perimentation, to wit, the first five years, and that one-half thereof should be continued for the next five years, and that thereafter the fertilizer business should be put upon an absolutely self-sustaining basis, and, furthermore, should pay dividends upon the capital stock, and that thereafter the total net proceeds from the sale of all power should be turned into the Federal Treasury to reimburse the Government for its original investment at Muscle Shoals.

PATENT RIGHTS

Much scare-head propaganda has been circulated against the Morin bill, charging that it violates the rights of patentees for the benefit of the farmers. If those who instigate such propaganda would read section 19 of the bill, they would find that the authority mentioned in that section has been the law since the act of Congress approved June 25,1910, which act was amended on July 1, 1918, and if they will follow the construction of that act by the Supreme Court, they will find that in the case of Crozier v. Krupp (224 U. S. p. 290) the Supreme Court sustained this act of Congress and fully expounded the relation of the Government of the United States to the rights of patent holders. It must be remembered that the Government itself, by act of Congress, confers whatever rights patentees may have, and therefore it is in the power of the Government to confer those rights upon condition; and one of the conditions is and has ever been the right of the Government itself to use the process or machine described in the patent without any power in the patentee to restrain such exercise by the Government. Before the act of 1910 there was no relief for patentees except to present a bill in the form of a claim to Congress. By the act of 1910 such patentees were given the right to bring an action for compensation in the Court of Claims.

CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Also much propaganda has been employed to frighten the timid because of the criminal clauses contained in the Morin bill. An entirely strained, unnatural, and unreasonable construction was put upon a part of the language contained in subdivision C of section 20, and the propagandists tried to make it appear that if any agent or salesman for a fertilizer manufacturer went out to sell his goods in competition with the goods manufactured by the Government at Muscle Shoals and should claim that his goods were superior or cheaper and should thereby tend to discourage purchases from the Muscle Shoals corporation, and thus finally tend to defeat its purposes, such agent or salesman would be liable to a heavy fine or long term of imprisonment.

I respectfully submit, after an experience at the bar extending through 29 years, that no such possible construction would even be thought of by any judge before whom any case might be brought. The Subdivision C of section 20 deals with a case where any person, for financial reward, enters into any conspiracy or collusion, express or implied, with the purpose of defrauding the corporation or to defeat its purposes, then such person shall be deemed guilty of a crime and be liable to a heavy fine or long imprisonment. Now, the words "defeat its purposes must be construed in connection with the "receiving of financial benefit," and in connection with the prohibition against "conspiracy" and in connection with the provision to "defraud the corporation." When the context is considered, it means that "if any person shall for profit enter into a conspiracy to defeat the purposes of the Muscle Shoals corporation," he shall be guilty of a crime. In order to make sure that no strained and unnatural construction could ever be put upon its language, the committee offered an amendment which was accepted by the House, so that the conspiracy to defeat the purposes of the corporation must be "wrongful and unlawful" in order to constitute a crime.

TEAPOT DOME SCANDALS IMPOSSIBLE

The purposes of section 20 are to prevent any scandals at Muscle Shoals. Without these criminal teeth in the law there would be danger from the selfish and disloyal cupidity of the employees of the corporation. It is entirely within the range of human probability that such employees may be subjected to great temptation, either from the fertilizer manufacturers, or from the purchasers of fertilizers, or from the purchasers of electric power, or from other persons, firms, and corporations having business transactions with the Muscle Shoals corporation. Therefore, the committee was very careful to safeguard the corporation by including these criminal clauses. The committee well knows that the mere fear of discharge by an unfaithful employee after discovery is not a sufficient deterrent to insure honesty. But if the employee knows that he will face the penitentiary for disloyalty, then he will be ten times more careful and thus ten times more honest in fact than he might otherwise be.

COVE CREEK DAM CLAUSES

Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion about sections 17 and 18 authorizing the construction of a great reser voir dam in Clinch River in the State of Tennessee and called the Cove Creek Dam due to the fact that it is situated near a point where Cove Creek enters the Clinch River. It must be remembered that the Madden bill, which was pending in Con gress in the Sixty-ninth Congress and also in the Seventieth Congress, contemplated not only the tying up of the Cove Creek Dam for at least eight years, even if it should ever be built by the American Cyanamid Co. or the Government. But the Madden bill also tied up four dams in Clinch River below the Cove Creek Dam. We received only a very mild protest against the said provisions of the Madden bill. Two members of the committee are from the State of Tennessee and were present when the State of Alabama presented its claims before the committee in 1927, and the committee never understood that the State of Tennessee was making any special claim to any of the power to be developed at Cove Creek, such as the State of Alabama has made to the power at Muscle Shoals. The committee was compelled to assume that the State of Tennessee was cooperating in the development of the Tennessee River within the bounds of Tennessee, just as it had always cooperated in the development of the Tennessee River within the bounds of the State of Alabama. The committee knew that vast sums of money had been authorized and expended in the survey of the Tennessee River Basin within the limits of the State of Tennessee. These surveys by the Corps of Engineers, extending through many years and at great expense, have estimated a total possible horsepower development within Tennessee of over 2,000,000. Furthermore, the committee has convincing testimony from various experts that the construction of the proposed dam at Cove Creek on Clinch River will practically double the power produced at the Wilson Dam at Muscle Shoals.

This doubling of power is due to the fact that the flood waters of the Clinch River will be retained and impounded, and will uniform the flow of water in the Clinch River below the dam, be discharged as needed in order to regulate and render more and thus in the Tennessee River below its junction with the Clinch River. The prime power developed at Cove Creek will be very limited, only about 8,000 horsepower, with a maximum horsepower. But all the power above the minimum of prime installation to take care of flood conditions of about 200,000 power will be secondary power and of little commercial value. The result of thus impounding the waters of the Clinch River will be to exert a very powerful control over the flood waters of the Clinch River and of the Mississippi River below the Cove Creek Dam. It will thus safeguard the cities along the Tennessee River, such as Chattanooga and all the towns and villages and industries as well as low farm lands. The problem of flood control is an urgent and imperative duty of Congress. Both the House and the Senate recently voted a policy as to flood control to the effect that it is a national obligation and should be paid for in full out of the Federal Treasury.

IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION

Undoubtedly the result of building the Cove Creek Dam will be to increase the navigability of the Tennessee River. It will prevent the excessive and destructive flood waters which are also preventive and destructive of regularity of navigation and destructive of the very agencies of navigation, to wit, boats, barges, landings, and wharves.

Coin

Furthermore, to render uniform the flow in the Tennessee River will deepen its channels and make possible the floating of commerce upon the river even during dry seasons, and thus insure regularity of commerce. It had occurred to the mittee, therefore, that to confer upon the State of Tennessee and her citizens the enormous blessing of protecting her cities, towns, and villages and industries and farm lands from destructive floods, and to render her great river navigable so that the valuable mineral and forest products as well as manufactured products, might find their way to the markets, would be highly appreciated by the people of the State of Tennessee.

As has been stated, the Cove Creek Dam, with the naviga tion facilities and power house and transmission line, would involve a total expenditure of nearly $40,000,000 of Federal money. But more than that, to construct said Cove Creek Dam and to operate it so as to double the power developed at Msele Shoals will also double the power that can be developed at any one of the 11 dams that can be built between Cove C Dam and Muscle Shoals. Thus the attractiveness to private capital to go in and construct said 11 dams is greatly enhanced and in fact doubled.

reek

By an amendment in the House the obligation on the part of the builders of the dams below Cove Creek to contribute

to the maintenance and operation of the Cove Creek Dam was stricken out. Furthermore, an amendment was inserted providing that the Cove Creek Dam should be commenced pursuant to appropriations by Congress some time within the calendar year 1929 and that the rights of the State of Tennessee shall not be prejudiced by the passage of this act.

It is true that under the division of sovereign powers between the Federal Government and the State of Tennessee there is a certain right in the State of Tennessee with reference to navigable streams within her borders. But it must be admitted that the rights of the State of Tennessee are subordinate to the right in the Federal Government to control navigable streams in the interest of interstate commerce and for the control of destructive floods.

Furthermore the rights of the State of Tennessee and of every other State in the Union, as well as the rights of private individuals, are subordinate to the supreme and sovereign right of the Nation to defend herself in war. Now, the war power is a continuing and perpetual power. The war power does not come into existence merely when war is declared by Congress.

The war power exists in times of peace to prepare the Nation and the resources of the Nation, both human and material, for the possible emergency of war. Hence, there is just as much power in the Federal Government in peace to build a dam in the State of Tennessee for the purpose of doubling the power to be developed at Muscle Shoals in the State of Alabama, as there is and was in time of war for the Federal Government to build the Wilson Dam at Muscle Shoals. If the Federal Government can build one dam in the State of Alabama, it can build two dams in the State of Alabama, even if the second dam is for the purpose of aiding and assisting the first dam to develop power. There may be two dams with only one power house. If the Federal Government has the power to build two dams in the State of Alabama in order to develop power at one power house, so the Federal Government has the power to build one dam in Alabama and another dam in the State of Tennessee, so that the dam in the State of Tennessee may double the power developed in the power house in the State of Alabama.

The Federal war-making power knows no State lines, and no State can raise its hand to restrain or forbid or limit the Federal war-making power, either in peace or in war. The net result of the claim of the State of Tennessee to the effect that she is entitled to claim some benefits of a direct financial kind, whereby her own State revenues may be increased, amounts to the following proposition: That in the exercise of the Federal duty to control flood waters, the Federal Government, even though it pays 100 per cent of the expenses, must also pay to the State a tribute for the privilege of exercising flood control within the State. Furthermore, the proposition of the State of Tennessee amounts to this:

That in order to enable the Federal Government to exercise its control over interstate commerce, and therefore over navigation, the Federal Government must pay such tribute to the State of Tennessee as that State requires as its condition for granting its consent to the Federal Government to control interstate commerce within the State of Tennessee. Furthermore, the proposition advanced by the State of Tennessee amounts to this: That to enable the Federal Government to exercise its right to prepare to make war, by making the most vital and essential commodity for war, to wit, explosives, and therefore to enable the Government to defend its life by preparing to resist the invasion of foreign foes, the Federal Government must obtain the consent of the State of Tennessee for the establishment by the Federal Government within the State of Tennessee of one of its great instrumentalities and agencies of national defense. If these conditions of the State of Tennessee could be sustained, then the supremacy of the Constitution and of the laws of the United States would end. If the State of Tennessee can fix the conditions and limitations under which the Federal Government can prepare to make war, and under which the Federal Government can regulate interstate commerce within its borders, then every other State can impose the same or similar restrictions, conditions, limitations, burdens, tributes, and taxes, and therefore the Federal Government itself will prove to be a powerless, helpless creature of the imagination, incapable of defending its own life.

ADVANTAGES TO TENNESSEE

It does seem that since Tennessee is to receive the benefits of flood control and the advantages of navigation upon the upper waters of the Tennessee River, that these benefits will more than sufficiently offset for the surrender by her of her abstract rights in the bed of the stream and in the water flowing over the bed of the stream. But, in addition, the State of Tennessee receives other benefits. The 11 dam sites below the Cove Creek

Dam will be doubled in value, since their power-producing abilities are doubled.

Since these dam sites will become so valuable they will be quickly developed by private capital. Such multiplied power development, resulting in cheap electric power, will bring a quick and vast development in industry along the Tennessee Valley. This development will bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the State of Tennessee for investment, and will increase her population at least a million people within 10 or 15 years. These additional investments, and this increased and expanded industry, and this growth of population, should be the strongest possible inducement for the State of Tennessee to open wide the door of invitation to the Federal Government to build the Cove Creek Dam. It can not be expected that private capital will build Cove Creek Dam in such a way as to produce the indirect benefits of flood control and increased navigability of the river below the dam. It is no concern of private capital to bring about flood control of streams nor to render streams more navigable. Private Capital and private operation at Cove Creek Dam would be for the production of power only. If the same concern that owned and operated Cove Creek Dam for power alone were operated in sympathy with and for the benefit of the 11 dams below Cove Creek, then there might be times when the stream below Cove Creek Dam, and especially the Clinch River, would not be navigable at all; and the navigability of the Tennessee River itself might be seriously affected. Furthermore, Cove Creek Dam might be operated in private hands in such a way as to magnify and increase the serious problem of flood control. Hence, if the Federal Government should not build the Cove Creek Dam, then the State of Tennessee and her citizens might lose the benefits of flood control, and might miss completely the improvement of navigation in the Tennessee River. Futhermore, private capital might never build the Cove Creek Dam. That being so the 11 dam sites below Cove Creek Dam would remain rather unattractive to private capital. Therefore if the Federal Government does not enter the field it may be many, many years before that section of Tennessee affected by the Cove Creek Dam would begin to develop industrially and commercially. With the power of the Federal Government and her nearly $40,000,000 poured into that section to start the wheels of industry turning and to begin to draw the tides of population, and to set in motion the investment of private capital, the rapid and enormous development of that section of the Tennessee Basin is assured.

WHAT IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE MATTER?

From the foregoing considerations we must conclude that the businesslike and practical thing to do is to retain that feature of the Morin bill setting up a corporation governed by five directors appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and direct them to proceed with the fixation of nitrogen at Muscle Shoals, with power to sell any surplus electric current, but bearing in mind that the demands for nitrogen fixation may increase in the future, so the contracts for the sale of electric power should be for short periods of time or with an option on the part of the Muscle Shoals corporation to cancel the contract upon one year's notice, so as to release the power for the manufacture of nitrogen to be used as a fertilizer ingredient. The board can devise rules whereby the prices of finished fertilizers will reflect the reduced cost of nitrogen. The board can carry on experiments and develop other and more economical processes for fixing nitrogen and work out plans for mixing the nitrogen with other fertilizer ingredients so as to give the farmers full instructions just how to get the fullest benefit of the cheap nitrogen to be manufactured at Muscle Shoals.

RETAIN COVE CREEK

The conferees should retain the Cove Creek proposition in the bill not only to double the power at Muscle Shoals but also for the benefit of the people of the State of Tennessee in controlling flood waters and to make the Tennessee River navigable as a business proposition. To deny to the Federal Government, as the State of Tennessee virtually is seeking to do, the power to build Cove Creek Dam for the three purposes of national defense, flood control, and navigation would be to deny the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States and of the laws made in pursuance thereof. To deny to the Federal Government the power to build a dam at Cove Creek in Tennessee for the purpose of increasing the power developed at Muscle Shoals, in the State of Alabama, would be the same as if the State of Alabama denied the power of the Federal Government to build Wilson Dam.

To deny the power of the Federal Government to build Wilson Dam for the purpose of fixing atmospheric nitrogen in order to secure the national defense, would be to deny the right of the National Government to make gunpowder, and would there

No

fore carry the right to deny to the Federal Government the power to manufacture rifles and cannon and battleships and airplanes. It is not in the power of any State, whether of Tennessee or Alabama, to limit by taxation or otherwise the activities of the Federal Government in aid of national defense or in aid of interstate commerce. Neither the State of Tennessee nor the State of Alabama can question the motives of the Federal Government when it declares that it is exercising a constitutional power. No State can deny the right of the Federal Government to prepare for war in time of peace. State can say that the Federal Government can build a dam to operate a plant to manufacture explosives in time of war, and at the same time deny the Federal Government the power to build and operate said plant in time of peace. It will not suffice to admit that the war power exists in time of war and does not exist in time of peace to prepare for war. The complete answer would be that the war power would be futile unless there existed the power to prepare, by training men and constructing guns and building battleships and manufacture explosives, before the commencement of war. To admit the right of the State of Tennessee to tax Federal property, constructed in the State of Tennessee for the purpose of performing the constitutional functions of national defense and aiding navigation and controlling flood waters, would be to admit the impotency and incompetency of the Federal Government to preserve its very existence. To admit such a power in a State thus to tax Federal property would paralyze at one blow the integrity and vigor of the Federal constitutional government. Such admission would include, as a logical consequence, the right of the States to tax post offices, to tax salaries of Federal officers, to tax customhouses, to tax mints, to tax navy yards, arsenals, and munition plants, and to impose conditions upon the Federal Government for exercising any of its powers within the domain of a State.

I must make it plain beyond adventure of misunderstanding that there never has been the slightest disposition to disregard, or fail to respect, the rights of the State of Tennessee, or of Alabama, or of any other State. The original draft of the Morin bill and the reported bill, both contained the requirement that the Cove Creek Dam shall be so operated as to increase the low flow of water in the Clinch River and in the Tennessee River, thus aiding navigation, and thus doubling the value of the dam sites below Cove Creek Dam. It was manifest that the flood-controlling influence of the Cove Creek Dam would be for the direct benefit, financial, and humanitarian, of the people of Tennessee. Since the dams below Cove Creek are not required to contribute toward the expenses of the Cove Creek Dam, said dam sites are practically doubled in value and their speedy construction insured. It thus occurred to the committee, having two Tennessee Members on the committee, that the expenditure of nearly $40,000,000 by the Federal Government at Cove Creek would be conferring immediate and enormous financial benefits upon the State of Tennessee and her people. We still think that marvelous industrial development will follow quickly and surely after the construction of Cove Creek Dam. With navigable waters, with ample locks and navigation facilities, with numerous power plants, it is certain that hundreds of millions of dollars of money will quickly flow into that part of Tennessee for investment in various forms of industry. To prove my sincerity in making this statement of kindly feeling and friendship for the State of Tennessee and her splendid people, I declare how happy I would be, how proud of my accomplishment, and how sure of the approval of my constituents, if I could inform the people of South Carolina that the Federal Government would spend approximately $40,000,000 dollars within our borders, and that as a result of such expenditure hundreds of millions of private capital would quickly flow into our State, and at least a million other citizens would come to live with us, to manage, and to work in our new industries! I feel sure that upon such an announcement all our people would rejoice, and no man would think for a moment of taxing the property in which the Federal Government had invested $40,000.000 for the benefit of our own people, and if any man should think of such a thing, he would not dare utter it for fear that such declaration would deter the responsible officers of the Federal Government from making that enormous investment. We have been very proud to secure the promise of an appropriation of $420,000 to construct a Federal Building in Spartanburg, S. C., and to have prospects of obtaining $25,000 for a monument at the Cowpens battle field, and no South Carolinian will ever think of taxing this Federal property, but on the contrary will offer not only encouragement, but aid and assistance to the Federal Government in the exercise of these powers.

Mr. LOWREY. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly for the Morin bill. The Military Affairs Committee and many more of you already

know that I am very vigorously advocating its final passage. I have a peculiar interest in it. The committee which drafted it has done me the honor to adopt not only the general plan and policy of my own Muscle Shoals bill, which I introduced in the Sixty-ninth Congress, and again in this Congress, but has even adopted many of the details of my bill, following the very language of it through paragraph after paragraph. I thank the committee, and I am gratified at having been able to contribute so much to the solution of this most difficult Muscle Shoals problem.

When the Morin bill is finally passed, as I believe it will be, we shall have waded through the mire of misleading statements and distorted facts and half truths and plain lies propagated by selfish and greedy and unscrupulous interests, and shall have reached a sane and practical and happy solution of this problem that has vexed and perplexed Congress for eight years. And we shall have made a proper disposition of this great Muscle Shoals plant upon which there has been expended more than $140,000,000 of public money, and which is located at one of the most important and valuable water-power sites that God has given to the people of this great Nation.

We have made a necessary provision for the national defense, along the lines of the original intention of Muscle Shoals. During the World War we were entirely dependent on Chile for nitrates, a necessary ingredient of explosives. Those Chilean nitrates cost us $550,000,000, nearly four times as much as the Muscle Shoals plant has cost, and it took one-fifth of our total tonnage of ships to carry those nitrates from Chile to America. If our ships had been driven from the seas by the German U boats, or if our Panama Canal had been captured or destroyed, we would have been deprived of a supply of gunpowder and explosives, and our armies and ships and guns would have been helpless and useless. Another war now would find us in very much the same situation. We are still without any appreciable supply of domestic nitrogen, and are still importing huge quantities of nitrates for fertilizer and peace-time uses from Chile and other foreign countries. Those who have put out the pernicious propaganda that Muscle Shoals is now incapable of the production of nitrates in large quantities on an economical basis have-deliberately or not-been guilty of endangering our national security. Under the Morin bill, Muscle Shoals will become a domestic and Government controlled source of supply of nitrogen for the use of our Army and Navy, without which the money we spend on Army and Navy is worse than wasted. Will you

We have also done something for the farmer. Members who claim to want to aid agriculture listen to this? The element of nitrogen is just as necessary to the farmer as to the soldier. It is the basis of all fertilizer, and an absolute necessity to plant life. Germany has turned her war-time nitrate plants to the production of nitrates for fertilizer, has given her farmers cheap plant food in abundance, making her lands which have been in cultivation for centuries produce more to the acre than our freshest and richest farms, and is actually shipping into this country the same kind of nitrates that the Muscle Shoals plant is capable of producing. We are paying to the Chilean Government $10,000,000 per year in export duties alone, besides the actual price of the nitrates and the freight on them. Why should our farmers have to pay exorbitant prices to a foreign nitrate monopoly and a premium to a foreign government on every pound of fertilizer they buy? We have a plant, built and paid for with the people's money, standing idle instead of supplying our farmers with fertilizer, because private interests hold up the bugaboo of the "Government in business." I believe in encouraging private endeavor. And I believe that minorities have rights that are sacred, and that in following the democratic principle of majority rule we should carefully avoid any ruthless disregard for the interests of a minority. The bill as reported by the committee put the Government further into the fertilizer business than my original bill did, but the amendments proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina take it back to my plan to have the Government produce nitrates, in competition, if you please, with foreign producers of that element of fertilizer, but not in competition with local fertilizer factories which are strictly mixers of fertilizer. Who objects to our competing with a company whose offices are in London?

Again, we have entered a wedge to split the solidarity of the power interests of this country. The size and the strength and the viciousness of the power monopoly that exists is just becoming fully understood since the Federal Trade Commission began to look into its activities. An industry which has carried on such an insidious propaganda program as has the power industry, going even to the extent of slipping textbooks into the schools which would teach our children that it is right and proper for the Electric Power Trust to have monopolistic control

Mr. TAYLOR of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues of the House, I have invariably supported every measure that has been offered in the House to this date for the disposition of the Government's Muscle Shoals properties that would guarantee fertilizer production in time of peace to our farmers. I voted for the Ford offer and I supported the joint resolution creating a committee of the two Houses to negotiate a lease of the Government's power and nitrate plants at Muscle Shoals that would be "as good or better" than the Ford proposition. While primarily I am opposed to Government operation of the Muscle Shoals plants, in order to finally dispose of the Muscle Shoals controversy and begin to realize some benefits from the tremendous investment the Government has made at Muscle Shoals I am willing to vote for the committee's Government operation bill, provided it is amended in certain particulars.

It is my understanding that certain members of the Military Affairs Committee of the House, in the closing days of the last session of Congress, called on the Secretary of War-and so far as I know these Members voiced the sentiment of the majority of the committee-and requested the Secretary as chairman of the Federal Power Commission not to grant any preliminary permit to any power company for the building of the Cove Creek Dam. As a result of this request, I am advised that the power commission did refuse to act on applications made by power companies to develop this property.

The proposed Cove Creek Dam is in my congressional district, and hence my very great interest in the project. When it is built it is proposed to install 200,000 horsepower. This dam will be 225 feet high; the area of the reservoir will be nearly 55,000 acres, which is almost 85 square miles. The capacity of the reservoir will be 86,000,000,000 cubic feet, or approximately 500,000 acre-feet. This dam will more than double the primary power at every proposed dam below Cove Creek. The proposed Cove Creek Dam will cost from twenty to thirty million dollars, and its regulated flow will more than double the primary power at Wilson Dam. Therefore the increased value to the Government's power property at Wilson Dam abundantly justifies the Government in making this development.

The committee's bill, however, does not definitely provide for the prompt building of Cove Creek Dam, and this is the source of my objection. Section 17 of the committee's bill authorizes the Secretary of War, with appropriations hereafter to be made available by Congress, to construct this dam, but this is entirely too vague and uncertain. Who on this floor can guarantee the action of a future Congress? No Member of this House can. with any degree of reason, guarantee this appropriation. What then does the committee's bill actually do with respect to Cove Creek? The bill in very definite terms ties up Cove Creek Dam indefinitely.

I understand it to be the intention of the Military Affairs Committee in this bill to protect the public and save the people to be served with power from the Cove Creek Dam from exploitation by the power companies. I believe I have the right, and I know I have a duty to perform in the interest of the people of my district, to ask the great committee responsible for this bill to amend section 17 by providing that not less than two million of the ten million which the bill makes available be employed to start forthwith the work of constructing the Cove Creek Dam, and let Congress at its next session return this two million to the corporation created in this bill. And if the committee will not agree to such a just and reasonable amendment, let the committee consent to strike from the bill entirely those sections dealing with the proposed Cove Creek Dam. If Congress will not agree to as promptly as possible build the Cove Creek Dam, then let Congress release Cove Creek to the people of Tennessee, who are ready, willing, and anxious to assume right and responsibility of its development. This is common equity and justice is all we ask.

Although opposed to Government operation, if the bill can be amended to make the necessary funds available to immedi

LXIX- -560

alternative Cove Creek is stricken from the bill, I will vote for the committee's bill; and in this position I believe I reflect the sentiment of the majority of the delegation from my State. If Congress is unable to legislate for a satisfactory disposition of Muscle Shoals, and industrial development is to be held up longer, even after 10 years of delay, shall this also operate to tie up Cove Creek and other dam sites on the Tennessee River and thus obstruct and stifle all industrial development and opportunity to which this section is justly entitled? I appeal to your sense of fair play, and I know you will agree with me that such rank discrimination is not only unreasonable but unjust as well.

Let the House either agree that the Government shall immediately start the construction of Cove Creek Dam under the terms of this bill, or let the House release Cove Creek Dam and let it be built by the power companies desiring to build it. I favored the Madden bill and regret that the House was not given an opportunity to vote on it. I was for the Madden bill because it provided that the Government should proceed as promptly as possible with the construction of the Cove Creek

Dam.

I agree with my colleagues from Tennessee that the sovereign rights of the State of Tennessee ought to be respected by the Federal Government in its plans for Government development and operation of power plants in Tennessee. If, however, the House is unwilling to respect Tennessee's sovereign rights, and the Military Affairs Committee demands that the State of Tennessee shall surrender her rights, then let the House at least be willing to build Cove Creek Dam and not take away Tennessee's rights and do nothing at Cove Creek but tie up the dam and prevent anybody else from building it.

Again, let me say I will vote for the bill, opposed to Government operation as I am, provided the bill is amended so Cove Creek Dam can be built now. This promise to build it if and when Congress decides to make the necessary appropriation to build it does not appeal to me. In the name of the people of my district I appeal to the House either to agree to build Cove Creek Dam now for the Government and by the Government, or release your strong hold on Cove Creek Dam and let the people of my State see if they can not arrange this important development. The Military Affairs Committee owes it to itself, it owes it to this House, it owes it to my district, it owes it to Tennessee, it owes it to the South, either to put up the money to build Cove Creek Dam or get out of the way and let somebody else put up the money to do so.

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Sundry messages in writing from the President of the United States were presented to the House of Representatives by Mr. Latta, one of his secretaries, who also announced that on the following dates the President approved and signed bills and a joint resolution of the House of Representatives of the following titles:

On May 14, 1928 :

H. R. 1529. An act for the relief of the heirs of John Eimer;
H. R. 2658. An act for the relief of Finch R. Archer;
H. R. 3372. An act for the relief of George M. Browder and
F. N. Browder;

H. R. 3442. An act for the relief of Clifford J. Sanghove;
H. R. 3936. An act for the relief of M. M. Edwards;

H. R. 4229. An act for the relief of Jennie Wyant and others;
H. R. 4925. An act for the relief of John M. Savery;

H. R. 5981. An act for the relief of Clarence Cleghorn;
H. R. 6436. An act for the relief of Mary E. O'Connor;
H. R. 7061. An act for the relief of William V. Tynes;

H. R. 7475. An act to provide for the removal of the Confederate monument and tablets from Greenlawn Cemetery to Garfield Park;

H. R. 8808. An act for the relief of Charles R. Wareham; H. R. 10276. An act providing for sundry matters affecting the naval service;

H. R. 11245. An act to cancel certain notes of the Panama Railroad Co. held by the Treasurer of the United States; and H. R. 12875. An act making appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes.

On May 15, 1928:

H. R. 6856. An act relating to the payment or delivery by banks or other persons or institutions in the District of Columbia of deposits of moneys and property held in the names of two or more persons, and for other purposes;

H. R. 10141. An act granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain soldiers and sailors of the Regular Army and

Navy, etc., and certain soldiers and sailors of wars other than the Civil War, and to widows of such soldiers and sailors; and H. R. 13171. An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to accept a franchise from the Government of the city of New York to change the routing of the pneumatic-tube service between the customhouse and the present appraisers' stores building, and for other purposes.

On May 16, 1928:

H. J. Res. 256. Joint resolution authorizing the United States Bureau of Public Roads to make a survey of the uncompleted bridges of the Oversea Highway from Key West to the mainland, in the State of Florida, with a view to obtaining the cost of the construction of said bridges, and report their findings to Congress;

H. R. 1537. An act for the relief of William R. Connolly;
H. R. 3467. An act for the relief of Giles Gordon;

H. R. 4396. An act for the relief of Jesse R. Shivers;

H. R. 5398. An act for the relief of the heirs of the late Dr. Thomas C. Longino;

H. R. 5806. An act to authorize the purchase of real estate by the War Department;

H. R. 6652. An act to fix the pay and allowances of chaplain at the United States Military Academy';

H. R. 11577. An act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1929, and for other purposes;

II. R. 11808. An act to authorize an appropriation for the purchase of land at Selfridge Field, Mich.; and

H. R. 12379. An act granting the consent of Congress to Howard Seabury to construct, maintain, and operate a dam to retain tidal waters in an unnamed cove which is situated and extends from Cases Inlet into section 28, township 21 north, range 1 west, Willamette meridian, in Pierce County, State of Washington.

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A further message from the Senate, by Mr. Craven, its principal clerk, announced that the Senate had concurred in the following concurrent resolution:

House Concurrent Resolution 36

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President is requested to return to the House of Representatives the bill (H. R. 9568) entitled "An act to authorize the purchase at private sale of a tract of land in Louisiana, and for other purposes," for the purpose of permitting the correction of an error in the enrolled bill.

WITHDRAWAL OF PAPERS

Mr. TEMPLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw from the files of the House, without leaving copies, the papers in the case of Mary E. Bradshaw (H. R. 7709), no adverse report having been made thereon.

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

There was no objection.

EXTENSION OF REMARKS

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order for five minutes.

Mr. MCSWAIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object, merely for the purpose of asking unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed, the Muscle Shoals bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina asks unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

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

There was no objection.

MILITARY SERVICE OF REPRESENTATIVE CONNERY

Mr. CONNERY. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, on last Friday during the debate on the disabled emergency officers' bill the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HUDDLESTON] in a speech stated as follows:

No man, not even including my friend from Massachusetts [Mr. CONNERY], ever rejected a commission because the compensation was not on the basis he desired. I never heard, before my friend spoke yesterday, of any man rejecting a commission and preferring to fight in the ranks. I have myself been a private soldier, and I know what devolves upon a private soldier in war, and if I did not have great faith in my friend from Massachusetts I should suspect his veracity when he assures me that he declined a commission.

A little later the gentleman said:

I want the Members of the House to feast their eyes on one man [Mr. CONNERY] who refused to accept the honor of a commission, who refused to accept the salary, who refused to accept the social position and the best of everything that the Army had to offer, and instead chose to cast his lot among the lowly and the louse-bitten.

I will ask the Clerk to read a letter from my former commanding officer, Edward L. Logan, who during the war was Col. Edward L. Logan, of my regiment, the One hundred and first Infantry of the Twenty-sixth Division, American Expeditionary Forces, and who until last month was major general commanding the new Twenty-sixth Division, and was retired with the rank of lieutenant general. Colonel Logan was my colonel during the war.

The Clerk read as follows:

Congressman WILLIAM P. CONNERY,

OFFICES OF EDWARD L. LOGAN, Boston, Mass., May 15, 1928.

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN CONNERY: My attention has been called to a statement made by Congressman HUDDLESTON, of Alabama, in which he has flippantly and doubtingly referred to your refusal to accept my nomination of you to go to the officers' school for a commission. This matter was so well known in the regiment-that I had on several occasions offered you this opportunity-that I had long since supposed it was a matter which could never be raised in question by anyone, and I was astounded upon reading the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to find that the offer many times made, and as often refused by you, should have been questioned during the course of the debate.

I know you have every reason to know how proud I am of the service which you rendered to the officers and men of the regiment during all the war, in the fearless and efficient performance of your duties as a soldier and as the color sergeant of the regiment, and I have several times since your return had occasion to state how generous you were with your time and with your talents in making happy the lot of the enlisted men who served with you in the One hundred and first Infantry. There was never a time when nominations were made for the officers' school that I would not have been happy and proud to have nominated you, and the only reason that you did not accept these nominations when tendered to you was your most unselfish and generous desire to remain in intimate and patriotic service and comradeship with the enlisted men of the One hundred and first Infantry, with whom you had crossed the seas.

Indeed, after the armistice, at a meeting of the officers held in March, I quite recall stating to them, and in your presence, of this conspicuous unselfishness on your part, and you may be sure that you have always my affection and esteem, not only for the splendid service which you rendered as an enlisted man and color sergeant of the regiment but for this generous refusal of the honors which might easily have been yours.

I am sorry that the Congressman from Alabama is apparently unable to appreciate the patriotic viewpoint which you so splendidly maintained in subordinating your service and ambitions as an enlisted man rather than accepting the honors and emoluments of an officer.

You might, however, call to his attention the conspicuous examples rendered by a nephew of the president of Harvard College, James H. Lowell, a distainguished lawyer of our city here, who likewise refused this opportunity of promotion, and of the grandson of a great United States Senator of Vermont, Richard C. Evarts, also a distinguished Boston lawyer, who, too, declined.

I could cite further the unselfishness of Jimmie Loughlin, who, when offered an opportunity to receive a commission, said that he figured he could do very much better service for the cause by remaining an enlisted man in the headquarters company of the regi