Слике страница
PDF
ePub

of the pum proposed insert "$101,400"; and the Senate agree to the .same.

Amendment numbered 20: That the House recede from Its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 20, and agree to the same with nn amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed Insert "$110,400"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 21: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 21, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$68,518"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 24: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$19,421,700 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 25: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 25, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$1,590,700 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 27: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 27, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the *nm proposed insert "$17,228,000 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 28: That the House recede from Its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 28. and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert " $1,828,000 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 29: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 29, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$11,952,050"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 30: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 30, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$960,800"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 31: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 31, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$66,596,350"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 33: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$127,651,215 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 34: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 34, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$18,845,502 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 35: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 35, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$4,400,240"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 36: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 36, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$150,896,957"; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 40: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 40, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$2,032,250 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 42: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 48, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$1,008,800 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 49: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 49, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$731,000 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 53: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 53, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu

LXIX 537

of the sum proposed insert " $182,000 "; and the Senate agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 54: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 54, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment insert the following: "$65,000; in all, $490,532 "; and the Senate agree to the same. Amendment numbered 55: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 55, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the sum proposed insert "$15,665,816"; and the Senate agree to the same.

The committee of conference have not agreed on amendments numbered 45, 46, 50, and 52.

Fbedebick Hale,
Li. C. Phipps,
Claude S. Swanson,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
Burton L. French,
Guy U. Hardy,
John Taber,
W. A. Ayreb,
W. B. Oliver,
Managers on the part of the House.

BAN CARLOS INDIAN RESERVATION BRIDGES, ARIZONA

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, I report back favorably, without amendment, the bill (S. 4321) authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of two bridges on the San Carlos Indian Reservation, in Arizona, and for other purposes, and I submit a report (No. 1128) thereon. It is a short bill in the nature of an emergency measure. I ask that the bill be read, because I am going to ask unanimous consent for its present consideration.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be read.

The Chief Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be U enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized under such terms and conditions ns he may deem proper, to dispose of two bridges, one across the Glla Elver on the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation, Ariz., and the other across the San Carlos' River on that reservation, constructed in pursuance to a provision In an act approved July 15, 1913 (38 Stat. L. 85), that will no longer be serviceable after the completion of the Coolldge Dam now being constructed across the Gila River, in Arizona.

Mr. ASHURST. I now ask unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection?

Mr. WATERMAN. I object,

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, I am sure I can induce my friend to withhold his objection. Some 15 years ago two bridges were built across the Gila and San Carlos Rivers in Arizona. The construction of the Coolidge Dam will entirely submerge the bridges. I simply wish to have the bill passed in order to give the Secretary of the Interior the power and authority to dispose of the bridges as he sees fit.

Mr. CURTIS. As I understand it, if the bill is not passed at this time it will be too late?

Mr. ASHURST. If the bill is not passed at this session it will be too late.

Mr. CURTIS. That is what I mean.

Mr. ASHURST. I hope my friend will withdraw his objection. I have a favorable report upon it from the Department of the Interior.

Mr. WATERMAN. Does the bill involve the question of granting permits by the water-power commission?

Mr. ASHURST. Not at all. There is nothing whatever of the kind involved.

Mr. WATERMAN. I withdraw my objection.

There being no objection, the bill was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third rending, read the third time, and passed.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BRIDGE AT NEW ORLEANS, LA.

Mr. BROUSSARD. Mr. President, I nsk unanimous consent for the present consideration of Calendar No. 1125, the bill (S. 4229) to extend the time for completing the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River near and above the city of New Orleans, La.

Mr. CURTIS. Is the bill in regular form?

Mr. BROUSSARD. It is a bridge bill in regular form and is recommended by the committee.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Louisiana?

There being no objection, the Senate as In Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill which had been reiwrteil from the Committee on Commerce with amendments, on page 1, line 5, after the word "authorize," to insert the words "by act of Congress approved April 17, 1924"; in line 8, to strike out the word "or" and insert the word "and "; In line 9, to strike out the words "as authorized by the act of Congress, approved April 17, 1924"; on page 2, line 2, after the word "extended," to strike out the word "to"; and after line 3, to insert the words "Provided-, That it shall not be lawful to continue the construction of said bridge until plans thereof shall again be submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War," so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, etc., That the time for completing the construction of n bridge across the Mississippi Blver near and above the city of New Orleans, La., authorized by act of Congress approved April 17, 1924, to be built by the city of New Orleans, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana, its successors and assigns, through its Public Belt Railroad Commission, Is hereby extended five years from the date of the approval hereof: Provided, That It shall not be lawful to continue the construction of said bridge until plans thereof shall again be submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War.

Skc. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The amendments were agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate us amended, and the amendments were concurred in.

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

OPERATION OF CHAIN-STORE SYSTEM

Mr. BROOKHART. I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 224.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolution will be read.

The Chief Clerk read the resolution (S. Res. 224) submitted by Mr. Brookhart on the 5th instant, as follows:

Whereas it Is estimated that from 1921 to 1927 the retail Mies of all chain stores have increased from approximately 4 per cent to 16 per cent of all retail sales; and

Whereas there are estimated to be less than 4,000 chain-stores systems with over 100,000 stores; and

Whereas many of these chains operate from 100 to several thousand stores; and

Whereas there have been numerous consolidations of chain stores throughout the history of the movement, and particularly In the last few years; and

Whereas these chain stores now control a substantial proportion of the distribution of certain commodities in certain cities, are rapidly increasing this proportion of control in these and other cities, and are beginning to extend this system of merchandising into country districts as well; and

Whereas the continuance of the growth of chain-store distribution and the consolidation of such chain stores may result In the development of monopolistic organizations In certain lines of retail distribution; and

Whereas many of these concerns though engaged in interstate commerce In buying may not be engaged in Interstate commerce in selling; and

Whereas In consequence, the extent to which such consolidations are now, or should be made, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal antitrust laws is a matter of serious concern to the public: Now, therefore, be It

Resolved, That the Federal Trade Commission is hereby directed to undertake an inquiry into the chain-store system of marketing and distribution as conducted by manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing, or other types of chain stores and to ascertain and report to the Senate (1) the extent to which such consolidations have been effected In violation of the antitrust laws, if at all; (2) the extent to which consolidations or combinations of such organizations are susceptible to regulation under the Federal Trade Commission act or the antitrust lows, if at all; and (3) what legislation, if any, should be enacted for the purpose of regulating and controlling chain-store distribution.

And for the Information of the Senate in connection with the aforesaid subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this resolution the commission Is directed to Inquire into and report In full to the Senate (a) the extent to which the chain-store movement has tended to create a monopoly or concentration of control in the distribution of any commodity either locally or nationally; (b) evidences Indicating the existence of unfair methods of competition in commerce or of agreements, conspiracies, or combinations in restraint of trade Involving chain-store distribution; (c) the advantages or disadvantages of chain-store distribution in comparison with those of other types of distribution as shown by prices, costs, profits, and margins, quality of goods and services

rendered by chain stores and other distributors or resulting from Integration, managerial efficiency, low overhead, or other similar causes; (d) how far the rapid Increase in the chain-store system of distribution Is based upon actual savings in costs of management and operation and how far upon quantity prices available only to chain-store distributors or any class of them; (e) whether or not such quantity prices constitute a violation of either the Federal Trade Commission act, the Clayton Act, or any other statute; and (f) what legislation. If any, should be enacted with reference to such quantity prices.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I understand that this resolution was submitted some days ago, that it went over under the rule, and lias not come up because the Senate has not adjourned since that time.

Mr. BROOKHART. That is correct.

Mr. CURTIS. Does the Senator insist upon the preamble being retained, or would it be agreeable to him to have the resolution adopted without the preamble?

Mr. BROOKHART. The preamble Is quite accurate. I will say, and the statements contained in it are borne out by the facts. I should prefer to have it remain in the resolution.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the resolution?

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

The preamble was agreed to.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AND BOULDEB DAM

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask lenve to have printed in the Record three articles, one from the current issue of the Nation, entitled "A million-dollar lobby," another from the Dally News of Washington, D. C., entitled "The Boulder Dam issue," imd one from the New York World, entitled "A challenge to Congress."

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[From the Nation, May 10, 1928]

THE MILLION-DOLLAR LOBBY

We have occasionally shied bricks In the direction of the reorganized Federal Trade Commission, and we feared that its Investigation of the power Interests' lobby would amount to little. The gentleman of the lobby evidently agreed with us, for they tolled manfully to keep the investigation out of the bands of a Senate committee and forced the job on the committee. They expected to control it there. But the Investigation personnel of the Federal Trade Commission went out and got the facts and the documents. They did a good Job. They uncovered important facts. Despite the best efforts of a sleepy and incompetent press they are making news.

Readers of the Hearst newspapers—another organization which we have often dispraised—know what Is being uncovered by the Investigation. The Hearst newspapers have told them. Headers of few other papers know, for with amazingly few exceptions the other papers have slurred the story. We suggest that if our readers think it news, as we do, and have not seen It reported, they ask the editors of their local newspapers why.

The Joint committee of the National Utilities Association, composed of the National Electric Light Association, the American Gas Association, and the American Electric Railway Association, maintains la Washington a gigantic lobby which in each of the past three years has spent In excess of $1,000,000 to oppose Government ownership—" to represent the utilities companies • • • on all matters of pending legislation before Congress," was the polite phrase used by the joint committee's general counsel. This million-dollar committee has been the heart and soul of the opposition to Federal development of Muscle Shoals and Boulder Dam; and It has ex-Senators, ambassadors, exgovernors, newspapermen, and universities on Its pay roll.

The lobby paid $7,500 to Richard Washburn Child, former United States Ambassador to Italy, to prepare an unsigned "booklet" opposing Federal development of Boulder Dam. It paid Ernest Greenwood, former American agent of the League of Nations Labor Office, •n "initial fee" of $5.000 to write a propaganda book, "Aladdin, TJ. 8. A.," published by Harpers. It paid ex-Senator Lenroot of Wisconsin at least two fees of $10,000 each to lobby for it among his former colleagues. It paid the law flrm of Meechem & Vellacott of Albuquerque, N. Mex., $5,299.60 to "report" the governor*' conference on Boulder Dam at a time when Merrltt Meeehem. former governor of New Mexico, wns supposed to be representing the Stale of New Mexico at that conference. It paid the General Federation of Women's Clubs $30,000 for an "urban and rural home survey." It paid the Harvard Graduate School, in three years, $82,000 for "research" which, after study of the views of the responsible professors, it felt safe; and after equally careful study of the professorial llchl it contributed at least $62,500 (perhaps $95,000) to Northwestern University, $12,249.37 to the University of Michigan, $3,OOO to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, $5,OOO to Johns Hopkins Uulversify, and $33,000 to Howard University. It has 28 committees working in 38 States, teaching that "government ownership is the masked advance agent of communism."

Samuel Insull—the same Instill who tried to buy a seat In the United States Senate for Frank L. Smith of Illinois—is the largest individual contributor to the million-dollar fund, but one-quarter of all the utility companies in the United States contribute to It

This national committee Is only the capstone of the enormous propaganda structure maintained by the public-utility companies. The Illinois Committee on Public Utility Information, founded by Mr. Insull, was one of the pioneers in the field, and it is admitted to have served as a model for the work in more than a score of other States. It was Rob Roy MacGregor of this committee who, when asked how to campaign against a Senator who believed in public ownership, penned the famous memorandum explaining: "My idea would be not to try reason, or logic, but to try to pin the Bolshevik idea on 013- opponent."

Mr. MacGregor's committee was the pathfinder In work in the public schools. It began with a thorough study of textbooks dealing with public-utility questions. It circularized local companies, urging them to set to work on local school boards and through personal friendships to have "bad" books removed. This, it reported, "is a very slow process, but has to be gone through with." Then it sought to prevent the publication of more "bad" books. It urged its members to work through "personal friends in publishing houses." It wrote letters to the universities and discovered Just which professors were writing on the subject. It offered these budding authors the honeyed bait of "reliable statistics" together with aid in getting their books marketed. "We have located," the industrious committee reported, "practically every textbook and also have found the textbooks in course of preparation, and have been able to be of considerable assistance to the writers of these books in providing them with reliable data." Finally, as a result of persistent effort, B. J. Mullancy, of the Illinois committee, was able to report that it had got to the point where "635 Illinois high schools, more than three-quarters of the total number, use specially prepared utility-industries literature In the classrooms."

In Connecticut a similar committee planted more than 10,000 grossly false public-utilities "catechisms" in 76 high schools; and In Pennsylvania 30,000 sets of pamphlets, four to a set, were distributed among county superintendents for use in the schools. Presumably similar practices have been followed in other States, but the witnesses have not yet appeared on the stand.

The energetic Illinois committee not only arranged for its own selected speakers (1,137 speeches In 18 months) and distributed its tons of literature (5,000,000 pieces of literature before it was two years old); it circulated blacklists similar to those used by the D. A. R. in the hope, apparently, of keeping the public-ownership point of view from any expression whatever. It even prepared pamphlets for its agents on how to talk to grade-school pupils.

"Is there any method of publicity not used by your organization?" Judge Healy asked one of the propagandists.

"Only one that I know of," he replied, "and that's sky-writing."

Of course, the newspapers were a rich field for cultivation. Perhaps that explains their lack of interest in the investigation. The Illinois committee mails a weekly news service to 900 newspapers in Illinois. Keeping tab on its utilization has become expensive, but In its first year an average of 5,000 column-inches of material prepared by the utilities committee lobby was printed every month in the Illinois newspapers, and the second year, when the clipping service was discontinued, the r«te was running higher still. The New England lobby reported that in 1927, 7,203% column-inches of its material—enough to fill 56% eightcolumn pages of solid reading matter—had appeared in the news columns of New England papers and 1,584 column-Inches in the editorial columns!

Mr. Mullnney estimated that the utilities companies spend from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 annually in direct advertising, and all th» committees showed themselves insistent that local-utilities advertisers should maintain their contacts with local editors. One of the most disheartening revelations of the investigation was the letter written by the advertising manager of David Lawrence's United States Dally suggesting a $200,000 advertising campaign in that paper and outlining a program by which the bills conld be charged to 52 local companies, "so that there could be no possible ground for criticism on the ground that one organization or institution was conducting a general campaign." It Is fair to Mr. Lawrence to add that his paper, although somewhat belatedly, has been printing the verbatim testimony before the Federal Trade Commission. Furthermore, it did not get the $200,000 advertising contract.

It has been charged that whole strings of newspapers were to have beTM bought in the interest of the public utilities. This charge has not been definitely proved. One of the chief buttresses of this charge is the history of Ira C. Copley, an Illinois public-utilities magnate, who in 1026 sold out most of his utilities interests to Samuel Insull and went into the newspaper business. After purchasing one string of newspapers in Illinois be Invaded California, buying three papers in San Diego, and

Immediately killing that one of tbem which had supported Government ownership. When the charge was made, Mr. Copley published In his papers the statement that—

"I have no connection with any public utilities anywhere, and no connection with any companies [other] than the newspaper business anywhere."

One month before making that statement Mr. Copley had resigned as president of the Western United Gas & Electric Co. and of the Southern Illinois Gas Co., and at the time of making It he still held preferred stock of the company to a value of $2,400.000, bonds to a value of $1,000,000, $70,600 in preferred stock of its holding company, and 50,000 shares of no-par-value Class A common stock—enough to assure himself of a directorship at any time he wanted It. Mr. Copley's editors, however, Insisted that while they agreed with him in opposition to Government ownership, he had never given them any Instructions on the subject and they had written little about it.

The legislatures and the politicians appear in the picture, too. A letter found In the flies of Robert V. Prnthcr, secretary treasurer of various Illinois public utility associations, read:

"The legislature is in session here, and It looks like a very stormy session, and I could use handily a little 'J. Walker' to very good aoVvantage, and it occurs to me that you could do me n very great favor if the first time you are coming west you would call on a friend of mine in New York and bring me half n dozen."

That was in 1021. In 1925 Mr. 1'ratlier wrote another letter suggesting that he needed "something to sweeten up the palates of the legislature." lie did not explain whether he wanted "J. Walker" or what.

The gentleman who placed the public-utility catechisms In the Connecticut public schools, the commission discovered, is also the publicity agent of the Republican State committee. J. U. Blgelow, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic State committee, got- $1,000 from the lobby; John P. Connelly, of Varc's Republican machine in Philadelphia, got $14,103. Walter H. Johnson, chairman of the public-policy committee of the Pennsylvania Electric Association, an avowed lobbyist at the State capital, could not account for $20,225 which had recently passed through his hands. He thought he might have used some of It to watch "pinch bills"—bills introduced by legislators in order to make the utilities "come across."

"Across with what?" he was asked.

"With cash," he replied; but he insisted that he had "fallen for no plncher yet." He explained, however, that he had kept no accounts, because he did not want it known who got his money.

Schools, press, legislatures—the power and utilities gentlemen have flooded the country with money and lies. The Government's Investment In Muscle Shoals has been hamstrung and the water still pours idly through Boulder Canyon—tributes to the success of the million-dollar lobby in fightiiig public development of natural resources.

[From the Washington Daily News, Friday, May 11, 19281

THB BOULDER DIM I88UB

This paper believes no measure now pending In Congress is of more Importance than the Swing-Johnson Boulder Dam bill.

When this bill first came before Congress it came as a measure for the protection of lives and property from flood and drought. We believed it deserving of support on that basis. There can be no dispute on a policy of life-saving.

But there can be, It has developed, dispute on a protective policy when there is Involved with it a question of profit to a great business; and as a test of whether protection for any group of people, now or hereafter, shall depend on possible gain or loss to private capital, thin paper believes the Boulder Dam bill Infinitely more deserving of support.

This Is not all.

Passage of the bill means dollars and cents In the porkets of every taxpayer In the country.

And again, the same principle on which the bill is based, of letting necessary projects pay for themselves when possible, will mean many more dollars and cents in the pockets of taxpayers In the future.

Finally, the passage or nonpassage of this bill will give the country an adequate idea of the present strength of the amazing power lobby and nation-wide propaganda organization which uvenU of the past few months have disclosed.

As soon as possible a dam must be built in the Colorado River for control of floods and storage of water for times of drought.

Even those who are opposing the Swing-Johnson bill realize that.

It is either going to be paid for by the people of the Southwest who will benefit by it, as the Swing-Johnson bill provides, or It is going to be paid for by all the taxpayers of the country, as the power Industry desires.

To us It seems there is no more reason for forcing a Federal gratuity upon people willing to pay for safety than there is for forcing free food and lodging upon a man willing to work for it.

And expenditure by the power industry of rnte-pnyers' money to convert thorn to such an idea seems to us like adding Insult to injury.

The Boulder Dam! project has been declared Bound from an engineering aud economic standpoint by some of the greatest engineers and economists of the country.

It does not propose to "put the Government Into business" or Interfere in any way with legitimate private Initiative.

It proposes to utilize the power which will be available at the dam by wholesaling It to cities and private companies. The revenue so derived will pay all the cost of the work.

There are few people who seriously contend the Government ought to usurp the field of business. Likewise there can be few to seriously contend that the Government may not go into a new territory and make Its development there self-supporting without Injuring any business in so doing.

Because it involves this issue, the measure, now so much more than a local project, is of direct personal interest to each resident of the United States.

The people should protest if 1(8 passage is again blocked by a small group of men in Congress.

[From the New York World]

A CHALLENQH TO CONGRESS

On Thursday debate on the Swing-Johnson bill for Boulder Dam was begun In the Senate. This is an Important bill. The action which Congress takes on It will answer an Important question. If the Senate rejects this bill, its decision will show the country that the power lobby, an organization by no means mythical but openly at work In Washington, is able to dictate the power policies of this Government.

We regard this as a fair statement of the case, by no means exaggerated, for the reason that there is only one point on which the issue is squarely joined—and on this point the interests of the power lobby and the interests of the public are In conflict. No one seriously questions the advisability of building a dam in Boulder Canyon, or, as an alternative, in Black Canyon. The possibility of a disastrous flood in the lower Colorado valley is a constant menace.

Xor does anyone seriously question the advantages which would result from the construction of a dam. There Is competent engineering authority behind the statement that a dam will protect against flood a great valley of 400,000 acres lying in a sink several hundred feet below the channel of the river; that it will open another 400,000 acres to irrigation; and that it will develop at least 1,000,000 horsepower for hydroelectric generation.

Finally, there Is no real basis for the assertion that the cost of construction would "mulct" the taxpayers of the country. As Senator Johnson pointed out in presenting the bill on Thursday, no money Is to be advanced until contracts have been made for the delivery of water and of power, assuring the Government repayment of its Investment, with interest on its money.

Why, then, is the bill being fought every inch of the way, bitterly and tirelessly, by the power lobby?

Because It permits the Government to build power plants and to operate these power plants on certain terms. The bill does not "put the Government In the power industry," though there is every good reason why the Government should be put in the power Industry nt Boulder Dam—and the bill would be Improved by being so amended. The bill as it stands simply provides that if the Government can not make satisfactory contracts for the sale of power rights, then It may full back upon Government operation as an alternative rather than surrender these rights on any bargain-counter terms the power companies may choose to name. It Is this minimum safeguard which the power lobby wishes to strike out.

One thing Is clear: If the power lobby can go to the mat on these terms and win, then Congress has abdicated the field of power legislation and a new legislative body Is supreme.

An Interesting and important test of authority has begun in Washington.

NAVIGATION ON THE GREAT LAKES

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, there are on the calendar two bills which have to do with navigation on the Great Lakes which I should like to have considered and passed at this time. They have been recommended by the Bureau of Navigation; have passed the House of Representatives unanimously, imd have been reported by the Committee oil Commerce. They should be passed at once if they are to be passed at all. because navigation is about to open on the Lakes, and the provisions of the bills should go into effect promptly.

Mr. CURTIS. Did I understand the Senator to say that the passage of the bill has been asked for by the department?

Mr. COPELAND. Yes; by the Bureau of Navigation.

Mr. CURTIS. Very well. Let the titles of the bill be stated.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bills will be stated by title.

The Chief Clerk. Order of Business 1128. being the bill (II. R. 18032) to amend the act of February 8. 1895. entitled "An act to regulate navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters"; and Order of Business

1129, being the bill (H. R.'13037) to amend section 1, rule 2, rule 3, subdivision (e), and rule 9 of an act to regulate navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters, enacted February 8, 1895 (oh. 64, 28 Stat. L., sec. 645).

Mr. KING. In a word, may I ask the Senator from New York what the bills provide?

Mr. COPELAND. The bills have to do with lights on boats. The boats used to be short, and the law has not been changed since 1895. The boats now in use are so long that it is desired to have better lights so that lights at each end of a boat 400 or 500 feet long may not be thought to be simply channel lights. That is all.

Mr. KING. Has not the Bureau of Navigation now all the necessary authority to deal witli the subject?

Mr. COPELAND. No; not where the boats are more than 30 tons.

Mr. KING. The bills: will not disturb the regulations with respect to tonnage, weights, and so forth?

Mr. COPELAND. Not at all.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to consideration of the first bill mentioned by the Senator from New York?

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 13032) to amend the act of February 8, 1895. entitled "An act to regulate navigation on the Great Lakes aud their connecting and tributary waters," which was read, as follows:

He it enacted, etc., That rule 7 of the act of Congress approved February 8, 1895. entitled "An act to regulate navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting aud tributary waters," be amended so us to read as follows:

"Ki'LE 7. The lights for tugs under 100 tons register (net), whose principal business is harbor towing, and for boats navigating only on the Hiver St. Lawrence, also ferryboats, rafts, and canal boats, shall be regulated by rules which have been or may hereafter be prescribed by the Board of Supervising Inspectors of Steam Vessels."

Skc. 2. All laws or- parts of laws Inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.

Sec. 3. This act shall take effect on and after its approval.

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

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (H. R. 13037) to amend section 1, rule 2; rule 3, subdivision (e) ; and rule 9 of an act to regulate navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters, enacted February 8, 1895 (cli. 64, 28 Stat. L., sec. 645), which was read, as follows:

Be ft enacted, etc., That rule 2, rule 3, subdivision (e), and rule !) of section 1 of an net entitled "An act to regulate navigation on tha Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters," enacted February 8, 1895, and being chapter 64, Twenty-eighth Statutes at Large, section G45, be, aud the same are, respectively, hereby amended so as to read as follows:

"Rule 2. The lights mentioned In the following rules, and no others which may be mistaken for the prescribed lights, shall be exhibited in nil weathers from sunset to sunrise. The word 'visible' In these rules, when applied to lights, shall mean visible on a dark night with a clear atmosphere.

"Rule 3, subdivision (e). A steamer of over 150 feet register length shall carry also, when under way, a bright white light so fixed as to throw the light all around the horizon, and of such character as to be visible at a distance of at least 3 miles. Such light shall be placed In line with the keel at least 15 fret higher from the deck and more than 75 feet abaft the light mentioned In subdivision (e): or In lieu thereof two such lights of the same character and height as herein described placed not over 30 Inches apart horizontally. on« on either side of the keel, and so arranged that one or the other or both shall be visible from any angle of approach.

"Rule 9. A vessel under 150 feet register length, when at anchor, shall carry forward, where it can best be seen, but at a beignt not exceeding 20 feet above the hull, a white light constructed so as to show a clear, uniform, and unbroken light visible all around the horizon at a distance of at least 1 mile.

"A vessel of 150 feet or upward In register length, when nt anchor, shall carry In the forward part of the vessel two white lights at the same height of not less than 20 and not exceeding 40 feet above the hull and not less than 10 feet apart horizontally and athwartships, except that each need not be visible all around the horizon, but so arranged that one or the other, or both, shall show a clear, uniform, and unbroken light and be visible from any angle of approach at a distance of at least 1 mile; and at or near the stern of the vessel two similar lights similarly arranged and at such a height that they shall not be less than 15 feet lower than the forward lights. In addition the 4 anchor lights above specified, at least 1 white deck light shall be displayed in every Interval of 100 feet along tlie deck. measuring from the forward lights, said deck lights to be not less than 2 feet above the deck and arranged, so far as intervening structures will permit, so as to be visible from any angle of approach.”

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. CLARENCE. D. CHAMBERLIN AND CHARLEs A. LEVINE Mr. BROOKHART. From the Committee on Military Affairs I report back favorably, with an amendment, the bill (S. 39.44) authorizing the President to present, in the name of Congress, a medal of honor to Clarence D. Chamberlin. I ask unanimous consent for immediate consideration of the bill. There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. The amendment of the Committee on Military Affairs was to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: The amendment was to strike out all after the enacting clause and in lieu thereof to insert the following:

That the President be, and is hereby, authorized to award, in the name of Congress, gold medals of appropriate design to Clarence D. Chamberlain, pilot, and Charles A. Levine, organizer and participant, for their extraordinary achievement in making the first successful nonstop airplane flight from the United States to Germany, in June, 1927.

The amendment was agreed to.

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

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

The title was amended so as to read: “A bill authorizing the President to present, in the name of Congress, gold medals of appropriate design to Clarence D. Chamberlain and Charles A. Levine.”

Executive session

Mr. CURTIS. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After five minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened.

recess

Mr. CURTIS. I move that the Senate take a recess until Monday at 12 o'clock noon.

The motion was agreed to ; and (at 5 o'clock and 25 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until Monday, May 14, 1928, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATIONS Eacecutive nominations received by the Senate May 12 (legislalative day of May 3), 1928 PoSTMASTERS - ALABAMA

Ethel M. Fowler to be postmaster at Theodore, Ala., in place of C. S. Mathers. Incumbent's commission expired January 3, 1928.

Oscar Sheffield to be postmaster at Pine Hill, Ala., in place of Oscar Sheffield. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928.

Ira C. Chapman to be postmaster at Deatsville, Ala., in place of I. C. Chapman. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928.

James P. Aaron to be postmaster at Camp Hill, Ala., in place of J. P. Aaron. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928.

Arkansas

Fletcher G. Kennedy to be postmaster at Cotton Plant, Ark., in place of F. G. Kennedy. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928.

Legrand K. Charles to be postmaster at Eureka Springs, Ark., in place of L. K. Charles. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928.

George E. Crosby to be postmaster at Pangburn, Ark., in place of G. E. Crosby. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928.

William H. Tucker to be postmaster at Casa, Ark., in place of W. H. Tucker. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928.

CALIFORNIA

William Braucht to be postmaster at Whittier, Calif., in place of William Braucht. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928.

Alfred Gourdier to be postmaster at Torrance, Calif., in place of Alfred Gourdier. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928.

Earle R. Hawley to be postmaster at Stockton, Calif., in place of E. R. Hawley. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928.

Ernest R. Rhymes to be postmaster at Sanitarium, Calif., in place of E. R. Rhymes. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. John H. Strauch, jr., to be postmaster at San Gabriel, Calif., in place of J. H. Strauch, jr. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. Louis P. Miller to be postmaster at Rio Vista, Calif., in place of L. P. Miller. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. Myrtle H. Turner to be postmaster at Reseda, Calif., in place of M. H. Turner. Incumbent's commission expires May 14, 1928. Edward A. Baker to be postmaster at Point Loma, Calif., in place of E. A. Baker. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. William C. Werry to be postmaster at Palo Alto, Calif., in place of W. C. Werry. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. Charles H. Coffey, jr., to be postmaster at Gonzales, Calif., in place of C. H. Coffey, jr. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. John H. B. Speer to be postmaster at Delano, Calif., in place of J. H. B. Speer. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. Roland L. Curran to be postmaster at Bakersfield, Calif., in place of R. L. Curran. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. Belle Hicks to be postmaster at Armona, Calif., in place of Belle Hicks. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. color Ado

Edna A. McCormick to be postmaster at Sedgwick, Colo., in place of E. A. McCormick. Incumbent's commission expires

June 5, 1928. Erman D. Acton to be postmaster at Oak Creek, Colo., in place of E. D. Acton. Incumbent's commission expires May 14, 1928. CoNNECTICUT

Anna C. Tucker to be postmaster at Sandy Hook, Conn., in place of A. C. Tucker. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. Hawaii

Joseph F. Xavier to be postmaster at Puunene, Hawaii, in place of J. F. Xavier. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. Alice J. Brown to be postmaster at Paia, Hawaii, in place of A. J. Brown. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. Joseph Herrscher to be postmaster at Haua, Hawaii, in place of Joseph Herrscher. Incumbent's commission expires June 5, 1928. id:AHo Keith C. Merrill to be postmaster at Paul, Idaho, in place of C. F. Clark, resigned. William L. Killpack to be postmaster at Driggs, Idaho, in place of W. L. Killpack. Incumbent's commission expired April 19, 1928. ILLINois Harry L. Dean to be postmaster at Witt, Ill., in place of H. L. Dean. Incumbent's commission expires May 20, 1928. Lela Seneff to be postmaster at Westfield, Ill., in place of Lela Seneff. Incumbent's commission expires June 4, 1928. Willis A. Myers to be postmaster at Wenona, Ill., in place of W. A. Myers. Incumbent's commission expires June 4, 1928. John Wacker to be postmaster at Techny, Ill., in place of John Wacker. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. Herman O. Manuel to be postmaster at Steger, Ill., in place of H. O. Manuel. Incumbent's commission expires June 4, 1928. Walter E. Dimick to be postmaster at Rosiclare, Ill., in place of W. E. Dimick. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. August Kalbitz to be postmaster at Red Bud, Ill., in place of August Kalbitz. Incumbent's commission expires May 20, 1928. Jesse L. Jones to be postmaster at Rantoul, Ill., in place of J. L. Jones. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. Charles H. Cottrell to be postmaster at Quincy, Ill., in place of C. H. Cottrell. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. Edward E. Gott to be postmaster at Norris City, Ill., in place of E. E. Gott. Incumbent's commission expires June 6, 1928. Charles T. Gilkerson to be postmaster at Marengo, Ill., in place of C. T. Gilkerson. Incumbent's commission expired February 10, 1927. William M. Amos to be postmaster at Huntley, Ill., in place of C. W. Clanton. Incumbent's commission expired September 8, 1926. Jacob L. Pfundstein to be postmaster at Erie, Ill., in place of J. L. Pfundstein. Incumbent's commission expires June 4, 1928.

« ПретходнаНастави »