flood where they had to be brought out by any means of transportation that could be secured. I am sure the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. RANSDELL] witnessed that some of them were brought out who had been marooned in treetops, on housetops, on railroad embankments, and other places where they could escape the flood, so long that they had become almost wild. I saw them bring out people down in the southeast part of my State where they had to prevent them jumping off the boat into the water as they approached land. They came out with the scantiest of wearing apparel. Everything that they had was gone. Everything that breathed in that territory, except those human beings, had been drowned. Their livestock was gone; even their chickens were gone. Their household effects were gone. While they might not have had much, it was all they had.

There were stretches of country miles in width and miles in length in which there was not a single thing left that man had put there. Every house, every barn, every outbuilding of every nature, even the fences, were swept away. It was as desolate as this earth was when the flood subsided. So far as their little effects were concerned, it was just as destructive. Where nearly a million people who had paid their taxes, who had discharged every obligation to the Government that the Government imposed upon them, who had shed their blood on every battle field where American honor was at stake, I felt then and I feel now that they were and are entitled to a consideration which they did not get. I am persuaded that if the President of the United States, instead of going to South Dakota to fish, had gone down there he would have waged no fight upon this legislation, and he would not have been insisting that the word "additional" should be added by way of amendment.

Mr. HAWES. Mr. President, there are but a few features of the bill which I shall discuss. I hope within the next two hours, by the same vote registered in the Senate when the bill was originally presented, that we will send to the President the greatest peace-time domestic proposal he has been called upon to sign.

Just a year ago the flood passed down the Mississippi River. It created damage to property of $250,000,000. Many lives were lost. It was only a repetition of floods that had preceded it, totaling in all, in a period of some twenty years, a loss of $400,000,000.

During the same period the States in the lower valley had expended $292,000,000 in their own defense.

Mr. REID, chairman of the House Committee on Flood Control, a committee composed of 21 Congressmen, called that committee together in November and they remained in session for nearly three months. The Commerce Committee of the Senate, composed of 19 Senators, devoted practically two months to a study of the subject. There has been such agreement between the House committee and the Senate committee and the expression of opinion by the whole House and the Senate that when this bill shall be interpreted there are one or two phases which seem to me should be amplified in the RECORD now.

This is not the bill that some of us desired. It does not contain the vision of the valley. It does not contain those things discussed by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NORRIS], nor does it do for the tributaries the things that friends of the tributaries wanted done. It is a distinct compromise, a compromise begun at the head of the flood waters of the Mississippi. The legislation is confined to the States that suffered. It is confined to that district which must care for the overflow waters of 31 States and 41 per cent of the territory of the United States.

Personally I have been amazed at statements which have appeared in the newspapers about the supposedly stupendous sums which were to be expended by Congress in this matter. Two plans were presented to the House committee and the same two plans were presented to the Senate committee. One was presented by the Chief of Engineers, General Jadwin. The other was presented by the Mississippi River Commission composed of seven members. The Jadwin plan provided one method of flood control. The Mississippi River Commission provided another method of flood control. Your committee provided a special board to reconcile the differences between the two plans and if necessary, to agree upon a composite plan.

Mr. President, I am one of those Members of the Senate who believe there should have been greater latitude in the matter of civilian engineer representation upon this board. There are over 250,000 civilian engineers in the United States, more than twice as many men as we have in the United States Army, all graduates from colleges and universities. In every State in the Union there is a State college which graduates civil engineers. This great body of 250,000 engineers has its own special organization of 20,000 members controlled by the highest standard of conduct. When we approach this subject, involving as it does nearly three times the amount of money that was spent upon the Panama Canal, it seems to

me that the civilian engineer should have his full part in the planning of the enterprise. I regret to say, Mr. President, that while we talk of bureaucracy and clerk-made laws, while we denounce bureaucratic control, it was bureaucratic dictation that denied to those 250,000 civil engineers their proportion of representation in this great plan.

But out of it came finally a board, and whether the plan is a failure or a success will depend upon the kind of men who will go upon the board. The Chief of Army Engineers is to be one of the commissioners. A second commissioner is designated as the president of the Mississippi River Commission. This position is now held by a man who served 18 years upon the river, a man who knows the river. Those who study the problem of the river know that experience counts at least 50 per cent with engineering skill in solving problems of that great stream. But unfortunately the term of office of Colonel Potter, the head of this commission, a man who knows more of the river than any engineer on the river, has expired. Therefore, both the House and Senate committees wrote into the bill a request to the President for the reapointment of Colonel Potter. So that there might be no misunderstanding, the intent of Congress was expressed by the unanimous vote of the 19 Senators on the Commerce Committee, by the unanimous vote of the 21 Congressmen on the Flood Control Committee, and by a vast majority in the House and a unanimous vote in the Senate, that the President should, in all fairness and to preserve the philosophy of the bill, reappoint Colonel Potter as president of the Mississippi River Commission. This is the language used in the bill:

Provided, That the present incumbent of the office may be appointed a brigadier general of the Army, retired, and shall be eligible for the position of president of the commission if recalled to active service under the provisions of existing law.

That would give the people of the United States the Chief of Engineers, who can explain and expound the Chief Engineer's plan, and it would give the people of the United States the president of the Mississippi River Commission, who could present his plan. Then the President may select a civilian engineer, who could compose the differences between the two. Mr. President, I am sure the President of the United States understands the situation. He understands that it would be unfair to those who believe in the Mississippi River plan not to have a representative of that commission appointed. All we ask of him, and I am sure he will do it, is to give us an engineer of great civil ability and experience who will reconcile the differences between the two plans.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator suffer an interruption?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SACKETT in the chair). Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Utah?

Mr. HAWES. Certainly.

Mr. KING. Does the Senator think there is any conflict or will be any conflict between the so-called independent board, composed of the Chief of Engineers, the head of the Mississippi River Commission, and a third party to be appointed by the President, and the Mississippi River Commission? Who will ultimately control in determining the project and the plans to be pursued in the execution of it? I am asking for information. Mr. HAWES. If there is disagreement, the discretion will lie with the civilian engineer. The so-called Jadwin plan, which was an incomplete plan, called for $296,000,000. The Mississippi River Commission plan called for $406,000,000. The committees of the House and Senate provided for $325,000,000 as the total sum to be spent. The board is appointed to compose the differences between the two plans, the limitation being placed at $325,000,000.

Mr. President, I have been amazed at some recent statements which have appeared in the newspapers. There seems to have been a confusion in the minds of men regarding the work to be performed by the United States Government. It is not a work of reclamation. It never was a work of reclamation. It was not a thing that affected the landowners. It is a work of controlling flood waters.

The great proportion of the work will be done in one State, the State of Louisiana. When men talk of profits out of a spillway or something wrong about the purchase of land for a spillway, they confuse reclamation with a Government direction to drive over a man's land. It may interest the Senate to know that the waters from Louisiana do not flow down the Mississippi River. They enter into the Gulf of Mexico through its rivers and its bayous. The flood that passes through Louisiana is the water that comes from outside the State of Louisiana. Both engineering plans provide for spillways. They are not down the course of the river. They do

not follow previous overflows. They are diversions to be created by man for the benefit, not of Louisiana, but for the benefit of 31 States in the Union.

There has been a difference of opinion among the engineers, and the public should understand that there is a difference today, so that the public may look forward to seeing that when we have one tribunal, one forum, which is to decide between the plans of the Mississippi River Commission and the plans of the Chief of Engineers, it may be a fair forum composed of fair men, so that the Nation will have the best advice given to it in both plans.

Mr. President, I know of no subject since my service began in Washington which has been given such careful attention by the committees of the Senate and House. I must not fail to say before I take my seat one word for the chairman of the Senate committee, the senior Senator from Washington | [Mr. JONES], for his great patience, his fairness, his perseverance in preserving in the bill a philosophy which has gone through it all, a philosophy of fairness, in reconciling two plans that the American people might in the last analysis secure the best plan.

tically all the cost of this work, including sixty or seventy millions to landholders for lands and rights. In short, the President has surrendered.

This being the case, we are indeed confronted with a new policy respecting reclamation in this country, and I do not see how we can very well insist that the husbandman, upon the plains in the West and the Northwest, shall pay for the reclamation that he has been afforded, or how, in the future, we can say to those who ask for the reclamation of dry land, "You must pay therefor, or else you can not expect consideration from Congress."

I accept this situation; but I represent regions that are interested in dry reclamation and I should like to have it understood that hereafter we will be entitled to come to Congress and ask for corresponding consideration. In fact, we are entitled to come and ask not merely for reclamation of arid lands but of subarid lands.

A drought is nothing but a natural phenomenon, a lack of water in the form of rain. The trouble in the lower Mississippi Valley has been a surplus of water because of rain. It is now proposed to reclaim and prevent the suffering that results from an excess of water due to such cause. Have not our western settlers the same right to come to Congress and ask relief because of the lack of rain? These are simply two natural Congress can not fairly refuse to consider favorably our requests.

From time immemorial the Mississippi River and its tributaries have been making a pathway to the sea. We recognize, under the common law, that the use of a track after a certain number of years entitles the public to travel over the same as a highway without restraint. In other words, the right to use the track as a highway is secured by proscription. If there ever was a right by proscription obtained, certainly that right has been secured by the Mississippi River for its course to

the sea.

Man has been infringing upon that right, gradually contracting this pathway, and as a result now and then the Mississippi has reasserted its full title to this route to the sea and has occupied it. The consequence is that we are now confronted with a demand for flood control because man wants permanently a part of the pathway of the Mississippi River for his

own use.

This occupation has been developing for a long time. It has been urged, however, that even though these infringements upon this right of way have taken place, the necessity of flood control has been accentuated by the fact that forests have been removed from upper tributary areas. However, we have but to go back over history to find that in 1881 there was an equivalent flood, and still further back to 1844, before practically any forest was removed from the upper regions, to find that there was a corresponding flood to that which was sustained in the last year. Therefore, so far as deforestation is concerned, it is probable that it does not greatly affect this problem,

As a matter of fact, this bill provides for reclamation-a great reclamation project. We have to deal with two classes of reclamation. The first class of reclamation is leading water on dry land to make it livable. A second class is keeping water from wet land, thus making it livable, In connection with legislation for reclamation of the first character, we have recognized this principle: That it was an economic problem, practically in its entirety. The question being, Is Congress justified in providing for a particular reclamation? And Congress has had to be shown that if it spent, on an average, a hundred dollars for the reclamation of an acre of land, it would be worth at least a hundred dollars after reclamation was accomplished; and if that could not be demonstrated, reclamation has been denied.

Furthermore, it has been provided that those who were the beneficiaries of reclamation should pay for reclamation. At least they should pay the cost of reclamation, if not interest upon that cost during the repayment period.

That has been the policy of Congress. Under that policy Congress has expended or authorized the expenditure of about $170,000,000; and, as a result of these expenditures, certain repayments are being made each year. Now, however, it is proposed that in connection with this great reclamation project there shall be practically no contribution by the owners of the lands that are benefited.

The President recognized this great change in policy and has opposed it; but I understand that now he has finally agreed that the people of the United States shall pay prac

In my State there are three counties that up to last year for three or four years had practically no crops whatever. The people were practically wiped out so far as their fortunes were concerned. Under similar circumstances again they will have a right to appeal to Congress. We have in the past appealed to Congress and asked that a reclamation project should be authorized in this region, but up to the present time have been refused, because the reclamation project might involve the expenditure of some $15,000,000.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator suffer an interruption?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from Utah?

Mr. HOWELL. Certainly.

Mr. KING. I was interested in the statement made by my able friend from Missouri [Mr. HAWES]. It seemed to me a very proper one-namely, that we ought not to confuse this project, dealing with the flood waters of the Mississippi River, with the sources of streams and irrigation projects.

In this case it is claimed that 41 per cent of the area of the United States is involved; that the waters of 21 States are sent into the Mississippi River; and that the effect of those waters is to work serious injury in a few States. The States that are inundated and damaged are not at fault. Their situation is caused, perhaps, by the sins of omission or commission, whichever view may be taken, of a large part of the United States. Does not the Senator differentiate such a situation as that from propositions to irrigate private land?

May I say that I was in the House when the so-called Newlands bill was passed, and I wrote a minority report concurring generally in the proposition that Congress had the right to reclaim its own lands, though it was paternalism that might be carried to an extreme, and we could justify appropriations from the Treasury of the United States to irrigate the lands which were owned by the Government, because by so doing we would facilitate the sale of those lands; but I believe the committee were unanimous in the opinion that it was not within the power of the Federal Government to irrigate private lands. I express no opinion now. I wanted simply to ask the Senator if he did not differentiate between this project and the project of the Federal Government going into States and building reservoirs for the purpose of irrigating the lands of private persons?

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, of course this project of reclamation as proposed in this bill is not identical with one where it is necessary to lead water upon dry land. However, as the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. CARAWAY] stated, 17,000 square miles in his State were submerged as the result of last year's flood. If works are provided that enable these 17,000 square miles to be freed from subsequent flooding so that they may be utilized for the raising of crops without interference, is not that a form of reclamation? There can be no question about it; and the necessity for reclamation in both cases is due to water-too little or too much.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator if that is not merely an incidental result? Is not the reclamation of a portion of the land along the Mississippi merely incidental in this case?

Mr. HOWELL. If it were not for the advantages of reclamation there would be no urgency for this measure.

Mr. GEORGE. For reclamation?

Mr. HOWELL.

For reclamation.

Mr. GEORGE. Is that the Senator's idea about this bill?

Mr. HOWELL. I have no question about it.

Mr. HOWELL.

There is no question about it.

Mr. GEORGE. The Senator contends that that is the urgent reason for the passage of this bill?

Mr. HOWELL. That is the urgent reason for its passage. Reclamation is necessary, and permanent reclamation.

Mr. GEORGE. I have not thought so, Mr. President. If the Constitution of the United States gives to the Federal Government power to control the navigation and commerce upon this great stream-and the United States, of course, will brook no interference with commerce and navigation upon this streamit seems to me that there is a national obligation that grows out of that power, and that the reclamation which benefits the land adjacent to the river, derived from the proper control of flood waters in that river, is purely incidental to the duty and oblition that rests upon us under the Constitution.

Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, if the purpose, or if the advantage, to be achieved by this measure were merely navigation this measure, meaning the ultimate expenditure of $1,000,000,000, would not now be before Congress.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator a question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. VANDENBERG in the chair). Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. HOWELL. I yield.

Mr. CARAWAY. The very word "reclamation" carries with it what meaning to the Senator?

Mr. HOWELL. It means making land livable and useful that otherwise is not livable and useful.

Mr. HOWELL. Just as has been done for flood-stricken regions.

Mr. CARAWAY. Absolutely not. There has not been one single thing of the kind done for a single acre of land or a single individual living in the valley. It is wholly different. You can search the records from beginning to end, and you will find that we never asked for it. All we have said was that if you originate a flood beyond our borders, it is a national situation, it comes down a national stream, and you ought to take care of your water. There is a law, wise or otherwise, in every community on earth, that you can not even keep a vicious dog and let it bite your neighbor without answering for it. The Government controls the Mississippi River and owns it.

You can

not put an obstruction in it, you can not dig a channel in it, without the Government's permission. It would not seem to be exceedingly unfair, then, to ask it to maintain its property in such a way that it would not destroy the people along its banks. Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President, I called attention not long ago in my remarks to the fact that the Mississippi River from time immemorial has been cutting a pathway to the sea; that it had a right to that pathway by proscription; that man was interfering with that pathway, and has interfered with it; and that the Mississippi has merely retaliated.

I recognize that this bill is to pass. I recognize that we are taking a new position respecting certain internal improvements. I recognize that this new position means that tremendous areas of private property are to be benefited without contribution at the expense of all the people of the country. The purpose of my remarks is to call to the attention of the Senate that necessarily, in justice to ourselves, we, from the arid and semiarid

Mr. HOWELL. It does.

Mr. CARAWAY. Did it ever occur to the Senator that there might be this difference between his idea of reclaiming desert land and preventing overflows? To take the water off land does not reclaim it. It does not take care of local conditions. It simply prevents a moving body of water that originates in another section, much of it a thousand miles away, from destroying what already exists.

There is no such thing as something moving down on the arid lands. Your condition is local. You are not protesting against something that occurs outside your region. You are asking, when you ask for reclamation, that a changed condition may take place within your local area. You are fighting a local condition. The idea of flood control does not look to taking local water to change a local condition. It is to prevent a flood rising in anther section from sweeping down and destroying the section to be protected.

Does not that appeal to the Senator as a difference?

Mr. HOWELL. West of the one hundredth meridian there is a region about 150 or 200 miles in width that has been called semiarid. Some years we have crops, and splendid crops. Other years Nature does not smile on us; she frowns upon us, and then we suffer. Sometimes those years succeed each other and leave the land practically barren. That is exactly what takes place in the Mississippi Valley. People settle upon its low, fertile lands. Suddenly, after several years of successful cultivation, they are overwhelmed by flood water, just as our people are overwhelmed-by what? Lack of water. Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, if the Senator will pardon me, let us take New England. There came a flood there last spring that washed away their roads and bridges. This bill carries a provision that the Government shall help restore them. Suppose these bridges had crumbled on account of some purely local condition. Does anybody in the Senate believe that there would have been an appropriation in this bill to build them up? Suppose the concrete out of which they were made had proven faulty, and they had crumbled and the bridges had fallen down. Nobody would have said that the Government ought to go in there and rebuild them. We undertake to do it, wise or otherwise, because of a condition which does not originate with them.

A great flood of water comes down the valley and destroys property. It seems to me to be so obvious that I certainly just miss the Senator's point. If we were to have a drought, I do not think there would be any obligation resting upon the Government or anybody else to take care of the damage, although

are threatened or affected by natural phenomena, and especially that phenomenon, drought.

Therefore, Mr. President, I trust that when we do come, as we will, we will be treated in the same generous spirit which is now the lot of the great Mississippi Valley.

Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss the conference report, because I know the important step is the taking of the vote on the measure. I merely wish to say that I do not regard flood control on the Mississippi River as standing upon the same basis or being in anywise analogous to reclamation. The two seem to me to be wholly apart. There is no ground of similarity between the two. Flood control on the Mississippi River, a great channel of interstate and international commerce, over which the United States has complete jurisdiction under the Constitution, presents, of course, a different picture from any that can be presented by or on behalf of the irrigation of land anywhere in the country.

The recognition of the problem as national is not coming too soon; it is coming all too late. It requires some great catastrophe, some great flood, as the flood of last year, to bring us to a realization of the fact that this is a national problem. Before the vote is taken I merely wish to say that my vote is not placed upon the basis that this is a reclamation project. Wholly incidental is the benefit that flows to landowners and property owners along the Mississippi. The national obligation springs from other considerations, and rests upon the basis which I have indicated; that is, the national power over this stream as an artery of interstate and foreign commerce. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

The conference report was agreed to.

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, there have been many propositions advanced during the debate on the conference report to which I may not agree, and about which there is much difference of opinion. It may not be important at all, but I wanted it to appear in the RECORD that the mere fact that I am not discussing these propositions, or attempting to controvert them, can not be taken as an indication of an agreeement on my part with the contentions made. I have been interested in the passage of this bill, and so have refrained from discussing any of these proposals about which there may be an honest difference of opinion.

There has been considerable said in the papers about the cost of this project. Where these estimates came from I do not know; but I have here a letter from the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army in answer to a letter from me with reference to the probable cost under these two plans, and I desire

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: In response to your letter requesting certain estimates pertaining to your flood-control bill, I give the following:

The local contribution required to construct the main-river levees to the 1914 grade is estimated at $4,200,000. This assumes that the Army engineer project is adopted as to the scope of the levee work and that tributary flood control contained in the commission plan is not to be done. If the commission plans are adopted to the extent of including tributaries and work above Cape Girardeau then the local contributions would be $15,447,357.

In view of the uncertainties about the project that the bill leaves to be settled later, it is very difficult to make any estimate of what it might cost. However, the attached statement indicates what might occur. The minimum is $305,000,000 and the maximum is over $502,400,000.

Trusting that this is what you desire, I am,

NOTE. If certain features of the Mississippi River Commission plan, such as narrower flood ways, are adopted, greater levee raising will be required on the main river and the grand total will exceed the $502,400,000 above.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I was called from the Chamber for a moment to answer the telephone when the Senator from Georgia [Mr. GEORGE] was speaking. I supposed there would be some further debate on the flood-control conference report. Coming into the Chamber a moment ago I discovered that the report had been adopted. I only want to say that if there had been a record vote I should have voted "nay," for the reasons I very briefly outlined a few moments ago when I addressed the Senate. If there had been a viva voce vote, I should likewise have voted "no."

EMERY RIVER RIDGE, ROANE COUNTY, TENN.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. VANDENBERG in the chair) laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 3571) granting the consent of Congress to the county court of Roane County, Tenn., to construct a bridge across the Emery River at Suddaths Ferry, in Roane County, Tenn., which were, on page 1, line 5, after the word "a," to insert "free highway"; on page 1, line 6, to strike out the word "Emory and insert "Emery"; and to amend the title so as to read: "Granting the consent of Congress to the county court of Roane County, Tenn., to construct a bridge across the Emery River at Suddaths Ferry, in Roane County,

Tenn."

Mr. TYSON. I move that the Senate concur in the House amendments.

The motion was agreed to.

THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 750) to amend the act entitled "An act for making further and more effectual provision for the national defense, and for other purposes," approved June 3, 1916, as amended, and for other

"is" and insert "shall be"; on page 2, line 7, to strike out the words "the Army Music School and "; on page 2, line 20, after the word "commissioned," to insert "warrant "; on page 2, lines 23 and 24, to strike out "and eight additional band masters for duty with the Army Music School as instructors"; and on page 3, line 1, after the word “physically," to insert "and professionally."

Mr. BINGHAM. I move that the Senate concur in the House amendments.

The motion was agreed to.

TERRITORY OF HAWAII

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 757) to extend the benefits of certain acts of Congress to the Territory of Hawaii, which were, on page 2, line 23, to strike out "1929" and insert "1930"; on page 2, line 24, to strike out "1930" and insert "1931"; on page 2, line 25, to strike out "1931" and insert "1932"; on page 3, line 1, to strike out "1932" and insert "1933 on page 3, line 2, to strike out "1933" and insert "1934"; on page 3, line 3, to strike cut "1934" and insert 1935 on page 3, line 4, to strike out "1935" and insert 1936 on page 3, line 5, to strike out "1936" and insert "1937 on page 3, line 5, to strike out "1937" and insert "1938 on page 3, line 6, to strike out 66 1938" and insert "1939 on page 3, line 7, to strike out 1939" and insert "1940"; and on page 3, line 8, to strike out "1940" and insert "1941.”

66

66

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the House amendments.

Mr. SMOOT. What is the nature of the amendments? Mr. BINGHAM. The amendments propose to change the date when the agricultural aid acts, with which the Senator is familiar, will become available for the Territory by pushing the dates forward one year. It would take some time to read all the amendments.

Mr. SMOOT. If that is the only change, I have no objection. Mr. BINGHAM. I ask to have inserted at this point an extract from the House report on the bill, which includes a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, explaining that this proposed legislation would not be out of harmony with the financial program of the President.

There being no objection, the matter referred to was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Hon. G. N. HAUGEN,

MARCH 15, 1928.

Chairman Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. HAUGEN: Under date of February 7 the department submitted a report to your committee on H. R. 6070, a bill to extend the benefits of certain acts of Congress to the Territory of Hawaii. The acts referred to were those commonly known as the Hatch Act and supplementary acts, Adams Act, and Purnell Act, providing for the establishment and maintenance of agricultural experiment stations, and the act of May 8, 1914, known as the Smith-Lever Act, which provides for cooperative agricultural extension work between the agricultural colleges receiving the benefits of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1862, which is the Morrill Act, and acts supplementary thereto. In the report of February 7 it was stated that upon submission of this proposed legislation to the Bureau of the Budget, as required by Circular No. 49 of that bureau, the Department of Agriculture was advised under date of February 3, 1928, that the legislation proposed in H. R. 6070 would be in conflict with the financial program of the President,

The department is now in receipt of a communication from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, dated March 7, 1928, in which he states that the legislation proposed in H. R. 10959 for the same purpose, introduced February 14, 1928, by Mr. HOUSTON, the Delegate from Hawaii, would not be in conflict with the financial program of the President if it were amended so as to start the program of progressive appropriations in the fiscal year 1930 instead of the fiscal year 1929. Sincerely yours,

child welfare, and maternity, and now asks that similar recognition be accorded her in respect to the Federal aid for agricultural purposes. Hawaii has a greater population than three States and is at the present time paying into the Federal Treasury more than 13 States.

It is in no sense a possession, as possessions do not carry the burdens which States and Territories do. Neither Porto Rico nor the Philippines contribute to the Federal income by reason of the income tax, nor do they pay into the Federal Treasury by reason of the customs.

The intent of this bill is to eventually give to the Territory of Hawaii all of the Federal aid for agricultural colleges enjoyed by the States, no more and no less.

In view of all of the above facts, but principally in view of the fact that there is a large need for this aid by reason of the agricultural industry of the Territory, the importance of the college work (where there are 840 pupils at present), and by reason of section 5 of the organic act, the committee recommends that the bill do pass.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Connecticut to concur in the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill.

The motion was agreed to.

HEARINGS ON BILLS ABOLISHING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE

DISTRICT

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a concurrent resolution from the House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 30), which was read as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That, in accordance with paragraph 3 of section 2 of the printing act approved March 1, 1907, the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of Representatives be, and is hereby, empowered to have printed for its use 2,000 additional copies of the hearings held before the committee during the Sixty-ninth Congress, first session, on the bills (H. R. 349 and H. R. 4498) to abolish capital punishment in the District of Columbia.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I ask that the Senate agree to the concurrent resolution.

The concurrent resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

PROCEEDINGS UPON ACCEPTANCE OF STATUE OF ANDREW JACKSON The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate a concurrent resolution from the House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 33), which was read, as follows:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That there be printed and bound, with illustrations, the proceedings in Congress, together with the proceedings at the unveiling in Statuary Hall, upon the acceptance of the statue of Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, presented by the State of Tennessee, 10,000 copies, of which 2,000 shall be for the use of the Senate and 5,000 for the use of the House of Representatives, and the remaining 3,000 copies shall be for the use and distribution of the Senators and Representatives in Congress from the State of Tennessee.

The Joint Committee on Printing is hereby authorized to have the copy prepared for the Public Printer, who shall provide suitable illustrations to be bound with these proceedings.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I ask that the Senate agree to the concurrent resolution of the House.

The concurrent resolution was considered by unanimous consent and agreed to.

LANDS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES Mr. FRAZIER. I submit a concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. It provides for the recall of a bill from the President which has, unfortunately, one word wrong, and I want to bring it back so that the change may be made.

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 19), was read, considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to, as follows: Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President be requested to return to the Senate S. 3594, entitled "An act to extend the period of restriction in lands of certain members of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes." BEFORE AND AFTER THE WAR

Mr. TYSON. Mr. President, I ask permission to have inserted in the RECORD an article appearing in the Wall Street Journal of May 8, 1928, entitled "Before and after war." The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.

The article referred to is as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1928]
BEFORE AND AFTER WAR

What is known as the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill for retirement of disabled emergency Army officers of the World War is on the calendar of the House of Representatives. This is no pension-grabbing scheme

but a provision for simple justice to one class of officers who, in disregard of the Government's pledges in 1917 when they were needed, have been discriminated against and neglected. For over eight years these disabled officers have asked for consideration, yet there is danger that the House of Congress will deny this act of justice, long overdue, and put the Government in the position of repudiating a wartime pledge.

In the World War the United States had nine classes of officers. There were the regular, provisional, and emergency officers of Army, Navy, and Marine Corps-three classes of officers in each of the three branches of the service. In the service act of May, 1917, Congress provided that all officers and men of the provisional and emergency classes should in all respects be upon the same footing as to pay, allowances, and pensions as those of the Regular Army.

There is the country's pledge. Let us see how it has been kept. For illustration, stand nine men in a row, all of them officers who served in the war, three from each branch of the service. Imagine

that every one has suffered the identical disability, say the loss of the right arm. Congress comes along, puts eight of them in an automobile, drives away with them, and provides for them. It overlooks the ninth man, refuses to go back for him, and for over eight years leaves him standing there alone waiting for that pledge to be redeemed.

Now name those who have been cared for. To one in each of the Army and Navy corps give the name of Regular, another Provisional, and another Emergency, then call the forgotten one Army Emergency, and you have the case.

Why should eight be taken and one ignored? In the summer of 1918 we would have said that it would be impossible to forget any of those men. Yet, in less than 10 years St. Mihiel, Belleau Wood, Chateau-Thierry, and the Argonne are forgotten. These emergency officers were among those who led the American forces in the great battles that turned the tide of war.

War Department records show that proportionally the battle-field mortality was 55 per cent greater for officers than for the men; that of the officers who laid down their lives on those fields 93 per cent were the emergency officers of the Army. The disabled survivors of this class of officers are those represented by the ninth man left standing. Will the country forget its pledge and permit that ninth man to be left alone any longer?

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, at the request of a number of of Senators that I call for a quorum before the resumption of the consideration of the revenue bill, so that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS] and some others might be here, I wish to suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARAWAY. Will not the Senator withhold that suggestion for a moment?

Mr. SMOOT. Yes; I withhold it.

Mr. CARAWAY. I want to ask the Senator a question. I wish to offer an amendment on page 27, line 7. I do not know whether there is some amendment to that provision now pending or not.

Mr. SMOOT. There is no amendment pending, but I will ask the Senator to kindly withhold his amendment until we get through with the committee amendments. There is a unanimous-consent agreement that we consider committee amendments first.

Mr. CARAWAY. That is all right. I just wanted to ascertain whether there was an amendment pending.

Mr. SMOOT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: