Слике страница

solidate the administration for the reason that It was In a competitive business. The Panama Railroad operates steamers to Colon and elsewhere, and it is in competition and in trade relations nnd transportation relations with railroads and other lines of stenmers, and it has to be very flexible In order to meet the changing rates, provide through bills of lading, and respond quickly to claims for loss and damage, demurrage, and all that sort of thing.

Mr. Cai.dwell. And to sue and to be sued?

Secretary Bakib. As a commercial enterprise.

This plant when operated for the production of commercial fertilizer will be dealing with persons buying Its product and buying raw matfrinls in a competitive market, and as a commercial enterprise it will be easier to deal with that sort of people. If we operate it as a Government plant, unless you change the law, the income will have to go Into the miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury and be appropriated for specific objects and be expended on an appropriation basis rather than on a commercial basis; the income and outgo is very much less flexible In dealing with persons.

Again let me call your attention to the language of Representative Greene, then a member of the Committee on Military Affairs, spoken on April 19, 1920, and now one of the Senators from Vermont:

Mr. Gbekne. It does not strike me that it is the business of the Government to go Into the fertilizer-making business; but so far as this thing is concerned, we need not stress that at all. If, in providing for its own supply of munitions the Government has a by-product that happens to benefit some other Industry of the country, we can, not avoid it; but I would not go into it for that purpose.

Apain let me call your attention to the language of Gen. C. C. Williams, Chief of Ordnance, spoken on April 19, 1920:

General Williams. Our first thought was not to operate these plants as Government enterprises but to Interest private capital and get them to continue the operation, and we tried for six months, In every way that we could, to interest the manufacturers in taking over this plant, but without success. Now, as I said before, our primary concern being the maintenance of a plant like this in operation for a war Insurance, the only way that we saw to accomplish it was by recommending that the Government take this plant and operate it.

Furthermore. I direct special attention to the language extracted from ihe report of General Persbing filed March 29, 1920: [Extract from General Pershlng's report of March 23 to the Secretary

of War]
General Headqcabtibs, American Expeditionary Forces,

March SS, 19tO.


Muscle Snoalt nitrate plant: In the Muscle Shoals nitrate plant the Government has a permanent Installation which Is of the greatest importance. In another war a plant assuring a domestic supply of nitrogen might well be a decisive factor in maintaining our security. It is understood that this plant can be utilized in peace for the commercial manufacture of nitrogen products and that such use would return a reasonable profit on the Investment represented by the plant while maintaining it constantly available for military purposes.

Note the following table of importations of Chilean nitrates into the United States for the years indicated:

Nitrate of toda. imports from Chile to the United Statet


he value given here i? based on the value at the port in Chile, and does c- export duty paid to the Chilean Government, ooenn freiRht, insurance, J7.5O r>i!r10ns, etc. Before 1914, freight from Chile to the United States was about

In i%— t *o«; at the present time it Is nbout $17.50.

ibout *v* esport duty was put on nitrate shipments from Chile and amounted to das ttoiK. ls P*r Iong *°P' *n 188<? "lis du'y was raised to $12.53 per long ton, and . "^^en changed since that time.

*° the requirements of nitrogen for military purposes, I rt& Ollt attention to the following extract from a statement by Colonel Burns, of the United States Army:

[ocr errors]


With the development of the nitrification of cellulose, toluol, glycerin, etc., and their tremendous consumption in shell, mines, bombs, etc., the demand for suitable fixed-nitrogen compounds for war purposes has very materially Increased.

We have already seen how Sweden by its farms was able to produce only some 100 tons of nitrate per year, which would equal about 14 tons of nitrogen.

In the Napoleonic wars, Prance produced 2,000 tons of nitrate per year, equal to 280 tons of nitrogen, or over twenty times Sweden's consumption. With the man power, armament, and rate of fire in effect at the time of the armistice, one division required for its powder and explosives approximately 3,000 tons of fixed nitrogen per year, or over ten times the amount used by the entire French Army per year during the French revolutionary period.

A study of Mr. Crowell's America's Munitions shows quite conclusively how extremely large has been the Increase in the rate of flre of ammunition and in the total consumption thereof. It shows that during one month of 1018—which was the average of the year 1918— the French and British consumed over two and one-half times the number of rounds of artillery ammunition that were consumed by the Union forces during the entire Civil War. This would In general correspond to a ratio of 120 to 1. And due to the increased use of explosives the proportionate consumption of nitrogen is still greater.

During the year 1918 we were consuming inorganic nitrogen In the United States at the rate of some 420,000 tons, and of this over 60 per cent was for strictly military purposes and over 75 per cent was imported In the form of sodium nitrate from far-away Chile.

It Is, of course, difficult to forecast what our requirements for nitrogen for strictly military purposes will be, as they will in great measure depend upon the enemy or combinations of enemies that we are called upon to fight. But based upon the experiences of the past there Is every reason to believe that future requirements In a major wnr effort will be materially greater than the already gigantic demand.

In this connection I also insert a letter from the Chief of Ordnance in answer to an inquiry by me as to specific nitrogen consumption in war:

March 29, 1928. Hon. John J. Mcswaiji,

United States House of Representative*,

Washlnfllon, D. C.

My Dkab Mb. Mcswain: In reply to your request for information regarding the consumption of powder by the American Army during the various wars in which we have participated, the records which we have available are limited to those covering the Revolutionary, Civil, and World Wars.

For the Revolutionary War the "History of the Explosive Industry In America" gives the total amount of black powder expended as 2,347,453 pounds.

For the Civil War, the report of the Chief of Ordnance for the year I860 gives the expenditure of black powder for the period from January 1, 1861, to June 30, 1866, as 26,440,054 pounds.

For the World Wrar, data are available showing the number of rounds of artillery ammunition by calibers expended by the American Expeditionary Forces In France. An approximate computation of the weight of propelling charges Involved gives a total consumption of 29,569,081 pounds. In a like manner the quantity consumed during the battle of St. Mihiel is found to be 2,318,573 pounds.

The above computations do not include that powder consumed as a component of small-arms ammunition, but for the artillery ammunition are believed to be accurate within 5 per cent. Sincerely,

C. C. Williams, llalor General, Chief of Ordnance.


I am informed by the Bureau of Economics that in 1024 the farmers of America paid $230,000,000 for commercial fertilizers. Since the consumption is on the increase constantly, I believe it is conservative to say that now the farmers are using at the rate of $250,000,000 worth per year.

The Interstate Commerce Commission reports that the average freight ix>r ton of fertilizers is about $2.25. Furthermore, that during the year of 1!)27 the railroads hauled approximately 10,0(M>,(KK) tons (if fertilizers. That means that the sum of $22,500.000 was paid for freight on fertilizers, which means that approximately 10 per cent of the total value of fertilizers consists of freight. If by the shipment of concentrated fertilizers the volume and weight can be reduced by 75 per cent of the present volume and weight, and it is entirely reasonable to think and expect that such reduction may be made, then it is believed that by the use of concentrated fertilizers there may be saved to the fanners of America each year between $17,000,000 and $20,000,000 in freight charges alone.

[ocr errors]

United States Department Of Agriculture,

Bureau Of AonicuLTcuAr, Economics,

Washington, D. C., March iO, U28. Hon. John J. McSWAi.v,

Itwtse of Kcprcsentatirei.

Dbas Mb. Mcswain: I herewith submit data confirming yesterday's b'l< phone conversation with reference to fertilizer statistics. Over the telephone you were given the following:

Fertilizer expend it>ires In 1924 (census) $230,000,000

Fertilizer tonnage originating on railways, 1920 (Interstate Commerce Commission) tons— 8,000,000

Fertilizer tonnage originating «n railways, 1927 (Interstate Commerce Commission): tons— 10,000,000

Estimated freight revenue from fertilizer, 1923 (Interstate Commerce Commission) perton__ $2.429

You may wish to relate the estimated freight revenue per ton to the 1023 tonnage. Tonnage originating on Class I railways In 1023 amounted to 7,040,000 tons, according to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Very truly yours,

Lloyd S. Tenny,

Clitef of Bureau.

Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, us Madame Roland descended from the tumbrel on her way to the guillotine she exclaimed, as every schoolboy and .schoolgirl knows, "O Liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name!" And if the sincere, though misguided friends of agriculture continue their efforts to bestow privileges that the basic industry is not entitled to and which is denied to all other groups of American citizens, Ceres might well exclaim, "How many offenses are committed in my name!" What agriculture wants is a square deal, not favor. "Equal rights to all and special privilege to none" has been the cry of the tiller of the soil from the beginning of time. He has had to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow from the very dawn of history, and he thoroughly understands that he will have to do so until this earth ceases to be a habitation for man. He knows that all of the other groups are depending upon his industry; that he is an Atlas; that he supports the stupendous structure called cities, with their classes, masses, groups, and divisions. He knows that he will not only not gain anything by being looked upon as a Joseph with a coat of many colors, but that he will be placed at a tremendous disadvantage as a result of the mess of pottage that has not been asked for, but which has been thrust upon him.

The farmer is an American—first, last, and always. He does not want his Government in the business of making power and fertilizers and selling the same to the people through different channels. He knows that there is but one step from that venture to selling shoes, hats, and foodstuffs—which, of course, • means " good night" to the Republic, individualism, and freedom. He does not want that under any circumstances; but his honest heart must revolt at the thought that as a necessary step to the Government going into business at Muscle Shoals in the way of making power and fertilizer and selling the same that it must crush out those that are engaged in the manufacture and sule of fertilizers particularly—thereby depriving them in the future of making a living and depreciating their property to such an extent that it might be deemed confiscation. I am surprised, my friends, that my own section of the country, the South, can even tolerate the idea of such a position in view of the historical background that such a pernicious expression of governmental tyranny and oppression must have for a people who were prostrated and their heads bowed in the dust as a result of a conflscatory policy on the part of the Federal Government which even under the war power was revolting to those that exercised it. No one born in the South but understands, believes, and knows that the South should have been compensated vhen emancipation was declared. Do not misunderstand me, Mr. Speaker. If I were living before the Civil War I would have been an abolitionist. But no man could be so prejudiced that has the slightest claim to intellectuality that does not admit that compensation is an obligation that rests upon everyone, sovereign and subject, when another man's property is taken even for a great public purpose. And yet I am compelled to admit that some of the finest men in the Southern Stales, men for whom I have an admiration and affection, are flatfootedly for this bill on the ground that the necessity of the occasion demands this action. I am against it—everlastingly and eternally against It—and what I consider the menacing policy which it expresses and which when fully developed means the destruction of the Republic. 1 am against it for the reasons that follow:

First. It creates the " Muscle Shoals corporation of the United States," providing definitely for 10 years of operation. This is

long enough to cripple and largely destroy the present fertilizer industry, without setting up an equally efficient agency in its place.

Second. It turns over to this corporation without any charges whatsoever all of the Muscle Shoals properties which originally cost the taxpayers about $140,000,000. Private enterprise must pay in rentals, bond interest, or otherwise for all property it uses.

Third. It provides $10,000.000 of operating capital from the Public Treasury which shall be interest free during the first five years. The fertilizer industry must hire its moneys in the open market at the going rate of interest.

Fourth. It directs the corporation to manufacture not only nitrogen but complete fertilizers, authorizing purchase of the materials it does not make. This certainly is not in line either with the letter or the spirit of the national defense act of 1916, which provides for the production of nitrates for munitions of war and useful in manufacturing fertilizers and other useful products.

Fifth. It puts the Government in the fertilizer business from start to finish by requiring the corporation to sell at retail for cash, f. o. b. Muscle Shoals. This discriminates against iwor and needy farmers in favor of those who can pay cash, and leaves a harvest of credit risks and bad debts for the remnant of private industry that must try to carry on because it has over $300.000,000 invested in the business.

Sixth. It prescribes th.it sales shall be made: (a) To fanners, farm groups, and farm organizations; (b) to Slates and State agencies for resale to farmers; and (c) to private manufacturers, mixers, and merchants of fertilizers after the foregoing preferred customers have been supplied. This is a gross discrimination, when fertilizers are only 9 per cent above prewar, and even farm products are 87 per cent above, against liii industry that in one year created over $697,000,000 new wealth for an expenditure of $230.000.000.

Seventh. It authorizes the sale of surplus power. If this applied to all power produced it would be sound, because Muscle Shoals is recognized by all experts as primarily a power proposition.

Eighth. It requires sales of fertilizer to be at cost, with the income from sale of power to be subtracted from fertilizer manufacturing costs. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul. How could private enterprise possibly compete against such flagrantly subsidized competition? Is this fair?

Ninth. It authorizes the free distribution of 5 per cent of the total fertilizer production for "experimentation " ; under certain conditions 15 per cent of the total production, whether nitrates or complete fertilizer, may be given away. Proper experimentation is desirable, but this provision would revive all the evils of free-seed distribution, only on a more vicious scale.

Tenth. It orders the corporation to build and operate superphosphate—acid phosphate—plants in the face of excess productive capacity now constructed. By the same reasoning it would be logical for the Government to open a huge new coal mine despite overproduction which is now strangling the coal industry.

Eleventh. It orders the immediate use of a nitrogen-fixation process that consumes over three times as much power per ton of nitrogen as modern plants now being constructed and o>perate[l in the t'nited States. Instead of helping our infant nitropeufixation industry—now producing nitrogen equivalent to 700 tons of nitrate of soda daily—this proposal would confront it with subsidized governmental competition.

Twelfth. It authorizes copying and use of any private patents, thus discouraging further private research.

Thirteenth. It confers the right to condemn private p>roix>rty on a governmental corporation which is to compete with private enterprise.

Fourteenth. It provides that any person who for compensation of any kind enters into agreement of any kind with intent to defeat the purposes of the corporation shall be fined not more than $25.0110 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both. This is a dire threat against the fertilizer, power, or any other industry that n:ay try to protect itself from the consequences of this incursion of the Government into private business.

Fifteenth. It gives fertilizer at a subsidized rate to fanners within normal shipping distance of Muscle Shoals, thus benefiting some farmers and discriminating against others. By giving fertilizer at subsidized prices to farmers of this area, it gives these funnel's further advantage in competition with the southeastern cotton growers particularly would suffer in Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, where western competition has already been felt very keenly.

Sixteenth. It disrupts an industry that Is giving good service to agriculture, with millions of satisfied customers who are getting fertilizer at prices relatively much lower than nil other Important supplies the farmer buys.

Despite the fact that this complete substitute for the Norris resolution, as passed by the Senate, is a new and distinctly different proi>osal from any other that has ever been before Congress dealing with Muscle Shoals, it was introduced by the Committee on Military Affairs without holding public hearings thereon.

Remember that Congress as a pure result of its parliamentary developments is a rccognitory body. That is that ex necessitate it has to give recognition to committee findings as a general proposition. It is clear from this statement that committee must or should hold hearings which ought to be as full as possible and publish tlie same so that Members of Congress will know the reasons for the committee's report. This fundamental necessity of parliamentary procedure was not observed by the House committee, which did not hold hearings mi tlie sul>stitute bill which it reported out instead of the Mi'Nary bill. Sometimes an advertisement expresses so clearly, concisely, and convincingly a case that it is justifiable and sagacious to use it for its effectiveness.


Mr. RAMSEYER, from the Committee on Rules, presented the following House resolution for printing in the Record:

House Resolution 193

Remind, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall bo In order to move that tho House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of .S. J. Res. 120, to provide for eradication of pink bollworm, and authorizing an appropriation therefor. That after general debate, which shall be coufined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and opposing the bill, tbe bill shall be read for amendment under the flve-mlnute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to tbe Uouse with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered ns ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.


Mr. RAMSEYER also presented the following resolution for printing in the Record:

House Resolution 192

Knolccd, That upon the adoption of this resolution It shall be In order to consider in the House as In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union S. 3456, allowing the rank, pay, and allowances of a colonel, Medical Corps, United States Army, to the medical officer assigned to duty as personal physician to the President.

At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to flnnl passage without Intervening motion except one motion to recommit.


Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for three minutes out of order, and to revise and extend my remarks in the Record.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House concerning a most regrettable occurrence at Niagara Falls, in my district. On Saturday night there was a meeting of the Elks in that city, at which Mr. Hanson, one of the officers of the lodge of Elks, was present. After the meeting Mr. Hanson drove a fellow member to Lewiston and then late at night started home. At the foot of Lewiston Hill, in the morning, abont 2 o'clock, he was ordered to stop by a man, who, I am told, was not in uniform, and upon his not obeying the order the person who commanded him to stop shot into the cur.

The car proceeded up the hill and, apparently, signals were exchanged between the man at the foot of the hill and a man at the top of the hill, and a shot was fired at Mr. Hanson by the latter, inflicting a wound in the temple by which Mr. Hanson was rendered totally blind and from which he is now probably dying.

I understand these men were members of the Coast Guard, stationed at Youngstown, engaged in the prohibition enforcement s?ervice, but as I have already said, I am told they were not in uniform or, at any rate, were not wearing such uniform «* in the darkness of the night would give notice to a man driving an automobile along the highway at a reasonable rate of speed that the person seeking to stop him was au official.

LXIX 534

This incident has developed a very serious condition of affairs. Personally, I may say that about one year ago I had a similar experience and in the snme vicinity, except that I was not shot. My wife and I were leaving the city of Niagara Falls for home about 10 o'clock at night and some one came out on Ihe road in a lonely place, with woods at the side of the road, and signaled us to stop. We put on extra speed, and we passed the man who signaled us to stop without any deplorable incident.

But there should be some regulations, some rules, some control of these employees, so that the lives of citizens who are in the discharge of their daily duties and avocations and entitled to the enjoyment of their legal rights to travel the highways secure from iissatilt shall not be subject to such deplorable results as befell Mr. Hanson.

It is not a question of being wet or dry. It is a question of protecting the ordinary citizen in his property and his life as he traverses the highways, which should be open and under protection to all. It la a serious question.

Immediately after this incident at Lewiston I took up the matter with tlie Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. I said to him that this incident should be investigated thoroughly; that these men. if the facts are as reported, should be punished for such lawless and unjustifiable conduct, with the terrible consequences coming from it. I strongly urged that some rule should at once be put in force and observed which would protect the citizens on the public highway.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. UEMPSEY. May I have one minute more?

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. DEMPSEY. At the proper time I shall ask that some action bo taken by the House, referring au investigation of this matter to an appropriate committee, to see If Congress itself can not take some action to insure that the citizens on the highway are protected. As the matter is reixjrted in the press, and by those living in the vicinity, there was no necessity or excuse for such a violent act, and under the circumstances and conditions present in this case, the citizen should be protected in his rights.

The case of Mr. Hansen has appealed to everyone living in the vicinity most strongly because he was a man of high character, well known both from his business connections and in his capacity as a popular and successful officer in the Elks Society, who was not in any way transgressing the law by transporting liquor or otherwise. The terrible injuries suffered by him have excited both sympathy and grief. The whole community, in fact, is aroused, and in speaking as I do, I believe that I am voicing their sentiments and feelings.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield there?


Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Does the gentleman know whether or not these men have been turned over to the prosecuting officers as yet?

Mr. DEMPSEY. My understanding is that at first the local officers refused to act, but that now they have acted.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. The gentleman means the Coast Guard officers?

Mr. DEMPSEY. Yes. That Information, however, is not official.

. Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Does not the gentleman know that that is the usual rule?

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman may proceed for oue minute more. I wish to ask him a question.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Does not the gentleman know that there have been any number of these instances in New York where a Federal prohibition officer has committed murder, and the entire Department of Justice has put every obstacle in the way of his prosecution and have defended such men in the courts? This is only another instance of it.

Mr. DEMPSEY. I do not know of the incident to which the gentleman refers. I only know of this incident, which occurred in my district. My county is n very large county, and nil of our people are very deeply concerned and agitated over what is going to follow, whether the ordinary citizen is to be subjected to these dangers if he goes out on the highway at night.

Mr. BLACK of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?


Mr. BLACK of New York. Does the gentlemnn care to tell the House what the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury says about it?

Mr. DEMPSEY. He said it would be investigated and every effort made to protect the citizens. [Applause.]


Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?

There wns no objection.

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following editorial and letter:

[Editorial from Chicago Tribune, Thursday, May 3, 1928]


The Tyson bill to grant retirement pay to disabled World War emergency officers has passed the Senate and is pending in the House. It has been unopposed except from one quarter. Retired enlisted men point to their own small pensions and a-sk that the Tyson bill be held up until they are granted increased compensation.

It la natural for the retired enlisted men to feel and to argue as they do. Their attack on the Tyson bill is, as they see it, their only chance to win a hearing.

Congress must decide both the Tyson bill and the claims of the enlisted men. and the way to do it is not to defeat the Tyson bill because the enlisted men arc not receiving generous treatment, but to pass the Tyson bill and at the same time accord the enlisted men the recompense they deserve. The disabled emergency Army officer is the only one out of nlue officer classes to have been left out. The members of the other eight classes have all been cared for by tbe Government. The Tyson bill, therefore, aims to right a real injustice.

The enlisted men will not ho helped by the defeat of the Tyson hill; it will mean only injury to the emergency officers. Congress's duty is not a negative one—defeat of the Tyson bill—but a doubly positive one; passage of tbe Tyson bill and legislation in behalf of the retired enlisted man.

The American Veterans Op All Wars,

Uuskogee, Oltla., ilay 5, ISiS. Subject: Tyson Fitzgerald bill (S. 777). Hon. Wilbubn Cabtwright,

House of Representative*, United Statrt,

Washinffton, D. C.

Mr I>i:ai; Mu. Cabtwrioht: I wish to acknowledge with deep gratitude your valued letter of May 2. I have read with deep appreciation your statement, which I have ordered relayed to our whole and entire membership, and particularly to our members in the third congressional district, to wit:

"I went to Congressman Fitzgerald and offered my assistance, as you suggested. He seemed to appreciate it very much."

I am sure that not only has Mr. Fitzgerald appreciated it, but I will see to it that every ex-service man in tbe third congressional district, both appreciates and reciprocates a friendship and unselfish service of such nature.

Mr. Cartwright, the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill is a Just bill. Those who are against the bill set up two objections to the bill. I fully believe that the opponents to the bill are as honest In their views as we who are fighting heart and soul for the bill are, but their arguments are groundless for the following reasons: It is stated by some that the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill is discriminatory, In that it discriminates in favor of the commissioned officer as against the enlisted man. This argument Is without merit for tbe reason that it deals with a military establishment In a military organization. Itauk is a reward for leadership, increased responsibility, and proportionate greater risk.

There Is no discrimination against the enlisted man by giving the officer what is due his rank; remember, that from the beginning of time, when man established the safety of his own side, armies rewarded leadership with increased rank, which carried increased command, responsibility, and pay. Napoleon said, "Every soldier carried in his knapsack a field marshal's baton." The enlisted man of the last war may, with his training and experience, be the officer of the next wnr unless human nature should change and causes for war should cease and end, when there would be no war; hence what you would give to the disabled officer of the past war, you would or rather future Congresses would give to the disabled officer of the next war; where is the discrimination? Every commissioned officer has at all times been for tbe cx-soldler in all things that could be obtained for him; tbe Tyson-Fitzgerald bill ia dealing with the officer; pass It Just as it Stands: do not kill It or endanger it by any amendments; pass it as the Senate bus passed it; and If you and other Congressmen feel that

the enlisted man should get more than he gets now, we are with you; tell us what Congress Is willing to do for the enlisted man and we will do all in our power to help, but do not punish the most patriotic body of veterans—the disabled emergency officer—merely because Congress may feel that Congress has not done enough for the enlisted man. God bless you, bless Congress, and bless the enlisted man; be deserves everything that can be done for him, and I am dally doing it; this organization and every veteran organization is constantly doing this; tell us what more can we do, and we are ready, willing, and anxious to help tbe enlisted man at all times, but whei'e is tbe discrimination?

Congress has a number of officials and employees; you pay them in different scales; is the fact that an employee with greater responsibilities, more serious duties, is getting more than one who has inferior duties or less influence to prepare himself a discrimination? Hardly. Why, then, raise the issue that an officer who has to prepare himself, take all risk, be responsible for the safety and well-being of his men, should be getting just n little higher pay than an enlisted man?

The opponents of the bill sing the praise of the enlisted man; no one knows him better than I do; thousands of the enlisted men know that I got up many a time from a sick bed, in cold winter nights, to go over the camp to sec that my men were sleeping warm; the enlisted man has never done this for his officer; why? Because it was not tils responsibility; if it was, God bless him, he would have done It. We had a great war. our Armies covered themselves with honor and glory, the enlisted man was worth in every way, but do not forget, it was an Army led by leaders, who were equal to their task. Why deny the officer what is Justly due him? Arc the opponents trying to eliminate leadership from our Army? Russian Soviets tried It, and even they gave it up. Why then not give the officer the tardy justice due him, and give him the same retirement rights which Congress has promised in 1917 when It needed tbe officer, and which Congress was generous enough to give to eight other classes of officers?

There is nothing to the claim that the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill discriminates against the enlisted men, our membership are mostly enlisted men and we are solid for the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill; other veterans organizations are similarly situated and arc for the TysonFitzgerald bill.

Again, opponents of the hill do not recollect, that during the war, we had one Army, the officer disabled in the World War, was an officer of the only Army the United States had at that time, and should be given as promised in the selective service act of May, 1917, the same treatment "In all respects upon the same footing as to pay, allowances, and pensions as officers of corresponding grades and length of service in the Regular Army." Bearing in mind, that all distinction of armies was by War Department Order, No. 75, on August 17, 11)18, abolished, in which it was stated:

"This country has but one Army, the United States Army, it includes ull bind forces in the services of the United States. These forces, however raised, lose their identity in that of the United States Army."

Where then Is there any moral or sound reason for refusing to give the same treatment to one class of military officers than all other similar officers?

We had Regular officers, provisional officers, and emergency officers of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps at the beginning of the war. Later, by consolidating all the forces in one army, "the United States Army," all distinction has been abolished, all officers of the same ranks served side by side, carried out just as faithfully. Eight classes of the above • officers—namely, the Regular, provisional, and emergency officers of the Navy and Marine Corps—have been given by Congress, and justly so, retirement rights they deserved and God bless Congress for doing Bo, but In the name of eternal right and justice, why not give the same to all? Congress has gone further, It has done justice to the naval and Marine Corps officer, It has done justice to what Is known as the Regular Army officers. It has given retirement rights to the provisional Army officer; hut to the man who has sacrificed most, to the man who has disrupted his whole life, and in many instances has never been able to regain the interrupted civilian career—the emergency officer—he, when equally disabled In line of duty, in the service of our beloved country, he (the disabled emergency officer) was neglected. He has been denied the same rights as has been generously and Justly granted to the same officer who served side by side with him, except that the | other officer had a commission reading provisional. There was no j distinction in the right to serve and. if necessary, to die for oor country. j There should be no distinction in the right of the same type of officers to live for our country.

It has been my pleasure to discuss the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill with men nnd women of various thoughts, business, and professions. I have discussed It with legislatoi-K, inerchnnts. ministers, lawyers, doctors, carpenters, tailors, blacksmiths, automobile mechanics, newspaper editors, and reporters, ami all agree to the justice of treating the disabled emergency officer the mime way as all other officers of the World War were treated; and I submit to you that 90.9 per cent of all our American people, of all ex-service men, and 100 per cent of all reputable

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

i'th-whlle veteran organizations arc for the Tyson-Fitzgerald

has never been a single measure before Congress which met

b universal approval; hence, there must be intrinsic value and

the same, and since it is a bill that affects us as taxpayers the

[ocr errors]

f t,ti**t the taxpayers are heartily In favor of the Tyson-Fitzgerald

bin •*l»omalcj be tt>e best argument for a speedy enactment of this bill jn ^icfW I and in behalf of the disabled emergency officers, in behalf of jiU^ho fimithful officers who have been disabled in line of duty, we hope m^ j>r-»>" that the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill will pass overwhelmingly, and will jjr-ompHy be approved by our great President. Calvin Coolldge, and will s^r've both as a just reward for faithful service of the past and as nn onoouragernent for the future—that sacrifices honorably made for our ccnxi3 try will not go forever forgotten by our Congress.

I sslm»II appreciate for you to bring this earnest appeal In behalf of thin JtiMt bill to the attention of all the Members of Congress. r cordially,


Counsel and Chairman Xatinnal Executive CommHtee,

American Veterans of All Wars.


ra^AVITT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to the Speaker's table the bill II. R. 8110, with a Senate . *. and agree to the Senate amendment.

The £-? I_*I5AKER. The gentleman from Montana asks unanimous cr>ii^s«nt to take from the Shaker's table the bill H. R. 8UO. n»«"- Clerk will report it by title. The Gl^~-»~k read us follows:

A Mil < K~--jr. R. 8110) withdrawing from entry the northwest quarter, section 1 li. trownshlp 30 north, range 19 east, Montana meridian.

The SX^IEAKER. The Clerk will report the Senate amendment. The Mr. « SpeaUer matter her of to a he hud

fore I -vvn acled uiicl Mr.


Mr. Gjv ZiNER of Texas. But the chairman is not the ComPublic Lands. I think the ruling made by the v'as a good one, and when gentlemen want the House to a Senate amendment they ought to call the comand get its permission to take that action. V>i'esent I must insist that the rule the Speaker laid • ^ tilth is a good rule, be followed, and that the gentleman the HK*^*" llu authorization from the committee before asking ma ^vss«? to agree to a Senate amendment. I hope the gentle.. W*H "withdraw his request for the present. *r- -t-«XiJ.AVlTT. All this amendment does is to name the

amendment was read. UNEK of Texas. Reserving the right to object. Mr. x; remember that the Speaker the other day on a ac».ilar to this said he did not care to recognize a mem-«->rnmittee in charge of a bill to take it up and agree amendment unless the gentleman should show that authority of the committee for such action. Thereit to ask tlie gentleman whether the committee has authorized him to take this action.

I had it up with the chairman of the Public

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]


teiui "^-I^MON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to exl>e<.tt f**^ remarks in the Recobd on the bill which has just t>, :>»*Sise,i by the House.

/^I'EAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
** M-as no objection.

•^-I-iMON. Mr. Speaker, I have received many communiantl ^.f* tioth for and against this measure. Some from officers j*r*aefrom enlisted men. Both during and since the World i j liave voted for and supported every piece of legislation me>r», _^^ to the relief of the disabled Army officers, the enlisted |**id their dependents, and I would be glad to support any is:*l>le legislation favorable to the disabled emergency Officer if I could do so consistently and lu justice to the L *i man.

bill even discriminates against the officers. It is based *"*»nk. I see from the minority report that the bill favors »-V^ Emergency officers whose disability is HO per cent and *Xnd will leave 0,972 emergency officers whose disabilities *ss than 30 per cent upon the same basis of compensation enlisted men. It further appears from this report that "Hre (i9,38(i enlisted men who are disabled to the same dethe 3,297 emergency officers who are to be benefited

by this bill, and 173,842 whose disabilities are rated at less than 30 per cent permanent. It will also be noted that the bill makes no provision for the dependents of those officers who were killed, or who died in the service and since the war. These dependents will continue to draw compensation upon equality with the dependents of the privates. If we are to change our policy and base compensation upon rank, then should not the dependents as well as those living be cared for? The discrimination provided for in the bill is between emergency officers themselves and is enough to condemn the bill. Our Government and Constitution upon which it is based is designed to insure equality before the law.

Many of our young men entered the World War, some as privates and some as officers. They suffered the same sacrifices, encountered the same dangers and privations. The one common purpose was to serve their country. When the war ended they returned to civil life and were again placed on equality. Some of the privates were discharged from the service as disabled by reason of their military service. Some of the officers were in the same condition. Take for example two young men, one an officer and the other a private, discharged with the same disability. This bill provides for the iwiyment of $I!0 for a 30 per cent disability to the private, and as much as $375 to the officer. This would t>e rank injustice, and for that reason I am opposed to the bill and shall vote against it.

I have a great sympathy for the disabled World War veteran whether he was an officer or a private, hut I nm unwilling to do more for one than for the other. The rank discrimination provided for in this measure is indefensible and unprecedented.


Mr. TILSOX. Mr. Speaker, to-morrow it is expected to take up two bills the consideration of which is provided for in the two rules that were read from the Clerk's desk a few moments ago.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. What are those bills?

Mr. TILSON. One is the pink bollworm bill—I think this is the short name for it—and the other is to give the pay and allowances of a colonel to a medical officer at the White House who happens to be of lower rank.

Mr. KNELL. It is a bill which applies to the personal physician to the President.

Mr. MICHENEK. It applies to the man who now holds the position of physician to the President.

Mr. TILSON. It is general in its terms, I understand.

Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. No; it pertains to the man who is there now. It is a bill which is on the Consent Calendar.

Mr. TILSON. It is on the Union Calendar instead of the Private Calendar.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TILSON. Yes.

Mr. BANKHEAD. I would like to ask the chairman of the Committee on Rules if he thinks it inadvisable to bring up to-morrow the rule which we reported out this morning relating to the Naval Committee bill?

Mr. SNELL. I will say to the gentleman that I am not quite ready to bring that up. I can not get the information necessary to bring that rule in.

Mr. TILSON. It is probable that the two bills first mentioned will take only a part of to-morrow. No general debate is provided for in one of the rules and only one hour of debate in the other rule.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Does the rule provide for no di-bate on one bill?

Mr. TILSON. Yes; no general debate.

Mr. LxOrARDIA. That is a most unusual rule.

Mr. TILSON. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we shall probably have a few hours of extra time to-morrow, I ask unanimous consent that the Consent Calendar may be called, beginning at the point where we left off at the last call. The Consent Calendar is very much crowded now and should have consideration. Therefore, after the completion of the two small bills to-morrow, I should like to utilize the time in the consideration of the Consent Calendar.

Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TILSON. Yes.

Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. Are you not giving undue preference to the Consent Calendar over the Private Calendar?

Mr. TILSON. The Consent Calendar has on it public; bills, while the Private Calendar deals with private bills, and ordinarily we must give public business the right of way over Private Calendar business.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will all the time be used on the second bill so as to give us a chance to be ready on the Consent Calendar?

« ПретходнаНастави »