Mr. BLAINE. Unless I am mistaken, there are some Government securities bearing interest as low as 22 per cent.

Mr. JONES. That rate would not apply on these loans. Mr. BLAINE. The only interest rates that do not apply are the rates on savings bank securities, under the conference report. Mr. JONES. It is provided that

During any period in which a vessel is operated in the foreign trade the rate shall be the lowest rate of yield to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per cent on any Government obligation bearing date subsequent to April 6, 1917 (except postal-savings bonds), and outstanding at the time the loan is made by the board and certified by the Secretary of the Treasury.

As I understand it, the lowest rate would be 3 or 34 per cent.

Mr. BLAINE. I had assumed we had bonds bearings interest as low as 21⁄2 per cent.

Mr. FLETCHER. Those are excluded. Those were issued before the date fixed here.

Mr. BLAINE. I am inquiring for information. Then I also understand that these loans may be made to the extent of threefourths of the cost of the vessel to be constructed or reconditioned or remodeled or improved, as well as to equip the vessels. Mr. JONES. That is correct.

Mr. BLAINE. That includes machinery that is placed on the vessel for operating the vessel?

Mr. JONES. I suppose so.

Mr. BLAINE. To the extent of 75 per cent of the value. Mr. JONES. The board, of course, can insist upon additional security if they deem it necessary.

Mr. BLAINE. Loaning to the extent of 75 per cent of the value of the machinery makes a very insecure loan, in my opinion, because machinery is subject to very rapid depreciation.

Mr. JONES. In my judgment, there will be practically no loans made upon machinery as of itself. At any rate, the board can require additional security if they deem it necessary. Mr. BLAINE. Then, I also understand that the subsidy which is offered to privately owned and operated vessels in foreign trade is about $7,000,000 per annum, as an additional charge against the Government for the carrying of the United States mails.

Mr. JONES. That is estimated to be the amount, from $7,000,000 to $10,000,000, if this is taken advantage of to the limit. But it is also estimated that if the faster ships are constructed the increase in postal revenue will be very great and that the cost will be more than taken care of by the revenues. The Postmaster General so estimates.

Mr. COPELAND. At the present time we are paying, be cause of a lack of fast vessels in the mail service, about $1,500,000 to British ships for carrying our mails, which will now be carried by our ships, presumably.

Mr. BLAINE. Under this provision we pay $7,000,000 more. Mr. JONES. We pay more if this be taken advantage of by our ships.

Mr. BINGHAM. I learned from the Shipping Board to-day that although the amount on the books credited to the fund is a little over $80,000,000, actually a part of that has been loaned so that there is available for loans only a little over $69,000,000. Mr. KING. May I ask the Senator from Washington what he expects will result to the Shipping Board if this bill becomes a law? Is it to be perpetuated?

Mr. JONES. Not by this bill. It is continued, however, until the Government ships are disposed of, of course.

Mr. KING. Does not the Senator believe that this will perpetuate the Shipping Board and strengthen its power and give it a strangle hold which will be much greater than it is under the present law?

Mr. JONES. I do not think so.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I would like to answer the question of the Senator from Utah. I think this bill will terminate the Shipping Board within a reasonable time. That is the reason why I have enthusiasm for it. It is going to develop a privately owned merchant marine and put the flag on the seven seas. It will be privately owned and privately oper ated, and it will not be many years before we will be proud of our merchant fleet. The Shipping Board, in my judgment, will go out of business because every possible plan will be encouraged by the provisions of the bill to make it possible for American citizens to enter into the merchant marine business in competition with foreign vessels and put our flag where we desire to have it. No longer will it be necessary for us to subsidize, at tremendous expense, the operations of the Shipping Board.

Mr. JONES. There is certainly more of a prospect to put the Shipping Board out of existence under the terms of this bill than under the terms of existing law.

Mr. COPELAND. In my opinion, under the existing law it never would be put out of business. It has the right under the law to come here and ask for appropriations to build itself up. This bill will insure the construction of new ships, fine new vessels that will compete with the best now afloat.

Mr. KING. The Senator from New York, in my opinion, is entirely too optimistic. He may have prophetic powers, but I hazard the guess now that he will not live long enough to see a merchant marine created under the operations of this bill, nor will he live long enough to see the Shipping Board go out of business. Indeed, it will grow stronger, more bureaucratic, more paternalistic, and less efficient, in my opinion, as the years go by. Mr. COPELAND. I may state that if we do not put this bill into effect the Senator from New York will live long enough to see increasing appropriations for the building up of a Government-owned merchant marine that never can compete on terms of equality with the merchant fleets of other nations.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, is the Senator from Utah a patient of the Senator from New York? [Laughter.] Mr. KING. No; but I am very patient with the Senator from New York.

Mr. JONES. Yes; until the vessels are disposed of. Mr. BLAINE. Will they be permitted to carry the mails at the same rate of charge as will be made by those engaged in private operation?

Mr. JONES. I would certainly think so, where they are operating over a route that requires the United States mails to be carried.

Mr. BLAINE. And the Post Office Department may enter into contracts with the Shipping Board for the carrying of the United States mails in foreign commerce?

Mr. JONES. I think so. I do not know of anything to pre

vent it.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, may I say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I understand the bill authorizes a loan fund of more than $125,000,000; indeed, a fund of $250,000,000. Mr. BLAINE. Yes.

Mr. KING. I would like to ask the Senator from Washington how that $250,000,000 is to be obtained?

Mr. JONES. By appropriation, if Congress makes the appropriation. Of course Congress can refuse to do it. This is merely an authorized enlargement of that fund up to $250,000,000. Mr. KING. What is in the fund now?

Mr. JONES. The last I heard there was about $80,000,000. Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Utah yield to the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. KING. I yield.

Mr. JONES. Under the terms of the bill the loan fund can be increased to $250,000,000, and then it becomes a revolving fund.

Mr. BORAH. At the present time we have a fund of something like $70,000,000?

Mr. JONES. Yes; unallocated.

Mr. BORAH. It would then create a fund of something like $320,000,000?

Mr. JONES. No. The aggregate of the loan fund would be $250,000,000.

Mr. FLETCHER. The $125,000,000 is to be raised from sales and the disposition of notes and obligations. Then there is authorized to be appropriated $125,000,000 more, so as to raise the fund to $250,000,000. That is the ultimate limit. That is merely authorized.

Mr. President, I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I think the conference report ought to be agreed to. I am not in full accord with it throughout. There are some things I would like to see quite different from what is provided for in the bill. I am saying this in reply to the Senator from New York as much as anything else, because I do not want the RECORD to go with his statement in it and nothing to the contrary. I want to say to the Senator from New York that if I thought the bill would terminate the Shipping Board to-day and put it out of business right away I should vote against it, and fight it for all I am worth.

Mr. COPELAND. I would not have the Senator think that I thought it was going to put the Shipping Board out of busi

ness to-day, but I said that the building up of a more effective merchant marine would accomplish that purpose.

SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!

Mr. FLETCHER. Senators are asking for a vote on the conference report, but this is the only time I have said anything upon it, and I think I know something about it.

Mr. SIMMONS. The Senator ought to be heard.

Mr. FLETCHER. I want to say that the first thing that commends the conference report to me is in section 1, to wit, that the policy and the primary purpose declared in section 1 of the merchant marine act of 1920 are hereby confirmed." What was that primary purpose? It was to establish and maintain an adequate merchant marine as the fixed and settled policy of Congress. That is the primary purpose and it is reiterated here. That is the first proposition.

Then another thing that commends it to me is that it requires the affirmative vote of five members of the Shipping Board before sales may be made indiscriminately and recklessly or otherwise. I wanted to have it the unanimous vote of the Shipping Board. We have a board organized here in possession of millions and millions of dollars' worth of property and undertaking a great enterprise of vital importance to the country. It is a necessary undertaking for the people of the country. Before they themselves decide or are pressed into a decision to the effect that the property is to be sacrificed in order to carry out some particular policy of some administration I wanted them to go on record unanimously in favor of the disposal of public property to accomplish that end. But the House preferred to make it a majority vote, as it is now provided, and finally they decided to require that five members of the board must vote affirmatively in favor of sales, and the conferees have accepted that provision. I think it is entirely reasonable to require the affirmative vote of at least five members of the board and put them on record before the property is to be disposed of.

There are other features about it which I shall not take time now to discuss, but I wished to say that much. The Senate bill is largely embodied in this conference report. The principal provisions of the bill which the Senate passed are embodied in the report.

Mr. JONES. I might say that all of the Senate provisions are retained except the requirement for a unanimous vote of the Shipping Board.

Mr. FLETCHER. And except the mail-contract provision and the extension of the loan fund. We authorized loans up to 66% per cent, and it has been increased to 75 per cent, but as the Senator from Washington has stated, the board can require additional security, and, perhaps, thus the loans will be protected. Those additions we have accepted, and I think this is a bill which will at least remove from American citizens the charge that they have got to have help and aid before we can ever get them interested in the merchant marine.

I have contended, and I contend to-day, that American shipyards can build ships in competition with the world; I have contended and I contend now that the American people can operate ships in competition with the world without aid; but it has been said that they can not do so, and they have not been willing to undertake it. Now we give them a chance. If they do not take advantage of this opportunity, there is nothing left but for the Government to own and operate the merchantmarine ships in the overseas trade.

Mr. COPELAND. That is true.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida permit me before he takes his seat to ask him one question? Mr. FLETCHER. Certainly.

Mr. SIMMONS. When the Shipping Board disposes of one of these ships, how long are the purchasers required to operate it under the American flag?

Mr. FLETCHER. Under existing contracts they are compelled to operate it for five years. There are some members of the board who want the time fixed longer than that.

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida misunderstands the question of the Senator from North Carolina. Such ships can not ever be transferred to another flag without the vote of the Shipping Board.

Mr. FLETCHER. No; our ships can not go under another flag, but I thought the Senator from North Carolina had reference to sales. The present contracts under which ships are sold oblige the purchasers to continue to operate them in the service, in the same trade and under our flag, for five years, but, of course, a ship can not be transferred to a foreign flag without the consent of the board under any circumstances.

Mr. SIMMONS. If the board shall sell a ship under those conditions, does the purchaser of that ship have to do anything that would make such a ship an auxiliary of the Navy in any sense?

Mr. FLETCHER. There is no obligation on the purchaser's part, but this bill contemplates that in all replacements and in all reconstruction, additions, and that sort of thing the Navy shall be consulted, and that it shall go over the plans, and the purpose shall be to equip ships for use in time of emergency. Mr. JONES. With a view to their use as naval auxiliaries? Mr. FLETCHER. That is provided for in the bill. Mr. SIMMONS. Those ships are now equipped for such use? Mr. FLETCHER. They will be.

Mr. SIMMONS. And if they shall be sold or replaced, the ships replacing them must likewise be so equipped? Mr. FLETCHER. Precisely.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Florida a question?

Mr. FLETCHER. I yield.

Mr. BORAH. If the conference report shall be adopted, there will be a very heavy obligation resting upon Congress to make the appropriation which is therein authorized? Mr. FLETCHER. As to the loan fund?

Mr. BORAH. Yes.

Mr. FLETCHER. And as to the replacements; but the bill provides that in case of replacement the Shipping Board must first ascertain the needs and make recommendation to Congress. Congress has to pass on the question of whether or not it will authorize the expenditure. That is provided for in the bill. The expenditure is not authorized now, but is to be authorized or not as Congress may see fit when the report of the Shipping Board shall come in and all of the facts are laid before Congress.

Mr. BORAH. The loan feature is deemed essential to the successful operation of the proposed law? Mr. FLETCHER. Yes.

Mr. BORAH. So that, I say, if we shall pass the bill, while it is not binding, if we expect to make a success according to the principles expressed in the bill, we shall have to provide an appropriation.

Mr. FLETCHER. To make up the fund of $250,000,000. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Washington [Mr. JONES] whether or not the proposed increase in the appropriations contemplated by the bill is contrary to the President's financial program.

Mr. JONES. We shall find out when the bill is submitted to him for his approval.

it is as complete as the Senator from Washington can make it. Mr. BLAINE. The answer is not satisfactory, but I suppose Mr. JONES. I will say that I am very confident that the bill will be approved.

Mr. BLAINE. Then, Mr. President, I desire to discuss the proposition from that standpoint. I do not know how long I may continue the debate, but I do not believe that the conference report should be adopted.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Utah?

Mr. BLAINE. I yield.

Mr. KING. I dislike to make the request of the Senator having the bill in charge, but I should be glad if he would allow the conference report to go over until to-morrow.

Mr. JONES. I think we ought to act on the conference report this evening.

Mr. KING. I do not want the RECORD to show that the conference report has been adopted by the Senate by a unanimous vote. I am opposed to it, and wish to take the time to point out some of the objectionable features in the report. I do not wish to do it to-night-Senators are tired and anxious to leave-but I can not, of course, control the Senator or the Senate.

Mr. JONES. I wonder whether or not we might reach an agreement as to a time for voting on the conference report to-morrow. I do not want to keep the Senate here; I wish to be as accommodating as possible in the matter. If the Senator were given an hour to-morrow, or some such time as that, would that be sufficient to enable him to finish his argument?

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I am opposed to limiting debate. I am opposed to cloture. I have no desire to postpone a vote upon this measure, but I think the proposition should be thoroughly discussed. I think the country ought to be informed upon this proposition, and upon this proposition as it relates to other measures pending before Congress, about which we have reached no agreement, and the reasons why agreement has not been reached upon those measures. Therefore, Mr. President, I can not determine now what time may be necessary in order to discuss those propositions. When they are discussed, so far as I am concerned I have no desire to protract the debate.

With that statement, Mr. President, I am quite willing to accommodate the Senate and those concerned about this bill in regard to whatever the Senator from Washington requests as reasonable.

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I wonder if it would be agreeable to the Senator to have us vote not later than 2 o'clock tomorrow. That would give two hours.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, my observation has been that there is not very much opportunity in the first two hours to discuss any particular measure.

Mr. JONES. I will say that the Senator from Wisconsin would have the floor.

Mr. BLAINE. It is like a free-for-all proposition.

Mr. JONES. No; I would make it part of the understanding that the Senator from Wisconsin should have the floor when we convene to-morrow, and take all the time that he desires. We would meet in recess, as I understand.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, with regard to the question of a recess or an adjournment, I want it distinctly understood that we are going on with the revenue bill. We have spent too much time on it already; and I do hope, if it is not disposed of, that the Senator in charge of it will begin to have night sessions; and I think it will be a mistake to take up conference reports which can be passed at other times.

Mr. JONES. If we have an understanding that we shall vote on this matter not later than a definite time, would not the Senator be willing that we should go on and finish it? Mr. CURTIS. It would have to be within a reasonable time.

Mr. JONES. I suggested not later than 2 o'clock.

Mr. CURTIS. I do not think it is treating the Senator from California [Mr. JOHNSON] right to put all these things in ahead of his bill.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas. I am very grateful to him; but this is an important measure that is now being heard, and it either means that we shall sit here now and hear the thing out-which I am perfectly willing to do if it is desirable--or that we shall give a reasonable time for it in the near future.

Mr. CURTIS. If the Senator from California says it is all right with him, I should be perfectly willing, if we could get an agreement to vote not later than 2 o'clock to-morrow, to have that done.

Mr. JOHNSON. I should be agreeable to that, because it is a measure that is necessary to be presented and passed, and the Senator has a right to have it passed. Would that be satis factory to the Senator from Wisconsin?

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from California is not so credulous as to think that there is going to be a vote on the Boulder Dam bill at this session of Congress. Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, but I am!

Mr. BLAINE. It is not on the cards.

Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know what cards the Senator means.

Mr. BLAINE. I am going to be a prophet, and predict now that that vote will not come at this session of Congress. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to take up the Boulder Dam proposition and vote upon it any day.

Mr. JOHNSON. I know that.

which I am capable and every endeavor will be pursued to get a vote upon this very essential measure. It would be a shame and a disgrace, in my opinion, if a particular vote should not be had one way or the other, if we were denied, upon beneficent legislation of this sort, a vote by the Senate or a vote by the House of Representatives.

So I assure the Senator from Wisconsin, notwithstanding his dire prophecy, that there is going to be an effort made in behalf of Boulder Dam legislation to get a vote-an effort, a test, if you desire, of physical endurance, and every effort that the rules will permit to see that ultimately a vote shall be had in the Senate before we adjourn.

So much for that.

Mr. JONES. I want to say to the Senator, so far as I am concerned, that I am in hearty accord with his position.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am quite sure the Senate must be in accord with it, for what sort of a body is this that stands here supine and says that legislation that is of consequence or that a bill that is of great importance shall not even have a vote, either at this session or at some other? Are we so weak, have we fallen so low, sir; have we so little strength and so little ability that we can not give a vote to people who demand it here or to legislation that requires it?

I will not believe it, sir, until finally the Senate shall have thus determined; and in order that the Senate may determine its action and do its duty it will have the opportunity in the days to come, and a vote will be accorded if it be within the | realm of human possibility to accord it upon this legislation. Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I hope and trust that my predictions will not come true, and that the measure in which the Senator from California is interested and in which the people affected by the development of Boulder Dam are interested and in which the people of the United States as a whole are interested may be given its place in this session at a time when there will be an opportunity to vote upon the question.

So far as it is within my individual power, I shall give all the assistance I can toward promoting a vote upon the question of Boulder Dam. I hope that the Senator from California-as I know he will, knowing him as I do-will continue to make his fight and the fight of the people of the Southwest and the people of America for legislation to develop this great natural resource that to-day is flowing idly into the ocean, promoting neither service nor usefulness, but rather devoted to destruction.

So, Mr. President, I, for one, will forego many of the nonessential or comparatively nonessential questions in order that there may be a vote upon Boulder Dam; and I want to assure the Senator from California that it is not my desire to prolong any discussion that may result in defeating the opportunity for a vote upon the question of Boulder Dam.

Mr. JOHNSON. I never doubted that, Mr. President.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield, and, if so, to whom?

Mr. BLAINE. I yield to the Senator from Kansas. Mr. CURTIS. I desire to submit a unanimous-consent request that we recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow, and that we vote on the conference report not later than 1 o'clock. That will give two hours.

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I said just a few moments ago that I can not agree to closing debate upon any proposition. I presume that two hours will be ample time within which to discuss the conference report.

Mr. CURTIS. I suggested two hours, because I was told by a Senator that the Senator thought two hours was sufficient. Mr. BLAINE. I think two hours is sufficient, but I can not foreclose the right of other Senators.

Mr. CURTIS. If the Senator is willing to meet at 11 o'clock to-morrow, I will ask that we take a recess until 11 o'clock, and then we can go on.

Mr. BLAINE. That is perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. PITTMAN. Mr. President, just a word. I do not want to take up time if a recess is desired; but I feel it my duty to say that I thoroughly concur in what the Senator from California and the Senator from Wisconsin have said. I am satisfied that my colleague from Nevada [Mr. ODDIE] feels the same

way.

This matter is not of nearly the importance to Nevada that it is to the Imperial Valley. Nevertheless, it is of importance to the whole Southwest; and whether Senators oppose the bill in its present form or not, as I have said before, the purpose of it is meritorious, and is absolutely essential to protect human life. I am going to insist, with the Senator from California and others, that this bill and any amendments presented by the committee or anyone else be voted on, and that the matter, if possible, be disposed of. It has been pending for three years; and,

in my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for not voting upon it.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. WAGNER. Mr. President, I ask that a letter addressed by President Nicholas Murray Butler to the editor of the American Review of Reviews on the question of campaigu contributions be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. VANDENBERG in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

The matter referred to is here printed, as follows:

[Printed in American Review of Reviews, May, 1928]

MONEY IN AMERICAN POLITICS

The question which you raised as to how the legitimate cost of State and national campaigns is to be met on sound principles of public administration and without scandal, is far-reaching and of vital importance. Public opinion has been outraged of late more than once by the enormous expenditures involved in our recurring political campaigns, by the sources and uses of many of the large gifts, and by the unacknowledged political and personal obligations under which the party organizations have been put to the chief donors and those who have collected large sums from others.

As to the use of these moneys, it is probable that much more is spent wastefully than is spent corruptly. The habit of men in public life who are spending money contributed by others is not one of economy and close administration. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, a detailed, definite, and public accounting of campaign expenditures would help to correct such abuses as exist. If any campaign funds are spent corruptly, then present laws, if vigorously applied to punish offenders, are wholly adequate.

On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the perfectly legitimate costs of a political campaign under present-day conditions are very great. For example, it would cost many thousand dollars to prepare, print, address, and post a single political circular or announcement to the enrolled Democratic or Republican voters in the city of New York.

Not all political speakers and canvassers can contribute their time any many are not even in position themselves to meet the cost of necessary traveling expenses while canvassing or campaigning. A party organization is well within its rights as well as within the proprieties when it meets expenses of this kind. Here again the remedy for abuse is public accounting. Crookedness loves concealment, and when full and detailed statements of the income and expenditures of party organizations and political committees have to be made, crookedness will make every endeavor to hide its head.

It would be sound public policy to require every political organization and committee to be registered with some appropriate public officer, and to report to him at stated intervals definitely and in detail the names of those who have made contributions to its work and the amount of each contribution. Similarly and at stated intervals a like report should be required as to expenditures, properly classified. These regulations should include many organizations, such as the Anti-Saloon League, the Ku Klux Klan and others that are political without being fixedly partisan.

Such requirements as these, together with the pressure of an increasingly sensitive public opinion, will be the chief reliance for improvement in this field of public action. There will be the usual outcry for new, drastic, and comprehensive legislation. This is the unfailing proposal of the legalistically minded who love phrases and punitive statutes, quite regardless as to whether these can be made effective or not. There will be those who will suggest that party organizations and party committees be made public officers, and their supervision and control taken over by Government.

Such policies, if entered upon, would only make a bad matter infinitely worse. They represent once more the impertinences of Government, which seems quite unable to mind effectively its own business. We, the people, are now free and propose to remain free-to associate and to organize as we choose; to advance or to oppose any particular public measure; and to agree to bring before our fellow citizens, for election to any office whatever, the candidate of our choice in whatever way we please.

These matters belong to the people and are high up among the reserved rights and liberties which they have not surrendered and do not propose to surrender to Government. Government with its huge array of penal statutes and its swollen bureaucracies is already quite inefficient enough, and quite costly enough for all practical purposes. The remedy for abuses of the sort which properly give you so much concern is not more laws, but fewer laws and better morals.

FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES OF INDIANS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, a few days ago there passed this body a bill extending the period of restrictions in lands of certain members of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians. The bill later passed the House, and was signed by the President on the 10th of this month.

Upon examination of the law it was found that there is one word in error. In the bill we find the phrase "heirs of devisees," whereas it should be "heirs or devisees." So the Interior Department recommended that a new bill be introduced to correct that error and change the word “of" to "or."

The bill has been introduced. The Indian Affairs Committee makes a favorable report upon it. I now submit the report (No. 1174) and ask for the immediate consideration of the bill. Mr. CURTIS. Is that the only change?

Mr. THOMAS. It is.

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

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. 4448) to amend section 4 of the act entitled "An act to extend the period of restrictions in lands of certain members of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes," approved May 10, 1928, which was read, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That section 4 of an act approved May 10, 1928, entitled "An act to extend the period of restrictions in lands of certain members of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes (Public, No. —, 70th Cong., 1st sess.), be, and the same is hereby,

amended so as to read as follows:

"SEC. 4. That on and after April 26, 1931, the allotted, inherited, and devised restricted lands of each Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes in excess of 160 acres shall be subject to taxation by the State of Oklahoma under and in accordance with the laws of that State, and in all respects as unrestricted and other lands: Provided, That the Indian owner of restricted land, if an adult and not legally incompetent, shall select from his restricted land a tract or tracts, not exceeding in the aggregate 160 acres, to remain exempt from taxation, and shall file with the Superintendent of the Five Civilized Tribes a certificate designating and describing the tract or tracts so selected: Provided further, That in cases where such Indian fails, within two years from date hereof, to file such certificate, and in cases where the Indian owner is a minor or otherwise legally incompetent, the selection shall be made and certificate prepared by the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes; and such certificate, whether by the Indian or by the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes, shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior; and, when approved by the Secretary of the Interior, shall be recorded in the office of the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes, and in the county records of the county in which the land is situated; and said lands, designated and described in the approved certificates so recorded, shall remain exempt from taxation while the title remains in the Indian designated in such approved and recorded certificate, or in any full-blood Indian heir or devisee of the land: Provided, That the tax exemption shall not extend beyond the period of restrictions provided for in this act: And provided further, That the tax-exempt land of any such Indian allottee, heir, or devisee shall not at any time exceed 160 acres."

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

THE PATH TO PEACE

Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I hold in my hand a copy of an able address delivered by Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler recently in Denver, Colo., on "The path to peace." together with a statement read at the annual meeting of the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in this city on May 10, 1928. I ask unanimous consent to have these matters printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THE PATH TO PEACE

(An address by Nicholas Murray Butler delivered at Cosmopolitan Hotel, Denver, Colo., afternoon of December 12, 1927) Mr. President and gentlemen, you will not deny me the privilege of expressing my most grateful appreciation for your very cordial and kindly reception, and also my own great personal satisfaction at finding myself back, after an interval, in Colorado.

My experience with these Western States is that I was generally there before most of those who now adorn them. When I first came to Colorado it was only five years old, and from that time to this I have delighted in its attractions and its beauty. My satisfaction in the friendships formed here, warm and close and numerous, has grown with the years, and the compliment and the honor of being invited by the Institute of Social Studies of the University of Denver to come and speak to you on this momentous topic is one for which I am most grateful.

Let me waste no words in getting to the heart of the subject. The proposal to substitute methods of conciliation, arbitration, and judicial process for war is, so far as the United States is concerned, in very

much the same situation as the weather in Mark Twain's famous remark. You remember that Mark Twain said of the weather in Connecticut that everyone complained about it, but that nobody ever did anything about it. [Laughter.] That is the situation in respect to ourselves and our foreign policy at the present time.

From the foundation of our Government down to 1916, from the time of Washington and Jefferson to that of Wilson, we had as a Nation an unbroken record of leadership in all that relates to the strengthening of international relations, to the building up of international trade and to the establishment of international peace. We have now become, as a Government, through sheer paralysis, one of the chief obstacles that now exists in the world to these movements. It is not our conscious fault, for no American, whatever his party or his faith, could have wished it so; but it is the result of conditions that have come upon us, and it is time for us to begin to study how to remedy the situation. Our foreign relations began on a very high plane. That was partly because of the character of the men who conducted them, partly because of the temper of the young Nation. You may imagine that when Benjamin Franklin and John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were drafting treaties and guiding foreign policy, a very high standard of achievement was reached. We have never written treaties on a higher plane, if so high, as our very first treaties with France, with Prussia, and with Great Britain. If you will take pains to go back and read to-day our first treaty ever made with a foreign people, the treaty of amity and commerce with France signed in 1778, followed by the treaty with Prussia in 1782, or the treaty which established peace with Great Britain at the end of the War of Independence in 1782 also, you will find them cast in a mold, with a breadth of view and vision and genius and temper and sympathy and understanding, that has never been surpassed in our later history.

And in our dealings with the nations to the south of us we reached high-water mark in the treaty which ended the war of 1846 with Mexico. That treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo is another treaty which might have been written 50 years hence, so far as it rests upon the soundest moral, political and social principles for the establishment and control of the international order.

We have come to a full stop. This went on from 1778 to 1916. Now we are in a situation which is the unhappy result of partisan difference, of personal dispute and ambition, neither of which should ever be permitted to disturb the course of international policy. Surely, gentlemen, our own relations with the other great peoples of the world ought not to be the subject of partisan difference or personal struggle or political ambition. But if in August, 1919, President Wilson had not shown so cordial a dislike to Senator Lodge and if Senator Lodge had not so cordially hated President Wilson, an agree ment could have been reached for the continuance of our policy of leadership, and the condition of the world to-day might have been very, very different.

But it was not to be. Men fell apart; they made groups; they became partisans of a point of view or of a person. From that day to this we have been in effect paralyzed and as a Government incompetent to go forward, simply dealing with the business of the day or the week as it comes to the desk of the Department of State or to the table of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. We are in the position that the Executive dare not to take too much initiative lest the Government appear to be committed to something which the Senate will not approve. The Senate does not agree with the Executive; often it does not even agree with itself. In consequence we are committed and have been committed to years of useless, futile rhetoric and talk, and nothing being done.

What are we going to do about it? There is an earnest group who say to us to-day, let us outlaw war; let us pass a law declaring war to be outlawed. to be outlawed.

ing magistrate?

Suppose we do, and then suppose that war refused Who is going to arrest it and bring it to the examinWho is going to commit it for trial? Who is going to indict it? Who is going to constitute the jury, and the judge? And if war is convicted, who is going to be the sheriff to inflict the punishment, and where is the penitentiary in which it is to be confined?

No, gentlemen, words have no such power as that. You can not outlaw war by passing resolutions against it. The deep, lasting emotions, good, bad, or indifferent, of human nature and of the human heart can not be dealt with in any such cavalier fashion as that. That proposal is mere rhetoric, and will get us absolutely nowhere unless, perhaps, it be placed as an obstacle in the way of the adoption of propositions that are immediate and practical and susceptible of application to the affairs and the international relations of to-morrow. The present situation is that the nations of the earth, except the United States and Mexico and Russia, have become members of the League of Nations, with its seat at Geneva. Our people and our Government have decided not to do so, and at the moment that is not a practical question for debate. Indeed there are very many earnest workers in the cause of peace who believe that, circumstances being as they are, it is just as well that our Government is not a member of the league, although, I think, they all believe that we should cooperate with it whenever practical; that we should hold up its hands; that we should strengthen its authority; and that we should

be very happy to applaud its steadily growing measure of success. You must remember, gentlemen, that Europe has come a long, long way since 1914. If you could go to Geneva and see what the secretariat of the league has to do in regard to matters that have no relation whatever to politics, you would see what a vast change has come over the administration of a common business.

It is no longer possible for a plague to break out in some remote part of the world and pass unimpeded from nation to nation and from people to people, carrying with it destruction and death. At Singapore there is a reporting station where every case of one of those terrible scourges which breaks out, whether in Australia, in the South Seas, in the East Indies, China, Japan, India, or where you will, is immediately reported, so that the entire health force may be mobilized to combat it and stamp it out.

Then think what is being done for the backward and dependent peoples merely by the invention of the system of mandates. No longer can a power, however important, however large, however rich, exploit a poor and backward people, rich in raw material, lying off at a distance, unseen and unreported upon. I have myself been in Geneva and have seen the Undersecretary for Colonial Affairs of the British Government standing at the foot of a table and gladly answering questions from representatives of a dozen European countries as to how in a particular mandate in Africa this problem was solved, how this matter was attended to, how this difficulty was surmounted. That was a very splendid and a very inspiring sight. We owe the league the fullest share of cooperation in all these great humanitarian and social undertakings, so numerous and so complex that I have not time to enter upon their enumeration, much less their description. There are three men to whom this generation should lift its hat in universal honor; the three men who, taking their political lives in their hands, brought about the agreements of Locarno, and so far as declarations of public policy can do it, have expelled war from central and western Europe, which has been one of its chief seats for nearly 2,000 years. Each of those men has his nationalists and his superpatriots at home to combat. There is no path of roses for the French Minister of Foreign Affairs or for the German Minister of Foreign Affairs or for the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs who starts to build closer and better relations with his neighbors. They, too, have their critics, their opponents, and their obstacles. But I say

to you that this generation of ours, particularly in America, should raise its hat in grateful honor to Briand and Stresemann and Austen Chamberlain.

Let me take time to show you how by their personal relations they made many things possible because foreign relations are half psychology and only half diplomacy. Let me tell you a story to illustrate how the relations of these gentlemen have become intimate and cordial; and I can vouch for its accuracy.

In March, 1926, the question had come up of admitting Germany to the League of Nations. Germany wished to have a seat on the council of the league. That could only be brought about by unanimous vote. Brazil objected. The whole world was on tiptoe as to what would be done. Would a Latin republic, thousands of miles away, have it in its power to block the increasing relationship of friendship and entente between France and Germany? Briand and Stresemann were in a back room of their hotel, taking into careful consideration the question of what should be done on the morrow. Eighty or a hundred newspaper men, representing the chief journals of the world, were in the outer room waiting. Briand said to Stresemann, Doctor, I do not see what we can do about it. Brazil has a legal right to object, and she seems to insist upon her legal right.” Stresemann said. "No; it looks as if we had come to a deadlock. This is really dreadful; what can we do?" 'Well," said Briand, cheerfully, “let us

go to bed and sleep on it."

"Perhaps in our dreams something will come to us." "Splendid," said Stresemann; "that is the thing to do next; let us go to bed and sleep on it!" So Briand, taking Stresemann's arm, with his familiar cigar in his right hand, opened the door and went out to the waiting reporters. These men came with the keenest anticipation. What would be done; what was going to happen next? Drawing himself up perfectly straight, Stresemann nodding assent, Briand said, "Gentlemen, I wish to say to you that France and Germany are in absolute accord as to the next step to be taken!"

That was telegraphed all over the world, from Chile to Japan, and the world felt the next morning that an immense step had been taken in the establishment of peace; and the curious thing, gentlemen, is that it had; it had!

That is the psychological situation. Now, what are we going to do about all this? What is our relation to it?

For the moment we have lost our moral and Our intellectual leadership in the cause which we promoted for 150 years. Were it not for our commanding position economically we should have lost much of our habitual authority in the world. What are we going to do about it as a Government?

At this moment there is opportunity, gentleman, for a specific act, such as rarely comes to a government or a people, that fits exactly into this picture.