S. 3800. An act to carry out provisions of the Pan American Postal Convention concerning franking privileges for diplomatic officers in Pan American countries and the United States; to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads. S. 3827. An act to exempt employees of the public-school system of the District of Columbia from the $2,000 salary limitation provision of the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act, approved May 10, 1916, as amended; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. S. 3912. An act for the relief of Gustave Hoffman; to the Committee on Claims. S. 3931. An act for the relief of Augusta Cornog; to the Committee on Claims. S. 3954. An act to quiet title in the heirs of Norbert Boudousquie to certain lands in Louisiana; to the Committee on the Public Lands. S. 4022. An act authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to lease land in Stanley County, S. Dak., to Henry A. O'Neil for a buffalo pasture; to the Committee on the Public Lands. S. 4087. An act authorizing the use of certain land owned by the United States in the District of Columbia for street purposes; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. S. 4126. An act authorizing the National Capital Park and Planning Commission to acquire title to land subject to limited rights reserved, and limited rights in land, and authorizing the Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital to lease land or existing buildings for limited periods in certain instances; to the Committee on the District of Columbia. S. 4173. An act to transfer jurisdiction over certain national military parks and national monuments from the War Department to the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Military Affairs. S. 4257. An act to authorize the payment of certain salaries or compensation to Federal officials and employees by the Treasurer of the Territory of Alaska; to the Committee on Territories. S. 4273. An act authorizing certain Indian tribes and bands, or any of them, residing in the State of Washington, to present their claims to the Court of Claims; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. S. 4302. An act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to convey the Federal Point Lighthouse Reservation, N. C., to the city of Wilmington, N. C., as a memorial to commemorate the Battle of Fort Fisher; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. S. J. Res. 110. Senate joint resolution to provide for accepting, ratifying, and confirming the cessions of certain islands of the Samoan group to the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Insular Affairs. S. J. Res. 130. Senate joint resolution suspending certain provisions of law in connection with the acquisition of lands within the Alabama National Forest; to the Committee on Agriculture. ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the following titles, when the Speaker signed the same: H. R. 4664. An act for the relief of Capt. George R. Armstrong, United States Army, retired; H. R. 11577. An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes; and H. R. 12875. An act making appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate of the following title: S. 3674. An act to amend the act entitled "An act to provide that the United States shall aid the States in the construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes," approved July 11, 1916, as amended and supplemented, and for other purposes. BILLS AND A JOINT RESOLUTION PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that this day they presented to the President of the United States for his approval bills and a joint resolution of the House of the following titles: H. R. 15. An act authorizing an appropriation to enable the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the provisions of the act of May 26, 1926 (42 Stat. L. 655) to make additions to the Absaroka and Gallatin National Forests, and to improve and extend the winter-feed facilities of the elk, antelope, and other game animals of Yellowstone National Park and adjacent land; H. R. 158. An act to amend chapter 137 of volume 39 of the United States Statutes at Large, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session; H. R. 167. An act to amend the act of February 12, 1925 (Public, No. 402, 68th Cong.), so as to permit the Cowlitz Tribe of Indians to file suit in the Court of Claims under said act; H. R. 332. An act validating homestead entry of Englehard Sperstad for certain public land in Alaska ; H. R. 491. An act authorizing the attorney general of the State of California to bring suit in the Court of Claims on behalf of the Indians of California; H. R. 3467. An act for the relief of Giles Gordon; H. R. 4303. An act for the relief of the Smith Tablet Co., of Holyoke, Mass. ; H. R. 4396. An act for the relief of Jesse R. Shivers; H. R. 4664. An act for the relief of Capt. George R. Armstrong, United States Army, retired; H. R. 4927. An act for the relief of Francis Sweeney; H. R. 5297. An act for the relief of Christine Brenzinger; H. R. 5681. An act to provide a differential in pay for night work in the Postal Service. H. R. 5935. An act for the relief of the McAteer Shipbuilding Co. (Inc.); H. R. 7459. An act to authorize the appropriation for use by the Secretary of Agriculture of certain funds for wool standards, and for other purposes; H. R. 7900. An act granting allowances for rent, fuel, light, and equipment to postmasters of the fourth class, and for other purposes; H. R. 7946. An act to repeal an act entitled "An act to extend the provisions of the homestead laws to certain lands in the Yellowstone forest reserve," approved March 15, 1908; H. R. 8001. An act conferring jurisdiction upon certain courts of the United States to hear and determine the claim by the owner of the steamship City of Beaumont against the United States, and for other purposes; H. R. 8307. An act amending section 5 of the act approved June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. L. 218), so as to authorize the sale of timber on class 3 of the Oregon & California Railroad and Coos Bay wagon-road grant lands; H. R. 8337. An act to amend the air mail act of February 2, 1925, as amended by the act of June 3, 1926; H. R. 8474. An act for the relief of Elmer J. Nead; H. R. 8810. An act for the relief of John L. Nightingale; H. R. 9568. An act to authorize the purchase at private sale of a tract of land in Louisiana, and for other purposes; H. R. 9612. An act authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to allow Norman P. Ives, jr., credit on other lands for compliances made in homestead entry, Gainesville, 021032; H. R. 9789. An act for the relief of Sallie E. McQueen and Janie McQueen Parker; H. R. 10067. An act for the relief of Marion Banta; H. R. 10360. An act to confer additional jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims under an act entitled "An act authorizing the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota to submit claims to the Court of Claims," approved May 14, 1926; H. R. 10799. An act for the lease of land and the erection of a post office at Philippi, W. Va., and for other purposes; H. R. 11245. An act to cancel certain notes of the Panama Railroad Co., held by the Treasurer of the United States; H. R. 11475. An act to revise and codify the laws of the Canal Zone; H. R. 11577. An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes; H. R. 11716. An act authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to issue patents to Ethel L. Saunders, and for other purposes; H. R. 11852. An act providing for the confirmation of grant of lands formerly the United States barracks at Baton Rouge, La., to the board of supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College; H. R. 11960. An act for the relief of D. George Shorten; H. R. 12049. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to sell to W. H. Walker, Ruth T. Walker, and Queen E. Walker, upon the payment of $1.25 per acre, the southeast quarter section 34, township 2 north, range 14 east, Choctaw meridian, Clarke County, Miss.; H. R. 12379. An act granting the consent of Congress to Howard Seabury to construct, maintain, and operate a dam to retain tidal waters in an unnamed cove which is situated and extends from Cases Inlet into section 28, township 21 north, range 1 west, Willamette meridian, in Pierce County, State of Washington; H. R. 12383. An act to amend section 11 of an act approved February 28, 1925 (43 Stat. 1064, U. S. C., title 39), granting sick leave to employees in the Postal Service, and for other purposes; H. R. 12875. An act making appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes; and II. J. Res. 256. House joint resolution authorizing the United States Bureau of Public Roads to make a survey of the uncompleted bridges of the Oversca Highway from Key West to the mainland, in the State of Florida, with a view of obtaining the cost of the construction of said bridges, and report their findings to Congress. LEAVE OF ABSENCE By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows: To Mr. WAINWRIGHT, for to-day, on account of important business; To Mr. KVALE (at the request of Mr. CARSS), for one day, on account of sickness; and To Mr. STEVENSON (at the request of Mr. HARE), for one week, on account of important business. PERIOD OF RESTRICTIONS, FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD by printing a statement made by me before the House Committee on Indian Affairs. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Oklahoma asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD in the manner indicated. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RECORD, I include the following speech made by me before the House Committee on Indian Affairs on March 29, 1928: Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the committee, it is with a degree of hesitancy that I appear in opposition to this bill, H. R. 12000. This room is filled with lawyers and older Members of Congress who have been dealing with Indian affairs for many years, while I have been here only four months. So I hope I will be permitted to make a short uninterrupted statement, after which I shall gladly answer questions, if I can do so. I come to you fresh from the people with a gilt-edged statement of fact, with sound reasoning and a plea that the voice of the people might be heard. First, I wish to remind you that the bureau's star witness, Hon. Mr. CRAMTON, from Michigan, based his argument for the merits of this bill on the grounds that Hon. C. D. Carter was for it, and gave that as his outstanding reason why the bill should pass. My honorable colleague seems to be laboring under the impression that Mr. Carter is still a Member of Congress, but I stand before you to-day as absolute proof that he is not. It so happens that I defeated him in the last campaign in a three-cornered race on this very issue. Since Mr. CRAMTON seems to be so ill-informed on this fact, it is barely possible that he is not so well acquainted with the Indian situation in Oklahoma as he would have you believe. However, in justice to Mr. CRAMTON, I wish to say that we should not expect a gentleman from Michigan to thoroughly understand a condition in so distant a State as Oklahoma. I will admit that it was generally conceded that Mr. Carter was the representative of the wishes of the Choctaws and Chickasaws; not only this, but on account of his long tenure in office, he was looked to as the chief spokesman of all the Indians in Oklahoma, and also had much influence in regard to other tribes in the United States, before Congress and the Indian Bureau. But he introduced a bill to restrict 80 acres of homestead land 16 years beyond the period agreed upon. The chamber of commerce of his own home town passed resolutions condemning him for introducing such a bill. I was running for Congress. Both Indians and whites wanted to know how I stood. My course was marked out for me. I was against the bill. This issue and the only issue between us was clear cut and definite. The people spoke and to-day I am in Congress. It was not my intention to bring in this political phase of the question but Mr. CRAMTON's argument made it necessary. As for the Choctaws and Chickasaws I wish to say that they are tired of bureaucratic government. They feel that they have been unjustly treated and their money used to keep up schools, tribal officers, etc., while many of the deserving Indians are almost at the point of starvation. They have not received a penny from the bureau for years, although they have coal and asphalt lands that pour thousands of dollars into the Treasury each year. They beg to be free from this rule, to have their affairs wound up and be allowed to live as other citizens. They argue that as long as they are under restrictions their money will be used to keep up fat-salaried officers and the bureau will continue to operate in order to hold jobs for those in authority, while the Indians realize no benefit whatsoever. I wish to say that so earnest is their plea for a winding up of their affairs that only last week they assembled in convention in my district, four or five hundred strong to protest against this bureaucratic treatment and to send delegates up here to aid in a final settlement. There is also a belief that many of the Indians have been victims of an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the bureau in dealing with their personal problems, an attitude that dulls the initiative of these people in any attempts to solve their own problems of life. These Indians are not an ignorant class of people. They vote and they hold office. Those who may be classed as incompetent by the bureau, as a rule, have educated children who are fully capable of taking care of their own affairs and those of their parents. Outside of Oklahoma the general public is not aware of the true state of affairs. They see many pictures of Indians in fancy costumes posed in photos for publicity; they hear how wealthy and improvident the Indians are; they read that the bureau is civilizing, educating, and protecting the Indians. This is not true of the Five Civilized Tribes. I have never heard of a member of one of these tribes wearing a blanket. In my district the Indians, as well as the whites, feel that they are suffering from too much class legislation instigated through the channels of the bureau, wherein the Indian rights of property are jeopardized and their welfare as useful citizens endangered. Under the Atoka agreement the Indians were guaranteed a full and complete settlement of their affairs. This settlement included a sale of all tribal property, and that has not been carried out. Furthermore, it was a fixed belief with both whites and Indians that 21 years after Statehood the restrictions would be removed and the land would become taxable. They now believe the time is fast approaching to properly adjust these matters in a way mutually satisfactory to all concerned, and any attempt to prolong restrictions beyond 1931 is frowned upon. Gentlemen of the committee, from Oklahoma's standpoint this is a far-reaching measure. One-third of the Indians in the United States live in Oklahoma and 84 per cent of the Indian population in this State have their homes in eastern Oklahoma, the country of the Five Civilized Tribes. My district is the home of two of these five tribes. Only one other Congressman on this committee, Mr. HOWARD, has any of these Indians. He has a part of the Cherokees. Therefore, I am more af fected by this bill than any member of the committee, or any Member of Congress, and I feel that what I have to say should have some weight. These restrictions not only affect the welfare of the Indians, but are also felt in the social and economic progress of the whole surrounding body politic. In this connection I wish to read to you some samples of the great avalanche of mail that has been coming to my office since I have taken my seat in Congress. (The letters referred to are as follows:) Mr. WILBURN CARTWRIGHT, SULPHUR, OKLA., December 28, 1928. Member United States Congress, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CARTWRIGHT: We are at this time wishing to determine the attitude and opinion of our Representatives in the National Congress as to the validity of the acts of said Congress, in setting at naught the plain terms of the Atoka agreement, by which acts of abrogation the final settlement of tribal affairs have been and are still being hindered. Said Atoka agreement guaranteed to the tribes a full and complete settlement of their affairs, and this settlement included the sale of all tribal property, coal lands included. It also guaranteed to the tribes the abolition of our tribal schools. We are also being taxed to maintain the schools set up under our State form of government. Clearly a form of double taxation, upon a class that is the least able to endure it. And are submitting to it only because of inability to help ourselves. We believe the time has come to properly adjust these matters in a way mutually satisfactory to all concerned, and are appealing to your sense of justice and fair play, to see that some effort is made at this session of Congress to bring about a final settlement of the affairs of our people, according to the terms of the Atoka agreement. May I have an expression of your opinion upon this vital issue? Believe me to be, sir, cordially yours, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Although I am not a resident of your district, I want to commend you for your fight to remove the restrictions of the Five Tribes, feeling that in doing this service for the Indians of your district you will eventually serve every tribe in the State, also the various localities interested in the Indian problem. I was in the Indian Service for several years; and viewing the situation from every angle of my experience, with special consideration for the Indian and his welfare, I believe the present policy is a sad detriment instead of a benefit to the Indian, and it is my opinion that the unrestricted Indian as a tribe will make more progress in 5 years than in the past 20. In our efforts to help the Indian and make him a self-supporting citizen we have perpetuated his early environments, and instead of self-reliance and thrift he has learned dependence and indolence, through no fault of his own, and as the younger generation comes on we are forcing upon him the customs of his father. I know Mr. Howard to be a hard and sincere worker for what he believes is right, and I trust you have his valuable assistance in your fight. Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: We are watching your fight for justice on the Indian-settlement question. You need not waste energy on the per cent of Oklahoma's obligation to the Indian; that will soon be fulfilled, and this State will back you in a demand that any further tax exemption for the Indian must be borne in full by the National Government. The people of Oklahoma pay their share of all national taxes and owe no apology to the Nation for demanding a square deal for the taxpayer as well as the Indian. DEAR SIR: I wish to commend you for your stand on Indian affairs. In regard to your policy in winding up the affairs of the Five Civilized Tribes, I think that most of the people who came to Oklahoma 20 to 25 years ago, and have made Oklahoma what it is, believe that by the time 1931 rolls around the Indians have had ample time to become citizens and that they should be turned loose and be made to help bear the burden of taxation. Of course, the Federal job holders will always argue that they should be protected forever, so that they can still hold their jobs. You can rest assured that the best interests of the country in your district are with you on this issue, and we are hoping that you will win out. With kindest regards, I am, very truly yours, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In regard to the removal of restrictions, it is my opinion that the parties wanting an extension of restrictions are those who are on the pay roll and receiving the pie, and maybe some others who hope to get on the pay roll, and none other. If they could get another 25-year extension of restrictions, they would want another like period. I have talked to almost every full blood and those of less blood who are yet restricted, down in this part of the country, and they all want the restrictions removed to a man and woman. The fact is, the tribal funds are not going to their benefit, but to pay the numerous hundreds of salaried employees. Taxes are out of reason, as you know. I handle real estate and find that worlds of people are disinterested in locating and investing in Oklahoma property just on account of high taxation, and they all inquire as to when the restricted lands become taxable. Oklahoma is seriously hampered on account of the restricted lands, and every honest man knows and will admit it. Hoping that you will be able to see that the restrictions are removed as previously arranged, and with best wishes, I am, In addition to this, as you know, so long as Congress continues the handling of the affairs of the Indians as it has in the past, thousands of unnecessary positions are continued and additional ones created and the funds belonging to the Indians will soon be dissipated. It would be impossible for me to convey in a letter the many urgent reasons for the closing up of the affairs of our people. It seems to me that the members of the tribes should bear their portion of the burden of government and pay taxes on their property. Although I have not been required to pay taxes under the laws of Oklahoma and the treaties made between the United States Government and my tribe, I have been paying taxes upon my property since I attained my majority. I shall be very glad to appear before the committee in Washington in opposition to the extension of restrictions if you desire. With kind personal regards and best wishes, I am, Your friend, W. C. LEWIS, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. MCVAY. What degree of blood is he? Mr. MCVAY. He is a white man, is he not? Mr. CARTWRIGHT. He is a breed. I wish to remind you gentlemen of the committee that from Oklahoma's standpoint this is a far-reaching measure. One-third of the Indians in the United States live in Oklahoma and 84 per cent of the Indian population in this State have their homes in eastern Oklahoma, the country of the Five Civilized Tribes. My district is the home of two of these five tribes. Only one other Congressman on this committee, Mr. HoWARD, has any of these Indians. He has a part of the Cherokees. Therefore, I am more affected by this bill than any member of the committee, or any Member of Congress, and I feel that what I have to say should have some weight. Now, gentlemen, this bill is much stronger than the Carter bill. It ties up matters for 25 years longer instead of 16 years. It exempts 160 acres of homestead lands instead of 80 acres, as in the Carter bill. Under it the department will continue to use the Indian funds to pay the salaries of tribal officers such as these sitting around me. I have no grievance against these gentlemen; they are splendid fellows. But when these Indians are begging and pleading to be free from these restrictions, and are so earnest in their plea that they caused the defeat of one of their own flesh and blood because he introduced a similar bill, surely you will not make the mistake of allowing this bill to pass. This Government is committed to a policy of winding up tribal affairs, and if they are ever to be wound up, their schools must be disposed of, the tribal properties must be sold, and the machinery of their tribal government must cease. I believe there is a State rights question involved in the further restriction of these Indians. In accepting the enabling act the State of Oklahoma agreed to the 21-year exemption period, and soon will have fulfilled this agreement. Will this Congress force the State of Oklahoma to accept another 25-year exemption period with the resulting loss of taxes? as the There is only one way I could look upon this bill with favor and that is to amend it to apply to incompetent full bloods only, reimburse the State of Oklahoma for the loss of taxes, discontinue all schools and officials maintained by tribal funds as soon present legal cases are disposed of, and abolish the branch Indian office at Muskogee. The few Indians thus affected could easily be taken care of through the Washington office, the State of Oklahoma reimbursed, and the members of the Five Civilized Tribes would receive the full per capita payments due them. But in its present form this bill is impossible. Mr. SPROUL. In the event of the tribal government being discontinued and all the property allotted, and the money paid out to the members of the tribe, would you be willing to obligate, as far as you are concerned, the State of Oklahoma to take complete charge of these Indians and release the Government from any obligation that it might have to the Indians? Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I do not say that I would. Mr. HOWARD of Oklahoma. In answer to the gentleman's question, I will suggest that the State of Oklahoma is to-day doing most of those things. They will cite you that appropriation of $2,000,000 on all the activities of the Indians, when that is a very small thing as compared with the yearly burden placed upon the State of Oklahoma by reason of these Indians. Mr. SPROUL. Do you know the amount of tax that comes to the State from oil on Indian lands, from Indian sources and others? Mr. HOWARD of Oklahoma. The approximate production of oil in the State of Oklahoma a day is 600,000 barrels. It would be safe to say that, at least, one-fourth of that is coming from Indian lands. Averaging that oil at $1 a barrel, the 3 per cent gross production cost on 150,000 barrels of oil would amount to $4,500 a day to the State of Oklahoma. That we are being denied the right to collect by reason of the Indian leases, and in lieu of that I am asking this little $10,000,000 with which to educate the children. Mr. SPROUL. You will admit that all the Osage oil, both tribal and that owned by the operators, pays a tax. Mr. HOWARD of Oklahoma. That is not an argument. I call attention to the fact that every farmer in Oklahoma whose land produces cil pays a 3 per cent production tax, and an ad valorem tax on his farm. Mr. CRAMTON..I will make the preliminary statement that the gentleman from Oklahoma has made a suggestion, which to one of my temperament is unpleasant, in characterizing me as "the bureau's star witness." I am a Member of Congress, who has made a research on this question, and am a self-starter, and no one's witness. He would know this if he had been here longer. He has referred to Mr. Carter, whom I mentioned when I appeared before this committee some days ago in reference to this matter. He seems to have the idea that because Mr. Carter was defeated and Mr. CARTWRIGHT was elected, that we might value here less Mr. Carter's judgment or Mr. Carter's experience and integrity. One reason we still have confidence here in Charlie Carter, after he has left the Halls of Congress, one reason that he still exercises here an influence is because we know that Charlie Carter would rather be right than Congressman. He cares enough for the welfare of the Indians that he would retire in the course of his duty rather than to desert them. I wired him the other day because I had used his name, and I wanted him to know that I was not doing so improperly, and told him something of the situation, and I have this telegram in reply, which is the immediate cause of my coming here this morning: "Answering your wire I have carefully analyzed Leavitt bill, H. R. 12000. While it does not meet the conditions as definitely as should be and imposes burdens beyond actual demands, it meets many immediate necessities and should be passed at this session in order to make possible working out of necessary, definite plan by subsequent legislation. In order to accomplish this it is necessary, of course, to report bill without extraneous amendments calculated to defeat measure. Should purposes of this bill be defeated by embarrassing amendments and these helpless full-blood Indians left at the mercy of scheming grafters, it means that most of the original owners of entire domain in this State will be reduced to penury, beggary, and pauperism, becoming vagabonds within their own domain and a charge and burden upon their State, county, and community for support. The responsibility is upon Congress and specifically the Committee on Indian Affairs to prevent that calamity. Letter follows. "C. D. CARTER." The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I did not mean anything personal and I mentioned Mr. Carter's name with respect, but I wanted the gentleman from Michigan to remember that I am here now. I am aware of his correspondence with Mr. Carter, and I think he might have accorded courtesy enough to have at least mentioned Indian affairs to me. MISSISSIPP FLOOD CONTROL of the Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen House, I regard the enactment of the flood control act of 1928 as the most constructive piece of legislation written upon our statute books during my five years in Congress. It was a matter of great satisfaction to me that the Congress stood steadfast by the main proposition, namely, that flood control to be effective must be nationalized in the fullest sense of the term. While we yielded to the President on many details, I am glad that Congress stood by its main contention, that the Federal Government assume the total cost and that no local assessments be levied. I am happy that the President signed the bill, but I am satisfied in my own mind that if he had not done so the Congress would have overridden his veto, so strong was the sentiment in this country and in this Congress for flood control of an effective kind. The printed hearings of the Flood Control Committee of the House on the Reid bill will show that I took a positive and affirmative stand on this question. When the bill was being debated in the House I participated in that debate, and the following is the statement that I made on the floor of the House on April 18, 1928: SPEECH OF HON. MEYER JACOBSTEIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 18, 1928 I do not want the impression to go forth that the views expressed by some of the members of the New York State delegation, notably Mr. DAVENPORT and Mr. LAGUARDIA, represent the views of the entire New York delegation. I am taking a few minutes of the time of this House to tell you that the sentiment in my district from all classes of people is very strong for flood relief legislation. Furthermore, the people of my district do not agree to the proposition of local assessments. [Applause.] Speaking for myself, I am strongly of the opinion this project should be nationalized in every way, including the financing of the construction and upkeep. I especially desire to refute the assertion that those of us who are proposing that this entire project be financed by the National Government are basing our conclusion upon mushy sentiment and emotionalism. Our conviction and our position is based on solid common sense and not on mere sentimentality. A few days ago I was talking with one of the most level-headed business men in the city of Rochester, a gentleman who is president of one of our largest industries. In discussing this floodcontrol proposal I said to him: How does it happen that you practical-minded business men voted, through your chamber of commerce, to have the Federal Government total responsibility for flood relief, including the financial assume costs? He smiled and said: You know when we first went into it we were inclined to be against the assumption by the Federal Government of all the expenditure, and we were guided by the opinion and advice of the chief engineer of our company, who was also in favor of local contributions until he went into the question. Now, after careful reconsideration, we have changed our minds and favor the National Government bearing the burden. They gave the matter careful consideration. A special committee of the chamber of commerce was appointed, consisting of Joseph Michaels, chairman; Edward G. Miner, vice chairman; John F. Ancona; Charles L. Cadle; Albert B. Eastwood; Edwin A. Fisher; Frank W. Lovejoy; Harper Sibley; and A. E. Soderholm. This special committee studied the flood question conscientiously. Many months after the flood occurred, and after they had had time to give the matter careful thought, this committee recommended that the Federal Government should assume the entire cost and supervise and control the construction of flood-prevention devices. The following is the portion of the report approved by the special committee and trustees of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce: On recommendation of a special committee under chairmanship of Joseph Michaels, appointed recently by Edward A. Halbleib, president of the chamber, to study the referendum, the chamber trustees also favored the second proposal of the referendum, declaring that the Federal Government should assume sole responsibility for locating, constructing, and maintaining such works as are necessary to Mississippi flood control. On the grounds that inadequate appropriations in the past have materially delayed the carrying out of a systematic plan of protection, and that necessary money must be available as needed, the trustees also favored the third proposal of the referendum, to the effect that there should be an adequate appropriation to insure efficient, continuous, and economic work, the funds to be made available as needed. The plan of administration should be centralized, in the opinion of Rochester chamber trustees, and a carefully formed organization adapted to carrying on and completing a project of such proportions. The organization should be vested with ample power for the necessary research and have full discretion in all matters of engineering, operation, and maintenance. This view was incorporated in their favorable vote on the fourth proposal of the referendum, which stated: "The committee recommends that flood control of the Mississippi River should be dealt with in legislation and administration on its own merits, separate and distinct from any other undertaking." There is no emotionalism in this. It is good business and I will tell you why. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. In a moment I will be glad to yieldafter I have finished my preliminary statement. Mr. LAGUARDIA. The gentleman referred to my district and I think he should yield. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I think I can show that in the gentleman's own district the United States Chamber of Commerce took a similar view, as expressed in the results of a referendum, a printed copy of which I hold in my hand. Mr. LAGUARDIA (interposing). Will the gentleman yield on the matter of the chamber of commerce? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I will yield in just a minute. I figured out while sitting here this afternoon that in New York State alone 41 communities went on record as favoring national control, national supervision, and national assumption of all the costs. One hundred and twenty industrial organizations in New York State, including many industrial organizations in New York City Mr. LAGUARDIA (interposing). Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. In just one minute, and then I will yield. The statement was made here this afternoon by the gentleman from New York [Mr. DAVENPORT] that he did not trust the judgment of the chamber of commerce any more, since they came out on the tax question against the President. Well, on the matter of taxation I can understand how a selfish motive might have crept in. The men who are doing the big corporate business of the country want tax reduction. In that connection there might be a selfish interest. Of course, they want as large a reduction as they can secure consistent with safety to the Treasury. But how can you say any selfish motive can creep into this flood-relief proposition? I can see no selfishness in their position, and I hold no brief for the chamber of commerce of any city. I do believe, however, that on this question they were moved by the same natural sympathy and the same patriotism that moves the rest of us in favoring this proposed legislation. I referred to the action of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the referenda vote of local chambers all over my State because this vote supports the position taken by the special committee of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce months before. When public hearings were held on this pending legislation I appeared before the Flood Control Committee and presented the views of our local chamber of commerce. I was especially glad to learn that their position was an indorsement of my own previously expressed views. I am emphasizing the attitude of the business man in order to refute the false notion that we who are supporting this Reid bill are motivated by a maudlin sentiment. This is a most unfair accusation. In fact, the business man has good reasons for looking upon this measure as being very sound from a practical viewpoint. These practical-minded men of large affairs, including captains of industry, bankers, engineers, know full well that the only way to effectively prevent a similar flood in the future is to have the entire project controlled and financed by the Federal Government. They know, as we know, that it was a narrow and piecemeal system of handling the proposition during the last half century that caught us unprepared when this flood broke upon the people and the land in the Mississippi Valley. They believe and have said that divided responsibility has lead to divided control as well as ineffective control of floodprevention measures. As business men they said it is better to invest 20 per cent more and get full returns on the investment. If you are going to invest $80 and get something only half done let us invest $100 and do it right. That is a sound business proposition. That is the thing which appealed to the business men. It was not maudlin sentiment and it was not emotionalism, and yet in the first instance they, like the rest of us, were naturally in full sympathy with those who suffered property and life destruction in that flooded area. I will now yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. LAGUARDIA. I want to say that the open-shop, laborexploiting, antisoldier-bonus, and pro-Mellon chambers of commerce do not speak for the workingmen of my district, and I will tell the gentleman from Rochester now that they do not represent the people who elected and voted for him-the working people of Rochester. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Well, that is a very nice speech. Mr. LAGUARDIA. And it is true, and it will come home to the gentleman if he is going to cater to the United States Chamber of Commerce. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I want to say to the gentleman from New York, my personal friend-and you will notice I exhibit no emotionalism in the discussion of this problem-that I am catering to no one. I am merely stating facts-cold, hard facts, which refute the charge made that those who favor this legislation are moved by maudlin sentiment. I say again I am catering to no group. Mr. LAGUARDIA (interposing). The gentleman will when he supports the chamber of commerce as against the tailors of Rochester. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. I am willing to give credit to any organization when it is doing the right thing in the right way, and I do not care who knows it. [Applause.] I presume if I were actuated by political expediency I would not even quote the United States Chamber of Commerce. But I am not so narrow as to deny that a chamber of commerce can be actuated by sound and patriotic motives. When this flood broke out and damaged this district I asked the War Department to send an engineer to Rochester in order to discuss the flood situation. We discussed the flood situation in Rochester in an open meeting. After we had discussed the proposition fully I said to the people of my district that so far as I was concerned it looked to me as though the time had come when the National Government should assume full respon LXIX-541 sibility. I stated then and state now that the National Government neglected its duty in the past and that we should now embark on a new policy-a national policy. I took this position before Congress convened last December. I stated my position before the chamber of commerce had taken any action. Therefore it might be said that the chamber of commerce indorsed my views and were catering to me, rather than the reverse, as suggested by my friend from New York City. I always tell the voters of my district exactly what is involved in every proposition, and that is why I think a Republican district has sent me back here three times; and if I do run again I will take my chances with the same voters, I will say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LAGUARDIA]. I am not afraid to stand here and say a good word for the chamber of commerce just because they happen to be on the right side of the question and agree with my own views. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield for one more question on the chamber of commerce? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Certainly. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Does not Mr. Eastman, of the Eastman Kodak Co., control the Chamber of Commerce of Rochester? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Eastman is one of our finest, ablest, and wealthiest citizens. As a matter of fact, Mr. Eastman happens to be in Africa on a hunting trip, and was not in this country when the chamber took action on flood control. Please take notice the men I am defending are Republicans. [Laughter and applause.] Mr. MANSFIELD. A Democrat needs no defense. Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Mr. Eastman is a Republican. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Has the Eastman Kodak Co. any interests down in the Mississippi Valley? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. Of course it has. I am glad the gentleman asked that question. What interest has the Eastman Kodak Co. in the flooded area? This is a very pertinent question. Every business man in the United States has an interest in that flooded area. Every business man should be interested in maintaining all sections of our country in a prosperous and happy condition. [Applause.] Gentlemen, the first letters that came to me after the flood came from manufacturers in my district who suddenly discovered that their sales had fallen off in the flooded areas. Now the gentleman from New York assumes in his argument that only the business men of my district are for flood control and flood relief. He is mistaken. The workers of my district are moved by the same compassion and the same patriotism that moves every Congressman on this floor. Does not the gentleman from New York know that organized labor, through the American Federation of Labor, has indorsed this bill? Does he not know that the farmers, through their organizations, have publicly indorsed this legislative proposal? The American Legion has also gone on record, through its officials, as being in favor of this flood-control legislation. In fact, I have still to find any large group of people, organized or unorganized, which does not agree with me on this proposition. I believe the American people want this measure enacted into law. I hope the bill will pass the House and be approved by the President. There may be details here and there that need amending. The bill can be perfected. But I hope the big, essential feature remains unamended-that the project be controlled absolutely by the Federal Government, with no local assessments against the local communities, but the Federal Government bearing the entire cost. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. REID of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman one more minute. Mr. SIROVICH. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JACOBSTEIN. In a moment. The business men in my district, not necessarily speaking for the chamber of commerce, were for flood control by national expenditure, because they knew from actual experience in dealing with the people of this flooded area that this country is wrapped up in the welfare of the district that was devastated by this flood. This is an answer to the question, "What interest in this matter has the Eastman Kodak Co.?" Every individual, every farmer, and every business is a part of this country, and we should do all we can to maintain its prosperity. ADJOURNMENT Mr. TILSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 34 minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until to-morrow, Sunday, May 13, 1928, at 12 o'clock noon. |