would some day get some relief from Congress. Some of you leaders on the other side of this Chamber have tried to fool the farmer so that he will not bolt your ticket this fall. The farmer has been very lenient with you and your party, but I believe the day has come when he is going to demand an accounting. You gentlemen may have fooled the farmer before, but the game is up; the reckoning day is at hand.

In the debate on the farm relief bill a number of gentlemen gave us startling and convincing figures to prove the farmer is in distress and need. All that appears idle to me; every man who has studied the condition of agriculture must admit that the farmer needs some measure of relief. In fact, most of the gentlemen who opposed the farm relief bill were willing to admit that the farmer is in distress. These gentlemen sympathized with the farmer but threw up their hands in amazement at the idea that any farm bill should be passed. That would be class legislation and special privilege, they said. Sympathy is very fine, but it is not sympathy the farmer wants, nor kind and soothing speeches mailed back home at election time. A speech is a fine thing to start a fire with, but the farmer can not eat it; and it is little consolation for the farmer who watches the sheriff sell his home to read the beautiful remarks made about him by Members of both Houses of Congress.

It is altogether proper that we should be considering the problem of the farmer here, since it was the Congress which passed the laws now grinding down the farmer. As a result of the laws passed here, the farmer pays taxes not only to support the Government but to support the railroads, manufacturers, and bankers. First you passed the Esch-Cummins transportation act, then in 1922 you passed the Fordney-McCumber tariff law.

In the discussion of farm relief here we have heard much about class legislation and price fixing. Let us take this EschCummins law. What is that except price fixing? That law is a command to the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix rates so that the railroads of the country can earn a net income of 54 per cent upon their valuation. The valuation of the railroads was placed at approximately $19,000,000,000 as a result of that law. Now, the actual value-the price these roads could have been bought on the stock exchange-was not more than $12,000,000,000. That means the railroads receive a clear profit of more than 9 per cent on their investment.

Under the Esch-Cummins law the Government simply said to the railroads: "Go ahead and operate these roads and we will guarantee you have enough left after paying all expenses to give you 54 per cent on what you think you have invested." What was the result? In 1920, the first year of the operation of this law, the railroads reported an increase in their operating expenses for that year of $1,400,000,000 in excess of the operating expenses of any preceding year. The Interstate Commerce Commission immediately advanced freight rates upon all commodities 25 to 40 per cent in designated groups of railroads. This increase in rates, even though two years later the commission was forced by public sentiment to make a general reduction of 10 per cent, alone costs the American people the additional sum of $1,500,000,000 a year. You know and I know that these increased freight rates are always passed along by the middlemen to the farmers and consumer.

And more than that, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the farmer pays more than his share of the freight. In fact, hearings conducted by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce during the Sixty-seventh Congress brought out the fact that agriculture is paying more than twice its just share of the revenues the railroads receive for freight transportation. Less than 9 per cent of the total volume of freight carried by our railroads comes from the farms, while this 9 per cent pays more than 18 per cent of the total freight revenues of the railroads. This does not take into consideration the enormous freight charges on implements, machinery, and everything shipped from our factories to the farms.

Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, if I should introduce a bill to guarantee every farmer in the country an income of 54 per cent on his investment, after all expenses of farming had been subtracted, you would laugh me out of Congress. You would point to me as the prize joke of the National Capitol and the jeers of the large city newspapers would ring in my ears forever. You would call this a plan to pension the farmers.

But this is exactly what they have done with the railroads. Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that a farmer owned land he valued at $10.000, although the actual value was about $7,000. Now, under this imaginary Esch-Cummins farm bill we would say to the farmer: "List all of your expenses: pay yourself a salary, and don't forget your wife and children are on the pay roll also. Keep account of every penny you spend, even the cost of driving your car to town for groceries. Now, at the end of the year you have produced a certain amount of corn, wheat,

or cotton. We are going to fix the price of this so that you can sell it for enough to pay all of your expenses, and besides that you are going to have $575 clear money to put away for old age."

This

Gentlemen, you would laugh that bill out of court. Now, let us consider the Fordney-McCumber tariff law. question of the tariff has long been a political issue. It is considered proper for the Democrats to denounce the protective tariff and necessary for the Republicans to support it. I have my own views on the tariff. They are sound Democratic views, too. But I shall not tell you what I think the tariff does for the farmer. You might call whatever statement I made "Democratic propaganda." I shall be satisfied to quote what some of my Republican friends have said about the tariff.

In speaking in favor of the McMaster resolution recommending a revision of the tariff rates, Senator MCMASTER, of South Dakota, a Republican and a banker, said in the Senate on January 9, 1928:

Before entering into a discussion of the pending resolution it would be well to examine and to inspect a certain nostrum that is being used for the purpose of soothing and allaying this rising tide of discontent among the farmers over these tariff relationships. That nostrum is this: We are informed by those in high places with great assurance that everything the farmer uses in farming is upon the free list and most of the things that he sells are upon the protected list. In order that we may have a clear and comprehensive idea of those articles upon which the farmer pays a duty, and which are known as the necessities of life, but which he does not use in farming, permit me to read just a partial list: Kitchen and household utensils, stoves, furniture, sheets, pillowcases, mattresses, rugs, carpets, table linen, tableware, clocks, glassware, earthenware, clothing, hosiery, gloves, all wearing apparel, and hundreds of other articles.

It is equally certain that the following articles, which the farmer uses in farming, are also upon a highly protected list:

"Scythes, sickles, hammers, saws, scoops. shovels, pitchforks, corn knives, grass hooks, grindstones, pliers, files, drainage tools, machine tools, horseshoes, horseshoe nails, nails, steel wire, galvanized wire, roofing felt, strap leather, paints, brick, tile, baling wire, cast-iron pipe, cream separators valued at $50."

Then we are informed that harnesses are upon the free list. The buckles and the clasps and the hardware used in connection with harnesses are upon a highly protected list, and who ever heard of a farmer using a harness that did not have a buckle or a clasp or some hardware on it? As a matter of fact, the importations of harness into this country are insignificant. All of which goes to show that this

provision for free harnesses is a sham and a fraud.

There are those who point with great pride to the fact that farm

implements are upon the free list. Let us examine the subtle sophistry

of that contention. The prices of farm implements are controlled and dominated by a trust that not only controls and dominates the farmmachine market of America, but which controls and dominates the farm-machine market of the world, The importations of farm ma

chinery into this country are insignificant. Last year we exported $78,000,000 worth of machinery, and the farm implement is one of the few manufactured products of this country that has been steadily rising in price since the war. A binder costs more money to-day than it did at war peak prices, because the heads of the manufacturing concerns which manufacture farm implements meet in secret and behind closed doors, and make up the price list for the ensuing year. Does anybody doubt that statement? Let the record speak. The report of the Federal Trade Commission on the causes of high prices of farm machinery says:

"Practically all important manufacturers of farm implements are members of the National Implement and Vehicle Association, which was formed in 1911 by the union of several existing farm-implement associations.

"Under cover of bringing about uniform cost accounting, uniform terms of sale, and standardization of products the manufacturers who are members of these associations repeatedly advanced prices of farm implements by concerted action during the period 1916 to 1918, inclusive."

What they were doing during that period they were doing before that time and continued to do after that time.

On December 15, 1926, Mr. DICKINSON, a Republican Congressman from Iowa, said:

I do not believe those of us from the Central West are going to stand for a high tariff and say there can be no reduction of the tariff commodities where they make an excessive profit or assist in monopolizing the control of the commodity.

on

And on March 2, 1927, Congressman DICKINSON, a Republican leader, said:

It will therefore be the problem of the farmer to study the tariff schedules and everywhere he sees that exorbitant prices are being charged or that excessive profits are being made, he will join hands

with those who are asking for tariff revision downward on such commodities in order to secure the equality to which he believes he is entitled.

In 1922 you passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff law, which came recommended as the cure-all for the ills of the farmer. That law was supposed to bring prosperity to agriculture overnight.

Let us see what the result has been. Certainly not all of the distress of agriculture is caused by the high tariff, but I just want to show you gentlemen that your high tariff bill, even if, as you claim, it did no harm, has certainly done no good. Instead of improving the condition of agriculture, it has been growing much worse. The Department of Agriculture tells us that from 1920 to 1925 the value of farm lands in the United States decreased from $63,000,000,000 to $47,000,000,000, a loss of $17,000,000,000 in only five years. Taking into account the loss in value of equipment, buildings, and crops, the decrease in the farm wealth amounts to over $30,000,000,000 in so brief a time.

A recent report of E. H. Wiecking, of the Department of Agriculture, shows that farm values declined 4 per cent during the year 1926-27. Mr. Weicking shows that measured inconstant dollars of the purchasing power * farm real-estate values on March 1, 1927, were really worth 20 per cent less than they were 15 years before, on 1912.

*

On March 1, 1928, a total of 3,941 banks had failed during the Harding-Coolidge administrations, and more than 95 per cent of those banks were in the agricultural sections of the country.

Yet some of you tell us the entire Nation enjoys prosperity. I agree that the special-privilege crowd are exceptionally prosperous. The railroads have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. The industrial section may be prosperous, and the speculators on the stock exchange are overprosperous, but the farmer is certainly far from being in a prosperous condition.

Let me give you here a table showing the price of farm implements in 1924 as compared with 1914. This table was prepared by Congressman STRONG, a staunch Kansas Republican, and inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Study that table, gentlemen, and you will discover one reason why the farmer is not prosperous. That will show you what the Esch-Cummins law and the tariff law is doing for the farmer. The price of farm products has been going down since 1920. We have seen the price of land go back below the prewar level, but the price of this machinery the farmer must have is not being reduced very rapidly.

The tariff may not cause all these high prices, as you gentlemen on the other side say. I believe the tariff is partially responsible. I also contend that freight rates are largely responsible. We know the tariff-protected trusts who manufacture these implements are responsible. To-day these implement trusts are fighting any tariff reduction and are willing to make campaign contributions to any candidate or party pledged to maintain our high tariff. If the tariff does not affect the price of implements, then I ask you why are these implement trusts so anxious to keep a high tariff? "There is a reason," and you gentlemen must know the reason.

Mr. Speaker, the greatest danger I see for our country to-day is the menace of sectionalism. George Washington warned us to avoid this evil and pointed out its dangers. But the farmers of the West are awake to what has been done. A day of reckoning is near. The farmers and small business men of the West will no longer submit to the unjust freight rates established by the Esch-Cummins law. The West knows the truth about our

high tariff and is in revolt against robbery by tariff-protected monopolies of the East. Congress must repeal the laws which rob the farmer and offer some farm-relief plan or the old order is passed and soon we shall see the entire West, regardless of former political sympathies, united in one great effort to throw off the yoke placed about the neck of our farmers and consumers by the high tariff and unjust freight rates.

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in the RECORD.

Mr. SCHAFER. Reserving the right to object, has the gentleman introduced a bill to cure the situation?

Mr. JOHNSON of Oklahoma. I do not yield to the gentle

The Senate amendment was read and agreed to.
HISTORICAL MUSEUM AT DEFIANCE, OHIO

Mr. LUCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate Joint Resolution 82, providing for the erection of a public historical museum on the site of Fort Defiance, Defiance, Ohio, and agree to the conference asked for.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts asks unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table Senate Joint Resolution 82 and agree to the conference asked for. Is there objection?

Mr. CRAMTON. Reserving the right to object, what is the nature of the Senate amendment? I am opposed to the whole bill.

Mr. LUCE. The proposal in the bill was that we contribute $50,000, and that the balance of $50,000 be contributed by the State of Ohio. The House changed the appropriation to $25,000 and $25,000 to be appropriated by the county in which Fort Defiance is situated.

Mr. CRAMTON. And the Senate refuses to accept the House amendment?

Whereas it is the opinion and desire of the Sixty-ninth Congress to in every instance avoid war and its consequences, whenever the same can be honorably done; and

Whereas the facts and conditions existing, as reported by the press, concerning the relations of the United States with the Nicaraguan Government do not seem to the House of Representatives to justify the entry into any war; and

Whereas the sending of warships and military forces to Nicaragua, and the pursuit by said vessels of other ships, as is reported, may endanger the peace and tranquillity of the United States and the citizens thereof; and

Whereas the course that seems now being followed by the United States Government subjects our Government to the liability of being thrown into an embarrassing position: Therefore be it

Resolved, That it is the sense and request of the House of Repre sentatives that the Committee on Foreign Affairs promptly ascertain from any department of the Government, and from any reliable source, any and all information bearing essentially on the subject, and that the same be promptly reported to the House of Representatives for its information, to the end that the facts may become fully known and war be averted in any reasonable and proper way.

At the time of the introduction of this resolution 16 months ago, the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of our military forces, was just about to embark upon a program of sending American marines to Nicaragua, for the alleged purpose, as stated in his message of that date, to protect American lives and American property in Nicaragua.

At that time myself, with some other Members of this body, made effort to ascertain what American lives and what American property situated in Nicaragua, had been destroyed or even threatened with destruction, and to ascertain the facts in this regard the above resolution was introduced.

On January 12, 13, 28, and February 1, 1927, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, which was composed of 13 Republicans and 8 Democrats, was called together to give consideration to the resolution introduced by myself, and also resolutions somewhat similar in character introduced by my colleagues, the Hon. JOHN J. MCSWAIN (Democrat), of South Carolina; Hon. GEORGE HUDDLESTON WALTON (Democrat), of Alabama; and Hon. R. MOORE (Democrat), of Virginia.

At that time, however, by almost a strict party vote of the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, permission to obtain this information was denied and refused by the majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Notwithstanding repeated requests for information as to what civilian American or what American's property had been destroyed in Nicaragua, that furnished the alleged basis for sending American troops there, no one has yet disclosed or answered.

It was then pointed out by myself and others before the Foreign Affairs Committee that it was in our opinion inadvisable to embark upon the program of sending a few thousand troops into Nicaragua prior to any positive threatened destruction of American civilian life or American property. It was believed also that such a course would lead us into difficulty, and so it has, as time since that date has disclosed.

Prior to sending our marines there, no American had been killed or threatened with violence, but since sending our marines there under President Coolidge's order, we have had 21 American marines killed and 45 of them wounded.

The Constitution of the United States vests the sole power of declaring war in the Congress of the United States. The President has no constitutional right or authority to declare war. The Constitution of the United States vests in the President the authority to be Commander in Chief of the troops in the event war is declared, but no power to put our Government in actual war. This is a very wise provision, as the power to commit a nation to and take such nation into war should never be committed to one man, and one man only, however wise and able he might be.

Up to this hour Congress has not declared any war upon Nicaragua. Yet under President Coolidge's direction, through the military officers, we have been in combat with Nicaraguan forces for more than a year. We have bombed them, and Sandino and his forces have retaliated and carried on military combat against our forces in their territory.

In defending the President's policy in Nicaragua, some have said we are bound to protect the lives and investments of European nations in countries of this Western Hemisphere, inasmuch as we deny them to act in a military capacity on the soil of this hemisphere, claiming such is our duty under the Monroe doctrine, and justifying our landing of troops in Nicaragua on that ground. But the facts are that neither England or any other European country made any request of the United States to look after their subjects and property interests in Nicaragua, until long after we had landed our troops there on our own responsibility. Of course, after our troops were sent there, and had engaged in combat with Nicaraguan forces, England did ask us then to safeguard her interests, as it was under the then existing circumstances liable to involve English property and life.

In the name of the Monroe doctrine, let us not invoke any wrong. The Monroe doctrine means simply as President James Monroe stated in his message of December 2, 1823:

We should consider any attempt on the part of European powers to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. We could not view any interposition by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

Monroe's doctrine laid down, was primarily for the protection of our own Government and incidentally the principle is a protection to other governments on this hemisphere.

To this doctrine all good-intentioned citizens of this, our Government, subscribe. It is our policy to keep safely from the shores of this hemisphere the establishment of European monarchy. It is interesting to notice the recent argument of some who indorse the President's policy in Nicaragua, and say that our forces should be down there to protect private American life and property, at the same time asserting that the American citizens who settled in the recently flooded district of the Mississippi Valley went into the Mississippi Valley with their eyes open, and that they should not expect the American Government to pay for their flood protection, and that the Federal Government should not stand sponsor for the full protection from such a flood as devastated that area.

Surely, the United States Government, and any other government for that matter, should use every reasonable and honorable means to avoid war. Friendly relations with all nations should be cultivated, so far as it can be done, honorably. First, because peaceful relations, when honorably maintained, advance the good purposes of civilization. And secondly, good business, trade, and commercial relations are increased when and where we can honorably maintain peaceful relationship with other nationalities. Nations like individuals must know, and if they do not know, must surely learn that the will and wish of the one can not always be imposed upon others without their consent and without their wish, and that while the rights of the one should be respected the rights of the other should also be respected, and that right and justice should prevail, and that might or power ought not go unharnessed, spreading its harm.

I consider it is the first duty of any Government to be right, and, being right, it is entitled not only to protect, but to defend itself in maintaining its right.

Some say that our troops have been sent to Nicaragua in order to see that they conduct an honest and fair election down there.

With all the progress and advancement, with all the discoveries and inventions; with all the wonderful work of science; still there is one thing that remains the same. Human nature is about the same to-day that it was centuries ago, and it will remain much the same in time to come. The most important lesson for a nation as well as for an individual to learn is to attend strictly to one's own business and not be meddling with the affairs or business of others. While Mr. Coolidge has our troops in Nicaragua, trying to have those people conduct an election like he thinks it ought to be, we hold an election in Chicago and the gunman runs riot and a United States Senator's house gets bombed.

It is not unreasonable to wonder if Sandino, in Nicaragua, does not think Mr. Coolidge ought to use our own troops we have sent down there and bring them to Chicago and to Pennsylvania, and by their use see if we can have honest and orderly elections in our own country.

The time for our Nation as well as all other nations to use the highest decree of caution and care is before we get into difficulties. By so doing, a nation, like an individual, may avoid much trouble. That we have erred and blundered in getting ourselves involved in Nicaragua there is no question. Since the President's sending American troops there many of them have been killed and wounded, whereas before their going no civilian Americans nor their property had been killed or destroyed.

Far more than a million dollars of American taxpayers' money has been expended in the enterprise, and such a policy destroys and injures American commerce and trade. And if there ever was a time when we should be trying to keep on friendly relations with other nations and extend our markets and open up avenues for new fields of trade so as to dispose of our surplus that time is now, especially when the profits of the farm, if any at all, are so low and farm conditions so depressing.

The truth about the Nicaraguan situation is that Diaz was defeated for the Presidency in Nicaragua. He was agreeable

and satisfactory to certain business interests, among them some investors from New York; but the man who had defeated Diaz was not satisfactory to these same investors. So he was driven out of power and had to leave the country, temporarily, to save his life. While he was out of the country, not by choice but as a necessity to save his life, Diaz had himself chosen by his friends connected with the Government-his main opposition having been driven out. Diaz took possession in effect by force, and backed up by American troops has since been able to maintain possession of the Government offices.

A remarkable thing about our American occupancy of Nicaragua is that while those who defend Mr. Coolidge for sending our troops down there to help put and keep Diaz on the throne, claim that our troops went at the request of Mr. Diaz and his legislative body. These same defenders of the Coolidge policy who have asserted our right and propriety in staying there and controlling their elections, now find that this same Diaz legislative body recently refused to indorse our right to control and supervise their elections. So the Coolidge policy in Nicaragua is finding itself in the position of the neighbor who tried to separate a man and wife from fighting-the poor unfortunate neighbor found himself turned against. As I said heretofore, verily, "human nature" remains the same. By the Coolidge occupancy of Nicaragua we haveFirst. Lost American lives where prior to the occupancy none had been lost. Second. We have incurred the ill will of smaller nations and are suffering in loss of trade, and what America badly needs to-day are markets for surplus products, whether of field, mine, or factory.

Third. We have expended far more than a million dollars out of the Federal Treasury-the American taxpayers' money. But, on the other hand, by taking such a course the President has pleased a few American investors, who want to maintain the man of their choice at the head of the Nicaraguan Government, and so such is "human nature."

The truth is that Coolidge's policy in sending troops to Nicaragua is not to protect American lives and American property there from destruction by the people of that country. The answer to those who allege that such is our purpose of going there is that no one has yet been able to name a single American killed or threatened with violence prior to the sending of our troops there. If such is the basis of our going, why can not some one name the Americans who were killed or threatened before we sent our troops there or even at the time they went? What has happened since the landing of our troops is just what would naturally be expected to happen. We have had some of our marines killed and wounded and we have killed many Nicaraguans.

for our forces to be there they have resisted by force of arms. I suspect we in this country would not welcome armed forces of some other country squatting on our territory, supervising our elections, and by force of arms see to it just how we should hold an election.

The truth is we should not have put our forces in Nicaragua. The policy of the present administration is, and he tells the American farmer "he must work out his own salvation," "he must take care of himself"; and to the American investor and financial wizard the President insists on maintaining not only a high protective tariff for his enrichment at home, but he seems to furnish armed forces to make things safe and suitable and as he exactly wishes in Nicaragua. The taxes of all are to maintain not the many but the few.

THE TYSON-FITZGERALD BILL

Mr. MORROW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD on the Tyson-Fitzgerald emergency officers' bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico?

There was no objection.

Mr. MORROW. Mr. Speaker, the bill known as the emergency officers' retirement bill has been pending in Congress since the close of the war; it has passed the Senate three times and has been five times favorably reported by the House Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation. The bill provides that emergency officers of the World War who are 30 per cent permanently disabled shall be eligible for retirement under the provisions of the measure.

The bill has for its purpose to do away with discrimination between emergency officers and the officers of the Regular Army. It is shown that during the war the emergency officers suffered casualties much greater than the officers of the Regular Army. Figures show that there were 2,040 emergency Army officers killed in action or died of wounds received in action. This was 93 per cent of the Army officers killed. There were 8,122 of these officers wounded in action. Under the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill, 3,251 emergency officers still disabled more than 30 per cent will receive an average retirement pay of $132 a month, an increase of $59 over the $73 a month they are now receiving. This is less than one-half the $277 a month now received by the average retired Regular Army officer. These figures I get from the national legislative committee of the American Legion.

It appears that the Regular Army officer for some reason has had a much better standing with Congress than the man who met the Government's emergency call and who by merit on the field of battle is worthy of recognition.

Those who have been hard pressed to give a real reason for having our forces in Nicaragua finally and as a last resort say the property we are there to protect is our Nicaraguan canal rights. The answer to that is that we only have an option to build a canal and that option was to run for 99 years, and more than 80 years may yet pass before we exercise the option to build, and, indeed, we may never do so, as it is only an option which may or may not be exercised. Moreover, even if we had bought and paid for the ground for canal purposes, which we have not done, nothing has been put upon the land over which we have an option, so there is nothing connected with the canal privileges, so far as anything we have there is concerned, except the naked ground, which can not be carried away or destroyed.

After the defender of the President's policy in Nicaragua flounders over one reason and another and fails even to satisfy his own mind, final resort is made to the contention "that both sides invited us there and we are there for that reason." Of course, Diaz and his forces want us there and "the powers that be" with our President, with their American capital, want our military forces there to keep Diaz and his group in power. The forces opposing Diaz have not once, but time and time again, shown by their conduct they did not want our forces there for any purpose. They have even requested our withdrawal. In order to more forcibly show their unwillingness

These men, in my opinion, have been discriminated against; they entered the war in good physical condition, many were occupying important positions which they now are unable to fill on account of loss of health or because of crippled condition. The rest of us remained at home and felt secure on account of our American Army at the front in command of these men who are now asking to be justly rated by Congress. It is important, of course, that discrimination be eliminated in dealing with the soldier who faithfully gave his services to his country. It is likewise important that the officers who entered the service on an emergency call of the Government shall receive the same treatment as the Regular Army officers, on the basis of rank and degree of disability.

The State of New Mexico, which I have the honor to represent in this body, has always stood for fair and proper treatment of those citizens who entered the service during the World War, be they emergency officers or privates. I take great satisfaction in supporting any legislation that offers a very much merited reward to those afflicted as a result of that great struggle. The Government can never restore health to the crippled or to those who contracted a permanent disability. We should, therefore, be generous to the limit in their behalf.

I insert herein the beneficiaries from my State, New Mexico, by name, address, occupation, date of birth, extent of disability, monthly compensation now received, and the proposed monthly compensation under the Tyson-Fitzgerald bill:

Barnes, Wm. Wallace.
Bennett, Walter F.

Blackser, Lawrence.
Bouldin, John W.
Bujac. Etienne P.
Bulson, Glenn A.
Chaves, jr., Amado.
Childers, Robert J.
Cohen, Melvin M.
Coumbe, Arthur G.
Cunningham, Peter R..
Donahue, John Leo.
Douthit, Crawford H
Elfe, Harold B
Eyre, Thomas T.
Farrar, Russell J.

Flint, Warren A..

Gannon, Fredk. M.
Gatling, Henry G.
Herring, Finie A
Herring, Harry T.
Herron, Russell G.
Johnston, Lewis S.
Kinsinger, John W.
Lembke, Charles H.

Lutz, Charles H.
McCullough, Wm. H.
Matthews, Wm. C.
Miller, Pierre A
Patton, Frank H.

Peck, Franklin J..

Powell, Wm. H., jr.
Radthe, Leonard B.
Roberts, Maurice McV.

Robinson, Louis B..
Sanford, John H...
Seale, Christopher C

Shelton. Dean O
Spotts, Milton A.
Stevens, Robert C.

Sumner, Gordon..

Tagl, William. Weeks, Harold J West, Wm. Edw.

Glenwood, N. Mex.

Box 288, Albuquerque, N. Mex..

Care of P. L. Atkins, M. D., McGaffey, N. Mex.

Lordsburg, N. Mex.

Box 103, Albuquerque, N. Mex..

Box 42, Carlsbad, N. Mex.

St. Francis Hospital, Carlsbad, N. Mex. U. S. Veterans' Hospital No. 55, Fort Bayard, N. Mex.

Palace Ave., Sante Fe., N. Mex...

Care of Daniel C. Moore, Box 374, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

512 South High St., Albuquerque, N. Mex.. U. S. veterans' hospital, Fort Bayard, N. Mex.

1505 Central Ave., Albuquerque, N. Mex... Fort Bayard, N. Mex.. Clayton, N. Mex...

302 West Alameda Ave., Roswell, N. Mex.. 117 Columbia Ave., Albuquerque, N. Mex.. U. S. veterans' hospital, Fort Bayard, N. Mex.

914 North 7th St., Albuquerque, N. Mex....

Sunmount Sanatorium, Santa Fe, N. Mex 414 First National Bank, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

1895

Permanent total.

$100.00

$106. 25

1890

..do.

100.00

125.00

Albuquerque,

1897

Permanent total.

100.00

106, 25

.do.

507 North Lee St., Roswell, N. Mex. Chamberino, N. Mex..

Alamogordo, N. Mex..

Columbus, N. Mex.

Clovis, N. Mex.

1418 West Roma Ave., Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Rosival, N. Mex. Roswell, N. Mex. do.

821 Forrester Ave., Albuquerque, N. Mex.. 513 North 14th St., Albuquerque, N. Mex..

Monkbridge Sanatorium, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

211 Richmond Ave., Albuquerque, N. Mex. Indian Reserve Mescalero, N. Mex. Methodist Sanatorium, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Penos Altos, N. Mex...

Santa Rosa, N. Mex.

U. S. Veterans' Hospital, Fort Bayard, N. Mex.

1405 East Gold Ave., Albuquerque, N. Mex.. General delivery, Taos, N. Mex.

U. S. Veterans' Hospital No. 55, Fort Bayard, N. Mex.

1307 East Central Ave., Albuquerque, N. Mex.

721 North 2d St., Raton, N. Mex.

322 North 14th St., Albuquerque, N. Mex.. Socarro, N. Mex..

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent I submit for printing in the RECORD the following address delivered by myself over the radio in Washington, D. C., on May 11, 1928:

Ladies and gentlemen of the radio audience, true farm relief legis lation will be secured when the Congress enacts a law enabling the farmers of the Nation to become builders of their own destiny, rather than permit their enemies to continue the masters of the farmers' fate. The farmer is justly entitled to a new freedom by which and through which he will enjoy for the first time an economic equality with other businesses and enterprises. True farm relief legislation can not be obtained short of an enabling act which will pledge a proper govern

mental agency to protect the farmers in securing a reasonable price for their products, provided the farmers themselves, by mutual contracts, agree on their part to control their production and to maintain an orderly marketing program. When the farmers become free to control their production and marketing, they can name within reason the sale price of their own products just as other folks do.

There can be no real farm relief without price elevation of farm products, and there can be no permanent price elevation of farm products without efficient control of production. A plan which elevates prices and leaves the plan to be wrecked by the first big crop, at best, is only temporary. A plan which enables the farmer to control his production and thus ushers in better prices, will become permanent and lasting.

The farmers without organized effort on their part can not control their production, neither can they inaugurate and conduct a successful marketing program. Surplus production is the great problem and can only be controlled by voluntary organized efforts on the part of the farmers. It is said farmers will not organize, and hence there can be no efficient surplus control or farm relief. I deny this charge. They will organize if Congress will pass an enabling act making organization worth while. They will voluntarily control their surplus by an orderly marketing program and production curtailment, if assured that their prices will be stabilized at a reasonable profit above the cost of production.

As to the basic agricultural commodities, there is only one great problem that of surplus control. To my mind it can be effectively