bill were pointed out, apparently successfully, judged by the final vote of April 24 to recommit the bill and substitute the measure recommended by the Attorney General. On this motion 139 votes for recommittal with 28 pairs totaled 167 votes for the substitute proposal and gave positive assurance that in case of a veto of the flood control bill because of its objectionable features, such veto would be sustained by the House.

With that certainty the Executive, with the aid of the Attorney General and Chief of Engineers, has been able to secure medifications of the bill so that it is far less objectionable than the bill passed by the House as stated, and it is a vast improvement over the carelessly drawn bill passed by the Senate.

No attempt will be made to point out all of the important changes in a bill which it was predicted by Army engineers would cost the Federal Government from $1,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 as passed by the Senate, although a misleading amount of $325,000,000 was carried in the Senate bill.

NOT TO COST MUCH MORE THAN THE ARMY ENGINEERS' PLAN

Several specific amendments accepted by the conferees have been briefly referred to. Their adoption ought to materially reduce the cost estimate to an amount not far in excess of the $300,000.000) in round numbers estimated for the General Jadwin plan of flood control rejected in its local contribution features by both House and Senate bills.

A provision inserted in the Attorney General's substitute bill offered on the motion to recommit required that States or local interests furnish rights of way for flood-way levees and also a provision recommended by the Army engineer's plan for small local contributions are omitted from the conferees' bill. To that extent it is a departure from the policy heretofore adopted by the Federal Government. It also affords invitation for subsequent flood-control projects to evade contribution because of this precedent.

The following changes, however, in the original Senate and House bills are of vast importance, and in substance far overshadow the objections mentioned:

First. The amendment accepted by the conferees under section 1 now provides that the President shall determine the flood plans and other important questions which are to be submitted to him, and that the board temporarily formed for the purpose of recommending plans shall have no power or authority in respect to the project excepting to recommend to the President. This places responsibility with the Executive, and is a protection to the Government not afforded by the original bills, that left large powers to a mixed politically formed board.

Second. The commission or board, consisting of the Chief of Engineers, the president of the Mississippi River Commission, and a civil engineer, with duties confined to a submission of Mississippi River plans, is infinitely preferable to the commission provided in the Senate bill that, as stated, was reasonably certain to develop into a political commission in course of time. Proposals in other bills to have many millions of dollars of existing levee indebtedness assumed by the Federal Government through action by such commission affords an understanding of a danger that has been thus avoided.

$71,000,000 RAILWAY PAYMENT STRICKEN OUT

Third. The provision contained in section 4 of the Senate bill and also as reported in the House bill granting unlimited damages to public-service corporations has been stricken from the bill. The provision, urged by railway engineers before our committee, contemplated a payment by the Federal Government to their roads of over $71,000,000 for relocating their roads in the flood ways and elsewhere. That provision has been eliminated from the bill by the conferees.

Fourth. Under the House bill as passed by the House it was provided in section 3 that the Government should acquire absoiute ownership of land or floodage rights where lands along the banks of the Mississippi River are damaged by the construction of flood-control works.

This provision as passed by the House might have included lands heretofore subject to flowage all along the river and would have occasioned heavy expense to the Government because of that fact.

As reported by the conferees, section 3 is now changed so as to provide liability only "for damages for lands not now overflowed." This amendment is not subject to reasonable objection, although the provision is subject to difficulties and possibly unnecessary expenditures because the Government will not be limited to damages" to be collected by court procedure | but upon proof of damages not heretofore suffered it may be the duty of the Federal Government to acquire absolute ownership or flowage rights to such lands.

66

LXIX-512

66

Sixth. An important provision not found in the Senate bill but reported in the House bill is that which provides that in work on the tributaries local interests shall provide rights of way without cost to the United States, contribute 33% per cent of the cost of the works, and maintain the works after completion." This provision sets forth a flood policy hereafter to be adopted by the Federal Government.

The modifications in the bill speak for themselves, and were made possible by the fact that without modifications there was strong possibility that the bill could not become law, due to Executive opposition. To the President and his advisers belongs the credit for removing some of the most objectionable features of the bill.

In its present form the bill is not entirely all that could be desired to protect the Government, but due to the threatening situation in the Mississippi Valley flood-control works must be constructed without delay. For this reason in their efforts to reach a satisfactory compromise the conferees of both Senate and House are entitled to commendation from every friend of and sympathizer with the flood-control problem.

To those minority members of the committee, and to the Members of the House who by their action and vote on the motion to recommit_brought about a situation that protected the rights of the Federal Government, thanks are due. As stated at the outset of the discussion, we have a responsibility toward the Federal Government as well as to our own States and local constituencies, and that has been fairly recognized in mutual efforts to secure a satisfactory bill.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DENISON].

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the action of the managers on the part of the House for the splendid work they have done in reaching an agreement on this bill. I think they did good work, and they deserve a great deal of credit for what they did. They had some very serious difficulties to overcome in order to get an agreement and get a bill that would be satisfactory. Of course, as will often happen, however, some unwise provisions have crept into the bill, and I want to call attention to one of those provisions. I think I should do that at this time, before the bill becomes a law, because I think sooner or later it will be necessary for Congress to amend the bill.

In section 6 it is provided that the fund appropriated under the bill may be expended for the construction of flood works and levees on the Mississippi between Rock Island and Cape

Girardeau, Mo.; but on that part of the river the local levee districts or the States under this provision have to provide not only the ground where the levees are built but will have to furnish 33% per cent of the funds for the construction of the levees and maintain them after they are built. Of course, you understand that below Cape Girardeau, Mo., the Government pays all of the costs of constructing the levees, but above Cape Girardeau the local districts will be required to pay 33% per cent of the cost. I do not think there is any justification for such a distinction on different parts of the Mississippi River. It is also provided that on the tributaries of the Mississippi River, which are affected by the floods of the Mississippi, the local districts have to pay 33% per cent of the levees on those tributaries. Let me show you the injustice of that. I am not criticizing the conferees or the committee. I think they did the best they could do, but I merely wish to call the attention of the House to the injustice of that provision. Let me illustrate it by the city of Cairo, Ill. Cairo is situated on the narrow point where the Ohio and the Mississippi come together. On the Mississippi side the Government will pay for all expenses of flood protection. Just around the point on the other side of the city-the city faces both rivers-where the Mississippi River water backs up into the Ohio, just as high as in the Mississippi, the city might have to pay 33% per cent of the cost of levee protection upon that side. The Mississippi River causes the danger on both sides of the city. On one side the city might have to pay one-third of the flood protection, while on the other side the Government will pay it all.

Mr. NEWTON. What is the reason for the distinction? Mr. DENISON. There is no reason, but I assume the conferees had to accept that or not have any legislation. Sooner or later Congress will have to correct that provision. The Mississippi River, in the flood of 1927, cut across into the Ohio River above the city of Cairo, and ran entirely around the city, so you can see that the Mississippi River flood is often the only source of danger to the city of Cairo. So the same rule as to costs ought to apply on both sides of the city, because the source of danger is usually the same.

I merely use the situation at Cairo as an illustration of the point I am trying to make with reference to one provision of the bill as agreed to by the conferees. As a matter of fact, we all understand that Cairo will be protected by the flood way provided across the river in Missouri, especially if the Jadwin plan adopted by the bill is not changed by the action of the board. If the board should change the Jadwin plan for the protection of Cairo, and if a plan to protect Cairo would provide only for levees, then we can all see that a great injustice will have been done to the people of Cairo and to Mound City and Mounds, just above Cairo. Cairo can not stand higher levees. Cairo will not be secure until the flood level of the Mississippi River is materially reduced, as provided in the Jadwin plan. If the board should unfortunately decide to reject the Jadwin plan for the protection of Cairo and approve a plan for higher levees there, I would be compelled to file a bill to amend the flood control bill at least to the extent of providing that the same rule with reference to paying for the costs of levees should apply on the tributaries of the Mississippi River as far as they are directly affected by the floods of the Mississippi River. Every reason that would justify the payment of all costs by the Government for levees on the Mississippi River would suggest that the Government pay all costs of levees on the tributaries of the Mississippi River as far back as such tributaries are directly flooded by the waters of the Mississippi River. Above those points there is justification for an apportionment of costs to local levee districts for constructing levees on the tributaries. The Mississippi River floods endanger Mounds and Mound City just above Cairo on the Ohio River when the Ohio River is in flood, and the Government should pay all costs for the protection of those cities. But if the Jadwin plan is followed and the flood level of the Mississippi River at Cairo is lowered by a diversion channel on the opposite side, then, of course, Cairo and Mound City will alike be fully protected. And I wish to say that the people of Cairo and southern Illinois are depending upon full adherence by the board to the Jadwin plan for their protection.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself five minutes.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, the important changes are only three in number. I will begin backwards. In the first section we provided for the planning board composed of the Chief of Engineers, the president of the Mississippi River Commission, and one civil engineer. In that same section we

provided that they should have no other power or authority except to try to make the two flood-control plans consistent. In section 10 it was provided in the bill as it passed both Houses that certain surveys of the tributaries and reservoirs be referred to this same board. To make it consistent with the provision in section 1 the conferees recommend that section 10 be amended so that the surveys of the tributaries will be reviewed by the Mississippi River Commission instead of by the planning board. That change was authorized by House Concurrent Resolution No. 34, which was adopted here yesterday.

The next important section is the so-called flowage-rights section. I think we have the language corrected to meet the views of nearly everyone in the House. The United States will not now have to pay for flowage rights over lands now used in conducting the destructive water from the main Mississippi Rived. It was cured very simply by the addition of the word "additional." If the work puts any additional flood destruction on those lands, that must be provided for. In the same paragraph it was provided in the House amendment that the diversion must be regulated or controlled or confined. We struck those words out and referred it to the board.

Then the only other provision was the so-called Garrett amendment. We changed the House amendment so that the additional damage caused by the construction work would come within their purview as the objection was made to giving them the right to collect damages.

Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. I observe there has been inserted in that amendment which vitally affects the interests of my State the words, "not now flooded or damaged." I would like to ask the gentleman this question: As is well understood by the gentleman and the gentleman's committee, by reason of work on the opposite side now in existence, and by reason of work that will be erected in the future, not only levees that will cause water to come over on Tennessee that does not belong there, but also revetment work for the protection of the west bank levees, in all probability there is going to be a continuation and increase of the bank erosion on the east side. Does the gentleman think, under the language as it now reads, the damage by erosion will be taken care of?

Mr. REID of Illinois. I will answer that by saying to you that I do not think the additional words change your position one bit, and if you refer to the paragraph you will see why. The paragraph now reads:

No liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place: Provided, however, That if in carrying out the purposes of this act it shall be found that upon any stretch of the banks of the Mississippi River it is impracticable to construct levees, either because such construction is not economically justified or because such construction would unreasonably restrict the flood channel, and lands in such stretch of the river are subjected to overflow and damage which are not now overflowed or damaged by reason of the construction of levees on the opposite banks of the river it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers to institute proceedings on behalf of the United States Government to acquire either the absolute ownership of the lands so subjected to overflow and damage or floodage rights over such lands.

And then the words that the gentleman objected to, "which are not now overflowed or damaged." I think if it can not be economically justified they must find a substitute, and that substitute, in my opinion, would be to acquire flowage rights made necessary by the construction on the other side of the river.

I do not think the addition of those words makes any change in the amendment the gentleman submitted.

Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. And if the original amendment embraced erosion, and the words "not now flooded or damaged" retained, the gentleman thinks it would still embrace erosion?

Mr. REID of Illinois. My idea is that any flood-control works erected under this act, thereby damaging the land on the other side to a different extent from that existing before the floodcontrol works were erected, would come within that amendment. Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. The question of national liability is recognized in the amendment?

Mr. REID of Illinois. Yes. It is the first time it has been recognized that it is a duty to take care of that side of the river.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Only by reason of additional damage due to the works constructed under this act? Mr. REID of Illinois. Yes.

Mr. QUIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REID of Illinois. Yes.

Mr. QUIN. We have levees constructed doing damage now. The levees on the other side have caused us damage.

Mr. REID of Illinois. All right. The amendment you submitted makes it the duty to provide levees. Failure to provide levees because not economically justified makes it necessary to pay flowage rights or damages on those that exist at the present time.

Mr. BOX. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REID of Illinois.

Yes.

Mr. BOX. The gentleman provides additional damages done by reason of the increased flow, as I understand it. How will such damages be ascertained?

Mr. REID of Illinois. There is no method provided under the bill.

Mr. BOX. Will they have the right to proceed in court for the collection of such damages?

Mr. REID of Illinois. This is the first time that any right has been recognized on the part of the individual owner against the Government for any flood-control damages.

Mr. BOX. And does the gentleman believe we will have the right to proceed in court for the collection of such damage without the permission of Congress hereafter?

Mr. REID of Illinois. I think it creates a right, and I presume every right in court follows the creation of that right. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Will the gentleman yield? Yes.

Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I call attention to the fact that there is no inhibition in the project with reference to the construction of revetments on the bluff side and that, as a matter of fact, revetments have been constructed in the vicinity of Natchez on the bluff side.

Mr. REID of Illinois. In regard to the question raised by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DENISON], I think his criticism is not well directed for the reason that the project takes care of Cairo and consequently it would come within the project whether or not that happens to be on the Ohio side or the Illinois side. That was my construction of it, that Cairo was a part of the project and consequently it would be necessary to take care of Cairo because it was within the project and would not come within the so-called tributary section. I think those are the main points, and I think we have gone over them fully.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REID of Illinois. Yes.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. The gentleman is familiar with what is designated as the New Madrid flood way in the Jadwin plan and spoken of in this bill. That plan provides for the cutting down of the levee that now exists along the Missouri side and provides for the construction of a new levee 5 miles west, and, I presume, it takes in the land intervening between the two levees as a flood way.

Now, under the provisions of this bill as amended, will the landowners between the existing levee that is to be cut down 5 feet and the new levee that they propose to erect 5 or more miles to the west be entitled to flowage rights?

Mr. REID of Illinois. The gentleman can answer it himself. Does it put additional destructive flood waters down there? Mr. FULBRIGHT. Well, I think the gentleman is familiar with this situation.

Mr. REID of Illinois. That is the only way I can answer it. If the Government puts additional destructive flood waters down there, of course they would be entitled to flowage rights. Mr. CHINDBLOM. If the chairman is going into a discussion of facts relating to various localities, I am afraid we will get far afield from the principles underlying this legislation.

Mr. REID of Illinois. I think that is so and that is the reason I answered the gentleman as I did. If that puts additional flood waters down there, then you come within the purview of the act and the Government would have to acquire the flowage rights.

Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of the conference report. The conference report was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. REID of Illinois, a motion to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to was laid on the table.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
OVER INTERURBAN ELECTRIC LINES

COMMISSION

The SPEAKER. Under special order of the House the Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. STEVENSON] for 15 minutes. [Applause.]

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, in 1911 an interurban electric railroad system was chartered in South Carolina to be extended from Greenwood, by way of Anderson, Greenville, Spartanburg, Gaffney, and Grover, to Gastonia, N. C. Of course, the charter in South Carolina only applied to

that State, about 115 miles. At the same time North Carolina chartered an interurban system also to meet with it and be a part of it, to extend from the North Carolina line, by way of Kings Mountain, Gastonia, Charlotte, and Salisbury, to Winston-Salem. The construction was begun and they completed 90 miles from Greenwood, S. C., to Spartanburg. When the war came on construction stopped at Spartanburg and construction from Charlotte south stopped at Gastonia, leaving a gap of 60 miles in there to be joined up. That stood until 1926. The charter in the meantime had been extended by the Legislature of South Carolina and, I believe, by the Legislature of North Carolina, and they got ready to join this up and make the extension to Salisbury and Winston-Salem, N. C.

The Southern Railway has always occupied that territory with a splendid system, as good as there is in the world, and it occupies it to-day with a double track from this city to Atlanta, Ga. They opposed the completion of this system. It was brought before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the question was raised whether it had jurisdiction to keep them from building. Under the Esch-Cummins Act jurisdiction was given to the Interstate Commerce Commission to either give or withhold a certificate. If the commission gives such a certificate the railroad can be built; and if they do not, the railroad can not be built. Without that certificate railroads can not be constructed any more, in so far as ordinary railroads are concerned.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has heard the matter at some length and has decided that it has jurisdiction, that there is no public convenience served, and therefore it has refused this permission, with three or four dissenting members. Now, I want to discuss for a few minutes the genesis of this trouble and see whether they are justified in extending their jurisdiction over this railroad.

I assert that it is in keeping with the determination to have a transportation monopoly in this country consisting of the railroads that now exist; that it is a throttling of extensions of roads where there are no railroads; and that it is giving to the Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction to which that commission is not entitled.

When the Esch-Cummins Act came up for consideration it contained this provision, subdivision 21 of section 1. It is now subdivision 22, all of the subdivisions having been advanced one number:

The authority of the commission conferred by paragraphs (17) to (20), both inclusive

It is now 18 to 21

shall not extend to the construction or abandonment of side tracks, or of spur, industrial, team, or switching tracks, or of street car and electric interurban lines, if such tracks or lines are located or to be located wholly within one State.

You will notice this confined the jurisdiction to interurban lines and other lines that cross a State line but did not extend to those wholly within the State.

I had this very situation in mind because it runs across my district. I offered an amendment, and we debated it for two or three hours, and finally Mr. Esch and myself got together on language which was much better than that which I had offered, and Mr. Esch finaly offered this amendment:

Mr. EscH. Mr. Chairman, I desire to offer a substitute to the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

"Amendment offered by Mr. Esch: Page 53, line 13, strike out lines 13, 14, 15, and 16 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"To the construction or abandonment of any line located or to be located wholly within one State or to any street car or electric interurban line.' "

The Chairman required the Clerk to report the language as it would read, and he so reported it.

The paragraph as amended read:

The authority of the commission conferred by paragraphs 17 to 20, both inclusive, shall not extend to the construction or abandonment of any line located or to be located wholly within one State or to any street car or electric interurban line.

In this way we enacted the law. You will notice that the distinction was made that certain lines used by steam tracks, side tracks, and spur tracks had to be located within a State to be exempt from this jurisdiction, but any street car or electric interurban line was exempted from the jurisdiction. This point came up and this question was raised, and the act was finally enacted in the following language the Senate, of course, had to do something. It had to amend this somehow, and they put it in this way:

The authority of the commission conferred by paragraphs 18 to 21, both inclusive, shall not extend to the construction or abandonment of spur, industrial, team, switching, or sidetracks located or to be located wholly within one State.

Now, that is one complete sentence. This follows:

Or of street, suburban, or interurban electric railroads which are not operated as part or parts of a general steam railroad system of transportation.

You have there two classes that were exempt-the spur tracks and other kinds of tracks connected with steam railroads that were located wholly within the State and the electric lines, interurban, or street railways that were not operated as a part of a steam railroad system. These were the two.

Now, what does the commission say? Nobody claims that this system is operated as a part of any steam railroad system, but they say, forsooth, because it is built on better lines than the Southern Railway was at the time, and its bridges are better than the Southern Railway had at that time, and it is prepared to haul as heavy freight trains as the Southern Railway, and does haul as heavy freight trains as the Southern Railway, "We class it as a commercial steam railroad," although it has never had a steam engine on it and it is not contemplated to put any on it.

The people who control it have developed wonderful power there, and they are making a wonderful accession to property and wealth and industry and population in that part of the country, and they propose to continue to do it by electricity.

This is their proposition. They say we will class it as a steam railroad-as a commercial railroad.

Suppose you adopt their classification as a commercial electric railroad separate and distinct from an interurban railroad? Then it is not embraced in this bill. You would have a street railway that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission if it were operated in conjunction with a steam railroad system, but you would not have, if it were operated in conjunction with an interurban commercial railroad system, which is something that was born in the brain of the ingenuity of the people who do not want any more transportation in that country.

Very aptly Mr. Brainerd, one of the commissioners, in the dissenting opinion says:

The act does not distinguish between a "commercial railroad operated by electricity" and an interurban electric railroad not operated as a part of a general steam-railroad system of transportation, and we can make no such distinction.

There is no such distinction as a commercial interurban system from the ordinary interurban system.

The commission in order to justify this decision cited a statute of South Carolina, and it started in the middle of the section and cited only that part that seemed to justify their action. They say:

The statutes of South Carolina provide that the phrases "interurban railroad" or "interurban railway" shall be construed to include all railroads and railways operated by electricity whose main business consists in the transportation of passengers from one municipality to another.

Well, that sounds as if they did intend to limit it, does it not? But that simply gives you an idea of the candor of the commissioner who wrote the opinion.

I just want to show you what that statute says, and you will see at once that it is a case of misapplication of a statute, and that they certainly ought to have had sufficient intelligence to have discriminated:

In the construction of this section (which is section 4 and section 5) the phrases street railroad or street railway shall be construed to include all railroads and railways operated by electricity whose main business consists in the transportation of passengers between different points within the limits of a municipality, and the phrases "interurban railroad" or "interurban railway' shall be constructed to include all railroads and railways

They take that and make what South Carolina did not intend an interurban railway in their charter. You will see when you read both sections that it did not intend anything of the kind. Not only that, but if that was true of all the railroads it would have required every interurban railroad that carried freight to put a vestibule on its freight cars, which is absurd.

Then they tried to tie up North Carolina with this proposition. There is the case of Kirkpatrick in the Sixty-seventh North Carolina, page 477. That North Carolina case was where an abutting landowner on a street was suing the interurban railroad for damages to his property because they were operating freight cars up and down the street. In other words, they had a freight system, and the supreme court of the State | said that street railways would not be liable to the abutting landowner, but they said that so far as the right of the abutting landowner was concerned they would have the same right as against the interurban as against the steam railroad.

What is the upshot of this? Here is a territory teeming with industry, the center of the manufacturing country of the Southland-I have been familiar with that country all my life-I was raised in it-there has not been in that country 100 miles long and 100 miles wide-more than 100 miles of railroad constructed within my memory for 50 years. I mean the territory between the Broad and the Yadkin and the North Carolina line and the Blue Ridge.

Now, the development is beginning, it has reached out, and capital is flowing in, and full development is going on, and the opportunities for development are unlimited for the prosperity of this country. The people are ready to put up their money and build those instrumentalities which are desirable over the Piedmont country, establish factories, and the Interstate Commerce Commission says no, you can not do it, you have the Southern Railroad and that is good enough.

I have no disposition to criticize that splendid system, but there is nothing so perfect that it can do everything and I submit that it is absolutely outrageous and an invasion of the rights of the State and an infraction of the provisions and a perversion of the statute that Mr. Esch wrote, and he dissented like a man from the decision made in the case.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The State of North Carolina, as well as South Carolina, is back of this proposition? Mr. STEVENSON. Yes.

Mr. NEWTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEVENSON. Yes.

Mr. NEWTON. How many of the commissioners dissented? Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. McManamy, Mr. Esch, and Mr. Brainerd.

Now, I thank the House for the opportunity of addressing it. There is a bill pending in which it is proposed to take the jurisdiction away from the Interstate Commerce Commission and I submit there ought to be some action upon it. [Applause.] REAPPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. FENN). Under the special order, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. JACOBSTEIN] for 20 minutes.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I am taking this opportunity to address the Members on a subject which may come to a vote in the House in a very few days. I am going to address myself to the subject of reapportionment of the membership of the House of Representatives, a subject not only of importance to every Member of the House but to every portion of the United States.

I do not know whether you realize that every day we sit here, every day Congress is in session, we are violating the very first articles of the Constitution of the United States. You may talk all you want about the observance by the States and citizens of the fourteenth amendment or the fifteenth amendment or the eighteenth amendment of the Constitution, the cold fact remains that for the last eight years the very first article of the Constitution of the United States has been violated every day by ourselves-the Congress.

We can not hope to have the respect for the Constitution from citizens of this country unless we as a Congress respect the

Here are the constitutional provisions regarding apportionment:

ART. 1, SEC. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, threefifths of all other persons, The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of 10 years, in such manner

as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000, but each State shall have at least one Representative.

AMENDMENT XIV, SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

The first proposition I lay down is that the Constitution of the United States describes very definitely that we “shall" reapportion this House every 10 years. It is true there is no explicit mandate to that effect, and there are some constitu

tional lawyers who maintain that is discretionary with the Congress itself. The fact remains, however, that for 120 years this provision of the Constitution was very religiously adhered to and was very consistently and uniformly observed. Thirteen times we have reapportioned the Congress of the United States, as shown in the following table:

The first break in that fine tradition came in 1920. There is a feeling abroad in the land that the Congress of the United States ought to be a little more meticulous in the observance of the Constitution.

We talk loudly and a whole lot about representative gov ernment. Do you believe in representative government? Do you think that we really have representative government when 13,000,000 people (which represents the increase in population from 1910 to 1920) are to-day without proper, fair representation as a result of our failure to reapportion the House? Let me illustrate how this representative government of ours works. We have a Representative in Los Angeles, our colleague, Mr. CRAIL, who represents a million and a quarter people. Each one of you please compare that with the representation in your own individual districts. The average is about 225,000 to 250,000. Is there any equity in that situation? Can anyone say that we have a representative government in the United States when a man in Detroit, Mich., has in his district 750,000 to 800,000 people as against a

Census

had and when enacted

Most assuredly this is a travesty on representative government.

Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. RAMSEYER. That inequality, of course, can be greatly relieved by the legislatures of those States.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN. That is true as within the States, but it does not correct the inequality as between States. California, for instance, was entitled to three additional members on the basis of the 1920 census returns, whereas Missouri would have lost two Members if the House membership had been retained at 435.

The following table shows the gains and losses that would have occurred if the 1920 reapportionment had gone into effect on the basis of a House membership of 435, 460, and 483 respectively:

Mr. RAMSEYER.

within the States.

Mr. JACOBSTEIN.