3296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 1177. Also, resolution of Union Labor Post, No. 99, Ameri­

can Legion, Detroit, Mich., indorsing the labor antiinjunc- · tion bill; to the Committee on Labor.

1178. By Mr. RUDD: Petition of the Carteret News, Car­teret, N.J., opposing any tariff on copper; to the Committee on Vvays anci Means.

1179. By Mr. SANDERS of New York: Petition of Anne M. Payne and others in support of the prohibition law and its enforcement and against modification or resubmission; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1180. Also, petition of Alice Schneckenburger and other citizens of Warsaw and Anne M. Payne and other citizens of Medina, N. Y., protesting against any change in the pro­hibition amendment or the prohibition laws; to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

1181. By Mr. SEGER: Resolutions of the New Jersey De­partment, Reserve Officers' Association of the United States, agai...."1St any cut in appropriations affecting our national de­fense; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

1182. By Mr. SPARKS: Resolution of Women's Foreign Missionary Society meeting of the Nazarene Church of Plainville, Kans., protesting against a change in the eight­eenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1183. Also, resolutions of citizens of Selden, Clayton, Peno­kee, Lucerne, Edmond, Oronoque, Page City, Rexford, Ober­lin, Seguin, Gem, and Tasca, in the State of Kansas, sixth congressional district, at a wheat-pool meeting, urging in­vestigation of the Federal Farm Board and grain dealers' activities; to the Committee on Agriculture.

1184. Also, petition of 26 citizens of Bird City, Kans., and vicinity, protesting against any change in the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1185. By Mr. STEWART: Petition of Reserve Officers Association of the United States, Department of New Jersey, offering resolution protesting against reductions in the strength of the va1ious components of the Army of the United States, etc.; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

1186. By Mr. STRONG of Pennsylvania: Petition of young people's branch, Pennsylvania Woman's Christian Temper­ance Union, opposing resubmission of the eighteenth amend­ment to the States, and favoring adequate appropriations for law enforcement and for education in law observance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1187. By Mr. SUTPHIN Cby request): Resolution of the New Jersey Department, Reserve Officers' Association of the United States, urging support against cut in appropriation which will affect national defense; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1188. Also (by request), petition of the Woman's Chris­tian Temperance Union of South River, N. J., urging the continuing in force of the prohibition law and eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1189. By Mr. SWING: Petition of Mary F. Rickard and 293 other citizens of San Diego, Calif., urging maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement; to the Committee on the Judiciary. .

1190. By Mr. TALYOR of Tennessee: Petition of Loudon Women's Christian Temperance Union, opposing resubmis­sion of the eighteenth amendment, and asking for adequate appropriations for law enforcement and for education in law observance; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1191. By Mr. TINKHAJ.\ti: Petition of Charles Ponzi, of Boston, for an investigation of the United States Department of Labor; to the Committee on the Judicia1·y.

1192. By Mr. V/ATSON: Resolution passed by the Lang­horne Woman's Christian Temperance Union, opposing the resubmission of the eighteenth amendment to be ratified by State conventions or by State legislatures; to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

1193. By Mr. WELCH of California: Petition of Veterans' Welfare Workers of San Francisco, Calif., favoring the pas­sage of House Joint Resolution 115, to transfer into the classified civil service all veterans of any war employed by the Government in unclassified positions, etc.; to the Com­mittee on the Civil Service.

1194. Also, petition of Fabre & Hildebrand, architects and engineers of San Francisco, favoring the passage 'of House bil16187; to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

1195. Also, petition of San Francisco Typographical Union, No. 21, protesting against the printing of supplies for the Federal courts being done at the Federal penitentiary at Leavenworth; to the Committee on Printing.

1196. Also, petition of San Francisco Labor Council, pro­testing against the printing of supplies for the Federal courts being done at the Federal penitentiary at Leaven­worth; to the Committee on Printing.

1197: By Mr. YATES: Petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Naperville, ill., urging the support and enforcement of the eighteenth amendment; to the Commit­tee on the Judiciary.

SENATE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1932

(Legislative day of Monday, February 1, 1932)

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

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate will receive a mes­sage from the House of Representatives.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. Haltigan, one of its clerks, announced that the House had passed the bill (S. 355) providing for the participation of the United States in A Century of Progress Cthe Chicago World's Fair Centennial Celebration), to be held at Chicago, Til., in 1933, authorizing an appropriation therefor, and for other purposes, with amendments, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

The message also announced that the Speaker had affixed his signature to the following enrolled bills, and they were signed by the Vice President:

S. 1089. An act to establish a minimum area for a Shen­andoah national park, for administration, protection, and general development by the National Park Service, and for other purposes;

S. 1291. An act to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge ac1·oss the Choctaw­hatchee River near Freeport, Fla.;

S. 2317. An act granting the consent of Congress to the State of Michigan and Berrien County, or either of them, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the St. Joseph River; and

S. 2407. An act to authorize the sale of parts of a ceme­tery reserve made for the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indians in Oklahoma.

CALL OF THE ROLL

Mr. FESS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESID&'JT. The clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators

answered to their names: Ashurst Austin Bailey Bankhead Barbour Barkley Black Blaine Borah Bratton Brookhart Broussard Bulkley Bulow Byrnes Capper Caraway Carey Connally Coolidge Copeland Costigan Couzens

Cutting Davis Dickinson Dill Fess Fletcher Frazier George Glass Glenn Goldsborough Gore Hale Harris Harrison Hastings Hatfield Hayden Hebert Howell Hull Jones Kean

Kendrick Keyes King La Follette Lewis Logan Long McGill McKellar McNary Metcalf Moses Neely Norbeck Norris Nye Oddie Patterson Pittman Reed Robinson, ..t'..rk. Robinson, Ind. Schall

Sheppard Shipstead Smith Smoot Steiwer Stephens Thomas, Idaho Thomas, Okla. Townsend Trammell Tydings Vandenberg Wagner Walcott Walsh, Mass. Walsh, Mont. Waterman Watson Wheeler White

1932 CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3297 Mr. McNARY. I wish to announce the necessary absence

of the senior Senator from California [Mr. JOHNSON] due to illness. I ask that this announcement may stand for the day.

Mr. FESS. I desire to announce the uravoidable absence of the Senator from California [Mr. SHORTRIDGE] on account of illness. I shall let this annonncement stand for the day.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Eighty-nine Senators have an­swered to their names. A quorum is present.

CENTURY OF PROGRESS CELEBRATION AT CHICAGO, ILL.

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the amend­ments of the House of Representatives to the bill <S. 355) providing for the participation of the United States in a Century of Progress <the Chicago World's Fair Centennial Celebration), to be held at Chicago, Ill., in 1933, authorizing an appropriation therefor, and for other purposes, which were, on page 3, line 3, after "compensations," to insert " within the grades and rates of compensation fixed by the classification act of 1923, as amended"; on page 3, line 4, to strike out all after "services" down to and including "5) ," in line 6; on page 3, line 22, to strike out all after "necessary" down to and including "5) ," in line 24; on page 4, line 15, to strike out " $1,725,000 " and insert "$1,000,000 "; ·on page 5, line 16, to strike out all after" sub­sistence" down to and including "act)," in line 18, and in­sert" at not to exceed $6 per day"; on page 5, line 22, after "for," insert "subsistence"; on page 6, line 15, to strike out all after "commission" down to and including "final," in line 24; on page 7, line 21, after "appropriated," to insert uProvided, That in the construction of buildings or exhibits requiring skilled and unskilled labor the prevailing rate of wages, as provided in the act of March 3, 1931, shall be paid"; on page 8, line 9, to strike out all after "property" down to and including" property," in line 13; and on page 8, line 15, after " therefor," to insert "Provided, That all dis­position of materials, property, buildings, etc., shall be at public sale to the highest bidder, and the proceeds thereof shall be covered into the Treasury of the United States."

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, I beg to move the concurrence of the Senate in the amendments of the House. In this connection may I be permitted to say that a message has come from Chairman Dawes and other members of the com­mittee asking that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. WATSON] and myself express appreciation to both the Senate and the House for the consideration given this measure.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on concurring in the amendments of the House.

The amendments were concurred in. EXTENSION OF TIME UNDER SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT

The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the settlement of war claims act of 1928 for the purpose of extending for one additional year from March 10, 1932, the time within which American nationals who have obtained awards from the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, or from the Tripartite Claims Commission, United Stat.es, Austria, and Hungary, may make application to the Treas­ury for payment of such awards, which, with the accom­panying paper, was referred to the Committee on Finance.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the follow­

lng ·joint resolution of the Legislature of Wisconsin, which was referred to the Committee on Finance:

STATE OF WISCONSIN.

Joint resolution relating to the protection of American producers of pulpwood against unfair competition resulting from the de­preciation of foreign currencies Whereas it has come to the attention of the Wisconsin Legisla­

ture that foreign pulp ls now being shipped into the port of New York duty free, and is being sold for much less than the amount it costs American manufacturers to produce this product, even at the present low price of pulpwood and mill wages; and

Whereas it is apparent that importers of this product ate being given an unfair advantage over American manufacturers in view of the fact _that they are paying for the product in depreciated foreign currencies and selling it for American gold dollars; and

Whereas this competition results in hardship not only upon the American manufacturers of pulp but also upon all large and small

producers of pulpwood and all other persons engaged directly or indirectly 1n this industry: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the assembly (the senate concurring), That this leg­islature, 1n special session assembled~ respectfully memorializes the Congress of the United States to enact remedial legislation to protect domestic producers against this unfair competition, due to depreciated foreign currencies, and so give employment to large numbers of American citizens 1n the manufacture of pulp; be it further

Resolved, That properly attested copies of this resolution be transmitted to both Houses of the Congress of the United States and to all Wisconsin Members thereof.

HENRY A. HUBER, President of the Senate.

R. A. COBBAN, Chief Clerk of the Senate.

CHAS. B. PERRY, Speaker of the Assembly.

c. E. SHAFFER, Chief Clerk of the Assembly.

The VICE PRESIDENT also laid before the Senate a joint memorial of the Legislature of Arizona requesting that an appropriation be made, or the proper governmental bureau be caused to expend sufficient funds, to pay for one-third of the cost of constructing a bridge across the Colorado River at Parker, Ariz.1 which was referred to the Committee on Commerce. <See joint memorial printed in full when presented by Mr. AsHURST on the 2d instant, p. 3062 CoN­GRESSIONAL RECORD.)

He also laid before the Senate a letter from J. H. Koemert of Colorado Springs, Colo., giving his opinions on current political and tax problems, which was referred to the Com­mittee on Finance.

He also laid before the Senate resolutions adopted by the executive committee of the Merchant Tailors' Society of New York City, N.Y., favoring prevention of the importa­tion of the products of forced labor from Soviet Russia or other countries, which were referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also laid before the Senate resolutions adopted by the executive committee of the Merchant Tailors' Society of New York City, N. Y., favoring the passage of House bill 5659, relative to the activities of radical enemy aliens, com­munists, and communist sympathizers in the United States, which were referred to the Committee on Immigration.

He also laid before the Senate resolutions adopted by the executive committee of the Merchant Tailors Society of New York City, N. Y., favoring the passage of House bill 1967, to strengthen the immigration laws and deport undesirable aliens, etc., which were referred to the Committee on Immi­gration.

He also laid before the Senate resolutions adopted by the ·woman's Missionary Society of the Florence Avenue Meth­odist Episcopal Church, of Los Angeles, Calif., favoring the prompt ratification of the World Court protocols, which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

He also laid before the Senate resolutions adopted by the New Orleans (La.) Association of Commerce, protesting against the passage of Senate bill 1963, amending the ship­ping act, 1916, as amended, for the purpose of further regu­lating carriers by water engaged in interstate and foreign commerce of the United States, and for other purposes, which were referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. BROOKHART presented petitions of sundry citizens of Washington, Iowa, praying for the maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GEORGE presented petitions of members of the mis­sionary society, the young people's Sunday school class, the men's bible class of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the young woman's missionary circle, all of Hinesville, Ga., praying for the prompt ratification of the World Court pro­tocols, which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

He also presented the petitions of Mrs. Julia H. Steele and ~ 1 other citizens of Waycross, and of Mrs. P. N. Gresham and 214 other citizens of Savannah, all in the State of Georgia, praying for the maintenance of the pro­hibition law and its enforcement, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

3298 ~CONGRESSIONAt RECORD-SENATE -FEBRUARY 3 Mr. JONES presented a petition of sundry citizens of Port

Angeles, Wash., praying for the maintenance of the prohibi­tion law and its enforcement, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented a memorial in the form of a resolution by Albert Smith, chairman of the board of the Christian Church; H. E. Wilson, minister of the Baptist Church (by Ben Knox, chairman); Oswald L. Anthony, minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and Harold S. Wilson, moderator (H. P. Fox, clerk) of the United Presbyterian Church, all of Prosser, Wash., remonstrating against the proposed resub­mission of the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution to State conventions or legislatures, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented resolutions adopted by local chapters of the Woman's Christian Temperance Unions of Seattle, Tacoma, Othello, Grandview, Kennewick, Everson, Edison, Yakima, and Nooksack, all in the State of Washington, pro­testing against the proposed resubmission of the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution to State conventions or legis­latures, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

:Mr. CAPPER presented petitions of sundry citizens of Burr Oak, Clay Center, Jetmore, St. Francis, Utica, and Wichita, all in the State of Kansas, praying for the maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented resolutions in the form of petitions adopted by local chapters of the Woman's Christian Tem­perance Unions of Natoma, St. Francis, and Utica; Wide Awake Grange, No. 1913, of Liberal; the Ladies' Aid Society of the First Baptist Church, the loyalists Sunday school class, the Ladies' Aid Society, and the Woman's Home Mis­sionary Society, all of the Methodist Episcopal Church, mem­bers of the United Presbyterian Church, and the Friday Afternoon Study Club, of Jetmore, all in the State of Kansas, praying for the maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement, and protesting against the proposed modifica­tion or repeal of the eighteenth amendment of the Consti­tution, which were referred to the Committee on the Judi­ciary.

Mr. COPELAND presented a resolution adopted by the Saratoga County Rural Letter Carriers Association, at Balls­ton Spa, N.Y., protesting against the passage of Senate bill 2490, placing the rural delivery service on a contract basis, which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. . He also presented petitions of sundry citizens of Albany, Albion, Carlton, Copenhagen, and Jamestown, all in the State of New York, praying for the maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented resolutions adopted by local chapters of the Woman's Christian Temperance Unions of Akron, Albion, Clifton Park (Saratoga County), Potsdam, and Port Ewen, and the Methodist Men's Bible Class of Wolcott, all in the State of New York, favoring the maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement, and protesting against the proposed resubmission of the eighteenth amend­ment of the Constitution to State conventions or legisla­tures, which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

PROGRAM OF PUBLIC WORKS Mr. COPELAND also presented a letter from the chair­

man of the international relations committee, Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture, of Brooklyn, N. Y., which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows:

BROOKLYN SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL CULTURE, Brooklyn, N. Y., February 2, 1~32.

Hon. RoYAL S. CoPELAND, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR DoCTOR CoPELAND: The peace-study group of the Women's Ethical Union, in meeting assembled on January 26, 1932, passed the following resolution:

"Whereas the immediate carrying out of that program would not only greatly relieve our people's suffering but be economi­cally sound, in that building plans can be more economically carried out now than in normal times: Be it

"Resolved, That this body respectfully urge our Washington representatives to make the necessary appropriations to carry out its own plans for public works. Be it also

"Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to Washington and to the press."

Faithfully yours, FRANCES H. KOHAN, Chairman International Relations Committee.

RESOLUTIONS OF THE KANSAS STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent

to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and appro­priately referred resolutions adopted at the sixty-first an­nual meeting of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, held in Topeka on January 13, 14, and 15. I might say that in my judgment the resolutions give a very clear picture of the situation and needs of agriculture of our section of the country, and I recommend a careful reading of the resolutions.

There being no objection, the resolutions were referred to the Committee .on Agriculture and Forestry and ordered to be printed in the REcoRD, as follows: Resolutions adopted at the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the

Kansas State Board of AaDTiculture, Topeka, January 13-15, 1932

EXPANSION OF CREDITS Whereas the present economic condition has been aggravated

by an unfortunate withdrawal from circulation of certain moneys and credits, through action of the Federal reserve bank; and

Whereas it is within the province and authority of the Federal reserve bank system to inflate or deflate the value of our medium of exchange to coincide with the rise and fall of the products of agriculture and industry, or, in other words, to stabillze the value of the American dollar: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we urge our Congressmen and Senators to vigor­ously support Such measures that will compel the Federal reserve bank to use its authority to keep in circulation sufficient money to maintain a price level near the point in effect at the beginning of the present depression.

We further recommend that the benefits of the Reconstruction Credit Corporation, as passed by the United States Senate, be extended as soon as available to the local rural banks so that proper credit can be extended to livestock producers and farmers when sufficient and proper collateral is offered.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT We indorse the cooperative marketing program as set forth ln

the agricultural marketing act. We insist that this program be given opportunity to develop and function as was originally intended. We are opposed to any amendments to the act, except such amendments as are desired by the agricultural people and are approved by the authorized representatives of organized agriculture.

LIVESTOCK MARKETING COSTS Whereas the market for livestock is distressed and at times de­

moralized, resulting in great loss to producers without correspond­ing relief to consumers, and

Whereas the cost of marketing service, including transporta­tion, yardage, feed, commissions, and charitable contributions, is at maximum rate of war conditions, and that these services are furnished to the livestock shipper without competition or oppor­tunity to choose,

We ask the authorities administering the packers-stockyards act to immediately investigate and reduce these charges to a basis comparable to the cost of such service and use all other means possible to give to the producers of livestock efficient, reliable, and economical service, to the end that the livestock in­dustry may be restored to its proper place as a necessary part of agriculture.

ST. LAWRENCE AND INLAND WATERWAYS We reiterate our support of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

seaway and urge upon Congress early adoption of the treaty nego­tiations with Canada, as well as the enactment of necessary legislation for this seaway channel.

We also favor the prompt development of inland waterways now under consideration and construction, to the end that there will be connected waterway transportation for agricultural com­modities.

NATIONAL LAND POLICY We strongly favor a national land-utilization policy of a char­

acter that will postpone further reclamation projects until re­quired by consumptive demands; that wm cause to be removed so-called marginal or submarginal lands from production; and that will embrace a broad program for reforestation, public parks, game preserves, and kindred works of a permanent nature for the benefit of the entire Nation.

FARM MACHINERY "Whereas the great need of the hour to relieve our economic Whereas the farmer's income dollar is now worth less than 50

depression is an increase of the purchasing power of our people; I cents in the purchase of other commodities; and "Whereas the program of public works involving the expend!- Whereas the price of farm machinery and the repairs for farm

ture of $2,000,000,000 has already been indorsed by Congress; machinery are still at peak war prices and because good !arm

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE- 3299 machinery equipment ts necessary to efficient agriculture produc­tion,

We call attention to the fact that the refusal of the large manu­facturers of farm machinery to reduce prices on their commodity somewhere in line with the prices received by the farmer is unfair and does not give the generous consideration that is due to agriculture in its present distressed condition after years of gen­erous patronage at extremely high prices which resulted in rich cash and stock dividends to these manufacturers.

RELIEF OF AGRICULTURE-cOOPERATIVE CREAMERIES Mr. DAVIS presented a resolution adopted by the Phila­

delphia Dairy Jobbers Association January 20, 1932, which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: To the Hon. Senator JAMES J. DAviS, To the Hon. Senator DAvm A. REED,

Senators for Pennsylvania in the United States Congress: I am directed to make known to you the following resolution

adopted by the Philadelphia Dairy Jobbers Association on Wednes­day, January 20, 1932:

The Philadelphia Dairy Jobbers Association is a chartered or­ganization comprising the jobbers and wholesalers engaged in the distribution of farm and dairy products for the farmers of the State of Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

" Whereas a bill has been introduced in the Senate of the United States, being bill S. 5109, 'A bill to llquidate and refinance agricultural indebtedness, and to encourage and promote agri­culture, commerce, and industry by establishing an efficient credit system through which the unjust and unequal burdens placed upon agriculture during the period of price fixing and defla.tion may be lightened by providing for the liquidation and refinancing of farm mortgages and farm indebtedness at reduced rates of interest through the Federal farm system '; and

" Whereas the farmers and their selling agendes of Pennsyl­vania are in a very critical financial condition, being faced 'with the loss of their lands and chattels through inability to refinance loans on their property because of high taxes and interest rates and the low prices on agricultural products; and

" Whereas the burden of taxation is very heavy on the farmers and distributing associations of Pennsylvania by virtue of their i~bility to realize much for the crops and dairy products; and

Whereas the conditi6n of the farmers of Pennsylvania from an economic standpoint is as serious as the worst condition of any foreign country; and .

"Whereas the Philadelphia Dairy Jobbers Association is of the opinion that the agricultural and dairy interests of one State should be placed on the same basis as that of another. The Philadelphia Dairy Jobbers Association further believes that the act of the Government unfairly financing cooperative cream­eries instead of resulting beneficially has only proven to be an unjust, unfair, and destructive competition. That the financing by the Government of cooperative creameries (private selling cor­porations) is discriminatory and detrimental to the farming and dairy industry in Pennsylvania and makes possible for the as­sisted western corporations to invade the territory of the unas­sisted Pennsylvania farming and dairy industry; and

" Whereas the farm and dairy industry of Pennsylvania there­fore is entitled to and is in dire need of the same assistance accorded the western industry; and

" Whereas agriculture and farming is one of the chief industries of the State of Pennsylvania and there can not be business pros­perity unless the dairy and agriculture industry be on a sound and equal basis with the agricultural industries of the other States: It is

"Resolved, That the Senators of Pennsylvania be importuned to exert their utmost efforts to remedy this unhealthy and depressive condition 1n Pennsylvania ...

[sEAL) JosEPH BuscHEL, Secretary.

PROPOSED REPEAL OF THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT Mr. BARBOUR. Mr. President, I present a joint resolu­

tion of the Legislature of the State of New Jersey favoring the calling of a eonstitutional convention for the purpose. of proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for the repeal of the eighteenth amend­ment thereto, which I ask may be printed in the RECORD and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed in the RECORD under the rule, as follows:

Joint Resolution 1 (Laws of 1932) STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

Providing for application by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey to the Congress of the United States to call a convention for proposing an amendment to said Constitution for the repeal o.f Article XVIII (eighteenth amendment, prohibition of the hquor traffic) and the substitution of a new amendment therefor as provided by Article V of the said Constitution of the United States Whereas Article V of the Constitution of the United States

provides:

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it ne.cessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the severai ~tat~s. shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which m either case. shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three­fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be pro-posed by the Congt·ess; etc.": ·

Be it resolved by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. That under the authority of Article V of the Constitution of the United States application is hereby made by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey to the Congress of the United States to call a constitutional convention for the purpose of proposing an amendment to the said Constitution of the United States provid­ing for the repeal of Article XVIII (eighteenth amendment pro­hibition of the liquor traffic) of the said Constitution and the substitution for it of an amendment which will restore to the States the power to determine their policy toward the liquor traffic and to vest in the Federal Government the power to give all possible protection and assistance to every State which desires to exclude intoxicating liquor from its territory, which amend­ment shall.be yalid to all intents and purposes as a part of the said ConstitutiOn of the United States when ratified by the several States.

2. That the Legislature of the State of New Jersey recommends to the Congress of the United States that the mode of ratification of any such amendment to be proposed by said Congress to the several States shall be the one by convention instead of by the legisl~tures, in three-fourths of said several States, as provided in said Article v · of said Constitution of the United States.

3. That the secretary of state be, and he is hereby, directed to forward a properly authenticated copy of this resolution to the President .of the United States. to the Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Member of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States representing the State of New Jersey.

4. This joint resolution shall take efi'ect immediately. Approved February 1, 1932.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

I, Thomas A. Mathis, secretary of state of the State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foreg-oing is a true -copy of an act passed by the legislatur~ of this State and approved by the governor the 1st day of February, A. D. 1932, as taken from and compared with the original now on file in my office.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal at Trenton this 2d day of February, 1932.

[SEAL.J THOMAS A. MATHIS, Secretary of State.

THE PROHIBITION QUESTION Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. President, I send to the desk and

ask leave to have printed in the RECORD and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary a petition which has been sent to me, expressing the sentiment of members of the execu­tive board of the Delaware Woman's Christian Temperance Union and of members of the Woman's Christian Temper­ance Unions of Laurel, Lebanon, and Rising Sun, Del.

There being no objection, the petition was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ln view of the many bills that have been submitted to Congress by the opponents of prohibition, we, the undersigned, urge that you use your influence and cast your vote in support of the main­tenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement, and against any measure looking toward its modification, resubmission to the States, or repeal, and that this petition be printed in the CoN-GRESSIONAL RECORD. ·

Mr. TOWNSEND. I also ask to h.ave printed in the RECORD and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary a resolution which has been forwarded to me by the Wilming­ton (Del.) Woman's Christian Temperance Union Federa­tion of over 1,000 members, and a similar resolution which has been adopted by the Smyrna (Del.) Woman's Christian Temperance Union.

There being no objection, the resolutions were ordered to be printed in the REcoRD and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, as follows: To the United States Senate:

Whereas the eighteenth amendment was adopted by the orderly processes of government and has been sustained by no less than 48 decisio~ of the United States Supreme Court; and

Whereas Its opponents are now asking Congress to resubmit the question of prohibition through a repeal amendment to be ratified by State conventions called for that purpose; and · l

Whereas we have no reason to believe that those opponents who have not counseled obedience to the eighteenth amendment and its enforcement .act and those who have openly advocated dis­obedience and dlSl"egard of the same, which is selective anarchy,

3300 -------- __ ._.,~ __ --·coNGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3

would change their attitude and accept the vote of tlie majority of States should the repeal amendment fail of ratification; and

Whereas we are confident that resubmission would not take prohibition out of politics but would intensify it as a State issue: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we are opposed to the resubmission of the eight­eenth amendment to be ratified by State conventions or by State legislatures, and that we as k our Congressman from this district and our United States Senators to vot e against such a resolution and to vote for adequate appropriations for law enforcement and for education in law observance.

Adopted by Wilmington Woman's Christian Temperance Union Federation, representing over 1,000 people.

January 20, 1932, Wilmington, Del. LAURA B. MELSON, c. S.,

710 West Twentieth Street, Wilmington, Del.

To the United States Senate: Whereas the eighteenth amendment was adopted by the orderly

processes of government and has been sustained by no less thau 48 decisions of the United States Supreme Court; and

Whereas its opponents are now asking Congress to resubmit the question of prohibition through a repeal amendment to be ratified by State conventions called for that purpm:e; and

Whereas we have no reason to believe that those opponents who have not counseled obedience to the eighteenth amendment and its enforcement act and those who have openly advocated dis­obed.ience and disregard of the same, which is selective anarchy, would change their attitude and accept the vote of the majority of States should the repeal amendment fail of ratification; and

Whereas we are confident that resubmission would not take pro­hibition out of politics but would intensify it as a State issue: Therefore be it

Resolved, That we are opposed to the resubmlssion of the eight­eenth amendment to be ratified by State conventions or by State legislatures, and that we ask our Congressman from this district and our United States Senators to vote against such a resolution and to vote for adequate appropriations for law enforcement and for education in law observance.

Adopted by Smyrna Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Representing the temperance people. FEBRUARY 2, 1932, Smyrna, Del.

PENSIONS FOR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS OF WORLD WAR VETERANS Mr. BROOKHART presented a · letter from John Thomas

Taylor, vice chairman national legislative committee of the American Legion, relative to the proposed granting of pen­sions to widows and orphans of World War veterans, which was referred to the Committee on Finance and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE AMERICAN LEGION, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C., January 23, 1932.

Hon. SMITH W. BROOKHART, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. 0.

MY DEAR SENATOR: A treacherous attack upon pending legis­lation to provide allowances for widows and orphans of World War veterans was made in the Washington Post of January 19, under the caption "War Veterans Agree to Halt Pension Fight-­White House Is Notified Demands Will Not Be Pressed." It would seem that the purpose of the instigators of this article was to have Congress believe that the Legion had abandoned its fight for those who can not fight for themselves-the widows and or­phans of World War veterans.

This letter is written to clear up any doubts which you may have as a result of the Washington Post article. I want you to know that the responsible officials of the Legion, our 1,000,000 members throughout the country, and the half million women 1n our auxiliary have never even considered the question of aban­doning this fight for justice. The widows' and orphans' legisla­tion is No. 1 upon the preferred legislative program of the Legion for the present session of the Congress, and the Legion will throw its entire strength into the fight for the enactment of this just and long-delayed legislation.

The fact t hat there is depression in the land makes the hard­ships conf1·onting widows and orphans much more severe than they would ot herwise be, and therefore increases the necessity for immediate congressional action. You may know that the widows and orphans of World War veterans whose death can not be con­nected with the service under t h e existing laws are t he only class of widows and orphans of veterans of all wars who are thus neg­lect ed by their Government. This fact alone should. warrant the speedy enactment of t h is legislation, and we will appreciate your cooperation toward this end.

Very sincerely yours, JOHN THOMAS TAYLOR,

Vice Chairman National Legislative Committee.

REPORT OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE :Mr. PE88, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to

whicy was referred the bill (8. 2377) authorizing an appro­priatiOn to defray the expenses of participation by the United States Government in the Second Polar Year Pro-

gram, August 1, 1932, to August 31, 1933, reported it without amendment and submitted a report <No. 162) thereon.

EXECUTIVE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON BAJ.~KING AND CURRENCY

As in executive session, Mr. FLETCHER, from the Committee on Banking and

Currency, reported favorably the nomination of Wilson McCarthy, of Utah, to be a member of the board of directors of the Reconstruction Finance Corooration for a term of two years from January 22, 1932, w-hich was ordered to be placed on the Executive Calendar.

ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED Mr. WATERMAN, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills,

reported that on yesterday, February 2, 1932, that commit­tee presented to the President of the United States the fol­lowing enrolled bills:

S. 556. An act to extend the -times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Elk River at or near Kelso, Tenn.;

s. 2199. An act exempting building and loan associations from being adjudged bankrupts;

S. 2388. An act to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the French Broad River on the proposed Morristown-Newport road between Jefferson and Cocke Counties, Tenn.;

S. 2389. An act to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the French Broad River on the Dandridge-Newport road in Jefferson Cou.11ty, Tenn.; and

S. 2408. An act to repeal the act of Congress approved May 31, 1924 (43 Stat. L. 247), entitled "An act to authorize the setting aside of certain tribal land within the Quinaielt Indian Reservation in Washington for lighthouse purposes."

Mr. WATERMAN also, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that on to-day, February 3, 1932, that com­mittee presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bills:

S.1089. An act to establish a minimum area for a Shen­andoah national park, for administration, protection, and general development by the National Park Service, and for other purposes;

S.1291. An act to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across·the Choctaw­hatchee River, near Freeport, Fla.;

S. 2317. An act granting the consent of Congress to the State of Michigan and Berrien County, or either of them, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the St. Joseph River; and

S. 2407. An· act to authorize the sale of parts of a ceme­tery reserve made for the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indians in Oklahoma.

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

mous consent, the second time, _and referred as follows: By Mr. WALSH of Montana: A bill (S. 3460) granting certain public lands to the State

of Montana for the purpose of erecting, furnishing, and maintaining· a State historical library; and

A bill (S. 3461) authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands to Malta Post, No. 57, American Legion, of Montana, for· park purposes; to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

By Mr. JONES: A bill (8. 3462) to amend section 25 of the Federal farm

act so that national -farm-loan associations, as indorsers of first mortgages, will only be liable for deficiencies; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

A bill (S. 3463) to amend section 23 of the merchant marine act, 1920; to the Committee on Commerce.

A bill (8. 3464) to amend the World War adjusted com­pensation act, 1924; to the Committee on Finance.

A bill (8. 3465) fixing time for reimbursement of the United States for money advanced for acquisition of water rights for Indian lands within the Oroville-Tonasket Iniga-

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3301 tion District under act of May 18, 1916, and supplemental acts, and for other purposes; and

A bill (S. 3466) for the relief of the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

A bill <S. 3467) amending the annual rate of payment of irrigation construction assessments on the Wapato irri­gation project; to the Committee on Irrigation and Recla­mation.

By Mr. NEELY: A bill (S. 3468) for the relief of Herbert E. Guthrie; to

the Committee on Military Affairs. A bill <S. 3469) to reinstate Robert D. Ross as midship­

.man in the United States Naval Academy; to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

A bill <S. 3470) granting an increase of pension to John G. Nelson; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. LA FOLLETTE: A bill (S. 3471) granting an increase of pension to Lizzie

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

By Mr. CAPPER: A bill (S. 3472) to amend the act of Congress approved

June 26, 1912, entitled "An act making appropriations to provide for the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1913, and for other purposes "; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. GLENN: A bill (8. 3473) granting a pension to Martha Jones (with

accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Pensions. By Mr. REED: A bill (S. 3474) granting a pension to Harriet S. Nichol­

son; to the Committee on Pensions. By Mr. CAREY: A bill (S. 3475) to amend section 5 of the act approved

July 10, 1890 (28 Stat. 664) , relating to the admission into the Union of the State of Wyoming; to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

By Mr. BROOKHART: A bill <S. 3476) to provide for the establishment of an

8-hour day for yardmasters of carriers; to the Committee on Interstate Commerce.

By Mr. SCHALL: A bill (S. 3477) for the relief of the Playa de Flor Land &

Improvement Co.; to the Committee on Claims. A bill (S. 3478) for the relief of Kenneth Morlan Hall and

Mary Jane Hall; to the Committee on Finance. By Mr. COPELAND: A bill (S. 3479) granting a pension to Harry Martin; to

the Committee on Pensions. A bill (8. 3480) to enable the Secretary of War to obtain

possession of and acquire legal title to the Thayer-West Point Hotel, including furniture and equipment, located in the grounds of West Point Military Academy; to the Com­mittee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. ODD IE: A bill (S. 3481) authorizing I£ster Baker, major, United

States Army, to accept the decoration tendered to him by the Bolivian Government; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

RETURN OF AN ENROLLED BILL TO THE SENATE

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. President, I submit a concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. The resolution is to correct an error made by the enrolling clerk.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Let the resolution be read for the information of the Senate.

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) was read, as follows:

Resolved by tne Senate (tne House of Representatives con­curring), That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, requested to return to the Senate the enrolled bill (S. 2199) entitled "An act exempting building and loan associations from being adjudged bankrupts."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?

There being no objection, the concurrent resolution was considered and agreed to.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages in writing from the President of the United States submitting several nominations and treaties were com­municated to the Senate by Mr. Latta, one of his secretaries.

PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT-ADDRESS BY MRS. CLEMENT L. ·sHAVER

Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. President, I submit for incorpora­tion in the RECORD a radio address on prohibition, delivered by Mrs. Clement L. Shaver, of West Virginia, December 5, 1931.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so or­dered.

The address is as follows: As a southern woman, I am glad to ba ve this opportunity to

speak of the prohibition issue, as it will come up in the present Congress.

We are hearilig a great deal about resubmission of the eighteenth amendment. In fact, the wet and dry fight in Congress is likely to center around resubmission. The wets are talking of resubmis­sion to the people as if it were a referendum. This is a false idea. A resolution to resubmit would not be a referendum; it would be a repeal amendment. Our Constitution provides no method for taking a national referendum; no machinery has been set up. Being a repeal amendment, the drys would not consider those who vote for it as neutral but merely wets. Make no mistake--a reso­lution to resubmit would be a straight-out vote for repeal, devised and initiated by the wets in an attempt to force repeal of the eighteenth amendment, all other schemes having failed. They propose, however, that this twentieth amendment, as they call it, shall difi'er radically in method from the other 19 amendments, all of which were ratified in the usual way, that is, by State legislatures composed of representatives of the people. These leg­islatures are to be scrapped in this emergency-relegated to the Junk heap--because the wet politicians are afraid to trust any measure intended to repeal the eighteenth amendment to a body so largely composed of representatives elected by the dry vote of our rural communities. The liquor leaders believe that the legis­latures are not "citified" enough-not wet enough-to vote on a repeal amendment intended to scrap national prohibition.

The wets are demand.ing ratification by State conventions. We know from experience that party bosses always send band-picked, boss-controlled delegates to such conventions who would be com­pletely subservient to their will. We have seen enough of State conventions at close range to know the w111 of the people is never considered. We are against State conventions where corruption reigns supreme.

The women of the South will never agree to a repeal amendment to be ratified in boss-ridden conventions. A repeal vote is not a neutral vote, but it is a wet vote. It is nothing short of a catas­trophe in the midst of the economic confusion existing in our country to-day--a condition that is world-wide--that a small group of selfish multimillionaires, plus Tammany Hall, should feel obliged to introduce this measure now when vital economic issues press so insistently for solution.

The agricultural situation, the financial situation, unemploy­ment, taxation, world rehabilitation, and many other problems are clamoring to be solved. Yet a little group of capitalists­money gods--up in the northern cities, plus Tammany, have the brazen effrontery to make liquor rehabilitation the vital consid­eration of this Congress. From them comes the hullabaloo for restoration of legalized liquor and the return of the old-time pesthole, the licensed saloon. These millionaires and their friends--the brewers and distillers, both at home and abroad-are perfectly aware that legalized liquor would mean the saloon back on every street corner, giving them easy money. They plan to bold up the Congress and prevent its getting down to the business of the country. They prefer to see turmoil and complete absence {)f harmony while valuable time is wasted in taking a vote on Wht\t they call resubmission or referendum. In reality this is a vote to repeal the eighteenth amendment, at the same time at­tempting to sidetrack the people's minds 1n a dangerous crisis. These wets have invaded the ranks of both major parties. They have attempted to turn the great old-time party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson into a dripping-wet, allen-controlled party, whose leaders are expected to bow the knee before a handful of millionaire wets.

People of America I Turn a deaf ear in this crisis to a group of sidetracking turmoilers and repealers who are shirking and shunt­ing aside every grave and pressing economic issue. Don't allow them to hold your Congress by the throat!

What is at the bottom of thls turmoil eternally being fomented in Chicago and New York and a few other wet cities? I will tell you exactly what we southern Democratic women think the trouble is. Isn't it that prohibition is a political liablltty to a few capitalists up North? Doesn't it break up their power to control their party machines and, therefore, does it not send to Congress too many men who refuse to do their bidding? Thus it interferes with their financial schemes.

3302 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 But here ts a thing to think about: The very fact that proht- The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so

bition is a political liability to certain interests up North makes it ordered. a political asset to the West and South. The North will never be The address is as follows: able to set the standards of the South nor fool us into giving up a great moral and poittical asset. There has never been a better ADDRESS OF JULIAN CODMAN, LL.B., MEMBER OF THE MASSACHUSE'l"I'S exhibition of unpatriotic greed than the wets are prepared to BAR, AT THE BANGOR FoRUM, NovEMBER 22, 1931 give in this Congress. ·In the matter of liquor control the object of all good citizens

During th? W<?rld War Woodrow Wils.on forced the wet mi~?rity

1

should be the same, namely, to secure the highest measure of to stand .aside m face of the fo?d situation .. S~ch a criSI:S is temperance possible. They, however, differ radically in the means again facing us, and again th~ vocn:er~us wet mmonty must yield. appropriate to accomplish this end. I, for one, believe in regu­It was boo~e against food tne~;. It IS booze against food now. lation by the States. The prohibition fight is a P?htiCal contest between a few wet Mr. Hale apparently believes tn prohibition through the Con­cities and the vast countryside. We wi~l never surrend.er the stitution of the United States and enforcement by the Federal idealism of the country to the perverted Ideas of a few big, wet Government. our object being the same, I decline to be de­cities. No such domination will be tolerated. scribed as a " wet " since the term is a misnomer and befoas the

If the prohibitionists of this country, whose fathers endured issue ' b •

almost incredible labors and dangers to create upon this continent I believe in the repeal of the eighteenth amendment and I a nation to which the oppressed of a~l lands might repair, now have asked that my name be entered in the debate as a ~epealer. permit a great constitutional ·change llke th~ eighteenth amend- r make this as my first proposition, and I think you will agree ment to be discredited and destroyed by indrrection and obstru~- with it. tion, they will have forfeited the rights of themselves and therr Either the eighteenth amendment should remain in the Consti-children to participate effectively in the Government. tution and should be enforced, or it should be repealed and the

We descendants of such nation builders must demand that the power to re!rulate the liquor traffic which has been taken from Integrity of the ~onstitution be maintained; . th~t the regula: the states by the amendment, ret~ned to them so that their processes of constitutional change be not set aside by the substi power to regulate can be exerted for the benefit of their citizens. tution of other methods of making these changes, s~c~ as · that As things are to-day, no State can pass a law to regulate the suggested by the wet advocates of repeal, alias res,ubmlSslon, alias liquor traffic. In those States where prohibition is not wanted referendum. We must demand that the Government shall vigor- and where hostile public opinion makes enforcement impossible, ously enforce the existing law so long as that law is not repealed the actual regulation of this most dangerous traffic is in the by the identical method employed in the passage of the eighteenth hands of the underworld, and the tremendous profits from it amendment. . pass untaxed to assist in the promotion of crime of all kinds.

No resubmission until a better plan is offered. No repeal I have time to-day to discuss but one aspect of the prohibition amendment producing unspeakable turmoil and conf~sion in the problem, but it is a singularly pertinent one at present. states. No boss-ridden, machine-controlle~ conv~ntwns to ~ass It is, whether in the existing state of public -opinion the en­upon so grave a subject as repeal of the eighteenvh amendm ... nt, forcement of the eighteenth amendment is possible; and whether but on to prohibition honestly and adequately enforced. Women there is evidence to show that public opinion is becoming more of the South will neither tolerate nor support any other program. favorable to it, or less.

This is the message of the women of Dixie put to every American Mr. Hale will doubtless admit that the experience of mankind citizen. has proved, so far as anything is susceptible of proof, that no law

Comparatively few women are in the list of. Democratic con- can be enforced that has not behind it the support of a great tributors to whom Chairman Raskob addressed his seven questions majority of the law-abiding citizens. Those laws which are thus about prohibition. But the Democratic Party can not afford to supported by the public conscience require no coercive effort disregard the views of the women voters of this C?untry. After against the ordinary citizen who obeys them as a matter of course. considering Raskob's proposals and ~oting the reactwn thereto, it The machinery of the law exists to control the exceptional case1>. is my conviction that a great majon~y of the Democratic wome~ This ge;neral acceptance is what makes the laws against the will agree with me in the followmg comments on Raskob s recognized crimes, such as murder, theft, burglary, arson, rape, questionnaire: etc., the crimes universally recognized as contrary to the moral

Women will insist that any action to replace the eight?enth sense of socially minded people, enforceable so as to afford reason­amendment follow the same procedure by which it was origmally able protection to the communtty as a whole. adopted. Those are crimes which the law designates as mala in se. There

The women will resent Mr. Raskob's proposal to open the way are other offenses, not necessari1y immoral nor unsocial, which for ceaseless campaigns against prohibition in dry States with have been made crimes by act of law. These are designated mala all their accompaniment of propaganda glorifying drink and en- prohibita, and their effective enforcement depends upon how far couraging lawlessness. . .. , they correspond to the actual mores or customs of the people.

The women will resist the adoptwn of any home-rule plan by If they are in accord with accepted custom, they will be obeyed which a wet State can be made the source of supply for liquor to and will succeed. If not in such accord, they will be disobeyed be sold illegally in other States. , and will fail in their object. All this is axiomatic.

The women will distrust any assurances in Mr. Ras~ob s pro- Mr. Hale will doubtless concede that the prohibition of intoxi-posals that the saloon woul?- not be. restored if the eighteenth eating liquor decreed by the· eighteenth amendment and its en­amendment were repealed e1ther entirely or in relation to any abling statutes belongs to this second class, namely, mala pro-State. hibita.

The women will not believe that a law-enforceme_nt plank would My purpose this afternoon is to go over with you the evidence mean that the party prefers to ignore the economic situ~tion be- as we have it after 10 years of trial and to find out, if we can, cause they are convinced that prohibition. in the ratiO ?f its whether the prohibition amendment reflects sufficiently the mores observance and enforcement is one of the ch1ef factors tendmg to or customs of our people to have gained the necessary popular lessen suffering in these days of depression. support.

The women will be very suspicious of a~y so-cal~ed referen?-~. The evidence which I shall give you has convinced me, and will plan that would substitute for constitutiOnal actwn ~y legls.a- doubtless convince some of you, that the prohibition amendment tures some method of decision by hand-picked, boss-ndden wet and its enabling laws do not satisfy this requirement. I think it delegates. The women remember too well that the liquor. forces will prove to you that prohibition in fact is not wanted and will have never failed to choose whatever method would make lt easy never be tolerated by the American people. for them to control votes. . When I have discussed this evidence with you I intend to tell

Mr. Raskob speaks of indeJ?e?dent v_oters who Will flock to the you very briefly what I believe to be the only possible remedy for Democratic Party under conditiOns which he suggests. He should present evil conditions, and I shall make my suggestion with be­remember that the women are the most independent factor ~n coming modesty because I recognize that whatever plan may be American politics and they will never flock to the Democratic tried w111 necess~ily be subject to changes suggested by practical Party if it favors any liquor system. . . experience.

The women have sense enough to know that the solid ?-t'Y The history of the last decade is 1lluminat1ng. The eighteenth ground of constitutional prohibition offers the best foun~atwn amendment went into effect on the 1st of January, 1920, and for effective action against liquor and that there is no solld wet since it had been ratified by the legislatures of 46 States the pro-ground. hibitionists were perhaps justified in making the claim that it had

REPEAL OF THE EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT also the assent, if not the actual approval, of a majority of the Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I ask people. But almost immediately after the enforcement law went

Unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an ad- into operation it became apparent that the sentiment against the eighteenth amendment was far more widespread and much

dress delivered by Mr. Julian Codman, of the Massachusetts stronger than had been supposed even by its opponents. It be-Bar. on the subject of the repeal of the eighteenth amend- came very clear that the "wets," as they were then called for the ment. Mr. Codman particularly analyzes the statistics which first time, were not a small body (the so-called" liquor interests"),

t d thr h and that they were not confined to any one part of the country. have been gathered from different polls conduc e oug - The truth was that, lacking effective organization and thus being out the country and from State elections, all of which he without a voice, their numbers had been vastly underestimated. claims indicate a progressive increase of sentiment in favor From that day to this, in spite of defective organization, lack of of the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. funds (and I know of what I speak), and wanting a constructive

plan, the number of the opponents of prohibition has steadily ~ Mr. Codman concludes his address by offering a 9-point increased. . . program or plan to be followed after the repeal of the The opposition has grown among thoughtful people, because it amendment. J.s not dtillcult !or such to understand that the eighteenth amend-

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3303 ment is out of place in the Constttutlon of the United States; that its insertion therein had deprived the States of primary rights reserved for the benefit of their citizens; that it is wholly without moral sanction, and is consequently disobeyed by all classes. They see that it can be enforced, 1! at all, only by " strong arm " methods wholly foreign to American principles and repugnant to the American spirit of independence, and they are convinced that its constant evasion through wholesale corruption is a menace to our institutions.

The average citizens, who have no time to give the subject philosophic consideration, are increasingly against the eighteenth amendment simply from watching the results of the enforce­ment law. They see the rich through corruption getting every­thing they want, while the poor, though they get some bad whisky, are to a great extent deprived of beer. They see that young people of both sexes are drinking far more than they used to, and that in this generation, when the barriers between the sexes are pretty well broken down, the social results of such in­creased dr1nk1ng are appa111ng. They know that drunkenness was not materially decreased by the passage of the eighteenth amend­ment and the Volstead Act, and that, though the open saloon has disappeared, there are speak-easies in every street and bootleg~ers on every corner. As a result they treat the confident assertwns made by the "drys" that prohibition has brought prosperity, re­duced drunkenness, and increased savings-bank accounts with contemptuous amusement.

The first nation-wide attempt to find out how the people really felt about the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act was made by the Literary Digest in 1922. The questions submitted were these:

(a) Do you favor a continuance and strict enforcement of the eighteenth amendment an.d the Volstead law?

(b) Do you favor modification of the Volstead law to permit light wines and beers?

(c) Do you favor a repeal of the eighteenth amendment? The result was, ln round numbers, 306,000 votes for enforce­

ment, 326,000 votes for modification, 164,000 for repeal. In dis­cussing the poll in the " A B C of Prohibition " Fabian Franklin says:

"It must be noted that the modification here proposed was not 2.75 per cent beer but a proposal 'to permit light wines and beers.' It was a proposal to nullify the eighteenth amendment as understood by all its thoroughgoing supporters."

I shall discuss the poll again when I compare it with the later poll in 1930. ·

In the November elections of 1926 there were a number of offi­cial State referenda. The most significant was that held in the State of New York. The question then submitted was in sub­stance whether Congress should be requested so to modify the Volstead enforcement law as to permit each State to determine for itself what was in fact an intoxicating liquor. The vote in favor of this proposal was 1,763,070; opposed, 598,484-a majority in favor of 1,164,586. This was not merely an urban victory, since 42 out of 62 counties in the State were on record in favor of the recommendation. In Illinois, in the' same year, the same question was submitted, and 840,631 voted in favor with 556,592 opposed, a majority in favor of 284,039.

In the same year (1926) "In the far West," I quote again from Mr. Franklln, "Several States voted on referendum questions of various kinds relating to prohibition. The result in California was a majority, but not a heavy one, for the dry side 565,875 to 602,258. In Montana the wet side won by 83,231 to 72,982. In Nevada, although the total population of the State is very small, the question submitted was directly aimed at the eighteenth amendment itself, not merely at a particular law passed to carry out that amendment. The result was a vote of 18,131 against the eighteenth amendment to 5,382 for it. And, secondly, this victory stands out as proof of a most remarkable change of sentiment among the people of Nevada. In 1918 Nevada adopted State pro­hibition by a vote of 13,248 to 9,06Q-so that nine years of experi­ence resulted in cutting the dry vote from 13,000 to 5,000 and increasing the wet vote from 9,000 to 18,000."

Coming now to 1928, early in that year the citizens in the State of North Dakota had a referendum as to whether they should continue or repeal prohibition adopted in the State constitution nearly 40 years ago. The drys won a victory by a margin of about 3 per cent of the total vote of nearly 200,000. An editorial in the New York Herald Tribune said:

"To anyone famillar with the history of the State, with the almost completely rural character of the population, and with its reputation as a pillar of the prohibitionist edifice, the slenderness of the margin will cause amazement."

In that same State five years before, in 1923-" The senate unanimously and the house with only 10 dissent­

Ing votes," says the New York Times, "passed concurrent legisla­tion praying Congress never to make the Volstead Act more liberal."

This last referendum gave the women of North Dakota their first opportunity to express their opinion upon prohibition. Here we have a rural State showing more than a decided drift, and the women apparently are "rocking the boat."

But there is much more to learn about the women. Also in 1928 a questionnaire was sent out by the Women's National Republican Club to 3,000 Republican women. In 38 States out of 1,500 replies 107 only voted to retain the present Volstead law and 1,393 voted for repeal or modification to . permit light wines and beers, Government control, or local option.

Even before the referenda at the 1928 elections in Massachusetts and Montana it was plain to those who chose to look for it that the women of the country were losing whatever confidence they had in the etncacy of Federal prohibition and that the all­embracing claims of feminine support asserted by such women as Mrs. Henry W. Peabody, of the Women's National Law Enforce­ment, and Mrs. Ella Boole, of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, are made in enthusiastic ignorance and are without foundation.

The year 1929 saw the establishment and rapid growth of the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform, founded in New York by Mrs. Charles H. Sabin, who resigned her position on the Republican National Committee to undertake the work.

In two short years this organization was represented in every State in the Union, and it has to-day an active membership of more than 350,000.

In two years these intelligent women, doubtful at first as to what steps should be taken or what steps it was even possible to take to get rid of the hideous conditions which national prohibi­tion has created, have moved rapidly through the stage of modifi­cation and have come out squarely for the absolute repeal of the eighteenth amendment. Though opposed to the return of the saloon, they are convinced that temperance can be attained only through the medium of the States themselves. · They are therefore in favor of each State working out the problem for itself in its own way and to the satisfaction of its citizens, with only such assistance from the Federal Government as may be legitimately given by the regulation of interstate commerce to prevent the importation of intoxicants into those States which prohibit them by their own constitution or laws.

In Massachusetts the people have had four opportunities to express their opinion through referenda on the subject of Federal prohibition; first, in 1922 when an elaborate State enforcement law to support the eighteenth amendment was defeated by a majority of 104,000; second in 1924, when a second State enforcement law (afterwards called the "Baby Volstead Act," was adopted by a majority of 8,000-452,000 in favor, 444,000 against, 312,000 blanks).

Again in 1928, on a straightforward demand for the repeal of the eighteenth amendment under the public policy statute in 40 out of the 44 senatorial districts, the repeal of the eighteenth amendment was voted by 284,697 majority.

In 1930 the "Baby Volstead Act," approved in 192~ by 8,000 votes, was repealed by a majority of 281,000. Every congressional district was carried by more than 10,000 majority.

This is very important evidence since the opposition to the eighteenth amendment grew rapidly among the rural as well as among the urban population.

In Montana the question on the ballot in November, 1928, was on the adoption of a State enforcement law. Mr. Hoover carried the State by a majority of 32,722; the enforcement law was de­feated by a majority of 12,188. Comment is unnecessary.

The next indication of the trend of public opinion was the referendum held in Wisconsin in April, 1929. Thert: the ques­tion was upon the repeal of the State enforcement law. Both sides carried on an active campaign, but the day on which the ballots were cast was cold and stormy, and the total state-wide vote was not large when compared with that cast at the presi­dential election in November. The result was a victory for repeal of almost 2 to 1, the majority .being somewhat more than 153,000. In the preceding November Mr. Hoover had carried the State by about 94,000.

But by far the most valuable evidence in regard to the senti­ment of our people throughout the whole country and its change in character is contained in a comparison and analysis of the two. polls taken by the Literary Digest, the first in 1922, to which I have already referred, and the second last year, in 1930.

Students in politics have for years recognized the extraordinary accuracy with which these Literary Digest polls have forecast political results at. the succeeding elections, but the general public has not to so great an extent appreciated their significance.

The good faith and fairness of the Literary Digest have never been attacked.

Dr. Daniel A. Pollng, the head of the new prohibition coalition called" The Allied Forces," and Dr. Stanley High, the coeditors of the Christian Herald, say: "The fairness, impartiality, and edi­torial integrity of the Literary Digest are recognized throughout the United States wherever magazines are read."

I have had a careful analysis made of each of these polls. The questions in each poll were the same. Let me repeat them:

1. Do you favor the continuance and strict enforcement of the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead law?

2. Do you favor a modification of the Volstead law to permit light wines and beer?

3. Do you favor a repeal of the prohibition amendment? In 1922 the Digest sent out 10,000,000 ballots. Just who were

to receive such ballots was determined by a system that the Digest has not disclosed except to state that it was a method which was arbitrary in its working and wholly impersonal in its selection of voters. The return in 1922 was a little under 10 per cent of the total ballots sent out. This was at the time consid­ered a large return to a questionnaire, and the results in round thousands were, as I have already stated: For strict enforcement _________________________________ 306, 000 For modification to permit light wine and beer __________ 326,000 For the repeal of the eighteenth amendment ____________ 164, 000

Even then it was only a minority of the voters who were satis~ fied with the working of national prohibition. The mod1ficat1on ..

3304 -CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 tsts were the most numerous. Those tn favor of enforcement were second, and the out-and-out repealers were in the last place. Repeal had only a little more than 20 per cent of the total vote.

Let us now come to 1930, after a lapse of eight years. The sec­ond poll was taken, using exactly the same questions. The same general system of selection was used, but double the number of ballots, viz, 20,000,000, were sent out. By 1930 the general inter­est in the poll had so greatly increased that the number of bal­lot s returned was relatively much larger, no less than 24.03 per cent of those sent out. The actual number of ballots received by the Digest was 4 ,897,138. Of these, 85,674 were defective, in that the voter had made the mistake of voting twice. These were not counted in the result, but were tabulated separately. I shall refer to them later in another connection.

Now for the perfect ballots. Again, in round thousands, the vote was as follows: For enforcement-------------------------------------- 1,464,000 For modification to permit light wines and beer-------- 1, 399, 000 Forrepeal ____________________________________________ 1,943,00a

The most important thing for us to note at once is the fact that modification to permit light wines and beer, which led the ballot in 1922, has now dropped to third position, losing no less than 11.76 per cent.

Enforcement, which was second, is still second, but has shrunk 8 per cent, while repeal, which was last, is now first, with a gain cf 19.76 per cent.

A further tabulation by States shows (I have the complete fig­ures here and can give them to anyone who may be interested) that repeal has gained in every State in the Union, and in every Stat-e but nine at the expense of enforcement as well as at the expense of modification. Modification lost in every State, but always to a greater extent to repeal than to enforcement.

Taking the great States of the Middle West, which are so im­portant an index as to the drift of public opinion, and what do we find?

In Illinois the increase for repeal is 23.11 per cent. In Ohio the increase for repeal is 17.22 per cent. In Indiana the increase for repeal is 14.96 per cent. In Iowa the increase for repeal is 12.14 per cent. In Kentucky the increase for repeal is 12.73 per cent. In Missouri the increase for repeal is 21.15 per cent. In Minnesota the increase for repeal is 24.36 per cent. In Michigan the increase for repeal is 27.35 per cent. Taking, now, some of the States of the far West, we find that

California shows a gain of 18.25 per cent; Idaho, 25.41 per cent; Oregon, 17.74 per cent; and Washington, 20.04 per cent.

The largest gain for repeal in the South, as one might expect, is m Florida, which showed an increase for repeal of 23 per cent. Louisiana is close behind with 21.37 per cent and Virginia with 16.16 per cent. The largest gain for repeal of all is found in the State of Wyoming, being 28.15 per cent, but Montana is a close second with 28.12 per cent. In Maine the gain for repeal was 9.59 per cent. ·

In only five States in the Union does the total vote for enforce­ment exceed that of modification and repeal added together, and these States are by no means the most populous nor the most in­fluential. They are Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Carolina.

Now it is true that the modification vote has shrunk in percent­age since 1922 and that the drift has been steadily from modifica­tion either to repeal or very slightly to enforcement; but it is also true that the modification vote is a very large one, being in the 1930 poll 29.12 per cent of the whole vote cast, while the vote for enforcement is still not more than 30.46 per cent.

To have a clear understanding of the drift of popUlar sentiment we must find out if we can with a fair amount of accuracy where in the last analysis the modification vote would go when the sole question is the repeal or maintenance and enforcement of the eighteenth amendment.

Fortunately we have some very illuminating evidence on this point, which is supplied by the eighty-five thousand odd defective ballots to which I have already made reference. Permit me to tell you in the Digest's own words about these ballots. I quote from the issue of May 24, 1930.

"Meanwhile the twice-marked ballots were tabulated tn last week's Digest. There was 85,674 of them all together and 83.147 were marlred for modification and repeal, leaving 2,527 straddling betwe~n modification and enforcement. From this discrepancy, the D1gest draws no conclusion but preserves the neutrality which is its guiding star even through the Armageddon of the prohibition poll."

Unlike the Digest, I will draw the obvious conclusion, namely, that the modification vote which frankly seeks light wine and beer will, if forced to decide between repeal and enforcement favor ra­peal at a ratio of about 40 to 1. So much for the polls. These were taken before the elections in the fall of 1930.

Did the result of the elections tend to confirm or to discredit the result of these polls as to the drift of popular opinion? The

, answer is plain enough. In the last Congress the out-and-out rep.eal vote was only about 70. In the Congress elected last fall, which under normal conditions will assemble in December, 1931, the repeal vote is more than 170. -Every Congressman elected in congressional by-elections this year was opposed to the eighteenth amendment, and I think that when the facts which I am giving you to-day become more generally known, as they will be, that the number of Congressmen in favor of repeal will very greatly increase.

Time w111 permit me to mention but one more bit of evidence but it is of such paramount importance that I can not omit it:

I refer to the findings of President Hoover's Commission for Law Enforcement and Observance, in January of tllis year usually called the Wickersham Commission, after 18 months of intensive study. I quote from page 49 of the report signed by 10 out of the 11 commissioners:

. " The state of public opinion, certainly in many important por­twns of the country, presents a serious obstacle to the observ­ance and enforcement of the national prohibition laws.

"In view of the fact, however, that the prohibition movement received such large popular support and the eighteenth am~nd­men~ was ratified by such overwhelming legislative majorities, inqu~ry naturally arises as to the causes of the present state of public opinion. There appear to be many causes, some arising out of the structure of the law, the conditions to which it was to be applied, and the methods of jts enforcement. Others, in­herent in the principle of the act, may now be stated.

" The movement against the liquor traffic and the use of intoxi­cating liquors for beverage purposes was originally a movement for temperance. The organizations which grew out of this move­ment and were potent in its development were generally in their inception temperance organizations having as their immediate objectives the promotion of temperance in the use of alcoholic beverages and as a means to this end the abolition of the com­mercialized liquor traffic and the licensed saloon, which were the obvious sources of existing abuses. In many of those States where prohibition laws were adopted and saloons abolished, provision was made for the legal acquisition of limited amounts of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes. It was only when the eighteenth amendment was adopted that total abstinence was sought to be established by fiat of law throughout the territory of the United States, or even in many of these States which had adopted limited prohibition laws.

" There are obvious differences, both as to individual psychology and legal principle, between temperance and prohibition. Tem­perance assumes a moderate use of alcoholic beverages, but seeks to prevent excess.

" To those holding this view, the field of legitimate governmental control over personal conduct is limited accordingly. Prohibition makes no distinction between moderate and excessive use. It is predicated upon the theory that any use of alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes, however moderate and under any conditions, is antisocial and so injurious to the community as to justify legal restraint. To those who entertain this view the effort to enf-orce universal total abstinence by absolute legal mandate is logical. There is, therefore, a fundamental cleavage in principle between those who believe in temperance and those who believe in pro­hibition • • •.

"When the original temperance movement developed i~to one for prohibition, the immediate objective was the abolition of the commercialized liquor traffic and the legalized saloon. As be­tween the alternatives of supporting prohibition or the saloon, those who favored the principle of temperance naturally sup­ported prohibition and, by a combination of the two groups, brought about the adoption of the eighteenth amendment and the national prohibition act.

"When th~se measures became operative the situation was changed. The legalized liquor traffic and open saloon were abol­ished, and few desire their return. The question was no longer one between prollibition and the saloon, but whether prohibition or the effort to enforce universal total abstinence by legal man­date was sound in principle. or was the best and most effective method of dealing with the problem. On this question there was an immediate and inevitable cleavage between those who be­lieved in prohibition and those who believed in temperance. Those who favored prohibition on principle naturally supported the law and demanded the most · vigorous measures for its en­forcement. Those who favored temperance on principle • • • looked upon the effort to require and enforce total abstinence upon all the people, temperate and intemperate alike, by legal mandate, as unsound in principle and an unwarranted extension of governmental control over personal habits and conduct. They recognized and insisted upon the exercise of the right of the Government to regulate and control the production, handling, and use of Jntoxicating liquors • • • but did not approve of the attempt to extend that power to the prevention of temperate use under conditions not, in their view, injurious or antisocial. The abolition of the commercial traffic and the open saloon were so obviously steps in the right direction that for a. time many of those holding this view acquiesced in the law or gave it passive support, but as its operations became more manifest and methods and efforts of enforcement developed, this acquiescence or indif­ference changed into nonobservance or open hostility. Thus an ever-widening difference was developed between those groups who by their united efforts for the abolition of the saloon had made possible the adoption of the amendment and the national prohi­bition act.

"Of course, there had been at all times a very substantial por­tion of the normally law-abiding people who had actively opposed the eighteenth amendment on principle. Many of these accepted and observed the law when once it was passed. When it became apparent that the resUlts expected were not being realized, when the effects of the operations of the law and of the methods of enforcement which they deemed inv(tsions of private rights be­came manifest, their opposition became aroused. This opposition was now, for reasons stated above, largely increased from the ranks

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3305 of those who had formerly supported the law to get rid of the saloons but felt that lt went too far-who really favored the prin­ciple of temperance but did not favor prohibition. The cumula­tive result of these conditions was that from its inception to the present time the law has been to a constantly increasing degree deprived of that support in public opinion which was and is essential for its general observance or effective enforcement."

Returning to my first proposition, viz, that the eighteenth amendment either should be retained and enforced or that it should be repealed, I have come to the conclusion on the evidence which I have put before you, and on much which I have no time to mention, that since the eighteenth amendment can not be enforced it should be repealed, and that each State should deal with the matter for itself, with such help only from the Federal Government as can be given by such laws as the Webb-Kenyon law operating under the interstate commerce clause of the Con­stitution.

The plan which I should tentatively suggest for trial in my own Commonwealth necessitates for such trial the repeal of the amendment.

I make no suggestion in regard to the State of Maine. That is Maine's business.

GIVES 9-POINT PROGRAM

Now, assuming that repeal in Massachusetts, we might begin our experiment with a very strict regulatory law which should embody nine important principles. These I have no space to elaborate. They are:

First. All intoxicating liquors should be bought and sold only by a commission (or corporation chartered by the Commonwealth), which should be made up wholly of citizens of the highest class, and they, or it, should have no other business.

Second. The commission or corporation should make no profits, ln which case there would be no object to press sales. No ad­vertising should be permitted. The commission or corporation should be kept out of politics.

Third. There should be different methods in the distribution of spirits, wine, and beer.

Fourth. There should be varying rates of taxation on each class, so that the rate would rise with the increasing alcoholic content of the liquor.

Fifth. Distilled spirits should be sold in strictly limited quan­tities for delivery only at the house of the purchaser and every purchase should be recorded and the hours of sale strictly limited.

Sixth. Wine and beer should be sold by the case only, and only for delivery at the house of the purchaser.

Seventh. There should be no public drinking. LOCAL OPTION PROVIDED FOR

Eighth. There should be local option, namely, the commission's (or corporation's) stores should be established only by the con­sent of the community (town, borough, or district).

Ninth. The whole expense of the commission (or corporation) .should be paid out of the taxes and part of any balance might be used for temperance education.

The freedom of the States to deal with this matter which con­cerns so vitally the habits and interests of the citizen would, m my opinion, lead to much better and more practical legislation than can ever be hoped. for under Federal prohibition.

The subject is far too great a one to be dealt with in the sum­mary manner required by this address, and I am sensible of the inadequacy of my treatment of it.

But the importance of the points upon which I insist is that if supported by public opinion the return of the saloon would be wholly prevented, and the profit from the sale of liquor taken from private hands and either absorbed by the States in taxes, or would remain in the hands of the commission (or corpor:.;~.tion) , to be used by the State either for temperance education in part or wholly in reduction of taxes from other sources.

The chance of success of a State law, passed after careful con­sideration by a State legislature, is much greater than that of any law of universal application passed by Congress for the ob­vious reason that the States do not want the same type of regula­tion, and won't have it, as they have now very effectively demon­strated.

AMERICAN-MINDED NESS

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, on the evening of Jan­uary 11 last Rev. Edward Lodge Curran, Ph. D., dean of Cathedral College, Brooklyn, delivered a radio address on the subject of "American-Mindedness." I ask permission to have the address inserted in the REcoRD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcORD, as follows:

Two hundred years ago one of the greatest men of all time and the greatest American of his own time was born. In early youth he was, with Patrick Henry, a distinguished member of the Virginia Colonial Legislature. At the dawn of middle age he was appointed commander in chief of the Continental Army. In the prime of his life he led the army of revolting America tri­umphantly against the better equipped and more experienced armies of British tyranny. He was first in war. He became first in peace, the first President of the United States. He was a lover of humanity, but he was, first of all and last of all, an American President and an American citizen. Despite the great gratitude he entertained toward France for the material help afforded us in the American Revolution, one of the first acts of his second

presidential term was a proclamation of neutrality, issued on April 22, 1793, keeping America clear of the pernicious politics of monarchical Europe, and saving America from the devastation attendant upon the French Revolution and the long period of bloodshed and suffering that did not end till the Napoleonic monster of France ended his pitiable career as a prisoner on a lonely rock in the lonely wastes of the Atlantic Ocean. In his Farewell Address to the people of America, an address that should be read by every American at the present moment, he warned the country against " permanent alliance with any part of the foreign world."

Two hundred years after his birth and 133 years after his death on the quiet, sunlit slopes of beautiful Mount Vernon, this country which we love, this country which has realized the dreams of humanity more than any other country in the history of the world, stands in need of another Washington. How strange in his ears, were it possible for his handsome figure to move once more amongst us, would sound the congressional oratory about the cancellation of European debts. How strange to his mind would appear the diplomacy of the Department of State of the Federal Government, a diplomacy that insists in meddling in foreign affairs, the result of whose blind and hopeless meddling is a blinder and more hopeless muddling. How strange to his eyes would seem the motley population of our American cities, a population whose discordant variations of blood and race have been the result of a policy of reckless and wholesale immi­gration, without any attempt until a few years ago to regulate the quantity and quality of the immigrant in the interest of a better and purer Americanism. How cutting and just would be his indictment of those who like him have held the powers of leadership but who unlike him have become entangled in for­eign alliances and bartered away the message of his Farewell Address for the present misery and mockery of international prestige and power.

When fifty or a hundred years from now the history of this country shall be written, the story of America will have divided itself into two characteristic periods. Many of the problems of these two periods will be overlapping. Social events and economic forces carry over from one generation to another, and reappear under all forms of political construction. The dividing lines of history are rarely if ever straight lines, rarely if ever accurately designated by the dates set down within our history textbooks for the minds and memories of our growing youth. Historical dates are always convenient. They are seldom conclusive. Run­ning beneath all the forms of our social and economic and intellectual advancement since the beginning of our Federal life in 1789 the spirit of America, like th~ living fire, shall be seen to divide itself into two distinctive and mutually exclusive flames. One shall be the bright and crimson glory of an unadulterated Americanism begotten of the genius of Washington, incorporated in his farewell message, and permeating the national life of America until the opening of the World War. The other shall be a flame of fire and smoke; smoke from the ruined structures of post-war Europe, smoke that has blinded our statesmen to the truly national interest of America. One is the period of Washing­ton; the other is the period of Wilson. To-day, as Mr. William Randolph Hearst has but lately put it, we must reject the policies of Wilson and return to the policies of Washington. If America is to endure, we who constitute the present generation must be­come less European minded and more and more American minded as the years go by.

As the political events of the past 15 years unroll themselves before us we realize that our entrance into the World War was one of the greatest blunders ever committed by this country; we realize th!'tt all the fine phraseology fashioned to fire the imagina­tion and send millions of American youth across the sea to in­carnadine the soil of Europe with their blood and whiten the soil of Europe with their bones was a great international travesty and deception. Not one of the purposes for which we entered the war has been realized, not because we have been unwilling to make the necessary ·national sacrifices but because those with whom and for whom we fought became drunk in the hour of victory and deserted us in the hour of peace. We remained true to them in war. They became traitors to us in peace. We entered the war to make the world "safe for democracy." The Fascism of Italy, the sovietism of Russia, the threatened dictatorship in Germany under the menace of Adolf Hitler are sufficient proof that our dream of making the world safe for democracy was an empty one, and that our deeds in flesh and blood were but empty sacrifices upon an altar of 11lusion and despair. We entered the war to make the world a safer place to live in.

The Orient to-day, because of the crisis in Manchuria, is aflame with the fires of war. France, which still hates Germany with hatred even greater than that which once pivoted around the lost Provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, has a larger and more costly army than she had at the outbreak of the World War. England still insists that she and she alone must be mistress of the seas. Again and again in Italy during the past five years the rattling of the sword in the tyrannical scabbard of Mussolini has aroused Europe to fear, and emphasized ln America the utter tragedy and futility of our sacrifice. A few months ago the Fed­eral Government entertained the Foreign Minister of Italy, Signor Dina Grandi, whose cooings of peace at first might seem to be sufficient recompense for our recent alliance with Italy in the World War. Above those peaceful cooings and giving the lie to their melody and rhythm are the public statements of Mussolini, whom Dino Grandi represented. "We should be ready," said the master of Italy in April, 1927, "at a given moment to mobilize

/

3306 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 and arm 5,000,000 men; we should reinforce our fleet, and our seamen should be so numerous and so powerful that the rumble of their engines shall drown all other sounds. Our wings should veil the sun."

Under date of January 30, 1930, Mussolini renewed his thun­der: "Not only does Italy maintain integrally her right to naval parity with France but further she demands in principle this same right as against the strongest naval power in the world," • • • for words are beautiful things, but rifles, machine guns, ships, airplanes, and cannon are things still more beautiful." And again, on October 28, 1930, the defiance of II Duce was re­peated: " Fascist Italy is an immense legion on the march to­ward a greater to-morrow. Nobody can stop her. Nobody shall stop her." If, in the light of these remarks made by the leader of Italy without any reservations and qualifications, our Federal representatives and leaders in Washington accepted the statement of Dino Grandi when he said, " Our aims and those of your coun­try are identical," their international outlook is as blind and their international activities as hopeless as the outlook and activi­ties of Woodrow Wilson when he allowed himself to be duped by' the deceitful diplomats and avenging autocrats who drew up the mangled and menacing peace treaty of Versailles.

The machinations of European politicians and diplomats since the close of the World War reveal how useless and un-American it is for us to waste our thought and energies in the reconstruc­tion of Europe. Europe has ever hated and despised us. Europe has ever been jealous of our social and economic and industrial progress.

We have been condemned in every leading city of Europe as a Nation of money seekers and as a people whose only God has been the dollar sign. Yet year after year opera singers and orchestra directors and artists of the brush and chisel have swarmed these shores to accumulate a little of the wealth so theoretically de­spised in the press and social circles of the countries they have gladly quitted. Until recently we have permitted hordes of immi­grants, some of them the outcasts and pariahs of foreign nation­alities, to invade our shores where with the equal opportunities offered to all and with a guaranty of free speech and press and assemblage, unequaled by any country in the world, some of them have risen to positions of wealth and influence, while all of them have enjoyed standards of living and modes of working far better than that afforded by the governments of their forefathers. From the purely cultural standJ?oint the army of American tourists have perhaps been more numerically and more deeply apprecia­tive of the works of art of the Old World than those who dwell within the shadows of the Old World cathedrals or who cluster besitle the walls of their famous museums. Appreciation and cul­ture after all fundamentally depend upon education, and the educational system of America from the standpoint of the num­bers educated and money expended and time consumed is un­rivaled throughout the world. When the balance sheet of credits and debits is read with the calm eyes of justice and with the im.­partial mind of the historian, Europe will be found, in all genera­tions since the foundation of this Republic, the undisputed debtor of America.

Far from recognizing this, Europe on the con tracy is preparing to default in the payment of its war debts to America. Europe defaulted at the peace treaty of Versailles. It was the under­standing of Woodrow Wilson that the peace treaty, like the armis­tice, was to be written on the basis of his fourteen points. Before the deceptive practices and fraudulent diplomacy of European leaders every one of Wilson's idealistic policies and pronounce­ments were swept away. As a sop to his diplomatic but forced surrender, the League of Nations was accepted-a league which by actual historical evidence has proven to be the most rusty and creaking assemblage of unsuccessful machinery that the modern world has evolved. Every red-blooded American can thank God this night that the Congress of these United States refused to be a party to its hypocrisy and illusions. America is now about to be robbed of the interallied debts. England and France have impu­dently asserted that the question of interallied debts and German reparations go hand in hand, and that without the payment of reparations the European debt to us can not be paid. In the scheme of international economics such a connection may exist. ll it does exist, the relationship between the two problems was the creation of the allies themselves. They were the Shylocks at the peace table of Versa1lles. In justice, there is no connection between them.

If the Allies default on the payment of their just debts to us, then they have descended to a social status lower than that of the common gambler, whose debts are a gentleman's agree­ment and who never defaults in the payment of them. By a Eeries of readjustments of deferred interest payments we have already canceled a tremendous proportion of the debts due to us; in some cases as enormous as 80 per cent, in other cases as high as 15 per cent. To cancel the debts entirely will mean that future generations of Americans must continue to pay for the World War while Europe shall have money to keep up the race of armaments and to insult the country without whose flesh and blood and energy and industry and money the Allies would never have succeeded. A little while ago the chairman of the board of directors of one of our largest national banks had the impudence to tell a congressional committee that unless the interallied debts were canceled future generations of Germans would be obliged to pay for the World War. That is the type of un-American utterance which must be silenced in America. Wbat, I ask t~e gentleman, of the future generatlo~ 9! .Mner1-

cans in the event that the interallled debts be totally and abso­lutely canceled? American justice demands that the two ques­tions, that of interall1ed debts and German reparations, be sepa­rated in the minds of the Allies and that the Allies take the responsibility for the economic mess into which they have plunged the world because of the greedy paganism which char­acterized the peace treaty of Versailles. In no eventuality should the interallied debts be completely canceled. Any revision should be based upon a corresponding revision in German reparations and upon a promise of the Allies that the money so saved shall not be used, as it is being used in France and Italy, to increase the size and terror of armaments, with their constant menace to the subsequent peace of the world.

The time has come to have an American President and an Ameri­can Senate and an American House of Representatives and an American nationalism. The time has come to close our doors to the army of immigrants that has up to very recently descended wholesaledly upon our shores. The time has come to withdraw from all entangling alliances in the political affairs of Europe. The time has come to oust American international bankers from high places of political power and influence. We wish no part or parcel in the destinies of Europe. We have been duped by foreign politicians long enough. God has given us a sector of the Western Hemisphere whose rolling hills and quiet valleys and busy cities need no European contacts to make them productive or happy or contented. The minds of our citizenry have always been actuated by dreams of peace. We know nothing of the national rivalries that have kept Europe in perpetual warfare for a thousand years and more. We know nothing of the scheming diplomacy that plunged Europe into the World War, enticed us into its fiames, and that would now stigmatize us as a tyrannical creditor 15 years after the loan was contracted for the preservation of the debtor. The Federal Government, both Republican and Democratic, has continued in the misguided footsteps of Wilson. It is time to retrace our footsteps and regain the pathway of Washington. This year will mark the two hundredth anniversary of his birth. May this year likewise mark the birth of a newer era in the history of America, an era that under the leadership of some great American statesman shall be known as the era of American-mindedness, of America for the Americans I

RELIEF OF UNEMPLOYMENT The Senate resumed the consideration of Mr. LA FoLLETTE,s

motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 3045) to provide for cooperation by the Federal Gov­ernment with the several States in relieving the hardship and suffering caused by unemployment, and for other pur­poses.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, in supporting the motion of the able Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FoLLETTE] as co­author of the bill under consideration, I desire to express special thanks for his exhaustive and persuasive presenta­tion of the subject matter. In view of the length of the discussion, I wish to assure the Senate that, so far as prac­ticable, I shall endeavor to avoid covering most of the ground already traversed by the Senator. If I fail in the fulfillment of this promise, it will be through inadvertence, or because the matters referred to again are of such excep­tional importance that they appear to require reiteration.

Mr. President, in view of the ever-changing legislative situation, I depart from my expected remarks to express the hope that the enemies of the pending measure-and I say this the more freely because I do not know precisely who they are-are about to come into the open. The measure is nothing less in essence than an acid test of true Democ­racy, true Republicanism, and true Americanism. If, as reported, the White House is opposed to it, more's the pity. This is the best possible hour and occasion for the Democ­racy of the Nation, which is now being judged by the Na­tion on its ability to govern, to refuse to shoulder the mis­takes of the White House.

However persuaded some opponents of the measure may be, it is apparent that cold-blooded efforts to defeat, in fa~t and theory, any adequate relief legislation, regardless , of consequences, are massed behind the opposition to the pend­ing bill. That being so, no more fundamental question has ever been presented within the walls of this historic Cham­ber. The Webster-Hayne debate on the true boundaries be­tween State and Federal authority, the lightning-charged controversies over secession and. reconstTuction, the stirring encounters over the war-time powers of government and the constitutional rights of individuals were secondary in essential and fundamental importance to the pending meas­ure. The issue may be postponed by a reluctant or tim!d Senate; it can not be evaded. It involves nothing less than the inalienable right of American citizens to life.

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3307 Let it once dawn on the understanding of our people that

a majority of those in this Chamber are willing to see men, women, and children perish for lack of Federal aid, under the scourge of economic disaster for which they are individ­ually blameless, and a new and black chapter of American history will open. American traditions of pioneering hero­ism, noble industry, dauntless daritlg, democratic fellowship, and matehless world-helping generosity will have been trampled in the dust, and a penny-pinching, grasping, heart­less era of concentrated and brutal mastery will have suc­ceeded. And the future, never doubt, will pay the price.

I am not now challenging the sincerity of all here who oppose Federal relief. However, I make bold to say, with­out qualification, that. they fail to represent not only the standards of America's most glorious records, but also the solemn constitutional obligations imposed on every Member of this body.

The drive against Federal relief in cooperation with the States is well calculated to delay and, perhaps, defeat American morale and faith in government, and the con­servation of invaluable good will and even lives of count­less men, women, and children in our country. Let any devious course of delay· be adopted, and the Senate will have made a record which will irreparably stain its reputation.

More than 100 years ago America rang with Pinckney's flaming sentence," Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." If, following the legislative record already made at this session, this body refuses to admit the justice of the pending measure, which is grounded in well-established con­stitutional precedents and safeguarded against abuse, a new slogan of sinister significance and far-reaching consequence Will be heard in America. That slogan, I fear, may be, "Billions for big business, but no mercy for mankind; bil­lioD$ for doles from the people's tax~ for bankers, railroad executives, and financial institutions through government in business and finance corporations, but not one Federal cent for humanity."

Of course, what I am saying is based on certain assump­tions. They are these: That the lives of many American citizens, without fault of their own, are to-day as definitely in danger as if menaced by flood, famine, fire, or earthquake; that local and State agencies and the splendid earlier re­sponses of private charity have broken down, far and near, under the impact of overwhelming human need, and that there is at this hour no stabilizing factor to cope with the overwhelming emergency but the Federal Government, act­ing in cooperation with States, counties, municipalities, indi­vidual contributors, and other local forces and agencies.

Mr. President, in this Chamber, where, if anywhere, the mighty spirits of the so-called dead mingle with the living, we ought to be vividly conscious of the advice the fathers of America would give with respect to the solution of our present grave public emergency. We have heard much here during the present session about appropriating funds to spread the name and widen t~te influence of George Wash­ington. Indeed, some of us on this side of the Chamber the other day smiled at a suggestion from the other side to the effect that a substantial appropriation be made to " sell George Washington to America."

Mr. President, Washington sold himself to America and the world at Valley Forge, 1\ionmouth, and Yorktown. He sold himself even more to posterity when he presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Like music on his ears, as on the ears of Jefferson, must have fallen the great words of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, Washington's advice to this Senate on this day's issue is hung like a banner on these walls in the preamble to our immortal Constitution:

We the people of the United States-

Not" we the bankers"; not "we the railroad magnates"; not "we the monopolists"; not "we the financial institu-tions," but-

we the people of the United States, 1n order to fGrm a more perfect union, establish justice-

How aptly these words fit this hour-insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare-

What does the general welfare now dictate?-and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Cooperating with Washington in those historic days was another American glorified particularly on this side of the Chamber, who should be honored wherever Washington is honored, though the name is naturally less frequently heard during this season of the bicentennial celebration of the birthday of our first President. Why, may we ask, do pilgrims pass year by year from all parts of the world to the tree-crowned heights of Monticello? It is not because Jefferson was the author of the bill for religious freedom in Virginia, though that was an unmistakably worthy achievement. It is not because he was the founder of the University of Virginia, though that fact marks him a~ one -of the builders of our national educational system. It is primarily because in 1776 it was his inspired pen which gave birth to the Declaration of Independence in which man was declared to have an inalienable right to life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness were added, but without the right to life, are, of course, valueless. Throughout the years from then until now Jefferson's message has stimulated men not only of Democratic allegiance, so well represented on this side of the Chamber, but also of every other political faith.

Lincoln was one of the spiritual successors of Jefferson~ He said on one occasion in one of the finest interpretations the Declaration of Independence has ever received:

The declaration contemplates the progressive improvement in the lot of all men everywhere.

Such was Jefferson; and by his light Lincoln endeavored to serve his country. His snccessors who have risen above the national horizon invariably, when liberal, have drawn wisdom from the same fundamental American document.

Ex-President Roosevelt's " square deal "; the generation­long fight for popular rights of a former great Senator from Wisconsin, one of whose sons sits to-day in the same seat of honor, and whose other son is now governor of that State, was essentially Jeffersonian. .

Woodrow Wilson's "new freedom" embraced the vital need of safeguarding the average man, woman, and child in America. Night before last, thinking of the question pre­sented here, I turned to a volume of addresses of the great ex-President. He was speaking on November 18, 1916, as he often did, to the American Federation of Labor; and I re­mind you in this connection that the indorsement of the American Federation of Labor on behalf of millions of American workers is behind the bill which we are now strug­gling to bring before the Senate.

Ex-President Wilson, on that occasion-and I might have .chosen from his works other illustrations of the convictions of his brilliant life-declared:

What I am striving for, and what I hope you are striving for, 1s to blot out all the lines of division in America a,nd create a unity of spirit and of purpose founded upon the consciousness that we are all men and women of the same sort, and that if we do not understand each other we are not true Americans. If we can not enter into each other's thoughts, if we ·Can not com­prehend each other's interests, if we can not serve each other's essential welfare, then we have not qualified as representatives of the American spirit. '

The thing we ought all to strive for is to close up every rift; and the only way to do it, so far as I can see, is to establish justice-not only justice, but justice with a heart in it, justice with a pulse in 1t, Justice with sympathy in it. Justice . can be cold and forbidding or can be warm and welcome; and the latter 1s the only kind of justice that America ought to desire.

In this emergency, Mr. President, oh, for one hour of Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, or. Thomas Jefferson!

Mr. President, it seems proper that I should review for such Members of the Senate as are doing me the courtesy of listening to me the history of the measure before us. It is now, outside of, the presence and knowledge of the two

3308 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 ' authors of this bill, being considered by steering committees

and other groups. It would seem, after the long attention we have given this subject, -that we might have been con­sulted about possible substitutes now being collectively drafted. Nothing of that sort lias occurred, so far as I am concerned.

Before this session of Congress opened I was convinced that there is overwhelming need in America for relief, long disregarded, whatever the reasons. I speak out of years of familiarity with industrial conditions in America, and I think I am not departing from the proprieties when I say that I have at times represented great numbers of industrial workers in the courts of this country and before Federal investigating committees. So persuaded, when I an-ived in Washington a month or so before Congress assembled, I immediately proceeded, by consultation with expert men and women, to obtain answers to certain questions. I dis­patched letters and telegrams to different parts _ of the country, designed to secure the best available advice from those best advised on the relief needs and resources of the country. The problem was approached without preconcep­tions, without consultation with any other person in this body, and with a view to the responsibility resting on a representative of my State under my oath of office.

To my agreeable surprise, instead of receiving an occa­sional answer making random suggestions, I was promptly advised that there were large groups of leading social work­ers in America who desired to confer with Members of the Congress on this highly important subject. Some of those who responded, let me say in frankness, were opposed at that time to Federal legislation. They were invited to Washington, none the less, for the conferences that seemed necessary for a sound solution of this problem. They came; a substantial number of them came; and on different days­mind you, this was before Congress assembled-full-day private sessions were held with men and women of America who know most about the overwhelming relief needs of the country, and are best qualified to advise on the most con­structive way in which to deal with those needs.

On one occasion, with such a group in my office, I natur­ally looked for advice to a former official associate in Wash­ington. I invited him to my office, and he came, my former colleague on the United States Tariff Commission, lion. DAvm J. LEWIS, of Maryland-a man who has risen from the ranks of the coal miners of this country to distinction. In Congress years ago, author of the parcel-post act which has conferred inestimable benefits, especially on the rural sections of America. Later, for eight years, he and I were officially associated as members of the United States Tariff Commission. Later, as is well known, he was unfairly re­tired from that position by a former President of the United States. Happily Mr. LEwrs, within the last two years, has again been chosen by the people of the State of Maryland to support human rights for the people of his district in the Congress.

On another occasion, :rv!r. President, reaching about for additional congressional interest, and recalling the progres­sive conference held in this city a year ago, I turned for further counsel to the distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska [~:Ir. NoRRIS]. The Senator from Nebraska re­sponded and conferred with the visiting experts.

Later I turned to the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FoLLETTE], because in the same progressive conference he acted as chairman of the committee on unemployment. He came to my office and likewise conferred. Remember, these were private conferences in my office with leading social welfare workers of this country, before either the steering committee of the Democratic Party or the steer­ing committee of the Republican Party was gathered in Washington.

These gentlemen joined in discussions. They saw the witnesses. They heard the testimony. Later, without con­ference with the Senator from Wisconsin-who was engaged in the pyeparation of various bills for introduction here­acting quite independently, following the conferences with experts, after weighing their advice, I separat~ repared

and separately introduced here a Democratic measure, if you please, for the protection of the helpless men, women, and children of America. That bill was referred to the Commerce Committee. The same day, subsequent to the introduction of my bill, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FoLLETTE] introduced a similar measure, which I had never seen. It went to the Manufactures Committee. Later, through the courtesy of the senior Senator from California [Mr. JoHNSON] and his committee and the Senate, I had my bill referred to the Manufactures Committee. By it thereafter the two bills of the Senator from Wisconsin and myself were jointly considered.

We held our hearings at the earliest practicable moment, during the Christmas holidays, when other Members of the Senate were enjoying their separate vacations. Day after day we heard testimony which at times almost made the heart stop beating-not from radicals, not from those try­ing to institute a new form of government in America, but from those who love America and are determined to pre­serve its most sacred traditions.

Day after day this testimony was recorded in the com­mittee report, which I venture to say few in this body have read. The evidence piled up, mountain upon moun­tain, until no one, except with a heart of stone, could resist the conclusion that the emergency in America is imperative, and must be answered without delay by the Congress. If not, the cost will be on our own heads, for no one may escape the record.

Mr. President, the bill which ultimately came out of those committee hearings is the joint product of the labors of the senior Senator from Wisconsin and myself. Suggestions have been made on this floor, some were made yesterday, that we ought to have adopted a different course; that we should have consulted governors in the different States, asking them to appeal to the Senate for help.

The best evidence this Nation can secure is in the record. This body is crowded with able representatives of the bar. They know degrees of credibility of testimony as few men in the country know them. The answer to the suggestion made, outside of responses already given by the senior Sena­tor from Wisconsin, is that the best evidence, corroborated again and again, supports the measure which has come from the Committee on Manufactures. You will not procure testi­mony from all the governors of this country combined equal to the record now before the Senate.

We often talk in these times about going to the experts of America. Let us go to them now. We had before the Manufactures Committee representatives of national organi­zations serving in the aggregate millions of people in their various humanitarian endeavors. Outstanding executives added their personal con-oboration, confirmation, and in­dorsement to other indorsements now before the Senate.

What are some of the other indorsements? The American Federation of Labor; heads of Protestant institutions; the National Catholic Welfare Conference of this country; lead­ers of many Jewish welfare organizations, dealing day by day with the practical problems of human need; social-wel­fare workers from far and near; also the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, whose unusually talented president, Mr. Sidney Hillman, testified with intimate knowledge and a flame of feeling about the conditions which confront us. I speak merely of those which spring to mind at the instant. I shall later read into the RECORD, with others, some of these indorsements.

The Senator from Wisconsin referred yesterday in some detail to precedents with regard to relief action set by the Congress of the United States. What he said should, per­haps, be somewhat supplemented. As I recall his statement, he listed some 13 or 14 instances of laws of the Congress dealing with fiood sufferers in this country. I shall en­deavor not to repeat.

He referred to what at tbis moment are significant land­marks and guide ropes for the Congress, namely, the gener­osity of Congress, which in 1906 voted a substantial sum of money for citiz_ens of this country stricken by the California earthquake of that year.

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3309

Later, in 1919, Congress voted a hundred million dollars for the relief of Polish, Austro-Hungarian, and Balkan peoples. The Senator from Wisconsin referred to another

~ instance, that of 1921, I believe, when the Congress voted $20,000,000 for Russian relief.

Permit me to refer to one or two extracts from the mes­sages accompanying these separate occurrences, for they bear on what I said at the outset about American standards and American precedents with reference to the relief of human misery.

In 1906, on April 19, the Senate of the United States passed ... a resolution which read in part:

Whereas the most terrible disaster which has ever taken place on this continent has occurred in the State of California.

- Surely we are in a position to modify that statement ·at this hour. Unfortunately a more tragic disaster has over­taken America in the economic calamity we are discussing.

I omit portions of the resolutions which also stated: Whereas there is m9st urgent need of means to • • • care

for the injured and shelter and feed the homeless.

What is to be said of the present need to shelter and feed the homeless and care for the injured of our industrial disaster?-

Whereas the local administrations w111 for some time be unable to cope with the situation and extend such aid and assistance as is immediately necessary: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the sum of $500,000, or such part thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated • • • to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War in the purchase and distribution of quartermaster's and commissary stores to such in­jured and destitute persons as may require assistance in the dis­trict devastated by earthquake and fire. And the Secretary of War is authorized to use the steamers and other boats and vessels • • • upon San Francisco Bay or adjacent waters in the trans­portation and distribution of supplies furnished by the United States or individuals to and among such destitute and suffering people.

I may say that the amount appropriated by Congress was subsequently increased to a total of $2,500,000.

In 1919-and this is of particular interest to Senators on this side of the Chamber-President Wilson sent a confiden­tial message to Senator Martin and Representative Swagar Sherley, then Members of the Congress, iD. which President Wilson said:

I can not too earnestly and solemnly urge upon . the Congress the appropriation for which Mr. Hoover has asked for the admin­istration of food relief.

Let us remember that Woodrow Wilson is now counseling.

made, but will be content to say that our contribution was in excess of $6,000,000, for the people of far-off Japan. Yet the present Congress now hesitates to vote assistance, under proper safeguards, to assist the several States to relieve the stricken people of our own country.

I .neglected to say in regard to the ..California earthquake appropriation that it was President Theodore Roosevelt who appealed to the Congress on that occasion. Perhaps, since we are speaking of American traditions, it may be well to read a word or two from his statement at that time. Presi­dent Roosevelt referred to the fact that, following the dis­aster in San Francisco, offers of help came to us from all portions of the world. It is one of the bright chapters in our international relations that in an hour when America was stricken the rest of the world rallied generously to our support. President Roosevelt, however, affirmed our ability to bear the burden of our own domestic disaster. He said:

Large sums are being raised by private subscription in this country and very generous offers have been made to assist us by individuals of other countries, which requests, however, I have refused, as in my judgment there is no need of any assistance from outside our own borders, this refusal, of course, in no way lessen­ing our deep appreciation of kindly sympathy which has prompted such offers. A detailed account of the action of the War Depart­ment is contained in the Appendix. Later I shall communicate with you as to the generous part which I am sure the National Government should take in meeting the more permanent needs of the situation.

Returning to the period in which we were dealing, as I stated, with relief for Russia, for the relief of whose people we appropriated millions of dollars, it seems particularly appropriate to read a statement by the present President of the United States which appeared with reference to Russian relief on M_ay 30, 1922, in the Manufacturers News, which was printed in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD, volume 62, at page 7910. This is what was said:

While Russia slowly swings toward the standards that we be­lieve are vital to her recovery and to the point where it is possible to undertake her rebuilding, America has not been remis.s. Be-• fore the next harvest the American relief administration under my direction will have expended more than $50,000,000 in Ameri­can charity-

To be sure, American charity, but out of public funds, voted by the Congress of the United States. in America~ charity on the saving of Russian people from starva­tion and in providing seed for the next harvest. This operation will perhaps do. more than save 10,000,000 of humanity from death. It will through this act of charity-

At the expense, I repeat, of our people-Food relief is now the key to the whole European situation and

to the Eolution of peace. BolsheviBm- It will through this act of charity have saved the soul of the Russian people from an abyss of despair, too terrible for human

This was scarcely more true then than since- expression. · Bolshevism is steadily advancing westward, has overwhelmed

Poland, and is poisoning Germany. It can not be stopped by force, but it can be stopped by food, and all the leaders with whom I am in conference agree that concerted action in this matter is of immediate a_nd vital importance. The money • • • will be spent for financing the movement of food to our real friends in Poland and to the people of the liberated units of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and to our associates in the Balkans. I request that you will present this matter with all possible ur­gency and force to the Congress. I do not see how we can find definite powers with whom to conclude peace unless this means of stemming the tide of anarchism be employed.

Doubtless there are those here who will say that we were then dealing with what was in essence a war emer­gency, as the aftermath of war, when the Congress acted as on these representations. But is there a Senator who will contend that the basic argument is not aptly applicable to the industrial and economic conditions by which America is now a:fllicted?

The Congress voted at that time to feed people in Europe, not, as in the case of San Francisco, $2,500.000, but the sum of $100,000,000, which, as Senators know, was later expended for that and other purposes not wholly within the knowledge of Members of the Congress.

At another time, in 1924, when Tokyo was shaken to the ground by earthquake and ravaged by fire, the Congress again acted to relieve human distress. I shall not read the entire record with reference to the contribution then

There is no part of that final statement inapplicable to present need in this country. Yet the White House remains silent or, as now reported, hostile.

In 19~7 there was a :flood on the Mississippi River, and in that connection it would appear desirable to read from an­other former President of the United States not thus far mentioned. On December 6, 1927, in his annual mes:sage to the Congress, the message appearing in the RECORD of De­cember 8,_ 1927, President Coolidge said, in part:

Appeals for contributions have brought in over $17,000,000. The Federal Government has provided services, equipment, and sup­plies-

That is for dealing with the destitute along the Mississippi River- -

probably amounting to about $7,000,000 more. Between $5,000,000 and $10,000,000 in addition have been provided by local railroads, the States, and their political un.its. Credits have been arranged by the Farm Loan Board. • • • Through these means the 700,000 people in the fiooded areas have been adequately supported.

It is necessary-

May I ask Members of the Senate to mark these words­It is necessary to look upon this emergency as a national dis-

aster. It has been so treated from its inception. Our whole people have provided with great generosity for its relief.

These words may be echoed with reference to America as a whole since the disaster which began in 1929.

3310 _CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 President Coolidge continued: Most of the departments of the Federal Government have been

engaged in the same effort. • • • The Government is not an insurer of its citizens against the hazards of the elements.

That is what we hear now about economic storms: The Government 1s no insurer against economic sto'rms.

We shall always have flood and drought, heat and cold, earth­quake and wind, lightning and tidal wave, which are all too con­stant in their afflictions. The Government does not undertake to reimburse its citizens for loss and damage incurred under such circumstances. It is chargeable, however-

This may be of particular interest to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FOLLETTE]-It is chargeable, however, with the rebuilding of public works and the humanitarian duty of relieving the citizens from distress.

The people in the flooded areas and their representatives have approached this problem in the most generous and broad-minded way. They should be met with a like spirit on the part of the National Government. This is all .one country. The public needs of each part must be provided for by the public at large.

So I say again, as I said in the beginning, we have in the measure before us, or its equivalent, an acid test, confirmed by Democrats and Republicans alike, honored on whichever side of this Chamber, of true republicanism, true democracy, and true Americanism.

1-!r. President, I shall not undertake to review the eco­nomic disaster which has befallen America. The Senator from Wisconsin dealt with force and eloquence with the development of the tragedy which began· to overwhelm us in October, 1929. Since that time America has been passing through the black shadows of economic paralysis. Month after month millions of our steady and self-respecting people, in excess of our normally idle, the precise numbers unfortu­·nately never having been fully tabulated, have faced the deepening want and despair of. prolonged unemployment.

In the same period farm foreclosures-and there are dele­gations of farmers in Washington to-day bearing testimony

•to this-have exceeded those of any other time in our his­tory. Bank failures as we so well know-we have already legislated with reference to that- fact-have been so frequent and excessive that the press has generally glossed over the rapidly mounting total. · Our· domestic industries have slowed

_down their production. Our foreign commerce has tragically .dwindled. Business, so far as it has survived, has painfully marked time, receiving with lessening confidence the reck­less and unfulfilled promises of returnirig prosperity. Com­modity prices, especially · of farm products, have dropped to an unimaginable low level. A widening toll of poverty has been exacted in our land of matchless wealth.

To take one illustration of the c·onsequences of this dis­aster, let me read just a word from a trade report entitled "Standard Trade and Securities," of December 28, 1931. I shall pursue thiS subject but a moment. This report says, speaking of developing conditions as recently as December 28 of last year: Unem~loyment is an inevitable result and the most unfortunate

·phase of depression. It is causative, as well, in that the reduc­tion in ·aggregate purchasing· power involved creates additional contraction in normal working forces and narrows the scope of the consumer market. Employment declined steadily during 1931. Present pay rolls are approximately 20 per cent below those of a year ago, and 31 per cent under the peak of 1929. It . is esti­mated that the aggregate buying power of wage earners, on an annual basis, currently is some $11 ,000,000,000 less than ~ 1929.

• • • Under present conditions, we anticipate that wage reductions wUI be effected in the railroad group-

That was an accurate forecast of unhappy results achieved within the last few days by the railroad management of this country-and in practically all other divisions and units of industry which so far have been enabled to resist the movement. Moreover, a number of groups, particularly steel, which already have . found it necessary to reduce wages, may be forced to make fw·ther reductions.

I pursue the subject no further, because the facts are of · genera-l knowledge.-·

Mr. President, I now pass to the subject proposed for dis­cussion by the Senate under the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FOLLETTE].

Perhaps, first I should give the Senate an indication of what was developed by testimony at the hearings. I shall endeavor to summarize in a different way-and the infor­mation is particularly apt in connection with the figures on our industrial depression--certain evidence of expert social workers before the Committee on Manufactures.

Let us sample the record. The total number of those un­employed and part-time employed in this country about the 1st of January, when Mr. McGrady, legislative representa­tive of the American Federation of Labor, testified before us, was reported by him as follows: 7,500,000 unemployed,· 6,000,000 on part time.

I do not wish to exaggerate, but have no doubt that out of a desire to be conservative his statement was under rather than above the actual facts. In any event, since that time the number has increased. The American Feder­ation of Labor, as indicated by a statement from President Green, placed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the other day by me, now estimates the present unemployed as in excess of 8,000,000. These figures, however, let me digress to say, do not tell the story.

Last May I addressed, at the same time with the Sen­ator from Ohio [Mr. BuLKLEY] and with Doctor Taussig, a former chairman of the Tariff Commission, the Asso­ciated Harvard Clubs at their annual meeting at St. Louis, Mo. On that occasion Dean Donham, a prominent educator, who is at the head of the business ad.1·ninistration school at Harvard, told the Chamber of Commerce of St. Louis that the number of unemployed in this country at that time in his judgment was not less than 10,000,000. These figures, coming from so exceptional a source, were impressive. I later asked Dean Donham the basis of his calculation. -He has merely used accepted figures for the unemployed, conceded to represent the minimum, and has added, on the basis of information which had reached him, approximately 3,600,000 unemployed who were listed as part­time employed. He publicly stated to the chamber of com­merce on that occasion that some 30,000,000 people at that time in this country-approximately one-fourth of our popu­lation-were probably on the verge of want. So I repeat · that the figures given by Mr. McGrady are obviously con­servative; nevertheless, let us take and use them for the purposes of this discussion.

What was the testimony of experts before the Committee on Manufactures as to unemployment conditions in some of our representative cities?

William Hodson, executive director of the welfare council of New York City, testified about the first of the year that the number of unemployed in that ~ity at the time was about 800,000. He said that was five times the extent of normal unemployment: In that great metropolis normal unemploy­ment at that season would have been about 160,000.

Mr. Samuel A. Goldsmith, executive director of the Jew­ish chai'ities of Chicago, testified that about 1,100,000 were unemployed in Illinois, one-third of the possible gainfully employed in that State: He further said that in April, 1930, i..'>J. Chicago 168,000 were unemployed, and in October, 1931, 624,000 people were unemployed, representing 40 per cent of the people able to work.

Mr. J. Prentice Murphy," executive director of the chil­dren's bureau of Philadelphia, stated to the committee-and no one is in a better position to testify on the subject than is he-that in Pennsylvania approximately 1,000,000 people were then unemployed. Mr. Murphy was a member of the committee appointed by. Governor Pinchot last year to re­port on unemployment in that State. With his associates he made as careful a tabulation as possible and reported last July to the governor of the State that more than 900,000 were then unemployed in Pennsylvania.

Mr. de Schweinitz, executive secretary of the Community Council of Philadelphia, testified that in Philadelphia in November, 1931, 238,000 people were unemployed-five times as many as normally. It will . be noticed that the ratio runs about the same in Philadelphia and in Chicago.

Mayor Murphy, of Detroit, quoting from a report of Prof. William Haber, professor of economics in Michigan State

-1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 331f College, stated that in Michigan about the first of the year some 410,000 were unemployed. He added that in Detroit on November 1, 1931, about 125,000 were unemployed and that the families in Detroit being helped a year ago num­bered 22,000, while the families being helped this year num­ber some 48,000.

Let me add the figures as to unemployment in Cincinnati, since we should have as representative a picture as we may get of the industrial centers of America. In Cincinnati one of the most effective social workers came with one of the original groups who advised with other Senators and me, before any bill was drafted for consideration. He was here in November. I remember vividly that he said in sub­stance, " The normal tmemployment in Cincinnati is from four to six thousand at this season of the year. This year it is 42,000, and some 42,000 more are part-time employed." That was in November. Mr. Dykstra, city manager of Cin­cinnati, appea..-ring here a couple of months later, testified that the number of unemployed in Cincinnati was then about 50,000, an increase of 8,000 in two months. The figures were rising with every new tabulation.

Pe;rhaps I should here say something regarding the re­sponses to certain questions which we propounded; I recall that those responses were a source of surprise to those who discussed this question with _leading social workers in this country before the preparation of any proposed legislation.

We asked a number of questions. Let me in part enu­merate them: First, is there national need in America? Second, if there is, what should be done about it? First, is there need which can not be taken care of by States and localities? Second, if so, how shall it be dealt with, by whom, through what agencies, and under what safeguards? What were the final responses? There were, in brief, these:

"The accurate information we have in regard to the ex­tent of relief needs and the funds available for meeting those needs is confined· to approximately 500 cities in Amer­ica." "What are those cities?" "They are the cities with a population, for the most part, in excess of 25,000. They are cities in which we have community chests or some other form of relief organization."

"What," we asked these experts, "are the facts with re­gard to the rest of the country? Do you know the needs of America in the many cities or municipalities, estimated by some as several thousand, between 2,500 and 25,000 in poptt­lation?" The answer was, "Practically nothing."

" Do you know anything about the needs in the rural area of America? " " Practically nothing."

" Oh, yes; there is an occasional Red Cross chapter, there is an occasional local organization, that has some data about its limited region; but as for anything like real knowledge of conditions in this country, we do not have it."

That is not merely th.e statement of these experts. It was, in substance, the statement on the witness stand of repre­sentatives, if I may say so, of the President of the United States. We had-and the Senator from Wisconsin read his testimony in great detail-an extended hearing of Mr. Wal­ter Gifford, president of the American Telegraph & Tele­phone Co., and head of the President's Unemployment Com­mission. He said, in effect-! do not think I exaggerate­that he does not know anything of an accurate sort about ~wo great major inquiries. He would venture no estimate in reply to two questions: "What is the number of unem­ployed in America? " and " What ar~ tbe funds available for meeting the admittedly great disaster?" .

Mr. Allen T. Burns-a noted ·social worker, executive head of all the· community chests of this country, who has ·been in closest contact with lVf_r. Gifford and the Red Cross and the President's Unemployment Commission-had little to report outside of community-chest cities. He admitted, under rather persistent and painstaking examination con­cerning the gravity of the situation, lack of knowledge, and finally, bec2.use it was evident he was. not originally in favor of Federal aid, the need at this hour of Federal assistance.

So we are not confined to a limited group of social work­ers. We are not confined to governors of States who, for

LXXV--209

whatever reason, are reluctant to advertise to the world the respective needs of their States. We have the highest testi­mony of the land as to the overwhelming need about which we have been speaking.

Mr. Gifford said, in substance, on cross-examination; first, · that his knowledge was very uncertain with respect to those regions in which various agencies of the Government and of relief have been functioning. In addition, he said that we have only knowledge of the relief needs of what? Of. about 40,000,000, one-third of 0.11r population. As to the other 80,000,000, Congress, the Pt'esident's Unemployment Commis­sion, community chests, burdened by intolerable responsibili­ties, and the Red Cross, are without definite information.

May I add that we did not limit our inquiries to welfare experts? At the outset of my inquiries I communicated with Mr. Gifford and the Red Cross. If anyone here is interested in the correspondence I conducted with Judge Payne and Mr. Gifford, it is available for inspection. The results were almost wholly negative. Mr. Burns testified in substance to our committee that the Red Cross knew little of an exact sort about conditions in the country. The Red Cross for the most part limits its activities to what are called acts of God. Members of the Senate recall the famous letter of Judge Payne, referred to as the "act of God letter," in which he said in effect that the Red Cross, by virtue of its charter and in the light of its experience, as confirmed by a resolution of its board of directors, is un­willing to serve in the field of economic disaster, and prefers to limit itself to natural disasters which from time to time overtake unfortunate human beings.

So let it not be said that we neglected to consult the Red Cross, or community chests, or the President's Unemploy­ment Commission in preparing this draft of legislation for consideration by the Senate. Quite the contrary. Every step was taken, without directing prejudice or preconcep­tion, to put before the Senate the well-considered judgment of those who have thought longest and hardest on the prob­lem which confronts America.

I said at the beginning that a number of those who first counseled with us were at the outset opposed to Federal relief. I do not know one who desired the Federal Gov­ernment in this field if it could possibly be avoided. I think it is fair to say now that all the members of the groups who met with us, after conference on the facts, after pool­ing their knowledge on the subject of the extent of the economic storm which has swept over America, have de­cided that there is now no possibility of dealing fitly with this problem except through naticnal cooperation with the States and municipalities. I shall read you in a moment some words of some witnesses on that subject.

I turn for a moment, before taking up the testimony, to can your attention to one other aspect of what I am now summar1zmg. I desire to present another phase of the testimony; that is, the extent of the relief loads, as shown by the testimony. · Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senat'Or from Colorado yield to the Senator from Florida?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. . Mr. FLETCHER. I should like to inquire of the Senator whether, in his judgment, conditions have improved at all since November, or whether they are really getting · worse?

Mr. COSTIGAN. According to the reports which have reached us-! think I am correct in making the statement, and I now refer to the Senator from Wisconsin to add his understanding, whether in agreement with or against mine-conditions have grown definitely worse since these witnesses appeared. . :Mr. LA ~OLLETTE. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Just as an indication on that point,

at the time the testimony was taken concerning the relief load being met in the city of Chicago, when the· hearings

3312 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 were held it was testified that they were taking care of about 97,000 families through their . various agencies and through the public agencies. Since that time and very recently I have been infornied-reliably, I believe-that that load has increased to 127,000 families in this brief space of time.

Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado yield to the Senator from Michigan?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. VANDENBERG. The Sen or is constantly develop­

ing, as did the able senior Senator from Wisconsin yester­day, the demonstration of the need. May I inquire whether there is a corresponding exhibit available in the testimony taken respecting the best method of meeting the situation?

Mr. COSTIGAN. If the Senator from Michigan will per­mit, I shall, I hope, before I have concluded, discuss that subject. I prefer to do it, however, in the order I have mapped out.

Mr. VANDENBERG. I shall be very glad to wait for the Senator to reach that point. •

Mr. COSTIGAN. I may pause to say to the Senator from Michigan that on that subject we have, as already indicated, conferred with many who best understand social welfare and relief methods; who have applied them for years; and, so far as I am aware, have their practically unanimous support for the bill which has been presented for the consideration of the Senate.

Mr. VANDENBERG. If the Senator ·will permit me, ·I have undertaken to read the hearings, because I am deeply

· interested. Mr. COSTIGAN. Perhaps I ought to add that I am not

including in my statement Mr. Gifford, who did not, I think, pass on the bill, or certain other witnesses who appeared before the committee whom I should not regard as qualified to pass upon the subject. I do, however, include Mr. Allen T. Burns and practically every other welfare worker who testified.

Mr. VANDENBERG. The thing I was seeking, if the Senator will allow me to indicate, in the reading of this testimony, was a discussion, first, of whether $125,000,000 is sufficient; secondly, whether the method of geographical dis­tribution of a portion of it is sound; thirdly, whether the

. particular method of seeking to match appropriations, Fed­eral and local, is sound. Can the Senator indicate to me whether those phases were discussed by these witnesses at any length?

Mr. COSTIGAN. A number of the witnesses discussed the desirability of imposing certain safeguards in legislation. For example, I will refer to the testimony of Mr. Swift.

Mr. VANDENBERG. I do not want the Senator to be disturbed in the presentation of his views.

Mr. COSTIGAN. I am not at all disturbed by the Sena­tor's courteous inquiries.

Mr. Linton B. Swift, executive chairman of the Family Welfare Association of America, appeared before our com­mittee, discussed certain principles which he said should be kept in view in the framing of any Federal legislation. One, for example, is the opposition which is felt in informed circles to direct grants to individuals by the Federal Govern­ment . .

Another is the conviction that the Federal Government should not set up a great bureaucratic organization in Wash­ington. It was urged by him and by other witnesses-! cite Mr. Swift as one example-that the Federal Government should be particular to leave the distribution of relief funds first of all to the States, and, so far as possible, to established public-welfare agencies of those States. It apparently was the unanimous conviction of those who conferred with us­some of whose statements I have here-that in view of the public emergency which exists, in the absence of public-wel­fare departments, the governors of the respective States should set up emergency organizations through which to deal with this great human problem; that these emergency or­ganizations and the rest should be local, and should

operate, so far as possible, with knowledge of local conditions and with local cooperation.

Part of the problem about which the Senator inquires is of course legal. There is a history here of Federal-aid acts with which the Senator is familiar. Some of the witnesses, and a number of ot]?.er people with whom we conferred on the subject, were of the opinion that the methods applied under Federal-aid acts for agriculture and in other fields, most notably since 1911, a list of which I have here, should be kept in view in this legislation. Those methods have been kept in view.

Under those acts the objective is, so far as possible, the stimulation of local and individual contributions to be given in conjunction with Federal funds. We have been doing that, as Senators know, for years, in the field of road work and other Federal-aid undertakings. The practice of secur­ing as large contributions as possible from localities should be pursued.

Those of us who have been conferring on this subject do not stop there; at least, this bill does not stop there, for the obvious reason that it may be that, while we are seeking local funds, Americans will starv~. Therefore the particular measure which is to be submitted for the consideration of the Senate provides that if local means fail, Federal funds may be employed by local agencies to relieve the overwhelm­ing necessity.

I think I have given the Senator some indication,. of the recommended principles; I have not attempted to list all the principles kept in mind. I shall read later some testi­mony on the subject.

One thing more, however, I should add lest the Senator from· Michigan may think it ignored. That is, there is deepest concern among social workers lest standards of human relief break down. It is deemed highly desirable, and I have no doubt Members of the Senate who are listen­ing will agree, that so far as practicable the relief work shall be done by those who best know how to do it, skilled· people who know how to make a dollar go farthest; that it should be done in ways which will build up instead of breaking down local welfare standard; and that relief funds shall not be used for graft but solely for purposes for which voted. Witnesses who testified before us, as the record will show, were of the opinion that in the bill being considered by the Senate those standards have been safeguarded.

The Senator from Michigan also asked about amounts to be appropriated. With great particularity we requested those best qualified to pass on that question; not whether $125,000,000 would be sufficient, as the Senator stated, because all the testimony showed, and these witnesses averred, that the extent of the disaster can not be tabulated. We asked them whether the amounts fixed in what was then the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FoLLETTE], calling for $250,000,000, and what was then my separate bill, calling for $375,000,000, could be regarded as in any sense excessive. Witness after witness answered, in effect, "Not excessive in any way. The largest sum is not excessive."

Mr. Allen T. Burns, as well qualified to pass on that ques­tion as anyone else, in the light of his intimate knowledge, stressed in strongest fashion his conviction as to the need of national help and that the amount of $375,000,000 is not excessive. Other witnesses said it was regrettable that the amounts considered for appropriation are not larger.

Mr. VANDENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator per­mit an observation?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. VANDENBERG. I would not want the Senator to

think that my inquiry was based upon the suggestion that the amount was excessive. On the contrary, it was based on the thought that if in any degree this legislation should stimulate a local reliance upon Federal aid, the amount is utterly inadequate, and can not possibly approach an answer to the situation.

Mr. COSTIGAN. In answer to the Senator from Michigan, I shall not do more than say that while what the Senator says q1ay be true, in the light of the testimony which has

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3313 been reviewed, it is the general judgment, again, of those best advised, that this legislation is highly desirable, and will advantageously put forward relief in a situation which in no other way that they now know can possibly be met. Of course, Congress will be in session, or may be called in session if an unexpectedly great further emergency shall develop. As the Senator from Wisconsin suggests, the bill is designed to stimulate local giving, and it is hoped that that will be one of the most salutary consequences of the effort.

There are many portions of this country at this time which see no hope of making a loan. If given some assist­ance, there is every sound reason for believing that they will join, and will be able to join, in doing more than they have already done.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, I would like to sug­gest the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDE.NT. Does the Senator from Colorado yield for that purpose?

Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield for that purpose. Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Sen­

ators answered to their names:

SEc. 2. The sums appropriated pursuant to the authoriZation contained in section 1 shall, from time to time, be apportioned by the Secretary of Agriculture among the several States in the manner provided by section 21 of the Federal highway act, as amended, and shall be available for expenditure upon highway projects approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, in the same manner as other funds appropriated for carrying out the provisions of such act; except that no part of such amounts apportioned to any State need be matched by State funds, and except that such amounts may be expended upon highways, streets, or bridges within the limits of municipalities without regard to the limita­tions contained in the Federal highway act, as amended, upon con­struction within municipalities. The work on highways shall be done in such manner as to use the maximum amount of human labor consistent with economy, and preference in employment shall be given to the unemployed. When the Secretary of Agriculture finds that any highway project approved by him in any State 11as been constructed or reconstructed in compliance with the plans and specifications relating thereto, he shall cause to be paid the proper authorities of the State, out of amounts appropriated pur­suant to this act, an amount equal to the total co:>t of such project, and may, in his discretion, from time to time make such payments on such construction or reconstruction as the same progresses; but the total amount so paid to the State shall not exceed the amount apportioned to that State as hereinbefore provided.

" SEc. 3. There is also hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $375,000,000, one-third of which shall be immediately avail­able, for allocation to the several States in the manner hereinafter provided. Not more than $125,000,000 of this amount shall be expended in the fiscal year ending :June 30, 1932.

Ashurst Cutting Kendrick Sheppard "SEC. 4. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to deduct Austin Davis Keyes Shlpstead from amounts appropriated pursuant to section 3 of this act [;0 Bailey Dickinson King Smith much as may be necessary for administrative expenses incurred Bankhead Dill La Follette Smoot hereunder and the balance of the amounts so appropriated shall Barbour Fess Lewis Steiwer be apportioned among the several States in the proportion which Barkley Fletcher Logan Stephens their population bears to the total population of the States of the -Black Frazier Long Thomas, Idaho United States according to the Fifteenth Decennial Census. Such :~~~~ gf~:;e ~~~~~ar ~~~=~~kla. apportionment shall be made by the Secretary of the Treasury Bratton Glenn McNary Trammell within 10 days after an appropriation has been made under the Brookhart Goldsborough Metcalf Tydings authority of this act, and he shall immediately certify to the Broussard Gore Moses vandenberg governors of the several States the amount apportioned to each Bulkley Hale Neely Wagner State. The amounts so apportioned to any State shall be available Bulow Harris Norbeck Walcott for payment to and expenditure by such State for the purposes of Byrnes Harrison Norris Walsh, Mass. this act until the expiration of two years after the date of the Capper Hastings Nye Walsh, Mont. enactment of this act. Caraway Hatfield Oddie Waterman "SEc. 5. Payments to the States of the amounts so apportioned Carey Hayden Patterson Watson shall be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, but no such pay-Connally Hebert Pittman Wheeler ment shall be made to any State until the governor thereof has Coolidge Howell Reed White submitted a request for such payment to the Secretary of the Copeland ~o~s Robinson, Ark. Treasury, accompanied by a statement that the amount so re-

g~:;~~ Kean ~g~!fison, Ind. ~~~s~:~~~af;:s:ft~e;~~o~m;~gb~f~~/~~;~af: s~:~es~ta!f :~~ t:~ The VICE PRESIDENT. Eighty-nine Senators have an- of making any such request the governor shall agree that he will

swered to their names. A quorum is present. make the reports provided by section 6 and shall also state that he Mr. BLACK. Mr. President- will recommend to the legislature of his State and also to the

people thereof such action as may be necessary and appropriate The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colo- to insure the repayment to the United states of all amounts re-

rado yield to the Senator from Alabama? ceived by the State pursuant to such request. The governor shall Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. also include in his statement an estimate of the amount required Mr. BLACK On day before yesterday I offered a pro- for such relief and a list of the agencies within the State by which

the amount requested will be administered. No such payment posed substitute for the measure which the Senator from shall be in excess of the amount shown by such estimate to lle Colorado is discussing. To-day I desire to offer an required nor in excess of one-half of the total amount apportioned amended substitute on behalf of the Senator from Mon- to the State as herein provided. Additional requests may be made

from time to time until the State has received the full amount to tana [1\!rr. WALSH], the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BULKLEY], which it is entitled under such apportionment, but a period of at and myself. I ask that it may be printed and lie on the least 90 days shall elapse between successive requests: Provided, table. That in States where no state-wide board of charities exists, the

The VICE PRESIDENT. That Order Wl.ll be made. amounts allotted to such States shall be distributed by the action

of the State board constituted for controlling the financial affairs Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, it will take some time to of such State.

have the amended substitute printed. Would the Senator "SEc. 6. Reports shall be made by the governor of each State f C 1 d b · t t h · •t d t th· t· ? to which a payment is made pursuant to this act, quarterly, to rom O ora O O JeC O aVIng 1 rea a lS une · the President and to the Senate and the House of Representatives

Mr. COSTIGAN. I am very happy to join in the request (or the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of of the Senator from Idaho. Representatives, if those bodies are not in session) and each such

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the clerk will report shall show the total amount of the payments so made read, as requested. during the period covered by the report and the purposes for

which the amounts received by the State were expended. Such The legislative clerk read as follows: reports shall, when submitted, be printed as public documents. Amendment (in the nature of a substitute) intended to be pro- "SEc. 7. Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, of this act shall be construed

posed by Messrs. BLACK, WALsH of Montana, and BULKLEY to the as intending to secure to the several States control of the admin­bill (S. 3045) to provide for cooperation by the Federal Govern- istration of this act within their respective territorial limits, sub­ment with the several States in relieving the hardship and suffer- ject only to the provisions and purposes of this act. Relief shall ing caused by unemployment, and for other purposes, viz: Strike be administered Within each State under rules and regulations out all after the enacting clause and 1nsert in lieu thereof: adopted by the State authorities.

"That there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any "SEc. 8. As used in this act, the term • emergency relief' means money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of relief in the form of money or commodities furnished to persons $375,COO,OOO (one-third of which shall be immediately available), in their abode or habitation, or in shelters for the transient and for the purpose of the construction and reconstruction of high- homeless, or in the form of wages or other compensation for work ways under the provisions of the act entitled "An act to provide furnished on the basis of need, and made necessary by reason of that the United States shall aid the States in the construction of the emergency growing out of unemployment or other adverse rural post roads, and for other purposes," approved July 11, 1916, economic conditions over and above the usual and ordinary ex­as &mended and supplemented. Such amount shall be in addition penditures for such relief, but not including old-2.ge pensions to any amounts heretofore authorized to be appropriated for such

1

under special acts, or public aid under special acts to mothers !"or purposes, but not more than $125,000,000 thereof shall be expended the care of dependent children, or relief to veterans under special in the fiscal year endlng June 30, 1932. · acts.

3314 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 "Amend the title so as to read: 'A bill to authorize appropria­

tions for the construction of rural post roads in the several States for the purpose of furnishing employment and thereby relieving the hardship and suffering caused· by the existing depression, and to provide for cooperation by the Federal Government with the several States in . relieving the hardship and suffering caused by unemployment, and for other purposes.' "

Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President--The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado

yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. McKELLAR. The senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr.

RoBINSON] has issued a statement analyzing the proposed amended substitute which has just been read. I ask unani­mous consent that his analysis may be read at this time.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado yield for that purpose?

Mr. COSTIGAN. I do. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the clerk will

read, as requested. The legislative clerk read as follows:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBINSON OF ARKANSAS

The substitute bill has two features: The first, to provide jobs by an expanded program of road construction; and the second, to authorize loans to the States for relief to the needy when local resources have proved inadequate.

The provisions of the substitute designed to increase employ­ment are regarded as consistent with the Wagner Act establishing the policy of carrying forward necessary public works as rapidly as may be practicable during times of general unemployment.

To the extent that the accelerated building of highways con­templated by the substitute will give work to many who are now unemployed, the burden on charity, from whatever source, w1ll be substantially diminished.

With respect to the feature of the substitute authorizing loans to the states for emergency relief, it may be pointed out that the Costigan-La Follette bill is unprecedented in that never be­fore has the National Congress been called upon to enact a meas­ure applicable to all States by the appropriation of funds from the Federal Treasury to supply emergency relief to persons in want.

The obligation to provide such relief has heretofore been con­ceded to rest on the States and their subdivisions, and the sub­stitute adheres to that principle to the degree that Federal funds are to be supplied only when it is made to appear from official sources within the States that the resources obtainable through contribut)ons and local appropriations of public funds are in­adequate.

Looking at the problem fairly and frankly, it appears that the amount of the proposed appropriation in the Costigan-La Follette bill is recognized by many of its advocates as the initiation of a movement which, if followed out, may cause the suspension or abatement of private contributions and local public appropria­tions and result in general reliance upon national emergency assistance, which heretofore has been limited to suffering from such disasters as floods, fires, earthquakes, and droughts. In the latter class of cases Congress has resorted to the loan system rather than to gratuities. Sponsors for the substitute adhere to the principle that States and communities must continue pri­marily to bear the burden of those in want and that Federal funds shall be made available only when imperative.

One of the important differences between the Costigan-La Fol­lette blll and the substitute relates to the method of distribution. Under the former a central board is set up in Washington and a Federal bureau is empowered to administer the act, which means further and unnecessary centralization in Washington and the perpetuation of the new agencies proposed in a permanent bureau.

The substitute contemplates the distribution of any funds ob­tained from the Treasury by the States for the purposes of the act through agencies designated by the governor or State boards having jurisdiction of the financial a1fairs o! the States obtaining the loan.

To avoid setting a precedent so far reaching that none can. tell what may be its e.fiect, it should be made to appear in an official way that private and public resources obtainable within the State have been so nearly exhausted that Federal aid is essential to prevent disastrous consequences.

Certainly this test is not measured up to in the Costigan­La Follette bill as presented. There is little evidence that some of the States, even in the opinion of individual witnesses, require Federal aid, although it has been shown, during .the consideration of the blll, that in many communities there is a threatened breakdown of local relief. ·

When we speak of the condition of the credit of the States ana cities as being impaired, it is well to remember that there is an enormous deficit in the Federal Treasury-a deficit that will soon exceed $2,000,000,000--that by no system of Increased taxes pro­posed is it possible to balance the Budget in the early future; that many believe we shall be compelled to find new sources of revenue as well as to increase the income tax.

U we recognize that the primary responsib1l1ty for emergency relief is upon the national rather than upon charitable organi­zations and upon States and the subdivisions having the taxing

power, the draft on the Federal Treasury will threaten to become immeasurable and unlimited.

Sponsors of the substitute do not mean that people shall be permitted to starve, but the substitute does require that before looking to the Federal Government for gratuities, local authorities must meet the responsib1l1ty of rendering assistance to the needy to the full measure of their ab1l1ty.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, because of certain inter­ruptions it was not possible for me to fully follow either the substitute proposed by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. BLACK] and his associates or the explanatory statement of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINsoN]. May I, how­ever, before I proceed, inquire, if the Senator from Arkansas will permit, whether he has any reason to assume that if the substitute shall be adopted by Congress it will be ap­proved by the White House?

Mr. ROBINSON or Arkansas. Mr. President, in reply to the Senator's question, I desire to say I have no information whatever on that subject. I have not discussed the matter with the President and do not know his views concerning the proposed substitute.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, in reference to the final statement in the press release, if I correctly heard that state­ment, I shall take the liberty of reading before proceeding with my argument a statement made by the Senator from Arkansas on January 16, 1931, which is to be found in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Of that date on page 2359. The Sen­ator from Arkansas on that occasion was apparently dis­cussing an amendment to a pending bill, the amendment providing:

There is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treas­ury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $25,000,000 (in addi­tion to such sums as may be or may become available through voluntary contributions), to be immediately available and to be expended by the American National Red Cross for the purpose of supplying food to persons otherwise unable to procure the same:•

In the course of the discussion the Senator from Arkansas had this to say:

I remember, too, that an appeal was made to the Congress to appropriate $100,000,000 to feed hungry and starving peoples in Belgium and other foreign lands; that the banner of the Red Cross was uplifted in sight of the starving citizens of other nations and the relief work done in Europe never hampered or impaired the activities of the great organization through whose e.fiorts relief was carried on.

I remember, too, that in our own land, in numerous instances, a list of which was placed in the RECORD by the Senator from Ten­nessee in an address delivered by him a few days ago, our Govern­ment has made appropriations, and in some cases liberal appro­priations, for the relief of citizens in distress, to provide them with food, to protect them against danger. Now, the question that is presented to the Senate is whether we shall stop wrangling about methods and means and agencies and do something substantial. The worst thing that can happen in this country is going on now, and that is the impairment of the morale of thousands of faithful, loyal citizens who think they are entitled to some consideration and recognition from their Government.

In ordinary times, under circumstances which have no relation to nation-wide distress, charitable organizations may be relied upon; but, in my judgment, it is fairer and better that the whole public should bear a responsibility and a nation-wide burden of this character than that the generosity of our citizens should be relied upon as an exclusive method of providing relief. In some of the great cities of the country already, for a period extending over several months, demands and requests have been made for contributions.

The Senator from Arkansas added: . I respect and admire the Red Cross. I must say, in frankness,

that I do not feel that that great organization has measured up to the standard of efficiency which might have been hoped for in this emergency. Senators may agree with me that when it was said just a few days ago that ample funds were already provided with which to do the work in sight, and that now a nation-wide appeal is being made for more than twice the fund then in hand; that these circumstances disclose either a lack of comprehension of the conditions or a failure to grasp the measure of relief required.

I wish in this same connection, Mr. President, to read a. few remarks made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. BLACK].

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, before the Senator proceeds will he yield to me?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colo­rado yield to the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield.

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3315 Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The Senator may not recall

because he was not then a Member of the Senate that the remarks he has read had relation to a condition that pre­vailed in quite a number of States; that there had been presented to the Senate, unanimously reported by the Com­mittee on Agriculture and Forestry, and passed unanimously by the Senate, bills or provisions in bills sponsored by my­self authorizing appropriations of Federal funds to be used as loans in the relief work to which the remarks read by the Senator from Colorado had reference; that all bills to secure such loans had up to the time to which the Senator's reference relates failed of passage in the body at the other end of the Capitol; they had also been resisted by the admin­istration; and, following that, the provision to which the remarks read by the Senator relate was presented; that I also said, in connection with that measure, that I preferred the loan process; that, in my opinion, it would prove effec­tive when supplemented by local contributions; and finally legislation was enacted authorizing loans to be made in the drought areas, but no gratuity was extended.

I may add, too, that the results of those loans have been highly satisfactory in most of the areas to which they were applied.

It is true that the Red Cross was then administering re­lief, and it is true that the Red Cross then refused to receive a Federal gratuity for administration, on the theory that its activities should be confined to the distribution of funds voluntarily contributed for its purposes.

I still think, Mr. President, that the Federal Treasury should be resorted to only when there is no other method of supplying the demands of those in want, only when the States have exhausted their resources available for that purpose, and when adequate voluntary contributions can not be obtained. That is the principle of the proposed substi­tute. It recognizes that a condition does exist in some com­munities where Federal aid is necessary; but it is contem­plated that the local authorities shall first officially indicate the necessity for a Federal fund, shall indicate their inability to meet the requirements of the situation, and shall under­take to attempt to have the funds repaid to the Federal Treasury.

I shall not further transgress at this time on the Senator from Colorado, and I thank him for yielding to me.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, the able Senator from Arkansas has made a statement in advance of any accusa­tion. His remarks read from the RECORD are relevant to this discussion and were quoted in part because I desired to add his eloquent voice in behalf of the joint bill of the Senator from Wisconsin and myself. The statement of the Senator from Arkansas, however, leads me to ask his atten­tion to a bill known as S. 1234, which passed the Senate about a week ago last Friday. I trust that the Senator, if he speaks further, will comment hereafter on that measure.

The bill referred to is of particular interest to the entire Senate, because it passed this body without a single com­ment or a single dissenting statement, so far as I am aware. It is a bill to authorize an emergency appropriation for special study of demonstration work in rural sanitation; and, while it is not a measure that relates directly to human relief, yet it sets up certain practices so similar to those which, as I understand, the Senator from Arkansas now condemns, that I feel it ought to be brought to the Senate's attention at this moment.

The bill authorizes the appropriation of $3,000,000 for studies of and demonstration work in rural sanitation. Three million dollars were authorized to be appropriated by the Senate the other day without a particle of protest on the ground of the great principles which are being urged upon our attention now-without one voice being lifted in a period when every factor presses for economy, for studies of and demonstration work in rural sa:ni.tation. Personally, I have no objection to the principle embodied in this measure; but, if I understand the position taken by the Senator from Arkansas and others here, the bill runs counter to their contention with. respect to human relief.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado

yield to the Senator from Montana? Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Is that bill ~ny different in

principle from the ordinary appropriations for the Public Health Service?

Mr. COSTIGAN. It contains· this proviso, 1! I may read it, and then I shall answer the Senator from Montana:

Provided, That no part of this appropriation shall be available, for demonstration work in rural sanitation unless the State; county, or municipality agrees to pay such proportion of the ex­penses of such demonstration work as shall be required in regu­lations to be prescribed by the Public Health Service, in which due consideration shall be given to State and local economic condi­tions and human needs, the extent and circumstances of such cooperation in each case to be reported to Congress at the beain-nlng of each regular session. "'

In answer to the Senator from Montana, it is my under­standing that this !>ill .is really in lieu of the customary ap­propriation made to the Public Health Service for that pur­pose. Nevertheless, I venture to call attention to the fact that under this bill, we are appropriating $3,000,000 to be expended with or without local cooperation in the States, as the Public Health Service may decree in rules and regula­tions, in a period when human need in America is indefinitely greater than the need for such an appropriation. When we ask you to deal with human needs, there are those in the Senate who begin to split hairs and draw distinctions which are not applied in the case of millions of dollars to be spent on sanitation in this country.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado

yield to the junior Senator from Montana? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield, Mr. President. Mr. WHEELER. Let me call the Senator's attention also

to the fact that we appropriate each year, and have been appropriating for some time, large sums of money for building roads, to be matched with State funds. If the theory announced here upon the floor of the Senate is cor­rect-that before we appropriate any money for human needs the States should exhaust everything they have, all their resources-then, of course, we should not appropriate a dollar out of the Treasury of the United States for road building until the State itself has exhausted its resources in building its own roads.

I sat upon this committee myself, and I beard witness after witness testify to the fact that in their particular communities they were not able to take care of the needs, and that their States were not able to take care of them. I, for one, may say that I am going to support the bill. I can not see any difference in theory between the idea that the State should exhaust its resources in building public roads before it shall accept money out of the Public Treasury or for any other purpose and the contention that money should not be taken out of the Public Treasury under the circumstances that this bill proposes.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, in answer to the junior Senator from Montana, permit me to say that the great merit of the bill under discussion is that it operates as a magnet to the States and the municipalities to come to the aid of their stricken people in an hour when, oppressed by many responsibilities, they have become hopeless of dealing with their local problems.

The Senator from Montana is entirely right. The whole principle of our later Federal aid acts, on which those who believe in those acts laid greatest stress, is the invitation they afford to the States and the localities "to come through" in the interest of the public welfare. That is the end which, by unanimous testimony of those competent to advise, will be achieved if the measure of the Senator from Wisconsin, to which my name is also attached, shall become a law.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

1\l'"...r. COSTIGAN. I yield.

3316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 Mr. WHEELER. Let me call attention to the fact that

the substitute, as I understand, while I have not seen it, provides that the governors of the various States shall promise to have their State legislatures pay back the money.

In the first place, of course the governor could not bind the State in any way, shape, or form; and it seems to me a rather ridiculous proposition to ask the governor of a State to say that at some future time his legislature or the people of that State will pay back the money. Secondly, if that is the correct theory upon which to base the passage of laws, then we ought also to say to the governors of the States, "Before you can have any of the money that is appropri­ated for ·Federal roads you must agree that your legislature or your State will pay it back at some future time." I can not subscribe to that idea, if I understand the substitute correctly.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado

yield to the senior Senator from Montana? Mr. COSTIGAN. I do. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Without at all attempting to

engage in controversy with my esteemed colleague, I beg to remind him that the appropriations for public roads stand upon an entirely different footing. That legislation is based upon the power of Congress to regulate commerce and to establish post offices and post roads. The interposition of Congress in aid of the construction of the transcontinental railroads was justified upon those two grounds; and that legislation furnished a perfectly substantial basis for appro­priations by Congress for the construction of wagon roads or roads for" other wheeled vehicles.

I think perhaps my colleague will recognize that in prin­ciple the two classes of legislation stand on an entirely different footing.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. President-Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield to the junior Senator from

Montana. Mr. WHEELER. I am not unmindful of the fact that the

legislation can be differentiated in principle upon that theory. Nevertheless, in practice when money for road­building purposes is appropriated out of the Public Treas­ury to be matched by a State, it is not used entirely on post roads, or anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, it is generally used in building a through highway of some kind.

If we are going to stand upon the technicality that the Congress of the United States has not any authority to ap­propriate this money, of course, that is one thing; but when it is stated that before we appropriate this money the States should exhaust all of their resources, then I say that if we stand upon that principle it is no different, in my judgment, from the principle we are applying to this bill.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I was pointing out to my col­league that Congress might, if it saw fit, make appropria­tions entirely for the construction of highways.

Mr. WHEELER. Oh, of course; I appreciate that fact. There is not any question about it; but the principle of the thing, as I see it, is quite different when it is put upon the basis that the State should exhaust all of its resources before it comes to Congress to ask it to take care of human needs. My view about the matter is that the conditions in this country at the present time are such that action by the Federal Government is necessary, and in my humble judg­ment, much as I hate to say it, I think they are going to be much worse in the next year than they are at the present time. I think those who are hesitating about taking money out of the Public Treasury at this time will in six months' time come back here, if Congress is not then in session, and will be doing the very thing that we are asking now, except that they will be doing it in much larger proportion than is being asked at the present time.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, may I suggest to the Senator from Montana, in addition to what he has said, that while under the proposed substitute, if I understand it correctly, negotiations are being conducted, Americans in all probability will be starving.

I neglected to say that the bill to which I directed atten­tion, Senate bill 1234, was, if I am correctly informed, intro­duced in the Senate by the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. ROBINSON].

When interrupted, I was about to quote from language which has relation to the substitute amendment and to the entire discussion of to-day, attributed to the senior Sena­tor from Alabama [Mr. BLACK] in the course of the same debate, in which the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] participated. I quote because I am happy to have the en­forcing strength of the gifted Senator from Alabama in the argument being made by the Senator from Wisconsin and myself. ·

On January 16, 1931, as reported at page 2361 of the CoN­GRESSIONAL RECORD, the Senator from Alabama [Mr. BLACK], speaking apparently on the subject of the proposed appro­priation for the Red Cross, had this in part to say:

What change has come about that made it right back in those days- ·

Evidently referring to the period of our appropriation of millions of dollars to feed the Russians-that made it right back in those days to appropriate money to feed the starving people in Russia, starving on account of a drought, but to-day wrong to take money out of the Public Treasury to feed starving Americans, many of whom are ~tarving on account of identically ' the same cause, namely, a drought? What good reason has been advanced?

A little farther on, the Senator continued as follows: All over this country there are s1milar conditions. Millions

need help. They need it now-this moment. The time has come when every man with his eyes open who looks at the situation fairly and impartially knows that the contributions made volun­tarily are not meeting the situation adequately and fairly and justly, as American citizens have a right to anticipate it shall be met by their Government.

Has the time come when this country worships so at the shrine of wealth and of money that it hesitates to dig down into the Public Treasury to feed the people who are starving in practically every State of this Union?

That, I take it, was good Democratic doctrine in January, 1931, and it is good Democratic doctrine to-day.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Colorado

yield to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. BLACK. I desire to say to the Senator that it was

good Democratic doctrine then and r consider it to be good Democratic doctrine now. When the Senator has com­pleted his remarks I expect to show to the Senate that I have not deviated to the slightest extent from the position I held at that time.

I simply make this statement now, not to get into any argument but because I never then supported and I never shall support a measure such as the one for which the Sen­ator is speaking. I shall show to the Senator the great difference between that proposition, as I conceive it, and this one.

May I be permitted simply to say to the Senator that I think probably there is far less difference between his views and mine than he might infer from reading this quotation. I recognize that this is a national calamity, a national dis­tress, which calls for national legislation. There might be, however, an agreement among Senators as to a national problem but a difference among Senators as to the machin­ery to be put in operation to meet that problem.

I am stating that now to the Senator in order that he may know that I do not retract one word I stated, either of what the Senator read or any statement that was made on that day. I shall not retract it. I still believe that the proposition I advanced was sound. I think the national problem needs to be met by national means; but as to the machinery, I do not agree that the method adopted by the Senator is best for the country, is best for the starving peo­ple themselves, or best for the perpetuity of this Nation.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, as in the case of the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Alabama has made a reply before a charge has been lodged against him. ·

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3317 !\J!r. BLACK. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the

Senator is mistaken as to my making a reply with reference to a charge. Because the Senator had read the statement to which he referred, I wanted to state to the Senator, in inter­rupting his very able presentation, with practically all of which I agree, that the viewpoint I had then I have now. I agreed with almost all the Senator from Wisconsin said, but I do not agree as to the method adopted to meet the situation. It is a difference not in fundamental viewpoint and not as to the idea of the responsibility of the Govern­ment; and I did not take it that the Senator intended what he stated to be a charge. I think our friendship is such, and our general agreement along fundamental principles is such, that the able Senator would not make any charge.

I simply wanted to reinforce what I said on the occasion when I made the statement just quoted with the statement that I repeat it now, not in the exact language but that what I said then I believe to be true now. I have simply been working to bring about the same results sought by the Sen­ator, by machinery which, rightfully or wrongfully, I believe to be the best to set up to meet the situation.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, those of us who believe in the form of legislation being offered to the Senate are happy to have supporting statements such as were made by the Senator from Alabama in January, 1931, whether the Senator goes further with us and supports the particular legislation or not. However, I am distressed to hear the Senator say that while he agrees as to the need and its over­whelming character, he is opposed to the measure which we at this hour are merely trying to bring to the attention of the Senate, and which has not yet been laid before this body.

May I add that in my judgment it is a fair construction of the remarks of the Senator from Alabama a year ago, in January, 1931, that he was not at that time so technical about the means to be adopted to achieve the end sought, as he says, by himself and the rest of us, and, of course, I do not question his word when he says that he seeks the same end.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. BLACK. Of course, it is always easy to use the word

"technical." It covers a multitude of ideas, and frequently it is misleading, though I do not mean to intimate that the Senator would use it with that idea in mind. I do desire to say, however, that I do not believe that my objection to the measure which the Senator has proposed is technical. I think my objection is based upon a fundamental and sound principle of government, which I shall attempt to show to the Senate at a later time.

I do not desire to be placed in the attitude, either inferen­tially or otherwise, of being opposed to utilizing the wealth of this Nation, which has been accumulated by the toil of all the people, to relieve human distress in a perfectly legiti­mate manner. I am not going into detail as to the objec­tions which I have to the machinery proposed to be set up. I do not believe those objections are technical, because I think the experience of all the ages has shown that the very people whom I desire to help by this legislation, and whom the Senator desires to help, can be more injured hy legislation which, in its final analysis, in all the history of the ages of the world, has resulted in a bribery of the people, and taken away that good, sound, solemn discontent which we often have by reason of improper measures, than any other legislation that has ever been offered in all the world.

I object to the creation of a new Federal organization in the city of Washington to tell the people of Alabama how charity shall be dispensed to those who are in need there. I object to having the President of the United States appoint men, even though they are confirmed by the Senate, to determine how charity raised from the wealth of this Nation shall be administered to relieve my people down in my State. I do not think that is technical, and that is the fundamental objection which, personally, I have to the measure which the Senator has offered.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I readily concede that I may be entirely wrong. My views with reference to the proposition may not be supported by logic, precedent, expe­rience, or fact; but I am convinced in my own mind that there has not been in the last generation a proposal made which would in its final analysis be more undermining of the virile strength and vigor and manhood of this Nation than the proposal to create a Federal bureau in Washing­ton to dispense charity, with the great powers it could have to control the politics and the votes of the people of this country.

I beg the Senator's pardon. I do not desire to interrupt him, because, as I stated-and I think the Senator will find the statement accurate-when I have discussed the substi­tute which I have been partially instrumental in offering, he will see that his views and mine are exactly the same as to this being a national problem, and with reference to the necessity for digging down into the national wealth, pro­duced by all the people, to solve the problem. I congratulate the Senator most sincerely and genuinely for the great pub­lic assistance he and his colleague, the Senator from Wiscon­sin, have rendered in having the hearings which they have held in connection with this subject. They have rendered a magnificent public service. But I feel sure, knowin~ the Senator's views and his universal liberality of thought, that the mere fact that we disagree, as we may or may not after he finds our viewpoint as to the method to accomplish the purpose, does not authorize the intimation that the objec­tion is technical. Personally, I think it goes to the very roots and foundations of good, sound, solid government.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Stmator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Montana? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I am prompted to rise because

I think something the Senator from Colorado said just a few moments ago was calculated to lead to the conclusion, in the minds of some people, at least, that he and his colleague, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FoLLETTE], were encounter­ing some tremendous opposition to the consideration of their bill. Speaking for myself, I am unaware of any opposition whatever to the consideration of the bill, and doubtless a vote could have been had, and I have no doubt canied over­whelmingly, long before this time. I give to the Senator the very comforting assurance, of which I am sure he must be advised, that there is not the slightest disposition upon this side of the Chamber at least to oppose the consideration of the bill.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, it is pleasant to have the assurances of the Senator from Montana and of the Senator from Alabama. '\Ve all rejoice when people go with us part of the way, even though they are unwilling to go with us all the way, in the direction of public service. It none the less impresses me as remarkable that all the opposition to this admittedly humane legislative proposal, which has so far developed on this floor, should be on the side of the party of Thomas Jefferson, the party supposed to be dedicated to the welfare of the common man.

I trust tha.t before we are done, instead of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, speaking in figurative terms, we shall be supporting great hu.'nan welfare legislation de­signed to relieve human being i..'l a national emergency.

I had not concluded my quotation from the remarks of the Senator from Alabama. May I preface further reading of them by saying that I desire nothing done or said by me on this :floor to-day to be taken as an attack on the Senator from Alabama. I did, however, say a few moments ago that apparently the Senator from Alabama was not so technical a year ago. This may not be a proper interpolation, because I do not know the Senator's record, but so far as I am aware the Senator has never opposed Federal aid acts on the ground that they constituted bribery to the States. Per­haps he has done so. If so, I withdraw the suggestion.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, I desire to state to the Sen­ator that I strenuously objected to certain Federal aid acts

3318 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE FEBRUARY 3 where it was proposed to h'ave the·m administered, in whole or in part, from Washington.

In the Committee on Education and Labor at the last ses­sion of Congress a bill was up for consideration which pro­vided for the appropriation -of funds with reference to vo­cational education. I stated then that I favored Federal aid in practically all cases for social advancement, that I be­lieved that the wealth of the country was so concentrated in the . hands of a few people in certain favored localities that the time had come when there must be more Federal assistance granted to the States which supplied that wealth.

But there was a provision in the bill to which I refer which left it up to the board here to determine by rules and regula­tions how the money should be spent, and I succeeded in having that provision stricken from the measure. If it had not been stricken from the measure, I stated that I would oppose the bill. There is no question in the world with reference to my position on that matter.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Of course, I accept the statement of the Senator from Alabama. My remarks were admittedly based on· a lack of knowledge of the Senator's record. Neverthe­less, I say to the Senator from Alabama, as I said to the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON], that a week ago last Friday, so far as the RECORD indicates, there was no ?is­sent expressed when the Senate passed S. 1234, appropnat­ing $3,000,000 for special studies of and demonstration work in rural sanitation. The Senator from Arkansas fathered that bill and as already indicated, the distribution of the funds was left to the Public Health Service with a proviso that no part of the appropriation should be available for demonstration work in rural sanitation unless the State, county, and municipality agrees to pay such proportion of the expense of such demonstration work as shall be re­quired-by State action? No! In regulations to be pre­scribed by the Public Health Service. Where? In Alabama? No; in Washington.

I shall now proceed to finish reading the remarks of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. BLACK] which I was quoting a short time ago. I may say that my purpose in reading them is to emphasize the fact that there was a time when there was less emphasis on the particular method to be employed in meeting human relief needs than there appears to be to-day in the Senate, at least on this side of the Chamber.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. Mr. BLACK. I dislike to int~rrupt the Senator. Mr. COSTIGAN. I am happy to have the Senator do so.

The Senator knows my respect for him. Mr. BLACK. I might say to the Senator that it so hap­

pens that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. R~BINSON] and I prepared the particular amendment to which he refers. There was no question of a Federal bureau. There was not the slightest attempt to establish the policy of an ins~itution here in the city of Washington which would contmue to function.

There is not the slightest analogy between the two propo­sitions in so far as method is concerned. If the Senator will look at the amendment he will find that it proposes that the funds shall be distributed through the American Red Cross, and it was only after we secured another amendment which would provide that for which we had been seeking, a loan to the farmers in the drought-stricken areas, that I supported the other proposition.

The main thing to which I want to invite the attention of the Senator is that there is certainly no similarity in the methods proposed in that amendment and this one, ~nd I think the Senator will agree to that.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Ala­bama on January 16, 1931, as shown on page 2362 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, continued as follows;

Shall we continue a method of raising funds simply because we have used it in the past, or shall we adopt the only fair method open to us to-day?

When the tocsin of _ war was sounded in this country in 1917, did we follow the old system of taking into the Army only those

·who would volunteer their services? We did not. When the country was threatened with danger we drafted men into the service by the millions.

To-day we are met with the proposition that we must depend, not upon the only fair system which would enable us to raise the money necessary to take care of the suffering and the destitute of this land, but we must bow down before the old fetish, we must adhere to the ancient method of passing the hat.

I submit that what the Senator was saying was particu­larly attributable to the suggestion that we confine ourselves to voluntary contributions rather than to Federal appropria­tions. Nevertheless in principle there is nothing in the re­marks of the Senator which does not summon every Senator here to forget the" old fetish" which seems for some reason to be dragged across the trail of this discussion of this relief legislation-to forget the "old fetish" and do the thing most effective to aid the starving people of the country. My memory goes back, Mr. President, vividly reminded by what the Senator from Alabama has just said, to the long-past day when it was my privilege to stand above the front lines in France while the war was in progress. As he suggests, the National Government had gone practically into every home. It had taken the flower of the youth of America. It had conscripted them. It had sent them into battle and far too many of them to death.

I realize that the Senator from Alabama is not opposing the treatment of this problem as a national one, but I want to take his remark as a text in part for the use of anyone in this Chamber who has any doubt of the national charac­ter of the problem, to say that a Nation which can send its sons to death owes those sons something in life. We are appealing to the Senate of the United States not to quibble while Americans starve. If there is anyone on this floor who believes that we are not quibbling, in my judgment, he should review the history of this long-delayed, increasingly inevitable legislation.

Of course I am not asking the Senator from Alabama to surrender his convictions. Rather would I go with him on a policy if I felt that it would assure proper relief to the unemployed. But if I understand the substitute which has been submitted here-though my attention was drawn from it somewhat when it was being read-it will neither serve the States nor the Nation and certainly will not serve public welfare standards in the country to anything like the degree to which they will be served by the passage of the bill under discussion. I shall, b,owever, defer any further comments on the substitute proposal either until I have an opportunity to read it, if I am still making remarks on this floor, or until and if, as the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH] suggests, the mution of the Senator from Wisconsin prevails and the bill under discussion comes before the Senate, when the substitute itself may be offered and fully discussed.

I do say, however, without hesitation that the expert judg­ment of America will not be found supporting the substitute measure of the Senator from Alabama and his associates, as it will be found supporting the measure of the Senator from Wisconsin, of which I am coauthor.

Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks I should like to have printed in part, with permission to strike out portions unless there is objection, an article published in the National Municipal Review for October, 1928, entitled " Federal Aid to the States." My purpose in submitting the request is merely to avoid publishing the full article which might be unduly long.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection it is so ordered.

(See Exhibit A.) . Mr. COSTIGAN. The article is submitted because it is

an excellent review of the subject of Federal aid to the States, including the question of the constitutionality of such legislation. It takes up in detail the history of the different types of such legislation which have developed from _ time to time in congressional experience. It reviews the growth of Federal subsidy, States rights and Federal aid, constitutionality of Federal aid, results of Federal aid, forest fire prevention, agricultural extension work, highways, the National Guard, vocational education, vocational re­habilitation, and other legislation. Doubtless it would be

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3319 useful for subsequent consideration elsewhere, if not here, in connection with the legislation we are now discussing.

Mr. President, I have spoken at much more length than was expected without arriving at what appeared to be a more or less inevitable reference -to some of the testimony.

As I said this morning, I shall endeavor to avoid reference to those portions of the testimony which we1·e covered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FoLLETTE]. For the most part it will be easy to do so. In any event it appears to me to be highly desirable that the Senate should under­stand-and many Senators have been too busy carefully to review the testimony-and that the country should under­stand what the evidence taken before the Committee on Manufactures disclosed with respect to certain features of prime importance in the problem now presented to the Senate.

May I say that when our hearings began there was a deep-seated prejudice, cultivated from sources which must be known to Members of the Senate as not wholly unselfish, against any form of Federal legislation for the relief of the needy, however desperate their distress. It therefore ap­peared proper, as some of the witnesses testified, to ask them what their view was on the subject of the dole. It may be of interest to Senators, for certainly everyone ought to know the facts whatever the conclusions, to learn that at the present time in the United States approximately 70 per cent of all the relief funds expended comes from public and not private sources. Most people are unfamiliar with that fact. They have been led by propaganda to assume that the real issue presented to the Congress at this time is whether public funds shall be used to relieve the unfortunate.

The facts show that public funds from the very beginning of our history have been used, and that at this time our entire relief system would break down, with indescribable suffering, if it were not for the use of public funds. It was, therefore, proper to ask questions along the line of what constituted the " dole." The testimony developed, as shown by a report of the Russell Sage Foundation which I hold in my hand, that-

The September relief blil-

That is, for September, 1931-of the 449 reporting agencies-

Namely, those agencies in the country where there is or­ganized relief and which made a report upon their expendi­tures and activities.

The September relief blil of the 449 reporting agencies was $10,822,000; $78,611,000 was the outright relief; $2,211,000 for wage relief. .

And the Russell Sage Foundation report goes on, as fol­lows:

Public departments-

That is, departments operating under public funds paid out of the taxpayers' money-

Public departments administered 73 per cent of the outright relief, 92 per cent of the wage relief, and 77 per cent of the two classes of relief combined.

A year ago 79 per cent of the total relief blil of these same agencies was met from public funds.

The other statements report with the same particularity on the extent of public-fund contributions. Perhaps I should add what is omitted from this report; that is, it does not indicate, by any means, the extent of relief in this country which is given from public funds, for this reason: In many sections of the country, especially in the rural districts, there are no voluntary contributions; all the con­tributions, 100 per cent of the contributions, out of which the public need is met, are from the local · funds, thro·ugh the poor laws. These statistics are confined, as already indicated, to the 449 reporting agencies in the United States.

The conclusion is obvious: We must either abandon the policy of public relief or we must say in regard to the sug­gested legislation that there is some line to be drawn, and that line marks our definite transition to what is contemptu­ously called "the dole." We must pass a technical barrier, and say that it is all right to give county relief, municipal ·

relief, State relief, but the moment we pass to Federal cooperation with the States, to Federal aid, when we make the transition for human relief of Federal aid acts, then, by some curious alchemy, we have established a dole. With that· statement, Mr. President, I want to read a word or two from the witnesses on the subject of the dole.

Mr. William Hodson, executive director of the Vvelfare Council of New York City, testifying before the Committee on Manufactures, said this in part:

I think it important to point out that a very prominent com­mentator on current events, Mr. Walter Lippmann, has an article in the Woman's Home -Companion in which he refers to the dole-­a word, by the way, which I hope this committee will attempt to define so that the country may know what is really meant by a dole. Mr. Lippmann in his objection to Federal relief, apparently based his discussion on the theory that the Federal Government would set up a bureau which is to give relief to individuals. I find myself in hearty agreement with his objection to such a proposition.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Louisiana? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield with pleasure. Mr. LONG. There is no question that the majority of the

Senate understands, from what I have been able to glean on the floor, that some measure of relief is necessary. I take it that the Senator from Colorado is familiar with the substitute that has been offered by the Senator from Ala­bama [Mr. BLACK] on behalf of himself, the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH], and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BULKLEY].

Mr. COSTIGAN. May I say to the Senator that I have not read it. I have heard it read in part on the floor, but in the midst of interruptions.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me tG interrupt him for a moment or two to try to explain what I understand the effect of the substitute to be?

Mr. COSTIGAN. I am happy to have the Senator discuss the substitute.

Mr. LONG. As I understand, it simply proposes that $125,000,000, that is one-third of the $375,000,000, shall im­mediately be made available to the States in accordance with their population, to be disbursed by the States. We have been doing practically that in the State of Louisiana for the last six months. The State of Louisiana did not raise the fund, but by an agreement between the city of New Orleans and the State authorities we undertook to raise a fund of about $100,000 per month, aggregating about $1,000,000 in a year. Up until this time we have had that fund admin­istered by a welfare board appointed by the Governor of Louisiana and by the mayor of New Orleans, and they have done magnificent service.

I do not see what difference it makes whether the fund now proposed is administered by a Federal bureau or a State bureau except that it can be far more efficiently adminis­tered and with less cost by a State bureau than it can be administered by a Federal bureau. For that reason I do not see why we can not get together and accept this amend­ment, so as to give people who are in need some real relief.

In the form in which the bill the Senator is advocating is couched I do not see that it has a great chance of becom­ing a law, but the substitute has. What would be the ob­jection to accepting this amendment and letting the State bureaus dispense the funds?

Mr. COSTIGAN. The Senator from Louisiana· raises a question which the Senator from Arkansas was unable to answer. Has the Senator from Louisiana any assurance that if the substitute bill shall be enacted into law the Pres­ident will approve it?

:r.u. LONG. I do not know what he will do, but· I should be glad to have it presented to him.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield to me?

Mr. COSTIGAN. I am very happy to yield to the Sen­ator from Arkansas.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The Senator _from Colo­rado apparently is proceeding on the theory that he has some as&u.ranoe that if the so-called Costigan-La Follette

3320 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 bill shall be passed the President will sign it. I inquire of the Senator from Colorado whether he has any such assur­ance?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Not at .all, Mr. President. I have not been and do not expect to be in communication with the White House. [Laughter .l

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me, I should like to answer his question. The bill that is now proposed by the Senators from Alabama, Montana, and Ohio will get nearer to the President's hands than the bill the Senator from Colorado is advocating. He will never have a chance to veto the measure of the Senator from Colorado, but he will have a chance to act on the proposed substitute.

Mr. COSTIGAN. The Senator may be a better prophet than some others on this floor, but, of course, one must follow his best light. All that the Senator from Wisconsin and I are endeavoring to do at this time is to bring to the attention of the Senate the best measure, approved by experts~ tested by standards which we like to speak of in regard to Federal legislation, which, in our judgment, it is practicable to enact.

Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield for another question? Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. LONG. What the Senator desires to obtain is quick

relief for people who are starvi.ngJ is it not? Mr. COSTIGAN. Absolutely, and as quickly as possible. Mr. LONG. If we can, within a very short time, get

$125,~00,000 sent to the 48 States of America, which means millions of dollars of actual relief to those who are suffer­ing, that is what the Senator is trying to accomplish, is it not?

Mr. COSTIGAN. The talented Senator from Louisiana has correctly .stated the position of the authors of this bill; but the Senator fails to give us any assurance that if his suggestion is followed, the bill was approved and enacted into· law.

Mr. LONG. Will the Senator permit one further obser­vation?

Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. Mr. LONG. There are a great many States in the Union

that. dislike very much to have Federal bureaus set up to dispense funds. The Senator knows the general inclination of those of us who are supposed to be Democrats along that line. The proposed substitute eliminates that objection to start with, which removes one obstacle. Then it makes the disbursement of the fund far more effective, because the State boards know the local needs. Therefore, if the substi­tute can be passed, and we are trying to get money to peo­ple in need, why should we quibble on form and method? Why not let us take the most feasible and practicable plan we can and send money to those who are in want?

Mr. COSTIGAN. What the Senator has said is of course distinctly in point; in fact, it is entirely in line with the argument which has been made during the day. My strong suggestion-! did · not dare to go farther-to the Senator from Alabama was that be should not insist on some tech­nical question in dealing with this problem of human relief, and I am gratified that the Senator from Louisiana shares the same feeling. From the beginning of the hearings all the way through the consideration of this problem there has been every disposition on the part of the authors of this bill to facilitate a quick decision and the granting of substantial relief under sound conditions.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. BLACK. I did not exactly understand what the refer­

ence was, but I understood the Senator to make some ref­erence to a technical objection on the part of the Senator from Alabama.

May I suggest to the Senator that the substitute provides $750,000,000. The bill of the Senator provides $375,000,000. There is a difference in methods which the Senator seems to think is technical.

If that is true, why should not the Senator from O:llorado abandon his technical objection to a -proposal for $750,-

000,000? Why should we be the only ones blamed if we stand on a technical objection to get $750,000,000 and the other side stand on a technical objection to get $375,000,000?

Permit me to say to the Senator that I do not think either objection is technical; but, certainly, if it is merely a tech­nical objection, then there should be no difficulty whatever in getting together. Since we propose $750,000,000 and the Senator's bill proposes $375,000,000, we should get in hearty accord and pass the bill through immediately.

I may also state to the Senator that from the beginning I have intended to vote to bring up this measure. I think it should be brought up. If the motion had been put, I have always believed it would have been taken up immediately. I am heartily in favor of taking it up and passing the best possible bill in the shortest possible time.

Mr. COSTIGAN. In answer to the Senator from Alabama, may I ask whether the Senator is of the opinion that in this period, in which great stress is being laid on the need for national economy, there is greater likelihood of a bill for $750,000,000 receiving the approval of the White House than a bill for $375,000,000?

Mr. BLACK. In response to the Senator, I may state that I share with him the position he has stated of not being in communication with the White House. I have not requested the White House views. I do not know what would be the views of the White House; but, from a knowledge of the two bills, I am of the opinion that even though the Senator might think the differences are technical, the $750,000,000 bill can be defended upon sound governmental p1inciples.

That bill creates no new bureaus. It leaves the method of distribution up to the states-the States that are best qual­ified to handle it. It tells the people of the state of Colorado that if they obtain some of the Government's funds to relieve distress and for charitable purposes-and, of course, distress exists there-it will be administered by their people, their friends, their associates, instead of being directed by rules promulgated from a bureau in Washington.

I may state to the Senator that it is my opinion. not from any communication from the White House but from a knowledge of the two measures, that there would be a far better chance of securing a signature to the $750,000,000 bill, based upon what I .conceive to be sound governmental principles, than of securing a signature to the other meas­ure for $375,000,000, based in part upon the creation of a new bureau, with new agencies, which, if once created, the youngest man within the sound of my voice will never live long enough to see abolished.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, the bill under discus­sion is not calculated to take relief work out of the · hands of States and localities. It is true, as the Senator has suggested, that Federal funds, so far as practicable, are to be expended under rules and regulations laid down in Washington; but certainly the Senator will not object to safeguarding public funds in this field of necessary Federal legislation. There ought to be, where conditions reasonably so permit, uniformity in the expenditure of funds. The relief should be directed, other circumstances permitting, by those most skilled in social welfare in the respective States. Civil-service safeguards, so far as consistent with immediate relief, should be maintained. Otherwise, the country may eventually be confronted with " pork barrel " and " graft " charges.

It is inconceivable that the Senator from Alabama or any other Senator should object to the modest unifying rela­tion which is preserved in other Federal aid acts between the Federal Government and the States.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield fur-ther? .

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WALCOTT in the chair). Does the Senator from Colorado further yield to the Sena­tor from Alabama?

Mr . . COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. BLACK. I call the Senator's attention to the fact

that under the bill the rules can be promulgated here, and that it is necessary for the State to abide by those rules to the satisfaction of the board in Washington.

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3321~ I am glad the Senator referred to the civil-service l.Vf_r. BLACK. As to the second $375,000,000, it is specifi- '

quota. My State is suffering to-day from failure to enforce cally provided that it shall be loaned to the States upon cer- 1 the civil-service quota so as to give proper representation tificate by the governor that it is needed, and he is also to I to deserving people in the South. An investigation will agree to recommend to the legislature and to the people that ' show that they have been discriminated against time and appropriate legislation be enacted for the repayment of the ' time again, and that another bureau in Washington has loan. ~ proceeded to employ people from the States it sees fit rather Mr. COSTIGAl~. In other words, the loan is to be made I

than to obey the law and employ people from Alabama and in advance of ~ssurances from the States that the money will ' the other Southern States. ever be repaid? j

The point I am making to the Senator is that so far as Mr. BLACK. The Senator is absolutely correct. As was 1

not only this bill but all other bills are concerned, I am brought out in the testimony-which, I may state to the ; opposed to centralizing any more power in the city of Senator, I have read with much interest-there are num­Washington to determine what shall be done to my section. bers of States that by reason Of constitutional inhibitions

I happen to know that my section of the country has been could not make loans without certain authority being discriminated against for a long number of years. Daily I granted. Recognizing this difficulty, and the fact that if a am receiving letters from people who stand high on the civil- State needs the money it should not be delayed in securing service list who can not get employment. Of course, one it, the Senator is absolutely correct in his analysis of the reason or another may be suggested, but the law says that bill. they shall have their part of the quota. They do not get it. Mr. COSTIGAN. Does the substitute provide for cases Why? A Federal bureau in Washington, with the power in which, under State constitutions, it apparently is not to promulgate rules and to enforce those rules, with its permissible to pledge the credit of States in aid of any greediness for power and its greediness for money, employs individuals? whomsoever it sees fit; and, as a result, all we have to do is Mr. BLACK. As I stated to the Senator, the bill simply to look to see how many of the Southern States are below requires as a prerequisite to the loan the certificate of the their quota in the civil-service employment. governor, nqt in the exact language but in substance, that

That is one of the objections, as I stated to the Senator it is necessary in order to take care of the situation and a few moments ago. The Senator's State in times past prob- that he will recommend to the legislature and to the people ably has been discriminated against, though not as much as that the proper enactment be made to repay the loan. the States in the South, because, fortunately, the States in Mr. COSTIGAN. Then, if I understand the Senator, the the South almost always vote right. But this new bureau proposal is that the Federal Government shall make a de­which is to be created here, with the greatest possible power posit with the State rather than a loan to the State, and to arouse thirst throughout the Nation, if it is created and the State will be under no obligation to pay interest on the goes into effect will be the greatest political power that has loan, or to return the principal, unless the legislature shall ever been created to disturb the sound and sober citizenship otherwise provide at some future session. of this Nation. Mr. BLACK. I may state to the Senator that there is, of

How much more in line it is with the principles of Jeffer- course, a difference between a legal obligation assumed in son, to which the Senator and I both adhere, when the Gov- conformity with the Constitution and law and the obligation ernment helps, not to say that the money shall be distributed contemplated by this bill; but in so far as the idea is con­in Alabama and Colorado and other places according to rules · cerned that there would be no obligation on the States, I established by a Washington bureau, but to let them have can not go that far. It is my judgment that there would be the money directly, and then trust the States and the people a moral obligation on the part of the States, and it is diffi.­to distribute it as they should! That is the fundamental dis- cult to believe that the States would not respond to that tinction, or one of the fundamental distinctions, between moral obligation. the substitute and the bill of the Senator. If that be a Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, if I understand the sug­technical distinction; then there is no more reasun why gestion of the Senator from Alabama, tl}e proposal, stripped Senators who have offered the bill, which is the subject of of all legal verbiage, is that the Federal funds shall be appor­discussion, should not give up fighting on a technicality when tioned among the several States, to be repaid by those States the time arrives than why those who are fighting on the only if and when so provided · by the respective State legis-other technical side of the question should not do so. latures.

Mr. COSTIGAN. I shall not now debate with the Senator I want to discuss that subject briefly, much as I regret to from Alabama the subject of the civil service. It appears detain the Senate longer. We have one historic precedent to be but one other of the questions which are needlessly in the form of a somewhat similar deposit of funds, which thrown across the path of early enactment of this indis- was at the time nominally treated as a loan. The deposit pensable legislation. I should like, however, to ask the was made with the 26 States then in the Union. I refer to a Senator from Alabama, since his substitute bill has not measure enacted in 1836, when Andrew Jackson was Presi­been submitted in advance to Members of the Senate, at dent. least to myself, on what basis he would divide the Federal At that time, as ought always to happen under a Demo-funds among the States? cratic administration, the country was free from debt and

Mr. BLACK. I can read to the Senator exactly what the had a large surplus in the Treasury. Andrew Jackson de­bill provides with reference to the method of apportionment: cided that the Treasury surplus, which came largely from

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to deduct from sales of public lands and from tariff duties, might well be amounts appropriated pursuant to section 3 of this act so much distributed among the several States and applied to state as may be necessary for administrative expenses incurred hereunder purposes rather than retained by the Federal Government. and the balance of the amounts so appropriated shall be appor-tioned among the several St ates in the proportion which their Something over $28,000,000 in the Federal Treasury was population bears to the total population of the St ates of the finally. distributed among the States. It was called a loan; United States according to the Fifteenth Decennial Census. it was called a deposit. In essence it was a deposit which

In other words, the law itself makes the apportionment. the States, respectively, accepted as custodians for the Mr. COSTIGAN. Is the money to be given or gTanted to Federal Government.

the States without restrictions? Mr. WhTEELER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield Mr. BLACK. The money referred to in the second sub- to .me?

division of the . bill is a loan to the States. The first $375,- Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. 000,000 is an outright appropriation from the Treasury for Mr. WHEELER. Let me call the attention of the Sena-building public roads. tor to this phase of the subject. The constitutions of a

Mr. COSTIGAN. Is the second $375,000,000 specifically number of the States have provided a certain limit to which described as a loan to the States? the States can go in making loans. Some of the States.

3322 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE_ FEBRUARY 3 have probably already exceeded their constitutional limi­tations.

Now we come along and say to the governors of the States, " We will give you so much money in the event that you will promise to get the people of your State to modify the provision of their constitution and pay back this loan.'' It seems to me that it is not much ·more· than practically to offer the people of a State, when they are in a depressed condition, a bribe in order to get them to violate a solemn promise written into the constitution which they made.

Secondly, it seems to me that no governor of a State can bind the legislature of th~ future. He may not be in office at the time, and I think a· great many people would feel that under the circumstances there was neither legal nor moral obligation to pay the money back.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado permit me to interrupt?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Let me ask the Senator from Mon­

tana as to whether he thinks any conscientioUs governor who ­has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States could comply with section 5 of this pro­posed substitute, which reads:

At the time of making any such request the governor shall agree that he will make the reports provided by section 6 and shall also state that he wm recommend to the legislature of his State and also to the people thereof such action afl may be necessary and appropriate to insure the repayment to the United States of all amounts received by the State pursuant to such request.

Could any governor conscientiously subscribe to that re­quirement when there is a provision in the constitution of his State prohibiting the State from incurring any State debt' at all?

Mr. WHEELER. I can not say what a governor would like to do, but if I were the governor of a State I would not want to do it myself.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield to me?

Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I am surprised that the Sena­

tor from Wisconsin or any Senator should feel that it ought to trouble the conscience of the governor of any State to recoinmend an amendment to the constitution of his State. It does not seem to me that there would be any strain on the conscience of the governor at all. · Mr. LA FOLLETTE. But, Mr. President, the governor

would have to recommend an amendment to the constitu­tion of his State, which he had approved and sworn to up­hold when he took office. If lie did so, he would be forced, regardless of whether he thought the provision in the con­stitution sound or not, to recommend to his State and to the legislature of his State that it be changed.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. If he thought that, he would not subscribe to a statement that he would make any such recommendation. - !\-rr. LA FOLLETTE. Precisely, and the State could not

get any money under the provisions of this measure. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Exactly. Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Senators who are pleading State

rights are now proposing, under this provision of the bill, to force the governor of every State of the Union, whose con­stitution contairis a provision against the State incurring any del1t, to recommend to the legislature of the State and to seek in all good conscience to secure an amendment of the fundamental law of the State, in order that they may re­ceive assistance from the Federal Government in relieving the distress which exists within the borders of the State.

·- Mr. WALSH of Montana. I did not rise to argue the wisdom of this provision at all. I simply rose to call atten­tion to the fact that ·numberless governors have recom­mended amendments to the constitutions of the various States without in any sense violating their oaths of office. If a governor thought that it was very unwise to recommend an amendment and that the considerations were not -suffi­cient to induce him to do so, he would not agree to make the recommendation.

:Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Colorado will yield further, I may say that, in so far as the provisions of the constitution of my State relating to amend­ment are concerned, a proposed amendment must be agreed to in two successive sessions of the legislature and then has to be submitted to the people.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. That is a common provision.· Mr. LA FOLLETTE. So that in practice, at least, should

the governor be able to persuade two successive sessions of the legislature and a majority of the people of the State to amend the constitution, a great number of years would pass before the Federal Government could hope to obtain any refund of money loaned under the provisions of the proposed substitute. I think that merely further emphasizes the fact that the substitute is, in and of itself, not a practicable or workable solution for this problem.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, I thanlrthe Senators for their suggestive contributions to the discussion.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Louisiana? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. · Mr. LONG. I do not understand why the Senator is so

worried about the governor paying the money back. All the governor has to do is to certify that there is an emergency and that the money is needed, and all he has to say is that he will ask the people to pay the money back. If the people do not pay the money back, in the meantime the hungry people have been fed. There is nothing of harm in that.

Mr. WHEELER. If the Senator from Colorado will par­don me, that, of course, would be one way of getting the money, but it seems to me that we should not justify that means of getting it, because it would at least have a sem­blance of fraud to it, as long as the governor actually went out and not only said he believed that the people would pay it back but that he himself would do everything in his power to see that they did. I am not going to vote .for any subter­fuge, and I am not going to vote to encourage the governors -of the various States of the Union to perpetrate a fraud upon the people of the United States or upon the Treasury of the United States.

I think we ought to take one position or the other; we ought to say that we are in favor of giving a direct appro­priation out of the Treasury of the United States to help the people of this country or that we are not. But we should not come here with some subterfuge, and I think it will be looked upon in the country as a subterfuge. For that reason I can not subscribe to it. I would like to see an amendment to the so-called Costigan-La Follette bill appropriating money to build roads throughout the various sections of the country where employment can be given to the farming community; and I think that should be done. But I am certainly not in favor of the second portion of the so-called substitute bill, asking that the governors say that at some future time they are going to try to get their people to pay the money back.

Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Colorado yield again?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. LONG. I do not understand why the Senator calls

this a subterfuge. On the contrary, it is a simple process of getting money for the people by the action of the States, rather than by setting up a Federal bureau. We all know what would be the complications and the difficulties of pro­curing the needed aid to individual counties and local com­munities from a Federal bureau operating in Washington.

Instead of its being a subterfuge, it simply sets up the State as an agency for the distribution of the money. It is inti­mated it would be asking a governor to certify to some­thing he did not intend to do. If the governors of the various States and the officials of the various . States are so unmindful of the needs of the people, and care so little about the actual process of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, that they are not willing to certify that there is such an emergency requirement, and that they will under-

-1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3323

take to pay the money back, then I do not see how the States could comply with the moral requirement necessary to obtain relie{ from this kind of a fund.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, the bill was referred to as a substitute because the authors of the amendment, when they offered it, if I am not mistaken, referred to it as a substitute.

With reference to the suggestion of the Senator from Montana about public roads, it need hardly be said that the authors of this bill are in favor of appropriations for public roads. The only criticism indicated tl'lis afternoon on that subject has been that we should not endanger ap­propriations for human relief by adding to the measure anything likely to bring about an Executive veto. If we are given assurances that the additional appropriation for public roads will aid in securing emergency relief for the starving of the country, of course there will be no objection to such a course.

Mr. BROOKHART. ~:tr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. BROOKHART. I ask the -Senator whether he has any

assurance that the bill providing for direct relief to the hungry and starving will be signed; or will it be vetoed?

Mr. COSTIGAN. As stated when the Senator from Iowa was out of the Chamber, no assurances of that sort can be given by either of the authors of the bill. It is, however, to be hoped that a measure purely for relief in an overwhelm­ing national emergency may, on grounds of public policy, receive Executive approval.

Mr. President, I hope to defer for the time being the fur-ther discussion of the so-called substitute.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. _ Mr. BLAINE. Will the Senator indulge me the oppor­

tunity to suggest to him that legislation providing for high­way construction falls far short of the necessities of the present situation?

I speak with some degree of knowledge on this subject, because we went through a similar but a shorter period of depression in 1921, when I had the honor and responsibility of discharging the duties of the executive office of my State. I invite the Senator's attention to the fact that it takes all the way from 6 to 10 months for the most efficient highway departments in the United States to prepare a highway pro­gram, before work can be commenced upon that program.

Moreover it was demonstrated to me at that time and since that on certain highway construction or certain types of highway, particularly concrete highway, the amount of money paid for labor that actually goes into the pockets of the men who construct those highways does not exceed 8 per cent of the total amount of the contract. Economists will say, however, that it will run as high as 16 per cent. · But even if it does, 16 cents out of every dollar expended will be the only amount that will go towru.'d the relief of the unemployed. The larger portion of those expenditures is in profits to the contractors, the cement companies, and the various industries and interested parties. So that from the standpoint of practical need the men who are to-day starving will be long since dead and gone before we could start a highway program that would in any appreciable degree relieve the present situation.

If the Senator from Colorado will bear with me just for another observation--

Mr. COSTIGAN. With pleasure. Mr. BLAINE. It seems to me, so far as I have observed

the debates on the part of those who have criticized the bill which is being advocated by my colleague and the Senator from Colorado, they have wholly overlooked a very vital thing which is concerned in the whole situation.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Does the Senator mean the critics or the authors of the bill?

Mr. BLAINE. The critics-those who have criticized the bill. It is not a question of what governors may request. It is not a question of what cities may request. It is not

a question of what individuals may request. It is not a question of who is responsible for the present situation.

The present situation is very similar to war, an emer­gency as great as war. Perhaps the actual distress among the citizens of the country is far greater than was any dis­tress during the late war. When we are in war we do not quibble about what governors may request. what cities may need, what individuals may need. There ·is no such quib­bling. A war is of national concern. The responsibility is a collective responsibility; and so in the present situation the responsibility does not rest upon the States, the cities, or the communities. They were not the cause of the pres­ent situation. As sovereign States or cities or individuals, they had m:>thing to do with bringing about the present depression, a depression that is nation-wide. It seems to me that we should not overlook the very essential consid­eration that in the present crisis there ought to be collec­tive action. There is collective responsibility, and that col­lective responsibility can be discharged only by the collective action of the people of the United States operating through the Federal Government.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy. Mr. BLACK. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. Mr. BLACK. I desire to state for the benefit of the junior

Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE] that Alabama can start on a road program next week. Alabama has . the plans · made. They have everything ready but the money. I have that information from the department of my State. There is no question whatever of delay. Immediately after the money has been made available they can arrange to start work.

I desire to state also that I have secured from the Bureau of Public Roads, which may or may not be correct, but they give it authentically, the information that 85 cents out of every dollar goes directly and indirectly to human labor in road construction. I have those figures over their own sig­nature. Not only that but in order to verify it I took it up with them over the telephone and they gave me the number of men who would be employed for a month on a $125,-000,000 appropriation. It would be over 1,000,000 men.

I would like to state also that the amount provided for road construction, whether it be 80 per cent or 16 per cent or 85 per cent is over and above the amount which is pro­vided in the other bill.

Why should we quibble, as• has been said, over which bill shall be approved? Why should we argue and talk about fraud and substitute when, as the Senator has just pointed out, the question is, Will the money go to feed the starving? If the object is to feed the starving, why quibble about which bill shall be considered if one has a better chance to pass than the other? Why raise technicalities on either side? I do not admit that technicalities are raised with reference to the bill, because it contains provisions which I know are fundamentally opposed to every conception of the people in my part of the country. We believe that this work can best be done by the States and through their agencies without the control of a Federal bureau in Washington. We propose not $375,000,000 but $750,000,000. ·If it is only 8 per cent of the $375,000,000 that will give people a job who are now without it; it is worth while.

I invite attention to another thing. There is a provision in my substitute which says that the maximum amount of human labor shall be used consistent with economy. There is a statement in the evidence, which I hope all Senators will read, by the mayor of Grand Rapids, Mich., a most interesting statement, in which he says they have completely taken care of their unemployed by work with pick and shovel and wheelbarrow, and requests that there be no method adopted which might disrupt their plan. They have found that plan satisfactory there. They require each man, as the Senator will recall, to be examined by a doctor; and if he is physically able to work, they give him a job. It is easily

3324. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3. possible to increase largely the percentage of men who have

. performed human labor on road work if the direction which we put in the bill is carried out:

I do not know whether the Bureau of Public Roads is correct or not. Personally, I have a very high regard for that particular bureau with reference to its knowledge of road building and road construction. They give out those figures as correct. I invite the Senator's attention to the fact that that does not mean money paid directly to labor. They figuTe that both directly and indirectly. Personally, it is my judgment that if the legislation passes quickly, as I hope it will, and becomes a law, they will use more human labor than they have ever used on public highways; that they will make that the chief objective instead of the profits which the Senator says would be made by companies selling cement and things of that kind.

Of course, we can not control that completely, but I hap­pen to know that in one county in my State last year with just a small expenditure it was transformed, according to information given me by the people, from a place where gloom and desperation had controlled the entire situation, to a good condition economically simply by a proper road­building program in that county. - It is a vital thing, and while I agree with the Senator that

it is not as big a program as I would like to have, yet Ire­mind him that I have spoken for a · million-dollar appro­priation for public-road building, and I introduced a bill last year and the year before practically in line with the one offered here now as to road construction. I think the Senator either has been misinformed or the Bureau of Pub­lic Roads is badly mistaken as to the number of men who are employed. ·

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Wisconsin? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. Mr. BLAINE. I speak advisedly. I can get the published

information in a public document if the Senator desires or I can give him references to it. The freight charges on road-building material, cement, gravel, and so on, will far exceed the 15 cents to which the Senator refers as left out of every dollar.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Montana? Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Assuming the Senator from

Wisconsin is correct about it-&nd I have no doubt he is-! think the record shows that some 60 per cent of railroad ex­penditures is for labor, so that of the 15 cents paid for freight a very considerable proportion, perhaps as much as 60 per cent, would go for labor, would it not?

Mr. BLAINE. I have not the figures and facts before me any more than the Senator from Montana has, and it would be only a guess.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. The statement is that indirect as well as direct employment of labor aggregates 85 per cent.

Mr. BLAINE. I do not give any weight to the figures suggested by the Senator from Alabama. I know something about this matter from personal experience. I doubt if the department can furnish the Senator with detailed informa­tion that would justify the statement which they communi­cated to him. But that is not the issue at all. I do not want to intrude upon the time of the Senator from Colorado--

Mr. COSTIGAN. I hope that the Senator will proceed. Mr. BLAINE. We could build highways until doomsday

and we would not absorb any appreciable number of the 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 unemployed in ·the country.

Mr. BYRNES. Mr. President-- ·. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator f1·om South Carolina? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield. Mr. BYRNES. The question which Senators are now dis­

cussing was before the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads within the last few days. A copy of the hearings,

which I hold in my hand, shows that the Chief of the Bu­reau of Public Roads stated in a table which he inserted in the record that $1,000 was carried clear thiough a break­down, which showed that $910 was paid for wages and salaries, directly and indirectly, which would be 91 per cent.

I think the hearings have been distributed to-day show­ing in detail the breakdown of the $1,000 according to the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Mr. President, no one here is .disputing, so far as I am aware, the value of a public-works program; but I should like to add one observation to what the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE] has just stated. It is that no public-works program will take care of innumerable -women and children in America who are in dire distress at this hour and will not be reached through wages paid for work on public roads. They have no employable road workers to rely on and are indicative of countless others who will not be assisted by the road program, yet need relief now. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE] properly said that this is the hour for relief. Undoubtedly, too, as he insisted, in some parts of this country, the actual inaugura­tion of a public-..works program will be substantially post­poned even if funds are made immediately available.

In the Senate to-day we are primarily concerned with emergency legislation. The long-time program can wait some further consideration. Our people who are suffering, and in cases dying, can not wait. The S 0 S has been sounding over America and is still sounding. Men, women, and children are going down in the dark waters while unimportant substitutes are being prepared by Members of the Senate who have not even invited their associates into their sessions and have not collaborated with those particularly and faithfully interested in the preparation of the legislative measure under discussion. - Mr. President, a short time ago when I referred to the

deposit of Federal money with the States-for, after all, though nominally a loan, it was really a deposit, subject to all future contingencies-! neglected, I think, to say ex­actly how much of a loan was made in 1836. The precise sum distributed among the States of the Union-26 at that time-was $28,101,644.91. The State of Alabama received out of that fund $669,000 in round figures; Virginia re­ceived $2,198,000 in round figures, the second largest sum; Arkansas, $286,750; New York, $4,014,000. These are illus­trations of the apportionment of 1837.

Mr. President, it is proper to inquire at this time whether this money, which was in the form of a loan, but was actually a deposit, has ever been paid back by any Southern State or by any other State, for all the States in the Union at that time were beneficiaries of this distribution.

I hold in my hand a summary of a full discussion of this one historic example which appears at this late hour to :have been more or less imitated by some Members of the Senate and incorporated into the so-called substitute for the Senate bill which we are discussing.

Debates over the obligations of the States to return the money distributed in 1837, under the act of 1836, have con­tinued in Congress practically down to the present time. One of the most recent debates, I think, according to this report, was in 1911. Through all the years there has been a tendency to bring up the question of the moral responsi­bility of these States to return these funds. It will be ob­served that the constitutional prohibitions about loans, which are to be found in many State constitutions, to some ot which I want to direct attention before I close, are evaded under this sort of a proposal by the method of depositing Federal funds with the States.

May I suggest in that connection that, in my judgment, if the funds are so deposited it does not necessarily follow that they will be fully and faithfully expended to relieve the unemployed or starving in all the States. We are urged to vote from the Federal Treasury to the States funds to be used by the States without ·restrictions from Washington. What has that suggestion to do with the thorough, expedi­tious, and wise relief of human need at this hour in Amer-

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3325 ica? Does such a plan appeal to the constructive states­manship of a majority of the Senate?

It is largely an abandonment--and will prove such if adopted-of any careful proposal to relieve the distressed. Such funds might be used in the States in other ways; they might be devoted to other purposes; they might be dissi­pated while our people are sinking in the everlasting abyss. If I understand it--and I trust I am not misrepresenting it-such is the proposal offered here as a substitute for the bill submitted by the Senator from Wisconsin and myself.

Mr. President, the statement which I have here with respect to our one prior Federal experiment with advances to States was prepared by the Library of Congress. It is long, and I ask permission to incorporate in the RECORD the summary · mentioned, which may be instructive and perti­nent to this discussion. It should follow my remarks.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The summary referred to is as follows: A SUMMARY OF A MEMORANDUM RELATING TO THE DISTRIBUTION TO THE

STATES OF THE SURPLUS IN THE UNITED STATES TREASURY

(Prepared by the Legislative Reference Service) On June 23, 1836, President Jackson signed a bill providing for

the distribution to the States of the surplus in the United States Treasury. The sections providing for the surplus follows:

"S::w. 13. The money which shall be in the Treasury of the United States on the 1st day of January, 1837, reserving the sum of $5,000,000, shall be deposited with such of the several States, in proportion to their respective representation in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, as shall, by law, authorize their treasurers, or other competent authorities, to re­ceive the same on the terms hereinafter specified; and the Secre­tary of the Treasury shall deliver the same to such treasurers, or other competent authorities, on receiving certificates of deposit therefor, signed by such competent authorities, in such form as m ay be prescribed by the Secretary aforesaid; which certificates shall express the usual and legal obligations, and pledge the faith of the State, for the safe-keeping and repayment thereof, and shall pledge the faith of the States receiving the same, to pay the said moneys, and every part thereof, from time to time, whenever the same shall be required, by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the purpose of defraying any wants of the Public Treasury, beyond the amount of the five millions aforesaid: Provided, That if any State declines to receive its proportion of the surplus aforesaid, on the terms before named, the same shall be deposited with the other States, agreeing to accept the same on deposit in the proportion aforesaid: And provided further, That when said money, or any part thereof, shall be wanted by the sald Secretary, to meet appro­priations by law, the same shall be called for, in ratable propor­tions, within one year, as nearly as conveniently may be, from the different States with which the same is deposited, and shall not be called for, in sums exceeding $10,000, from any one State in any one month, without previous notice of 30 days, for every additional sum of $20,000, which may at o.ny time be required.

" SEc. 14. The said deposits shall be made with the said States in the following proportions and the following times, to wit: one­quarter part on the 1st day of January, 1837, or as soon thereafter as may be; one-quarter part on the 1st day of April, one-quarter part on the 1st day of July, and one-quarter part on the 1st day of October, all in the same year." (5 Stat. 55.)

On November 1, 1836, the Secretary of the Treasury "sent a cir­cular letter to the deposit banks, notifying them of the amounts they would probably be called on to transfer to the State treasuries on January 1, 1837, and during the coming year under the provi­sions of sections 13 and 14 of the deposit act." (Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, December 26, 1836, Congressional De­bates, 24th Cong., 2d sess., Appendix, p. 101.)

In his annual message to Congress on December 5, 1836, Jack­son stated that if the future receipts were not sufficient to meet t he appropriations it would be necessary to use a portion of the funds deposited with the States. He continued:

"The consequences apprehended when the deposit act of last session received a reluctant approval have been measurably realized. Though an act merely for the deposit of the surplus moneys of the United States in the State treasuries for safe-keeping until they may be wanted for the service of the General Government, it has been extensively spoken of as an act to give the money to the several States, and they have been advised to use it as a gift, without regard to the means of refunding it when called for. Such a suggestion has doubtless been made without due consideration of the obligations of the deposit act and without proper attention to the various principles and interests which are affected by it. It is manifest that the law itself can not sanction such a sug­gest ion, and that as it now stands the States have no more authority to receive and use these deposits without intending to return them than any deposit bank or any individual temporarily charged with the safe-keeping or application of the public money would now have for converting the same to their private use without the consent and against the will of the Government."

"The surplus in the Treasury on January 1, 1837, was $42,468,-859.97. (Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, September 5,

1837.) On January 3, 1837, a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury setting forth the sums apportioned among the States under the act of June 23, 1836, was laid before the House of Representatives.

Summary of d istribution to the States

Stata>

Meine _________________ ---------------- ___________ ----- ---_ N ew Hampshire __ -----------------------------------------11assachusetts __ --------__________________________________ _

Rhode Island __ ----------------------------------------- __ _ Vermont_ ___ -----------________ ._-------.-----____ .----___ _ Connecticut _______________________________________________ _

New Yor!>: __ • ---------------------------------------------­New Jersey __ ----------------------------------------------Pennsylvania _______________ •• ---------________ •• ---- _____ _ Delaware __________ ----_.---- __ • ___ ---- ________ ------_.-- __ 1\iary land __ ------------------------------------------------Virginia _________ • ____ • ___________ • ________________________ _

.North Carolina ___ -----------------------------------------South Carolina . ____ ---------------------------------------Georgia ________________ -------- __ ------___________________ _

H~i~~~-~-~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: J\'f issouri _ --------------_______ • ____ ----_. _____ -----. ______ _ Kentucky ____ •• --------------------------------------- ___ _ Tennessee _________________________________________________ _ 0 hio _______ ---- ______ • ___ --------------------- ___ ---.------Indiana ___ ----------- ____ -----_. ___ ---------------------- __ Arkansas._ ••• ---------------------------------------------

~~~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Amount to Electoral be depositej

votes during the year 1837

10 $1, 274,451.02 7 892, 115. 71

14 I, 784, 231. 43 4 50J, 780. 41 7 892, 115. 71 8 1, 010, 560. 81

42 5, 352, 691. 2ii 8 1, 019,560.81

30 3, 823, 353. 06 3 332, 335. 31

10 1, 274,451. 02 23 2, 931, 2.37. 3-! 15 1, 911, 676. 53 11 1, 401, 896. 12 11 1, 401,896. 12 7 892, 115. 71 4 509, 780. 41 5 637, 225. 51 4 509, 780. 41

15 1, 911, 676. 53 15 1, 911, 676. 53 21 2, 676, 347. 14 9 1, 147. 005. 92 3 382, 335. 31 3 382, 335. 31 5 637, 225. 51

TotaL _______________________________________________ I---------- 37, 4.6S, 859.97

The deposits were the subject of consideration by the Congress repeatedly. In the course of debate on the fortifications bill-

" Mr. Robertson, of Virginia, looked to the distribution of the surplus as a compensation to his State for the high tariff rates, and to the loss of wealth and population by reason of the west­ward migration. He said:

"'Until the ruling party shall reduce the tariff, or take some effectual method for limiting the revenues to the just wants of the Government, I will vote for a distribution; I call it a distribu­tion, because in truth no one expects a dollar will ever be called for by this Government.'

"Mr. Yell, of Arkansas, saw in the distribution 'what every en­lightened mind can readily discover, a deep and matured plan, conceived and nurtured by the high-tarifi' party, to continue and consolidate their odious scheme of injustice and oppression.'

"In May, 1837, so many banks had suspended specie payment that the law of June 23, 1836, with respect to public deposits be­came inoperative and President Van Buren called a special session of Congress to appropriate funds for the expenses of the Govern­ment. In his message to Congress Van Buren said: "• • • the accumulated receipts into the Treasu,ry would not, with the reserved five millions, be sufficient to defray the un­avoidable expenses of the Government until the usual period for the meeting of Congress, whilst the authority to call upon the States for a portion of the sums deposited with them was too restricted to enable the department to realize a sufficient amount from that source.

"There are now in the Treasury $9,367,214, directed by the act of the 23d of June, 1836, to be deposited with the States in October next. This sum, if so deposited, will be subject under the law to be recalled if needed to defray existing appropriations; and as it is now evident that the whole, or the principal part, of it will be wanted for that purpose, it appears most proper that the deposit should be withheld. • • • I am aware this course wm be productive of inconvenience to many States. Relying upon the acts of Congress which held out to them the strong probability, if not the certainty, of receiving this installment, they have in some instances adopted measures with which its retention may seriously interfere. That such a condition of things should have occurred is much to be regretted. It is not the least among the unfortunate results of the disasters of the times; and it is for Congress to devise a fit remedy, if there be one. The money being indispensable to the wants of the Treasury, it is difficult to con­eel ve upon what principle of justice or expediency its application to that object can be avoided. To recall any portion of the sums already deposited with the States would be more inconvenient and less efficient." (Messages of the Presidents, vol. 2, pp. 1541, 1550.)

"In a letter to Congress, September 5, 1837, the Secretary of the Treasury reported a balance of $42,468,859.97 in the Treasury on January 1, 1837. After reserving $5,000,000 as provided in the law of June 23, 1836, $37,468,859.97 was available for deposit with the Sta~es. The first three quarterly installments had been paid, amountmg to a total of $28,101,644.97, leaving $9,367,214.98 due in the fourth installment, October 1, 1837. (Reports on the Finances, vol. 4, p. 1.)

"The amounts paid to tlle States in th~ first three quarters are shown in the following table: "

3326 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 Amount paid to states, first three quarters

States 1

Maine ______________________ ---------. _________________ ---- __ .--------New Hrun pshire _________ __ ----- __ --------___________________________ _ Vermont _____ ------------------------------___ -----------------------Massachusetts _____________________ __________________________________ _ C' onnecticu t_ __ ______________________________________________________ _ R bode Island __________________ ______________________________________ _ New York ___ ____________ -------_________________________ ------- _____ _ Pennsylvania.. _____ -----_------------________________________________ _ New Jersey _________ -----------------_--------------------------------OhiO------------------------------------------------------------------

iftd~~~~-~==::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: M icbigan.. _______________ -------_ ---------------______ ------------ ___ _ Delaware·--------------'----------------------------------------------

t;:~~:-~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: N ortb Carolina. __________________ -------_--------- _____ ------- ______ _ South Carolina._------------· ____ -------------_______ ------------- __ _ Georgia... _______ _______ ------------_______ -----_____________ -------- __ _

~~1:i~i~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Tennessee _____ ------------_____________ -------_. -------_ -------------

~~s~~~-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Arkansas ______ ------------------------ ____ .--------------------------

Amounts paid

$955, 838. 25 669,086.79 669,086.79

1, 338, 173. 58 764,670.60 382,335.30

4, 014, 520. 71 2, 867,514. 78

764,670.60 2, 007,260.34

860,254.44 477,919. 14 286,751.49 286,751.49 955,838.2.5

2, 198, 427. 99 I, 433, 757. 39 1, 051, 422. 09 1, 051, 422. 09

669,086.79 477,919.14 382,335.30

1, 433, 757. 39 1, 433, 757. 39

382, 335.30 286.751.49

TotaL-----------------------------------------------------·---- 28, 101, 644. 91

1 Treasurer's accounts, 25th Cong., 3d sess., H. Doc. 233, p. 152. "The Secretary of the Treasury continued to carry this sum,

$28,101,644.91, as a balance in the Treasury with the note that it was not available for public purposes.

"In his letter of September 5, 1837, the Secretary of the Treas­ury reviewed the state of public finance and added ' Early legis­lation has likewise become necessary, either to withhold or post­pone, for a reasonable period the fourth installment of deposits with the States, or to furnish such atd as may be necessary to complete them in a satisfactory manner.' An effort had been made to transfer deposits in the western banks to the East in order to meet the October payment to the States, but the banks had been unable to make the transfer. The Secretary of the· Treasury, therefore, suggested that 'the last deposit with the States, not being a debt but a mere temporary disposal of a sur­plus, should be postponed until Congress, in some different state of the finances, when such an available surplus may exist, shall see a manliest propriety and ability in completing the deposit, and shall give directions to that effect. Consequently no further steps will be taken as to the deposit of any part of that install­ment till Congress has had an opportunity to act upon the subject in such a manner as, in the present posture of affairs, its superior wisdom may consider preferable.' (Report on the Finances, Vol. IV, pp. 5-7.)

"The Twenty-fifth Congress convened on September 4, 1837, .and on September 12, Senator· Wright, of New York, reported a bill (S. 1) from the Committee on Finance providing for the post­ponement of the fourth installment of the deposit with the States. (Senate Journal, 25th Cong., 1st sess., 30.)

"Rives, of Virginia, and Calhoun, of South Carolina, endeavored to have the consideration of the bill postponed, but Wright, of New York, and Niles, of Connecticut, urged the immediate passage of finance bills as the means of quieting the general uneasiness by reason of the business crisis." (Congressional Debates, 25th Cong., 1st sess., 7.)

After prolonged debate the following measure was passed, and signed on October 2, 1837.

"The act in its final form ran: "The transfer of the fourth installment of deposits directed to

be made with the States under the thirteenth section of the act of June 23, 1836, is hereby postponed till the 1st day of January, 1839: Provided, That the three first installments under the said act shall remain on deposit with the States until otherwise directed by Congress." (Ibid., 127, 129.)

The question of the postponement or payment of the Federal Government of the fourth installment and the related issue of the return of the three installments already paid the States agitated the Congress from time to time.

" The severe financial crisis did not pass without again raising the question of the actual status of the funds deposited with the States. Were those funds deposits for safekeeping; were they gifts or loans? Mr. Hubbard, of New Hampshire, in a speech of February 18, 1840, stated that the $28,000,000 deposited with the States under the act of June 23, 1836, must be added to any esti­mate of the total State debt. He said that every State regarded it as a part of their debt. He said his own State had instructed her representatives in Congress to oppose every measure intended to relieve the States of their liability to return the deposits to the Treasury when demanded. (Congressional Globe, 26th Cong., 1st sess., Appendix, p. 198.)

" Some States regarded the fourth installment a debt owed them by the Federal Government. For several years Congress was deeply concerned with financial relief of the States. A dis­tribution of the proceeds of the sales of public lands was offered as a solution by Western States, while assumption of the whole State debt by the Federal Government was proposed by many Stat-es."

"In his annual report of December 7, 1840, the Secretary of the Treasury stated that he did not regard it sound policy to issue Treasury notes or bonds to meet the anticipated deficiency after 1842. He said:

"'When we possessed an extraordinary surplus it was considered prudent by Congress to make deposits with the States, with a view to be returned in an exigency, rather than to invest a portion of it safely and productively, so as to be realize.d in such an event. It would, therefore, be consistent with that arrangement to recall in 1842 such part of the surplus as may then. be needed. That course, however, appears not very likely to be adopted, since the former power given to this department to recall these deposits has 'been taken away by Congress.' (House Journal, 36th Cong., 1st sess, 1143.)

"The debate in the ensu1ng session of Congress turned more often to the question of further distributions, not of the surplus, to be sure, for there was none, but of the proceeds from the sales of public lands. Benton, of Missouri, warned those who favored distribution of the proceeds that the Treasury would have a deficit .if deprived of this source of revenue, which could only be met by loans or higher taxes. Four years ago, Benton said; he had warned Congress that when the States once began to receive money from the Federal Treasury they would go on supplying themselves until the Federal Government was stripped of its property and its money.

" 'The twenty-seventh millions deposited with the States until needed for the uses of the Federal Government have been needed, are now needed, and can not be had. They are gone forever. The public man is not in existence who dares to call for it or any part of it.'"

Bills providing for the recovery of the amounts deposited with the States were introduced from time to time, as well as those authorizing payment of the postponed installment.

"On December 16, 1879, Mr. Davis, of West Virginia, introduced a bill (S. 877) to relieve the Treasurer of the United States from the amount now charged to htm and deposited with the several States. (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 46th Cong., 2d sess., p. 124.) Mr. Davis explained that the $28,000,000 that had been deposited with the States under the act of June 23, 1836, had to be caiTied in every Treasury account, noted, and deducted or added. He had consulted with Treasury officers on the bill before introducing it. (S. Misc. Doc. 55, 46th Cong., 2d sess.) The bill provided an ap­propriation to meet the $28,000,000 and balance the Treasurer's accounts.

"On January 14, 1880, Mr. Davis reported the bill (S. 877) from the Committee on Appropriations with an amendment pro­viding for the repeal of all laws or parts of laws authorizing a call upon the States to repay the money.

"Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, vigorously opposed the bill. He stated that this was clearly taxation for the sake of distribution. He was a young man just beginning to practice law in Ohio at the time the act of 1836 passed. The biU could not have passed in 1836, he said, if the constitutional objection had not been over­come by making the distribution a deposit instead of a gift.

"Mr. Thurman continued: "'Some of the States refused to receive the money for a while.

The old Commonwealth of Virginia refused for a good while to receive it; but at last, when all her sisters had surrendered their virtue in the premises, she gave way, too, and took her share, and so in time it came to pass that every State had a large slice of this money. My own State, if I recollect aright, got some $2,000,000, and then sent it to the county commissioners, to be loaned out to the people on good bond and security and real-estate mortgages. How much it cost the State to get it back never will be found out. Whether she ever did get it all back I do not know.'

"Mr. Johnston, of Virginia, asked Mr. Davis whether Virginia had ever received her share. He was of the opinion that the Federal Government had paid over Virginia's share to the State government at Wheeling, during the war.

"To that question Mr. Davis was unable to reply. He said that probably no one believed that the money would ever be collected. As a matter of convenience to the Treasury officers he wanted it taken off the books.

"On March 11, 1880, Mr. Davis, of West Virginia, asked leave to bring in a similar bill authorizing the Treasury officers to credit the United States with unavailable funds under the deposit act of 1836, but it provided for no appropriation. The fund was to be carried in the accounts as a debt of the States. (Senate bills, 46th Cong., No. 1458.) No action was taken on the bill.

"Mr. Teller, of Colorado, computed the interest on the deposit at 4 per cent, and found it amounted to $134,000,000. When west­ern Senators had brought in a bill providing for a grant of 5 per cent of the sales of public lands, the States which were now trying to get a clear gift of $28,000,000 had charged the West with making a raid upon the Treasury. Colorado had had to build an agricultural college at State expense because she had not been able to get a member on the Committee on Education, and that committee would never report a bill for an agricultural college. Mr. Teller said he was very certain that the Government would never collect the money deposited with the States, yet there were Members in both Houses of Congress· that denied the power of the Government to donate money to the States.

"Senator Conkling, of New York, maintained that what had been intended as a call loan was effectively a gift. The States had treated it as such, incorporating it into their funds, and Con­gress had stood by all these years, permitting the States to assume that no liability was ever to be enforced. That amounted to an estoppel and any court of law would grant the fullest right to the creditor if the case were one between individuals.

•

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3327 "Mr. Blaine, of Maine, pronounced the deposit act a great pub­

lic folly growing out of the extreme views of the day as to the limitation of the power of Congress to use the resources of the Federal Government for internal improvements. Any attempt to recall the money now would work a great injustice. In Maine the fund was divided per capita. If the deposit were recalled, Maine would have to repay $800,000, while Michigan would have to pay only $200,000. The people of Maine who received the dole had moved out to Michigan, which was relatively a richer State than Maine. The people in many old States who had benefited from the distribution were now living in the new States which com­plained that they had received no benefit. (CoNGRESSIONAL REcoRD, 46th Cong., 3d sess., pp. 262-268.) The bill did not come to a vote in the Senate

•• On February 2, 190.0, Mr. Allison, of Iowa, introduced a bill (S. 2895) for clearing the accounts between the United States and the States relative to the proceeds for the sales of public lands. Almost identical bills on the subject had been introduced repeat­edly. There appears for the first time in Mr. Allison's bill, how­ever, a section 4 providing:

"'That to further equalize and settle the accounts between the several States and the United States for the proceeds arising out of the sales of public lands, the several deposits made by the United States with the 26 States in the Union under and by virtue of the act of June 23, 1836, first session, Twenty-fourth Congress, be and the same are hereby, donated to the several States receiving the same. And the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to balance the account and return to the several States all cer­tificates of deposits or receipts for the same; and the obligations to pay or return said money entered into by and upon the part of the several States receiving the same are hereby canceled and fully discharged.' (Senate bills, 56th Cong., No. 2895.)

"This section 4 has an intesting history. It appears, in fact, 1n bills on land settlement for a number of years."

No. Con- Introduced by- Date Action gress

s. 2895 _______ 66th Allison of Iowa.. __ ______________ Feb. 2,1900 8. Rept.1380. H. R. 824'J ___ 56th Esch of Wisconsin __ ------------ Feb. 8,1900 H.Rept.200i. s 1473 ___ ____ 57th Clapp of Minnesota _____________ Dec. 10, 1901 S. Rept. 1743. s. 1613 __ _____ 57th Gamble of South Dakota _______ Dec. 11, 1001 Referred. H. R. 6266. __ 57th Burke of South Dakota _________ Dec. 13, 1901 Do. H. R. 10382 __ 57th Stevens of Minnesota ___________ Jan. 20,1902 Do. s. 269 ________ 58th Gamble of South Dakota ________ Nov. 11,1903 8. Rept. 782. H. R. 10859 __ 58th Volstead of Minnesota __________ Jan. 22, 1904 Referred. H. R. 3133 ___ 59th Burke of South Dakota _________ Dec. 5,1905 Do. s. 311 __ ____ __ 59th Gamble of South Dakota _______ Dec. 6,1905 S. Rept. 124. H. R. 10123 __ 59th Volstead of Minnesota __________ Jan. 4,1906 Referred. H. R. 135 __ __ 60th Hall of South Dakota ___________ Dec. 2,1907 Do. s. 415 ____ ____ 60th Gamble of South Dakota _______ Dec. 4,1907 S. Rept. 2. H. R. 18890. _ 61st Esch of Wisconsin __ ------------ Jan. 21, 1910 Referred.

"On April 1, 1908, Mr. Gamble reported S. 415 from the Com­mittee on Public Lands. In the course of the debate Mr. Gamble stated that more than $28,000,000 had been lent to the States with an assurance that at any time the Federal Govern­ment could demand from the several States the return of the money. 'Of course, it never has been returned,' he said. • It is not expected, I presume, that it ever will be returned. The bill relinquished to the several States specified any claim for a return of the money, and this is understood as equitable recognition when we take into account the other considerations shown or expected to be shown to the other States that did not receive any part of that fund.'

"Mr. Teller, of Colorado, said that he often thought of this debt of the States when his eastern friends complained o! what was being done in the West, and he had occasionally sat down and figured the interest. The amount would be tremendous. The bill would wipe off the books that debt which no one ever expected would be paid. The amount that would be paid under the bill to the other States would be less than one-third of what was deposited in the ditferent States.

" On February 15, 1910, Charles D. Norton, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, wrote a letter to Mr. Tawney, chairman of the Appro­priations Committee, recommending that Congress should enact legislation that would finally dispose of the deposits with the States which were then carried as unavailable funds on the Treas­ury accounts. The Secretary of the Treasury in an accompanying letter stated:

"You will observe that by this enactment (act of October 2, 1837) the transfer to the States of the fomth installment was not only postponed, but also that control of the first three install­ments previously transferred to and deposited with the States was taken from the Secretary of the Treasury, and the amounts thereof were to remain on deposit with the States until otherWise directed by Congress.

"The Congress in assuming direct control of these deposits by this enactment expected them from movement under the laws governing public moneys deposited 1n the general account to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, viz: ·

"'All public moneys paid 1nto any depository shall be subject to the draft of the Treasurer of the United States drawn agreeably to appropriations made by law. (R. S. sec. 3593.)'

" The Government has on several occasions since 1837 been very much in need of money to pay the ordinary expenses, yet the Con­gress has never reinvested the Secretary of the Treasury with au-

LXXV--210

thority to recall to the Treasury the public money deposited wtth the States. And now, 73 years after the last enactment relating to these depositl'!, it may be safely assumed that the Congress will not authorize the recall of these deposits to the Treasury. For many years they have been stated as • unavailable funds' ln the annual reports of the Treasurer of the United States. They form a part of the general account, and are so stated quarterly by the Treasurer.

" There is no way by which these deposits, anomalous in charac­ter, can be taken out of -the general account under existing law; therefore I have to request that recommendation be made to the Congress, in such manner as you may deem advisable, for legisla­tion that will relieve the Treasurer of further accountability for said deposits with the States. (6lst Cong., 2d sess., H. Doc. 721.)

"Accordingly a clause was written into the deficiency appropria­tion bill (H. R. 26730) as follows:

" • Credit in accounts of the _Treasurer: The proper accounting otllcers of the Treasury Department be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to credit the general account of the Treasurer of the United States with the amount of public moneys transferred to and deposited with the States under the provisions of an act of Congress approved June 23, 1836: Provided, That the credit herein authorized to be given to the Treasurer of the United States shall in no wise affect or discharge the indebtedness of the several States to the United States as is provided in said act of Congress approved June 23, 1836, and shall be made in such man­ner as to debit the respective States chargeable therewith upon the books of the Treasury Department, until otherwise directed by Congress.'" (Act of June 25, 1910, 36 Stat. 776. There was no debate on this clause.)

"On February 23, 1922, Mr. Andrews proposed that the deposits, which he termed ' loans ' to the States, be recalled for the purpose of supplying a portion of the funds for the bonus to veterans of the World War. He computed the rate of 4 per cent on the loans and found that Pennsylvania would pay into the Treasury $12,735,000; New York, $17,825,000; Ohio, $8,912,000; Virginia, $9,761,000; and altogeth~r the amount due the Treasury would be $124,770,000.

"A letter from the Under Secretary of the Treasury, of Febru­ary 4, 1926, stated that in all $28,101,644.91 had been deposited with the States. Congress has never directed the return of the deposits and the matter stands at this time as it was left by the act of October 2, 1837, no part of the moneys deposited with any of the States ever having been returned to the Treasury. The certificates of deposit signed by the competent authorities of the· respective States are on file in the Treasury Department. While the deposits may be regarded as an asset of the United States, no action may be taken toward any collection of the deposits with the States untll Congress shall so direct. (CoNG. RECORD, 69th Cong., 1st sess., p. 5718.)

"On March 16, 1926, Mr. SIMMONS, of Nebraska, introduced a joint resolution (H. J. Res. 201) directing the Secretary of the Treasury to call for the return to the Treasury of $28 .. 101,644.91 deposited with certain States in 1837. The resolution was re­ferred to the Committee on Ways and Means." (CoNG. REcoRD,· 69th Cong., 1st sess., p. 5753.)

Mr. President, the cart is far from the horse, and it may now be difficult to get them together. My recollection, how· ever, is that when interrupted a c.onsiderable time ago, I was speaking of the dole. With the permission of the Senate, I will continue my references to some testimony given on that subject before the Committee on Manufac­tures. Doubtless the Members of the Senate who heard my earlier remarks will recall that approximately 70 per cent of the relief funds now spent in those cities from which reports are regularly received is from taxpayers' money, not from charitable contributions as commonly supposed. With that fact in mind, it may be easier to follow what some of the witnesses had to say on the subject of the dole.

[At this point Mr. CosTIGAN yielded the floor far the day.] · Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from

Colorado yield to the Senator from Oregon? Mr. COSTIGAN. I yield with pleasure. Mr. McNARY. The Senator has occupied a full day and

I am sure must be somewhat fatigued. Mr. COSTIGAN. I am not weary. Mr. McNARY. It is the desire to hold an executive ses­

sion. Would the Senator like to conclude at this time, or would he prefer to continue to-morrow?

Mr. COSTIGAN. It is entirely agreeable to me to yield at this time, if I may hold the floor and proceed to-morrow.

Mr. McNARY. That I can not promise. I am going to move frankly, I will say, for an adjournment to-day, but I am sure the Senator will be recognized at the expiration of the morning hour to-morrow at 2 o'clock to continue his address.

Mr .. - COSTIGAN. Very well.

3328 CONGRESSIONAL-RECORIY-SENATE FEBRUARY 3 TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF WA$HINGTON PORTRAITS FROM THE

CAPITOL Mr. FESS. Mr. President, I desire to submit a concurrent

resolution, which I should like to have printed and lie on the table. Before presenting it, I wish to state to the Senate its purpose.

On the 5th of March there will open in the Corcoran Art Gallery in this city the finest display of portraits of George Washington that ever were collected at any one place at any time. All the famous portraits now in existence will be on display in the Corcoran Gallery, except two which can not be secured. One is in Hartford, Conn., and can not be re­moved from the State capitol without an act of the State legislature, which is not in session. The other is the famou~ Stuart picture in the Athenreum, in Boston. , However, por­traits have come from all over the world, including the famous portrait owned by the Lord Roseberry estate, which was at one time owned by Lansdowne. That portrait is on its way here, and will be in the exhibit. We think that it would be rather inexcusable if the portraits of Washington now in the Capitol Building here were not also put on dis­play in the Corcoran Gallery during this period. If permis­sion is granted to remove them, they will be insured so that there can be-no danger. I think the joint committee could provide for the removal and exhibition of the portraits now in the Capitol without any new grant of authority, but I should like to have the authority of the House and Senate, and therefore am offering the concurrent resolution. I will not ask for immediate consideration but will ask for con­sideration in a short time.

The concurrent resolution <S. Con. Res. 14) was ordered to lie on the table, as follows:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concur­ring), That consent 1s hereby given to the United States Commis­sion for the Celebration of the Two Hundredth Anniversary o! the Birth o! George Washington, or a duly authorized committee thereof, to remove temporarily to the Corcoran Art Gallery !or exhibition in the Bicentennial Potrait Exhibit to be held as a part of such celebration any portraits in the Capitol Building (not in the public corridors), including the following:

George Washington, by Rembrandt Peale, in the Vice President's room; George Washington. by Gilbert Stuart, in the Post Offices and Post Roads Committee room; John Marshall, by Martin, in the Supreme Court robing room; Frederick Muhlenberg, copied from a Wright portrait by Samuel B. Waugh, in the Speaker's lobby; Oliver Ellsworth, copied from an Earl portrait by Charles Loring Elliot, in the Supreme Court robing room.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. McNARY. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate _ proceeded to the consideration of executive business. ·

EXEC~E !IESSAGES REFERRED

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate mes­sages from the President of the United States submitting several nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees.

<For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.) -TREATY OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION WITH SWITZERLAND

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the ~enate the following message from the President of the United States, which was read and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: To the Senate of the United States:

To the end that I may receive the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith a treaty of arbitration and conciliation between the United States and Switzerland, signed at Washington on February 16, 1931.

HERBERT HOOVER. <Enclosure: Treaty.) Tm: WHITE HousE, February 3, 1932.

TREATY WITH ITALY RELATIVE TO THE CAUSE OF GENERAL PEACE

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the follmvilig message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, with the- accompanying papers, re­

. ferred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

To the Senate of the United States: To the end that I may receive the advice and consent of

the Senate to ratification, I transmit herewith a treaty between the United States and Italy, signed on September 23, 1931. abrogating article 2 of the treaty between the two countries, to advance the cause of general peace, signed on May 5, 1914, and substituting therefor new provisions in respect of the appointment of members of the international commission provided for in that article.

HERBERT HOOVER. <Inclosure: Treaty.) THE WHITE HousE, February 3, 1932.

REPORTS OF CO~TTEES

Mr. ODDIE, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, reported sundry nominations of postmasters, which were placed on- the calendar.

Mr. GEORGE, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, reported sundry nominations of postmasters, which were placed on the calendar.

Mr. McKELLAR, from the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, reported sundry post-office nominations, which were placed on the calendar.

THE CALENDAR

Executive KK <Seventieth Congress, second session), a treaty of friendship, commerce, and consular rights between the United States and Norway, signed at Washington on June 5, 1928, and an additional article thereto signed at Washington February 25, 1929, was announced as first in order.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. In the absence of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I ask that the treaty may go over.

The PRESIDE~""T pro tempore. The treaty will be passed over.

Executive A <72d Cong., 1st sess.), a treaty of friendship, commerce, and consular rights between the United States and the Republic of Poland, signed at Washington on June 15, 1931, was announced as next in order.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I make the same request as to that treaty.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The treaty will be p9..ssed over.

FEDERAL FARM BOARD

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the nominations of members of the Federal Farm Board.

Mr. McNARY. I ask that those nominations may go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The nominations will be

passed over. THE JUDICIARY

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Hugh D. Mc­Lellan to be United States district judge, district of Massa­chusetts.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Matthew M. Joyce to be United States district judge, district of Minnesota.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Gunnar H. Nord­bye to be United States district judge, district of Minne­sota.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Joseph C. Shaffer to be United States attorney, western district of Virginia.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of John H. Grogan to be United States marshal, eastern district of Michigan.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Ira M. Ornburn to be a member of the United States Tariff Commission for the remainder of the term expiring June 16, 1933 .

•

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3329 Mr. COSTIGAN. I request that both nominations for the

Tariff Commission may go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The nominations will be

passed over. CUSTOMS SERVICE

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Andrew Wieden­mann to be collector, customs collection district No. 8, Rochester, N.Y.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

RUREA U OF INTERNAL REVENUE The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Dan G. Stewart

to be collector, sixth district of Missouri. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the

nomination is confirmed. POSTMASTERS

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the nominations of sundry postmasters.

Mr. ODDIE. I ask that the list of postmasters be con­firmed en bloc. _ The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, all postmasters nominations on the calendar will be confirmed en bloc.

That completes the calendar. RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION

Mr. KING. Mr. President, the Committee on Banking and Currency this morning met and unanimously recom­mended the confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Wilson McCarthy as a member of the Reconstruction Finance Cor­poration, and the chairman of the committee was author-. ized to report his name.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The nomination has been reported by the Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER].

Mr. KING. I beg the Chair's pardon. I just came in. I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of Mr. McCarthy's nomination.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.

The Chief Clerk read the nomination of Wilson Mc­Carthy, of Utah, to be a member of the board of directors of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for a term of two years from January 22, 1932.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the nomination is confirmed.

Mr. SMOOT. I very much hope that early action will be taken one way or the other upon the nominations.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I have no disposition to delay consideration. I have given some attention to tlil.e first nomination. I do not know anything about the other one.

Mr. SMOOT. I do not think there was any objection at all to the other one in the committee.

Mr. COSTIGAN. May I say to the Senator from Utah that I objected to both nominations, not on personal but on public grounds. I voted against both in the committee and made a statement giving generally the grounds of my objection, which, as I say, were not personal but public.

Mr. SMOOT. I am glad the Senator corrected me, if that is the case. I did not remember the Senator making any objection to Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, suppose we just let them go over without any agreement. So far as I know, there is not any disposition on anyone's part to delay them. We will try to reach an agreement by to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That action has already been taken by the Senate. The nominations have been passed over.

Mr. NORRIS. Then this discussion is all out of order, as it usually is.

Mr. SMOOT. No; I am glad to have the Senator say that the matter will be discussed to-morrow; and, if pos­sible, decided at that time.

ADJOURNMEN~

The Senate resumed legislative session. Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I move that the Senate

adjourn, the adjournment being until to-monow at 12 o'clock noon.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Oregon. . ·

The motion was agreed to; and <at 4 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, February 4, 1932, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the ·senate February 3

(legislative day of February 1), 1932

SECRETARY IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE Leland B. Morris, of Pennsylvania, now a Foreign Service

officer of class 3 and a consul general, to be also a secretary in the Diplomatic ' Service of the United States of America.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Mr. KING. Mr. President, the board is now in session and has been for several days, except for Mr. McCarthy, who has not been a member heretofore. In view of the situation and the exigency of the case I ask that the Presi­ Oliver D. Burden. of New York, to be United States-attor­

ney, northern district of New York. (He is now serving in The this position under an appointment which expired February

28, 1931.)

dent be notified. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Chair hears none, and the President will be notified. ~TED STATES TARIFF CO~ION

Mr. WATSON. Mr. President, may I have the attention of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. CosTIGAN J? I should like to ask the Senator when he will be willing to take up for consideration the confirmation of the members of the Tariff Commission.

Mr. COSTIGAN. At any early day, may I - say to the Senator from Indiana. I have not in mind a particular day. As I understand, these gentlemen are functioning now.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, they may be functioning in a sense; but under the law they are merely sitting in, and have no vote, and can not have until they are confirmed.

Mr. COSTIGAN. Has the Senator from Utah or the Sen­ator from Indiana any suggestion as to a date?

Mr. SMOOT. I should like to have them voted on to­morrow by unanimous consent.

Mr. COSTIGAN. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRIS] has just spoken to me of some interest he has in the subject. I should prefer to discuss the matter further, and not definitely say that we shall take it up to-monow.

Mr. SMOOT. Will the Senator be able to-morrow to say whether he objects to it any further than to-morrow?

Mr. COSTIGAN. Certainly; I shall notify the Senator from Utah to-monow.

UNITED STATES MARSHAL Charles A. Patton, of Colorado, to be United States mar­

shal, district of Colorado, to succeed Richard A. Callen, whose term expired February 14, 1931.

REGISTER OF THE LAND OFFICE Guy Francis Barnes, of South Dakota, to be register of

the land office at Piene, S. Dak. <Reappointment.>

CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 3

<legislative day of February 1), 1932

MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE CORPORATION

Wilson McCarthy to be a member of the board of direc­tors of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGES Hugh D. McLellan to be United States district judge, dis­

trict of Massachusetts. Matthew M. Joyce to be United States district jRdge, dis­

trict of Minnesota. Gunnar H. Nordbye to be United States district judge,

district of Minnesota .

•

- .

3330 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ·

Joseph C. Shaffer to be United States attorney, western district of Virginia.

UNITED STATES MARsHAL John H. Grogan to be United States marshal, eastern dis­

trict of Michigan. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Andrew Wiedenmann to be collector of customs, collection district No. 8, Rochester, N. Y.

COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVE:troE Dan G. Stewart to be collector of internal revenue, sixth

district of Missouri. PosTMAsTERS

MARYLAND Jessie P. Smith, Luke. James J. Shoemaker, Sandy Spring.

MINNESOTA Cora A. Dstrup, Cromwell. Charles F. Mallahan, Jackson. '\Veri I. Smith, Proctor. Mathew Rivers, Rollingstone.

MONTANA Arthur D. Liberman, Fort Harrison. Otto M. Christinson, Glasgow;

OKLAHOMA Nealy Godwin, Alex. Garnett 0. Fields, Aline. Elmer D. Orwig, Wewoka.

PENNSYLVANIA Mayme S. Porter, Hokendauqua.

RHODE ISLAND S. Martin Rose, Block Island. Thatcher T. Bowler, Newport. Catherine M. Green, Portsmouth. Edwin S. Babcock, Saunderstown.

H·OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1932

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

offered the following prayer: 0 God, while Thou art represented as being in Thy holy

mountain and humanity is about Thy feet, help, Lord God, for the spirit of man never climbs toward the sky if the teachings of Thy begotten Son are not heeded and obeyed. Do Thou bless and give great impetus to every local and na­tional agency which is seeking to alleviate the sufferings of the unemployed. The Lord God help the fortunate who may be blind and unmoved and those who are spiritually deformed who fail in this hour of distress. Touch their hearts, and may they transfer their allegiance to Him who went about doing good; may charity, which is that fine form of personal excellence, possess them. Our beloved country will never be altogether worthy until love and brotherhood are engraved on the many forms of its great heart. In the name of Jesus, our Savior. Amen.

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

SENATE. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED The SPEAKER announced his signature to enrolled bills

of the Senate of the following titles: ' 1 s.1089. An act to establish a minimum area for a Shenan­

doah National Park, for administration, protection, and gen­eral development by the National Park Service, and for other purposes;

S.1291. An act to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Choc­tawhatchee River, near Freeport, Fla.;

•

S. 2317. An act granting the consent of Congress to the State of Michigan and Berrien County, or either of them, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the St. Joseph River; and

S. 2407. An act to authorize the sale of parts of a cemetery reserve made for the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indians in Oklahoma.

EXTRANEOUS MATTER IN THE RECORD .Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous con-

sent to address the House for five minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to

matters that are developing in the RECORD. This House undertakes, pretty rigidly, to exclude things that are not a part of our procedure. The gentleman from Massachusetts [:rvlr. UNDERHILL] is frequently criticized somewhat because he objects to foreign matter being injected into our RECORD. I will say that as chairman of the Committee on Printing I have had a number of communications complimenting us because the House was acting in line of economy in what is published in the RECORD, and I want to commend the gentle­man from Massachusetts for being instrumental in helping to do that.

If you will turn to the RECORD of yesterday, beginning on page 3095 and extending through to page 3260, you will see a 165-page extension permitted by another body, by one gen­tleman who was speaking on behalf of the poor. It cost $8,250 to print it; $8,250 distributed amongst the poor on the streets of Washington would have done the country infinitely more good. [Applause.]

I want to call attention to that fact, and to state that the Joint Committee on Printing has done its best to hedge about and restrict this, but necessarily we can not exclude everything. I hope that in the way of humble petition and vigorous remonstrance the other body will reform a little and not spend all the money we have left in printing irrele­vant matter in the RECORD. [Applause.]

Mr. KVALE. Will the gentleman yield? :Mr. STEVENSON. I yield. Mr. KVALE. I would like to ask the gentleman in all

seriousness if he does not believe that the matter therein contained brings some information to the country that may be worth a great deal more than $8,250 at this time?

Mr. STEVENSON. I want to ask the gentleman if he believes the country is going to read it in that shape? [Ap­plause and laughter.] The gentleman could have had it printed as a public document or a Senate document and distribute it, and it would not have required anything like the amount of printing that this requires. Some people will read a Senate document. They believe that the Senate has something to say when it issues a document.

Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEVENSON. I yield. Mr. HOWARD. I want to thank the gentleman for the

attitude he takes this morning, and I want to offer my en­couragement in his effort to aid the gentleman from Massa­chusetts [¥r. UNDERHILL]. I think if the gentleman had listened intently a little while ago to the applause which followed his own rema1·ks he would have reached the conclu­sion that this House is no longer in favor of this continued wicKedness of discrimination. [Laughter.]

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. sir. I will say in conclusion that the Joint Committee on Printing has enacted a rule which has the force of law under statute, which requires matters of this kind to be printed in small type. Of course, if this had been read in a speech it would have been about twice as big, as it would have been set in bigger type, and we have to be thankful that it was held down to the size type it was.

Mr. UNDERHILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for five minutes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection. Mr. UNDERHILL. Mr. Speaker, if justification of the po­

sition I have taken in the last three or four years in the

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE . 3331 House needed any vindication, it certainly has been vindi­.cated this morning. The chairman of the Committee on Printing has only touched upon expense with reference to insertions in the RECORD. I would call attention to the fact that practically all of the REcoRDS go through the mails, and additional weight is charged to the Government. It can be imagined, with the number of RECORDS going through the mails, how much additional expense this brings to the Post Office Department.

It has not been my primary purpose or my sole purpose to save money, although that has been a consideration. It has been to try to save Congress from the criticisms of the press and of the public in general throughout the country in the matter which is inserted in the RECORD. I do not suppose the Members realize the amount of criticism there has been in the press with reference to these extraneous matters. I do not suppose the Members realize that every insertion in the RECORD under unanimous consent is only there because we transgress the law laid down for the publication of the RECORD. The law which established the RECORD provides specifically that only the proceedings of the House and Senate shall be inserted in the RECORD.

TITLE 44. SECTION 181. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD; ARRANGEMENT, STYLE, CONTENTS, ANll INDEXES.~The Joint Committee on Printing shall have control of the arrangement and style of the CoNGRES­SIONAL RECORD, and while providing that it shall be substantially a verbatim report of proceedings shall take all needed action for the reduction of unnecessary bulk.

We get by that by unanimous consent. It is a reflection upon Members of Congress when they make a law and then fail to live up to it. I have tried to use no discrimination in my objections. The Members of the House have cooper­ated with me pretty generally and very generously. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a hopeless task. Some of the new Members are not aware that they can place petitions in the basket on the Clerk's desk and those petitions will be noted in the RECORD and referred to the proper committees. That is the place for them.

I now suggest to those who have not heretofore been aware of it that that is the procedure which they should follow.

I have some comment to make on the general practice of inserting radio speeches. It seems to. me that after a Mem­ber has enjoyed speaking to an unseen audience of untold thousands or millions he ought to be content with that publicity; that he ought not to come in and put irrelevant matter in the REcoRD; but, following my plan of procedure, I have never objected to any Member of the House inserting his own remarks in the RECORD. I do think, however, that that privilege has been somewhat abused, and hope Members will take the attitude they have taken on other irrelevant matter and will be a little careful in requesting permission to insert radio speeches in the RECORD that have no connec-tion with legislative business. · · ·

In closing I would quote from the last report of the Public Printer:

Printing and binding the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for the three sessions of the Seventy-first Congress, March 4, 1929-1931, cost $1 ,582,816.24, including $570,656.44 for the fiscal year 1931.

The daily RECORD for the three sessions of the Seventy-first Con­gress totaled 28,228 printed .pages, which were consolidated and reprinted in 27,944 pages of the bound RECORD and made a set of 26 volumes for the entire Congress.

Free public distribution of the RECORD requires 36,000 copies of the daily edition and approximately 4,800 sets of the bound edition for each session. There were 636 paid subscribers at various times during the Seventy-first Congress. ,

The daily RECORD for the third session of the Seventy-first Con­gress averaged 108 pages for each issue. During the last six days the Record averaged 188 pages for each issue. The highest daily average of any former session was 83 pages.

The largest REcORD of the last session contained 256 pages, the most ever printed in one night. A previous RECORD of 366 pages required several days' work before it was issued in 1914. Both Houses held .late sessions that night, the Senate not adjourning until 3 a. m. However, 6,000 copies of the 256-page RECORD were printed and delivered by 8 o'clock the same morning.

TEITRD OF RECORD NOT PROCEEDINGS Of the 7,779 pages in the dally REcoRD for the third session of

the Seventy-first Congr-ess, 2,388 pages were printed in smaller

type, Which indicates that about one-third o! the RECORD for the last session was devoted to matter other than the actual proceed­ings and debates in Congress.

I call attention to the 100 per cent increase in printed pages of the RECORD. Further comment is unnecessary. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION

ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee

on Ways and Means, I present herewith a supplemental · report of the United States Tariff Commission on petroleum products with the request it be referred to the Committee on Printing, requesting that it be printed as a House document.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

There was no objection. DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, in be­half of the North Carolina delegation in Congress, to pre­sent to you one of North Carolina's most distinguished citizens, Henry L. Stevens, the national commander of the American Legion. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, if any of the Members desire to meet Mr. Stevens ~e will be in the Speaker's office.

EXTRANEOUS MATTER IN THE RECORD Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent

to proceed for three minutes. The SPEAKER. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, reference has been made

this afternoon to matters inserted in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD and to the great expense involved in inserting ex­traneoUs matters. Ordinarily I would agree with a protest of that kind, but it seems to · me that the subject matter taken as an example for the protests made this afternoon does not come within the category of useless matter inserted in the RECORD. I consider this particular insertion in the RECORD not only timely and accurate but the most useful contained in the RECORD this session. Mr. Speaker, the subject complain~d of is a series of telegrams and letters from mayors and responsible officials of cities giving the American Congress direct and accurate information as to the unemployment situation all over the country, and it seems to me there can be no matter of greater importance than the information that is contained in the RECORD and placed in it by a most distinguished Member of another body. [Applause.]

Mr. STEVENSON. May I make an humble suggestion to the gentleman?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes. Mr. STEVENSON. The gentleman who inserted this

matter is the chairman of the committee which reported the bill then under consideration. No doubt he had all of that information before the committee, and I assume it is · printed in the hearings, as extensive hearings were held. If that is so, why print in the RECORD matter that has already been printed in the hearings? That is what I com­plain of. I have no complaint to make with reference to the information, but I do complain about the loading up of the RECORD with matter that has already been printed.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Matters printed in hearings are not generally known to the public and they are not even gen­erally known to the Members of Congress. I know of no matter that is more impressive and that is more necessary to urge the American Congress into doing something to alleviate conditions than the distressful information criti.:. cized and contained in the RECORD. [Applause.] · I thank the gentleman for having so forcefully called

attention to this information, and I hope that Members of coilgress will take heed and that something will be done before long to alleviate the deplorabie 'conditions which exist in this country to-day. I sincerely hope that the suffering unemployed people needing relief will be consid­ered by ·congress and something done for them. The in­formation is most Useful and timely. I hope it will shame

3332 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3 certain gentlemen from all opposition to direct relief. I have seen a great deal of trashy and worthless matter in the RECORD and nothing said about it. This information is a real record of distress, demanding the immediate at­tention of Congress. I sincerely hope and pray that Con­gress )Vill do something immediately. [Applause.]

RESIGNATION FROM A COMMITTEE The SPEAKER. The Chair lays before the House the

following communication: CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., February 1, 19_32.

Hon. JoHN N. GARNER, Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I _respectfully present to you my resigna­

tion from the District of Columbia Committee. During the pres­ent session I would like to concentrate upon the work of reor­ganization of the departments of Government, a problem now before the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart­ments, of which I am a member.

Yours sincerely, F. M. DAVENPORT.

The SPEAKER. \Vithout objection, the resignation ·wm be accepted.

There was no objection. NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS

Mr. McFADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 15 minutes.

The SPE.A__KER. The gentleman from Pennsylvania ask.s unanimous consent to address the House for 15 rrtinutes. Is there objection?

There was no objection. Mr. 1\!cFADDEN. Mr. Speaker, the Women's Patriotic

Conference on National Defense is now in session in Wash­ington. This conference was addressed by Henry L. Stevens, jr., commander of the American Legion, whom I was very glad to join with other Members of the House in acclaiming this morning, and Mrs. Frederick C. 'Williams, national pres­ident of the Legion Auxiliary, and by Secretary of Labor William N. Doak.

Mr. FISH. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. 11,-fcFADDEN. I will. Mr. FISH. I would like to call the attention of the House

to the fact that Hon. CARL G. BACHMANN also spoke. Mr. McFADDEN. Yes; he addressed the same meeting.

It was the next day, but I did not have the pleasure of hearing him.

I want to quote from Mrs. Williams's plea for adequate na­tional defense, as reported in the press this morning. She i3 quoted as saying:

We are convinced that in the present state of the world this Nation of ours can live in honor and security only so long as it is able to defend itself by force of arms.

I would like to repeat also what this article had further · to say. Commander Stevens declared that "the poor old Regular Army " had been so reduced that the National Guard is now America's first line of defense, and that the Navy is " 20 per cent behind the program of the London treaty." "There is now a threat to cut down the Army appropriation which, if it occurs, would demoralize the entire National Guard from Maine to California," and that the Army has been reduced to the point where it is " only a group of highly trained technicians; men who, in time of another war, would become the h.igher commanders and the Army professors upon whom would be built a great army from the peopl~." His plea was not for a big NavY, but for sea power adequate to safeguard American interests, declaring that the American fleet " was taken out to sea and literally scuttled " eight or nine years ago. In this he was refening to the Washington disarmament agreement and the results thereof.

I am directing your attention to these two speeches be­cause of the existing situation in which we find ourselves. Within a few days we will be taking up the Army and Navy appropriation bills in which I understand big cuts are to be made for economy's sake.. I want to protest as vehemently as I can against the cutting of the necessary appropliations

to maintain and to increase our defense forces. This is no time to enter into a reorganization of our various depart­ments of national defense. It is more properly a time when we should be centralizing our efforts looking toward proper defens_e. It is a time when this House should be considering, and without further delay, the Vinson bill proposing the up­building of our NavY in accordance with the London naval treaty, instead of holding it in committee with a tacit un­derstanding that it will not be taken up until after the disarmament conference. To withhold this bill from im­mediate consideration, Mr. Speaker, is a most foolhardy action. The Naval Affairs Committee should immediately report this bill and the House should consider it forthwith.

I want also to refer briefly to what Secretary of Labor Doak said last night as reported in the aforementioned ar­ticle. He said that he " whole-heartedly " believed that the country "should be in a position at all times to defend its liberty and property." He declared it to be " an undisputed fact" that many who are advocating total disarmament as an example to the rest of the world" are of the same mind with those who not so many years ago, in the face of immi­nent danger, did what they could to make it hard for the United States vigorously to conduct a war that was forced upon it by the aggression of a foreign power." And further­more he added that the United States at the present time "unhappily has enemies within, some of them Americans of long standing, who to-day are doing what they can to defend the activities of men and of women whose effort it is to disrupt this country."

I will refer to one of the outstanding of such organizations before I finish.

It is time for us to turn aside from the unsolved problems which confront our country from within and consider those which threaten us from without. We have had time enough to reach decisions as to our domestic needs, but the precious hours we should have used have slipped away from us. The busy .routine of a congressional session has been crowded into a few short weeks; as many months would have been too short a time for the work that should have been done.

That the Congress is blameless for its idleness during the long months in which it should have been functioning on the national business is beside the point. We can not shift the consequences by shifting the responsibility.

We confront the results of an habitual folly into which we have been sunk for years. We have become enamored of words and have dreamed of a world in which every problem could be met with a pamphlet or a petition. Particularly have we become enamored of those floods of words called peace and disarmament conferences. Under the spell of the honeyed voices of the preachers of pacifism we have stripped ourselves of the means of defense as a noble ex­ample to a world which has been only too willing to take advantage of our blindness.

To-day the dark shadow of crisis rises upon the western horizon of the Pacific. A determined military empire, with the tradition and equipment of warfare sweeps aside treaties and conference agreements as they were swept aside in that July of 1014 when the hellbroth of the World War was being brewed in the kettles of European diplomacy.

All the world except ourselves stands armed and ready for the issue. The countries to whom we extended the recent moratorium have 50 trained soldiers for every one we can muster. Our defense funds have been spent to arm our possible enemies.

Our hampered Navy, far below even the limits of the strength assigned to it by diplomats who soon may be allied against us, faces bravely but hopelessly an emergency too great for it to meet successfully. Our air forces are poorly equipped in everything except the men who every few days demonstrate their willingness to die for their countr_y. Our national defenses are but a skeleton of what they should be.

As though we were a conquered people, we have let coun­cils of foreign diplomats determine the extent to which we might arm ourselves. Germany was forced to no greater a humiliation at Versailles. Almost as. though we sought to

1932 CONGRESSIONAL_ RECORD-HOUSE 3333 propitiate a conquel'or, we have refrained from using even the limited permission to arm which we accepted as though it were a favor.

None of this has been accident, nor has the gospel of weakness been an inspiration of our own minds. We have been deftly persuaded into our folly.

The pacifist movement in this country has been liberally financed by organizations which exist for other purposes than to further the welfare of the United States. Prominent in the work of disarming America in an armed world have been the organizations which are endowed by the American­made fortune of the late Andrew Carnegie, that careful Scottish immigrant who has left to us an enlightening di:fi.ni­tion of his hopes and aims in language too clear and unmis­takable to be misunderstood.

Let me quote from the book Triumphant Democracy, written by Andrew Carnegie and published by Charles Scribner's Sons in 1893. The concluding words of this book, which appear on pages 548 and 549, are as follows.:

Readers will kindly note this as a look ahead-how far ahead I shall not attempt to guess; nevertheless, it is ahead, and some­time, somehow, it is to come to pass. I see it with the eye of faith-the faith of the devotee which carries with it a rea.lizing sense of certain fulfillment.

Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams, but it shall never shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked-for and undesired separation of the mother from her child is not to bleed forever.

Let men say what they will; therefore, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state-the British-American union.

Andrew Carnegie's body is dead, but his money marches on. "The wholly unlooked-for and undesired separation of

the mother from her child " ! Undesired by whom? Surely not by that Washington whose anniversary we celebrate this. year. Surely not by the inspired farmers and traders and hunters who beat back the British battalions on the slopes of Bunker Hill, brought Burgoyne to surrender at Saratoga, starved at Valley Forge, and rose to final triumph at York­town. Surely not the generations of simple and hardy women and men who shaped this Nation from the wilder­ness with no other tools than ax, rifle, and hope.

" The reunited state, the British-American union "! Are we, then, to return as did the prodigal son, bearing our own fatted calf, and turn back all that our fathers won to those from whose fathers they won it? Are we to say to our­selves and the world, "We are too weak of soul and too mean of spirit to carry the torch that was bequeathed to us"? ·

I speak for every Member of this House when I say that the answer to those questions is "No."

I hope that I again speak for every Member of this House when I say that the defenses of the United States are the business of the United States and that the sole authority which can determine their cost or extent or use is the authority of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Speaker. the world to-day faces a swiftly mounting crisis. It is our duty to face it as men and women who have for their first and only consideration the interest and the safety and the independence and the integrity of the United States. Too often have we been swayed by waves of seeming public sentiment which were only the backwash from busy mimeographs of propagandists paid by those out­side our borders who wish us to be weak. Never have the people we represent wished to see their country weak in the face of danger-and they do not wish to see it weak now,-as the burning fuse of events sputters toward another explo­sion of the world.

Our people do not want war. They want peace. They know that peace can be maintained in an armed world only by strength. They know that weakness is an invitation to war. They know the folly of the delusion that wars can be ended by treaties. They see the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg treaty, and the Pacific agreement signed in this very city of Washington less than 10 years ago as fluttering scraps of paper, :flying to oblivion on the hot -wind of war.

They know that to-day our delegates sit at Geneva in an­other conference whose announced object is to disarm the world. They know that the delegates of Japan and China sit at that same conference. Do our people think that Japan and China will disarm? They do not, and they wonder what is in our minds that we seem to think those nations will disarm.

We are in distress because our slowly saved earnings of generations have vanished into the bottomless pit of the Old World's wars. They do not wish to see their country vanish into the same destruction. They wish to see their country strong in arms so that it can enforce its right to stay out of the murderous frenzy which once more threatens to engulf the peoples of the earth. ;

Mr. Speaker, I urge that the first consideration of the Congress shall be the recommendations of the committ-ees whose charge it is to provide for our Nation's armed de­fense against armed aggression. [Applause.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I desire to call to the attention of the House the fact that we have in the Speaker's reserved gallery very distinguished visitors-Mr. Samuel P. Town, the commander in chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, his staff, members of the legislative committee, and auxiliary organizations.

These men belong to that vast arll}y of patriots which is so rapidly dwindling. This morning they appeared in behalf of legislation in which they are interested before the Com­mittee on Invalid Pensions, of which committee I have the honor to be the chairman.

It is a privilege and a pleasure for me to ask them to now rise and be presented to the Members of this body. [Applause, Members rising.]

vnLLAMETTE RIVER PROJECT

The SPEAKER. This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call the committees.

Mr. MANSFIELD <when the Committee on Rivers and Harbors was called). Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com­mittee on Rivers and Harbors I call up the bill (H. R. 7248) authorizing the modification of the existing project for the Willamette River between Oregon City and Portland, Oreg.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. · The SPEAKER. This bill is on the Union Calendar.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of no quorum.

The SPEAKER. Evidently there is not a quorum present. CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, when the following Members

failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 14]

Amlie Drane Johnson, Til. Bacon Eaton, N.J. Johnson, S.Dak. Baldridge Estep Johnson, Wash. Bloom Fishburne Karch Boland, Pa. Flannagan Kelly, lll. Briggs Fulmer Kennedy Britten Garrett Kinzer Carley Gifford Kurtz Chapman Gilbert . Lamneck Chase Golder Larrabee Clarke, N.Y. Granata Lea Collier Grl..ffin Lehlbach Colton Hart Lewis Connolly Holmes Lovette Cooke Hull, Morton D. McGugin Cooper, Ohio Igoe McLeod Crowe Jacobsen McReynolds Crump James Maas

Mansfield Nelson, Wis. Nolan Oliver, N.Y. Owen Parker, N.Y. Peavey Pratt, Harcourt J. Quln Reid, lll. Romjue Smith, Va. Smith, W.Va. Sullivan, Pa. Warren Wood, Ind. Woodruff

The SPEAKER. Three hundred and fifty-nine Members have answered to their names. A quorum is present.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to dispense with fur­ther proceedings under the call.

The motion was agreed to. Under the rule the House resolved itself in the Committee

of the Whole House on the state of the Union, with Mr. BROWNING in the Chair.

3334 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE _FEBRUARY 3 · The CHAIRMAN. The House is in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the considera­tion of the bill H. R. 7248, which the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: H. R. 7248

A bill authorizing the modification of the existing project for the Willamett e River between Oregon City and Portland, Oreg.

Be it enacted, etc., That the project for the improvement of the Willamette River between Oregon City and Portland, Oreg., au­thorized by the river and harbor act approved, July 3, .1930, is hereby modified in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in the report submitted in House Document No. 748, Seventy-first Congress. ·

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. MANS­FIELD] is recognized for one hour.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the bill now before the House is to modify the terms of the project adopted by the river and harbor act of July 3, 1930, for an improvement of the Willamette River in the State of Oregon.

The estimated cost of the project was $205,000, $50,000 of which was to be paid by local interests.

Under the rules adopted and carried out by the engineers of the War Department in cases where local cooperation is required they never commence a work of that kind until the conditions are fully complied with.

It developed that there are no local interests to pay the $50,000. No one had ever agreed to pay it, and it was deter­mined by the engineers that it would probably prove $50,000 beneficial value to the power company who have the power development at the dam in question.

It was this way: It simply lowered the water level below the dam to the extent of 2% feet, and it was estimated that that would give additional power to the owners, but it was found that the power company would necessarily have to overhaul their machinery, lower their wheels, and make other changes, all at a cost greater than the value of the power that might be obtained.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield. Mr. COLE of Iowa. 'Vhat is the object of this· bill? Mr. MANSFIELD. To remit the local contribution. Mr. COLE of Iowa. Will the United States Government

or the reclamation project bear the rest of the expense? Mr. MANSFIELD. There is no reclamation ·in this. It

will be paid out of the annual appropriation for rivers and harbors.

I now yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. MARTIN].

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to impress upon the House is that this is not an irri­gation or reclamation project. It is simply a modification for an improvement that was adopted for the Willamette River and nothing else.

By the river and harbor act of July 3, 1930, a project for the widening and deepening of the Willamette River 13 miles between Portland, Oreg., and Oregon City, the old capital of Oregon, was approved by this House.

That called for an appropriation of $2101000. At the falls of the Willamette, at the end of this jmprovement, is a dam which generates power for two large paper companies-­the Hawley Pulp & Paper Co. and the Crown Willamette Paper Co. Here the river would be lowered 2 Y2 feet, and the engineers without thorough investigation reported that the two paper companies would be benefited 570 kilowatt­hours of electricity for three months during the low water.

Congress adopted that project, and assessed the benefit on the two companies of $50,000. That was the first knowl­edge they had of it. As soon as this was brought to the attention of these companies they claimed that the change of their machinery to take advantage of the 2¥2 extra feet of water at the falls would be prohibitive; but, what was far more important to them, was that they did not own the falls at all. They belonged to a public-service company, the last company that would want an improvement, because it is a transportation company, and this would reduce the transportation cost of 643,000 tons of vessel cargo and a

million tons of logs, wbJch can with difficulty be handled along these tortuous 13 miles.

On. this representation the Government engineers re­exannned the matter and found on investigation that these benefits t? local interests which the bill previously carried do not ~xiSt at all; that there are no local benefits to these comp~me~. Th~refore, as honest men, they so reported, the district engmeer and the division engineer. It then came on here to the Board of Engineers on Rivers and Har­bors, and then went to the Chief of Engineers, thence to t~e Secretary of War, and from the Secretary on to the ~Ivers and Harbors Committee. All the way down the line It. was. agreed that the $50,000 benefit does not and never did eXIst and never will. To complete the chain we went to the Budget officer. He agrees that it meets with the Budget requirements. There is no objection from that quar­ter. Therefore, we come to you with the unanimous ap­proval of all these people for a remission of these $50,000 of so-call~d local benefits. . With. the present conditions of labor in my district, this Is. a senous J?atter. The engineers have the dredges there, With everythmg ready to go to work on this project. It will relieve the labor problem there to a very great extent at this time. Unless this is done you tie up the whole improvement which you have adopted. I hope the House may see its way clear to approve the action which has been unanimous all the way along the line.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Yes. Mr. COX. Will the gentleman tell the House whether this

assessment has been made? Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Oh, the assessment has never

been made. These people were not consulted. As soon as 'they were notified they protested as vehemently as they could. I do not speak of this on secondhand information because I know the conditions. I went on the project last July. I know that there are no local benefits to be derived by these companies, but that marked local benefits will come to that community as a whole if we improve this river. As it is now, where the Clackamas River comes into the Wil­lamette at right angles an eddy is created, and it is neces­sary to have a deadman there with a chain to aid these vessels that go back and forth. Boats can carry only a half load. In spite of that, however, there is on that river be­tween Oregon City and Portland 652,000 tons of vessel cargo and 1,000,000 tons of logs that go into these pulp and paper mills.

Mr. COX. And this bill has the favorable report of the Chief of Engineers?

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Yes. Mr. COX. And I presume it is unanimously reported by

the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, which considered it? Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Yes. There is no opposition

from any source among those who have investigated the merits of the matter.

Mr. CULKIN. There is some confusion here in the House as to whether or not this is a reclamation or irrigation proj­ect. Will the gentleman make that clear?

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. This is not a reclamation or irrigation matter. We have all of the rain in God Al­mighty's world there. This is nothing but a simple river and harbor matter, a simple navigation project that should have been made years ago.

1.\11'. WILLIAM E. HULL. I suggest that the gentleman explain what the Willamette River is. It is a river that runs by Portland, Oreg.? · Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Yes. The Willamette River be­

tween Portland and Oregon City has been used for trans­portation purposes since 1843, but it is in places a narrow, tortuous stream. In places there is only four and a half feet of water. This bill provides for 8 feet, which is the proper depth for the economic use of river steamboats. It has a width of 200 feet from Cedar Island-3 miles below Oregon City-to Portland, and of 150 feet from Cedar Island up to Oregon City. Another thing that interferes with naviga­tion is the Clackamas River, which comes into the Willam ..

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3335 ette ·at a right angle·. The engineers will divert the Clacka­mas so that it will not strike the main river at right angles. As it is, as I have said, it creates an eddy there, and they have to have a deadman with a hawser to run boats around. I can not imagine a more meritorious project than this, es­pecially at this time, when we are all ready to go ahead and give employment to so many men in the community needing employment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. HAWLEY].

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the only question involved in this bill is whether the local interests at Oregon City shall be required to contribute $50,000 to an improvement of the river below Oregon City to Portland. The engineers iii their original report thought that the local interests would benefit to the extent of at least $50,000 by the creation of additional power. The project proposes to lower the water below the falls and the dam two and a half feet by the removal of some rapids, about 2 miles below Oregon City, known as the Clackamas Rapids. Local interests never agreed that they would be benefited. The matter was again presented and the engineers made a thorough investigation and found that to lower the installation in these two mills so that the wheels would get the two and a half feet addi­tional would cost the mills more than any power develop­ment that they might realize, as a benefit, and that it would be a losing proposition to them. Moreover, the two mills at Oregon City do not own the power. It belongs to another company, and the other COJllpany from which they buy the power is not interested in the further development. The mills already have supplemental steam power for the low­water period. So the engineers, after reviewing all factors in the case, found that the requirement of a contribution from the local companies was unwarranted, unjustified, and unfair. The district engineer so reported after careful in­vestigation. The division engineer at San Francisco ap­proved. It came to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and that board approved it. The Chief of En­gineers has apptoved the proposal contained in the pending bill, which is based on his recommendations. The Com­mittee on Rivers and Harbors, after reviewing all the facts, has also approved and presented this bill, so that the local interests shall not be required to make this contribution.

Mr. STAFFORD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. I yield. Mr. STAFFORD. I assume there is no dispute that by

this improvement there will be an additional 2 ¥2 feet of fall, whereby that much additional power will be generated, pro­vided the expense warrants its installation at the present generating power station?

Mr. HAWLEY. There is no dispute but that the river will be lowered 2¥2 feet, and that if new installation be put in more power could be realized; but, as the gentleman says, it is not possible to lower the installations already existing with any profit to the concerns.

Mr. STAFFORD. Now, that is the point. Do the hear­ings disclose what the cost would be to change the turbines so as to avail themselves of this additional 2¥2 feet of head? That is the vital question before the committee, whether the cost is more than the gain will be.

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Much more. Mr. STAFFORD. Well, on what does· the gentleman

predicate that? Is there anything in the hearings or in the report of the engineers to that effect?

Mr. CARTER of California. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. I yield. Mr. CARTER of California. I think I can answer the

question of the gentleman from Wisconsin by referring to the report of the chief engineer. That is to be found .on the back of the report of the committee. There it is stated:

The cost of reconstruction of the plants not now equipped to util1ze the additional head was estimated at not to exceed $7,000, while at the current price of power in large blocks the increased head was computed by the district engineer as having a capitalized value of $70,000 to $100,000. As it was doubtful whether all of this estimated power could be practically realized, the recommended condition of local cooperation was placed at $50,000.

Then they said that a thorough investigation was made and that the cost of the reconstruction was out of all pro­portion to the benefits received by reason of the generation of the additional power, and therefore it was not a practical or feasible proposition at all. That is the finding.

Mr. STAFFORD. Oh, that is the finding, but is there any evidence as to ·the real cost? Is there any evidence as to whether these turbines in the power stations are obsolescent or not? This seems to be an instance where the power company is trying to avoid payment for some­thing which they will ultimately acquire. They will get the benefit of the additional 2% feet head of water at some time.

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. The last people in the world who want this improvement are the people who own this dam and who would get the benefit of this additional 2 ¥2 feet. The main work of the Public, Service Corporation of the Northwest is transportation.

Mr. STAFFORD. Transportation by what means? Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Transportation by trolley­

suburban lines. Their transportation is terrific. If this improvement is made, transportation costs will be lowered. and that is the last thing in the world that that company wants.

Mr. STAFFORD. Do I understand the gentleman's argu­ment to be that the utility company now having control of the power there does not wish it because they fear compe­tition by the slow method of water transportation rather than by the fast method of electric trolley transportation?

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Most of this freight is low­grade freight, such as logs.

Mr. STAFFORD. But what freight is transported by the utilities company on their trolley lines?

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. It is logs, partly, and oil for these plants, sand, gravel, and sulphur.

Mr. STAFFORD. But if the power company is really going to be benefited by the additional 2¥2 feet head, why should they not be obliged to pay for it? They will some time get the benefit of it and the utilization of it, with the growing population of that country.

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Because the electric-power business is a side show with them. Their main business is transportation, and that is where they lose money.

Mr. HAwLEY. May I say to the gentleman from Wis­consin the parties that are asked to make the contribution do not own the power?

Mr. STAFFORD. So I understand. There are two com­panies, the Hawley Co. and the other company.

Mr. HAWLEY. By the way, I may say that that com­pany has no relation to myself.

Mr. STAFFORD. Oh, I understand that. That is a family name that is very general, although there is only one distinguished head, and he is a Member of this body.

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. These paper mills are now struggling for existence.

Mr. STAFFORD. How long are the leases of these two companies that are utilizing water from this plant?

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not know. They are renewable from time to time.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. I will state that hereafter those inter­

ests can not change that dam nor the location of the ma­chinery without permission of the Secretary of War, under the law.

Mr. STAFFORD. What provision of law does the gentle­man have in mind?

Mr. MANSFIELD. The general law. All these matters are under the direction of the Secretary of War and they can make no changes in any fixture or structure in a na vi­gable waterway.

Mr. STAFFORD. Is the gentleman at all skeptical that as the years go by this power company will have any diffi­culty in acquiring the rights to this power whenever it sees it is to its best interest, without making any payment what­soever to the National Government? There is not an in-

3336 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3 stance , in the history of Government where they have been so scrupulously regardful of the public's interest.

Mr. CULKIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. I yield. Mr. CULKIN. Has not public conscience been quickened

considerably in that respect? Mr. STAFFORD. We are trying to quicken it, so far as

Muscle Shoals is concerned; but we are not getting very far.

Mr. CULKIN. As I understand, the engineers have ap­proved this in its entirety.

[Here the gavel fell.] Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman

five additional minutes. Mr. CULKIN. The distinguished chairman of the com-

mitte~ has assured the gentleman that they can not get possession of this water or change the machinery without the consent of the Secretary of War. Surely the gentleman has faith in the Government in that regard. · Mr. STAFFORD. I have faith in the precedents of the past, wherein no charge has been made whatsoever by the War Department for utilizing additional water.

Mr. HAWLEY. In further reply to the gentleman from Wisconsin, let me call attention to this fact: If it were the company that owned the power that was required to make the contribution, that would be one thing; but the fact is the companies that buy the power are to make this con­tribution. If they were compelled to make the contribu­tion it would mean a direct loss, not benefit. In order to get ~ny benefit at all they would have to reconstruct their plants and the cost would be much greater than any benefit which would accrue.

Mr. REILLY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. REILLY. Is it customary to require cities or com­

munities to pay a part of the cost of river improvement? Mr. HAWLEY. It has been the custom in some instances.

The western part of Oregon has contributed more money in aid of navigation and the development of river and har­bor projects than any similar part of the country.

Mr. REILLY. This bill proposes to relieve this city of any contribution?

Mr. HAWLEY. It is proposed to relieve this particular locality of a contribution that will be of no benefit to the people who are to make the contribution.

Mr. REILLY. In other words, the improvement does not benefit the citizens of the city?

Mr. HAWLEY. It benefits them in the matter of tran3-portation, but everybody can use the river, and that being so, the engineers think these two companies ought not to be required to contribute, unless they are benefited directly. The matter was reviewed all the way from the district engi­neer to the Chief of Engineers, and they found that the benefit does not exist, but that the contribution proposed would be unprofitable to them.

Mr. REILLY. The benefit was assessed against those two companies?

Mr. HAWLEY. They will be the parties who will pay it. Mr. LINTHICUM. Will the gentleman yield? !\.1r. HAVILEY. Ye~. Mr. LINTHICUM. This is a matter of relief to the extent

'of $50,000, is it not? Mr. HA \VLEY. Yes. Mr. LINTHICUM. I have been inquiring about this bill

and have been told it involves $200,000. Mr. HAWLEY. No; it is a matter of relieving these com­

panies of a contribution of $50,000, so that the Government would be required to pay $205,000 for the improvement of this river.

Mr. LINTHICUM. I do not think the bill has been clearly presented to the committee, because I thought the bill was asking for something like $200,000.

Mr. HAWLEY. The project is to cost $205,000; $50,000 was to be paid by .companies supposed to derive benefits to that extent. However, the engineers have found that is not so. They have found that that local benefit does not

exist, and they therefore propose that the whole cost of the improvement, amounting to $205,000, shall be paid by the Government, relieving the local companies only of $50,000.

Mr. LINTIDCUM. I do not see how they can do all of this work for $205,000. It seems to me you are getting a lot of work for that amount of money.

Mr. HAWLEY. It will be a very valuable improvement of the riv.er.

Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. The appropriation was au­

thorized by the last river and harbor bill. The gentleman has made that clear?

:Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. :Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. And provision was made in

that bill for this local cooperation? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. May I direct the gentle­

man's attention to the report of the district engineer?-Investtgation by this office has determined that the wheels of

the power plants are set too high to take full advantage of the head riow available at low water. To take advantage of the addi­tional head resulting from lowering "tail-water elevation due to dredging the project channel below Willamette Falls would re­quire resetting of wheels and expensive rock excavation.

That more than offsets the benefit which would accrue. Mr. HAWLEY. That is correct. The readjustment of

this machinery would require excavation in solid rock. Mr. COX. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. COX. The execution of this proposed project-that

is, the improvement of the river for navigation purposes­will create a condition that will offer a possibility of the generation of more electric energy at this particular dam.

[Here the gavel fell.] Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman

five additional minutes. Mr. COX. In other words, it creates a condition that

offers the possibility of the generation of more electric energy at this particular dam. However, the paper com­panies which are now renting the dam from the owner have all the energy they . need for the operation of their busi­ness, and therefore are unwilling to readjust their machinery in order to use this increased headwater, a condition which is brought about by reason of the improvement of the river. Now, do I understand the gentleman to say that the paper companies, not being the owners of the dam, would not be interested, under any circumstances, in the necessary read­justments necessary to utilize the increased volume of water?

Mr. HAWLEY. They can not afford to do it. ·Mr. COX. But the assessment in this case is not made,

as I understand it, against the paper companies, but it is made against the owners of the dam whose property is specially benefited as a result of this river improvement.

Mr. HAWLEY. As a matter of fact, the only parties who would pay, if anybody paid, would be the paper companies.

Mr. COX. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the owners of the dam, rather than meet the expense incident to readjustment, would abandon their property?

Mr. HAWLEY. No; just continue it as it is. Mr. COX. At-any rate, to meet the objections raised by

the gentleman from Wisconsin, hereafter the owners of the dam could not utilize this increased volume of water with­out first obtaining permission from the War Department.

Mr. HAWLEY. The chairman of the committee made a statement on that matter.

Mr. COX. Would the War Department, under such cir­cumstances, have the right at that time to make a benefit assessment?

Mr. HAWLEY. I suppose the proper agency of Govern­ment could enter into whatever contract it thought was advantageous.

Mr. COX. -As a condltion precedent to giving consent. Mr. HAWLEY. Here is a water power, and two companies

in that place built factories. They constructed the neces­sary installations and developed the power by their own

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3337 machinery. They have a right to use the water acquired from another company. If a change is to be made the paper companies will have to assume the burden of lowering their construction in solid rock, and this will cost more than any possible development they can derive from the addi­tional water that they might be able to use. They use now some auxiliary steam power, and it would cost a great deal more to make the proposed change than it would to continue the US() of steam. Consequently they are not interested in lowering the wheels.

Mr. COX. Let me ask the gentleman this further ques­tion, and I am through: Can these paper companies get an increased volume of electrical energy with their machinery, set up as it is now, as a result of the river improvement which is proposed?

Mr. HAWLEY. No; not und8l' present circumstances. Mr. COX. In other words, in order to get any benefit

from increased headwater there must be incurred the ex­pense of a complete readjustment of their machinery.

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. SNELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. SNELL. I did not quite understand who is to pay

the original assessment-the owners of the property? Mr. HAWLEY. The lessees of the water power-the mills

at the falls at Oregon City. Mr. SNELL. What is the head there now? Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. It is about 20 feet. Mr. SNELL. Did I understand the gentleman to say that

if they could get 2% feet more they could not afford to do it, because it would be cheaper to use steam power?

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. Oh, no. Mr. HAWLEY. The cost of excavating in the rock-and

it is good, hard rock-to lower their wheels the distance of 2% feet would cost them more than it would to proceed as they are now, and a levy of $50,000 against them is an unfair levy.

[Here the gavel fell.] Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman

from Oregon five additional minutes. Mr. SNELL. Would this necessitate lowering the wheel? Mr. HAWLEY. I understand so. Mr. SNELL. Could they not put a draft tube down and

get the full benefit of the increased head in that way? Mr. HAWLEY. I do not think so. They are very expert

users of water power, and they say to make the changes proposed would not be of sufficient advantage to them to cause them to abandon their present system; that the cost of excavation in that solid rock to lower their wheels to get a higher head ·of water would be so great that they could not afford it, and that the $50,000 levy against them is totally out of proportion to any benefit they might receive, if there were any benefit.

Mr. SNELL. Perhaps a $50,000 levy would prohibit them from doing it, but I should think they could go to practically any reasonable expense to . get that additional 2% feet on a 20-foot head.

Mr. HAWLEY. The expense necessary for a reinstallation of their machinery is not a reasonable expense in compari­son with any benefit that might be derived.

Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. In addition to that they

would have to pay the power company for any additional power developed.

Mr. SNELL. Then it would be all right for the power company to pay the additional expense.

Mr. HAWLEY. But the owner of the water power is not to pay for the change. The installations are all put in by the manufacturing companies. They buy from the owner of the water rights.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. MANSFIELD. I will state in this connection that

there is no law to make these people pay this $50,000. They get nothing for it and, as a matter of course, they are not going to pay it. Unless this bill is put through, the action

heretofore taken in adopting the project is a nullity, be­cause the War Department will not go ahead and complete the work, under the present law, without the $50,000.

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Mr. SNELL. I notice the original project was only

adopted in 1930. What new information has come to the committee since that time?

Mr. STAFFORD. A change of front on the part of the district engineer, that is all.

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. A new survey. Mr. HAWLEY. The matter was submitted, on the protest

of the users, by the engineers for resurvey by the district engineer. He made a thorough investigation. He reported the facts to the division engineer at San Francisco, they reported them to the Board of Engineers here in Washing­ton, they reported them to the Chief of Engineers, and they all agree that this $50,000 levy against the companies there should not be made.

Mr. SNELL. I agree with that procedure, but my question was what new information had come to the committee since that time that made the committee change its opinion?

Mr. HAWLEY. The information I have just stated-a new report from the Chief of Engineers to the committee­a further report.

Mr. M.&~TIN of Oregon. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HA \VLEY. Yes. Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. The fact is that the engineers

in their original survey did not make the proper set-up. They went off, as it were, half-cocked, and when these people protested and showed they were wrong they reversed themselves.

Mr. SNELL. One thing I can not understand from the explanation made by the gentleman is that anyone who has a 20-foot head water power can not afford to make any rea­sonable improvements to get 2% feet additional when he is using steam power. Specially that would be true in your section of the country. .

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. If the gentleman saw the con­dition there, I think he would understand.

Mr. SNELL. And especially up in that country where I suppose steam power is expensive.

Mr. MARTIN of Oregon. But not too expensive. Mr. SNELL. Most companies would go to any reasonable

expense to get an additional 2~12 feet with a 20-foot head. Mr. HAWLEY. Not to any expense. Mr. SNELL. They would certainly go a long way to get

2% feet on the top of 20 feet. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to

the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. LINTHICUM].

Mr. LINTHICUM. Mr. Chairman, after the lengthy talk of our friend from New York [Mr. LAGuARDIA] and the thor­oughness with which he has gone into this subject, it seems to me it ought to be just about as clear as mud to us.

I am in favor of the bill. What seems strange to me 1s how they are going to accomplish so much for so little money; $205,000, I believe, is the authorization, and that is intended to dredge the Willamette River-it is very hard for me to pronounce it that way, because I have always pro­nounced it Willa-mette-for 13 miles.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LINTIDCUM. Yes. Mr. MANSFIELD. I will state that the gentleman has not

been out West in the last five years. Mr. LINTHICUM. The gentleman's statement is abso­

lutely correct, much to my regret. The river and harbor act approved July 3, 1930, adopted a

project for a stretch of 13 miles of the Willamette River, between Portland, Oreg., and Oregon City; it provided for a channel of 8 feet in depth and 150 feet in width. Then it also provided, from Cedar Island to Oregon City, for a width of 200 feet, 8 feet depth, and a stretch of 10 miles. So there is a stretch of 23 miles of river which they propose to dredge at a cost of $205,000. The river carried a tonnage in 1930 of 642,034 tons, valued at nearly $16,000,000; in addition, 1,064,000, plus tons of logs and piling, valued at nearly $4,000,000. There are $20,000,000 carried on this river, and

3338 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3 it is proposed to dredge it for a distance of 23 miles for $205,000.

I have always b~n interested in these projects. Vve have been treated so well at Baltimore that I felt it my duty to say a few words in the interest of this bilL It seems to me it has been seldom indeed that States or cities have been assessed anything when an appropriation or an authoriza­tion has been made. In view of the fact that there are really, no benefits to be derived by these power companies by reason of this improvement it does appear that we should not, in view of the smallness of the authorization, ask them to contribute $50,000 of this money.

I feel interested in this section of the country, as I know we all are. It is one of our splendid sections of America, and the more we develop the rivers and harbors of this country the greater will be the prosperity of the country and the lesser will be the transportation charges.

Senator Burton came to Baltimore one time when he was the head of the Rivers and Harbors Committee of this House. He went down the river, and somebody remarked about the benefit that would accrue to Baltimore by the improvement of the river. He said:

I am not thinking of the benefit it wlll particularly be to Balti­more, but I am thinking of the benefit it will be to the country generally. ·

It seems to me that the improvement of this stretch of Willamette River will not only be a benefit to Portland,

• Oreg., but that it will be a benefit to the whole hinterland. Senator Burton also said that the deepening of a river is a constant benefit to transportation.

[Here the gavel fell.] Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman

two additional minutes. Mr. LINTIDCUM. Because, he said-If you have a river which is deep enough to carry the necessary

commerce it is a constant pressure upon the railroads to reduce tJ;leir rates between the points covered by the river. .

I feel this bill ought to be adopted, in spite of the lengthy and arduous speech of the gentleman from New York, my good friend LAGUARDIA. I am rather surprised that he spent an hour talking about water. He does not usually spend that much time on that subject. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for further time.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the project for the improvement of the

Willamette River between Oregon City and Portland, Oreg., au­thorized by the river and harbor act approved July 3, 1930, is hereby modified in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in the report submitted in House Document No. 748, Seventy-first Congress.

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. At the end of the bill insert a comma and add the words " third session."

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I shall accept the amendment.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. STAFFORD: In line 8, after the word

"Coi).gress," strike out the period, insart a comma and th~ words " third session.''

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

I would like to ask a question of some one who is familiar with this bill. I notice the report brings out the fact that the reason this $50,000 should not be assessed against these two paper companies is because they do not own the power but merely lease it. I am rising to seek information and would request some one to give me the information. In view of -the fact that the power company, the owner of it, does get the benefit, why are they- not assessed the $50,000 instead of the paper companies? If the paper companies should not be assessed, because of the fact they do not own

1 the power, why not make the assessment against the owners of the power?

Mr. CULKIN. May I state to the gentleman that para­graph 6 of -the report, Document No. 748, contains a complete

explanation of that. I wonder .if the gentleman has read that report?

Mr. BOILEAU. I have not. Mr. CULKIN. Of course, we have to read these reports

in the committee. Mr. BOILEAU. I read the report that accompanied the

bill. I am simply asking this for information and I am not opposed to the bill. ·

Mr. CULKIN. In a nutshell, it is that "any changes," reading from the report-

That might be made to take the benefit of any possible increase tn power would cost appreciably more than such power would be ~orth, and that the ?Perating companies would be under obllga­twn to pay the ownmg company for any such increased power. The district engineer finds that the wheels of the power plants are set too high to take full advantage of the head now available .at low water and that conditions ire as represented by local interests.

In other words, the district engineer, who is our technician, tells us that the cost of this improvement would be greater than the benefits.

Mr. BOILEAU. I grant that. Mr. CULKIN. So there is no basis for local contributions. :M_r, BOILEAU. I grant that; but the point has been made

here by those in favor of the bill, and the point has been · emphasized, that these paper companies receive no benefits because they are leasing the power, but they do not explain why the power company should not pay this. I grant that the report shows quite conclusively that it would cost more to make this additional power available than the value of the benefits derived, but I do not see why the point should be stressed that the paper companies should not pay be­cause they are not the owners. I think that is ·misleading.

Mr. CULKIN. I may say to the gentleman that that reaches to the whole scheme of things and applies not only to the lessees but to the owners. We have a further statu­tory safeguard, as stated by the distinguished chairman of the cominittee, that if this power ever does function these companies must pay the Government for its use in rentals. So that all along the line our technicians have given the situation a clean bill of health, and we will be standing in the way of a much-needed improvement if we oppose this measure.

Mr. BOILEAU. The gentleman does admit, then, that the point made that the paper companies should not pay any­thing because they receive no benefit should not have any consideration by this committee?

Mr. CULKIN. Not necessarily; no. Mr. STAFFORD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BOILEAU. Yes. Mr. STAFFORD. I have had difficulty in bringing myself

around to the opinion that the War Department or the Government has the right to exact any additional cost from a power company for navigation improvements. I would like to have the chairman of the committee or some member of the committee cite the law whereby we can exact from a power company that is going to derive rights in the im­provement of a stream through a greater power head, some return -later on when they use it.

Mr. CULKIN. The gentleman must know-if I may re­spond to him--

Mr. BOILEAU. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. CULKIN. In all these reports, as a matter of statute,

the engineers must make a complete survey of possible power benefits to anyone or any possible creation of power by reason of any waterway construction. So the situation is always in the open; and, as the distinguished chairman has stated--

Mr. STAFFORD. I would like to have the law cited where the Government has such authority.

Mr. CULKIN. Might I ask Judge MANSFIELD a question? The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the inquiry as to where the statutory law is found that requires the benefici­aries in this case, assuming they use the increased head, to pay rental to the Government. I understood the gentle­man from Texas to say that in the event that these power companies became beneficiaries of the increased head, they would have to reimburse or pay rental to the Government.

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3339

Mr. MANSFIELD. A statement was made previously that these companies, if they hereafter made any change in the structure, would have to get an act of Congress or the permission of the Secretary of War.

Mr . . CULKIN. That would prevent them from utilizing the increased head without the consent of the Secretary of Wa:r.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; the Secretary of War has never granted a permit of this kind in navigable waters without proper investigation.

Mr. STAFFORD. The Secretary of War has no power or authority over this river except as far as navigation features a:re concerned.

Mr. MANSFIELD. That is true. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having

resumed the chair, Mr. BROWNING, 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. 7248) authorizing the modification of the existing project for the Willamette River between Oregon City and Portland, Oreg., and had directed him to report the same back with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill as amended do pass.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendments to final passage.

The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. Is a separate vote demanded on any

amendment? If not, the Chair will put them in gross. The amendments were agreed to. The bill, as amended, 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. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by

Mr. TABER) there were 126 ayes and 3 noes. So the bill was passed. A motion to reconsider by Mr. MANsFIELD was laid on the

table. AMENDING SECTION 3 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF JUNE

13, 1902

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Com­mittee on Rivers and Harbors, I call up the bill (S. 2334) to amend section 3 of the rivers and harbors act approved June 13, 1902, as amended and supplemented.

The SPEAKER. This bill is on the Union Calendar. Under the rule the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, with Mr. BRoWN­ING in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The House is in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the first paragraph of section 3 of the

act entitled "An act making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes," approved June 13, 1902, as amended and supplemented, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "As used in this section the term ' commerce ' shall include the use of waterways by seasonal passenger craft, yachts, house boats, fishing boats, motor boats, and other similar water craft, whether or not operated for hire."

.Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple bill, introduced in the Senate and passed by that body recently. Its purpose is merely to broaden the scope of the report of commerce movements of vessels in our waterways.

Heretofore there has been very little attention paid to the reports of passenger boats, pleasure boats, house boats, fish­ing boats, and various other craft now used extensively in many of our waterways. The chief purpose of this bill is to secure full and complete reports on these boats, as well as for other tonnage over our waterways. I have no requests for time. ·

Mr. LAGUARDIA. We would like to hear from the gentle­man from Florida [Mr. YoN].

Mr. MANSFIELD. I was just going to yield to the gentle­man from Florida. · Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. YoN] 10 minutes.

Mr. YON. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not one of my own introduction. It was introduced in the Senate by the seni{)r Senator from my State, and reported out of the Commerce . Committee of that body, and it passed the Senate on the 25th day of January. A companion measure was introduced in the House by my colleague the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. OWEN]. The bill was reported out of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, of which I am a member, by myself, as a Senate bill. Though the sponsors of this bill are from Florida, the benefits to be derived from it will not inme entirely to my State. The provisions of the bill will apply to every part of the country where they have any water­ways of a navigable nature. It will apply to the Pacific coast, to the Great Lakes, to the Mississippi Basin, to the Atlantic and the Gulf, from Maine to the Rio Grande. The Secretary of War said that the bill was not absolutely neces­sary, though he has no objection to it. Under the present system it is not mandatory that the individual district en­gineer shall consider as commercial craft pleasure boats, house boats, fishing boats, and other craft that are not run for hire. This measure will require him, in accumulating data to be presented by a community in behalf of some piece of legislation, to give credit for this class of craft. Some people will ask why we should place on the shoulders of the Government the responsibility of providing water­ways for craft that are not now regarded as commercial. I might ask why we st>end millions of dollars a ·year through­out the United States to develop our highway systems on the first principle of providing transportation facilities, and provide highways for personal use and not for com­mercial traffic? We hear a great deal of complaint through­out the country to-day about the clogging up of the high­ways by the commercial machines, . trucks, and busses, run for hire. In this instance why should they not take into consideration all pleasure craft, whether it be of 1, 10, or 150 tons, whether it be a 10-foot skiff or a 150-foot yacht? Millions and millions of dollars are invested in this sort of craft, and millions and millions of dollars are paid to em­ployees to construct this sort of craft, and millions of dollars paid to employees to operate them. I see no reason why anybody in this House should object to the provisions of this little amendatory act.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YON. Yes. Mr. FULBRIGHT. As I understand it, this law would

cover the operation of what we call John boats on the little streams, that are considered navigable streams by the Gov­ernment-boats that are pushed by hand or by poles along on the bottom of the streams.

Mr. YON. Oh, no. Mr. STAFFORD. Fishing boats, house boats, every con­

ceivable kind of craft. A raft would be included that had a human being on it.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. What benefit is to be derived by this legislation?

Mr. YON. Where a question is raised as to the necessity for improving a waterway, the district engineer will be re­quired to include pleasure craft that are used on that water­way in conjunction with the ordinary so-called commercial craft when compiling tonnage.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The gentleman said in his remarks a moment ago it would include 10-foot skiffs. That includes the smallest boats operated upon any stream.

Mr. YON. Yes; as it does down in my territory. Mr. FULBRIGHT. How many people does the gentleman

suppose would be necessarily employed to gather data as to these small boats that float around on the streams of the country?

Mr. YON. I do not know, but believe none.

------3340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YON. Yes. Mr. GOSS. In the opinion of the gentleman, does he

think the term" boat" would include a catamaran-one of these rafts that is made by logs lashed together, propelled by a sail or a paddle wheel, or even a so-called bicycle on skids?

Mr. YON. If they use it for a house boat, of course, it will be included in this legislation.

Mr. GOSS. Without specifically mentioning a catamaran I wondered whether the gentleman would be willing to have an amendment to include a catamaran?

Mr. YON. If the gentleman wants a catamaran in, why, put it in.

Mr. GOSS. I want to know whether the gentleman would approve that.

Mr. STAFFORD. He already says any form and every character of small craft.

Mr. YON. If the gentleman will look at the report of the bill, he will see the kind of boats mentioned-any boat that fioats. He can amend the bill to put in his catamaran. The boats included are yachts, passenger craft, house boats, fish­ing boats, motor boats, and other similar water craft, whether or not operated for hire.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YON. Yes. Mr. FULBRIGHT. What benefit will the owners of these

boats receive from this legislation? Mr. YON. I do not care what kind of a navigable stream

is being used for commerce, the better the condition of a channel and the fewer disasters you have will make better navigation, even if you are just pulling the boat with an oar or by an outboard motor or any kind of propulsion. It will be of benefit to everybody using any kind of a boat.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Did I understand the gentleman to accept the amendment suggested by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. GossJ? ·

Mr. YON. I am not the sponsor of the bill, as I stated in the beginning, but if the Committee of the Whole wishes to accept that amendment, that is up to them.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. It should include catboats and yawls. Mr. STAFFORD. Would there be any value, in the expert

opinion of the gentleman, in having statistics as far as ice boats are concerned?

:r"1r. YON. Of course, we do not use ice boats. Mr. STAFFORD. The gentleman comes from Florida, but

ice boats are water craft. Mr. YON. We do not use ice boats. They have ice boats

up in the gentleman's State. :Mr. STA-WFORD. Now, I notice the gentleman has made

the report on this bill. I do not see that it complies with the Ramseyer rule.

Mr. YON. I do not know anything about the Ramseyer rule. [Laughter and applause.]

1\-Ir. STAFFORD. Far be it from me on this occasion to displace on a point of order any bill that has been reported by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, but some Member might have lodged a point of order against this important bill, because it did not comply with the Ramseyer rule.

Mr. YON. Well, not being the parliamentarian of the committee, I must call upon the chairman for that point.

Mr. STAFFORD. But the gentleman who reports the measure-and this bears the gentleman's name-is obligated to see that it complies with the rules of this House. The gentleman should not place the burden upon the distin­guished chairman of the committee, because he has other burdens to care for.

Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAFFORI{. I yield to the gentleman from Ne-

braska where they have no navigable streams. Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman from Florida yield? Mr. YON. I yield. Mr. HOWARD. I would like to know whether the gentle­

man from Florida has polled his delegation so that he may now be able to inform the committee whether or not the

Florida delegation would be opposed to the proposed amend­ment to be offered by the gentleman from Connecticut to include tarmarins?. [Laughter.]

Mr. YON. As I say, I will have to put that up to the Committee of the Whole House.

[Here the gavel fell.] Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to

the gentleman from New York, Judge CuLKIN. Mr. CULKIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not know that it will

be possible for me to get the House serious-minded on this bill.

Mr. GOSS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. No; not yet. It seems that for some rea­

son, and I will not mention the reason I suspect, this bill is regarded with humor and with suspicion and as being un­worthy. When the fighting humor of the gentleman from Nebraska, for example, gets into a legislative situation, gen­erally the bilJ is dead. I refer to the mild but savage humor of the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. HOWARD. Oh, that is all right. [Laughter.] Mr. CULKIN. Now, if you will give me your attention

for just a minute I will endeavor to make clear to you what the purpose of this bill is.

· The gentleman from New York [Mr. LAGUARDIA] some six years ago introduced this identical bill. From that time until now various similar bills have been introduced. This particular bill was introduced in the Senate by the Sena­tor from Florida. It passed the Senate and came here, and the distinguished chairman turned it over to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. YoN] for a report. I say to you that this is not a humorous subject from any angle, because it in­volves human life. It may surprise you to know that the subject matter affected by this bill amounts to 1,429,450 motor boats which are owned and operated in the United States and on the waters thereof. ·

Mr. GOSS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. No; not yet. The total disbursements for that craft, which has a defi­

nite effect on the economic life of our people, has been to date $3,647,000,000. In other words, this major sport has become an important economic factor in the life of our peo­ple, involving, as it does, that huge disbursement. The divi­dends in good health which are to be gained from this recreational source can hardly be described.

The dominant situation which England enjoyed in the world for so long and in large measure enjoys to-day is due to the fact that she put her sons on the water almost as soon as they were able to walk. This measure will help put the sons and daughters of the United States on the water and it will get them away-and this will appeal to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. HowARD]-it will get them away from the "synthetic nineteenth hole" and get them out in the open.

Mr. MICHEI~ER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. I yield. Mr. MICHENER. Is there any provision made for pro­

viding water in Nebraska and those territories? Mr. CULKIN. No. Of course, Nebraska is inland. Now,

ladies and gentlemen, what does this bill do? It clears up certain doubtful ground in our statute law.

Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. I yield. Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. Will the gentleman state

what revenue is accruing to the United States from this source?

Mr. CULKIN. Well, there is no revenue now. The revenue statute was repealed, but up to some three or four years ago there had been collected in revenue approximately $4,000,000, not a cent of which ever was expended for the benefit of the small-boat owner.

I say-and I want to impress this upon your conscience___:;. that this bill involves the protection and security of human life, because these 1,429,000 small craft carry during the course of a year probably fifty or sixty million people. At the present time the Government on my theory is powerless to adopt navigational aids for the purpose of these small boats.

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3341

Mr. FIESINGER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. I yield. Mr. FIESINGER. Is not the purpose of this bill to explain

the word" commerce" in section 3 of the rivers and harbors act?

Mr. CULKIN. Exactly. Mr. MANSFIELD. And to provide additional statistical

data. Mr. FIESINGER. When the engineers go out to survey a

project they want to know what traffc goes over that project in order to determine whether they should recommend it to the Rivers and Harbors Committee and to this House.

Mr. CULKIN. Exactly. Mr. FIESINGER. They may consider in connection there­

with the craft enumerated here which will specify what commerce means. Is not that the. purpose and object of this bill?

Mr. CULKIN. That is the real purpose of the bill, and to give the engineers jurisdiction of the subject matter; also to give the Congress jurisdiction of the subject matter, so f~r as the improvement of these smaller channels is con­cerned.

Mr. FIESINGER. And they may con...<dder whether a craft is operated individually or for hire?

Mr. CULKIN. Exactly. Gentlemen, it does not mean an additional cent of disbursement. It merely means, as I say, the safeguarding and the increasmg of navigational aid for the purpose of small craft, on which some 60,009,000 of our people, more or less, are afloat every year. The boats num­ber, as I have stated, 1,429,000. Of course, some of them carry 10 to 15 people and some of them carry 100 people. The bill is sound and its purpose is sound, and, as I say, it will encourage the art of navigation; it will give health to our young people and will safeguard their lives. That is the exact situation which this bill cures and aids.

Mr. GOSS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. GOSS. I want to inquire whether, in the opinion of

the gentleman, these little rowboats would have to have clearance papers from port to port and whether the locks would have to be emptied for them when they come along?

Mr. CULKIN. The gentleman must know that question is facetious.

Mr. GOSS. Oh, no. I understand that was asked in your own committee.

Mr. CULKIN. There is no such purpose in this bill. Mr. GOSS. There is no such purpose, but would it re-

quire it? Mr. CULKIN. In my judgment, it would not require it. Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. MANSFIELD. I would state to the gentleman from

Connecticut that those boats operate now and will continue to operate just as they have heretofore, but they are not required to make reports to the War Department at present.

Mr. GOSS. It will not force small craft, then, to secure clearante papers each time they go out?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No; there would be no change over present conditions. They will continue to operate just as they have heretofore.

(Here the gavel fell.] Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman

five additional minutes. Mr. SWING. Will the gentleman yield?

· Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. SWING. Is not this parallel to the case of spending

Federal money and State money in the building of paved roads for pleasure automobiles, and yet the ruling has been that pleasure craft are excluded in the dredging of naviga­ble channels?

Mr. CULKIN. I thank the gentleman for calling my at­tention to that. Each year we vote $125,000,000 or $150,-000,000 for good roads, and yet this great health-giving recreation, with its tremendous industry in the background, gets no navigational safeguards. A report on the city of Washington was filed with our committee last year, and in

that report the local engineer Called attentiOn tO the fact I

that States and municipalities make. provision for the 1

golfer, they make provision for the automobilists, they build good roads for them all over the country, and yet there is not a cent disbursed or a thing done for this great : army of people to go upon the waters. There is nothing done to safeguard them.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Do I understand from the gentle­

man's discussion that the object is to eventually require the owners of these ·small craft to take out a license in order to operate on all of the inland streams?

Mr. CULKIN. No. This bill merely classifies them as commerce and makes it easier for the engineers to give them some minor aids in certain places. There has been some unwillingness on the part of the engineers to extend commerce to these small boats.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I understand; but this bill is wide enough in its scope to include any kind of a boat that floats on the small streams recognized as navigable streams throughout the country.

Mr. CULKIN. Certainly. Mr. FULBRIGHT. And this will ultimately require them

to have a license. Mr. CULKIN. No; this will not compel anybody to have

a license. Two years ago 300 and 400 footers were ex­empted from taxation. Of course, those boats draw con­siderable water, but there is not anything in the bill which is intended to require licenses on the part of these smaller boats. The purpose of the bill is simply to give these recrea­tional craft their place in the sun, give them protection, and safeguard the lives of those who operate them. This bill does not involve a cent of disbursement and will not involve very much in the future.

Mr. MURPHY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. MURPHY. I am a bit anxious to know what ·sort

of protection they would get under this bill that they do not now enjoy. What other protection does this bill offer? I have been following the gentleman closely, and I am inter-ested in the matter. ·

Mr. CULKIN. As I have stated, at the present time there is a sort of twilight zone between these small boats, and some of them, of course, are not so small, and commerce as defined in the river and harbor act. This clears that up and enables the engineers and enables, for example, the Lighthouse Board that has charge of lights on the sea and on the Lakes to make some provision for these small boats.

Mr. REED of New York. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. REED of New York. All along the Great Lakes there

are little fishing ports into which :fishing boats of the. type the gentleman is describing bring in tons and tons of fish, all the way down Lake Superior and Lake Ontario and Lake Huron and Lake Erie and Lake st. Clair, and it is their means of livelihood, and from these fishing ports carloads of fish are shipped to all parts of the country, but they will have no protection unless we have legislation of this sort.

Mr. CULKIN. What the gentleman says is true. It will clear up this mooted question, and I may state to the gen­tleman from New York it will give jurisdiction to the engi­neers over minor improvements where life needs to be safe­guarded and where harbors of refuge at a nominal cost can be created for these boats.

Mr. MURPHY. Will .it compel the boys and girls that operate power boats to get a license of some kind?

Mr. CULKIN. No; it will riot. Their status remains as it is at present.

I think this is a very beneficial law, gentlemen. I have studied it carefully for three years, and I think you will save much human life and give much in real health to the young people of our country by the passage of this legisla­tion. [Applause.]

Mr. COLE of Iowa. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. Yes.

3342 Mr. COLE of Iowa. I notice the Secretary of War, over

his own signature, . says this legislation is not ne~essary. Why is it brought on the floor here if it is not necessary?

~ill'. CULKIN. May I say that while the Secretary states that--

Mr. COLE of Iowa. He ought to know. Mr. CULKIN. He does not know everything, and he is

not a lawyer. · As I said, there -iS a moot question here, and this is a sort of border line, and will continue to . be a border line, unless this statute is passed. Our young people, as well as older people, are using this type of craft and will be without necessary safeguards unless legislation of this type is put on the books.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. If the Government is going to be made to supervise everything of this sort, there will be no end to it. · This is just another piece of · paternalistic bunk.

Mr. CUL..T{JN. No. The gentleman does not do me jus­tice and he does not understand the question. As I ex­plained a moment ago, , there are 1,457,000 of these boats in America. Our young people are navigating these boats on the high seas, the inland lakes, and on our waterways. There are probably 60,000,000 people a year that go out on these boats. There is not any bunk about that. I repeat, there is not a cent of disbursement involved in this bill.

lVIr. COLE of Iowa. I do not say there is any bunk about that.

Mr. CULKIN. That is what I understood the gentleman to say. , Mr. COLE of Iowa. But it looks to me like bunk to put the National Government into this business and make them the guardian of all these little boats that are rowed along the rivers of the country.

Mr. CULKIN. You are not doing that, I will say to the gentleman from Iowa, by this proposed legislation. It sim­ply enables ·the Government, in a proper case, to extend these navigation aids to small craft.

Mr. LEAVITT. If the gentleman will permit, I under­stood the gentleman to say that the Secretary of War~ not a lawyer.

Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. LEAVITT. He is one of the most distinguished law­

yers in the Nation. While this has nothing to do with the merits of the bill, ·I wanted to make the statement as a cor­rection of the RECORD.

Mr. CULKIN. I do remember now that the Secretary of War is a distinguished lawyer. I defer to him not only in character and pulchritude but also to his high ability as a great Secretary of War.

Mr. DIES. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr. DIES. I want to know if rowboats would be included

in this definition? · . Ml;. CULKIN. The gentleman is being facetious--Mr. DIES. No; I am serious about the proposition. We

have a nurnber of rowboats in my district. Mr. CULKIN. They would not be included. Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CULKIN. Yes. Mr; HOUSTON of Delaware. May I point out that 'While

the Secretary ·of War states that the legislation may not be necessary, he does not oppose the same.

Mr. CULKIN. Yes; that is true. Mr. MANSFIELD. And if the gentleman will permit, the

Secretary states it is not necessary for one class of boats only-pleasure craft. He does not mention fishing craft. There are thousands of tons of fish carried through Cape Cod Canal alone on which at present we have no reports.

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the measure.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for one hour.

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. HowARDJ.

Mr. HOWA...'R.D. Mr. Chairman, I would be far more in favor of this bill if the gentleman in charge will agree to accept an amendment, making · it apply to catamar-ans.

~FEBRUARY , 3 ~ The gentleman from New York spoke a moment ago, ma­

ligning my own State. He said Nebraska has no waters. I would inform him and all others in New York that Nebraska has a river longer than any two rivers in New York.

Mr. CULKIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOWARD. Yes. . Mr. CULKIN. I think the remark in reference to Ne­

braska waters came from some gentleman on the floor. I do not think that I mentioned it directly. .

Mr. HOWARD. I accept the gentleman's apology; [Laughter.] Now, Mr. Chairman, anybody acquainted with the conditions there will understand how harmful it will be to those of us who live on the Platte River if we do not have catamarans in this bill. [Laughter.]

To those of you unacquainted with a catamaran, I will explaiil, and I will not give you my own explanation, but I will give you a better authority. Mr. Webster says that a catamaran is a kind of raft or float made of logs or pieces of wood lashed together, moved by paddles or a sail, like a surf boat. That is a catamaran.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in order to convince my colleagues that I am not speaking selfishly when I insist that cata .. marans shall be included, I want to say that we use the catamaran largely on the Platte River as dispatch boats in connection with larger boats of our alfalfa navy. [Laughter.] -

My selfishness disappears when I tell you that in Ne­braska we have no woods to produce the logs for the cata­marans, but I am trying to legislate for the whole country. Missouri, right next to us, has some magnificent timber, and there we will go for the logs.

I have been informed by gentlemen from Connecticut that they have something that we do not produce, and so we will have to go to Connecticut for our twin hulls for the catamarans.

1\rr. Chairman, I hope my amendment will be adopted be­cause the bill will be sadly deficient if catamarans should be left out of it. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, the main sponsor of the bill says that this measure has been in either House for three successive terms of Congress waiting consideration. That is sufficient almost to indict it as being an unworthy measure. If more is necessary-and I hope tlle gentleman from New York will not charge ,me with being facetious for the opposition I am voicing-it would be the argument ·made by the distinguished gentleman from New York.

He says that this bill will put the boys and girls out on the water. The great vice of the automobiles is in taking the boys and girls out of their homes, away from their parents, with the consequent debauchment, in many in­stances, that follows.

One of the gre·at sociological problems resulting from the development of the automobile is that it has taken the boys and girls of tender age away from the protecting arm of the home; by their going into byways during their tender years, where there is no supervision whatsoever. •

Mr. CULKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAFFORD. The gentleman, I believe, is the owner

of a motor boat. I believe he has a motor boat. Mr. CULKIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAFFORD. Has the gentleman a motor boat that

plies on Lake Ontario? Mr. CULKIN. No; I have a sailing yacht. I am not a

moiLl{ey-wrench sailor. · Mr. STAFFORD. Will the gentleman please explain what

he means by a monkey-wrench sailor? Mr. CULKIN. He is · a monkey-wrench sailor who runs a

motor boat. I have a sailing yacht. Mr. STAFFORD. Taking up that question before I yield

further, I have never heard any demand coming from any member of the Milwaukee Yacht Club-and there are hun­dreds of sailing yachts on Lake Michigan going out of Mil­waukee harbor-for any supervision by the National Gov­ernment of pleasure craft that go out from that port. I know of no instance where any mishap has occurred by

'1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3343

reason of want of supervision of this character of craft by the National Government.

Mr. CULKIN rose. Mr. STAFFORD. I shall yield later on, if the gentleman

will permit me to proceed. I regard this as but an entering wedge for the National Government to take supervision over the small pleasure craft of the country. There is no need for it. There is no need for similar legislation so far as automobiles are concerned. We leave that to the States. The gentlemen have not made out a case warranting the extension of the province of the National Government over these small water craft. What is the purpose of the bill? What does the bill provide? I was much concerned by the inquiry made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. FUL­BRIGHT] as to what the real purpose of the bill is. I am one of the few who still believe in the doctrine of State rights so far as the control of our internal policy is con­cerned. It is far better than the establishment of a bu­reaucracy to supervise internal affairs. What is the real purpose of this proposal? The gentleman says there are 1,429,000 motor boats, but he gives no reason for the bill other than the fact that we are now about to launch on the policy of improving our inland waterways for the benefit of pleasw·e craft.

I remember about 15 years-mayhap 20 years-ago, when the distinguished father of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIES], Mr. Martin Dies: sr., rose on the floor and attacked the outrageous appropriations being made by the National Government for intercoastal waterways in the country, many of them unjustifiable. I have been down to Atlantic City time and time again during the recesses of the House and have there seen little dories going out into tempestuous waters, braving tempestuous seas, and coming safely back again. The only justification for some of these intercoastal waterways was to spend money of the National Government for the benefit of pleasure craft. The gentleman who reports this bill, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. YoN], has plenty of pleasure waterways in his country. The s~nior Senator from his State, as he stated, is the author of this bill, and he sponsored it through the Senate. Do we want the Na­tional Government to take supervision of all these pleasure craft? no· any of you gentlemen want to have the National Government invade the inland waterways of the country, go into the interior lakes, and take supervision of the water­craft plying those lakes?

Mr. CULKIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman now yield?

Mr. STAFFORD. I have the floor. When the gentleman had the floor he determined the time when he would yield. I shall yield before I get through with my hour, althoUgh I do not intend to use it all.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman declines to yield. Mr. STAFFORD. We have many more important bills

under consideration than this bill. I tried to have the chair­man bring up another bill rather than this measly, insignifi­cant measure.

Mr. CULKIN. I do not suppose the gentleman would yield now?

Mr. STAFFORD. I am not given to changing my mind in one minute. Let us read the provisions of the bill.

Mr. COLE of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STAFFORD. No; not at present. I am not playing . favorites here as to whom I shall yield to. I have nothing

against the gentleman from New York except his sponsor­ship of this little, insignificant measure.

Mr. CULKIN. Now will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRW..N. The gentleman has declined to yield. Mr. STAFFORD. The bill provides that the term

" commerce "-Shall include the use of waterways by seasonal passenger craft,

yachts, house boats, fishing boats, motor boats, and other similar water craft, whether or not operated for hire.

This is but the first step to have the National Govern­ment invade the province of the States to supervise every

LXXV-211

little activity where people are pleasure bent in a pleasure craft on waterways . . I now yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CULKL.~. Does the gentleman know that when he states there is no supervision of pleasure craft by the Gov­ernment at the present time he is entirely and hopelessly wrong on the subject?

Mr. STAFFORD. I know there is no supervision of . pleasure craft on the interior lakes of Wiscov..sin. I know · that and assert it positively. I know, furthermore, that the supervision that we do have by the National Government of the passenger vessels on the Great Lakes has failed - in emergency. I happened to be in Chicago the morning after that dreadful catastrophe when the ill-fated Eastland turned turtle, and I saw hundreds of bodies being taken out of the hull .on that Sunday morning, because of the neglect of our national inspectors. I have seen recently on Lake Erie, going out of Sandusky, an old hull, 50 years old, that could not stand any storm, and yet which had the 0. K. of the National Bureau of Inspection. I have been in De­troit and have gone down the .river to Bois Blanc and down to Put-in-Bay on steamers where there was an inadequate supply of life-saving equipment to save the lives of peo­ple on overcrowded vessels should there be need for it.

I believe fundamentally that that government is best which comes closest home to the people. I place the re­sponsibility for the character of the pleasure craft on the lakes of Wisconsin and their protection upon the State of Wisconsin. Bring home any disaster to the officials of the State of Wisconsin and hold them responsible-not upon some bureaucrat down here who can escape responsibility. That is my fundamental belief which I try to follow.

Mr. CULKIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAFFORD. I yield. Mr. CULKIN. Is it not a fact that all of these recrea­

tional boats-! do not like the term "pleasure craft "-all of those boats have to file with the Government.

.Mr. STAFFORD. No; not on the interior lakes of Wis­consin. They are navigable waters, which would be brought within the purview of this bill.

Mr. CULKIN. Is the gentleman sure of that? Mr. STAFFORD. I am sure. Mr. CULKIN. In New York State, if we have a power

boat, we must record it. They require all craft with power on it, even an outboard, to register with the Government · authorities in New York State, and that is pw·suant to a Federal law. • Mr. STAFFORD. I am only testifying as to the extent of Government officials supervising craft on the lakes of Wisconsin, and I can testify personally that we have no such supervision, as far as motor boats are concerned, be­cause I have operated an outboard motor boat this past fall on the lakes of northern Wisconsin.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAFFORD. I yield. Mr. DICKSTEIN. The bill proposes to add an additional

burden by certain ·supervision of these motor boats. Has the gentleman given any thought to the number of people who will be employed and the money that will be expended to keep up this supervision?

Mr. STAFFORD. Oh, this is ·an entering wedge. The purpose is to get statistics so as to make a showing that these little mud creeks that may be developed for the trans­portation of pleasure craft, which have no other commerce, are worthy of an appropriation. Then later on, of course; they will extend the supervision for inspection.

Mr. DICKSTEIN. But there will be required an appro­priation?

l'A:r. STAFFORD. Oh, of course. This is but an entering wedge.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAFFORD. I yield. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I take it for granted that in the gen­

tleman's State, just as in Missouri and many other States, the Federal Government exercises authority over stream~

3344 CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3. under the pretense that they are navigable, but they are, in fact, not practical for navigation at all.

Mr. STAFFORD. Certainly. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I Will ask the gentleman if this bill

· is not wide enough in scope to take in the so-called pleasure boats which operate on the so-called navigable streams of the various States?

Mr. STAFFORD. There is no denying that. The bill proposes to amend the rivers and harbors act, which includes all navigable waters of the country.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. In other words, in all seriousness, this bill, if it becomes effective, would authorize the Federal Government to go into the gentleman's State, or any State, on any small stream where the Government exercises juris­diction over the stream, because it claims it is navigable, and require a report of these little boats that are pushed by poles?

Mr. STAFFORD. Not only that, but the little outboard­motor boat. If the United States inspector says "You have

· been using that outboard motor for four or five years, it is ' old style and you can not operate that boat any more, be­cause I am a Federal official and I say it is not proper equipment," he must be obeyed.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. These little motor boats operated by motors of 3 or 4 horsepower, will come under the jurisdic­

: tion of this legislation. It is another illustration of the , attempt of the Federal Government to reach into the States

and control matters that are exclusively within the juris­, diction of the State.

Mr. STAFFORD. And where the States have full juris­: diction to-day. I hope the Members from those States . which have no navigable streams within their borders, will • take the judgment of those who have, and vote against this · attempt to invade the sovereignty of the States over matters 1 that pertain solely and exclusively to the States. There is , no lack of authority within the sovereign States to super­! vise these vessels. There has been no case made out. This i bill should be negatived. [Applause.] 1

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAFFORD. I yield. Mr. LAGUARDIA. The bill contains a rather subtle

~ method of computing the commerce on streams. The exist-1 ing law says:

And in consideration of such works and projects the board I shall have in view the amount and character of commerce existing · or reasonably prospective which wm be benefited by the im-1 provement • • •.

By embracing all these pleasure craft as boats of com:. : merce, it will necessitate increased Federal appropriations 1 for river and harbor work.

Mr. STAFFORD. Oh, it is making out a case .of the 1 little peewee--if I may use a term used by the distinguished , father of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DIEsl-these little ; peewee streams-to justify an expenditure.

Gentlemen, I think I have proven that I am for economy. ~ I think you Members on this side should carry out con­' sistently a policy for economy and not vote for this bill that is ostensibly for what? I do not know, but whose real purpose will be larger and larger appropriations from the National Government.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to

the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. LANKFoRD]. Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have not

been in this House very long, but I submit that this bill is the most misunderstood bill of any bill I have ever heard dis­cussed on the fioor. Into this question there have been brought catamarans, the morals of our young people, and a few minutes ago pewee rivers. But that is entirely aside

· from the merits of this bill. Gentlemen, in the levity that has been thrown around it do not overlook the fact that this

. is a good bill. As a matter of fact, I do not believe the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MANsFIELD J, would bring in any bill that was not a good bill. He is too .serious, he is too good a legislator and too careful a man to present a bill that does not merit consideration.

l

Let me tell you what this bill does, and this is all it does. If you have not done so, look at the report and you will find that this bill does not have anything to do with the regula­tion of these little craft. This bill is not for that purpose. Here is what this bill does: It defines the word" commerce"· so as to include pleasure craft as well as business craft which carry grain or any other articles of commerce.

Let me tell you the situation in my district. We have a great many pleasure craft, as does the gentleman from New York, coming down through our port on their way to Florida. Now, can you tell me the ~difference between $100,000 or $500,000 spent in the way of commerce by these small boats for food, gas, oil, and for the supplies they buy, and the com­merce of a barge that is carrying grain? As a matter of fact, in many instances pleasure craft spend more money than the large business craft.

All this bill does is to simply allow pleasure craft to be considered :£long with business craft in order to see whether the War Department is justified in making an improvement. The Secretary of War very naturally says, "This, gentle­men, is a matter for Congress; it is not a matter for me to decide; it does not make any difference to the War Department,_ but we will take it into consideration if Con­gress wants it," and they leave it entirely to the Congress as to whether that is a proper regulation.

As far as rowboats go, you can not imagine that the Sec­retary of War is going to make an improvement for a row­boat or for a catamaran, as my friend from Nebraska says. The War Department is not going to consider it unless it is a project that has some merit in it.

I happen to know that pleasure crafts that come through Hampton Roads spend over $500,000 a year, and it is just to take into consideration pleasure craft along with business craft.

If you have ever had any experience before the United States engineers you have been confronted with the fact that in investigating these projects they can only consider commerce. They can take into consideration how much wheat is carried, as well as other features of commerce, but they can not take into consideration the fact that pleasure craft may spend as much as $500,000.

My friend from New York hit the nail on the head when he said what this bill meant; and if the House will fully understand the bill, I do not think it will think there is anything wrong with it.

I suomit that pleasure craft should be taken into consid­eration when water-borne commerce is being investigated for the purpose of improving a stream. Then let me call your attention to the fact that a lot of these men live on these boats: They are not pleasure craft, strictly speaking, but these people have their homes on them, and I submit that this bill is proper in every way.

Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. Yes. Mr. HOUSTON of Delaware. And we must not forget

that human life is at stake and the number of passengers going through these waterways must be taken into consid­eration.

Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. That is true. Mr. KETCHAM. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. Gladly. Mr. KETCHAM. In connection with the remarks the gen­

tleman has just made concerning the importance of pleasure craft in determining the commerce that a certain port may have, I call the gentleman's attention to the last paragraph of the statement by the Secretary of War, in which he says:

The enactment of the legislation 1s not considered necessary to the due consideration of the benefits of a proposed improvement to pleasure craft.

If I interpret that language correctly, the department is now able to take pleasure craft and the amount of commerce they contribute to a particular port into consideration in the matter of making any improvement.

Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. I have been confronted with that very question many tiines. Pleasure craft do not now have consideration, and this is to make it plain that they

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3345 can be considered. If the gentleman has had any river and harbor projects he has been confronted with the same thing, namely, that the word "commerce" is strictly construed by the \Var Department as commerce, and as the hauling of wheat, of brick, of building materials, and things of that kind. The department does not take into consideration pleasure craft.

Mr. KETCHAM. In view of that plain statement by the Secretary of War, does the gentleman believe that he would have the difficulties in the future that he has had in the past? I do not see how the gentleman can get around the plain statement of the Secretary that they now consider these craft.

Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. I am for this bill, and 1 would rather have it in this bill.

[Here the gavel fell.] Mr. MANSFIE.LD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman

two additional minutes. Mr. GOSS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. I yield. Mr. GOSS. I notice pleasure craft going through the

Cape Cod Canal, for instance. At both ends of the canal Government vessels come out and stop the craft and ask what the tonnage of the boat is and get all that informa­tion, including the owner and all that sort of thing. This is being done now.

Mr. Lfu~KFORD of Virginia. Certainly; that has nothing to do with this bill.

Mr. GOSS. What does this bill propose to do-have that information furnished to the department, or is it just scrapped?

Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. As I underst9,nd it, this bill has nothing in the world to do with anything except to allow the War Department to take into consideration the tonnage and number of pleasure craft, in addition to the other craft, to justify a proposed project.

Mr. GOSS. I would say to the gentleman that the War Department on the Cape Cod Canal are the very ones thrtt are doing that to-day.

Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. They are not doing it with us, if I understand what the gentleman means.

Mr. YON. That is the purpose of this amendment to the act of 1902. In some places, of course, the engineers could go ahead under the present law, as the Secretary of War says, but he still goes on and states that he has no objection to the enactment of this legislation. Some engineers may in some places do this, but in other places they do not.

Mr. LANKFORD of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back ·the balance of my time.

The Clerk read the bill for amendment. Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the

enacting clause. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from \Visconsin moves

to strike out the enacting clause. Does the gentleman de­sire recognition on his motion?

Mr. STAFFORD. No, Mr. Chairman; I am desirous of bringing the question to an issue, so we may proceed to the consideration of a really important bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Wisconsin to strike out the enacting clause.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. STAFFORD) there were---ayes 18, noes 35.

So the motion was rejected. Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: On page 2, line 1, after the

word "yachts" insert "catfmarans."

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I should, indeed, be remiss in my duty if I did not offer this amendment at this time, realizing that my State might get some very great benefits from the adoption of the amendment.

As I recall it, the gentleman from Nebraska stated they would undoubtedly buy the pontoons for these catamarans from my State of Connecticut, and doubtless the gentleman

from Missouri is interested, because they would probably buy logs and pieces of wood for these catamarans from his State.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. I yield. . Mr. FULBRIGHT. I want to get the distinction between a

cat-amaran and a ca-tamaran. Mr. GOSS. It is the same thing. Mr. FULBRIGHT. The gentleman from Nebraska refers

to a ca-tamaran and the gentleman refers to a cat-amaran. Mr. GOSS. It is the same thing, pronounced differently.

[Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, I have been accused of being facetious here

to-day, but I am in earnest in calling the attention of the committee to this particular amendment. Anything that will bring business to any of the localities of this great Na­tion is very much welcomed, and I sincerely hope that the House will adopt this amendment.

As a matter of fact, there are many kinds of catamarans. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee to describe all the various kinds and qualities of catamarans, but inasmuch as we have gotten down to the little row­boat--.

Mr. YON. Will the gentleman Jrield? Mr. GOSS. I yield. Mr. YON. Does not the gentleman think that since there

are so many kinds of catamarans that they would go in. with pleasure craft and other similar water craft?

Mr. GOSS. Oh, no; much to the contrary. They would not be included, and that is why I have offered this amend­ment; in fact, catamarans in various States differ with the different types of water. [Laughter.]

Mr. CULKIN. Did the gentleman ever see a ca-tamaran? Mr. GOSS. Yes; it is the same thing. It is pronounced

that way out in Ne~raska. Mr. CULKIN. And it belongs to the same family as the

cat-amaran? Mr. GOSS. Yes; it is the same thing. Mr. ' CULKIN. VIas the gentleman ever on one? Mr. GOSS. Oh, yes; I have pushed them with my feet. Mr. CULKIN. Was the gentleman ever at sea in one? l\1:r. GOSS. On the Lakes; and sometimes there is quite

a sea that comes up, but they are safe, I would say to the gentleman.

Mr. McS'W AIN. Does it also belong to the genus gya-scutus? ·

Mr. GOSS. That may be one of the offspring. I am not familiar with all the different kinds of catamarans in the various parts of the country.

I sincerely trust the committee will adopt this amend­ment, Mr. Chairman, so that all our States will have the benefit of this measure if it should pass and become the law.

Mr. MANLOVE. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GOSS. Yes. Mr . .1\IANLOVE. I am speaking seriously. I am a land­

lubber and I do not know anything about creeks or rivers or harbors, but I would like to know if there is such a thing as a catamaran.

Mr. GOSS. Oh, yes; it is in Webster's Dictionary. The gentleman from Nebraska read the definition of a cata­m~uan from the dictionary.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be again read.

The Clerk again read the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of­

fered by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. GossJ. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by

Mr. Goss) there were 21 ayes and 38 noes. So the amendment was rejected. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move that the com­

mittee do now rise and report the bill favorably to the House.

The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the committee rose; and the Speaker having

resumed the chair, Mr. BROWNING, Chairman of the Commit-

3346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3 tee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported .that that committee had had under . consideration the bill S. 2334 and directed him to report the same back with the recommendation that it do pass.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. STAFFORD) there were 49 ayes and 7 noes.

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Speaker, I challenge the vote, and make the point of order that there is no quorum present.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin makes the point of order that no quorum is present. The Chair will count. [After counting.] One hundred and two Mem-bers present, not a quorum. ·

The doors were closed, the Sergeant at Arms directed to notify absent Members, and the Clerk called the roll.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 229, nays 90, answered" present" 1, not voting 113, as follows:

Abernethy Aldrich Allgood Amlie Andresen Andrew, Mass. · Andrews, N. Y. Arnold Auf der Heide Bachmann Bankhead Barbour Beam Beedy Beers Black Boehne Bohn Boileau Boland Bolton Bowman Boylan Brand, Ga. Browning Brunner Busby Butler Campbell, Pa. Canfield Carden Carter, Cali!. Carter, Wyo. cartwright Cary Celler Chase Chavez Christopherson Clague Clancy Clark, N.C. Cochran, Pa. Cole, Md. Collins Colton Condon Connery Cooper, Tenn. Corning Cox Coyle CUlkin Cullen Dallinger Darrow Davenport Davis

Adkins Allen Almon Ayres Barton Beck Blanton Buchanan Bulwinkle Burtness Byrns Cable

[Roll No. 15] YE.AS-229

Dalaney DeRouen Dies Dieterich Dominick Drane Drewry Engle bright Erk Eslick Evans, Calif. Fernandez Fie singer Fish Fitzpatrick Free Fuller Fulmer GambrUl Garber Gasque Gavagan Gibson Goldsborough Goodwin Granfield Green Greenwood

. Gregory Guyer Haines Hare Harlan Hartley Hastings Haugen Hess Hlli, 'wash. Hooper Hope Hopkins Hornor Horr Houston, Del. Huddleston Hull, Morton D. .Jeffers Johnson, Okla. .Johnson, Tex. Jones Kading Kahn &:eller Kelly, Pa. Kemp Kendall Kerr Ketcham

Kleberg Kopp Lambeth Lankford, Ga. Lankford, Va. Larsen Leavitt Lichtenwalner Lindsay Linthicum Lonergan Loofbourow Lozier McCormack McReynolds Magrady Major Maloney Mansfield Mapes Martin, Oreg. Mead Michener Millard Mitchell Milligan Montague Montet Moore, Ky. Moore, Ohio Murphy Nelson, Me. Niedringhaus Norton, N.J. O'Connor Overton Palmisano Parker, Ga. Parker, N.Y. Partridge Patman Patterson Peavey Person Pettengill Pittenger Prall Purnell Ragon Ramspeck Ransley Rayburn Reed, N.Y. Rich Rogers, Mass. Rogers, N.H. Rudd Rutherford

NAY8-90 Campbell, Iowa Cannon Cavtcchia Christgau Cochran, Mo. Cross De Priest Dickstein Dowell Doxey Driver Dyer

Eaton, Colo. Finley Foss French Fulbright Gilchrist Gillen Glover Goss Griswold Hall, Dl. Hall, Miss.

Sanders, N.Y. Sanders, Tex. Sandlin Schneider Schuetz Seger Seiberling Selvig Shannon Shott Shreve Sirovlch Smith, .Idaho Snell Snow Somers, N.Y. Spence Stalker Stevenson Strong,Pa. Sullivan, N.Y. Summers, Wash. Sumners, Tex. Swank Sweeney Swick Swing Tarver Taylor, Colo • Temple Thatcher Tierney Tilson Turpin Underwood Vinson, Ga. Vinson, Ky. Wason Weaver Weeks Welch, Cali!. Welsh, Pa. Whitley Whittington Williamson Wilson Wingo Wolcott Wolfenden Wolverton Wood.ru1f Woodrum Wright Wyant Yon

Hardy Hoch Hogg, Ind. Holaday Howard .Jenkins Johnson, Mo. Kn11Iin Knutson Kvale LaGuardia Lambertson

Larrabee Mlller Luce Morehead Ludlow Nelson, Mo. McClintock, Ohio Norton, Nebr. McFadden Parsons McGugin Perkins McKeown Polk McSwain Rainey Manlove Ramseyer Martin, Mass. Rankin May ·Reilly

Ro\>inson Sa bath Schafer Shallenberger Simmons Sinclair Sparks Stafford Stewart Stokes Strong, Kans.

ANSWERED "PRESENT "-1 Bacharach

NOT VOTING-113 Arentz Bacon Baldrige Bland Bloom Brand, Ohio Briggs Britten Brumm Buckbee Burch Burdick Carley Chapman Chindblom Chiperfield Clarke, N. Y. Cole, Iowa comer Connolly Cooke Cooper, Ohio Crall Crisp Crosser Crowe Crowther Crump Curry

Dickinson Disney Dough ton Douglas, Ariz. Douglass, Mass. Doutrich Eaton, N.J. Estep Evans, Mont. Fishburne Flannagan Frear Freeman Garrett Gifford Gilbert Golder Granata Grtlfin Hadley Hall, N.Dak. Hancock, N.Y. Hancock, N. C. Hart Hawley HID, Ala. Hogg, w. Va. Hollister Holmes

So the bill was passed.

Hull, William E. Igoe Jacobsen James Johnson, lll. Johnson, S. Dak. Johnson, Wash. Karch Kelly, lll. Kennedy Kinzer Kurtz Lamneck Lanham Lea Lehlbach Lewis Lovette McClintic, Okla. McDuffie McLaughlin McLeod McMillan Ma.a.s Mouser Nelson, Wis. Nolan Oliver, Ala. Oliver, N.Y. ·

Sutphin Swanson Taber Thomason Thurston Tinkham Vestal Wigglesworth W1111ams, Mo.

Owen Parks Pou Pratt, Harcourt J. Pratt, Ruth Quin Reid, lll. Romjue Smith, Va. Smith, W.Va. Steagall Sullivan, Pa. Taylor, Tenn. Timberlake Treadway Tucker Underhill Warren Watson West White Williams, Tex. Withrow Wood, Ga. Wood, Incl. Yates

The following pairs were announced until further notice: Mr. Crisp with Mr. Bacharach. Mr. McDuffie with Mr. Reid o! lllinols. Mr. Garrett with Mr. Golder. Mr. McMlllan with Mr. Nolan. Mr. Pou with Mr. Crowther. Mr. Quin with Mr. McLeod. Mr. Romjue with Mr. Cooper o! Ohio. Mr. Kelly of Dlinois with Mr. Kinser. Mr. Igoe with Mr. Buckbee. Mr. Tucker with Mr. Connolly. Mr. Griffin With Mr. Watson. Mr. Crump with Mr. Britten. Mr. Smith of Virginia with Mr. Arentz. Mr. Oliver of New York with Mr. Yates. Mr. Smith of West Virginia With Mr. Johnson o! Washington. Mr. Karch with Mr. Kurtz. Mr. Williams o! Texas with Mr. Clarke o! New York. Mr. Steagall with Mr. Harcourt J. Pratt. Mr. Evans of Montana with Mr. Treadway. Mrs. Owen with Mr. Sulllvan of Pennsylvania. Mr. Douglass o! Massachusetts With Mr. Doutrich. Mr. Kennedy with Mr. Crail. Mr. Bland with Mr. Johnson o! Tilinois. Mr. Lewis with Mr. Hollister. Mr. Collier with Mr. Chindblom. Mr. Disney with Mr. Wood o! Indiana. Mr. Oliver of Alabama with Mr. Brumm. Mr. Carley with Mr. Johnson o! South Dakota. Mr. Lanham with Mr. Hadley. Mr. Burch with Mr. Frear. Mr. McClintic of Oklahoma with Mr. Curry. Mr. Bloom with Mr. McLaughlin. Mr.. Crosser with Mr. Lehlbach. Mr. Warren with Mr. William E. Hull. Mr. Gilbert with Mr. Bacon. Mr. West with Mr. Hall of North Dakota. Mr. Hill of Alabama with Mr. Underhill. Mr. Wood of Georgia with Mr. Burdick. Mr. Hart with Mr. Chiperfield. Mr. Lamneck with Mr. Maas. Mr. Parks with Mr. Eaton of New Jersey. Mr. Briggs with Mr. Hawley. Mr. Dickinson with Mr. Hogg o! West Virginia. Mr. Lea with Mr. James. • Mr. Fishburne with Mr. Hancock of New York. Mr. Crowe with Mr. Lovette. Mr. Daughton with Mr. Mouser. Mr. Chapman with Mr. Gifford. Mr. Douglas of Arizona with Mr. Estep. Mr. Flannagan with Mrs. Ruth Pratt. Mr. Hancock of North Carolina with Mr. Nelson o! Wisconsln. Mr. Jacobsen with Mr. Holmes. Mr. Withrow with Mr. Grunata. Mr. Baldrige with Mr. White.

l932 (fONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 3347 Mr. BACHARACH. 1\.fr. Speaker, did the gentleman from

Georgia, Mr. CRISP, vote? The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia is not re­

corded. Mr. BACHARACH. I have a general pair with the gen­

tleman from Georgia. If I were allowed to vote, I would vote "no." As it is, I answer "present."

Mr. FIESINGER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York, Mr. GRIFFIN, is absent on account of sickness.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. On motion of Mr. MANSFIELD, a motion to reconsider the

vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table. LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, the following leave of absence was granted:

To Mr. RoMJUE <at the request of 1\.Ir. WILLIAMS of Mis­souri), on account of illness;

To Mr. CHAPMAN <at the request of Mr. LAMBETH), until February 6, on account of an official visit to Kentucky in connection with the George Washington Bicentennial pro­gram of the Kentucky Legislature; and

To Mr. GRIFFIN, for to-day, on account of illness. Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, in view of the filibuster that

has occurred I am not going to move to adjourn. I want the call of committees to proceed.

ADJOURNMENT Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I will state that the Committee

on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries is the next com­mittee on the calendar to be called. We have a bill with 13 sections, and it could not be concluded this afternoon. I understand that if it is called that ends the call of the committee on this Calendar \Vednesday. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 40 minutes p. mJ the House adjourned until to-morrow, Thurs­day, February 4, 1932, at 12 o'clock noon.

COMMITTEE HEARINGS Mr. RAINEY submitted the following tentative list of com­

mittee hearings scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 1932, as reported to the floor leader by clerks of the several committees:

COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRs--sUBCOMMITTEE 00.30 a. m.)

Private bills. COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

00 a.m.) Interstate commerce act, section 15a <H. R. 7116 and

7117). COMMITTEE ON THE POST OFFICE AND POST ROAD5--SUBCOMM!TTEE

NO. 1

(9.30 a. mJ To fix more equitably the responsibility of postmasters

(H. R. 7720). COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS

00.30 a.m.)

Reduction of prices of surplus stock to relief organizations. ELECTIONS COMMITTEE NO. 1

00 a.m.) Hearing argument in Kent v. Coyle case.

COMMITTEE 0 EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS 00 a.m.)

National defense act. COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS

UO a.m.) Uniform widows' bill (H. R. 7230).

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC. 425. Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, a letter from the Secre­

tary of the Treasury, transmitting a draft of a proposed joint resolution to amend the settlement of war claims act of 1928,

was taken from the Speaker's table and referred to the Com­mittee on Ways and Means.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, Mr. EVANS of Montana: Committee on the Public Lands.

H. R. 8087. A bill authorizihg the Secretary of the Interior to vacate withdrawals of public lands under the reclamation law, with reservation of rights, ways, and easements; with amendment <Rept. No. 349). Referred to the Committee of the ·whole House on the state of the Union.

Mr. MANSFIELD: Committee on Rivers and Harbors. H. J. Res. 271. A joint resolution amending section 1 of the act entitled "An act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public wol'ks on rivers and har­bors, and for other purposes," approved July 3, 1930, relating to the Mississippi River between the mouth of the illinois River and Minneapolis; without amendment (Rept. No. 350). Referred to the Committee of the ·whole House on the state of the Union.

REPORTS OF CO!viMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of Rule XIII, Mr. LEAVITT: Committee on Indian Affairs. H. R. 4149.

A bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to pay E. C. Sampson, of Billings, Mont., for services rendered the Crow Tribe of Indians; without amendment (Rept. No. 348). Re­ferred to the Committee of the Whole House.

CHANGE OF REFERENCE Under clause 2 of Rule XXII, committees were discharged

from the consideration of the following bills, which were referred as follows:

A bill <H. R. 7051) granting a pension to Mary R. Cur­rier; Committee on Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

A bill <H. R. 4345) granting a pension to Ann Matthews; Committee on Invalid Pensions discharged, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, public bills and resolutions

were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. GAl\ffiRILL: A bill (H. R. 8814) to amend the

portion of the District of Columbia appropriation act of March 3, 1917 <D. C. Code, title 20, sec. 1040), relating to . delivery of water from the water system of the District of Columbia to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commis­sion of Maryland; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

By Mr. SWING: A bill (H. R. 8815) granting a bonus by_ way of a pension of $10 per month on the pensions of all veterans of the United States Army who remained in the Philippines after the original term of enlistment had ex­pired and continued in action during the Philippine insur­rection until honorably discharged from the service; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mrs. KAHN: A bill <H. R. 8816) for the relief of offi­cers of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps retired for wounds received in battle; to the Committee OJ;l Military Affairs.

By Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania: A bill (H. R. 8817) to provide for fees for entry of a publication as second-class matter, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8818) to amend section 287 of title 39 of the United States Code, Supplement V; to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

By Mr. SUMNERS of Texas: A bill (H. R. 8819) amend­ing the annual rate of payment of irrigation-construction assessments on the Wapato irrigation project; to the Com­mittee on Indian Affairs.

3348. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3 Also, a bill (H. R. 8820) to amend an act entitled "An

act to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes," approved September 7, 1916, and acts in amendment thereof; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8821) to amend the longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FRENCH: A bill (H. R. 8822) to prevent erosion of soil, to protect the national watersheds, and to promote the highest general uses of the public domain, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Public Lands.

By Mr. CELLER: A bill (H. R. 8823) for compulsory use of parachutes by airplane common carriers and penalties for violations thereof; to the Committee on Interstate and For­eign Commerce.

By Mr. HOWARD: A bill (H. R. 8824) to restore certain lands to the San Carlos (White Mountain) Indian Reserva­tion, Ariz.; tothe Committee on Indian Affairs.

By Mr. MONTAGUE: Joint resolution (H. J. Res. 275) to authorize participation by the United States in the Inter­parliamentary Union; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By Mr HARE: Joint resolution (H. J. Res. 276) consent­ing that certain States may sue the United States, and providing for trial on the merits in any suit brought here­under by a State to recover direct taxes alleged to have been illegally collected by the United States during the years 1866, 1867, and 1868, and vesting the right in each State to sue in its own name; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FULl\t.tER: Concurrent resolution CH. Con. Res. 16) creating a joint committee to investigate the activities of the Federal Farm Board; to the Committee on Rules.

By Mr. CONNERY: Concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 17) to provide for the printing of 1,000 additional copies of the hearings held before the Committee on Labor during the Seventy-first Congress on Old-Age Pensions; to the Committee on Printing.

MEMORIALS Under clause 3 of Rule XXII, memorials were presented

and referred as follows: Memorial of the State of New Jersey, proposing a con­

vention to repeal Article XVIII of the Constitution of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Memorial of the State of Arizona to the Congress of the United States, requesting Congress to appropriate or to cause the proper governmental bureau to expend sufficient funds to pay for one-third the cost of construction of a bridge across the Colorado River at Parker, Ariz.; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

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

were introduced and severally referred as follows: By Mr. ANDREWS of New York: A bill (H. R. 8825) for

the relief of Arthur W. Bradshaw; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. BLAND: A bill (H. R. 8826) to compensate Prince William County, Va., and York County, Va., for certain of their public roads and highways seized by the United States for the use of a permanent Marine Corps post at Quantico, Va., and a Navy mine depot at or near Yorktown, Va.; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. BRAND of Georgia: A bill CH. R. 8827) granting an increase of pension to Whitmill T. Eason; to the Com­mittee on Pensions.

By Mr. CABLE: A bill (H. R. 8828) granting an increase of pension to Mary E. Benson; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8829) granting a pension to Mary Vance; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. CAMPBELL of Iowa: A }?ill (H. R. 8830). for the relief of Frederick Henry Pollman; to the Comnuttee on Military. Affairs.

By Mr. CHAPMAN: A bill (H. R. 8831) granting a pen­sion to Robert W. Creech; to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8832) granting a pension to Nannie Floyd; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8833) granting a pension to James W. Flynn; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8834) for the relief of Lloyd Massie; to the Committee on Claims.

Also, a bill CH. R. 8835) for the relief of Joshua Stan­defier; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8836) granting a pension to Sallie J. Barnes; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8837) granting a pension to Mariah Matilda Johnson; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill CH. R. 8838) granting an increase of pension to George Bunch; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. CLANCY: A bill (H. R. 8839) granting a pension to William Leder; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. DICKINSON: A bill (H. R. 8840) granting a pen­sion to Mary E. Nichols; to the Committee on Invalid Pen­sions.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8841) granting a pension to Chloe M. Ranbarger; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. DYER: A bill (H. R. 8842) for the relief of Frank Bielky; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8843) to extend the benefits of the employees' compensation act of September 7, 1916, to Eugene L. Berg; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. EVANS of California: A bill (H. R. 8844) grant­ing a pension to Homer Moore; to the Committee on Pen­sions.

By Mr. FULBRIGHT: A bill (H. R. 8845) granting a pen­sion to Katie A. Smith; to the Committee on Invalid Pen­sions.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8846) granting a pension to Ira Rob­erts; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. FULMER: A bill <H. R. 8847) for the relief of Capt. Alexander C. Doyle; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. GAMBRILL: A bill (H. R. 8848) for the relief of Elmer W. Morton; to the Committee on the Civil Service.

By Mr. GRANFIELD: A bill (H. R. 8849) granting a pen­sion to Peter Koutsaymanes; to the Committee on Pensions.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8850) for the relief of Robert Francis Connell; to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, a bill CH. R. 8851) authorizing the President of the United States to appoint Thomas Lougharan to the position and rank of first-class sergeant in the Army of the United states and immediately retire him with the rank and pay of a first-class sergeant; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

By Mr. HARE: A bill CH. R. 8852) for the relief of Thomas Lee Mitchum; to the Committee on :htfilitary Affairs.

By Mr. HOGG of Indiana: A bill (H. R. 8853) granting a pension to Theron Ritchie; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8854) granting an increase of pension to Charles v. Barr; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. HOWARD: A bill (H. R. 8855) for the relief of samuel Renville; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8856) for the relief of John M. Green; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8857) for the relief of Lydia Wakanna; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Also, a bill <H. R. 8858) for the relief of George Henry; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8859) for the relief of Joseph Redwing; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Also a bill (H. R. 8860) for the relief of Abraham Red­wing; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8861) for the relief of Ray Whipple; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Also, a bill (H. R. 8862) for the relief of Delia Whipple; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

By Mr. IGOE: A bill (H. R. 8863) granting a pension to Karl M. E. Owen; to the Committee on Pensions.

1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

By Mr. MANSFIELD: A bill (H. R. 8864) granting a pen­sion to John Elmo Lee; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. MURPHY: A bill (H. R. 8865) granting an in­crease of pension to Jane Richards; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mrs. OWEN: A bill (H. R. 8866) granting a pension to Alta Manypenny; to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. REID of illinois: A bill <H. R. 8867) authorizing the Secretary of War to award a distinguished-service medal to August F. Lohmann; to the Committee on I\filitary Affairs.

By Mr. SMITH of Virginia: A bill (H. R. 8868) to com .. pensate Prince William County, Va., and York County, Va., for certain of their public roads and highways seized by the United States for the use of a permanent Marine Corps post at Quantico, Va., and a Navy mine depot at or near Yorktown, Va.; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. THATCHER: A bill <H. R. 8869) for the relief of A. \V. Kliefoth; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. 'WEST: A bill (H. R. 8870) for the relief of Charles Schilliger; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

PETITIONS, ETC. Under clause 1 of Rule XXII, petitions and papers were

laid on the Clerk's desk and referred as follows: 1198. By Mr. ALDRICH: Petition of Eva J. Esten and 38

other citizens of East Greenwich and Wakefield, R.I., oppos­ing the repeal, resubmission, or any modification of the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1199. Also, petition of Dr. John Champlin and 63 other citizens of Westerly, R.I., advocating a reduction of the Fed­eral salary and wage scale and other economies in the ad­ministration of the Federal Government; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1200. By Mr. AUF DER HEIDE: Petition of the Legisla-ture of the State of New Jersey (J. Res. 1, Laws of 1932), proposing a convention to repeal the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1201. By Mr. AYRES: Petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Belle Plaine, Kans., against any modi­fication or repeal of the prohibition law; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1202. By Mr. BUCKBEE: Petition of the Woman's Chris-tian Temperance Union of Sandwich, Ill., asking for the support and maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement and protesting against any measure lookinrr toward its modification, resubmission to the States, or repeal, with the request that their petition be printed in the CoN­GRESSIONAL RECORD; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1203. By Mr. CARTER of Wyoming: Petition of Pearl Ferguson, president of the Wyoming Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and other citizens of the State of Wyo­ming, relative to the prohibition question; to the Commit-tee on the Judiciary.

1204. Also, petition of Hon. R. Anderson, mayor of New­castle, and other prominent citizens of the State of Wyo­ming, urging Congress to pay · the final one-half of the adjusted-service certificates due the ex-service men of the World wai· this session; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1205. By Mr. CHRISTGAU: Resolution adopted by the Minnesota Cooperative Wool Growers Association, express­ing opposition to proposals to repeal the agricultural mar­ketmg act; to the Committee on Agriculture.

1206. By Mr. CONNERY: Memorial of the Ipswich Post, No. 30, of the American Legion of Massachusetts, favoring the immediate cash payment of the remaining 50 per cent of the adjusted-compensation certificates; to the Commit­tee on the Judiciary.

1207. Also, memorial of Massachusetts Federation of Post Office Clerks, Amesbury, Mass., opposing wage cuts and dropping of employees; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1208. By Mr. EVANS of California: Petition of Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Pomona, Calif., represent-

ing 300 members, opposing the resubmission of the eight­eenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1209. By Mr. FRENCH: Petition of citizens of Bonners Ferry and Boundary County, Idaho, urging that the Gov­ernment grant a quarterly tribal allowance and annual an­nuities to the Kootenai Indians until such time at least as they can become self -supporting and that they retain Phena Anderson as field matron of the Kootenai Indians at St. Michael's Mission and that the Indian school be kept open; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

1210. By Mr. FULLER: Petition of Earle G. Soule and 394 other residents of Madison County, Ark., requesting that a bill be passed in Congress permitting the legal manufacture of 4 per cent beer on the theory that it would bring large revenue into the county by reason of the manufacture of staves and furnish labor to many out of employment; to the Committee on the Judici2vry.

1211. Also, petition of I. L. Mayne and many other World War veterans of Springdale, Ark., requesting support for the payment of the adjusted-service certificates as set forth in House bill1, by Mr. PATMAN; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1212. By Mr. FULMER: Petition of Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Leesville, S. C., protesting against the interference of the prohibition law looking toward its modi­fication, resubmission to the States, or repeal; to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

1213. By Mr. GIBSON: Petition of the Woman's Chris­tian Temperance Union of East Hardwick, Vt., opposing resubmission of the eighteenth amendment; to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

1214. By Mr. GILCHRIST: Petition of Daisy Redhead president Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Dolliver: Iowa, and 60 citizens of that vicinity, urging maintenance of existing prohibition enforcement laws and activities and protesting against any change; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1215. Also, petition of Louisa I. Prettyman, county presi­dent Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Coon Rapids Iowa, and 97 citizens of that vicinity, urging maintenanc~ of existing prohibition enforcement laws and activities and · protesting against any change; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1216. Also, petition of Josephine Hamilton, president Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Glidden, Iowa, and 35 citizens of that vicinity, urging maintenance of existing prohibition enforcement laws and activities and protesting against any change; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1217. By Mr. HALL of ·North Dakota: Petition of mem­bers of the Federal Land Bank Borrowers Protective Asso­ciation; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

1218. Also, petition of the Civic and Commerce Associa­tion of Valley City, N. Dak., indorsing the program of the America~ Alliance of the United States in their fight against commurusm; to the Committee on Immigration and Nat-uralization. •

1219. By Mr. HAUGEN: Petition of citizens of Fayette Maynard, Randalia, Eldora, Arlington, and Volga, Iowa, op~ posing the repeal, resubmission, or any modification of the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judi cary.

1220. By Mr. HOOPER: Petition of citizens of the third district of Michigan, urging the maintenance of the prohibi­tion law and its enforcement; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1221. By Mr. HUDDLESTON: Petition of Mrs. E. R. Jones and numerous other members of the Woman's Mis­sionary Society of Shady Side Methodist Episcopal Church, Ensley, Ala., favoring maintaining prohibition laws; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1222. By Mr. KADING: Joint resolution adopted by the Wisconsin State Legislature, memorializing Congress to pass one of the bills introduced by Wisconsin Members to restore to the States control over the liquor traffic within their bor­ders; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1223. By Mr. LUCE: Petition of Abbie Goddard Bassett Auxiliary, No. 51, of the United Spanish War Veterans, urg-

3350 CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD-HOUSE FEBRUARY 3 ing ·enactment of House bill 7230; to · the Committee' on Pensions.

1224. By Mr. McLAUGHLIN: Petition of DeWitt S. Os­good and 55 other residents of Muskegcn County, Mich., opposing passage of the compulsory Sunday observance bill, s. 1202; to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

1225. Also, resolution passed at public meeting in Muske­gon Heights Baptist Church, opposing resubmission or re­peal of the eighteenth amendment and urging its enforce­ment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1226. By Mr. MEAD: Petition of Holy Name Society of St. Gerard's Church, Buffalo, N. Y., opposing Federal control of education; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1227. Also, petition of National Guard Association of the State of New York, with respect to erection of a memorial to the World War National Guard of the United States at Washington, D. C.; to the Committee on the Library.

1228. Also, petition of Ogden (Utah) Branch, Railway Mail Association, opposing reduction of Federal salaries; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1229. Also, petition of residents of Buffalo, N. Y., opposing modification of the prohibition law; to the Committee on the Judiciary. .

1230. Also, petition of residents of Buffalo, opposing modi­fication of the prohibition law; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1231. Also, petition of Veteran Corps Artillery of the State of New York, relative to the President's recommendation for a department of public works; to the Committee on Appropriations.

1232. By Mr. MURPHY: Petition of Henry Holland, of East Liverpool, favoring the passage of immigration laws; to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

1233. Also, petition of Maggie C. Eells, of Lisbon, Ohio, · and 24 other members of the local union, supporting the

prohibition law and its enforcement; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1234. By Mr. O'CONNOR: Resolutions adopted by the · board of directors of the American Oil Burner Association

<Inc.), opposing tariffs and/or embargoes on crude petro­leum and/or petroleum products, including fuel oils; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1235. By Mr. RAINEY: Petition of Edgar Mason and 29 other veterans of Waverly, m., favoring legislation to make immediate payment of the adjusted-compensation certifi­cates; to the Committee on World War Veterans' Legisla-tio~ ·

1236. Also, petition of Max Smith and 16 other veterans of Glasgow, Dl., favoring House bill 1;, to the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation.

1237. Also, petition of Alex Howard and 44 other veterans of Glasgow, Dl., favoring House bill 1; to the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation.

1238. Also, petition of Ira Cottingham, president, and three other officers of the Jerseyville Mutual Fire Insurance Co., against taxation of mutual fire-insurance companies; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1239. By Mr. RICH: Petition of officials and employees of the Lycoming Manufacturing Co., of Williamsport, Pa., favoring the reduction of salaries of Federal employees and a reduction in the expenditures of the Federal Government; to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart­ments.

1240. Also, petition of First Methodist Church, Renovo, and Bethany Lutheran Bible school, Montoursville, Pa., op­posing the resubmission of the eighteenth amendment to be ratified by State conventions or by State legislatures, etc.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1241. By Mr. RUDD: Petition of Joseph H. Colyer, jr., of Burns Bros., New York City, opposing any reduction of strength of the Regular Army or National Guard, or the elimination or postponement of summer training camps; to the Committee on Appropriations.

1242. Also, petition of Military .order of Foreign Wars of the United States, New York Commandery, favoring the passage of House bill 5659, investigating communist activi-

ties in the United States~ and House bill 1967, deportation of alien communists; to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

1243. Also, petition of American Machine & Metals (Inc.), New York City, favoring an embargo on manganese; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1244. Also, petition of Frank R. Oastler, M.D., New York City, favoring the passage of the Everglades National Park, in the State of Florida, bill; to the Committee on Agricul­ture.

1245. By Mr. SANDERS of Texas: Resolution of Carl E. Azbell Post, No. 340, American Legion, Winnsboro, Tex., rec­ommending full payment of the adjusted-service certifi­cates; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1246. By :Mr. SEGER: Joint resolution of Legislature of New Jersey, calling upon Congress to call a convention to amend the Constitution by repealing the eighteenth amend­ment and substituting therefor an amendment restoring con­trol to the States and vesting in the Federal Government power to give protection to States desiring to exclude intoxi­cating liquor; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1247. By Mr. SHOTT: Petition of the council of the town of South Charleston, W. Va., protesting against using the United States naval ordnance and projectile plants located in that city for a Federal penal institution; to the Com­mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1248. Also, petition of the West Vh·ginia League of Build­ing and Loan Associations, urging the passage of House bill 7620, believing this bill will materially benefit the business generally and the building and loan organizations; to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

1249. Also, petition of Fort Henry Chapter, No. 9, of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, urging the passage of the appropriation bill for the War Depart­ment; to the Committee on Appropriations.

1250. By Mr. SINCLAIR: Petition of E. G. Ranum and 39 other residents of Van Hook, Sanish, N.Dak., and vicin­ity, protesting against an increase in taxes on automobiles~ parts, etc.; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1251. Also, telegram from John H. Seibert, Flaxton, N. Dak., protesting against proposed tax on telephones and electric current in hotels; to the Committee on Ways and Means. .

1252. By Mr. SNOW: Petition of A. B. Hagerthy and many other citizens of Ashland, Me., requesting the enact­ment of appropriate legislation to place highway trucks and bus lines under regulations; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1253. Also, petition of G. P. Hamilton and many other citizens of Limestone, Me., requesting the enactment of ap­propriate legislation to place highway trucks and bus lines under regulations; to the Committee on Interstate and For-eign Commerce. •

1254. Also, petition of James H. Mack and other citizens of East Millinocket, Me., requesting the enactment of appro­priate legislation to place highway trucks and bus lines un- · der regulations; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1255. Also, petition of Thomas Fournier and many other citizens of Eagie Lake, Me., requesting the enactment of appropriate legislation to place highway trucks and bus lines under regulations; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

1256. By Mr. SPARKS: Petition of Osborne (Kans.) . Woman's Christian Temperance Union, properly indorsed by Nellie La Rosh, president, and Laura Hobbie, secretary, of Osborne, Kans., protesting against change in eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1257. Also, petition of M. L. Williams and Ruth Williams, of Alton, Kans., protesting against the compulsory Sunday observance bill; to the Committee on the District of Co­lumbia.

1258. Also, petition by direction of University Friends Church, representing 1,000 members, of Wichita, Kans., pro­testing against any change in eighteenth amendment, signed by Charles 0. Whiteby, minister; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

----·--1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 3351

1259. By Mr. STEW ART: Joint Resolution No. 1, Laws of 1932, state of New Jersey, providing for application by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey to the Congress of the United states to call a convention for proposing an amend­ment to said Constitution for the repeal of Article XVIII (eighteenth amendment, prohibition of the liquor traffic) and the substitution of a new amendment therefor, etc.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1260. By Mr. SUTPIDN: Joint Resolution No. 1, Laws of 1932, offered by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, proposing a convention to repeal the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ·

1261. By Mr. SWEENEY: Petition to amend section 2 of section 4463 of Title LII of the Revised Statutes of the United States; to the Committee on Labor.

1262. By Mr. TABER: Petition of certain adult residents of the State of New York, opposing the passage of com­pulsory Sunday observance bill, S. 1202; -to the Committee on the District of Columbia. ·

1263. Also, petition of Amelia A. Jackson and others, urg­ing maintenance of the prohibition law and its enforcement; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1264. By Mr. VINSON of Kentucky: Petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Salt Lick, Ky., and the Salt Lick Woman's Club, against the resubmission of the eighteenth amendment to Congress; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1265. By Mr. WEEKS: etition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Swanton, Vt., opposing the resubmis­sion of the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1266. By Mr. WIGGLESWORTH: Petition of sundry citi­zens of Braintree and Weymouth, Mass., protesting against the passage of Senate bill 2882 authorizing and directing the discontinuance of transport service of the Army and NavY, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Military Affairs.

1267. By Mr. WYANT: Petition of Lydia I. Altman, chair­man local legislative committee, Woman's Chl'istian Tem­perance Union of Irwin, Pa., opposing repeal of eighteenth amendment or referendum; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1268. Also, petition of Mrs. S.C. Daugherty, teacher, rep­resenting 14 members of class No. 30, First Presbyterian Church, Jeannette, Pa., urging support of enforcement meas­ure of eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1269. Also, petition of Olive W. Matchett, president, and Adda Niblock, secretary, representing 42 members of the Phila Logue Bible class of the First Presbyterian Church of Jeannette, Pa., urging support of the enforcement measure of the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1270. Also, petition of Frank T. Fink, president, and Mrs. W. A. Kemerer, secretary, representing 30 members of Bible class of the First Presbyterian Church of Jeannette, Pa., urging support of enforcement measure of the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1271. Also, petition of Sloan R. Hall, certified public ac­countant, Jeannette, Pa., urging that a tax of 10 per cent be added to the cost of advertising over the broadcasting sys­tems of the country; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

1272. Also, petition of Mrs. J. S. Houston, president, and Mrs. J. Wyke, secretary, representing 57 members of the Mizpah Bible class of the First Presbyterian Church of Jean­net'te, Pa., urging support of the enforcement measure of the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1273. Also, petition of Glenn M. Crawford, pastor, and Frank Trimble, clerk of session, representing 950 members of the First Presbyterian Church of Jeannette, Pa., urging support of enforcement measure of eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1274. Also, petition of Kenneth Smail, 'president, and Ernest A. Lefevre, secretary, representing 25 members of the progressive young men's Bible class of the First Presby-

terian Church of Jeannette, Pa., urging support of enforce­ment measure of eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1275. Also, petition of J. G. Waddell, president, and J. B. Basehore, secretary, representing 58 members of the broth­erhood Bible class of the First Presbyterian Church of Jean­nette, Pa., urging support of enforcement measure of the eighteenth amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary:

1276. By Mr. YATES: Petition of members of the Ben L. Jones Auxiliary, No. 52, United Spanish War Veterans, De­partment of Illinois, Waukegan, Ill., urging support of House bill 7230; to the Committee on Pensions.

SENATE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1932

The Chaplain, Rev. Z~Barney T. Phillips, D. D., offered the following prayer:

Most Loving Fater, who hast brought us in safety to the beginning of this day; give us thankful hearts as again we pause in Thy presence to invoke Thy blessing and guidance. Help us to cast all our care upon Thee, who carest for us, that being strengthened by Thy Spirit in the inner man and taking sweet counsel together as friends in this the Nation's sanctuary, we may bring to glad fruition the hopes of our fellow men.

Watch over us as our days increase, keep us unspotted from the world, make us to dread nothing but the loss of Thee, and preserve us from all faithless fears that our efforts may be crowned with the blessing that cometh to those who quit themselves like men. Thus unto Thy gracious keeping we commit ourselves, dear Lord, ever mind­ful · of Thy love, which binds us close in bonds of holy fellowship through Him who is the Master of mankind, Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

THE JOURNAL

The Chief Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of the proceedings of the legislative day of Monday last, when, on request of Mr. FEss and by unanimous consent, the fur­ther reading was dispensed with and the Journal was approved.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives by Mr. Chaffee, one of its clerks, announced that the House had passed without amendment the bill <S. 2334) to amend section 3 of the rivers and harbors act, approved June 13, 1902, as amended and supplemented.

The message also announced that the House had passed a bill <H. R. 7248) authorizing the modification of the exist­ing project for the Willamette River between Oregon City and Portland, Oreg., in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate.

CALL OF THE ROLL

Mr. FESS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Sena­

tors answered to their names: Ashurst Austin Bailey Bankhead Barbour Barkley Bingham Black Blaine Borah Bratton Brookhart Broussard Bulkley Bulow Byrnes Capper Caraway Carey Connally

Coolidge Copeland Costigan Couzens Cutting Dale Davis Dickinson Dill Fess Fletcher Frazier George Glass Glenn Goldsborough Hale Harris Harrison , Hastings

Hatfield Hayden Hebert Howell Hull Jones Kean Kendrick Keyes King La Follette Lewis Logan Long McGUl McKellar McNary Metca.ll Moses Neely

Norbeck Norris Nye Oddie Patterson Pittman Reed Robinson, Ark. Robinson, Ind. Schall Sheppard Ship stead Smith

' Smoot Stelwer Stephens Thomas, Idaho Thomas, Okla.. Townsend Trammell