Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[graphic]

Sec. 8. That nn additional land district is hereby created In the State of New Mexico to embrace lands described as follows:

Beginning at the southeast corner of the State of Now Mexico and running thence north on the east line of Ruid State to the base line of the public-land survey in said State; thence west on said line to the range line between ranges 8 and 9 east; thence south on said range line to the first standard parallel south; thence west on said line to the range line between ranges 8 and 0 east; thence south on said line to the second standard parallel south; thence west on said line to the range line between ranges 8 and 9 east; thence south on said line to the third standard parallel south; thence east on said line to the range line between ranges 8 and 9 east; thence south on said line to the south line of the State of New Mexico; thence east on said line to tlie point of beginning, and that Roswell, within said district, is hereby designated as the site for the laud office thereof.

On page 4, line 3, after "Idaho," insert "New Mexico."

Mr. JONKS. Mr. President, I should like to inquire if this bill is restoring land offices that have heretofore been abolished by the department as not necessary?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. That, I may say, is the purpose of the bill.

Mr. JONES. Do these amendments contemplate restoring all those that are abolished?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. No. In my State there were 10, and every one of them was abolished but 2, and the bill contemplates the restoration of 4 of them.

Mr. .TONES. Making six in all?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Six instead of 10.

Mr. JONES. I think this bill should go over.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. This bill has heretofore passed the Senate, and was discussed at some considerable length. A very grievous wrong was done, in the judgment of every member of the committee which had this matter under consideration, by this sweeping law. The result is that homesteaders iu the State of Montana are obliged now to travel a distance of 500 miles in order to do business at the land office, a distance greater than from this city to the city of Boston.

Mr. JONES. If this were confined to the State of Montana, I do not think I should object to it. I know something about the distances out in our country. We have one land office in the State of Washington, and people travel about 350 miles where they have to travel; but, according to the department, it is not necessary for them to go to the place where the land office is.

As I said to the Senator, if this were confined to the State of Montana, which I know is a State of very great size, I do not think I should object to it; but it seems to be covering and really providing for the restoration of a great many of these offices that the department, after very careful investigation, found were not necessary, and their abolition was in the interest of economy. It is their contention that it does not affect the efficiency of the service.

I want to say, further, that we objected very strenuously in our State to the abolition of all the offices except one. I have not had a single complaint from my State, however, since the offices were reduced to one—not one. Apparently, the service is going on just as satisfactorily as before.

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

Mr. JONES. Yes; I yield to the Senator.

Mr. ODDIE. Just a word on this matter. One of the most important land offices in the United States, located in Nevada, was abolished, and it is included in this bill.

Mr. JONES. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRATTON obtained tlie floor.

Mr. ODDIE. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for just one second?

Mr. BRATTON. I yield.

Mr. ODDIE. One of the most important land offices in the country was in the State of Nevada. It was abolished by the department. The department made a serious and blundering error in abolishing that office. It was an uneconomic, a ridiculous, and unbusinesslike piece of business to abolish it. It has caused serious loss and inconvenience to a large number of our citizens, and nothing was gained by it.

Mr. BRATTON. Mr. President, in view of the fact, that the Senator is speaking in my time, and I am under the live-minute rule, I shall ask him to speak in his own time. ,

Mr. ODDIE. Mr. President, I beg the Senator's pardon. I was not conscious of the fact that he had the floor first.

Mr. BRATTON. Mr. President, my colleague [Mr. Cutting 1 has just come into the Chamber. If I may have his attention for a moment, I shall state for his information that on his behalf I have just proposed the amendment reestablishing the land office formerly located at Roswell, N. Mex., and was about to explain for the information of the Senator from Washington that this office was discontinued by the department some time

ago. I am told by my colleague that a representative of the department has made a careful survey of conditions, and recommends this amendment in the strongest language. People in the State of my colleague and myself necessarily travel immense distances to transact their business with the laud office. Oil has been discovered in tlie southeastern part of the State, where much Government land is situated. Under the present situation many persons interested have to travel to the office situated at Las Cruces, which is a distance in some cases of I should say 200 to 250 miles. The department recommends a restoration of the office formerly located at Roswell. My colleague so informed me to-day. This is my colleague's amendment. I offered it during his absence.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, if I may say a word

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Tlie Senator from Montana.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I agree with the statement of the Secretary of the Interior that the expense of administration of these lands can be reduced by the abolition of these offices. That is true enough; but the effect is to turn over the cost and exjieuse of it to the homesteader who takes up the land, instead of its being borne by the General Government. That is the operation of this thing. As a matter of fact, it does not save one dollar to anybody.

Mr. NORBECK. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Montana yield to the Senator from South Dakota?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I do.

Mr. NORBECK. I call the attention of the Senator from Montana to the fact that some of these offices were self-supporting and putting a revenue in the Treasury, when they were abolished.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Undoubtedly.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Washington maintain his objection?

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I recognize the situation in Montana. I doubt the wisdom of establishing six offices there, especially in view of the experience in the State of Washington; but I know that the Senator knows the condition there even better than I do. and I know that he would not ask for the establishment of these offices if he did not think it, was for the benefit of the settlers.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. We have abolished four now.

Mr. JONES. Yes; I know. Six is quite a good many. I will withdraw my objection under the circumstances, though I doubt the wisdom of it very much.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, if we are going to have an additional number added to this bill, I shall object to its being considered.

Mr. STEIWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I desire to offer an amendment.

Mr. METCALF. I object to the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Oregon will be received, printed, and lie on the table.

HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Mr. BLEASE. Mr. President, in connection with Order of Business 680, House bill 279, I ask uuanimous consent to insert in the Record the minority views of the House Committee in reference to this bill. In addition thereto, I should like to call attention to Claflrn College at Orangeburg, Allen University, and Benedict College at Columbia, and South Carolina State Normal, Industrial and Agricultural College, all of the State of South Carolina; and I object to the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the minority views of the House committee will be printed in the Record.

The matter referred to is as follows:
Mixobity Views

The one object of this bill is to give authority of law by which the Congress may continue to appropriate money from the Federal Treasury for the purpose of improving and maintaining Howard University for negroes, in the city of Washington.

THE SITUATION, PAST AND PRESKNT

For nearly a half century the Congress has been annually appropriating to this institution In amounts ranging from $10,000 to more than $500.000. Those appropriations have been pure gratuities. Howard is In no sense a Government institution. Again, all these appropriations have been Illegal for the reason that no law. authorizing them has ever been passed. In committee hearings January 27, 1926, Mr. Chamton, of Michigan, says, "We are not authorized to report items of appropriations that are not authorized by law," There is no need, however, for any argument to prove that all the $5,000.000 which the Congress has In the past years appropriated to this Institution has been appropriated illegally. The present bill is an admission of that fact. Furthermore, when a point of order has been made against this Item in the Interior Department appropriation bill, the Chairman has always sustained the point, and no proponent of the bill has ever questioned his decision.

TUB QUESTION NOW INVOLVED

This bill simply proposes that we now legalize this policy which has been pursued regardless of law for so many years. Thus we would fasten this university upon the Federal Government for permanent support, and establish finally the governmental policy of sustaining one university for one race by Federal funds, while the hundreds and thousands of schools for that race and all other races are left to State, county, or municipal support, or to private philanthropy. Such a policy is unfair, unwise, mid unjust. There nre many other large colleges or universities for the education of the Negro race—Tuskegee of Alabama, Hampton of Virginia, Wilberforce of Ohio, Fiske of Tennessee, Southern and Straight of Louisiana, Clark and Spellman of Georgia, and many others. These are meeting the demands for the education of the Negro race In pretty well all sections of the country and are supported without Federal aid. Is It right that the friends and constituents of these institutions should now be taxed for the Federal funds to constantly enlarge and maintain this one university for one race in one locality? It Is not a question of negro education, nor a question of the needs of education In any way. It Is the question of permanently establishing this unsound paternalistic governmental policy.

THK NEED DOES NOT JUSTIFY IT

Throughout the North most of the colleges are open to students of both races. In thn South every State maintains one or more institutions for higher education of negroes, and every State has a number of negro colleges maintained by church or private philanthropy. A Washington newspaper has just published a statement that there are f»00 institutions for negro education above the high-school grades. In almost every Southern State there comes nearer being college room for all the negro pupils that are really prepared to enter college than for all of the white pupils that are thus prepared.

THE INCREASING DEMANDS OF HOWARD

In the committee hearings on January 27, 1926, Doctor Scott, secretary and treasurer of Howard, said:

"In addition to the $197,i>00 authorized by the last Congress for a gymnasium, armory, and athletic field, other dormitories for young men and young women must !«• provided to meet the needs of the rapidly growing student body. Adequate buildings must also be erected for schools of medicine, law, and religion. There is need for an administration building, so that the space now occupied by these offices may be released for classrooms for the collegiate department."

In the same hearings Doctor Durkee, then president of Howard, speaks of the $370,000 appropriated by Congress for a new medical building. Meantime we have been called on for $150,000 for a new dormitory, and the pending Interior bill calls for $180,000 for a new chemistry building. From the above quotation from Doctor Scott It would seem that these demands for new buildings are to continue and doubtless to enlarge Indefinitely. The question now before the Congress is, Shall we by passing this bill commit the Government permanently to this program?

Are we to go on for ever appropriating Federal funds for the erection of new and costly buildings to meet the growing demands of this institution? No doubt It is fine for Howard to have all these good buildings and some $200,000 more each year for running expenses. Yet almost every Member of the Congress has In his own State or district some struggling college which Is just as much In need of funds and buildings. Many a struggling college In our own districts, dependent on church or private philanthropy, would feel greatly enriched to receive just one gift as large as one of the annual amounts that this Congress Is asked to give to Howard University. The demand of Howard for this year Is $390,000. Hardly a Member of the House but can think of some worthy struggling college back in his home State that would be relieved of an unspeakable burden, and immensely promoted in usefulness by one gift of that amount. Then shall we go on from year to year making these large donations to one university for negroes in the city of Washington while the constituents of our home schools pay the taxes and struggle on in poverty with their own Institutions? Some Members of this House have expressed a hesitancy as to their vote on this bill because of the answer they may have to make to their negro voters back home. It might be well for some to consider the answer to be made to their white constituents who are struggling so hard to maintain institutions for the education of their own young people.

The plea Is made that Howard Is a necessity for the purpose of preparing physicians, dentists, etc., for the service of the Negro race. In a very large part of the South that Is not a necessity, because the white physicians and dentists do practice for the negroes, and the negroes seem to prefer them. But finally, if Howard must be sup

ported for any reason, we submit that It should be done with District funds, Just as other cities all over the Nation give large funds for great institutions of learning because of the advantages material and otherwise which such an institution brings to the town in which it is located.

B. O. Lowrey,
M. C. Tarver,
Kenb L. Db Ropex.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President If the Senator will withhold his objection, I wish that the Senate intent find it in its heart to pass this hill. We have been beating the devil around the stump for a long time with these appropriations for Howard University.

Here is an establishment which is dedicated to tlie purjiose of educating colored students. Here is a place where they have the facilities for those who are seeking education to go, with their own people in it; and we have always found ways of making the appropriation. If this bill were to pass, we could then, in an orderly and proper way, without subterfuge, make the appropriations which we are bound to make anyway.

I wish the Senator might find it in his heart to consent to the passage of this bill.

Mr. BLEASE. Mr. President, if you will give the negro colleges in South Carolina the same amount of money I will agree to it. Otherwise I object.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, just a word. Has the Senator introduced a resolution or offered an amendment to the bill?

Mr. BLEASE. Xo; but when the bill conies up I am going to do it.

Mr. COPELAND. Let me suggest to the Senator that he present the amendment that he has in mind. I am not sure but that, so far as I am concerned, I should be glad to support the amendment.

Mr. BLEASE. Mr. President. I do not think there is a State in the American Union that has the same or better facilities for educating the colored people than South Carolina has. We pay a 3-mill constitutional tax for their free school education. Every man pays that tax. We have some of the very best colored institutions in this country.

One of them is maintained entirely by the State of South Carolina, with an appropriation of over $100,000 each year. If every State will do that there will be no necessity for the Government to have to pay for this Institution. If you will give to the State colleges for colored people of my State what we are asked to give to this District of Columbia institution, I have no objection; but I shall never consent for iny State to pay a 3-mill constitutional tax to educate these people, to which I do not object, and keep up these other institutions by State appropriations, and then sit here and vote to give away the money of my people to other States that do not do anything to try to help their colored people. We are educating ours. We are taking care of them, and we are keeping them in their places by that education.

As the Senator suggests. I will offer an amendment, and it will get two votes, probably—mine and his.

Mr. BIXGHAM. Mr. President

Mr. KING. I call for the regular order.

Mr. BLEASE. I object to the consideration of the bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The regular order is demanded. The bill will be passed over.

Mr. BINGHAM. I ask unanimous consent that Senate Report No. 672 may be printed as a part of the Record.

The PRESIDEXT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The report (No. 672) submitted by Mr. Couzeks, from the Committee on Education and Labor, on April 2, 1928, is as follows:

(Report to accompany H. R. 279)

Your Committee on Education and Labor, to which was referred H. R. 270, a bill to amend section 8 of an act entitled "An act to incorporate the Howard University, In the District of Columbia," approved March 2, 1867, by authorizing Federal appropriations to aid in the construction, development, improvement, and maintenance of said university, having considered said bill reports favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass without amendment.

A bill similar to II. R. 279 was reported favorably by the Committee on Kducatlon and Labor In the last session of Congress.

Howard University was Incorporated under the act of March 2, 1807. The first Federal appropriation for Its aid was granted March 3, 1879. Since that date the Federal Government has made annual appropriations to assist the university. However, since the establishment of the Budget system items recommended by the Budget and approved by tlic Committee on Appropriations of the House have been subject to a point of order and Invariably hare been stricken out on the ground that such appropriations are not authorized by existing law. This bill would relieve ttiat situation. Even after the items are stricken out in the House the Senate invariably reinserted them in the bill and they were approved In conference.

The university hag an attendance of about 2,000 students, who are required to pay tuition and provide their own living expenses. The university has been thoroughly Investigated by the college rating board of the Maryland and Middle States district and is rated In class A.

BILLS PASSED OVER

The bill (H. R. 8298) author!zlug acquisition of a site for the farmers' produce market, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Mr. BRUCE. Let that go over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.

The bill (H. R. 10885) to amend sections 23 and 24 of the general leasing act approved February 25, 1920 (41 Stat I/., 437), was announced as next In order.

Mr. BRATTON. Let that go over.

The PRESIDENT pro teinpore. The bill will be passed over.

MAY CORDON BODES AND OTHERS

The bill (S. 126) for the relief of May Gordon Rodes and Sara Louise Rodes, heirs at law of Tyree Rodes, deceased, was announced as next in order.

Mr. KING. Let that go over.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Mr. President, I hope the Senator who objected to the immediate consideration of this bill will withhold his objection for one moment. It will be observed that it Is in behalf of the widow and daughter of the deceased; and it was through his genius and his patented rights that our Government during the Great War was saved something over $17,000,000.

It is true that the testimony, as the record shows, claimed upon the one side that a just allowance would be on the basis of $1 per thousand of lumber sawed through or by the patented method of the deceased, whereas others testified that the value would be, perhaps, considerably less; wherefore the committee, which held long and patient hearings, reached the conclusion that instead of $141,000, as claimed according to one side of the controversy, the claim should be allowed for $35,750.

I aui saying this in the hope that as between now and the coming on of this case again, Senators who have objected to it may read the report prepared by the subcommittee, written by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Steiwer], and then agree that this just claim, as I think it is, should be recognized, and this bill passed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will state the next bill on the calendar.

llll.l.s. ETC., PASSED OVER

The bill (S. 2505) granting increase of pension under the general law to soldiers and sailors of the Regular Army and Navy, and their dependents, for disability incurred in service in line of duty, and authorizing that the records of the War and Navy Departments be accepted as to incurrence of a disability in service in line of duty, was announced as next in order.

Mr. NORBECK. Mr. President, I am not going to ask that this bill be taken up to-night, because it calls for quite a little explanation, and there are several changes to be made in it.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.

The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 25) to declare the llth day of November, celebrated and known as Armistice Day, a legal holiday, was announced as next in order.

Mr. BRATTON. Let that go over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution will be passed over.

The bill (S. 1729) extending the classified civil service to include postmasters of the third class, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Sevebal Senators. Let that go over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.

MEDICAL BELIEF TO RETIRED OFFICERS AND MEN OF COAST GUARD

The bill (H. R. 11022) to extend medical and hospital relief to retired officers and enlisted men of the United States Coast Guard was announced as next in order.

Mr. KING. Let that go over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.

Mr. JONES. Who objected?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Utah.

Mr. JONES. Will the Senator withhold his objection for just a moment?

Mr. KING. Yes.

Mr. JONES. I think if I read a brief extract from the report he will withdraw his objection.

The Secretary of the Treasury says this:

The officers and enlisted men of the Coast Guard while on active doty receive medical attention and hospitalization from the Public Health Service. However, as soon as an officer or enlisted man is retired from active (liny, either because of physical disability In line of duty or incident to service, or after having served the Government faithfully and honorably for the greater portion of his life, the Public Health Service Is at present without the necessary legislative authority to extend him, in his retired status, the facilities of the marine hospitals or outpatient offices under the jurisdiction of that service. The bill, if enacted Into law, will permit the extension to these retired officers and enlisted men of a privilege to which they are justly entitled, a right analogous to that accorded to retired officers and enlisted men of the Navy at naval hospitals and dispensaries. There is a pressing iieed for this proposed legislation, and the department urges Its passage as a meritorious measure.

I hope the Senator will withdraw his objection.

Mr. KING. I will state what has been rny objection to this bill. It will be the opening wedge, as I see it, and give the same advantages to every employee of the Government. If the Coast Guard can be differentiated from all other employees of the Government and put in the same category with officers of the Army and the Navy and the Marines, there might be some excuse for it.

Mr. JONES. The Senator knows that when there is a war the Coast Guard goes into the Navy.

Mr. KING. That is true; yet I can see but little difference between the Coast Guard employees and those engaged in the Customs Service, because most of the work of the Coast Guard relates to the enforcement of prohibition or the prevention of smuggling. The activities are rather those of civil-service employees of the Government.

Mr. JONES. No; before the acts to which the Senator has referred were passed we had the Coast Guard, and its work was largely in rescuing people in danger, especially at sea. It is a very dangerous occupation. Now, under the law, when we get into war, it automatically goes into the Navy.

Mr. KING. Yes; I know that.

Mr. JONES. It seems to me the Senator will be justified in withholding his objection to this bill. It has passed the House and is very strongly recommended by the Secretary.

Mr. KING. Is there a unanimous report?

Mr. JONES. There is a unanimous report.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator maintain his objection?

Mr. KING. I withdraw the objection.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment, on page 1, line 3, after the word "and," to insert the word "retired," so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, etc., That hereafter retired officers and retired enlisted men of the United States Coast Guard shall be entitled to medical treatment a't marine hospitals and out-patient offices of the Public Health Service. •

The amendment, was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in.

The amendment was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and the bill to be read a third time.

The bill was read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to extend medical and hospital relief to retired officers and retired enlisted men of the United States Coast Guard."

BILL PASSED OVER

The bill (S. 742) to provide for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of foreign trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Mr. KING. Let that go over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over.

PUBLIC PRINTES AND DEPUTY PUBLIC PRINTER

The bill (H. R. G689) fixing the salary of the Public Printer and of the Deputy Public Printer, was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

The bill was read, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the passage of this act the salary of the Public Printer shall be $10,000 per annum and the salary of the Deputy Public Printer shall be $7,500 per annum.

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

CBOMWELL L. BARSLEY

The bill (H. R. 6152) for the relief of Cromwell L. Barsley was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

The bill had been reported from the Committee on Military Affairs with an amendment, on page 2, line 2, to strike out the words, "be held to have accrued prior to the passage of this act," and to insert, "accrue or be allowed on account of the passage of this act," so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacttd, cto.. That in the administration of any laws conferring rights, privileges, and benefits upon honorably discharged soldiers, Cromwell L. Barsley, who was a member of Company D, Fifth Regiment United States Volunteers, and Thirty-fourth Regiment United Stales Volunteer Infantry, and Company D, Nineteenth Regiment Infnntry, United States Army, shall hereafter be held and considered to have been honorably discharged from the military service of the United States as a private of Company I, Nineteenth Regiment Infantry, United States Army, on the 23d day of December, 1907: Provided, That no bounty, back pay, pension, or allowance shall accrue or be allowed on account of the passage of this act.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I would like to have an explanation in regard to this bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator reporting the bill is not at the present time in the Chamber.

Mr. KING. Let it be passed over temporarily.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will go over.

Mr. STEPHENS rose.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. I hope the Senator from Utah will not object to the bill. Was the Senator from Mississippi about to make an explanation?

Mr. STEPHENS. I was about to respond to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I was just about to state that in the report of the major general with respect to this bill, really the report of the Secretary of War, I find that there was a court-martial in the case of this soldier, and he was dishonorably discharged from the service. If there are any reasons why he should be restored, I should be glad to withhold the objection.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, this soldier enlisted in 1899. and served loyally and faithfully in the Philippine campaign. He came back and reenlisted, and was sentenced to dishonorable discharge for the crime of stealing two turkeys.

Mr. STEPHENS. One turkey.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. I myself never stole two turkeys, but I do not believe that is an essentially heinous crime that ought to offset the service of one who served with distinction in actual hostilities. The committee was unanimous in its belief that the sentence of dishonorable discharge was too severe. Surely, after this delay, the Senate would not be going too far to recognize the honorable service and overlook that offense.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, I think the Senator has overlooked one little circumstance connected with the action of the committee in this case. It is true that this bill was reported favorably by the committee, but it was reported with an amendment. The committee was willing, in other words, that the sentence of dishonorable discharge should be canceled, but the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Blease], who is a member of the committee, informs me that the committee was unanimous in thinking that this soldier should not be allowed any back pay, pension, or pecuniary compensation of any sort.

The effect of the amendment is just that. In other words, the committee took the view that because of this soldier having been sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, and bavins been dishonorably discharged from the Army, as a matter of grace, as a matter of clemency, if his object is simply to have the record of his dishonorable discharge canceled, that should be done, but it was wholly unwilling that he should be allowed any back pay or any pension or any pecuniary compensation of any kind.

Mr. BOKAH. Do I understand that the committee canceled the order of dishonorable discharge?

Mr. BRUCE. Yes; the bill does with this amendment

Mr. BORAH. Did they find that the rnaft was not amenable to punishment?

Mr. BRUCE. Oh, no. In view of his age, in view of the fact that he had been n soldier for some two years, and had been twice honorably discharged, the committee %vas willing, if the object of the man was really to establish his moral reputation, as well as H could be reestablished under the circumstances, that the bill should effect a cancellation of the sentence of discharge; but they thought that the man having been formally convicted of theft by a court-martial, and hav

ing been sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, and having served a term of imprisonment of six months, and having been dishonorably discharged from the Army, he should not be placed upon the same footing as an irreproachable soldier

Mr. BORAH. If I had my way about it, I would give him his money.

Mr. BRUCE. That may be, but while the Senator

Mr. SWANSON. I call for the regular order. This case was discussed for half an hour at the last call of the calendar.

Mr. BRUCE. I agree entirely with the committee. I am perfectly willing that this sentence of dishonorable discharge should be canceled, if that will afford any relief.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia demands the regular order, which is the amendment proposed by the committee.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia will not object to the bill passing as it stands?

Mr. SWANSON. I am not objecting to Its passage. This bill was discussed for half an hour, and interrupted the calendar. We will have Thursday night for bills of this kind, bills which are to be debated, and I will not consent to this bill taking up this entire session when it ought to come up on Thursday. I call for the regular order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia objects, and the bill will be passed over.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. If we will all agree to sit down without further discussion, will not the Senator withdraw hix objection?

Mr. SWANSON. Yes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia withdraws his objection on condition that no further discussion ensue. The question is on the committee amendment

Mr. BRUCE. I simply ask

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The unanimous-consent agreement is violated, and the regular order will take place.

Mr. BLACK. May I make a request of the Senator from Virginia? Suppose we vote on this bill

Mr. SWANSON. I have no objection to voting.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Just a moment. We are not going to enter into unanimous-consent agrit'inents to do something, and then have them violated within the next 30 seconds, as long as the present occupant of the chair is in the chair.

Mr. SWANSON. I have no objection to voting. All I ask is the regular order. Let a Senator say whether he objects or does not object to the consideration of the bill.

Mr. BRUCE. I have no objection at all to the amendment being disposed of, and to the bill being brought to a vote.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. When a bill comes up, a Senator is entitled to five minutes, if it comes up without objection.

Mr. SWANSON. I am willing to give the five minutes, but not an hour.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Question!

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the committee.

Mr. NEELY. Mr. President, I inquire if this man's offense consisted only of stealing two turkeys; is that all?

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. That is all.

Mr. NEELY. What is the personnel of the committee that decided that he should have been dishonorably discharged for stealing two turkeys?

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. The committee did not decide it; the court-martial decided it. The commit lee is trying to give him a position on the records of the Army substantially equal to an honorable discharge. He deserves it for service in the Spanish War and the Philippine campaign, and we who now discuss it are in substance denying him that relief.

Mr. BRUCE. He was in the Army for only about two years. There is no evidence that he was a brave soldier and, as far as I know, no evidence that bo was ever in action.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This time is being charged to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. NEELY. Mr. President-
Mr. CURTIS. I ask that the bill go over.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will go over.

BILL PASSEH OVER

The bill (S. 1995) placing certain employees of the Bureau of Prohibition in the classified civil service, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Several Senators. Over.

The PRESIDENT pro temporc. The bill will be passed over.

NATIONAL OTTARD STATE STAFF OFFICERS

The bill (H. R. 239) to amend section 110 of the national defense act by repealing and striking therefrom certain provisions prescribing additional qualifications for National Guard State staff officers, and for other purposes, was announced as next in order.

Air. KING. Let that go over.

Mr. HEED of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, that bill has been agreed upon by the adjutants general of the National Guard. It simply puts the staff officers of the guard on the same basis as the staff officers of the Regular Army. It allows them the same privileges and fixes the same qualifications as are fixed for staff officers of the Regulars. I hope there will be no objection.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator maintain his objection?

Mr. KING. I have no objection.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which was read, as follows:

He tt enacted, etc., That the following provisions, to wit, "nor to any State, Territory, or District, or officer or enlisted man in the National Guard thereof, unless and until such State, Territory, or District provides by law that staff officers, including officers of the finance, inspection, quartermaster, and medical departments hereafter appointed shall have had previous military experience and shall hold their positions until they shall have reached the age of 64 years, unless retired prior to that time by reason of resignation, disability, or for causes to be determined by a court-martial legally convened for that purpose, and that vacancies among said officers shall be tilled by appointment from the militia of such State, Territory, or District," contained in the last paragraph of section 110 of the national defense act as amended by the act approved September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. L. 1036), be, nnd the same arc hereby, repealed and stricken therefrom, so that said paragraph when so amended will read as follows:

"Except as otherwise specifically provided herein no money appropriated under the provisions of this or the last preceding section shall be paid to any person not on the active list, nor to any person over 04 years of age, nor to any person who shall fall to qualify as to fitness for military service under such regulations as the Secretary of War shall prescribe."

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

PRACTICE OP HEALING IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The hill (S. 3936) to regulate the practice of the healing art to protect the public health in the District of Columbia, was announced as next in order.

Sevkkal Senators. Over.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, may I ask who objected to this bill?

Mr. NORRIS. I thought the Senator from New York objected.

Mr. COPELAND. No; I did not object. Does anyone object?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thought some Senator objected.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will not the Senator explain the bill?

Mr. COPELAND. This bill has occupied the attention of the committee on the District of Columbia for two years, and after great tribulation we have an agreement with all the various systems and cults of practice in this city. The bill provides that every applicant shall apply to a commission, and then go before a basic science committee for an examination in the fundamentals of medicine. Then, if qualified by that basic science committee, the applicant goes before u committee of his own school of practice; and then, if he passes, he gets a license to practice in the District of Columbia.

Mr. CARAWAY. I would like to ask a question as to the nature of this examination by the basic science committee.

Mr. COPELAND. They examine in anatomy, bacteriology, chemistry—the fundamental subjects.

Mr. CARAWAY. If they want to practice the healing art, they must pass that examination whether they are going to be chiropractors or

Mr. COPELAND. Yes.

Mr. CARAWAY. Are dentists included?

Mr. COPELAND. No; it relates only to practitioners of some branch of medicine.

Air. CARAWAY. How about undertakers?

Mr. COPELAND. Undertakers are exempt.

Air. CARAWAY. They ought not to be.

Mr. BRUCE. May I call the attention of the Senator from New York to the fact that I have offered two amendments to this bill relating to chiropractors? The chiropractors of Maryland and other States in the Union think that this bill prescribes no proper standard at all for the qualifications of chiropractic. The chiropractors in the city of Washington accept the bill as it stands; but, so far as I know, it is not the case with the members of that profession anywhere else in the United

States. I have offered amendments calculated to create real standards of professional proficiency, and with those amendments I have no objection to the bill.

CROMWELL L. BABSI.EY

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, I endeavored a few moments ago to get the floor with reference to the bill of the young man who was charged with stealing the turkeys. I think it is not right that that bill should be further held up. This young man served between five and six years as an honorable soldier. He served in the Philippine Islands. He was arrested and charged with the crime of stealing two turkeys from his own company. If every soldier who ever stole a turkey had served nine months in prison and been dishonorably discharged, and had that held up against him for the remainder of his life, there would not be many of them left to serve in the Army.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. President

Mr. BLACK. I yield.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. The Senator was a soldier himself, was he not?

Mr. BLACK. I was a soldier for about two years.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Did the Senator ever know of a soldier who would not steal anything to eat when he was hungry?

Mr. BLACK. If he did not, he would be a very unusual soldier.

Air. BRUCE. I have never had any conception that standards of conduct in the Army were so low.

Mr. NEELY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. To whom does the Senator yield?

Mr. BLACK. I do not yield at all. This turkey matter has been a subject of talk here on this floor, and we have talked about it until one would think the man had committed burglary and grand larceny and murder and robbery and every other crime in the decalogue. As a matter of fact, I am opposed to the committee amendment, although I am a member of the committee. I do not believe that we should deprive this man, after all these years, of anything that might be coming to him in the way of pension or compensation. I think we ought to go back and take up this bill. I think if we do not, we ought to have some more discussion of it. Is it such an awful thing for a soldier to steal u turkey that we have to hold up our hands in holy horror for the remainder of his life—and stealing a turkey from his own company? It was probably just a question whether he would steal it or the company cook would steal it. It was a turkey that belonged to his own company, and here we take the time of the Senate from time to time and object and object to giving a man that which he ought to have when he served between five and six years honorably in the Army as a soldier, fought for this country, risked his life, and now we hold up this price of a turkey and say it is so great and that we have not time to pass on his case, and that we will not give him that which he ought to have after all these years have passed by.

Air. BRUCE. Air. President, I am perfectly willing

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is now speaking on Calendar No. 768, to regulate the practice of the healing art in the District of Columbia.

Mr. BLACK. That is what I spoke on, Air. President.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, I want to say that the very mild view that the Senator from Alabama takes of theft reminds me of a thing that happened in my boyhood in soutliside. Virginia. A colored man came back from church, and somebody asked him what sort of a sermon had been delivered. He said, "A very good sermon, except a reference to chicken stealing brought a sort of coolness over the meeting." The Senator seems to take the same lenient view of theft that the old colored acquaintance of mine did.

Who is to be the judge of what constitutes crime on the part of a soldier, pray? To what tribunal is that question left by the law? It is left to the superior officers of the soldier.

In this case it was a court-martial, and that court-martial determined that under all the circumstances of the case, many of which, of course, can not well be brought to our attention, that soldier had been guilty of a heinous offense, and the sentence of the court-martial was that he should be imprisoned for nine months and that he should be dishonorably discharged from the Army. That was the result. No matter what effort may be made to belittle the importance of this offense, that was the conclusion reached by that court-martial in the deliberate discharge of its duty.

Air. SHORTRIDGE. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator yield?

Air. BRUCE. If the Senator is speaking on another bill, and not speaking in my time

« ПретходнаНастави »