read just for a few moments from an address that I had the honor to deliver before the Institute for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia last summer:

Shortly after the beginning of the Senate prohibition hearings last

related there was a marked increase in arrests for drunkenness over the total for the preceding year?

The last of these reports, which is just as accessible to the junior Senator from Alabama as it is to me, covers the year 1927. Let me further say that the statistics contained in those reports deal with conditions obtaining in upward of 500 cities and towns in the United States. Notwithstanding what the junior Senator from Alabama said about the sobriety that exists in his State, I entertain little doubt that if I had

As is well known, more distilleries and fermenters were seized in Georgia during the fiscal year 1925 than in any other State of the Union. Only a few days ago the present Governor of Alabama was arrested for being in too close proximity to a case of liquor at a hunting camp, but it must be a source of gratification to even his sternest prohibition friends to know that apparently a negro, always a very handy" thing in the South, as we southerners know, has been found who is willing vicariously to bear the burden of the governor's sin, if any.

Mr. BLACK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. BRUCE. I am sorry, but I covered that while the Senator was out. If he had remained here, he would have had an opportunity to interrupt me then,

Mr. BLACK. I will read the reply in a moment. I just wanted to ask if the Governor of Maryland had ever been arrested, or if that State's officers had the right to arrest any governor of the State for drinking liquor or violation of the prohibition law?

Mr. BRUCE. Our governor has never been arrested; and, so far as I know, has never given any occasion in his life for arrest.

Mr. BLACK. I asked this question, if the officers of Maryland had the right to arrest the governor for violating the law. That State has not passed any enforcement law at all, has it?

Mr. BRUCE. Unhappily for us, there are prohibition agents and a prohibition administrator there.

Mr. BLACK. I understand it would be unhappy for the Senator to have a prohibition agent anywhere in the world.

Mr. BRUCE. Not unhappy

Mr. BLACK. The Senator said so.

Mr. BRUCE. Oh, yes; unhappy, I meant, because I regret the enactment of the laws which made it proper for them to be there.

Now I will continue reading the extract from the speech from which I have been quoting:

Recently Ben C. Sharpe, the Federal prohibition administrator for the Carolinas and Georgia, has issued a statement declaring"that there is more liquor in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia now than there has been in the past three years."

A short time ago T. L. Caudle, the special prosecutor appointed by Governor McLean, of North Carolina, to assist in the prosecution of the former boss of a convict chain gang for killing two negro prisoners, admonished the jury that they should not disregard the testimony of witnesses for the State who had been in the chain gang, because they had been convicted only of violations of the prohibition law; and, turning toward the audience sitting in the court room, said:

"If I were to ask every man out there who has violated the prohibition law to rise, there wouldn't be a bench warmer left, with the possible exception of a few ministers and tea topers."

In a recent letter to the New York Herald-Tribune, R. Charlton Wright, the editor of the Columbia, S. C., Record, says:

"If there is, as a product of sincere conviction and honest observance of the law, such a reality as the "Dry South," I have yet to see it, and I have lived and journeyed all over it for more than 40 years."

In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of March 11, 1926, will be found a

letter from M. B. Wellborn, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, to the Hon. W. D. Upshaw, who, to the infinite relief of everyone who values time and mental sanity, went down at the recent congressional election, in which the writer says:

"I may say that, from what I can learn, drinking is almost universal, not only in Atlanta but in every town in Georgia and throughout the South."

In still another respect the junior Senator from Alabama seems hopelessly deficient in prohibition knowledge. He said that there is nothing to warrant the idea that since the enactment of the Volstead law there has been any increase in arrests for drunkenness. Does he not know that every year the Moderation League of New York, of which such distinguished men as Elihu Root of New York City, Doctor Welch of Baltimore, and Bishop Fiske are directors, has issued a report touching arrests for drunkenness, and that each one of those annual reports has shown that during the year to which it

increase in arrests for drunkenness that has gone on in the other cities and towns of the country has gone on in Mobile, Birmingham, Anniston, and other cities and towns of Alabama, though I have no right at this moment to affirm this positively. I have had but little to say about prohibition conditions in other States than the Southern States, because the people of those other States, whatever may be the case in the South, are frank enough not to endeavor to draw any deceitful veil over the true facts bearing upon their condition. Does not the junior Senator from Alabama know that only a few days ago the fact was revealed in the press that the bootlegging industry in the city of Detroit in point of economic importance is second only to the vast automobile industry of that city?

I heard a Member of the Senate say a few days ago that at a recent banquet which he had attended in the city of New York one might have supposed, from the freedom with which liquor was circulating, that there was no such thing as the eighteenth amendment or the Volstead Act at all. Only a few days ago I heard another Senator-and this a Senator from one of the supposedly dry States of the South-say that when he was returning from his home in one of the Southern States about 10 days or two weeks ago the Pullman-car conductor in the coach in which he was riding stated to him that during the Easter holidays a number of sleeping cars had been chartered for the purpose of taking some hundreds of girls to their homes from a female seminary in one of the Southern States, and that when those coaches were vacated the porters on them collected and counted-I shrink from mentioning the total number-scores of empty half-pint whisky flasks.

That is one of the worst things about this vile system of tyranny. It holds out a lure to the young of the land of both sexes as dangerous as the false beacon lights which shipwreckers in the past kindled on the seashore. Prohibition, to a greater degree than anything else in our history, has been the corrupter of youth. It has also, as I have shown, worked such wholesale official faithlessness as nothing else in American history has ever worked. It has stained the columns of our newspapers from month to month and from week to week with human blood. It is a breeder of disrespect for all law. It is a training school for hardened criminals. It is the patron of It is a desecrator of the espionage, perfidy, and hypocrisy. church. Through the agency of the Anti-Saloon League it has been a deadly menace to the freedom of elections and to legislative independence. It has so many sins to account for that I would find it impossible in an hour to catalogue all of them. How ridiculous, if I may use such a strong word, is the trite claim of the junior Senator from Alabama that the extraordinary era of material prosperity which this country has recently known has been due to prohibition. Why, an era of equal prosperity has distinguished the recent history of Canada. Indeed, in the last year or so the Canadian dollar has at times been exchanged above par for the American dollar. And yet, with two exceptions, the little sea-girt isle of Prince Edward and the sea-lapped peninsula of Nova Scotia, to both of which the bootlegger has access by water without any difficulty, there is not one solitary Province in the Dominion of Canada which has not for some time past been free from the restraints of prohibition. The remarkable flush of material prosperity which this country has experienced since the close of the World War is due, as every sensible man knows, to the economic effects of the war itself.

It is not in my heart to find fault with the junior Senator from Alabama for having made the speech which he has, for it has imported into the discussion of the prohibition question a measure of kindling animation that I wish to see continuously imported into it from now on until the day that the Democratic convention shall convene at Houston.

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Haltigan, one of its clerks, announced that the House had passed without amendment the bill (S. 4405) authorizing the Detroit River Canadian Bridge Co., its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Detroit River at or near Stony Island, Wayne County, State of Michigan.

Mr. Henry M. Robinson, formerly a member of the Dawes Commission, under date of January 13, 1928, wrote to Senator COPELAND as follows:

I have had occasion to use these documents from time to time and believe that an up-to-date revision would be of great help in the discussions and examinations of the questions involved in our present and future international relations.

I sincerely hope that your resolution will be adopted.

Mr. Paul M. Warburg, under date of January 13, 1928, writes to Senator COPELAND as follows:

I am writing to say that I believe that these volumes have been a very helpful contribution and of valuable assistance to those studying these problems. I feel certain that if a revision and reprint of these volumes could be authorized by the Senate it would be welcomed by students of the question and the financial community.

Mr. George E. Roberts, vice president National City Bank, and who has written the Economic Bulletin that has been widely distributed for a number of years, and was formerly Director of the Mint for a period of 14 years, writes to Senator COPELAND under date of January 10, 1928, as follows:

The volumes upon European currency, exchange, and finance, prepared by the Commission of Gold and Silver Inquiry, United States Senate, comprise the most complete and convenient record in existence of the changes in European monetary systems resulting from the war and of the exchange fluctuations during the period of instability. They were prepared by competent editors and form an invaluable record. Now that there is reason to believe that the period of instability is practically over, it is, in my opinion, highly desirable to have the reviews brought down to date and another edition printed. I understand that you are moving to this purpose, and I am writing to give my approval to this proposal. I think the papers by well-known economists which form a part of the original report should be included in the reprint, for the light they throw upon conditions at the time they were written. All of this information and discussion forms a record of the most extraordinary period in monetary affairs ever known.

The letter from Mr. Madden, director of the Institute of International Finance, under date of January 10, 1928, to Senator COPELAND is as follows:

May I say that I hope that this resolution will prevail and that both publications will be authorized and prepared. We shall find them extremely valuable and useful in the work that we are doing in the Institute of International Finance which, as you will recall, is an independent fact-finding body for the purpose of furnishing information to investors in foreign securities in the United States.

The other letters reflect in a very large degree the same reasons for revising these two publications. The suggestion in Mr. Madden's letter that the revised edition of these publications would be useful in safeguarding the investments of Americans in foreign securities is an important one which should be taken into account by this committee, as there are now outstanding American investments in foreign securities in excess of $14,500,000,000, and the amount is increasing at the annual rate of from $1,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000.

While the information made available in the original publications on European currency and finance and foreign exchange by the Senate Commission of Gold and Silver Inquiry, and the additional information to be included in the proposed revision, are important to the economic, banking, agricultural, and commercial interests of the Nation, they are also primarily essential to the gold and silver mining industries.

At the time the commission was appointed in 1923 the problem of restoring the gold standard in many countries of the world was widely discussed, and there was some question concerning the probable success of this movement. In many countries paper-currency inflation had driven both gold and silver from circulation, and in order to accommodate the needs for small currency substitute coinages were put into circulation which either contained no silver or a materially reduced amount. Since the principal demand for both gold and silver is monetary, the maintenance of the monetary positions of these two metals is vitally important. The fact that many countries since 1923 have resumed the gold standard in some form and have replaced subsidiary coinages having no intrinsic value by new silver coinages, thereby increasing the market for gold and silver, is reassuring. The progress already made in monetary reform is also reassuring that the gold standard is to be maintained, and that silver will continue as the principal metal for subsidiary coinage.

It has been expressed by numerous economists and financial authorities that the original publications of the Senate Commission of Gold and Silver Inquiry on European currency and finance and foreign exchange materially assisted in expediting the restoration of more normal currency and financial condi

tions throughout the world, and these same authorities are requesting that a revision to date be made by way of recording progress in international currency and finance, and with a view of rendering additional assistance in currency and financial reform. In further securing the maintenance of the gold standard and in extending the currency use of gold and silver the revision of these publications will undoubtedly benefit the gold and silver mining industries and safeguard the financial and economic position of the United States.

The small amount involved in the revision of these publications is negligible in comparison with the great benefits to the American public. The estimated cost of revising this material is about $17,000, and the work should consume approximately six months.

The letters which have been received by myself, Senator COPELAND, and others from such outstanding authorities would seem to constitute the most competent testimony as to the value of the work contemplated by the pending resolution.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, is there any reason why this resolution might not be put upon its passage immediately while the Senate is aware of what has happened and of the work that has been done by the committee?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution? Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I hope the resolution will go

over.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will go to the calendar.

Mr. ODDIE. I ask that the resolution may be referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the resolution will be so referred.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the committee for his illuminating statement regarding this matter. It is one which has attracted the attention of financiers, bankers, teachers, and many other persons interested in the subject of finance, and I hope that in due time the resolution may be adopted.

CONSTRUCTION OF RURAL POST ROADS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MCMASTER in the chair) laid before the Senate the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1341) 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, which was to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That section 11 of the Federal highway act, approved November 9, 1921 (42 Stat. L. 212), as amended or supplemented, be further amended by adding at the end of the second paragraph thereof the following:

"And provided further, That in the case of any State containing unappropriated public lands and nontaxable Indian lands, individual and tribal, exceeding 5 per cent of the total area of all lands in the State in which the population, as shown by the latest available Federal census, does not exceed 10 per square mile of area, the Secretary of Agriculture, upon request from the State highway department of such State, may increase the share payable by the United States to any percentage up to and including the whole cost on projects on the primary system of Federal-aid highways and on projects on the secondary system when the latter is a continuation of a route on the primary system or directly connects with a route on the primary system of an adjoining State, but such State shall allocate and expend during the same fiscal year upon some other project or projects on the Federal-aid system, under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, the amount it would have been required to expend upon such project."

SEC. 2. In every case in which, in the judgment of the Secretary of Agriculture and the highway department of the State in question, it shall be practicable to plant and maintain shade trees along the highways authorized by said act of November 9, 1921, and by this act, the planting of such trees shall be included in the specifications provided in section 8 of said act of November 9, 1921.

SEC. 3. The system of Federal-aid highways on which Federal funds may be expended in any State may exceed 7 per cent of the total highway mileage of such State by the mileage of roads on said system within national forest, Indian, or other Federal reservations therein.

SEC. 4. Federal funds may be expended on that portion of a highway or street within a municipality having a population of 2,500 or more, along which from a point on the corporate limits inwardly the houses average more than 200 feet apart: Provided, That no Federal funds shall be expended for the construction of any bridge within or partly within any municipality having a population of more than 30,000, as shown by the latest available Federal or State census; but this limitation shall not apply in the case of an interstate bridge, including ap

proaches, connecting such municipality in one State with a point in an adjoining State which may be within a municipality having a population of not more than 10,000.

SEC. 5. All acts or parts of acts in any way inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed, and this act shall take effect on its passage.

Mr. ODDIE.

I move that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, will the Senator explain briefly what the House amendment is?

Mr. President, the bill passed the Senate a Mr. ODDIE. number of weeks ago and went to the House. The House eliminated the section which raised the limit of $15,000 a mile for public roads to a larger amount. The matter was controversial: there was some discussion in the House on this matter. There is a general understanding that this question will be taken up again in the December session. I hope it will be because I want to see that section placed in the law.

Another section was eliminated relating to highway markers. There was some discussion in the Senate in regard to that provision. It is embodied in a measure which is now before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. There are two other provisions added by the House that are in the nature of emergency provisions. I hope, Mr. President, that the Senate will adopt the House amendment.

Mr. BRATTON. Mr. President, will the Senator explain what change the House bill makes in existing law with reference to highways and their construction?

Mr. ODDIE. It adds two provisions-one is section 3, which permits the States to compute their 7 per cent of the total road mileage on which Federal aid may be applied, as provided in the Federal highway act of 1921, without counting the roads in forest reserves and Indian reserves. It enables certain States to complete comparatively small stretches of Federalaid highways.

Mr. BRATTON. That is the major change?

Mr. ODDIE. Yes. Another change, Mr. President, is that in section 4, the first part clarifies the present law in regard to the building of these roads within the boundaries of municipalities having a population of over 2,500, in places where houses are 200 feet apart. There is a question with the Comptroller General as to the wording of the present law which this wording clears up. There is a short provision regarding bridges which is necessary to clear up some provisions in the law.

I will ask that the matter be acted on now by the Senate. Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Nevada if this report is acceptable to the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. MCKELLAR]?

Mr. ODDIE. I do not think this involves anything in which the Senator from Tennessee is interested. I am quite sure he would not object to these House amendments to the bill which passed the Senate several weeks ago.

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1) to reduce and equalize taxation, provide revenue, and for other purposes.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I should like to have a correction made in the permanent RECORD. In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of May 14 the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS] is reported as having said:

But I am advised by the Actuary of the Treasury that under our plan of reduction the taxpayers with incomes above $70,000 will get $9,600,000 reduction.

It should read that "under the plan of the majority" the reduction to such taxpayers will be $9,600,000. The Senator from North Carolina was made to state just the opposite to what he intended to assert as a fact. I ask that that correction may be made for the permanent RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SACKETT in the chair). The official reporters will make the correction.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I wish to correct the statement of the Senator from Massachusetts that under the plan of the majority the reduction to such taxpayers would be $9,600,000. I do not want that statement to go in the RECORD.

Mr. SIMMONS. The RECORD will stand as to what I said about the $9,600.000 reduction, as corrected by the Senator from Massachusetts. The report of the Finance Committee submitted by the Senator from Utah shows on page 9 (Report 960) by adding the figures in the table of probable reductions this amount to be correct.

Mr. SMOOT. I am not objecting at all to the correction so far as the speech of the Senator from North Carolina is concerned, but the Senator from Massachusetts is mistaken when he says that under the plan of the majority the reduction to such taxpayers would be $9,600,000.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. I am merely correcting what the Senator from North Carolina was reported to have said. He did not intend to say that his plan would lead to a reduction of the amount stated for the class of surtax payers with incomes in excess of $70,000. As to the accuracy of the amount named the tables of the Treasury Department confirm it. Mr. SMOOT. That is correct. Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. In fact, his plan did not give this class of large taxpayers any reduction. Yet the RECORD Shows that the Senator of North Carolina is alleged to have said that they were given a reduction of $9,600,000.

Mr. SMOOT. The Senator is correct in that. The only correction I want to make is that the Senator said also that according to the majority plan there would be a reduction of $9,600,000 above the bracket mentioned.

Mr. SIMMONS. I do not know about that; but, Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for discovering this inadvertence of mine. I wish to say to the Senator that I did not read my notes over last night; they went into the RECORD, So far as I was concerned, without any correction in them being made. I would have noted the mistake if I had read the report.

That, however, is not what I asked the Chair for recognition for. I am advised that in the RECORD there is no reference to the substitute which I offered for the majority plan. Of course, I had offered the amendment several days ago, and stated that I presented it to the Senate; but there seems to be no reference in the RECORD to that amendment. So I am advised by one of the force. I wish the RECORD to be corrected so as to refer to the substitute.

Mr. SMOOT. The Senator wants to have the substitute printed?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; I want to have the substitute printed. Mr. FLETCHER. There is a reference to it, but the amendment proposed by the Senator does not appear set out.

Mr. SIMMONS. That is what I mean. It ought to be set out, and I ask that in the permanent RECORD it be set out. Mr. SMOOT. That is right.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I now send to the desk the amendment which I had filed as a substitute for the majority plan of reduction of surtax, and which did not appear in the

RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute will be printed In the permanent RECORD just preceding the vote. Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. BROUSSARD. Mr. President, will the Senator please explain the amendment?

Mr. SIMMONS. It is the amendment which I offered as a substitute for the minority plan of reducing the surtax. It does not appear in the RECORD, and I wish it to appear in the RECORD. It was voted on yesterday.

Mr. SIMMONS's amendment, submitted and voted upon yesterday, follows.

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the committee:

Upon a net income of $12,000 there shall be no surtax; upon net income in excess of $12,000 and not in excess of $14,000, 1 per cent in addition of such excess.

Twenty dollars upon a net income of $14,000, and upon net income in excess of $14,000 and not in excess of $18,000, 2 per cent in addition of such excess.

"One hundred dollars upon a net income of $18,000, and upon net income in excess of $18,000 and not in excess of $22,000, 3 per cent in addition of such excess.

Two hundred and twenty dollars upon a net income of $22,000, and upon net income in excess of $22,000 and not in excess of $26,000, 4 per cent in addition of such excess.

"Three hundred and eighty dollars upon a net income of $26,000, and upon net income in excess of $26,000 and not in excess of $30,000, 5 per cent in addition of such excess.

“Five hundred and eighty dollars upon a net income of $30,000, and upon net income in excess of $30,000 and not in excess of $34,000, 6 per cent in addition of such excess.

'Eight hundred and twenty dollars upon a net income of $34,000, and upon net income in excess of $34,000 and not in excess of $38,000, 7 per cent in addition of such excess.

"One thousand one hundred dollars upon a net income of $38,000, and upon net income in excess of $38,000 and not in excess of $42,000, 9 per cent in addition of such excess.

"One thousand four hundred and sixty dollars upon a net income of $42,000, and upon net income in excess of $42,000 and not in excess of $46,000, 12 per cent in addition of such excess.

"One thousand nine hundred and forty dollars upon net income of $46,000, and upon net income in excess of $46,000 and not in excess of $52,000, 16 per cent in addition of such excess.

"Two thousand nine hundred dollars upon net income of $52,000, and upon net income in excess of $52,000 and not in excess of $60,000, 17 per cent in addition of such excess.

"Four thousand two hundred and sixty dollars upon net income of $60,000, and upon net income in excess of $60,000 and not in excess of $80,000, 18 per cent in addition of such excess.

"Seven thousand eight hundred and sixty dollars upon net income of $80,000, and upon net income in excess of $80,000 and not in excess of $100,000, 19 per cent in addition of such excess.

"Eleven thousand six hundred and sixty dollars upon net income of $100,000, and upon net income in excess of $100,000, 20 per cent in addition of such excess."

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I take this occasion to say that I think we have disposed of most of the controverted questions in connection with this tax reduction bill. We have lost a good deal of time as a result of Senators making speeches upon other questions than the tax bill which is before the Senate. I hope we may now return to the tax bill and confine ourselves to it until we have finished it.

Mr. SMOOT. I hope so, too, Mr. President.

Mr. SIMMONS. If we are going to have tax reduction at this time, it is high time that the Senate should act.

Mr. McNARY. Mr. President, I only desire to make an observation.

I want to assist as much as I can in expediting the consideration of the pending bill; but I do think it is quite essential, in view of the fact that the session is to close two weeks from next Saturday, that at a very early opportunity I may be able to take up the conference report on the farm relief bill. I do not think it will take more than 10 minutes.

I did not want any understanding to go around that might imperial the consideration of the conference report on the farm relief bill at some time when it will not interfere with the consideration of the tax bill.

Mr. CARAWAY. I hope the Senator will bring it up this afternoon, because it ought to be acted upon.

Mr. McNARY. I hope I may have the opportunity; and that is the reason why I simply wanted to make that interjection.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, in connection with the statement of the Senator from North Carolina, if there is a real desire to make progress on the tax bill, let me suggest to those who really want it to pass that this amendment to repeal the inheritance tax be abandoned. It is perfectly certain that if that amendment is offered we shall be here for three or four days longer, at least; and that would imperil the final passage of the bill. I do not see why we should be called upon to fight out that proposition under those circumstances.

There are some of us who do not care very much about tax reduction at this session. We would prefer to apply the surplus to the public debt. We have gone along with those who do believe in tax reduction and with the bill which has been proposed by the committee; but, speaking for myself, and I think for a number of others, we are not interested in the passage of a tax reduction bill; and if the inheritance-tax repeal is to be placed on the bill, or attempted to be placed on it, it necessarily will take some three or four days to dispose of it. It may change the attitude of some Senators toward the bill. What that means to tax reduction those in charge of the bill can determine for themselves.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, as long as the Senator has referred to some observations I made, I desire to say that the committee made no recommendation with reference to the inheritance or estate tax. Neither has the minority offered any amendment with reference to it; but an amendment has been offered, as I understand, by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM]. Of course, if he offers that amendment, we shall have to act upon it in some way or other.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, with regard to what has just been said by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH] and the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS], of course, I regret to feel obliged to do anything which would lead to three days' debate. I can assure the Senator that I have no desire to indulge in three days' debate or in three hours' debate. In fact, it will take me but a few moments to present the arguments in favor of the abolition of the inheritance tax as they are seen in the State of Connecticut.

It is well known that the State of Connecticut joined with the State of Florida and sundry other States in the case before the Supreme Court in an effort to prove that this tax in its present form was not constitutional.

We believe that it interferes with the rights of the States. It is the States that make the laws through which wills and inheritances become effective. It is our belief that since it is only the States that make these laws, the power of taxing estates which come to those who inherit through the State laws should be limited to the States.

Greatly as I regret to seem to take any action which would lead to three days' debate, and much as I hope that the debate may be very much limited, in view of the fact that I promise not to take more than 10 or 15 minutes in debating it myself, I hope very much that the prophecy of the Senator from Idaho will not be fulfilled. In view of the stand which my State has taken in regard to this matter, and the intense interest in it on behalf of the authorities of the State, including the governor and the tax commissioner and the majority of the people in the State, I regret very much that it will be necessary for me, at the proper time, and when so indicated by the Senator in charge of the bill, to ask that my amendment, now lying on the table, be considered.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I understand the position of the Senator. I made the suggestion that I did in the interest of time, and also in the interest of this tax bill and those who are interested in it; but, as the Senator feels obliged to present his amendment, those who wish to discuss the inheritance tax fully can only abide by the program of those in charge of the bill. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, it seems to me that the question of presenting or not presenting the amendments which have been offered by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BINGHAM] ought not to be settled by a threat of a filibuster or a threat of delay. The Senator from Connecticut has a perfect right, as any Senator on this floor has, to offer any amendment he chooses to offer to this bill. To say that if a certain amendment is to be offered it means three or four days' delay, or that Senators are going to filibuster, or something of that sort, does not settle anything; and it seems to me that it is a mistaken notion that a Senator has the right to make a proposition of that kind here. I think the States that are interested in this matter and 23 States have already passed resolutions favoring the elimination of the estate tax, and other States are interested that have not yet acted on it-have a right to present their amendment.

Mr. BORAH.

Undoubtedly, Mr. President, they have a right; and I am not objecting at all. I am perfectly willing that it shall be done, and we shall take the time to discuss it. I made no threat; but I have stated a fact, which the Senator will find to be a fact when we get through with it. I felt justified in stating a situation which I know to exist to those who are interested in the passage of this bill and also in the interest of time.

Mr. FLETCHER. Very well. This is a long session of Congress. We do not have to adjourn until next December. The Senate has already taken a position on this matter. It is not a new question. There is no need of any lengthy debate about it. As far as I am concerned, I will guarantee to limit my remarks on it to 30 minutes. I propose to be heard on it, however; and, to be consistent, we ought to do what we have done heretofore.

We have favored almost unanimously in this body the elimination of the estate tax. We ought to insist upon that position as a matter of policy and principle. If we yield now because somebody says the bill will be delayed, or something of that sort, then the States that are interested in this problem have lost their position entirely and are obliged to yield because of some demand of that kind, not because of the merits of the proposition.

The Senator from Connecticut has proposed two amendments. One is to eliminate the estate tax; the other is to fix new rates at about one-fifth of what they are in the present law and to eliminate the 80 per cent credit to the States. The Senate can take one or the other of those positions, it seems to me.

Mr. BORAH. And both mean about the same thing. Mr. FLETCHER. They are quite different. They may come eventually to the same thing; but there are two propositions. Some Senators on the other side favor one and do not favor the other. Some Senators on this side favor one and do not favor the other. It is a proposition upon which the Senate ought to be willing to vote, and vote without any unnecessary delay or any unusual discussion. I think we understand the question pretty well. At any rate, it ought not to take over a couple of hours to dispose of both those amendments.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I wish to say to the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH] that I do not know of any purpose on this side of the Chamber to discuss at any length the question of the repeal of the estate tax. I think only one or two or three Senators at the outside will desire to speak at all, and they