall Street speculators wanted to make more than $1,000,000,000 out of the cotton crop of 1920, and they made it. They wanted to make millions. and hundreds. of millions on the corn crop and the wheat crop. and the cattle industry of the West, and they made it out of the colossal losses of legitimate business in the South and West. What did the Republican leaders do? They came here and slammed the door in the face of the soldier who bared his breast in battle and ofl'ered to die for his country. They held him back for one year, two years, three years, four years, and he is still waiting for simple justice at the hands o:f the Government whose life he saved.

The Senator from New York said something about putting this adjusted-compensation fund upon a counter and permitting these ex-service men to come up and take their share. I saw the Senator from New York and those with him vote to put the excess-profits fund, $450,000,000, upon the counter, and they bade the profiteers come up and take down millions each and go their way rejoicing. I saw his party, with his aid, take $90,000,000 out of the Treasury for the big income-tax payers of the country, making $540,000,000 in these two instances, and they went t11eir way with no sound of Republican protest following in. theil' wake.

1922. CO~GRESSIO Lr.AL REC.ORD-SENATE. 11871 ~lr. President, I haYe" the figures here. Four hundred and

:fifty millions dollars of excess-profits tax and $90,000,()()(J taken off of the big income-tax payers, makes $540,000,000. Divide that by 4,000,000 of young, brav-e, upstanding Americans aJld it would giYe thew $135 cash each. l\Iy, how much aid that would have been to these poo1· boys during tbe hard times that are behind us and how much it would a.ssist them now I

Why, I had a letter he.re from a Republican Member of the House from New York, Mr. FISH, asking me if I had any old clothes to give to these boys. I wrote him that l did not. but that I was in favor of adjusted compensation for these- boys. Give them old clothes! That is the estimate placed upon the

alor of the soldier by tha average high-brow Republican. They bow and smile most graciously when the profiteer comes around. "Walk right in; what can we do for you;?" "Why," he says, " I want this excess-profits tax ta.ken off.' ..

They say: "Very well; it shall be done." Who is that at the door? Why, they are the big income-tax payers. "What can we do for you 'l" " Why," they say, "we want $00,000,000 of income taxes taken off of us~" They say~ "Very well; it shall be done." Then the contractors come in, who have ma­terial piled about their premise.a th.at the Government never used and never moved, and theY' say: "What do you want?" They say, " We want $700~000,000 and more to pay for this material We want every dollar of it." Th& reply is made; "Why, you are not patriotic unless you give some. Won't you giYe something to the Government?" "Not a cent I " "Well, have a seat; we w111 grant your request." You granted 90,000,000 for the big income-tax p,ayer, and he went his way ;

you granted $450,000,000 for the e:x:cess-profits man, and he went his way ; you granted $700,000,000 and more to the contractor; and he went his way; you left neglected and standing- in the cold the man who offered his all, his life, for his countcy, and then you stand here and talk about denying them the paltry sum of $1.25 a day on the battle fields of France I

Why, l\lr. President, that would not begin_ to compensate him. Before I proceed any further I want a page to take this letter from John Skelton Williams to Senator SMOOT up to the press gallery •to the newspaper boys. Let them all have it. I want to see how many of them are going to carry those figures about the increase in salari~s of high officials, agentg, c.IerkB. and useless employees at the Federal reserve banks. I have a system of my own that I am working on. We may not be able to- reach the people from this plaee through certain news­papers, but we will reach them on the hustings in October, a.nd how we are going to lay our. facts before them, and we ask them whether they want to continue this crowd in power on whether they want to put some others in who are for the people! Whose Government is this? It belongs t0i the Ameri­can people. Are we going to permit the truth to be suppressed, keep the. people in the dark.. shut the door in the fa.ce of the soldier, and let big profiteers and big income-tax payers and big speculators in Wall Street literally run the country for which these boys were willing to die, and for which their comrades did die? That is the question we have to answer.

But I was about to remark, it has. been said that a dollar end a quarter a day would not be compensation for the soldier's valor. Why, you can not compensate mm._ What good will a dollar and a quarter a day d-0 him, we are- asked. It will keep him from sitting in a theater in Cleveland where they were stacking up old clothes on the stage, and having him walk down the aisle before the people that he offered to die for~ and take a suit of old clothes, and walk out with it, with his head hang­ing down. It will prevent such as that. What good will this paltry sum, as you call it, do him?

It will help to get him something to eat, something to wear, and a place to sleep for awhile. Senators on the other side, some of them, will deny him even that; but they were as silent as the tomb when the big income-tax payers were taking ofr their $90,000,000, and the excess-profits men took off their $450,-000,000, and those who sold war 'material.a at tremendous profits grabbed up more than $700,000,000 and carried it away. Not one of them opened his mouth in protest. Not one of them said to these men, "Shame on you!" Not one of them halted the profiteer at the door and said to him, " You ought to be ashamed of yourseli. You are a contemptible wretch. You started into this game :fleecing your Government in the hour of its peril. You took advantage of its distress, of its misfortune. You sold it goods at top-notch prices and umeasonable profits, and you have made not only hundreds of thousands but millions, and you imposed upon your Government in some instances and made ten times. as much stUff as you knew the Government would want. You took advantage of your Government's need in the hour of dire distress and danger, and here you come now asking us to pay you for material that you knew would never

be needed. Sha.me -0n you. t" Did they say that? ~ot a wortl of it. They took him by the arm, tlley escorted him into the committee· room, where he demandec1 that evecy dollar that he-had charged against the Government he paid, and he got it. Not one of th~m ever said a word against him. These brave b<>ys who marched through this city, stalwart, fearless young Americans, crusaders in the ca.use of right and liberty, were going away to do what?

Tu save this Government from overthrow and to save the liberty of the world_ Who would have thought that when they came back anybody, including even the profiteer, would carry on a propaganda like that which they are carrying on to-day to deny the soldier the paltry sum of $1.25 a da~ for offering his life, in battle. fire 3,000 miles from home?

You hear some. of these highbrows on the other- side saying, '~You can not estimate the value of th0' risk they took." Of course you can..not. God bless them, you can not measure it in any way. We will cherish it in our heart of hearts while we live, and Olll' posterity after us will rove and honor their heroic service.- You can not measure it, but you can help give him something to eat; you can put food in his mouth, clothes on his back, and a shelter over his head :for a time. You can help, him up and get him started. Many a man in this world to-day is on bis_ feet doing well wbo started with $50 or bad $100 to tide him over- some awful time. Two hundred and fifty or three hundred dollars in cash now would be a blessing and a. benediction to these boys. I have shown that the money they have givea tQ these profiteering human hogs, who have rooted around this Capitol until they took away more than a bal! billion dollars-I have shown that the mcme.y they ha-re thrown away to the big rich, these big, purse-proud fellows who put money in your campaign in 1920, $540,000,000, was enough to have given to 4,000,000 ot these boys $135 apiece.

That is not all; I have shown that if you counted that $700,· 000>000 on war materials never- used, where they took advan­tage of their Go:vernment and held it up, and add it to the $540,000,000, it would give to each and every one of 4,000,000 boys $310 cash, and you would have settled the finandal obli­gaJtion long pa:St due. But you would not do that. You per­mitted that money to go and now you have it in your power to compel England and France to pay a billion and a half dollars, and that would clean this debt up on a cash basis; but you will not do th.at. Wall Street will not permi.t you to do it. Wall Street collected more than $1,700,000,000 from France and England, but they are not going to permit you to do. it.

You have Republican editors and a few others in Europe oow working up a propaganda to cancel this debt. That is what is going on, and you give away ten or eleven billion dol­lars of .the American people's money, with your own brave sol­diery in disiress-at home, denying them adjusted compensation.

What is adjusted compensation? They try to hide behind the talk about a "bonus." It is not a bonus. What is ad­justed compensation.? Here is a young soldier who comes up and says, " I left my home at a certain time. I was gone so many months, was ' over there,' and served in France. I came back here, and you kept me away from where I used to work s:ix months, through no fault of mine; I could not get there, and you did not get me there, and I have lost that time. I was doing well when I left here, and when I came back I had no job, my employment was gx>ne, and I had' not a nickel in my· pocket.n

They bad to take up collections to get clothes in the play­houses of the country. This young man say~ u I come now to present my little bill. It is small but it will help me greatly. I don't know whether you are going to pay it or not, but I claim you owe me that much. I do not ask you to present to me that amount as a gift, but I claim that you are due me that much.." And what do you do? You will not even permit him to have his account adjudicated. You did not let him wait a week when you called him to the c_olors, but you have refused for four years to even give him a hearing on adjusted compensation. Some get up and say it is a bonus. The Sena­tor from New York says the fact that you are going to give them all exactly the same- amount shows it is a -bonus. That is a strange doctrine. Four hundred and thirty-five Members of the House of Representatives are drawing $7,500 each; they get exactly the same pay. Ninety-six Senators- are drawing exactly the same amount, and when we draw our salary, which is supposed to be compensation for service rendered according to the theory of the Senator from New York, we are getting a bonus. Four hundred and thirty-five Members in th~ Houre ·draw $7,500, and 96 Senators draw that amount, and because it is the same amount and paid on the same day under th& theory of the Senator from New York it is a bonus. I think

11872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.ATE. AUGUST 28,

it must be apparent to everyone that that suggestion is utterly ridiculous.

There is no bonus about it. As the Senator from Arizona [rilr . .ASHURST] said, we paid for the shells, we paid for the powder in them, we paid for the bullet, we paid for the steel and the lead, we paid for the gun, we paid for the saber, we paid for all those things ; we paid for implements and vehicles and the like to get the boys to the battle ground. War material, of cour e, had to be bought; but the spirit that abides in the breasts of our brave boys was what we were relying on: When they got there we knew that the thing would not last long, and it clid not. Now it is over, and these human beings, made in God's image, who e valor and heroism saved the day, come home, and they are sho\ed back by the contractor who made hundreds and thousands of saddles that he knew we would never need and got his money, and there were other contractors who ran their arms into the Treasury, by the sanction of the Republican Con­gres , and took this money out, while the soldier stood in the background ; and the profiteer got his, and the big income-tax payer got his.

Then came the army of tariff barons beating at the door, and we stood there and said, "Gentlemen, surely you will not make the soldiers wait any longer ; they are taking up collections to get clothes for them; they are selling them on the auction block in Boston; they have nothing to live on, nothing to wear, no place to sleep; you will not make them wait any longer; I know you will not ; 500,000 of them are out of employment and are in distress; I know you will not make them wait." But the~· said, "Shove them aside, shove them aside."

Here come . the tariff barons marching upon a Republican Con­gress. They are hungry. They want an opportunity to tax the ~4illlerican people $3,000,000,000 in the year 1922, and if they can get their oppressive, tyrannical tariff bill through they will do it. They will get back some of the money they gave to the Republican campaign fund in 1920. " Get back, you boys who wore the khaki on the fields of France. Wait until these men are served."

The soldier boy stood there with a look of humiliation and disappointment on his face. He said, " They all got back for us over yonder. Nobody wanted to get in front of us over there." They said "Go to it, boys. We are re1ying on you. All that is dear at home is in your bands. You are the first consider­ation, soldiers of our country, standing between us and the overthrow of our Government and the loss of our liberty." First OT"er there but last at home. That is the record of the Republican Party. God save the Republic from the continued affliction of such leadership and control.

Mr. President, the Senator from New York told us that when you keep ta:A.-i.ng the people you get down to a certain point and revolutions are born. I want to tell the Senator from New York that the deflation policy conducted by his party cost the South and the West billions of dollars, and you have reduced almost to a state of pauperism thousands and thousands of men who were well-to-do in 1919. If reducing a man from a state of pro~perity to a state of pauperism in 12 months is not drastic destructirn deflation, what is it?

~fr. STANFIELD. Mr. President, day af~r day, it seems, we sit here and listen to the Senator from Alabama stating that the deflation policy was the policy of the Federal Reserve Board. Now he has reversed himself, and says it was the pol­icy of the Republican Party, when surely the Senator from Alabama knows that the Federal Reserve Board was the crea­tion M the Democratic Party.

Mr. HEFLIN. Certainly. I have said here 30 times, per­haps, that under Republican rule it was perverted from the ends of its institution, maladministered; that the progressive interest rate amendment to the Federal reserve act was intro­duced in this body by Senator McLEAN, of Connecticut, a Republican, and in the House by l\fr. PLATT, of New York, a Republican, and passed through a Republican Congress ; and that the deflation re~olution, introduced by Senator McCORMICK, of Illinois, passed a Republican Senate, and the Republican platform adopted in June in Chicago declared for the deflation· policy and condemned the Democratic Party for extending the credits it did -extend to the people. I have said that !Jefore.

Mr. President, I was about to recount to the Senator from New York, when my friend from Oregon interrupted me, the ruin wrought in my State under the deflation policy. The farm­ers of my State alone were robbed of $102,000,000 on one cotton crop of 640,000 bales in one year. I saw big west · : n mules, for which our farmers paid $250 an<l $300 at Christ;.nns, 1919, sell for $40 and $50 during the year 1920. That is the work of your deflation policy.

Yet the Senator from New York, interrupted by the Senator from Idaho, said that the income taxes and other taxes had fallen off nearly _$1,000,000,000. Of cour~ the_y tQok .oft

nearly a hundred millions for the big income-tax payers. They took off $450,000,000 for the excess-profit tax: men, the big profiteers. That accounts for over . half a billion of it right there. They destroyed the purchasing power and the debt­paying power of the people, and that reduced the volume of business, and all this ruin has been wrought, and now you ai:e face to face with the situation to which Mr. Ford, a man worth many millions of dollars himself, has called to your attention.

Before I close I want to say this: A cleT"er Senator in this body, and one who sympathizes with my fight on deflation, who happens to be on the other side, a man of wealth himself, told me that just before they started this deflation drive; yes, be­fore the farmer and average business man was attacked with poison gas-poison gas administe1·ed by W. P. G., known hence­forth as William Poison Gas Harding-that they sent word to him : " You had better prepare for the storm before it breaks. We are going to have deflation." He said: "Prepare for the storm before it breaks. l\Iy business is such that I can not escape without heavy losses. I will lose thousands of dollars if deflation is brought upon me." And he said to me: "I did. That deflation policy cost me many thousands of dollars."

Yet the Secretary of the Treasury and Wall Street are seek­ing to have William Poison Gas Harding reappointed. What did he do? What happened in the situation that I have just mentioned? It is like a situation where a theater is full of peo­ple from the rank and file of our citizenship while men of great wealth and royal personages are sitting in a box. A bomb is placed under the building. The fuse is ready to be touched off and the work of destruction done. Quietly some man slips down to the box and whispers "Clear out of this box quietly. We are going to blow up this building. Don't make any noise, but get out before the bomb explodes." You see the men of wealth and the royal party get up and walk out, and the unsuspecting mass sit still while the work of de­struction is done.

After the wealthy ones and the royal party have gone the wretch touches off the fuse, the bomb e~lodes, the building is destroyed, and thousands of lives go into eternity without a moment's warning. That is what happened when William Poison Gas Harding touched off the Republican Wall Street bomb. They tell us that be sent word out to the rich of the country, " Get out, deflation is coming." But no warning was given to the people of the South or the people of the West, the common mass. He caught them, administered poison gas, shelled them with field guns, and blew them up with bombs.

I protest against his reappointment, and assert that he can not be confirmed if reappointed. No Senator from the South will vote for his confirmation except two or possibly three, and no Senator from the West, in my judgment; not one would vote to confirm him.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama will suspend while the Chair announces that the hom· of 6 o'clock having arrived, under the unanimous-consent agreement here­after debate is confined to 20 minutes on the amendments. The Senator has 20 minutes on the pending amendment.

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I have spoken longer than I intended, but I propose to continue to condemn this crime until it is a stench in the nostrils of every honest man and woman in the Republic. I intend to see to it that it is condemned and that those who perpetrate it are punished. That is a part of my business as a Senator from a sovereign State who loves his country and who wants to see justice done between man and man, and the great instrumentalities of the Republic so admin­istered that they will bring about the greatest good to the greatest number.

I want to have the great Federal reserve banking sy tern honestly, economically, and efficiently administered. I want to see it restored to the respect and confidence of the people. This can not be done with Governor Harding at the head of it.

PETITION AND MEMORIAL. Mr. :McNARY (for Mr. NORRIS) presented a petition of sun­

dry citizens of Bartley, Cambi·idge, Wilsonville, Indianola, May­wood, Freedom, and Danbury, all in the State of Nebraska, praying that the Federal Government take over and operate the railroads and coal mjnes, which ·was referred to the Com­mittee on Interstate Commerce.

l\fr. WILLIS presented a resolution of Chippewa Grange, No. 1912, Patrons of Husbandry of Doylestown, Ohio, protesting against the passage of ship subsidy legislation, which was re­ferred to the Committee on Commerce.

CIVIL SUITS IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS.

Mr. CUl\fl\IINS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill ( S. 3918) to amend section 51 of chapter 4 of the Juditial Co<le. reported it with amendments and submitted a J:elli>J.:t 1N.o. 892.J thereon.

\

1922. CONGl{ESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11873 BILLS AND JOINT BESOLUTION INTRODUCED.

Bills and a joint resolution were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows:

By Mr. WATSON of Indiana: A bill ( S. 3959) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to

grant to certain persons and corporations leases of certain lands, and the oil and gas deposits therein, lying south of the medial line of the main channel of Red River in Oklahoma, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

By Mr. McCUMBER: A bill ( S. 3960) for the relief of Daniel M. Slattery ; to the

Committee on Military Affairs. A .bill (S. 3961) granting an increase of pension to Elizabeth

C. Curtis (with an accompanying paper); to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. NEW: A bill ( S. 3962) to prohibit the sending of threatening letters

tlu·ough the mails, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ROBINSON (for Mr. I!AimrsoN): Joint resolution (S. J. Res. 239) authorizing the Secretary

of War to investigate the feasibility of constructing bridges aci·oss West and East Pascagoula Rivers, the Bay of Biloxi, and Bay St. Louis, in the State of Mississippi, for pur­poses of the national defense; to the Committee on Military .AfraiI·s.

WITHDRAWAL OF PA.PERS-ADELIA SULLIVAN.

On motion of Mr. NEW, it was-01·de1'00, That the_ papers filed with the bill (S. 2577, .66th Congress)

for the relief of Adelia Snllivan, be withdrawn from the files of the Senate, no adverse report having been made thereon.

SPEEOH BY SENATOR HARRISON. Mr. McKELLAR. I ask unanimous consent to have printed

in the RECORD in 8-point type a speech delivered by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. HARRISON] August 26, 1922, at the cele­bration o:t the sixty-fourth anniversary o! the Lincoln-Douglas debate, at Freeport, Ill.

There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD in 8-point type,, as follows :

Senator HA.BRISON spoke as follows : " Ladies and gentlemen, to come to Freeport under any cir­

cumstances is a pleasure, but to participate in this celebration, the sixty-fourth anniversary of the occasion upon which the eyes of the country were focused, the debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, is an opportunity that comes to but few men.

" The debates between these intellectual giants attracted uni­versal attention and were the most far-reaching in effect in the bil'ltory of the country.

" From the earliest period of our colonial history slavery had been recognized and practiced by 12 of the original 13 States. When our independence was won slavery immediately became 1m appendage to our body politic. As new territory was ac­quired and more States were formed the slavery question began to be an issue. It became, therefore, the policy of the Govern­ment to admit States in pairs, so that when a State was ad­mitted into the Union permitting slavery another was admitted prohibiting slavery. Thus it was that when Mississippi was admitted into the Union permitting slavery Illinois was likewise admitted into the Union as an antislave State.

" Sharp contest of confiicting views, however, did not arise until 1820, when Mis ouri, a part of the Louisiana Purchase, wa formed into a State and admitted into the Union under congre sional adjustment known as the Missouri Compromise, permitting that State to be admitted as a slave State, but pro­hibiting in the future slavery in all other States that might be admitfed north of the thirty-sixth degree and thirty minutes north latitude.

"The Missouri Compromise seemed to settle the slavery ques­tion until in the settlement of the Mexican War new lands were acquired and the vexatious question again arose. The issue became so acute that Clay, the great pacificator, then an old man, who had been the leader in bringing about the compro­mise of 1820, was called from retirement in Kentucky and under bi.,, leadership the compromise measures of 1850 were agreed upon nnd enacted into law. These measures, in substance, ap­proved California's admission as a free State, but adhered to the principle that in the future those States in that territory seeking admission should determine fo.r themselves whether they were to be admitted as free or slave States.

"Jn 1853 a bill was introduced into the Senate for the admis~ sion of Nebraska into statehood. Nebraska was north of the

thirty-sixth degree and thirty minutes north latitude. The con­stitution of Nebraska was silent with respect to slavery. Sen­ator Douglas, at that time in the Senate of the United States, was chairman of the committee to which it was referred. The bill was reported to the Senate by him with an amendment in substance stating 'that all questions pertaining to slavery in ·the Territories and in the new States to be formed therefrom are to be left to the decision of the people residing the-rein through their appropriate representatives.' In other words, while indirectlyr repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, it was but carrying out the principle enunciated in the later com­promise of 1850. The Nebraska bill, on the motion of Senator Dickson of Kentucky, was amended on the floor Of the Senate, and the amendment finally became a law, expressly repealing the Missouri Compromise and permitting slavery to exist in the new States to which slaves might be carried if the people of the States should desire it.

" The adoption of this amendment was the beginning of a political explosion in every northern State. Lincoln, who had served one term in the lower House of Congress, and who had voted no less than 40 times for the Wilmot proviso, which sought to prohibit slavery in those lands acquired from the Mexican War, was aroused. He had been quietly practicing his profession in the capital of your State, but on the reopening of the slavery question he immediately gave up his practice and, like one inspired, went from city to city criticizing and denounc­ing Douglas and those with. whom he was allied in pressing the Nebraska bill with the amendment repealing the Missouri Com­promise. When Congress adjourned Douglas returned home, and from one end of the State to the other he traveled, speaking to multitudes, giving an account of his stewardship and his course as the champion of State sovereignty. This was in 1854. Four years later Douglas came up for reelection, and was the nominee o:t his party for the Senate. Lincoln became his oppanent as the nominee of the Republican Party.

"The slavery issue had not abated, but had become more in­tense. Around the fireside, in workshops, in countinghouses, and at every public function it .was the subject above all others that engrossed attention. In the meanwhile Kansas had applied to the Federal Government for admission as a State. Her repre­sentatives had agreed upon what was known as the Lecompton constitution, guaranteeing to her people the right of slavery within the State. Her admission was championed by the Bu­chanan administration, of which Douglas was one of the most influential spokesmen on the floor of the Senate. ·

" When the question came up for consideration, Douglas defied his own party administration and led the fight against the ad­mission of Kansas as a State under the circumstances. He took the position which he had ever maintained and to which he adhered until his death, that the people should have the right to pass on their constitution, and in this instance the Lecomp­ton constitution might be foisted upon the people without their approval. So earnestly and persistently did he combat the ad­mission of Kansas into the Union under such conditions that he aroused the antagonism of the Federal administration and many of his own party leaders. But may it be said to the constancy of his purpose and devotion to principle that finaUy the Lecompton constitution was defeated and Kansas was ad­mitted as a State _under a constitution adopted by its people.

" He at that time had become the stormy petrel of American· politics. He had warm friends and bitter enemies. The part he took in the debates was always a strong and dominating part. He never vacillated, but always stepped to the front as a leader in whatever position he took. It was at that time and under those circumstances that the celebrated debates, one of which we t<>-day commemorate, were held in seven leading centers throughout the State.

" Mr. Lincoln challenged Douglas and Douglas accepted. The terms of the debates were that on the first day Douglas was to be allowed 1 hour to open, Lincoln 1 hour and 30 minutes to answer, and then Douglas a rejoinder of 30 minutes. At the next place th.ey were to alternate, and so on throughout the seven memorable debates.

"No two political gladiato1·s ever fought over such a momen­tous question and with more settled convictions of the correct­ness o.f their respective positions. No two men ever measured up in higher degree and drew such crowds. The people came from every section and other States, and what was said was heralded by the press throughout the country, and accepted as a lead for others of the same thought to follow. The arena was Illinois; the amphitheater was the whole country. Mr. Douglas was then the foremost figure in public life. Clay, Cal­houn, Webster,. Cass, and Benton had passed from the political stage and he was left the unrivaled debater-the towering per­sonality, the most commanding figure in America. He was

11874 CONGRESSION \_I1 RECORD-SENATE. AUGUST 28,

'the little giant of the West '-so known, so heralded, and so crO\Yned. Abraham Lincoln at that time was little known and his prominence in that debate grew out of the fact that he was Douglas's opponent.

"It was a debate worthy of our very best traditions, and has occupied as it ever will a high place in the political literature of America. Stephen A. Douglas was a man of striking per" sonality-short in stature, with a lionlike head, and deep, penetrating and attractive voice. His manner of speech was captivating, his power of expression seductive, and his grasp of public questions at that time unequaled by anyone. He could move audiences to tears or cheers with the same ease that be could steal away their thoughts. He could play upon their racial sensibilities, their partisan prejudices, with the same success that be could arouse their patriotic impulses. Crowds bent under the power of his oratory and the force of his logic as tall pines sway under the force of a storm. As a debater few men were his equal and none his superior. His followers were confined to no locality and they worshiped him with a devotion that amounted to idolatry. His utterances were their teachings and his acts the compass that guided their political movements.

0 1Ur. Lincoln at that time was not so fortunately circum­stanced. He did not posse s the influence that generally at­taches to a leader whose reputation is bound by no State and who forms an important part in the machinery of the adminis­tration that moves the Government. He bad never been per­mitted to shake the 'tree of patronage' that Hesperidian apples might fall at the feet of his friends. He had never held the Senate in the grip of h is logic or swayed them with the power of his eloquence, and therefore he could not draw crowds as one to whom great reputation allures. However, his keen intellect, his constant poise, his majestic simplicity, his power of close analysis, and the natural results of an appeal force­fully and sincerely made in behalf of humanity soon ingratiated him into the hearts of his fellow Americans and drew from his giant antagonist that degree of respect that is always ac­corded to one exceptionally endowed.

" It is one of the many instances that is revealed through our form of government-that he who to-day may be poor to-morrow may. be rich; that the capitalist of to-day may have been the laborer of yesterday. In a country such as ours, with opportunities unlimited, deaf to caste and rank, one who to-day may shine only in the reflected glory of another to-morrow may live in such glory that he is able to share it with his one­time benefactor.

" In 1858 Lincoln was known throughout this country only as the man who engaged in joint debates with Stephen A. Douglas. To-day Douglas is known as the man who engaged in joint debates with Abraham Lincoln.

"And to-day, as I stand before this great audience, cham­pioning the side against which one of the most beloved char­acters of American history stood and fought, I realize the magnitude of my task and the mighty current which I must combat, but I am sure that those of you who are not less proud of the name of Lincoln but proud of that other great Illlnoisan who was Illinois's outstanding political character for almost a generation, refiecting credit upon her proud name and whose

. memory every son of Illinois and of this whole country should ever revere, will bear with me in patience while I present in a nonpartisan, unprejudiced, dispassionate way the principles which were the incarnation of his mighty genius and for which he stood with a devotion as unwavering as the sun and a con­stancy as fixed as the stars. And if in the presentation of the issues involved in that debate and the principles for which each contended I should say something that might meet with your disapproval and you should think that it would have been bet­ter if left unsaid, you will understand that my purpose is not to relight the fires -that have long gone out or rekindle the smoldering prejudices that now lie dormant; they are presented because the exigencies of the occasion demand it and a dis­cussion of the question would be colorless without them.

"Douglas unders tood, as few men in his day, the principles upon which thi Government was founded. No one was more devoted to them or more fearless and cl>nstant in exposition of them. 'Vith lavery as unpopular before the people of Illinoi as it was in 1858, it took courage on the part of a political leader to stand before his Illinois constituents and defend the right of the people of other States to countenance and practice it in the way in which he did. And those prin­ciples were defended without respect to the audience before whom he spoke or the section in which he happened to be . . He uelieved in tllose principles with all his heart, and what

· ~u re him courage, as be so often said, was ' that they could

be uttered in one section just the same a .· they could in another.'

"It is easy for public men to drift upon· the tide of popular opinion, but it takes courage and the h ighest order of states­manship to combat a popular theory in \Yhich all the prejudices of the moment are interwoven.

"How easy in 1858 would it have been for Douglas, whose reputation was unbounded and whose place was secure, to have played upon the ensibilities of the people of Illinoi , to have inveighed against slavery, which to them was most unpopular, to have aroused their every prejudice, and to have appealed to those sentiments that would have met their approval with· out imposing upon him the neces ity of an explanation or excuse! But how unlike Douglas it would have been if he had followed such a course. He would have spurned the thought and loathed the idea.

" Stephen A. Douglas was a man of the people. He personified in his every political act what Lincoln in his immortal words proclaimed, that this was a ' government of the people, for the people, and by the people.' He had faith in the wisdom of those men who builded better than they knew the frame­work upon which this mighty Nation should stand. He be­lieved that the Federal Constitution was the most ideal piece of constructive statesmanship ever conceiYed by man; that it represented the most perfect form of gornrnm.ent and insured the greatest guaranty of the rights of the people in its dual form. If he was zealous foi· the powers delegated by i t spe­cifically to the Federal Government, he was more so of the rights resened in its hidden lines to the States. He believed in popular sovereignty in its e--rery meaning and acceptation. It was with him a passion-an obsession. It was the anchor to which he tied his whole political faith. He recognized that the closer the Government is brought to the people, the more it will be understood, the greater will it be appreciated, the more economically administered, and rigidly, yet impartially, enforced,

" Neither political exigency or party devotion could modify those ideas. His adherence to that rule of political conduct was inflexible, his faith in it unswerving. To those who as­sailed his constancy to popular government and pictured him as an advocate of slavery, as a champion of its ex.tension, as the archmover in spreading it broadcast all over the land, let rue remind them that they need only recall that when President Buchanan, the leader of his party, employed his every influ­ence to have Kansas admitted into the Union as a slave State under the provisions of the Lecompton constitution, Douglas was unyielding to his principles and defied not only that ad­ministration but some of his warmest personal friends in his opposition to it, contending that the people of Kansas should say what kind of a constitution they desired.

"And how completely does it answer the argument that Douglas was advocating slavery! How easy would it have been for him­if he had desired to promote the extension of slavery-to have surrendered the principle for which he had eYer battled and allowed the Lecompton constitution and the admission of Kansas as a slave State into statehood without the approval of her people! No. Slavery to him was not the big question-it was only interwoven in the larger question of the right of the people of a State, under the Federal Constitution, to control in all matters coming under the jurisdiction of the States, without outside interference. And it was due to his unrelenting oppo­sition that Kansas's admission into the Union as a slave State was delayed, and finally when the voice of the people was heard it was admitted as a free State.

"That was the dominant is ue of those great debates, and with a logic unanswerable, a persistence irresistible, and a sincerity of expression that carried weight in every utterance he pressed that thought in its every phase and refu ·ed to be diverted there­from.

"Douglas was not an advocate of slavery. Indeed, in speech after speech in that series of debates he approved the cour e of Illinois excluding slavery; but in no instance did he ever modify or soften his opposition to the right of the negro to citizenship under the Constitution. He combated with all the force of hi::i mighty genius the a :ertion that the Declaration of lnde­penuence declared that the negro was included in the phrase 'all men were created equal.' And in the course of those debates, when that contention was made, hi reply was that at the time of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence 12 out of the 13 original Colonies not only indorsed slavery but practiced it, bis argument being that if what Mr. Lincolu and tho e who contenued al!'! he di1l '''ere t rue, that is, that the Declaration of Independence had sought to give the negro equality of citizenship, that it was contrary to the practice of practically every Representative in the Congress that declaretl

1922. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 11875 for our independence and which Representatives · and their Stntes, following the declaration, failed to practice such a contention.

"There is an impression, general in its scope, that in those remarkable debates one of the important questions upon which Lincoln and Douglas divided was the right of the negro to social and political equality. Nothing could have been further from the issues of that campaign. It is quite true that Mr. Lincoln contended that that clause of the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal' meant that the negro should have and was entitled to all the natural rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. To be specific,. he said 'in the right to eat the bread which his own hand earned he is the equal of every living man.' But, said he, ' any­thing that argues me into the idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrange­ment of words by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their livin~ together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference I am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I will say then that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office.'

" Those views were shared by Mr. Douglas, and in expressions time after time he stood upon the same principles.

"I have cited these instances to disprove the common accepta­tion and at the same time as an illustration to show the remark­able change that has come over the country in the last 60 years.

" When all the chaff is removed from the subject matter of those debates, with side questions eliminated, it came a.own to the issue of whether the people of a State should decrde for themselves the right of slavery or whether the human element should be accepted to the exclusion of the principles enunciated in the organic law.

"On one hand stood Mr. Douglas-not advancing slavery, not in<lorsing it, yet advocating its extension if the people of a State desired it. On the other hand stood Mr. Lincoln, hating slavery condemning it, crying out against it as inhumane and morally wrong and advocating the prevention of its extension in eYery . way. He was not for destroying it in those States where under the law it was established and existed but believed that by prohibiting a further extension of it and eliminating it in Territories it would gradually work its own destruction. As strong as Mr. Lincoln was in his opposition to slavery he did not even go so far against slavery as to say that with one fell swoop he would get rid of it in the District of· Columbia. He recognized that fortunes had been invested in the property rights incident to slavery and that it could only be extinguished through a conservative course of gradual elimination.

" Mr. Douglas looked upon the Dred Scott decision as a wise judgment and as conforming to his interpretation of the Con­stitution. He respected the judgment of the Supreme Court anu felt constrained when one of its decisions was rendered, whether they met his approval or not, to abide the conse­quences. He believed that it should be the final tribunal to which contested constitutional questions should go, and that when the decision was handed down an appeal to no other source should be permitted. ·u was his contention that in this, our peculiar form of government, there must be a final arbiter, and that when the people failed to respect it and abide by its decisions the very pillars of our Government would be threatened.

"The Supreme Court having held that the master of Dred Scott, a slave, had a right to carry him into a Territory of the United States, the Congress . was powerless under the Constitution to give him bis freedom. Mr. Lincoln argued against that decision, condemned it, held it up to scorn, ques­tioned its correctness, and asserted the right of appeal from it either to Congress or to the people. And in this connection may I suggest that it was the far-sighted and political adroitness of Mr. Lincoln in the debate held here in Freeport that forced an answer from Mr. Douglas to the question whether 'the people of a United States .Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits,' prior to the adoption of its constitution tbat perhaps reelected Douglas to the Senate, but blazed the way_for

·Mr. Lincoln to become President of the United States. It was the nnswer of Mr. Douglas to that question that reveals the only time in all those debates or in bis whole legislative career where one might believe that he did not answer candidly the

question presented, the only time when it would appear he forsook the principles to which he was werrdell nnd succumbed to. the political exigencies of the hour. When he said that for laws to be enforced they must be backed by 1mblic opinion, ·it carried with it an assumption that the people, as a mass, would repeal a law by its continued and uninterrupted viola­tion.

" It is remarkably strange in this day of independent thought and action when the theories and principles of our Govern­ment are very often too little understood that such tremendous changes have taken place in the enactment of legislation and the practice of governments from those contended for by Lin­coln and Douglas.

"How little is the sentiment to-day for the repeal of the deci­sions of the Supreme Court of the United States through an appeal to the Congress or to the people. With what respect do the American people unanimously look upon the integrity of the members of the Supreme Court and the decisions of that great tribunal How unwise would it be if the Senators should vote for the resolution recently introduced by one of the Senators or the United States to override a decision of the Supreme Court when two-thirds of the Congress should desire it. How danger­ous to the perpetuity of our institutions if the Congress should seriously contend and say that decisions of the Supreme Court could be overturned by the Congress or the people at the bal­lot box.

,. The faith of the American people in the integrity of our courts can not be shattered, and to a great degree, perhaps, is the stability of our form of government dependent upon the char­acter of men who compose the Supreme Bench and the re­spect of all the people for its decisions.

"And may I be permitted to say in this presence that as Lincoln declared and Douglas believed, the progress and stability an(} . dominating influence of our Government among the nations of the world are measured in large degree by the character of our electorate.

" Men in public life to-day seeking political preferment may challenge the convictions of Lincoln and forget the utterances of Douglas and appeal to race prejudice and pamper the pride of racial elements in order to obtain their votes, but in the heart of this country and in the sober judgment of its people they recognize that both Lincoln and Douglas were right when they stood for a Caucasian electorate, literate and high-minded, unhyphenated, and thoroughly American. America to-day is great, dominant, and commanding, but if it is to continue so and maintain its great influence in world affairs its heartbeats must remain American, its blood pure, and its ideals high. Whenever the principles upon which our fathers built this Government are changed and their teachings forgotten, our shores overrun by those who love another country better than America, then we will become 'a house divided against itself' and it can not endure.

"And how, in so many matters of legislation_, have we moved a way from the principles of the fathers and the teachings of Douglas in wiping out State lines, building up in the National Capital a bureaucracy, and concentrating all the powers in the Federal Government? Under 'the tendency of the times in the movement on to Washington to obtain appropriations for gov­ernmental agencies of which the fathers never conceived nor the Constitution contemplated, we have seen State governments become almost powerless and too often inefficient. What the American people to-day need is an old-time awakening, reviv­ing the teachings of the fathers, and, as Douglas contended, leaving in the hands of the people those powers which, uncler the Constitution, they were designed to have.

"How often in those debates did the illustrious Douglas cite the legislation that was enforced in Maine, that was undesirable to the people of Illinois? And with what sincerity did the martyred Lincoln declare that because of climatic or other natural ca.uses laws could not be uniform but must be different in the various States. And it is to the credit of these two great men, trained in different political fields of thought, nursed in the schools of different political theories, that they should have agreed upon the one principle that because of a difference in the occupa-

. tion of the P(\Ople of the various States a law applicable to one might not be applicable to the other, and that the people of one State should not attempt to foist upon the people of an­other laws that were inimical to their interests and not de­sired by them.

"If Douglas could return to-day, how violent would he be in his opposition to some of the new-fangled ideas and tendencies of Federal encroachment upon the sovereign rights of the peo­ple. And I have no doubt that the silent Lincoln would throw the mighty power of his great influence against those things which he conceded in those debates as destructi\e of popular sover-

1876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. AUGUST 28,

eignty and fhe rights of the people. It would be ·a long stretcn of the -i·magination to see Douglas in the -Sena:te of the United &ate~ •championing a measure that would clothe the Federal GO'\·ernlnent with power to go into the State of Mississippi and because of an infraction of the 1Jolice laws of that State, be 1t murder or rape, to seek to impose 1>enalties 'llpon the taxpayers of the county in '-vhich the crime was committed for the benefit ftf fhe Fe<1era1 Trea uTy becauS'e of the failure of its officers to enforce the law; an<.l I can not corrcetve ·of llinco1n,-with the views

.xpt• sed in these remarkable aeba"tes 'in 'ffnswer to the advaca-cy of Douglas 'for popular "SoveTeignty, would have :permitted, Wit'.h h1s approval, a law being passed vesting in the Federal ·Govern­ment authority to have gone into the county of St. ·Cta'.ir 'and ~ra·ct from 'the sureties of tbe bond of the =sheriff or other officers ·of tbat county and from its innocent taxp-ayers large i:.:um as penalties because o'f the Tuth1ess and inexcusable 1n1.l-1ng of many of its citizens a 'few y~ars •a:go in East St. Louis. I can not in my wildest imagination see -either Lincoln or :Oong'l11s permltting the arm of the Federal 'Government to Teach into ouT State on that •receut wost inexcnsable and "repre'hen--ible occurrence ~f citizens of your State being snot down 'in

cold blood at Herrin and to again punisb innocent taxpayers of illiarnson County because tlle ·officers of that county failed 'O'r

were unable to protect the 'lives of its 1 citiz~ns. "The people of·a State lll'Ust bav-e and be permitted to ·~ercise

certain powers, and one of the n:uost important of all is to see ithat its police laws -are enforced and "that tbe lives and prop­erty af its citizens are protected. The peoi:>le have 'the power to say who shall be their officers not only to make the law-s for the proteetion of life antl property but to say what officers shall enforce them. Because, forsooth, mistakes 11.l'e made in 'the election and innocent peoi:>le are "Som~tiwes inju11ed, it does not

. and should not lic~nse the Federal ·Government to ·step in anu t!hereby change the whole ·fabric of ·our constitutional rights. Let us ·er1fol'ee the laws, and the beet 'Way to ·do 'tt is to --see that the right kind of individuals are selected for their en­t o1icement. Under the present tendency of Federal encroach­rn nt and concentra'tion •of p·ower in i:he Federal Government 'there has been recen1Jly pa ed in 'the House ·of Representatives nnd is now on "the calendar or the United States Senate ·a n1ea tll'e that :proposes to ·do just those things agai<nst which 'Lincoln .and Douglas invetg:hea and their spidts no doubt would .revolt.

'' Whllt we-need to-day in this wonderful country.is a reba-ptlsm :in the faith of ~mr fathers an.cl a reinc:ulcation of ·the -principles upon whi:ch thi-s Go-v-ernmient was founded. ~ere should be carr.ied on in every :hamlet in this 'broad land .a plan of educa­'tion, not only by the parents aro11nd the ;hearthstone but in the p11b'lic rschools, informing all ages of those 'teachings upon 'W'.hich this great dual form of Governmerrt -wa-s foonded and throngh 'all ·adherence to which it has .pr~"Tessed 'by leaps arrd

such election laws as would insure a more intelligent and American electorate. If the American ·-people would attend more to the character of its voters and the purity of its elec­tions, and adhePe more strictly to the principles upon which the Government was founoed, the rights of 1:be people wou1d 'be better guaranteed -and this Government would then· ever be a fixed star, the brightest 'Of all in the ·great ·firmament of nations.

" Bnt, ladies and gentlemen, while thel'e bas always been and ever will be two theories of polltical thought, two great -political parties, made up <if ipattiotic A-merica:n •citizens unswerving in their ·anegiance, there is no :reason why we should be intolerant of the opinion of others, inconsiderate of their 'Views, and un­willing to ·concede t6 ea.ell 'honesty of purpose 1lnd loyalty to ithe conv'ictions which they hold. And if tbat spirit pervades the land and 'the principles for which Donglas contended and Which 'Lincoln conceded-the soveTeign ·rights of the people­th'is Gavennnent Will e-ver be secure and its 'People contented.

"And, in conclusion, will you permit me to -say tha:t even though the ·clash of those two intellectual ·giants in 1858 gripped the attention of the country and 'Presaged an antagonistic feel­ing between the sections, cansing a rupture that threatened the ivery existence of 'the Union, it would, I am ·sure, be as beautiful .to Lincoln as ·1t would be inspiring to Douglas if they could return here to-da~ and see 'this country, once se torn in lfra-tricfd'a'l strife, lb1eeding ·at every l>Ore, c11l'sbing with 'its every resource, now reunited and bound together by ties ·o'f mutual .affection, brotherly love, 1and common interest, and cemented by the blood of tbe sans of :both. Nortn and South and sea1ed with the treasure ·of the ·sentiments .and aspirations of a c01nmon !people."

RECESS •

Mr. CURTIS. I .ask that the unanimous-consent order be carried 011t and ·the Senate take a recess until to-morrow at 1.1 o'clock a. m.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the 'Unatiimous­consent agreement heretofore entered into, the 'Senate stnnds in recess until 11 o'cloCk -a. m. to-morrow.

The Senate thereupon (at 6 o'clock and 5 -minutes p, m.) took a recess until to~orrow, Tuesday, '.Augnst 29, 1922, at H o'clock a. m.

HOUSE ·OF REPRESENTATIVES.

McmnAY, A.ugust &8, 1922.

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

the following prayer :

bounds to its present commanding and dominant position among . 0 Thou Gaa, olIT 'heavenly Father, for -every :blesSing we ~ll the natiuns .of the world. There is in this day and -time · offer Thee praise and thanksgiving. Amid ·the waT of e1e­tAo little of the faith o.f the fathers and too Slight understand- ments, the wreck of matter, and ·th~ crash <if -worlds our lives ing of the theories Whieh tbey ·sought to bequeath to posterity. ne fnll of the mercy of the 'Lord and our days ar~ maCle 'Secure

~· I wish there could be organizM in :this cmmtry a .campaign ; by Tlry care. Thy eye is upon us for our good ana Thy hand o'f education tb.at would compel 'the teaChings in the J)ub1ic is laid 11pon us :for our ilefense. With °l)atient step h~lp 'Us ta f'cbodl of 'the prlnoiples upon which the -rights of the ·states move onward day by day, fbreathing a sweeter, purer air from und 'Federal ·GoTeTnment are lmsed, so that as generations came 1 ·a higher altitude of eartlily rachievement. ·1n a11 ·our labors, 'on -and new '.f>'roblams are presented They can at least be met I plans, ·a11tl purposes, 'O may Tby sph'it ·say ·unto us: This is 'by an intelligent ·conception ·and appliaation Of 'those ·pnn- 1 the way, walk ye ·in it; and may 'We 'love to do ·so. In Jesus' ciples upon -wbich the Government ·was .founded. , name. Amen.

Le One M the evils af tbls day ~s .the fafhrre. of ~o many Amerl- 1 The Journal of the proceedings of .Saturday, August 26, 1922, can ivoters to •possess ·such 8: sp1r1t !Of Ame.n:camsm ~at would was read and approved. lead them to forget the mterest of other countries when those interests conflict with the ..geneTal welfare of our t>wn. . ORDER OF B1JSINES&. If the qualliications in the various States of the Union---:ana I Mr. MONDELL. Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that on to-morrow that, under fille teachings of 'Douglas, was where the qua!lifica- i we shall ha'Ve before us for consiaeTation the coal distribution tions ·shoula be imposec}-;were more restri"cttve and compelled i bill. 'J'hut is a rvei-ey 1imp01;tant mEra:sure, and will probabl:y ·a 'higher deg.ree of 'intelligence and in many instances a '.longer ! consume, 'at least, two dgys. Next 'Menday is unanimous-con­Tesidence in Ame11ica-certainly 1o.ng ·enough for ·an unders'tanil- , sent and <s:tlspension day. It is also Labor Day. 1I doubt .ft ing and -respect for the principles 'a'lld institUti9'ns of 'th1-s Gov- we have -a 1quonun on :that da'Y. ' There al'e quite a number ·<Jf eirnment to b·e planted in their fbosoma-then this conntry"s rfu- 1 bills o'f some importance that ITTJgbt to be considered ·that are ture would be mo11e secure. The laxity ·of cmr ·election laws ·on the Unanimous-Consent Ca'lenaar; and !I a k unanimous and the ·encouragement i·n the last generation o-f undesirable eon ent that in lieu of unanimous-consent day 1on 1\IEmday next peoples from foreign lands who ·am not und fl'stand mid cotild w~ have a aay for consideration •of !Umrn.imous-Consent Oalenrtar 'Jlot accept 'tfhe spiTit of our institutions has detracted m<>re imme-Cliately f()Ilowing conside1•fltion ·of the ·coal Clistrllmtimi ftom than it has ·e1evatecl .the character ·of ·our citize11ship. :bill, =zwt :to interfere with conference Tef)orts. That will prob-

" The educational test for immigrants from 'foreign shores ' ab!Y be ·on Thursday. fbefore Rdmis ion a:s citizens into if:hls ~ountry was a. step 1 Mr. TIYER. Of this week"? in the right direction-but their right to ::pa"I'ticipate in our iM-r. -MO:NDELL. rof it.bis week. elections very .;o'ften comes too soon 'a.fter th'ei'r rattlvaa be-'l'e. I ' ~Ir. STAFFORE>. t( ;a-ssume the ·gentleman means tthe ·Oa-y ·wjsh 'that ·I 'had tile p-ower to brill'g tt:a rtbe attetl'tion 'df. -every following he i:!oihplJ.etion of file •consideration •of the coal ~is­r ta'te iD -'t!be Am rican Unit>n :the "daingers •that lt11'k in ran im- : ·trributian ~ITT? ~Tn€'1'iean and i'.llitera te electorate 1and 't.nfinence ' tbe-m 'to ~act · -Mr. M-OND'EDL. ¥es.