Слике страница

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

Mr. NEELY. I yield.

Mr. RANSDELL. I want first to say that I have listened with very great interest to the unusually fine speech of the Senator from West Virginia. I think he has made a real contribution to a subject of the greatest national importance, and I sincerely hope the amendment which he proposes to introduce, which, as I understand, will include the Public Health Service along with the Academy of Sciences, may be adopted.

I would like to state that the Committee on Commerce this morning authorized a favorable report on a bill which I had the honor to introduce. Senate bill 3391. to establish and operate a national institute of health, create a system of fellowships in said institute, and to authorize the Government to accept donations for use in ascertaining the cause, prevention, and cure of disease affecting human beings, and for other purposes. The Senator will note that the institute is not limited to any one disease, but takes in all the ills that flesh is heir to. I am delighted to know that the Senator himself is striving so hard to overcome the very worst disease which we have in America to-day, the awful disease of cancer.

I did not hear the Senator mention a very interesting book I read the other day, entitled "The Chemistry of Health." by Professor Green, of Notre Dame University. Among other things, he says in this extremely interesting book, which I commend to all Senators who wish something fine, that cancer is a dietary disease; that it is caused almost entirely by improper diet and improper elimination. He calls attention to the fact that savage peoples do not have cancer: that it is a disease almost entirely of civilization; and that if we would pay proper attention to health we' would avoid having this awful disease. I wish the Senator Godspeed in his splendid efforts.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I virtually agreed with a number of Senators that we would allow no legislation to-day. Will the Senator let this matter go until a little later in the day, toward the close of the session? I assure the Senator that I am in full sympathy with his proposal, and if I can assist him in passing the bill to-day or later, I shall do so.

Mr. NKELY. I thank the Senator, and withdraw my request for the present, but'I shall vigorously renew it before the end of the day.

Before I take my seat I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record an article from the Pathfinder, one of the greatest American periodicals, entitled, "Cancer."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Prom The Pathfinder, February 20. 19271

Senator Nkkly, of West Virginia, has Introduced a bill In Congress which would authorize the Government to offer a $5,000,000 prize for a cancer cure. In view of the fact that many monetary rewards—not to speak of the satisfaction in rendering » great service to mankind— already await the flrst person to demonstrate a successful cure, we arc not prepared to say whether such a huge money consideration is advisable.

The Cancer Research Society of Brooklyn, N. Y., has offered- a $100.000 prize for some time. A similar amount is posted by Lord Atholston, proprietor of the Montreal Star, and a $50,000 reward has heen put up by Sir William Vcno of Manchester, England, iiot to mention the annual Jung prize of $300 for cancer research.

However, we do unhesitatingly commeud Mr. Nkkly's desire to interest the Government more in combating this great scourge. He proposes to create a Federal commission to pass on the many claimed "cures" The commission would be made up of three emiucnt scientists, to be- appointed by the President, who have enough public spirit to serve without pay. They would have the power to enlist the aid of one or more Government agencies in trying to solve the cancer problem.

The Government has not given as much attention as it might to the physical Ills of mankind. The public, too, has been somewhat Indifferent. Mr. Nkki.y is disappointed that, since the introduction of his bill. "the three so-called great press associations have been so busy informing the country about n mechanical bull fight in New Jersey and other matters of similar importance that they have been unable to give more than passing notice to the matter involved in the proposed legislation." But this is natural.

I'epple have an aversion to harrowing things. That is why the cancer campaign launched nt Washington In 1922 with the British ambassador as an active worker received so little public support.

However, the subject merits everyone's consideration. Cancer Ik a growing menace. Though radium and surgery :tre popular treatments, there is no proved cure. It h:is been said that nearly four times as many people died In this country from cancer during the period of the

World War as were killed In battle abroad. And the toll is mounting. The cancer death rate grew from 74 per 100,000 In 1911 to 92 per 100,000 in 1924. In 1920 there were 89,000 deaths from the disease. The number last year will probably reach 100.000. There are over 300,000 known cancer patients In this country to-day. Oue fact is very apparent: The modern style of living contributes to the spread of the disease.

Much has been written about cancer. Theories are many. Each physician seems to have his own pet ideas regarding cause and treatment. The Government could aid materially In collecting and studying this material. Only through such cooperation can a cure for this and other terrible diseases be found.

There is no greater public duty than helping stamp out disease. But physicians as individuals haven't the time or the money to engage in the exhaustive research work that Is necessary. The study of any disease, after all, is one of assembling facts. This service the Government is well qualified to perform. For that reason we agree with Mr. Nkkly that the United States should be as much a leader in health as in other things.

It Is not enough for our experts to announce that there Is no known cure for cancer, and to denounce those who claim to help It. It is not enough to urge everybody who has a mole or a wart or any suspicious growth to have It cut out " while there is time." Thousands of poor sufferers h'ave had repeated operations and have had everything done for them which medical science can suggest; they have sacrificed all their savings in the effort to secure relief—but the relief has not come.

It Is time that we should have action, and not simply reassuring words or treatments that do not secure results. People arc afraid of the very word "smallpox," and yet smallpox claims only a very small percentage of the deaths that cancer does. Smallpox used to be one of the world's great scourges, and It carried off vast numbers of people. But It has been mastered.

In the same way yellow fever, malaria, and many other ills have been conquered or brought under control. All these improvements have been brought about largely through the activities of the Government. We must not expect the Government to do everything for us—but tho conservation of the public health Is safely within the legitimate sphere. Let the good work go on.

Mr. NEELY subsequently said: Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Senate for just a moment in order to carry out an agreement I had with the Senator from Utah [Mr. Smoot] this morning. I ask that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill (S. 3554) to authorize the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the means and methods for affording Federal aid in discovering a cure for cancer, and for other purposes.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from West Virginia?

There being no objection, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Education and Labor with amendments:

On page 1. line 7, after the word "practicable." to strike out "a plan for the participation of the Federal Government in eradicating cancer" and Insert " the result of such investigation." and In section 2, page 2, line 8, after the words " the sum of," to strike out "$100,000" and insert "$7R,OOO."

Mr. NEELY. I move further to amend (he bill.

On page 1, line 3, after the flrst words "That the," to insert "Public Health Service and the"; in the same line, to strike out "is" and insert "are "; in line 4, after the word "authorized," to insert "jointly"; on page 2, line 1, after the word "cancer," to insert "the result of such investigation"; in line 3, before the words "National Academy." to insert "Public Health Service or the"; in line 5. before the words "National Academy of sciences," to insert "Public Health Service and the"; and in section 2, page 2, line 9, after the words "the sum of," to strike out "$75,000 " and insert " .$50.000 " : in line 10, after the word "to," to strike out "reimburse the National Academy of Sciences for" and insert "defray the" before the word "expenses"; in Hue 12, after the word "appropriation," to insert "or so much thereof as may be necessary ": in line 14, after the word "vouchers," to insert the word "jointly "; in line lii, before the wi.rd "President." to insert "Surgeon General of the Public Health Service and the"; and in the same line, lifter the word "President," to strike out "or otlitr authorized officer," so as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted, etc.. That the Public Health Service and the National Academy of Sciences are hereby authorized jointly to make a thorough Investigation of the means and methods whereby the Federal Government may aid in discovering a successful and practical cure for cancer, and to report to Congress as soon as practicable the result of such investigation. It shall be the duty of nny executive department or independent establishment of the Government, upon the request of the Public Health Service or the National Academy of Sciences, approved tiy the President, to lend such assistance and cooperation as may be necessary to enable the Public Health Service and the National Academy of Sciences effectively to carry out the purposes of this act.

Sec. 2. There is hereby authorized to he appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $50,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to defray the expenses which may be incurred in carrying out the provisions of this act. Such approprint ion, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be disbursed by the disbursing officer of the Treasury Department upon the presentation of vouchers jointly approved by the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, and all expenditures from such appropriation shall be audited in the usual manner by the General Accounting Office.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the amendments submitted by the Senator from West Virginia to the amendments of the committee will be agreed to, and the amendments of the committee as amended will be agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in.

The bill was ordered to l>e engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to authorize the Public Health Service and the National Academy of Sciences jointly to investigate the means and methods for affording Federal aid in discovering a cure for cancer, and for other purposes."


Mr. WAGNER. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to amend the Judicial Code so as to exclude strictly local public utilities from the Federal district courts where such jurisdiction is bused solely on diversity of citizenship or on the presence of a Federal question.

These local utilities are created by the State; they are given permission to do business and are accorded special franchise and monopoly privileges by the State or its municipalities.

The source of all their rights and ixnvers is the State, but when their duties are in question the utilities are showing a marked preference for the Federal courts and an antipathy to the jurisdiction of the State courts.

Through its ability to raise the constitutional question, the local public utility has been able to exercise that choice and thereby secure an advantage over the municipalities and residents of the communities wherein they do their business. There is, to my mind, no sound reason why a local public utility should have the advantage of a choice between two systems of law and two sets of judges.

Several recent cases in different parts of the country have brought this question to the forefront of attention. In New York City a local public utility had leased from the city a municipally owned system of local railroad and had In the lease covenanted to charge no more than 5 cents for a ride. In exchange for that 5-cent covenant the city deferred its right to any revenue or rental uniil after the company had paid all proper charges, maintenance, and interest, and until after the company had secured for itself over $6,000,000 a year. Not until then could the city receive any revenue to reimburse itself for the cost of the construction of the subways or any interest payable by the city on the cost of construction.

Before that contract was entered into between (he company and the city a law was duly passed by the State legislature in the nature of an enabling act authorizing the execution of the contract and providing that the contract shall contain terms as to the rate of fare to be charged.

It is well known that thnt legislation was passed with a view to the contract then in contemplation between the city and the company. Pursuant to this legislative authority the contract of 1JU3 was executed and (hat contract provided that the company could charge 5 cents for a ride, and no more. For almost 15 years everyone, including tlie parties to the litigation, felt that the 5-cent fare in New York was protected by contract. I say that the company itself recognized it. for in 1025 it memorialized the State of New York for remedial legislation on the theory that (hat body alone could give relief unless the city and the commission consented to "amend the contract."

Mr. COPKLAND. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. WAGNER. I yield.

Mr. COPKLAND. My colleague will recall that on the consummation of that contract a great dinner was given to Mayor Gaynor, where all the attorneys for the companies were present, and all rejoiced that there was to be perpetuated in New York a 5-cent fare, everybody in the community was rejoicing over it, including the traction lines themselves.

Mr. WAGNER. Unquestionably, all of the parties to the

contract, the public, and the press then asserted that a definite rate of fare has been provided in a definite binding contract.

That was the situation when, on February 1, 1928, the company filed new schedules of fare with the transit commission, and a petition for an increased rate of fare. No decision was announced on this petition until February 14. One hour before that decision was even rendered the company had already filed Its bill of complaint in the Federal court. Immediately after the decision the city and the commission instituted injunction suits in the State courts to prevent an increase of fare. But these courts have been ousted of jurisdiction by the order of the Federal court on Uie ground that the Federal courts had first acquired jurisdiction, although at the time the original bill of complaint was tiled no cause of action existed.

I may say without reserve that the people of New York have resented far more this assumption and retention of jurisdiction by the Federal court than its unfavorable decision. The source of friction in this controversy has been jurisdictumul. The people rightly fiel that the appropriate forum for the litigation of a strictly local issue is the State court; that the proper judges are the State judges, and that the laws enunciated in the State decisions ought to govern.

Briefly, I wish to comment on the opinion. The court has decided that the contract between the company and the city did not ineau what it said on its face; that the common intent of the parties at the time of the execution of the contract must be disregarded; that the common understanding of the parties during 15 ytars of operation under the contract was mistaken; that there must be read into the contract a legislative enactment of 1907, which created a State public service commission with general supervision over utility rates.

By a strained construction the court has held that the contract must be road as if no reference to fare had been made, in spite of the patent fort, that I he provision of cheap transit facilities for its residents was the primary motive and the primary consideration of the execution of (he lease by the city. The sptcial statute which authorized this contract and authorized it to contain fare provisions is blandly waved a-side, although enacted subsequent to the public service commission act.

The court has said that the company is entitled to charge a rate which would bring a return of 8 per cent not only on its own property but on the city property as well. Practically, it means that the company has a right to complain not only of the confiscation of its own property but that it has a right to complain of the confiscation of the property belonging to some one else, although the owner of that property is perfectly willing and satisfied.

The court's decision means that the city must be subjected to the vagaries of a valuation for rate making, the very contingency which the contract was intended to avoid. Under the terms of the injunction which the court has granted the powers of a State public service commission with respect to this company have been paralyzed for an indefinite length of time.

With the merits of this particular controversy we can not here deal legislatively. But I believe there is genuine merit in resisting the jurisdiction of the Federal court in such cases. The resentment springs from a democratic love of local selfgovernment and self-rule. It gives expression of a widely held belief that the Federal courts are trespassing upon what ought to be the domain of the States.

It can be readily demonstrated that the greatest offender against the principle of local self-rule has been not the executive nor the legislative branch of the Government hut the I judicial. The Federal courts have been most aggressive in the steady encroachment of Federal power upon the sovereignty of the States.

No one wants to deprive a local utility company of its constitutional rights, and I have no desire to limit its right of access to the United States .Supreme Court when its constitutional rights lire violated or endangered, but there is no reason why local issues should not be first fully litigated in the State ! court and taken to the Supreme Court by way of the highlit court of the State.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sackett in the chair). Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. WAGNER. I yield.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Will the Senator tell us whether the State courts of New York follow the rule that was laid down by the Federal court in this case?

Mr. WAGNER. On the question of confiscation?

Mr. REED of Missouri. Yes.

Mr. WAGNER. Oh, yes. The great controversy in this particular ease, if I may answer the Senator further, is whether or not the contract made l»etween the utility company and the city of New York, providing for a rate of fare, is a binding contract or not. The contract was entered into as a result of a siiecial enactment of the legislature authorizing the municipality and the public utility to enter into the particular contract in question and providing in the legislation that they provide and stipulate the rate of fare to be charged. It could not, it seems to me, be stated more definitely than that. Nobody believed at the time the law of 1913 was enacted that there was any question hut that a si>ecinc delegation of power was granted lo the municipality to enter into the contract, with a direction for the inclusion of a provision for a specific rate of fare to be exacted.

Mr. REED of Missouri. The point I wanted to get at for my own information was this, and I am not asking this at all in any spirit of contention: Did the State courts of New York, in cases of public utilities having in their franchise or contract agreed upon the rate of fare, follow the rule that those prices are not binding when the company is no longer able to make a return?

Mr. WAGNER. They have, of course, inquired into the question of the reasonableness of the rate, and that determines the question of whether there is confiscation or not.

Mr. REED of Missouri. I am sneaking of contract rates. I do not want to take the Senator's time and I am really sorry I interrupted him. There is a long line of decisions, of course, holding, where a company comas into a city and secures a franchise, which is, of course, a contract, and in that franchise its rates are specified, that if it is found the company can not make money it may raise its rate in violation of its contract und still hold its franchise. That is a doctrine from which I have the temerity to differ. But I was inquiring whether the same doctrine obtains in the State courts of New York as evidently was applied in the Federal court in the case to which the Senator has referred?

Mr. WAGNER. That precise question has not, so far us I know, been decided by our courts. 1 do not want to prolong , the discussion unduly, but there is a distinction even between the enses the Senator cites and this case which I have been discussing in the fact that there was a special act passed by our legislature delegating to the municipality the power to enter into a contract, with n direction to fix the rate of fare. The general statutes of 1907. giving general supervisory power by a public service commission over rates, I contend, can not be read into these particular contracts as an implied provision.

Mr. UEED of Missouri. I thank the Senator, and apologize for leaving the Chamber at this moment, as I am compelled to do.

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

Mr. WAGNER. Certainly.

Mr. OVERMAN. I am at a loss to know how the Federal court acquired jurisdiction of this case. Was it on the ground of diverse citizenship, or because it la a foreign corporation, or on account of the amount involved, or bow Whs it?

Mr. WAGNER. It was upon the ground that there is a Federal question involved, the Federal question being the alleged confiscation of the property of the public-utility company, and therefore in violation of the due process of law clause of the Federal Constitution.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President

Mr. WAGNER. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BORAH. As I understand the effect of the bill which the Senator has introduced, it is to exclude utility cor]x>rations alone from the Federal jurisdiction under section 24 of the Judicial Code?

Mr. WAGNER. Yes; those engaged in intrastate activities.

In a recent case closely related to the one I have discussed, so far as underlying theories of government are concerned, Mr. Justice Holmes wrote a brilliant dissenting opinion, concurred in by Mr. Justice Hrandeis and Mr. Justice Stone. I shall quote but a few sentences from that opinion:

If I nm right, tile fallacy has resulted in nn unconstitutional assurnp. tion of power* by the courts of the T'nited States, which no lapse of tiitfe or rpHpectable array of opinion should mako us uesilate to correct. * * * But this question is deeper than that; It la a question of the authority by which certain particular nets, here the grant of exclusive privileges in a railroad Ktatinn, are governed. In my opinion the authority, nnd only authority. Is the Stntc; and if that be so, the voice adopted by the State as its own should utter the last word. * * • I should hnve supposed that what arrangements could or could not 1m made for the use of a piece of land was a purely local question, on which, if on anything, the State should have its own way

and the State courts should bo taken to declare what the State wills. (Black & White Tnxl v. Brown Yellow Tuxicab, opinion No. 174, October, 1927.)

•This is sound American doctrine. It is a matter of regret that it occurs in a dissenting opinion rather than a prevailing one. But what the court felt that it could not do by reason of precedent it is in the power of the legislature to do, and (he bill that I have proposed to-day is intended to carry that out. That bill will in no wise interfere with the jurisdiction of tho Federal courts in interstate matters, nor with railroad receiverships, nor with any of the other numerous matters properly cognizable in the Federal courts. But it will keep local controversies over local matters between utilities and municipalities and commissions out of the Federal courts and will bring them into the State courts, where they most appropriately belong.

The bill (S. 4-191) to amend section 24 of the Judicial Code, as amended, with respect to the jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States over suits brought by or against public-utility corporations, was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.


Mr. BRATTON. Mr. President, on April 24 last House bill 11479, to reserve certain lands on the public domain in Valencia County. N. Mex., for the use and benefit of the Acoma Indians, passed the Senate. The following day my colleague FMr. CutTing] entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which the Senate passed the bill and moved that the House be requested to return the bill to the Senate. The bill was returned from the House. I now move that the motion so entered by my colleague be laid on the table, in order that the passage of the bill may stand.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sackktt in the chair). The question is. upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the Senator from New York [Mr. Copeland].

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to permit men in the professions to do what men in thi? trades are permitted to do if they go to conventions.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICElt. Does the Senator from New York yield to the- Senator from Idaho?

Mr. COPELAND. I yield.

Mr. KORAH. What amendment is this?

Mr. COPELAND. It is the amendment to the tax bill which I presented, which is the pending amendment

Mr. BORAH. What became of the other amendment that was pending?

Mr. COPELAND. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Norrib] was good enough to yield lo me. because I am under the necessity of leaving the Senate in a short time. The amendment is the one which I am now describing, which is designed to permit n physician to deduct his expense incurred in attending a convention, just the same as an executive or one who Is in a trade may do under the present conditions. For some reason or other the department has ruled against physicians doing that.

I do not care to argue the matter, if the Senator from Utah [Mr. 8Moot] is willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. SMOOT. The Senator from Utah can not accept tho amendment.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, 1 suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is suggested. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names:

AtOuirst George McMaster Shipstead

Ilarkley Gerry McNury Shortridge

Itnynrd Gillett Mayfleld Simmons

Black Class Metcnlf Smith

Itliilue Uoff Muses Smoot

Borah flrcene Neely Steck

Rratton Hale Norbeck Steiwer

Itroukhart Harris Norrls Step'iens

Hroussard Harrison Nye Swanson

Bruce llawes Oddle Thomas

Capper Iliiyden Overman Tydingn

Caraway llcdln 1'hipps Tyson

Copeland Uowell I'lttman Vanilpnbrrg

Couzens Johnson Ransdell Wagner

Curtis Jones Reed, Mo. Walsh, Mass.

Cutting Kendriclt Heed. I'n. Walsh, Mont.

Dencen Kins Robinson, Ark. Warren

Dill La Kollette Sacked Waterman

Fesa Ix>cher Kehall Watsuit

Fletcher McKellar Sneppard Wheeler

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Oddie In the chair). Eighty Senators having answered to their names, a quorum Is present.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment, so far as my submitting it is concerned, is to permit physicians who attend meetings of their national societies to deduct the expenses incurred in attending such meetings so as to have that much reduction in their income tax. It is a very interesting thing that the Board of Tax Appeals in the appeal of Alexander Silverman in support of its finding that the travel expense of a chemist incurred in attending meetings of chemical organizations is deductible said:

As the head of the department of chemistry it was expected of and Incumbent on him as such to keep abreast in his particular field of work and in touch with other scientists lu the same field, which was done, among other ways, by the preparation and publication of papers, by the reading of technical periodicals, and by the attendance at such conventions whern subjects of a scientific nature were presented and discussed.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Utah?

Mr. COPELAND. I yield.

Mr. SMOOT. A physician has exactly the same right that a chemist has. If a physician is engaged in a work that properly belongs to his duties as a physician, then he can deduct his expenses just the same as can the chemist when he is engaged in work in his particular line. That is not, however, what the Senator's amendment seeks to provide.

Mr. COPELAND. Neither is that the interpretation of the Board of Tax Appeals. Now let the Senator listen to this

Mr. SMOOT. The case to which the Senator has referred has no reference whatever to his amendment; it is another ease entirely. The Senator's amendment provides that where a physician makes a trip to attend a national convention he may deduct his expenses for that trip.

Mr. COPELAND. That is correct

Mr. SMOOT. That Is not the same as the case of the chemist to which the Senator has referred.

Mr. COPELAND. I think it is exactly the case, according to the opinion from which I have read.

Mr. SMOOT. I know it Is not.

Mr. COPELAND. Let me read it again.

Mr. SMOOT. What the Senator has read says that there may be deducted expenses incurred in the line of the profession of the chemist. The National Education Association, the American Bar Association, the various engineering societies, the various societies of accountants, the societies of chemists, the societies of druggists, and of the architects in the United States hold their conventions in different parts of the country, but in not one of those cases is a member attending such convention allowed a dollar for expenses in attending the convention, and neither Is a physician.

Mr. COPELAND. Of course, the Senator thinks that they should not be allowed to deduct such expenses?

Mr. SMOOT. Certainly not. If a physician incurs an expense in the line of his profession, then he is allowed to deduct that expense, but attendance on conventions is not in line with his actual work; and, therefore, the department has held that he can not deduct such expense. The same ruling has been made with respect to all the associations to which I have referred, and there is not one of them but holds au annual convention, just as the physicians do.

Mr. COPELAND. I thank the Senator for what he has said, and I will attempt to show him that the department lias discriminated. It is true, of course, that the department has refused to make these allowances as regards these various professions in most instances; but here is a case where they did not. Now, listen to this; and the medical profession asks merely that it shall be placed on the same footing as all other professions.

Mr. SMOOT. I nsked the department if there was any discrimination that they knew of, and I was told that there was none that they knew of. and that with the bill as it is the physicians will be on exactly the same footing as the chemists, the lawyers, the accountants, the engineers, the druggists, and all of the professions holding their annual conventions.

Mr. VANDEM5ERG. How about newspaper men?

Mr. SMOOT. The same thing applies to newspaper men.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Utah ever heard about the man who was in jail, arrested for something?

Mr. SMOOT. Yes; J remember reading it when I was a boy.

Mr. COPELAND. All right. The Senator will recall that his lawyer said, "Why, you can not be put in jail for this," and the man replied, "But I am in jail."

Mr. ELAINE. He used stronger language than that.

Mr. COPELAND. Yes; he did; but there are frieuds in the galleries, and we want to preserve the conventions as far as we can.

Mr. SMOOT. I should like very much to have the Senator point out the case, and I will take it up with the Treasury Department, because I am assured by the Treasury Department that there has been no case of discrimination.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator from New York yield?

Mr. COPELAND. I yield to the junior Senator from Utah.

Mr. KING. My information is—and I think we can differentiate the general cases to which the Senator refers from the one I am about to speak of—that there has been a ruling that in a particular case where a chemist was employed and part of his employment for which he was paid by his employer was to attend the meetings of one or more organizations for the discussion of the particular work in which his employer was engaged, in that instance, where that was one of the essentials of his employment, his expenses in attending these particular meetings were permitted as deductions. But take, for instance, the lawyers, the engineers, the newspaper men, and many of the professions. The lawyers attend the bar associations in their own States. They attend the National Bar Association. They have gone to Europe upon one occasion to attend a great international gathering of the lawyers. They did it not as a part of their employment by any particular client, and they were not permitted to deduct their expenses under such circumstances. The same thing is true with a doctor. If a doctor was employed by a hospital and it was a part of his employment that he should attend the gatherings of the hospital organizations throughout the United States, I am Inclined to think that under the present law he would be entitled as a deduction to hia expenses in attending those organizations.

Mr. SMOOT. I will say to my colleague that there Is no question but that he would.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to what the junior Senator from Utah has said; and once more I am reminded of the naturalist who said, "A lobster is a red fish that walks backward." A lobster is not red; it is not a fish; and it does not walk backward.

The facts in the case stated by the junior Senator from Utah are these:

The petitioner attended like conventions prior to 1921, did so again in 1921, and has since so attended, such action on his part being expected and necessary, as it was of others similarly employed at the university, for the purpose of keeping thoroughly informed in his field of work and in touch with other scientists, and in order to advance the interests of the university, though his contract of employment does not specifically make mention of any such activities, and there was no provision made for repayment to him of expenses so incurred.

Mr. SMOOT. I am aware of the case. I know the doctor to whom the Senator refers; and I know that the doctor has been told that if he would come down to the Treasury Department they would be perfectly willing to reopen the case and go into every detail, and let him prove that it was in the line of his profession.

Mr. COPELAND. Why should it be necessary for the physician to make proof of the importance °f attending this convention?

Mr. SMOOT. Everybody who makes any kind of a return at all and claims any kind of an exemption has to make proof of it.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President. I wish I could argue this matter with any other Senator in this body than my friend, the senior Senator from Utah. I am going to have a visit with him some day and find out why it is that he does not like doctors.

Mr. SMOOT. I do like doctors; but I do not like doctors so well that I think they ought to be treated differently from any other profession.

Mr. COPELAND. I fear the Senator would not even have them treated as well as some other professions.

Mr. SMOOT. Some of the closest friends I have in the world are doctors.

Mr. COPELAND. I want to talk to them.

Mr. SMOOT. I will say to the Senator that there is not a feeling in my soul against the doctor as a doctor; but I do not want him to be treated differently than any other American citi/x;n as to exemptions from the payment of taxes.

Mr. COPELAND. I have to say to the Senator from Utah that no Senator on this floor has been kinder to me than he has been, but I sometimes wonder If he did not forgive me for being a doctor rather than be kind to me simply because I am one.

Now, let us go into the merits of the case.

Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator to yield to me for the purpose of making this statement:

As we all know, nearly every year the accomplished and ambititous doctor at his own expense goes to these conventions, nnd frequently goes to colleges and takes postgraduate courses, in order to keep up with his profession, so that he may be able to give to humankind the best service of which he is capable. In thus preparing himself to aid his fellow man it does seem to me that we ought to credit him with those expenses on his taxable income.

Mr. SMOOT. Does the Senator think we ought to do it with the doctor and not with the members of the National Education Association, the American Bar Association, the engineers, the architects, the chemists, and the druggists? They have just as many meetings as the physicians have.

Mr. McKELLAR. Perhaps so.

Mr. SMOOT. They go just as far, and their expenses are just as much.

Mr. McKELLAR. But their missions are different, and I think there is a difference between them. We might include other classes, and that might well be done; but, at the same time, I think that class of our professional men who come nearest to the people in their lives and homes and families, especially in sickness, ought to be encouraged in every way to keep up with the advances in science; and 1 think they might well be encouraged by the Government to the extent of allowing them a credit on their incomes for the expenses to which reference hns been made.

Mr. SMOOT. They go there to keep abreast of the times, simply because it is an advantage to them.

Mr. McKELLAR. Oh, no!

Mr. SMOOT. It is an advantage to them, the same as it is to un attorney or any one else.

Mr. McKELLAR. Of course, it is an advantage to them. I think we have a great many physicians in this country who take a pride in their profession, however, and want to be in a position to do the best they can for humanity, without regard to their pecuniary interest.

Mr. SMOOT. I think that is so.

Mr. McKELLAR. And I think the Government ought to aid them to this extent.

Mr. SMOOT. That also happens with school-teachers, professors, attorneys, and all of the other classes. What applies to one class applies to all.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, I can not agree with the Senator that this has the same application with reference to an attorney. I do not think he occupies the same important place socially that the physician does.

Mr. SMOOT. No; but I say that his object in going to conventions is to improve himself and keep up to date, just exactly the same as the physician does.

Mr. CARAWAY. Let me ask the Senator if it is not true that physicians do more charity work than every other body of professional men combined?

Mr. SMOOT. 1 could not say that.

Mr. McKELLAR. They certainly do a great deal of charity work.

Mr. C'ARAWAY. If a physician passes anybody on the road who is injured or sick, the ethics of his profession compels him, as I understand, to render whatever aid he can.

Mr. SMOOT. Certainly.

Mr. CARAWAY. I know that his training does.

Mr. SMOOT. And he sends his bill for It, too.

Mr. COPELAND. I see now where the trouble is.

Mr. SMOOT. No; that is not it at all. He has a right to send his bill.

Mr. CARAWAY. Hp has no way of knowing whether a man will ever be able to pay him or not. I have observed that he is the most willing to take a chance. I have practiced law a bit: ;ind when some client employs me, before I put out much Inbor in his behalf I ascertain what the rewards are going to be. A doctor can not wait for anything of that kind. Life and death is at stake; and every one of us that breathes has at some time owed his existence to the iiction of a physician.

Mr. SMOOT. In a case like that, if he is called to the next city or if he is culled anywhere, and it is in the line of his business, then he i.s granted the deduction.

Mr. CARAWAY. I am fully aware of that. What I was trying to say—possibly not happily saying—was that there is a difference lietween a physician and his attitude toward his profession and that of n lawyer, for instance, that the Senator names, or an architect. I dm sure that every other profession has time to investigate and determine whether or not it Is

advantageous to act A physician must hold himself always ready to do his duty. I have never known one who did not respond to the call of humanity; and inasmuch as he does that, it would .seem that he might have this advantage, without any other profession having the same right

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. COPELAND. I promised to yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BARKLEY. As I understand, under the present law if a physician goes to some medical college during the course of a special term or for two or three months he would be entitled to deduct the expense incurred in such trip or in such course from his income tax; would he not?

Mr. SMOOT. In a case like that, where he goes off for education, under existing law he would not be allowed to deduct his expenses for the three months; but if he is called on a case in a neighboring city or State or any part of the United State.s and goes there in the line of his profession, then he can deduct the amount

Mr. COPELAND. Of course.

Mr. SMOOT. And so can all the others.

Mr. BARKLEY. If a physician, even in middle life, takes two or three months in the year to go off and better prepare himself to minister to the wants of humanity, I think he ought to be allowed to deduct that in the computation of his income tax, because it is a part of the expense of his profession. If he goes to a medical society, he does not go there for the purpose of enjoying social activities. He goes in the interest of his profession, to acquaint himself better with the developments of medicine, and not necessarily as a money-making proposition. Even if it were, however, it seems to me that expense ought to be computed in determining what his net income is at the end of the year.

Mr. SMOOT. I will say to the Senator that that is a much more meritorious proposition than the one the Senator from New York has offered. The Senator from New York is proposing that wherever a physician is called anywhere in the line of duty, he is to deduct those expenses.

Mr. COPELAND. That is not what I am trying to do at all.

Mr. SMOOT. That is exactly what the Senator's amendment means.

Mr. BARKLEY. Would the Senator support an amendment permitting him to deduct expenses incurred in attending meetings of medical societies?

Mr. SMOOT. That is not in line of duty.

Mr. BARKLEY. Who is to determine whether it is in line of duty or not? It is in the line of his profession.

Mr. SMOOT. He goes to those conventions not in line of duty. He does not go there to attend any one of the conventions. He goes there on a vacation, as it is sometimes called.

He goes there for the purpose of better preparing himself to practice his profession, whether for selfish purposes or for the benefit of humanity, and it is a part of the expenses of his profession.

So does the attorney, so does the chemist, so does the accountant, so does the engineer, and so do all these men who go to these conventions.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I will go on with what I have to say. I think I see a glimmer of hope. The Senator from Utah intimates that if a deduction is for the purpose of paying the expenses incurred in attendance upon a medical society meeting, he is in favor of it

Mr. SMOOT. Oh, no.

Mr. COPELAND. The Senator is not?

Mr. SMOOT. No; I am not

Mr. COPELAND. The Senator from Utah thinks the physician is like Minerva, that he sprang from the brain of Jove, full pnnoplied and perfect in every respect.

Mr. SMOOT. No more than an attorney is born in the same way, and from the same source, or a chemist, or a druggist, or any professional man.

Mr. COPELAND. I do not know anything about the practice of law. and I am not talking about any other profession, but I say that I can tell whether a doctor is a good doctor or a poor doctor by finding out whether lie attends his medical society meetings or not.

Mr." SMOOT. I will say this: That I know some doctors who attend those medical society meetings who never will be good doctors, and others lire men of renown the world over. You could not make those two men equal if there was a convention every week.

Mr. COPELAND. Very well; but I will say this to the Senator: That the man who is renowned is the man who goes.

Mr. SMOOT. I have not any doubt about that.

Mr. COPELAND. And he profits by it.

« ПретходнаНастави »