The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON] asked me to ask that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
There was no objection.

NAVAL ESCORT FOR BODIES OF DECEASED OFFICERS, ETC. The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12694) authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to provide an escort for the bodies of deceased officers, enlisted men, and nurses.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have conferred with the distinguished lady from Massachusetts [Mrs. ROGERS]. It is understood that this is simply discretionary and that it will not necessitate the detail of an officer or man in each instance where the body is sent a great distance.

Mrs. ROGERS. No; it is discretionary with the Secretary of the Navy. The Navy has been very much embarrassed and greatly criticized because at the present time they are prohibited from sending an escort with the body of an officer who dies; there is no authorization for sending a person as escort for an enlisted man, and in a number of instances the friends of the officers have collected money they could ill afford to spend to send an escort so that the family might feel that the Navy was not remiss in paying a certain and only decent respect to the dead.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. And, of course, this applies to the bodies of officers and men?

Mrs. ROGERS. Yes; and also of nurses-
The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, is hereby authorized to furnish an escort not to exceed one person to the place of burial for the bodies of officers, enlisted men, or nurses who have lost their lives in the naval service. Such expenses as are incurred for this purpose shall be paid from the proper appropriation: Provided, That section 1587 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is hereby repealed.

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

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

ANNUAL CONVENTION, AMERICAN LEGION, NEW YORK

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12621) to authorize the Secretary of War to lend War Department equipment for use at annual State convention of the American Legion of New York.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of War be, and is hereby, authorized to lend, at his discretion, to the American Legion convention committee, for use at the annual State convention, to be held at Schenectady, N. Y.. on September 6, 7, and 8, 1928, 500 cots, 500 mattresses, and 1,500 blankets: Provided, That no expense shall be caused the United States Government by the delivery and return of said property. the same to be delivered at such time prior to the holding of the said convention as may be agreed upon by the Secretary of War and the general chairman of said convention committee of the American Legion. Joseph E. Haubner: Provided further, That the Secretary of War before delivering said property shall take from said Joseph E. Haubner a good and sufficient bond for the safe return of said property in good order and condition, and the whole without expense to the United States.

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

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE RIO GRANDE NEAR WESLACO, TEX.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that we now return to the bill H. R. 12877, Calendar No. 692. A little while ago I asked to have it passed over.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent to return to Calendar No. 692. The Clerk will report the bill.

The Clerk read the bill:

Be it enacted, etc., That in order to facilitate international commerce, improve the Postal Service, and provide for military and other purposes, the Los Olmos International Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, be, and is hereby authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Rio Grande River, so far as the United States has jurisdiction over the waters of such river, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, at or near Weslaco, Tex., in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906, subject to the approval of the proper authorities in Mexico.

SEC. 2. There is hereby conferred upon the Los Olmos International Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, all such rights and powers to enter upon lands and to acquire, condemn, occupy, possess, and use real estate and other property in the State of Texas needed for the location, construction, operation, and maintenance of such bridge and its approaches as are possessed by railroad corporations for railroad purposes or by bridge corporations for bridge purposes in the State of Texas, upon making just compensation therefor, to be ascertained and paid according to the laws of such State, and the proceedings therefor shall be the same as in the condemnation or expropriation of property for public purposes in such State.

SEC. 3. The said Los Olmos International Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, is hereby authorized to fix and charge tolls for transit over such bridge in accordance with any laws of Texas applicable thereto, and the rates of toll so fixed shall be the legal rates until changed by the Secretary of War under the authority contained in the act of March 23, 1926.

SEC. 4. The right to sell, assign, transfer, and mortgage all the rights, powers, and privileges conferred by this act is hereby granted to the Los Olmos International Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, and any corporation to which or any person to whom such rights, powers, and privileges may be sold, assigned, or transferred, or who shall acquire the same by mortgage foreclosure or otherwise, is hereby authorized and empowered to exercise the same as fully as though conferred herein directly upon such corporation or person. SEC. 5. The right to alter, amend. or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. GARNER] gave me the information that this company is composed of local people whose intention is to construct the bridge.

Mr. GARNER of Texas. This application is made by local people, the mayor, and city council, and two bankers. It is for the accommodation of business and trade going into Mexico. Mr. SCHAFER. It is not for use to bring over this cheap Mexican labor to compete with our American labor?

Mr. GARNER of Texas. No; I think those Americans who go over there want to go over in order to get what we have not got in Texas. [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the committee amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 1, line 8, strike out the word "River."

Page 2, at the end of line 4, insert "conditions and limitations contained in this act and subject to the."

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill as amended.

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

A motion to reconsider the last vote was laid on the table.

RELIEF OF THE TOWN OF SPRINGDALE, UTAH The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12706) for the relief of the town of Springdale, Utah. The title of the bill was read.

domestic and other uses within the limits of said town of Springdale, Utah, as now constituted, water from certain springs in the Zion National Park, Utah, situated at the head of what is known as Oak Creek, which crosses the main highway about one-half mile below the park boundary, and located in approximately section 20, township 41 south, range 10 west, Salt Lake meridian, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, and subject further to the right of said Secretary to terminate any permit granted hereunder when, in his judgment, the particular water shall at any time be needed by the Government in the administration and protection of the Zion National Park: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to assert on behalf of the United States or deny to the State of Utah the ownership of the waters aforesaid.

With committee amendments as follows:

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments.

The committee amendments were agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

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

CLAIMS OF THE KANSAS OR KAW TRIBE OF INDIANS

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 8901) to amend and further extend the benefits of the act approved March 3, 1925, entitled "An act conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, examine, and enter judgment in any and all claims, of whatever nature, which the Kansas or Kaw Tribe of Indians may have or claim to have against the United States, and for other purposes."

The title of the bill was read.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.

TO AMEND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACT

Mr. SPEAKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill H. R. 13446 may be taken from the Union Calendar and considered at this time, for the reason that it is of an emergency nature.

Mr. Speaker, when the Army appropriation was under consideration early in the session quite a controversy occurred over the question of providing funds for the annual school for smallarms firing and rifle competition. The House finally approved the expenditure, the Senate concurring.

In order that authority for making this training activity an annual event, I introduced H. R. 8550, which passed the House and went to the Senate, where everything after the enacting clause was stricken from the bill and new matter inserted, materially altering its original purpose. It was passed by the House in this form, disapproved by the President, returned to the House, and referred to the Military Committee. I then introduced H. R. 13446, containing the features of the original bill, which is now on the Union Calendar with a favorable report.

Fearing that the bill will not be reached before adjournment and that when the War Department budget is being prepared no authorization for this training program will exist, and that the National Guard reserve and other nonprofessional forces will again be under the necessity of fighting for their program, I request unanimous consent that H. R. 13446 be taken up for consideration at this time.

The SPEAKER. The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman from Ohio if he has consulted with the members of the Committee on Military Affairs in regard to that bill.

Mr. SPEAKS. The acting chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is present. I have spoken with him in regard to it.

Mr. JAMES. The gentleman has no authority from the committee, because the matter never came before our committee; but the bill he refers to is substantially the same bill as was reported out of our committee and reported unanimously. It is not the bill that was vetoed by the President. This is substantially the same bill as was reported unanimously from our committee. I hope the bill will be passed

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Is this bill on the Consent Calendar? Mr. SPEAKS. It is on the Union Calendar. I ask this consideration for the reason that next fall, if it is not passed now,

we will be confronted with the exact condition of controversy that came up when the bill was up before. There will be a repetition of it unless we make the authorization here.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Why was not the bill put on the Consent Calendar?

Mr. SPEAKS. That was an oversight. The intention was that it should be considered before adjournment. I think you will agree with me that there is little likelihood of that unless we pass it now.

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.

WINNEBAGO TRIBE OF INDIANS

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 7346) conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims to hear, examine, adjudicate, and enter judgment thereon in claims which the Winnebago Tribe of Indians may have against the United States, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be passed over without prejudice.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, this is a jurisdictional bill that has come from the Committee on Indian Affairs and it seems to me the House is entitled to have some explanation as to why such request is made.

Mr. HOOPER. I am prepared to give the gentleman an explanation. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON] is sick. He has made a special study of these matters, and he asked that I make this request.

Mr. HASTINGS. If that is the situation I have no objection. Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill may be passed over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE OHIO RIVER

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12563) authorizing the West Kentucky Bridge & Transportation Co., its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Ohio River at or near Henderson, Ky.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Is there objection to the present considera

Mr. Speaker, I object.

The SPEAKER. tion of the bill? Mr. SCHAFER. Mr. KINCHELOE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for doing something I was going to do myself. I want to say, so that the people of Indiana may know, that if it had not been for the gentleman from Wisconsin asking unanimous consent to keep H. R. 11357, the other Indiana bill, on the calendar more than anybody else, it would have passed the House some time ago,

Mr. SCHAFER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is out of order and his remarks should be stricken from the RECORD. The bill was objected to and he had no right to make his last speech under the parliamentary situation, as he spoke neither under a reservation to object or by unanimous consent.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I want to know whether the gentleman denies that statement.

Mr. SCHAFER. Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for two minutes in order to answer the gentleman.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Wisconsin asks unanimous consent to speak out of order for two minutes. Is there objection?

Mr. KINCHELOE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I couple with that the request that the gentleman from Kentucky, myself, may have two minutes.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. May I ask both gentlemen to withhold their debate or duel and to withdraw their requests at this time? Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my request

Mr. SCHAFER. for the present. Mr. KINCHELOE. If the gentleman asks that I am delighted.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE ALLEGHENY RIVER

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 12913) to extend the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge across the Allegheny River at or near the borough of Eldred, McKean County, Pa. The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the times for commencing and completing the construction of the bridge across the Allegheny River at or near the borough of Eldred, McKean County, Pa., authorized to be built by the commissioners of McKean County, Pa., by the act of Congress approved May 13, 1926, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from the date of approval hereof.

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

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

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

BRIDGE ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 13069) granting the consent of Congress to the State of Minnesota to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge across the Mississippi River, at or near Aitkin, Minn. The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the consent of Congress is hereby granted to the State of Minnesota to construct, maintain, and operate a free highway bridge and approaches thereto across the Mississippi River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, at or near Aitkin, Minn., in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906.

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

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

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri offers an amendment to the committee amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment to the committee amendment offered by Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri: Page 1, line 4, strike out the words "or information or." Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, if you will look at the first paragraph of this bill you will see that it reads "that whenever a warrant issues by order of court on any indictment or any information heretofore

or hereafter returned or filed."

Now, what does that mean? I have no objection to bringing a man into the jurisdiction of a certain court on an indictment because it is reasonable to assume that the grand jury has heard the evidence and found it sufficient, in their opinion, to convict. You must remember that an information can be issued by a district attorney by simply signing his name to a piece of paper. Now, what does that mean? That means you can bring a man from Seattle, Wash., to Miami, Fla., on the signature of a district attorney who might be misinformed as to the facts or acting through spite.

I think this bill goes too far, and while I do not want to appear as offering an objection to bringing criminals before the court having proper jurisdiction after they have been indicted, I do not feel you should provide that when an information is issued a man must respond, because the court issues the warrant upon application of the district attorney and makes no inquiry as to the facts. There is a great deal of difference between an indictment and an information. Leave out information and I will support the bill. We should speed up the prosecution of criminals but do not place too much power in the hands of the district attorney; it might be abused. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Yes.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Where does the gentleman get the infor

WARRANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 9784) for the issuance and execution of warrants in criminal cases and to authorize bail.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

signature of the district attorney?

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. How is an information issued? Mr. LAGUARDIA, Before you can apprehend a man you must have a bench warrant.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. The bill says "or information." It does not say that a man has to be indicted. Bench warrants automatically issued when the district attorney asks for one. Mr. LAGUARDIA. He would not be indicted on a mis

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. No.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. And this is always on some one's respon

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That whenever a warrant issues by order of court on any indictment or information now or hereafter returned or filed, such warrant may be addressed to any marshal or deputy marshal of the United States and may be executed in any place within the limits of the United States, or subject to the jurisdiction thereof, by the arrest of the person named therein and his removal forthwith to the district wherein the indictment or information is pending, there to be committed, let to bail, and otherwise dealt with according to law: Provided, That where any person so arrested in a district other than the district wherein the indictment or information is pending is entitled to bail, he shall be admitted to bail upon application therefor, by any justice or judge of the United States, or United States commissioner of such district for his appearance for trial in the court in which such indictment or information is pending; and where any person so admitted to bail fails to appear according to the terms of any bond or undertaking given for such appearance, and such bail is forfeited, he shall not again be admitted to bail unless by the judge of the court in which such indictment or information is pending: Provided further, That it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest in a district other than the district in which the indictment is found or information filed to take the person so arrested, if requested so to do, before such justice, judge, or commissioner for the purpose of giving bail.

With the following committee amendment: Page 1, line 4, strike out the word "now and insert in lieu thereof the word "heretofore"; page 2, line 1, strike out the words "committed, let to bail, and otherwise "; and in line 6, after the words "United States," insert the words "or the Philippine Islands." Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment: In line 4, page 1, strike out the words "or information or."

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Suppose the district attorney has been misinformed as to the facts. Why can he not wait until he brings his case before the grand jury?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Suppose the district attorney is misinformed as to the facts, he would be misinformed when he presented it to the grand jury.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. It would depend on whether the man would go before the grand jury and make the same statement under oath. He might say something to the district attorney not under oath that he would not say when he goes before the grand jury and is placed under oath. Does the gentleman want somebody in New York taken all the way to San Francisco because the district attorney in San Francisco issues an information against him?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. NoMr. COCHRAN of Missouri. how far back are you going? Mr. LAGUARDIA. The gentleman is familiar with the statute of limitations.

You also say here "heretofore";

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. The gentleman from New York has been complaining about the action of the Federal courts, and I think the gentleman ought to give some attention to this

matter.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I never complain of the action of the Federal courts in getting criminals.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Neither do I.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I complain of the Federal courts in "butting in" where they have absolutely no jurisdiction. That is my complaint against the Federal courts.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Under the terms of this bill the man is deprived of the right he now has to raise the question of probable cause.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. He can raise that question in the jurisdiction where he is brought.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Yes; when he is brought there.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. He can give bail and go there of his own accord.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Suppose you were to take a man from New York to St. Louis, into a strange territory, or from St. Louis to Miami, Fla., simply on an information.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. The man must have been there in order to commit a crime.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. He is accused of it, not by a grand jury, but on an information which is a one-sided affair. Mr. LAGUARDIA. A grand jury proceeding is a one-sided proceeding.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. It is, to a certain extent.
Mr. LAGUARDIA. To every extent.

Mr. DENISON. I think the proper amendment would be to strike out the enacting clause.

Mr. WHITE of Colorado. I think so, too. So it strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that we ought not to establish this kind of a precedent in our country where a citizen without an opportunity to give bail or to show before a tribunal that he is not the party that is designated in the warrant may be taken anywhere in the United States. Who is going to pay the expenses of the return of the person so arrested and removed-when it is established that he is not the party named in the warrant? Mr. LAGUARDIA. If he could establish that he is not the person named in the warrant this bill does not affect his rights. Mr. WHITE of Colorado. They do not give him the oppor

Mr. LAGUARDIA. The gentleman knows that if it was a matter of mistaken identity he is protected by habeas corpus. Mr. WHITE of Colorado. But he will be taken from his home town across the country before he knows that he has such rights. Unless he demands it, the arresting officer can take him at once across the country.. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has expired.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman states but one side of the question. The other side of the question is that we have crooks who are engaged in selling fraudulent oil stock and other false articles, using the mails for purposes of fraud, who simply can not be brought to trial by the Department of Justice by reason of existing law. All that this bill does is this: That where an indictment is found or a bench warrant

Mr. SPROUL of Kansas. What is the difference?

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Here is the difference: Suppose you are trying to make a case, and you are the district attorney, and you are having trouble getting the information, and you get hold of a man who lives in your jurisdiction, and you say to him, "Now, we have all the facts. We know that Jim Smith and John Jones in New York and you here in St. Louis conspired to violate this law. Now, give us the information and tell us all about it and we will use you as a Government witness and we will get the men in New York." The district attorney then issues the information. They do not verify this man's statements. It is just as easy to take this man before the grand jury and indict if the facts warrant it. If they follow that procedure, I do not object.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired.

Mr. CHINDBLOM and Mr. WHITE of Colorado rose.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WHITE of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out the last word of the committee amendment.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. WHITE] is recognized.

Mr. WHITE of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this bill in my judgment is one of the most vicious that has come before this body. It is in substantial effect a return to the dark ages. What does it propose? It provides that if a warrant is issued the marshal or deputy marshal in whose hands it is placed may go anywhere in the United States and arrest the designated perpetrator of the crime alleged, who may give bail upon petition therefor. There is not one case in a hundred, in my opinion, in which the party arrested will know that he has that right, for the arresting officer may take the prisoner anywhere in the United States without apprising him of any of his rights.

It goes on further in the second proviso and states that the party shall be taken before a commissioner or other officer designated to be admitted to bail if he requests it. The person arrested may not have sufficient knowledge to enable him to exercise that right. The present law is that when one is arrested he must be taken before an officer designated, and opportunity given him to furnish bail, and an inquiry had as to his identity. Are we going to establish the rule that American citizens may be arrested by the Federal Government anywhere in this country of ours and removed without regard to distance, without regard to the nature and character of the crime-that one may be so taken even when he says, "I am not the party designated in the warrant" ?

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WHITE of Colorado. Yes.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. I had intended to offer a further amendment, striking out the words "if requested so to do."

Mr. WHITE of Colorado. The bill is vicious in every way.

unless there is probable cause for the arrest-the court reaches out and brings the man back to its jurisdiction. Under the present practice the man is entitled to a hearing before a commissioner in another State, and whereas the Government has no witnesses, where the Government is not in a position to present its case, the result is that he is either released or, if held, can take an appeal from the decision of the commission and delays his removal so long that the Government loses its witnesses and as a practical matter he escapes trial and conviction. Anyone who raises the question of mistaken identity can protect his rights, because the right of habeas corpus is not taken away from him. If a mistake of identity can be estab

Will the gentleman yield?

lished, no right is taken by this bill. Mr. WHITE of Colorado. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes. Mr. WHITE of Colorado. Is not the gentleman assuming the very thing that is to be tried-that is, the guilt of the party arrested?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Not at all.

Mr. WHITE of Colorado. The gentleman says that it will enable the bringing into court of these crooks, and these men that are swindling the people therefore you are assuming that they are crooks and swindlers.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Anyone who swindles is a crook. Mr. WHITE of Colorado. But the gentleman is assuming that they are swindlers.

Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. Did anyone else appear before the committee outside of the Attorney General?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Oh, the crooks never do appear.
Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri. I mean attorneys.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. DYER. Mr. Speaker, may we have the amendment again reported?

The Clerk again reported the amendment offered by Mr. COCHRAN of Missouri.

The SPEAKER. This is an amendment to a committee amendment. The question is on the amendment to the committee amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the committee amendment.

The committee amendment was agreed to, and the bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

TO PROTECT TRADE-MARKS

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 13109) to protect trade-marks used in commerce, to authorize the registration of such trade-marks, and for other purposes.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill go over without prejudice.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
There was no objection.

LASSEN VOLCANIC NATIONAL PARK, CALIF.

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (H. R. 11405) to acquire an area of State land situate in the Lassen Volcanic National Park, State of California, by exchange.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The committee amendments were agreed to, and the bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

The title was amended to read: "A bill to authorize the

tion of the bill?

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized to accept on behalf of the United States title to the northeast quarter northeast quarter section 27, township 30 north, range 5 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, situate within the exterior boundaries of Lassen Volcanic National Park, from the State of California, and in exchange thereof may patent a like area of public land situate in the same State. The land which may be acquired by the United States under this act shall, upon acceptance of title, become a part of Lassen Volcanic National Park.

With the following committee amendment:

Page 1, line 9, strike out "a like area of public land" and insert area of unreserved, vacant, nonmineral public land of equal

an

value."

The committee amendment was agreed to, and the bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed.

A motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was laid on the table.

PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY

The next business on the Consent Calendar was the bill (S. 3463) to recognize commissioned service in the Philippine Constabulary in determining rights of officers of the Regular Army.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, this is one of the bills which the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON], who is ill, asked to have passed over without prejudice. I make that request.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?
There was no objection.

QUEEN EMMA AND DAMON ESTATES, HAWAII

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to return to Calendar No. 604 (H. R. 11847), to authorize the acquisition of the Queen Emma and Damon estates, and the Halawa site in the vicinity of Fort Kamehameha, Hawaii, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object to this, but I do think that we should be permitted to go on with the call of the calendar and not be asked to return to bills which have been passed over.

Mr. JAMES. I would not ask this if it were not for the fact that the Government can save several thousand dollars by passing the bill at this time.

Mr. HASTINGS. I think it is unfair to do things of this kind. We all ought to have a chance to have our bills called. I shall not object to this.

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

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to cause condemnation proceedings to be instituted for the purpose of acquiring certain tracts of land in the vicinity of Fort Kamehameha Reservation, Territory of Hawaii, hereinafter described, for use as a flying field, and that a sum not exceeding $1,145,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the acquisition of the fee title to said land either by purchase or condemnation, to wit: That portion of the

Queen Emma and Damon estates lying directly north of and adjoining

Fort Kamehameha Reservation, east of the Fort Kamehameha-Puuloa Junction Road, south of the plantation road just north of LocoLelepaua and extending to the Rodgers Airport and Keehi Lagoon on the east consisting approximately of 1,434 acres, at a cost not exceeding $420,000, and also the Halawa site consisting of about 862 acres and immediately adjoining the Queen Emma and Damon estates at a cost not exceeding $725,000.

and a portion of the Halawa district in the vicinity of Fort Kamehameha, Hawaii, and for other purposes."

TO DIVEST PRISON-MADE GOODS OF INTERSTATE CHARACTER Mr. SNELL, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution (H. Res. 196), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

House Resolution 196

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 7729, to divest goods, wares, and merchandise manufactured, produced, or mined by convicts or prisoners of their interstate character in certain cases. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and opposing the bill, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the committee shall arise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES IN CUSTOMS SERVICE

Mr. SNELL, from the Committee on Rules, also reported the following resolution (H. Res. 197), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

House Resolution 197

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 13143, to adjust the compensation of certain employees in the customs service. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and opposing the bill, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

INLAND WATERWAYS CORPORATION

Mr. SNELL, from the Committee on Rules, also reported the following resolution (H. Res. 198), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

House Resolution 198

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 13512, to amend the act entitled "An act to create the Inland Waterways Corporation for the purpose of carrying out the mandate and purpose of Congress, as expressed in sections 201 and 500 of the transportation act, and for other purposes," approved June 3, 1924. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and opposing the bill, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the committee shall arise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

IMMIGRATION ACT

Mr. SNELL, from the Committee on Rules, also reported the following resolution (H. Res. 199), which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

House Resolution 199

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of S. 2370, to amend section 24 of the immigration act of 1917. That after general