192-± -. - US Government Publishing Office

•

192-± -. CO~GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8413 Ry lllr. DYER: A bill (H. R. 9179) to punish the unlawful

transmis ·ion in interstate commerce or through the mails of gamhling machines, fraudulent devices, pistols, and revolrnrs, an<l for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By l\Ir. SBUIONS: A bill (H. R. 9180) to amend subsections ( 1). ( 2) , and ( 3) of sectioll' 302 of the war risk insurance act, as amended; to the Committee on World War \eterans' Legislation. B~' Alr. BROWNE of Wisconsin: A bill (H. R. 9181) to amend

an act entitled "An act to provide re-venue to regulate commerce with foreign countries, to encourage the inclustlies of the United States, and for other purposes," approved September 21, 1922; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

ny :Mr. MILLIGAN: A bill (H. R. 9182) to amend the act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," appro1ed February 4, 1887. as amended June 29, 1906, April 13, 1908, June 18, 1910, Fehl'Uary 17, 1917, l\Iarch 2, 1917. May 29, 1917, August 10, 1917, and February 28, 1920; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Dy Mr. BLAJ\TD (by request) : Joint re"'olution (H. J. Res. 262) to authorize the United States Shipping Board to adjust the claim of the Near East Relief; to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

By Mr. BEEDY: Joint resolution (H. J. Res. 263) establishing a commission for the participation of the United States in an appropriate commemoration of the Lafa3·ette Centenary, authorizing an appropriation to be utilized in connection with such observance, and for other purpo ·es; to the Committee on the Library.

By Mr. BERGER: Concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 22) calling upon. the President of the United States to invite the representatives of nations which are signatories to the treaty of Versailles to attend an international conference to revise the terms of the treaty; to the Committee on F:oreign Affairs.

By l\Ir. CONNERY: Memorial of the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts petitioning Congress to enact legislation to prevent the manufacture of shoes in factories owned by the Federal Govermnent; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BURDICK. Memorial of the Legislature of the Rtate of Rhode Island indorsing the passage by Congress of Hou~e bill 1, relating to the crime of lynching; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIO:XS Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, prlrnte bills and re olutions

were introduced and se-verally referred a .· follows: By Mr. ARNOLD: A bill (H. R. 9183) granting an increase

of pension to Harriet E. Tally; to the Committee on Invalid Pern<ons.

Also, a bill (H. R. 9184) granting a pension to l\lary .A. Patton ; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. CONNERY: A bill (H. R. 9185) donating a captured German cannon or field gun and carriage to the Overseas Post, No. 240, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Lynn, Mass., for decorative and patriotic purposes; to the Committee on l\lilitary Affairs.

By Mr, KEARNS: A bill (H. R. 9186) granting a pension to Mary A. Taylor; to the Committee on Inrnlid Pensions.

By Mr. KETCHAM: A bill (H. R. 9187) granting a pen~ion to John U. Coker; to the Committee on Inrnlid Pen~ions.

By l\Ir. LANHAM: A bill (H. R. 9188) granting a i1ension to Josie Hicks; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Br Mr. SANDERS of Indiana: A bill (H. R. 9189) granting a pension to Catherine W. Crockett; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. TILLMAN: A bill (H. R. 9190) granting an increase of 11em:ion to Charles W. Colemon : to rhe (\m1mittee on Pensions.

Al8o, a bill (H. R. 91D1) grunting a pension to Artie Xole ·; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, petitionr-: and pa11ers were laid

on the Clerk's desk and referred a~ follow. : 2725. By the SPEAKER (by request ) : Petition of Hoard of

Estimates and Apportionment. City of ~ew York. oppo:-;iug proposal now pending in the Unit('(l Statei=' Senate to place a 10 per cent tax on sale of radio sets ancl r111rti:;; to the Committee on Ways a·nd Meam:;.

2726. By Mr. CONNERY: Petition of Sons of American Revolution, indorsing restoration and repairing of the frigate Con-8titution; to the Committee on l\Iilitar;\· Affairs.

2727. Br l\Ir. GALLIYAN: Petition of Family "\Yelfare Society, of Bo:;;ton, Ma~s., recommending early- HIHl fa\orable con-·

sideration of House bill 487, known as the Fitzgerald accident compensation bill; to the Committee on the District of C0-lumbia.

2728. Also, petition of American War \eterans' Association of City of Boston and County of Suffolk Employees, Boston, Mass.; also petition Vicinity Council No. 1, Department of Massachusetts, United Spanish War Veterans, Chelsea, Mass., ' urging passage of Bursum bill over Pre ident's veto; to the Committee on Pensions.

2729. Also, petition of Old Colony Lodge, No. 143, Brotherhood of Railroad and Steamship Clerks, Boston. Ma s., recommending early passage of the Howell-Barkley bill; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

2730. By Mr. LINEBERGER: Petition of Charlotte 1\1. Knox and others, in favor of the eighteenth amendment and Volstead Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

2731. Also, petition of Mrs. Gertrude E. Fuller and other'"', in support of equal rights amendment; to the Committee n the Judiciary.

2732. Also, petition of Thurborn E. Towle and others favoring the passage of Hou. e bill 3683 ; to the Committee o~ World War Veterans' Legislation.

2733. By l\Ir. 1'.'EWTON of :Minnesota : Petition of l\linneapolis Chapter, No. 1, Disabled American Veterans of tlle World War, in opposition to the ruling of the United States Veteran ' Bureau that requires two years' premedical schooling for entrance into the study of chiropractic, and urging the repeal of this rule; to the Committee on World War Veteran ' Legislation.

2734. Also, petition of the Saturday Lunch Club of l\Iinneapolis, that the United States shall not engage in or prepare for offensive warfare and that our Gornrument call upon all nations to make similar declaration; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

~735. Ry l\Ir. RAKER : Petition of Clerks' As ociatiou, Operating Department, Pennsylrnnia Railroad ·- ~'stem, Elmlrn, N. Y., opposing further measures of regulatory legislation; tu the Committee on Interstate and F.oreign Commerce.

2736. Also, petition of Fre~no Federal Bu~ine s M;sociation, Fre. ·no, Calif., resolution m·ging Feclera l Gm-ernment to put into u e confiscated boats and automobile~: to the Committee on Appropriations.

2737. Al::;o, petition of Freel Detmers, Lo~ Angeles, Calif., in re tax on articles of jewelry. including ."·pectacle~ and ere glar-:ses, in excess of *25 in Yalue: to th~ C'ommittee on Ways and Means.

2738. Also. petition of Second Clrnrch of Christ. Scientist, Xew Orleans, La., resolution calling- for a con titutional amen<lrnent for worl<l peace; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

2739 . .Also, petition of Unitert Veterans' Council, San Francisco, Calif .. urging pa& age of Bursum bill; to the Committee on Im·alid PensionR.

2740. Also, petition of Hollenbeck Ebell Club, Los Angele~. Calif., in re Senate bill 2313, relatiYe to the Five Civilize1l TrilJes of Indians in Oklahoma; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

2741. Also, petition of Harry A.rriYee, State Soldiers' Horne, Ohio, urging the appointment of a liquor commLsion to control tlle manufacture, sale, and consumption of all intoxicants; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

2742. Al. o, petition of David C. l\Iills, National Association of the Fur Indu tr~-, New York City, in re Hou-=·e bills 5949 and 743; to the Committee on Agriculture.

SENATE TUESDAY, May 13, 1924

The Chaplain, Ile1. J. J. l\Iuir, D. D., offered the following iwa3·er:

Our Father, we thank Tliee for the sunlight of the morning. Grnnt that our hearts may be filled with the sunlight of Thy i1resence, and that we may realize how good it is to live. our whole being throbbing with the purpose of living rightly, of fulfilling the tasks given unto us, and so engaging our occupations with fue high purposes of Thy will that we may be to others an example of righteous endeaYor to do that whicll ·hall be for the best of our loved land and all who are near and dear to us. We ask in .Tesus Christ's name. Amen.

The reading clerk proceeded to read the Journal of :re~terday's proceeding~ wl1en, on request of J\fr. Cn<rrs and b.' unanimous con. ent, the further reatling was cli:;;pensed 'IYith, and the Journal was a11pr0Yed.

8414. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE ~IAY 13

MESS.\GE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. Chaffee, one of its clerks, announced that the House had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6715) to reduce and equalize taxation, to provide revenue, and for other purposes; requested a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr. GRE&~ of Iowa, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. TREADWAY, Mr. GARNER of Texas, and 1\1.r. CoLLIER were appointed managers on the part of the House at the conference.

The message also announced that the Honse had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 381) to amend section 2 of the act entitled "An act to provide for stock-raising homesteads, and for other purposes," approved December 29, 1916 (39th Stat. L. p. 862).

The message further announced that the House had passed the bill ( S. 114) to vacate certain streets and alleys within the area known as the Walter Reed General Hospital District of Columbia; and to authorize the extension and ~idening of Fourteenth Street from Montague Street to its southern terminus south of Dahlia Street, Nicholson Street from: Thirteenth Street to Sixteenth Street, Colorado Avenue from Montague Street to Thirteenth Street, Concord Avenue from Sixteenth Street to its western terminus west of Eighth Street west Thirteenth Street from Nicholson Street to Piney Branch Road' and Piney Branch Road from Thirteenth Street to Butternut Street; and for other purposes, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate:

H. R. 3236. An act to regulate the practice of optometry 1n tbe District of Columbia; and

H. R. 8905. An act to authorize the settlement of the indebtedness of the Kingdom of Hungary to the United States of America.

TAX REDUCTION

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the action of the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6715) to reduce and equalize taxat~on, to provide revenue, and for other purposes, and requestmg a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

Mr. SMOOT. I move that the Senate insist on its amend· ments, agree to the conference asked by the House, and that the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to, and the President pro tempore appointed l\1r. SMOOT, Mr. McLEA:<i, Mr. CURTIS, Mr. SIMMONS, and 1\Ir. JONES of New Mexico conferees on the part of the Senate.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

Mr. ROBINSON presented the petition of the Women's Committee for the Children's Amendment (composed of representatives of sundry women's organizations) at Washington, D. C., praying for the passage of Honse Joint Resolution 184, proposing an amendment to the Constitution regulating child labor, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. :McKINLEY presented resolutions adopted by the board of trustees of the Sanitary District of Chicago, Ill., favoring an investigation by the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service of the sanitary conditions of the waters of Lake Michigan, in the region adjoining the Grand Calumet River, etc., which were referred to the Committee on Commerce.

l\!r. CAPPER presented the petition, numerously signed, of clerks of the Kansas City, Mo., terminal railway post office, praying for the passage of legislation granting increased compensation of. postal employees, which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

l\lr. WILLIS presented a petition of sundry citizens of Cincinnati, Ohio, praying an amendment to the Constitution granting equal rights to women, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

l\lr. McLEAN presented the memorial of the board of directors of the Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, at Hartford Conn., remonstrating against the passage of House bill 487' the so-called Fitzgerald workingmen's compensation bill for th~ District of Columbia, which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

He also presented the petition of sundry janitorial employees of ~e ~1eriden ~ Coi;in.) post office, praying for the passage of leg~slat10n granting mcreased compensation to postal employees, \Vhich was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

He also presented petitions of the congregations of St. John's C~urch, of Hartford ; the First Methodist Episcopal Church o:t M1d.dleto~, and the Whitneyville Congregational Church of 'Y~1tneyville; the !'s Men's Club, of Meriden, and of sundry citizens of G~·e.enw:1ch, all in the State of Connecticut, praying for the participation of the United States in the Permanent Court of International Justice, which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

He also presented the petition of Bridgeport Aerie No. 420 Fraternal O~der of Eagles, of Bridgeport, Conn., praying fo; the modification of the Volstead prohibition act, so as to legalize the manufacture and sale of beverages with a 2.75 per cent alcoholic content, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He ~o pres~ted petitions of the department of health, the Connecticut Child Welfare Association, and the New Haven Council of Jewish Women, all of New Haven· the Meriden Central Labor Union, of Meriden, and the Green~ch League of Wo~en Voters of Greenwich, all in the State of Connecticut, praymg_ an amendment to the Constitution regulating child labor, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented the petition of the women's committee for the children's amendment (composed of representatives of sundry women's organizations) at Washington, D. C., praying for the passage of House Joint Resolution 184, proposing an amendment to the Constitution regulating child labor which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. '

REPORTS OF CO:Mll!ITTEES

Mr. McNARY, from the Committee on Appropriations to '!hich was referred the bill (H. R. 7220) making appropriations for the Department of Agrtculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, and for other purposes, reported it with amendments and submitted a report (No. 531) thereon.

Mr. LODGE, from the Committee ·on Foreign Relations to whi~ was refer.red the bill (H. R. 6357) for the reorganization and lIDprovement of the foreign service of the United States and for other purposes, reported it with amendments and sub: mitted a report (No. 532) thereon.

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introdu~d, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows :

By 1\ir. McLEAN: A bill (S. 3299) to amend section 8 of an act entitled

''An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes," approved October 15, 1914, as amended May 15, 1916, and May 26, 1920 ; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

By Mr. BRANDEGEE: A bill ( S. 3300) to fix the salaries of officers and employees

of the Court of Appeals of the District of Colmnb1a the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia the Unit~d States Court of Claims, and the United States C~urt of Customs Appeals; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BAYARD: A bill (S. 3301) for the relief of Maurice J. Coleman· to the

Committee on Claims. ' By Mr. l\IcNARY: A bill ( S. 3302) granting a pension to George Wolfer · to the

Committee on Pensions. ' By Mr. EDGE: A bill ( S. 3303) for the relief of Frederick MacMonnles · to

the Committee on Claims. ' _ HOUSE BILLS REFERRED

The following bills were each read twice by title and referred as indicated below:

H. ~· ~236. An act t.o regulate the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

H. R. 8905. An act to authorize the settlement of the indebtedness of the Kingdom of Hungary to the United States of America ; to the Committee on Finance. •

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning business is closed.

INCREASE OF PENSIONS-VETO MESSAGE

Mr. BURSUM. Mr. President, I gave notice last Friday ~at to-~ay I would move to take up Senate bill 5, the pension bill, which was vetoed by the President. I now ask unanlmous consent that the unfinished business may be temporarily laid aside and that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S~ate bill 5.

!\Ir. FLETCI:JER. Inasmuch as we adjourned yesterday the l;J.Ilfinished business does not come before the Senate until 2 o'clock.

•

•

1924 C01"1GRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8415 Mr. BURSUM. Then I move that the Senate procred to the

reconsideration of the bill (S. 5) granting pensions and increa es of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Civil and Mexican Wars and to certain Widows, former widows, minor children, and helpless children of said soldie1·s and sailors, and to widows of the War of 1812, and to certain Indian war veterans and widows, and to certain Spanish War soldiers, and certain maimed soldiers, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico moves that the Senate proceed to the reconsideration of Senate bill 5.

Mr. Sil\fiIO:KS. What is the motion? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is that the Sen

ate proceed to the reconsideration of the bill, using the common parlance, recently vetoed by the President.

:Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The roll will be called. The reading clerk called the roll, and the following Senators

answ~red to their names : .Adams Ernst L-Odg~ Ashurst Fernald llcKellar Ball Fess McKinley Bayard Fletcher McLean Botnh Frazier McNary Brandegee Gen·y Mayfiehi Brook ha.rt Glass Moses Brou-tisard Gooding Neely Bruce Hale Norbeck Bur, um }farreld Norris Cameron Harris Oddie Capper Harrison Overman Carn way Hefiin Owen Colt Howen Pepper Copeland John on, ~!inn. Phipps Cummins .Tones, N. Mex. Pittman Curtis Jones, Wash. Ralston Dale Kendrick Ransdell Dial Keyes Reed. Pa. Dill Kin"" Robinsen ™P ~~ ~~~d

Shield Shipstead Shortridge Simmons Smith Smoot Spencer Stanfield StepheDB Sterling Swanson Trammell Wadsworth Walsh, Mass. Walsh, Ment. · Warren Watson Weller Wh el~r Willis

l\Ir. CURTIS. I wish to announce that the junior Senator from Wisconsin IMr. LENROOT] is absent owing to illness. I ask that the announcement may stand for the day.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eighty-three Senators have answered to their names. There is a quorum present. The question is upon agreeing to the motion of the Senator from New Mexico [J\Ir. Bun.smr] that the Senate proceed to the reconsideration of Senate bill 5~

The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the

bill ( S. 5) pass. the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?

l\1r. BURSU:\f. Mr. President~ " millions for the disauled " ; that is a familiar sound. We have heatd that doctrine preached from every soap box in this country. We have heard the chorus of the antibonus army shouting tO' the heavens, "Millions for the disabled."

If this be true, now is the accepted time and this Chamber the proper place to give evidence of the truth of that statement~ The essential feature of the pending bill is to provide for the disabled.

Every Senator in this Chamber knows that the bonus bill is going to become law and that the cost will approximate $100,-000,000 annually for 20 years. I am for the bonus bill beca u e, in my opinion, it represents an obligation of the Government.

I am wondering what human genius can devise a rational excuse on the grounds of economy to refuse to take care of the disabled to the extent of $·10,000,000 for the first year, approximately $20,000,000 for the second year, no additional apvropriation for the third year, and less appropriation every year thereafter in proportion to the number of pensioners dropped from the roll on account of death.

In other words, how can any man explain why, in the name of economy, we can afford to expend in the aggregate $2,000,-000,000 but we can not find funds to expend in the aggregate $60,000,000 in aid of the disabled, the crippled, the decrepit, the infirm, and the dependent orphans of veterans?

'£he pending hill is considered most fair and reasonable. It is regarded generally as a well-balanced bill. That opinion seems to have been shared by the other branch of Congress, which passed the bill without proposing a single amendment and with carcely any opposition.

The bill extends the present $72 rate to all of the veterans of the Civil War. This provision should not be regarded as an increase, but, in effect, as making n:rnilable the rate which Congress intended.

Every fair person must admit that practically 90 per cent of the surviv-0rs of the Civil War are totally incapacitRted and unable to care for themselves, their average age now being past 81.

'The bill would :allow age\l widows 74 and o-rer $45 a month, an increase of $15. The Indian war veterans are given a maximum of $50, proportioned upon disability. The minor children of veterans of all wars are given a uniform rate or $8 per m-Onth, doing away with the vicious, discriminatory provisions in this regard now on the statute books. For instance, under the present law, the child of a -veteran of the Regular Army receives only $2 per month, the child of th~ Spanish war veteran receives $4 per month, the child of the veteran Of the Civil War receives $6 a month, while the first child of the veteran of the World War receives $10 a month. Thus under our present pension laws th.ere is a discrimination between children, which this bill seeks to abolish and to put all on a plane of equality.

The Spanish War veteran is given a maximum of $50 and a tninimnm of $20, based upon disability. As I have already said, the essence of this bill is premised upon disability.

Approximately one-half of the total cost will benefit aged Widows over 7 4 yea.rs of age. The records show that their ages range from 74 to 94. The most numerous beneficiaries under the bill, next to the Cira War widows, within the very near future. will be the veterans of the war with Spain.

The magnitude of the tasks encountered . aBd the glory of the achievements of our volunteer Army in the war with Spain have neY-er been fully appreciated by the general public. On account of inadequate information, it has frequently been the custom to refer to this war as little more than an outing or picnic for the gallant officers and men who took part. l\1y attention has been called to an address made by Bruce J. Newlon, commander of the Depart:IiJ.-ent of Nebraska, at the Sixteenth Annual Encampment of the United Spanish War Veterans, held at Omaha, on June 13 last. Among other things, Commander Newlon stated that of every 1,000 who enlisted, 25 joined the "silent majority," making a mortality rate more than three times as great as in the World War; that our boys were fed upon embalmed beef and armed with rifles 25 years old, pitted against an enemy equipped with the new German l\lauser, which carried a steel-jacketed bullet a mile and a half ; that during the World War 85 per cent of the regimental officers were Spanish War veterans; that of the First Nebraska Regiment of l,Q22 enlisted men, 425 were wounded; that in a single enga.gement the commanding officer and 36 other offi<::ers were shot down .

.And what do these boys think of the attitude of Congress? Commander Newlon said:

When you apply for a pension they forget that It rained 45 inches in one month 1n the Philippine Islands, the thermometer standing around 100 to 120° F .. and embalmed beef as a ration with a fight starting every morning ut '2 u'clock.

The Nebraska. commander further pointed to the fact that while the Spanish War cost approximately $1,200,000,000, the Government acquired property rnlued at $8,000,000,0UO

The Omaha World Herald, resurrecting a short editorial from its files s-aid ~

We have never given the Spanish-American War veteran quite the honor that is his due. Ile did great things for us. He was a yolunteer soldier. He acted in a hurry. He suffered. He bled. He endured hardships. He · had his sickness, and he won. The war with Spain enlisted Jmndreds of thou ands of men. Many more than were called for. Many of them never came back. Kot a battle was I~st in that war by American, troops. Not an inch of ground was covered by retreat.

Mr. President, the question is now squarely up to Oongress whether we shall stand by these boys and do the fair, decent, human thing, or stand by the mi erable dollar.

The President states: It will tnk:e an additional $58,000,000 for the next fiscal year to

meet the increased pensions provided by the bill.

The Pension Bureau estimated a cost of fifty-fi:re millions for the first year, and that estimate did not take into account deductions for losses from the· rolls on account of death of widows, which may be conservatively estimated at ~4,000 for the ensuing fiscal year, thereby reducing the amount of necessary expenditure by $14,000,000; so that $40,000,000, in my judgment, would be a more accurate estimate of the probable cost to the Government for the first 12 months.

Past experience has shown that pension estimates have exceeded actual costs. For example, the estimates for the present

8416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE ~IAY 13

fiscal year exceeded the actual cost by $23,000,000, and that sum represents the unexpended balance which will not be withdrawn frQm the Treasury, although having been appropriate<l by the Congress for that purpose ; so that if this bill should become a law, the actual increase in the matter of appropriations in excess of the present fiscal year for pension purposes would approximate $17,000,000.

The President quotes the Commissioner of Pensions as having stated that the proposed addition to the pension roll will total approximately $242,000,000 for the first five years, which would mean the equivalent of an annual increase of approximately $48,000,000. To bring about such an accomplishment of expense it would be necessary that no veteran or widow be dropped from the roll; that they all continue to live, and that additional pensioners be added to the rolls.

I am sure the country would rejoice if the \eterans and widows of veterans of the Civil War might continue to live within the land of the Union which they so heroically defended and preser\""ed, for another four score years; but you and I know that fate has determined otherwise. We know that 50,000 will be dropped from the rolls this year by de~th ; we know that no pensions are paid to estates; th.at no pensions are ()'ranted to the dead, and that when a veteran or a widow dies the pension dies and the appropriation to that extent ceases.

We know that 49 399 died last year. We. know that the average age of the vet~ran is 81 years and of the widow 74. The principal increase of this bill does not extend to all of the widows of the Civil War but is limited to those 74 to 94 years of age. This class of widows number 149,000. They will be entitled to ~45 per month under this bill. Five years from now, if alive, the youngest of these will be 79, an~ the oldest 99. How many of these widows are likely to survive the fiveyear period? At the rate of 2,000 deaths per month, which is less than the average during the present and preceding year, 120,000 will have disappeared from the rolls, which, in effect, means a reduction of annual expenditure in the sum of $&!,800,-000 at the end of the five-year period, or $10,000,000 more than the total estimated gross additional cost for the first year after the passage of the pending bill, which, admittedly is the maxi· mum annual cost, and this estimate does not take into account the losses from the pension roll caused by the death of veterans, which, in all probability, will be proportionately large. It is natural to expect that as their age increases the death rate will be more rapid.

So beyond any question of doubt or of conh·oversy the facts are that at the end of the five-year period the most extravagant estimate can not justify the assertion that there will be any increase whatsoever, but, as a matter of fact, there will be a very large decrease of expenditure by the Government on .account of pensions, so far as they may be affected by the pending bill.

The message further quotes the Commissioner of Pensions as having stated that the proposed addition to the pension roll will total for the first 10 years $415,000,000, or the equivalent of $41,500,000 annually.

Upon the most liberal basis of mortality tables at the end of the 10-year period there may be living of the present number of 158 000 not to exceed 1,700 veterans of the Civil War. At thi~ same period the number of surviving widows of the Civil War will, in all probability, not exceed 75,000 out of a present roll of 257,000. These probable results mean, in effect, a loss of 182,000 widows from the pension roll, involving a reduction of expenditure and disbursements by the Government approximating $92,000,000. They also mean the loss of 157,151 veterans from the roll, causing a reduction of disbursements by the Government for pension purposes in the sum of $135,778,4.M; so that the total amount of reduction at the end of the 1.0-year period caused on account of losses by death will involve 157,151 veterans, 182,000 widows of veterans of the Civil War, which, translated into dollars, means that the annual disbursements for pension purposes by the Government will be reduced in the sum of $227,778,464.

In my opinion $75,000,000 will cover the pension outlay 10 years from now unless the disabled World War veterans shall in the meantime be given a pensionable status in lieu of the present arrangement for compensation under the Veterans' Bureau. Tbere is that possibility, but it bas nothing whatever to do with this bill, because, so far as I know, no such program is in contemplation at the present time.

It is admitted that every survivor of the Civil War is drawing $50 per month, and many of them, in number 41,000, are urawing $72. The fact remains, however, that in spite of the Pension Department's effort to speed up the granting of the

$72 pensions-and they are being granted at the rate of 1,500 a month-as so many are dying the number exceeds the number of those granted the additional pension. In other words, the veteran is dying much faster than it is possible for the Pension Department to grant the $72 pension, with all of the legal requirements of proofs and applications necessary to obtain the benefits under the present law. The truth of the matter is that, outside of a very, very few, all of the e veterans are totally incapacitated and physically unfit to take care of themselves.

I know of no finer or more appropriate attitude toward those veterans who served this country so faithfully in 1861 than the attitude taken by Daniel Webster toward the veterans of the Revolutionary War at the laying of the corner stone of Bunker Hill Monument in 1825, when he said:

Venerable men! We should stand before you, not you stand before us. You have come down to us from a former generation. Heaven has bounteously lengthened out your lives that you might behold this joyous day.

I su.y that that is the attitude that we should take toward the aged defenders who so nobly served our Nation in time of need, and who now themselves are in need on account of advanced age and the infirmities that come with advanced age.

The message also refers to provisions of the bill wherein it is alleged that the limits of the war period will be extended from April 13, 1865, to August 20, 1866; also that there are other questionable provisions providing for the pensioning of civilians and relating to the pensioning of certain classes . of widows.

Mr. President, these objections are trivial. The provisions complained of are not factors in the increase of appropriations or causing additions to the pension rolls. The fixing of the beginning and the end of the war is merely a statutory declaration intended to clarify existing conditions. Why, Mr. President, up to 1894 the Pension Office granted a pension to every veteran and every widow entitled to a pension who had served up to August 20, 1866. Furthermore, no less an authority than the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the official ending of the war was .August 20, 1866. Subsequently to 1894 the Pension Office established the principle that a pensionable status would depend upon the locality where the veteran happened to serve as to the date of ending the war. For instance, if the service in any way was connected with service in Tennessee the limitation might be 1865. If the service was connected with any activity within the State of Texas, or anywhere along the border, the limitation was fixed at August 20, 1866. In the case of enlistment on the border of Virginia one side or the other of n street might make a difference of one year in the period recognized as constituting the war.

There were similar rules relating to the Navy. If the service was south of a certain latitude, the time might be fi..'l\:ed as July, 1865, or .April, 1866. Furthermore, there were a hundred and more boats-I have a list of them, but I will not take the time of the Senate to read them-which, under that practice, must be classified; so that under such a regulation every service must be checked up from beginning to end, which involved great overhead expense.

There is nothing to be gained by continuing now, at this late date, a practice of that kind, because every last veteran who desired a pension obtained it and was pensioned under the basis of 1866 up to 1894 and on to 1913; so that in the matter of securing pension approvals, proofs in support of the application in accordance with the regulations adopted after 1913 were unnecessarily burdensome. There ought to be only one date fixed as the date of ending the war, so as to pre"."ent confusion. It will not be the means of adding any substantial number to the pension rolls or perhaps any number whatever. In fact, I can not see how it can possibly affect a single pension unless some veteran dies and leaves a widow, and in that case, although he had been on the pension roll, his service must be rechecked and reinvestigated, and it will cause a great deal of expense and the consumption of a great deal of time, which is entirely unnecessary.

With reference to the pensioning of ci\ilians, we are adding nothing new to the present law. Certain civilians were pensioned under the law of 1862, and the pending bill gives them the benefit of the increa$ed rates. Who were these civilians? Provost marshals, contract surgeons, pilots of steamlJoats. They were given a sort of semimilitary status, and they were pensioned under the act of 1862. This bill makes no change in that respect

Mr. President, every reasonable person must concede that $45 a month is not an extravagant sum out of which to take care of a helpless, aged widow past 74 years of age; nor is

1924 co.L TGREssroN AL RECORD-SEN ATE 8417 it reasonable to assert that $72 is an extravagant sum for the montl1ly allowance to care and provide for the physically incapacitated veteran whose average age is past fourscore and onP. Indeed, l\Ir. President, the monthly allowances provided are meager and can only serve the purpose intended by a most rigid economy and more or less assistance from generous friends and relatives.

President Lincoln, in his address at Gettysburg, solemnly announced the duty of this country to provide for those who had borne the brunt of battle, the widow and the dependent orpllan. We were then a comparatively poor Nation as measured by wealth. It does not seem possible that this Nation, in the enjoyment of the zenith of its industrial glory and power, having ama sed a national wealth that no other nation or

I group of nations of the world can compare with, should now acquiei;;ce in a program which in effect means repudiation of

' that solemn pledge made by Lincoln at Gettysburg. To do I this will ·object the defenders of the country to the generosity of public charity. I say we have no legitimate right to place upon the veteran or his widow the brand of a beggar who must seek charity for existence. If this be done, it will be pursuant to a policy of greed and selfishness. If this be done, it will sadden the hearts and curtail the days of these aged veterans and widows. Such a poliey will not tend to arouse the pride of patriotic Americans. The time has not yet arrived when the dollar may be considered superior to obligation due humanity.

The question is now squarely up to the Congress. We are called upon to choose between the principles of the almighty dollar or the pursuit of a policy ot human consideration of the obligations which righteously attach to the Government in the discharge of its duty toward those who sacrificed their liv~, their health, their all in behalf of the honor, integrity, and glory of America, and who made possible the realization of peace, happiness, and liberty of a free people who now occupy a position of leadership among the nations of the world.

The men and women of every State, county, city, and hamlet of this Republic are intensely interested in this matter, and as trustees for the time being of the people's wealth we may expect to be held to accountability.

There are no new reasons or conditions existing now that clid not exist at tbe time this bill passed the Senate by a record vote of 51 to 10. I see no reason why I should change my views at this time. I was one who voted :for and supported the present bill wlien it came up for consideration before the Senate. I shall again vote for the bill, and sincerely hope and trnst that it may hecome law.

Mr. President, I have here some telegrams which I desire to have placed in tbe RECORD. I ask unanimous consent to haT"e them printed in the RECOBD at the end of my remarks. I will send up only a few. ·

[See Appendix.] The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the re

quest is granted. lUr. BUilSUM. · I have one in particular from the State of

Tennessee which I will read. It is dated Johnson City, Tenn., addressed to me, and reads :

For weeks we, the tuberculous and disabled patients of the SpanisliAmerican War, comprising the membership of Lieutenant H. L. Mccorkle Camp, No. 2, Uhlted Spanish War Veterans, have been expectantly waittng what relief that is embodied in Senate bill 5. Our destitute families are in need; we are unable to provide. Our fondest hopes are shattered by a stunning pi·esidentlal veto. In the name of humanity and justice, we earnestly and humbly beg that you relentlessly exert every earthly me:ins within your power t() secure the necessary number ot our frienrls in the Senate in a final effort to enact this bill Into a law at the earliest possible period. We appreciate the great work you and on"? friends have I already done for us regarding this bill but :\\.-1" are sutrering and dying for the want of relief, whlch you can give us. Please read to Senate, if you think advisable.

Deservedly your friends;

LIEUTENANT H. L. MCCORKLE CAMP, . UNITED SPANISH WAB VETER.ANS,

D. H. McDANIBL, Adjutant. J. S, GRAY, Commander.

I have hundreds of similar telegrams from veterans suffer4

ing from sickness and in distress begging that the Government recognize its just obligations.

l'!Iy attention was called to a recommendation made on the 30th day of June, 1923, contained in a report by the honorable Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Work, which reads as follows:

Included in the actiYitles of the Department of the Interior is the payment of pensions to soldiers and their widow of the Civi.4 S{l!nish-American, and preceding wars in which the United States has

engaged since the foundation of the Nation. The ravages of time have now overcome these survivors of the Civil War, and in their old age it is my belief that the pensioning of them should no longer be based upon a showing of disability due· to wounds and disease. On the eon-· trary, both the veterans and widows should receive a pension from the G<>va-nment after having reached a certain age, and the pension paid to them should be adequate to fully support them. I therefore recommend that some legislation be enacted by Congress to increase the pensi-0ns of Civil War veterans and their widows, thereby more fully recognizing the debt the Government owes them for the service they performed in preventing the disruption of the Union.

That, Mr. President, is the recommendation of the present Secretary of the Interior, made on June 30, 1923, the same year in which this Congress assembled. That is exactly what we have done in this bill.

Mr. President, again I desire to emphasize and call attention to the death loss, especially the first and the second years after this bill would become a law~ I want to emphasize the fact that there 'is no justification for the. statement that this bill would cost $215,000,000 for 5 years, or $-ll5,000,000 for 10 years. At the end of the first year there will be dropped from the roll 25,000 widows, drawing at the rate of $45 a • month, which means, $13,500,000. Twenty-five thousand 1eterans, drawing $72 per month, means $1:8,000,000. The second year tlle losses will be fully as great, if not more, so that at the end of two years' time the expenditures will have been reduced by $63,000,000, or $5,000,000 more than is claimed by anyone as the cost of this bill.

It is well known that the pension dies with the death of the veteran or other beneficiary. How can they estimate costs for veterans after death? There is only one way any such estimate could have been possibly suggested, namely, on the basis that" these veterans and widows would live on and on, forever and forever. Permit me to say that in my opinion the Pension Bureau will not justify or make any such estimate; that this estimate rather comes from General Lord, of the Bndget Bureau.

APPENDIX

LoNo BEACH, CALIF., Mav 4, 1.924. Senator BcRSUM,

• United States S(mate, Washington, D. 0.:

Surely our President does not mean to say welfare of soldiers only important in time of war and in time ot peace. Taxpayers come first. No country, no flag; nothing to pay taxes on only for onr brave soldiers who gave up their lives and bodies that the Nation might live, and who are now quickly passing away. Must that debt be so soon forgotten, so sparingly commemorated and compensated? Not if Congress is heard and heeded. Government money is soldiers' money. Congress knows where euty lies, and <:mr President will scarcely weigh ·in balance with economy the life's blood and painful sacrifices of Nation's beloYed heroes.

Respectfully, llis. KATE K£LLY,

Wido1b of James J[e11tJ, 'l'wenty-fifth Volunteer New York National Guarcl, P. 0. Bo:c 871, Los Angeles, Calif.

Va..."l" Wlln.T, Omo, May 5, mi./.

Senator H. 0. BURSuY, United Statea Betiate, Waskin9ton, D. 0.:

Comrades >ery bitter against cruel Yeto by President.. Statement given press that it is same bill vetoed by Harding is untrue. At half. the cost this benefits many more. Statement that the expenditure is unwarranted is a slap in the face of every comrade who served hi'l country in time of need. The same may be said of his statement that no conditions exist which justify this law. He has been told <>Yer and over of the suffering in old age of the veterans who are of those who saved this Union, and made it possible for him to be President ot the greatest country on earth. This statement is an insult to Congress, which has said that there was warrant for this expenditure and that conditions did exist which justified. If this is sacred truth, let the President go to the memorial and look in the face of the immortal Lincoln anll then find fault with his soldiers as a class. They were a class which saved the Nation and were never before so offensively spoken of. The obligation to these feeble old men is more holy than the debt to any other. A demagogue must have suggested to the P1:esrnent to estimate the cost for five or ten years in advance to make the amount appeal large when all know · that death decreases. payments Yapidly. There iii not one word of prai.he for what the heroes have done nor admission of present necessities !llld increased needs and cost of living. Justice to them that have been heretofore counted so worthy demands that the law lie passed on:-r the >eto.

G. M. SALTZGAliER, Commander in Chief G. A . R .

/

r •

•

8418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE }t{Ay 13

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 5, 192~.

Senator H. o. BURSUM, Senate Office B11ildi11g, Tfl<Ulhington, D. C.:

The veto of President Coolidge is so unjust to the feeble old veterru1s who so nobly saved their country that I can not find words sufficiently strong to characterize it. With their just claims against the Government they are ignominiously turned from the door of help and hope. It can not te possible that this great Nation has forgotten those who saved it from disunion. On behalf of suffering and deserving comrades I appeal to the branch o! the Government best ".'epresenting the people, the American Congress, to right this grievous wound and pass the Bursum pension bill over the veto o! the President. The old men and women whom we thought had earned a Kation's gratitude, now at the average of 81 years, plead on bended knees to Congress to give them aid in their enfeebled old age, and thus give expression to a prayer for simple justice, which, I am sure, the people of our Nation will heartily approve. Thanks to these Union veterans and Almighty God the Government at Washington still lives. With broken hearts they and the widows will appeai everywhere that Congress may override the cruel veto.

GAYLORD M. SALTZGABER,

Commander in Chief Grand Army of the Republic.

Senator BURSUM, Wash-i11gton, D. 0.:

NEWTON HIGHLANDS, MASS., May 7, 1924.

Thomas Burnett Camp, No. 10, of Newton, Mass., request you use all in your power to override veto of President Coolidge on your bill.

PHILIP BUTLER,

Adjutant, n Oircuit A.venue, Newton IJiighlands, Mass.

LAKEMAN, Mo., May 5, 19!!4.

Senator BURSUM, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:

The Civil War veterans and widows of Missouri beg Congress to pass the Bursum bill over the veto.

Maj. A. J. ROOF.

AUBURNDALE, MASS., May 8, 192!.

Senator BURSUM, Senate Chamber, TI'aslti11gton, D. C.:

Camp 10, United Spanish War Veterans, Department of Massachusetts, to a man our camp want to go on record as opposed to the President's veto on the Bursum pension bill.

EDWARD HILDRETH, Commander, 203 Le1tington Street, Auburndale.

Tou:oo, OHIO, May 5, 19Z-i.

Hon. Senator Bunsu.M, United. States Senate, Washingtcm, D. 0.:

The veterans of Toledo Po&t, Forsyth Post, Volunteer Post, and Ford Post, Grand Army of the Republic, and the aged widows of deceased Teterans of our several relief corps pray and urge the passage of the Bursum bill, notwithstanding the President's veto. The youngest of our veterans is now well along in his eightieth year ; some are blind ; many with impaired vision ; many de.at, or partially so ; and some on crutches or with canes. They are supported and cared for by their children or relatives or the help and charity of friends. In a very few years there will be none left of the veterans of the Civil War, and only the history and the memories of their noble deeds, sacrifices, and

sorrow.

Senator HOLM 0. BGRSUM,

TOLllDO POST,

FORSYTH POST, VOLUNTEJ!lR POST, FORD POST,

Gmna Army of the RepubHc.

WASHISGTON, D. C., May 5, 1924.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. 0.:

The veto of the Bnrsum bill by President Coolidge is a shock to Spanish War veterans throughout the country. That bill-including, as it did, the veterans of all wars except the World War, as well as their widows and orphans--was very conservative. It would have gone far toward eliminating the discrimination of which the Spanish War veterans have so long and with good reason complained. The President himself, we have every reason to believe, recognized that there was discrimination against the Spanish War veterans. Such treatment of the old veterans no doubt will greatly encourage the foreigners who a.re here advocating slackers' oaths education and pledging

of our children never to take up arms, either olrensive or defensive, and the formation of " resisters' associations." Unless it is the desire of the Government to destroy. the American spirit, the Bursum bill should be reconsidered and passed. I hope the Spanish War veterans can rely upon your vote to secure that result.

ALBERT D. ALCOR..~,

Washington, D. 0.:

ALBERT D. ALCORN,

National Commander in Chief, United Spat1ish War Veterans.

ST. LOUIS, Mo., Apra 1, 19l4.

The following wire sent to Senators and Congressmen from Missouri: '' United Spanish War Veterans of the Department of Missouri

vigorously oppose amendment to the Bursum bill which was offered by Senator REED of Pennsylvania. This amendment would come into effect after hundreds of Civil War veterans have died. The men did not defer action in 1861. They gave victory to the \ ;orld. We should give them comfort now. '.I'Tust you will oppose the amendment und lend your support to passage of the Bursum bill."

IlEll.'.\IAN A. FINKE,

Department Commande1·, United Spanish War Veterat1s.

Mr. DIAL. l\fr. President, as I said the other day, I have no desire to bring up any unpleasantness of the Civil War. Howe\er, I have no apologies to make for my action. I look on tl1e \Ote which we are about to take now as one of the most important the Senate has ever taken. These are momentous times. ·We are going to establish a precedent as to whether we are going to allow pensions of all wars to be pyramided and pyramided beyond the endurance of the taxpayers of this country to sustain.

We were told many years ago by Mr. McKinley, who was afterwards President, when a pension bill passed the House that the Go-vernment would nernr be asked to enlarge that amount. But instead of that being true, in 1918 a large additional pension was granted to those very pensioners. In 1920 .;·65,000,000 per annum was granted to those pensioners, and to-day, outside of the present bill, all of the Civil War soldiers whose names were on the rolls 90 days are drawing the magnificent sum of $GO per month, and this bill proposes to increase that pension to $72 per month. Even where they are clothed and fed and taken care of at the soldiers' homes, those soldiers are drawing $50 a month under the present law, and if they can sllow that they need a little extra pension, all they have to do is to make a meag~r showing before the proper official ~nd they will be granted $22 a month extra. But under this bill the pensions of all the soldiers of the Civil War are to be increased to $72 a month, il'respeetive of the condition of the soldier physically, irrespective of his condition financially, irrespective of whether he was within a thousand.miles of a battle.

I think this bill was not sufficiently debated when it was passed, nor, with all due respect to Senators, did they consider the matter as carefully as they should have. Many of us were committed to increase the pensions of disabled Spanish War soldiers, and that was a correct proposition, because they are the most modest class of soldiers and because the disabled of that war are drawing only a mere pittance of what the disabled of other wars are drawing. They do not e>en draw as much as widows of Civil War veterans, and some of those widows were not born until 17 years after the war.

I have the highest regard, respect, and sympathy for the wife who lived with her husband through troublesome times a.nd helped bear the burdens of the family and tge responsibility of raising the family, but I confess that the sentimentality of granting a pension to a young woman who married an old man just before he was ready to be buried for the purpose of geting a pension does not appeal to me. · Some of that class of people are drawing to-day more than the disabled soldiers of the Spanish-American War receive.

I want this Government to take good care of the disabletl of all wars, but I am not strong in favor of a service pension for any able-bodied soldiers. It is not a good principle, and the vote to be cast to-day will establish a precedent to be followed hereafter. It is the policy of this Government to take good care of disabled soldiers. We should not carry sentimentality beyond all reason.

I am committed to some bill looking to the end of taking better care of the Spanish-American War disabled boys. I understand such a bill has been reported favorably to the House by the proper committee and is now on the calendar. I introduced a similar bill here the other day when .I thought this bill would be defeated, and I hope the committee will soon act upon it and that we will pass it at this session. But, Mr. President, if ~e Senate will allow me to say so, I fear Senators

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE 8419 did not consider carefully what this bill contained when they promi~<l 4 9 "";Ot~ tot it fn ordar to take care of the disabled oolmers of the Spanish-American War. If they had 1.""Ilown the fnll purport of this bill they would not have made that promise. Having made it under a misapprehension, I feel that the promise is no longer binding upon them.

There is no excuse in morals or in good business why a pension should be granted to Civil War soldiers who enlisted after the end of the war. That is absolutely unjustifiable, and I feel that the President of the United States ls entitled to support for having pointed that out in this bill and for having tlrn <'ourage and the :firmness to veto the bill. We should remember that there are other people in this c.ountry besides pensioners. I feel kindly toward the aged, I feel kindly toward the infirm, but this bill brings in all the classes, irrespective of their condition.

So I feel that if anyone made a promise such as I have spoken of, he is released from it after looking into the drastic pl'O'risions of the bill If we pass this bill over the veto, I do not see how there can be any talk against pensions hereafter. All you would have .to do with a measure would be to label it " pensions " and we would swallow it, hook, line, and sinker, and also the rod.

In 1918 there was a fine increase, and in 1920 there was another enormous increase to this class of pensioners, at a time when this country' had just emerged from the most destructive war the world ever saw. Yet they are going on ang piling pensions on top of pensions for this class of soldiers and all the time adding new names to the list.

We should have regard for the boys of the last war. As the President of the United States points out, if this bill is passed there will be an appropriation of $415,000.000 in the next five years, almost a quarter of a billion dollars, almost enough to pay one-third of a bonus to the soldiers of the last war.

The annual increase under this bill will be about $58,000,000. Just the other day we passed a bill for the State Department, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice, which carried about the same amount. Just think, this one increase is equal to all that and with no return to the Government. It is now proposed to increase pensions, as the President of the United States has said, 25 per cent at one time. It is all out of proportion.

Then we should consider our constituents at home. I can not forget that class of people and that c1ass of taxpayers. Yesterday we heard the junior Senator from Massachusetts [1\11'. WALSH] state the conditions of factory labor in the Northeast, and I believe the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE] confirmed his statement. He stated that the mills are running something like only 20 per cent of the time, and many of the laborers are walking the streets with no work at hand. Yet here we are, trying to strangle enterprise, trying to decrease prosperity in the country, trying to augment the burdens of the taxpayers by putting this uncalled-for, unnecessary, out-of-place, additional tax burden upon them.

I send to the desk and ask to have read the President's veto message. It is exceedingly short and possibly some Senators did not hear it read the other day because they have not paid attention to the bill as they would like to have done.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The message will be read, as requested.

The reading clerk read as follows : To the Senate:

I am returning herewith Senate bill 5, "An act granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Citil and Mexican Wars and to certain widows, former widows, minor children, and helpless children of said soldiers and sailors, and to widows of the War of 1812, and to certain Indian war veterans and widows, and to certain Spanish War soldiers, and certain maimed soldiers, and for other purposes," without my approval.

For the next fiscal year the effect of this act will be to take an additional $58,000,000 of the moneys paid by the taxpayers of the Nation and add it to the pension checks of the veterans of the wars from 1812 to 1902 and their widows and dependents. This is the effect for the first year, but the burden upon the taxpayers will continue for many years to come. While impossible of accurate estimation, the Commissioner of Pensions states that the proposed addition to the pension roll will total approximately $242,000,000 for the first 5 years and $415,-000,000 for the first 10 years.

No conditions exist which justify the imposition of this additional burden upon the taxpayers of the Nation. All our pensions were revised and many liberal increases made no longer than 1922. Every survivor of the Civil War draws

LXV-531

$50 per month, and those in need of regular aid and attendance, which already includes 41,000 of them, draw $72 per month. As others come to need this the law already gives it to them. The act also proposes to extend the limits of the war period from April 13, 1865, to August 20, 1866, so that those who enlisted clming this year and four months of peace now become eligible for the same treatment of those who fought through the war. There are other questionable provisions providing for the pensioning of civilians, and relating to the pensioning of certain classes of widows.

But the main objection to the whole bill is the unwnn·anted expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. It proposes to add more than 25 per cent to the co t of the pension rolls. It i estimated that it would bring the total pension bill of the country to a point higher than ever before reached, notwithstandinO' it is now nearly 60 years since the close of the Civil War. A generous Nation increased its pensions to well over a quarter of a billion annually, and llas alre.:'l.dY bestowed nearly $6,250,000,000 in pensions upon the survivors of that conflict and their dependents. While there has been some decrea. e in the annual expense. it is now proposed l>y a horizontal increase to pay all survivors $72 each month. without regnrcl to age, to their physical condition, or :financial condition. With the other proposals a new high record of cost would be established.

The need for economy in public expenditure at the pre~ent time can not be overestimated. I am for economv. I am against ernry unnecessary payment of the money of the taxpayers. No public requirement at the present time rank -· with the necessity for the reduction of taxation. This result can not be secured unless those in authority cease to pass laws which increase the permanent cost of government. The burden on .the taxpayer must not be increased, it must be decreased. Every proposal for legislation must be comddered in the light of thi · necessity. The cost of commodities is <liminishing. Under such conditions the cost of government ought not to be increasing. The welfare of the whole country must be considered. The de .. ire to do justice to pensioners. howe--rer great their merit, must be attended by some solicitude to do justice to taxpayers. The advantage of a clasN can not be greuter than the welfare of the Nation.

CALVIN COOLIDGE. THE WHITE HOUSE, May 3, 1924. Mr. DIAL. I now sencl to the desk and ask to have read a

very short letter which I received from an old soldier a short time ago. He is one who is drawing a pension. I submit that his letter is a better answer to the bill than I could make. I , had it read the otl1er day, but poN~ibly some Senators who are here now were not present then. I ask to have the letter read for the benefit of Senators who are now present.

The PRESIDE~T pro tempore. The letter will be read, as requested by the Senator from South Carolina.

The reading clerk read as follows: Senator DUL.

>

DEAR Sm: I have been reading the doings of the Senate in regard to the pension bill, and was very much interested in your remarks on the question, and agr~ with you that no pension eTer ought to have been paid except to those who really needed it, and if pa.id should be according to length of service. Now, a man who enlisted 90 days before the war closed, and got a big bounty and never heard a gun fired, gets the same as the one who served three years and suffered all the hardships of war. If the 90-day ma.n gets $50 per month, the 3-rear man ought to get $600; that would be in proportion to time of service.

The whole pension business has been for vote.~. Neither party daretl to oppose a bill of the other. The National Tribune'· loTe for the oltl soldier is for revenue only. I have had. dozens of letters from the Tribune, begging for my subscription, but refused to send mo a blank, which was free only to subscribers. A man in a soldiers' l!ome sup-_ ported by the Government ought not to have a pension, und a rich man ought to be ashamed to take one. I am a 3-year veteran ol'. the Civil War and get a pen ion, which I need, and am thankful for it, but never expeeted to get so much, and have ~n surprii:;ed every time it was increased. I am well along in my niuetieth year, which accounts in part for this poor writing, but I wanted to say a few words, and hope you will excuse them.

Yours truly, -- _...__,

l\lr. DIAL. . l\Ir. President, I believe that I have already called the attention of the Senate to the fact that la ~t year oYer $263,000,000 was paid out in pensions. That was the peak year since the Civil War. If the pending bill is pas ed that amount would be increased very greatly, about $600.000,000 more. I am wondering if the people back home, the people who are worth while, the people wllo work and carry on the country and Empport our Constitution, will think we are ever going to

8420 OONGRESSION.A.L RECOR~SE.L:r ATE n1A¥" 13

stop if we keep on increasing pensiomi .from year to rear,? Will ' we never stop di. cournging them? I ~t evecr Senator to be prepared to :mswer his constituents if they ask him what reason they can a ·sign fo1· giving _pensions to peo_ple who enlisted after the Civil War, from April 13, 1865, to August 20, 1866. Why should they be so liberal with other people's money as to ,give pensions to people who were in no danger whatsoever, ,people who .rendered no service to their country and whose only claim to a pension is .that their ruunes were on a militia list?

I have done all I can do to bring the matter to the attention of the Senate. I sincerely hope that upon second thought Senators

·will sustain the President's -veto. I think if we had considered the matter a little more at length before the bill passed, it neYer would have passed the Senate, ·and it would not ha\"e been necessary for the President of the 'United States to veto it. But at this late day let us do our duty and thereby show the taxpayers we are not ·deaf and blind to their interest.

"!\Ir. FLETCHER. Mr. President, without attempting to t:liscuss the subject in detail, I feel that I ought to make a. brief statement. I voted for the bill when it was before the Senate. If I Im. Ye eT"er erred at any time in the past with reference to any measure intended for the relief or benefit of ex-soldiers, it bus been in the direction of generous and liberal treatment. My disposition has been all the while to meet the reasonable requests of those •who have rendeTed service to their country in time of war. But to override the President's -veto is a different matter.

The President submitted his ·rnto with an apparent justifiication which can not be disregarded. I have listened this morning to the Senator from New ·Mexico [l\1r. BuRSID!] with regard to the \eto message and his statement somewhat in answer to the points raised in the President's message. He has not, however, it seems to me, satisfactorily answered the objections rai ed by· the President. The President said the passage of the bill woulll mean au increase of $58,000,000 the first year. r_r!he Senator from New Mexico said the Pension Bureau estimates it at $55,000.000. That is not a very great difference. The Senator him elf, I believe, placed it at $40,000,000. ~hat of itself is a very considerable increa e in these·times when we are all advocating a genuine, substantiRl reduction in taxation. It is a considerable addition to the taxation which must be paid h~· the people at a time when we are all urging economy in public expenditures. The President farther said:

While impossible of accurate estimation, the Commissioner of Pensions ~tates that the proposed additfon to 1he pension roll will total approx.!

' mateJy $24:!,000,000 for the fln;t 5 years and $415,000,000 for the first 'lO ye~

The Senator from New l!e:rico questions that because he ligure<s that a certain number of deaths will take place; but while, of course, thn.t is true -the difference remains all more or less an estimate on his purt, as it is more or less a guess as to the precise amount on the part of anyone who would undertake to discuss it.

:i\Ir. BURSU:ll. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a moment?

The P.RESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Florida yield to the Senator from New Mexico?

)Ii:. FLE'rCHER. I yield. ::Ur. BURSU~l. Does not the 'Senator belie-rn that the ex

perience we have had during all these years is a reliaole guide? For instance, there we.re forty-nine thousand and several hundred deaths of pensioners last year. Does not the Senator believe that as age advances the death 1·ate will not diminish but of necessity must be more rapid?

Mr. FLETCHER. I J'ealize that 1 also recall that when I came to the Senate in 1909, at which time the then Senator from West Virginia, 1\1.r. Scott, was the chairman of the Committee on Pensions, l beard him urge an increase of pensions and say, "hundreds of these veterans died yesterday; hundreds of them will die to-morrow,'' and so on, estimating that in a comparatively brief period of time pensions would all cease; yet the President in his message states, with reference to the bill now before us :

It is estimated that it would bring the t<>tal pension bill of the country t<> a p<>int higher than ever before .reached, notwithstanding ft is now nearly 60 years since the close of the Civil War.

So that instead of decreasing pension ex:_penditures we have - gone on increasing them until now this is the climax: Sixty

year after the Civil War we are pa_ying mo.re than at any tin1e during the interval

Mr. BURSUll Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida sield fw·tber?

Mr. FLETOBEil. I yield to tlle Senator. Mr. BURSUl\I. It is true that we are now experiencing the

peak of ~ense. ·· Mr. FLETCHER. I have _previously heard that, too. .Mr. BURSUM. And it is also true that the peak, so far as

numbers is concerned, passed some time ago, and we are on the downward slide. There is this fact also to be considered; it costs much more money to take care of the totally incapacitated 'Persons than it does to take care of the person who is only partially disabled.

Mr. FLETCHER. I realize that. I am not intending ti> go really into the merits of these claims for pensions. I bu ve been voting for them right along year after year.

l\Ir. BUR.SUM. I do ·not want to disturb the Senator, 1and I hope he will pardon my interruption~ but I merely want to say one word more; that is, that the principal benefits from this bill, if it be pas~, will accrue to the very aged widows; that is, those who are over 74 years of age are the ones who will reap the substantial increase, and the record shows that their ages range between 74 and 94 years.

Ur. SIMMONS. What are they now getting? Mr. BURSUl\1. They are now getting $30 per month, and

this bill would give that class of widows $45. It is that class of widows who are the ben~ciaries to an extent of about ·onehalf of the cost of the bill. I do ·not see bow we can deny that kind of helpless disability. It is a pitlable situation.

·l\.Ir. FLETCHER. That conditi<Hl is discus~e<J by the Presitl~nt, who uses very strong and forceful language. With the clearness and directness which charact.erizes all of his utterances, the President says :

No conditions exist which justify the imposition of this additional burden upon the taxpayers of the Nation. All our pensions wera revised and many liberal increases made no longer ago tba.n HJ20.

Then he proceeds: Every survivor of the Civil War draws $60 per month, a.nd tho e ,in

need of regular aid and attendance, which already includes t41,000 of them, draw 72 -,,er month.

1\Ir. BURSUXL What the President states is 'h·ue; 41,000 of them do draw that amount of pension, but there i ~ nothing in the message about the 149,000 very aged widows; ana there is where one-half the expense of the bill lies. 1rhe mt~ of $72 per month for the veterans themselves, as 'a matter of fact, will not be of .any gi-eat moment or significance, because .they \\ill all get that rate of pension•anyway. ·The only reason for extending it to them is on account of the proof requirements and the machinery and the im·estigations of the department which do not keep pace with the number of deaths. In many cases the veterans die before their applications can be passed upon. They make an application for an increa e; it takes three months to act on the application ; .and before the three months have expired the veteran is dead.

Mr. Sil\illO.NS. Mr . .President, ii the Senator will allow me, what is the .rate of increase allowed the veterans?

.Mr . .BURSU:M. The bill merely makes the general rate $72 a . month. The maximum is the same as it is .now~ but the hill does away with the necessity of making application and investigation and the proofs on the theory that 90 per cent of the pensioners are already incapacitated, and it is an injustice to subject them to the necessity of making tbe application and submitting the proofs and conducting inV"estigations when ill many such cases tbe soldiers die before they can get the amount which Congress intended to give them. There is no increase of the maxim.um to the veterans. They receiV"e the same maximum which is already provided by law. It is. precisely what Secretary Work, of the Interior Department, recommended in 1

his report of June 30, 1923, and which is quoted in the report on the bill.

Mr. FLETCHER. The Senator's argument would lead very largely to the conclnsion that the chief beneficiaries would be 1 the widows, and they are the ones who really need it The que tion then naturally n.rises, why should not the bill be con- ' :fined to increasing the pensions of the widows and leave the others alone? But that is not done under ihe bill.

There is another point which the Presid€nt raises which is . answered to some extent by the Senator, who cites a derision of the Supr€me Court. I can not question what 'the .P.resident ' says. In his message .be says :

The act also proposes to extend the limits of the war period from April 13, 1865, to August 28, 186G, o that those who enlisted during this year and four months of peace now become eligible for the same treatment as those who fought through the war.

1924 OONGRESSIOXAL RECORD-SENATE 8421 That would appear to be unfair t9 those who actually engaged

in the conflict. Mr. President, without going further into the merits of the

situation, let me say that I farnred especially some features of this bill; in fact, on December 10, 1923, I introduced a bill, being Senate bill 814, which was referred to the Committee on Pensions, proposing to increase the pensions of the surviving soldiers of various Indian wars to $40 and their widows to $20 per month. That bill has nernr been reported out by the committee, although its main features are embodied in the bill now under con icleration. I tllink those proposed to be benefited by thnt bill are entitled to some increase. So far as the Seminole Indian war veterans in Florida are concerned, of whom, I think, there are some sen•n or eight hundred, they now receive only ~20 a month and w'iclows $12 under the general law. Those veteran · certainly are entitled to more liberal treatment by the Government. They saw actual service and \ery dangerou , trying, and hazardous service; they gave a good account of themselves, and they ought to be dealt with on a more generous scale than they have been in the past, and so in the case of their widows.

The Spanish-American War veterans ought to be treated better than they have been treated. I favor tile feature of this bill wllich covers those veterans. I understand that a bill has been introduced in the otller House whlch ha:::; been reported out by the committee-at any rate, it will be reported out, I think-which will embody the features of this bill with respeet to the Spanish-American War -veterans.

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DIAL] has introduce<l a bill in the Senate, being Senate bill 3250, proposing to iucrease the pension of tile soldiers and sailors .of the war with Spain.

Mr. DIAL. l\Ir. Pre:-:ident--Tbe PRESIDING OFFICER (l\ir. l\losE, in the chair).

Does the Senator from Florida yield to the Senator from South Carolina?

Mr. FLETCHER. I Yield. Mr. DIAL. I understand the bill llas been farnrablv re

ported in the House and is now on the calendar tllere. ~ Mr. FLETUHER. Then that bill will undoubtedly come up

for ('Onsideration, and I shall be decidedly in favor of such a measure. As I ha,·e said, I think the Spanish-American War veteran have not been fairly dealt with, and they ougllt to be put on a different basis from that wllich we have heretofore ghen to them. We shall probably have an opportunity to consider that bill at this session, ancl I hope we shall also have an opportunity to consider tile bill with reference to Indian war veterans. •

While, as I have said, I rnted for tile bill now before the Senate in the first in tance, yet in view of the strong message of the Pre._ident, in view of the fact that some of the matters embodi'ecl in this bill can be taken care of otherwise, and in view of the proper consideration which is due the action of the Chief Executive, after he has thoroughly considered the question and the general situation througllout the country, I do not feel justified in ignoring bis me··sage and in overricliug his -veto. I shall therefore have to YOte to sustain the v-eto.

Mr. WADS WORTH. Mr. President, since the bill now under discussion passed, tile Senate has pas.:ecl the revenue bill. While no one may prophesy the form that bill will take wllen it emerges from conference, neverthele~s one must take into consideration the condition of the bill as it \Yas passed by the Senate. The chairman of the Committee on Finance has announced since the passage of that bill by the Senate that, regardless of the obligations which may be incurred by the passage of the so-called Bursum bill, and regardless of the obligation£ which may be incurred by the passage over the President's Yeto of the so-called bonus bill, tlle revenue bill itself will result in a deficit of $150,000,000. This brings us fact to face, l\lr. Pre ident, with a very serious situation, from which there is no escape except by taking stock of tile money which we may cover into the Treasury and the money wllich we propose to spend from the Treasury and acting accordingly.

A · to tliis bill, which the President informs us will result in imposing an annual expenditure upon the United States Government of $58,000,000, personally I have never been completely persuaded that the increaseR in pensions provided in tile bill for the -veterans of the Civil War are justified. I have always had grave doubt as to the wisdom of raising them to any such figures. I have, on the other hand, beliernd and still believe, that the veterans of the Spanish War deserve approximately the increa.se provided by the bill.

I think I may say at this time, ~Ir. President, that of all our groups of veterans the Spanish War veterans, thus far at least, have been the most moderate in their requests upon the Federal Government. Their number is small, and perhaps they have not been able to make the same impression that larger groups have been able to make upon the Congress, but whatever the reason may be, those veterans have proceeded upon modest lines in a conservative and patriotic spirit, and I have had and still ham a "Very deep sympathy for them.

Like the Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER], I intend to vote to sustain the l'eto of this bill by the President on the ground that we simply can not afford the expense involved in it, especially in view of the situation created by the revenue bill.

Like the Senator from Florida, I hope that legislation may proceed giving a better h·e<'l.tment to the Spanish War l'eterans. I believe they deserYe it, and the country can afford it. There · is now pending in the House, so I am informed, a bill having that object in view, and the · Senator · from South Carolina [Ur. DIAL] has introduced a bill similar in cllaracter here in the Senate. I shall hope for an opportunity of supporting either of those measures, and I Intend to \Ote to sustain the veto of the President upon this bill.

Mr. NEELY. l\1r. President, I arise to charge the President of the ·united States with llaYing hecome a lobbyist. As such, llis actilities are being carried on at .the breakfast table in the White House, where his powerful and peneh·ating propaganda is being delivered to 1\femlJers of the Congress who have been previously feasted on buckwheat cakes saturated with New England maple sirup.

Since Eve was tempted by the serpent with the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, nel'er has there been offered to weak and erring humanity another such irrisistible temptation as buckwheat cakes and sirup, sweeter than the honey of the Hybla bees.

The seriousness of my cllarge against the President is accentuated by the fact that the victims of bis attack are the "Veterans of our \arious wars and the dependent widow and children of those who fought and sncrifice<l trncl suffered for their country.

The President is lobbying against the suniYing soldiers :tnd sailors of the Civil and l\lexican Wars; Ile is lobbying against the widows and the minor and helpless children of these soldiers; against the widows of the soldiers of the Wai· of 1812 ; against the Indian war Y-eteraus and their widows; and against the soldiers of the Spani ·h-American War, for all of whom the Bursum bill, which tile !•resident recently vetoed, either provides reasonable pensions or richly desened increases of the pensions which hnYe been previously awarded them.

In support of my charge, I read from an article which appeared in the Washington Evening Star of last Thursday, us follows: COOLIDGE LIXES l'P FOHCl:S FOR ACTI'\'E LEGlSLA'l'H"E DRIYE-CO~FEUS

WITH PARTY L.E.lDERS IN' EFFORT TO PUSH IMrORTANT MEASUilES

THREATS OF COALITION SPUR G. O. P. T·O ACTIOX-.'o.DJOl'RNMEXT OF

CONGRESS JUNE 7 SUGGESTED TO THE EXECt'TIYJJ . . . ~ . . The President and Republican leaders had a breakfast conference

and later met with Senator L-ODOE, 01' Massachusetts, Republican Senate leader, and Chairman SMOOT, of the Senate Finance Committee.

MEETS HOUSE LEADERS

The Ilouse leaders attending the conference included Speaker GILLETT,

Representative Lo:SGWORTH, of Ohio, the floor leader ; Chairman SNELL, of the Rules Committee, Representative BEGG, of Ohio, Chairman Grurnx, of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman MADDEN, of the Appropriations Committee, and ID(lmbers of the Republican sk~ring <'ommittee.

While Senators LODGE and SMOOT were at the White House Seuator BORAH, Republican, Idaho, also was called into their conference, ~hich had to do primarily with the status of financial measures, including the tax bill and the Bursum pension measure, vetoed last week.

BO:SUS BILL YETO EXPECTED

His (the President's) attitude on this point led most of the Ilouse leaders to believe that he would veto the soldiers' bonus bill, wbicb has been submitted to him, and might be lukewarm toward the postal salary bill unless a provision ls incorporated to raise funds for meeting the pay increase by an increase in postage rates.

Particular importance also is attached by Mr. Coolidge to the Bursum pension bill, which he vetoed last week. He is understood to have asked for assurances that its passage would be prevented, but the congressional leaders were unable to give him any positive informatiou ou that subject.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE ~fAy 13

It thus appears that the President is ncrt content with hav'lng '\etoed the Ilursum bill, but that he is attempting to 11snrp the legislative functions of the Congress and seeking to exact assurances from leaders of the Senate and the House that his veto

November that it will be too costly to pay M:r. Coolidge $205 a day to be President for the next four years.

of this most meritorious measure shall not be overridden. '

Mr. DIAL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFF1CER. The Secretary will call the i

roll. The President's message in explanation of his veto is char

.acteristic not only Of the ma:n who _ wrote it, but also of those who a.re managing the campaign to reelect him President. Big business and accumulated wealth, which are always the most chronic, if not the most conscientious, objectors to the -paying of taxes, will find in this message additional reasons for increasing their activity in behalf of the President's renomination in Jone and his reelection in November.

The roll was called, and the following Senators nnswered to their names: Adams Ernst Lodge Ashurst Fernald Mr.Kellar Ball Fess McKinley Bayard Fletcher McLean Borah Frazier Mc.i'lary Brandegee Gerry Mayfield Brookhart Glass Moses Broussard Gooding Neely .BlllCe Hale Norbeck Bursum Harreld Norris

message : Cameron Harrison Oddie The following significant statements are contained in the

I am returning herewith Senate bill No. 5, an act granting pensions Capper Heflin Overman Colt Howell Owen nnd increases of pensions • • • without my .approval. No con- Copeland Johnson, Calit. Pepper ditioDB exis.t which justify the imposition of this additional burden Cummins Johnson, Minn. Phipps upon the taxpayers of the Katio.a. Curtis Jones, N. Mex. Pittman

1 Dale Jones, Wash. Ralston Does the President mean that there could be no justification Dial Kendrick Ransdell

Dill Keyes Reed, :'.Io. for paying a needy Civil War veteran or his widow a pension Edge .King Reed, Pa. of $72 a month? Does he mean that there could be no Elkins Ladd Robinson

Sheppard Shields ShipstPad Shortridge Slmmons Smith Smoot Spencer Stanfield Stephens Sterlin"' Swanson Trammell Wadsworth Walsh. Mass. Walsh, Mont. ·watson Weller Wheeler Willis

jnstifi.ca.tion for paying a pension to a surviving Spanish- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighty-three Senators having American War veternn who needs it and deserres it? Does answered to their names, there is a quorum present. The the President believe that the sum of $72 a month exceeds the question is, Shall Senate bill No. 5 pass, notwithstanding the amount necessary to support a veteran and his family? ' objections of the President of the United States?

Has the President recently tried the interesting but im- Mr. DIAL. I ask for the yeas and nays. possible experiment of supporting a family of four or five on The yeas and nays were ordered, and the reading clerk pro. an allowance of 72 a month? 1 ceeded to call the roll.

As a matter of course, we all desire and intend to protect ' Ur. REED of Pennsylvania (when l\1r. GREENE'S name was the taxpayers to the utmost, but neither the taxpayers nor called). I was asked to announce that the Senator from Ver!egislators desire economy, eyen in the matter of taxation, at mont [l\ir. GREENE] is absent on acccmnt of illness, and, if the expense of honesty and justice to the surviving solaiers of present, would vote " nay." our various wars or those left dependent by our veterans. Mr. LODGE (when his name was called). I have a general

The President further says, among other things:: pair with the senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD], The main objection to the whole bill is the unwarranted expendi- who is unavoidably absent.

tore of the money of the taxpayers. • • • No public requirement I join with me the junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. at the present time ranks with the necessity for the reduction of taxa- LENROOT] in my -pair with the Senator from Alabama. The tio~. I am for economy. Senator from Wisconsin and I, if permitted to vote, would vote

. . to pass the bill over the veto, and the Senator from Alabama . Of course, he is for ec~:>nOI!lY· So am L . ~ut the .President [l\fr. C°NDERwoon] would vote against passing it over the veto. is for econ~my first and J~sti~e to our surVJ.vmg soldiers after- , 1 have given a double pair. wards; while I. all! for Justice to our veterans fu'St and ~or . Mr. O"VEB.1\iM (when his name was called) I have a o-en-economy after Justice shall have been done. Therefore I rn- •n, • _ "th th · IT Se t f w · · n.-,. <W "' ] tend to vote to pass this bill, the President's veto to the con- e:i: l.U _pair WI .e semo na or rom yommg L.11.LI.· ARB.EN , trary otwitbstllnclinO' .and therefore wrthhold my vote.

• n o· The roll call was concluded In disapproving this measure it appears that the President r • ·• P< has been actuated solely by financial motives. It is obvious l\lr. ROBI~S~N. The JUmor i:::>ei;iat?r from Georgia [Mr. that he is considering not the necessiUes of the soldiers or GEORGE],. the JllillOT Senator from Michigan [Mr. FERRIS], and their widows or their orphans but the cost in dollars and the jun~o-r Senator from Ne~ Jersey [Mr. EDwABJ~s] are cents of paying them such just compensation as will enable necessarily absent. If they ;were all present and pernn~ed ~ them comfortably to live the remainder of their days. vote, the Senator from Gt:0r~a [Mr. GEORGE] would vote nay,

It is clear that the President has forgotten the cost to our a~d th~ Sena:or from Michigan [l'ill'. FERRIS~, and,, the Senator soldiers of winnina our "\""arious '\\ars of preservinO' our country from New Jer:s~y [l\.Ir. EDwARDsJ. wou~d vote Y.ea. The Sena· and defending its Institutions. He r{ow thinks oniy of the cost tor from Georgia. [lv!r. GEORGE] is pall"ed on th1s vote with the of granting pensions and increases of pensions of adequate ~enat~r from Michigan [Mr. FEiuns] and the Sena.tor from proportions. He is now unmindful of the fact that our sol- _New J s.ey [Mr. EDWARDS]. . . . diers at Shiloh, at Manassas, at Cbicamauga, and the bloody , Mr. ERNST. I. have a general pair with the semor Senator angle at Gettysburg did not count in blood or limb or life frnm .Kentucky [Mr. ST!1'-rEY,~. I do not know llow he would itself the cost of saving the Union and preserving the founda- vote if present. I vote nay. • tions upon which this, the greatest and the richest Nation in The .roll call resulted~eas 53, nays 28, as follows· the wOI'ld, has been established and perpetuated. YlllAS-fffi

If the President believed that there is .no justification -for Adams Fernald Ladd paying a needy surviving defender of our country as mucll Ashurst FFr:essazi"er McKellar Brandegee McKinley as 72 a month as a pension, how can he justify his receiving .Brookhart Gerry McLean from the Treasury a salary of $75,000 a year, or, to be more Broussard Gooding Mci'ary specific, a salary in excess of $205 a day? Bursrrm fi~k M~!i~

While 1 make no objection to the salary paid the President, ~~tper Rowell Norbeck I nevertheless contend that if his services are worth more than Copeland Johnson, Ca.llf. Norris $205 a day in time of peace, $12 a month is not an excessive ~~ti~ns Johnson,.. Minn. ~gfp~s amount to pay a needy, deserving soldier for the services he Dale ~~~::: ~a~ii· Pittman rendered his country in time of war. Dill Kendrick Ralston

I invite the attention of all our soldiers and sailors and the .Elkins Keyes Reed, Mo. attention of all the widows and orphans of our soldiers and N.AYS-:28 sailars to the fact that this is the second time a Republican Ball Ernst Owen President bas vetoed this pension bill It was first vetoed by -Bayard ~i~~her K~~ll President Harding. It now has been vetoed by President ~~~~~ Harreld Reed, Pa. Coolidge. And we are wondering if Congress can pass any Cameron Harrison Sheppard bill providing an increase of pensions which a .Republican 'Dial King Simmons President will -permit to become a law. Ed_ge Mayfield Smith

Since President Coolidge has taken the position that it will NOT VOTING-15 be too costly to the country to pay the beneficiaries of the Caraway George Lenroot Bursum pill pensionS" of $72 a month, I hope that our -veterans i<l~i~Js ~~~ ifc~rmick and the widows and orphans of soldiers will decide next Ferris La Follette Overman

Robinson Shiercts Shipstead Shortridge bpencer stanfleld Walsh, Mass. Walsh, .Mont. Watson Wheeler Willis

Smoot Stephens Sterling Swanson Trammell Wadsworth Weller

Stanley Underwood Warren

1924 CONGRESSIONAL "RECORD-SENATE 8423 The PUESIDIKG OFFICER. On this question the yeas are

53 the navs are 28. Less than two-thirds of all the Senators pr~sent ru;d Yoting having voted in the affirmative, the bill does not pass.

ORDEI.t OF B'CSINESS

Mr. W ADSWORTII. Mr. President, ordinarily at 2 o'clock the War Department appropriation bill would be laid before the Senate. It is now three minutes ot 2; and it the Senator from Washington desires to endeavor to get np a bill which be tells me he wa.nts to bring up, I have no objection.

Mr. JONES of Washington. As the Senator has said, it is only a couple of minutes before 2 o'clock. So I will wait until later 1n the afternoon, in the hope that I may be able to get the bill up.

OBDER FOR EVE~"TING SESSION O'N THE C.ALENDAR

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I would like to submit a unanimous-consent request. We are away behind in the consideration of the calendar, and I ask unanimous consent that on day after to-morrow, Thursday, and not later than halt past 5, the Senate shall take a recess until 8 o'clock, and that at the evening se 'Si-On nothing but unobjected bills on the calendar shall be taken up, under Rule VIII, and that a~ not later than 11 o'clock that night the Senate shall either adJourn or take a recess until the next day.

The PRESIDlliG OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent agreement requested by the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President, I ' think some arrangement ought to be made to · pr-oeeed with the calendar, and perhaps the arran(Tement suggested by the Senator from Kansas is as good as ·C:n be effectuated. I have no objection to the unanimous-consent request which he proposes.

Mr. DIAL. Mr. President, may I ask ~ Senator if be intends to take up only unobjected bills -0n the calendar?

Mr. CURTIS. Only nnobjected bUls under Rule VIII, so there will be only five minutes' debate.

Mr. EDGE. Reserving the right to object, did not the Senator from Kansas first suggest Wednesday evening?

Mr. CURTIS. No; I suggested Thursday evening. I have talked with several Senators and they have said they would like to have at least o.ne day's notice. So I tnn.de it Thursday evening.

l\Ir. EDGE. I shall not object, although it is very inconvenient for me personally to be here Thursday evening.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas requests unanim{}US consent that on Thursday afternoon, at n~t later than half past 5 o'clock. the Senate shall take a recess until 8 o'clock Thursday evening, and that tJ:te time on. Thur~ay evening shall be devoted to the considerat10n of unobJected bills on the calendar under Rule •VIII, and that the Senate shall recess or adjourn, at its pleasure, not later than 11 o'clock ~· m. Is there objection? The Chair hears none and the unan1· mous-consent agreement is entered into.

The agreement was 1·educed to ·writing as follows: It is agreed by unanimous eonsent that on Thursday, May 15, 1924,

at not later than 5.30 p. ·m. the Senate take a rec~ until 8 p. m.: that at the evening session the Senate shall consider only 1mobjected bills on the calendar under Role VIII, and at not later than 11 p. m. take a recess or adjourn until Friday.

W .A.n DEP.AnTME~T APPR-OPRll'IIO~S

· The PRESIDIXG OFFICER. The hour of 2 o'cl?ck having arrived the C::bair lays before the Senate the unfimshed busines ·, which is House bill 7877. .

The Senate as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con· sideration of' the bill (H. R. 7877) making appropriations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, and for other purposes.

Mr WADSWORTH. Mr. ' President, since the session on yest~day my attention and that of members of the Committee on Appropriations has been called to three items of appropria· tions for the support of the Western Branch of the National Soldiers Home, situated at Leavenworth, Kans. As I explained yesterday, the committee fonnd it necessary, in the treatment of the appropriations for the several soldiers' homes, to make certain increases, none of them very large, but necessary to support the number of members who are now resident at the homes. In the case of the Western' Branch at Leavenworth three of the items I am conyinced were overlooked in the committee. I · desire now to offer three amendments, one to the item for " subsistence," one to the item entitled "household," and one to the item entitled "repairs."

I

On page 101, line 18, under "subsistence," I move to strike out the numerals " $202,500 " and substitute therefor the numerals "$204,340."

The amendment was agreed to. Ur. W .AD SW ORTH. On the same page, line 19, under

"Household," I move to strike out the numerals "$132,500" and insert in lieu thereof the numerals "$134,940."

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WADS WORTH. On the same page, line 20, under

"repairs," I move to strike . out "$46,500" and insert in lieu thereof "$49;<HO."

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WADSWORTH. Those three changes will bring those

appropriations to the amount of the estimates of the home. The total for the Western Branch Home, which is found in line 21, page 101, should be changed to $562,580.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The correction will be made accordingly.

Mr. PITTl\I~~. Mr. President, I had about concluded my speech in this connection on yesterday. I am not going for· ward at this time at any length, because the Senator from Idaho [l\Ir. Goonrno] has a speech prepared on another phase of the subject, and in a very few moments I intend to yield the floor to that Senator. Later on in the debate I desire to go more fully into the question, as affecting discriminations against the interior country under the present act.

I realize that there are a great many' protests being made against the measure. These pr.otests undoubtedly are based largely on a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the amendment. This is not the old long and short haul bill that has originated the fights in the past. The old long and short haul bills that haYe heretofore been fought out haYe denied to the Interstate Commerce Commission the right to permit a de· parture from the fourth section in any case. This . amendment permits a departure from the fourth section in the cas~ o:r competition between railroad lines, but does not permit a departure from the fourth section by railroads to meet water competition. That is the distinction. There are those who have feared that the amendment intended to give some control to the Interstate Commerce Commission over water transportation. It does not do so. The common carrier referred to in the amendment is described in the act itself as a carrier engaged in railroall tz:ansportation or transportation by rail, and by water jointly where both the rail and water transportation facilities are under the same management .and control. Therefo1·e that question is not involved.

Mr. President, it is a fact that water transportation has eeased to exist on the inland waterways of the country. I charged that on yesterday, and the Senator from Florida [l\lr. FLETCHER] stated that possibly it was not due to railroad com· petition. If it is not due to railroad competition, I a.sk to what is it due? As I stated on yesterday, it has been the policy of the Government for half a century to attempt to build up water transportation on the inland waterways of the country, and we have utterly failed. Are we going to permit that condition to continue? Yet at every session of Congress we appropriate huge sums of money for the purpose of making the waterways navigable.

If transportation is not run 01! of the rivers by the railroads what does run it off? The fact remains that before the r~ilroads paralleled the rivers, much C01I11Perce was carried by boats. Since the railroads have paralleled the rivers, there are no boats. If that is not due to railroad competition, to what is it due? As a matter of fact, I read yesterday from the hearings before the House committee to show what has happened even to the Government transports on the Mississippi River. When they started in prepared to extend that transport system to Minneapolis, the railroads paralleling the river instantly reduced their freight rates in competition with it, and therefore t11e Government did not consh·uct the line.

Going on with the testimony of Mr. NEWTO~ before the House committee on the bill to appropriate money to carry on· the Government transport system, I read further :

For instance--

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, will the Senator explain what tlie Government barge line is?

Mr. PITTMAN. I will in just a few moments. I would like to finish quoting from this hearing first. Mr. NEWTON said:

For Instance, the barge rate ls 80 per cent 01 the rail rate tbat parallels the river, but tbe rail rates that parallel the river are about 58 per cent o! the average rail rate ot the country, so that the barge rate 1s not more than 50 per cent o! the average rail rates.

8424 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE ~iAY 13

A.s I said yesterday, rail transportation is more expeditious than water transportation, and, of course, it is essential that water transportation be carried for less than rail transportation where they parallel each other. So the barge or boat system is compelled to charge only 80 per cent of what the rails charge paralleling the river. The railroads paralleling the river charge only 58 per cent of what they charge throughout the rest of the country. It is perfectly simple. It has happened all up and down every river in the country.

Mr. NEWTON went on further in the hearings to say, in answer to questions :

Mr. RAYBURN. Wen, this is true, is it not, that the act specifically provides that where a rat~ is put into eft'ect to meet water competition by a railroad company, that that rate can not be increased after that unless the railroad company can show changed conditions?

Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. Well, bnt that is the surest way to absolutely insure the destruction of water competition. Here is the point: The country does not get the benefit of water transportation by getting a potential water rate down the river, because for every dollar the rail line loses carrying commerce up and down the banks oi' the river it has to penalize the interior to make up for that loss.

Mr. RAYBURN. Exactly. Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. And that is why we are interested in

transportation from the national standpoint. Mr. RAYBURN. Now, under the act, the commission has a right to

set a maximum or a minimum rate or a maximum and a minimum rate. lli. NEWTON of Missouri. I think the provision you put in was

"reasonably compensatory," that the rates must be "reasonably compensatory."

Mr. RAYBURN. Therefore they can not be put into etrect unless they at least have the approvnl of the commission. In other words, it the commission does not approve a rate they can veto It?

l\Ir. NEWTON of Mlssoui1. I think that has been the practice. Mr. RAYBURN. Then your objection would go to the administration of

the act? llr. NEWTON of Missouri. I think so. I am thoroughly convinced

that most of the criticism is due to the failure to enforce the spirit of the act dealing with water transportation.

Let me show you this, now. From New Orleans to Fort Smith is a distance of 494 miles. The rate on 100 pounds of first-class freight is $1.94~-494 miles. From St. Louis to New Orleans; 718 miles, the rate is $1.73. Because the barge line can not get to Fort Smith you have got nearly 300 miles les'S haul for $1.9H, as compared with $1. 73 for 700 miles. And from Dallas, Tex., to New Orleans, 515 miles, where there is no chance for water competition, the rate is $2.08i per hundred. So the barge line has, of course, to go up against that competition. But the point ls this: The barge line is carrying now great quantities of wheat. In the month of August last year we carried 1,300,000 bushels of wheat fr<Jm St. Louis to New Orleans, and the saving between the water rate and the rail rate on that wheat from St. Louis south was 20 per cent dift'erentlnl, saving the shipper $53,000.

Mr. COOPER. But, Mr. NEWTON, this is a fact, is it not: Regardless of the rate competition along the river, the barge lines have done pretty well, have they not?

Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. I am glad you raised that question, Mr. COOPER. The only way you can develop water transportation is to carry on this experiment until you eliminate these obstructions.

Now, as to the division of rates, let me show you that handicap. From New Orleans to Davenport, Iowa, on 100 pounds of ooft'ee--a joint rail and water haul-the railroad hauls that freight tor 400 miles and gets 38.3 cents for its service, the barge line hauls it 973 miles and gets 11.7 cents in the division of freight

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Who makes the division? Mr. N»WTON of Missouri. The railroads. The Interstate Commerce

Commission permits the railroads to make their local freight rate, and then the barge line, in order to get the through haul, bas to fit into the through haul, and they make the local rate so high that it takes it all a way from the barge line.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. I do not quite understand yet who makes the division.

Mr.' NEWTON of Missouri. Well, if the barge line takes the treight It has to take it on the railroad basis. The railroad says: "Well, these are our rates. We will haul it through for a certain amount."

Mr. HUDDLESTON. The railroads will haul that 100 pounds of coffee from New Orleans to Davenpe>rt for how much?

Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. Here is what they do: They make the rate from Davenport to New Orleans so low that the rail rate from St. Louis to New Orleans is only approximately 11.7 cents; they make the rate from St. Louis to Davenport so high, as compared with their through rate from Davenport to New Orleans, that the rail rate from St. Louis to New Orleans is only 11.7 cents. ,

Mr. HUDDLESTON. And that is done with the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission?

lli. NEWTOX of Missouri. Yes, sir. Mr. HUDDLESTO~. So the Interstate Commerce Commission is respon

sible for it ? Mr. NEWTON of Missouri. Yes; and we have had that matter up

before the commission. We were there two years ago trying to get them to decide the question, and finally they decided it by saying, "Go back and settle it yourselves." -

Mr. President, the Chamber of Commerce of New York, the Chamber of Commerce of New Orleans, the Chamber of Commerce of Toledo, Ohio-in fact, practically all the chambers of commerce and business bodies east of the Mississippi Riverha ve appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commis ion and opposed the new applications of the western railroads for relief under the fourth section. As I stated yesterday, every western transcontinental railroad has made application to the Interstate Commerce Commission to change the rates on 43 commodities so that they will be able to charge the out-ofpocket cost to the Pacific coast and charge more to the interior points; in other words, they are now attempting to get back to the pre-war basis. Prior to the World War all of these discriminations existed out in the West. When the Railroad Administration of the Government assumed control it abolished all of these departures from the fourth section.

Now, what is involved? Remember that at the present time I am not speaking of this from the standpoint of discrimination; that is a subject that is going to be treated by the Senator from Idaho [1\Ir. Gooorno]. I am discussing this question only from the point of the destruction of shipping through .the Panama Canal and on the inland waterways of the country. I repeat that the great business associations of the East are opposed to the Interstate Commerce Commission granting these applications of the western roads. They have protested against such action ; and yet those same associations are opposed to any legislation with regard to the fourth section.

Now let me show how inconsistent · and idiotic their position in this matter is: The Interstate Commerce Commission has adopted a criterion as the basis for granting this relief. Now, what is that criterion? It is in writing and has been published by the Interstate Commerce Commission. It reads:

In the light of those two similar considerations we are of the opinion and find that in the administration of the fourth section the words "reasonably compensatory" imply that a rate propet·ly so prescribed must (1) cover, and more than cover, the extra or additional expense in handling the traffic to which it applies.

In other words, the criterion laid down by the Interstate Commerce Commission is that a rate is " reasonably compensatory" if it pays the actual cost of handling freight to the Pacific coast plus 1 cent.

Now, mind you, Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. CuMMINS], who is one of the authors of this act which we seek to amend, stood upon the floor of the Senate and said that that was never the intention of Congress. The Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT], now sitting in his seat, also declared that that was never the intention of Congress; that what Congress meant by a " reasonably compensatory rate" was a rate that would not only pay the actual cost of moving the freight but would contribute toward a fair return on the property.

Mr. SMOOT. Which would contribute its share toward a fair return on the property.

l\1r. PITTMAN. Which would contribute its share toward a fair return on the property. Yet in spite of those speeches by leaders of this body, in spite of every speech made on this floor, in spite of the legislative history of section 4, the Interstate Commerce Commission publishes a criterion by which they will be governed in determining these applications.

Mr. President, the commission have in the past carried that criterion out; they ha\e in the past given to the western roads a rate to the Pacific coast so low that they could divert half of the freight moving by water through the Panama Canal. Applications are now pending for the same relief ; all of the western railroads are now asking that they be given a low rate to the Pacific coast in order that they may get at least onehalf-that is what they say, "one-hBlf "-of all of the traffic passing through · the Panama Canal. Why should not the Interstate Commerce Commission grant them that rate? It is in accordance with their criterion; it is in accordance with their past decisions.

As a matter of fact, Mr. President, unless this power shall be taken away from the Interstate Commerce Commission, or, at least circumscribed, they will grant the applications,· and when they do so that which the railroads avowedly seek will happen, and one-half of the traffic will disappear from the Panama Canal. Mind you, they admit that one-half will dis-

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA.TE S425~

appear, but whenever there is fixed a rate so low as to drive The Interstate Commerce Commission knew what Congress one-half of the transportation off the Panama Canal it will intended by the words . "reasonably compensatory," because al o drive the other half off. That was the history of trans- the question was debated here. When we speak of· something portation on our rivers. being compensatory, it does not take a lawyer to understand

Mr. President, the great business organizations of the East the meaning. When it is stated that a man is not going to m·e opposed to ·tbese applications of the western railroads; but be required to labor for a wage that ls not compensatotJ, we what good does their opposition do? What good has it ever know what it means. Everybody knew what " compensatory" dQne? It has never done any good, and it can not do any good. . meant except the Interstate Commerce Commission; and yet, There is only one way to reach the desired end, and that is for after Congress amended the act oi 1920, what did they do? the Congress- of the United States to say to the Interstate They did exactly the1 same thing· that they did prior to 1910 Commerce Commission, "You haye violated the powers that and exactly the same thing that they did prior to 1920. They we intended to girn you even after you were openly informed established the criterion tllat I have just read, which said that as to w.J;tat those powers were, and the only way we can stop " reasonably compensatory " meant out-of-pocket cost plus. you apparently is to take them away from you." 'That is what they did, and they are still doing it.

Suppose the great business organizations of Xew Orleans What language are :rou going to put into the law that will knew that the only way in which they could prevent the grant. impress upon the Intei-state Commeroo Commission the policy ing of this relief asked for by the western railroads was to tak.e of this Congress? You have tried for 40 years i to put· somethe action which is now proposed here; what would they do? thing of that kind into it There is but one thing that you · can They would do just what we are seeking now to do. Suppose, put into it that will ha-ve that effect, and tliat is · what is · in' for instance, the Chamber c1f Commerce of the City of New this amendment. Y.-ou can say to them: " Yon . c:in not charge· York, wllich in a recent hearing before • the Interstate Com- more for a sho.rt haul than· for a long haul, except in the cases• merce Commission protested against these applications of the that we are going to mention"; and those cases are as set forth iwestern railroads, knew tba.t the only way they could make in this bill, a when two railroads meet at a competitive point· their protest effectual was by doing what we are seeking to do and the line of one of them is circuitous and the other: dire.ct;. to-day and taking that discretion away from the Interstate or when there is ,a great national emergency, snch as famine or· Commerce Commission; what would they do? What would the disaster., or when the transportation is solely for the export Gb:imber of Commerce of Toledo, Ohio, do? What would all trade. That' is what we have done in this amendment. We• of the great business organizations do? They would .do exactly have taken away from them the power to allow-railroads to put what we are -trying to do. water transportation out of business, as they have done for-' 501

The whole history on this matter shows what· is likely to rrers, in violation: of the policy of this Government: happen. In 1887 the Congress of the United States adopted the .llr. S)lOOT. Mr. Pre ident, will the Senator yield? fourth section of the interstate commerce act, which prescribed Mr. PITrMAN. I yield. as- the P"licy of this Government' that no raill·o!M company l\lr. S:..\100T. Some of us have passed through this ordeal should be allowed to charge more for a · short haul than tor a twice now and have come out of it with the thought that we long haul when the short haul was included within the long won a victory, aml in the end we found that there was a failure: haul. Then they wanted to allow some little discretion because I hope that the Senator-now will allow, no amendment in any there might be some special case~ where a certain part of that· way, shape: or form to ' be made to his proposed amendment, haul was competitive, and what did they do? They said that beeause when this amendment is adopted there will be no ques- · in special cases and where the circum tances were dissimilar tion a · to its meaning: and e1en the Interstate Commerce Goman •exception mightr be made. 'r.he actual> wording was that mi ·sion can not construe it in any- other light than that in1 the railroads should not be allowed to charge a greater amount which Congress intended that the · law, c1f 1910 should be con- · for the short haul than the long haul "under substantially strued. , similar circumstances and conditions." That wa the e::rnot. If " e can get the attention of the Senate, and point out the· wording of tbe act. discriminations-not ordinary ones, but wicked discrimina-

What happened then? The 1 Supreme Court· of the Unjted tions~against many of the Western, States. as we did in 1010, States held that whether the circumstances and conditions were the time referred to by the Senator. from Nevadat there is no , similar wa" a ·matter to be determined by the railroads. Con- question as to what the Senate willi do. When it was pointed t sequently, from 1887 the railroads found that the circumstances out in 1910 it was a revelation not only to the Senatars .them- · and conditions were n<>t similar when the railroads were put selves but to the poople gene1ally. in competition with boats. What did they do? They made The proposition is one that I came up against personally the rates on the railroads at. points of competition with the ma.DY' times. I would go to Sant Fra.nci ~co to buy a few. carboats SQ low that they drove the boats off, and then they made loads.of wo 1. I would step into the Southern Pacific office ancl the rates higher for the shorter haul and earned the same ask them what the freight rate on wool was. They wouldrsay: · amount. The Congress of the United States never intended "Se\enty-five cents a hundred.'.' I. would say: "I have two that, and in 1910 there occurred one of the greatest debates in or three cars that I want to ship." "Do you want to ship them the history of the ~enate on that very question. The Con- to Bo"ton or Philadelphia?" I said: "Neither; I want to gress of the United ~tates was so incensed at the construction- ship them to Provo." · "Oh, well, the freight rate to .Provo is · put· upon those words that they struck out those words from $2.25 a hundred "-75 cents to Boston, and l the distance notr a the act. · third !

Then what happened? Congress having still . left in the That is what we h[n·e ·run up against right along, and that' act the power to grant these exceptions in special' casesi the was pointed out in 1910. I could stand upon . this floor and' Interstate Commerce Commission utilized the words "special point to such cas~ by the hundreds. It is.unjust; it. is1unfair; cases " to enable the railroads to continue to do everything and I hope the · next bill1 that1 we pass here will be one· that thnt was done before the language was stricken out in 1910. never can b misconstrued by any person or any. organization. But a few days ago the chairman of the Interstate Commerce of the Government. -Commission, 1\11·. Hall, said the meaning of seetion 4 was not l\fr. PITT~B .. :N'. Mr: President, I • thank the Senator for that' changed by striking out the words "under similar cireum- statement ~ stanees and conditions." Think of it! The Congress of the i\Ir. \VALSH of Montana. l\1r. President, will the Senator United States having been led to 1 believe that these discrimina-. suffer an inte1Lruption ?. . tions and these outrages were being committed under certain The PRESIDIXG OFFICER (::Ur. I.Ann in the chair). Does language, purposely struck that language out a · notiee to the the Senator from _ "evada yield to1 the Senator from , Montana? Interstate Commerce Commission that they did not want such l\Ir. PITTl\1AX I yield. practices to continue; and yet, with that knowledge, the same )Jr. WALSH of Montana. As r· understand the history of · body, which is a creature of the Congre s of the United States, thi · matter and the grounds upon which the distinction bas took another two words in the act, the words " special ·cases," heen made authorizing the lesser rate for the long ha.ul than and allowed the same discrimination and the same destructive for the shorter haul · included within the longLhaul, the cases rates, so far as water competition was concemed, that were fell '\\ithin two classes-:-0ne where there is water competition allowed before. and the other where there is rail competition to a common,

Then - what. happened? In 1920 Congress1 still trying to point exert some control o...-er the Interstate Commerce Commission, Mr. PITTMA:..~. Yes.• still trying to impress them with what the policy of this Go\- Mr. W AI:SH of Montana. Before there1 was any. legislation ernment was with regard to transportation, provided ex:pres ly on the subJect at all, . were1 not tho e two grounds . pr: ctically tbat1 the~· shoulcl not grant any r~ te which was . lower for the the only. grolll!ds .upon which railro:HL tlicl make a les er charge long hau\ tlmn for the short haul unless. the long-haul rate for the long 1 aul than for the t n1:er haul? wus reasonably c-0mpen atory. Mr. PIT~. I think so . .

.,

8426 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE MAY 131 ~-------------------=--------------------!

Mr. WALSH of Montana. It would seem absurd to make a higher charge for the short haul than for the longer haul unless one of those two conditions prevailed; so that that was really the situation that was intended to be met by the very first law in relation to the subject, was it not?

Mr. PITTMAN. It was. Mr. WALSH of Montana. .And we have been working 30

years, and we have not reached it yet. Mr. PITTMAN. No. Congress has understood it for 30

years. The Interstate Commerce Commission has knowingly violated it for 30 years, since its establishment, as I have stated before. In spite of the debates each time Congress amended the law so as to correct that wrong, every time after that the Interstate Commerce Commission went right back to where it was before, and it ad.opted. the criterion which I read. That is the basis on which the commission will grant these discriminations.

The basis upon which Congress granted the discriminations was one thing. The basis upon which the Interstate Commerce Commission grants them is another. We stated that no discriminations could be granted in any case except where the rate for the longer haul was reasonably compensatory. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUMMINS], the chairman of the committee, interpreted that on the floor of the Senate. He did not interpret it according to the commission's criterion. Congress accepted this interpretation, and it was accepted in the debates, that "reasonably compensatory" bad the ordinary intelligent meaning-that it meant that the rate should contribute its reasonably fair part to the just and fair return on the property. The Interstate Commerce Commission finds that it is not necessary to do that at all, but that if the rate pays the actual cost of handling the freight, plus 1 cent, that is sufficient.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, adopting that interpretation of the last revision of Congress, just what kind of a showing does the Interstate Commerce Commission require of a railroad company when it applies for permission to put in force the lesser rate for the long haul?

Mr. PITTMAN. I asked that very question of Chairman Hall when he was on the stand ; and he said that if the railroad. companies could show them that they would not get the freight if they did not put the rate down there, and that they would get it if they did put it down there, they considered that it was a contribution to their overhead chai·ges.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. But really, in practice, the interpretatio:n given to the statute, as it now stands, is the interpretation that was given to the statute before the amendment was made?

Mr. PITTMAN. It is the same that was given it before 1910. It is the same that was given it before 1920. What I am warning these men who are seeking to improve their rivers and harbors is that the applications that are now pending before the Inter5tate Commerce Commission must be granted unless this authority is canceled.

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

vada yield to the Senator from Louisiana? Mr. PITT1\1AN. I do. Mr. RANSDELL. The Senator evinces by his argument a

great deal of friendliness-and. I am very glad indeed to see itfor water transportation in this country, not alone for that on the interior rivers but for our coastwise commerce. I, perhaps, missed part of the Senator's remarks, but I should be glad to have him elucidate so that we can not misunderstand just how the adoption of this provision would assist in placing the boats back on our great rivers like the Ohio, the upper Mississippi, the Missouri, and the lower Mississippi. I am not quite sure that I follow the Senator; but even if we adopt this provision and annul this long and short haul clause, bow is that going to prevent the railroads from discriminating in favor of river points as against interior points, provided they are not on the same line? · Mr. PITTMAN. I will explain that. In the first place, there are two provisions in the inter

state commerce act. One of them is that the commission shall fix maximums or minimums or maximums and minimums for railroads. That is one thing; but this provision that exists here now is an exception to the whole act. That is what they use.

Here is your river, and here is a railroad. on each side of it. The railroad from the head of the river to the mouth of the river, from the head of navigation to New Orleans, has a rate, and that rate is so low that a boat can not run from the head of the river to its mouth and make any money ()n the freight rate that the railroad charges on that stuff.

Mr. RANSDELL. That is true to a great extent I am will- I ing to admit. ·

l\fr. PITTMAN. Now, how can the railroad do that and ! make a living? Because, as bas been t~ 11tified to--

Mr. RANSDELL. Pardon me; the point I want to get is how the adoption of this provision of the Senator's would I prevent the railroad from continuing oo do that if it desired to do it.

Mr. PITTMAN. For the simple reason that they could 1 not afford to make the railroad rate from St. Louis to New Orleans 1 cent per 100 pounds if they could . not get any ; more than 1 cent per hundred from St. Louis to any point 1 in between, and they could not obtain a higher rate. to the I intermediate point if my amendment is adopted.

l\fr. RANSDELL. But they could charge more out to Kansas City, for instance, or to Little Rock, though they are not on the same line. They wolfld be exactly in the same direction, however. .

l\fr. PITTMAN. That is all true enough. l\fr. RANSDELL. Or they could charge more to Nashville,

on the east side, or to points like Meridian, Miss., or Birmingham, .Ala.

Mr. PITT1\1AN. Yes; but they could not do it at the places en route there.

Take a railroad, for instance, that goes from Kansas City through Shreveport, La., to New Orleans. They can have a rate, if they want it, to New Orleans, of 50 cents. They can have a rate of $6 a hundred to Shreveport if they want it, and they can have a rate of $6 a hundred to every other point between Kansas City and New Orleans that is not on a river, and they do that; but that is contrary to the policy of section 4, and it is contrary to the policy of this country. The only reason why they can do it is that there is a provision in the law which states that in special cases they may allow a greater charge for the short haul than for the long haul, the shorter being included in the longer, and that is where it is, if the long-haul rate is reasonably compensatory, under the misconstruction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The purpose of my amendment is to prevent this.

.As a matter of fact, the rate from Kansas City to New Orleans is not compensatory. It does not pay the railroad its proportion of a fair return on the property. The railroads know it; the Interstate Commerce Commission knows it; but it puts boats out of business, because boats are not as attractive where the i·ates are the same; and how do railroads make it up? They make it up by charging more along their line for the short haul than they do for the noncompensatory rate at the terminals.

You can not force on a railroad company a rate that is confiscatory. Consequently they can not force down the rates at the intermediate points. They are entitled. to a rate that pays a fair return ; but they do, under this exception, allow them a rate that is confiscatory, just so that they can run the boats out of business.

Suppose the railroads did not have the authority in competition with water-and that is all this applies to, competition with water-to charge less for the long haul than the short haul. What would be the result? The result would be that along their whole system from New York to N~w Orleans, from Chicago to New Orleans, from Kansas City to New Orleans, they would have to have the same rate to New Orleans that they had to every point this side of New Orleans. They could not have any less. .As the rates to the water-competition point, if required. over the whole system, would not pay, all rates would be raised.

Mr. RANSDELL. The Senator means they could have the same, but no less?

Mr. PI'l'TMAN. No less than that. What is the result? They would not make it 50 cents down to New Orleans for the through rate, because if they should say to the Interstate Commerce Commission that it was a compensatory rate, then they would admit such rate to be a fair rate for intermediate points.

Mr. RANSDELL. Then, if the Senator is correct in his assumption, the boats would go back on the rivers, would they not?

Mr. PITTl\f.AN. Yes. Why have they gone off? I would like to have some man like the Senator, who is constantly standing here and asking us to appropriate money to improve navigation on the Mississippi River, to tell us why the boats went off the rivers.

Mr. RANSDELL. I have always had the idea that they were driven off by the railroads, which charged very high rates to interior points and very low rates to river points. I do not think there is any question about that. I am very

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE 8427 sympathetic, I will say to the Senator, with the unfortunate situation that exists to-day in the intermountain section.

Mr. PITTMAN. I am not talking about the intermountain section.

Mr. RANSDELL. I know the Senator is not, but his friends are, and he lives out there, and I think I know human nature pretty well. I am very sympathetic with what you gentlemen have in mind, and if you can get the proposition in such shape that you will assist in utilizing the great highways which the Creator gave us in these wonderful rivers, and which I believe are actually needed to help carry the commerce of the country, I think you will get my cordial cooperation in this matter. But I do not believe you have it quite arranged yet. I think a great many people will be found in the United States who are exceedingly anxious to see the boats go back on the rivers. Not only that, but we would like to see fair treatment for those great sections of our country that help to pay taxes to improve the rivers and get no benefit from . it. I wish to reiterate what the Senator from Utah said, that we have had so much trouble about this matter that I think Senators should be very, very careful now and be sure they are right when they pass a measure like this, so that it can never be misunderstood.

Mr. PITTMAN. That is what the railroad managers say; be careful, and do not do anything.

Mr. RANSDELL. I do not think that slur of the Senator is quite deserved, for no one can ever charge me with being a railroad man. The Senator, perhaps, did not intend that. A man who for 25 years has stood here in Congress and advocated waterway improvements, as I have, and stood for completing our waterways should certainly never be connected with the railroads in a slurring manner like that.

Alr. PITTMAN. Mr. President, I have the very highest respect for the integrity of my friend from Louisiana, and I do not intend to charge him with being under the influence of the railroads; but the railroads have a motive in fighting this pr9position. The Senator has no motive in fighting it, but he has not the same energy in fighting for transportation on the Mississippi River that he should have. As a matter of fact, he has fought for appropriations ever since he has been in Congress, and the very guise under which he got most of them was a plea to make ·the Mississippi River navigable. He has been perfectly contented as long as we appropriated money to make it navigable, whether it ever had a boat on it or not. As a matter of fact, it has no boats on U, and the Senator is just as happy as if it did have.

Mr. RANSDELL. Will the Senator yield? Mr. PITTMAN. I yield. Mr. RANSDELL. That is another very unwarranted state

ment, and I am surprised at my amiable friend saying a thing of that kind. Certainly you can not use a river until it is navigable.

Mr. PITTMAN. How long would it take to make that river navigable?

Mr. RANSDELL. In 1874 we started out to improve the Ohio to a depth of 6 feet. I entered Congress in 1899 and was an earnest advocate of improving the Ohio so that it would have not 3 or 4 months of navigation but 12 months of navigation. In 1910 we adopted a projeet for a 9-foot channel from Pittsburgh to Cairo. In the act of 1910 we said that we were going to make that river absolutely navigable for 12 months and that it would be completed in 10 years. That was 14 years ago, and yet Congress has gone on in the most unbusinesslike manner, and we are still five or six years from the completion of the Ohio River project. No chain is stronger than its weakest link. How can the Ohio, the biggest feeder of the Mississippi, be used until it is made navigable for 12 months? There are railroads running along each bank of the river. Those railroads can serve the public every day in the year. The river can not serve them--

Ur. PITTMAN. Let me ask the Senator a question. l\lr. RANSDELL. Let me finish this. The Senator asked

me a question. The river can not serve them except when the boats can run, and the boats can run only in high water. The Senator speaks about the Mississippi being made navigable. There are a great many shallow bars on that river. I have here the report of Colonel Ashburn, in charge of the barge line, which will show the Senator that tw<il years ago it was impossible to operate boats on that river. Why should it not be made navigable? Beyond question it ought to be.

I yield now, if the Senator wants to ask me another question ; or I yield the floor.

Mr. PITTMAN. I like to hear the Senator talk. When I was a boy living on the Mississippi River, a long time ago

Mr. RANSDELL. That was a long time ago ; I remember it.

Mr. PITT:MAN. Since that time probably a hundred and fifty million dollars has been spent on the Mississippi River to make it navigable, and at that time probably not five or six million dollars had been spent to make it navigable. I remember when from a hundred and fifty to two hundred boats were docking every day at Vicksburg.

Mr. RANSDELL. How many railroads ran into Vicksburg then?

Mr. PITTMAN. The Senator has come dltectly to the point. There were but few railroads down there thm, but what I am getting at is this, the river was navigable there, and any number of boats ran on it before any money was spent to improve it, but now, after a hundred and seventy-four million dollars has been spent on the river, there are no boats, and in this bill you are asking for more money for the river, but you are suggesting no means of getting boats on the river.

Mr. RANSDELL. The Senator is mistaken. We have a barge line there. We are trying to persuade the people to operate that barge line. We are trying to show them that it can be done. On the Ohio River, which we are improving, great corporations like Jones & Laughlin, of Pittsburgh, and the United States Steel Corporation have, in the last two years, bull t wonderful fleets. They carry very large commerce down the Ohio during the four or five months of water navigation.

There is a tendency on the part of the people to return to the use of the river, but the Senator knows that when the railroads ran on both sides of the river and gave such cheap rates to river points the boats could not possibJy compete, and the railroads drove the boats out of business just as he has said. I have said that many a time on this floor, and I say it again.

l\1r. PITTMAN. What does the Senator propose to keep them from driving the boats off?

Mr. RANSDELL. I am trying to assist in building up a barge line there and have it give such effective service, so much cheaper than the railroads are giving, that they can make some money, and I am willing, I will say to the Senator, to assist him in any legislation that will compel the railroads to give fair treatment to the boats. Congress has been trying to accomplish that for many years. The Senator himself stated here that we had legislated on the subject more than once. I recall helping to pass that legislation myself, but we do not seem to have gotten anywhere with it. I am willing to help pass any reasonable legislation that will prevent unfair treatment of river transportation.

Mr. PITTMAN. How on earth could this amendment hurt the river transportation?

Mr. RANSDELL. I have not said that it would. Mr. PITTMAN. Then, what has the Senator in mind? Mr. RANSDELL. I am asking questions. Mr. PITTl\IAN. I know; but the Senator said that I had not

won him yet. I want to state one thing-that the Senator had better be more careful about winning some of the rest of us than having us win him. The Senator understands there has been request for this continuous outpouring of the people's money to improve this river year after year for 50 years, and now he comes here and says, " If you get some reasonable scheme to help them I will join you." The Senator admits the railroads have run the boats off, but he does not offer a single suggestion to prevent it

Then he, the Senator from Louisiana-a State on the Mississippi River-asks men who do not live on the Mississippi River who do not live on any river, or on any harbor, to come in and help get through an appropriation year after year amounting to millions of dollars, while he sits idly by and says, "Well, there are no boats on the river. The railroads can run them off, and we are not going to do anything against the railroads."

Mr. RANSDELL. In further answer to the Senator I would like to say that one of the reasons why the railroads have succeeded in driving the boats out of business is because in the early days the boats were the only means of transportation. There were no highways, there were no railroads, and if boats could serve the people for four or five months out of tho. rear it was a great deal better than for the people to haul with log wagons over the plains and through the forests. But when the railroads came on the scene and gave very good service, and afforded transportation so much cheaper than the boats were able to furnish it in this very unsatisfactory commerce of just a few months, the boats were driven out; and the object of improving the rivers, I will say to the Senator, is to give us continuous service, not for four or five months but for the whole year.

Mr. PITTMAN. When the Senator and I were boys on the Mississippi River did the boats tie up on that river where the Senator was at any time of the year?

8428 CONGRESSIO.rtr AL RECORD-SEN ATE :M:AY 13

Mr. RANSDELI'... Yes; they tied up a good whi\e there. The Senator has seen them when he used to live at Bunche Bend, in northeast Louisiana, on the banks of the Missis-sippi. I have seen five of them. In 1882 I went to live in Ea t Carroll Parish, and !i have lived there ever since. I have seen at one time the smoke of five boats tied up on sandl bars in. the river. There were plenty of them in those days;

Mr. PITT.MA..1'{. That was not many out of 500. lUr. RANSDELL. I mean at one time. They were tied up

on sand bars. ·They could not proceed because of the shallow bars. But there was not a railroad on either side of the river then. The people would frequently nave to wait for a month or six weeks or two months for their freight; but they would get it eventually. Now, of course, with a good railroad on either side of tlle river, they are not going to do business with· boats unless the boats can travel the entire year. The boats have now been driven off, and the- feeders of the l\Iississippi are unnavigable, except for brief periods. I will say to the Senator that the great river on which the distinguished Senator- from Missouri [Mr. REED] live&-the :Mi souri-is a navigable stream but a short portion of the year, the upper Mississippi is a navigable stream for only a few months, and the Ohio is not a navigable stream except for a limited period. We are trying to complete that system. Tbere is a bill in Congress now providing for the absolute completion of the Missouri to Kansas City, the upper- Mississippi to St. Paul, and the Ohio to Pittsburgh within a period of five years. When tho e rivers are all completed you will see a great many boats on them. In the meantime we have been 1 doing what we could. I have never failed to vote for any legislation to help protect the boats from unfair rail competition.

:Mr. PI'rTMAN. Eut the Senator- is not going to vote forthis amendment?

Mr. RANSDELL. I did not say I would not The Senatnr is assuming that Il am not for his amendment I have not said so at all. r will say to the Sena.tor that I have been leaning very strongly toward his amendment. He is assuming some .. thing without any authority.

Mr. PITT-nAJ."f. The Sen.a.tor said I had not convinced bim yet.

~lr. RANSDELL. I beg the Senator's pardon. I said I would like to have him give me some information. li be could1 get provisions inserted in his amendment which would assure me that the effect of the measure would be to put the boats back on the rin~r, I would be with him strong. Now, with his eloquence, let him convince me of that, or, if his measure does not accomplish it, let us pull together and change it so that it will do that; then I will be with him.

l\Ir. PITTM.Af~. If the Senator willt ask any railroad man, or ask anyone a niembel' of the Interstate Commerce Committee, ho will learn tl1at if we do not allow them to charge a confiscatory rate at points where there is water competition, they will have to charge more. On the Senator's argument, if the railroads had to charge• more at competitive points with the boats, the boats could charge more, and ow his . very argumerit that the boats could charge more, the boats can· run: If the Senator can think of anything better to ask anybody around here to propose, I want him to do it, because 1' tell him that there are a great many people in this country who are getting tired of voting !Dr 40 years to appropriate millions of the people's money to make rivers navigable when the people on· the river do not care to use them.

.Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President--Tlle PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ne

vada yield to the Sena tor from Missouri? l\lr. PITTMAN. I yield. Mr. REED of Missouri. I am very sorry to hear the debate

on what Ii regai:d as n highly meritorious proposition take the turn it has just assumed. The propo ition brought forward bv the Senator from Nevada ought to be voted upon on its merits, on its general benefit to the entire community, or it ought to be rejected because it is not a good measure for the entire country. I do not . know why any man should be asked to demonstrate that it will put boat'3 on the i"iver before he can ask. people to support the measure. I do not believe the amendment will gain any str~ngtb by the implied threat that if it iR not passed there will be no more money appro~ printed for the rivers of the country. I hardly• think that is the way to get votes. if the Senator from Nevada will permit me·to say so.

l\1r. PITTMAN. I did not i::ay that as a threat. I said it as a common-sense proposition, that the country is getting quite tired of having appropriations mude to improve navigation without getting transpo~tation.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Tbe Senator said it in a certain connection, and I am not criticizing him; bnt I say it is a poor way to get votes for a measure which I believe to be perfectly meritorious in itself and which I intend to supports and the principle of which I have supported ever since I have been in the Congress.

Mr. PITTMAN. So have L . Mr. REED of MissourL But the other question, which is

a question by itselt, relating to the virtue or the vice of appropriating money; for the rivers, is one that ought to be settled by itself. I can not see why the Senator from Louisiana, whom I esteem very highly, would have demanded to know that the amendment was at once to relieve against unjust railroad i:ates and also carry with it an improvement of the rivers.

Mr. GOODING. 1.11'. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield?

Mr. REED of Missouri. I am here by the grace of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr.. PITTMAN. I am going to yield the floor inside of three minutes.

.Mr. REED of Missouri. Then I shall not further trespass on the Senator's time, but will take the floor for a few moments in my own right a little later.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. l\lr. President, will the Senator from Nevada permit a slight interruption on my part?

:Mr. PITTMAN. Certainly. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I have been following the line

of thought indicated by the questions propounded to the Senator from Nevada by the Senator from Louisiana, and I am not able to follow the line of thought he has in mind, namely, that the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada will not have a tendency to restore river navigation. As I1 understand\ the Senator, his view is that a raili:oad· company which has a line pwalleling a river may be di.sabled from• charging rates along· tl'le river for the short haul greater than for the long haul, but that the same railroad may have another line penetrating into the inte1·ior of the country. and it will impose on that part of its line the burden of sustaining it5elf by reason of the lower rates which it must give . along the river . . The Illinois Central is in that situation. It has a lin.e, as we all know, running practically parallel with the Mississippi RLYer from Ghicago to New OrleanBt and it has also a line running west as far as Sioux City. Although it might be guilty of chnrging lesser rates along hl.le Missouri River, I take it the Senator's idea is that it could impose very heavy rates . upon transportation out as far as Sioux City, and thus balance up. Of course, there i a limit, however, to what it can charge those people.

But let me put to the Senator the case of competition with the river. Take the case of a railroad line running from the · city of New York to the city of St. Louis. Foreign merchandise going to the. city of St. Louis may either go by the nort of New Orleans or may go by the port of New York, either by rail or by water. The railroad charges a le s rate from New York to St. Louis, ot no higher rate tban the rate from New York by water to New Orlean and St. Louis. Of course, the railroad is going to get the· business. In order to get the business, however, it has to. make a rate to St. Louis practically as low as the watei: i:at.e: but it can not live on that rate, , and so it must charge a higher rate to intermediate point.s between New York and St. Louis. If it were. prohibited from charging a bighei; rate from New York to intermediate noints tl!un it charges clear through to St. Louis, as a matter of course it would have to charge, in order to make ~ living, a higher rate upon its through freight to St. Louis, and accordingly competition on the part of the boats would not be as strong, and they would have a chance to live that they otherwise would not have. Therefore, why is not the tendency ot the amendment to which the Senator from Nevada is now addressing om attention to promote transportation carrie~ by water rather than by land?

Mr. RANSDELL. Mr. President. will the Senator from Nevada permit me to answer the Senator from l\lontana?

<Mr. PLTT::.\1AN. Certainly. l\lr. RA.NSDIDLL. I will say in reply to the Sena.tor that I

am inclined to th.ink he stated the case very fairly and cor- . reatly, and I am sorry if I gave the impres ion in what I· said that I am opposed to the idea of the amendment, for I baYe always favored it.

Mr. WALSH of l\lontana. . As I understood the Senator, he favored it, not, however, because it would help restore river transportation, but upon some other consideration.

JHr. RANSDELL. The Senator misrmderstood me. I said I. . thought there had been very great unfairness in many· sections

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8429 of the country, and that I was particularly interested in the development of the waterways and the use of those waterways. I simply asked the Senator from Nevada to explain to me as fully as he could how the commerce of the waterways was going to be restored; and if this amendment was not going to restore it, then I tried to indicate to him that I would aid him to frame it in such way that it would restore the commerce of the waterways and at the same time accomplish what the intermountain States so badly need. I understand they are charged outrageously high rates by the railroads.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. But the line of argument which I have advanced to the Senator certainly must have occurred to him.

:Mr. RANSDELL. It has occurred to me. Mr. WALSH of Montana. There was no acuteness upon my

part, so I was a little surprised when the Senator from Louisiana asked the Senator from Nevada to explain to him how the amendment would tend to restore water transportation.

Mr. RANSDELL. I wanted to get the reason for the faith that seemed to be so strongly in the mind of the Senator from Nevada who was making such an eloquent speech about how the boats had been driven off the rivers by the onslaughts of the railroads and driven off the Panama Canal, ancl how they were going to come back. I wanted to understand his reasoning about it, as I had heard it reasoned more than once and as the Senator from Montana reasoned just a moment ago in explaining it, because his explanation is the same I have heard before.

Mr. PITTMAN. As the Senator has reasoned it out before in that way, why did he ask the Senator frc>m Nevada? As a matter of fact, I tried to reason it out to the Senator in the same way, but I was not as clear as the Senator from Montana.

Mr. OVERMAN. l\Ir. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. PITTMAN. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina. Mr. OVERMAN. New Orleans is a water point and so is

Norfolk, Va. I will give the Senator a concrete case to show how water transportation works. A barrel of molasses was shipped from New Orleans to my town, Salisbury, N. C., and another barrel shipped to Lynchburg, Va .• which is near Norfolk. They had been charging more to my town than they had charged Lynchburg, which was 150 miles further. Would the amendment cover such a case as that? In other words, the molasses could be shipped to Lynchburg, Va., and shipped back along the same line to my town, and money saved on the freight charges.

Mr. PITTMAN. I do not know on what ground they charge more for the short haul than they do for the long haul.

Mr. OVERMAN. That is the point. They claim it is on the line near Norfolk.

Mr. PITT:\l.A.N. Do they claim it is water competition? Mr. OVER~IAN. Yes. l\Ir. PITTl\lAN. Then I will say that if the Senator is

charged more for the short haul than the long haul which he has just described, and permission to make that charge is granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission on the ground that Lynchburg is included within the water points, that discrimination would be removed by the amendment

Mr: SMITH. 1 think perhaps the Senator from North Carolina may be mistaken.

Mr. OVERMA.1~. I do not know whether that is the case now, but that was the case that existed 10 years ago, I think, when I introduced the amendment now contained in section 4, which I thought would correct the situation. It has not corrected it by reason of the fact of the discretion given to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

l\lr. SMITH. I think the Senator refers to what was commonly known as a base point. They selected certain interior points like Atlanta, Ga., for instance. which they used as a base for rate making in certain zones. I think perhaps Lynchburg may have been in that category.

Mr. OVERMAN. Lynchburg is in another classification district, although it is in a neighboring State.

Mr. SMITH. It came within the definition of base point like Atlanta, Ga., rather than under the water competition. '

l\lr. OVERMAN. I understand the w~ter competition argument, but I did not know how it would affect the interior points.

Mr. PITTMAN. I ask permission to place in the RECORD in parallel columns section 4 of the transportation act as it now exists and the amendment which I have introduced, so Senators may be enabled to readily see the change that is proposed in the existing law. I have tried to describe the change. As a ma~er of fac~ the change simply means that they can not grant this exception and departure from section 4 to meet water competition. It does not affect it as far as making exceptions between railroads is concerned.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request of the Senator from Nevada is granted.

The matter referred to is as follows: ACT OF FEBRUARY 28, 1920

SEC. 406. Section 4 of the Interstate Commerce act is hereby amended to read as follows :

"SEC. 4. (1) That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line or route in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance, or to charge any greater compensation as a through rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates subject to the provisions of this act, but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge or receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance : Provided, That upon application to the commission such common carrier may in special cases, after investigation, be authorized by the commission to charge less for longer than for shorter distanees for the transportation of passengers or property ; and the commission may ·from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be t·elieved from the operation of this section ; but in exercising the authority conferred upon it in this proviso the commission shall not permit the establishment of any charge to or from the more distant point that is not reasonably compensatory for the service performed ; and if a circuitous rail line or route is, because of such circuity, granted authority to meet the charges of a more direct line or route to or from competitive points and to maintain higher charges to or from intermediate points on its line, the authority shall not include intermediate points as to which the haul of the petitioning line or route is not longer than that of the direct line or route between the competitive points; and no such authorization shall be granted on account of merely potential water competition not actually in existence : A.11d provided further, That rates, fares, or charges existing at the time ot the passage of this amendatory act by virtue of orders of the commission or as to which application has theretofore been filed with the commission and not yet acted upon shall not be required to be changed by reason of the provisions of this section until the further order of or a determination by the commission.

"(2) Wherever a carrier by railroad shall in competition with a water route or routes reduce the rates on the carriage of any specie~ of freight to or from competitive points it shall not be permitted to increase such rates unless after

MR. PITTMAN'S AMENDMENT TO

HOUSE BILL 7877

.A.mendmen t intended to be pro· posed by Mr. PITTMAN to the bill (H. R. 7877) making appropriations for the military and nonmili· tary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925. and for other purposes, viz:

On page 96, after line 6, insert a new paragraph to read as fol· lows:

"That paragraph (1) of section 4 of the interstate commerce act, as amended, is amended to read as follows:

"'(1) That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line or route in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance, or to charge any greater compensation as a through rate than the aggregate of the intermediate rates subject to the provisions of this act, but this shall not be construe<} as authorizing any common canier within the terms of this act to charge or receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a. longer distance: Provided, That upon application · to the colllllliS· sion a common carrier by rail may, after public hearing, be authorized by the commission to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property only in a case where the route via the applicant rail carrier or rail carriers is longer than via the route of some other rail carrier or rail carriers between the same points ; but in exercising the authority conferred upon it in this proviso the commission shall not permit the establishment of any charge to or from the more distant point that is not reasonably compensatory for the service performed ; and if a circuitous rail line or route is granted authority to meet the charges of a more direct rail line or rail route to or from competitive points and to maintain higher charges to or from intermediate points on its line, the authority shall not include intermedia te points as to which the haul of the petitioning line or route is not longer than that of the direct line or route between competitive points: Provided furthe1·, That the commission may, with or without hearing, upon its own motion or upon application of carrier or shippers, in cases of emergency such as drought or disaster, authorize during the continuance of said emergency any common carrier or carriers to charge or receive a greater compensation for a shorter than for a longer distance.

8430 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE

ACT OF FEBRUAilY 28--COn.

hearing by the commission it shall be found that such proposed incrciu;e rests upon changed conditions other than the elimination of water competition."

Mn.. l'ITTlIAN'S Al\IENinm~""T-con.

" ' Where :iny e-0mmon carrier ha1J or common carriers have in effect any rate, fare, or charge which is less for the longer than for the shorter distance between two points (the shorter being included within the longer distance), and which has been authorized by the commission· or as to which application was filed with the commission on or before February 17, 1911, and not yet acted upon by it, such ram, f!}.re, or chllrge shall not become unlawful (except by order of the commi :;ion) until after 12 months following the -passage of this amendatory act; nor shall such rate, fare, or charge in effect via circuitous rail carrier or rail carriers become unlawful if it shall have been authorized by order of the commission, after public hearing, based on no less a 'Showing than that upon which the commission is herein authorized to grant relief.

"'Provided, That nothing in this section contained shall prevent the commission from author~ing or approving departures from the provisions of this section in so far as applicable to itnport or export rates, facluding rates applicable to traffic coming from or destined to a possession or dependency of the United States, or to a block system of express rates '€stablish~d by order or with the approval of the commission or permitted by 1t to be filed.'

" Paragraph 2 of section 4 ot the interstate commerce act, a-s amended, is hereby repealed!'

INCREASE OF PENSIO:N'S-BILL INTRODUCED

l\lr. BURSUl\1 asked and obtained l~ve to introduce a bill :cs. 3304) granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain solfilers and sailors -Of the Civil and Mexican Wars and to certain widows, former widows, minor children, and helpless ch:Hdren of said soldiers and sailors, and to Widows of the War of 1812, and to certain Indian war veterans and widows, and to certain Spanish War soldiers, and certain maimed soldiers, and for other purposes, which was read twice by its title and referred to th~ Committee on Pensions.

EXTENSION AND WIDENING OF STREETS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LADD in the chair) laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill ( S. 114) to vacate certain streets and .alleys within the area known as the Walter Reed General Hospital, District of Columbia; and to authorize the extension and widening of Fourteenth Street from Montagne Street to its southern terminus south of Dahlia Street, Nicholson Street from Thirteenth Street to Sixteenth Street, Colorado Avenue from Montague Street to Thirteenth Street, Concord Avenue from Sixteenth Street to its western terminus west of Eighth Street west Thirteenth Street from Nicholson Street to Piney Branch Road, and Piney Branch Road from Thirteenth Street to 'Butternut Street, and for other purposes.

Mr. BALL. I move that the Senate disagree to the amendments of· the House of Representatives, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and th:it the Chair appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The motion was agreed to; and Mr. BALL, Mr. JoNES of Washington, and Mr. KING were appointed conferees on the part of the Senate.

W A.B DEPARTMENT A.PPROPB.IATIONS

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con· sideration of the bill (H. R. 7877) ma.king appropriation for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, and for other purposes.

Mr. W ARRE!\f. Mr. President, I desire to amen'd tlle bill by adding to the amendment of yest<~rday, at the commencement, the word "Hereafter." It was inadvertently left out.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amend· ment will be made.

1'1r. GOODING. lli. Pi·esident, the friends of this measure found ~mselves in this position: The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the Rouse of Representatives has a great number of railroad bills before it, but with the exception of one bill of very little importance no hearings have been held on those bills by that committee. So I and others who were supporting this measure felt that to take up the time of the Senate without some chance of getting the measure before the House would be fruitless. That is the reason why fill amendment will he offered to the Army appropriation bill affecting the long and short haul provision o:t the interstate commerce act.

l\Ir. President, no question enters into the life of this Nation more deeply than that of transportation. It is of vital importance to every State in the Union, to every community, and to every industry; no State, city, nor community, nor industry can develop beyond its transportation, and our country will be just as big and just as great as its transportation facilities. Beyond them it can not develop.

It onr country ifl to reach its full greatness as a Nation, then transportation rates must be reasonable, just, and fair. and without discrimination to any State in the Union, to any community, or to any industry. Nor can this country develop to the full extent of which it is capable without the develOI>ment of water transportation on our inland waterways and without tl1e development also of coastwise shipping. As l see it, a great crisis c"-On1'ronts this Nlttion in the matter of trans· portation, and unless we permit the development of our inland waterways by eliminating discrimination against water transportation by our own Government, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, then the mighty growth and development that has taken place in America in the last few years will be f oreed to come to a standstill for the lack of adequate transportation.

Mr. President, our railro-ads will always remain the greatest factors in ou1· transportation. The man who would deliberately impair the great railroad system of America is an undesirable citizen and should be branded as an anarchist. On the other hand, the railroads that grind so fine that they take the last drop of blood that any product will bear to carry it to market and that for their own selfish interest destroy the usefulness of our inland waterways, which nature bas created to lighten the burdens of humanity, try forcing upon some of the States of the Union a di-scrimination in freight rates for the purpose of destroying water competition so that the railroads may have a monopoly of transportaUon in this country are a hundred times more dangerous to this Government than the anarclli-st or the Bolshevik, for the Bolshe\ik is mwer dangerous to any country so long as those who control the great wealth of the country are forced to give the people a square deal.

Mr. President, the interstate commerce act to regulate transportation was passed February 4, 1887. That act created the Interstate Commerce Commission for the purpose of regulating the railroads and provided that unjust and unreasonable preferences between persons, localities, or communities, subjecting any one of them to unjust or unreasonable discriminati-0ns, were unlawful. The Interstate Commerce Commission has stopped discrimination as between individuals in the ·same locality by refusing the railroads the right to rebate to favored shipperf.l, but it has not stopped discrimination so far as localities are concerned. In fact, the Interstate Commerce Commission ba:i been the 'instrumentality through which the Government has permitted discrimination in freight rates betwe~n the States by allowing the railroads to charge more for the shorter haul than for the longer haul where the railroads come in competition with water transportation, until the Government has succeeded in practically destroying water transportion upon our rivers and at the same time has impaired tl'le growth and development ot our coastwise transportation.

Senate bill 2327, on which extensive bearings have been held by th~ Interstate Commerce Committee of the Senate coYering a period of something more than three weeks, proposes to amend the fourth section of the interstate commerce act by making it absolute so far as permitting violations by the railroads to meet wate;· competition is concerned. It interferes in no way with violations of the fourth section upon circuitous railroads, nor does it interfere with violations of the fourth section on. imports or -exports, nor ·on express rates, and it gives the Interstate Commerce Commission a year Within which to eliminate

•

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8431 all violations of the interstate commerce act that have been per· mitted for the vurpose of destroying water competition.

The fourth section of the act to r~crulate commerce .reads as follows:

That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive a greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, or a like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance, but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, hotoever, That upon appll· cation to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act such common carrier may in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for the longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property ; and the commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated. common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.

Very early in the history of this act the commission and the courts ruled that the dominating words of the act were "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions" and that it was for the carriers, in the first instance, to determine whether the cirrumstances and conditions were similar or di similar. If the conditions and circumstances were dissimilar, the rule did not apply. After a few unsuccessful attempts to stop discrimination by violations of the fourth sec· tion it became a dead letter and little or no attention was paid to it.

On June 18, 1910, the fourt& section was amended by striking out of the words "under similar circumstances and condi· tions," leaving in the words "in special cases after investigation." This virtually made the section absolute so far as the railroads were concerned. It gave to the commission permis· sion " in special cases after in-vestigation " to grant the rail· roads the right to charge less for the longer than for the shorter haul.

The debates in Congress lead to the conclusion that Congress irrtended that "special cases" should mean exactly what the words imply, that the commission should not ha-ve authority to grant relief unless the carrier by proper showing made out a " special case."

The commission in construing the amended section ruled that the only change that had taken place was to transfer the determination of the right to charge less for the long than for the short haul from the railroads to the commission. . On February 28, 1920, section 4 was further amended by adding the words :

But, in exercising the authority conferred upon 1t in this pro--riso the commission shall not permit the estabUshment of any charge to or from the more distant point that is not reasonably compensatory for the service performed; and 11' a circuitous rail line or route .ls, because of such circuity, granted authority to meet the charges of a more direct line or route to or from intermediate points on its line, the authority shall not include intermediate points as to which the haul 01' the petitioning line or route is no longer than that of the direct line ot' route between the competitive points; and no such authorization shall be granted on account of merely I>Qtential water competition not actually in exlstence. ·

Mr. President, when the fourth section was amended by the act of 1920, providing that no violation should be permitted unless the rate was reasonably compensatory and that no authorization should be granted merely because of potential water competition not actually in existence, it was thought by those who had heen fighting against the violation of the fourth section that they bad won a great victory.

It was believed and argued by friends of the measure that a compensatory rate must mean a rate that would enable the railroads to pay operating expenses and give a fair return on the capital invested ; but from the violations in existence to-day it is quite evident that the Interstate Commerce Commission has given but very little weight to the words " reasonably compensatory," and, in view of the fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission has permitted violations of the fourth section where only potential water competition exists, it is belie'Ved by all those who have 'suffered through discrimination of the fourth section of the interstate commerce act that, unless an amendment to that provision of tlle act shall be made denying the Interstate Commerce Commission the authority to authorize violations of the interstate commerce act as against water transportation, there is very little hope for any future development of the interior States of the West or for

the development of water transportation upon our inland rivers or our coastwise shipping through the Panama Canal.

Mr. President, when this Government undertook to regulate our railroads it assumed a mighty respons ibility, for freight rates are a tax that the people mu.st pay for the use of the rail· roads, and when that tax is controlled and regulated by the Government it should be a fair tax, a just ta:x, and without discrimination. When this Government permits railroad c01·· porations to discriminate tn the interest of some great city, of some great industry, as against smaller communities or smaller industries, then the Government no longer represents fairly and justly tbe interest of all its people in its regulation of the railroads.

Mr. President, discrimination in freight rates by railroads when the rates were fixed by those who owned and operated the roads was bad enough; but when this Government passes an act to regulate commerce, and fixes the freight rates so that the railroads may earn a fair return on their investment, and then permits the railroads to discriminate against States or communities or individuals so that communities and individuals are forced to pay an increased freight rate to make up the loss for those who receive a lower freight rate for the longer haul than for the shorter haul, then this Government adopts a policy that is un·American and dangerous to the best interests of this Republic.

Mr. President, ever since railroads became a factor in the transportation problems of this country there has been a bitter struggle between water transportation and rail transportation; but the struggle has not been an even one or a fair one, for, with the Interstate Commerce Commission on the side of the railroads, transportation upon om· rivers has not had a fight· ing chance to exist It can be said that this Government, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, has practically destroyed water transportation upon our inland waterways, for everywhere and at every place where there is water transportation in any part of this country, with the exception of the Great Lakes in the territory east of Chicago, the Interstate Commerce Commission has permitted the railroads to charge less for the longer haul than for the shorter haul, and up until the act of 1920 the Interstate Commerce Commission permitted violations of the fourth section where there was the faintest suspicion of potential water competition in this country, which has made it impossible to interest capital in building river boats to establish transportation upon rivers. and at the same time it has impaired the growth and development of our coastwise shipping.

Mr. _President, Cxmgress has forbidden the railroads to operate ships through the Panama Canal; yet we permit the Interstate Commerce Commission to violate the fourth section of the interstate commerce act by making freight rates so low to the coast that it is not possible to develop to any great extent coastwise shlpping through tlle Panruna Canal, for capital is not going to take a chance of building vessels for our coastwise business when the Interstate Commerce Commission permits the railroads to destroy its investment.

Where this Government, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, failed to destroy water competition the railroads through different methods have succeeded in completing the destruction. This interesting story was told to the Interstate Commerce Committee in its hearings on Senate bill 2327 by Judge Simms, of Tennessee, who for many years represented that State in Congress. He told the story of how the merchants along the Tennessee River formed a corporation and put a river boat upon the river for the transportation of freight All went along very nicely until an agent of some one appeared upon the scene and bought up all the freight this river boat carried and transferred it to the railroads. Of course the river boat was put out of commission with a great Mss to those who formed the corporation.

This is only one st-Ory of hundreds that might be told of the destruction of water transportation on our rivers by the railroads. Let us not think the railroads were alarmed over the little feight that this river boat was carrying on the Tennessee River. What the railroads have been fighting for and what they have succeeded in getting with the assistance of the Inter· state Commerce Commission by the destruction of water trans· portation is a monopoly of transportation in tbis country. .Xo river boat or any other water transportation has been per· mitted to exist that the railroads could destroy, and Congress created an instrumentality-not intentionally, of course-that has most effectively destroyed water transportation and, in my . judgment, has created in this country a condition that is dan· gerous to the best interests of its people.

8432 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE ~IAY 13

The railroads themselves openly admitted that the purpose of ment is to destroy water transportation through permitting the violations of the fourth section is to destroy water com· discrimination in freight rates in favor of our railroads. petition. The western railroads fought very bitterly the build· Mr. President, this Government appropriated and spent ing of the Panama Canal. Jim Hill used to boast that before $378,531,302 for the building of the Panama Canal. w:ien the the transcontinental raill'oads got through their fight against Panama Canal was built, the people of my State and those the Panama Canal there would be pond lilies growing in its of other interior States of the West believed that with the channel. Mr. Blakely, general freight agent of the Northern building of the Panama Canal they would be able to reach Pacific, at a meeting of the general freight agents of all the the markets of the world without discrimiilation; but to-day transcontinental railroads in Salt La1ie City last June, together the Panama Canal hangs as a nightmare over the people of with members of the Intermediate Rate Association, made the the interior States of the West, because they know and understatement that the building of the Panama Canal was a mistake stand that, unless Congress passes legislation that will make as far as the West was concerned and that the canal should be the fourth section absolute as far as water transportation is filled up. Most of the general freight agents of the trans- concerned, the Interstate Commerce Commission will permit continental railroads agreed with 1\Ir. Blakely. I was present violations of the fourth section as against water transportaat that meeting and branded Mr. Blakely's statement as un- tion through the Panama Canal that will make impossible the American. deyelopment of the mighty resources of the West. The policy of

:M:r. President, I find that we haYe appropriated altogether this Government in permitting these discriminations, together for rivers and harbors in this country the sum of $1,200,000,000. with a policy of the Interstate Commerce Commission that In the last 22 years we have expended upon our riyers and har- permits western railroads to charge, in many cases, 100 bors $750,000,000, and last year I voted for an appropriation of per cent higher freight rates for the movement of low-priced $56,000,000 for rirnrs and harbors. I understand that there are farm products to tidewater westbound, as compared with two appropriation bills before Congress at the present time deal- freight rates to the Eastern markets on a mileage basis, ha~ ing with this subject. I am not quite sure as to the amounts I denied to the people of my State and other interior State9 of the appropriations contained in the two bills, but the one of the West an opportunity to use the Pacific Ocean, wh.icb, before the Senate at the present time makes an appropriation no doubt, God Almighty created for the use of all the people, of $37,000,000 for rivers and harbors. Altogether we will have and they are denied, to a large extent, the use of the Panama presented here in the Senate· something more than $100,000,000 Canal, which they were taxed to help build, as well as the of appropriations for rivers and harbors, I understand. people of eYery other State in the Union.

l\Ir. Pre ident, I want to continue to Yote for appropriations Mr. President, the State of Idaho is nearer tidewater and for rivers and harbors, for I do not belie\e this country can nearer the markets of the world, taking them as a whole-the reach its fullest greatness as a Nation. without the developm~nt I Orie~t, South America, and Eurojle-than the State of Ohio is of water transportation upon our riYers and our coastmse I to tidewater at New York an~ the markets of the world; shipping· but it seems to me it is a waste of money to continue

1 yet, through excessive freight rates west bound to tidewater

appropri~ting hundreds of millions of dollars for the improYe-

1

many of the low-priced farm products of Idaho are forced ment of our rivers Viitb a governmental policy that makes it over the long haul to the eastern markets and too markets of impossible to develop \Tater transportation upon our inland , Europe. waterways, for capital \Till ne\er invest in river boats as long • l\1r. President, all the people of the West ask for is a square as there is the slightest danger that their investment may be I deal, tlle same rights and the .... ame privileges that the people of destroyed by permitting a railroad to charge le s for the long~r the Eastern States enjoy, so that we may develop our own rebaul than for the shorter haul. S~1ch a Go•ernmcnt policy, m

1

sources, but with a di crimination in freight rates forced upon m• judgment. is outrageous, and it demonsh·ates very clem·ly us by our own Government the West has not a fighting chance that as far as transportation is concemed in thi · country, the to de\elop its mighty resources. Mr. President, under our govrailroads have this Goyernment by the throat, m~d dictate its

1

. ernmental policy of discriminating in freight rates against the policy on transportation .. I. w~nt t? saj·, Mr. Pres1<le.nt, that ~s interior States of the West and the South, we are building up far as I am concerned, if it is . gomg to be the poll~y of this I great centers of population in this country at the expense of Government to permit violations of the fomth sect10n to de- the interior, a most dangerous policy for any government to stroy water transportation upon our rivers and water trans- 1 pursue, for the best interest of every government lies, as far portation through the Panama Canal, then I ha \e cast my last ; as pos il>le, in a proper distribution of its people, for a con-. rnte for appropriations for riYers and harbors. i gested condition of population in any country always adds to

Mr. President, I have long been convinced that our h·oubles : the burdens of government. in ~hi~ country are ~ot. that there is too J?UC~ ~o:er?ment in I In my Stat~ and in the interior States of the West, where busm~s~ but that there is too much big b~smes~ .m e°' e~'D.lllent. ! much of the raw material of this country is produced, capital The citizens of u_iy State who hav~ seen great fieight trams tha.t

1 can not be interested in building manufacturing institutions

are almost a mile long pass then·. doors are um~ble to u?dei- 1 nor is our jobbing interest safe under a policy that pe1·mits railstand why the~· shou~d pay a frei~ht rate as hI~h or ~igh~r roads to charge more for the shorter haul than for the longer than the pe~ple who hve on ~he Pacific coast, where the haul m haul, und. of course, l\lr. P1·esident, that is true of e1ery part some cases. is a thousand nules longer. ~ ou can no~ c~~v~nce of the counfry whei-e there is n disc1·imination in freight rates. the people m my ~tate who ha.ve suffe~ed f~om these ~hsc~imma- And as much as I regret to say it, nevertheless it is true, the tlons that the ra1lroa<ls of this COl?ItI~ ate not dommatmg the population of some of the interior States of the West is going Government as far as transportation 18 ~oncerned. . . . backward, and yet, to use a western phrase, we have not yet

piscriminations in fre~ght rates ~gamst comm1?11~ties. m scratched the mighty resources of the West. this country are un-American; and witl? s~ch n pol.ic~ o- forced :Mr. President, nations, like individuals, have their birth, upon the country by .our . Gover~ent It is not stran"e ~ll~t their youth, their manhood, and their old age. This country is we have a few anarchists m America, and the ?nly. wonder ,.is, passing from its youth to early manhood; there is much yet to Mr. President, that there ar~ not m~re anarcl.us~: 1~ A?Jen~a do before we reach our full greatness as a nation, but under than we have at the present. time. It IS these dlscnmrnations m a governmental policy that permits the railroads to impair and frei,ght .rate~ that are forcmg a great m.an! peopl~ .to ch.ange destroy water transportation upon our rivers and along our their mmds m fayor of Government o:rnersh.ip of :nilr?ads' and coasts this country can never reach its full measure of greatas far .as I am .concerned, l\lr. Presi?e?t, if 1t ~s gomg to ~e ness. Under the present policy of this Government we can not the J?Olicy of .tlns Government to permit the railroadso- t? dis- expect or hope that capital will invest in river boats or in crimmate agamst the people 0~ my Sta_te, then 1. am i,,Oiug to coastwise vessels when every few days the Interstate Com-:fight for Government ownersWp of railroads, with the hope C . . . . . tt· . .1• d . 1 · f h th t d .. Id· l ·u ham an opportunity to de\elop its merce om_m1ss10n is grantmg ue ra1.r?a s v10 at10ns o t e

.a some a,, cl 10

. wi . S . fourth section to destroy water competl t10n. m1~hty resources, which are not excelled m any tate m the Already, through a governmental policy that discriminates Umo?.p .d t th s t policy of our Government in against the interior States of the. We~t an? the South, we .have

Mr: . . resi ~n •. . e ~re en. . , . . . " built up great centers of population m this country, and if we perm1ttmg discrimrnat10~s m freight rates is bml~m" .· u~ continue that policy there is some danger that the prophecy of great ~enter~ of pop~lation. at ti;e e:x:pens~ of ~he mten?r, Lord Macaulay, the great English historian, who predicted the for capital will never mves~ 11:1 an.~ S~ate 0 : ill an~ community downfall of this Republic ma:v some day come true. In a letter that is cursed with a discrimmat10n m freight rate or where • . ~ . . . there is the slightest danger of a discrimination in freight rates. to 1\1r. R. ~· Rand~ll, of -yirgmia, wr~tt~~. by Lord :Macaulay m One thing that Congress should do for all time is to pass legis- 1857, a part of which I will read, he ..,a)"'· lation that will stop this discrimination or publicly admit to I have long been convinced thaf institutions purely democratic the people of the United States that the policy of this Govern- must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization or both. You may

1924 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SEXATE 8433 think that your country enjoys an exemption from these eYils. I will frankly awn to you that I am of a. very different opinion. Your fate I believe to be certain, though it is deferred by a physical cause. .As long as you have a boundless extent of ferti1e and unoccupied land your laboring population will be more at ease than the laboring population of the Old World, and while that is the case the Jefferson politics may continue to exist without causing any fatal calamity. Ilut the time will come when New England will be as thickly populated as old England. Wages will be as low and will fluctuate with you as with us. You will have your Manchesters and Birminghams, and in those Manchest"ers and Birminghams hundreds of thousands of artisans will assuredly sometimes be out of work. Then your institutions will be fairly brought to the test. • • •

It is quite plain tbat your Government will never be able to restrain a distressed and discontented majority, for with you the majority s the Government and has the rich, who are always a minority, always

at its mercy. The day will come when in the State of New York a multitude of people, none of whom has more than half a breakfast or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a legislature. On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested right, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and ride in a carriage, while thomiands of honest folks are 1n want of neces aries. Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by a workingman who hears the children cry for more bread?

1 seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adyersity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people who would, in a year of scarcity, deyour all of the seed corn and thus make the next year one not of scar<'ity but of absolute famine. There will be, 1 fear, spoliation. The spoliation will inll'ease the distress; the distress will produce spoliation. There is nothing to stop you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor.

.As I said before, when a society bas entered on the downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Cresar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your Republic will be fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century, as the Roman Empire was in the fifth, with this difference--that the Huns and Vandals who ravished the Roman Empire came from without, while your Huns and Vandals have been engaged within your own country by your own nstitutions.

l\fr. President, I do not agree with Lord Macaulay that there is any danger of the downfall of this Republic, for I have confidence in the American people and believe that our problems ;vHI all be worked out for the best interests of all the people, and if the time ever comes I am sure that our Constitution will meet the test ; but let us not forget there is always danger to any government when those in control do not legislate wisely for the best interests of all the people. Abuse long continued, with discrimination and special privileges given by governments to the selfish interests of a counh·y have strewn the pathway of civilization with the sad stories of the downfall of governments as far back as hi tory tells the story of the achievements of mankind.

l\fr. President, the time has come when this Government must give serious thought and consideration to our problems of transportation if the growth and development of this country are not to be impaired. In the matter of transportation we have been following a blind trail without any thought or consideration of the future. We have permitted the railroads, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, to destroy water transportation upon our rivers and to impair our coastwise transportation. At the same time, the railroads have not kept pace with the growth and development of this country, and, as I see it, this country to-day is facing a crisis in the matter of transportation.

I have a table here which I offer for the IlEcoRD that shows the ton-miles of freight hauled by all the railroads in the United States, beginning with 1890, up to and including 1923, a period of 33 years. In rending the ton-miles I will give just the first figures for the years I use for comparison to show the manelous growth in the number of ton-miles hauled by our ·ailroads. u Ton-mile" is the term used by the railroads to measure the volume of business transacted. I ask that the table be inserted in my remarks.

The PilESID:UTG OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed

in the RECORD, as follows: Ton-m iles all rnilroads

1 90-------------------------~---------------1891 ________________________________________ _

189~-----------------------------------------1893--··~~-~ - --- ------------------ --- -

76, 207, 047, 000 81, 073,784,000 88,241,-050,000 93,588,112,000

1894----------~-----------------------------1895 ________________________________________ _ 1896 ________________________________________ _

1891---------------~-------------~---------1898 _______________________________________ _

1899-----~~~-----------------------

Total--------------------------------

80,335,105,000 85,227,516.000 95,328,360,000 95, 139,022,000

114, 077, 576, 000 123,667,257,000

932,884,829, 000 ======== 1900 ________________________________________ _

1901 ________________________________________ _ 1902 ______________________ ~-----------------1903 _______________________________________ _ 1no4 ________________________________________ _ 1905 _______________________________________ _ 1906 ________________________________________ _ 1907 ______________________________________ _ 1908 ______________________________________ _ 1909 _______________________________________ _

141,596,551,000 147,077,136,000 157,289,370,000 173,221,279,000 174,522,090,000 186,463,110,000 215,877,551,000 236,601,390,000 218, 381,555.000 218,802,987,000

Total---------------------------------- 1,869, 833,019,000 1910 _______________________________________ _

1911----------------------------------------1912 ________________________________________ _ 1913 ________________________________________ _ 1914 ________________________________________ _ 1915 _______________________________________ _ 1916 ________________________________________ _ 1917 ______________________________________ _ 1918 ________________________________________ _ 1919 ________________________________________ _

1920-----------------------------------------1921 _________________ ~-----------------------

255,016,910,000 253, 783,702, 000 264,080,745,000 801, 730,291,000 288, 6.37' 042, 000 277, 134,816,000 366, 173,174,000 398,263,062,000 408, 778,061,000 367,161,371,000 413,698,749,000 309,533,365,000

Total---------------------------------- 3,913,991, 288,000

1922----------------------------------------- 339,945, 894,000 1923________________________________________ 413,562,132, 000

l'ifr. GOODING. In 1890 the railroads handled in round numbers 76,000,000,000 ton-miles. In other words, all the railroads in the United States hauled a ton of freight 76,000,000,000 miles, or they hauled 76,000,000,000 tons of freight 1 mile. From 1889 to 1901, a period of 11 years, the ton-miles hauled by our railroads had increased to 147,000,000,000, or an increase of almost 100 per cent From 1901 to 1913, a period of 12 years, the ton-miles hauled over our railroads had increased to 301,000,000,000, or a little over 100 per cent of an incre~se from 1901 to 1913.

From 1913 to 1923 the freight handled by our railroads had increased to 413,000,000,000 ton-miles, an increase for those 10 years of 37 per cent, and for the months of January and February of this year, I understand, the railroads show an increase as compared with J anua.ry and February of 1923.

The increase of ton-miles of freight hauled by our railroads in 1923 was 443 per cent over 1890, when the railroads, as I have shown, hauled 76,000,000,000 ton-miles of freight. The increase from 1913 to 1923 of 112,000,000,000 ton-miles of freight is practically equal to the total tonnage of all the railroads in the United States in 1898, when the railroads for that year hauled 114,000,000,000 ton-miles.

Mr. P1'esident, I offer a· table for the RECORD, showing the total number of miles of railroads in use in this country in 1890 up to and including 1923. This table shows very conclusively that the railroads are not keeping pace with the wonderf-ul deYelopment that is going on in America, and unless something is done to meet the transportation needs of the country the transportation of this country will be broken down and the whole country will be seriously impaired from the lack of adequate transportation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the in· sertion of the table?

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

Number of miles of railroad operat~cl

Year First track

Other main tracks

Yard !track and

sidings Total

1890______________________________________ 156, 404 9, 760 33, 711 199, 875 189L-----------·------------------------ 161, 275 10, 428 35, 742 207, 4~ 1892______________________________________ 162, 397 10, 846 37, 8fY7 211, 050

~m================================:===== ~~:: g; rJ :~ ~~ :: ~~ 1895_.__________________________________ 177, 746 12, 348 '3, 181 23.3, 275 1896_ ------------------------------------- 181, 982 12, 439 44, 717 239, 138 1897______________________________________ 183, 284 12, 794 45, 934 242,012

1 -------------------------------------- 184, 648 13, 096 47, 589 245, 333 1891)_ -------·--·------------------------· 187, 534 13, 384 49. 223 2...'iO, 141 1900_____________________________________ 192, "i56 14. 07.5 52, 153 258, 78i

l======~~=====':======:J=.:===== Increase 1900 over 1890__________________ 35, l~ I 4, 315 1 18, 442 58. 900

8J34 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MAY 13

Nmnbe~· of miles of railroad operated-Continued

Year main track and Total

I First Other Yard I track tracks sidings

~~L::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I m: ~J ~tg~~ :; m :: : 1902 .• -------------------------------···-- 200, 154 15,819 58, 220 274, 193 1903. ------- · ·----------- ----·------------ 205, 313 16, 947 61, 560 283, 820 1904. - --------------- -------- ------------- 212, 243 18, 337 66, 492 297, 072 190-L •••••••••• -----------------·---·-·-- 216, 973 19, 881 69, 941 306, 793 1906. - ------------------------- -- ·---·-··· 2'22, 340 20, 981 73, 760 317, 085 lllOL ···---------------------- -·-·---··--- 22i, -154 22, 770 77, 749 327, 977 1908 .• - ·---------------------------------- Z30, 494. Z3, 699 79, 452 333, 645 1909. - - ----------·-·-·--· - ------- ·------ - - Z35, 402 24, 572 82, 376 342, 350 1910. - ------------------------ --- --------- 240, 830 25, 353 85, 581 351, 764 1911. - -·····------------------------------1 2-16, 238 27, 612 88, 973 362, 8Z3 1912 •• ··········-------------------------- 249, 852 29, 366 92, 019 ' 371, Z37

Increaw 1912over1900------------------- 47,296 15, 291 39,866 1 112,453

1912. -- ----------- ---------------·------- - 249, 852 1913 _ ___________________ ___ _ _ ____________ _ ~·. m 1914 _ - --- ----- -- -- - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -1915. ------------------------- ----- ------ - 257, 509 1916 . - ----------- - -------- - --- --- ---- - --- - 259. 705 1911 _ ------------------------- ---· - ·--- --- 259, 705

mt :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 :: :

1922. -- -- ----------------------· •• -·- ----- 25i, 834

29,366 30,826 32,376 33,662 34,325 35,065 36, 228 36, 729 36,894 37, 613 37,888

92,019 95,211 98, 285 99, 910

102, 983 105, 582 107,608 108,636 109, 744 111, 555 113, 994 ------

1921. - -------- ------------·- -- ------------1 258, 361 l======ol-----""~~----

--·------- ----------8,522 21, 975 19Z3 (estimated) -··-------

Increase 1922 ove~-i9i2~---~=:=::::::::::::: 1 7, 982

:m,Z37 379, 5()1 387, 208 391, 141 397,013 400, 252 402,342 403, 889 406,579 407, 529 409, 716

---410, 716 39,479

l\1r. GOODING. In 1890 we had in u. e in this country 136,404 miles of what is rallt>d first-track railroad and 9,7~>0 miles of other main track that made up our double-traclc railroad~. At the same time we had in u ·e 33,711 miles of yard tracks and siclingsi making a total of miles of track in use .in 1890 of 199,875 miles. '.rhis mileage I am giving is for steam ra1lro~ds.

In 1900 we had in use in this countl'y, for all pmposes, 2...18,-784 miles of tracks, or an increa e of 29 per cent over the number of miles of track in n, e for all pnrpo ·es in 1890. In 1912, after a period bf 12 years, we had in use for all purposes 371,'>37 miles of railroad track::::, an increase owr 1990 of 43 per ~ent. In 1923, after a period of 11 year , we had in use in this country 410,716 miles of railroad track for all purposes, an increa e of only 11 per cent. Our railroad trackage in this country for all purposes since 18!)0 :-;hows au increa e of 106 per C'ent, wliile our railroad tonnage shows an increase of 4-13 per cent.

Mr. President, sinee 1920 there has been an actual decrease of 2 107 miles in what is called first-track railroads. Since 1912 the~e has been an increase of 8,5:!::? miles in our double-track roads, and in yard tracks and sidings there bas been an increase of 21,975 miles, which makes up the increase of 11 per cent in the number of miles of track since 1912, a period of 11 years. It is now estimated that motor vehicles are handling 50 per cent as many tons of freight each year as our steam railroads. '.rhis tremendous increase in the use of motor vehicles has saved this country from .a total collapse, as far as transportation is concerned, but let us not forget that we ham only made a good beginning, as far as the de,elopment of om· migbty resources in this country is concerned.

Unless something is done in the very near future to relie\e the railroads by water transportation, there can not be any question but that this country, so far as its growth and development are concerned, must come to a stand':itill.

l\lr. President, there ts no doubt that we have made great strides in the efficiency of our 1·ailroads, and it has been brougbt about by tbe use of heavier rails and locomotives with o-reater tractive power and better equipment all the way around for the transportation of freight, but with only 11 per cent increase in the number of truck miles, which includes single tracks, double tracks, yard tracks, and sidings, it must be apparent to everyone who has tudied the transportation question that we are reaching a dangerous period in om· transportation problems, and unless this country adopts a policy that will permit capital to invest in water crafts and at the same time inaugurates a policy tbat will permit low-priced agricultural products, together with the cheap basic materials in this country, to seek the nearest water transportation, then this country will be forced to come to a standstill for tbe need of adequate transportation. •

l\Ir. President, if we are going to continue to be a mighty factor in the trade of the world, then we must have adequate transportation, and as far as possible we must have cheap transportation. Let us not forget that railroads have their limit of capacity as well as everything else in this world. Some of our great railroad systems already have all the transportation .they can handle economically and with efficiency all the yea1·

around, and many of them are choked and blocked with transportation during the season of crop movement in this country.

Some of our railroads are no longer hungry for freight, and in the last few years some of our railroads have placed mi embargo on freight and only yielded when tbey were forced to do so by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The peak in the increase in freight rates since the outbreak of the war rea~hed 78 per cent abo\e pre-war freight rates. ~he present freight rate on an average for the whole country is 55 per cent above pre-war rates. Freight rates in this countr! have become a burden to the people, but that is not strange with a governmental policy that destroy the use of its inlandwater transportation.

Any policy. of this Govern.ment that is right east of Chicago ought to be right west of Clucago, yet the fact remain. tha~ the ~overnment has protected the Great Lakes and some of the nvers east of Chicago and made it possible for them to develop w~ter transportation and give the people of the great industrial centers of the East cheaper transportation than is possible for the West to enjoy.

The South, with its great natural waterways which the Government h~ s~ent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, tog~ther with .its climate, its great coal fields, iron mines, and cotton fields, if we could develop transportation on its inland wate1:ways, would become the industrial beehive of the country.

It is hardly nece sary to discuss with Senators, I am sme what discrimination in freight rates means to industry or t~ c~pit~l.. I ~onqer i~ there is a Senator here who would permit d1scnmmation m his own State. I am sure there is not one who would stand for it a minute if he could help llimself, and he should not want to force upon the people of another State what he is not willing to accept for his own State, bc~ause he is not here representing alone his own Commonwealth but is here representing all the people of this great country.

I have here a copy of the application of the transcontinental l'ailways for what they call "relief from the fourth section." We people who have suffered by this relief call it a violation of the foUl'th section. I ask that the letter of Mr. R. H. Countiss. making application to the Interstate Commerce Commission, be placed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The letter is as follows: TRANSCONTINENTAL FREIGHT BUREAU,

01licago, A.11gust 11, 192~. lNTEHST.!.TE CO:.\DJERCFJ COMMISSION,

Washi11gto11, D. 0. GEXTLElllE:S: I inclose herewith application No. 26 on behaU of trans

continental carriers for authority to depart from the long-and-shorthaul provisions of the fourth section of the interstate commerce act in publication of proposed rates from eastern defineu territories to Pacific coast terminals, as fully set forth in the application and exhibits attached to and made part thereof.

The carriers find it necessary at this time to present this application because of the great change which has taken place in the canal competition since my fourth section application No. 19 (I. C. C. No. 12063) and others were heard and decided, such change consisting of the greatly increased number of steamship lines and steamers which have entered into the intercoastal traffic via the Panama Canal, the very much lower rates which the steamship lines are carrying, and the much greater proportion of the westbound traffic which they are obtaining, the reaching of the steamship line farther into the mid-western territory, the shutting out of the mid-western shippers and consequently the mid-western carriers from participation in the Pacific coast traffi.c by reason of an increasing part of it being forwarded from the Atlantic seaboard, and the need of the Pacific coast rail carriers for westbound traffic to enable them to furnish cars to handle the products of that territory, particularly those of the interior territory, which is dependent solely on rail transportation.

Since application No. 19 (I. C. C. No. 12063) was decided the carriers ha>e made a number of material reductions in their westbound rates, the reductions on the various commodities approximating 25 per cent. These reductions have been· applied as maxima to .intermediate destinations and, taken in connection with the rates now proposed to the terminals, will very materially narrow the spread between the rates to the intermediate points and those proposed to the terminals as compared with those contained in fourth section applicatioq No. 19 (I. C. C. No. 12063). The cal'riers believe that in the reductions which have been made they have gone as far as it is possible for them to go on these commodities without fourth section relief, both in meetin&: the water competition and in the reduction of their rates to the interior terrritory.

Yours very truly, R. II. CouNTISS, A.gent •

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE 8435 Mr. GOODING. I have a list of commodities showing the

present rates and the rates asked by the transcontinental railroads, showing the reductions it woul.d mean at Pacific coast points. There are about 50 of the commodities altogether. The application for ·dolation of the fourth section would not reduce the freight rates to a single point in the interior, but would make a reduction to Pacific coast points, their terminals, of from 20 to 48 per cent, CO"rering practically all, or a large part of the commerce that is hauled by the railroads. I ask that the list may be placed in the RECORD at this point.

The table shows the present rates, Chicago to Pacific c0ast, and rates asked for by the railroads in violation of the fourth section.

Present rates apply as a maximum at intermediate points; no reductions are proposed to intermediate points. If application is granted, rates to Pacific· coast points will be

lower than to interior by the amount shown. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, permission granted. The list is us follows :

Commodity :\Ifni- Present Proposed Reduc-mum rate rate ti on

------Ammonia, phosphate oL _________________ 50,000 $2.f,(j $1. 00 $1. 66 Ammunition. __________________ ,: _________ 40, 000 1.40 1.10 .30 Compounds, boiler - ---------------------- 60,000 1.10 . 00 .30 Dry goods._----------·------------------ 40,000 1. 58 1.10 .48 Electric appliances. ___ ------------------- 60,000 1. 20 .00 .30 Iron and steel articles: Pipe bands and rods __________________ 80,000 1. 20 . 75 ,.(.') Bar iron, etc __________________________ 80, 000 ~- 00 • 75 .25 Shingle bands and ties ________________ 80, 000 1.00 • 75 .25

Billets and blooms._------·---------- 80,000 1. 00 • 75 .25 Bolts and nuts _______________________ 80,000 1.00 . 75 • 25 Horseshoes._------------------------_ 80,000 1.00 • i5 • 25 Castings and forgings _________________ 50, 000 l.20 .00 .30 Plate and sheet _______________________ 80, 000 1.00 .75 .25 fiheet iron, corrugated. _______________ 50,000 1.15 .90 .25 Boiler flues •.. ------. ____ •• ------·---_ 40,000 1. 25 1. 00 .25

Do .. ----------------------------- 60.000 1.00 . 75 .25 Nails and spikes·--·------------------ 60,000 1.30 1. 05 .25

Do._----------------------------- 80,000 1.00 • 75 • 25 Cast.iron pipe __ ---------------------- 60,000 l. 00 • 75 .25 Pipe fittings_------------------------- 60,000 1. 00 .80 • 20 Btructural iron and steel. _____________ 40,000 1. 25 1.00 • 25

Do __ --------------------------·-· 80,000 1. 00 • i5 .25 Roda alumini_ ___ ------------------------- 60, 000 1.20 1.00 • 20 Magnesium sulphate._------------------- 60,000 ]. 20 1.00 • 20 Packinit-house products ..• --------------- 40,000 1.60 1. 20 .40 Paint. _________________ ----- ____ ---···-· __ 60, 000 1. 25 1.00 .25 Parwr and paper articles:

Bags __ ---- ----- ---------------·-···-- 40,000 ]. 25 1.00 .25 Bags, gum.med and tissue paper ______ 40,000 1. 35 1. 00 .35 Bags, books, etc ______________________ 40,000 1. 25 1.00 • 25 Boxes. ___ ---------------------------. 40, 000 1. 25 1.00 • 25 Boxes, fiber, pulp, or strawboard _____ 40,000 1.35 1.00 .35 Labels _______ --- ------ --- _____ . --- • __ 60,000 1.35 1.00 .35 \Yall paper-------------------------- 40.000 1.35 1.00 .35 c,i.rpet lining ____ ----- --- -- -- --- --• -- . 40,000 1. 25 1.00 .25

Do._-------------------------·--- 40,000 1.35 1.00 .35 Book paper--------·----------------- 40,000 1. 25 1.00 .25

Do __ ------------------------·-·-- 40,000 1. 35 1.00 .05 Writing paper------------------------ 40, 000 1. 25 1.00 • 25 Paper, news, poster, etc •• ____________ 40,000 1. 25 1.00 • 25 Tissue paper ____ --------------------- 40,000 1. 35 1.00 .35 Wrappmg paper ______________________

40, 000 1. 25 1.00 • 25 Rails and fastenings_--------------------- 80,000 1. 00 • 75 • 25 Axle, wheels, and forgings ________________ 60,000 1.00 • 75 • 25 Rice and rice products ____________________ 60,000 1. 05 • 75 .30 Roofing material. ___ --------------------- 50,000 1.10 .00 • 20 Rosin. ___ ---------·-·-------------------- 60,000 1. 20 • 75 .45

~~~uili _-:: :: :: : : : : : : : : : : : : :: : :: : : : : :: :: :: 60,000 1. 25 1.00 • 25 60.000 1.00 . 75 1. 00 Tinware _____________ . __ . ___ .----•••••. ___ 22;000 1. 86 1. 50 .36

Vehicles, self-reropelling, viz: Pressed-s eel car side.s •••••••••••••••• 40,000 1. 25 1.00 ,25

Do._--·-------------------_------ 80, 000 1.00 • 75 • 25 Cable rope._.---------------------- -- 50,000 1.20 .90 .30 \Vice rods ___ - ---------- ---- --- ---- --- 80, 000 1.00 . 75 .25

Mr. GOODING. In the last Congre s I introduced Senate Resolution 472, requesting the Inter"'tate Commerce Commission to inquire into the influence which had been used and the presimre that had been brought to bear upon the railroads to nppl~' for relief from the fourth section. The Interstate Commerce Commission sent its field men out and held hearings all over the country. On February 4, 1924, the commission renderetl its report to the Senate. It is a wry interesting report. I have a copy of it here. I want to show the Senate how permission to violate tbe fourth section has been giyen to the railroads. The report shows that since the amendment of the fourth section on February 17, 1911, there haYe been filed with the commission 12,513 applications. There were 5,776 applications granted, 4,393 denied, 1,()39 withdrawn. and 1:>3 current applications not -yet actecl on, antl 1.329 so-called temporary applications filed I>rior to February 1 , 1911, which are in

LXV-532

effect. Out of 5,579 applications granted only 303 were heard. All of those applications were granted practically without any investigation at all and without any hearings, at least with the exception of the 303. Adding to the 5,276 applications granted without hearing the 1,329 applications in effect February 17, 1911, we have altogether in effect 6,605 fourth-section violations without hearing.

In this report are some telegrams that passed between the Chicago Association of Commerce and the executive officers of the transcontinental railroads and their repre entatives.

In order that I may be able to make these telegrams clear that I shall read into the RECORD I wish to say that l\Ir. J. P. Haynes, who plays a leading part in these telegrams, occupied the position of tratnc director from the Chicago Association of Commerce, and that l\Ir. R. H. Countiss was chairman of the standing-rate committee of the transcontinental freight bureau, an organization that included all of the transcontinental railroads in this country.

Mr. President, these telegrams can be found in the report made to the Senate by the Interstate Commerce Commission on Senate Resolution No. 472, which required the Interstate Commerce Commission to make an investigation into the influence of propaganda brought about by the railroads for the violations of the fourth section of the interstate commerce act.

On August 4, 1923, the Chicago Association of Commerce wired the Union Pacific Railroad as follows:

Please advise why fourth section application is not filed with the commission. After many conferences with shippers certain commodities and rates were agreed to on which relief was found necessary, and the subject has been dragging since February last. If more prompt action is not taken, shippers will make other arrangements and wm not be interested. Wire answer .

On August 4, 1923. the Union Pacific Railroad wired the transcontinental freigllt bureau, of which Mr. Cotmtiss is chairman, as follows :

Chicago Association of Commerce complaining bitterly about delay in filing fourth-section application. Understood. it was agreed this application should be presented to commission by committee. 'What is delaying that action?

On August 4. 1923, the director of traffic, Chicago CIJnmber of Commerce, sent a telegram to the chairman of the board of directors of a transcontinental road reading as follows:

Please advise why fourth-section application Is not filed with commis ion. After many conferences with shippers certain commodities aud rates were agreed to on which relief was found necessary, ancl the subject has been dragging since February last. If more prompt action is not taken, shippers will make other arrangements and will not be interested. Necessity for fourth-section relief was manifested in your annual report to stockholders. Wire answer.

On the same date he sent the following telegram to executiYes of four other transcontinental roads: ·

Please advise why fourth-section application is not filed with commi sion. .After many conferences with shippers certain commodities and rates were agreed to on which relief was found necessary, and the ubject has been dragging since February last. If more prompt action

is not taken, shippers will make other arrangements and will not be interested. Wire answer.

The following telegrams were sent by executives of those transcontinental lines in reply to the above telegrams:

Replying to your wire 4th regarding filing with commission our fourth-section application on proposed rates from territory Chicago and west. The outcome of this effort to obtain relief .from fourth section is of deep concern to transccmtinental lines, and we are anxious to safeguard each step. Please be assured that we are in earnest in the matter and we are proceeding as expeditiously as possible.

I quote some further telegrams : Message to M.r. Gray-

1\lr. Gray is president of the Union Pacific Il-a.ilroad Co.To-day we supposed fourth-section application had been filed; am

inquiring Countiss's reason for delay. Yours, 4th : Am not aware any delay filing fourth-section applica

tion other than what was necessary in order to have it in proper shape. Am wiring Toll to at once file the SJ.pplication prepared by Toll and Hastings.

Further regarding your telegram, 4th : Mr. Countiss filed the fourthsection application with commission Saturday by mail with UDderstanding executive traffic officers, if deemed advisable, will arrange confer· ence with commission later.

8436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE ~IAY 13

Further your wire, 4th. Fourth-section application all ready for presentation to commission, but lines think should be personally presented by committee of executives, feeling it would have more weight with commission U presented in this manner. Will probably be disposed of in a ve:ry: few days.

Matter of fourth-section application will be called to attention of other lines interested, and this company will undertake to expedite filing, which has been delayed to decide on most forcible method of presentation.

On August 6, 1923, the Transcontinental Freight Bnreau wired the Union Pacific system as follows, a.nd this is the last telegram I shall read, Mr. President:

Your B-16, 4th instant, fourth-section application all ready for presentation to commission, but several lines think should be personally presented by committee of executives. Understand Santa Fe and Northern Pacific in correspondence with other executives on this point. California lines had originally suggested personal presentation by me, but such personal presentation would carry no weight with commission.

I understand, Mr. President, that it is not an unusual thing for the executives of roads to appear in a body before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that they did make such a visit in the interest of the applications that I have here which cover a wide range of commodities. Fortunately for the West, there was some new blood upon the commission that objected to the violations of the fourth section that were asked for by the transcontinental railroads from Chicago to the Pacific coast being allowed without hearings. These telegrams that have passed between the associated chamber of commerce and the executives of the transcontinental railroads shoulcl destroy the confidence in at least some of the members of the Interstate Commerce Commission who have always shown an unfriendliness toward the shippers. I have a very high regard for the spirit of fairness of some of the members of the commission, but that is not true as far as all of the members are concerned. With these executives and their representatives and Mr. Countiss there seemed to be no thought of submitting information and facts in regard to this application for the violation of the fourth isection. The question that was to be considered was how could tlle Interstate Commerce Commission best be given to understand that chief e:I:ecutives of the transcontinental rail~ roads wanted the e violations.

Mr. Countiss, who holds a high position with the railroads and no doubt draws a very large salary from the railroads and is considered one of the greatest railroad men in this country, was sure he had no influence with the commission, but that a visit to the Interstate Commerce Commission by the executives would bring about these violations in short order.

So that Senators may understand what these violations will mean to the South and States west of Chicago-if they are ullowed-I have prepared a map which shows what these violations mean to the West and the South. to~ether with the unreasonableness in our freight rates of the West and the South at the present time. First, I want to call the Senate's attention to the violations of the fourth section on wool rates from the Pacific coast to Boston.

l\Ir. President, it can be seen from the map on the wall of the Senate Cbamher that there are no violations in all of this territory [indicatingl east of Chicago, with the exception of a few down here [indicating] in some of the Southern states. The rate on wool in bales from Portland, Oreg., to Boston, Mass., a distance of 3,300 miles, is $1.50 a hundred. With a 30,000-pound car the railroad earns for that haul from Portland to Boston $450.

The rate from Pocatello, Idaho, to Boston on baled woola shorter haul by 716 miles-is $2.44 a hundred in carload lots. On that carload of wool the railroad earns $733 per 80,000-pound car. The lines east of Chicago get for their 1,038 mile haul 27! per cent of the $1.50 rate from Portland to Boston, or 27! per cent of $732, or $123.75. The railroads east of Chicago earn 11.9 cents per mile on their car. The lines between the Missouri River and Chicago get 17! per cent of the balance, or $57.10, or 11.7 cents per car-mile. The Union Pacific Railroad, for a haul of 1,058 miles from Pocatello to Omaha. receives the balance, or $551.15, or 52 cents per car-mile for a 30,000-pound car of wool. So they get practically five times as much for hauling a carload of wool from Pocatello to Omaha per mile as do the roads between Omaha and Chicago.

At a hearing in a wool-rate case in Boise, Idaho, I think some-. thing like two years ago, when the railroads were asking to reduce the freight rates from Portland to Boston to 1.35 a hundred, a rate expert for the Union Pacific Railroad testified tha.t $1.35 a hundred from Portland to Boston would be a compensatory rate.

I Under the Esch-Cummins Act, in which the rate of earning for

the railroads is fixed at 5i per cent, if a rate of $1.35 a hundred ' for a 3,30()..mile haul from Portland, Oreg., to Iloston, Mass., is a ' compensatory rate, then a rate of $2.44 a hundred from Poca- ' tell, Idaho, a haul of 2,500 miles, m'3st surely be an unreasonable · and a discriminatory rate. Yet that is the condition from wflieh ' the people of Idaho are su:trering. These violations of the fourth section occur all through tbe western section of the country on all the railroads, including the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul, the Southern Pacific, and the Santa Fe. All of the interior States in the West suffer in the same way, so far as wool shipments are concerned, as do the people of Idaho ; and the Union Pacific earns five times as much pel"' car-mile as the eastern roads earn. These violations are actually occurring to-day, and the people are paying the freight, not only on one railroad but on all of them.

I wish to discuss what tl1e effect would be if the applications of the transcontinental railroads should be granted. On the 1

Union Pacific Railroad on dry goods in carload lots from Chi- • cago to Seattle, Wash., a distance of 2,445 miles, the present \ rate is $1.58 a hundred. The railroads have a ked the commission for a rate frnm Chicago to Seattle of $1.10 a hundred. From Chicago to Scranton, Iowa, on the Chicago & North Western Tu:lilroad, a distance of 376 miles, the present rate is $1.11. Here [indicating on the map] is Scranton. Iowa, and if the violation of tbe act is permitted the rate to that point from Chicago, for a haul of 375 miles, will be a cent a hundred I more on dry goods than will be the rate to San Frand ro · or Portland or Seattle or any other coast points. There is not : a question of donbt in my mind that such a discrimination • will be permitted unless we make the fourth section absolute.

Mr. SMITH. Where is the point of origin of that shipment? ~Ir. GOODING. At Chicago; the haul is 376 miles and the

present rate is $1.11, while the railroads are asking for a rate to San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle of $1.10 a hundred. The commission has the authority to give them that rate and there is not any doubt in my mind that those rates will be put into effect.

From Chicago to Ogallala. Nebr., a distance of 820 miles, on dry goods in carload lots at present the rate is $1.58 a lrnnured. Ogallala is here [indicating on the map], but the people of Ogallala and west are now paying the same rate on dry goous tbat the people of Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco are paying. We think that is unfair and unjust. When we have a fixed earning for a railroad of 5! per cent, surely the people in part of this great country [indicating the interior] are making up the difference in the cost of hauling halfway across the continent for the people over here in Seattle.

If all that were not done for the purpose of destroying water competition, if it were necessary for the railroads to haye that violation in order to exist, the situation might be entirely different; but the fact is that the freight to the Pacific coast is only about 2 ~r cent of the total freight that goes through the canal at the present time. The railroads will lose more money in reducing the rates 48 per cent to the people of the coast towns than they will make up in what they will take away from the boats that are going through the Pana.ma Canal.

l\lr. BROOKHART. Mr. President--Mr. GOODING. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. l\fr. BROOKH.A.RT. In th.is amendment, as I i·ead it, there

is allowed the right to charge less for the long haul than for the short one where one railroad is competing with another. Why should that be any more than where n. railroad is competing with water?

l\1r. GOODING. No; it is not where they are competing with one another. It is on1y where one railroad goes directly through the country and where there is a circuitous route that comes around a long way, perhaps two or three bundred miles longer. In such a case the present act permits the longe1· railroad-and this amendment does not ehan.ge that-to charge the same rate as the short line. That isJ if the short road is 1,000 miles loog, and the circuitous road is 1,200 miles long, it permits the violation in the 200 miles between the l,OOQ-.mile point and the 1,200-mile point.

Mr. BROOKHART. But if we are going to de-uy the railroads, under this amendment, the right to charge less for the long haul than for the short haul because it competes with water transportation, it seems to me the same principle would deny them the right when they are competing with one another.

Mr. GOODL.'\"G. There are a good many roads rllliiling through the east em section of the country, and there are times when it is almost im1Jossible for them to handle all the freight over one line; and the discriminations that are allowed are so small that they can not really be called discriminations, and I belieYe they should not be touched

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8437 Mr. BROOKHART. I think it is quite as uneconomic to

haul that freight away around Robin Hood's barn as it is to 1 permit a greater charge for the short haul than for the long ' haul.

l\lr. GOODING. There is not any questl-on about it, and some time Congress will stop all that. When the rails first

, break down in our transportation we are going to stop the hauling of this freight around out of the way.

Mr. Sl\IITH. Mr. President--'l'he PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho

yield to the Senator from South Carolina? l\1r. GOODING. I yield. 1\lr. SMITH. In response to th,.e suggestion made by the

Senator from Idaho with reference to permission to make a departure from this provision where a circuitous route is in competition with a direct one, the testimony before the committee, as indicated by the Senator from Idaho, was to the effect that it was in favor of economy, because freight originating at one point and reaching another, both of them served by the more circuitous as well as by the more direct route, could be handled for the betterment of all parties concerned by virtually allowing this departure from the ordinary rule rather than have the congestion and loss of business that would result from trying to use the direct route where the freight was in excess of the capacity of the direct route. ·

l\1r. GOODIXG. Yes; we have reached that condition in this country to-day-a most dangerous condition, to my mind, if we are going on to develop the industries of the country.

M.r. BROOKHART. During Government operation we sent all the freight as nearly as possible along the short line, and the aving jn that respect certainly was very great to the Government and to the people of the United ~tates. It seems to me that the competition of all these roads is at the expense of the people, and has a tendency to increase the inbetween rates.

l\lr. SMITH. If the Senator will allow me, this is the very identical principle that the Senator from Idaho is attempting to e tablish-that we need and should have all the transportation that we can economically utilize-and it goes without saying that our water facilities should not be destroyed by an artificial fixing of rates that is not compen atory to the other class of carriers, namely, the railroads; but when it comes to a competition between the railroads in a congested section competition indicates just the opposite.

l\1r. CUMMINS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mr. GOODING. Yes; I yield. Mr. OUMMINS. I am in favor of the amendment that will

be proposed by the Senator from Idaho or the Senator from Nevada. I understand that the application for. leave to depart from the provisions of the fourth section, which the Senator is now discussing, is based upon water competition, anll I do not think there ought to be any departures from the fourth ~ection on account of water competition; but I am afraid the Senator from Idaho is venturing into some suggestions that would be -very disastrous for the country which he particularly represent ·, and I do not want by sitting silent to seem to give assent to these suggestions.

Take the freight rate from Chicago to Portland or Seattle. E'rery freight rate o-rer any given line, if it were properly adjusted, would be made up according to the cost of the service. To be absolutely fair and equitable, it would be made up according to the cost of the service. All people ought to be willing to pay according to the cost of the service, if that rule could ham been adopted originally. Every freight rate is made up of three parts : First, the initial terminal charge ; second, the final terminal charge; and third, the haulage charge. Now, if a freight rate from Chicago to Spokane as compared with the freight rate from Chicago to Scrantpn, in Iowa, were made up in that way, the freight rate from Chicago to ~pokane would be a great deal more than it is now.

l\lr. GOODING. I am not discussing that. I think the Senator misunderstood me entin~ly.

M.r. CUMMINS. I am -afraid that what the Senator has said might lead to the conclusion that he wanted all these freight rate to be logically made up.

Mr. GOODING. On a mileage basis. I tllat the Senator's thought?

Mr. CUl\lillINS. It would be a mileage basis, with the exception of the terminal charge at each end of the route. The Senator from Idaho does not want any such Syl:!tem to be imposed upon the railways of this country, as logical as it may be. does he?

l\lr. GOODIXG. I am sure that would not be feasible or practicable. I understand that a railroad must make a lower

rate for the long haul; but what I am complaining about is the unreasonableness that exists in the West and South, the dis· crimination that exists.

Mr. CU:l.\1MINS. I do not dispute about that. Mr. GOODING. I am complaining about the discrimination

that makes it impossible to develop communities, all in the interest of the Pacific coast, for the purpose of destroying an instrumentality that this country must have if it is going to grow and develop at all-water transportation.

Mr. CUMMINS. I am entirely in sympathy with the Sen· a tor from Idaho about that; but I do not want the impression to get abroad that the Interstate· Commerce Commission has been unfair and unjust because it has permitted an illogical system of making rates to develop and to continue.

I can not conceive of an instance in which there ought to be a higher rate for the shorter haul than the longer haul induced by water competition, and I am willing to stand with the Senator from Idaho to abolish that possibility, and I am willing to do it largely because we have not enough tran~por· tation facilities now in the United States. The railroads are saying, and I believe they are saying truly, that if we dernlop our internal transportation facilities to meet the demands of commerce we must spend from $750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 per year in order to meet the growth of commerce ; and it is plainly economical-I think it is plainly imperative-that water transportation shall be permitted to carry the commodities which it is fitted to carry at a lower price than they can be hauled upon a railway, because railway transportation always costs more, especially on the coast-to-coast business from the western coast to the eastern coast. It will always cost more to haul freight across the mountains and across the continent on the railways than it' will cost to haul it through the Panama Canal.

l\Ir. GOODING. That is true; but I can not agree that it will cost any more to haul freight over our transcontinental railroads than it now costs to haul freight between Chicago and New York or Boston, because the fact is that the transcontinental railroads are hauling as many tons of freight per horsepower or tractive power, as it is called, as the eastern railroads. All the grades on the transcontinental railroads have been practically eliminated. All the curves have been elin1inated. In my own State, on the Union Pacific, freight trains almost a mile long go down the valley of the Snake. ~o other road in the United States hauls as many tons or as many freight curs in a train, I am told, as down the valley of the Snake toward tidewater at Portland, and yet we pay 100 per cent higher freight rates than the people east ~f Chicago. We pay 40 per cent more of a freight rate westbound on wheat than the people of Montana pay over the Northern Pacific or the Great Northern.

l\Ir. CU~L\IL~S. The Senator must ,not unClerstand me to de-fend any such adjustment of the rates as that.

l\lr. GOODING. No; I understand the Senator. l\lr. CUl\HIINS. I think that is absolutely indefensible. l\lr. GOODI~G. I want to say, as far as the transcontinental

railroads are concerned, that they have an advantage ornr all the eastern railroads. Located along their lines are the greatest forests in America, the finest timber in the world. They have their own coal mines. The climatic conditions out there are not excelled in any State of the Union. In my State we have no blizzards or cyclones, and it is safe to say that the Union Paclfic operates as cheaply as, if not cheaper than, any other railroad in the United States, and yet the Interstate Commerce Commission permits them to charge unreasonable freight rates with all these discriminations. On all of the freight originating east of Chicago the people at the State line pay the same freight that the people at Portland and Seattle pay, although the haul to the coast is a thousand miles longer. That is what we have to meet. That is what I complain about-unrea ·on· able, unjust freight rates and discriminations-because if this application is allowed now, Portland and Seattle will job back into our territory. Our people can not even ser\e themselrns through a jobbing house. We can not interest anybody to build a manufacturing institution out there, although, as I have said, out in that great country we produce a large part of the raw products of the country; but we are at a standstill and going baok, all bec.ause of this discrimination.

I am satisfied that unless Congress acts that application is going to be allowed. I am willing to \ote for appropriations for the development of our rivers in the South, because I know we can not go on without water transportation. When you realize that in the last 10 years we have only increased 11 per cent in track mileage, while we increased practically 200 per cent as far as the ton-mile haul of busines on railroads is concerned, where are we drifting? Yet Hery moYement

8438 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE

that has ever been permitted, every violation that has ever been permitted, bas been for one purpose· only, and that is the destruction of water transportation.

Mr. BROOKHART. l\fr. President--The PRESI:JING OFFICER. Does the Senator :from Idaho

yield to the Senator from Iowa? Mr. GOODING. I yield. Mr. BROOKHART. Is it not the Senator's theory that the

rates to these water points having been determined under the law to be compensatory this adjustment will be made by a reduction of the rates which are excessive at the intermediate points?

l\Ir. GOODING. We are not asking any reduction. All we are asking for is the same freight rates. As I have said, I think the rates are unfair, and I think there is some discrimination in that long haul, but we are not complaining about that. What we are. trying to defend and protect ourselves against is a discrimination in the long haul, a cheaper freight rate for the shorter haul, so that we can go on and invite capital into our our State with the hope that we will de~vop it so as to make it possible for our people to have homes out there.

l\Ir. BROOKHA.RT. That discrimination can only be removed in one of two ways, either by raising the rates to points in competition with water transportation or by lowering the rates at points in Idaho and my State, for instance. Is not that correct?

l\Ir. GOODING. As far as the re-\enue is concerned, it is not necessary to increase any of the rates ; they are entirely too high, in my judgment. The railroads are earning revenue enough. Possibly no railroad in the United States is earning more revenue than the Union Pacific; yet as to all the transcontinental railroads I agree there should be some reduction. But we are not fighting for that now. What we are asking for is te have our investment out there protected, which is the same every other Senator would demand for his own State and for his own city and bis home.

On packing-house products in carload lots from Chicago to Seattle, Wash., a distance of 2,445 miles, via the Union Pacific, the present freight rate is $1.60 per 100.

The railroads have asked the Interstate Commerce Commission for a rate from Chicago to Seattle of $1.20 per 100.

F'rom Chicago to Dale Creek, Wyo., on the Union Pacific. a distance of 1,028 miles, the present rate is $1.20. Of course, if this application is allowed, the people of Dale Creel<. Wyo., will he paying the same freight rate as the people at Portland and Seattle, although the distance is 1,417 miles longer from Chicago to Seattle than it is from Chicago to Dale Creek.

From Chicago to 'fable Rock, Wyo., a distance of 1,232 miles, the rate on packing-house products is 1.60 a hundred, the same rate as the people of Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, and all coast towns are paying at the present time. That is what the people of the West are complaining about, although we are not ask'ing legislation on thn.t.

:Mr. FLETCHER. May I interrupt the Senator to inquire if his argument leads to this, that railroad rates ought to be based on mileage? That would not be a right principle, would it, on which to base the rates?

l\Ir. GOODING. No; I am not asking that. The average railroad haul in this country is 188 miles. I am sure we all understand that when there is a short haul there is a good deal of expense in connection with the terminals at each end, but there should not be much difference in the rate on a mileage basis for a haul after it gets to six or seYen hundred miles. The 3,000-mile haul, of course, should be some cheaper per mile, possibly, than a thousand-mile haul, but the people whose freight moves 1,400 miles should not pay 100 per cent more than the people whose haul is 3,000 miles. That is an unfair and unjust discrimination; and yet, with ail that, while we are finding fault with that, we are not asking for legislation. But when I live only 37G miles from Chicago and pay a rate of 1.11, and they haul the same goods out to Seattle and Portland and San Francisco for $1.10, that is a crime; it is un-American; and no government can live under such a policy as that.

Mr. FLETCHER. I can see the Senator·s objection and the ground for it. It looks as if the rate to his point is too high. But is it not a fact that the rate to and from the coast seems so low owing entirely to water competition, and the railroads have to meet the water competition or they can not get the business?

Mr. GOODING. The point I am making is that if we permit the interior to develop, the transcontinental railroads will have more business than they can handle. Our country is going backward notwithstanding it hns not scratched the great resources as yet, but you can not develop a country when

thei·e is discrimination in freight rates. The Senator undersbµ1ds that, of course.

I

Mr. FLETCHER. I can understand that; and I woull1 not : favor that at all; but whether you would get lower rates, even i though the rates to the coast were raised, is a question.

l\Ir. GOODING. We are more interested in seeing that the fellow west of us has not a cheaper freight rate than we have. We can pay the same freight rate he can, and are willing to do it, even if it is 1,000 miles farther, but we are ne\'er going to quit fighting as long as we are forced to pay more than he does for half the ervice he gets. No Senator wou1d want to force any such condition as that upon any State in the Union, it seems to me.

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. P.resident--1\Ir. GOODL."G. I yield. l\Ir. ASHURST. How would Senators or anyone e1se like it

if, when tbey sturted home in a taxicab, tlley were charged a very high price, but the farther they went the les" they were charged, and if for a small journey they were charged a high price? Would they like that kind of competition? Would that be fair? Is there any man here or elsewhere, and if there is, I would like to see him, who will sny he is honestly for this sort of thing being perpetrated on our people-the long and the short haul injustice? No man who has ~ver spoken yet has said it was right. No man bere or elsewhere has ever said it was an honest thing to do. There is excuse, apology, defense; but no man yet has ever risen to say that it is an honest device.

Mr. GOODING. There is only one justification for it, and that is the destruction of water competition; and that is its purpose, and that is why it has been permitted. There is no other excuse, and the railroads are fair enough to adll'.!it it. It is said now that if these violations are permitted, more than half the boats that are now going through the Panama Canal will have to find other business in some other part of the world.

l\1r. KING. Mr. President, did the evidence before the Committee on Interstate Commerce reveal the fact that there bas been for more than two years cut-throat competition between the boats engaged in coastwise traffic from ocean to ocean, n:s a result of which the freight rates upon ca1·goes from eastern ports to western ports, and vice versa, have not only been lower than what they were in the past but have been so low that most of the boats have lost money, and that the purpose was not only to destroy some of the competing lines but perhaps to affect the railroads? I do not know so much as to the latter, but I was interested to know whether there was proof before the committee respecting competition between the coastwise boats.

Mr. GOODli~G. No; no evidence of that kind was offered to the committee.

Mr. KING. Of course, if there is such competition-and I know there is and has been-the Interstate Commerce Commission, if it has jurisdiction-and if it has not it should be clothed with jurisdiction-ought to fix their rates as well as they fix: the rates upon the railroads.

Mr. GOODING. I quite agree with the Senator. It will likely be necessary to regulate commerce through the Panama Canal £.nd on our inland waterways, but we had better develop some commerce before we do that. We have not the commerce at the present time, and what little we have is not hurting the railroads at all. Of course, the whole fight all the way through on the part of the railroads is to destroy water competition, so that they muy have a monopoly, and that is what all the great industries are striving for nowadays.

Out of my State we fiave a power company, one of the subsidiaries of the General Electric. They have gathered up all the power plants in my State. Some of them, I am quite sure, they paid an unreasonable price for, but the object, of cour~e, was to secure a monopoly,' and this year they have succeeded in increasing the power rates, because they control all the power developed in the State of Idaho. NG one else I know of has an electric plant left anywhere in the State. That i.3 the same policy the railroads have pursued to destroy all competition. They do not want competition.

On paint in car lots from Chicago to Seattle, Wash., a distance of 2,445 miles, via the Union Pacific, the present freight rate is $1.25 per hundred.

The railroads have asked the Interstate Commerce Commission for a rate from Chicago to Seattle of $1 per hundred.

From Chicago to Brule, Nebr., on the Union Pacific, a dis· tance of 829 miles, the present rate is $1 per hundred.

If this application is allowed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the people of Brule, .i:Tebr., ·will pay the same rat~

•

1924 COJ_ TGRESSION.A.L RECORD---· SENATE 8439 a the people of Seattle, although the haul is 1,~16 miles longer than to Brule, Nebr. _

From Chicago to Ozone, Wyo., a distance of 1,017 mill?-S, the rate on paint in carload lots is $1.25 per hundred.

The present rate to Seattle is $1.25 per hundred. At the present time the people of 020ne, Wyo~ and a.11 points

west on the Union Pacific ,a-re paying the same freight rates on pa.int as Se ttle. If this fourth section violation is allowed the Union Pacific, the people of Ozone, Wyo., will continue to pay a freight rate of $1.25 per hundred on paint, but :the peo-ple of Seattle will pay a rate for a haul that ls 1,428 mlles longer than the haul from Chicago to Ozone, Wy-0., of $1 per hundred.

On bar iron in carload lots from Chicago to Seattle, Wash., a distance of 2,445 miles, via Union Pacific, the present freight rate ls $1 per hundred.

The rail..roads have asked the Interstate Commerce Commission for a rate from Chicago to Seattle of 75 cents per hundred.

From Chicago to Kel.l"ney, Nebr., on the Union Pacific, a distance of 674 miles, "tlle~nt rate is 75 cents per hundred.

If this application .fa · Bllowed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the people of Kearney, Nebr., will pay the same rate as the people of Seattle) although the haul will be 1,771 m1les longer than to Kearney, N-ebr.

From Chicago to Borie, Wyo., a distance of 1,004 miles, the rate on bar iron, in carload lots, is "$1 per hundred. The present rate to- Seattle is $1 per hundred.

At the present time the people of Borie, Wyo., and all points '\Yest on the Union Pacific a.re paying the same freight rate on bar iron as Seattle. If this fourth section violation is allowed the Union Pacific, the people of Borie, Wyo., will continue to pay a freight rate of $1 per hundred on bar iron, but the people of Seattle, will pay a rate for a haul that is 1,441 miles longer Ulan the haul from Chicago to Borie, Wyo.1 ot 75 cents per hundred.

11r. WALSH Qf Montana. Mr. President--1\fr. GOODING. I yield. 1tfr. WALSH of Montana. I would like to inquire of the

Senator whether this power now exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission under the existing act was defended before the Committee on Interstate Commerce or advocated by any public bodies speaking for any constituency as in the public interest, or whether it was advocated .solely by the railroad companies?

l\!r. GOODING. The committee had before it two of the com·mi sioners, Ur. Campbell and Mr. Hall. Mr. Campbell showed the disadvantage to the country very generally in his statement before the committee, while Mr. Hall practically justified the violations of the fourth section in tbe interest of the railroads.

. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Dld l\lr. Hall make the argument that it was a wise policy to permit this discrimination?

l\Ir. GOODING. He seemed to think so. I thought he thought so. Mr. campbell was just as positive that it was a dangerous policy, an unfair one, an unjust one.

1\Ir. WALSH of Montana. I was not speaking about those who urged that it was a danger~us puUcy, fill unjust policy, an unwise policy. We have heard those arguments in the Senate repeatedly, but I have never heard any argument on the other side of tb.e question from any public body or -chamber of commerce or other representative speaking in the public interests.

Mr. GOODING. The Chicago Chamber of Oommerce was before the commission asking permission to violate in the interest of Chicago. They wanted trade violations, violations permitted in the interest of trade in certain communities, while the people of New York,. Boston, and practically all points east Of Chicago were fighting the applications that I am now discussing. It was a fight over that territory for its business as between the different commercial points In the country. Chicago was asking for the violation. New York and the other cities east were opposing it.

l\Ir. WALSH of Montana. Just what was the line of argumtmt generally put up by the Chicago people in favor of the violation 1

Mr. GOODING. The Chicago people called this [indicating] intermountain territory their territory. They think they are entitled to the territory and the trade in the West, and of course their argument is that commerce is shipped around through the Panama Canal from New York and they are denied opportunity to participate in the business, although the' traffic through the Panama Canal does not prove that at all.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Then the argument is that the discrimination would help build up Chicago as against New York?

Mr. GOODING. Yes. In other words, the people living in the tar West are a good deal in the position of the bone over which the dogs are quarreling, with no opportunity to develop

onr own resources, no opportunity to build Up manufacturing institutions or even jobbing houses, if the violations ar'e allowed.

They are fighting over that country <lut there. That is what It all means. Tha.t is what they ask for, and they admit it The president of the Chamber of Commerce of Boston claimed that the commission has no right to divide up the territory and give it to Chicago or to say what manufacturers shall do business 'out there. At the same time they are opposing the bill that is before the Congress at the present time because they want some violations of their own.. They have some violations now into the Southern States by the water route and over the railroads into different points. I do not know whether I am going to have the time to discuss them or not. That is the whole question that is involved. It is just a fight over the business between the _great centers in the country. They seem to have in:fl.uence enough with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and railroads, I am sorry to say, to get all the violations they wanted.

The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad, on dry goods in carload lots from Chicago to Seattle, a distance of 2,100 miles, has a present freight rate of $1.58. They have asked the Interstate Commerce Oommission for a rate from CWcago to Seattle of $1.10. The Milwaukee & St. Paul, the Northern Pacific, and the Great Northern all joined with the Union Pacific in asking for the violation.

From Chica.go to Bongards, ~Iinn., on the Milwaukee, a di§tanre of 457 miles, the present rate, is $1.10. If this app!ica tion is all-Owed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the people of Bongards, Minn., would pay the same rate as the people of Seattle, although the haul :would be 1,733 miles longer than to Bongards, Minn.

From Chicago to Mahto, N. Dak., a distance ·of 828 miles, the rate on dry g_oods in carload lots is $1.58 per hundred and tbe present rate to Seattle is $1.58 per hundred. At the present time the people of l\Iahto, N. Dak., and all points west on the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul are paying the same freight rate on dry goods as Seattle. It the fourth section violation is allowed the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, the people of Mahto will continue to pa.y a freight rate ot $1.58 per hundred on dry goods, but the people of Seattle will pay a rate for a haul that is 1,362 miles longer than the haul from Chicago to Mahto of $1.10.

The violations I have -shown on the Union Pacific exist on all the railroads-the Milwaukee & St. Paul, the Great Northern, the Northen Pacific, the Santa Fe, the hfiSsouri Pacific, and every other railroad.

Mr. CU~IMINS. Th~ Senator means if the applications shall be granted?

Mr. GOODING. Yes. Mr. CUMMINS. It is to be hoped they will not be granted. Mr. GOODING. I do not believe they can be stopped unless

some legislation is enacted that will make it absolute. Every amendment to the fourth section of the interstate commerc<l act has been ineffective. The Senator from Iowa himself believed he had proposed an absolute provision preventing it, but it has not prevented it. The Interstate Commerce Commis_sion has gone on and permitted the violations, almost as many as there were before the Senator's ~ndment to the fourth section was adopted.

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mr. GOODING. Certainly. Mr. CUMMINS. That is substantially correct. I ha've al

ways believed in a rigid fourth section, for I have always be. lieved that the true rule in making a freight rate is the cost of the service, including in the cost of the serrice a reasonable return upon the capital employed in th'e enterprise. When we came to amend the law in 1920 the then Senator from Washington, 1\Ir. Poindexter, being a member of the committee, made exactly the same claim for the territory from which be camea.nd he was a resident of Spokane, Wash.-that the Senator from Idaho now makes. I believed that his contention wa~ sound and just. But there was great difference of opinion in the committee with respect to the matter. There was still greater difference when the blll came in to the conference committee. We finally compromised the respective claims upon the one side and the other. There was a great deal to be said on both sides.

I recognize that my friend from Idaho has not stated fully, nor would I expect him to state fully, the reasons which are urged by the railway companies and by some communities for what he calls violations of the fourth section. Suffice it to say th.at the controversy was finally compromised by the use of the words now in the law, namely, that in any event if the charge

•

8440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.A.TE ~IAY 13

was less for the longer haul than for the shorter, the charge for the longer haul must be compensatory. I had no doubt with regard to the meaning of that phrase. I have no doubt now with regard to the meaning of the phrase. I believe it contemplates that the railway companies shall secure or receive from the traffic involved in the longer haul a return that will not only pay what railway companies call the out-of-pocket costs, but will contribute a fair share of the rewards that must be given to capital.

Mr. SMITH. If the Senator will allow me, the amendment of the Esch-Cummins law went further than the mere proviso to which the Senator has referred. It is absolute except the proviso which says " only in special cases," and even in those special cases the rates must be compensatory.

Mr. CUMMINS. That phase of the law of 1920 has already been remarked upon. I have no doubt whatever, and I told the Senate so when we came to discuss the matter before the Senate, that the requirement that the charge should be at least a compensatory one would practically prevent a greater charge for the shorter haul than for the longer one. No one has been more disappointed than I over the construction which the Interstate Commerce Commission has given to that part of the law.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. As I understand it also, they construe "special cases" to mean every case of water competition, because apparently in every case which ever arose where there is water competition they apparently have reduced the rate. That was always so. Those were always "special cases." ~

Mr. CUMMINS. At least the Interstate Commerce Commission has not given much attention, as I understand it, to the phrase "special cases." I . regret that very much. I do not look upon it as a fault in the law, but it is a fault with the interpretation of the law.

Mr. BRUCE. l\Ir. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield to me?

Mr. CUMMINS. I am speaking in the time of the Senator from Idaho. I would be very glad, so far as I am cemcerned, to yield to the Senator from Maryland.

l\Ir. BRUCE. Oh, no; I shall not ask that. Mr. CUMMINS. I understand perfectly that the rigid ap

plication of the fourth section, as it originally was or as it would be without qualification, would disrupt the commerce of some communities, would disturb the commerce of some communities very much. I am thinking now rather of the southeastern country than I am of the western country. I can understand how in New England and New York, with their access by water to certain points along the Atlantic seacoast and the distribution of the freight carried to the interior in competition with direct railway lines from New England or New York to the interior of Georgia or Louisiana or Tennessee or any point that can be reached from the eastern seacoast, there might have to be some rearrangement of the conditions there existing.

But if the doctrine is a righteous one, sooner or later we shall be compelled to readiust those situations; and I do not believe there is a better time to do it than the present.

So far as the violation, so called, of the fourth section by the competition of rail carriers ls concerned, it is abundantly provided for in an exception that is found In the amendment that will be offered by the Senator from Nevada [Mr. PITTMAN] or by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. GoonING]. It does not entirely forbid the charge so far as the competition between rail carriers is concerned-at least, I so understami the amendmentbut it does, if I correctly interpret it, prevent a railway company from reducing its rates in order to meet water competition. I think that it is perfeetly idle to attempt to adjust railway rates in order to meet what we ordinarily know as water competition. These two facilities for commerce are so utterly unlike, and the cost of maintaining and operating the one is so dissimilar from the cost of maintaining and operating the other that each must stand upon its own bottom. I, for one, believe that the water transportation of the United States, which can be carried on more cheaply than rail transportation, ought to take the traffic to which it is adapted. That is economic; that is fair; and we can not maintain a water competition in any other way.

I may also say that in the effort to maintain and build up water transportation we provided, by the act of 1920, for the 1irst time in the history of railway regulation, that the Interstate Commerce Commission should have the authority to establish minimum rates as well as maximum rates. From 1887 up to 1920 the only authority which the commission had was to establish maximum rates, and the railway companies were at perfect liberty to reduce their rates according to their own desires or according to their own views of their interests as

much as they pleased, limited only by a provision of the law that they must not discriminate as against any person or any j locality; but, with that exception, their rates could be reduced 1

below the maximum according to their own pleasure. We provided in 1920-and what we provided it for was to

preserve or build up water transportation-that the Interstate I Commerce Commission could establish minimum rates. We intended that to meet just the condition that was suggested by 1 •

the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. RANSDELL]. When the south~ ern Mississippi River was at a low stage we did not intend ' that the railway companies on either side of it could reduce I their rates so as to destroy that competition. When the upper Mississippi River, the Ohio River, and the upper Missouri River were frozen so that there could be no transportation upon those ' streams we intended that the railway compani.es should not I be permitted to raise their rates during the interrupted period and then reduce their rates when the rivers were again able to resume their functions. .~:"'

. l\Ir. OVER~. Mr. President, w~jhe. Senator from Iowa 1

yield? - -·~ . .ii Mr. CUMMINS. I have not the floor ; I ·am trespassing upon

the courtesy of the Senator from Idaho. 1

Mr. GOODING. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nortn Carolina.

Mr. OVERMA..~. I understOO'd the Senator from Idaho to say that the amendment would not meet the situation on the southeastern seaboard. If the amendment would meet the situation in the West, as described by the Senator from Idaho, I should like very much for the Senator from Iowa to explain why it would be a good thing for the West and the Mountain States and would not be a good thing for North Carolina and Tennesse, for instance.

Mr. CUMMINS. I am not able to answer that definitely. This amendment at least protects the southeastern section of the country in its water transportation; that i8 ta say, a railway running directly from Virginia or from New England or from New York into N01·th Carolina can protect itself, if it be the longer line, by application to the Interstate Commerce Commission, but it can not protect itself against the competition which exists by carrying the freight by water from Baltimore or from New York or from Boston to thase points. We have always intended to give to the southeastern section of the country the benefit of their cheaper water transportation, and I think this proposed legislation would fairly secure it.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. If I may interrupt the Senator, take the rates from New York to New Orleans. Do roads passing through Knoxville, Tenn., or Salisbury, N. 0., or Atlanta, Ga., make a lower rate from New York to New Orleans than they do, for instance, from New York to Atlanta.? _

Mr. CUMMINS. This amendment, if enacted into law, would pi:event that

Mr. WALSH of Montana. So it would be of benefit to all western North Carolina and Tennessee and northern G€orgia and northern Alabama just the same as it would to the territory west of the Mississippi Ri'Ver?

Mr. CUl\fiIINS. Undoubtedly; that is the very purpose ot the amendment.

I am obliged to the Senator from Idaho [Mr. GOODING] for yielding to me.

Mr. GOODING. I thank the Senator from Iowa for the interruption.

Mr. President, I desire to refer to some violations on th~ Missouri Pacific. The present rate on dry goods to Little Rock, Ark., from Chicago, a distance of 634 miles, is $1.00i a hun· dred. The railroads have asked for a rate on dry goods from Chicago to New Orleans, in carload iots, of $1.53 a hundred. If these violations are allowed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the people of Little Rock will have to pay, for a 278-mile shorter haul, 37 cents more a hundred.

The rate on dry geods from Chicago to San Francisco, a dis· tance of 3,408 miles, is $1.58 a hundred. The people of Little Rock, for a haul 2,774 miles shorter than the haul to San Francisco, will pay a rate of 31! cents a hundred more.

Mr. President, these violations are not confined to the West alone, but they have _been even more numerous in the South than in the West. That is due to the fact that there is more water .transportation in the South .. I feel, therefore, that the South is as much interested, if not more interested, in prevent· ing violations of the fourth seetion than is the West.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President-Mr. GOODING. I yield. Mr. BROOKHART. In making an investigation of the Mis

sissippi River the special committee looked into that question quite extensively, and I may say that if the map to which the Senator has been referring were extended to the Southwest

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8441 it would show discriminations quite as great as those that have occurred in the West, and all for the purpose of destroying the cheaper water competition, of course. When that is de· sh·oyed or lessened the railroad rates always rise. That is the condition which exists now. There is not much water transportation except upon the Government barge line on the Warrior River and on the l\lississippi up to St. Louis, and that, of course, does not meet the traffic situation. As an instance of the discrimination, it is possible to ship canned goods from

· Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to Baltimore and then get the water rate around to Seattle more cheaply than they can be shipped direct on the railroad from Cedar Rapids to Seattle. That is one of the situations which has been deTeloped.

Mr. GOODING. Of course, we must develop in this country water transportation and then permit low-price farm products and low-price basic materials to seek the nearest water transportation. It is going to be impossible for the railroads, with the growth and deTelopment that is coming to this country, even to undertake to take care of the traffic; and unless we commence developing our rivers and enacting legislation that will make it profitable for capital to build water craft, the counh·y must c-0me to a standstill from the lack of proper transportation facilities.

Mr. President, I desire to refer to some further violations. On the Missouri Pacific the rate on soap in carl-0ad lots from St. Louis, Mo., to Alexandria, La., a distance of 642 miles, is 61i cents a hundred ; the rate on soap in carload lots from St. Louis to New Orleans, a distance of 835 miles, is 42! cents a hundred. It will be seen, therefore, that the people of Alexandria, although the haul to that point is 193 miles shorter than the haul to New Orleans, are paying a rate at the present time of 19 cents a hundred more than the people of New Orleans nre paying.

The rate on agricultural implements in carload lots from St. Louis to Alexandria, La., a distance of 642 miles, is 80 cents a hundred. The present rate from St. Louis to New Orleans, a distance of 835 miles, on agricultural implements is 64 cents a hundred. The haul to Alexandria is 193 miles shorter than the haul to New Orleans, and yet the rate on agricultural implements is 16 cents a hundred more when shipped to Alexandria than when shipped to New Orleans.

1\Ir. President, I find that it is impossible for me to get through this evening, and if it meets with the approval of the chairman of the committee I should like to yield the floor at this point. lf he insists, however, upon going on, I will try to continue; but I find myself a little tired, and I have a great many rates here that I want to discu~s yet.

TERMS OF DISTRICT COURT IN WYOillNQ

l\.Ir. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, if it is the purpose of the Senator to suspend here, I ask leave to report from the Committee on the Judiciary favorably, with amendments, House bill 4445, to amend section 115 of the act of March 3, 1911, entitled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary"; and I submit a report (No. 533) thereun. I invite the attention of the Senator from Wyoming to the bill. It is a local measure.

The PRliJSIDING OFFICER (Mr. LADD in the chair). Without objection, the report will be received.

Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, as this is entirely a local matter and pertains only to Wyoming, with the consent of. the Senator from New York I will ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I make no objection, Mr. President. Mr. Mch"'ELLAR. What is the request? Mr. WARREN. For tbe consideration of a bill which simply

adds another point for holding court in Wyoming. l\lr. McKELLAR. I bave no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unfin

ished business will be temporarily laid aside, Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with amendments.

~I1he amendments were, on page 1, line 7, after the word "Wyoming," to strike out "and the Yellowstone National Park " ; on page 2, line 12, after the word " appoint,'' to insert " among others " ; on line 13, after the words " deputy marshals," to strike out" fo1· the Yellowstone National Park"; and in line 14, after the words "reside in," to strike out "said park" and insert "the Yellowstone National Park," so as to make the bill read :

Be 4t mactet:l, etc.~ That section 115 of the act approved March a, 1911, entitled "An act to codify, reYise, and amend the laws relating

to the judiciary," be, and the same is hereby, a.mended so as to read as follows:

" 8.Ec. 115. The State ot Wyoming shall constitute one judicial district, to be known as the district of Wyoming. Terms of the district court tor said district shall be held at Cheyenne on the second Mondays in May and Novembei-, at Casper on the first Monday in February, at Evanston on the second Tuesday in July, and at Lander on the first Monday in October ; and the said court shall hold one session annually at Sheridan, and in said national park, on such dates as the court may order. The marshal and clerk of the said court shall each, respectively, appoint at least one deputy to reside at Casper, and one to reside at Evanston, and one to reside at Lander, and shall also maintain an office at each ot those places: Pro'Vided, That until a public building is provided at Casper suitable accommodations for holding court in said town shall be furnished free of expense to the United States. The marshal of the United States for the said district may appoint among others one or more deputy marshals, who shall reside in the Yellowstone National Park:.

The amendments were agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and · the

amendments were concurred in. 'l'he amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill

to be read a third time. The bill wus read the third time and passed. l\Ir. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, there is a brief

report on this bill. I ask that it be published in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so

ordered. The report is as follows·:

TERM OJI' COURT AT CASPER, WYO.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following report to accompany H. R. 4445 :

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4445) to amend section 115 ot the act of March 3, 1911, en· titled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws relating to the judiciary,H having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with amendments.

The bill amends section 115 of the so-called Judicial Code, so as to provide for holding a term of court at Casper, in the State of Wyoming, a change which the growing importance of that city seems to require. In the consideration of the measure attention was called to the fact that a part of Yellowstone Park lies within the exterior boundaries of the State ot Montana. and that under section 92 of tho general act referred to the State of Montana is a judicial district. It results, accordingly, that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction under the two sections referred to as to that part of the Yellowstone Park so within the boundaries of the State of Montana, a serious mat· ter should a crime be committed within that area. It is in the last degree doubtful whether Congress has the power to include within the same district, territory being parts of two States, in view of the provision of .Article -VI of the amendments ta the Constitution of th& United States providing that defendant is entitled to trial in the State and district within which the crime was committed.

The committee can see no reason !or attempting to extend the jurls· diction of the district of Wyoming over that portion of the park within the State of Montana while consequences of the gravest character might ensue from the attempt to do so. It accordingly recommends that the bill be amended by striking out the language in lines 7 and 8, page 1, "and the Yellowstone National Park," and to make the bill a harmonious whole that further amendments as follows be made:

After the word " appoint," at the end of line 12, page 2, insert the words "among others."

Strike out the words, in lines 13 and 14, page 2, "for the Yellowstone National Park," and the words " snid park," in line 14, and insert after the word " in," in line 14, page 2, the words " the Yellowstone National Park."

PUEBLO INDIAJ.""i LA.NDS

J\Ir. BURSUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of Senate bill 2932, to quiet tha title to lands within the Pueblo Indian land grants, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico asks unanimous consent for the present consideration ot Senate bill 2932. Is there objection?

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, I have no objection to the bill being discussed, but I want to have the bill and the i·eport read. For tbe last three or four years I have had an enormous number of protests against any bill :proposing to take away from the Pueblo Indians any part of their lands.

l\Ir. BURSUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yjeld for a moment?

Mr. ASHURST. I yield. l\Ir. BURSUM. I de ire to say to the Senuto1· from Arizona

that all of the differences of opinion haye been reconciled.

8442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE MAY 13

All of the associations which heretofore have objected have withdrawn their objections.

At the time the bill was last introduced there was one objection, namely, the method of compensation of the Indians. That has been reconciled to the entire satisfaction of those who were formerly opposed to the bill; and yesterday I receiv-ed a telegram from Mrs. Atwood, who is at the head of the Women's Federated Clubs, and also a letter from Mr. Bmleigh, of New York, who is attorney for the Indian Rights As~ociation, requesting that the bill be passed as soon as possible. There is no objection or disagreement whatever at this time.

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. l\Ir. President, I may say that a subcommittee of the Committee on Public Lands, consisting of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. ADAMS], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BUBSUM], and myself, have been considering thi bill for a number of months-in fact, ever since the present session of Congress began-and the bill has been entirely reformed from the shape in which it was a year or more ago. The subcommittee reported to the general Committee on Public Lands, and there was a unanimous report, as I understand, in favor of reporting out the bill as it is; and I think there is no objection to the bill now from any source. There is none that I know of.

Mr. BURSUM. The amendments which are proposed by the committee meet with the entire approval of all of these asso-ciations and those who have heretofore opposed the bill

:Mr. WILLIS. l\Ir. President, when the Senator from New Mexico submitted bis request last evening I objected to the consideration of the bill, because I had had certain representations from my constituents to the effect that the rights of the Indians were not properly protected. I have gone over the correspondence that bas come to me, and have conferred with the Senator from New Mexico, and he has assured me, and indeed convinced me, that those rights have been properly protected in the bill I therefore have no objection to the consideration of the bill, and trust that it may be passed. _ Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, I sm-ely shall not object to the consideration of the bill in view of the statements that have been made, especially by the two Senators from New Mexico; but I ask that the bill be read, and that the report of the committee be read. I shall not object to the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of Senate bill 2932?

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, with amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read the bill

The reading clerk proceeded to read the bill. l\Ir. ASHURST. l\fr. President, the Pueblo Indians have been

in possession of these lands for 200 or 300 years, we know. During the Lincoln administration they came here, and President Lincoln assured them that they never would be deprived of the ownership and title to these lands. Now we find the title in dispute. We find legislation necessary to settle the title to the lands. How, when, and why, since they have been in possession of this land for 200 or 300 years, under what circumstances, because of what act or omission on the part of any official, did it happen that these lands are now in peril, and that a suit to quiet title must be brought? I should like to know something about them.

1\lr. BURSUM. Mr. President, I can explain to the Senator from Arizona how that came about, if he will yield to me.

Mr. ASHURST. I yield, of course. :Mr. BURSUM. This controversy has been in existence

since the United States took over New Mexico. Prior to that time there were certain lands which had been granted by Spain to non-Indians and certain lands which had been granted to Indians. When the United States took over New Mexico the Congress extended certain grants of land to the Indians and included the lands of the non-Indians and also of the Indians, and the grants were made subject to the rights of third parties.

That is the reason why this matter is up. It is not that any non-Indians have gone on as squatters, or have gone on and filed, or have attempted to take away from the Indians any lands; but a cloud on the title arose by reason of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1913 in what is known as the Sandoval case--a whisky case--which reversed the doctrine of the Supreme Court laid down in 1876. Therefore it was necessary to have some kind of legislation which would settle and adjudicate the controversy on the basis of equity ~nd right and giving to each that to which he was entitled.

ltir. ASHURST. That ls a very frank and a very concise statement. Now, a word: What is the area in acres or square miles of the present Pueblo lands?

Mr. BURSUM. The total of the present Pueblo lands is 340,000 acres, divided into 20 pueblos.

Mr. ASHURST. Under this bill, will that area be dimin· ished?

Mr. BURSUM. No; it will not be diminished. These lands which ·are owned by non-Indians are inside. The lands in controversy amount to about 10 per cent of the total lands-34,000 acres. This bill provides that if at any time the Federal Government shall have failed in any way to protect the. rights of the Indians, in due season the Indians shall be reimbursed and paid and compensated, the amount of the compensation to be fixed by judicial finding of the Federal court. That is what these Indian rights associations were asking for, and precisely that which they asked for and insisted upon is what the committee has given them. I may say that the Federated Women's Clubs, which Mrs. Atwood is at the head of, and Mr. Burleigh, who is the attorney at New York for several of the Indian rights associations, are anxious that the bill as now modified, with the suggested amendments of the committee, shall pass at the earliest moment, so that it may be considered by the other House. The committee has put in, I suppose, a year's work on this, trying to reconcile the differences.

Mr. ASHURST. I believe the committee has been very faithful.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. President, will the Senator permit an interruption? I wish to ask a question of the Senator from New Mexico.

lli. ASHURST. I yield for that purpose. Mr. WILLIS. There is one matter that I neglected to bring

to the attention of the Senator from New Mexico. One of my correspondents makes this statement:

This bill does not provide for any compensation to the Pueblos where white settlers are permitted to settle upon and bold land inside of Pueblo grants.

Mr. BURSUM. That is just what it does do. This amendment provides for that very thing.

l\Ir. WILLIS. Precisely. Mr. ADAMS. l\Ir. President, will the Senator yield for just

one second? Mr. ASHURST. Yes; I yield. l\Ir. ADA.1'1S. I have been serving on this committee with

these gentlemen who have known of this matter for a long time. It was new to me, and consequently I have gone into it with a good deal of care.

If the bill is open to criticism, it is not because the Indian is not being looked after, but because he is being looked after too much at the expense of the United States. If there is any criticism, it is to come from those who are interested in the United States Treasury and not the Indian. I think it might be open to argument that the United States is assuming a rather unnecessary burden, but it is done in an effort to go to the limit to protect the rights of the Indian.

As to the earlier bills, I would concur with those who objected to the bills. The rights of the Indian were not fully protected; but now the bill has gone over to the other extreme. There are these conflicting claims. Not only the Indian but the settler has been upon the land for several hundred years. It is not a recent conflict. When the Spaniards came in about 1540 they found these colonies there. Some of their people settled, and they settled in communities. They made wide grants rather regardless of actual settlement, and this is an effort to provide a method of adjudication and to establish titles. It resembles in a way the water-adjudication statutes with which the Senator from Arizona is familiar with in his State. It provides for a proceeding the cost of which is borne by the United States exclusively.

The United States files the bill, makes the survey, and carries all of the ct>sts for the purpose of ascertaining what is the real fact. The Indian is protected. An effort is made to protect the settler; and the bill then goes the one step beyond, and provides that if the Ind1an loses his apparent title to any part of the land, if the United States, acting as the guardian of the Indian, could ha>e protected him by seasonable prosecution, the United States shall make good to the Indian the value of the land which has been lost through the neglect of the United States. All this is done upon the theory laid down by the Supreme Court that the United States is the guardian of these Indians, and imposing upon the United States the responsibility which a guardian has to carry in case of any neglect of the interests of his ward.

1924· CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE 8443 Mr. ASHURST. I think the explanations have been clear-Mr. ADA.MS. May I add one further word in reference to the

moneys which the Government may have to appropriate, in order that the Government's side may appear? Certain money will ultimately ha"\"e to be appropriated to make good, and the bill provides that that money shall be used fo~ the purpose of purchasing for the Indians land and water rights to replace those which be loses.

Mr. ASHURST. That is just the point I wanted to ask, if the Indian is to have money distributed to him it may or may not be sufficient; but if he is to have the right to select lands in lieu of those he loses, I will be content.

Mr. IlURSUM. To show how far the committee has gone in favoring the Indian, it is provided in the bill that in the event a non-Indian shall have a superior title to Spanish land grants, no writ of ouster shall issue, but that the value of that land shall be reported to Congress so as to preserve for the Indian those lands notwithstanding the fact that there may be out-standing a title superior to that of the Indian. .

Mr. ASHURST .• 1 withdraw my request to have the bill read, but I do ask that the bill and the report be printed in the RECORD. . .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there obJection? There being no objection, the bill and report were ordered to

be printed in the REconD, as follows: · Be it enacted, etc., That in order to quiet title to various lots,

paroels and tracts of land in the State of New Mexico for which claim shall b~ made by or on behalf of the Pueblo Indians of said-..State as hereinafter provided, the United States of America, in its sovereign capacity as guardian of said Pueblo Indians •. shall, by its Attorn~y General file 1n the District Court of the Umted States for the district of

1

New Mexico its bill or· bills of complaint with a prayer for discovery of the nature of any claim or claims of any kind whatsoever adverse to the claim of said Pueblo Indians, as hereinafter determined.

SEC. 2. That there shall be, and hereby is, established a board to be known as " Pueblo Lands Boa.rd " to consist of the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General, each of whom may act through an assistant in all hearings, investigations, and deliberations in New Mexico, and :t third member to be appointed by the President of the United States. The board shall be provided with suitable quarters in the city of Santa Fe, N. Mex., and shall have power to require the presence of witnesses and the production of documents by subprena, to employ a clerk who shall be empowered to administer oaths and take acknowledgments, shall employ such clerical assistants biterpreters, and stenographers with such compensation as the A.tto'rney General shall deem adequate, and it shall be provided with such necessary supplies and equipment as it may require on requisitions to the Department of Justice. The compensation and allowance for travel and expenses of the member appointed by the President shall be fixed by the A.ttorney General.

It shall be the duty of said board to investigate, determine, and report and set forth by m·etes and bounds, illustrated where necessary by field notes and plats, the lands within the exterior boundaries of any land granted or confirmed to the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico by any authority of the United States of America, or any prior sovereignty, or acquired by said Indians as a community by purchase or otherwise, title to which the said board shall find not to have been extinguished in accordance with the provisions of this act, and the board shall not include in their report any claims of non-Indian claimants who, in the opinion of said board after investigation, hold and occupy such claims of which they have had adverse possession, tn- accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this act : Provided, however, That the board shall be unanimous in all decisions whereby it shall be determined that the Indian title has been extinguished.

The board shall report upon each pueblo as a separate unit, and upon the completion of each report one copy shall be filed with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, one with the Attorney General of the United States, one with the Secretary of the Interior, and one with the Boa.rd of Indian Commissioners.

SEC. 3. That upon the filing of each report by the said board, the Attorney General shall forthwith cause to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, as provided in section 1 of this act, a suit to quiet title to the lands described in said report as Indian lands, the Indian title to which is determined by said report not to have been extinguished.

SE<:. 4. That all persons claiming title to or ownership <>f any lands involved in any such suit or suits, may in addition to any other legal or equitable defenses which they may have or have had under the laws of the Territory and State of New Mexico, plead limitation of action, as follows, to wit :

(a) That in themselves, their ancestors, grantors, privies, or predecessors in interest or claim of interest, they have had open, notorious, actual, exclusive, continuous, adverse possession of the premises claimed,

under color of title from the 6th day of January, 1902, to the date of the passage of this act, and have paid the taxes lawfully assessed and levied thereon to the extent required by the statutes of limitation or adverse possession of the Territory or of the State of New Mexico, since the 6th day of January, 1902, to the date of the passage of this act, except where the claimant was e.xempted or entitled to be exempted from such tax payment.

(b) That in themselves, their ancestors, grantors, privies, or predecessors in interest or claim of interest, they have had open, notorious, actual, exclusive, continuous, adverse possession of the premises claimed with claim of ownership, but without color of title, from the 16th day of March, 1889, to the date of tbe passage of this act, and have paid the taxes lawfully assessed and levied thereon to the extent required by the statutes of limitation or adverse possession of the Territory or of the State of New Mexico, from the 16th day of March, 1899, to the date of the passage of tbis act, except where the claimant was exempted or entitled to be exempted from such tax payment.

Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair or destroy any existing right of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico to assert and maintain unaffected by the provisions of this act their title and right to any land by original proceedings, either in law or equity, in any court of c<>mpetent jurisdiction and any such right may be asserted at any time prior to the filing of the field not~ and plats as pr<>vided in section 13 hereof, and jurisdiction with respect to any such original proceedings is hereby conferred upon the United States district court for the district of New Mexico with right of · review as in other cases: Provided, however, That any contract entered into with any attorney or attorneys by the Pueblo Indians <>f New Mexico to carry on such litigation shall be subject to and in accord. a.nee with existing laws of the United States.

SEC. 5. The plea of such limitations, successfully maintained, shall entitle the claimants SQ pleading to a decree in favor of them, their heirs, executors, successors, and assigns for the premises so claimed by them, respectively, or so much thereof as may be established, which shall have 'the effect of a deed of quitclaim as against the United States and said Indians, and a decree in favor of claimants upon any other ground shall have a like effect.

The United States may plead in favor of the pueblo, or any individual Indian thereof, as the case might be, the said limitations hereinbefore defined.

SEC. 6. It shall be the further duty of the board to separately report in respect of each such pueblo-

(a) The area and character 6f any tract or tracts of land within the exterior boundaries of any land granted or confirmed to the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and the extent, source, and character of any water right appurtenant thereto in possession of n<>n-Indian claimants at the time of filing such report, which are not claimed for said Indians by any report of the board.

(b) Whether or not such tract or ti·acts of land or such water rights could be or could have been at any time recovered for said Indians by the United States by seasonable prosecution of any right of the United States or (}f said Indians. Seasonable prosecution is defined to mean prosecution by the United States within the same period , of time as that within which suits to recover real property could have been brought under the I.imitation statutes of the Territory and State of New Mexico.

(c) The fair market value of said water rights and of said ti-act or tracts of land (exclusive of any improvements made therein or placed thereon by non-Indian claimants) whenever the board shall determine that such tract or tracts of land or such water rights could be or could have been at any time recovered for said Indians by the United States by seasonable prosecution of any right of the United States or of said Indians, and the amount of loss, if any, sutiered by said Indians through failure of the United StR;tes seasonably to prosecute any such right.

The United States shall be liable, and the boa.rd shall award compensation, to the pueblo within the exterior boundaries of whose lands such tract or tracts of land shall be situated or to which such water rights shall have been appurtenant to the extent of any loss suffer·ed by said Indians through failure of the United States seasonably to prosecute any right of the United States or of said Indians, subject to review as herein provided. Such report and award shall have the force and effect of a judicial finding and final judgment upon the question and amount of compensation due to the Pueblo Indians from the United States for such losses. Such report . shall be filed simultaneously with and in like manner as the reports hereinbefore provided to be made and filed in section 2 of this act.

At any time within 60 days after the filing of .sa.td report with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico as herein provided the United States or any pueblo or Indians concerned therein or affected thereby may, · in respect of any report upon liability or of any finding of amount or award of compensation set forth in such report, petition said court for judicial review of said report, specifying _ the portions thereof in which review is desired. Said

:S444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE ~fAY 13

court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to review, and shall review such report, finding, or award in lll:e manner as in the case of proceedings in equity. In any such proceedings the report ot the board shall be prima facie evidence of the facts, the values, and till! liability therein set forth, subject, however, to be rebutted by competent evidence. Any party in interest may offer evidence in snpport or in opposition to the findings in said report in any respect. Said court shall after hearing render rts decision so soon as practicable, confirming, modifying, or rejecti"ng said report or any part thereof. At any time within 30 days after such decision ls rendered said court shall, upon petition of any party aggrieved, certify the portions of su<!h report, review of which has been sought, together with the record in connection thenwith, to the United States Circuit Court ot Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which shall have jurisdiction to consider, review, and decide all q~stions arising upon such report and record in like manner as In the case of appeals in equity, and its decision thereon shall be final.

Petition for review of any specific finding or award of compensation in any report shall not affect the finality of any findings nor delay the payment of any award set forth in such report, review of which shall not have been so sought, nor in any proceeding for review in any court under the provisions of this section shall costs be awarded against any party.

SEc. 7. It shall be the further duty of the board to investigate, ascertain, and report to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall report to the Congress of the United States, together with his :recommendation, the fair market value of lands, improTements appurtenant thereto, and water rights of non-Indian claimants who, in person or through their predecessors in title prior to January 6, 1912, in good faith and for a valuable consideration purchased and entered upon Indian lands under a claim of right based upon a deed -0r document purporting to convey title to the land claimed or up(}n a grant, or license from the governing body of a pueblo to said land, but fail to sustain such claim under the provisions of this act, together with a statement of the loss in money value thereby suffered by such non-Indian claimants. Any lands lying within the exteTior boundaries of the pueblo of Nambe land grant, which were conveyed to any holder or occupant thereof or hi predecessor or predecessors m interest by the governing authorities of said pueblo, in writing, pl'ior to January 6, 1912, shall, unless found by said board to have been obtained through fraud or deception, be recognized as constituting valid claims by said board and by said court, and disposed of in such manner as lands the Indian title to which has been determined to have been extinguished pursuant to the provisions of this act : Provided, That nothing in this section con-

. tuined with reference to the said Nambe Pueblo Indians shall be construed as depriving the said Indians of the right to impeach any such deed or conveyanee for fraud or to have mistakes the1'ein corrected through a suit in behalf of said pueblo or of an individual Indian under tbe provisions of this act.

SEC. 8. It shall be the further duty of the board to investigate, ascertain, and repo1't to the Secretary of the fnterior the area and the value of the lands and impwTements appurtenant thereto of W>n-Indian claimants within or adjacent to Pueblo Indian settlements or towns in New Mexico, title to which in such non-lndiitn claimants is valid and indefeasible, said report to include a finding as to the ben~t to the Indians in anywise of the removal of such non-Indian claimants by pUl"chase of their lands and improvements and the transfer of the s:ime to the Indians, and the Secretary of the Interior shall report to Congress the facts with his recommendations in the premises.

SEC. 9. That all lands, the title t<> whieh is determined in said suit or suits, shall, where neees ary, be surveyed and mapped under the direction of the Secretary ot the Interior, at the expense of the United States, but sueh survey shall be subjeet to the approval of the judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, and if approved by said judge shall be filed in said court and become a part ot the decree or decrees entered in said district conrt.

SEC. 10. That necessary costs in all original proceedings under this net, to be determined by the court, shall be taxed against the United States and any party aggrieved by any final judgment or decree shall have the right to a review thereot by appeal or writ ot error or other process, as in other cnses, but upon such appeal being taken each party shall pay bis own co ts.

SEC. 11. That in the sense in which used In this Act the word "purchase" shall be taken to mean the acquisition of communitJ· lands by the Indians other than by grant or donation from a sovereign.

SEc. 12. That any person claiming any interest in the premises involved but not lmpleaded 1n any such action may be made a party defendant thereto or may intervene in such action, setting up his claim in usual form.

s~c. 13. That as to all lands within the exterior boundaries of any lands granted or confirmed to the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, by any authority of the United States of America or any prior sovereignty, or acquired by sald Indians as a community by purchase or otherwise and which have no.t been claimed for said Indians by court proceedings then pending or the findings and report of the board as herein

provided, the Secretary of the Interior at any time after two years atter the filing of said reports <>f the board shall file field notes and plat for each pueblo in the office of the surveyor general of New Mexico at Santa Fe, N. Mex., sho'ling the lands to which the Indian title has been extinguished as in said report set out, but excluding therefrom In.nds claimed by or for the Indians in court proceedings then pending, and copies ot said plat and field notes certified by the surveyor general ot New Mexico as true and correct copies shall be accepted in any court as competent and conclusive evidence of the extingui hment of all the right, title, and interest of the Indians in and to the lands so described in said plat and field notes and ot any claim of the United States in or to the same. Arul the Secretary of the Interior within 30 days after the Indians' right to bring independent suits under this act shn.11 have expired, shall cause notice to be published in some newspaper or newspapers of general circulation issued, 1f any there be, in the county wherein lie such lands claimed by non-Indian claimants, respectively, or wherein some part of such lands are situated, otherwise in some newspaper or newspapers of (eneral circulation published nearest to such lands, once a week for five consecutive weeks, setting forth as nearly as may be the names of such non-Indian claimants ot land holdings not claimed by or for the Indians as herein provided, with a description of such several holdings, as shown by a survey 01' Pueblo Indian lands heretofore made under the direction ot the Secretary of the Interior and commonly known as the "Joy Survey," or as may be otherwise shown or defined by authority of the Secretary of the Interior, and requiring that any person or persons claiming such described parcel or parcels of lands or any part thereof, adversely to the apparent claimant -0r claimants so named as aforesaid, or their heirs or assigns, shall, on or before the thirtieth day after the last publication of such notice, file his or their ad>erse claim in the United States land office in the land district wherein such parcel or parcels of land are situate, in the nature of a contest, stating the character and basis of such adverse claim, and notice of such contest shall be served upon the cla.iman t or claimants named in the said notice, in the same manner as in cases of contest of homestead entries. If no such contest is instituted as aforesaid, the Secretary ot the Interior shall issue to the claimant or claimants, or their heirs <>r assigns, a patent or other certificate of title for the parcel or parcels of land so described in said notice; but if a contest be filed it shall proceed and be heard and decided as contests of homestead entries are heard and decided under the rules and regulations of the General Land Office pertinent thereto. Upon such contest either party may claim the benefit of the provisions ot section 4 of this act to the same extent as if he were a party to a suit to quiet title brought under the provisions of this act, and the successful party shall receive a patent or certificate of title for the land as to which he is successful in such proceeding. Any patent or certificate ot title issued under the provisions of this act shall have the effect only of a relinquishment by the United States ot America nnd the said Indians.

If after such notice more than one person or group 01' persons united in interest makes claim in such land office adverse to the claimant or claimants named in the said notice., or to any other person or group of persons who may have filed such contest, each contestant shall be required to set forth the basis and nature of his respective claim, and thereupon the said claims shall be beard and decided as upon an original contest or intervention.

And in all cases any person or persons whose right to a given parcel or parcels of land has become fixed either by the action of the said board or the said court or in such contest may apply to the Commissioner of the General Land Office for a patent or certificate of title and receive the same without cost or charge.

SEC. 14. That 1! any non-Indian party to any such sutt shall assert against the Indian title a claim based upon a Spanish or Mexican grant, and if tbe court should finally find that such claim by the nonIndian jg superior to that of the Indian claim, no final decree or judgment of ouster of the said Indians shall be entered or writ of possession or assistance shall be allowed against said Indians, or any of them, or against the United States of America acting in their behalf. In such c:.ise the court shall ascertain the area and value of the land thus held by any no~ndian claimant under such superior title, excluding therefrom the area and value of lots or parcels ot land the title to which bas been found to be in other persons under the provisions "f this act : Provided, howci:er, That any findings by the court under the provisions of this section may be reviewed on appeal or writ of error at the instance or any party aggrieved thereby, in the same manner, to the same extent, and with like effect as if such findings were a final judgment or decree. When such finding adverse to tlle Indian claim has beeome final, the Secretary of the Intt>rior shall report to Congress the facts, including the area and value of the land so adjudged against the Indian claim, with his recommendations in the premises.

SEC. 15. That when any claimant, other than the United Stu.tea for said Indians not covered by the report provided for in section 'l of this act, fails to e.ustai.It his claim to any pa.reel of land within any Pueblo Indian grant, purchase, or dcmation under tbe provisions

192-! CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 8445 of this act, but has held and occupied any such parcel in good faith, claiming the same as his own, and the same bas been improved, the value of the improvements upon the said parcel of land shall be found by the court nnd reported by the Secretary of the Interior to Congress, with his recommendations in the premises.

SEC. 16. That if any land adjudged by the court or said land~ board against any claimant be situate among lands adjudicated or otherwise determined in favor of non-Indian claimants and apart from the main body of the Indian land, and the Secretary of the Interior deems it to be for the best interest of the Indians that such parcels so adjudged against the non-Indian claimant be sold, he may, with the consent of the governing authorities of the pueblo, order the sale thereof, under such regulations as he may make, to the highest bidder for cash, and if the bu.rer thereof be other than the losing claimant, the purchase price shall be used in . paying to such losing claimant the adjudicated value of the improYements aforesaid, if found under the provisions of section 15 hereof, and the balance thereof, if any, shall be paid over to the proper officer, or officers, of the Indian community, but if the buyer be the losing claimant, and the value of his improvements has been adjudicated as aforesaid_, such buyer shall be entitled to have credlt upon his bid for the value of such improvements so adjudicated.

SEC. 17. No right, title, or interest in or to the lands of the Pueblo Indians of New Uexico to which their title has not been extinguished as hereinbefore determined shall hereafter be acquired or initiated by virtue of the laws of the State of New Mexico, or in any other manner except as may hereafter be provided by Congress, and no sale, grant, lease of any character, or other conveyance of lands, or any title or claim thereto, made by any pueblo as a community, or any Pueblo Indian living in a community of Pueblo Indians, in the State of New Mexico, shall be of any validity in law or in equity unless the same be first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 18. That the pleading, practice, procedure, and rules of evidence shall be the same in all causes arising under this act as in oth& civil causes in the Federal courts, except as otherwise herein provided.

SEC. 19. That all sums of money which may hereafter be appropriated by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of paying in whole or m part any liability found or decreed under this act from the United St.ttes to any pueblo or to any of the Indians of any pueblo, shall be paid over to the Bureau of Indian Aft'airs, which bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of the .Interior, shall use such moneys at such times and in such amounts as may seem wise and proper for the purpose of the purchase of lands and water rights to replace those which have been Jost to said pueblo or to said Indians, or for purchase or construction of reservoirs, ir1igation works, or the ma.king of other permanent improvements upon "or for the benefit of lands held by said pueblo or said Indians.

'l'O QUIET THJD TITLE TO LANDS WITHIN PUEBLO INDIAN LAND GRANTS,

AND FO~ OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. ADAMS, from the C-0mmittee on Public Lands and Surveys, submitted the following report to accompany S. 2932 :

The Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2932) to quiet the title to lands within Pueblo Indian land grants, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report thereon favorably with the following amendments:

On page 4, line 17, after the word "Territory," insert the words "or of the State."

On page 5, line 4, after the word "Territory," insert the words "or of the State."

On page 6, strike out all of section 6 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEC. 6. It shall be the further duty of the boa:rd to separately report in respect of each such pueblo--

"(a) The area and character of any tract or tracts of land within the exterior boundaries of any land granted or confirmed to the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and the extent, source, and character of any water right appurtenant thereto in possession of non-Indian claimants at the time of filing such report, which are not claimed for said Indians by any report of the board ;

"(b) Whether or not such tract or tracts of land or such water rights could be, or could have been at any time, recovered for said Indlans by the United States by seasonable prosecution of any right of the United States or of said Indians. Seasonable prosecution is defined to mean prosecution by the United States wjthin the same period of time as that within which suits to recover real property could have been brought under the limitation statutes of the Territory and State of New Mexico.

"(c) The fair market value of said water rights and of said tract or tracts of land (exclusive of any improvements made therein or placed thereon by non-Indian claimants) whenever the board shall determine that such tract or tracts of land or such water rights could be, or could have been at any time, recovered for said Indians by the United States by seasonable prosecution of any right of the United

• States or of said Indians; and the amount of loss, if any, suffered by said Indians through failure of the United States seasonably to prosecute any s·uch right.

"The United States shall be liable, and the boa.rd shall award compensation, to the pueblo within the exterior boundaries of whose lands such tract or tracts of land shall be situated or to which such water rights shall have been appurtenant, to the extent of any loss suffered by said Indians through failure of the United States seasonably to prosecute any right of the United States or of said Indians, subject to review as herein provided ; such report and award shall have the force and effect of a judicial finding and final judgment upon the question and amount of compensation due to the Pueblo Indians from the United States for such losses. Such report shall be filed simultaneously with, and in like manner as, the reports hereinbefore provided to be made and 15.led ir. section 2 of this act.

"At any time within 60 days after the filing of said report with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico as herein provided, the United States or any pueblo or Indians concerned therein or affected thereby may, in respect of any report upon liability or of any finding of amount or award of compensation set forth in such report, petition said court for judicial review Of said report, specifying the portions thereof in which review is desired. Said court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to review, and shall review, such report, finding, or award in like manner as in the case of proceedings in equity. In any such proceeding the report of the board shall be prima facie evidence of the facts, the values, and the liability therein set forth, subject, however, to be rebutted by competent evidence. Any party in interest may offer evidence in support or in opposition to the findings in said report in any respect. Said court shall, after hearing, render its decision so soon as practicable, confirming, modifying, or rejecting said report or any part thereof. At any time within 30 days after such decision is rendered said court shall, upon petition of any party aggrieved, certify the portions of such report, review of which has been sought, together with the record in connection therewith, to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit which shall have jurisdiction to consider, review, and decide all questions arising upon such report and record in like manner as in the case of appeals in equity, and its decision thereon shall be final.

"Petition for review of any specific finding or award of compensation in any report shall not affect the finality of any findings nor delay the payment of any award set forth in such report , review of which shall not have been so sought, nor, in any proce£ding for review in any court under the provisions of this sectfon, shall costs be awarded against any party."

On page 7, line 22, after the word "fraud," insert the words, "or to have mistakes therein corrected"; and in the same line strike out the word "general" and also the words " or by a special suit."

On page 7 r line 23, after the word "of," insert the words " said . pueblo or of " ; and in the same line strike out the words " by the

Attorney General." On page 7, line 24, strike out the words " the last paragraph of

section 4 of." -On page 9, line 16, strike out the word " suits " and insert in lieu

thereof the words " court proceedings then pending." At the top of page 12, lines 1 and 2, strike out the words " and shall

not affect the adverse right or rights of any other person whatsoever." On page 15, strike out all of section 19 and insert in lleu thereof

the following : " SEC. 19. That all sums of money which may hereafter be appro

priated by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of paying in whole or in part any liability found or decreed under this act from the United States to any pueblo or to any of the Indians of any pueblo, shall be paid over to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, shall use such moneys at such times and in such amounts as may seem wise and proper, for the purpose of the purchase of lands and water rights to replace those which have been lost to said pueblo or to said Indians, or for purchase or construction of reservoirs, irrigation works, or the making of other permanent improvements upon or for the benefit of lands held by said pueblo or said Indians."

This bill incorporates the greater portion of the provisions ot Senate bill 726 heretofore referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Consideration of the Senate bill 726 led to the making of many amendments and to the rephrasing of many parts. For the sake of clearness and in order that it might be more readily understood, both by the committee and by the Senate, it was deemed advisable to reintroduce Senate bill 726 with amendments. and it now appears as Senate bill 2932. Senate bill 726 was referred to the Secretary of the Interior, who furnished tbe committee with a report thereon, copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this report, as the prin-

8446 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-· SENATE ~fAY 13 •

dples involved :in the hlll which were approved iby the 'Secretary ot the Interior appear not to ha'Ve been departed from, tho.ugh altered in details.

This blll is an e1!ort to provide for the final adjudication and settlement of a very compUcated and difficult series of ~onfilcting titles affecting la.nds claimea by the Pueblo Indians of New Mexic1>. In order to m1derstand the necessity tor the legislation proposed in this bill, it seems advisa.ble to make a briet statement of some points 1n the very interesting history of tM Pueblo Indians.

There are 20 pueblos ln"Volved with a total Incil11D. population of between 6,500 and 8,00U. Each pueblo con!!its of about 1'7,000 acres of land within its extCl'ior boundaries, or a total -of 840,000 acl:'ei:l tn all.

These Indians were found by Coronado and tbe first Spanish explorers 1n 154:1, many ~f them residing in 'Villages and occupying the s~e lands tha.t the Pueblo Indians now occupy.

The rights of these Indians to the lands oceupled by thetn was recognbed by the Spanish conquerors from early days. The first decree of record co11cerning them 'Was issued by Charles V of Spain, dated March 21, 1551, when they were ordered. gathered into :pueblos or towns. In 1687 a g'l"allt of la.nds was made to them by the King of Spain, tl.lld from that time on until tlle termination of Spanish dominion grants of land wi!re made at vatious times a.nd the Spanish authorities superTised thetr aft'airs. The SpanJ!lh grant tb each pueblo as finally confirmed by Oongre~ beca:me 4 square :leagues, 1 league in each direction trom the center of the village -0r the door of the church.

During the Bpafiish 'Occupation of New Mexico some grants were also made to non-In<lian-s by the Spanish Government Upon the termlnatlon of Spanish sovereignty 1n thls 'b!rritory these Pueblo Indians came under the Jurtsdiction of Mexico, by the govenunent of whlch they were given many political and civil rights. All of the land grants made to and held by the Indians have been and a.re now held in a type of communal occupancy and ownership.

Upon the acquisitioh by the United St-ates from Mexico of the oorritory now comprising the State -of New Mexico theere Indians and tne lands 1n question eame under the jurisdiction of the United States. Too relatiOnshlp of the inhabitants of thi!l territon and tbe Government of the United States was established by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. ln 1859 Congress -confirmed the Spanish grants to the Indians, 'Sllbject, however, to any valid adverse rights 'Should any l'.!xist.

While a matter of importance, the legn.I statu'S of these Indians was not linall1 determined until 1913.

It was only by the 'decision of the case of the United States v. Sandoval (213 U. S. 28) that the Supreme Court OiT the United States definitely ~stabllsbed th~ principle tllat thei:re Indians were wards of tbe Gonrnment.

In an earlier case, that of the United Stares -v. Jo!>eph (94 U. S. 614), the Supreme Court of the United States, -speaking 'Of these Indians, said :

"The clraracter and history of these people are not obscure, but occupy a well-known page in the story of 'Mexico trorri the conquest of the country by Cortez to the ceS!>ion of this part of U to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The subject is tempting and full (>f interest, but we have only space for a few well-considered sentences of the opinion of the chief justice ot the court whose judgtnent we ru.<e reviewing.

" For centuries," be says, " the Pueblo Indians have lived in villAges, in fu:ed communities, each having its own municipal or local government. As far as their history (!an be traced, they have been pastoral and agricultural people, raising flocks and cultivating the soil. Since the introduction of the Spanish Catholic missionary into the country they have adopted ma.lilly not only the Spanish language but the religion of a Christian church. In every pueblo is erected a ~hurch, dedicated to the worship of God according to the form of the Roman Catholic religion, and in nearly all ls to be found a priest of this church, who is recogn.ized as thetr spiritual guide and adviser. 'I'bey manufacture nearly all of their blankets, clothing, agricultural and culinary implements, etc. Integrity and virtue among them is fostered and encouraged. They are intelligent as most nations or people deprived of means or facilities tor education. Their names, their customs, their habits, a~ similar to those of the people in whose midst they reside or in the midSt of whom tbetr pueblos are situated. The criminal records of the courts of the Territory scarcely contain the name of a Pueblo Indian. In short, they are a peaceable, industrious, honest, and virtuous people. They are Indians only 1n feature, complextion, and a few of their habits ; in all other respects superior to all but a few of the civil~ed Indian tribes of the country and the equal of the most ci~ilized thereof. This description of the Pueblo Indians, I think, will be deemed by all who know them as faithful and true in all respects. Such was their character at the time of the acquisition ot New Mexico by the United States ; such ie their character now.

"At the time the act of 1834 was passed there were no such Indians a.s these in the United States unless it be one or two

teservattons or tribes, such as the Senecas or Oneidas of New York, to Wbolll., it 1s clear, the eleventh section of the statute could have na application. When it becalne necessary to extend the laws .regulating the intercourse With the Indians over our new acquisitions from Mexico, there wa.s ample room for the exercise of those laws among tile nomadic Apaches, Comanches, Navahos, and other tribes, whose incapacity tor self-government required both for themselV'eS and for the citizens o.f the country this guardian ca.re of the General Government.

.. The Pueblo Imii11ns, lt, indeed, they can be called Indians b11.d tmthing in common with this class. The degree of civilization ;hich they had attained centuries before their wllllng submission to ell laws <)f the Mexican Government, the tun reoognition by that G-0vernment of all their 'Civil rights, including that of voting anct he>ldin.g office, and their absorption into the general mass of the popUlation (except that they held their lands in common) all forbid the idea thn t they should be classed wtth the Indian tribes for whom the intercourae acts were made, or that in the intent of the act of 1851 its provisions were applicable to them. The tribes for whom the act of 1834 was made were those semi-independent tribes whom our Government has always rece>gnlzed as exempt from -our laws, whether within or without the limits of an organ· lied State or Territory, and In regard to their domestic government, left to their own rules and traditions; in whom we have recognized the capacity to make treaties a.nd with whom the Gov· ernments, State and National, deal, with a few exeeptiona only, 1n their national or tribal 'Character and not a.s individuals.

" If the Pueblo Inditu1s dift'er from the other inhabitants ot. New Mexico 1n holding lands in common and 1n a. certain patriarchal form of domestic life, they only resemble in this regard the Shakers and other commnntstic societie-s in this country, and can not fur that reason be classed with thi! Indian tribes of whom we have been spenking."

In the Sandoval ease the Supreme Court took a dltl'.erent view as to the legal status of these Indians, and 1n holding that they wer~ wards of the United St-ates Government said :

" The people of the Pueblos, although sedentary rather tha.n nomadic in their inclmations and disposed to peace and Industry, are nevertheless Indians in race, customs, a.nd domestic government, always living in separate and isolated c0mmunlties, adhering to primitive modes of life, largely influenced by superstition and teticbism and chiefly governed accordlri.g to the crude customs

. inherited from their ancestors. They are essentially a stmple, uninformed, a.nd inferior people."

Speaking of its previoug opinion 1n the ~oseph case, the court sale! that the observations there m~de as to the character 'Of tlrnse Indians "were evidently based upon statements in the opinion of the Territorial court, then under review, which are at variauce with other recognized sources of information now available.

Up to the time of the decision of the €a.ndoval case in 1913 It had been a'ssmned by both the Territorial and State courts of New Mexico that the Pueblos had the right to alienate their property. From earliest times also the Pueblos hat! invited Spaniards and other non-Indians to dwell with tht!m, and in many cases Pueblos and individual Indians attempted to con'Vey· lands to non-Intlia.ns which under the deciSion of the Sandoval case they were not competent to do.

AS a tesult ot this situation, conflicts as to tltle and right to possession arose and exist in many instances. During the Sirty-seventh Con~s extensive hearings were held and much testimony taken. This testimony was, by agreement of all interested parties, submitted to the present committee to be accepted as representing the evidence which would be presented if new hearings were had. These hearings disclosed that there are now approximately 3,()00 claimants to lands within the exterior b<>undaries ot the Pueblo grants. The non-Indian claimants with their famlli~ comprise about 12,000 persons. With few exceptions, the non-Indian claims range from a town lot of 25 feet front to a few acres in extent. It was stated, however, 1n the hearings by all parties that probably 80 per cent 6f the claims are not resisted by the Indians and only about 20 per cent or the number will be contested.

Another complication is due to the fact that under Spain and Mexico there were no sur~eys, hence descriptions were very loose and not subject to reliable identification for any great period of time. It is also alleged that non-Indian claimants have encroached upon Indian lands, have sought to enlarge the boundaries of their claims, and that the rights of the Indians are being constantly violated.

To settle the complicated questions of title and to secure for the Indians all of the lands to which they are equitably entitled is the purpose of this bill.

The committee had before tt representatives of the Indians and of several associations which have interested themselves on behalf of the Indians and also representatives of the non-Indians. It also had before 1t representatives of the Bureau of Indian Atl'airs. These representatives, recognizing the necessity of a solution of these intricate problems and conscious of the fact that .a failure to substantially agree upon a bill might lead to the total !allure of legislation to this end, and having in

1924 ~coNGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.ATE 8447 mind the experience "in this respect •during previous sesslonB of .Congress, made earnest and sincere efforts to reach an adjustment of the various matters of difference. As a result, by concessions and compromises the present bill has been worked out with a view of establishing principles and creating and putting into operation the neeessary legal machinery for the equitable adjustment of these conflicting land titles. Except on a few points, the representatives of all those interested are in accord.

The bill provides for the institution by the Attorney General of the United States of a bill or bills of complaint in the United States DiBtrict Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of the United States in its sovereign capacity as guardian of the Pueblo Indians for the purpose of quieting the title to the lands claimed to belong to these Indians and discovering the nature and character of adverse claims.

There is also t'Stablished a board known as "Pueblo lands board," to consist of the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General, and a third member to be appointed by the President of the United States.

The Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General may act through assistants in investigations 11.nd deliberations conducted in New Mexico. This board is to be provided with an office at Santa Fe, N. Mex., and is given the power to require the presence of witneS'ses and the production of documents and to employ necessary clerical assistance, interpreters, and stenographers, with such compensation as the .Attorney General shall deem adequate.

It is made the duty of this ·board to .inve'Stigate, determine, report, ·and describe the lands within the exterior boundaries of any lands granted or confirmed to the Pueblo Indians ·Of New Mexico by any authority of the United States or of any prior sovereignty or acquired by said Indians as a community by purchase or otherwi e, title to which the said board shall find not to have been extinguished in accordance with the provisions of this act. It is required that the board shall be unanimous in all decisions by which it is determined that the Indian title has been extinguished. The board is required to report upon each pueblo as a separate unit and to file one copy of the report with the

United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, one with the Attorney General, one with the Secretary of the Interior, ancl one with the Board of Indian Commissioners. Upon the filing of each report, the Attorney General is required to file a suit to quiet the title to the I.ands described in said report as Indian lands, the Indian title to which is ·determined by the report not to have been extinguished.

Section 4, which is the portion of the act which heretofore has caused most of the controversy, is now approved by the representati;es of the Indians and of the associations interested on behalf of the Indians and is also approved by the representatives of the non-Indians, except in one particular, and as to that no serious objection is now urged. This ioection provides that persons claiming title to any lands involved in such suits to quiet title may, in addition to any other legal or equitable defenses which they may have or have had under the laws of the Territory and State of New Mexico, plead limitations of action as follows:

"(a) That in themselves, their ancestors, grantors, privies, or predecessors in interest' or claim of Interest, they have had open, nototious, actual, exclusive, contlnuotrs, adverse possession of tlre premises claimed, under color of title from the 6th day of January, 1902, to the 'date of the passage of this act, and have paid the taxes lawfully assessed and levied thereon to the ertent·required by the 'Statute of limitations, or adverse possession of the Territory of New Mexico, since the 6th day of January, 1902, to the date of the passage of this act, except where the claimant was exempted or entitled to be exempted from such tax payment.

"(b) That in themselves, their ancestors, grantors, privies, or predecessors in interest or claim of interest, they have had open, notorious, acturi.l, exelnsive, continuous, adverse possession of the premises claimed with claim of ownership, but without color of title, from the 16th day of March, 1889, to the date of the passage of this act, and have paid the taxes lawfully assessed and levied thereon to the extent required by the statute of limitation or adverse possession of the Territory of New Mexico from the 16th day of March, 1.899, to the date of the passage of this act, except where the claimant was exempted -0r entitled to be exempted from such tax payment.

"Nothing in this act contained Bhall be construed to impair or destroy any existing right of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico to assert and maintain unaffected by the provisions of this act their title and right to any land by original proceedings, either in law or equity, in any court of competent jurisdiction, and any such right may be asserted at any time prior to the filing of the field notes and plats as provided in ilection 13 hereof, and jurisdiction with respect to any such original proceedings is hereby conferred upon the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico with right of review as in other cases: Provided, however, That any contract "entered into with any attorney or attorneys by the Pueblo 'Indians of New Mexico to carry on such litigation shall be subject to and in accordance with existing laws of the United States."

It is to be noted that this section .makes substantial changes in reference to asserting rights or defenses bRBed upon statutes of limi-

tations from that •Which was pl'ovided in the bills pending in previous sessions of Con~ess. In oTder to !fUceessfully maintain a pl:M. of limitations based upon advEfl'se posseasion, under color of title, such adverse possegsion must have continued from Janufil"y 6, 1902, to .the date of the passage of this ract, and must have been accompanied with the -payment of the •taxes lawfully assessed and le-Yied thereon to the extent required by the statutes of limitations or advel"se possession of "the !l'erritory of New Mexieo since the said date, except whae the claimant was exempted or entitled to be exempted from such tax payment.

Where the plea of limitations is based upon claim of ownership, but without .color of title, adverse possession must be established from the 16th day of March, 1889, to the passage of the act, and the claimant must .have paid the taxes lawfully assessed and levied thereon to the extent required by the N~w Mexico statute of limitations from tbe 16th day of March, 1899, except where the claimant was exempted or .entitled to be exempted from such tax payment.

It is also provided that nothing in the act shall impair any existing right of the Pueblo Indians to assert and maintain their title by proceedings in any court of -competent jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is expressly conferred upon the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to hear such cases, and a right of review from such decisions is provided for .

It is further provided tha.t contr.fl.cts entered into .by the Pueblo Indians with attorneys shall be subject to the existing laws of the United States requfoing contracts between attorneys and Indians to be approved by the United States.

If a plea of limitation is successfully maintained, the bill entitles the claimant to a decree which shall have the elrect of a q.uitclaim deed as against the United States and against the said Indians, and a decree in favor of claimants upon any other grounds shall have like effect.

It is further provided that the United States may . plead in favor of the pueblo or of any individual Indian thereof the limitation provisions set out in the act.

Seation 6 Jprovides that the board shall investigate and report as to the extent, character, and value of lands and water rights within such pueblo land grant and which are not claimed for the Indians in the report of the board. The board shall also find .and report whether or not such lands or water rights could have been at any time recovered for the Indians by the United States by the prosecution of any right of the United States or of the Indians within the periods fixed by the statutes of limitations of the Territory and State of New Mexico. Inasmuch as by the decision of the Supreme Court )f the United States, referred to above, it was held that the .United States was the guardian of these Indians, it seems to follow that if such guardian by reason of negligence has allowed the property of its wards to be lost there is at least a moral, if not a legal, obligation to make reasonable re titution for the Joss suffered. Upon thi.B theory this section prnvides that if the board finds that the United States has failed to recover f~r the Indians lands or water rights which could have been recovered by seasonable prosecution of the rights of the Indians that the Untied States shall be held liable and that the board shall award compensation to the pueblo whose lands and water rights have thus been lost to the extent of the loss suffered by the Indians through such failure on the part of the United Sta.tes. Such loss is to be found and reported by the board. Such findings are, however, subject to review both by the United .States District Court of the District of New Mexieo and on .appeal by the United States Circuit Court of -Appeals. It should be noted in connection with this section that it is provided in section 19 of the act that all sums of money which may be appropriated by Congress for the purpose of paying any liability found or decreed under the provisions of the act shall not be paid over to the Indians or to the pueblo authorities but shall be paid over to the Bu:rea.u of Indian .Affairs, which bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, is directed to use such moneys for the purpose of purchasing lands and water rights to replace those which have .been lost to said pueblo or for the purchase or .construction of .reservoirs, irrigation works, or the making • of other permanent improvements upon or for the benefit of lands held by said pueblo.

It thus appears that the two sections in .substance together provide for a substantial etiort to restore to the Indians the lands and water rights which they have lost, or equivalent therefor, and it is not sought to turn over to the Indians .any moneys to be expended .by themselves. These Indians being wards of the Government, there is an obligation on the part of the Government to make reasonable and proper provision for them. By reason of the loss of lands from various carures, some .of these pueblos do no.t have enough land to enable them to be self-supporting, and the United States Government has already recognized this situation for some years by making appropriations for their ma.1nteJ.lance. The Government in its capacity of guardian will naturally make appropriations to provide the nece sary lands and wat~r rights so as to make these people self-supporting, as far as possible, and th~ reeord shows that their general .disposition

8448 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MAY 13

is to be self-supporting nnd that their dependence upon the Government for some years past has been due to reduction of their available landed areas to a poi..Jlt where it ls insufficient for the purpose of their own community farming and the grazing of their flocks. As a result the moneys so awarded, covering the loss of Indian lands, will probably not exceed in amount the appropriations which would otherwise

'be made in the natural course of affairs in the caring for these people, so that the loss to the Government by reason of this section will be comparatively slight.

Section 7 imposes a similar duty upon the board in reference to lands and water rights of non-Indian claimants who acquired title in good faith prior to January 6, 1912, and entered upon Indian lands under a claim of right but have failed to sustain their claim unde1· the provisions of this act. This provision was inserted because of the consequences of the New Mexico enabling act, which went into effect on January 6, 1912. This section further contains a special provision applying only to the Pueblo of Nambe by reason of special circumstances there existing.

The bill pro,ides for necessary surveys, and that such surveys shall be subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Dh:1trict of New Mexico,

The bill further provides that the necessary cost ln all original proceedings under the act shall be taxed against the United States, !Jut that parties claiming the right to review by appeal or writ of error from the decision of the district court shall pay their own costs.

Section 13 provides that as to all lands within the exterior boundaries of any lands granted or confirmed to the Pueblo Indians by the United States or any prior sovereignty, or acquired by the Indians by purchase or otherwise. and which have not been claimed for said Indians by suit or the findings and report of the board, the Secretary of the Interior at any time after two years after the filing of the reports of the board shall file the field notes and plats for each pueblo in the office of the surveyor general of New Mexico at Santa Fe, N. Mex., showing the lands to which the Indian title has been extinguished as set out in the report, but excluding lands claimed by or for the Indians in court proceedings then pending, and copies of said plat and field notes certified by the surveyor general of New Mexico shall be accepted in any court as conclusive evidence of the extinguishment of the Indian title to the lands so described. The Secretn ry of the Interior is required within 30 days after the Indians' right to bring independent suits under this act shall have expired to camic notice to be published in some newspaper of general circulation issued in the county where the lands claimed by non-Indian claimants are located for five weeks, setting forth the names of the non-Indian claimants of lands not claimed by or for the Indians, with description of such holdings as shown by a survey of Pueblo Indian lands, heretofore made under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, known as the "Joy survey," or as may be otherwise hown or defined by authority of the Secretary of the Interior, re

quil'ing that all those claiming any interest in such lands or any part thereof adversely to the apparent claimant so named, or their heirs or as:signs, shall on or before the thirtieth day after the last publication of such notice file bis or their adverse claim in the United States land office in the land district where such lands are situate, in the nature of a contest, setting forth the character and basis of such adverse claim, and notice of such contest shall be served upon the claimant in the same manner as in cases of contests of homestead entries.

If no such contest is instituted, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue to the claimants a patent or certificate of title for the lands de:scribed in the notice, but if a contest shall be filed it shall proceed to be heard and decided as contests of homestead entries are heard and decided under the rules of the General Land Office. Upon such contests either party may claim the benefit of the limitation provisions of this act, to the same extent as if he were a party to a suit to quiet title brought under the provisions of this act, and the successful party shall receive a patent or certificate to the land as to which he is successful in such proceeding. It is provided, howe\er, that such patent or certificate of title shall only have the ctiect of a relinquishment by the United States and the Indians.

It is also provided in the act if any non-Indian party to such suit shall assert against the Indian title a claim based upon a Spanish or :Mexican grant and the court shall decide that such claim is superior to that of the Indian claim, no final judgment against the Indian shall be entered or writ of possession allowed against the Indians or any of them or against the United States acting in their behalf. In such case the court '\\ill ascertain the area and value of land, the title to which has been found to be in othe1· persons under the act. Such findings may be reviewed on appeal or writ of error, and if and when such findings adverse to the Indian claimant becomes final, the Secretary of the Interior shall report to the Congress such fact, including the area and value of the lands so adjudged against the Indian claim, with his recommendations in the premises.

This parngraph of the act indicates clearly the extent to which tbr effort has been made in drafting the act to fully protect the Jrnl inn titles and also the extent to which in negotiations between

representatives of the Indians and the settlers the non-Indians hav, consented to go in conceding measures deemed necessary or ndv-:rn· tageous in the protection of the Indians' interests. This ls especially obvious to those who have knowledge of the history of these conflicting titles, the nature and extent of which it is needle:::s to comment upon in this report.

It is also provided that when any claimant other than the United States for the Indians, not cov-ered by the report provided for in section 7, fails to sustain his claim to any parcel of land within any Pueblo Indian grant, but has held ancl occupied such parcel in good faith, claiming a right and has improved the same, the value of th~ improvements upon said parcel of land shall be found by the court and reported to Congress by the S~cretary of the Interior with bis recommendations in the premises.

If any land adjudged by the court or board against any claimant is situate among land adjudicated in favor of non-Indian claimants, apart from the main body of the Indian land, and the Secretary or the Interior deems it to be for the best interest · of the Indian that such land be sold, he may with the consent of the governing authorities of the pueblo sell the same to the highe ·t bidder for cash, and if the buyer be other than the lo ing claimant the pmchase pric~

shall be used to pay to such losing claimant the adjudicated value of the improvement thereon and the balance to be paid over to th•' proper officers of the Indian community. If the buyer l>e the losing claimant, the buyer shall be entitled to have credit upon uis bid for the value of his improvements.

Section 17 pro>ides that no right, title, or interest in or to th lands of tbe Pueblo Indians of New Mexico to which their title ltas not been extinguished shall be hereafter acquire<l or initiated in any manner except as may hereafter be provided !J~· Congre and that no sale or lease or other con,eyance made by any pueblo as a community or any Pueblo Indian living in a community of Pueblo Indian in the State of New Mexico shall be or any validity unles first opproved by the Secretary of the Interior.

This l>ill i~ submitted after many conferences and m)lch consideration in the hope and belief that it will operate to secure n fair fiolution of a problem which has greatly di tressed the entire State of New Mexico and especially the Indians living In these primith·e pueblo.) communities and their neighbors and non-Indian land claimant:-1 with whom there haw !Jeen conF-tant misunderstanding!< and di..;putes for man;\· years, ancl that it will tend to promote the peace and prosperi ty of these peoples.

non. I. L. LEXROOT,

DEf'!.RTMEXT OF TH.ll J~n;RIOR,

Trashi.11gto11, Ja11urn-y -L 1:llj.

Chai1'11ian Committee 011 Pul>l·ir Laiuls a11cl Surreys, L'11Ued rstatr•s Se1111te.

MY DEAR SEXATOR LEXROOT : Receipt is aclrnowledgPd of your reqU":>t of December 18, for a report on S0nate 726, being a bill to quiet the title to lands within Pubelo Indian land grant'-., and for otller purpo .. es.

Senate 726 has been compared with Sennte 3S:>5. "''l.xty-.eventh Congress, fourth session, which bill passed the Senate on February 28, 1923, and was found to be identical. The bill has hN'n gone over carefully. It seems to provide fair and just methods for settling the many conflicting claims within the Pueblo Indian resernttion . It is understood that the provisions of Senate 38ti5, Sixty-seventh Congre s, fourth se ion, as it passed the Senate on February 2 , 19~3. mPt with the general approval of practically all person who took part in th~ hearings on the original Pueblo bill, and as the present bill is identical with the one just mentioned, thi · depa.rtmPnt recommend:::- favorabl action by the Congress on the propoi::e-d lPgi ·Iation.

Very truly yours, HUBERT ·wor.K, Secretory.

l\lr. DIAL. Mr. President, I would like to a~k tl.le Seuator from New 1\lexico a question. I have not read the bill. I presume tbis bill covers the question of the statute of limitation, and so forth?

Mr. BURS-CU. The statute" of limitations of the State of New l\Iexico are binding, regardless of what we might do.

l\Ir. DIAL. This is in effect to give a money judgment against the United States?

l\Ir. BURSU.1\1. Kot exactly that ; no money goe. · to the Indians.

l\Ir. DIAL. Not to the Indian as an individual, but to tlle Indians as a tribe?

l\Ir. BURSUM. No ; not as a tribe. The improvements gl) to the Indians. We are making them anyway.

l\Ir. DIAL. How long has this kind of u bill been pending? Mr. BURSUM. Two years. We passed a similar hill at

the last session. This bill has been in the Senate several months.

Mr. DIAL. Mr. Pre ident, it seems to me the bill raises a very big question. I do not know much about these Indian

\

1924 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-SENATE 8449 matters. but I can not see much necessity for the bill. However, it is pretty late in the day, and if other Senators want to go on with it I will not object now. But I can see where it might be very expensive to the United States.

Mr. BURSUM. There will not be much expense. Mr. DIAL. I do not like to have Congress legislate in the

dark, and it is actually growing dark at this time of day. I think this is a very far-reaching measure.

Mr. KING. May I inquire of the Senator from New Mexico what, in his opinion, will be the ultimate cost in dollars and cents to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States which will not be reimbursable out of any tribal funds?

~1r. BURSUM. I will say that there will not be a dime expended out of the Treasury on account of the bill unless it is found that the United States, as the guardian of these Indians, has been at fault. My opinion is that the amount involved is very small, and even should there be any amount found due, no money is to be given them, but the money is to be expended by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in improvements, and we are already making jmprovements for them.

Mr. KING. May I inquire whether they have any lands of ._ their own and any funds of their own?

Mr. BUilSUM. They have 306,000 acres of their own, the title to which is undisputed.

Mr., KING. Is this bill for the purpose of quieting title to other lands which the Government claims, and to which the Indians assert title?

Mr. BURSUM. It is to quiet title to lands which are claimed by non-Indians who have lived upon these lands for the last three centuries, and upon which there are certain Spanish grant claims. In order to protect the Indians the committee has provided that although a superior title might be held under some Spanish grant no writ of ouster shall issue in order to retain the lands from the Indian. There may or may not be any of those titles found superior. That is a matter for the courts to decide in case the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General deem it proper to bring legal pToceedings, which they are empowered to do.

l\Ir. KING. If I understand the Senator-and I confess I am not familiar with the terms of the bill-the situation in brief is this, and I have only the statements just made by the Senator as a predicate for any observations I may make: There are gra:nts which were formerly within the Republic or Kingdom of Mexico.

l\lr. BURSUM. Yes; and of Spain. Mr. KING. Of course, Spain and Mexico, and under the

treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo thaf territory was ceded to the United States, impressed with certain grants, actual and valid. or fictitious.

Mr. BURSUM. Yes. Mr. KING. The Government of the United States subse

quently allotted lands to the Indians, and in their allotments included lands which · :ere impressed with these Spanish grants.

Mr. BURSUM. Exactly so. Mr. KING. Now you want to take away from the settlers

under tbe Spanish grants the lands which they and their predecessors in interest have had for three or four centuries, to use the Senator's expression, and give them to the Indians, and then you want the United States to pay the Spanish settlers or their successors?

Mr. ADAMS. No; that is not the case. May I correct that impression? 'l'he situation is this: If the.re has been any nonIndian in possession for a period longer than the statute of limitations, his title is good, and the United States does not have to make restitution. The only obligation of the United States is for the loss of lands which has occurred since the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; that is, in 1848. The United States a~'UIIled no guardianship, of course, prior to that time. The theory of the bill, so far as the liability of the United States is concerned, is that laid down by the Supreme Court. The fact that the United States is the guardian of these In·

· dians, that it has stood by and failed to protect the interest of its wards after that period, will require it to make restitution, if the United States could have recovered the land for. the Indians. That is the condition described in the bill, that the ob· ligation of the United States is contingent upon the fact that the United States has been neglectful of its duty as a guardian of the property of its ward.

Mr. KING. Will the Senator permit an interruption? Mr. ADAMS. Certainly. Mr. KING. I have tried to follow the statement of the

Senator, and he always make a very clear and lucid one. Yet J am not quite able to understand now the position which he

takes; !\fay I retrace for a moment? These lands in que tion were within the cession to the United States?

Mr. ADAMS. Ye.s. Mr. KING. They did not belong to the Indians over whom

the United States assumes guardianship? l\Ir. ADAJ.'1S. They did belong to the Indians. The Indians

had Spanish gr.ants. When the United States took them over the United States confirmed the Spanish grants up to a certa~ extent, that extent being measured 1 league eaeh way, giving to the Indian a definite allocation of lands measured 1 league in each direction, as they expressed it, to the four winds from the door of the church, the center of the Pueblo village. That confirmation was made subject to existing rights. There were the existing, bona fide rights within these grants which the United States made. and some of those existing rights had been held by non-Indians running far 50 or 100 to 200 years, just as the Indian held his.

Mr. KING. Does the United States challenge the rights ot those persons or their successors?

Mr. ADAMS. No; the United States is not a party to these proceedings except in behalf of the Indians. Tbe controversy exists between the settler within the confirmed grant and the Pueblo Indian settlement. The Pueblo Indian settlements are all communal in nature. There is no private ownership of land, so there is a square section of land of approximately 17,000 acres, I think, in each pueblo. There are some 26 or 27 different pueblos in different conditions. Some of them have been intruded upon very little; some more. In some instances the pueblo has been whittled down to comparatively a small amount of land. The general run of the land, as I understand it, is of a grazing character, of comparatively small value.

The question of the Spanish land grants is only a small part, so far as the settler is concerned. The Indians, through their communities, have in some instances sold lands within the grant. There were questions as to whether or not individual Indians could sell. The Supreme Court of the United States handed down conflicting decisions as to the legal status of the Indians. An earlier decision took the ground that the Indians were citizens, and that each Indian had a right to deed and convey, and that the communities had, and some deeds were made, some contracts were made, relying upon this decision, known as the Joseph case.

In a subsequent case the Supreme Court took a different view and held that the Pueblo Indians were not to be distinguished from the other Indians in the country, and that they were, in fact, wards of the Government, the earlier case having taken the ground that they were little nationalities and led an independent existence and had the right to contract and the right to convey and almost the right to make little treaties.

This is an effort to set up a tribunal in which, without cost either to the settler or to the Indian, these conflicting matters may be adjudicated, applying to the questions the statutes of New Mexico in reference to the limitations which are to apply.

Mr. KING. Why not leave it to the courts? Mr. ADAMS. It is left to the courts. In the first instance,

a board is appointed to survey and recommend. Then the matter goes into court in the shape of a suit to quiet title.

Mr. KING. How many acres are involved? Mr. ADA.MS. I do not know the acTeage. I think there are

a good many acres in all. There are some two or three thousand settlers ~volved and some eight or ten thousand Indians. It is a complicated matter, and the State of New 1\Iexico is very much involved in it. It is finally gotten down to this point, that all of the conflicting interests, which have been at odds there for years, have come together and have said that this bill will work out the solution of this apparently in"oluble problem.

l\fr. KING. If it is adjudicated that the settlers other than the Indians are to be ousted, that their claims are inferior to those of the Indians, does it mean that the GoYernment will have to reimburse those white settlers and others?

Mr. AD£US. It does not. l\1r. KING. They will have to leave without compensation? Mr. ADAMS. There are certain provisions whereby recom-

pense is to be made for impmrnments erected in good faith upon fue land. That is the substance of it.

l\Ir. KING. What does the Senator figure will be the possible limit of cost to be paid by the Government of the United States, the administrattrn activities of the boan1s and other instrumentalities set up, , plus the amount which may have to be paid?

l\Ir . .ADAMS. I do not know. Mr. BURSUl\I. It would be less than $50,000.

8450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE ~fAY 13

1\Ir. DIAL. I would like to ask the Senator from Colorado if this is a report from the Committee on the Judiciary?

Mr . .AD.AMS. It is a report from the Public Lands Committee, to which the bill was referred.

l\Ir. DIAL. Would it not be proper to amend the bill and omit any liability on the part of the United States?

~Ir . .AD.AMS. In that event the bill would not be satisfactory at all. The subcommittee could not recommend the bill unless all the balancing elements were there. It has resulted from innumerable conferences, trying to work out a balance which would be agreeable, and after many, many efforts they have reached this situation. If anything is left out, there would be no use in trying to pass the bill.

l\lr. DI..c:\..L. I would be very glad to have the claimants settle their differences among themselves, and I did not want to bother the United States if I could help it.

Mr . .ADAMS. The United States is supposedly the guardian of the Indians.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be stated.

~rhe amendments of the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys were-

On page 4, line 17, after the word "Territory," insert the words "or o! the State."

On page 5, line 4, after the word "Territory," insert the words " or o! the State."

On page 6, strike out all o! section 6 and insert in lien thereof the following:

"SEC. 6. It shall be the further duty o! the board to separately report in respect of each such pueblo-

" (a} The area and character o! any tract or tracts of land within the exterior boundaries o! any land granted or confirmed to the Pueblo Indians o! New Mexico and the extent, source, and character of any water right appurtenant theretQ in possession of non-Indian claimants at the time of filing such report, which a.re not claimed for said Indians by any report of the board.

"(b) Whether or not such tr·act or tracts of land or such water rights could be, or could have been at any time, recovered for said Indians by the United States by seasonable prosecution of. auy right o! the United States or of. said Indians. Seasonable prosecution ls defined to mean prosecution by the United States within the same period of time as that within which suits to recover real property could have been brought under the limitation statutes of the Territory. and State o! New Mexico.

"(c) The fair market value of said water rights and o! said tract or tracts of land (exclusive o! any improvements made therein or placed thereon by non-Indian claimants) whenever the board shall determine that such tract or tracts of land or such water rights could be, or could have been at any time, recovered for said Indians by the United States by seasonable prosecution o! any right of the United States or of said Indians; and the amount of loss, i! any, su!l'.ered by said Indians through failure ot the United States seasonably to prosecute any sLch right.

" The United States shall be liable, and the bottrd shall award compensation, to the pueblo within the exterior boundaries of whose lands such tract or tracts of land shall be situated or to which such water rights shall have been appurtenant, to the extent of any loss suffered by said Indians through failure of the United States seasonably to prosecute any right o! the United States or of said Indians, subject to review a.s herein provided; such report and award shall have the force and effect of a judicial finding and final judgment upon the question and amount of compensation due to the Pueblo Indians from the United States for such losses. Such report shall be filed simultaneously with, and in like manner as, the reports hel'einbefore provided to be made and filed in section 2 o! this act.

"At any time within 60 days after the filing of said report with the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico as herein provided the United States or any pueblo or Indians con\°!erned therein or affected thereby may, in re pect of any report upon liability or of any finding of amount or award of compensation set forth in such report, petition said court for judicial review of said report, specifying the portions thereof in which review is desired. Said court shall thereupon have jurisdiction to review, and shall review, such report, finding, or award in like manner as in the case of proceedings in equity. In any such proceeding the report of the board shall be prima facie evidence of the facts, the values, and the liability therein set forth, subject, however, to be rebutted by competent evidence. Any party in interest may offer evidence in support or in opposition to the findings in said report in any respect. Said court shall, after _hearing, render its decision so soon as practicable, confirming, modifying, or rejecting said report or any part thereof. At any time within 30 days after such decision ls rendered said court

shall, upon petition of any party aggrieved, certify the portions of such report, review of which has been sought, together with the record in connection therewith, to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which shall have jurisdiction to consider, review, and decide all questions arising upon such report and record in like manner as in the case of appeals in equity, and its decision thereon shall be final.

"Petition for review of any epecific finding or award of compensation in any report shall not affect the finality o! any findin~ nor delay the payment of any a.ward set forth in such report, review of which shall not have been so sought, nor, in any proceeding for review in any court under the provisions of this section, shall costs be awarded against any party."

On page 10, line 23, after the word "fraud," insert the words "or to have mistakes therein corrected"; and in line 24 strike out the word "geueral" and also the words " or by a special suit."

On page 24, line 24, after the word " of," insert the words " .,aid pueblo or of " ; and on page 71, line 1, strike out the words '' by the Attorney General."

On page 11, line 21, strike out the words " the last paragraph of section 4 of."

On page 12, line 19, strike out the word " suits " and insert in lieu thereof the words " court proceedings then pending."

On page 15, lines 3 and 4, strike out the words " and shall not aJrect the adve~ right or rights of any other person whatsoever."

On page 18, strike out all of section 19 and insert in lieu thereof the following :

" SEC. 19. That all sums of money which may hereafter be appropriated by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of paying in whole or in part any liability found or decreed under this act from the United States to any pueblo or to an:v of the Indians of any pueblo, shall be paid over to the Bureau df Indian Affairs, which bureau, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, shall use such moneys at such times and in such amounts as may seem wise and proper for the purpose of the purchase of lands and water rights to replace those which have been lost to said pueblo or to said Indians, or for purchase or construction of reservoirs, irrigation works, or the making of other permanent improvements upon or for the benefit of lands held by said pueblo or said Indians."

So as to make the bill read as printed on a preceding page. The amendments were agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended and the

amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,

read the third time, and passed.

SALE OF HOBOKEN SHORE LINE

l\lr. WADS WORTH. Mr. President, I think that none of the Senators here present will contend that I have endeavored to place obstacles in the way of passing bills by unanimous consent. at this hour of the day daily. Therefore, I am going to see if I can do the same thing. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 372 the bill (S. 2287) to permit the Secretary of War to dispose of and the Port of New York Authority to acquire the Hoboken Shore Line: The ?ill was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs, bavrng . the support of the War Department.

Mr. McKELLAR. Is it a unanimous report? l\lr. WADSWORTH. It is; and upon it the Senators from

New York are in entire agreement. Mr. KING. With what does the bill deal? Mr. WADSWORTH. It has to do with autho1izing the Sec

retary of War to sell the stock of the Hoboken Manufacturers Railroad Co., whicll the War Department owns and the Port of New York Authority wants to acquire.

Mr. KING. I am familiar with the matter. There being no objection, the Senate, as in Oommittee of the

Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Military Affairs with amendments on page 1, line 4, after the word "terms," to insert the words "and conditions"; in line 9, after the word "shore," to strike ?ut .the word " line " and insert the word " road " ; on page 2, m lme 8, after the word "proper," to insert the words "and sufficient"; in line 14, to strike out the word "however"· in line 16, after the word "war,11 to st1ike out the period ~nd insert: or other national emergency: Pt·omded further, That in order to facilitate the interchange of freight between rail and water facilities, such railroad, it acquired by the Port of New York Authority hereunder, 6hall be operated in coordination with the piers and docks adjacent thereto so long as said piers and docks a.re owned and operated by the United States G<>vernment Gr by any agency thereof, or by any corporation n majority or whose stock i.s owned by the United States:

i

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE 8451 Provided further, That if the Port of New York Authority fails to Mr. COPELA...~. The subcommittee on public health of agree upon terms and conditions of sale which are considered satis- the Committee on the District of Columbia. It has been factory by the Secretary of War, he is hereby authorized to sell and passed on by the District of Columbia Committee, too. dispose of the stock of the Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad Co., or l\fr. McKELLAR. What does it propose? all or any part of the real and per1Wnal property of the Hoboken Mr. COPELAND. Some modifications of the present dental Manufacturers' Co., to any purchaser or J}Urchasers upon such terms law. and conditions as he may deem best, subject, nevertheless, to the pro- Mr. KING. To set up a dental board with cost to the Gov-visos herein above stated : Provided fwrther, That if the Secretary of ernment? War shall deem it to be in the public interest that any real or per- Mr. COPELAND. It is the same sort of board that we sonal property owned by the said Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad have had previously; but it makes some changes in the details Co., not connected with the railroad itself, should be separately dis- of the law. posed of or held for later disposition, he is hereby authorized to cause l\!r. l\IcKELLAR. Does it give larger salaries? such property to be transferred from the said Hoboken Manufacturers' Mr. COPELAND. No ; there are no salaries involved. Railroad Co. to the United States, and thereafter to sell the same upon Mr. McKELLAR. It authorizes the appropriation of how such terms as he deems best; or, if more expedient, he is hereby au- much money? thorized to form a corporation to acquire such property, and is author- Mr. COPELAND. Not any. ized to cause such property, or any part thereof, to be transferred l\Ir. KING. If it takes a dollar out of the Treasury of the from' the said Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad Co. to such new cor- United States, I shall object to its consideration. porations so organized and to accept in place thereof the stock of such Mr. COPELAND. It does not. new corporation and to bold the same until such time as be secures The PRESIDING 8FFICER. Is there objection to the re. what be shall deem to be a fair and reasonable price for such prop- quest of the Senator from New York? erty, at which time he is authorized to sell said property, in whole There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the or in part, or tbe stock in the said new corporation to which such Whole, proceeded to consider the bill ( S. 1785) to amend an property is transferred, on such terms and conditions as in his judg- act entitled "An act for the regulation of the practice of denment will best promote the public interest; and the Secretary of War tistry in the District of aolumbia, and for the protection of is further authorized to make and impose any terms, conditions, or res- the people from empiricism in relation thereto," approved ervations necessary to effectuate the purpose hereof and to enter into June 6, 1892, and acts amendatory thereof, which had been such contracts as will effectuate the same : And p1'0vided further, That reported from the Committee on the District of Columbia with nothing in this act shall be construed as relieving or exempting the amendments. property acquired hereunder by the Port of New York Authority from The first amendment of the Committee on the District of any municipal taxes or assessments for public improvements, and Columbia was, in section 2, on page 2, line 7, after the word nothing herein contained shall be construed as an expression on the " three " to insert " to seven," so as to make the section read: part of the Congress as to whether the States of New York and New

1 Jersey, or either of them, should relieve or exempt the said Port of New York Authority from taxation or subject the said port of New York or any of said property to taxation.

So as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, eto., That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized, for such sum and on such terms and conditions a.s he may deem best, to sell to and dispose of, and the Port of New York Authority is authorized to acquire from the Secretary of War, the .stock of the Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad Co., said corporation being the lessee of the line known as the Hoboken Shore Road, now constituting part of Belt Line No. 13 in the comprehensive plan for the development of the port of ~ew York, adopted by the States of New York and New ·Jersey under chapter 43, Laws of New York, 1922, and chapter 9, Laws of New Jersey, 1922, and ratified and confirmed by the Congress of the United States by Public Resolution 66, Sixty-seventh Congress; and the Secretary is authorized and empowered to take and accept in lieu of cash the bonds of the said Port of New York Authority, secured by such lien as the Secretary in his discretion may determine is proper and sufficient; n.nd upon such acquisition the Port of New York .Authority shall be authorized to operate the said railroad in State and interstate commerce in accordance with the provisions o! the said comprehensive plan for the development o! the port and the improvement of commerce and navigation: Provided, That the Secretary shall attach such conditions to such transfer as shall insure the use of such railroad facility by the United States in the event of war, or other national emergency: Provided f1trther, That in order to facilitate the Interchange of freight between rail and water facilities, etc.

The amendments were agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the


read the third time, and passed. The title was amended so as to read : "A bill to permit the

Secretary of War to dispose of and the Port of New York Authority to acquire the Hoboken Snore Line."

PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President--Mr. McKELLAR. I ·hope there will be no more business

this afternoon. It is very late, and we can not give the meas-sures proper consideration. .

Mr. COPELAND. There is one bill on the calendar which I would like to have considered this evening. Senators have been kind to the senior Senator from New York. Will they not be kind to the junior Senator? I desire to call up the dental bill, which ·has been agreed to by . all the dentists and by the committee. I ask unanimous consent to have Senate bill 1785 immediately considered.

Mr. KING. What committee reported the bill?

LXV-533

SEC. 2. That no person shall be eligible for appointment upon the board o! dental examiners who has not been for five years next preced· ing his appointment a resident of and in the active and reputable practice of dentistry in the District of Columbia. Appointments shall be for a term of five years or until their successors are appointed and qualified, and shall be from a list of three to seven eligibles submitted by the dental societies of the District of Columbia ; and no officer or member of the faculty of any dental school or college shall be eligible for appointm~nt upon said board.

The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 3, on page 2, line 13,

after the word "treasurer," to strike out "and" and to insert "who shall give bond to the United States in the· sum of $2,500. The board," and at the beginning of line 19 to strike out "reg· istration of," so as to read:

SEC. 3. The board of dental examiners shall organize by electing from its members a president and a secretary-treasurer, who shall give .. bond to the United States in the sum of $2,500. The board shall make and adopt such rules and regulations, not inconsistent herewith, as it deems necessary; it shall hol<l in January and June of each year, in such place as may be designated by said board, examinations to determine the fitness of applicants for licenses as dentists and oral hygienists, respectively, under this act.


before the word " oral," to strike out " registration as,'' so as to make the proviso read :

Provided, That the concurrence of a majority of said board t>ball be necessary to grant or revoke, respectively, either a license as dentist or oral hygienist, under this act.

The amendmen.t was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 4, on page 2, line 25,

after the word " proceedings," to insert " a complete record of the credentials of each lice11See," and on page 3, in line 3, after the· word "and," to strike out "a register," so as to make the section read:

SEC. 4. The board o! dental examiners shall have an official seal and shall keep a record of its proceedings, a complete record of the credentials o! each licensee, a register o:t' persons licensed as dentists and oral hygienists, and of licenses by it revoked. A transcript of an entry in such records, certified by the secretary-treasurer under seal o! the board, shall be evidence of the facts therein stated.

Th~ amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 8, on page 4, line 16,

before the word "dental," to strike out "reputable," and in the same line, after the word "college," to strike out "as de-

8452 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE M~AY 13

fined " and insert " approved," so as to make the section read:

SEC. s. Any person who desires to practice dentistry within the District of Columbia shall file with the secretary-treasurer of the board of dental examiners a written application for a license and furnish satisfactory proof that he is a graduate of a dental college npproved by the board. Such application must be upon the form prescri bl'd by the board, certified by oath, and accompanied by the required fee and a recent unmounted autographed photograph of the npp.Ucant.

'l'he amendment was agreed to. '.rl1e next amendment was, in section 9, on page 5, at the

end of line 5 to strike out the word " the " and to insert "Tlrnt the";

1

in line 10, after .the name "United States," to jnsert '' approved by the board" ; at the end of line 15, to strike out " applies ; provided" and to insert " applies: Provi<lecl. Tbat"; and, in line 24, after the word "examiners," to insert "under seal," so as to make the section read:

SEC. 9. An applicant for a license to practj,ce denti try shall appear brfore the board of dental examiners at its first meeting after the filin~ of bis application and pass a satisfactory examination, consisting of prnctical demonstrations and WTitten or oral test, or both, in the following subjects: .Anatomy, anesthetics, bacteriology, chemistry, histolo~y. operative dentistry, oral hygie!le, oral surgery, orthodontia, pathology, physiology, prosthetic dentistry, materia medica, metallu~gy, and therapeutics, and such other subjects as the board may from time to time direct: Provided, That the board ot dental examiners may waive the theoretical examination in the case of an applicant who furnishes proof satisfactory to said board that he is a graduate from a reputable dentnl college <lf a State or Territory of the United States, approved by t he board, and holds a license from a similar dental board, with requirements equal to those or the District of Columbia, and who, for five coru1ecutive years next prlor to filing his application, has bee.n in the lawful and reputable practice of dentistry in the State or Territory of the United States from which he applies: Provided., That the laws of such State or Territory accord equal rights to a dentist of the District ·of Columbia holding a license from the board of dental examiners of the District of Columbia, who desires to practice his profession in such State or Territory of the United States. An applicant desiring to register in the District ot Columbia under this section must furnish the ooard of dental examiners with a letter from the se5!1-·etary of the board of dental examiners under seal of the St."l.te or Territory of the United States from which he applies, which shall state that he has be 11 in the lawful and reputa.hle practice of dentistry in the State from which be applies for five years next prior to filing his application, and shall also attest to his moral character and professional qualifications.

'l'he amendment was agreed to. . The next amendment was, in section 10, on page 6, lme 9,

fter the word "which," to insert "after being registered with the p.ealth officer," so as to make the section read:

SEC. 10. If such applicant passes the examination and is of good moral character, he shall receive a license from the board of dental examiners, attested by its seal, signed by the members of the boa.rd, and registered with the health officer, which after being registered with the health officer shall be conclusive evidence of his right to practice denti ·try in the District of Columbia. It the loss of a license is satisfactorily shown, a duplicate thereof shall be issued by the board upon payment of the required fee.


after the word " examination," to insert " consisting of practical demonstrations and written or oral tests"; in line 10, before the word " signed," to strike out " and " ; and in line 11, after the word "which," to insert "after being registered with the health officer," so as to make the section read:

SEC. 12. .An applicant for a license as oral hygienist shall appear before the board of dental examiners at its first examination after the filing of his application and pass a satisfactory e:mmination consisting of practical demonstrations and written or oral tests on such subjects as the board may direct. If such applicant passes the examination and is of good moral character, he shall receive a license from the board of dental examiners, attested by its seal, signed by the members of the board, which after being registered with the health officer shall be conclusive evidence of bis right to practice as an oral hygienist in the District of Columbia according to the provisions of this act.

The amendment was agreed to. Tbe next amendment was, in section 14, on page 8, line 3,

before the word "under," to insert "may operate only," and in line 4, after the word "dentist," to strike out "may operate in the " and to insert " in his," so as to make the section read :

SEC. 14. Any licensed dentist, public institution, or school authority may employ such licensed oral hygienist, who may remove calcic de-

posits, accretions, and statns from the surfaces of the teeth, but shall not perform any other operation on the teeth or tissues of the mouth. A registered oral hygienist may operate only under the general direction or supervision of a Ileen~ dentist, ln his office or in any public school or other institution. The board of dental examiners may suspend or revoke, with power to reinstate, the license of any dentist who shall permit any oral hygienist, operating under his supervision, to perform any operation other than that permitted under the provisions of this section, and it also may suspend or revoke, with power of reinstatement, the license of any oral hygienist violating the provisions of this :ict j the procedure to be followed in the case of such suspension, revocation, or reinstatement shall be the same as that pl·escribed by law in the case of suspension, revocation, or reinstatement of a licensed dentist.

Mr. KINH. I would like to have section 14 of the bill read, to which the amendments just read apply.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The section will be read as requested.

The reading clerk read the section as proposed to be amended. Mr. KING. Of -course, I have not the bill before me and I

ba1e never seen it before. I would like to ask the Senator from New York if the object of the provision just i·ead is to prevent persons who are not fully qualified, who have not passed all examinations, from discharging the duties which usually belong to a qualified dentist?

Mr. COPELAND. That is the purpose. Mr. KING. It is to let apprentices try their hand upon

school children without charge? 1\Ir. COPELAND. Only under direction. 1\fr. KING. There is nothing in the bill that gives the right

to practice to a select class? l\Ir. COPEL.A.....~D. Oh, no. One has to be a qualified dentist

and a graduate of a reputable school. Mr. KING. What is the general object of the amendments? Mr. COPELA.i.~D. It is simply -to make it so that everybody

who does practice within the District must be a qualified prac-titioner of dentistry and a graduate of a reputable school.

Mr. KING. Do not existing regulations require that? Mr. COPELAND. No. Mr. LODGE. The existing regulations are very poor. The

bill is based on exactly similar laws which exist in Ohio and in Massachusetts, and, I think, in New York. .

Mr. KING. I am in favor of such a medical bill, including bills that deal with the practice of dentistry. I offered in my own State the yery first one of the medical bills that was enacted into law. I believe that dentists as well as doctors should be licensed and that there should be proper examinations to determine their qualifications.

Mr. COPELA1'"D. I may say that this bill was formulated by the Dental Society in connection with Doctor Downing, the commissioner of education of Albany, who is a great authoritv on this matter. It is a model bill.

Mr: KING. Does the Senator think it is needed in the District of Columbia?

l\1r. COPELA1'"D. Absolutely. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is upon agree

ing to the amendment of the committee. The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 16, on page 9, line 21,

after the word 11 drugs," to insert "or affiicted with a contagious or infectious disease," so as to make the section read:

SEC. 16. The board of dental examiners may revoke or suspend the license of any dentist or any oral hygienist in the District of Columbia upon proof satisfactory to said ooard:

L 'Ihat said license or registration WllB procured through fraud or misrepresentation.

2. That the holder thereof has been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude.

3. That the holder thereof is guilty ot chronic or persistent inebriety, or addiction to drugs, or afflicted with a contagious or in

fectious disease. 4. That the holder thereof, through misleading advertising or other·

wise, is guilty or conduct calculated or likely to deceive or defraud the public.

5. That such holder is guilty of conduct which, 1n the opinion of said board, disqualifies him to practice with safety to the public.

The amendment was agreed to. The neA1: amendment was, in section 18, on pn.ge 10, line 16,

after the word "thereby," to insert "Any dentist whose license has been suspended or revoked may be reinstated and a new license is ued to him when, in the judgment of the board of dental examiners, such action is warranted, provided such reinstated dentist shall pay all the costs of the proceedings resulting in his suspension and reinstatement and in addition thereto a fee of $25," so as to make the section read:

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE 8453 SEC. 18. If upon such hearing the board finds the charges sustained,

it may revoke or suspend the license of any such dentist or oral hygienist. Such revocation shall take from the person named in such license all rights and privileges acquired thereby. Any dentist whose license has been suspended or revoked may be reinstated and a new license issued to him when, in the judgment of the board of dental examiners, such action is warranted, provided such reinstated dentist shall pay all the costs of the proceedings resulting in his suspension and reinstatement and in addition thereto a fee of $25.

Tlle amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 19, on page 11, line 11,

before the ''ords " of receipts," to strike out " balance " and to insert "total"; in line 12, after the word "any," to strike out "balance of fees" and to insert "funds," so as to make the section read :

SEC. 19. That in addition to the fees heretofore fixed herein each applicant for a license as dentist shall deposit with his application a fee of $20 ; with each application for a duplicate license a fee ot $5 shall be paid to said board of dental ~xaminers, and for each certificate issued by said board a fee of $1 shall be paid. That out of the fees paid to ·said board, as provided by this act, there shall be defrayed all expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions herein contained, including the detection and prosecution of violations of this act, together with a fee of $10 per diem for each member of said board for each day he may be actually engaged upon business pertaining to his official duties as such board member : Proi:i<led, That such expense shall in no event exceed the total receipts: And provided also, That at the close of each fiscal year any funds unexpended in excess of the sum of $1,000 shall be paid into the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the District of Columbia.

The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was, in section 20, on page 11, line

19, after the word "address," to insert "and such other information as the board may deem necessary" ; in line 22, after the figure " $1," to insert: " On or before the 1st day of November of each year it shall be the duty of the secretary-treasurer of the board of dental examiners to mail to each uentist and oral hygienist licensed in the District of Columbia, at his last known address, blank form for registration " ; and on page 12, line 5, after the name "District of Columbia," to strike out " within 10 days from said date,'' and in line 6, after the word "shall," to insert" at the end of 10 days from said date," so as to make the section read :

SEC. 20. During the month of December of each year every licensed dentist and oral hygienist shall register with the secretary-treasurer of the board of dental examiners his name and office address and such other information as the board may deem necessary upon blanks obtainable from said secretary-treasurer, and thereupon pay a registration fee of $1. On or before the 1st day of November of each year it shall be the duty of the secretary-treasurer of the board of dental examiners to mail to each dentist and oral hygienist licensed in the District of Columbia, at his last known address, blank form for registration. In the event of failure to register on or before the 31st day of December a fine of $5 will be imposed, and should the practitioner fail to register and pay the fine imposed and continues to practice his profession in the District of Columbia he shall at the end of 10 days from said date be considered as practicing illegally and penalized as otherwise provided for in this act. If he suspends his practice he may be rein&tated at any time upon registering and paying the prescribed fee of $5. On or before the 1st day of February, annuaIJy, said board shall issue a p1·inted register of the names and addresses so received, a copy of which shall be mailed or otherwise sent to each registrant thereon.


after the word " performs,'' to insert " or advereses to perform," and in line 20, after the word "jaw," to insert "me<:hanically, medicinally, or by the use of radiograms," so as to make the section read :

SEC. 21 . .Any person shall be regarded as practicing dentistry who is a manager, proprietor, operator, or conductor of a place for performing dental operations, or who for a fee, salary, or other reward paid or to be paid either to himself or to another person, performs or advertises to perform dental operations of any kind, diagnoses or treats diseases or lesions of human teeth or jaw, mechanically, medicinally, or by the u. e of radiograms, or attempts to correct malpositions thereof, or who uses the word "dentist," "dental surgeon," the letters "D. D. S.," or other letters or title in connection with his name which in any way represent him as being engaged in the practice of dentistry.


after the section number to· strike out " On and after the

passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry or dental sur.gery under the name of any company, association, or corporation, and any person or persons practicing or offering to practice dentistry or dental surgery shall do so under his name only " and to insert " On and after the passage of tllis act it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry or dental surgery under any name except his proper name, which shall be the name used in bis license granted to him as a dentist, as provided for in this act; and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this law," so as to make the section read :

SEC. 22. On and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry or dental surgery under any name except his proper name, which shall be the name used in his license granted to him as a dentist, as provided for in this act; and unlawful to use the name ~f any company, association, corporation, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this law. A.Jly person convicted of a violation of the provision of this section shall be fined for the first offense not Jess than $100 nor more than $200, and upon a second or any subsequent conviction thereof by a fine not to exceed $500, and upon coqviction his license may be suspended or re\oked by said board.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the


read the third time, and passed. STOCK-RAISING HmfESTEADS-CONFERENCE REPOR'f

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LA.DD in the chair) submitted the following report:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill ( S. 381) to amend section 2 of the act entitled "An act to provide for stock-raising homesteads, and for other purposes," approved December 29, 1916 (Stat L. p. 862), having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its amendments numbered 2 and 3.

That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 4, and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 1: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment insert tile following: " ; but no right to occupy such lands shall be acquired by reason of said application until said lands haTe been designated as stock-raising lands, unless the applicant actually establishes his residence and resides on the land " ; and the House agree to the same.

E. F. LADD, RoBT. N. STANFIELD, A. A. JONES,

Mmwuers on the part of the Rmzate. N. J. SIN 'OTT, ADDISON T. SMITH, JOHN E. RAKER,

Maitagers on the vart of the Rouse.

The report was agreed to. SPEECH BY FORMER SEN.ATOR GILBERT M. HITCHCOCK

Mr. OVERllAl~. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a speech delivered by former Senator Gilbert M. Hitchcock as temporary chairman of the Nebraska Democratic State convention.

There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows : STATE POLICY CO~STRUCTIVE, NATIONAL VERY HURTFUL TO THE MlDDLE

WEST, SAYS G. M. HITCHCOCK TO DEMOCRATS, DEPICTING GREAT

WROXGS TO AGRICULTURAL AMERICA

[Complete text of speech of former Senator Gilbert M. Hitchcock as temporary chairman at the Democratic State convention.]

We have gathered here to-day to start campaign organization for U}24. We not only have before us the State campaign as we had two years ago but the national campaign as we bad four years ago.

Upon State questions and State experiences I shall · have little to say, for the reason that we are to have those matters presented by a.

8454 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE J\IAY 13

man better qualified to discuss them than I am. I refer to our vigilant, vigorous, and militnnt governor, Charles W. Bryan.

Two years ago Ur. Bryan entered the campaign with certain definite declarations and pledges. Up and down this State he went; condemning extravagance and waste in State government. He revealed to the people the truth that Nebraska, under a series of Republican administrations, had become a State of burdensome and excessive taxation. He declared that if elected governor he would use the powers of bis office to the utmost to cut down expenditures and reduce taxation. He particularly -proclaimed bis purpose to bring about the repeal of the code bill, which fastened upon the State of Nebraska a ponderous system of government suitable only for a rich and populous State. All he stipulated was that in electing him governor the people should also elect a Democratic legislature that would accept his leadership.

RECORD IS CLEAB

The people elected Governor Bryan and he has faithfully and triumphantly kept the pledges of the campaign. During the first six tnonths- of his administration the number of State employees was 300 less than during the first six months of the preceding administration. The cost of State gO'vernment was reduced $867,000 in his first year. He could and he would have done more if the people who elected him had also elected a legislature which would have accepted his leadership. By a strange failu:re of popular judgment, however, the people trusted a Republican legislature and that body refused his urgent plea to repeal the code bill, s.nd that expensive form of State government still remains to burden taxpayers. It must again be submitted to the voters of N ebra&ka, and Bryan is again to bear the banner of Democracy pledged to equality before the law, economy in government, and progress in legislation.

I can not, however, leave th.e subject of Governor Bryan's honorable and creditable administration without mentioning a service which he has rendei:ed ·the people of this State somewhat outside of ordinary official duties. He had neither State machinery nor State funds to aid him but be grappled single-handed with the profiteer and forced him to yield. He used the prestige and prominence of his office so vigorously that be saved consumers several million dollars on their coal and gasoline, while reforms in bidding for road construction and in the purchase of materials have saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands more. I Ieav-e to him a more detailed report of his achievements in the interest of economy and good government.

In the interest of good government Governor Bryan should be supported in his coming term by a legislature and a complete list of executive officials who wiU stand by him and our ever-popular secretary of state, Charles W. Pool, in making the Democratic program effective.

N ATIOXAL POLICIES HURT

Now, let me draw your attention to national atl'airs. At once we are struck by the marked contrast. While the State administration for nearly two years has been doing what could be done to alleviate the hardships and improve conditions of the people of this State, the policy of the national administration has been the opposite.

The national policy has been not only adverse to western interests but destructive to western prosperity. It is not by accident or by chance that the prices of western products have been depressed. It ts not by accident or by chance that the West has been compelled to pay higher prices for what it must buy. Western products have been depressed and eastern products raised by governmental action. The result has been a short-livoo and false prosperity in the East and a protracted and serious depression in the West.

Here in the Middle West we may take Nebraska as a representative State. Our people depend on agriculture. and agriculture has been impoverished. The policy of this administration has been to· deflate the credit and depress the prices of agriculture. That was followed by placing on the back of agriculture an enormous burden for the benefit of prirueged milllufacturers. These two policies, both followed by this administration, have threatened the West with bankruptcy while enabling the tarif!-promoted factories to add hundreds of millions to their dividends.

IN THE MIDDLE WEST

Let me be specific. I bave said that the prices of our western products have been depressed. Let me quote figures.

The United States Department of Labor compiles from time to time tabulated statistics of prices. These are wholesale and cover a large number of articles. Brought together and averaged, they go to make up what is designated as an "index number."

This Government publication takes 1913 as a normal year in prices before they were affected by the Great War.

The index number for 1913 on eYery commodity is therefore taken as 100. By the end of 1923, after violent fluctuations in prices, the index number of all commodities taken together was found to be 151. That meant that five years after the war prices on an average were found to be 51 per cent higher than before the war. While that means a mat<>rial increa e in the cost of living, it would in the main be compen ated for by higher wages and salaries and would work no injustice it the increase in prices applied to all products with some degree of

equality. This would naturally have been the case except for Government interference. Because of Government interference we find the grossest inequality. Some prices are far above the price level of 1913 because they have been pushed up by the iniquitous provisions of the Fordney taritr bill. Others are about the same as they were in 1913. In the main our agricultural products in the West are the ones which are about the same as before the war. In the main, also, the products which have been greatly advanced in price are manufactured good.a which are taritr taxed.

In other words, what we in Nebraska most buy bas greatly advanced in price, while the products which we sell have fallen to near the old level before the war. Our hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat, corn, rye, and oats sold, as the index figures for 1923 show, but little above the price level of the year before the war. The same is true of potatoes and poultry, while some of the products, like hogs and hides, even sold below the price level of 1913. Even cattle, which have improved somewhat and make the best showing, have an index number only slightly above the level of 1913.

BUYI~O AT H1GH PRICE

Those are the products we in the West raise and sell. How is it with those w~ must boy? The index number of prices prove that house furnishingS have advanced 89 per cent; fuel, 85 per cent; clothing, 100 per cent. Steel and lumbe1· and cement in proportion.

Agriculture in the West is receiving on an average about 15 pel' cent more for its products than 10 years ago and paying for what it buys 85 per cent more. That's what's the matter not only with the farmer but with the small towns and the larger cities that do business with the farmer. This accounts for the bankruptcy which has swept through the West. It accounts for the closing of 328 western banks within the la.st four months and the foreclosing of thousands of farm mortgages. Agriculture in the West was fairl.Y prosperous, doing business on a fair margin, until its products were depressed down almost to pre-war levels while manufactured goods were maintained 85 per cent above pre-war levels.

When did this gre:1t disparity in price level between what we buy and what we sell oecur? It can not be blamed upon the war, because the price level of agricultural products went up with other price levels as a result of the war. At the time the war closed farm prices were maintained in proportion to other prices. If we in the West had to pay double-price for what we bought, we still received doubleprice for what we sold. The war can not be held resp<>nsible for the present disparity.

DEPRESSING PRICES

Some powerful influences since the war closed, and especially within the past three years, have depressed the prices of those things we must sell and held high the prices of things we bey.

What are those iniluences? The Republican policy of deflation in currency and credits set forth

in the Republican platform of 1920 depressed our prices, combined with the Republican policy of isolation from the rest of the world, which has partly closed our foreign markets for farm products.

On the other hand, the Republican Fordney tariff bill passed two years ago has served to maintain and raise the prices of manufactured products. The disparity in prices thus produced between what we sell and what we buy has impoverished the West to a degree never before known in an equal number of years.

G. 0. P. PROMISES KEPT

Lest we forget the deflation of prices and bank credits which the Republican Party at its convention in June, 1920, pledged itself to undertake, let me quote from the Republican platform of that year, as follows:

"The prime cau,,e 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." • • •

The high cost of living was thus the e:I:cuse for the deliberate attack on the currency and credit of the country. The same plank, after denouncing the Democratic Party for expanding credit and currency, pledged the Republican administration as follows:

"We pledge ourselves to earnest and consistent attack upon the high cost of living • • * . by courageous and intelligent deflation of our overexpanded credit and currency."

This platform proposal made four yea.rs ago to deflate our bank credit and our currency was kept, and the result was a crash in the prices of farm products. The prices of manufactured goods were only slightly atrected. They did not crash. The great combines could maintain prices ; they could reduce production ; they could close tbeil." factories until they could get tue new bigh tariff bill passed, which made high prices for factories easy. That passed nearly two years ago. The high cost of living, therefore, continues, and the farmer and the farming regions remain as the victims not only of deflation but of the robber tariff.

CRASH FOLLOWS POLICY

On the day that the Republican Nntional Convention four years ago proclaimed the intention of the Repu\llican Party to undertake " Cou·

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8455 rageous and intelligent deflation ot our overexpanded credit and currency," the market price of wheat in Omaha was $2.75 -per bushel. In nine months by a rapid collapse it had fallen to $1.40, and now it is about $1. Corn was then selling in Omaha for $1.85 per bushel. Now it sells f-Or 75 cents, or less than one-ha.11. When the attack on currency and credit was proclaimed by the Republican Party four years ago, cattle were selling 1n Omaha for $15 a hundred pounds; now the price is about $11. After years of Republican de1lation of currency and credit, hogs now sell in Omaha for less than $7 a hundred pounds, or just about half what they sold for four years ago.

This has all been done under pretense of reducing the cost of living, but we all know that but little change has occurred in the cost of living in four years.

Untold millions have been squeezed out of the West in the monstrous crash of prices of western products. Other millions have been exacted from the West in exorbitant prices for manufactured products artificially maintained by a tariff enacted at the dictation of the powerful combines of industry. Still other millions have been taken from the West by excessive freight rates.

These facts, for which the Republican Party is admittedly responsible, are the main cause of the bard times and depression which prevail over western food-producing States, notwithstanding bountiful crops.

IG!'\OBE WORLD M.ABKET

The e conditions have no doubt been aggravated by the delay 1n the rehabilitation of Europe. This delay has to a great extent reduced the foreign demand for our farm products. Instead of cooperating with European nations in reestablishing order, peace, and business conditions, we have stood aloof, arrogant 1n om· boasted isolation. Our great merchant marine, built during the war, has been allowed to rust and rot in our harbors, and our surplus products have accumulated in the channels of commerce and been sold at prices not equal even to the cost of production.

Meanwhile million.'3 of the people in Europe, particularly thooe in Germany, have suffered keenly for lack of our products and been compelled to see their children stunted and starving for lack of our food.

So much for the disastrous experience which the West has had with Republican policies for three years. If other parts of the counb:y have fareu better it has been m1ly temporarily. The voracious West is the great consumer of American manufactures a.nd the spoliation of the West has for the present destroyed its purchasmg power. Already the tari.Jr-favored factories and mills of the country are suffering a marked falling off in business. They a.re reducing production. They are discharging men. The day of reckoning is at hand. The railroads are feeling it. Car loadings have fallen of? one-third as compared with a year ago. They are still falling off. Idle ca.rs are multiplying. Commercial failures are increasing. Three yeal'1! ago, when Harding became President, such failures averaged but little more than 100 per week. Now they run about 400 per week. A chill has come over the New York Stock Exchange, and the carefully nurtured boom of last fall has withered away. The great interests that financed the Republican Party and exacted the outrageous tariff are beginning to discover tha.t one part of the country can not long prosper at the expense of another part. They a.re beginning to find out that the plundered consumer soon loses his capacity to buy.

A PARTY FilLl'Rl!l

Everywhere we hear expres ed \be di content and disappointment over Republican administration. The party bas failed to establish prosperity. Fail~d to reduce the cost of living. Failed to ass1ll'e e. foreign market for our farm products. Failed to get back to normalcy. Failed even to gov~rn honestly.

Revelations of shocking graft and corruption in high places and hurried attempts by Republican leaders to discredit and stop investigation have nauseated and enraged the country. No single individual is responsible alone for this condition. The Republican Party must answer for it as an organization.

We depend 1n America on party government, and it has been found the best form of government. It jg better than individual government, which is autocracy, and it is ' better than group government, which is the great evil of European lC'gislative bodies, and which is unstable. When it takes a coalition <>f several parties, with leaders of different groups in a cabinet, as we see in most European governments, we find uncertainty and frequent changes.

In America we have two £Teat party 01'g'UD.izations. The people intrust one or the other with power for a definite period and bold it responsible for i·esults. The Republican Party has now had its chance. Placed in power by th~ election four years ago, it is now staggering through the last months of a discredited administration. It tried to turn our great Governme'nt-owned merchant marine over to the Shipping Trust and to vote G<>vernment subsidies in addition. It fastened on the ce>untry an outrageous tarifr to enrich favored manufacturers 3t the exptlllse of the people. It relieved highly proi;;perouR business enterprises of taxes which should be paid on excessive profit.s. It used

• its power to enrich favored interests or classes, and it put in office men who carried the theory one step further by enriching themselves or their friends by graft and corruption.

DEMAND OJl' A PEOPLE

The Republican Party has become a class party. Its whole party machinery i<J used to promote the interests of privileged classes who finance its campaigns. When it wins they expect to realize on their investment. They at once demand the privileges and rewards. They demand places 1n the Cabinet and elsewhere for the Falls, the Mellons, and the Daugbertys. They demand their subsidies, their tax exemptions, and their high tarift's.

At such times the people turn to the other great party organization for relief and sah·ation-the party founded by Jefferse>n, strengthened by Jackson, developed by Bryan, and glorified by Wilson.

The Democratic Party has ne> favored classes and no privileged inter· ests. Poor in purse. it is rich in principle. Above all else, it teaches and it champions equal .opportunities for all, special privileges for none.

It is for that party that we a.re gathered to-day to organize the Nebraska campaign. We are called upon to do our part in placing this State in line to share in the glories of a great Democratic victory.

ALASKAN FISHERIES

Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President, just before 2 o'clock I said I hoped to be able to bave considered this afternoon the Alaskan fisheries bill, but one or more Senators desired to discuss the measure or some matters connected with it probably for 15 or 20 minutes, and it is so late that I will not try to call the bill up to-night, but I hope to get it up just as soon a.s there is an opening.

RECESS

Mr. WADSWORTH. Mr. President, I assume that while the Senate was considering the several measures which have been acted upon during the la.st half hour the unfinished business was tempoi-arily laid aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It wa.s. Mr. WADS WORTH. With the understanding that it is

again before the Senate, I move that the Senate now stand in recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 15 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until to-morrow. Wedne day, May 14, 1924, at 11 o'clock a. m.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, May 13, 19~4

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

the following prayer :

0 God, our strength in ages past and our hope for years to come, with one accord we offer Tbee our humble gratitude. Give each of us the blessing of a calm and thankful heart. Sustain us by Thy truth, which is so fadeless and pure, and may we never leave our peace of mind and rest of soul to the mercy of events. May all our labors be characterized by strength, firmness, and confidence, and always with t11e deepest concern for our country and good will fO!' all humanity. Through Jesus Ghrist our Lord. Amen. ·

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

URGENT DEFICIEN"CY BILL

?!Ir. MADDEN, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, by direction of that committee presented the bill (H. R. 9192) making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, and for other pul"p()ses, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

CO:N'TESTED ELECTION CASE, GORMAN AGAINST BUCKLEY

Mr. ELLIOTT, chairman of the Committee on Elections No. 3, presented a privileged report from that committee on the election case of Gorman against Buckley, which was referred to the House Calendar.

MESSAGE FROY THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by ~Ir. Welch, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate had passed bills and joint resolution of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House of Representatives was requested:

S. 2159. An act authorizing annual appropriations for the maintenance of that portion of the Gallup-Durango highway across the Navajo Indian Reservation, and providing reimbursement the1·efor ;

8456 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ~fA.Y 13 •

s. 1762 . .An act providing for the acquirement by the United States of pr:imtely owned lands within Taos Coull:ty, N. Mex., known as the Santa Barbara grant, by exchangmg therefor timber or lands and timber, within the exterior boundarie~ of any n~tional forest situated within the State of New Mexico; . S. J. Res. 107. Joint resolution declaring agriculture to be

the basic industry of the country and for other purposes; and s. ~8-18. An act to yalidate an agreement between the Sec·

retar~· of War acting on behalf of the United States and the \\ashington Ga~ Light Co.

The message also announced that the .senate had passed ·without amendment bills of the following titles:

H. n.. 2878. An act to authorize the sale of lands allotted to Indians under the Moses agreement of July 7, 1883;

H. R. 3G84. An act for the enrollment and allotment. of me~ber of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewas in the State of Wi~con~in, and for other purposes;

H. R. 5799. An act conferring juri. diction upon the C~lll't of Claims to hear, examine, adjudicate, and enter judgmen.t m any claim· whicl1 the Seminole Imlian.~ may have agamst the United States, and for other purposes; .

R. R. 1823. An ad for the relief of the Long Island Railroad Co.; d.

H. R. 4161. An act authorizing the Commissioner of In rnn Affairs to acquire neces,_arr rights of way across p~·ivate lands, by purchase or condemnnUon procc>edings, needed m .con~tructing n spillway and <.lrainng:e ditch to lower and mamtam the level of Lake Andes, in South Dakota; and .

H. J. Res. 248. Joint resolution to proyille for the remission of further pnyments of the annual installments of the Chinese indemnity. .

The message also announced that the Senate had passed with arnen<lments the hill (H. R. 7962) to extend for the period of two years the pwdsiom: of Title II of the food control and tl~e District of Columbia rents act, appro,ed October 22, 1919, m whieh the concurrence of the Rouse of RepresentatiYes was re-que:-;ted. . .

The me sage also announced that the Senate hacl 111s1 'ted upon its amendments to the bill (H. R 8350) making appropriations for the Department::: of State and Justice, aud for the juc.lic:iary, and fot· the Department~ of Coi;nmerce and Labor, f?r the fh;;cal year ending June 30, 192.J, and for other purposes, d1sa0Teed to by the Hou e of Representatives, ba<l agreed to the c~nference aslrnd by the House on the disagreeing votes o~ the two Houses thereon, and had a11pointed Mr. Jo~Es of 1\ ashington, l\Ir. Ct,"RTIS, Mr. LODGE, l\fr. OrERUAN, and l\Ir. HARRIS as the conferees on Urn part of the Senate.

SEN.A.Tl-; BILLS AND JOI~T RESOLUTIONS REFERRED

Under clause 2 Rule L~IY, Senate bill~ antl joint resolutions of the followiug titles were taken from the Speaker's table and referred to their appropriate committees as indicated below:

s . .J. Res. 107. Joint resolution declaring agriculture to be the basic industry of the country. and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate aucl Foreign Commerce.

s. 1762. An act pronding for the acquirement by the United States of privately owned lands within Taos County, N. Mex., kno'1"n as the Santa Barbara grant, by exchanging therefor timber, or landi:; ·and timber, within tbe exterior boundaries of anY national forest situated within the State of New l\1exico; to the Committee on Public J~nnds.

s. 2159. An act ::mthorizing- annual a1)propriatious for the maintenance of that portion of Gallup-Durango High-war across t11e Xavajo Inrtian Rei-;er•ation and providing reimbursement therefor ; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

S. 2848. An act to va lidnte nn agreement between the Secretary of War, acting on hehalf of the United States, and the wa~hington Ga N Light Co. ; to the Committee on Public Buildings and Ground,'.

WHAT HAPPB~ED 'l'O THE FAitllERS OF IOWA.

"Jfr. KOPP. l\lr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the IlECORD on " What happened to the farmers of Iowa."

Tlle SPEAKER. Tlle gentleman from Iowa asks unani-mou consent to extend his remark~ in the REcmrn on the sub· ject indicated. Is there objection?

Tbere was no objection. l\Ir. KOPP. -:\Ir. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, as

:rou know Iowa which I in part represent, is an agricultural State. I~ this {·espect it stands out preeminently. Within its four boundarie is the most wonderful body of farm land in all the world. Its black prairies are unsurpassed in richness b-v the valley of the Nile. Its rolling sections produce blue gi·ass not excelled eYen by the famous blue-grass region of

Kentucky. There is not a foot of waste land in the entire State. Many of the States, indeed, have a far greater area, but in agriculture Iowa stands first among them all.

It was my good fortune to be born on a farm. In fact, it was my privilege to be born in a log house; and, looking back. I know of no place where I would rather have been born . Land has always appealed to me, and what little I have been able to save has practically all been invested in farm land. Therefore I know the trials and struggles of the Iowa farmers. Their problems are my problems. Their misfortunes are my misfortunes.

In my time many changes have occurred on Iowa farms. I have seen improved machinery take its place. Well do I recall the old reaper, which simply dropped the grain. I saw that superseded by the self-rake, and then I saw the self-rakEt superseded by the self-binder. I saw the lumber wagon give way as a passenger vehicle to the spring wagon, the spring wagon to the buggy and the carriage, and the buggy and the carriage to the automobile. I have also seen changes in the financial condition of the farmers. Well do I recall the hard times that existed from 1893 to 1897. During those years the prices of farm products were so low that farmers could not sustain their families. Those were the days when in certain sections corn was often burned for fuel. Fortunately, in 1897 times began to improve. Gradually the farmers recovered from the distress which they suffered from 1893 to 1897. For years they made a steady advance. At no time, indeed, did they gain riches, for that was impossible; but they toiled and saved, and by industry, thrift, and economy they gradually acquired modest estates. While thus progressing they built better homes, established better schools, and in many ways added to the comfort, health, and happiness of their families.

During the period to which I have just alluded the farmers of Iowa were contented. Values were settled. Prices were stable. We could look forward with certainty and confidence. We knew that at the end of the year we would have a fair return for our labors. Under the conditions that then existed we bad a square deal and could work out our own salvation.

The farmers of Iowa gained a proud position in the financial world. They were regarded as the best possible risks. It was a common saying that there was no better or safer security than a mortgage upon Iowa land. That was true. In those days the farmers of Iowa promptly paid principal and interest when due. Foreclosures of Iowa farm mortgages were then practically unknown. The farmers of Io·wa then scarcE=ly knew that there was such a thing as a court in bankruptcy.

How different it is to-day ! Foreclosures of farm mortgages are taking place everywhere. Many farmers have been compelled to take refuge in the bankruptcy court. Practically our only real estate agents now are the county sheriffs and tbe trustees in bankruptcy. Thousands of farn:ers have thrown up their hands and, to avoid legal proceedings and complications, have willingly turned everything over to their creditors. Their equities are an entire loss. Their savings have been completely wiped out. Their efforts have all come to naught. Many families that a few years ago were in comfortable circumstances are to-day homeless and helpless. Such a change has far-reaching effects. It means that children will be 1eprived of many opportunities and advantages. It means that parents may not have a serene and contented old age. I personally know many of the people who have been victims of the distre s that has swept over Iowa. Their misfortunes touch me deeply. I sympathize -with every one of them.

What brought about this change in recent years? What happened to the farmers of Iowa? ·

The big interests that had much to do with bringing these culamities upon the farmers of Iowa, in order to hide their own guilt, ha\e loudly proclaimed that the farmers themselves brought on these calamities. I deny this oft-repeated aRsertion of Wall Street. The farmers of Iowa did not cause thei1· own misfortunes. For Wall Street to put the blame upon the farmers themselYes is to add insult to injury.

There are no better people anywhere than the people of Iowa. They are warm-hearted and generous. They are whole souled. They love fueir fellow men. They live just beyond the great Mississippi-" out where the West begins." Well, indeed, did the l)Oet de cribe the people of Iowa when he said:

Out where the handclasp's a little stronger, Out where the smile dwells a little longer, '.fbat's where the West begins. Out where the sun is a little brighter, Where the snows that fall are a trifle whiter. Where the bonds of home are a wee bit tighter, That's where the West begins.

I

192-± , CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8457 The people of Iowa are intelligent-none more so in all the

States of the Union. Iowa has the lowest per cent of illiteracy of all the States. This we regard as our greatest and best achievement. The people on our farms are not behind the people of our cities in intelligence. Go to our farm homes and you will find there the best books and the best magazines. You will find there men and women of culture and refinement I know that tile East has alwa~ys claimed a superior intelligence, but I also know that I am right when I say that, on the Rverage, the farmers of Iowa read more and think more than the residents of any of the g1·eat cities of the East.

Let me briefly trace the misfortunes of the Iowa farmers. Their deplorable condition is due to inflation and deflation. Both are moral and economic crimes. Neither was brought on by the farmers. Let the blame rest where it belongs.

First, as to inflation : As soon as war was declared big business organized for plunder. It proceeded to Washington, and, in some strange and unaccountable way, induced the Government to let it have war contracts on a cost-plus basis. In these contracts the Government agreed to reimburse the contractors for all cost of labor and material, and, in addition, to pay the contractors as their profit a per cent of the cost. Thus, the more the cost the more the profit to the contractors. It was, therefore, to the interest of the contractors to make everything cost the Government the greatest possible amount. Prices mounted higher and higher. This was inevitable. False values were established in order that contractors might make enormous profits at the expense of the Government. Instead of paying the lowest possible price, the Government paid the highest possible price. Instead of following sound economic law, the Government put itself at the mercy of the big interests.

No ·wonder that the war cost such a vast sum. No wonder tllat ~3,000 new millionaires were created dunng the war. If tlle business of the country were conducted. upon such a basis now, in less than six months the country would blow up. In order to make such profiteering impossible in the future it has been strongly urged that in the next war money as well as men should be conscripted. I am in hearty accord with this movement, but I fear that if we succeed in passing such a law n0w it will be repealed as soon as we get into another war. You may depend upon it that as soon as another war begins big business will again organize for plunder. The.big pi:ofileers will pose as superpatriots, and while waving the flag will declare that the repeal of the law is necessary " in order to win the war." If another war comes, the big interests will make every effort to rob the .American Government and the American people, just as they robbed them in the last war.

The cost-plus contracts were only one way in which the Government inflated the country during the war. There were many others.

What was the rellult of inflation? All values were unsettled. All adjustments that had been worked out by time among the different interests and industries were unW:>ne. No one knew what anything was really worth, and nearly everyone was trying to get :fictitious prices for whatever he had to sell. Everywhere, on the streets, in the offices, in the stores, and in the banks, in fact, wherever men congregated it was stated that we had reached a new price level, and it was quite generally believed that this new price level would be permanent.

Notwithstanding the general belief that the new price level had come to stay, the farmers of Iowa were cautious. From the time the World War commenced until tbe armistice was signed Iowa land scarcely advanced 10 per cent The farmers of Iowa instinctively felt that as soon as the armistice was signed deflation would begin. Hence there was but little activity in real estate during the war. Had deflation been begun by the Government through the Federal reserve bank at the time the armistice was signed Iowa would not have been overtaken by such an awful catastrophe. The Government, however, kept up its inflation policy. The Federal Reserve Board encouraged it. Bnt the farmers of Iowa still l1esitated to believe that the new price level would be permanent. _This hesitation continued for six months after the armistice. Finally, seeing that the Government itself was still keeping up inflation, and- also seeing that the Federal reseITe bank was still concurring in that policy, the farmers finally concluded that the new price level had come to stay. Then, very naturally, land began to advance toward the new price level.

The boom followed and lasted until about July, 1920, a little o"'er a year. Land doubled in price, the best corn land going from $225 an acre to $450 an acre. That boom was the worst thing that e\er happened to Iown. Let it be clearly remembered, however, that the boom was not brought on by the

farmers. They were the victims of it. and not the cause of it. Farmers can not create a boom in real estate. Booms result from conditions over which the farmers have no control. In this case the boom was the direct result of the inflation policy of the Government, which no doubt found its iuspiration in the war profiteers of Wall Street. If farmers could start a boom in farm land, they certainly would start one now. The boom lasted as long as the Government continued its inflation policy. When in the summer of 1920, the administration, through the Federal Reserve Board, deflated Iowa farmers, the land boom broke, and left behind a trail of ruin and disaster.

The first crime was inflation, which is ne\er excusable in a Government that is solTent and has unimpaired credit, and which is just as certain to bring its penalties as is the violation of a law of nature. The second crime was the sudden, arbitrary, and brutal deflation of the Iowa farmers in the summer of 1920 by the Federal Reserve Board. I am fully aware that the Federal Reserve Board denies that it committed such a crime. Such a denial need occasion DO surprise. ~Iany a defendant in our courts has pleaded not guilty, and yet llas been promptly convicted by a "jury after a fair and impartial trial. Whatever the Federal ReserTe Board may say or claim about it, tlle fact remains that it struck the farmers of Iowa a fatal blow. For the board to deny it and to assume that it can make us believe such a denial is no compliment to our1

intelligence. The farmers of Iowa can not be decei"ved even by the able and skilled defenders of the Federal Reserve Board. The farmers of Iowa know who struck the blow.

I would not abolish the Federal r~serve Board. It sen·es some good and useful purposes. In order to function, such a board must necessarily ha-re large powers and wide discretion. When the Federal Reserve Board. was established, it was taken for granted that such powers and discretion would be exercised wisely and justly. Unfortunately, that was not the case when the board deflated the farmers in 1920. The board at that time followed the wishes and directions of Wall Street. It was a cold-blooded and heartless h·ansaction. It was secretly arranged. The big interests of the country knew what was coming, but the farmers were led, like sheep, to the slaughter. It may, indeed, be true that the members of the board thought that they were doing the right thing. It is characteristic of men who have been associated with, and ha-ve served the money powers to think in terms of money. Such men often haYe perverted views of life. But, even if the members of the board thougllt it was right to ruin the farmers, that did not make it · so. In fact, it was a monstrous crime.

The local banks were in DO way to blame for the deflation. .l\Iany of them protested vigorously against the policy of the Federal Reserve Board, but they were ilelpless. They had no power and could not do anything. .A.s a matter of fact, the Iowa banks themselves became victims of the <leflation policy of the Federal Reserre Board. When the farmers lo'5t, the ban.ks lost also. Many banks in the agricultural sections were closed. Many others had their surplus greatly impaired. For many it will take years to get back where they were before deflation set in. I know whereof I speak when I say that the Iowa bankers stood by the farmers nobly and heroically. Credit to whom credit is due. There may have been some exceptions. but exceptions only prove the rule. In the misfortunes that swept over Iowa the bankers had their full share of grief. Their troubled days were many, and their sleepless nights were not few. The Iowa bankers as a class are entitled to the highest praise.

Bnt, it may be asked, Of what use is it to criticize the Federal Reserve Board after the damage ha'} been done and after it can not be undone? In answer to such a question, I say that public criticism may prevent a recurrence of such a crime in the futll.re. When men know that they will be called before the bar of public opinion, they sometimes hesitate to do an unconscionable thing. Let us not submit without a protest. Besides, the history of that critical time should not be forgotten.

We have been told again and again that only speculators in farm land were hurt. If this were true, it would not be a good defense of the Federal Reserve Board, for even speculators in land are entitled to fair treatment But speculators were not the only ones that were hurt By no means. They constituted but a small fraction of the injured parties. Many men and women, who had struggled. and toiled for years. invested their savings in a farm, which they hoped to make a permanent borne, and lost eYerything. It is a sad, sad story. My heart goes out to every one of these people. The big in..i terests that deceived them by wrongful and unjust policies now ridicule tbese unfortunate people because they permitted themselves to be deceived. Was there ever greater ouh·age?

8458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE :MAY 13

After these years of hardship, what is the condition of the exported and which must be sold in the markets of the world, Iowa farmer to-day? Everything is upon a new price level depresses our domestic prices. Eventually there will be no except the products of the farm. The farmers are compelled surplus of farm products in this country. T11at will be brought to buy on a lligh-price level and are compelled to sell on a low· about by the increase in population. We are increasing now at price level. Under these conditions the farmers do not have a the rate of more than a mlllion a year. There may be some fair chance. They are handicapped in the race to begin with. increase in our production, but the increase in production will !No wonder many of them have left the farm. No wonder that not keep pace with the increase in population. In the course more are constantly leaving. of time, therefore, our population .will consume all of our farm

Permit me to revert for just a moment to the claim that products. However, if we rely upon the increase in populathe farmers should have known that a new price level would tion to dispose of the surplus it will take considerable time-not be maintained for farm products. Are they to blame for perhaps 10 years or more-for the farmers to come fully into being mistaken as to this when, in fact, a new price level their own again. has been maintained for all other products? How could they The farmers do not want to wait years for relief. They need know that farm protlucts would be an exception? it now. Immediate relief, however, can not be given unless · Naturally, people wonder why the unfortunate condition of some method is found for disposing of our surplus without de·

our farmers has not been remedied by legislation. I wish it pressing our domestic prices. Therefore we are confronted were possible to con·ect and cure all evils by legislation. Un- with this important question: Can we devise some way in fortunately, such is not the case. Many things when once which we can dispose of our surplus farm products abroad in done can not be undone. If a man has his hand cut off, no sur- a low market and at the same time create and maintain subgeon, however skilled, can put it back on. From some diseases stantially higher prices on our farm products at home? That

: a recovery is impossible, even if the most eminent physicians question has been engrossing the attention of Congress during are in attendance. Many efforts were made to aid farmers by this session. For months that question has been paramount in legislation in the last Congress. Farm organizations were in- the mind of every friend of the farmer. vited, and even urged, to suggest remedies, and every bill that .All of the big interests of the country deny that thls can be

1 had their approval was passed. I was glad to vote for all of done. However, practically all of them are doing that very these measures. Undoubtedly some benefit resulted from this thing in their own lines of business. They sell their surplus legislation. at a low price in Europe but maintain a high price for their

Legislation during the last Congress improved the credit products in America. When they say that a farmer can not facilities of the farmers, and now, in Iowa at least, there is no do the same thing, the wish is father to the thought. They complaint on that score. The fact is, and this fact we should want farm products to remain cheap in America. recognize, that men are often given too much credit. This is The big interests, nevertheless, claim to have a deep concern

·fully as disastrous as too little credit. When a bank makes in us and are offering us much advice. The other day Julius too large a loan to a man it injures the man quite as much as H. Barnes, president of the United States Chamber of Comit does itself. It is not uncommon for people to criticize banks merce, suggested that the way-<>r, at least, one of the waysfor not making them larger loans. In most cases they should to make the farmers prosperous was to reduce the taxes on thank the banks for restricting their credit. Borrowed money the rich. According to men like· Barnes we shall have a new must be repaid, and the larger the loan, in proportion to the as- earth and, perhaps, even a new heaven when the rich get sets. the more difficult to make repayment. To-day in Iowa the their taxes reduced. Men of the Barnes type are always comfarmers are not suffering for lack of ·credit. The local banks plaining about the taxes of the rich, but have never a word are willingly and adequately taking care of their needs. Im- about the taxes of the poor. Judging him by the advice he has mediately following deflation, money could not be secured upon given us, I think l\1r. Barues bas about as much sympathy for any terms. That condition, fortunately, has entirely disap- the farmers as an iceberg has for a wrecked ship. l\Ir. Barnes's pearecl. attitude i-ecalls a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.

The problem that remains is how to raise the level of prices which, with evident satisfaction, compared the farme1·s to oxen for farm products to the general level of prices. This is a hard pulling a heavy load up hill. problem, and thus far has baffled solution. Different methods have been suggested for bringing about t110

We have been told by those whose interests are adverse to desired result. These suggestions have been embodied in ours that we should not try to raise p1ices by arbitrary means; various bills, which are now pending in the House and Senate. that, in fact, it would be w1·ong to do so; and that we should The best known of these is the McNary-Haugen bill It rebe content to submit to the law of supply and demand. If the ceived this name because· it was introduced in the Senate by law of supply and demand were really functioning throughout Senator McNARY, of Oregon, and in the House by Congressma.n the whole economic world, I would be willing to take our HAUGEN, of Iowa. Congressman HAUGEN is the dean of the chances with the rest, but the law of supply and demand has Iowa delegation. He is now serving his thirteenth consacutiYe

1 been largely suspended. In nearly all lines, aside from agricul- term in Congress and is chairman of the great Committee on ture, it is to-day practically inoperative. Prices outside of the Agriculture. All know that he is one of the most useful. agricultural industry are very largely fixed by agreement and capable, and conscientious men in Congress. not by the law of supply and demand. The farmers, therefore, By way of opposition it has been stated that any biil that while submitting to the law of supply and demand, are at a may be passed for the purpose of marketing our surplus farm very serious disadvantage. products in the foreign market in the manner indicated alfove

It has been proposed that the farmers, when prices are too will be in the nature of an experiment. This I readily admit, low, shall reduce the output and thus, following the methods but I do not admit that this is a valid argument against such of manufacturers, force up the prices. This is more easily a bill. Experiments have meant much to the world. Most of said than done. This proposal sounds very well, but the diffi- our advancement and progress has been due to experiments.

, culties in the way make it impossible of execution. Manufac- I am not afraid of a new thing simply because it is new. turers are very limited in number, while the farmers number I also readily admit that all legislation, whether along old many millions. The greater the number the harder it is to act lines or along new lines, should be sound. That is not only together. Besides, a manufacturer can shut down his factory important but vital. The farmers do not want an unsound and practically stop his expense, but the farmer can not close remedy. They know that such a remedy instead of making down his farm. He must keep on farming or the farm will go the situation better would only make it worse. The wrong to rack and ruin. It has also been proposed that the farmers medicine will not restore a sick man to health. It will only shall all unite and, by universal agreement among themselves, aggravate his condition; an<i the sicker the man the more

·fix the price of farm products, regardless of the supply on hand. danger in administering the wrong medicine. You may be 1 This also is impossible. Not enough farmers will join such assured that the farmers do not want to take a false step. an organization to make it a success. Possibly at some time They well know that they themselves would be th~ worst in the future the farm organizations may be so complete, com- sufferers from such a course.

lprehensive, and effective that they can reduce the output or Perhaps no bill can be drawn that will give full relief to )fix the price of farm products, regardless of the supply, by the farmers. Perhaps the prevailing conditions can not be their own power, but they are not able to do that at this time. wholly cured by legislation. I concede that no one can speak Otl1er plans equally difficl!lt have been proposed without avail. with absolute certainty on this subject. But, notwithstanding Wl1at, then, can be done? the doubts that may exist, let us make an effort. Let us do

There are certain forces in operation that in time will prob- our best to lift the farmers out of the slough of despond in ably put prices of farm products on a parity with other prlces.

1

which they now find themselves. !Rt us not betray our trust. If we produced less than the demand in our own conn. try, prices Under existing conditions indifference and inaction would be undoubtedly would go up. The national surplus, which must be a crim~.

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8459 It is not my purpose at this time to make an argument for

or against any particular bill. What I now want to empha· si.Ze is the need of speedy action. I want to urge that at the earliest possible date an opportunity be given to consider farm relief in the House. The time is getting short. It has been proposed that Congress shall adjourn within a few weeks. We can not leave here until we have done justice to the farmers of the country. I also want to urge a spirit of unity among the friends of the farmers. We must not defeat ourselves by unnecessary division. For one, I stand ready to vote for any and all bills that in any sane way promise relief to the farmers.

'lfbe Representatives of the people in Congress, who are charged with legislation, must bear in mind that agriculture is the basic indusn·y of the world. It preceded all other industries and 1t will survive to the end of time. Many of the representatives of the cities do not seem to understand this. Let me warn the cities that they can not be permanently prosperous unless the farmers become prosperous also. In the long run, we must either all go up together or all go down together.

Wall Street bas indulged in much criticism of the farmers of Iowa during the past few years. It has denounced them as radicals and BCllsheviks. Again and again it has callro them socialists. In uebalf of my people I resent these folil and baseless 'slanders. Why, if our institutions ever become endangered, which God forbid, the farmers of Iowa will be found among the last defenders of the Constitution. Talk about socialist~! Why, you can not find a socialist on the farms of Iowa. The farmers of my State have thus been maligned and vilified slmply because they have resented and have protested against the injustice that bas been done them. The gamblers of Wall Street, · who find so much fault with the farmers of Iowa, should come out and meet them face to face. It would be a great education for these Wall Street gamhlers to get acquainted with the farmers of Iowa. It would do them good. It would give them a better outlook on life. There are no millionaires among our farmers. The people who live on the farms are honest and God-fearing men and women. Their prayer is that tbey be given neither riches nor poverty. There are no social castes among the farmers. No one looks down Upon his neighbors. No one thinks himself too important to gh·e <'Ordial recognition to all with whom he comes in contact. On the farms the people recognize that, though a man be poor and unfortunate, be is nevertheless, in the language of Hobert Burns, "a man for a' that." I want to pay tribute to the women on the farms. They lead useful and busy lives. They find their joy in service-service in the home, service in the church, service in the community. They do not, like so mnny of the rich women of the large cities. waste their belllth and strength in chasing after selfish and foolish pleasures.

In tbe large cities you constantly speak of your criminal class. Such a class is wholly unknown on the farms of Iowa. No police officers are needed there. In many townships in my district not a single crime, not even a misdemeanor, has been committed for many years Nowhere in all tlle world can you find better people, better communities, better institutions, and less crime than on the farms of Iowa.

Before concluding, let me speak a word of hope. A better day wiU surely come for the farmers of Iowa. Such land and such people can not permanently be held down. Our recovery may be hastened or retarded, but 1t will come as certainly aa day follows night.

Iowa is not envious of any other State. Her good will goes out to all In her youth one of her distinguished sons uttered these noble words, " Iowa, the af!eetions of her people, like the rivers of her borders, flow to an inseparable union." In abbreviated fotm this sentiment was inscribed on the Iowa stone in the Washington Monument at the National Capital. We love all the States, but naturally and properly, like dutiful and grateful chiluren, we love Iowa the best. The State song of Iowa, written by Major Byers, who was one of the boys in blue and who marched with Sherman· to the sea, well expresses the universal feeling of our people:

You ask what land I love the bestIowa, 'tis Iowa,

The fairest State of all the West, Iowa, 0 Iowa !

From yonder Mississippi's stream To ~·here .Missouri's waters gleam, 0 fair it is as poet's d1·eam,

Iowa. in Iowa.

THE BALL RENT ACT

Mr. LAl\.IPERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H. R. 796:!, the Ball Rent Act, disagree to the Senate amendments, and ask for a conference.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin asks unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Ball Rent Act, disagree to the Senate amendments, and ask for a conference. Is there objection?

Mr. BLANTON. I object. EX'l'ENSION OF REMARKS

l\lr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous·consent to extend my remarks in the REcoRD by inserting a speech I made in Brooklyn.

The SPEAKER. Th~ gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Is there objection?

Mr. LONGWORTH. What is it? Mr. LINDSAY. It is a speech that I made in Brooklyn. Mr. LONGWORTH. I have no objection. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? '1,here was no objection.

FREEDOM OF CQNSCIENCE

l\lr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, no words of mine can sufficiently emphasize the seriousness of the principle concerning which I am about to speak. I ask the indulgence of the House for the time allotted me on this subject. My poor ability at best is unequal to my theme, therefore I hope I shall not be asked to yield during my brief discourse. Thoughts of freedom of conscience have occupied the minds o.f all great men in proportion, it would seem, to their sen-ice in behalf of their fellow men and all posterity. So it is not surprising that the principle of religious freedom has been affirmed in varying expressions by such typical Americans as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Woodrow Wilson. · I am choosing these illustrious names at random. Were a 'complete list of all such expressions attempted, I beliffre it would include every patriot on the immortal roster of ti.Lis great country.

In those stirring days of the American revolution the Jew~ gave their loyalty and cast their fortunes with the strugglin~ young Republic. Witness the address of George Washington to the Hebrew congregation of Newport in 1790.

I shall not read it in its entirety, but I commend it to your future study. In part, the glorious Washington wrote:

All possess alike, liberty of conscience and immunities <>! citizen.·hip. • • • For happily the Government of the United States, whicb gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, shall demean themselves a!l good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while e>eryone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

The same principle is voiced on many othe1· occasions. In the course of discus.sing the Declaration of Independence, hear great Washington say again:

Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountablPalone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his conscience.

I ask your accord, gentlemen, with the words and spirit of George Washington. Comparei his utterance with the propa. ganda of the hooded horde which seeks to set up standards of intolerance and religious disc1imination contrary to the belie!' of the noblest character in our history, and profan~s the sacre1l name of patriotism with religious persecution.

Thomas Jefferson, that incomparable and Yersatile genius to whom I turn for guidance in matters political, on A.pril 21. 1803, sent to his friend Dr. Benjamin Rush certain manuscript. on which he had been at work for his private pleasure an<l conviction. These hall for their purpose a comparison of · the doctrines of Jesus witb the u1oraI precepts of the ancient philosophers.

I only wish to refer at tllis time to the personal letter or Thomas Jefferson which accompanied the manuscript.

In confiding this to yon

Writes Jefferson-! know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions or those who make every word from me a text for ll.f' \v misrepresl'ntations and calumnies. I am, moreover, a nr:re to l11c comm uni.ca·

8460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ~IAY 13\ tion of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquest over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly prescribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of othet.s, or their case may; by change of circumstances, become his.

What wisdom, my colleagues, is contained in that last sen· tence ! I feel it will bear repetition in italics:

It behooves ever11 man. toho values libert11 of conscience- for himself to resist invasions of it in the case of other8, or their case may, by change of c·ircuJJ~stances, beco111.e his.

These words of Jefferson are as inspired as any he ever penned or spoke. How the glow of truth remains undimmed by time! Age can not inar, nor time efface, sincerity; and truth is eternal, a safe guide in any situation wherewith men or na· tions may be confronted. In mutters of principle, that which is true is forever true.

Remember, gentleman of the House, my previous quotation is from that patriot who wrote the Declaration of Independence; he who as President of our infant Republic added the great western empire included in the Louisiana Purchase. This is the early father who succeeded the illustrious Franklin as minister to France-Jefferson-whose contribution to civiliza· tion and the growth of the United States is immeasurable. the builder ·of Monticello, the founder of a great university, the colleague of those whose very life and soul entered into the erection of this. our Government. This is the man woo succeeded Patrick Henry in the Virginia Legislature, and took. up his predecessor's glorious cry, "Give. me liberty, or give me death.I"

Forgive me, gentlemen, if I recall old glories. I" do so not without reason, for of all Jefferson's accomplishments, one stands out as epochal in the history of the world. And it was this that brought a spontaneous glow to his great human heart. While seITing as minister to France in 1785 he was brought word that the Virginia Legislatu.r€ had adopted the " act for religious freedom " which he had introduced while serving as a member of that body. This was the first statute of religious

· freedom that had ever adorned the world. Jefferson was greatly pleased with the passage of this act. Copies were printed in French and Italian and distributed throughout Eu· rope. These were received with rapture by the French liberals, especially Lafayette, and acclaimed, as Jefferson says :

Not at the courts, but by the people everywhere.

May I offer for your consideration th.e Americmiism, the patriotism., the wisdom and understanding of Thomas Jefferson? I bow my head in humble admission of my inconsequence when I realize that I am to-day addressing the great Congress of the United States on a subject which. merited the consideration of such a man.

Gentlemen, there is abroad in our land to-day an organized movement' to deprive our fellow men of liberty of conscience in religion. Were I gifted with great eloquence, and though I possessed. the divine fire of oratory, still would I approach this subject with reluctance. I consider it my duty to speak that the right to individual freedom of conscience shall not perish so long as this Government continues to function. I never thought the day would come when it would be necessary for a l\lember of the Congress t-f the United States to arise in defense of religious freedom for any inhabitant of this country. The right to such freedom is called inalienable in the Declaration of Independence itself. It is reaffirmed 1n the amendments included in the Bill of Rights. And now, 138 years after the passage of Virginia's act for religious freedom, there is a spirit of religious intolerance and bigotry being developed by de. liberate methods to an evil end.

Men who are in some instances unscrupulous, in others thought· less or ignorant, are spreadiqg the hideous propaganda and injecting religious issues in Government affairs. And yet, so malevolent is their purpose, so fraught with danger are the consequences of linking religion and government, that I cannot even say-

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Indeed, a. group of men who can countenance physical assault by a mob upon any individual, men who dare presume to invade by act or word the sacred precincts of a man's private con· science, men who invite the maelstrom of hate and suspicion wbkh surely will attend a continuance of the methods of the Ku-Klux Klan, know not only what they do but. why they do it.

Emboldened by being tolerated, this organization admittedly seeks to gain control of this Government, Indeed, mere adher-

ence to the prescribed religious creed is not enough-member- l ship in the klan is the standard by; which a candidate's fitness for office is determined Already I have been branded the ~ tool of some mighty, secret, sinister, religious power. Gentlemen, my religious beliefs are as little the concern of the public as are my preferroces in diet. I have never consciously violated a single right of the lowliest of my fellow men. That, I take it, is the measure by which a man is best judged. I am proud of my country, my State, and my constituency, and in my list of friends I count hosts of men and women <>f every religious belief, and some with none, I dare say. Perhaps these, too, will find favor on judgment day. Catholic1 Protestrurt, and Jew you will find numbered among the dead in Flanders. In the great State of New York, an empire in itself, you will find examples of patriotism equal to any. That State contains 10,000,000 people, of every kind and shade of religious belief.

I can not avoid the conclusion that some wise Providence j placed at our hands an argument for every righteous plea. I am thinking of Lord Baltimore and his Catholic colony in I Maryland, the Puritan elders in New England, far from Catho· lie, yet not tolerant of Roger Williams, who must settle in I Rhode Island. Then the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and all those elsewhere who endured the stormy seas and winter in j' a strange land rather than compromise on matters of conscience.

Lest there be :i romantic misconception that the klan is the. descendent of the old klan of the South, may I remind you that 1

Thomas Dixon, author of the "Klansman," which invested re- j construction days with an air of romance, has entirely abjured the Ku· Klux ~'1an of' to-day. Again, on this stibject, my col- ' leagues of the South, when you p:iuse to admire in reverence the noble group in stone that will adorn the face of Stone Moun- · tain as an eternal monument to the old South's regard for those who gave their all that freedom of conscience b.e theirs in civil ' matters, perhaps you will in fancy see the spirit of Father Ryant ! a Catholic priest of Geurgia, and Theodore O'Hara, of Kentucky, hovering over your beloved leaders. For these were your own poets laureate in the secession days, and every line they wrote breathes Joye of country.

How dare anyone raise a religious issue in this country I When did the recent consciousness of religions difference begin? For years I have been intimately associated with men whose creed is still unknown to me, so little does it matter. I have sat at table with some whose ways in such things were not mine. I have clasped hands with others whose path was along differ· ent ways, perhaps, but I dare say we all are bound for the same place, though we go by difl'erent roads. Never has a difference of religious practice made any difference in our associations. How can any man be so absurd as to s1uTender his intelligence to such ridiculous ideas as are advocated by the klan? Let us free our.country from such undignified mummery. r am snre the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are a Letter guarantee of happiness than the tar pot and feather pillow. Life liberty, and the pursuit of · happiness are more precious ' thru{ klans, kleagles, and klonciliums.

It is hard to resist the impulse to laugh at the spectacle ot• grown men in nightshirts and nightcaps, but these men are I dangerous. Loss of the senBe of humor is characteristic of loss of mental balance. And these hordes of misguided men, 1

at the order of a few self ·constituted authorities, are a menace. 1

Out of their mouths, when they accuse others of plots and treason, their perfidy is revealed, for " as a man thinketh in his heart so is he." Tlley attribute to others the very desire that j secretly possesses their own hearts. Not so much is their

1 danger in direct action, but the spread of the intolerance idea is dangerous. Where men bef<>re were unconscious of religious differences and mingled in good fellowship there will be- a bar- 1

rier raised, on trifles, it is true, but hatred will replace- the1

1

congeniality of citizenship we long have known. The most bitter wars of long ago were religious wars ; the saddest con- I fiicts of history have been internal civil wars. We must not fail to stamp out the smallest spark that might advance a l great destroying fire.

This Nation was born out of our rebellion against the po· litical tyranny of a king. Shall it be said that in our land we tolerate the religious tyranny of a klan?

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I have tried to show the great importance of the situation that is being brought about-1

a most unwarranted, unjustified, and un-American conspiracY.1 by large numbers, whose organized strength is said to be far· 1 reaching. I consider it my duty to ask your consideration of these things and to invite ·your assistance in destroying this menace. The klan would lik~ you to believe that the ancient fraternity of 1\fasons is in sympathy and identified with its activities. But this is not so. It has been officially repudi· ated and .was personally denied by so eminent a :Mason as

1924 CO.i."'"GRESSIOX.AL RECORD--HOUSE 8461 the distingui8hetl Senator from Alnbama. Likewi:;;e the Blks offidally disapprove of the klan.

In Kew York Cit~· a erie:- of in:->tructiYe and inspiring lectures werP heltl under tbe arrangement of the Masonic order. With a high 1\lasonir official of'cupying the_ chair, a prominent Catholic prie:->t, a di.'timrnished Prote~tant clergyman, and a learned Hebrew rabbi were invited to speak ea,·h alternate week. This is an inspiring example of the brotherhood of man anrt. a practical illush·ation of the freedom of C"onscience guaranteed our people. In national cu11vention the American Legion refused indor~ement of the klan program. I refer to these facts becau ·e in at least one publication devoted to klan matters an attempt is made to rreate the impres8ion that these fraternities are in cooperation with the klan, find there is absolutely no justification in fact for such an impre~sion.

Le"''t you he iuclinecl to belittle the ~ eriousness of these condition·, let me remind you that alreitdy many municipal and State offices have been obtained by men who were avowed candidate of the klan in certain sections of this countrv. A governor WR· e1ecte<1 and Inter removetl, and it iM said a c~rtain Senn.tor holds his seat by dispensation of tlle soYereigns of this in Yi. 'ihle empire. I hove it mUJ' nut u .. for want of proper consideration that ·erious consequences will outgrow the activities of a secret, ambitious, and la'l'de;:;s organization. An<l because it is the Ku-Klux Klan this time, the Know-Nothings last time, and the Kno\Y-lt-Alls next time I lrnye drawn a bill, "tile antiintolerance act." which is now in committee. I hR"re been most careful in drawing this bill, ·o that it .. ·hall apply only to cases whel'e the circurn .. tance are ~uch a I have spoken on. Xo indhidual, no secret fraternity. and no publication is prerented from conducting its affairs as it may choose ·u long as it does not \·iolate our Constitution and our Bill of Ilig-hts.

The Government of the Unitetl StateR is till strong enough to guarantee tlle rights and to enforee rNll)eet for those rights of e\·ery citizt-n. Remember that Wn;-;Jiin~on in bis letter to the Jews of Newport not only expre:sPd hi:-; ~trong desire tllat ever,\' citizen should enjoy religion:-. lilwrt~· accor,ling to his indiYillual cnnsdence, but he added the important phrase, "and shoulcl he protected in worshiping Holl aceor<ling ro the die-· tates of his conReience." I am asking ;mu. my colleagues. to give ear to the wor<ls of '"<:!. hingtvn-·: shoulU be protected"and as it is the function of govemment to protect, I am sure you will support this anti-illtoleranl'e l>ill nt the proper time.

What I have said here will be :-:oon forgotten : but listen to Him who said :

Hf'tlven and earth hall paiss away, but my word:! shall not pass away.

And now, klamm1en ernr:nvhere, lieiu· thi:-: in reYerence and a we. Bow your head · and stay yom h<m<ls, for the ::\lan of Mercy has said :

Love ye one a110ther, ior that is all the law antl the prophets.

And though His hand bolds no laver·.;; wllip nor tortmer's fire, yet must HL Wor~ prevail.

Love ye one another and dwell in peace--

SO saith the Law of God and the law of the United States. MESSAGF. FROU THE SF.XATE

A message from the Senate, by 1\lr. ''raven, its Cllief Clerk, announcing that the Senate had in b1ted upon its nmendments to the hill (H. R. 6715) to reduce and equalize taxation. to provide revenue, and for other imrposes, ,usagreed to by the House of Representatives, ha<l agreed to the conferenc.:e asked b:v the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Hou ·es tllere01;, and had appointed ::\!r. s~ooT, l\Ir. Mc.LEA.', Mr. f'L-RTIS, Mr. SnrMONs, and l\fr JONE' of_ rew Mexico a~ the co11ferees on the part of tl1e Senate.

PURCHASE OF THE CAPE L'VD CXX.:i.L

·· Mr. S~TEJ,L. ~Ir. Speaker, I call up a r•riYilet::ecl report froru the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 27 '.

Tlle Ulerk read as follows: House Re<iolntion :!7

Resolved, That upon the adoption -0i this re olution it shall be in ordf'r to move that the House resolve it.self into the Committee of the Whole House on tbe state of the Uni-On for the consideration· of II. R. 3933, for the purchase of the Cape Cod Canal property, and for other purposes. That after general debate, whfrh hall be confined to the bill and Rhall continue not to exceed three houra, to be equally dl\ided and controlled by tho.:::e favoring and opposing the bill. the 1.Jill shall be read for :imrndmeut nncler the fi>e-minute ru!P. At the c-onc1nF:ion of the reading of the bill for amendment the cowmi.ttee sball arise ancl report

the bill to the Ilouse with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be consider·ed as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage ·without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

~Ir. S:NELL. l\1r. Speaker, this resolution provides for the considerntion of the bill H. R. 3933, which is to approve a contract entered into by the Secl'etary of War with the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co. for the purchase of the Cape Cod Canal in accordance with a preT'ious act of Congress. This resolution, if adopted, pron.des for three hours general debate, and after that the bill to be considered under the general rules of the House. . In discussing this canal-purchase proposition I am not going mto an extended argument in regard to the adrnntages from a humanitarian standpoint, from the standpoint of the great commerce along the coast, nor discuss its importance as a connecting link in the intercoastal water system, nor shall I speak of it from the standpoint of national defense. But I am going to talk for a few moments to shO'f rou the exact law and what the real status of this contract for the purchase of the canal is at the present time, and show that the Secretary of War in presenting this contract to the House for its consideration at tht~ time is following the exact direction and in h·uction of Congress itRel f. The Secretary of War is doing exactly what Congl'e s told him to do. ·

In the first place, in the narnl bill passed in 1916, the Secretary of tl1e ~m-r was authorized to get information in regard to this can~l. but the first. definite act as far as Congress is concerned was on August 8, 1917, when the river and harbor bill beeame law. It carries this provision:

It directed the Secretaries of War, Navy, and Commerce to investigate the Cape Cod Canal with a view of its acquisition by the Government as a toll-free canal, and authorized the Secretary of War to negotiate for the purchase of the vroi)erty at a sati~fartor~' price and enter into a contract for the purchase. subject to the ratification and appropriation by Congres .

It proyided further that if he could not do that, then, throufrh the Department of Justire. to institute and carry to completion proceedings for condemnation.

That was the first definite start toward the purchase of the caual. The Federal Government made tlle start and definitely directed the Secretaries of War, Commerce, and Navy to ve;._ form certi:"tln specifie acts in regard to this canal. It is the completion of this nc.:t that we haYe before u~ ut the pre8ent time.

Mr. ~1cKEOWN. Will the gentleman yield? ~Ir. Si\TELL. ~ot just yet; I want to follow this do'''n

through to tµe pre.'ent time and tlleu I will be glad to yield. The United States Army engineers made a definite report tlmt the canal was wortll $10,000.000 on July 3, 1918, and on July 25, 1918, by spec.:ial proclamation by President Wilson, the canal was taken over by tlle Go-rernment.

Mr. FREAR. Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me thi · is an important question and deserves a better audience, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. ·

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the point of order that there is no quorum present. It i~ cle.ar there is no quorum present.

:\Ir. Sl\"'ELL. Mr. Speaker. I moYe a call of the House. A ca 11 of tbe House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the following :Members failed

to ~m.:;wer to their names: And('rson Ilacbaracb Bankhead Boies Burdick Byrnef<. S. C. Canfiehl Clark, Fla. Cole, Ohio Collins Connolly, Pa. Corning Croll ('urry Doyle Drane Eaga.n Edmon<ls Funk Uarrett, Tex. Ge ran Gibso11 Gilbert Goldsborough

Griffin Harrison Howard, Okla. Huddleston Hull. Tenn. Hull, Morton D. Hull. William E. Johnson, Ry. Kahn Kelly Kiess Kincheloe Kurtz Kvale Langl~y Larson, :.Uinn. Leatllerwoou Lehlbach Linthicum McKenzie hlc~ulty 11agee, Pa. "ManlovE' Miller, Ill.

Montague Moore, Ohio Moores, Ind. .Morin :Morris Mudtl ::\lurphy O'Brien O'Connell, N. Y. O'Sullirnn Park. Ga. Peavey Perkins Ilainey Hansley need. W. Va. Robinson, Iowa Rogers, N. H. Iloflenbloom Rouse Sanders, X Y. Schafer Scott Sears, Fla.

Sears, :Xebr. Seger Simmons Snyder Steagall Strong, Pa. Sw£:et Taber Tague Ta:rlo1·, Colo. U[)flhaw Vare Vinson, Ky. Ward, N. Y. Ward, N. C. Wason Welsh Williams, Tex. Wilson, Miss. Winter Wood Zihlman

8462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE nfAY 13

The SPEAKER Three hundred and thirty-nine Members have answe1·ed to their names; a quorum is present.

Ur. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I meve to dispense with further proceedings under the call.

The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Doorkeeper will open the doors.

TAXATION OF LUMBER COMPANIES

l\Ir. SCHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to ex-

fraudulent :retnm with intent to evade the tax, this penalty being 50 per cent of the amount of the deficiency in addition to a specific penalty.

It is not true, and never bas been true, that •(as stnted by l\Ir. ·Backus)-

whenever it i.~ found that a taxpayer owes additional taxes for earlier years • • • be is obliged to pay interest from the time the tax should have originally been paid.

tend in the REcoRD a statement in reference to my Resolution Just the contrary is true, and no one with the slightest 301. · inclination toward accuracy of statement could Her have stated

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Minnesota ask unani- otherwise. mous consent to extend in the RECORD his remarks relative to This failure to provide for or permit the commissioner to his Resolution 301. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The add interest to amounts found to have been underpaid bas Chair bears none. been a feature of all previous laws of which unscrupulous

Afr. SOHA:LL. Mr. Speaker, there was published in some taxpayers have taken the greatest advantage, which has reof the Minnesota daily papers on May 9 a statement made suited in the loss of enormous amounts to the Government. It by E. W. Backus, president of the Backus-Brooks Co., Inter- is a defect which would for the first time be remedied if the national Lumber Co., Minnesota & Ontario Power Co., and revenue j,)ill-H. R. 6715-now pending before the Senate various allied compauies, in which he commented upon H. Res. becomes a law. Thht bill as passed by the House provided 301, offered by me on May 7, and the statement made by me at I (sec. 274, subdivision (f)) that-that time. . ' inte t th d t · d d fi · • • • hall One of my reasons for bringing to the attention of the House res upon e amoun~ e ermme as. a e ciency . s . the matter of the enoi·m()US underpayment of taxes by the be assessed at the same hme as the defic1en<'.Y, shall be paid on notice Backus-Brooks companies running back as far as 1917 was and demand from the collector, and shall be collected as a par~ of the fact that by understating their income in their returns the tax at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date prescnbed as filed they had saved, and the Government had lost, a vast 1 ·ror the payment of the tax. amount of interest-for instance, interest for six and five years No such provjsion, or any provision bringing about the same respectively on the amounts which have already been found results, can be found in any previous revenue act. to lmve been underpaid !or 1917 and 1918. The amount of Assessment for a deficiency exceeding $1,300,000 has already this interest alone at 6 per cent would be nearly $500,000, been made against the Backus companies. This a:sessment has to say nothing of interest on the still larger amounts which been made, as I am informed, after at least three years of I understand may be found to be still due for years subse- ialmost continuous investigation by the department and numer-quent to 1918. ous hearings and conferences with the taxpayer. 1\Ir. Ilatkus

.llr. Backus in his statement says: knew when he made his statement that no interest bad heen Another thing. He [Mr. SCHALL] suggests that by this delay <>ur charged or added by the department, and that if he had pai<l

companies• have been able to save upward of $1,000,000 in interest. the assessment (as he has refused to do) he would have paid .Anyone having the slightest knowledge of the Federal tax laws knows only what should have been paid in the years 1918 nntl l!JlD, that this is absurd. Whenever it is found that a taxpayer owes addi- without one cent of interest added. tional taxes for earlier years, no matter how small the amount, he I recognize that the department makes many claims and is obliged to pay interest from the time that the tax 1>hould originally •assessments for additional amounts due, and that in many, have been paid. if not most, of these cases there is a legitimate <lifference of

This assertion by Mr. Backus may accomplish its evident opinion between the taxpayer and the department. purpose and fool some of the people of his State, but to any- 1\lr. Backus's whole statement is cunningly and deliberately one conversant with the revenue laws and presumably to every framed to give the impression tbat be is but one among the Member of Congress a statement such as this, made with many taxpayers having " honest disputes" with the Internal complete and reckless disregard of the facts, will sufficiently Re"Venue Bureau; but one of many who are honestly trying characterize the accuracy and purpose of Mr. Backus's whole to cooperate with the bureau to expedite the ascertainment statement. of the correct tax liability for the earlier years. That there

ms only purpose is apparently to discredit my resolution is any honest or legitimate dispute with respect to substanl\Ild my purpose and motives in offering it. To accomplish this tially all of the amount of the additional assessments already Mr. Bach."Us has been willing to make any statement, no matter made, I emphatically deny. The fact that after years of inhow rash or absurd. vestigation and after affording these companies every oppor-

The fact is that there bas never been up to the present time tunity to be heard these enormous additional asses ,men ts have any provision in any United States revenue law requiring the been made for 1917 and 1918 is at least ·very good prima facie payment of interest on deficiencies in the payment of income evidence that something was radically wrong in the original or profits taxes. Every taxpayer-and there are many of returns. them-who has been required upon examination of his returns I charge and believe that an investigation will show: to pay additional assessments for "deficiency" over and above 1. That the amount of the tax liability disclosed on the origi-his original return knows that no interest has ever been added. nal returns and paid at that time was but a pitiful fraction of

The revenue acts of 1917 and 1918 pro\"icled for a penalty of the entire amount now found to be due. 5 per cent and 1 per cent a month for refusal to puy a tax 2. That no fair and legitimate attempt was made to disclose after the same became due and after notice of and demand for the true income in the original returns. the same, but this does not apply in the case of additional 3. That the differences between the original returns and assessments until the latter are actually made and notice the corrected returns are in many instances so gross ancl starthereof given to the taxpayer. In the act of 1917 there was tung that no honest or legitimate attempt could be or has been provided a penalty for a false or fraudulent return-100 per made to justify the original returns. cent of the amount of the deficiency in addition to a specific 4. That-to specify but one of these instances-the depletion penalty. charge claimed for timber cut by these companies was at least .

In the 1918 act it was provided that in case there was a twice the amount that could be justified by any evidence or deficiency- process of reasoning; and that the difference was so gi:eat

as to preclude the claim that there was an honest difference if the return is made in good faith and the understatement of the of judgment. amount in the return is not due to any fault of the taxpayer, there 5. That the Backus companies have not cooperated with the shall bt> no penalty because of any such understatement. Internal Revenue Department in any way to facilitate or

It was also provided tbat if the understatement was due to expedite tlie ascertainment of the true tax liability; on the connegligence on the part of the taxpayer but without intent to trary, by delay and refusal to furnish information and the defraud, there should be added as a part of the tax 5 per cent furnishing of untrue and misleading information, they lluve of the total amount of the deficiency plus interest at the rate placed every obstacle in the way of a correct and speecly of 1 per cent per month on the amount of the deficiency. This determination. provision, however, bns in actual administration been prac- 6. That further investigation af physical property and conditically a dead letter, as it has been almost impossible for the tions (upon which :Mr. Backus lays great stress in his stateInternal Revenue Bureau to charge lack of good faith and ment) now being made by the department does not in the negligence in cases where there has not been actual and positive slightest degree involve or affect the tax liability for the earlier fraud. The act of 1918 also provided a penalty for a false or

1 years-1917 and 1918.

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8463

7. That by the character of the original returns, by absurd, unfounded, and dilatory claims, by his refusal to pay additional taxes when assessed, resulting in the unusual necessity to file the liens already filed to collect these amounts, Mr. Backus and his companies have defied, treated with contempt, and evaded the revenue laws of the United States.

If these things are true, the Congress, the people of Mr. Backus's State, and all taxpayers, small and great, are entitled to know them, and the investigation provided for in my resolution is the only way in which to bring them to light. Such investigation will serve also, ~rhaps, to emphasize the defects in the present law, if it is true that under the present law l\Ir. Backus and his companies are absolved from paying even interest on the deficiencies. It may also serve to explain the reason, if any, why none of the penalties above referred to have been assessed against these companies for 1917 and 1918.

C..ll>E COD CANAL

Mr. SNELL. l\lr. Speaker, I will continue to give some of the facts in regard to the canal project. On July 23, 1918, the Board of Army Engineers on Rivers and Harbors reported favorably the purchase of the canal at $10,000,000. On July 25, two days after this special report from the Board of Engineers, by special proclamation of President Wilson the canal was taken over by the Government and placed by him under the jurisdiction and control of the United States Railroad Administration. On November 19, 1918-that is, after the armistice was signed-President Wilson wrote another letter to the Secretary of the Navy, and I wish the gentlemen of the House wonld listen to the reading of this letter, as it has an important bearing on the whole question :

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: By an act of Congress of August 8, 1917, as you may remember, authorization was given for a committee composed of the Secretary of War, the S~retary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Commerce to investigate the advisability of the acquisition of the Cape Cod Canal by the Government. If they should decide in favor of its acquisition, the Secretary of War is authorized either to mnke contracts for its purchase or, in the event that a satisfactory contmct can not be arranged, to institute condemnation proceedings through the Attorney General.

That is tl1e direct order of President Wilson. He goes on further to say:

It seems to me from every point of view desirable that we should acquire the canal and maintain it as a genuine artery, and I would be -very much obliged if the committee thus designated would get together at a.n early date and proceed with th.is business in any way that they may think best. I am writing to the same effect to the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Commerce.

l\1r. McKEOWN. Will the gentleman yield? l\Ir. SNELL. Let me continue and then I will yield. l\lr. BLANTON. What is the date? l\lr. SNELL. November 19, 1918. On January 17, 1919,

Secretary of War Baker offered $8,250,000 for the canal property. Three days later the company declined this o:ffer as being far below its actual cost and insufficient for them to pay their obligations on account of the construction of the canal. Then January 26, shr days later, the Secretary of War advised the canal company that the Attorney General had been directed to institute proceedings of condemnation. There is a logical trend right straight down through to show that the Federal Government intended to take over this canal in accordance with the act of Congress that was passed on August 8, 1917. Court proceedings were taken, and resulted in the jury rendering a verdict assessing the· value of the canal and its appurtenances at $16,801,201.11, from which must be deducted $170,000, awarded by the jury to the United States Railroad Administration during the period of Federal control. After the a ward was made then the Government began to back water, appealed the case, tried to turn the canal back to its owners, and so forth. Then we entered into a long period of negotiations, and nothing definite was done until June 29, 1921, wllen a contract was entered into between Secretary of War Weeks and the canal company for the purchase of the property by the Go-rnrnment, including 932 acres of land not co¥ered in the original proceedings, at an agreed price of $11,500,000, and by a provision in this contract that was made at that time, on July 29, 1921, when the people who owned the canal believed there was no doubt but what the Government would carry out its end of the contract, they agreed to run, operate, and maintain the canal for the Government until such time as the contract arra.ngements were completed. Now, a bill was introduced in Congress December 12, 1921, to carry

ont the provisions of this contract. This bill was reported la vorably by the Committee. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and a rule was granted for its consideration in the latter part of the last Congress, but in that legislati"rn jam it did not come up for consideration. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce took this matter up again in the present Congress. They again made a favorable report, and the Rules Committee has granted a rule for its consideration at this time. · Now, as I look at this whole proposition it is simply this: It is not a question of whether I want the canal or you want the canal; it is a question of whether the United States Government will carry out its contract that was made in good faith with the people who owned the Cape Cod Canal. That is the only question that is before us to-day. The Secretary of War has done exactly what he was instructed to do and nothing more, and during all of that time every adminish·ation-three separate administrations-have approved the purchase of this canal, and in all the hearings there was not a single man appearing before the committee opposing it. Now, the question is fairly up to this House whether at this time you will carry out a fair and square and legal contract or not It seems to me there is only one thing to do, and that is to buy the canal.

l\Ir. McKEOWN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 1\Ir. S:NELL. Yes. Mr. McKEOWN. Has the gentleman any assurance that the

Secretary of War has changed his attitude toward the toll business of the Government, like the Panama Railroad, so as to be in accord with operating this canal?

Mr. s:NELL. I never asked him; I do not know, sir. Mr. McKEOWN. Can the gentleman tell us whether they

will operate this canal free of tolls? l\lr. SNELL. Yes. This is to be expressly a toll-free canal,

the and Secretary of War is doing only what this Congress directed him to do, and nothing else.

1\1.r. LITTLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SNELL. Yes. Mr. LITTLEJ. I want to say to the gentleman from Okla

homa [l\Ir. McKEowN] that the Secretary of War has in fact testified that he thought the Cape Cod Canal should have been built by the Government in the first place. So that answers the gentleman's question.

l\1r. :McKEOWN. What is the difference between the price proposed to be paid in this bill and the amount that Secretary Baker said the property was worth?

Mr. SNELL. Secretary Baker made an offer of $8,250,000, and the people owning it refused it, because it cost over $13,-000,000 to build.

l\!r. WINSLOW. l\Ir. Speaker, will the gentleman yield there for a moment?

Mr. S.l\"'ELL. I yield. Mr. WINSLOW. In the river and harbor act of 1909, ·

Sixtieth Congress, second session, in section 4 of the bill, it was provided that no tolls or operating charges whatever should be collected from any vessel passing through any lock, canaliz~d river, or other work constructed for the use and benefit of nangation and belonging to the United States, or that might thereafter be acquired or constructed, with a proviso in the case of the Panama Canal, so that if we take this over under the existing statute lt must be free of tolls.

Mr. SNELL. In a duly authorized court the people who own this canal were given a judgment of over $16,000,000 for it.

Mr. BLANTON. To be absolutely fair-and I am sure the gentleman from New York wants to be--

Mr. SNELL. Yes; I want to be--Mr. BLANTON. That was set aside by the courts on an ap

peal by the Government. 1\lr. SNELL. It has been in the courts ever since. 1\lr. BLANTON. But it was set aside by the appellate court,

was it not? Mr. SNELL. I do not think it was set aside by the appellate

court; but there was a petition for a retrial, and that was granted.

l\Ir. BLAJ\'"rON. It has never been retried. It is in statu quo.

:Mr. WINSLOW. That ls by agreement between the Gov-ernment and the owners.

Mr. KINDRED. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? l\1r. SNELL. Yes. ?\Ir. KINDRED. Quite aside from the question of price,

is it not a fact that this waterway is absolutely needed to perfect our system of intercoastal waterways in order to avoid loss of life and of property and for na¥al and navigation purposes?

8464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

)Jr. S).TELT_,. Yes; that is true. But I was trying merely chairman of board; Interborough Rapid Transit Co., chairman to put just the actual facts as. far as the contract is con- of board; Long Island Electric Railway co.·, Long Island Rail-cerned before the House. d c L l\lr. KI~DRED. As a member of the Committee on Rivers roa o.; ouisville & Nashville Railroad Co.; 1\fatawok Land

Co.; Metropolitan Opera & Real Estate Co.; New York and and Harhors I have studied the question, and I consider it Lo~g Island Traction Co.; New York and Queens County absolutely paramount for naval and navigation purposes. Railway Co.; Rapid Transit Subway Construction Co., chair-

Ur. SNELL. Yes. Yr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my w t h t R t · 1 30

man; es c es er acing Association, pr~sident and director.1 m1e. I yie d · minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. o. c. Tegethoff is an officer or director in the following

[Ur. NEr.sox]. 14 corporations: Secretary-treasurer and director of Sinne- 1 The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recog- mahoning Iron & Coal Co.·, Acme Entineer·m· g & Contract- I

nized for 30 minutes. ~ l\I S ing Co.; Arden Water Co. ; Bobwhite Chemical Corporation· ' .1., r. NEL ON of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous Furnaceville Iron co. ; Golden Reward Consolidated Gold Min: '

consent to extend my remarks, because I want to incorporate ing & Mill_ing Co.; Harriman National Bank·, Cape Cod Canal I certain th ings. \

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin asks unani- Co. i Harriman Research Laboratory; One hundred and sixty-mous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Is there five East Sixtieth Street Corporation; Opazel Laboratories

1

objection? (Inc.) ; Phelps & Perry (Inc.) ; South American Steamship There was no objection. Corporation; Southern Pacific Railroad Co. of Mexico; Stand-lllr. FREA..R. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is entitled ard Safe Deposit Co. of New York; United States Express I

to a fuH House, and I am not quite sure if he has that or not. Co., secretary and director. I make the point of order that there is no quorum present. Mr. L. F. Loree is an officer or director of the following 26

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the corporations: President of the Delaware & Hudson Co.; Alpoint of order that there is no quorum present. The Chair bany & Susquehanna Railroad Co.; Albright Coal Co.; American will count. [After counting.] Two hundred and twenty-one Rurety Co.; Capitol Railway Co.; Chamber of Commerce of the Members are present. A quorum is present. State of New York; Cape Cod Canal Co.; Champlain Trans-

l\fr. NELSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman portation Co. ; Chateaugay & Lake Placid Railway Co. ; Cohoes from l\ew York [Mr. SNELL] has just given an outline of a few Railway Co.; Erie Railroad Co.; Hudson Coal Co.· Kansas of the points in the history of this Cape Cod Canal project. City Southern Railway Co.; Lake George Steamship 'co.· 1\IeThe gentleman from Massachusetts [l\Ir. WINSLOW], having put chanics & Metals National Bank; Mexican-American Stea~ship the Cape Cod Canal bill through his committee, came before the Co.; Mexican Central Railway Co. (Ltd.) ; National Railroad Rules Committee to get a rule; needless to say, he got it Co. of Mexico; National Railways of Mexico; New York Onpromptly. As the gentleman from New York said, last year the tario & Western Railway Co.; Northern Coal & Iron Co . .' Seagentleman from Massachusetts performed the same feat. But board Air Line Railway Co.; Southern Pacific Co.; Wells, F'argo during the closing days of the session his bill failed of consider- & Co. ; Wheeling & Lake El'ie Railway Co. ation. The distinguished minority leader [Mr. GABBETT of Ten- Mr. Eugene Klapp, of the firm of Parsons, Klapp, Brinckernessee] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HUDDLESTON] hot! & Douglass (Inc.), 84 Pine. Street, i·epresents also Cape ad,ised me of what was taking place, and with others I was on Cod Canal Co., Park~ap Construction Co. guard, 'vatching for this bill. I spoke to a member of the Mr .. F. deC. Sulllvan represents the Adams Express Co. ; steering committee about it and was told that it had been side- American Sumatra Tobacco Oo. ; Curtis International Turbine tracked. He spoke as if he thought himself entitled to praise I Co. ; Degnon. Realty . & Terminal Improvement Co. ; Interfor this disposition of it. I agreed with him and congratulated borough Rapid Transit Co.; Cape Cod Canal Co.; National him heartilv. Surety Co.; New York Railways Co.; North Butte Mining Co.;

Last week I opposed granting this rule. No rule, as I see it, Rapid Transit Subway Construction Co. ; Subway Realty Co. ; sllould be reported unless there is reason to believe it is desired West Bay Naval Stores & Lumber Co. by a preponderance of Yotes in the House. Now, I venture to :Mr. F. D. Underwood, president and director Erle Railroad assert, and I hope the House will bear me out, that there is not Co., is also in Buffalo Creek Railroad Co. ; Chatham and only no sentiment for this bill but, on the contrary, the senti- Phoenix National Bank, of the city of New York; Cape Cod ment is adverse. Canal Co.; First National Bank of Wauwatosa, Wis.; Lehigh

I can not believe, speaking frankly, that my conservative & Hudson River Railway Co.; New York, ~usquehanna & colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will support this huge un- Western Railroad; Pennsylvania Coal Co.; Southern Pacific warranted expenditure. How can they "save their face" and Co.; and Wells, Fargo & Co. vote for it in view of presidential vetoes of soldier bills? Mr. H. P. Wilson, of H. P. Wilson & Co., New York, repre-

~rhe distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee sents California Electric Generating Co. ; Cape Cod Canal Co. ; [i\fr. MADDEN] has told me that he will fight this enormous Great Western Power Co.; Queneida Graphite Corporation; expense with all his might. I give my conservative colleagues Vernes Chemical Co.; and Western Power Corporation. credit for too much political sagacity to vote for this measure Mr. W. A. Harriman, chairman board of directors of Ameriftt the risk of their political lives. Of course, no progressive can Ship & Commerce Corporation, sits on the board of the of any party would think for a moment of voting for it and American Hawaiian Steamship Co.; American Railway Express make so ugly a blot on a good record. I desire to use parlia- Co.; Arden Farms Dairy Co.; Atlantic Friut Co.; Atlantic Mail mentary language in characterizing legislation. This is diffi- Corporation; Guaranty Trust Co., of New York; Harriman Incult when I study this measure. This is special-interest legisla- dustrial Corporation; Cape Cod Canal Co.; Illinois Central tion in full bloom. Railroad Co.; Merchant Shipbuilding Corporation; National .

Con ider now the pitiful state of some Wall Street financiers. Surety Co.; Railroad Securities Co.; Union Pacific Railroad Who constitute the Cape Cod Canal Co.? Who are to be the Co.; United American Lines; Wells, Fargo & Co.; William beneficiaries of this bill? To whom are we to vote millions of Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. ; and Wright Aerorelief? We find them on page 179 of the hearings. Here they nautical Corporation. · are: Mr. F. R. Appleton; director of National Park Bank, of New

York. F. R. Appleton, 2G East Thirty-seventh Street, New York; August

Belmont, 45 Cedar Street, New York; DeWitt C. Flanagan, 228 West Seventy-first Street, New York; C. C. TegethotI, 39 Broadway, New York; L. F. Loree, 32 Nassau Street, New York; Eugene Klapp, 84 Pine Street, New York; F. de C. Sullivan, 61 Broadway, New York; F. D. Underwood, 50 Church Street, New York; H. P. Wilson, 50 Broad Street, New York; W. A. Harriman, 39 Broadway, New York.

They are all from New York. They are the big capitalists, the big financiers. The president, principal bondholder and stockholder is August Belmont.

The directory of directors in the city of New York shows the number of corporations with which these Cape Cod directors are connected. Belmont is an officer or director in the following 16 combinations of big business: Cape Cod Canal Co.; ~he Appraisals Corporation; Audit Co. of New York; Bank for Savings in New York; Degn.on Realty & Terminal Improvement Co.; Interborough Consolidated Corporation,

"Alr. DeWitt C. Flanagan is a director of Cape Cod Canal Co. He was the principal landowner.

Here we have Belmont connected with 16 big combinations; L. F. Loree, 23; Eugene Klapp, 4; Sullivan, 11; Underwood, 9; and Harriman, 18.

We are to vote relief of $11,500,000 to these Wall Street speculators to help them out of a bad bargain. They want to unload on Uncle Sam. This is not a loan. This is not a gift. If is worse than a loan and far worse than a gift. It would pay us to give them $11,500,000 outright. The Congress would save more than twice the amount of the gift by so doing. We would save future burdens of upkeep, and future costs of repair and enlargement double and quadruple this amount to furnish these interests free toll.

No rule, in my opinion, should be given for the consideration of a bill unless there is some emergency to justify its bein(J' given priority over other meritorious measures. ·

0

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8465 ' " ' nut what is the emergency here? The only emergency that appeared before the committee was the gentleman from Massachusetts [l\Ir. WINSLOW], astute, ponderous, and resourceful. 011, there is pressure here, gentlemen; there is strong pressure. Wbat is it? Legislative pressure, to get it by before the jam of the short session ; financial. to save current losses to these N'ew York financiers; and political, Uncle Sam's money spent in this Cape Cod deal will affect votes in Massachusetts.

I am against a rule at any time and in every case for this . kind of legislation. It is special interest in its worst form. I have seen some specimens of class legislation~hip subsidy and the lik~but in my long term this is the worst, the sheerest, and the rankest special-interest legislation I can recall

Now, consider the subject: Unloading on Uncle Sam. Get the fact that these financiers are asking Congress for relief. Congress does not want their property. Who would be the best authority as tQ this fact? The Secretary of War. Why? Because he is the man to whom they have to go for a tentative contract. Be has knowledge first-hand of the facts; facts of experience, facts of record, facts of obserration. Now, what did the Secretary of War, l\Ir. Bake1·, say? Listen to his words:

These gentlemen built this canal ; they thought it WBJ! going to be a great commercial success; they found it was more expensive to build than they had anticipated. They found very gr-eat difficulty in tempting people to use it. • * • And so they came to the conclusion that there was not enough liveliness to their hope of large commercial success to justify their continuing to carry the burden, and so they came to Congress. * • • They have been seeking to get the Government to take this burden off their shoulders, and they have said, "We were patriotic in doing this; were trying t-o build a gre:it highway for the commerce of the Nation, and we find that

1 the burden is so great that private enterprise ought not to be 11sked to sustain the losses that are involved in carrying it to a. profitable status." And therefore they said, " Being a public work, Congress ought to take this off our shoulders.''

Here we have a clean-cut statement of the former Secretary of .War of the process of unloading this burden on Uncle Sam.

Let us consider the extent of the present plight of a "busted bit of big business." The stock of the Cape Cod Canal Company is worse than worthless-busted. It has ne\er paid dividends. We might give the money away, and we would be better off. as I shall show you, than if we give them the $11,500,000.

On this point I quot.e from the hearings. Here is the testimony of Ur. H. P. Wilson, vice president af the Cape Cod Canal Co. and the great water-power magnate, before the committee:

The CHAIRMAN. If this trnde which has been under discussion with the Government should be executed, would it not appear that after the cannl company had paid its debts there would be nothing left for the stockholders.

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; there ts not a dollar of value Iett in the stock. It i wiped out.

'The CJUTRMAN. It is wiped out, and there is $3,500,000 more of indeLt<>uness?

Mr. Wrr.soN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRlU.N. So that, if yon got $11,500,000 from the property,

$6,000,QOO of it would go to .redeem the bonds turned <>ver to the Government?

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. The CILrnnIAN. Which they would assume, and it would take a fur-

thez· sum of $5,500,000 to pay the debts, or their equivalent? Mr. WILSON. In so far as the $5,500,000 would go. The CHA.Un.IA."'· There would be about $3,000,000 more? 1\Ir. WILSON. Yes, sir; we owe to-day approximately $8,500,000. The CHAIRliAN. So that the value of the paper is all that you have

left in the stock? Mr. 'Vu,soN. Yes, sir. The construction company would be wiped out

in the same way. I am dealing with the construction company because all of the financing was done by the construction company. The capital of tl.1e construction company went into the construction of the canal. This construction company reached a point where it could go no further ahead, and it had to go out and borrow money from private sources to fillish the canal~ 'Ihe point I want to make clear is that at the present· time, in addition to the $6,000,000, which represents the fi.rst mortgage upon 'this property, the canal company and the construction company are in debt to the extent of $8,500,000, against which this contract provides $5,500,000.

Tbe CHAIRMA~. Do you include in that $8,.500,000 the· stock as an obligation?

l\Cr. WILSON. ::\'o, sir; we actually borrowed that amount of money, :and the stock is not worth a dollar.

The CHAIRMAN. If yon should make this trade and have $5,500,000 left in cash, in -0rde:r to liquidate at 100 cents on the dolla1-, you would have to pay out that amount and $3,000,000 more?

Mr. WILSO:S-. Yes, sir.

Let me give you a graphic picture. If we make them a gift of $5,500,000-I say gift because no one would take this ditch off their hands but the Government-if we turned into these empty stocks money from the United: States Treasury at the rate of $1 per second for 63 days there would still be a deficit of unpaid bills of $3,500,000.

That is the way this construction company worked. It looks like a wrecking company, it seems to me, more than anything else. Think of financiers getting into a hole like this. Belm-Ont and the rest of them are in that, too. The testimony of l\fr. Wilson is that Belmont holds $150,000 or $200,000 of bonds, and _ admitted that he held only $50,000 worth.

The bonds resting upon such hollow foundations are, of course, unmarketable. Doubless some of the other Wall Street magnates hold like blocks of bonds, but bonds are also held in small lots by citizens of Massachusetts. I quote from the hearings:

Mr. GRARAH. Who sold the bonds? Mr. WILSON. My recollection is that the constrnction company sold

them. There is a small amount of these bonds that were not sold. Mr. GRAHAM. Were they sold to small holders or did you sell them to

men like Mr. Belmont individually? Mr. WILSON. I should say ofEhand-1 will give you thDse figures

that Mr. Belmont, perhaps, had $150,000 or $200,000 of bonds. I personally bought $50,000 of the bonds, and I have perironally bought $25,000 of the stock of the construction company. I paid 97.5 for the bonds, and I paid cash for the construction company's stock at par.

Mr. GliH.AM. Did some broker in some place handle the bonds? Air, Wn..so~. No, sir; they were never sold through a broker. Mr. GRAKAM. Were they sold locally in Massachusetts? ;Mr. WILSO!i. In Massachusetts and in New York. Mr. GRAHAM. People bought one or two bonds! Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir; there are holdings of 1 or 2 bonds; 5 and 10

bonds. Mr. GRAHAM. · What -Oenomination? M.r. WILSON. One thou.sand dollar coupon bonds. (Hearings, pp. 147, 148.)

It is in the testimony that bonds of the canal company amounting to $2,875,000 are held by the construction company, because they can not market them.

1ilr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield right there? 1\1r. NELSON of Wisconsin. No; pardon me, I would like

to finish my statement first. If I start yielding to one I will have to yield to others.

Finally, to cap the climax of their plight, the income from tolls will not meet the interest on bonds and the upkeep of the canal company.

Oh, it is a beautiful proposition for Uncle Sam, is it not? Figure the interest: Six million dollars at 5 per cent would be $300,000. Then, the upkeep is more than $150,000 or $200,000; and there is a deficit every year, and they want to get rid of that deficit quiek. They want us to take it over. This is the proposition which is to be unloaded on Uncle Sam to-day-bold, brazen in its boldness.

Now we understand the emergency. They had to increase the toll recently, which will, of course, discourage the tollpaying trade. Should not Congress have pity on these dis-appointed Wall Street financiers? How can Congress unmoved behold them in this dreadful :financial ditch? Surely, in a pitiful case like this, Government ownership is highly needed. That would not be socialism but patriotism.

Behold a friend to the rescue I Nothing like having a friend in need, especially in Congress. Oh, yes; these gentlemen had a friend in Congress over in the other Chamber. It was the Senator from Massachusetts, the Hon. John W. Weeks. He gets an amendment put on the rivers and harbors bill, a little $5,000 jnnocent item, too insignificant to be objected to ; but there is in it the language quoted by the chairman of the Rules Committee, artful language, permitting the War Department not only to investigate this project but to make contracts-tentative, truly; a contract subject to ratification by Congress.

Here is the place wher~ we can stop this busine ;;-" subject to ratification by Congress and appropriation." On this week's rider they predicate the claim of moral obligation. Of course, the.re is no legal obligation. The gentleman from :Uassachusetts [Mr. WINSLOW] has tbe bill here, and we a.re to sign on the dotted line and help them out.

1' - --

8466 OONGRESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE MA_Y 13

This little $5,000 item went through and now it is "a moral obligation." There is the Government-i. e., Mr. Weeks-putting this little joker in, and so there is " a moral obligation " to help these gentlemen out and take over this bad bargain and loot the Treasury.

Talk about the· "powers that prey," the " predatory interests " that Roo evelt spoke about Here we find them busily engaged on the job.

Of course, during the war these gentlemen got in their most effective work. There was some war scare about a German submarine. They rushed to President Wilson, and he ordered the United States Railroad Administration to take over this water route, just as he ordered taking over the railroads. But we did not hear of any moral obligation on the Government to keep the railroads. We were told of our moral obligation to give them back. Why is not that also true as to this canal? Had it been profitable, would they not have stressed the moral obligation to give it back?

But pressure was brought to bear on the Secretary of War to make a contract, which he might do under· the Weeks rider, a tentative contract. After employing accountants to find out exactly what had been put into this hole, l\lr. Baker said he would not give more than $8,250,000. He stuck to it under pressure.

A condemnation suit was begun up there. They did get an · ward by a local jury, as the gentleman has said, but the Court of Appeals looked it oYer-and I have read their .1ecision-and they said, "This item should not have been in, and that item should not have been in "-Belmont, for instance. got $50,000, and Henry Taft got another $50,000 for attorney's fees.

l\Ir. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. I just declined to yield and

hope the gentleman will excuse me, because I do not want to be discourteous by yielding for one interruption and not for another.

The jury awarded Belmont and his friends between fourteen and sixteen millions by including all kinds of collateral expenditures. The court of appeals reviewed this award and vacated it. There the job rests to-day. The canal company has tried its best to impose this burden on the Government and failed

Behold an old friend to the rescue again, not in Congress now but in the Cabinet. The gentleman ':rho got this nice little joker in the rivers and harbors bill now meets with Vice President Wilson, of the Cape Cod Canal Co., and at once gives him three and a quarter million dollars more than Baker said it was worth. Mr. Weeks signs the contract, and we are to ratify it to-day. Moral obligations, you see, all the way through; but if it was not a moral obligation that we should keep the railroads, what is the moral obligation to keep the canal? If that canal had been profitable, would they be now talking about a moral obligation? The moral obligation then would be to return it to these gentlemen so they could make more money.

Now, let us look at some of the camouflage, sugar-coating, that they give to this measure. In war it is patriotism; in peace it is national defense. E'ortunately, however, Secretary of War Baker cut off any possibility for such pretense by printing in the hearings statements of the General Navy Board and of the Board of Rivers and Harbors Engineers. Listen to this authoritative statement as to the need of this ditch for national defense:

GENERAL NAVY BOARD The expense of rendering the Cape Cod Canal available to. all types

ot naval vessels not only requires a considerable expenditure for enlarging it but also additional continuing expense for the maintenance of such increased size, and an even greater expenditure for the defenses that should be given an important military waterway at a salient of our coast. Such large additional expenditures are not warranted by the apparent increased military advantages of having the canal available for the passage of ships requiring a depth of over 25 feet at mean low water.

The board has no doubt of the advantages of a sufficient depth and width to permit the passage of battleships. It adheres, however, to its previous expressions to the effect that military necessity is not sufficiently great to warrant the department in urging the expenditure of public funds to that end.

UNITED STATES BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors bas no data upon

which it can assign a definite value to the canal for these ·naval uses. As the canal is a going concern and now available for military and naval uses upon payment of reasonable tolls, there is no urgency for acquisition of the canal for these purposes unless it is deemed essential to enlarge it to accommodate capital ships of the Navy, which is ap-

parently not the case. The value of public o.wnership for any uses that can be made of the present canal would obviously be due to the saving of tolls on Government vessels.

Both of these boards of experts say that this military defense argument ran not be sustained. The expenditure is too great. But if we take it over and add enormously to the expense, then the claim wm be that we must erect fortifications to protect it, for these gentlemen are adepts at spending money.

Now, consider the cost to the Government of relieving these Wall Street financiers of their bad bargain. Obviously there is the first cost of $11,500,000, right off the bat.

Then there is 5 per cent for bonds on $6,000,000, which is $300,000 per annum; then the upkeep of the canal, which under Government auspices would be from $250,000 to $500,000 a year more; and if we enlarge the canal nobody can calculate the amount under $1,000,000 a year ; and finally the cost of repairs on the enlargement, according to conservative estimates of their own witness, would be double this sum, and, in the opinion of a Member from this very district, it would cost at least $50,000,000. In making this statement in the House 1\fr. Walsh was not prejudiced in favor of the Government against his own district.

Now, let us consider some more of the flimsy pretenses set forth to justify this enormous expense.

This project, they say, is necessary to save life. It is a perilous thing to pass around Cape Cod. Lives are lost. Such general statements as made one might think that heartbreaking tragedies were happening daily. What are the facts? In the hearings Mr. GRAHAM of Illinois made this inquiry of Colonel Burr, the engineer in charge:

Mr. GRAH.ll.I of Illinois. Right along that line, Colonel, I was struck with the statements prepared, I think, by the Coast Guard officers and which are delineated on that map over there, and which show that in 10 years there have been 32 lives lost in that stretch of water around the cape, including the Block Island Sound and up that coast, as I understand it. Is that an extraordinary loss of lite in a 10-year pedod for a similar extent of coast?

Colonel Bunn. If it means the coast from Block Island around Cape Cod, I should say it was an exceptionally small average.

:Mr. GRAHAM. That is what the statement showed. It shows 32 lives lost in that time.

Think of it, only three lives lost per year. Why, the Mississippi River or even one of the lakes of Madison is more perilous, and these lives may have been lost fishing. There is no proof that they were lost because of commerce. So much for the life-saving argument.

Now, consider the alleged destruction of property. But again the hearings do not give us any figures on the subject for obvious reasons. We find some captain saying that at a certain time there was a storm. I quote his language :

Capt. W. II. HALEY. I noticed on your chart a few circles representing Vineyard Haven. I laid in Boston in November, 1898, undergoing the annual steamboat inspection through a severe gale of wind, and came out of Boston after the gale and came down on Nantucket Shoals when all the lightships, with the exception of the Nantucket lightship, had gone adrift.

There were no guides in there. I went on Nantucket Shoals and up into Vineyard Haven where we ran across one of the vessels disabled. There were 38 or 39 vessels which had foundered and gone ashore in Vineyard Haven in that same gale. (Hearings, p. 38.)

Now this is all the evidence presented of loss of property. But tl1ere are other facts of record which are significant on this point:

If there is little loss of life, there is proportionate little loss of property. As the toll rate was only 6 cents per ton, if there were any danger of loss of property, the captains of ships and vessel owners could go through the canal rather than around the cape, which they do not do. The Government has constructed a very safe channel at great expense around the cape. Here is the clincher : The insurance rates, and trust me the insurance companies know, are the same, testifies Colonel Burr, whether the vessel goes through the canal or around the cape. These facts show how hollow is the claim that the Government should take over this ditch for any property-saving purpose.

l\fr. Speaker, let us now consider another aspect of the special-interest nature of this legislation. I called your attention to the real beneficiaries, the financiers of Wall Street, who seek relief from a bad investment These gentlemen are interested in coal mines, interested in steamboats, interested in carrying passengers and freight. The Metropolitan Steamship Co., says Mr. Weeks, paid one year $150,000 in tolls. The Eastern Steamboat Co. paid in one :rear as much as $193,000 in toll. Indeed, this company has ships passing through the

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8467 canal daily carrying passengers. The average cost for toll of a 3,000-ton steamer carrying passengers is about $300 per trip. These financiers, many of them, have coal barges transporting coal up through the canal. With a toll-free canal they would be saved expense, but would the people get cheaper coal? Oh, no ! Mr. Calvin Austin, the president of the Eastern Steamship Co., frankly confessed that the steamboat companies alone would get the benefit. I quote from the hearings:

The CHAIRMAN. Would that contribute to any appreciable extent to the cost of the coal in the New England region?

Mr. AUSTIN. The cost of coal in New England? The CHAIRMAN. Or ought it to do so? Mr. AUSTIN. The cost of coal in New England is largely on the

freight, but I do not know how they work that. Mr. HocH. What sort of freight does your company handle? Mr. AUSTIN. All general merchandise. Mr. HOCH. Do you handle any coal? Mr. AUSTIN. No, sir. · Mr. HOCH. Any cotton? Mr. AUSTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. HOCH. Where do you ship your cotton from usually? Mr. AUSTIN. From New York. It ls delivered to us by the Southern

Line. Mr. HocH. Do you handle any cotton through this canal? Mr. AusTIN. We operate all of our ships now through the canal. Mr. HocH. Can you give us any figures or any ideas that would be

understandable to a layman as to the percentage that the tolls probably add? For instance, take a cotton shipment from Savannah to Bo ton?

Mr. AUSTIN. The tolls are based on the tonnage of the ship. We pay over 10 cents per gross ton on the passenger ships running. They are about 7,000 gross tons and cost $742 a night. On freight ships it is 6 cents, I think, and that would be about $112 or $115 more.

Mr. HocH. Well, take a shipment of cotton; can you give us some idea as to what the present toll means with reference to a cotton shipment from Savannah to Boston?

Mr. AUSTIN. No; I could not do that. Mr. HocH. Could you give us any approximation or any idea about

that? · Mr. AUSTIN. No; no more than you could. That is all figured in

our cargo. We do not take one cargo of cotton, but we take everything that is to be shipped.

Mr. HOCH. Suppose the tolls were taken off; what would the significance of that be with reference to the price of the cotton, either to the man who sold the cotton or the man who bought it?

Mr. AUSTIN. 'fhe steamship company would be benefited. Mr. HOCH. Would anybody else reap any benefit except the steam

ship company? Mr. AUSTIN. I do not think so in that case. If we had free tolls,

we would not have to pay $193,000 as we did last year. Mr. HocH. Do you mean to say that the toll has nothing to do

with the price that the buyer pays for the cotton that goes through the canal?

Mr. AUSTIN. I do not look at it in that way. Mr. HOCH. Is there any other charge that is put upon that cotton

that the buyer does not have something to do with? How does it happen that the toll bas nothing to do with the price of the cotton?

lli. AusTrn. There is a rate established on that cotton from the shipping point to the point of destination, and if it was brought by the Clyde Line or the Mallory Line from Texas and turned over to us, the rates would be the same.

Mr. HOCH. In your view of it, then, the mills in Connecticut would pay as much for the cotton if they had free tolls as they do now?

Mr. AUSTIN. Yes; unless they reduced the freight rate. (Hearings, pp. 45-46.)

Moreover, this Cape Cod Canal is a local affair. The larger vessels prefer to pass up farther into the ocean. This is not a national, but a State matter. Massachusetts has the option of taking over the canal. Bills have been before the Massachusetts Legislature, but Massachusetts is too wise to do this. It is so much easier to unload on Uncle Sam. He is to furnish free toll to these profiteers at an average expense of at least $1,000,000 annually. The Wall Street interests can not afford to sink more millions into this enterprise, even with the payment of heavy tolls. But they would have the Government operate the canal free of toll.

So I say that in my long experience as a Member of the House this measure is the sheerest, rankest, and most wicked special-interest legislation that I can recall. Ship subsidy shines brightly side by side with this job.

The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WINSLOW] puts it through his committee and gets the rule promptly. The Barkley bill can not get out, except we batter down the door. ~ection 15a can not be repealed to save farmers from excessive

LXV-534

freight rates. But the Cape Cod Canal deal gets through the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, gets a rule from the Rules Committee, and is backed by the power of Massachusetts in Congress and in the Cabinet.

But, Mr. Speaker, powerful as is Massachusetts, I would not like to see the President, a Massachusetts man, veto the Bursum pension bill and sign this Winslow bill. It seems to me he can not do it and succeed himself in the White House.

Gentlemen, let us line up, and if we are for this Cape Cod Canal deal then we certainly are devotees of big business and special interests. I believe that no progressive will mar his record by voting for such legislation. I have fought ship subsidy and many other special-interest bills, but this seems about as bold and bad as any in all my experience. [Applause.]

l\Ir. BERGER. Will my colleague and friend yield? Mr. :NELSON of Wisconsin. Yes. Mr. BERGER. Will my colleague and friend explain one

thing? The gentleman has studied the bill and I have not, and I think a great deal of his judgment. Is the canal necessary and is it useful to commerce and will it protect life and property as claimed by its promoters?

Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. So far as it is necessary it is serviceable now. With a rate of 6 cents a ton or 10 cents per passenger now, anybody who wants to can go through this canal. But these gentlemen when they find they can not get the Government to take it over, repair, and fix it up for them with free toll, are still bondholders; they are still stockholder~ and will run it somehow. So far as necessity is concerned, therefore, I say no. I have shown you that the people will not get the benefit. The steamship companies, the coal companies carrying coal through there, want to get free tolls where they are now paying upward of $200,000 apiece annually.

Mr. BERGER. One more question. The gentleman from Wisconsin is, of course, aware that the Panama Cannl was originally constructed on a stock-jobbers' proposition, and there were a great many scandals. There was a Credit Mobilierthe de Lesseps Co. -and there were big scandals. Finally the United States Government took it over, and it is one of the great canals of the world and a blessing to commerce and a very necessary highway of the world. The gentleman knows how short it is. I· this a similar proposition on a small scale?

:\Ir. ~~LSON of Wisconsin. In one case you have to come through from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But this, well according to their own testimony, a fast steamer will save foru; hours and a slow sailing vessel will save eight hours but the captains 110\v prefer to go outside-through the cha~el that we spent money on just outside. This is simply a ditch. Now, listen. If it hacl been a great necessity for the people they would have used it; but they would not pay the 6 cents a ton, and they prefe1· to go around, and that is why it is a failure.

It has developed more rock than was expected and more current, so they have got to get the rock out, and they have got to have locks put ir. in all probability, two types being proposed.

Mr. L.\GUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. Yes. Mr. LAGUARDIA. In response to the inquiry made by the

gentleman from Wisconsin, is it not true that the opposition to this bill is not based upon the fact of whether this canal is necessary or not, but it is based upon the one fact that the owners have their remedy at law, and when they were defeated in the appellate court they abandoned that and come here to get what the court would not give them?

Mr. WINSLOW. No; that is absolutely unfair and wrong. Mr. LAGUARDIA. The record will speak for itself. l\Ir. WINSLOW. The gentleman can not bring on a line. Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. I think the gentleman will de-

bate that question later. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. BURTNESS. Assuming there was no canal there at the present time, and the proposition came up as to wbetber the Government for the purpose of encouraging transportation facilities there on the eastern coast, and for the purpose of providing a waterway saving considerable mileage of boats through there, and the proposition was of considering the advisability of building this, would the canal be meritorious or not?

Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. Possibly that might be debatable, but here we ha>e these financiers of Wall Street, whose names I have gin'n. They have found this to be a failure, but they hal'e it ancl they can use it. Why take the burden off their hands? [Applause.]

Having leave to re\"'ise and extend my remarks, I append to them this condensed resume of my peech given to the press the day following its delh·ery. This I do at the request of Members and for futme use.

8468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ~iAY 13

President Roosevelt coined the terms 11 the predatory interests" and the "powers that prey." Yesterday these freebo8ters of finance had a field day in the House of Representatives.

They put through the Cape Cod Canal deal, a most striking example of the greedy grasp on legislation of corporate selfinterest enriching itself at the expense of the Public Treasury, doing so with the bipartisan aid of " faithful " Representatives in Congress.

This Cape Cod Canal job is a significant illustration of the fact that Wall Street has, when it pleases to exert it, a bipartisan bold npon both Republican and Democratic regulars, and demonstrat~ the need of an independent progressive group in tlle Congre~s to protect the interests of the public.

DEAL IS SUMMAillZ~D

The Cape Cod Canal deal may be summed up briefly. The well-known Wall Street financier, August Belmont, capi

talist, politician, Democrat, with eight other colleagues high in the financial district of New York City, each of them an officer or director in from 7 to 26 different corporations, are directors of the Cape Cod Canal Co.

This business speculation was undertaken shortly before the World War started. but proved a financial failure. It cost more to construct than was expected

Commerce w011ld not make use of it under the toll charged. In short;, it became a tragic bit of busted big business.

The stock of the company neYer paid dividends and is worse than worthless. The debt of the company not only wipes out the value of the stock but leaves a debt of over $3,500,000.

The canal ccmpuny's bonds are also unmarketable. Blocks of bonrls are held by Belmont and his Wall Street associates, ranging in various sums, and some bonds were sold to Massachusetts and New York people.

COI'\S'rRUCTION OR(}ANlZATION

The Canal Construction Co., made up of the same group of financiers, was created under the laws of Maine to construct the canal. ,

It looks more like a wrecking than a construction company, judged by the debts contracted, a fine sample of high finance. This agent of the company holds $2,500,000 in bonds which are not ma.rl;;etable.

The annual toll income does not meet the interest on the bonds and the upkeep of the canal. Deficit follows deficit.

Facing this plight these representatives of big business planned to unload the ditch on Uncle Sam.

'l'hey are interested in steamships carrying various kinds of freight to Boston. Some steamship companies pay toll yearly aborn $150,000 a year.

Free toll is given to these steamship companies by this Cape Cod Canal deal, an annual saving to some ranging as high as

200,000 in toll fees. Tlie people will not get a bit of the benefit. .

Of course these steamship owners are right on the job, too, to push this deal through Congress under various maskslife-saving, protecting property, and furthering commerce.

l!'RIEXDS IN ALL CAMPS

A feature of this deal is the way their friends in Congress and in the Cabinet smoothed the way to the public purse. Seven sears ago John W. Weeks was their friend in the Senate.

He got a rider put on the rivers and harbors bill calling for an expenditure of only $5,000, but which rider served as a joker to commit the Government to survey this ditch, to permit the Secretary of War to enter into tentative contract for its purchase, or to start condemnation proceedings subject to ratification by Congress. This Weeks rider has been worked hard by the Cape Cod Canal Co. to put this deal through.

Under the cover of the World War these gentlemen persuaded President Wilson to take over the canal for war purposes. They tried to get Secretary of War Baker to give them a con-tract.

After he had a firm of accountants looking into the actual money put into the canal he fixed the price in a tentative contract at $8,250,000. The canal company refused. Condemnation proceedings began ; the jury awarded a large sum.

The Government appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the award because excessive, and there the unloading stopped. Bear in mind that this rider made the contract subject to ratification by Congress.

Unfortunately for the country the successor of Newton Baker as Secretary of War is the same Senator John W. Weeks who got the rider put into the appropriation bill. He promptly agrees to give these gentlemen $11,500,000 for the

ditch, a sum $3,250,000 in excess of what Baker said was a fair price. Army Engineers in river and harbor work estimate the canal is worth not over $2,500,000 for the purposes of com· merce.

GIVE~ RIGHT Oli' WA"f

To get the consent of Congress, Mr. WINSLOW, of Massachu· setts, chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, rushes through a bill in his committee and gets promptly a rnle to give it a right of way over other legislation in Congress.

Last year, because of the jam, the Cape Code Canal deal was sidetracked, but promptly this year Mr. WINSLOW repeats .the performance, gets the bill through his committee, and obtains !1 rule rushing the bill ahead of legislation desired by the American people.

The Howell-Barkley bill. for instance, had to be forced out of J.\Ir. WINsLOw's committee by a discl}.arge rule. It is desired by labor to safeguard industrial peace in the operation of railroads.

Farmers are clamoring for the repeal of so-called section 15a of the Esch-Cummins bill in order that freight rates may be reduced so that they can send their freight to market. But these bills were pigeonholed in this committee and now are being brought out by battering down the door of the Winslow committee with discharge rules.

Yesterday a vote was had which is significant. The Repub· lican regulars were for the bill. Public ownership, socialism, Government in business-all of these slogans are forgotten, all talk of economy is lost sight of. The Republican chairman or the Appropriations Committee, 1\lr. 1\l.A.DDEN, warned them, as did the ranking Democrat, Mr. BYRKS, of increasing deficits, but this Cape Cod Canal is in the interest of big business. This is for the relief of these financial magnates of Wall Street, so they voted solidly for this raid upon the Treasury.

DDIEXSE SUMS INTOLVED

The initial cost is $11,500,000; the annual expense is about $500,000 per year. To repair and enlarge it, according to Mr. W~\LSH, a Member from this very Cape Cod district, will cost $50,000.000 at least.

The Wall Street interests can not afford to slnk more mil· lions into this enterprise, even with the payment of heavy tolls. But they would have the Go\ernment operate the canal free of toll.

Three Progres~ive Republicans expo ed the deal. So dill a like number of Progre&'Sive Democrats, but Democratic leaders kept quiet. We were wnrned that there would only be a straw. opp(l~ition on the Democratic side, which happened. ·

The ecret i Belmont. the big Tammany Democrat, one of the angels of the Democratic Party. In vain will the votes be scanned to find a Representative from Xew York City against this measure, other than the Progressive LAGu.Annu.

EYen at that the bill could not haV'e passed but for logrolling, a deal in pork. Muscle Shoals votes were gotten among the Democrats: also a number of pork-barrel river and harbor projects ·lined up Democrats, especially a $16,000,000 Texas project now before the House. Progressives know that this last deal is rmother tragic waste of funds as far as commerce is concerned.

In short, the deal was put through by a narrow margin of 149 to 131. Xot a Progressi're Republican voted for the deal, and it was announeed on the floor as a " steal."

So I say, here we have an illustration of the need of independent progressives in the House. Here we have an illustration of the "powers that prey," the bipartisan government of the predafory Wall Street interest with its control, when it wants to put over a deal, of the regulars of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Should this deal get through the Senate, which is unlikely, will President Coolidge sign it with the pen that vetoed the Bursum pension bill, for the sake of economy? .

The story of the Cape Cod Canal deal will be told on many a stump this campaign.

The SPEAKER. The time of the· gentleman has expired. Ur. SNEI ... L. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentle

man from Indiana [1\Ir. Wooo]. !\fr. WOOD. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, this

proposition has been before this body for some considerable time. In so far as its virtue is concerned, I um con-,inced it is meritorious. Had it not been so President Wilson would not have recommended it away back in 1918. It was n.lso recommended by President Harding. and it i recommended now by Presiclent Coolidge. The question that was propounded br the gentleman from North Dakota to !Ur. Nu::;o~, I think, was a vital out;

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8469 and if properly answered would have been an answer as to what

. our attitude should be. Would we build this thing if we were entering upon a project of building a system of deep waterways? I am convinced that if the facts set forth in the report are true that we would answer in the affirmative. I am convinced that we are under a moral obligation, if not under a legal obligation, to carry out the contract entered into by the present Secretary of War.

All of the gentlemen who have made an investigation concerning the facts of this case have agreed that we should take over this property. The only difference has been with reference to the price, and I apprehend that that may be the only difference before this body to-day. As to whether the price is right or not I do not profess to know, but I will rely upon the judgment of those who have been charged with the responsibility of ascertaining what is a just price not only by President Wilson but by President Harding and President Coolidge. And there is another thing that appeals to me. It has been the dream of the century that some time in some way we will have not only intercoastal waterways but we will have throughout this country deep waterways to effect and facilitate transportation. To my mind one of the best things that can happen to solve the difficulties of the farmers of this country to-day is transportation. We have a dream in our country that one of these times we will have a deep waterway from the Lakes to the Gulf. I believe it is possible. The engineers tell us that it is possible. If that be so, one of the best guaranties of our desire and our intention to complete this system of waterways is to take over this thing which has been recommended not only by the Presidents, three of them in number, not only by the Secretary of War under two administrations, but by the engineers upon whom we must depend with reference to practicability, with reference to feasibility, and with reference to economical investment. So that to my mind this is the hour and this is the time when we should manifest our intention by taking over this project which has been so highly recommended, to enter upon a program of deep-waterway improvements. ·

l\Ir. SHERWOOD. I would like to ask the gentleman this question : Has General Beach recommended it?

l\Ir. WOOD. General Beach has recommended it, and every other engineer in the War Department has recommended it and advised its feasibility.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.

Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, how much more time have I? The SPEAKER. The gentleman has 10 minutes. Mr. SNELL. I yield nine minutes to the gentleman from

l\Iassachusetts [Mr. WINSLOW]. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts is

recognized for nine minutes. Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House,

if I were to undertake in the 10 minutes which I have to reply seriatim and in kind, if I were willing to put in words a reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] about this canal, I would not be able to begin it, to say nothing of completing it. I have heard from soap-box orators and others who depend upon their pipe dreams for facts, on many occasions, strange and interesting stories, but never from anybody undertaking to discuss a real business problem have I heard so many misstatements, misconceptions, and wrong conclusions as we have had poured out to us in dramatic style to-day.

Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. I challenge you to point out a single fact that is mistaken. . ·

Mr. WINSLOW. Give me a list of people in Massachusetts who O\Yn securities in this canal. Who are they? Let us hear who they are. You can take your own time later and do it. When you get through with that, we will have another question to pro11ound.

I can not go into the details of this. There are two problems before this House. One is not to abuse the committee. The history of this project is clear and straightforward, and was begun long before the present incumbent was chairman of the committee or a member· of the committee. I do not propose to allow any man to insinuate against the good faith and bona ficles of a man like Secretary Weeks. He may have made mistakes; he may have committed the awful crime of being industrious and successful in this life; but no man has been found who is able on facts to go out and cast aspersions upon him by reason of wrongdoing on his part. [Applause.] Moreover, he has nothing to do with the case. He is not on trial, and bis honesty is not at stake. Neither am I .on trial, nor is my honesty at stake. But do not depend upon my say-so.

Depend upon the facts of the record and the testimony given under oath.

Here we have two problems to consider. The first one is, Shall we, after this opportunity given, have this Congress determine whether or not it will support the Government of the United States, which has acted under a mandate of Congress through its own legislation? A fair show is due to everybody involved, whether they a.re plutocrats of Wall Street or great brewers from Wisconsin; we do not care who the:v are. They are entitled to a fair show, and the outlook is that they will not get it under present conditions.

This bill was brought before our committee earlier in the session. We did not have hearings on it, and why? Because, with the exception of six members of the committee, all the uthers had been through it in hearings. But those six agreed that t,hey would read the testimony of the hearings and have private converse with · me for explanation, and abide thereby. We went through that program, and I have yet to hear any of those new Members complain that he did not have ample opportunity of learning all the facts. And in order that we might get to the Barkley bill and other bills, we passed through this Cape Cod bill quickly, and put it on the calendar, and then held it back until the appropriation bills and other important bills were well-nigh finished. Now give us a chance to bring this bill before the House. Do not say, "We do not care a hurrah for what the Sixty-fifth Congre~s did, or what President Wilson did, or what President Harding did or recommended with respect to the fulfillment of a contract. We do not care what Secretary Baker or Secretary Daniels or Secretary Redfield or the committee in the present Cabinet said about it. We are going to cut your throat."

The only man who ever cast any aspersion on the honesty of this purpose and who is in the House at this moment is the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON]. If any one of you can point out where he stated a well-grounded fact concerning this proposition you will point out a fact that I could not comprehend. The gentleman from Wisconsin may have spoken to the gallery, but I do not think Members of the House here, whatever their mental level may be, will say, "We will not give you a chance to tell your story." That is \\"hat we want. We will take our chances on the merits of the case. If a majority of this House says it i1 a bad bargain, we will not cry "baby." But in defense of the Government itself, and in defense of the good name of Congress itself, we of the committee charged with the busines~ of bringing this bill out, not as ours but as a bill representing three administrations, want to have this thing settled and done with.

Mr. BL.ANTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. WINSLOW. I will yield. Mr. BLANTON. After Secretary Baker submitted this mat

ter to the Department of Justice and they entered condemnation proceedings, what authority had Secretary Weeks for making a contract? Did it not take it out of his hands?

Mr. WINSLOW. Not at all. Mr. BL.ANTON. I would like to hear about that. Mr. WINSLOW. I would like to report on that. It was

mentioned here a moment ago. Mr. BLANTON. I just want to know the legal features of it. Mr. WINSLOW. I am not strong on the legal features of it.

I am not trained that way. But I understand the English language, and I think I can show that to you.

Mr. FREDERICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. Mr. FREDERICKS. How does the price that it is contem

plated the Government will pay compare with the actual cash expended by those who put the project into the condition it is now in?

Mr. WINSLOW. If I have time enough to do that, I will do it But I do not want to send a ball over the plate and then dispute the decision of the umpire. [Laughter.]

Mr. FREDERICKS. What is the price named in this bill? Mr. WINSLOW. Eleven million five hundred thousand dol

lars, of which $5,500,000 is for the property, which will go to pay some of the debts of the company, and $6,000,000 to the holders of the bonds less the value of 922 acres of land, which I believe is worth about $300,000, and $100,000 to be left in cash in the treasury of the company for the Government.

Mr. FREDERICKS. What amount of money has this company expended in putting the thing in the shape it is in now? Have you the figures?

Mr. WINSLOW. In connection with that you get into a matter of accounting. It is one of those questions which I should have a little time to explain, in fairness to the gentleman, in

8470 CONGRESSIONA.L RECORD-HOUSE ~IAY 13

ff!.iPness to msself, and in fairaess to the House, pecause that is the controversy on which Secretary Baker put forth the (,'],aim that he was being asked to pay too much. But bis .own

ccountanU;i, who are Price, Waterhouse & Oo., of New York. a gr.eat concern, retained by the Gov~rnment and paid by the Governme.Q.t, have shown a cost investment, ac.cording to their way of looking at it. of over $12,000,000.

The SPEAKER. The time &-f the gentleman from :Massachu· setts has expired.

Mr. SNELL, M.r. Speaker, I move the previoos question on the resolution.

Th,e previ@s question was ordered. The SPEl..A..KER. The queition is on agr.eeing to the reso-

lution. The question was taken; and on a division (.demanded bY

Mr. NELSON at Wisconsin) there were-ay~s 1-09, noes 27. Mr: NELSON of Wisconsin. M.r. Speaker, I make the.point

of order that there is no quorum present. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the

point of order that there is no quorum pi·esent. 'nae Ohair will eount. [After counting.] 0.ne hundred and eighty-five Mem· bers are p,11esent. not .a quorum. 'I'ib.e Doo~®er will c.lose tb.e doors, the Sergeant at Arms will bring in the absent Memhers, and the Clerk will call the rolL

The qnesti-on was taken : and there w.ere-yeas 228, nays ~6, answered 4' present " 6, npt rnting 102. as follow~: ,

Abernethy .Ackerman Allen Allgood .Almon Andrew .4..ntbony .A swell Bacon Barbour Beers Bf'g"' Ber~er Bixler BJ;11fir, N. Y. Dland Bloom Bowling Boyce Boylan Briggs Britten Br.owne, N. J. Brumm fB.uchanan Ruckley Burdick Burtness Burt.on Butler C~ble Campbell Cannon Car<'W Casey Ce Iler Chindblom Christophers&Jl Clancy Clarke, N. Y. Cleary Cile, Iowa Collier C<rlton C(}nnery Cooper, Ohio Cra)llton Crowther Cullen Cummings Dallinger Darrow Davey Deal Dempsey Denison Dickinson, fawa

Arnold .Ayres Beck Bell Black, Tex. Blanton Brand, Ga. Browne, Wis.

~~~;~fe Byrns, Tenn. Clague Connally, Tex. Cook Cooper, Wis. Crisp Cros er Davis, Minn.

YEAS-'228 Dickstein Doughton Driver Dver Elliott Evans, l\1ont. Fairchild Faidield Faust F.avrot Fenn Fish Fisher Fleetwood Foster Fredericks Free FreP.~an French Ji~rothingham Fuller · Galli:va.n Garbe.r Garrett, Teil. Ga que Gitror4 Glatfelter Graham, Pa. Green, Iowa Greene, Mass. Gciest Hadley Hardy Hauge~ Hawes Hawley Hayden Hicltey Hill, Ala. Hill. Md. Hoch Hol'-day Hooker Hudspeth Hull, Iowa. HullbW.llliam E. Jaco stein J'etl'ers Johnson, Ky. J Ob1'SOD, S. Dak. J o.hnson, Tex. Johnson, Wash. Jost Kearns Kelly Kendall Kent

Kerr Porter Ketcham Pou Kindred jPrall King :Pnrnell Knutson Quayle K:wtz Ragon J:.,a.D..l\!ord , R.a~ey · Lru·son, Minn. )faker Lazaro l?athbone Lea, CalJ.f. Ree e Leat,b,erwood lleed, ~- Y. Leatjtt nichards Lindsay Rogers, Mass. Lillel>erger Ro1'jue L.ogan Sande.rs, Ind. :r;ongworth Sandlin Lorier ears, !l'la.. Luce SiDiH>tt Lyou Smit)! McDuffie Smithwick McFada n Snell ,McLaugb;Jin, Micl1. Spe~"S ;McLaughlj.ri, ~epr.Sproul, Ill. McLeod Stalker Mc&weeney Swngle M.acGne.g<>r Stepbens .M'.ajor, Jll. St.roog, Jµtns. Man field Strong, :Pa. Mapes Sullivan N.uun Swing Mead Swpope , l\Ierritt Taber Michener "lJemple Miller, Wasll. T.h-0111.pSOn Milligan THson Mills ':l'imberlake Minahan •Tincher Moone, ,Ohj,o · Ti kba~ l\Ioore. Y.a. Treadway Morgan Underhill Monow Ve tal iMurphy 'Vmcent, tJich. 'Nel on, Me. Wamw.r.ight Newton, Minn. Watres Newton, Mo. Wa:ts.on O'Brien Weaver O'Connell, R. I. Weller O'C-0nnor, La. Wertz O'Connor, N. Y. White, Me. O'S\l:lli.van '\Villi.ams, Ill. Oliver, Ala. Wilson, La. Oliver, N. Y. Winslow Paige W.oo(l Parker Woodru1f Patterson lVu.rzbach · Peli man Wyant Phillips Youo.g

NAYS-96 Dnri.s, Tenn. Dickinson, Mo. Dominick DowPll Drewry Evans, Iowa Frear Fullbright Fulmer Gardner, Ind. Garner, Tex. Garrett, Tenn. Greenwood Harri (}ll

Hastings Hill, Wash. Ilownrd, rebr. James

Johnson, W. Va. Jones Keller Kopp Kunz LaGl.Ulrdja Lampert Lanham Larsen, Ga. Lee, Ga.. Lilly Lit-tle Lowrey McCli.ntic Mc Keown Mc-Reynold' Major, Mo. Michaelson

Mooney . Moore, ()a .

Morehead Nelon, Wis. N.olan Olds(ield Par.ks~ Arl,i. Peery Quin Ramseyer H~nkin Rayburn Reed, Ark. Roa.ell Robsion, Ky. Rn.bey ._nbatil Sanders, Tex.

Scb.flJ,J Sumners, Tex. Tillman Schneider Swank Tucker Sb.allenberger Taylor, W. Va.. Underwood Sin.cldr Thatcher Vinson, Ga. Sfiroul, :&aDB. Th,0mas1 Ky. Voif:: Sedman Thomas, Okla. We a}d

ANSWERED " J>RESENT "-6 Busby Madden 1..'ydin~s Carter Salmon

NOT VOTING--102 Aldrich Gilbert Miller, lll. Anderson Goldsborough Montague Bacharaeh Graham, Ill. Mo<>r.e, Ill Ba.nkhead Gdffi11 Moores, Ind. Barkley Hammer Morin Beedy Hersey Morris Boies Howard, Okla. Mudd Box Hudd,J..eston O'Connell, N. Y. Bran<;}, Ohio l:iudson Park, Ga. Byrnes, S. C. Hull Mortem D. P~ vey Canfield Hull, Tenn. Perkins Clark, Fla. Humphreys ]lunsl.ey Cole

1 Ohio ltahn Reed, W. Va.

Collins Riess Reid, Ill. Connolly, Pa. Kincb.eloe Robinson, Iowa Cornjng Kv.iµe Rogers, N. H. Croll Langley Rosenbloom Curry LelllbaCh Rouse Do-yJe LilJ.thicwn Sanders, N. Y. Drane McKen,zle Schat;er Eagan McNulty Scott Edmonds McSwnin Sear , Nebr. Fitz~eraJd MacL.'lfrerg Seger FuJ).K · Magee, N . .r. Sherwood Geran Magee, Pa. Shreve Gii>oon Manlove Simmo11s

So the resolution was agreed to, 'rhe Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote :

White, Kans. Williamson Wilson, Ind. Wingo Woodrw;n Wright

Wol1f

Site.11 Snyder Steagall Stevenson Summers, Wa.sh. Sweet Tague Taylor, C<>lo. Taylor, Tenn. Upshaw Vaile Vare Vinson~.Ky, Ward, ·.N. Y. Wud,N.C. Wason Watkins Welsh Williaws, M:lcli. Willlam.s, Tei. Wilson, Mise. Winter Yates ZihJman

Mr. Gibson .(for) with Mr. Bl.tsby (againat) • Mr. Curq (for) with MF· Rouse (\lgainst) . Mr. Cornmg (for) with :£\Ir. Funk (against). Mr. O'Connell of New York (for) with Mr. Park of Georgia. (against). Mr. Upshaw (f.or) wlth Mr. Kvale (against). Mr. Tague (for) with Mr. Wolff (against). Mr. Shreve (for) with Mr. Morris (against). Mr. Humphreys (for) with Mr. Collins (against),

Until further notice: Mr. ¥add~ with Mr. Carter. Mr. Magee of New York with Mr. Bankhead. Mr. Kahn with Mr. Clark of Florida. Mr. Manlove with Mr. Kincheloe. l\1r. Baclw..rach with M.r. Wil on .of ::\Iississipj>l. Mr. Gr'._lham of Illin-0is with Mr. Barkley. Mr. Boies with Mr. Linthicum. :\Ir. filf's rw~th Mr. Doyle. Mr. Hudson wit,b Mr. aox. JI.Ir. Sea.rs of Nebraska wit,b Mr. McNulty: Mr. Aldrich with Mr. Eagan. Mr. Sweet with Mr. Taylor of Colorado. .Mr. Vare with Mx. Huddlesron. :Mr. Cole of Ohio with Mr. Sherwood. Mr. Welsh with Mr. Byrnes of South Carolina Mf. Winter with ¥I. Goldsb<>rouub. • :Mr. Connolfy pf Pennsylvania with Mr. Wntkins. Mr. Schafer with Mr. Hull of Tennessee. Mr. R~id o.l' Illinois with Mr. Canfield.

· ~r. P~vey with .M.r. Howiard of .Okl~oma.. .Mr. Seger with :Mr. McSwain. ?Ill'. Morin with Mr. Gilbert. Mr. lli'itzgerald with Mr. Drane. M:r. Soott with }Ir. Steven&on, Mr. ~forton D. Hull w).t.h l\[r. Ward of Nort}J. Carolina.. Mr. Ransley with Mr. Montague. Mr. Lehlbaoh with ·11.r. Steagali. Mr . .M.udd with M.r. Cr<>ij.. Mr. Perki,ns with ¥r. :ij.-Ogers of New Hampshire. Mr. Magee of PennsYivania with Mr. Hammer. Mr. Taylor of Tennes ee with Mr. ~ran. Mr. Rosen\llO®I ;witb :rw. Site .. Mr. Brand of Ohio with Mi·. Griffin. Mr. Miller of Illinois wit.h Mr. Vinson of Kentucky. Mr. MacLn.ff.erty w1th Mr. Williams ot Texas.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A quorum being pre ent, the doors were opened. Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House re

solve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Uui.on for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 3933) for the purchase of the Cape Cod Canal property, and for otb.er purposes.

The motion was agreed to. ,Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee

of tbe Whole House on the state of t.b.e Union for the consider· ation of H. R. .3933, with l\1r. CRAMTON in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. l\Ir. WINSLOW. l\lr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

that the :first reading of t:be bill be dispensed with. The CHAIRl\IAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks

una;nimous conse:ot that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

,

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8471~

l\fr. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman, no arrangement has been made as to control of the time.

The CHAJRMAN. The rule provides that there shall be not to exceed three hours of debate, to be equally divided for and against. The gentleman from Massachusetts, I assume, is in favor of the bill and will be recognized for one hour and a half.

Mr. BLL~TON. Mr. Chairman, that can not be done in oommittee. I make the point of order that can only be done in the Honse.

The CHAIRMAN. The limitation upon the time has been fixed, but not the control of the time.

Ir. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will permit me a moment, of course, I know the time has passed for arranging for control of the time, but in the interest of orderly procedure, the three hours should be controlled. · Mr. BLANTON. Certainly.

Mr. GARRETr of Tennessee. Just a moment. An agreement can not be entered into in Committee of the Whole and yet it should be. It seems to me that the gentleman from hla.R"achusett.s should control one hour and a half and the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, opposed to the bill, should control one hour and a half.

l\Ir. TILSON. There is nothing to hinder that if there is unanimous consent.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. If the gentleman from Tennessee will yield, I suggest that in the absence of any specific direction by the House, the question of control may be ma.de in the committee by unanimous consent. The question of control of time can not be extended because that is specifically fixed by the House.

Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Tbe gentleman thinks control of the time can be so fixed.

l\Ir. TILSON. By unanimous consent. Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. 1\Ir. Chairman, I ask unani

mous consent that the time for general debate may be controlled one-half by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WINSLOW] and one-half by the gentleman from Texas [.Mr. IlAYBUR~).

The CHAI.IUIAN. The gentleman from Tennessee asks unanimous consent that the control of the time may be given one-half to the gentleman from l\lassacbusetts [:Mr. Wrnsr.ow] and one-half to the gentleman from Texas -[Mr. RAYBUR~]. Is there objection?

Mr. WOLFF. I object, but will withhold it. l\!r. BLANTON. ].Ir. Chairman, I reserve the right to ob

ject in order to ask a question. The CHAIRMAN. Does the Chair understand objection has

been made? 1\!r. BL.AJ.."'TON. 1\Ir. Chairman, I reserve the right to ob

ject All I want is 10 minutes against the bill. I was promised time against the rule by the gentleman from New York [Ur. SNELL], but through an arrangement which he made with the gentleman from Wisconsin he had to give my time to him. I would like to have 10 minutes against this bill out of the one hour and a half. If I can get a llttle time against the bil'l, that is all I want.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I will say ~o the gentleman that I have seven men who have already spoken for time; but if I have any time left I will yield it to the gentleman from Texas, but, of course, I am making no contract about that.

l\Ir. BLA..i.~TON. I shall not object, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the gentleman will yield me time, if possible.

The CHAIRl\1AN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The gentleman from :Massaclrnsetts is recognized for an hour and a half.

l\Ir. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, years ago, in 1873, the first move was made by the United States toward the establishment of internal and intercoastal waterways. Since that time the policy of the Government bas been to develop transportation by water from time to time until now we have quite a considerable amount af water transportation under the control of the United States, both intercoastal and internal.

The United States has been buying up or building waterways and they now have quite a number covering many parts of the country. As yet there has been no registered protest against the existence of any one of those that the United States has bought up or developed.

We have the Chesapeake and Delaware waterway, the Chesapeake and Albemarle, Beaufort, N. C., to Jacksonville, Charleston to Windsor, Wapoo Cut, Beaufort, S. C., to St. Johns River,

. Indian River, Appal.achicola River, Santa Rosa Sound, Mobile Bay, Mississippi River, Galveston to Corpus Christi, St l\Iacya Falls, Lake Huron, Black Rock Canal in the Niagara Rh-er, Sturgeon Bay and Green Bay with Lake Michigan Ship Canal in Michigan, the Kanawha waterway on Lake Superior, the Illinois and Mississippi waterway in Illinois, Louisville and Portland in Kentucky, Colbert Shoals Canal in Tennessee, l\Iuscle Shoals Canal, Cascade Canal in Oregon. Dalles and Toledo Canal in Oregon, Willamette Falls in Oreg-0n, Lake Washington Ship Canal in Seattle, and the Government has spent or has arranged to spend on these canals all the way from a few hundred thousand dollars up to $24,000,000.

The Government has bought privately owned canals and developed them and built others. We have before us now for the consideration of Congress in the immediate future three distinct waterway problems which I believe are in the interest of the transportation of the entire country. It is not fair to say that any one of these canals which I .ba"e mentioned is strictly a local undertah."ing. Each contributes to local development, to be sure, but each, nevertheless, helps some locality to reach out and get into every part of the United States and each helps every part of the United States to get to the locality of each waterway. The issue is national, and it is only the narrow mind that is prepared to say that any one of these canals is not a national proposition.

We have, for instance, coming up in a few days the l\fig. sissippi River barge eanal bill, with reference to forming a corporation to operate the Mississippi RiYer barge canal business.

It is a most meritorious undertaking and was reported out of the committee by a very large vote; I think, unanimously. It is a proposition not to make a waterway but to incorporate the Big Warrior and l\Iississippi River barge business in such a way that it can d-0 business and go on and try out the inland-waterway proposition, and it is well worth the cost for th~ country to try this water system of transportation. It can only be tried out by putting the Cana.I company in such shape so that it can handle its business efficiently.

l\lr. :McKEOWN. Will the gentleman yield? l\Ir. WINSLOW. Not now. If the Mississippi undertaking

is worked out and another link is put along the shore of Texas, as I shall explain, the great fabricators of iron and steel in Pittsburgh cnn get down the Ohio from Pittsburgh and other cities, and down the Mississippi River trom St Paul to New Orleans, and can send freight through the Louisiana and Texas Cana.I. When finished, as it ought to be, it wm carry us up to the Mexican border, and those who have studied the subject know that the .Mexican Government is waiting and has for a long time been waiting for ns to deliT"er shipments to the Mexican border by waterway. Mexi-co will then make a eanal of its own which would mean that you could load a barge in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Padnca.h and run straight through the Texas country without any <liscb.arge whatever.

The Mississippi River barge matter, I think yon all know and likely have a better idea of it than of the proposed Louisiaaa and Texas eanal project. That matter is before the River ami Harbor Committee. It is not my purpose to forestall th~ · action of any committee or butt into its undertaking. To my mind, that Louisiana arnl Texas canal project is an exceed· ingly meritorious proposition, and it ought to go through. It ought to be supported by our Government. There is a little stretch betm:en the Sabine River and Galveston Bay, where there is a canal proposed to be built that will make a continuous line from Mobile to Louisiana -and New Orleans, to Corpus Christi, and then later on to the Mexican border.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Will the gentlemnn yield? Mr. WINSLOW. Fo:r a brief question. Mr. HUDSPETH. Bow much is to be 11ppropriated for th~

intercoastal canal from Corpus Christi to New Orlean ? Mr. WINSLOW. I do oot know; I am not concern.ea myself

ab-0ut the cost of that. I am not concemed as mnch about the cost as I am of the importanee and necessity of building the canal. There is another project under way which will ~entually go through, and that is cutting across the top of the peninsula of Florida. When that is dane, you can start anywhere on the coast of Texas and come up into our country until y~m reach this dangerous point on the Atlantic coast that bas been knOlVIl fm.· all time as the graveyard of the .Atlantic. Shall it not be built, because somebody locally f'n.r n:way does not lik~ it? r

We could send wares all the way down throu~h this system, and we could get shipments cheaper from Pittsburgh than ~e

8472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE :U.\Y 13

can get them now from Pittsburgh to Massachusetts ·by rail. privately we could go into a court in condemnation 11l'Oceeding:. All the projects I have named are meritorious and ought to be Secretary Baker went into court and, instead of g·etting tlle put through. _~ow, to get down to the discussion of this impor- canal for $8,250,000, the court said·, "No; if you please, .., 16,8;)0.-tant Cave Cod Canal. 000 less $150,000 for deferred maintenance." By the way, you

l\Ir. BLAl,TON. Will the gentleman yield? remember Congress said, " If you can not buy it like a llor~e :\fr. WINSLOW. My heart prompts me to yield, but I do trader, buy it through the court." The Secretary went to the

not like to get idetracked in my limited time. I will hurry court, and the court gave an award. through as fast as I can, and then I will yield. The other par~ies to the trade said, "Nothing doing; you will

~lr. RL.Al,TON. The gentleman has shown that he is a ~ave to ~o back,,mto the court ~nd go befor~ the court ?f awrnl="l good fisherman with the l1ait he is offering. rn 'Y~shm~on, an~ the verdict w~s, ~ thmk, set a i?e--! m~1

1\lr. WINSLOW. Well, c102s the gentleman bite? [Laugh- u~tramed rn t~lmical. lega~ express10~s-but, _hon~ver. e~ter.l The Cape Cod Canal is no new proposition. I am not P_Iessed, a new tual was ordered.on the gr~und of impro11e1 te~-

. th ·ougb the loner history of it· but it is interestin17 to 1 bmo?~: Ur~der th~ law . the Cabmet committee, the Democratic ~om~ th

1 t · George "'ashington's time there was an effort 1

adm1mstration, Wilson's Secretary of ~ar, Secretary of tlw t no~' t ~·o rnh Cape Cod territory. Somebody asked why did I Navy, and Sec_retary of Commerce, unammously agreed-I haw n~t"'~eorge u:et through, and why di<l not the engineers later plenty of testimony :o :c;;how e:en ~nder o~th-that w~ ?ugl!t get through. There are two reasons, and the main one has to have tl~e c~nal.. President Wilson s committee finally · aid." c been that the mechanical devices which would enable tllem to I ought to. "'et it for l~s~ mon~y, so they undertook con<lemnat10n. get through with anything like a normal and reasonable l\Ieanw?ile the. admrn18trat10n .. chan~ed, and af~er the cou~·t of

e ·e not sufficientI'-· developed. In later times they app~als had ordered u new .tnal this new Cabi':1et came i_n, a expense w r " Cabmet of Warren G. Hardmg, and a new Cabmet committee hm·e been. made a trade and set up a contract which was entereu into. I

1\Ir. SHERWOO?· Will the gentleman tell us what is the believe, in absolutely good faith, and it provided for $11,500,000 depth of the canalt . . w with which to get not only the canal property as originall~·

l\lr. WINSLOW.. At. present it i~ 2o feet: Later on I ~bal! comprehended but also 932 acres of adjoining land most valuapproach that subJect m some detail. As time went on, time::s able to the canal property, and $100,000 was to be re ·erwd in without number. they undertook to get through Cape Cod, but cash on the trade when the contract hould be executed. it was not until much later that a company thought they saw l\Ir. JACOBSTEIN. Will the gentleman yield? their way to build and complete the canal in view of the de- l\Ir. WINSLOW. I will. velop1?ent in bu~lding such publ.ic w_orks. A co~pany w~s l\fr. JACOBSTEIN. Under what authority, if the gentle-orgamzed, men '''1th money we_nt mto it! and who m. heav~n s man please, was that contract agreed to? name would expect to accomplish anything of that krnd with· l\Ir. WINSLOW. Under the authority of the act of Conout the partic.ipation of men with money .. You can _not pay gress of August 8, 1917. It was made under the act of Confor a canal with paper bags. . It U:kes capital to do it. Men gress which said, "Go buy it." That was in Preshlent Wilof courage and capital went mto it. They ?Pen~d tlle canal son's time. Within two weeks after the armistice was signed on the 14th of August, 1914. I remember it with pleasure, the Government ordered or directed Secretary of 'Yar Daker ~ecau e I happen_ed to be 611~ of those wl~o went through '~hen to buy the canal, in accordance with the provi ion of law it was opened with appropriate ceremome ·-not now possible. which I have stated, and make a genuine artery, not for war [Laughter.] purposes alone, not for stragetic purposes alone, but for all

On the 14th of August they opened the canal when the depth purposes as a genuine artery, and under that direction of was 12 feet. It was suitable only for small draft boats.

1

President Wilson the committee, under the leaderRhip of the There was no idea of making it pay, but, of course, there was Secretary of War, tried to buy it. They did not get their an idea of getting a little something back from the shallow I pr~ce, so they went to the court. They did not get omething draft boats. The owners never had a_ chance to try out the that pleased them, so ~Ile~~ kicked over and finally managed to canal. The opening up of that canal came along, and, mind get an order for a new trial, and that new trial was under way you, November 16, after the canal was opened on August 14 when the Harding administration came in, and automaticall~· the Government of the United States, through the behest of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and Secrethe Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of War, began to tary of Commerce of the Harding administration sucteedecl leok about to see for what sum the canal could be bought. to the responsibilities of their predeces ors. They picked

I will say for the benefit of the opponents and proponents this negotiation up again and communed with the om1ers alike that so far as I know and so far as I have heard there of the canal, and they arrived at the price and the terms never has been anyone who has ever te tified or said in con· which appear in the contract. I happened to be chairman of versation or otherwise that at any time before the Go-rnrnment the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce at the reached out for a price that the owners of the Cape Cod Canal time, and my name as chairman of the committee, autooffered it or tried to sell it to anybody whatsoever. If there matically-not from anr residence of mine in ~Ia~acbuf'etts is a man in this House who has the information which I do but in accordance with the common practice of the Congre:':-; not ha-rn, which he will substantiate with references, I will for the chairman to put his name at the head of purely aumintake his word for it; but in the absence of such I am not istration bills-and that is why my name appear as that of willing to take the broad statement of anybody from the begin- the introducer of the bill. )forem·er, I am not sleeping with ning up to this minule that the canal company ever made an bloated stock and bond holders of Xew York and l\fa~:mc:hu-initial move to sell. setts. [Laughter.]

Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will allow Mr. JACOBSTEIN. l\lr. Chairm~rn, will the gentlemnn me to interrupt. Secretary Baker said so, and I read his own yield? words. Mr. WINSLOW. Ye.'l.

Mr. WINSLOW. I say I do· not dispute it, but I ask for the l\Ir. JACOBSTEIN. Has the1·e been any change in the own-record. " Say so " will not go witll me in a statement of facts. ersllip of the canal? If anyone has the record, I will bow to it; but in the absence Mr. WINSLOW. .None whatever. It is now being operatf'<l of it I can not consider the argument. I could hang e-reryhody by the canal company in the interest of the Government until here on "say so·" if I traveled in various districts. [Laughter the time comes for the disposition of the contract. At one and applause.] time the Government did not want to run the caual. Ther

I am dealing with facts which are substantiated by wit- disputed its ownership. and the company did not want to run nesses, and not statement · which a man may make because he it, as it denied ownership, and the canal was run for a while believes them and which he is not able to carry through with by a man "for whom it might concern." When the contract demonstration. I hurry over this. The Secretary of War was establisl1ed the canal company, which wa familiar with asked for a price. He got $13,000,000 handed back to him. He the operation, was asked l>r the LTnited States Gornrnment to did not like it, and then meanwhile he had an accounting run it pending the actiou of Congres · on the contract as othermade at Government expense by his own accountants, as I wi ·e agreed to, and t11at FHuatioh exists now. No money h; have described. In due time, after the President of the United diverted to the treasm·r of the canal C'ornpany and no receipts States, Woodrow Wilson-now I am a little bit ahead. While spent for a couple of ~·ear:-;, except for mn.intenunce and upthe war was on we took over the canal by presidential proclama- keep. tion for war purposes. Before it was given up by the United l\Ir. JACOBSTEIX. Xo new financial interei-t~ lmve come States and turned back into the hands of the owner the Secre· in? tary of War was unable to buy it; he could not agree on the I Mr. WINSLOW. Xo: nn<l meanwhile thf' cannl company price, so he fell back on Congress's mandate in law that we owner• haYe been compelle<l to pay out of their own pockets could purchase it .for so-and-so, and if we could not obtain it the intere,;;;t on $6,000,000 in bon!l:;.

1924 OONGRESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE 8473 Mr. A..BERXETHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman Mr. JAOOBSTEIN. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield

yield? for another question? Mr. WL,SLOW. Yes. Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. Mr. ABERXETHY. I am for the canal, because it is a part .Mr. JAOOBSTEL~. You stated there were three reasons

of tbe inland waterway scheme which the Go"fernment is nn- and you mentioned as first the commercial reason. ' uertaking to operate from Boston down to the Gulf. But I Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. would like to haYe an answer to a question raised an this Mr. _JACOBSTEIN. Did you mean by that that even though side of the Honse, that at one time the owners -0f the canal the private company could not operate it profitably the Governundertook to accept $9,000,000 for it. That item got into a ment could, giving free tolls? river and harbor bill in the Senate. Now they want $1.L.500,- Mr. WINSLOW. That is one of the reasons. 000. Will the gentleman explain that? M JACO s

Mr. WINSLOW. I will, according to my best i·ecollection, mer~ia.1 ente~r~~~N. You would not regard that as a com-and I will call on the gentleman from New York [Mr. DEl!P· Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. SEY] for correction, if any need be maoo. Mr. JACOBSTEL.'i. The Gorernment would not llUike it

The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce re- pay, would it? ported out a bill carrying in round numbers $11,500,000 for Mr. WINSLOW. By charging an admis.5ion fee? the canal. When the river and harbor bill was put in in the l\Ir. JACOBSTEL.~. Yes. last Congress it pleased the Senate through a conference to M WINS bring in a rioor on that bill-perhaps a matter beyond their . r. LOW. It can not make any of the>se things pay. juri diction; but they brought in an item for $9,000,000, clip- Long Island is not paying and New York Harbor is not pa:ving. pling off two million and a half from the amount named by Mr. JACOBSTEIN. It is not as a purely commercial pi-opo-

sition, then? the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in its bill Mr. WINSLOW. No more than is Ambrose Channel But When that report came in the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce resisted it, for this reason: They were not you New York people do not want to lose that channel nor aware of the fact that the owners of the canal had ever con- have the Government abandon it. sented to any reduction of the $11,500,000. They were not Mr. J A.COBSTEIN. It is not to be u ed with tolls for aware of the fact that the committee of the President had any shipping? notice of the proposed reduction or that they agreed to it as Mr. WINSWW. No. Under existing law th~y can not run a wise course. . canals with tolls, except the Panama Canal

Our committee presented its views to the House, and the Com- l\Ir. JACOBSTEIN. One more question. Reference was made mittee on Rivers and Harbors presented its views, and by a vote in the debate to the transfer of jurisdiction of this mutter of the House it was decided tfiat tbe _item naming $9,000,000 from the Committee on Rivers and Harbors to the Committee had better be stricken out of the river and harbor bill, and it on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. As a new Member I ''"as referred back to conference and so it was dropped out. would like to have the gentleman explain how it got to the That is the whole story, is it not? Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce instead of the

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes; that is a correct statement. Committee on Rivers and Harbors. Mr. WINSLOW. I would like to add, with such pleasure as l\1r. WINSWW. It the gentleman regards the question as

. may be connected with this experience, that neither the Cabinet germane and important, and if he will call upon me I will tell him all about it. ' nor the President discussed the wisdom of cutting off the 1\f JACOBSTEIN .

$2.500,000. . .., ~· . . In debate it was stated there was. an :\Ir. DE~IPSEY. Yes; that is conect.

11 implication somewhei:e of motive for transf.elTing it.

1.Ir. ABERNETHY. .Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman again l\Ir. WINSLOW. No, no. That happened m the Senate. and yield? we are not accountable for any strange vagaries of t~1eirs.

~Ir. WINSLOW. Yes. [Applause.] ' l\lr. ABERNETHY. The owners, a.s I unuerstand, never Mr. WILLI~ISON. Will the gentleman yi~ld?

agreed to that? Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. :\Ir. WINSLOW. No. The Senate, for reasons sufficient to l\Ir. WILLIA.MS-ON. What is the approximate width and

W::elf, clipped off $3,500,000. We never raised it up. They cut depth of this canal at the present time? it down. :Mr. WINSLOW. The average depth is 25 feet. It is

~lr. OLIVER of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman deeper at one end than at the other, on account of the way the yield? water runs, due to the movement of the tides. I am very ofad

Mr. WirSLOW. Yes. to go on in this way, because it shows what the Members0

are Mr. OLIVER of Alabama. This is a segment of an inter- interested in, but it will break up the continuity of a running

coastal canal project which the Government has in view, and statement by me. The. depth at mean low water now is 25 feet. is in accordance with the provision reported by the Commit.tee They propos~the engmeers of the Army, through whom e-reryon Rivers and Harbors in connection with the project now body has '!orked, and. whose :fi~es are accepte<J--.:.to haxe a entertained of an intercoastal canal? depth of 3<:> feet. It is the opimon of General Goethals and

)fr. WIN"SLOW. Yes. This is of importance to the Gov- o.thers t~at with a. <lep~ of 35 ~eet, i~ connection wit~ the ernment, which has favored this matter as an absolute neces- tides twice a day, it will make it possible for a warship of sity for tbe Government; a project which Secretaries Baker, 40 feet draft to go through the canal. Redfield, Daniels, Weeks, Denby, and Hoover, and Presidents . l\fr. ~LIMlSON. How much additional will it cost to Wilson, Harding, and Coolidge, and engineers of the Army and give this c-anal a depth of '35 feet and a width of 200 feet? Navy, and admirals ad libitum favored. Mr. WI:NSLOW. The estimate of the engineers was abollt

I could give you a whole line of Government and expert in- $10,000,000. dorsers of it here, with quotations necessary to prove the 8tate- Mr. WILLIAMSON. Can this canal be operated without ment. You will, I am sure, take my word that they have in- locks? dorsed the purchase of the canal as a de irable thing .all the lli. WINSLOW. There has been only one engineer who sugtime, and there has been only one contention about it, and that gested locks, and that was Colonel Burr, of the Army. has been as to the price. Never until this morning have I heard Ur. WILLIAMSO:N. What is the approximate difference in anybody suggest that it ·would not be a desirable a.cquisi- the height of Cape Cod and Buzzard's Bar-the level? tion to the Government for three reasons: FiI'st, as a com- Mr. WINSLOW. I think the gentleman from :Massachusetts mercial proposition, and then again from the standpoint of [Mr. GIFFORD] can tell you about that, but I think, 'T feet. strategic position for war purposes, and again for the humane Mr. GIFFORD. Five feet. · considerations, which we will undertake to develop in due time. l\Ir. Ul\'DERHILL. That is at fiood tide?

Mr. BLANTON. The gentleman spoke of President Wilson :illr. 'Vl.LTSLOW. Are there any other questions at this and his cabinet heing heartily in favor of this proposition. I moment? would like to aslT tl1e gentleman to explain this for my benefit ~Ir. McKEOWN. Will the o-entleman yield? Pre8iuent Wilson nnd bis cabinet were in absolute authoritl" in Tu. WIXSLOW. Yes. " August, 19~7. They coultl pass any ¥od of a bill they wanted. l\Ir. ::\IcKEO~. I would like to know what the attitutle of Wby ~as it necessar~ for Secretary W~e~s in. the Senate to Secretary Weeks is now on tbe Warrior Ili-rer proposition. I put ~his m~t~er as. a ~·Hlei: on 8;il appropriation bill for a Demo- noticed the other clay that he was in favor of clirposing of tl1at cratic admm1strat10u l \v hy d1<l they not lJ.aye some one acting proposition. for them,se~ves to yut it ~u ? llr. ~SLOW. I am not going to w:iste any more time on

Mr. \\ I~SLm~. :\fa:ne thc.r coulU not find any Democrat Warrior Ili\er. I have told you I think it is a fine thinb, and who knew half as much about it as Senator Weeks. I think Secretary Weeks is one of the strougest men in sup-[Laughter.] port of it.

I

fl

' 8474 OONGRESSION .A.L RECORD-HOUSE l'1AY 13

Mr. McKEOWN. But I noticed in the papers that he was going to sell it.

l\Ir. WINSLOW. I do not care to yield further as to the Warrior River. I will help the gentleman fry those fish later but not now.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Did I understand the gentleman

to say that tlle rider carrying $9,000,000, which was put on in the Senate, was put on at the instance of Senator Weeks at that time?

Mr. WINSLOW. No; that was long before and he was not there.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. But the $11,500,000 appropriation was his?

Mr. WINSLOW. No; that was made up by a committee of three-the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Commerce, acting for the Harding administration.

Mr. SHALLENBERGER. My point was whether the Senator had agreed to the $9,000,000.

l\lr. WINSLOW. No. Mr. :MANSFIELD. If the gentleman ·will permit, I want to

sugge t to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. SHALLENBERGER] that the Senate did not put it in at $9,000,000; they put it in at $11,500.000, but the conferees-the gentleman from New York [Mr. DEMPSEY] was one of the conferees-suggested $9,000,000 in the conference.

Mr. WINSLOW. However it was, it was not accepted by the House at the time.

Now, the time has been flying. I could show you-and I would like to get permission to extend my remarks if it is possible to obtain that permission now.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks uu:lllimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair bears none.

l\lr. WINSLOW. We can give you, as to the value for war pur11oses, the testimony of many engineers, beginning with General Goethals. We can take ill Admiral Benson. We have Colonel Hodges; we have Gen. Leonard Wood; we have General l\lurray ; General Black; General Beach; Admiral Chester ; Admiral Knight, and I do not know how many others, but all ham contributed their direct testimony to the effect that it is of high importance, and the particular thing which all emphasize is that if you can haye that canal you can run up the Atlantic coast and clear up from the South with torpedo destroyers, submarines, and so on, without getting into rough water, and they can come in through Long Island Sound and into Massachusetts Harbor and run away from any attack which can be made outside. We had such an experience during the war, when .aome barges were shot up by a German submarine which skinned across the ocean and bobbed up outside of Cape Cod. That submarine shot up some of these barges from Philadelphia, or Baltimore or Norfolk. The barge · would never go out that way if they bad this canal as a matter of commerce.

We have more ships going through the Cape Cod Canal than there are going through the Panama Canal every year. We do not get the tonnage because they carry very big ships through the Panama Canal, but we have great numbers of coastwise small boats, many pleasure boats and hundreds of little fishing smacks which are used by men who get their living from pulling fish out of the water and carrying them to Bo ton. Then, too, more people-not more people, because there are no\v excursion steamers going through the Panama Canal-but when you come to the number of vessels, my recollection is tllat there are about twice as many going through the canal at Cape Cod as through the Panama Canal.

l\1r. CLAGUE. Will the gentleman please explain the sav. ing in distance?

l\lr. WINSLOW. I will. New York is down this way and the coast runs off here [indicating on map]. Cape Cod is this part down here [indicating]. All of these black marks [indicating] indicate marine disasters of one kind or another, involving pro11erty or lives or both.

There have been hundreds and hundreds of them which have not been reror<led here for the reason that the data have not got into tile hands of the Government departments such as the Coast Guard, which keeps these records.

Long Island Sound comes up here, and they go either outside, of Block Island or inside. That is a very bad place, but it is in the middle of the ocean, and, of course, you can not canal that; but they do work along there in comparatively smooth water. Then they strike Buzzards Bay, which is almost landlocked. It is a safe place for little catboats and other boats

used for pleasure purposes in the ummer. All this lan<l around here [indicating] is very valuable for summer residences and is ;elling fast for that purpose. The land which would be obtained here at Cape Cod is also very valuuble for that sort of purpose as well as for terminals of railroads.

They come up through Buzzards Bay, where there i a deep channel for a warship without any danger of being hit, and then the dredging begins out here, perhaps 3 or 5 miles until you get into the canal proper. Tllen they go on through there.

You have asked the distance it saves. If ships come in through here and wiggle around through this very rough place and come around here the saving is about 65 or 70 miles according to the chances that are taken. l\Iighty few of them, in any weather that looks heavy, ever go near Nantucket or ever come near this point down here. They go off here sometimes 50 or 100 miles in bad weather and an ordinary coasting steamer would stand off there 50 to 70 miles. Bear in mind that between here and Spain there is not anything to interrupt the breezes and the rolls of the ocean are tremendous there. As they steer off around this cape, they go into Boston. It is a question of the chances the mariner is willing to take, the size of his vessel, and so forth and the weather, as to whether this 'distance is around 60 or 70 miles or 100 miles.

You must understand that a great deal of the busines~ that comes here is coal. '"We are not able in New England to get sufficient coal over the railroad lines in the wintertime and I do not know that we could get sufficient coal in the summer time to store for winter and many barges come up here from Norfolk, from Philadelphia, from Baltimore and from New York, bearing coal, frequently three tows behind a tug.

If the weather gets bad, they put in at a harbor like this or they come around the cape. If the cape trip is their trir). they may sta~' there a fortnight before they get out, becnrn;e of rough water or fog. But they do not lose time like that. There is hardly a day in the year when they can not Bcoot up bere and go along the coast to Boston or go to Portland.

Mr. WOODRUFF. Will the gentleman yield just there? Mr. WINSLOW. Yes. l\Ir. WOODRUFF. Has the canal ernr frozen over ince it

was built? Mr. WINSLOW. I believe it has frozen over, but tllere

never has been a time when they could not clear it out with what tlley call a ramming boat.

l\Ir. WOODRUFF. An ice breaker? Mr. WINSLOW. An ice breaker. I do not know that they

have ever lost a day. Mr. UNDERHILL. An ordinary tug will break it. l\lr. WINSLOW. They ha\e never lost a day, have they,

Mr. GIFFORD? Mr. GIFFORD. No. /' l\Ir. SUMMERS of Washington. Tl.te legend on the map

seems to indicate that the wrecks marked on the map occurred prior to 1903. Can the gentleman explain to us wh~· the map is not revised to date, and how many wrecks have occurred since that date?

1\1.r. WINSLOW. Yes, sir; I can tell you that exactly. The casualties from around Cape Cod for the period following that up to 1924-this is reported by the Coast Guard April 30, 1924-instances of assistance, 895.

Mr. :NELSON of Wisconsin. Is that information in tlle hearings?

l\Ir. WINSLOW. No: it is information privately obtained. Mr. :il.TELSON' of Wisconsin. Is there anything in the hearings

on that? l\Ir. WINSLOW. On tllese later dates? Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. On the loss of property? Mr. WINSLOW. Oh, yes. Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. Can the gentleman refer to it? Mr. WINSLOW. It is in tlle report and probably in the hear-

ings. I can not say too positively about the hearing~, but I will give you that information if you like just as soon as I finish.

Instances of assistance, 89:5 ; persons on board, 8,683 ; lh·es lost, 66; value of the property involved, $38,570,760.

From 1875 to 1924 there are recorded 1,473 marine disasters in the Cape Cod area. But, mind you, it is not all a matter of having a disaster. It is not all a que~tion of a casualty. If people get out there and are strung up in the rigging in times of stormy weather and suffer mental anguish and all the fear that goes with marine disasters, it is a matter to be considered. as well as just waiting for somebody to die.

1'1r. SUMMERS of Washington. Let me understand the gentleman. Would the first figures quoted apply from 1903 to the present time1

19~-± OONGRESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE 8475 ~Ir. WINSLOW. 1880 to 1903 are the figures here, and then

the figures I read are since that time. l\Ir. SUl\11\IETIS of Washington. The gentleman then went

back to 1875 and gave some figures, which was rather confusing. l\Ir. WINSLOW. I went back there to group together the

total of marine disasters. l\lr. RAKER. Will the gentleman yield for a question? l\Ir. WINSLOW. Certainly. !\Ir. RAKER. Where is Woods Hole as marked on the plat? )Jr. WINSLOW. It is right here [indicating]. :\Ir. RAKER. It may not be important, and possibly is not,

but you have a wharf and a railroad leading from there which run· directly to Boston, have you not?

:\Ir. WINSLOW. Yes, sir. :Jlr. RAKER. But that is insufficient to carry the coal, if

you should unload it at Woods Hole and take it on into Boston. That is a fact, is it not?

::\1r. WINRLOW. Oh, they could not handle anything at Woods Hole. It is just an inlet, about large enough for a steamer and a yawl to get in and turn around and get out. It is a little rock pocket.

l\lr. RAKER. That is only for the purpose of passenger traffic?

~rr. WINRLOW. Yes; and for boats to land for that area around there.

~Ir. RAKER. There is a railroad running from Boston to Woods Hole, because I have been over it.

:\lr. WINSLOW. That is quite right. :\Ir. RAKER. But it would not answer the purposes of trans

portation of heavy freight. ~Ir. WINSLOW. Oh, no; and here is the trouhle. In the

matter of coal, they would have to bring it to Boston either by rail or by water, and then they would have to transfer it on to rail again and carry it on down to Woods Hole, and then they woulcl have to transfer it and put it on the barges. The handling would be worth more than the coal.

~·ow, I will not undertake to go into the humane features of it. We come to the financial proposition, and the only objection I have ever heard which appealed to me as being a real argument. I want to address myself briefly to that. Secretary Baker on January 17, 1919, offered $8,250,000 for the property. It i safe to say that when the committee of the Cabinet unanimously agreed to it he thought he was justified in offering something for it ; otherwise he would be subject to discredit, and I do not discredit him. He might be wise enough in trying to get it as cheaply us he could. The Government had the books of the Cape Cocl Canal Co. and went over them. The accountants paid by the Gov-ernment brought in an apprai"al of upward of $12,000,000. The- canal company knew what they had put in there and what the account was and they declined !I.Ir. Baker's offer. They went to the courts nntl got an award of $16,801,201.11. The trial was in progress and is being delayed by consent of counsel of both litigants by agreement.

The Government never had the canal, although it then directed the operation and has ever since. The canal company has had no real proper use of the canal If you will take the amount of $8,250,000 which Secretary Baker offered and which mig11t have gone into the coffers of the canal company, and which if it had gone into the coffers of the canal company would have represented an interest charge to the Government, you will find on a basis of 6 per cent interest, compounded semiannually, on $8,250,000 from the time Mr. Baker offered 1t up to the 7th of May, 1924, it would have amounted to 813,168,864. Secretary Baker's offer plus simple interest would come to $12,748,750, which would represent his personal idea of the value of his offer. In addition to that, you should bitch on for the benefit of the Government $100,000 which must be left in the Treasury. Then you must take into consideration the land item of $300,000, and there yon have a proposition which shows that after all the committee of the Harding administration and the Coolidge administration have not been very far from the Baker offer when you consider the offer plus the interest accruing up to the time of making the contract.

We are almost down to the price of Secretary Baker, so if anyone wants to come in and say that Mr. Baker's offer was enough, the proposition is how much was money worth from that time to this, and you will get to a point which will establish the value of the canal as a good buying proposition for the Government 1\1r. Chairman, how much time have I used?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has used 47 minutes. Mr. THATCHER. Will the gentleman yield? llr. WINSLOW. I will. :\Ir. THATCHER. Does Mr. Baker's offer include the land?

Mr. WINSLOW. · No ; the land was not in it Mr. THATCHER. How much land is there there? Mr. WINSLOW. Nine hundred and thirty-two acres, which

is appraised at about $300,000. There is plenty of land for widening the canal without buying any more.

l\Ir. JACOBSTEIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WINSLOW. I will. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. What is the physical condition of the

canal to-day compared with what it was when Mr. Baker made the offer?

1\Ir. WINSLOW. I do not know that I am wise enough to tell the gentleman that. I have gone through it many times; but whatever the condition is now, it would not amount to enough in the way of being of less value in the light of what must be done to make it so that large ships can go through as contemplated. There may have been some misplaced sand or a rock rolled down from the riprap since l\1.r. Baker's offer ; and, on the other hand, they may have improved it

l\lr. UNDERHILL. It has been improved; some rocks have been taken out. I was through there last Summer, and the captain of the vessel told me that it was in much better condition than it had ever been before.

Mr. FOSTER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WINSLOW. I yield. Mr. FOSTER. After the armistice the Wilson administra

tion was attempting in good faith to secure the canal. Mr. WINSLOW. Yes; they were acting in good faith and

trying to get the canal. Mr. FOSTBR. When the war was oYer they did not n.handon

it, but tried to secure it. 1\Ir. WINSLOW. Yes; that same year after the armistice

l\lr. Wilson told the Secretary of War to "go to it" and either get it by purchase or condemnation.

1\Ir. FOSTER. And they were still engaged in that when the change of administration came.

l\Ir. WINSLOW. Yes; although the Government tried to turn it over to the owners, but they would not take it because thev said, under the law proceeding it was not theirs and,' as ~ matter of fact, the canal never has gone back to the owners.

Mr. O'CONNELL of Rhode Island. Will the gentleman yield?

l\Ir. WINSLOW. Yes. l\.Ir. O'CON:NELL of Rhode Island. Would not the use of

the canal result in a great deer.ease •in freight rates for shippers?

l\1r. WINSLOW. I think there would be a general rate reduction, because the ship companies would go through there and cut off hundreds of miles, and it would inevitably have a tendency to bring down freight rates.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. One further question. When the Government attempted to dispose of Muscle Shoals we disregarded the money invested by the Government in that project. We did not consider the market value, apparently, of that property when we were to turn it over to a private individual. Now, when a private individual wants to turn something over to the Government, we have to consider the money invested in that project. There does not seem to be the same application in those two cases, and I was wondering how the gentleman would square that.

l\1r. WINSLOW. I never can square a Government operation in a financial deal of any kind, and never could. [Applause.]

l\Ir. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LAGUARDIA].

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my opposition to this bill is based on the method employed in bringing this matter before us and the procedure followed rather than the merits of this particular canal. Now, I will concede for the sake of argument that the canal at this point is useful to navigation. I concede that it is the policy of our Government to build canals and operate them. That perhaps is more than some of my colleagues sponsoring this particular bill will do. The disti:nguished chairman of the committee made a statement in which he said that it ls not a matter of price which brings this p~·oposition into the House, and on that point I take issue. I have before me, gentlemen, the Federal Reporter, volume 271, and on page 877 you will find reported the case of United States v. Cape Cod & New York Canal Co. The Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, reversed the award granted in the court below after a trial by jury. It has been pointed out on the floor of this House many times that it is not the function of the legislative branch of the Government to control the courts, and I submit that the. reason that this bill is now before us is because the award of the jury was re-

v

8476 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

V"ersed by the circuit court, and under the law of the case as laid down by the circuit court nothing like the original award of $16,000,000 could possibly be obtained by the owners of this canal. They know It, and the effort is now being made to get $11,500,000. Tbe distinguished chairman pointed out that it was not a matter of price. It was pointed out by the chairman that it was not reversed on nny question of the value, and, gentlemen, I will ask you to take the trouble to read the opinion of the court, and, by the way, the opinion of the court is the soundest, most logical, and the fairest opinion that was handed down in all of the war cases involving questions of valuation. It is the one case in whlch every State and municipality of this country has relied in litigation on rates for public utilities and wher-e property was taken during and since the war for public use.

Pursuant to the proclamation of the President on July 8, 1918, the canal was taken over by the United States Government on July 25, 1918, as a war measure. The Government was in pos ession and controlled the canal at the time the condemnation proceedings were instituted and remained in control of the canal up to March 1, 1920, when -it was turned back to the canal company.

There seems to have been some negotiations for the purchase outright of this property. Just how necessary the canal was as a war measure I personally do not know. Tb.at is a question which does not particularly concern us at this moment. Whether the Government went after the canal or the canal people went after the Government-that, too, we mny disregard at this time. There was testimony at the trial to indicate that the Government did make use of this canal during the war. The war is over. Tb.at it is the policy of this Government to develop the waterways of the country, to own and operate canals, I have just stated. But whether we are to establish a policy that a venture which was originally intended to be operated by private capital but has turned out to be a financial failure owing to its high cost of promotion, costly financing, overissuance of stock, is to be dumped on the Government; that is the question which we are to decide to-day. It is conceded by the proponents of this measure that under private operation this canal is a financial failure. We have heard repeated statements of how useful this canal is, but, on the other hand, that ships will not avail themselves of the use of the canal owing to the toll charges which the company must maintain. We know, too, that the canal requir~s widening and dredging, entailing &penditure of several million dollars. Although a reasonable toll is charged, ships woUld rather go around the cape and risk the dangers and storms than to pay a regular toll for the use of the canal. I state unhesitatingly that if we were voting an initial appropriation for the digging of this canal by the Government, I would cheerfnlly vote for itt but I hesitate to accept th.is bill, .and I feel it is rmy duty to oppose it because we are paying not only for the actual cost of digging and building this canal but are asked to pay for enormous costs of promotion, financing, and "\Yater-I mean water in the stock, not in the canal. Let us for a moment see jnst what happened.

Mr. O'CONNELL of Ilhode Island. Before the trial in 1917, a representative of the firm of Price, Waterhouse & Co.1 internationally known, testified and got the figures for the Government, and said it cost $13,7G5,000; and they were employed by the Army engineers.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. There is not a lawyer in this House but knows that you can get certified accountants to testify to any valuation desired, just as you can get medical experts to testify both wars. . After an apparent failure to negotiate a private sale, the Government instituted condemnation proceedings on April l, 1919, in the United States district court, to acquire this property under the river and harbor act of August 8, 1917. The canal company filed its answer, and the -Old Colony Trust Co. appeared in the action, claiming an interest in the property in the nature of a mortgage dated January 1, 1910, in the sum of $6,000,000, and asking that its rights be protected a.nd compensation paid to it. The trial took place in the months of October and November, 1919. The issues submitted to the jury were--

1. The value of the prol)erty and franchise sought to be determined.

2. 1~he amouut fairly and reasonably chargeable to the Oanal Oo. on account of dredging and other work done by the Unite<l States while the canal was in control of the United States Railroad Administration.

Substantially the que.:;tion was the value of the property plus franchise le~s expenditurf>~'3 by the Government which resulted ;n enhancing the \alue of the property.• The jury rendered a

verdict of $16,801,201.11 nnd credited the Government with the amount of $150,000, which under the issues was to go in reduction of the general verdict.

Judgment was entered on the Sd day of August, 1920., and from that judgment the Government prosecuted a writ of error. In its assignment of error the Govenment complained that the court erred, (1) in the admission of evidence, (2) in its charge to the jury, (3) in its refusal to grant certain requests for instructions, and ( 4) in the substance and form of the decree entered. It has been suggested that the errors assigned by the Government in its appeal and the subsequent reversal by the appellate court has nothing to do with the price and award of the jury. It has been repeatedly stated that this reversal was due to technicalities of law and that the award made bv the jury was not questioned and that a new trial would result iu a like award. I take issue with such statements. I deny that such is the case. Gentlemen, the errors assigned, as I will proceed to show you, were based on the testimony which was permitted to go to the jury on the question of valuations, the very crux of this action. Errors were made in permitting testimony f.o go to the jury on franchise values. The court erred in charging the jury on law -0f valuation. 'l'hat was the only issue really that the jury had to. decide, and -When the appellate court reversed the decision of the court below on errors of admission of testimony and the court's charges to the jury, that in itself takes the very foundation upon which the respondents based their whole theory of valuation.

A Mr. Johnson qualified as an expert on the history and theory of canal transportation and as haying special knowledge of canals and inland waterways, both in this country and in Ew·ope, with reference to the a.mount of business they did and the tolls they charged. The purpose of this testimony was to establish tbe franchise value of the canal. Mr. Johnson did not testify as to what it cost the company to construct the canal, not at all He testified to the prospectlre future business of the canal; he testified to the tonnage which would go through this canal in order to establish the progressive growth in the companyts business, upon which the profits of the canal could be ascertained not only for t11e present time, but in the future. The future estimated profits were then taken and capitullzed and that amount added to the value of the property of the canal.

Mr. Johnson testified that in 1909, 26 465,000 gross ~essel tons passed around the cape and that the gross vessel tonnage per annum during the war which passed through the canal and around the coast was 18,108,893 tons. Then Mr. Johnson, as an expert, was asked what, in his opinion, the future .coastwise traffic would be-mark ;you, not what would go through the canal. but what the future coastwise traffic would be-and he said that he predicted the coastwise traffic would return to normal within three years. He assumed the tonnage would be 26,000,000 in 1923-and you will remember he was testifying in October or November of 191~and he estimated it would reach 34,500,000 tons in 1933. Mr. Johnson also looked further into tb:e future and estimated that in 19-13 the increase would carry the figures to 46,200,000 tons. Then Mr. Johnson, as an expert witness, was asked how much of this 46,200,000 tons would _go through the ranal, and let me read yon the testimony of the Witness-Mr. Johnson's own words:

The most reliable estimate that I can make of the future growth of the traffic of a canal like the Cape Cod Canal is by predicting for it such a rate of increa e as bas actually been experienced by .canals who have run their hlstory for 20, 30, and 40 year~ whose history 1s a matter of record. • • • The best method I know of to estimate the p1·obable development of a canal like tbe Cape Cod Canal is to con· sider-and I shall be very brief about it-the actual expel"i~nce ()f some other canals, and I have selecteu the Suez, the Manchester, and the Kiel Canals.

Just pause for a moment to see how far~fetched and remote was the theory upon which this expert witness based his testimony. He assumes tonnage for 1923 based upon tonnage ot 1909; tonnage that went around the cape, not through the canal. Then to estlmat.e the growth of the canal's busine s as far ahead as 1943 he goe"' to the Suez Canal in Egypt, to the Kiel Canal in ~rmany, and to the Manchester Canal in England. He applies the percent.age of growth of tonnage of these canals in far-off distant fa.mts. 1e.ach of the three canals an important Wgh"\vay of traffic in the world's commerce, and applies the percentage of gtowth of ·these canals to the tonnage he assumed in 1919 would go around the cape in 1923. A.ftehe testifies to his 'figure or 46.000.000-to he correct, his "fignre was 47,337,000 ton -in this flim~-y. un.'cientifi.c, unprecedented manner, tllen they proceeded to mtiltiply the 47,000,000 ton.· by so much a ton toll, deducte1l their estimated expense, and then capitalized the profits was up to H43.

192-± . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8477 The court permitted all of that to go to the jury and the jury

naturallJ' tool~ that into consideration. Tlle te timony was admitted over the objection of Govern

ment's counsel. The circuit court of appeals held that the testimony was improper, that the basis and theory of the witness was too remote and could by no stretch of the irn·agination be applied to the franchise value of this property. Gentlemen, that . trikes at the very heart of the value of this property, and that is one of the reasons tlie court set it aside and that is one of the reasons that the bondholders and l\fr. Belmont dared not go back to a new trial, because no ~uch fantastic testimony woulll be admitted and no such far-fetched theory would be admitted and no such exaggerated value of franchise can possibly be presented to a new jury. For that reason I say that the rnlue of the property is directly involved by the decision of the appeilate court. The appellate court, after reviewing in detail Profe&)or Jollnsou's testimony, pointing out how the jury was misled, concluded by saying: "We are therefore of the opinion that the evidence under consideration given by Professor Johnson was incompetent and should not have been receh·ed."

In order to establish the tolls charged by this company and apply the rate to the speculative tonnaO'e estimated by the witnes · Johnson, the company called Mr. ~alvin Austin, of the Eastern Steamship Co., and the court permitted to be introduced in eviclence an alleged contract between the canal company and the Eastern Steamship Co. prepare<l in 1916 relative to tolls for the year 1917. The terms of this proposed contract were put in eYiclence over the objection of Government's counsel to establish the tolls charged and ·as bearing upon the ·useful or potential value of the canal property, based upon the estimated tonnage as far ahead as 1943. But this proposed contract, it was disclosed, had never been signed and accepted by the steampship company. The appellate court held that the steamship company having never sanctioned the proposed contract, the e,·idence was inadmissible and that the court erred in receiving it. Does that not go to the amount awarded by the jur~· ? If this contract which was never executed, fixing a toll wlliC'h was neYer received by the canal company and this toll is muitiplied by tonnage which the canal company could never exped to get through its canal, and that amount was capitalized antl added to the value of property, how could anyone say that the que~tion of value did not enter into the decision of the appellate court?

I "ill not bore you with all the assignment of errors, but I Clo l1elicve I should give you just one or more examples of the eYitl<>nc-e offered in this case upon which I base my statement, that the award was exorbitant and not warranted by the testimony anll that the ruling of the appellate court so held and la i11 clown the law of the case in such unmistakable terms that a uew· trial could not come anywhere near the amount originally granted.

For instance, General Goethals, of Panama Canal fame, was called as an expert witness for the purpose of showing the value of tlle canal property. General Goethals was asked to state llis opinion as to the value of the canal, giving due consideration to the different elements of value which has been submitted, some of it erroneously, and especially to the potential earning capacity of the canal as estimated by Professor Johnson. The testimony of General Goethals was admitted over the objection of the Government and the Government took an exception on the ground that the opinion of General Goethals was predicated upon the acceptance of Professor John on's figures as to the potential earning capacity of the canal. The general, on cross-examination, qualified his estimates of the future prospective earnings of the canal by stating lJis figures were not based entirely upon Professor Johnson's figure~. and that he did not know the professor's figures until after he had decided on his own estimate. That quail-

• ti.cation saved part of the general's testimony. Tllen the company, at the trial, proceeded to prove the

value on the theory of the cost of reproduction. The theory that has cost the people of the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in the last seven years and has put hundrec.1. of millions of dollars into the pockets of holders of watered stock and bondholders, co-rering property that had to be taken by the Government, State, or municipalities for public use. It is this theory of reproduction, gentlemen, that has worked havoc with rates of public utilities and on this artificial. illogical theory of rep1·oduction, accepted by the courts, the people of the United States are paying millioni-; of dollars in excessive telephone, gas. electric-. and transportation rates. I clo not want to di1:1;re~~ on that ·ubject at this time. It would take too mud1 of my time. gentlt>men, to gi>e you my per-

sonal experience as an official of the city of New York and what this theory of reproduction cost really means to the people of this country. To get back to our case, witnesses took the stand and testified as to the cost of the canal, not when it was built, but as to the cost to reproduce the canal in 1919.

Mr. GA.LLIV AN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LAGUARDIA.. Yes. Mr. GALLIVAN. The gentleman referred to the cost of re

production and to the fad that the appellate court reversed the decision because certain evidence was admitted which should not have been admitted. What was the cost of reproduction as given by the experts for the canal owners?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I will tell you in just a minute. Mr. GALLIVAN. Was it not in the neighborhood of

$25,000,000? l\Ir. LAGUARDIA. Yes; I am coming to that, I will say to

the gentleman. Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. The jury did not follow that

valuation, and if it were resubmitted to the jury there is not any supposition that it will?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. If it is resubmitted to the jury in accordance with the opinion of the appellate cofil't, the gentleman knows they can not put any such reproduction cost without qualification in evidence. They can not put any speculative profit in evidence and capitalize that. The gentleman knows that. The gentleman knows that the case must be tried in accordance with the law laid down by the appellate court.

Mr. l\IADDEN. Does the law, as a matter of fact, give any· body the right to compromise without a trial of the case? They have got to try this case before they can settle it?

l\Ir. LAGUARDIA. Yes; in accordance with the act of August, 1917. I belie\e, gentlemen, they do not want to go back to a trial of this case.

l\fr. MADDEN. Then the case is not properly before us? l\Ir. LAGUARDIA. Exactly. Now to continue-Patrick Mc

Govern, a contractor, who duly: qualified as an expert on the cost of construction, testified that in his estimation it woulfl cost to reproduce the canal in 1919 $27,980,729, and General Goethals, who likewise qualified as an expert, testified that in his opinion the cost of reproducing the canal in 1919 would be $25,832,245, if the work was done by the Government by " force account," or $30,716,081.75 if done by a private contractor, and if by a private corporation obliged to finance the project by floating stocks and bonds about $40,000,000. Before this evidence was introduced, counsel for the Government requested the court not to admit the evidence unless it was supported by affirmative proof db the part of the canal company that the reproduction of the canal at present prices was a reasonable commercial proposition ; that in the absence of such e\·idence the court should take judicial cognizance of the enormous increase in the cost of work of this sort between the time when the canal was built and the cost April 1, 1919. In answer to this the court said :

So the question before me is whether I can say as a matter of factand it is nothing but a question of fact-that in this case the cir· cumstances are so peculiar that reproduction cost is of no significance. I am not prepared to dQ it.

The court erred in permitting the unqualified estimate on the cost of reproduction to be submitted to the jury.

Mr. TINCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes. Mr. TINCHER. Then the only objection which the gentle

man has to this bill is the amount involved? 1\fr. LAGUARDIA.. To the method. I think another jury

ought to pass upon this in accordance with the opinion laid down by the appellate court.

l\fr. TINCHER. Suppose their decision should be $16,000,000? Mr. LAGUARDIA. That is impo~sible on the evidence ad-

missible in accordance with the Jaw. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. lUr. Chairman, will the gentleman yielil? Mr. LAGUARDIA.. Yes. l\1r. JACOBSTEIN. The gentleman says it i here prema

turely. The gentleman says he wants it submitted to the court1..1 again and that he cloes not object to tlle price l>ut to the vro· cedure which brings the matter before us prematurely?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I do cbject ·to the price. I Ye11ture to say that it would not be here if the award hail not heeu re\ersed by the circuit court of nppeals.

As I have stated before. the c:ourt's decision is. to my miutl. the best decision on thP subject of reproduction <·o~t theory eyer rendered by any court during all of the,:;e yt•nrs rhat we ham been troubled with intlnted pr'«ef' of 111ci tP!··a1 n11d hhor caused by the war. I cle:ire to eall the nttentil.111 of the ~~u i- le-

8478 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE l\IAY 13 '.

men to whom I have yielded in the course of these remarks, who are -of the impression, first, that the reversal of the jury award was based upon technicalities and errors of law but had nothing to do with the amount awarded by. the jury, and, see· ond, to reiterate what I have said before, that the reversal takes the very foundation from the award of the jury, and that under no circumstances could a jury give anything like an a ward of $16,000,000 if this case ever goes back for a new trial under the rules laid down in this opinion. Permit me to read to you what the court said on the theory of reproduction as testified by the witnesses McGovern and General Goethals: ·

The evidence 'Which the canal company ot'l'ered shows that reproduction prices as of April 1, 1919, were, dne to war conditions, about 100 per eent above the actual cost of the canal; and the question is whether, under such circumstances, the court below 5hould have declined to admit the evidence of reproduction cost, unless he was "Satisfied from evidence produced that a reasonable man would undertake to reproduce the canal at present prices as a commercilil proposition, or whether tbe evidence should ha:ve been submitted ~ to the jury, with in.S'tructions that they should not consider it on the question of market value, unless they were satisfied by a. balance ot probabilities that a reasonable man would undertake to reproduce the property at present prices, or whether the evidence should have been submitted to the jury, with the single 1.rurtruction that they might consider it and allow it such 'Weight as they thought it was entitled to, disparaged, as it might be, by proof introduced by the Government. (See Colburn 1'. Groton, 66 N. H. 151, 28 Atl. 95, 22 L. R. A. 763; Jaques v. Chandler, 73 N. H. 376, 382, 62 Atl. 713.)

While it is customary to admit evidence of reproduction cost as bearing upon the question of value, the rule seems to be subject to certain limitations. In the Minnesota Rate cases, 230 U. S. 352, 452; 33 Sup. Ct. 729, 761 (57 L. Ed. 1511, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1151, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 18), Mr. Justice Hughes, s~aking on this subject, said:

" The cost of reproductlon method Is of service in aS'Certsining the present value ot the plant, wnen it ls reasonably applled and when the cost of reproducing the property may be ascertained with a proper degree of certa1nty. But it should not justify the acceptance of results which depend upon mere conjecture."

In that case, the court thought, 1n view of the length of time which ' had elapsed since the railroad was built nnd the material development of property and changes in the community since that time, tbat to attempt to estimate what would be the ·actual cost of acquiring the right of way over which the railroad was located, on the a.SS1llllption that the railroad was not there, was to 1ndulgeJn mere speculation, and that such a method of ascertaining present value under tbe conditions shown should ·not ·be made use of. The question then is, If we as ume that the cost of reproducing the canal may be ascertained with a proper degree of certainty, can the rule permitting the introduction ot such evidence be reasona.bly applied in times of abnormal prices, in the absence -0f proof that a reasonably prudent man would purchase the property or undertake its construction at reproduction prices?

It seems to us that this is a neeessnry limitation upon the application or use of the rule when construction prices are abnormal, and that the court below either should have passed upon the preliminary question of fact himself, or submitted it to the jury, with instructions that they should not consider the evidence of reconstruction cost upon the question of value unless they were satisfied that a reasonably prudent man would purchase or undertake the construction of the property at such a figure. When the cost of reproduction is ta.ken into consideration as evidence of value, if the original propel'ty has depreciated, proper d~uction therefor should be made in the e'1idence submitted to the jnry.

Then the court said : As the evidence of McG<>vern a.nd General Goethals was admitted

generally and without limitation and without and deduction for depl.'cciation, the court erred in sc doing.

I believe the opinion of the court fully answers the doubt expressed by some of my colleagues and fully contradicts the theory ui>on which this bill has been sustained, namely, that a fair award was made by the jury and that the reversal had nothing to do with the amount and that a new trial would result · in a jui·y awarding the same amount. Nothing could be further from the fact. •

Gentlemen, there are several other assignment of errors considered and reviewed by the appellate court, with which I will not tire you. I believe that sufficient has been taken from the opinion of the circuit court of appeals which, when considered with the history of this canal and with the bill now before us, to convince us that we should not embark

at this time upon a policy to take over n project which would never have been offered to the Government had it been pro.fit· able and a finanda.l success. A comparison to whnt has been said on the tl.oo.r of this Honse on the necesfilty of this cane.I · and its convenience to navigation, ·which I do not deny, but coupled with the admission that chi,ps can not pay the toll and that it can not possibly be ope.rated · profitably unless it is a Government-operated canal, to be used free of charge, with the testimony of the experts at the trial as :to the value of the franchise based upon annual pmfi.ts on the future tonnage going through this canal and the future capitalized earnings, will convince not only this House but .any jury that there is no likelihood of a $16,000,000 award being repeated. It is our duty to vote -down th.is bill and not establish a vicious and bad precedent ·

1\!r. OLIVER of Alabama. The gentlemm believes that the courts will regard the ·act, which undertook to authorize condemnation proceedings and provided a suspension of the damages until the a ward is approved, as legal Y

Mr. LA.GUARDIA. Wen, we must assume that our own net is legal. We can not do otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired Does the gentleman from Texas [l\lr. RAYBURN] ask for furtbei' reeognition at th.is time?

Mr. LA.GUARDIA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanim-0us consent to revise and extend my remarks.

The CHAIRMAJ.."\T. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection. Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the

gentleman from Oklahoma [lir. McKEowN]. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recog

nized for 15 minutes. l\Ir. l\1cKEOWN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com

mittee, I am very grateful to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN]~ who is kind enough to yield me this time; a gentleman who, on account of his modesty, never gets the full credit for the many splendid things he does in C-0ngress.

1'he question here is, Shall the United States at this time embark on the matter of purchasing this canal? If I were in . favor of buying this canal, I would not be in favor of buying it now, in the prese-nt condition of the Treasury of the United States and the present condition of the country. If I had been in favol" of this proposition, I would favor postponing it until a date when the condition of the Treasury of the United States warranted the expenditure of the money and the condition of the people of the United States was such that the purchase would meet with their approval.

I bave no fault to find :with the improvement of rivers and harbors or in the reclamation of a.rid lands, wherever the same ran be done without detriment to the great interest.s of the taxpayers of the United States. But whenever a bill lays so heavy a burden upon the Treasury as this bill does at this time, it is the duty of every Congressman, no matter what the interests are in his own district, to vote against a measure of this kind. .Appeals are being made here to members of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors or Members affected by river and harbor legislation.

Fifteen days ago, and not exceeding that, t.he press of this country carried a statement from the Secretary of War to the effect that he wanted to sell the Warrior River barges, he wanted to sell the Panama Railroad, and he wanted to sell all the property of the United States tbat is used as If privately owned. Then you find this attempt to s1;1pport this proposition because you may have something more beneficial than the Warrior River.

In the first place, there is watered stocks and bonds to the amount of vver $2,000,000. Gentlemen say they want facts, and that is what I am going to address myself to. A man named Flanag.an pa.id out $475,000 for a right of way and for lands for this canal~ and he received in payment in securities, bonds, and stocks $1,650,000, making a profit of $1,175,000. Then we have here the cost of financing this proposition, which is a high-finance cost We find it cost $1,006,250 to finance it. And how was it financed? A corporation was organized for $10,000 under the laws of the State of Maine. Then they organized a canal company for $1,000.000. Then the company which was organized under the laws of the State of Maine for $10,000 let a contract to another company organized as the Canal Construction Co. to dig the canal, and the result of it was they received $12,000,000 in the way of $6,000,000 in stock and $6,000,000 in bonds.

1\lr. I\'ELSON of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~lIOUSE 8479 Mr. McKEOWN. I prefer to ma.Ke my statement first. lli. NELSON of Wisconsin. I wish the gentleman would tell

the Honse that Belmont is the main holder of the stocks and bonds.

:Mr. WINSLOW. Is the gentleman willing to permit me to make a suggestion to him?

Mr. 1\IcKEOWN. I am mlling to have corrections made if any are necessary.

Mr. WINSLOW. I think the gentleman is wrong in one thing. They are not selling tbe Government stocks exc~pt the bonds. They are selling the bonds. They are not sellmg ~he stock of the company, but they are selling the property, which ls a very different matter. •

Mr. McKEOWN. I will try to get at what the value of the property is. That property was bought in by the canal con;ipauy, or the construction company mnde a deal with this $10.000 corporation. They were to get $6,000,000 in stock and $6,000,000 in bonds. Now, what did they do? . They bid it 1!1 and built it. How much money did they put m that proposition? They put in that proposition a little over $6,000,000. They put in directly $6,100,000. That is the amount of money the.v directly put into the project, and they put in indirectly $142,650. The total amount invested was $6,243,150. In all that total there are lawyers' fees and ezj>enses. In fue fir t place, there are legal e~enses charged up to this project of $122,900.28, and there are administration costs of $260,462.76. The court said they wanted to eharge up 50,000 a year for six and a half years for services for financing the company.

Kow, what are the facts? They say they had a contract with the Governmen~ They never had any contract, and their records show they never had any contract '.rtey tried to make a contract with the Government, and they tried to make a contract out of the proposition. What happened? Well, when lUr. Baker offered them every cent it was worth and made every allowance possible, he offered them a sum exceeding $8,000,000. Then Price, Watel'house & Co. made an illvestigation and an audit to see exactly how much money was invested in that canal. That company reported to Mr. Baker the exact amount. And as I tell you now, as shown by these auditors, there is not to excee<l $6,243,150 invested in the canal.

When they went into court to try the case, what did they try it on? Not on the basis of wllat was actually invested in the canal, but they went on to try the cas·e upon the theory as to what such a canal as that ought to cost under the circumstances of the time and the occasion. But the court held that was not the proper measure of its value; that the proper measure of value of the property was its reasonable market value at the time the Government was going to take it over. Every man here knows that the measure of damages is the reasonable market value of the property when they take it over.

Now, let us see further. Tbey say-and I am reading from the record--

Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. 1\IcKEOWN. In just a second. Air. MANSFIELD. Then the cost was not the market value? Mr. McKEO~. Well, they could not find any market vilue.

If they can find a market value they can go now and establisb it in the court

Mr. GALLIVAN. Will the gentleman tell us where he gets the figures of six million and odd as the estimate from Price, Waterhouse & Co.?

Mr. McKEOWN. Well, I get them from the hearings, the direct cost as shown on page 83 of the hearings.

Mr. GALLIVAN. Up to what date? Mr. McKEOWN. That was the direct cost up to the tlme that

they were calling upon Secretary Baker to make an audit to see what be should offer for the property. That is on page 83 of the hearings.

Mr. GALLIVAN. I have figures from. Price, Waterhouse & Co. as of the 31st of August, 1917, amounting to $13,763,605.

Mr. McKEOWN. I will say to the gentleman that is just liltE> the hearings show the difference between Secretary Baker's statement as to how much the canal was losing and Secretary Weeks's statement as to how much the canal was making. It is just that difference between them. It is just a D;latter of juggling figures.

l\lr. GALLIVAN. This is a matter of investment and not of price.

Ur. McKEOWN. Yes; and that $13,000,000 includes additional items. It includes, for instance, interest on $6,000,000 of its outstanding bonds; discount on $2,000,000 of notes issued to fund indebtedness; los~ of interest on paid-in cash capital of ~onstruction company ; income-tax payments; contingent claims-obligations incurred through negligence in sinking

a ship in the cana.1. They bave us charged up with that. Then there is a difference in the fiscal account between the Government and the canal company. On one hand the canal company is claiming $1,000,000 against the United Stµtes for damages for operating expenses, ~nd, on the other ha!ld, the Government is claiming some $500,000 for (:laims against this company for money expendeq. In apdition to that, wh~ the Government Qf the United States was operating the canal, we went to work and spent there for dredging purposes, through an appropriation obtained through the Rivers and Harbqys Committee of tlle House, something like $150,000.

Mr. WINSLOW. Will tbe geptleman yield :for iJ.lforIJlation? That is all taken care of and wiped out m the proposf:!d adjustment.

Mr. :UcKEOWN. If the contract goes through, then they are going to square the claim of the company against the claim of the Government.

Mr. WINSLOW. In section 1 you will find tlle whole matter is squared off.

Mr. McKEOW::N'. That is just what I am saying. Mr. WINSLOW. You do not say it though; you say some

thing else. Mr. McKEOWN. Yon are going to square the claim of this

company against the claim of the Government. Here is the proposition as shown by the facts in this case,

If you want to buy the canal as a coastal water project, all right, well and good; and I will say to yon that the condition as to loss of life on the coast of l\Iassachusetts can not appeal to any man stronger than it appeals to me. I realize what the women of that country give in the way of the lives of their husbands and sons to the sea in the operation of the business of our country; but, gentlemen, this is a proposition you are dealing with fl.S the representatives of the taxpayers of the United States. The whole country 1s involved, and are you going to pay more for this piece of property than it is worth? A.re you going to pay more for a defunct ditch up in Massachusetts than they have invested in it?

Mr. STEVENSO~. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McKEOWN. Yes, sir. Mr. STEVENSON. In reference to the destruction of life

there, whether the Government buys the canal or not, the canal is now there. is it not, and is going to stay there?

Mr. McKEOWN. Of course. Here is what will happen and here is what you are buying: You are not buying )ust the canal as it stands. You are buying a project, on account of which you will have to deepen the canal to 35 or 40 feet, and that will entail a large expenditure. I tl:}ink the gentleman was very conservative in his figures. The engip.e~rs say tb.e cost will be $9,000,000 and the gentleman from Massachusetts has said $10,000,000, which is a fair proposition. You are going to make an investment, not of $11,500,000, but yon are going to make an investment of $20,000,000 for thi~ piece of property, because you can not operate it as it now stands without the risk of great damages on account of the current that comes into that canal which makes the vessels !lard to steer in going through there, and they are continually having damages up there on account of the way the ves~els in the canal operate on account of the tide.

If you decide to p~y $11,500,000 for it, you ought at least to reduce that sum by .$2,047,500 and take all the watered stock out of it, because these bondholders, in many instancest got the bonds. and the stock was thrown in. The record snows here that fo some instances it was thrown in, and the company was · organi,.:eq Q.t only $10,000. ·

Mr. UNDERHILL. Will the gentleman rf.eld? Mr. MrKEOWN. Yes, sir. Mr. UNDERHILL. The stock is not worth a cent, never

was, and never will be. l\Ir. MADDEN. Neither are the bonds, l\lr. l\IcKEOWN. The bonds are outsUinding. The propo

sition was to make $12,000,000 out of it The stock is worth somethip.g here, because it takes $6,000,000 of it to make up the ~12,000,000. If it is not worth anything, then cut this down to $6,000,000 and you will come nearer having the price of the canal.

Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Does not the gentleman think that the fact tlutt the stock is not worth anything is one reason why they want to sell it to t.}le Government?

Mr. GALLIV Ai~. I wonder if that is the rem~on President Wilson asked that it be seized.

l\1r. BYRNS of Tennessee. President Wilson took it over during the war.

Mr. GALLIVAN. Pre ident Wilson wrote a letter after the war asking that the property be seized.

8480 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE l\f.AY 13

The CHA.IRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired.

Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. !\1ANSFIELD].

Mr. MANSFIELD. l\Ir. Chairman, I am not a member of the committee that reported this bill and am therefore not as familiar with the case as those who have conducted the hearings. I have, however, had some connection with this matter in previons years.

When the authorization was put in the rivers and harbors bill in 1917, I was in close touch with the action of the committee and of Congress at that time, and was an advocate of it. In the river and harbor bill, a year ago last September, this measure had been embraced in that bill as a Senate amendment. I happened to be one of the conferees on that bill and had some occasion to look into it more fully than I I had done previously.

In this connection I want to answer a little more fully the .question asked a while -ago by the gentleman from New York [l\lr. JACOBSTEIN]. What was the question he asked when the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. WINSLOW] was speaking?

l\tr. O'CONNELL of Rhode Island. About the commercial value?

Mr. 1\1.AJ.'\;SFIELD. No; he asked why the matter was in the river and harbor bill, and also before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce at the same time.

~fr. Wli"'\SLOW. If the gentleman will suffer an interruption, I t11ink he asked why the Senate put it in, and that turned out to be inaccurate information from me.

Mr. 1\IANSFIELD. Yes. I will state that this project was not put in the bill by the House, but after the river and harbor bill had passed the House and had gone to the Senate. It was put in there as a Senate amendment, and at the time it was so placed in the river and harbor bill, this bill which

· ,,.e are now considering was with the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. No Member of this House was responsible for this project having been placed in the river and harbor bill at that time. It was done by the Senate, acting in accordance with its own rules and its own judgment.

The question was asked if the Senate •did not put it in at a cost of $9,000,000. That is an error. It was placed in the bill by the Senate at $11,500,000., just the amount embraced in this bill We in conferance, acting arbitrarily, on our own responsibility, and without the knowledge or consent of the owners of this canal, decided that we would report the bill in conference at $9,000,000, with the hope that the owners would accept it if it went through. They have never indicated that they would accept that amount, and no one, so far as I know, has any reason to believe that they would do so.

It is not a question of what this canal cost. It is not a question of what it would cost to reproduce it to-day. The question is, What is it worth to the American Nation as an instrument of commerce and for the purposes of war in the event that we should unfortunately be thrown into another war? [Applause.] What is its value to the American Nation to-day? That is the question. If you go back to what it cost before the war, General Beach, Chief of Engineers, stated to our committee three weeks ago that the cost of reproducing these things to-day is more than double what it was prior to the war. Everything pertaining to dredging and work upon the rivers and harbors and canals has more than doubled,

· according to the Chief of Engineers' testimony. Suppose the .canal did cost only eight or nine million dollars before the war, you could not reproduce it to-day for $20,000,000. I believe that is an absolute fact. Here you have an opportunity to secure it for $11,500,000, which is perhaps not more than one-half of the cost of reproduction.

Now, is it worth that to the American Nation? If so, then we are letting a bargain slip if we let this opportunity go by.

Mr. LINEBERGER. Will the gentleman yield? l\lr. l\IANSFIELD. I will. l\fr. LINEBERGER. Is it not a fact that if this project

was submitted to-day to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, it would receive a favorable consideration as a new project?

Mr. :MANSFIELD. I can not answer for any other member of the commiteee; but as for myself, I say that it would receive my favorable consideration.

1\lr. ABERNETHY. The gentleman is the ranking Democratic member on that committee, is he not?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I am. Mr. LINEBERGER. I have talked with many members of

that committee, and I have not found a single man who is opposed to it.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I think the gentleman is correct in that. Now, gentlemen, this is not a party question; it is not a sectional question. It is a national question. The freights that go around Cape Cod and freights that go through this canal are not the property of any particular section of this country. Massachusetts is not the only State nor the only section in the United States that is interested in the great bulk of freight that goes up there, which consists principally of coal and cotton, and return cargoes of manufactured goods.

The country in which I live is the great cotton-producing section of llie South. We produce in the South normally about 12,000,000 bales of cotton yearly. About one-third of that is exporten, about one-third is manufactured in New England, and about one-third is manufactured in the Southern and Southeastern States. That cotton does not go from Texas, Alabama, and the other cotton States by rail to Massachusetts. It goes by boat. It goes by ship in the coastwise trade. It is bound to go through this canal, or it is bound to take the hazardous route around Cape Cod, one or the other .

Mr. UNDERHILL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. l\fr. UNDERHILL. There is one other alternative, and that

is to lay off .Martha's Vineyard for three or four weeks until llie weather clears .up.

l\lr. MANSFIELD. Yes; and those fogs are very disastrous up there. Now, gentlemen, I want to read to you what a Democratic Cabinet officer said about this matter: Secretary Redfield in the Senate hearings in 1919 corrected a statement made by Senator SIMMONS, of North Carolina, in regard to the dangers of Cape Hatteras and called attention to the fact that Senator SIMMONS was mistaken in assuming that Cape Hatteras was the most dangerous section along the Atlantic coast Secretary Redfield said that from 1834 to 1859, inclusive, along Cape Cod there had been 827 marine disasters, involving 4 steamers, 492 schooners, and various other Yessels, and that the average annual loss was nearly $600,000. According to the records of the United States Life Saving Service-and that was under his direction-during the 28 years from July 1, 1875, to May, 1903, there were 687 wrecks on and near Cape Cod, involving property valued at $10,105,-350. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. ·

l\1r. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. WOLFF].

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, this is one of the first occasions upon which I have attempted to address this membership. I have listened to the eloquent address and tribute to this canal by my friend from Texas [Mr. l\!ANSl!IELD], and I appreciate what he has said. But I want to say to you, my friends, that there are other things to be consi.dered here. As I look over this House and I see the membership here who are continually hallooing "Economy," especially my colleague from Texas on this side, I think that this is one of the places where we should practice economy. [Applause.]

I know something about this little old canal that we are talking about over in Massachusetts. I know something about conditions over there, and I know that this is one of the grafts that some people are figuring on putting over on this Congress. That little old canal does not amount to anything. That little old canal invokes, when it comes down to the real facts, a real investment of something like $200,000. That is what it amounts to. But you are asking this great Government to invest $11,500,000 to put over a steal. [Applause.] I want to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts and his committee--

Mr. DEAL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WOLFF. I can not. 1 have only a few minutes. I want

to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who heads that great committee of this House, that I have listened to him from the floor of this House tell us about certain things. I want to say to him that the other day there was a petition presented that asked to take away from his committee a bill that involved 110,000,000 people of the United States, which involved 4,000,000 working people of these Unite<l States, that he was not interested in at all. [Applause.) It invoh·ed 110,000,000 people of the United States, because I want to say to you that the transportation proposition of these United States is the biggest proposition that we have to tleal with here to-day. That great committee refused to allow that ·bill to come out--

1\Ir. WINSLOW. l\lr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman be called to order.

Mr. WOLFF. The committee did not allow that bill to come out--

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE· 8481 Mr. WINSLOW. I ask that the gentleman be called to order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri will pro

ceed in order. l\Ir. WOLFF. All right. I am talking about thls bill. This

I know is a steal, an absolnte steal. It represents an absolute valuation of $200,000, a steal of over $11,300,000 for a few people in Massachusetts, and I want to say to you that I do not condone that steal.

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. WOLFF. I have only five minutes, if the gentleman will yield me five minutes of his time-- ·

1\1r. BLANTON. Withdraw it. Mr. WOLFF. No; that· is a steal, and I refuse t'o with·

draw it. 1\11'. DENISON'. 1ifr. Chairman, I ask that the words be taken

down. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri will sus·

pend. The gentleman from lliinois demands that the gentle.; man's words be taken down. The Clerk will report the words.

l\lr. WOLFF. I say this thing is a steal. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be seated until the

quemon is decided. Mr. WOLFF. All right; I will leave it to the Bouse to say

whether it is a steal or not. I say it is a steal. The CHAIBM.AN. The gentleman· from Missouri will sus·

pend and be seated until a decision is reached as to his words. l\lr. WOLFF. All right; I am listening now. Mr. Chairman,

I make the point of order there is no quomm. :Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order

the gentleman has no right to the floor. He should be seated and maintain his seat.

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, a Member who has been called to order by another gentleman can not proceed until he is further recognized by the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN. No. The gentleman from Missouri will take his seat until the matter is disposed of.

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my statement regarding the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wr~sLow].

The CHAIR1\1AN. The gentleman from Missouri withdraws his statement. ·

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Chairman, then .I withdraw the request Mr. BLAl~TON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

thnt the gentleman from Missouri may be allowed to proceed. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri

haf.l expired. Mr. WOLFF. Mr.' Chairman, I ask that I be allowed to pro·

ceecl for five minutes. :Mr. SPROUL of Illinois. I object. . The CHAIRMAN. Objection is made. !\Ir. RAYBURN. l\lr. Chairman, two minutes of the gentle

man's time has· been taken by this discussion, and I yield two minutes to the gentleman.

The CHAIR::\1AN. The Chair "'ill state to the gentleman from Texas that the time of the gentleman from Missouri had expired, and the Chair was about to so announce when the demand was made by the gentleman from Illinois, so that none. of his time was taken up by the controversy. Does the gentleman from Texas yield further tlme to the gentleman from :Mis. souri?

Mr. WINGO. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The CHAIR:UAN. The gentleman will state it. l\Ir. WINGO. While the rule is very clear that whenever a

Member uses language that is objected to he can not continue hJs remark , that does not deprive him of his constitutional l'igltt to call for a quorum. I am only thinking of it as a prece· dent, not caring about this particular case.

The OHAIRdAN. The gentleman from Illinois has withdr11wn bfs clemand.

Mr. WINGO. Has the gentleman from l\lissouri withdrawn his point of no quorum?

The CllAIRl\IAN. I think so. ?t!r. WOLFF. I have withdrawn my point, providing, Mr.

Chairman--The CHAIRl.\fAN. The gentleman from Illinois having with

drawn his demand, the gentleman from Missouri has the right to make the point of no quorum.

The CH.A.ill.MAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [l\fr. RaY1lURN] yield further time to the gentleman from Missouri?

Mr. WOLFF. I understand that I have two minutes more. Tlle CH.AIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has not yielded

further time to the gentleman. Mr. WOLFF. The gentleman from Texas yielded to me two

additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman from Texas yield two additional minutes?

Mr. RAYBURN. Yes; I yield to the gentleman two additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for two minutes.

Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, I do not want to be obnoXious. This is one of the few times that I have asked leave to occupy this floor.

I say to you candidly that while I have withdrawn my re. marks regarding the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wms· Low], I really do not believe that this proposition should pass. I do not believe that the people of this great country of ours, when they are calling for economy, when the President of the party represented on that side of the House-your Presidentsays that the Bursum bill should not pass-the bill that pro· vides for and takes care of your old soldiers, of their widows and orphans; when your President says that we are looking to economy and vetoes that bill ; when he is going to veto the bill that takes care of our ex-service men of this last war; when he is going to condemn an expenditure of money that takes care of the men who carried the guns and fought the battles of this country on an economy plea, God help you fellows the next time ! I am not for any President who stands to veto a bill that would take away the rights of the men who carried the guns and fought the battles of this country.

The CHA.IR:\1AN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has again expired.

Mr. WOLFF. I would like ito have a minute more. I ask unanimous coru;ent to revise and extend my remarks in the REcor.n.

l\ir. SPROUL of Illinois. I object. Mr. WOLFE'. I am glad the gentleman objected. I am glad

to hear from the gentleman. Mr. RAYBURN. l\fr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman

from Wisconsin [Mr. FREAR] 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recog·

nized for 10 minutes. 1\Ir. FREAR. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House,

for many years I ha"e been • opposed to the proposal to buy what i known as the Cape Cod Canal, and I would not be consistent unless I expressed my opposition to the bill now before us carrying $11,500,000 with which to buy another worth· less canal. It is in no way a personal matter. I admire the chairman of this committee and consider him a personal friend. I think he is one of the shrewdest men I have ever met. Ko other man could have made the speech he has made on this fioor to-day and have secured the strength for this bill that he has worked so hard to win. I see the gentleman from Massachusetts now supported by his clelegation, all favoring this bill. But it is outside of Massachusetts he has extended. his appeal. He has covered all of Florida. Is there a gentlman from· Florida present who does not understand that the intercoastal waterway of which Chairman Wrnsr.ow so eloquently spoke is connected with this project? The Louisiana delegation has its projects, as he has well said. The gentleman ha also men· tioned Texas. Texas has its waterways also to rem~mber. I was on the River and Harbor Committee for a number of years. I happen to know something about this Cape Cod Canal from· my view•point, and it .can rest on its own merits or da. merits.

The Members from the l\Iississippi Valley are told about the ba.rge canal that _is in the mind of the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Committee. There is not a section of the country where your sympathies could be touched upon that ' has not been enlisted by his appeal to-day. All to help the Cape Cod Canal. I do not know, however, but that it is proper when you are trying to secure support for a desperate case with a bill like this. I have no prejudice personally to urge against it.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a moment?

Mr. FREAR. Not at this time. I hope the gentleman will get time for himself.

I have followed this canal-purchase plan for years; years before it was taken up by the Government during the war. It was taken over in 1917 by the Government during the strenuous days of the war. We then took over everythingrailroads, waterways, and everything. Practically all were re· leased after the war, and that is no justification for this posi· tion in which we are sought to be placed to-day.

Here is a. bill calling for an immediate expenditure reaching $11,500,000. According to the statement of one of the strongest

8482 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE M,~y 13

Members we have ever had on this floor from Massachusetts-Joe Walsh, whom we all admired personally-when he was a Member he said in his judgment the expense will reach $50,-000,000 eventually. I clo not think that is a wide guess when you consider how these projects grow, and that is apart from a heavy annual expense for maintenance. A few feet in width of a project below water enhances the cost enormously. This canal is 8 miles long. Already they say it has cost $20,000,000, or would cost $20,000,000 and more to reproduce it as it is, so that if we double the present size of the canal as proposed it means an everlasting continuing expense as well as a heavy initial expense when we build it to meet plans already pr?posed by the report. What are we going to get for this $50,000,000 expenditure? What return do the taxpayers of the Government receive?

This property, according to the report of the Army engi-neers, is worth just $2,500,000. I am quoting from the official report. For purposes of commerce-and I quote from the report, which has not been questioned, on page 22-the figure given is $300,000 annual income now derived from tolls; only a moderate commerce on this 8-mile canal. Based on that, the engineers' report is as follows :

Capitalized at 4 per cent it corresponds to a capital investment of $2,500,000. This amount, therefore, is apparently an upper limit of any justifiable expenditure by the United States to acquire public ownership for commercial purposes.

That is to say, $2,500,000 is apparently an upper limit that the United States is justified in paying for this canal that is here held at $11,500,000 and will cost $50,000,000 eventually.

Not an ordinary figure but an "upper limit," a maximum "of any justifiable expenditure." So say the Government engineers.

The bill before us carries over four and one-half times the amount recommended by the Army engineers as the "upper limit."

"Justifiable" is the word the Army engineers use. Two million five hundred thousand dollars is the upper limit of

any justifiable expenditure by the United States to acquire public ownership for commercial purposes.

How can we in good conscience ignore that report if we at any time decide to buy the canal to help out these bondholders?

Now, if you are going to put it on the basis of war value, or if you expect to have war a few days from now and you need to run submarines through the canal, I concede it may have another value, but that is not considered in any appraisal given to us. These are the figures of the Army engineers who bad no interest in misrepresenting, and I warn you gentlemen that this bill can not be defended.

It has been stated to us that this canal is needed to avoid dangers to life. Some 32 lives were lost in 10 years, according to the report by ships rounding Cape Cod. There are more people killed on the streets in Washington every year by automobiles bv far than ba·rn lost their lives in 10 years around this cape: According to the statistics, the number is only 32 e.t Cape Cod in 10 years, and it runs nearly one a week in Washington, or nearer 500 killed or to be killed on the Capital City's streets in 10 years. I presume in Boston every year the number killed on the streets by automobiles is far greater than the 32 lost around the cape in 10 years.

The gentleman who preceded ·me spoke about the difficulty in getting consideration for the Barkley conciliation bill affecting several million railway men. I was one of those who supported the plan, when we signed a petition under the rule and secured 150 names to it, of bringing the bill out upon the floor.

I thought it was the right thing to do. I felt they had a right to be heard, and it was the only way we could get the bill out from the committee presided over by the gentleman from Massachusetts [l\Ir. WrnsLow]. I say to the House, Republicans and Democrats alike-because we have no political choice in this bill or ought not to have-is it not a sad commentary upon the House of Representatives when this bill is brought out for the e.xpenditure of $11,500,000 from the Treasury of the United States by the cQairman of that same committee, and given consi<leration, and we can not get the Barkley bill out with a petition of 150 names, so as to have consideration? Make your own excuses au<l explanations, but that is the situation which confronts us now. Let the responsibility rest where it belongs.

Tb.e gentleman who was responsible for signing this so-called contract is the same man who ha<l more to do with this canal purcba.:;e than anyone el ·e whPn he was a Senator from Massachusetts-Senator "\Yecks. He was then in the Senate pres::;ing

hard upon the Congress for the purchase of the canal. Presumably I might press what I believed to be a meritorious matter if interested in one, from my own State, and my own State ha~ the second largest harbor in the United States.

But when this offer was rejected by his predecessor, then Mr. Weeks took his pen and us Secretary of War signed an approval to tie up the Government to this proposition, as I have stated, to pay these stockholders $11,500,000 out of the GO'vernment Treasury when the Army engineers of Secretary 'Veeks's own department had placed the highest limit to be paid at $2,500,000, and it is dear at any price.

Now, say this bill is finally passed and it goes to the White House. The gentleman who preceded me made some significant remarks. I do not care to continue ·in the same vein at all, but I say to you gentlemen, suppose this bill is presented to the President, who has just declared we must have economy in this country when be vetoed the Bursum pension bill, should we not hesitate about passing a bill of this kind up to him for his signature, .even if it is primarily a l\Iassachusetts project? The Bursurn bill was vetoed, but many of us are going to vote for that bill notwithstanding the veto if giYen opportunity to do so. The President raised the point that we have got to economize. How can he justify a Bursum bill veto and then sign a $50,000,000 cost to the Government by this Cape Cod Canal bHl.

l\Ir. NELSON of Wisconsin. The Bursum bill failed to-day by one vote in the Senate to carry over the veto.

Mr. FREAR. So the veto, according to the statement of my colleague, will stand. The Bursum bill, giving relief to men, women, and children, for service of Civil War veterans, now in need, was vetoed on the ground of economy. Sentiment moves us quite frequently, and we vote for such propositions, because we do not always stop on the ground of economy when rewarding patriotism, but that blll could and will be defended where this bill can not. Here is a proposition that is one of extravagance at any time, and $11,500,000, running up to $50,-000,000, is a consideFable amount to put through at this time, when the President warns the country of our need for economy. Another bill is going to be vetoed, we are inforn1ed. It is now in the hands of the President, passed overwhelmingly by both Houses. There can not be any question about it, because everybody tells us it will be vetoed. That is the socalled soldiers' bonus bill, and it is to be vetoed also on the ground of economy. Other bills are going to be vetoed if they succeed in getting through Congress-the postal employees' bill and others, we are informed-on the ground of economy. Yet we are asked to vote for $11,500,000 at this time on a bill for which Army engineers recommended $2,500,000 as the outside limit, to take over eleven millions from the Treasury when we are having so much bitfer criticism aimed at Congress.

Congress is criticized to-day more than ever before in recent history for extravagance. Unjustly, I feel, at times. I do not believe the press has the right to make inany unwarranted statements, but how can we justify at this time the Cape Cod Canal expenditure, reaching ultimately $50,000,000, with the people asking for tax reduction and with so many important measures vetoed on the ground of economy? Yet to-day we are ·asked to vote for this indefensible proposition by the proponents of the bill, who enlist the support of pending river and harbor projects all oyer the country. Some of my friends would like to have very many waterways adopted. They have projects that may rest for passage or defeat with their support of the Cape Cod Canal bill. We are asked to adopt a proposition here which accommodates only 20 per cent of the water traffic around Cape Ood to-day. Eighty per cent goes outside the cape by the . ame route it has gone for four centuries and will go hereafter, whether the Government buys this canal or not. Before we buy tbis rwal we may well hesitate. The reasons are obvious.

A legal question has been discussed by the gentleman fi'om New York [Mr. LAGUARDIA.], and his suggestions as to the legal rights seem to be very well grounded. We have no right at this time, based upon the record, to take the matter away from the court. This proposition should be decided by the court before any action is taken here. Later we are required to affirm or reject the court's decision. By what right do we act now?

I regret very much that this matter has ever been brought up, and I may want to offer an amendment at the proper time.

A gentlei.nan came to me yesterday very much interested and said, " Will Congress pursue the dog-in-the-manger attitude by refusing to permit this thing to be settled?" I said, "No; not for a moment. Let us get through with it. Let us quitclaim all interest we have, if any, in the project and allow the parties to present their claims, if any, before the Claims Committee and give them back this tremendously valuable property

192-1: CONGRESSION .AL . RECORD-HOUSE 8483' for which they ask $11,500,000, but which the Board of Engineers says is worth only $2,500,000," at an outside figure to the Government. The canal owners ask us to ratify Secretary Weeks's off er made in their behalf.

On '\\hat ground are we going to justify this tremendous ex-pen~e when taking the money out of the Treasury at this time c

Mr. DEAL. Will the gentleman yield now? Mr. FREAR. Yes. 1\Ir. DEAL. Does the gentleman favor the passage of the

McNary-Haugen bill? 1\fr. FREAR. I do, if it is the only agricultural aid bill

o1Iered, for this reason--1\lr. DEAL. Qarrying $200,000,000. l\lr. FREAR. No; it will not carry anything like that

amount. I do favor some proposal to aid farmers of the country for this reason: l\fen are leaving their farms and-if the Chail·man will excuse me for answering the question, which is not related to the canal subject-men are leaving their farms all over the West, all over the western country because they are buying in a protected market and they are selling their surplus goods, which fix the price, in a free market and they can not remain on the farm. [Applause.]

Now, that is all there is to it. It is not a question of senti-

Massachusetts has furnished this assembly within recent-years. I want to offer his testimony, delivered on the floor of the House, against the testimony offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts to-day. I want you to know what he thought and said concerning this proposition when it first came before the House. This was back in 1917, when the House had under consideration the conference report on the rivers and harbors appropriation. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. SMALL], then chairman of the committee, speaking on the measure, was interrupted. by Judge Walsh, who said:

I should like to ask the chairman of the committee why it is that in the Cape Cod Canal item it requires three Cabinet officers to enter into negotiations for the purchase of that ditch, while in the negotiations for the purchase ot the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal, the matter is confined to the Secretary of War alone.

Mind you, they call it a canal to-day. Mr. SMALL said : In answer to the gentleman I would say thnt, in accordance with the

general precedents it should have been confined to the Secretary of War alone.

Mr. Walsh, again speaking, said : ment, it is a question of necessity, and, my friend, if you knew Does the gentleman mean to say that the House Committee on how some of these people are situated-- Rivers and Harbors merely relied upon the two Senators from ~assn.-

Mr. DEAL. That applies more particularly-- chusetts in putting this into the bill? l\lr. FREAR. There are over 100 banks in one State I know 1\Iind you, gentlemen, when the matter was put in at that

that have failed because every man who leaves the farm time, there had been no hearing on it. The then Senator takes with hi?J his obligations ~o the bank, an? takes ":ith him Weeks, now Secretary of War, had simply introduced a bill in the local busmess, and everythmg becomes wiped out m some the Senate authorizing the purchase of this ditch as it was of the counties. Many States are in distress and are pleading I then denominated by Judge Walsh, and without ~ny hearing for relief. the Senate permitted him to tack it on as a rider.

1\Ir. DEAL. I do not doubt the accuracy of the gentleman's The gentleman from North Carolina, referring to Judge statement. Walsh, said:

Mr. FREAR. That has nothing to do with this canal project, but I would give the farmers relief when the emergency is May 1 ask the gentleman, in reply, is he opposed to this item in th~ so great; immediately, if possible to do so. I would give anyone conference report? such relief as was necessary, but there is no immediate relief Referring to the canal matter. warranted in this canal project for anyone, because for four Mr. Walsh replied: centuries these people have been in the same situation they are in to-day, sailing around the cape as they will do for centuries to come, and this canal is dear at any price.

Mr. DEAL. But the relief which the gentleman wishes to give comes more particuJarly from the section from which he comes.

Mr. FREAR. No; not particularly; because the people where I live are just as well to do as the people of Virginia and just as able to take care of themselves. Theirs is a dairy country; and, in fact, they raise as much tobacco, possibly, as the people in the State of the gentleman from Virginia, or very nearly so. They are a fairly prosperous people, if any agricultural districts are prosperous to-day, but disaster and bankruptcy to thousands of farmers in other parts of the country are felt by all and injure all.

l\fr. DEAJ... . Then they do not need the $200,000,000. Mr. FREAR. I am speaking here for the people of the

whole United States, not for any locality, when urging some form of farm relief, and speaking for the Government and for the Treasury of the United States wben deploring this Treasury raid of $11,500,000 to buy a useless canal, and I am not speaking for Virginia or for Wisconsin or for any individual State.

Mr. DEAL. Virginia is not asking for it. Mr. FREAR. I refuse to yield any further. I feel this question is too important and too big for the

Members of Congress to view from any local point of view, and for that reason I stand here to express my opposition to a bill that in my judgment ought to be defeated.

l\fr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back one minute. Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the

gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LARSEN]. Mr. LARSEN of Georgia. l\fr. Chairman antl gentleman of

the commlttee, we have heard a great deal to-day from the Republican side of the House as to the action taken by the Democratic Secretary of War, Baker, regarding the purchase of the Cape Cod Canal. It is rather amusing to note the great confidence which the gentlemen on that side of the House now seem to have in Mr. Baker. Contrast, if you please, the great confidence they display at this time with that which they manifested in days that have gone.

I had the privilege of serving in the House with Hon. Joseph Walsh, of l\1assachusetts, a Republican, who then represented the district in which Cape Cod Canal is located. He was one of the greatest statesmen and one of the most briliant men that

LXV-535

I have voted against the bill. I expect to vote to recommit it, and I alS-O expect to vote against it in the conference report.

The gentleman from North Carolina then said, "To this par· ticular item?" And Judge Walsh replied:

I am oppo ed to this item because it will involve an expenditure or over $50,000,000 before this Government gets any benefit from it.

The RECORD shows "applause." It probably came frum the Republican side.

Mr. DENISON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LARSEN of Georgia. Yes. _Mr. DENISON. I would like to state that' the gentleman

from Massachusetts, Mr. Walsh, on further investigation of this matter changed his views entirely and was in favor of it.

Mr. LARSEN of Georgia. I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts at a later day. He represented the district in which this " ditch " was then located. He was then the Representati've, and of course we understand that when the pressure was put upon him by his constituents and influential authorities, he was not so insistent, but I do not belie,~e that any man, even the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, able as he is, can point to a single sentence uttered by Mr. Walsh which will show that he has reversed his opinion. He simply permitted or tolerated without denouncing it as he did in the first instance.

The gentleman from Texas, advocating the passage of the bill, referred to it as a great military proposition. He is an able Representative and a fine gentleman, but I imagine he is as poor a soldier as the balance of us. At any rate, I would rather have the opinion of some man engaged in that particular line of work, and I quote from those in such service. I quote from a. letter from the General Board of the Navy, dated August 19, 1916. It is found in section 17 of the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, on page 222 of the hearings, and is as follows:

The expense of rendering the Cape Cod Canal available to all types of naval vessels not only requires a considerable expenditure for enlarging it but also additional continuing expense for the maintenance ot such increased size, and an even greater expenditure for the defenses that should be given an important military waterway at a salient of our coast. Such large additional expenditures are not warranted by the apparent increased military advantages of having the canal avitll· able for the passage of ships requiring a depth of over 25 feet at mean low water.

8484 ' CONGRESSIONAIJ RECORD-HOUSE MAY 131

The board has no doubt of the advantages of a sufficient depth and width to nermit the passage of battleships. It adheres, however, to its previous expressions to the effect that military necessity is not sufficiently great to warrant the department in urging the expeuditure at public funds. to that end.

Ah, gentlemen, is there anyone wh<> in the face of this repoi-4 made by the War Department, can urge the proposition as a military necessity? You can not justify it in that way nor in any other- way.

Now, let us see what happened before the present Secretary of War came into the position he now holds. First of all the Government empieyed experts to investigate the matter. Price, Waterhouse & Co., of New York were employed, and they found that the total cost of the canal was $6,243.171.01. By adding interest, taxes, and so forth, they found that, with all things considered, it did not exceed $8,265,743.04. Upon these figures and by this report, made and paid for at public expense, the then Secretary of War~ Mr. Baker, recommended that the canal be purchased at $8,200,000. But, mark you, when Newton D. Baker went out of office and was succeeded by the present distinguished gentleman, who was then Senator from Massachusetts, the matter is again brought before Congress and we a.re asked to authorize purchase at $11,500,000.

It is the same canal for which Secretary Baker would give only $8,200,000. It is the same canal which cost $6,243,171.01 at most, including interest, taxes, and so forth, $8,265,743.04. It is no better now than it was then. We are asked to purchase it because private individuals who control it are unable to make it a paying investment. We are asked to purchase it because August Belmont and his associates who promoted its construction were mistaken as to the amount of revenue it would yield. Unless the Government buys it at a price far in excess of its cost or worth promoters will not receive enormous sums, and the bondholders in Massachusetts and on Wall Street, in New York, may lose a few million dollars.

The report of the Board of Engineers says the canal is worthless unless it is made a lock canalt and estimates this cost at $16,000,000. Then they say it must be gi'1en a depth of 30 feet and a width of 200 feet. So you see Mr. Walsh was not far from right when he said the ditch would co t $50,000,000 before this Government gets any benefit from it.

The Government bas no use for the canal. The report of the engineers shows this fact. If we get it under the provisions of this bill, we will pay far more than it cost or is worth. You must remember that the valuation placed upon it by the court in the condemnation proceeding was set aside and the judgment reversed because- the method of mlnation was erroneous and because it was not based upon costs of construction.

The President has recently vetoed the Bursum bill and refused to give relief to the Spanish-American War veterans, who are in need and have sutrered great discrimination, because of claim of desire to economize in the expenditure of Government funds. Let us see what he does with this bill should it come before him.

We do not need the property, the sale ts not at a reasonable price, and I can not agree to levy such great additional tax burden _upon the country, especially at this time.

Mr. WINSLOW. lUr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Massachnsetts [Mr. UNDERHILL].

hlr. UNDERHII,L. Mr. Chairman, when I came to Congress I had some definite ide!ls in regard to appropriations from the Public Treasury. My experience has shown me that I was pretty nearly all wrong in those ideas. ·The first illus~ tration of that fact was brought particularly to my attention when I was appointed on a special committee to go down into the lower Mississippi Valley when the Mississippi River was at flood. It had always seemed to me that the people of the States should take care of their own problems. I found a mighty river flowing by and through. the States of Mississippi, .Arkansas, l\Iissouri, and Louisiana, with which they could not cope. They had no jurisdiction whatever over the source from which the torrent of water came, exceeding in volume that of Niagara Falls, and which was destroying the property of the people there. The source was from 35 other Stutes. And so I learned my first lesson in national problems. I came back here to Congress, made a report, and that report carried an appropriation exceeding $40,000,000 to relieve the situation of the people in the States which were suffering from. the flood. Since that time it has been my privilege and pleasure to travel abroad throughout the length and breadth of many States in this great country and view their problems.

I have seen irrigation projects; I have seen water-power projects; I have seen harbor projects; I have seen improvements on public works and on road construction in which the

Government was interested and to which the Government appropriated various sums of money for-the benefit of all the people of the cot111try. Now, there is not a drop of water from Massachusetts that goes into the Mississippi River, not • II. d:op, but it was my plea.sure, and I believe it was only justice to the people of Mississippi when every Member from Massach~e~ voted for something to protect the people of the. Miss1ss1ppl Valley. So it has been with many of these proJect.s. Now, we are not asking this for Massachuetts. We consider it a national problem. What is going to be the result? We will pay this money back to the Government in a little while with the trade that will come between Canada, New England, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia .. .A. line of steamers will be established and put in operation almost as soon as the bill becomes a law. Just at this season of the year when all the Northern States are suffering for green stuff a line of steamers can start from Galveston, pick up fruit and vegetables there, come along to New Oi'leans, Mobile, Sava.nna.h, and Norfolk bring those things we crave to· our doors and get a very good price for them, and in return--

Mr. CONNERY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MADDEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CONNERY. I will yield to the. gentleman from Illinois. Mr. MADDEN. I suppose they will come up all the wa:y

by the inside route. Mr. UNDERHILL. I trnst so, in time. Tbere is another- proposition ; we will drop the vegetable

pi:oposi tion ; we will take cotton. Cotton is a staple article of production in all of the States I have mentioned.

I realize the importance of the cotton crop in the Souili and its manufacture into the finished product up in New England. How are you shipping it now? By freight; and you are paying twice, three, and four times by rail that you would by water. It is a much cheaper proposition to ship your raw product by water, and you will get a better price for your cotton, and you will pay a low:er price for your manufactured goods in return.

The total traffic passing through the canal during 1923 was as follows: Number of vessels------------------------------------- 6, 771 Gross tonnage of these ves els ___________________ tonS!.- 4, 051 869 Cargo carried-----------------------------------dO-- 1, 389; 457 Passengers carried through canaL---------------------- 116, 309

It will be seen from the tonnage of the vessels using the canal that most of them are small. This is accounted for by the fact that the canal is not capable of handling large vessels, and it is questioned to-day whether it is a safe channel for vessels more if anything, over 18 feet draft, brought about by filling in fro~ the banks, tidal causes, and so fol)th.

In report No. 1016, l\Iay 18, 1922, made by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the Honse of Representa.tiTes upon the purchase of the Cape Cod Canal propertv the following estimate of traffic was made: ·' .

The probable increase of traffic passing Cape Cod, either going around the Cape <>r going through the canal, for the decade between 1920 and 1930 will be approximately 21 per cent, and for the succeeding decade 18 per cent. Applying these percentages, the probable tra.tllc passing Cape Cod in 193-0 will be between thirty and thirty-five mlllion gross tons, and in 1940 between thirty-five and forty million gross tons. These estimates are based upoo statistics covering growth of population and production in New England over a period as far back as 1890 but principally for the years between 1897 and 1916, inclusive. '

So you see the great commercial value this will be to the whole country.

Mr. M.cKEOWN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. UNDERHILL. I can not yield. I want to come back to

this proposition. Massachusetts is not asking a dollar for irrigation purposes, Massachusetts is oot asking a dollru: for the development of her white coal resources; :Massachusett.s is not a.sking for a dollar for flood control or river development, for road building-

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman. has expired. Mr. UNDERHILL. May I have one minute more? l\lr. WINSLOW. I yield the gentleman one more minute. Mr. U!\"DERHILL. .As a member of the Flood Control Com-

mittee I recently voted to report out of that committee 18 bills for investigation and survey; o.£ streams in States, every one of them west of the Mississippi River, eYery one of them for the benefit of the people far from the Staie I represent in part. Now I am not pleading for l\Iassachusetts· any more than I am for Texas or Louisiana or Alabama. Georgia, Virginia., or any other State. I am pleading more f{>r the proposition which I believe to be a national benefit in the first place, to be a business proposition which will pay for itself in time, and I am

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8485 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri

has expired. Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has

18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. R.\YBURN] has 29 minutes remaining.

l\1r. RAYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON].

The CHAIR1\1AN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes.

l\Ir. BLA ..... "N"TOX ~Ir. Chairman, as an expert disciple of Izaak Walton, the distinguished chairman of this committee [l\Ir. WINSLOW] appears in a new role. Them ls not in any of your districts finer speckled-bass fishing than there is in mine. If he were to come down to my distlict this summer and use the same judgment. he has exhibited here to-day in selecting his bait and in casting his hook, I doubt whether there would be a speckled bass left in ruy district. He would catch them all.

There is not another man in this House who is abler or more genial. more courteous, than that gentleman. He is a bully good fellow. That is what he is. And if he would reduce the expense of this project down to tlle $8,250,000, which wa · offered to Mr. Secretary of War Baker, I would vote for his bill. But he will not do that, and he is going to hR\e to do that in order to get my vote. Of course, he will not have it.

l\lr. DK TI SOX Mr. Chairman, ''"ill the gentleman yield? l\lr. BLANTOX I regret I can not. I have only file min

utes. Now tbey !'my tllere is a moral obligation on the part of this

t.:ongress to uphold this contract. If there were, I would support the bill. But there is not Mr. Weeks, when Senator, put this matter as a rider on an appropriation bill in the Senate. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wix 'LOW] suggested W'e flid not ha\e anybod~· able enough to draw such an amendment. That may be so. But we had a President and a Cabinet and an ad.mini tration that was able enough to win the war with your help. ·

Mr. WIXSLOW. An<l they were all for this project. :Mr. BLA1,TOX They were all for this project; at $8.250,-

0(1(), hut not at Sll,500,000; and it was a Republican who put it on a a rider on~r in the Heuate. President Wilson instructed the Secretary of War to acquire this property, :rnd if he could not, to haye it condemned by the Department of Justice, and the action taken to be ratified by Congress.

He offered $8.250.000. That was refu~ed, and then he turned it over to the Department of Juf::tice. He thereby lost jurisdiction over lt when lte dill that. The War Department had no more jurisdic:tion over it after Secretary Baker turned it over to tlle Department of Justice, and the contract that l\fr. Weeks a· Secretarr of War afterwards entered into, after he became a cabinet officer and had left tbe Senate, was executeu witllout any authority of law whate\er, and is in no way binding on Congress. There iR no sort of question about that. Who will contend that be <lid have authority? It had pas. e<l out of his band~.

Iiet me say this: After tb.e Government buys this canal, we are going to ha-ve to spend $10,000,000 at least to put this canal in or<ler. There is no question about that.

l\Ir. l\IADDE~ -. Over $20,000,000. l\Ir. BLANTOX. But the chairman [l\lr. Wr~sww], the fil··

tinguished fisherman, says $10,000,000. l\fr. ·w1NSLOW. I challenge anybody to show that it wiil

cost more than $10,000,000. Mr. BLANrroN. I do not belie"'fe tlwt the gentleman woul<.l

try to mislead us. I am willing to accept his . tatement. But it will cost us $10.000,000 more, 11e says, to put thiR in onler. That makes $21,500,000 that we are vutting into this project, if ~-ou please. I :im not willing to spend that much mo11er in it. I hope the gentleman will admit an amendment to reduce this total purchase price to $8,2:l0,000. That is as much as we ought to pay for it. [Ap1)lnu ·e.]

Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman. I ~·ielcl fixe minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GAI,LITAN].

The CHAIRllAX The gentleman from l\Ias achusetts i ~ recognized for five minute .

Mr. GALLIY .A...i.."\'". Mr. Chairman, for tlie life of me I can not see any occasion in the world for anrl>odr having a spasm over this bill. I want the attention for the moment of the brilliant young barrister from New York [l\lr. L"'1GvAimIA], who read to us a portion of the decision of the appellate court.

I want to go this far with this young lawyer from Xew York. Suppose that this is a compromise of a lawsuit. Is he the kind of a lawyer who is unwilling to settle outslde of court when he

- '

8486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-ROUSE

can get a much more reasonab1e figure outside of eonrt than he gets ffom a jury? Why, gentlemen, this is the affirmn.tion of a contract entered into, n<Yt by one Secretary, may I say to my friend from Texas [l\lr. BLANTON], but of a C6ntract entered into by three 'Secretaries -of this 'administration ; and they are appointed by an act of Congress to negotiate for the purchase of this canal; do not overlook that fact

Do not forget, Mr. Chairman, that the jury rendered a verdict of $16,800,000 upon the condemnation proceedings. By the contract I have referred to the Secretaries have been able to agree to the payment of but $5,500,000 in cash.

llr. MANSFIELD. Will the gentleman yield? l\Ir. GALLIVAN. Yes. lfr. MA.NSFIELD. And the gentleman from New York [Mr.

I,AGUARDB.] intimated that he would rather leave it to a Massachusetts jury than to this Congress to fix the price, did be not?

Mr. GALLIVAN. Well, I do not know but what I might myself if I were one of the canal owners.

Ur. BLA ... 'J\'TON. If you would put Joe Walsl1 on it, I would be willing, too.

Mr. G.A.LLIV A.c~. Not alone has the verdict been reduced by more than $5,000,000, but the Govemment has compelled the owners to deed 1,-000 acres of land not included in the original oondemnation proceedings, and these properties are worth in the vicinity of $100,000. They would not get this treatment from a jury.

Yes, there is a humane side to it. .And whether tbe Oape Cod Canal has its inlet or outlet in Massachusetts or elsewhere I am one of those who believe that this great project should be under the control ()f Uncle Sam.

Wby, Mr. Chairman, there is no place on the entire Atlantic coast line more dreaded by t'he mariner than that portion embracing Cape Cod. This is due primarily to severe storms, winds, strong currents, shoals, and thick fogs which almost constantly prevail there. It is -one of the most treacherous coasts in the world. Ships not routed through the canal are frequently tied up in Vineyard Haven and other harbors anywhere from one day to two weeks, lying at anchor waiting for a chance to get over the shoals. The records show over 1,000 marine disasters to ships going around the cape between 1880 and 1903. From July 1, rn07, to June 30, 1917, a period of 10 years, casualties to vessels passing Cape Cod, including .i:·antucket Shon.ls, Nantucket Sound, Marthas Vineyard, and Vineyard Sound, involved vessels to the number of 326 of a total tonnage of 190,1-05 and of property valued at $12, 761;920. Of this total property involved $1,653,770 in value was lost. During the same period the lives of 3,900 persons an board tl1ese vessels were imperiled, and the records show that 32 lives were lost.

The Government ha-s long recognized the -e:rlreme danger to navigation in this locality. For many years it has maintained 13 life- aving stations between Monomy Point and Wood End, Cape Cod, a distanee of about 40 miles.

During tlle fiscal year ended June 30, 1920, the assistance rendered by United States Coast Guard steamei-s and stations from Cuttyhunk to Provincetown in'Vol;ed the sa\ing of life and property, and shows the mlue of vessels in jeopardy to have been $16,477,000.

Mr. :MADDEN. Will the gentleman yield? )fr. GALLIVAN. I always yield to my respected chairman. :Mr. l\lADDEN. I wonder why the State of Massachusetts

did not carry out its contr.act and buy this canal instead of turning it over to the Government of the United States to buy?

Ir. GALLIVAN. Because the Government, away back in the days of George Washington, wanted the 'Canal there. He was the first man who wanted the Government to ha\e a canal there, and the last President of the UnUed States who issued orders was the lamented Woodrow Wilson, when he instructed his Secretary of War, Mr. Ilaker, to begin condemnation proceedings at once.

l\Ir. l\IADDEN. But the gentleman from Massachusetts knows that there was a contract between the State of 'Massaclrnsetts and the owners of this canal under which the State was to bny it.

l\Ir. GALLIVAN. Well, if there was such a contract-and I do not know it-I repeat what I "Said a moment ago, that a great waterway like this, which means so much to humanity, sbould be owned by the Federal Government, whether it be in Massachusetts, in Texas, in California, or on the coast of the State of Washington. [Applause.]

The CHAffiMA...~. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.

Mr. GALLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimons consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD.

The CHA.IR~IAN. The ·gentleman from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the REcoRD. Is there objection'? [After ll pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. m"DERHILL. Mr. Chairman, ! make the same request. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks

nnanimons consent to extend his remarks in the REconD. Is there objection 1 [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. RA.YBU'RN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. RowARD].

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 10 minutes. [Applause.]

l\lr. HOW ARD of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen , of the committee, I appear not for the purpose of praising nor of condemning the proposition ·now before the Hoose in toto. I do sincerely hope that some day our Government may own and operate a canal in the place designated uuder the pending legislation.

My object for fue moment is to direct attention to the general situation in the col:IIltry, and whether the voting of these millions of dolln.rs for this improvement is more to be defiled than the voting of other millions to relieve distress in other parts of our country.

If I were inclined to deal with a serious subject faceti.ouslywhich I fill1 not-I might dismiss it all by saying :to you gentlemen-and particularly to my magnificent friend from Massachusetts, in charge of the bill-that :r like codfish, and I am for them generally -; but for the moment I prefer :first .to cater to the needs of the cornfield canaries. But I do not want to discuss it facetiously. I want to call your attention ever so earnestly, m~· friends, on both sides-and I always try to speak to both sides rather than rt:o one side-that we have been assembled in Congress for many months. Every one of us, I think, came here with the earnest nnderstanding that the greatest -need of the hour in a legislative way was something for the relief of agricnltnre We lm ve accomplished nothing ; we have appropriated not a dollar to aid agriculture. Oh, it is true we did create a lot .of new official positions, with some kind of a French name attached to them, and a comfortable salary, also. We did that in the name .of helping agriculture; but aside from that I know of nothing we have done.

I am interested in the humane proposition here. ;i went over this map with my friends from Massachusetts and I asked 1

them the meaning of all these little black spots on the map. ' They told me that each of the •black spots represents a locality 1

in the waters where some -ship went down to death. That is sad. But, my friends, if I were des.irons of .bringing tears to your eyes in this moment I could point oo 10 little black spots all over the agricultural zone for every one that you have here, and I could tell you that every black spot marked the failure of I somebody on an .American fa.cm.

Mr. M .. rnLAFFERTY. Will the gentleman yield? llr. HOWARD of Nebraska. Yes. M1~. llicLAFFERTY. Has the gentleman a remedy to J)l'O·

pose? Mr. HOW ARD of Nebraska. Yes. MJ:.. COLE of Iowa. What is it? Mr~ HOW AcRD of Nebraska. For the agricultural situation? Mr. COLE of Iowa. Yes. 1\fr. HOW ARD of Nebraska. Oh, if I had my way I would

bring in a bill looking not to tbe relief of agriculture next month or next year, but for the immediate relief <>f agriculture. I speak to you from th~ standpoint of one who llas never indorsed the principle of the Government giving cost plus to anybody.

Mr. MacLAFFERTY. Will the gentleman yield? l\lr. HOW ARD of Nebraska. Certainly. Mr. MAcLAFFERTY. Has not the gentleman the privilege

of bringing in such a bill? Mr. HOW ARD of Nebr.a.ska. Oh, yes; but I have boon un

able to get it. Mr. MAcLAFFERTY. But you can bring in such a bill'? l\fr. HOW ARD of Nebraska. I could if I had the ear of the

Rules Committee. Mr. llicLAFFERTY. Here is a distinct remedy proposed

for an evil that exists. Mr. HOW ARD of Nebraska. Oh, yes; but let me finish my

statement, since the gentleman has asked me for my remedy~ Here is my remedy, following my statement that I do not believe, as a governmental _principle, in cost plus for any man or any institution in our country ; but here our Government has for years gl\en cost plus to the railroads and kindred organizations, and now, for my part, I am in favor of giving just a little bit of cost plus to agriculture. I want to give agriculture a chance to get up to that cost-plus trough and get its nose in there deep enough to get just a little 'bit of its share of cost plus, and if I could have had my way I \vould

1924 CO:NGRESSION Ari RECORD-][OUSE 8487 haYe brought out of the Committee on Agriculture long, long ago some bill looking to that good end. But I have not had that influence with the Committee on Agriculture which I might desire, and hence I know now that I shall not hn.ve opportunity to Yote for any such bill. Wh~? Because my good President and your good President has declared that everything must be subordinated to the one great end of economy. He has vetoed our pension bill in the name of economy, and I understand, and unhappil~ I bear the news to you, that only an hour ago the Senate failed by one vote to pass the bill over tbe presidential veto.

Standing here on the eve of another presidential veto-and I do not state it on my own authority, but upon the authority of many of you administration leaders-we are going to have another dose of economy; and if economy be the watchword, men under what manner of reasoning can we ask each other to .;ote for a proposition of this kind at this time?

Mv friends when I came down here I had been studying to some extent this problem of inland waterways, and I talked with a number of western Representatives, and we agreed that it ought to be dealt with by the Government and favorably. I would like to ask the direct question here of any gentleman on the floor who has been talking to me with reference to my support of the general inland waterways program, Is this bill a part of that program?

l\lr. AilERNETHY. Yes; it is a part of it. l\1r. HOW ARD of Nebraska. It is a part of it? Mr. ABERNETHY. It is a part of it, and that is tbe rea

son I am voting for it. l\fr. HOWARD of Nebraska. Then if it be a part of that

program I want to serve notice that I shall have to withhold my vote for another rear 0£ two from that program, because-, after listening to the statement made here by that magnificent fellow from Wisconsin, showing the character of this plan to take money out of the Treasury at the present time when our President tells us that economy is so much to be desired, I can not give my consent to indorsing it, and if the general inland waterways program be part and parcel of this program I think I shall have to do a little more studying of that program before I shall promise my vote to any part of it

1\lv friends, I want to be free--0h, I want to be altogether tree-:'.-from any thought or suspicion of a sectionalistic mind when I shall be legislating here, and I am dealing with nothin,,. of the kind in mind. I tell the gentleman from Massach~setts frankly I hope to Urn to see the day when this canal shall be owned and operated by the parent Government, but, after listening to the statement of the gentleman f1·om Wisconsin I could not vote for the bill at the present time.

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

l\Ir. WINSLOW. l\Ir. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. CoNNERY1.

l\lr. CON~"'ERY. l\Ir. Chairman and fellow Members of the House I wish to state first of all that I am not interested in the U~ited States Government taking over this canal to pay back the gentlemen who dug this canal or who are responsible for the digging of this canal, but I am ~terested in the canal and what it means as a national proposition and to the people of :N"ew England. The gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned bow the ships have to go outside of Nantucket Island and stay there sometimes for three weeks, if necessary, until the weather abates, and then go up• in and around the cape and get into Boston Harbor. We in New England know well how the people suffered last year from a lack of coal Coal had to come in by rail from the western part of the State of :Mas achusetts, in through New York State, a little narrow neck of the bottle, and while the people of New England were freezing waiting for coal which the railroads could not move to them, especially those of us who lived in the eastern part of the State, other ships and coal barges were off Nantucket Island waiting to get into Boston Barbor.

As I say, I am not interested in all these millionaires they have been talking about, l\fr. August Belmont, or any of these New York financiers-they do not mean any,thing in my young life at all, as I have had pl2nty of opportunity to show by my T<:>te this session-but I am interested in the Cape Cod Canal, and in what it is going to mean to the people of l\Ius ·achnsetts, to the people of l\1aine, all of New England, and right on down the Atlantic seaboard, as has been mentioned; to the people of Florida and so on over to Texas.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from 1\1assnchusetts has expired.

Mr. WINS:,ow. Mr. Chairman, I woulu like to inquire if tb.e gentlemaG. from Texas has any more speakers.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 14 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 minutes.

Mr. CROSSER. I do not think the gentleman from Texas is going. to use any more time.

l\Ir. WINSLOW. With the understanding that the gentleman from Texas has no more speeches, I will yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. GIFFORD].

Mr. GIFFORD. l\Ir. Chairman, I am a native of the region through which this canal passes, and for a long time have looked forward to having an opportunity to say something to the Congress on the subject. But after a debate lasting as long as this one has and after all the points which have already been brought out, ~ I can not say all that I intended-

As a d"·eller on Cape Cod I have to-day learned a lot of facts from Wisconsin and Oklahoma that are surprising, but the most surprising fact I have learned-and it must have surprised many of you as well-was that my immediate predecessor from the sixteenth district of Massachusetts, .Judge Walsh, was o:i:wosed to this canal purchase. I want you all to know that if he were here in my stead to-day, he would be urging the passage of this bi11, as I am. About 10 clays ago he told me that lie did say something against t11e proposition, but he told me that it was in war times when the Government was spending money lavishly and wastefully. Now the occasion is different. I c.an not imagine Judge Walsh being· opposed to this purchase or ratification-why, practically every person in that whole section is in ardent favor of it, for they· know the need. If I had bad the least idea that he was going to be quoted adver~ ely to tbe measure, as he has been, I should have his affidavit to this effect.

I have lived on Cape Cod all my life and continually heard the harrowing stories of shipwrecks and drownings off our coast. Being very fully informed on that particular aspect of t11e case I could spend. ten times the time that is mine on it and in what lawyers call "boring for water." But I do not intend to do so. However, it did hurt a little when it was said a few moments ago, "You have your canal, why not make use of it?'' I want to call 3·our attention to the fa.ct that only a little more than a ·month ago the Wyoming-a magnificent vessel, one of the last of the six masters, and the pride of the State of Maine-was lost off Cape Cod with all on boarri because, drawjng 29 feet of water, she could not use the canal in its present state and was forced to make the trip around the cape. When rou gentlemen estimate the expense of this measure, how are you, going to measure what the lives of those men alone were worth?

The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr .. NELSON] on April 10 told us about the little alcove over in the Congressional Library where there are a thousand -volumes on the moral law. It was there, I suppose, that he prepared his to-day's speech. filled with criticism, witticisms, and sarcasm. Some time in that seclusion and his hours of meditation perhaps t11e spirits of those lost seamen and countless others will visit and chide him.

In the present condition of 'the canal, only 25 per cent or les · of the shipping will use it, and the manifold dangers of the outside route remain a menace to the larger vessels as of old.

You may have forgotten, hut we of Cape Cod have not, the thrill we had during the late war when a German submarine suddenly appeared off our coast and sunk several coal barges. Instantly all of the shipping was frightened away from the outide route and tried to get through this inland waterway. Within three or four days thereafter the Government seized the canal as a pressing war-time measure, and at a tremendous and wasteful expense attempted to put it into proper shape to meet the conditions, while it was simultaneously being operated to its ma,ximum capacity.

After an agitation for the building of this waterway by the Government, which had extended through generations, it had finally been forced to take it over. What was the spark that caused the blaze resulting in the building of the Panama Canal? Was it not the fact that the Oregon was forced to sail all the way around Cape Horn to join the Atlantic fleet during the war with Spain? It was a similar spark, tl1e dire need of sending our shipping through a safe and short inland route which caused the GoYernment to take over the Cape Cod Canal.

While I have not the time to present lengthy arguments, I want to say to you that the people whom I represent have been demanding of me, in no uncertain terms, what the Government intends t.o do in this matter so vital to them, and what really is the G-0\"ernment? There are three departments in our Government. T11ey know that the executive branch

8488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE . MAY 13

has, in goocl faith, done its full duty therein. The case has also been through the judicial department and the courts have rendered a verdict in the condemnation proceedings. Now, it alone remains for the Congress to act in accordance with its moral obligation. It should to-day likewise do its duty. We will be o-etting for $11,500,000 what would to-day cost $25,000,-000. I

0

wa personally present at the trial of the case and heard the expert witnesses who testified to that fact.

l\1r. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield? l!r. GH'FORD. l\1y time has so nearly expired that I must

ask the gentleman to allow me to continue. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman declines to yield. l\Ir. GIFFORD. We are getting a wonderful bargain, in fact.

If this canal were not already built, it would cost that great sum to construct. It has deteriorated a little, of course, but not so much as has been pictured here to-day. I am pleading not so much for those ocean-going steamr;:hips we have to have in order to carry the commerce of the Nation, and which may go around that ocean graveyard off Cape Cod with re3:sonable safety, but I am speaking on behalf of the small ships and barges. What a crime it is to send men on coal barges around that section of the cape in rough weather! I have particularly in mind the story of one of my near neighbors. .After following the sea as captain of a sailing vessel most of his life he was forced to take a barge joh when steam drove the old schooners almost from the seas. In order really to appreciate what it is to make that trip on a barge in bad weather you must experience it, but I wish that you could hear that captain tell of one such trip when they were wrecked, clung to the wreckage for more than 24 hours and finally his own son was swept off and drowned before his eyes. It is incidents like that which make the humanitarian side of this question appeal to me above all others, and it should be an important factor in your considerations. Yes; our Government has for a long time been very derelict in its plain duty to its sailor citizens. This canal should have been built 50 years ago. Now we have the opportunity to acquire it and should not let that opportunity slip.

I want to say a word for the private capital involved. Sarcastic reference has been made to the men in Wall Street who were interested in constructing this canal Some of us happen to know that the ancestors of August Belmont lived on Cape Cod. We, at least, believe that he was actuated by high motives and for the public good when he risked his money in the untried venture. I hold no brief for the private owners, but my belief is that having been recommended by the various other departments of the Government and fully considered by the committee which has reported it, it should pass as it stands, and that it carries tbe proper sum for them to receive. [Applause.] Mr. Chairman. I ask leave to re.vise and extend my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

The Clerk read as follows : Be -tt enacted, etc., That the contract dated July 29, 1921, executed

by the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co., and transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of War and printed in House Document No. 139, Sixty-seventh Congress, second session, is hereby ratified on condition that such company files with the Secretary of War its consent in writing that paragraph 8 of such contract be amended to read as follows :

"8. The payment of the amount herein agreed to be paid, or any part of same, to the said canal company is to be upon the express condition that the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co. waives, in writing, any and all claims of any nature whatsoever that it may have against the President, the Director General of Railroads, or the United States, and upon such release the Director General of Railroads shall release the company from any claim or demand against the company growing out of Federal control." ·

Mr. BURT:NESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I desire to offer.

The CHAIRl\1.AN. The Clerk · will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows : Page 1, line 9, after the word "that," strike out the word " para·

graph " and insert in lieu thereof the following: " Paragraph 5 and " ; also at the end of line 10 insert a new paragraph in quotation marks reading as follows :

" 5. The company oft'ers to sell the canal to the United States for $8,255,000, as follows: $2,255,000 ln cash, payable when Congress ratifies this agreement and upon delivery of deed of conveyance as provided herein and the assumption by the United States of the payment of the bonds mentioned in paragraph 2, including interest coupons maturing on and after January 1, 1922."

Mr. BURTNESS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in passing upon this question I have tried to pass on it very much in the light of the suggestion made by the gentle-man from Alabama [1\lr. HUDDLESTON] in the minority report in the quotation I am going to· give you, which is found on page 20:

The purchase of Cape Cod Canal has the same status for congressional action as would have a measure for the construction of the canal at the beginning. Its status is the same for our practices as though a proposal for the construction of a canal was now being brought forward for the first time.

I regard that attitude as eminently fair and proper. After considering the evidence that has been offered in favor of the proposal for acquiring the Cape Co"d Canal, I am for the Government procuring it at the earliest possible date, and I think the very best argument that can be submitted is the map which is shown here, both from a commercial benefit and from a humanitarian benefit. It is strictly in accord with the development of water transportation, both on inland waterways and coastwise; but that does not mean that I am one of those who is willing to jump at any suggestion whenever it is offered.

I think I have tried fairly to consider this proposition thoroughly, and I am convinced that as a matter of fairness, under all the conditions up there, taking into consideration actual values and the condition of the canal, that the amount of $11,500,000 is not fair to the Government, and I have suggested by my amendment the payment of $8,265,000. I am not so certain but what the amount ought to be Rbout $10,000,000. At any rate, I want to quote from the hearings some of the testimony which, to my mind, indicates why one or the other of those suggested sums should be considered rather than $11,500,000. I want to say that if the amendment I have proposed is voted down I hope to offer another for $10,000,000.

Mr. BEGG. Will the gentleman yield for a question? .Mr. BURTNESS. I can not just now. On May 29, 1918, the

P.oard of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors rendered its re-port to the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, and after setting out the total amount found by the firm of accountants as to tbe claims of the cost of the canal, amounting, in all, to $13,053,000, the report says this:

The board has studied the various items making up these amounts and has reached the conclusion that the sum of $8,265,743.04 may properly be included in toto in determining a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost of the canal. What part, if any, of the indirect expenditures represented by the $4,787,410.67 should be included is a matter not readily determined. The board has carefully considered the various items comprising this sum and bas reached the conclusion that a reasonable allowance for the Flanagan rightR of way and franchise and for the development expenses as repre. ented by the losses amounting to $1,527,198.42 experienced prior to August, 1917, in building up a tr~ffic warrants appraising the fair cost of the canal in round numbers at $10,000,000, ru;; based upon the reported expenclitures. This is intended to cover all pro~rty rights and franchises of whatever description acquired by the company in connection with this E!nterprise, whether directly used for canal purposes or otherwise.

.And so the record is full of facts sustaining that contention. In the report of Price, Waterhouse & Co., the accountants who went over the books of the company, you will find that those accountants reported that $8,265,743 in fact constituted the construction cost of the canal

Permit me also to quote very briefly from the report of the Chief of Engineers.

The CHAIRl\IAN. The time of the gentleman from North Dakota has expired.

Mr. BURTNESS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five more minutes.

The CHAIRl\lAN. The gentleman from North Dakota asks unanimous consent to proceed for five minutes more. Is there objection?

There was no objection. Mr. BURTNESS. This is what the Chief of Engineers sars

to the Secretary of War : The board has given careful study to the financial statements con

tained in .Appendix A of the report on survey, from which it appears that the direct cost of actual construction amounted to $6,243,171.01, the indirect cost to $1,274,459.63, and the interest and taxes during construction to $748,112.40, thus giving a total cost of construction amounting to $8,265,743.04, not including amounts paid in capital stock for rights and franchises or for services in promotion, organization, engineering, financing, etc., nor discount on securities, loss or deficit on operations, and damage claims, amounting in all to $4,i87,-410.67. The total expenditures on the canal (see Exhibits E and EE

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8489 of Appendix A) are thus reported to be $13,053,153.71 up to August 31, 1917, counting the payments with stocks and bonds at par. The board believes that the sum of $8,265,743.04 may be properly included in toto in determining a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost of the canal, and that reasonable allowance for the rights of way and franchises and for the development expenses in building up a traftlc warrants appraising the fair cost of the canal in round numbers at $10,000,000, as based upon the reported e..~endltures. • • •

No.w, an estimate is also found in the evidence as to how much it would have cost the Government to have built this canal, if constructed at the same time, regardless of the figures that are found in the books of the canal company. That estimate you will find on page 286, made by one M .. W. Lewis on November 13, 1918. I quote a tabulation therefrom, as follows:

and if that is not agreed to he is going to offer an amendment carrying $10,000,000.

Mr. Chairman, I want to call particular attention to the status of this legislation. The Congress authorized the Secretary of War to negotiate a contract for the purchase of this canal, and in the event of the failure of those negotiations to institute condemnation proceedings by the use of the Attorney General. The Secretary of War undertook to agree and offered the amount which the gentleman proposes to put in the bill. That amount was rejected by the company; condemnation proceedings were instituted and the jury rendered a Yerdict of $16,800,000. The Government, discontented with that award, appealed, and not because the verdict was excessive, Mr. Chairman, but for technical reasons that case was reversed and sent back to the Federal court for retrial. The Secretary of

Dtr'1x~~tlon, at 25.6 cents--------------------- $3, 842, 165. 96 War having this proposition in band did what an individual ~~~j -~~:_e~o-~::::::.:::::.:.::::_-:_-::::::::::::::::::::: ~~: l~i: ~ ~~~~~· sa~~ proceeded under the authority he had to nego-

4, 658, 771. 99 I I have offered the canal company $8,250,000 ; the jury has rendered Breakwater---------------------------------Bridges --------------------------------------

g~; &~~: ~g a verdict of $16,800,000; I am going to negotiate further. Railway changes _______________________ _

~~~~;~~nt~~~!~::::_::::::::::::::::::::.::::: 190, 463. 72 And he did negotiate further, and has arrived at a contract 1gr· ~8:· ~i for $U..,500,000. It is proposed by the gentleman from North

' · Dakota [Mr .. BURTNEss] to send this back with an amendment o, 118, 896. 94 which practically kills the bill, because we have no assurance

Superintendence, inspection, and contingencies, 20 per that any such contract will be entered into. On the contrary, cent----------------------------------~"-------- 1• 223• 779· 39 we have every assurance that the amount fixed by the amend-

Total------------------------------------ 7, 34-2, 676. 33 ment will be again rejected. So that those who are in favor Then he says : of closing this matter ought to immediately vote against the

amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota and support this measure as it is, carrying the amount which has been agreed to by the Secretary of War, who has had full authority. The engineers under him have been merely reporting to him, and he reports to us that this is the best that can be done, and the contract includes rights of considerable value in addition to the rights which were proposed to be given for the original amount of S8.250,000.

By adding to the above the work done at the approaches (3,000,000 cubic yards) the above estimate is increased $768,000, or to a total of $8,110,000.

The above estimate does not include the cost of approximately 1,000 acres of land, franchises, and other rights obtained from Mr. Flanagan. So the situation is this, as it seems to me: If you want to pay the fair cost of construction and of overhead expense and the interest on necessary expenditures during the time of construction and pay nothing for the franchises that were held by this man Flanagan or for some land that he turned over, the figure of $8,765,000 proposed in the present

, amendment would be about right. If you 'want to pay for the franchises and the land that is included in this proposition, the total amount, according to the report of the engineers of the Army, should not exceed $10,000,000; and ·it does not seem to me right and proper that we should give to these people a million and a half dollars, or more, even if it is true that they have lost not only that million and a hulf but several times that much.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

l\fr. BURTNESS. In a moment. My amendment is simply a duplication of section 5 of the offer made by this company.

Mr. W AI.r-.""WRIGHT. Was there any cash payment in addition to this $8,265,000? In other words, is it not a question whether a part of that $4,000,000 was in cash?

Mr. BURTNESS. I do not .know whether all of it was paid in cash or not; I do not recall. But the $4,000,000 is made up of a large number of items-cost of franchises, stock, promotion fees, attorneys' fees, including claims for damages, and everything of that nature-made during the time this canal was in tbe process of construction. The engineering fees were very large. I am not in a position to judge exactly, so perbaps I ought not to make the assertion, but in my judgment the engineering fees and every item of that sort, which were included in the $13,000,000, were positively exorbitant.

At any rate, I for one am willing to accept the judgment and advice of the Chief of Engineers of the Army, as given in the report made to the Secretary of War, and especially so after the report had been made on the records of the company itself, as disclosed by the audit of the accountants and also by the Board of Engineers of the rivers and harbors organization, all having that same general end in view.

So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is absolutely necessary, if we are to have this legislation, for us to leave the amount as it is now written in the bill.

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from lliinois is recognized.

Mr. 11ADDEN. l\fr. Chairman and gentlemen, whatever may be the ultimate necessity for the purchase of this canal, we are living in a period when every dollar of the public money should be conserved and no dollar expended for any purpose except that which is an essential need of the hour. No one will claim that this project is an emergency, nor will anyone deny that it can be postponed without any injury to any cause; no one will dare deny that the amount proposed to be paid is excessive. I assert it is. If but $6,000,000 or a little more has been expended by the promoters of this canal, I ask you why we should be called upon to pay $11,500,000. I ask yon why there is danger in adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota [l\Ir. BunTl\TESs]. We are aske<1 not to adopt it because, forsooth, we must not send the question back. If the proposal he makes is just, what harm can be done by sending it back? ·

If the proposal made by the committee is unjust, why should we adopt it? Oh, they have argued sentimentally. They say that every dot upon this map means a loss of life. That is no argument on the merits of the proposal. One gentleman here even argued that you could start a ship from Galveston and go all the way to Boston on the inside route. That was one of too arguments, and that is as good an argument as most of the arguments that have been made on the merits of the question.

Gentlemen, we have $300,000,000 of obligations facing us over and above the revenues at the disposal of the Government, and, under the pending revenue act now in conference, there will be created a deficit of $450,000,000; yet we run wildly

The OHM:Rl\IAN. The time of the gentleman bas expired.

again into the expenditure of unnecessary millions. Is there anyone,

Mr. SA.I\TDERS of Indiana and Mr. l\IADDEN rose. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr.

SANDERS] has the preferential right and is recognized. Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman

from North Dakota [l\Ir. BmtTNEss], a very able member of our committee, has indicated to the House that after an investigation of this proposition he was thoroughly convinced that the Cape Cod Canal should be taken over, and that the only objection he has to the bill is the amount. He says he is going to offer this amendment to decrease the amount to $8,250,000,

anywhere, willing to speak a word for economy? Ur. MILLS. Will my friend from Illinois yield? Mr. MADDEN. No; I do not want to yield just now. Is there anyone willing to represent the people in their de

mand for lower taxation? You can not help but admit that if you continue to pile up the expenses, you must levy new taxes. You can Iiot go before the American people and plead that you did not understand . the question. You understand that every dollar appropriated by this Congress i:mst he raised by tax levy, and rou can not say to the Ameriran people, "We thought we were conserving your interests when we made tlle

8490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE MAY 13'

appropriation, and we forgot that it was necessary to raise the money by taxation." You can not plead that.

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

l\1r. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words.

I quite agree with the preceding speaker and I applaud him for continuing to be the good, old, faithful watchdog of the Treasury; but there are conditions in business which are worth considering, even if it becomes a pull to get the wherewithal to meet them, and one of them is good faith.

The Government of the United States, by what it has done in this case, has crowded the owners against the wall ; and when it crowded them by virtue of condemnation proceedings and got a good licking in the courts, it proceeded to crowd them again and got them against the wall once more, and then under the decision of the court of appeals a new trial was ordered. Later comes along the Government once more, through its authorized agents, authorized by Congress, and says, "Now, let us not go to the expense of litigation and a great, big fight; let us have the canal run along until Congress can come together and pass on our trade with you," and thus it has come to pass.

l\leanwhile there has been no income to the canal company. It has all been diverted to the care of the canal or saved in the Treasury for the Governmerrt. The owners of the canal, those who hold the stock and are entitled to vote, have paid the bond interest out of their own pockets. Now, it is not good faith for the Government of the United States and the Congress to delay the agony longer. If we do not want to put this bill through, let us say so good and plenty and be done with it, and let the canal company go back to the court and try out its cause, without hanging on them the way a dog will keep a rat going for an indefinite period, but let us do it in a businesslike way and let the Government be an example of good business and not be a terror to everybody who has anything to do with it.

Mr. TINCHER. Will the gentleman yield? ~Ir. WINSLOW. Yes. lli. TINCHER. Is the suit instituted by the Government

still pending? Mr. WINSLOW. It is pending, and it is being delayed from

time to time by agreement of counsel on both sides. Mr. TINCHER. If we turn down the proposition of com

promise that has been agreed to, then another jury in the same locality that b·ied the case before will be impaneled and will fix the amount

Mr. WINSLOW. Just so, and we may get another $16,000,-000 instead of $11,500,000.

l\1r. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan. Is ·there anything out of the ordinary in that suit to make it obligatory on the Government to accept the verdict of the jury in fixing the amount?

Mr. WINSLOW. I think they have the ordinary recourse to law.

Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan. And the Government can accept the verdict or not, as it pleases?

Mr. WINSLOW. No; when the court finally decides and all the steps have been taken that the Government can take to get out from under, then they will have to pay.

Mr. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan. Ordinarily, in a case of this kind, the one against whom the verdict is rendered can accept it or not. Of course, if he takes the property he must pay, but he can wash his hands of the whole thing and say, "The verdict is too high, I refuse to pay it."

Mr. WINSLOW. But the Congress of the United States has ordered it bought. Do not forget that. The order has been put in by Congress to buy this property, by private arrangement or through condemnation. Therefore the Government must take the canal one of these days when through the operation of the courts a decision as to purchase price is established.

Mr. O'CONNELL of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from North Dakota, and I base my objection on two grounds: First, I am firmly convinced that if the amount suggested by him is substituted for the amount provided in the bill there will be no purchase of the Cape Cod Canal. Second, I am opposed to it because I am satisfied, from reading the rivers and harbors act, approved August 8, 1917, which gives authority to examine and appraise the value of the works and franchises of the Cape Cod Canal and to negotiate and contract for its purchase, that if we make any change in the figures provided in the offer of the Cape Cod Canal Co., made on July 29, 1921, and accepted on the same date in behalf of the United States Government by the Secretary 9f War, that we have no authority under any other provision of the act of August 8, 1917, or of any

other special act or general law, to purchase this canal. That act provides in part that if, in the judgment of the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Commerce, the price of such canal is reasonable and satisfactory, and its acquisition is agreed upon by all three Secretaries, that the Secretary of War is authorized to make a contract for the purchase of the same at the option of the United States, subject to future ratification and appropriation by the Congress; or, in the event of inability to reach a satisfactory agreement as to price, to take it over by condemnation proceedings. We tried the condemnation proceedings and they have failed. Now there is only one other way and we must take it on the ratification by Congress of the existing contract.

The ratification by Congress is a condition subsequent. There must be a previously existing bona fide contract which has been executed by some official in behalf of the United States Government and by the Cape Cod Canal Co. The only contract in existence is the one of $11,500,000, made on July 29, 1921, by the officials of the Cape Cod Canal Co. and accepted on behalf of the Government by the Secretary of War. We are now asked to ratify that contract. There is no other contract in existence that we can ratify, and if we substitute the figures proposed by the gentleman from North Dakota, or any other figures except the exact figures of the contract, in the terms of the offer made and the acceptance of that offer, then we have nothing to act upon pnder authority conferred by the act of August 8, 1917, which is the only source of authority for the proposed purchase.

It is simply a means of putting this proposition to sleep, of administering to it a deadly sleeping potion. This waterway is sadly needed. It is in truth a part of the intercoastal system of this country and it should be accepted. In my opinion, the figures are reasonable and much less than the actual cost of construction. [Applause.]

l\Ir. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto be closed in five minutes.

The CHAIR1\1AN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent that all debate on the section and all amendments thereto close in five minutes. Is there objection?

llr. McLAUGHLIN of Michigan. R~serving the right to object, I should like a couple of minutes.

Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman, I will modify my request and make it eight minutes.

The CHAIR1\1AN. The gentleman from Massachusetts modifies his request and asks unanimous consent that all debate on the section and amendments thereto close in eight minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. PARKS of Arkansas. I object. Mr. McKEOWN. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amend

ment. The Clerk read as follows : Substitute amendment offered by Mr. MCKEOWN to that of Mr.

BuRTNESS : Strike out the figures " $11,500,000 " and insert in 11eu thereof " $6,243,150.''

Mr. McKEOWN. The bill will be ratified on condition they would strike out $11,500,000 and insert $6,243,150.

Mr. BURTNESS. How about the $5,500,000 of bonds? Mr. McKEOWN. We will come to that; we will come to that

later. I am in favor of the gentleman's amendment if we do not get this.

Mr. BURTNESS. I raised that point because it is plain you change the amount--

Mr. McKEOWN. It is how you come at it. Here is the proposition. They talk about a contract. Here is the contract; I have it here. '.rhe contract provides that this will be a contract whenever it is approved by the Congress. There is no contract now. We can change this proposition, and here we are making a counter offer. The gentleman makes a counter offer to them. There is no binding conb·act ; we are not bound to accept this at all, and if we do accept it why pay more than the actual value of the property? Gentlemen talk about a lawsuit and wanting to go to a jury. Let it go to a jury. I am willing to go to a jury upon the rules as set forth by the court. What were those rules? The rules were the measure of the value of the property damages, which was the value of the property and not what somebody says it would probably cost, such as they had-expert witnesses such as General Goethals and other persons who testified this canal would cost $20,000,000 or $30,000,000, but it said the cash market value of that property.

Mr. BURTNESS. If the gentleman will allow a suggestion. If even that award under the law was passed by Congress in 1917, permit me to quote one line:

•

1924 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8491 The acceptance of the award in s-aid proceedings to be subject to

future ratification and appropriation by Congress.

Mr. l\1cKEOWN. There is nothing binding here now. I make this proposition, and it is a fair proposition: Put in a proposition to pay them six or eight million dollars, and if you make the proposition, if you put it in, you will never hear any kick about not accepting it. They will accept it, and you will save to the Government some two or three millions of dollars, which, as the evidence shows in this case, is watered stock. Why, here is a man who only paid $470,000 for the rights of way in all this land, and yet he g~ts back in bonds o-ver $1,360,000. Here is a law firm in New York which drew $50,000 a year for five years you are going to pay back. Here is another proposition of high finance of $1,006,000, and the Congress of the United States, in view of the condition of the Treasury at this time, is it willing to go on record with the taxpayers of the country that you are to pay over money for lawyers' fees, high financial propositions of $1,006,000, instead of paying the value of the property itself?

Mr. O'CONNELL of Rhode Island. If the gentleman will substitute any other figures than the figures here, what existing contract does he ratify?

Mr. l\lcKEOWN. We will not have a conti·act like we have now. We have none now. We only have an offer and acceptance. They make an offer of $11,500,000, and Congress in turn makes an offer of $8,500,000 or $8,800~000, whatever it is, and it is up to them to accept or reject it. No contract can be made unless the two minds meet on the proposition.

Mr. WINSLOW. l\Ir. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in six minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts moves that all debate on the pending section and all amendments thereto close in six minutes.

The question was taken, and the motion was agreed to. l\Ir. l\IcLAUGHLIN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in order to

get recognition I rise in opposition to the motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma. The gentleman from l\lassacbusetts [l\lr. WINSLOW] gave me what I think is a wrong impression. I think he must have given the House a wrong impression as to the status of that la,vsuit to the effect that the amount of the verdict of the jury might be far in exce. s of $11,500,000 and it would be binding upon the Government. Quoting from the law I find that it authorizes the "Attorney General to institute and carry to completion proceedings for the condemnation of said canal and its appurtenances, the acceptance of the award in said proceedings to be subject to future ratification and appropriation by Congress."

That is a contradiction of the statement ma.de by the gentleman from Massachusetts as I understood him. I wish to say only one thing more. We have here the report of the Chief of Engineers, whose duty it is to investigate, examine, and re-11ort on every proposed river and harbor and waterway project in the country. I represent a harbor district, have had not a little experience with the Corps of Engineers, and ha-\e the highest respe<!t for it. I know that in every matter which they consider their decision is accepted by the Congx·ess as absolutely final and conclusive. It is futile for anyone interested in a project to try to get approval of it or money from the Federal Treasurv contrary to the report of the Chief of Engineers. It is a m~atter of official record that during the last 20 years not one dollar of public money bas been spent on any kind of river or harbor or waterway proposition anywhere from the Federal Treasury contrary to the report of the Chief of Engigineers. We are asked here fo oYerride and disregard altoe:ether the reports and recommendations of the Chief of Engineers respecting the Cape Cod Canal, to disregard his estimate of its value and his opinion and advice as to the necessity and desirability of the Federal Government acquiring title to it.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McKEowN].

l'he question was taken, and the amendment was rejected. The CHAIR~fAN. The question now is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from North Dakota [l\lr. BURTNEss]. The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that

the noes appeared to have ·it. Mr. BLANTON. A division, l\fr. Chairman. The CHAIR1.\1AN. The gentleman from Texas demands a

division. The committee divided; and there were-ayes 60, noes 85. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. IlURTNESS. ~Ir. Chairman, I offer another amendment. The CHAIR1\IA1~. The Clerk will report the amendment

offered by the gentleman from North Dakota.

The Clerk read a~ follows: Amendment offered by Mr. BURTNESS : Page 1, line 9, after the word

"that," strike out the word " paragraph " and insert in lieu thereof the following: " paragraphs 5 and " ; also, at the end of line 10 insert a new paragraph in quotation marks, reading as follows:

" 5. The company offers to sell the canal to the United States for $10,000,000, as follows: $4,000,000 in cash, payable when Congress ratifies this agreement and upon delivery of deeds of conveyance as provided herein, and the assumption bY the United States of the payment of the bonds mentioned in paragraph 2, including interest coupons maturing on and after January 1, 1922."

Mr. BURTNESS. There are one or two minutes left, are there not?

The CHAIRMAN. Three minutes remain. Mr. BURTNESS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have

now proposed is identical With the last one, except that I have inserted "$10,000,000 '' instead of "$8,265,000" and have made the necessary allowances for the amount to be paid in cash. That is on the theory that the additional $1,735,000 would pay for the franchise and for the land that was owned by this man named Flanagan prior to the organization of the corporation with which you are dealing. So if this amendment is adopted you pay not only for the construction of the canal and all the overhead expense and the interest during the time the canal was under construction, but you would also pay for all the land that goes with it and for all the franchises that were held by the individuals who dealt originally with the corporation.

Now, this situation is exactly as it was put to you a moment ago by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. McLA uGHLIN1]. It is simply a question whether you are going to turn down the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers as to the amount that the canal actually did cost; also whether you are going to disregard the evidence submitted to the committee, as found in the hearings, of what the canal would have cost if the Government had built it, or whether you are going to accept an arbitrary figure based upon nothing particularly definite, but offered merely as a compromise calculation between what it cost and what the jury happened to award in war times after improper instructions from the court and after improper evidence had been submitted to it. That is the sole question before you, and I ask you to vote for the amendment. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota.

The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

hlr. BURTXESS. A division, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. A division is demanded. The committee divided; and there were-ayes 72, noes 85. l\1r. BURTNESS. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers on that

vote. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Dakota de

mands tellers. Those who desire to have this vote taken by tellers will rise and stand until they are counted. [After counting.] Only 18 gentlemen have risen, not a sufficient number.

Tellers were refused. So the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 2. That the sum of $5,500,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War, for the acquisition by purchase, in accordance with the terms of such contract, modified as provided in section 1 of this act, of the Cape Cod Canal and other property referred to in paragraph 1 of such contract.

Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the indulgence of the committee for just a few minutes at this late hour.

I do not profess to be any more anxious to see economy practiced than any other Member of the House, and certainly I have no greater responsibility than any other Member of the House. There are many reasons why I would like to support this bill, particularly on account of the fact that some of my friends on the floor, and they are ·rnry good friends of mine, are very warmly in favor of it.

I have been appealed to by the arguments which have been made from the humanitarian standpoint, both as to the loss of lives and as to the loss of property, but I am reminded of the fact that we now have a canal there. If there was not a canal already there, I might, even &.t the expense which is involved at this particular time, favor the digging of a canal.

8492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~HOUSE l\IAY lB

But we now have a canal there, and certainly l d<> not think, the project will ultimately cost $10,000,000 in addition, and when we are facing a large deficit, as has been stated upon the some say $15,000,000 to $25,000,000 more in order to put· it in floor of this House this afternoon, that this is the time to take proper shape. This is· a rather remarkable record for the thi .. property off the hands of the stockholders, for whom tbe House, in view ·of its repeated claims of economy. Remember, gentleman from Massachusetts so passionately argued a few all these sums are in addition to the regular appropriations, n1inutes ago, abandoning, it seemed to me, in large measure and will, to that extent, increase the deficit. his previous argument. I say, I do not think we should re- Gentlemen, you upon the Republican side of the House are lieve the stockholders of this property merely because they responsible, as the majority in this House, and I leave it to bave upon their hands a losing proposition. They did not dig you whether you are going to add this additional $11,500,000, thls canal with the original idea that the United States Gov- with all that may come after it, to the present burdens of the ernment was going to take it off of their hands, but they now people. [Applause.] find that they have a proposition which is losing money, and l\fr. WINSLOW and Mr. WOOD of Indiana rose. they come and ask the Government to relieve them of that Mr. WINSLOW. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent fmr~ndal loss. that all debate on this section and all amenclments thereto

I read a statement made by a distinguished Senator a day close in eight minutes. or so ago, a gentleman who knows as much about tax matters The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks ancl financial matters as any Member of Congress. and he unanimous consent that all debate on the pending section and said that when this new tax measure is passed-if enacted all amendments thereto close in eight minutes. Is there as it is now in conference-the Government is going to lose objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. $470,000,000 in revenue. We are told that is going to mean a Mr. WOOD. l\fr. Chairman, I have listened with a great ~150,000,000 deficit, as was stated by the gentleman from deal of interest to the speech just made by my friend and colIllinois, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a while league from Tennessee. I believe that my record> together ngo, and that is not taking into consideration the additional with the record of the gentleman from Tennessee, has been burdens Congress is voting every day upon the Public Treas- for economy, but sometimes a fault can be found in false ury and upon the people. economy. We ha\e been advocating for years the development

Let me tell you so~e of these additional burdens and what uot only of our intl;~rcoastal waterways but our interstate this great so-called economy Congress has done by way of waterways. legi~lating up to this time and in adding to the regular appro- If we are to be guided by the figures that may be given, like priations which have been carried in the appropriation bills. those that have been given by the gentleman from Tennessee Many of the measures which I am going to recite to you are on the expenditures of this (jovernment, we will never dig any measures which we all might favor and would like to see canals and we will ne\er build any waterways. It is the same enacted into law, but they are costing the people millions of old story that has been heard from tbe beginning of this Govdollars which have got to be met by increased taxes, for there ernment down to this time against public improvement, and I is no other w-ay you can meet them. was a little bit amaied at the gentleman from Tennessee in

Let me read some of them to you. I have made these nota- view of wbat has transpired in a very few weeks past. I beard tions while sitting in my seat here this afternoon, simply from the gentleman, with all the eloquence at his command, with all memory. There may be other measures wWch could be added. the ingenuity of which lle is capable, pointing out the great I am going to gi\e you these figures in round numbers, as I adrnntages that might come by reason of accepting the Muscle say, from my memory. Shoals proposition. I am not here for the purpose of making

The Bursum bill was passed which would have added $58,- invidious comparisons. I am here though contending that that 000,000 annually to the expenditures of tl~e Government. That which is best for all our country ought to be the thing that bill was \etoed, it is true, by the President, n.nd I understand we should try to subserve. the President's veto was sustained by the Senate this after- I am in favor of the intercoastal proposition. I am in favor noon. I am wondering wbat the President, in view of his of the St. Lawrence proposition. It has been the dream of claim that he vetoed that measure on the ground of economy, our section and the dream of the West and of the Northwest is going to do with this particular bill when it reaches the to realize by accomplishment a deeper waterway from the doors of the White House. Lakes to the GJllf, and if we are ever going to commence upon

The bonus bill, which carried, according to the arguments that program we will never have a better opportunity than made here when it was on the floor, an ultimate cost to the now. By our action to-day will be determined our course for Government of $2,100,000,000. The actuary of the American the future in regard to deep waterways improvement. Legion has stated since, so the papers tell us, that it will cost I The cost involved in this measure, while it seems great, is $3,300,000,000, and the Treasury has estimated it will ultimately not so enormously great in comparison with the possibilities cost the Goyernment as much as $4,800,000,000. of accomplishment We are constantly reminded here of the

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee necessity of improving ·our transportation facilities. We are has expired. constantly reminded of the excessive rates that are being

Mr. BYRNS of Tennessee. :Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous charged by the railroi!-ds of the country. If we are ever going con~ent to proceed for three more minutes. to reduce them, if there is any medium by which that can be

The CHAIRl\LL"N'. The gentleman from Tennessee asks done, it can best be accomplished by providing cheap waterunanimous consent to proceed for three additional minutes. way transportation. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. We should not only consider the outlay at the present mo ..

1\Ir. BYRNS of Tennessee. The loan to the German people ment but should visualize, if possible, the resulting consecarrying $10,000,000; the loan to the farmers of New Mexico, quences in the future. It strikes me there never was a time carrying $1,000,000 ; the increase for the employees of the more opportune than now for the commencement of the thing House and Senate, carrying $360>000; the increase under th~ which has been the dream and hope of every section and all reclassification measure to the employees of the Government our people throughout all this country. The people of New in the District of Columbia and in the field. which will amount England have this in mind. The people of New York have thi~ to $8.000,000 and possibly $10,000,000 or $12,000,000; the in- in mind. They have also in mind waterway transportation by crease which will be made to the postal employees under a reason of the improvement of the St. Lawrence system. We bill which is shortly to be reported to the House, which, it is people in the Middle West and West and Northwest have as stated, will amount to $65,000,000 ; the increase to the teachers our dream the consummation of the deeper waterway scheme and the police and fire departments of the District of Colum- from the Lakes to the Gulf. bia, $2,000,000 ; the increase made the other day by the bill We are now a.t the crucial point of determining whether we passecl by the House for new hospitals, $6,500,000; roads in are going to enter upon this program or whether we a.re not the national parks, $2,500,000 ; reforestation, $2,500,000 ; voca- going to enter upon it. I know this is a critical time. I lmow tionnl rehabilitation, $4,000,000, to be spent in four years, with something of the burden of taxation resting upon our people, $75,000 a year for administration; veteran legislation now but there will always be a burden of taxation that will be pending which will probably pass, and which no doubt ought with us ever; but we must progress and through our progresto be passed, which will cost $40,000,000, so estimated. There sion make it possible to reduce our burden of taxation. are other measures carrying authorizations for appropriations The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indirula. which I do not just at this moment recall. For this proposi- has expired. tion. wbich is not urgent and which is not needed at this l\Ir. FISH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee time, e~ther from a humanitarian standpoint or from any other [Mr. BYRNS), who has just spoken, thinks very little or giving standpoint. we are asked to obligate the Government to spend Henry Ford $100,000,000 worth of Goverrunent property, $5,;300,000 in cash n.nd to obligate it to assume $6,000,000 of but he feels it is inopportune to spend $11,500,000 of bonds, and it is stated by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Government money to pay for the Cape Cod Canal and fulfill

.

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8493 a lawful agreement entered into by the Secretary of War. What I have to say applies more to Republicans because we are the administration, or at least represent the administration. I feel that we can afford to be honest before election just as well as after election. We are confronted with an honest obligation that should have been fulfilled several years ago. It is no use to say that it is not opportune, and postpone consideration until after election. If it is honest, let us act honestly now. If it is unjust and unfair, let us vote it down. Do not let us do anything illogical because it is not opportune to appropriate the money on account of some vague apprehension of its effect on the presidential campaign. Let us do the honest and fair thing and have done with this bill.

The whole motive against this bill can be summed up in two words-August Belmont. Since when has it been the American policy to stand out against a man because he has been successful in business. Since when has it been the Republican or Democratic policy to deny credit to a man who has been energetic, industrious, and successful in financial matters? I have known August Belmont for 20 years. He is not a constituent of mine; he belongs to the opposite party, but I know of no more public-spirited man or patriotic American citizen. He was no war profiteer; he was commissioned as a major of Cavalry during the war, and his two sons were in the service. He invested his money in ditches over the ground and under the ground. He had faith in the American people. He huilt the subway under New York. He dug the Cape Cod Canal and made navigation safer and easier. He promoted commerce and industry, and yet the whole motive, the only objection I have heard to this bill has been that August Belmont is the biggest stockholder, and some Members ·of Gongress instead of commending want to penalize him simply because be is affiliated with Wall Street and has been a successful business man. [.Applause.]

The Clerk completed the reading of the bill. Mr. WINSLOW. l\lr. Chairman, I move that the committee

do now rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that it do pass.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having re

sumed the chair, Mr. CRUITON, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that committee had had under consideration the bill (H. R 3933) for the purchase of the Cape Cod Canal, and for other purposes, had made no amendment thereto, and had directed him to report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the Dill do pass.

The SPEAKER. By the rule the previous question is ordered, and the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time~ and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill Mr. NELSON of Wisconsin. And on that, l\lr. Speaker, I

demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken ; and there were-yeas 150, nays

131, answered " present " 6, not voting 145, as follows :

Abernethy Aldrich Allgood Alru-0n Andrew A swell Barbour

~r!fer Black, N. Y. Bland Bloom Howling Box Boyce Boylan Briggs Brumm Cable Carew Celler Chindblom Clarke, N. Y. Cleary Collier Connery 8~Yfe~· Ohio Dallinger Darrow Deal Dempsey Denison

YE.A.S-150 Dickstein Doughton Driver Dyer Elliott Fairchild Fairfield Favrot Fish Insher Fitzgerald FleetwoOd Foster Freeman French Frothingham Gallivan Gasque Ger an Gifford Graham, Pa. Greene, Mass. Hadley Hammer Hardy Hawes Hawley Hayden Hickey Bill, Ala. Hill. Md. Hoch Hooker

Hudspeth Hull, William E. Humphreys Jeffers Johnson, Wash. Kearns Ketcham Kindred King Lankford Larson, Minn. Lazaro Leatherwood Lindsay Logan Longworth Lozier Luce Lyon McDuffie MacGregor Majord Mo. Mansneld Mapes Martin Mead Merritt Miller, Wash. Mills Minahan Moore, Ga. Moore, Va. Morgan

Nelson, Me. Newton, Mo. O'Connell, R. I. O'Connor, La. O'Connor, N. Y. Oliver, .A.la. Oliver, N. Y. Paige Pllrker Phillips Prall Purnell Quayle Ragon Raker Reece Reed, N. Y. Richards Rogers, Mass. Sanders, Ind. Sandlin Sears, Fla. Sinnott Smith Smithwick Snell Sproul, Ill. Stedman Stengle Stephens Strong, Pa. Sullivan Swing

Thompson Tilson Timberlake Tinkham. Treadway

Underhill Vaile Vestal• Weaver Weller

Wertz Williams, Ill. Wilson, La. Wingo Winslow

Wood Wurzbach Wyant

NAYS-131 Ackerman Allen Arnold Ayres Bacon Beck Beers Bell Black, Tex. Blanton Brand, Ga. Brand, Ohio Browne, N. J. Browne, Wis. Browning Bulwinkle Canfield Cannon Casey Christopherson Clague Clancy Cole, Iowa Connally, Tex. Cook Cooper, Wis. Cram ton Crosser Cummings Davey Davis, Minn. Davis, Tenn. Dickin on, Mo.

Berger Burtness

Dowell Drewry Evans, Iowa Frear Fulbright Fulmer Garber Gardner, Ind. Garrett, Tenn. Glatfelter Green, Iowa Greenwood Griest Harrison Hastings Hill, Wash. Holaday Howard, Nebr. Jacobstein James Johnson, S. Dak. Johnson, Tex. Jones Keller Kent Kopp Kurtz Lampert Lanham Larsen, Ga. Leavitt Little Lowrey

ANSWERED Byrns, Tenn. Dom inf ck

McClintic Salmon McFadden Schafer McKeown Schneider )fcLaughlin, Mich. Shallenberger McLaughlin, Nebr. Sherwood .McLeod Sites McReynolds Speaks Mcsweeney Sproul, Kans. Ma~ce, N. Y. Stalker MaJor, Ill. Stevenson Michaelson :Sumners, Tex. Michener Swank Milligan Taber Mooney Taylor, Tenn. Moore, Ohio Taylor, W. Va. Morehead Temple Murphy Thatcher Nelson. Wis. Thomas, Ky. O'Sullivan Tillman Oldfield Underwood Parks, Ark. Vincent, Mich. Peery Voigt Perlman Wainwright Quin Watres Ramseyer We.fald Rankin White, Kans. Rathbone Williams, Mich. Roach Williamson Robinson, Iowa Wilson, Ind. Robsion, Ky. Woodrufr Romjue Woodrum Ru bey Wright Saba th

"PRESENT "-6 La Guardia Rayburn

NOT VOTING-145 Anderson Fuller Anthony Funk Bacharach Garner, Tex. Bankhead Garrett, Tex. Barkley Gibson Ilee<ly Gilbert Boies Goldsborough Britten Graham, Ill. Buchanan Griffin Buckley Haugen Burdick Hersey Burton Howard, Okla. Busby Huddleston Butler Hml8on Byrnes, S. C. Hull. :\iorton D. Campbell llull, Iowa Cartf'r Ilull, Tenn. Clark. Fla. J obnson, Ky. Cole, Ohio Johnson, W. Va. Collins Jost Colton Kahn Conna11y, Pa. Kelly Corning Kt>ndall Crisp Kerr Croll Kiess Crowther Kincheloe Curry Knutson Dickinson, Iowa Kunz Doyle Kvale Drane Langley Eagan Lea, Calif. Edmonus Lee, G"a. Evans, Mont. Lehlbach Faust Lilly Fenn Lineberger Fredericks Linthicum Free 1lcKenzie

So the bill was passed.

McNulty Mcswain MacLafferty Madden :\Iagee, Pa. Manlove Miller, Ill. Montague Moore, Ill. Moores, Ind. Morin Morris Morrow ~1udd Newton, Minn. Nolan O'Brien O'Connell, N. Y. Park, Ga. Patterson Peavey Perkins Porter Pou Ilainey R:msley Heed. Ark. RPed, W. Va. Reid, rn. Hogers.N. H. Rosenbloom Rom;e Sanders, N. Y. Sanders, Tex. Schull Scott Sears, Nebr.

Seger Shreve Simmons Sinclair Snyder Steagall Strong, Kans. Summers, Wash. Sweet Swoope Tague Taylor, Colo. Thomas, Okla. Tincher Tucker •rydings Upshaw Vare Vinson, Ga. Yinsont.Ky. Ward, N. Y. Ward,N.C. Wason Watkins Watson Welsh White, Me. Williams, Tex. Wilson, Miss. Winter Wolff Yates Young Zihlman

The Clerk announced the followi.Qg pairs : On this vote : Mr. Gibson (for) with Mr. Busby (against). Mr. Curry (for) with Mr. Rouse (against). Mr. Corning (for) with Mt'. Funk (against). l\!r. O'Connell of New York (for) with Mr. Park of Georgia

(against). Mr. Upshaw (for) with l\Ir. Kvale (against). Mr. Porter (for) with Mr. Dominick (against). Mr. Tague (for) with 1lr. Wolff (against). Mr. Shreve (for) with Mr. Monis (against). Mr.' Butler (for) with llr. Collins (against). Mr. Patterson (for) with Mr. Peavey (against). Mr. Griffin (for) with Mr. Wilson of Mississippi (against). :Mr. Burton (for) with Mr. LaGuardia (against). Mr. MacLafferty (for) with Mr. Crisp (against). Mr. Newton of Minnesota (for) with llr. Rayburn (against). .Mr. Vare (for) with ~Ir. Byrns of Tennessee (against). Mr. Jost (for) with Mr. Johnson of West Virginia (against). Mr. Morin (for) with Ur. Free (against). Mr. Wason (for) with Mr. Croll (against).

Additional general pairs until further notice: Mr. Reid of Illinois with Mr. Williams of Texas. Mr. White of Maine with Vinson of Georgia. Mr. Swoope with Mr. Bankhead. Mr. Anthony with Mr. Kerr. Mr. Madden with Mr. Carter.

•

....

8494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE~ ~fAY 13

:\fr. )ludd with Mr. Eagan. :.\lr. Dickinson of Iowa with Buchanan. Mr. lt'aust with Mr. Lea of California. • :.\Ir. :.\lagee of Pennsylvania. with Lee of Georgia .. ::\Ir. Scott with l\Ir. Garrett of Texas. Mr. Sinclair with Howard of Oklahoma. Mr. Dyer with Mr. Gilbert. ::\Ir. Campl>ell with l\Ir. Evans of Montana. llr. Burdick with Mr. Hull of Tennessee. :.\Ir. Watson with Johnson of Kentucky. :'.\lr. Ward of New York with Mr. Tucker. :.\Ir. Beedy with Mr. Rainey. ::\lr. Crowther with Mr. '.rhomas of Oklahoma. :\Ir. Hersey with Mr. O'Brien. Mr. llucbarach with ::\lr. Pou. Mr. Simmons with Mr. Drane. )fr. Kelly with Mr. Kunz. Mt·. Britten with Mr. Lilly. :.\1r . .b'redericks with Mr. Huddleston. :\lr. Iludson with Mr. Sanders of Texa.s. :\fr. Kendall with Reed of Arkansas. Mr, Fenn with Mr. Tydings. llrs. Nolan with Mr. Buckley. l\lr. DOMINICK. Ha:s the gentleman from Pennsylvania,

Mr. PORTER voted? The SPEAKER. He did not. Mr. DO~IlNICK. I wish to withdraw my vote of " no" and

answer "present" If Mr. Po&TER were present, he would vote " aye " and l would vote " no."

l\lr. LAGUARDIA. Did the gentleman from Ohio,. :Mr. BURTON vote?

The SPEAKER. He did not. l\11'. LAGUARDIA. I withdraw my vote of " no," as I have

a pair with the gentleman from Ohio. If he were present, he would vote 11 aye."

l\Ir. LEA of California. Mr. Speaker, I desire to vote. The SPEAKER. Was the gentlemrui present and listening

when his name was called? l\1r. LEA of California. I do not believe I quite reach it. l\Ir. CO~ERY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. TAGUE,

was unable to be present and reque too me to say that if he were present he would vote aye on the Cape Cod Canal

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. On moti<>n of 1\lr. WINSLOW, a motion to reconsider the vote

by which the bill was passed was laid on the table. l\Ir. BLA....'l'TON. Mr. Speaker, I insi~t on a division of the

motion. The SPEJ.AKER. There can be n-0 di\'"ision of the question

to lay the motion on the table. l\lr. BLANTON. The gentleman moved first to reconsider

the vote, and I ask for a vote on that. The SPEAKER. And then moved to lay on the table, and

the question comes on the motion to lay on the table. Mr. BLANTON. Well, I will not insist on.ft

INTERIOR DEPARTME~T BILI.

l\fr. CRAl\fTON. Mr. Speaker, I present a conference report for printing under the rule.

l\Ir. BLANTON. I make the point of order there is no quorum present. I withhold it for a moment.

The SPK\.KER. The gentleman from Michigan presents a conference report on a bill, the title of which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows : A bill (H. R. 5078) making appropriations for the Department of the

Interior for the fiscal yea.r ending June 30, 1925.

The SPEAKER. Ordered printed under the rule. LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows:

To 1\lr. KvALE, for the balance of the week, on account of important business.

To Mr. DoYLE, for five days. on account of important business. To l\1r. STENGLE, for a.n indefinite period, beginning .May 15

on account of important busines". ' l\lr. RAN.KIN. 1\lr. Speaker, I wish to ask for leave of ab

sence of my colleaguet Mr. COLLINS, for a couple of days. He is detained unavoidably.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS SITU..\.TION

l\Jr. BOX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks on the public building situation.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chnir hears none.

l\Ir. BOX. 1'.IIr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, because the Congress and administration do not seelll to appreciate the acuteness of the need for the erection of Federal bwldin..,.s in which to transact public business at many places in the ~oun-

try outside of the District of Columbia, and because the people of those points do not generally understand why the Government persistently fails to provide these necessarv bnildin~ I am occupying this space in the RECORD for the pu.;pose of ~aking this statement for the information of the House and the people.

Tl1ere is a continuous, Joud clamor in Washington for the spen~g of :idditional millions for the construction of a great memorml bridge, many public buildings, and similar improvements in the District of Columbia. There is doubtless need for some additional buildings here which1 should receive con-

. sideration ; but the commercfal· interests of Wash in °ton cause much of this noise to be made. They want these ;ast sums spent here for business reasons. Those who clamor for· these buildings in Washington seem to forget the urgent needs of the country while considering the liberal or lavish use of money to adorn the Capital City. Large expenditures by the Government here for Washington improvements will increase business and the price of real estate, but Members of the Bouse and Senate and others who favor such a course need to have their attention recalled to the fact that the Federal funds come from the people of the United States and mnst be expended for the benefit of every part of the country.

There is now, and for se-veral years has been, an urO'ent need of courthouse and post-office buildings all over tile Natlon No general public buildings bill and no individual bill au: thorizing the construction of such buildings as these has been enacted since 1913~before the beginning of the World War. l\1any of the buildings authorized and appropriated for then ha:e not yet been constructed by the Treasury Department, which lets the contracts for the erection of such buildings supervi es their construction, and controls the expenditure of the funds appropriated for that purpose by Congi·e~s.

In the second district of Texas, which I have the honor to represent, the need of housing for Government business is distressing. I have three bills providing for such buildings pending before the House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. So often and urgently have I pressed upon the chairman and some members of that committee the needs of my people in this respect that I have doubtless made myself troublesome, but the distressing need among my constituents compels me to urge that they be granted relief. I take this metllod of again calling the attention of each member of that committee to the acute situation at those points in that district.

At Beaumont, a city of some 50,000 people, handling great volumes of all kinds of busine~s. is located an important division of tl10 United States court for the eastern district of Texas, with its retinue of uecessary officers. The customs service at that point is extensive and increasing with the great increase of foreign trade passing through that and adjacent ports. The prohibition enforcement officers, internal revenue forces, and other Government agencies all require office and working room at Beaumont. The post-office business and forces have doubled and trebled since the erection of the present building. The city of Beaumont itself has more than doubled in population and made still greater increases in the volume of business handled.

The result has been the piling up of a greatly increased amount of Government business, handled by the several Government agencies mentioned, and others without sufficient room for its handling. At my instance the Chief Architect in the Department of the Treasury, some two or three years ago, sent an expert to survey the housing situation and Government business at Beaumont. After a thorough survey he officially reported that the present·building there, even at that time. was not quite half sufficient to meet the requirements. The business has increased since then. The situation now is even worse. The -Government is trying to rent space in buildings near by in which to handle Government business. It is bad for the taxpayers and for all concerned for the United States to pay heavy rents and have Government activities scattered here and there with the division, confusion, and inefficiency thereby produced. I ha rn had this bill for the relief of that situation pending through several sessions of Congress and have urged its consideration in every possible way. That bill, with all others introduced by me and every one of my colleatilles, has remained on the calendar of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds without consideration and, of course, unreported.

The city Qf Lufkin is thriving and growing and now has more than 5,000 people without a Federal building in which to handle its post office nnd other Government busines.-:. ·when I became a ~!ember of this House five years ago I introduced a bill for the purchase of a site and the erection of a building ut

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8495 Lufkin. That, too, has had my diligent attention. Every effort has been made to get the committee and CongTess to act favorab1y on it; yet it, like all of the hundreds of bills in-

,, troduced by the 435 Members of the House, has remained on the eommittee calendar, unconsidered and unreported.

Five years ago I introduced a bill for the purchase of a site for a building at Jacksonville, but it has shared the same fate as all the others. During the present Congress, because of the continued growth of Jacksonville and the increasing volume of post-office business handled there, I introduced another bill authorizing both the acquisition of a site and the erection of a building. Notwithstanding every effort, it has remained, like all the others from Texas and every other State, dormant in the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

Every Member of the House and Senate knows, and every citizen should be advised, that no such bill has any chance to be passed through the House and Senate and be approved by the Preside'.it until it has been considered and favorably reported by the Committ~ on Public Buildings and Grounds. It is equally well understood by all who are informed that eTen if it wPre possible to get a favorable report from the committee on one or two isolated buildings from a single district it would be impossible to even get it up for consideration in the House, where the other 434 Members, all of whom have similar bills, are the judges as to what measures will be considered or pas~t;!d. They will not tolerate the passage of bills providing for other districts and slighting theil's. I know, and am sure my intelligent constituents know, that a public buildings bill is only possible when it makes sufficient provision for the general needs of the country to command the support of majorities of both Rouses and the approval of the President. The most influential Member of the House or Senate is not exempt from this rule. Hon. FREDERICK H. GILLETT, the Speaker himself, whose position and power approaches that of the President and Vlce President, is not able to avoid the operation of this rule. He has had pending for some years a bill for the relief of an

·acute situation in the city of Springfield, Ui.ss., but his people have been compelled to wait, just as my peop1e have. No more progress has been made in the consideration of or toward the passage of the Speaker's bill than has been made in the consideration of mine.

Every one of the 18 Members of Congress from 'rexas, including the 1 Republican, has had the same experience that I and all the other ·Members of Congress from other States have had.

Since Texas became a State, some 80 years ago, four Federal buildings h:>rve been erected "ithin the second Texas congressional district-ours-as the :·esult of the continued and able efforts of a long line of able Representatives, inc:luding such meu. as Reagan, Stuart, Cooper, Brooks. and Dies. The Federal buildings within the second congressional district are located at Beaumont, Port Arthur, Nacogdoches, and Marshall. One was authorized for Ornnge 11 years ago. It has not yet been erected, but we hope to get it built within the next year. Other Texas districts have not fared better.

Tbe 'first congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. EUGF:NE BLACK, has four Federal buildings. The postoffice building at Paris burned in 1916. A one-story post office was constructed on the ruins of. the old building and temporarily covered out of funds appropriated in 1917 in the emergency <!reated by the fire. Temporary quarters are rented for the use of the Federal court. No new courthouse or general Federal building has been erected since the fire, because the funds have not been provided.

The third congressional district of. Texas, represented by Hon. MonGAN G. SANDERS, has obtained tltree Federal buildings during the history of the State. Mr. S.ANDERs has had bills pending for the erection of Federal buildings in six cities in the district, none of which have been reported or passed.

The fom'th congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. S \.M IlA.YBURN, has se'\en Federal buildings. No new buildings have been authorized during the last 11 years.

The fifth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. HATTON W. SuM:\""ERs, has three Federal buildings. Mr. Sm.1-~ims has had bills pending for the erection of a Federal building at Dallas, none of which have been reported or passed since 1913, though the need is said to be great.

The sixth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. LUTB.ER A. JOHNSON, has had bil1s pending for the erection of Federal buildings in three cities in the district, none of which have been reported or passed.

The se~enth congressional district of rrexa.s, represented. by Hon. CLAY STON'E BRIGGS, has two Federal buildings, located at Galveston and Palestine. l\Ir. BRIGGS has had billcs pending for the erection of Federal b'Uildings in four cities in the district, none of which have been reported or passed.

The eighth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. DA...~IEL E. GADETT, has four Federal buildings. No new buildings have been authorized for that district in a dozen years, though said to be badly needed.

The ninth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. J osEP:e: J. MANSFIELD, has five Federal buildings. Mr. MANSFIELD has had bills pending for the erection of Federal buildings in five cities in the district, none of which have been reported or passed.

The tenth congressoinal district of Texas, represented by Hon. JAMES P. BUCHANAN, has four Federal buildings. Mr. BucHANA.N 'ilas had bills pending for the erection of Federal buildings in two cities in the district, none of which have been reported or passed.

The eleventh congressional district of. Texas, represented by Hon. TOM CoxNAUY, has four Federal buildings. Mr. CONNALLY has had bills pending for the erection of Federal buildings in two cities in the district, none of which have been reported or passed.

The twelfth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. FmTz G. hlNHA"ll, who is the Texas member of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, has three Federal buildings, located at Fo1-t Worth, Weatherford, and Cleburne. :\fr. LA~H.AM has had bills pending for the erection of Federal buildings in three cities in the district, none of which have been reported or passed. The Texas member of this committee knows this general situation well. He bas heard so much about the needs of Beaumont, Lufkin, and Jacksonville that he could not forget them if he would. I know he is our friend · and will do his utmost to help us.

The thirteenth congressional district of Te::x:as, represented by Hon. GUINN WILLI.A.Ms, has four Federal buildings. Mr. WILLIAMS has had bills pending for the erection of a building at Bowie, which, like the others, has remained unreported and unpassed..

The fourteenth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. ILulRY M. WURZBACH, the only Texas Republican in Congress, has four Federal buildings. ~Ir. Wl:J&ZB.A.CH has had bills pending for the erection of Federal buildings in tlll·ee cities in the district, none of which haYe been passed or even reported.

The fifteenth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. JoH:.'il N. GaR~ER, who has served in Congress some 22 years, has four Federal buildings. Mr. G.uXER bas had bills pending for the erection of Federal buildings in six cities in the distrid, none of which have been reported or passed since 1913.

T11e irteenth congressi-Onal distrid of Texas, represented by Hon. C. B. HunsPETH, has four Federal buildings. Mr. HUDSPETH has had · bills pending for the ere~Uon of Federal buildings in three cities in the district, none of which have been pa sed or reported. ·

T11e -sewnteentn congressional district of Texas, l'epresented by Hon. TnoMAS L. BLANTON, has had no bills for the erection of Federal buildings for post offices or courthouses in the district reported or passed since 1913.

Tbe eighteenth congressional district of Texas, represented by Hon. l\LrnVI"N" JoNEs, has one Federal building. Mr. Jo:q-Es bas had bills pending for the erection of buildings but has been unable to g-et any of them passed or reported.

The second congressional district of Texas, which I have the llonor to represent, has four Federal buildings, which is a little abo\'e the average for Te:s:a.s congressional districts, and tllese buildings in our own district and in all the others are not the work of present Congressmen chiefly, but are the result of the efforts of all the above-mentioned men, such as l\Iills, Coke, Bailey, Ileagan, Cooper, the CUlbersons, the Sheppn.rds, the Lanhams, and all of the strong men who have represented Te:x:as in the upper and lower Houses during the nearly 80 years of om· statehood.

The a-verage length of service of the present Texas delegation in Congress is greater than my own, yet they have not been more fortunate than I ham in getting their public buildings' bills passed.

Among the Texas cities now asking and thus far failing to secure Federal buildings are Huntsyille, Crockett, Athens. Mineola, Kaufman, 'Vills Point, Henderson, Kerrville, Gilmer, Pecos, Big Springs, Gatesville, Hamilton., Stephenville, Dublin, Texas City, Mexia, Bryan, Groesbeck:, Seguin, Kenedy, Bowie, Lufkin, and Jacksonville. Among the larger cities having older Federal buildings which have been outgrown and are now insnfilcient, which have asked for enlarged Federal buildings and failed to obtain them, are Beaumont, Fort Worth, Galrnston, Dallas, and Houston.

8496 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE ~fAY 13

Tlli~ condition of old, outgrown and overcrowded Federal bui I dings insufficient to meet present needs and the inability of hundl'eds of flourishing young cities to obtain any at all exten<'l not only 01er all Texas but throughout the United State:::.

All of the Members of this House and of the Senate from all of the States have hnd the same experience. In hundreds of plac·e-: the most urgent needs of public buildings have gone un-:uppliNl. I have already referred to the fact that the ~pPnker of this House has had exactly the same experience met hr me arnl all of my Texas colleagues.

Under the present Budget system. tlle passage of a bill authorizing a public building does not provide the funds neces~nr~-. The money must be provided by an additional bill makim: the appropriation for the building. Even after that ,is d011P the immediate erection of the building is not assured. A~ ju"t stated, we are just now securing the erection of a huil<lillg at Orange which was authorized and appropriated for 11 years ago. After bills are passed authorizing the erection of buildings and others making appropriations for the purpose, the letting of the contracts and the expenditure of the money i · in charge of the Secretary of the Treasury, who acts through the Supervising Architect of the Treasurer's office. That department often waits years before erecting buildings.

There are now scores, possibly hundreds, of buildings authorized and appropriated for 10 or more 3·ears ago which remain unconstructed. Doubtless this is caused by the heavy demands made upon the taxpayers by the expenses of the war and in part by the fact that the cost of building hn.s \ery greatly increa. ed since these bills were passed, so that funds tllen ample are now insufficient.

"Mernuers of this House, the country generally, and my own inte11igent constituents particu1arly, shoulcl be frm1kly told the:-:e facts in order that they may know conditions exactly as tlley are. When many flourishing young cities expect to l'e\·m·e immediate authorizations and appropriations for public buildings and their prompt erection, it is well to reruember that Federal buildings are nothing like as numerous ati is 0 ·euerally understood, and that in the whole bistory of Texns. covering 80 years, the second district of Texa~, an older section of tlie State and ha-ring at least its averag-e share of these buildings, has been able to secure only four within 75 or 80 ~-ears, through the efforts of rn3· numerous auu al>le predecessors. Public buildings are not nearly so easil~' secured as is commonly supposed. I sincerely regret that I am not able to assure my constituents that my public buildings bills for their relief will be immediately pasl-led and approved by the President and thereafter appropriations made and thereafter contractH for the erection of the buildings promptly let.

I nm doing my utmost to present their claims, and I hope for success, but I can not tmthfully say that relief is sme to come at 011ce. However, my colleagues of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and particularly the Texas member, Hon. FRITZ G. LANHAM, and the chairman, know with what diligence I bave presented this need of the flourishing and ambitious young cities of my district which really need these buildings for the transaction of Government business. It is to be hoped that the condition of the Public Treasury will be such, and the views of the House organization and administration and majorities in both Houses of Congress will be such, that substantial progress can soon be ma<le. This line of improvement has been falling further and further behind and the need becoming more and more acute. It will take the Go'\"ernment year"°' to catch up with its building program, and the sooner it take· it up again the better it will be for the branclles of the Government service and the needy communities involvetl.

I m~ke this statement through tlte columns of the CoNGRES· s10s.iL RECORD in an effort to impress upon both branches of Congress and all concerned in tile administration of the Government with the urgent need not only of my constituents, which to rue are special, but the whole country, and to advise my constituents and all others who read this part of the record of the ~ituation as it is.

ADJOURNMENT

:\[r. WINSLOW. Mr. Speaker, I move tbat the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 35 miuute:;:; p. m.) the House adjourned until to-morrow, Weclnesdny, )fay 14, 1924, at 12 o'clock noon.

EXECUTIYE CO:\IMUNIOATIONS, ETC. Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, executive colllmunicatiuns were

taken from the Speaker·s table and referred as follows: 47:!. A communication from the President of the United

State··, transmitting a communication from the Secretary of the

Navy, submitting an estimate of appropriation in the sum of $24,333.16, to pay 19 claims for damages for which Navy vesS'els were found to be responsible, which have been adjusted ancl which require an appropriation for their payment (H. Doc. No. 274) ; to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.

473. A communication from the President of the United States. transmitting two ·communications from the Secretary of the Navy. submitting an e. timate of appropriation in the sum of $3.115.03, to pay 13 claims, which he has adjusted and which require an appropriation for their payment (H. Doc. No. 275) ; to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed.

REPORTS OF C01BHTTEES ON PUBLIC DILLS AND RESOLUTIO~S

under clause 2 of Rule XIII, Mr. UILLER of Washington: Committee on Naval j..:ffairs.

H. n. 8263. A bill to authorize the accounting officers of tbe Treasury to pay to certain supply officers of the regular Navy and Ka ml Re::,errn Force the pay and allowances of their ranks for "en-ices performed prior to the approval of their bondi; without amen<lmeut (Rept No. 717). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

l\lr. l\IADDEN: Committee on Appropriations. H. R. 919~ A bill making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies 11' certain ap1)ropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924,. and for other purpo. es; without amendment (Rept. No. 718). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state o/ the "Gnion.

l\Ir. WHITE of Maine: Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fishel'ies. S. 2930. An act reaft1rming the use of the ether for radio communication or otherwise to be the inalienable poi;;session of tlle people of the United States and their Goverument, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. No. 719). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

:Ur. HILL of 1\Iarylan<l: Committee on l\Iilitary Atfai.rs. H. ~· .J~61. A bill to repeal and reenact chapter 100, 1914, ~n1Jl1c, ~o. 10 . to provide for the restoration of Fort McHenry, m the 8tate of :\lar~·Iancl, and its permanent preservation as a natioual park and l)erpetual national memorial shrine as the hirtlJ1)Jace of the immortal " Star Spangled Banner," written by Francis 8cott Ke:r, for the appropriation of tlle necessary funds, an<l for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. No. 720). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

~Ir. CABLE: Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Re1u·e. ·entatives in Congress. H. R. 89G6. A bill to preyent corrupt practices in congressional elections ; with amendments (Rept. No. 721). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. ELLIOT".r: Committee on Elections No. 3. A report in the conte~ted-election case of Gorman v. Buckley (Rept. No. 722). Referred to the House Calendar.

Mr. 1\IcSW A.IN: Committee on 1\lilitary Affairs. S. 1557. An act to girn military status and discharges to the members of the Russian Railway Service Corps organized by the War Department un<ler authority of the President of the United States for service during the war with Germany; with amendments (Rept. No. 727). Referred to the Committee of the Whole Hou e on the state of the Union.

l\lr. SINNOTT: Committee on the Public Lands. H. n. 6651. A Dill to add certain lands to the Umatilla, Wallowa, and Whitman National Forests, in Oregon; ·with an amendment (Rept. No. 728). Referred to the Committee of the Whole Hou e on the state of the Union.

l\lr. LAGUARDIA: Committee on the Post Office and Post Roaus. H. R. 6942. A bill establisbing transmission and carrying- of mail by airplanes and flying machlnes; with amendments (Rept. No. 729). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

l\Ir. LAGUARDIA: Committee on tlle Post Office and Post Roads. H. R. 7064. A bill to encourage commercial aviation and to authorize the Postmaster General to contract for Air Mail Service; without amendment (Rept. No. 730). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House. on the state of the Union.

l\Ir. FAIRCHILD : Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. R. 1'558. A bill to authorize the payment of an indemnity to the Government of Norway on account of losses sustained by the owners of the Norwegian steamship Hassel as the re ·ult of a collision between that steamship and the American steamship A'ltsable; with an amendment (Rept. No. 731). Referred to the CommHtee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

l\1r. REED of New York; Committee on Industrial Arts and Expositions. H. J. Res. 199. A joint resolution authorizing

1924 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 8497 an appropriation for the participation of the United States in the preparation and completion of plans for the comprehensive ob...~rvance of that greatest of all historic events, the bicentennial of the birthday of George Washington; with amendments (Ilept. No. 732). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. LEA VITT: Committee on the Public Lands:. H. J. Res. 210. A joint resolution for the relief of delinquent homesteaders on the Fort Assinniboine abandoned military reservation; without amendment (Rept No. 734). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Ur. HOCH: Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H. J. Res. 141. A joint resolution directing the Interstate Commerce Commission to take action relative to adjustments in the rate structure of common carriers subject to the interstate cQmmerce act and the fixing of rates and charges; without amendment (Rept. No. 735). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the §tate of the Union.

Mr. WYA-1'fr: Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H. R. 9176. A bill granting the consent of Congress to the counties of Marion and Florence, in the State of South Carolina, to construct a bridge across the Peedee River at or near Allisons Ferry, S. C. ; with an amendment (Rept. No. 736). Referred to the House Calendar.

1\Ir. WILLIAMS of Michigan: Committee on the Public Lands. H. R. 7144. A bill to relinquish to the city of Battle Creek, Mich., all right, title, and interest of the United States ju two unsurveyed islands in the Kalamazoo River within the corporate limits of said city; with amendments (Rept. No. 738). lleferred to the Co.mmittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

REPORTS OF COAL.'\HTTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AXD RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, Mr. HILL of Maryland: Committee on Military Affairs.

H. R. 3388. A bill to place the name of Paul Crum on the muster rolls of Company E, First Regiment Nebraska Infantry, United States Volunteers; with an amendment (Rept. No. 723). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. HILL of Maryland: Committee on Military Affairs. H. R. 6554. A bi11 to correct the military record of Harry D. Rayburn; without amendment (Rept. No. 724). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. HILL of Maryland: Committee on Military Affairs. H. R. 7508. A bill for the relief of Ramon B. Harrison ; with an amendment (Rept. No. 725). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. COLE of Iowa: Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. J. Res. 249. A joint resolution to authorize certain officers of the United States Marine Corps to accept from the Republic of Haiti " The medal for distinguished service " ; without amendment (Rept. No. 726). Referred to the Committee of the Whole Hou e.

l\lr. CELLER: Committee on Claims. H. R. 5759. A bill for the relief of James F. Abbott; with an amendment (Rept. No. 733). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

l\lr. WILLIAMS of Michigan: Committee on the Public Lands. H. R. 8226. A bill granting a patent to the First State Savings Bank of Gladwin, Mich.; with amendments (Rept. No. 739). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House.

CHANGE OF REFERENCE Under clause 2 of Rule XXII, the Committee on War Claims

was discharged from the consideration of the bill (H. R. 8326) to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear and determine the claim of the lawful heirs of Matilda Picotte, and the same was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

PUBLIC BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND ME1\10RIALS Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, bills, resolutions, and memorials

were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. MADDEN: A bill (H. R. 9192) making appropria

tions to supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year· ending June 30, 1924, and for other purposes; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

By l\Ir. HUDSPETH: A bill (H. R. 9193) to establish a national park in the State of Texas; to the Committee on the Pubijc Lands.

By Mr. LILLY: A bill (H. R. 9194) to increase the limit of cost of the public building at Williamson, W. Va., and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

r

By Mr. TABER: A bill (H. R. 9195} to prevent the shlpment of impure coal between the States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. .

By Mr. WAINWRIGHT: A bill (H. R. 9196) to authorize an appropriation to enable the Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau to provide a permanent national training school for the blind; to the Committee on World War V~rans' Legislation.

By lllr. RATHBOl\TE: A bill (H. R. 9197) for the purchase of a site for a Federal building at Roodhouse, Ill. ; to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

By Mr. ANDREW: A bill (H. R. 9198) providing for the. conveyance to the city of Gloucester, in the State of Massachusetts, of property known as Old Fort Defiance ; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. WILSO.N' of Louisiana: A bill (H. R. 9199) to pre\ent the pollution by oil of navigable rivers of the United States; to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. CRAl\ITON: Joint r~solution (H. J. Res. 264) authorizing the restoration of the Lee Mansion in the Arlin,.,,"ton ... 'ational Cemetery, Va.; to the Committee on the Library.

By Mr. O'CONNOR of New York: Resolution (H. Res. 310) providing for the appointment of a committee of Members of the House of Representatives to investigate the matter of telephone rates and service in the United States and in particular the relationship between the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. and its subsidiaries; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mr. WHITE of l\Iaine: Resolution (H. Res. 311) providing for the consideration of S. 2930, a bill reaffirming the use of the ether for radio communication or otherwise to be the inalienable possession of the people of the United States and their Government", and for other purposes; to the Col!lrnittee on Rules.

By Mr. GRA.Hill of Pennsylvania: Resolution (H. Res. 312) for the consideration of H. R. 7650, a bill to amend the Judicial Code ; to the Committee on Rules.

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

were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. ANDREW: A bill (H. R. 9200) granting a pension to

Lillian Skidmore; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. By l\fr. BROWNE of New Jersey: A bill (H. R. 9201) for

the relief of Frederick MacMorinies; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. CELLER: A bill (H. R. 9202) for the relief of Herman Lincoln Chatkoff; to the Committee on :Military Affairs.

By l\1r. DOUGHTON: A bill (H. R. 9'.W3) granting a pension to Letcher Caudill; to the Committee on Pensions. •

By :Mr. DREWRY: A bill (H. R. 9204) granting six months' pay to Constance D. Lathrop; to the Committee on ~aval Affairs.

By l\Ir. FRENCH: A bill (H. R. 9205) granting an increase of pension to James Fogle, jr.; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. GERAN: A bill (H. R. 9206) to renew and extend certain letters patent to John V. Rice, jr. ; to the Committee on Patents.

By Mr. GREENWOOD: A bill (H. R. 9207) granting an increase of pension to William A. Daniels; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. KETCHAl\l: A bill (H. R. 9208) granting a pension to Linna L. White; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. LEAVITT: A bill (H. R. 9209) for the relief of George A. Robertson ; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. ~"ELSON of Maine: A bill (H. R. 9210) granting a pension to Em M. Roberts; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. ·

By Mr. PARKER: A bill (H. R. 9211) granting a pension to Julia L. Hawkins; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. RATHBONE: A bill (H. R. 9212) granting a pension to Leamon Bunch; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 9213) granting a pension to Mary Jane Howes; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. STEPHENS: A bill (H. R. 9214) granting a pension to Eugene C. Dempsey; to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 9215) granting a pension to Katherine D. White; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. TABER: A bill (H. R. 9216) granting a pension to Mrs. Ira Dibble; to the Committee on Inrnlid Pen~ions.

By lllr. U:l\"DERWOOD: A bill (H. R. 9217) granting a pension to Mary E. Adams; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 9218) granting a pension to :Uatilda Higgins; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

8498 CONGRESSION .A.L RECORD-HOUSE l\fAy 13, 1924

By Mr. WARD of New York: A~. bill (H. R. 9219) granting a pension to James 0. Dunnagan; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. ZIHLMAN: A bill (H. R. 9220) granting a pension to Mary Virginia Reed; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of Rule X-XII, petitions and papers were laicl

on tlie Clerk's clesk and referred as follows: 2743. By the SPleA.KER (by request): Petition of members

of the Centerville Grange, Klickitat County, Wash., favoring _the McNary-Haugen bill; to the Oommittee on Agriculture.

2744. By M.r. BARBOUR: Petition signed by residents of Tulare County, Wash., protesting against any amendment of the national prohibition act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

2745. By Mr. CELLER ! Petition of the American Legion, Sergeant Jasper Post No. 13, Washington, D. O., favoring a joint resolution proposing the adoption of the Star-Spangled Banner as the national anthem; to the Committee on the Judiciary,

2746. By Mr. GALLIVAN: Petition of Maj. M. J. O'Connor Camp, No. 4, United Spanish War Veterans, South Boston, Mass., urging passage of the Bursum pension bill over the Pre ident's veto; to the Committee on Pensions.

2747. Also, petition of postal employees, Bo ton, Mass., urgin~ early and favorable action on House bill 9035; to the Committee on Rttles.

2748. By Mr. MADDEN: Petition of citizens of the city of Chicago, Ill., favoring legislation tllat will permit the withdrawal from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second; to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

2749. By Mr. RAKER: Fifty-seven letters from Tacoma, Wash., in re changing name of Mount Rainier to :Mount Tacoma ; to the Committee on the Public Lands.

2750. Also, petitions of San Francisco Press Club; Rapid Blue Print Co., Los Angeles, Calif; Edison Electric Appliance Co., Ontario, Calif., and lleon Israel & Bros. (Inc.), San Francisco, Calif., in re San Carlos dam bill; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

.·

192-± -. - US Government Publishing Office

Documents

Transcript of 192-± -. - US Government Publishing Office