During periods of prosperity we forget. We have a proud people in these United States who do not like to complain or to recite old grievances. When the unemployment is over we return with renewed zest and added vigor to produce-produce, more and more, faster and faster, with ever-increasing efficiency-until once again we find that the very plenty we have created brings us poverty. The very progress we have achieved condemns us to idleness. That is just where we are now. We are suffering from the ancient paradox, suffering want because we have too much-going idle because we have learned to work too well. Now, I believe, the time is ripe to dissolve that illicit relationship between progress and poverty. Public opinion is now fully behind such an attempt and public interest has reached a high degree of intensity in every proposal honestly calculated to relieve the unemployment situation. A combination of circumstances has made the present situation particularly intolerable. According to the report of the Secretary of Labor, we have a large number of men temporarily without jobs, because we are suffering from a business depression, which means that we have more goods on hand than the people have money to buy. In addition, we have a large number of wage earners whose jobs are entirely gone, because their work is now being done by machinery. Not only are their jobs gone, but their trade has disappeared. The skill which they had acquired is worthless. They must start all over again at the bottom if they can find the place to begin. Everybody is agreed that this is so. Yet we have done nothing and are doing nothing to combat unemployment. The administration is, of course, in a dilemma. It has rested the entire justification of its policies on the ground that they have produced prosperity and it is afraid that to attempt to solve the unemployment problem might be construed as an admission that we have no prosperity. To get out of the dilemma it has chosen to deny or to minimize the extent of unemployment. That is the only way that I can explain the declaration of the President that employment was plentiful at a time when jobs were so scarce that bread lines once again reappeared on our city streets. That is the only reason I can find for the declaration of one of Mr. Hoover's assistants that there was no unemployment at all, though the published figures of the Department of Labor showed a wholesale discharge of employees computed to be over 1,800,000 in number in the two years between 1925 and 1927. I can only explain these declarations as an apology for the know-nothing, do-nothing policy which this administration has adopted in spite of the suffering and depression which it has already once witnessed in 1921. The truth is slowly dawning upon all that the price of freedom from unemployment is eternal vigilance, constant planning, incessant guard against the conditions which bring it about. The extent of the problem, the danger to our peace and security which it threatens, call for a permanent body whose task and burden it shall be to carry on a continuous offensive against conditions productive of unemployment. So long as we prefer to rely on emergency committees, so long will there be emergencies to relieve. We want to do for the unemployment panics what the Federal Reserve Board does for the financial panics. It is a truism that prevention is better than relief. I am asked why should the Government interfere in this economic problem? My answer is threefold: First, that government was created for this very purpose, to solve problems cooperatively which we can not solve individually. Secondly, because unemployment holds out a threat to the security of every American home and to the peace and safety of the entire American people; and lastly, because the problem is such that no one business man could solve it if he would, and he has not the necessary motive to solve it if he could. Only on a national scale and from a national viewpoint does it become both desirable and economical to solve this problem. Let me tell you why. A manufacturer I know had 1,400 men in his employ. Business slackened; he discharged 500 and let them shift for themselves. That may be sound economy for that one manufacturer who releases the men and then he is no longer responsible for them. But can America likewise release those 500 or 5,000,000 of wage earners who are similarly discharged by manufacturers throughout the land? Can its responsibility be shifted so readily? Must not those idle men and their families be fed and clothed and sheltered? Is it desirable for America to destroy their standards of living and uproot their essential faith in the fairness and future of America? Is it fair to the rest of the working men and women of this country to compel them to compete with men who, because of prolonged unemployment, are ready to work at any price? saves their The individual manufacturer who discharges his men salaries. That is his economy. But for the Nation it is a total loss. For the Nation it is an inexcusable waste. Four million men who earn a minimum of $20,000,000 daily and would produce goods worth double that amount. If you wish to forget the humanitarian aspect of this problem, at least, as business men and business women, you must attend to this flood stream of waste which unemployment produces on a national scale. Is there a remedy? That is the practical question. Can I make a constructive suggestion to help solve this problem? I believe I can. Three bills (S. 4157, S. 4158, S. 4307), which I recently introduced in the United States Senate, offer a plan which promises success. The most significant element of the plan is the creation of a permanent body, which shall quietly and uninterruptedly work away on the problem of unemployment, procure the elimination of conditions productive of unemployment, and advise the Government and the people what steps to take to avoid it. That body will not be a temporary committee of well-meaning citizens but a permanent organization officially charged with the task and the burden of safeguarding us against unemployment. That will be their responsibility and the extent of their success in office will be measured by the extent of their success in eliminating unemployment. One of the bills declares it to be the policy of this Government so to use its spending power to bring about steadiness of employment. The Government is at all times engaged in vast undertakings, of building construction, of road construction, of river and harbor improvement, and flood control. These projects can be planned in advance so that work upon them can be accelerated in time of depression and retarded during times of prosperity. The operation of such a plan will not cost the Government any money. On the contrary, it will save money for the Public Treasury because it will take advantage of the lower prices which prevail during periods of depression. To care for the man whose Job has been taken by a machine, as well as for the new industry that wishes to recruit a new labor force, one of the bills provides for a nation-wide system of employment offices, under the cooperative auspices of the State and municipalities and the Federal Government. The third bill provides for the collection and publication of adequate information of employment. Without proper statistics we shall never be able fully to solve unemployment. Briefly, then, this plan embraces the following: (1) The collection of adequate statistics and information. (2) A force of employment offices out in the field actually making the adjustments and bringing together the idle man and the vacant job. (3) A central body continually getting information coming in from the field and interpreting it and converting it into governmental policy deliberately dedicated to the elimination of enforced idleness. No guaranty accompanies this plan. It may prove successful beyond our dreams. Application may demonstrate that it requires change. At any rate, we shall have set up the machinery to make the changes. We shall have some one thinking, planning, and responsible for the results. We shall have left behind us the hopelessness and despair which now characterizes the official attitude toward unemployment. TAX REDUCTION The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1) to reduce and equalize taxation, provide revenue, and for other purposes. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, the next amendment passed over will be found on page 205, section 441, tax on sales of produce on exchange, to strike out lines 12 to 14, inclusive. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator what became of the amendment in line 7, striking out the words "$1 each year"? Mr. SMOOT. That went over. Mr. FLETCHER. It has not been acted on? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MCNARY in the chair). The question is on the amendment of the committee. Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Washington [Mr. JONES] a question? We can not possibly finish the consideration of the revenue bill to-day, although we are making pretty good strides. Can we not take up the conference report on the flood control bill? I understand that the House has adopted it, and it is here before the Senate. I should be very glad if we could get that matter out of the way. Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I desire to say to the Senator from Mississippi that I am very anxious to get rid of this floodcontrol conference report. I gave notice last night that I expected to take it up to-day, but the Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT], in charge of the revenue bill, and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CURTIS], the leader on this side, urged me very strongly to put the matter over at least until to-morrow in the hope of getting along with the revenue bill. Very reluctantly I consented to that course. I would like very much to have the conference report disposed of as soon as possible. Mr. HARRISON. I thought perhaps the reason actuating the Senator from Utah in his stand was his belief that we could finish with the revenue bill to-day, but we can not conclude the consideration of it to-day, and I wish we could get up the flood-control conference report. Mr. SMOOT. Does the Senator from Washington think we can complete consideration of the conference report to-day? Mr. JONES. I do not suppose that it would take anywhere near all the day. Of course, I do not know how long anyone may desire to speak upon it. I understand the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NORRIS] wants to make some remarks on itI do not know how long-and the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. FRAZIER] wants to speak on it. I do not know whether anyone else desires to speak on the conference report. I had hoped that if we got it up probably it would take but an hour or so, even if it took that long. Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I have no information as to anyone on this side who desires to address the Senate on the flood-control conference report. Mr. HARRISON. I thought perhaps the Senator from Utah [Mr. KING] might want briefly to discuss the conference report. I do not think it would take any amount of time. Mr. SMOOT. In order to save time, so as to arrive at something definite, I will consent that the conference report shall be taken up now. I give notice now that unless the consideration of the conference report is completed to-day I shall ask to have it laid aside to-morrow. For the present I ask that the revenue bill be laid aside for the sole purpose of taking up the conference report. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, before that is done, so there will be no misunderstanding, I desire to say that I do not know that there will be any lengthy debate. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. FRAZIER] and I want to talk a while on the report. It is perfectly immaterial, as far as I am concerned, whether it is taken up now or laid over until to-morrow, but I do not want to have any understanding that we will get through with it at any particular time. Mr. SMOOT. There is no understanding, except that it may be considered for the whole day to-day. Mr. NORRIS. I should think we would get through to-day, but I can not give any assurance of that kind. Mr. SMOOT. Let us try to get through to-day. Mr. FLETCHER. I can not see any reason why we should not get through to-day and dispose of the report. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. Has not the conference report the right of way? Mr. SMOOT. The conference report has the right of way to be presented, but that is all; it may be presented at any time; but if there is any objection whatever, the Senate has to vote as to whether it will take up the conference report or not. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conference report has been presented and now lies on the table. The Senator from Utah has asked unanimous consent that the revenue bill be temporarily laid aside, and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the conference report on the flood control bill. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and lays the conference report before the Senate. FLOOD CONTROL The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3740) for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes, and the report was read, as follows: The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 3740) for the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its amendments numbered 13, 17, 18, 19, and 20. That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendments of the House numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33, and agree to the same. Amendment numbered 9: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 9, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment, insert the following: ", but nothing herein shall prevent, postpone, delay, or in anywise interfere with the execution of that part of the project on the east side of the river, including raising, strengthening, and enlarging the levees on the east side of the river"; and the House agree to the same. Amendment numbered 14: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 14, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following: "; (c) provide without cost to the United States, all rights of way for levee foundations and levees on the main stem of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Mo., and the Head of Passes. "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 levces, 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 the House agree to the same. Amendment numbered 15: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 15, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following: "SEC. 4. The United States shall provide flowage rights for additional destructive flood waters that will pass by reason of diversions from the main channel of the Mississippi River: Provided, That in all cases where the execution of the flood control plan herein adopted results in benefits to property such benefits shall be taken into consideration by way of reducing the amount of compensation to be paid.” And the House agree to the same. Amendment numbered 16: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 16, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following: "which, in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, are"; and the House agree to the same. Amendment numbered 23: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 23, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following: ", including levee work on the Mississippi River between Rock Island, Ill., and Cape Girardeau, Mo., and on the outlets and tributaries of the Mississippi River between Rock Island and Head of Passes in so far as such outlets or tributaries are affected by the backwaters of the Mississippi: Provided, That for such work on the Mississippi River between Rock Island, Ill., and Cape Girardeau, Mo., and on such tributaries, the States or levee districts shall provide rights of way without cost to the United States, contribute 33% per cent of the costs of the works, and maintain them after completion: And provided further, That not more than $10,000,000 of the sums authorized in section 1 of this act shall be expended under the provisions of this section. "In an emergency, funds appropriated under authority of section 1 of this act may be expended for the maintenance of any levee when it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary of War that the levee can not be adequately maintained by the State or levee district." And the House agree to the same. Amendment numbered 31: That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the House numbered 31, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by said amendment insert the following: "The sum of $5,000,000 is hereby authorized to be used out of the appropriation herein authorized in section 1 of this act, in addition to amounts authorized in the river and harbor act of January 21, 1927, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for the preparation of the flood-control projects authorized to be submitted to Congress under this section: Provided further, That the flood surveys herein provided for shall be made simultaneously with the flood-control work on the Mississippi River provided for in this act: And provided further, That the President shall proceed to ascertain through the Secretary of Agriculture and such other agencies as he may deem proper, the extent to and manner in which the floods in the Mississippi Valley may be controlled by proper forestry practice." And the House agree to the same. Pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 34, it is recommended that in the first proviso to section 10 the words "board created in section 1 of this act" be stricken out, and in lieu thereof the words “Mississippi River Commission" be inserted. W. L. JONES, DUNCAN U. FLETCHER, Jos. E. RANSDELL, C. F. CURRY, ROY G. FITZGERALD, RILEY J. WILSON, Managers on the part of the House. PERSONAL EXPLANATION-FARM LAND BANK, COLUMBIA, S. C. Mr. BLEASE. Mr. President, I rise to a question of personal privilege. I am informed that on Saturday last the Committee on Banking and Currency met and took up for consideration the resolution which I introduced asking for an investigation of the land bank at Columbia, S. C. The Columbia (S. C.) Daily Record of May 6 contains an interview with the chairman of that committee, in which it is stated that he said that the vote against the investigation is "almost unanimous." ask to have that article printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, without taking up the time of the Senate to read it. I There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: BLEASE LOSES BEFORE COMMITTEE FOR PROBE OF LOCAL LAND BANK-VOTE AGAINST INVESTIGATION "ALMOST UNANIMOUS," SAYS CHAIRMAN NORBECK-ECHO BEAUFORT FAILURE-JUNIOR SENATOR MAY AGAIN TAKE MATTER TO FLOOR OF UNITED STATES SENATE By Lewis Wood, Washington correspondent of the Columbia Record WASHINGTON, May 5.-It took the Senate Banking and Currency Committee just 40 minutes to-day to decide upon an unfavorable report on Senator BLEASE'S resolution to investigate the joint stock land bank and intermediate credit bank at Columbia. Mr. BLEASE has been unremitting in his fight for the investigation and has frequently charged that Treasury pressure was preventing it, but the committee decided that it would not support his proposal. It is expected that the Senator will renew his attacks upon the Senate floor. The committee arrived at its decision in an executive meeting. After the committee meeting Senator NORBECK, the Banking and Currency chairman, alluded to the information presented to him regarding the Columbia bank. "All of this information was placed before the committee, and it was practically unanimous in feeling that there was not sufficient evidence to justify an investigation such as Senator BLEASE proposed," he said. The situation with regard to the Columbia bank grew out of the failure of the Bank of Beaufort and the conviction of several persons connected with that institution. According to Senator NORBECK, when the Beaufort bank failed it had received about $700,000 in funds which should have been applied toward redemption of notes signed by truck growers in the vicinity of Beaufort for loans from the intermediate credit bank at Columbia. Supporters of the proposed investigation have argued that the Beaufort bank was the designated agent of the Columbia bank and that funds paid into the Beaufort institution should be credited toward the notes held by the Columbia bank. But Senator NORBECK said the committee felt there was no evidence to justify this contention, and that the money had been paid to the Beaufort bank under instructions from the signers of notes themselves, but without any agreement on the part of the Columbia bank that the Beaufort bank should act as its agent to receive the payments. Mr. BLEASE. In reference to that, at that committee meeting there were 9 members of the committee present, and the Senators voting for the resolution were Messrs. FRAZIER, PINE, BROOKHART, and FLETCHER; the Senators voting against the resolution were SACKETT, NORBECK, PHIPPS, GLASS, and one other Senator, whose name I do not know, making a vote of 5 to 4 to report the resolution unfavorably. Mr. President, there are 94 Senators in the Senate, and there are 15 members on that committee. There were 9 votes cast. Six members of the committee were absent. There were 5 against the resolution and 4 for the resolution, making a majority of 1 against it. Consequently, according to this interview in the paper, 5 men are controlling the 94 votes in the United States Senate, and here is a unanimous report, according to the information in this newspaper given out by the chairman of that committee and circulated in my home town, to injure me and hoping to defeat me as a delegate to the State Democratic convention of my State. I want to say without any spirit of egotism that on last Monday, the day after this paper was circulated, the county conventions of South Carolina met to elect their delegates to the State convention, which will be held one week from this day. The county convention where this bank is located elected me a delegate to the State convention. The county convention of Anderson, where the post office is located where this fellow who was brought over from Georgia was made postmaster, also elected me delegate to the State convention. That action shows that the people in the city where this land bank is located are behind me in this fight. It shows that the people of Anderson County, away up in the northern part of the State, 150 miles, possibly, from the city of Columbia, indorse my position in regard to their post office. Yet the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency says that there was an almost unanimous report. Nine members being present, 5 only out of 15, or one-third, in his opinion, I suppose, makes a unanimous report. In the same newspaper, on the same date, appears an article by Lewis Wood, correspondent for this paper, giving an interview, or what is supposed to be an interview, with Senator NORBECK. It says that Senator NORBECK, chairman of the committee, received an exhaustive letter on the subject from Mr. Meyer. Here is what Mr. Meyer said: Of course, some responsibility attaches to the management of the Columbia bank for these occurrences, particularly as to its failure more successfully to checkmate the conspirators. I call for the chairman of the committee to make that report. It was last Saturday that the committee met; it was last Saturday that they voted 4 to 5. I have held this paper in my hand since Monday morning, waiting here for three days to get the unanimous (?) report of the committee. I want to see the letter in which Eugene Meyer is quoted as saying: Of course, some responsibility attaches to the management of the Columbia bank for these occurrences, particularly as to its failure more successfully to checkmate the conspirators. Yet this committee, with Meyer's report in their hands and those remarks in the concluding paragraph of his letter before them, says that there is no reason to investigate the land bank at Columbia, S. C. I most respectfully ask the chairman of that committee to make the report that was agreed on by the committee last Saturday by this unanimous (?) vote, as he calls it, of 4 to 5, with 6 members absent. Let us see whether or not the Senate of 94 Members is going to hide this stealing with a vote of five members, only one-third of the committee, stealing which Eugene Meyer himself admits and mentions in his letter, saying that the blame is on the Columbia bank because that bank did not stop the conspirators in their action. If that kind of a situation does not demand an investigation, I can not tell what would. But since then he tries to make his apology. He says the personnel of the bank has been somewhat changed. Of course, when he went down and found that this rascality was going on, when he found that the farmers of South Carolina had been robbed of thousands of dollars, when he found that the United States Government had lost more than a million dollars, and was standing to lose nearly $2,000,000 more, when he found that out, he changed some of the personnel of the bank. Of course, when he found that out, he tried to hide it, and this resolution was brought before the Senate for the very purpose of showing that condition which he now admits in his report, if this newspaper speaks the truth I ask again most respectfully that the report be brought in, that he not go around and have it signed by other members of the committee to show that it was more nearly unanimous, because here is the vote, just as the members voted in the committee, FRAZIER, PINE, BROOKHART, FLETCHER for the investigation; SACKETT, NORBECK, PHIPPS, GLASS, and one Senator whose name I have not been able to get, against it. I ask leave to print as a part of my remarks the article from this newspaper by Lewis Wood and another article headed Is the Senate afraid?" The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MCNARY in the chair). Is there objection? There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: MEYER COMMENTS By Lewis Wood, Washington correspondent for the Columbia Record WASHINGTON, D. C., May 5.-Eugene Meyer, head of the Federal Farm Loan Bureau, asserts that the officials of the Columbia land bank can not in any way be connected with any criminality arising out of the Beaufort bank matter. Following the refusal of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to-day to support Senator BLEASE'S resolution demanding an investigation of the Columbia bank, it was learned that Mr. Meyer had written an exhaustive letter on the subject to Senator NORBECK, chairman of the committee. After reviewing the case in great detail, Mr. Meyer concluded: "The fact that the special examination made by the Farm Loan Board, and the searching investigation over a period of 18 months by the United States attorney and expert accountants of the Department of Justice, connected no officer of the Federal intermediate credit bank at Columbia with any criminal act, indicates clearly that these officials had no part in the conspiracy. "On the other hand, the fact that, following a trial of some six weeks' duration, during which every means was afforded to bring out the truth, three defendants were found guilty, as charged, establishes their responsibility for the criminal acts committed. "Of course, some responsibility attaches to the management of the Columbia bank for these occurrences, particularly as to its failure more successfully to checkmate the conspirators, but since then the personnel of the bank has been strengthened, certain remedial measures have been put in effect, and others will be adopted as time and opportunity permit." IS THE SENATE AFRAID? EDITOR OF THE SUNDAY TIMES: On February 24, 1928, Senator BLEASE, of South Carolina, submitted Senate Resolution 159 to the United States Senate, calling for a complete investigation of the Federal Land Bank and Intermediate Credit Bank of Columbia, S. C.; this because of certain criminal convictions obtained in Federal court wherein some of the testimony is said to have involved officials in connection with those banks. The resolution was referred to the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, of which Senator PETER NORBECK, of South Dakota, is chairman, On March 13, in response to numerous requests and much testimony, Senator BLEASE submitted Senate Resolution 167, which calls for a complete investigation of the entire Federal farm loan system, including the Farm Loan Board, the 12 Federal land banks, the 12 intermediate credit banks, the fifty-odd joint-stock banks, and any of the 4,700 national farm-loan associations necessary for a complete review of the system. This resolution was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, of which Senator CHARLES S. DENEEN, of Illinois, is chairman. The other members are SIMEON D. FESS, of Ohio; FRANK L. GREENE, of Vermont; THADDEUS H. CARAWAY, of Arkansas; and DAVID I. WALSH, of Massachusetts. Since those two committee references literally thousands of letters urging these investigations have been pouring through the mails. More than 150 columns of closely printed matter, some of it voicing the very gravest of criticisms and presenting evidence against farm-loan officials, have appeared in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, bringing direct charges of mismanagement, incompetence, dishonesty, and absolute stealing, specific cases being cited and the evidence submitted. Some of these charges involve local officers, some include Federal bank examiners and officers, members of the Farm Loan Board itself, and the charges have been neither vague nor indefinite. They have been made against specific officers, and they have been made by and through the most trustworthy sources. Here are a few of the authorities cited: The New York Times, Farm and Fireside, Farm Journal, Farmers National Magazine, American Thresherman, Pennsylvania Farmer, American Grain Trade, Pacific Homestead, Efficiency Magazine, Good Business Magazine, Breeders Gazette, Farm Leader, Forum, American Farm Bureau Federation, and many others. An entirely impartial though very much interested committee, sent from Canada by farm banking interests for the purpose of studying our farm-loan system with a view to its adoption, reported against it recently, largely on account of its mismanagement. For about two months Senator BLEASE urged the reporting of his resolutions, either favorably or unfavorably, so that he could take them and his evidence to the floor of the Senate. Possibly some one was afraid to have him do that; he could get no action whatever. Finally about the middle of April, Senator NORBECK, it is stated, announced that Resolution 159 had been referred to the Farm Loan Board for recommendation. To its Sinclairs and Falls had been awarded the right of judgment in this farmers' Teapot Dome. To Arnold himself had been referred the question of his treason. Guiteau had been appointed his own judge and jury in his trial for the murder of Garfield. Judas himself was to decide whether he had betrayed Christ. There is no doubt about the decision of this Farm Loan Board, for they have been under fire many times before. They will decide themselves immaculate and that they need no investigation. All of their subsidiaries will be declared as sinless as a dead saint reposing in some cathedral vault. Andrew W. Mellon recently announced that he knows of nothing materially wrong with the land banks; no doubt he can be induced to pronounce them, along with the Pennsylvania slush fund, as immaculate and innocent as a donation to a church. There will be only one material difficulty with their reports upon the land banks; that is, to get any credence for them among people who have real personal knowledge of the land-bank system. Senator NORBECK has been a specially conspicuous word champion of the farmer on the floor of the Senate the past few years. The hardships of the farm have caused him much bitterness and many rhetorical tears. He comes from a farming district; his constituents are practically all farmers. His denunciations of political and financial intrigues that have crippled agriculture have been frequent and eloquent. Few other Members of either House have won sincerer or more general confidence among farmers by fearless defense of their interests on the Senate floor. Right now he is facing an opportunity to do something more than talk; he may confirm or refute by his deeds this rural admiration, and it is entirely out of his hands to avoid the issue. Here is a man who has been wailing for a term of years over the great things that he would do for the farmer if he only could. Now he can; he has that opportunity. Furthermore, he can not avoid declaring himself for 'em or agin' 'em." As chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee he can not, of course, pass this resolution, but he can, if he pleases, force it before the committee for action of some sort, and that is exactly what Senator BLEASE charged on the floor of the Senate he was not doing; in fact, he has charged that the South Dakota Senator, perhaps at Secretary Mellon's request, has neglected to call meetings of his committee to avoid any action on this bill. For at least a half-dozen years repeated efforts have been made by friends of the Federal farm-loan system to secure an investigation of its personnel and management. FLETCHER, BORAH, HOWELL, WALSH, and others have tried, only to find the same invincible defense, the same official stone wall, and with the Treasury Department or the Farm Loan Board all the time declaring that nothing was wrong. To sustain these assertions there have been numerous special investigations," each declared absolutely all right, and when that became untenable, each in turn displaced by a different one prepared by the same bank examiner from the same accounts. Secret bank deposits that have been concealed for years from their rightful owners have been brought out under the compulsion of discovery as a commercial triumph instead of a disgrace. Certified directors' resolutions of 1922 have been produced for the first time as recently as 1927; resolutions signed by officials who in 1924 had signed a denial of the statements therein contained. In the meantime courts have convicted a few of these individuals who have been so strenuously defended; there has been an occasional prison sentence, one or two suicides, a few millions of dollars of the farmers' money acknowledged to have been lost through crookedness and mismanagement; still there is nothing wrong. Mellon says there is nothing all is as sincere and sacred as that Pennsylvania slush fund or a contribution to a church. Surely, these conglomerate results are in the strictest harmony with the jazzy personnel that has been kept in control of the system; not men who know anything about farm problems or cooperative banking, but lawyers, sailors, office clerks. Wall Street brokers, ex-prison wardens, politicians galore. Something over $3,000,000,000 of farm property had been pledged up to March 1, 1928, as security for nearly one and a half billion dollars which had been handled or is now being handled by the 12 Federal land banks that are now owned but not managed by farmers. Nearly two-thirds as much has passed through the management of these same officials to the joint-stock banks which are privately owned. The same final management, too, has control of the intermediate credit bank funds. This amount can not be brought nearly to date, because at this writing Secretary Mellon is still withholding the annual Farm Loan Board report, which he is required by law to make, and which he is expected to transmit to Congress in time to govern and direct its legislative activities about the first of the year. If any of this money is being juggled with, the owners have a right to know it. If it is being properly handled, these pure and innocent saints who handle it ought to gladly join with their critics in bringing out the facts. The farmers are not afraid of these facts; if the Farm Loan Board is afraid of them, or if the land banks are, or if the invisible empire guarding the system from investigation is afraid, or if Andrew W. Mellon has any specific reason for not wanting the truth about the system to be known, all these are entirely beside the question. The actual owners of this or of any other stock company have a right to an occasional accounting of their own property, no matter who is afraid to have it rendered. Shall these Senate committees prevent a half million of men from securing that right by a trick of evasion or of cowardice? Shall a handful of men, just because they are Senators and have been specially trusted over a few things by their fellows, refuse to the rest of the Senate the right to decide a question upon which these few are afraid to vote? There is no question about their right to vote adversely if for any reason they feel like it. For an insignificant minority to throttle the expression of the majority by the cowardly tactics of a committee filibuster tempts one to think of ex-Congressman Reed's statement that "a statesman is only a dead politician," and to feel that we need a few more statesmen. To certain members of these two committees I would specially commend parts of a letter which appears on page 7791 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for May 4, 1928, as follows: "Let it go over!' "LET IT GO OVER!' These politicians will soon infest the various States with a message of what we did for you dear farmers.' The answer to that should be shouted from every seat, 'Let it go over!' "The battle cry of the Coolidge administration now is, 'Let it go over!' Along next November millions of American voters will let it go over to the Democrats, who gave them first a farmer-owned landbank plan, which was pillaged away from them by dishonest Ohio politicians at the time that Daugherty, Sinclair, Fall, and company were in the saddle. "Let it go over!" If Senator NORBECK or any of these committee members are afraid to vote in the interests of the farmers they protest to love so devotedly, when the real test comes let them be manly enough to vote against them and give the farmers a chance to find out whether the United States Senate is afraid. Certainly the more this cowardiceif that is what it is-can be smoked to the surface the sooner will the people rally to the task of supplying men who are not afraid to the Senate and the better it will be for both the Senate and the people. Respectfully, WORLD PEACE XENO W. PUTNAM. Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter printed in the New York Post, signed by Mr. Frederick II. Allen, on the subject of the conversations taking place between Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Briand. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SUGGESTS WE BLOCK WAR BY BEING "ASSOCIATED POWER" WITH THE LEAGUE COUNCIL To the EDITOR OF THE EVENING POST: SIR: The conversations that have been taking place between Mr. Kellogg and M. Briand in an effort to aid the cause of peace, which is of supreme importance not only for us but for the whole world, lead me to make the following observations: As all the European powers are members of the League of Nations and subject to the provisions of the covenant thereof, it is apparent that whatever arrangements we do make must not contravene the terms of the covenant, which in article 20 thereof sets forth that the members of the league "solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any negotiations inconsistent with the terms thereof." In article 11 it is provided "that any war or threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole league and at such a time the secretary general shall, on the request of any member of the league, forthwith summon a meeting of the council." In article 16 it is provided that if a member of the league resorts to war in disregard of the covenants contained in articles 12, 13, and 15, which provide for arbitration or judicial settlement or inquiry by the council, such member shall be deemed to have committed an act of war against all the other members of the league, who are then to sever all trade and financial relations or intercourse between their nationals and the covenant-breaking State. The council is also to recommend what military measures shall be taken by the other members of the league. Any uncertainty as to the attitude that our country might take would certainly greatly weaken the efforts of the other powers to keep the peace, just as the uncertainty in regard to England's attitude before the outbreak of the Great War made that war more easily possible, for had Germany known that England would join with Russia and France it is certainly possible to conceive that the war might not have taken place at all. The treaty that Mr. Kellogg has submitted to the six great powers provides that "they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another." It further provides that the "solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature which may arise among them shall never be sought except by pacific means." But should not the pacific means to be employed be definitely set forth? Senator BORAH, in the very interesting interview he gave to Mr. Kirby Page some time since, said that "another important result of such a treaty would be to enlist the support of the United States in cooperative action against any nation which is guilty of a flagrant violation of this outlawry agreement." He went on further to say: "Of course, in such a crisis we would consult with the other signatories and take their judgment into account." Why, then, could we not state definitely that just as we were an associated power in the war, we would become an associated power with the council of the league and would appoint a representative to meet with the council whenever a dispute had become so acute that war was threatened, so that a nation threatening to go to war might know that we were acting at such a time in conjunction with the other nations in an effort to keep the peace, and so that in case a war should break out we would have a hand in the decision to be made as to the nation that had violated the treaty? If we had a representative meeting with the council at once, who would, of course, be in constant communication with the Government at Washington, the necessary economic pressure could be exerted if all were in agreement, and I can not but think that the prospect of an economic boycott would calm a war fever. We could limit our association with the league solely to a situation where there was danger of war, it being fully understood that we were in no way obligated to go to war in case a war had broken out, Congress being the only power in our Government which can authorize such a declaration. Quick decisions at such a crisis are of the greatest moment, and resistance against a nation threatening to violate the treaty should be so powerful and so certain and the consequences of breaking the peace so likely to be disastrous that any nation, no matter how powerful, would not dare to let loose the dogs of war. FREDERICK H. ALLEN. NEW YORK, April 24, 1928. AIRCRAFT CARRIER Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD two articles by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Aeronautics, Edward P. Warner. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: AIRCRAFT CARRIER KEY TO NEW NAVY-ASSISTANT SECRETARY WARNER CALLS IT" INDISPENSABLE" FOR FIGHTING FLEET-PLANES ITS PROJECTILES-AVIATION HEAD FORECASTS DEVELOPMENTS FROM LEXING TON AND SARATOGA By Edward P. Warner, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Aeronautics (Copyright, 1928, by the New York Times Co.) WASHINGTON, March 28.-One evening late in February the captain of a coastwise passenger steamer approaching the eastern end of Long Island Sound beheld an apparition. The grouping of the lights off to the north indicated a ship, and a ship of enormous size, but in what eccentric form! Either it was traveling sideways, which no proper vessel does, or the navigating bridge had been plucked from its normal position and moved 40 feet to one side, its lights out of line with everything else on board. The captain looked again and his curiosity grew. He gave an order and a blinker light breathlessly flickered the international code in frank and brief inquiry, "What ship is that?" The reply flashed back, U. S. aircraft carrier Lexington," and the merchant captain understood. He was entitled to his bewilderment, for the Lexington and Saratoga and their fellow ships devoted to the carriage of airplanes in the fleets of other nations are among the very oddest craft in appearance that have ever traveled the seas, as well as among the most interesting and most vitally important at the present time. Their superstructure either suppressed entirely or dizzily perched on one edge of the ship to make way for a clear exchange of deck for landing and taking off, they are a living proof that invention is necessity's offspring. LAST WORD IN SPECIALIZATION The days when a ship had no function except to carry goods, and possibly fighting men, from one port to another, with little regard to comfort or to arrangements for the loading and discharge of cargo, are far in the past. The universal tendency to specialize for increased efficiency has made itself felt afloat as well as ashore. There are vessels that carry nothing but automobiles and others designed solely for the transportation of crude petroleum. There are ships that are essentially floating hotels and ships that are planned as floating fortresses. Never before, however, has naval construction displayed more sheer audacity in transplanting of purely terrestrial activities to the high seas than now in building these floating flying fields. The Navy's airports travel under their own power and go where they are wanted. Bold though the concept is, the airplane-carrying ship is no longer an experiment. With six years of experience behind it, and with more than a dozen examples now in service in the various navies of the world, it has solidly established itself. The full degree of its importance may not yet be realized, nor can the extent to which the carrier may take the place of ships of other types be appraised with certainty until more have been built and even more experience gained in their operation, but it is already plainly apparent that such ships are indispensable for the safety of any fleet that has to approach anywhere near enemy shores in time of war or that may meet enemy vessels carrying airplanes. The effectiveness of attack on ships by aerial bombing, given reasonably favorable conditions, has been amply demonstrated. Plentifully proved, also, is the conclusion that it takes airplanes to put up successful defense against airplanes. Antiaircaft guns are by no means negligible, |