Слике страница
PDF
ePub

By Mr. TYSION:

A bill (S. 4388) granting a pension to Mury Lizzie Mosby; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. BINGHAM:

A bill (S. 4384) to amend an act entitled "An act creating the United States Cotirt for China and prescribing the jurisdiction thereof" (Public, No. 403, 59th Cong.), and an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the Diplomatic and Consular Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921" (Public, No. 238, 6(ith Cong.) ; to the Committee ou Foreign Relations.

By Mr. NORBECK:

A bill (S. 4385) to establish the Tetori National Park in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys.

By Mr. TYDINGS:

A bill (S. 4380) to authorize and direct the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the practices of the chain-store organizations; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. FESS:

A bill (S. 4387) granting an increase of pension to Frances Bales; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. HALE:

A bill (S. 4388) granting a pension to Adelaide A. Ryerson; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. HOWELL:

A bill (S. 4389) for the relief of Ralph Rhees (with accompanying papers) ; and

A bill (S. 4390) for the relief of the Ayer & Lord Tie Co. (Inc.) (with accompanying papers) ; to the Committee ou Claims.

By Mr. GOFF:

A bill (S. 4391) waiving the statute of limitations in the claim of Leona E. Kidwell under the civil service retirement act; to the Committee on Civil Service.

A bill (S. 4392) to amend an act entitled "An act. creating the United States Court for China and prescribing the jurisdiction thereof" (Public, No. 403, 59th Cong.), and an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the Diplomatic and Consular Service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921" (Public, No. 238, 66th Cong.) ; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

By Mr. McNARY:

A bill (S. 4393) to authorize arrests in certain cases and to protect employees of the Department of Agriculture in the execution of their duties; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.

By Mr. FLETCHER:

A bill (S. 4394) to amend "An act granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the war with Spain, the Philippine insurrection, or the China relief expedition, to certain maimed soldiers, to certain widows, minor children, and helpless children of such soldiers and sailors, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Pensions.

A bill (S. 4395) to amend section 305 of the World War veterans' act. as amended; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. MOSES:

A joint resolution (S. J. Res. 144) relating to the manufacture of stamped envelopes; to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

Koub Years' Term For Representatives In Congress

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, the Norrls resolution having been defeated, I introduce a joint resolution changing the terms of Members of the House from two years to four years. Under the present situation, newly elected Members of the House scarcely take their seats before beginning a campaign for reelection; and that situation ought to be corrected. I ask that the joint resolution be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in the hope that we can extend the terras of Members of the House from two years to four years, so that a Member may have an opportunity at least to get acquainted with his work before he has to run for oflice again.

The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 145) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the terms of Representatives was road twice by its title and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

AMENDMENT TO TAX REDUCTION BILL

Mr. FLETCHER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to House bill 1, the tax reduction bill, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

DEFENSES IN PATENT SUITS

Mr. DILL submitted an amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 2783) to provide for the forfeiture of patent rights in case of conviction under laws prohibiting monopoly, which was referred to the Committee ou Patents and ordered to be printed.

MARKETING OF PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. BORAH submitted an amendment in the mil tire of a substitute intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 1294) to suppress unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketing of perishable agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

ORDER FOR EVENING SESSION ON THURSDAY

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to present the following order, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will read the order.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Ordered (by unanimous consent), Tlmt on Tliurxdiiy, May 10, 1928, at not later than 6 o'clock p. m., the Senate take a recess until 8 o'clock p. m., and tliat at the evening session, which shall nut continue later than 11 o'clock p. m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of the liiils on the calendar, under Rule VIII.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, is unanimous consent asked for the order?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas has asked unanimous consent for its adoption.

Mr. BRUCE. I object.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection is made.

Mr. CURTIS subsequently said: Mr. President, before the Senator from Alabama proceeds further, if lie will allow me to interrupt him, the Senator from Maryland I Mr. Bruce] is willing to withdraw his objection to the request for unanimous consent. Will the Senator from Alabama yield to me to present it again?

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator from Maryland a day or two ago objected to the bill I am discussing, and I will pay him my compliments in a few moments. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. CURTIS. I present a request for unanimous consent and ask that it may be read and entered into.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Ordered (6j/ unanimous consent). That on Thursday, May 10, 1928, at not later than 6 o'clock p. m., the Senate take a recess until 8 o'clock p. m., and that at the evening session, which shall not continue later than 11 o'clock p. m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of the hilU on the calendar, under Rule VIII.

Mr. KING. I think the Senator ought to change the hour of adjournment on that evening to 10.30 p. in.

Mr. CURTIS. I am willing to change it to 10.30 p. m.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the request for unanimous consent will be modified so as to provide for a session beginning at 8 o'clock and adjourning at not later than 10.30 o'clock p. in. Is there objection to the request for unanimous consent as modified?

The unanimous-consent agreement as modified was entered into, as follows:

Ordered by unanimous consent, That on Thursday, May 10, 1028, at not later than 6 o'clock p. m., the Senate take a recess until 8 o'clock p. m., and that at the evening session, which shall not continue later than 10.30 o'clock p. m., the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bills on the calendar, under Rule VIII.

COTTON-PRICE PREDICTIONS THE FLAG—GOVERNOR SMITH

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, on yesterday I gave notice that this morning I would discuss the cotton bill (S. 3815), which I have pending in the Senate, the flag in connection with the question which I raised yesterday, the candidacy of Governor Smith, and the presidential situation generally.

Mr. President, on the 15th of September, 1927. the Bureau of Economics, in the Department of Agriculture, gave out a most remarkable statement in which it predicted the prices of cotton. It had no authority to make such a prediction. After reciting the fact that the boll weevil had injuriously affected the crop, that the yield had been cut nearly a million bales in a month, and that the crop would be 5,000.000 bales short of the previous crop, they said, "Therefore we predict that the prices will decline."

(At this point Mr. Heflin yielded to Mr. Curtis to present a request for unanimous consent.)

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I hope I will not be interrupted any more until I can state the facts in this case. That price prediction broke the cotton market, and the cotton farmers lost some $35 to $40 a bale on the cotton crop of 1927. We are seeking to prevent the occurrence of another such destructive and criminal act. I saw the necessity of having some law on the subject, and while we were debating the Agricultural appropriation bill the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Simmons), the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Mckh.lab], and other Senators suggested that as I had raised the question here I should introduce a bill providing a penalty for making such cotton-price predictions. I did introduce such a bill; it was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry; and it was unanimously reported by that committee.

When I first called it up, the Senator from Khode Island [Mr. Metcalf], who comes from a New England cotton-spinning State and is himself a spinner, as I understand, objected. He renewed his objection later, but finally, as I understand, withdrew his objection.

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Bbitce], who is supposed to represent in part a State of the South where the home of the cotton industry is located, objected. The Senator knew the importance of passing this measure; he knew how greatly interested the cotton producers of the section from which he comes were, but he objected. He has never withdrawn his objection. I hardly know how to characterize the strange conduct of the Senator from Maryland, who pretends to represent the southern section at least to some extent. Of course, we all are from various States and represent in particular our States and try to represent the whole country as best we can. I do, and I think other Senators here in the main do. There are Senators here who, I believe, are whole-heartedly dedicated to the public interest and are trying to serve the country. There are some who seem to have the center of gravity in their systems on the side of special interests.

The farmers of my section have not only been sorely oppressed, but absolutely robbed of millions and millions of dollars by that strange and unwarranted price prediction made by the Agricultural Department here at Washington.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator for a moment?

Mr. HEFLIN. I will let the Senator interrupt me just for a moment.

Mr. BRUCE. There is such a thing as even momentary satisfaction. I will say to the Senator that he is laboring under an entire misapprehension in believing that I have any fixed prepossession against this bill of his. All I suggested the other day was that I did not think at the time that a matter of such importance ought to be taken up for instant consideration. What I was hoping was that some Member of this body who is more familiar with the problem than am I, after hearing the Senator from Alabama, would make an argument that would enable me to realize just how much force the point of view opposite to that of the Senator from Alabama has. That is all. I think it is not unlikely, after I hear the Senator from Alabama and have heard what may be said in opposition to him, that I will vote for his bill.

Mr. HEFLIN. Well, Mr. President, the Senator is too late now, because I am going to express myself on this subject. Seven or eight objections have been made here to the passage of this bill and I think certain interests have suggested the objections. There are Jesuits who sit in this gallery every day, and Roman Catholic priests. I think that they have got friends here through whom they may have objection interposed.

Now, I will give some of my reasons as to why this measure ought to pass. The cotton farmers of the South on a single cotton crop have lost $400,000,000 because of the low price of cotton produced by the unwarranted, unjustified, and outrageous price prediction made by this board in the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield to me?

Mr. HEFLIN. Not now; I can not yield to the Senator now. He is one of the Senators who objected to the consideration of my bill on yesterday, and I am coming to him just as soon as I can get to him.

Mr. SnORTRIDGE. You may come any time you wish.

Mr. HEFLIN. I will certainly accommodate the Senator soon. The Senator from California himself comes from a cotton-growing State.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. And I know as much about cotton as you do.

Mr. HEFLIN. His people were robbed by this same prediction, and yet he objected to the passage of this bill on yesterday. I want the cotton farmers of his State to know the true situation and let them inquire of him

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. So they may

Mr. HEFLIN. What interest he was looking after when he was trying to prevent the passage of a bill which would puni.sh their enemies who had robbed them of two or three million dollars in that State.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Now, will the Senator courteously permit me to ask him a question? It will be But in the utmost

good faith, and it may shorten this discussion. It Is this: If the Senator will explain to me how this loss, logically and economically, may be attributed to the prediction which the Secretary put out, I should be persuaded that he is right, but for the moment I have never been able to understand why that prediction of the Secretary had that baneful and hurtful effect. I can not see the logic of that contention.

Mr. HEFLIN. Would the Senator want to give any department of the Government the right to predict prices on any farm product of this country?

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. For the moment, I see no economical or logical reason why the people of our country might not lie aided by the advice of a Secretary presumably familiar with all the facts with respect to our own Nation and the commerce of the world.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President

Mr. HEFLIN. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. CARAWAY. If it is not conceded that the prediction of the Secretary of Agriculture actually broke the price, he did a perfectly foolish thing, because if it did not affect the price he had no right to use up Government paper and Ink to put out a prediction unless it would affect the price.

Mr. HEFLIN. Certainly.

Mr. CARAWAY. It was calculated to do so. If it did not do so, he did a perfectly indefensible and inexcusable thing, an idle and foolish thing. But if it broke the price, as everybody knows it did, then he did a most unjustifiable thing, because he took the sustenance of men and women who had labored through a year to produce a product, and broke the price over night with a prediction that it was selling too high.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President

Mr. HEFLIN. I yield.

Mr. SMITH. If the Senator from Alabama will allow me, I should like to say a word in reply to the suggestion made by the Senator from California [Mr. Shortridge]. The Chief of the Bureau of Economics, under oath, swore that the reason the prediction was made was because the department considered the price too high. I should like to say to the Senator that I think the Senate or any board to whom the facts had been presented as they were in the context of this bulletin touching the situation in cotton would, if the last line and a half were striken out, have said, "The price has not yet responded to the facts; it has not as yet gone as high as the law of supply and demand would put it"

If the Senator will allow me to make just this further statement, it was then ascertained that the production of last year was approximately five and one-half million bales less than that of the preceding year. The consumption by the world of American cotton was the greatest in its history. There never was a more healthy tone in the textile market. That was testified before the committee by witnesses representing spinners, cotton merchants, and speculators. Every one uniformly testified that the price obtaining at the time this prediction was made was easily justifiable on the law of supply and demand, and every one testified that they thought It would have gone still higher. But when the Government, with all the facts known to them that were known to the trade, and no more, and perhaps not as much known by these gentlemen in the Bureau of Economics as others knew, came out and as a non sequitur, an absolutely illogical conclusion from the premises they set down, said, "The price is likely to decline," it paralyzed the entire cotton-buying world to such an extent that telegrams poured in from all the exchanges to the Secretary of Agriculture, inquiring if he authorized it. Was it official? Could it be possible under the circumstances? They are in the hearings, and will be in the report that I hope to make as to the facts brought out after nearly three months of as complete investigation as we could make.

The producers protested. The cotton merchants protested. The cotton exchanges and the speculators wanted to know why. It never had been done before; and, remember, it was in the beginning of the marketing period when not a bale could be added to the crop nor one subtracted from it, except one did it arbitrarily; and upon the known fact that the production was five or six million bales less than that of the previous year, with an unusually increased demand and a healthy tone, the question was, "What good purpose can the Government serve, especially the producer, by giving any such statement to the public now?"

It was all right for them in the spring, in March and April, to say, "The carry-over of old cotton is so many bales, and if you plant extravagantly you may have lower prices." That was justifiable. That was what we appointed them to do— not the Bureau of Economics but the Bureau of the Census and others. That was all right. They could say, and did say, in other instances, "If you plant and make a large crop and add it to the large carry-over, you will get lower prices; l>nt If you observe the history of crops and provide for a small crop, you will Ret better prices." That Is precisely what they did in 1927. They responded to that advice in March and April. They planned to reduce their acreage, and the insect infestation added to it and startled the world with the small result and the consequent rise in the price. Now, what possible good purpose could they serve when the advice had already been given nrnl the crop Whs already marketed by coming in the midst of a prosperous condition and upsetting the whole thing and demoralizing the whole world?

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina has stated the matter very clearly. Most Senators who keep themselves informed as to what is going on in this country would not have to have the matter explained to them at length at this time—the loss of $400,000,000 to the people of one section who produced the cotton crop of the United States, the men who toiled through the year to produce it, and frequently their families with them in the field, in the hot sun, and then came into the market place and were battered to death by a Government bureau going into the realm of price prediction on the cotton crop of the United States. I do not hesitate to say that I think they were influenced to do it by wicked and unscrupulous cotton factors. The president of the New York Cotton Exchange swore that if he had the power to predict the price, and had the weight of the Government behind it, he would give millions of dollars for such a power.

Tills dreadful thing has been done to the cotton farmers of my State. Farmers have lost their homes and have gone into the towns and cities to try to get work. They were unable to meet their obligations. A loss of $35 to .$40 a bale took away all their profit and put the price below the cost of production. When I labor as I have done at this session on this committee with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Smith] to investigate the scoundrels who brought ahotit this ruin, and introduce this bill, and get it favorably reported, and bring it upon this calendar, it is a strange thing, I say, to have the Senator from Maryland—who ought to be in sympathy with the people of the South who produce cotton, and who are now selling it below the cost of production, and who have lost $35 to $40 a bale on it this season—get up and make an objection without stating any reason for it. Five or six objections having already been made, I confess that I was getting a little tii-ed of it.

I am one Senator who is not going around here to beg Senators privately to withdraw their objections to my bills. I think legislation ought to be had in the open, and facts ought to be brought out. If your measure is not meritorious, it ought to fail. Let the responsibility be taken by those who are willing to make these objections for outside influences, whether or not they are prejudiced against me for making the fight I have made for my country in my opposition to the war sought by the Knights of Columbus at the time when Mr. Uoylan, a Member of the House, a Roman Catholic, introduced the resolution to sever diplomatic relations with Mexico. I have 110 apology to make for all that, and I will meet in the open any enemy I have because of it; I do not care whether he is a Catholic, or a Protestant, or a half-hammered Protestant sailing under Protestant colors.

Mr. President, I will never forget a scene near my home— a man, his wife, and two children; a farmer, a boy 14 years old, and a little girl of 6. He had nearly paid for his little farm. He bad painted his house. He owned two or three mules and hud bought him a Ford car and was trying to get up in the world. Low-priced cotton came. He could not meet his obligations. The mortgage was foreclosed. He was passing iny home with his wife sitting in the wngon, back of the driver, with a portion of their household goods. She was holding the little girl by her side, and the farmer himself, with his 14-yearold boy, was walking l>ehind the wngon. I knew him well. I hailed him as he passed my home. I went out to him and said, "Where are you going? What is the matter?" He dropped his head; with a lump in his throat he said, "I am going down to the cotton factory at Lanett, I and my boy, to work in the mill." I said, "What in the world are you giving up your little farm for? You had a nice little home and farm out there." He shook his head and shed tears like a child and he said, "I have lost my home. I have lost everything. I am not out of debt. I am in an awful fix." He said, "My little boy took it harder than anyone else. He did not seem to understand it until we got ready to leave. We all walked out. He closed the gate and looked back at the old home, and turned to me with tears in his eyes and said, 'Papa, what does it 11 this mean?'"

These people have been mistreated and robbed. I am fighting for them. I am seeking to give them a fair deal. I want

them to have (he necessities of life and some of the comforts of life. God knows they are entitled to them. I want them to be able to educate their children. I do not want them to be agricultural slaves; and it was that motive that prompted mo to introduce this measure and to ask for its immediate passage. I did not expect to have a man like the Senator from Maryland—who, I suppose, is supported by the farmers of his State— some of them at least—a man who ought to stand with drawn sword to battle for the producing classes not only of one section, but of all other sections, rise and object if It had not been for his objection, this bill would have passed the Senate and have been in the House now, and it would have been referred to a committee, and they would have gone to work on it, and the bill would have passed; but ho helped to prevent action and he stayed the hand of legislation by his objection. He has never withdrawn it. I doubt whether he has ever read the bill or not; and now he says if it could be explained to him he might withdraw his objection. I shall move to pass that bill, and I shall ask a roll call on it.

Senators know me very well, some of them, most of them here. You never heard me make one of these objections to anybody's bill that had merit in it; I do not care whose it is. You can not point to a single instance where I have ever indulged in such practices as that. But when the cotton speculators do not want this bill passed, when the cotton gamblers do not want it passed, when those who profit by low and destructive prices of cotton to the farmer do not want it passed, the Senator from Maryland rises and objects, blocks its passage by his objection, and he could do that because we were proceeding by unanimous consent at that time. Then on yesterday the Senator from California [Mr. Shoutridge!, the tall sycamore from the Pacific slope, rose and, strange to say, interposed his objection, and I explained to him then what the bill meant, and I asked him, as kindly as I could, to let me pass it. He shook his head and waved his hand with those magnificent and graceful gestures that he indulges in, and still objected.

Mr. SHORTKIDGE. Mr. President, will the Senator permt me to interrupt him?

Mr. HEFLIN. I desire to say that the Senator from California and the Senator from Maryland are largely responsible for the time I am consuming to-day, by throwing themselves in front of needed and meritorious legislation for the farmers of the South and the farmers of California. I am fighting their battle, while the Senator from California is blocking legislation intended to aid and protect them.

Mr. SIIOHTHIDGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from California?

Mr. HEFLIN. Just briefly, because the Senator has got me to speaking now and I do not want to be pestered very much.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. I do not wish to engage in personalities, may I sny to the Senator from Alabama. I never do, and I mean nothing i>ersonal. I was about to ask him, if he would lie good enough to reply, this question:

The bill, as it appears, when first introduced related to cotton, corn, maize, wheat, rye, oats, barley, flaxseed, and other grains. In a desire to get at the philosophy or the reasoning which permits the elimination of these other items, I will ask the Senator this question

Mr. HEFLIN. I stated to the Senator that all that had been stricken out and that the bill now referred only to cotton. I can not yield to the Senator to go over things like that.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. But why was it struck out? If it is good, if the Senator's argument is sound—and I am not now disputing it—why is it not good as to wheat, as to corn, and so on?

Mr. UEFLIN. They have not predicted any prices on grain and the grain growers wanted that out.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President

Mr. HEFLIN. I want to say that I will vote for any measure that will help the grain-growing West, and deliver those farmers from the hands and the clutches of the robbers. The farmers of the West have some representatives here who are faithful to them; and when they come and tell me, "Here is a bill that will give the grain growers a fair deal, and we want you southern fellows to help us." we help them. I would do it. I have done it. I announce it in the open, and they are for my bill. They wanted grain out, and I let them strike it out, and I told the Senator yesterday afternoon that it was all stricken out and applied only to cotton; so the Senator had no excuse whatever to object to its passage.

Did the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Simmons] want me to yield to him?

Mr. SIMMONS. No, Mr. President

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President

Mr. HEFLIN. I thought the able Senator from North Carolina, who is right on practically everything he advocates, wanted me to yield to him. I yield to the Senator from Georgia, who is another good friend of the farmer.

Mr. HARRIS. I am sure the Senator would like to correct one statement he made. He said they had not predicted that grain would go down. At the same time that they predicted that cotton would go down they said that corn would go down, and in the same statement they predicted that wheat would go up.

Mr. HEFLIN. I had overlooked that.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I was not on my feet for the purpose of interrupting the Senator a few moments ago; but, since he has alluded to me by name. I will do Bo to the extent of saying that I am heartily for the bill which he has proposed.

Mr. HEFLIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SIMMONS. I do not think that any official of the Department of Agriculture, or any other department of this Government, has a right to express an opinion upon the future price of a product. That is beyond the domain or Jurisdiction that we have given any department. As lawyers sny, it is ultra vires. This prediction must have been made, if made deliberately, for a purpose.

Mr. HEFLIN. That is what I think.

Mr. SIMMONS. And it could not have been made, if for a purpose, for any purpose other than to restrain the advance in the price of cotton.

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator is entirely correct in that, and we are in hearty agreement.

Mr. President, there is no question about it, there are those in this body, and in all other legislative bodies, I suppose, who really want to legislate for the good of the masses of the people, who want to hold this Government true to the purpose of its creation, who want to be useful to the country. There are others, I have been thinking, who have an ear that they keep mighty close to the ground regarding special interests, and if one introduces a bill in the interest of the farmer, and they think it will get on the toes of the special Interests, they are ready to object. Then one will withdraw his objection, and they will call on another one to object, and then keep that np until it is too late to pass the bill. Then, when you ask them why they did it, they say, "I wanted an opportunity to look into it."

I am giving you an opportunity now. I have invited you to look into the Cotton Belt. Men killed themselves after these prices broke and they were ruined, and others lost their minds and have gone to asylums for the insane. Mortgages have been foreclosed^ homes have been lost to the farmers, and they have drifted into the cities to swell the number of the unemployed and to bid for the Jobs that our laboring men already there now have. You are making the problem of life on the farm exceedingly hard; but none of these things seem to appeal to some Senators, and they rise and object, they protest against thp passace of such a measure as this.

Mr. President, let me tell Senators what the testimony has shown. The ex-president of the New York Cotton Exchange, Mr. Marks, under oath said that, in his opinion, this price prediction cost the farmers $20 a bale. That would amount to over $200,000.000 for the whole crop. The president of the New York Cotton Exchange. Mr. Herbert, who has been in the cotton business all his life, and whose father before him was in that business, testified under oath that this prediction broke the price, and that if the prediction had not been made, cotton, in his Judgment, would have gone to 30 cents a pound. Senators, what would that have meant to the farmers of the South? Four hundred million dollars. To do what? To pay their debts, to carry on their operations, to lift the mortgages from the homes and farms, to make their families happy, to educate their children, and to give them some of the comforts of life.

Yet the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from California throw their stalwart statures across the path of this legislation and 'hold it up. This legislation has been pending here for about a month. One objection after another has been made. I want the Record to show Just who it is that is blocking legislation in the interest of the people, Just who it is who is willing to rise and protest against measures that are meritorious, in the interest of the toiling masses of our people.

Mr. Bryan made a great speech, in which he said everything depended on the farmer; and that is true. The Bible says that bread is the staff of life; and tho farmer produces that. Mr. Bryan said, "Tear down your cities and leave your farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy your farms, and grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country." That is true. You break the morale of the farming class, these fine, firm citizens, and you strike the Government a body blow. Rome started on her decline when she

proceeded, as the Senator from Maryland has proceeded and as the Senator from California has proceeded, to stand in front of honest, meritorious, needed legislation for the farmers of the country. When Rome struck agriculture down her doom was in sight, and in the United States 2,000,000 farmers have lost in their struggle; they have lost their homes and farms and gone to the cities.

Two millions of them, I repeat, have lost their farms, in six years. In the face of that, the Senator from Maryland objects to my bill which is aimed at an action which has robbed the farmers recently on one crop, the farmers of the South, in a sister State to the State of Maryland—God bless old Maryland! I sometimes sympathize with her. He objects to legislation that one of her sous, a member of the Committee on Agriculture, introduced in this body. I know the facts. I am trying to relieve the situation. I would vote just as quickly to relieve the farmers of California, or of Maryland, or of a State in any other section.

What interest is it that is stalking around this Capitol? Is it those who are interested financially, or has some priest suggested to some of his friends that he hopes they will hold up and defeat Heflin's bill, because the Roman hierarchy and the political machine are on his trail? I wonder if that is a part of the punishment they want to visit upon me. I defy them all. When I get to where I can not stand in this body and defend my country without fearing that I will be punished by a Roman Catholic political machine, I ought to get out of the Senate. When I get to where I can not express my views for the good of my country and defend free institutions in America in their integrity, it will be time for me to quit this body.

Senators, you are going soon to reach the time when you will have to meet this issue. I am receiving a lot of copies of letters you are getting now from your home States asking you to support me, and I have had assurances from many of you that you are back of me. You are going to have to meet this issue in the open. You are not going to be subjected to intimidation by priests who come here and send in for Senators, or see them at their hotels, and suggest in whispered conversation the course to pursue in this body.

I do not ask for any quarter at all. They can oppose me and my measures if they want to. If the bill is a righteous one, it is a contemptible spirit that would prompt the opposition; but I do not ask them to withdraw their opposition. I will put these measures up to this body, and let them vote in the open record as to how they stand upon these questions. I submit to you that I have all sorts of grounds to believe that they have taken an interest against this very bill. I will talk perhaps a little plainer on it later on.

Mr. President, there should not be a dissenting vote in this body on this measure. I have reminded Senators before that in 1904 the senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Smith], the best informed man on cotton who has ever been a Member of Congress in either branch, in my judgment, a farmer himself, able and fearless in the service of the farmers, detected fraud and corruption in the Agriculture Department in 15)04, when two employees padded the reports on cotton production and sold out to some gamblers on the exchange in New York, and made $40,000 between them. The names of those gentlemen were Hyde and Holmes. Now comes this thing. The sellout of Hyde and Holmes cost the farmer about $7.50 a bale. This prediction, this criminal action, cost the farmer $35 to $40 a bale, and the Government never authorized the department to make the prediction. They included a carry-over report in it, something they have never done before. That comes under the duty of the Census Department. They handled it all in that report, and hammered the price, admitting that the crop was 5,000,000 bales shorter than the one before, and the estimate of the yield had fallen nearly a million bales, and that rh« boll weevil was doing a lot of damage. Still, in the face of that, they predicted the low price.

Senators, I am just asking for a fair deal for these cotton producers of the United States.

POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES FLAG

Now, to the second phase of this matter. Yesterday I introduced a resolution setting out the fact that the Roman Catholic flag had been hoisted above and flown nbove the United States flag on the battleship Florida and the battleship Cincinnati. I have seen the pictures of both. I have both of them. I referred to one of them, the Cincinnati, in this Chamber a month or more ago. I have here a picture of the battleship Florida, and exhibited it to several Senators yesterday.

Mr. President, I ask that the clerk rend my resolution in my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cutting in the chair). The clfrk will read.

The legislative clerk rend as follows:

Whereas It Is alleged that (he Roman Catholic flag, the same design as the flag flown at the Vatican in Rome, has been recently hoisted above and flown above the United States flag on the U. 8. battleship Cincinnati and the U. S. battleship Florida; and

Whereas it is the solemn duty of Congress to see to it that no flag of a foreign power or potentate shall fly above the United States flag on any foot of American soil or on any American battleship or on any other American ship or In any foreign American possession; and

Whereas the act of placing the flag in question or any other flag above the United States flag has the appearance of questioning Its right to be first and of challenging its supreme authority and sovereign power: Therefore be It

Resolved, etc., That it Is hereby declared to be the fixed principle and policy of the United States that hereafter nowhere on land within her jurisdiction or on her battleships or on her merchant ships shall any other flag be placed above and flown above the United States flag.

Sec. 2. That It shall be the duty of Government officials in civil authority and In the Army and the Navy to see to It that the principle and policy here set forth Is strictly observed.

Mr. HEPLIN. Mr. President, what objection could any real American have to that resolution? I offered it yesterday morning and asked unanimous consent to have it immediately acted upon. The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Bruce] objected. What excuse can nny American give to declaring it to be the fixed policy of this Nation that no flag shall fly above the United States flag? I reminded the Senator from Maryland yesterday that as I wrote the resolution the other night I thought over the membership of the Senate and said to myself, "Senator Bruce, of Maryland, will Just about object to it." Oh, my prophetic soul! The Senator rose and fulfilled my prophecy and made his objection to the consideration of the resolution. Never did I dream the day would come when in this historic, magnificent old body there would be a voice lifted to prevent the passage of a resolution laying down the doctrine of the sovereign power of my country that that flag should fly first and uppermost always.

Mr. President, while I was absent yesterday afternoon in the committee carrying on the investigation of the cotton exchange's activities in the Agricultural Department a friend sent me word that some statement was being presented to the Senate from some chaplain of the Navy regarding my resolution. I hurriedly came into the Chamber, found out what was going on, and expressed a few thoughts upon the subject at that time. I would not have thought, with the exception I have already made, that anybody would be bold enough to stand up hero and object to the passage of a resolution like that.

Listen to this order, you who are still interested in your country, who believe in asserting its sovereignty anywhere that our flag flies, whether over a battleship or any of our. possessions or at home. Listen to this remarkable order of 1927, when Al Smith's campaign was just getting off good on the race track, when they were looking forward with a great deal of pleasure to the time when they would have one of their chief and high muckamucks in the White House. This is an extract from the code book of the Navy, 1927:

Church pennant: The church pennant shall be hoisted at the s«me place of hoist and over the ensign during the performance of divine services on board vessels of the Navy.

What is the ensign? It is the Roman Catholic flag. It flies the cross above the Stars and Stripes. They sent some more instructions up here on this subject to the effect that not only do the Catholics worship under it flying above the United States flag, but that the same pennant and none other is used in the same place when Protestants of various denominations have their services on board a ship. Then, I ask, why was that particular flag design adopted for this purpose? What Roman Catholic conclave gave birth to that suggestion? Who backed the movement and forced the naval officers to write it down as an order of the United States Government that that flag should fly first and be the only one to fly over our flag at any and all religious services on a ship?

Senators, I said on yesterday that I did not care if it was a church pennant. There is no place too sacred for our flag to be. It represents the best that there is in human government. It stands for principles without which no republic can last, and in the loss of which religious liberty is lost.

I introduced in the House in 1914 a resolution at the suggestion of Miss Anna Jarvis, of Pennsylvania. She was working to create some movement that would perpetuate the name of her mother. She wanted to pay a fine tribute to her mother. Congressman Hampton Moore, of Philadelphia, was in the House, as I was. He introduced her to me and told her that I, he was sure, would be glad to aid her. I wrote the resolution.

We passed it through the House. The able Senator from Texas [Mr, Sheppaed] looked after it in the Senate and it passed the Senate. President Wilson approved it, Secretary of State Bryan proclaimed it, and it is the doctrine of our Nation to-day. In it we provided that the second Sunday in May of each year should be designated as Mothers' Day in America, and that as distinct tribute, of affectionate regard, and undying love for the mothers of America, the United States flag was to be unfurled above the homes of the people of the Nation. The home is the most sacred place in the Nation. Henry Grady said, "The fireside is the true altar of liberty and the strength of the Nation is lodged in the homes of the people."

We proclaimed that the flag should fly above the homes of all American people on that day, and on public buildings, and in our foreign possessions, paying a tribute of honor and love to the mothers of America. That flag has been used for many noble and lofty purposes, but never was it used in a dearer or more sacred cause than when it flies above the tender and gentle army of American mothers. If it is good enough for that purpose, if it is good enough to fly above the American homes, and to fly from the public buildings of the Nation, kissing with its beautiful folds the genial breezes of a great and free country, it is good enough to fly first on a battleship when people want to engage in religious worship.

I do not see the importance or necessity of lowering that flag on any occasion for the purpose of putting another one above it. The Senator from Maryland (Mr. Bruce] I would think naturally or ordinarily would be the last to raise his hand against it. Maryland has paid many tributes to the flag. Francis Scott Key's Immortal poem described that flag—" Mid the rocket's red glare, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there." That flag was good enough to fly above the Continental Army, good enough for John Paul Jones to unfurl above the Ranger, when the sea caught a glimpse of its glory, and it proclaimed the imperishable doctrine of the rights of a free sea.

It was good in the battle with Spain when that song was written, "Look. boys, the flag is down. Who will volunteer to save it from disgrace?" "I will," a young man shouted: "I will bring it back or die." He rushed into the thickest of the fray, saved the flag, but gave his young life all for his country's sake. When they brought him back they heard him softly say, '• Break the news to mother. She knows how dear I love her. Tell her not to look for me for I am not coming home." He had given his life for the flag. "Tell her there is no other to take the place of mother. Kiss her dear sweet lips for me and break the news to her." If that flag was good enough to die for—for a young man to dash into the fray and sacrifice himself in the iron storm of war. it is good enough to fly first on a battleship when people want to worship on Sunday.

In my section of the country the Bag flies above the church and above the schoolhouse. I want to remind Senators that I was in Illinois last summer. They had a bill pending in the legislature providing that the flag should be placed above all schools in Illinois, where the remains of the immortal Lincoln sleep until the light of eternities morning shall break beyond the mystic mountains and the redeemed of earth shall meet to part no more. That bill in the Illinois Legislature provided that they shall fly the United States flag above Protestant schools, Jewish schools, and Catholic schools, and every Roman Catholic member of the legislature in the House of Illinois voted against the bill and brought about its defeat.

I am raising an Important question here as an American. National dissension and warring interests on a great and vital question between the North and South are behind us. Brave men from both sections went on the battle line and settled their differences. They could not be settled in the halls of peace. The right to secede, a doctrine originally agreed to by all the States, had existed, but a new idea had grown up. Webster and others had given expression to the thought that the Union was one and indivisble. The southern idea was that the States could secede if they wished to do so. Those questions were settled by the arbitrament of the sword. I have seen Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers in happy reunion shaking hands, tears streaming down their faces, those grizzly old warriors of the War between the States happy in a- reunited country.

I was to speak In Kentucky in October about eight years ago. As I approached the courthouse at Scottsville I heard singing. I said, "What is going on up there?" I was told, "The old soldiers of both armies are having a reunion." I said, "I want to go up there and see them." I went in. They were walking up and down shaking hands with each other, shedding tears, and I saw them lean their heads on the shoulders and breasts of one another. They all joined in singing "God be with you till we meet again."

« ПретходнаНастави »