brother-in-law, or sister-in-law, or to any or all of them, and also during total and permanent disability to the injured person.

"Where the beneficiary for yearly renewal term insurance at the time of designation by the insured is within the permitted class of beneficiaries and is the designated beneficiary at the time of the ma turity of the insurance because of the death of the insured, such beneficiary shall be deemed to be within the permitted class even though the status of such beneficiary shall have been changed.

"The United States shall bear the expenses of administration and the excess mortality and disability cost resulting from the hazards of war. The premium rates shall be the net rates based upon the American Experience Table of Mortality and interest at 3% per cent This section, as amended, shall be deemed to be in effect

per annum.

as of June 7, 1924.

"SEC. 13. That section 301 of the World War veterans' act, 1924, as amended (sec. 512, title 38, U. S. C.), be hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 301. Except as provided in the second paragraph of this seetion, not later than July 2, 1927, all term yearly renewable insurance held by persons who were in the military service after April 6, 1917, shall be converted, without medical examination, into such form or forms of insurance as may be prescribed by regulations and as the insured may request. Regulations shall provide for the right to convert into ordinary life, 20-payment life, endowment maturing at age 62, 5-year level premium term, and into other usual forms of insurance, and for reconversion of any such policies to a higher premium rate in accordance with regulations to be issued by the director, and shall prescribe the time and method of payment of the premiums thereon, but payments of premiums in advance shall not be required for periods of more than one month each, and may be deducted from the pay or deposit of the insured or be otherwise made at his election. "All yearly renewable term insurance shall cease on July 2, 1927, except when death or total permanent disability shall have occurred before July 2, 1927: Provided, however, That the director may by regulation extend the time for the continuing of yearly renewable term insurance and the conversion thereof in any case where on July 2, 1927, conversion of such yearly renewable term insurance is impracticable or impossible due to the mental condition or disappearance of the insured.

"In case where an insured whose yearly renewable term insurance has matured by reason of total permanent disability is found and declared to be no longer permanently and totally disabled, and where the insured is required under regulations to renew payment of premiums on said term insurance, and where this contingency is extended beyond the period during which said yearly renewable term insurance otherwise must be converted, there shall be given such insured an additional period of two years from the date on which he is required to renew payment of premiums in which to convert said term insurance as hereinbefore provided : Prorided, That where the time for conversion has been extended under the second paragraph of this section because of the mental condition or disappearance of the insured, there shall be allowed to the insured an additional period of two years from the date on which he recovers from his mental disability or reappears in which to convert.

"The insurance except as provided herein shall be payable in 240 equal monthly installments: Provided, That when the amount of an individual monthly payment is less than $5, such amount may, in the discretion of the director, be allowed to accumulate without interest and be disbursed annually. Provisions for maturity at certain ages, for continuous installments during the life of the insured or beneficiaries, or both, for cash, loan, paid-up and extended values, dividends from gaius and savings, and such other provisions for the protection and advantage of and for alternative benents to the insured and the beneficiaries as may be found to be reasonable and practicable, may be provided for in the contract of insurance, or from time to time by regulations. All calculations shall be based upon the American Experience Table of Mortality and interest at 31⁄2 per cent per annum, except that no deduction shall be made for continuous installments during the life of the insured in case his total and permanent disability continues more than 240 months. Subject to regulations, the insured shall at all times have the right to change the beneficiary or beneficiaries without the consent of such beneficiary or beneficiaries, but only within the classes herein provided.

"If no beneficiary be designated by the insured as beneficiary for converted insurance granted under the provisions of Article IV of the war risk insurance act, or Title III of this act, either in his lifetime or by his last will and testament, or if the designated beneficiary does not survive the insured, then there shall be paid to the estate of the insured the present yalue of the remaining unpaid monthly installments; or if the designated beneficiary survives the insured and dies before receiving all of the installments of converted insurance payable and applicable, then there shall be paid to the estate of such beneficiary the present value of the remaining unpaid monthly installments: Provided, That no payments shall be made to any estate which under the laws of the residence of the insured or the beneficiary, as the case

may be, would escheat, but same shall escheat to the United States and be credited to the United States Government life insurance fund. "The bureau may make provision in the contract for converted insurance for optional settlements, to be selected by the insured, whereby such insurance may be made payable either in one sum or in installments for 36 months or more. The bureau may also include in said contract a provision authorizing the beneficiary to elect to receive payment of the insurance in installments for 36 months or more, but only if the insured has not exercised the right of election as hereinbefore provided; and even though the insured may have exercised his right of election the said contract may authorize the beneficiary to elect to receive such insurance in installments spread over a greater period of time than that selected by the insured. This section shall be deemed to be in effect as of June 7, 1924.'

"SEC. 14. That a new section be added to the World War veterans' act, 1924, as amended (title 38, U. S. C.), to be known as section 310 and to read as follows:

"SEC. 310. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 300 and 301 of the World War veterans' act, 1924, as amended (sees. 511 and 512, title 38, U. S. C.), the United States, upon application to the bureau, shall grant United States Government life (converted) insurance against death or permanent total disability in any multiple of $500 and not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000 to any person who has heretofore applied or been eligible to apply for yearly renewable term insurance or United States Government life (converted) insurance: Provided, That such person is in good health and furnishes evidence satisfactory to the director to this effect: Provided further. That no person may carry more than $10,000 of United States Government life insurance at one time.'

"SEC. 15. That a new section be added to the World War veterans' act, 1924, as amended (title 38, U. S. C.), to be known as section 311 and to read as follows:

"SEC. 311. Wherever an insured under a yearly renewable term insurance contract or a United States Government life (converted) insurance policy is totally disabled for a period of 12 consecutive months he shall be entitled to receive total permanent disability benefits under his contract as though he were totally and permanently disabled, such payments to be effective as of the date such total disability began and to be made monthly in accordance with the terms of the contract during the continuance of such total disability. During the period of payments under this section premiums on such insurance shall be waived: Provided, however, That no retroactive payments shall be made under this section except where there is a period of total disability followed by permanent total disability, in which event payments shall be made effective not more than one year prior to the passage of this amendatery act: Provided further, That no application, conversion, or reinstatement Provishall be invalidated by reason of the provisions of this section. sion shall be made by regulation for the reexamination of an insured under this section from time to time as the director may deem necessary, and in the event it is found that an insured is no longer totally disabled payment of benefits shall cease and the provisions of the yearly renewable term insurance contract or the United States Government life-insurance policy, with reference to recovery from permanent total disability, shall apply: Provided. That the benefits of this section shall not prejudice any other cause of permanent total disability.'"

[H. Rept. No. 1274, 70th Cong., 1st sess.]
AMEND WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, 1924

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, from the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation, submitted the following report (to accompany H. R. 15039):

The Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 13039) to amend the World War veterans' act, 1924, as amended, having considered the same, report thereon with recommendation that it be passed as amended. The bill as now presented proposes several substantial changes to which the attention of the House of Representatives should be specifically directed. They are as follows:

1. Section 1 of the bill amends section 19 of the act by establishing a uniform statute of limitations for suits on contracts of insurance. At the present time, under the conformity act, the statutes of limitations of the various States apply. The periods of limitations in these statutes vary from 3 to 20 years, the average being 6 years. The committee believes that the average statute of limitation, namely, six years, should be applied to these suits, with an additional year from the date of passage of this amendatory act for all suits. In computing the limitation period it is provided that the time from the date of filing claim for insurance benefits to the date of disallowance of the claim by the director shall not be included. Further, it is provided that the period of limitation shall not run during the time a person is under legal disability or is rated as incompetent by the bureau, and that such person shall have three years from date of removal of disability in which to sue. The amended section is made applicable to suits which have been heretofore rejected under the State statutes of limitations, pending suits, as well as future suits.

2. Section 2 of the bill, as amended, amends section 21, subdivision 2, of the World War veterans' act to provide authority in the Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau for the payment of the expenses of original appointments of guardians, curators, and conservators of incompetent beneficiaries. At the present time the law provides for the payment of such expenses incident to any investigation or court proceeding for the removal of a guardian, curator, or conservator who has not properly executed the duties of his trust, and the appointment of a new guardian, curator, or conservator, but it is not within the power of the director to secure the appointment of such a fiduciary in the first instance and pay the expenses of the proceeding. The cost of this item is estimated at $164,000 per annum.

..

3. Section 3 of the bill, as amended, amends section 28 of the World War veterans' act, as amended, under which authority now exists for waiver of recovery of payments from any beneficiary who, in the judgment of the director, is without fault on his part and where, in the judgment of the director, such recovery would defeat the purpose of benefits otherwise authorized or would be against equity and good conscience, by the substitution of the word "person" for the word “ beneficiary." Under the language of this section at present, as construed by the bureau and the Comptroller General, the word "beneficiary ' does not comprehend persons who are not legal beneficiaries under the statute; for instance, in a case where, upon the evidence submitted, the bureau has paid insurance or compensation to a person who was alleged to be the widow of an ex-service man, but who, it subsequently appears, was not his widow, for the reason that prior to her marriage to the veteran he was married to another woman from whom he was not legally divorced, recovery can not be waived because the woman, not being the veteran's widow, could legally not be a beneficiary within the meaning of that term as used in the World War veterans' act, as amended. It is obviously unjust, however, to attempt to recover in such a case, both the payee and the bureau being without fault. The substitution of the word person" for the word beneficiary " will cure the situation. There is also included language to the effect that no disbursing officer shall be held liable for any amount paid by him to any person where the recovery of such amount is waived under this section.

..

The purpose of this amendment is to relieve disbursing officers from liability on their bonds through payments made through error, the recovery of which has been waived under authority of section 28. At the present time the Comptroller General holds that, although recovery may be waived in so far as the payee is concerned, the disbursing officer is nevertheless liable under his bond for the erroneous disbursement. is estimated that this would result in an immediate cost of $218,500 and an annual cost of $84,850 thereafter.

It

4. Section 4 of the bill, as amended, adds a new section to Title I of the World War veterans' act, as amended, to be known as section 34, and to provide authority for the director to enter into private contracts for the services of translators without regard to the civil service laws and the classification act of 1923. This amendment is included to enable the director to procure the translation of correspondence from foreign languages into English, and English into foreign languages, by the piece, where the foreign language is unusual and so seldom encountered in the administration of the bureau as not to justify the hiring of a translator on a salary basis. The director has found it economical to enter into private contracts in such cases rather than to employ a regular translator at an annual salary, but the Comptroller General has held that such procedure is unauthorized. It is estimated that the cost of this provision would be approximately $300. The amendment is made retroactive to June 7, 1924, in order that translators who have heretofore performed services under this arrangement may be reimbursed.

5. Section 5 of the bill, as amended, adds a new section to Title I of the World War veterans' act, 1924, as amended, to be known as section 35, and to provide authority for the purchase of transcripts of the record, including the evidence of trial of litigated cases. This section is recommended by the bureau in order that in the future review of such cases the bureau would have the full benefit of evidence adduced at trial. It is estimated that this amendment will cost approximately $10,000 per year.

6. Section 6 of the bill amends section 201, subdivision (1), of the statute, which now provides an allowance of $100 plus $7 for a flag to drape the casket in cases where a veteran dies after discharge or resignation from the service and does not leave assets which, in the judgment of the director, should be applied to meet the expenses of burial and funeral and the transportation of the body, so as to provide for the payment of $107 in all cases in which the director, in his discretion and with due regard to the circumstances of each case, may decide that the sum should be allowed. Provision is also made that the director may make contracts for burial and funeral services without regard to the laws providing for advertisement and acceptance of the lowest bid, in order that the director shall be no longer bound by the law requiring him to accept the lowest bid offered, but, on the other hand, may accept the bid which will provide the best funeral within the amount allowed for burial and funeral expenses. Further provision is made so as to permit payments under contracts heretofore made on this basis by the director in an effort to provide

respectable burials, but which have been disallowed by the Comptroller

General.

This section of the bill also proposes to amend subdivision (3) of section 201 by the addition of a new proviso authorizing the payment of compensation to children after the age of 18 years, and until completion of education or training, where such children are or may hereafter be pursuing a course of instruction at a school, college, academy, seminary, technical institute, or university particularly designated by them and approved by the director. This allowance is to be continued until such children reach the age of 21 years, or terminate their attendance at school. It is estimated that this provision would result in a total increased cost to the Government of $1,007,000.

7. Section 7 proposes to amend section 202, subdivision (7), first paragraph, by increasing the amount of compensation now paid to disabled veterans who have no dependents and who are being maintained by the Government in hospitals from $20 to $30 per month. This amendment would result in an increased cost to the Government of $699,000 annually.

8. Section 8 of the bill proposes to amend subdivision (12) of section 202 by substituting the word "may" for the word "shall," so as to give the director discretion in making apportionments of compensation where the disabled person and his wife are not living together, or where the children are not in the custody of the disabled person. At the present time the language of this subdivision is mandatory and leaves no discretion in the director as to whether an apportionment shall be made regardless of the circumstances in the case. The object of the amendment is to permit the director to inquire into the reasons for the separation, and to make apportionments only in those cases where the facts warrant, and although it places on the bureau the functions of a court of domestic relations it nevertheless is important from the standpoint of justice to those veterans who are separated from their wives through the misconduct of the latter that the law no longer contain a mandate requiring apportionment in favor of a wife without regard to the circumstances of the separation. There would be no increased cost due to this amendment.

9. Sections 9 and 10 of the bill provide for the repeal of sections 206 and 209 of the statute, which now contain limitations on filing claim and proof thereof. It is estimated that the repeal of these two sections will result in an increased cost to the Government of $3,842.516 the first year.

10. Section 11 of the bill adds a proviso to section 212 of the World War veterans' act to provide that where the widow, child, or children of a deceased veteran are entitled to compensation by virtue of an accrued right under the war risk insurance act, as amended, the rates of compensation shall be the same as now paid to widows and children who are receiving compensation under the World War veterans' act, as amended. This amendment is proper in view of the fact that the dependents of veterans who died of injuries received during the period of time covered by the war risk insurance act, but not between April 6, 1917, and July 2, 1921, the period of the World War as defined by the World War veterans' act, are now paid at the rate provided by the old statute. It is fair to put all these dependents on the same basis. This amendment will result in an increased cost to the Government of $12,000 annually.

11. Section 12 amends section 300 of the act by removing the restriction on the designation of a beneficiary for converted insurance to a permitted class. The permitted class of beneficiaries will still remain in the statute in so far as yearly renewable term insurance is concerned. The committee is of the opinion that in view of the fact that the insured under converted insurance is paying an ample premium for the protection afforded, he should be given the same right with regard to designating a beneficiary, or changing a beneficiary, as he would have under a commercial insurance policy. This amendment will make unnecessary the amendment providing that trustecs be included among the permitted class of beneficiaries for converted insurance. There will be no additional cost attached to this amendment. 12. Section 13 of the bill amends section 301 of the act merely to make the provisions of that section conform to the amendatory section removing the permitted class of beneficiaries for converted insurance and to permit reconversion of converted insurance to policies of a lower premium rate, other than the five-year term, where the insured is in good health. Evidence was produced to show that immediately following the war many men bought endowment policies which carry a high premium rate; they are now finding it impossible to continue the premiums on these policies, and it was believed that by permitting them, if they are in good health, to transfer to a lower premium-rate policy they would be able to continue the insurance. No additional cost will result under this amendment.

13. Section 14 of the bill adds a new section to the act, to be known as section 310. This section authorizes the granting of converted insurance to any man who has heretofore applied, or has been eligible to apply, for either yearly renewable term or converted insurance if be is now in good health and submits evidence to this effect satisfactory to the director. The committee believes that this amendment will not only be beneficial to the veterans but also to the United States Government life converted insurance fund, as it will permit men in

ternal Revenue is submitted to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation. A report to Congress shall be made annually by such committee of such refunds and credits, including the names of all persons and corporations to whom amounts are credited or payments are made, together with the amounts credited or paid to each.

That, I will say to the Senator, has already been adopted and is a part of the bill.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words concerning the system of administration employed in the Treasury Department. I hesitate to say what I am going to say, for it is always unpleasant to offer a word of criticism, and what I say I wish to assure the Senate I do not say with any personal feeling at all. I am not sure that anyone or any number of people are really to blame. I think we have a system that has grown up and that has for some reason or other arrogated to itself certain practices that I think are very vicious and very un-American.

Mr. President, we have in the Treasury Department a system of government within the Government itself that through the years has been forming and developing and growing until we have a dictinct system of three distinct branches. We have the legislative system; we have the judicial system within the Treasury, and we have the executive, with a department of justice of its own.

Under this system of secrecy, of course, certain vicious practices have grown up and developed.

We pass a general tax law with broad general powers; and under those general powers employees of the Treasury make certain rules. I do not say that they do not do it in good faith. As a matter of fact, these rules have the effect of law. There you have the legislative department. Then you have the Board of Tax Appeals, a separate and distinct court to try these cases; and then you have the executive department. One practice which has been called to my attention is this: Whenever there is a controversy with a taxpayer over the settlement of a tax claim, that controversy may be in good faith on the part of the Government and also on the part of the taxpayer. The taxpayer may in good faith have made a mistake. He may have underpaid. He may have made a mistake in making the return. Not being an accountant, he may have hired a firm of accountants to make out the return for him, and he may have made the return to the Treasury based on the findings of these expert accountants after a search of his books; but, a controversy arising between the Government and the claimant, it has often happened that when a civil case involving a certain sum of money grows out of the controversy the Treasury Department seems to exert a special effort to institute criminal proceedings and get an indictment. It is quite generally said that the reason for that is that employees of the Treasury Department have stated that if an indictment is hanging over a man it is possible to get a better settlement of the claim against the taxpayer.

Another vicious practice has grown up, and that is to try to bring the criminal proceedings before the civil proceedings. I have had occasion to make a request for advancement on behalf of taxpayers who had a controversy in the civil court, the Board of Tax Appeals, who have made the claim that if they could go into the civil court and have their case adjudicated, their whole case would stand on its own feet, and the criminal proceedings would fall of their own weight; but the Treasury Department has refused and in fact has very strenuously objected to advancing the case on the calendar of the Board of Tax Appeals in order that the civil case should be tried before the criminal case.

Mr. President, I am not able to understand the line of reasoning that would try a man on a criminal charge before he is tried on a civil charge growing out of the same controversy. I do not understand the line of reasoning that would hold an indictment over a man in order to sandbag money out of him on a claim on which he in good faith is ready to meet the Government's representatives in the court established by the Government itself. I have never been able to understand the line of reasoning by which a representative of the Treasury Department, a representative of the Government of the United States, would feel that he did not dare to meet a claimant, a taxpayer, in a civil court before he met him in a criminal court.

I think it is an old axiom of Anglo-Saxon law that a man has a right to have his case tried in a civil court first before criminal proceedings are brought against him.

I do not question the good faith of the people who have instituted and have persevered in this practice, but I do question their point of view. If the Government of the United States has a claim against any taxpayer, it should never be afraid to meet him in court, civil or criminal; and it should meet him in the civil court first, in order to give him a chance to lay his cards

on the table and have the Government lay ifs cards on the table, in order to save him from the injustice of having to appear in a criminal court when he is innocent of crime, and can establish his innocence, and that innocence can be established in a civil court if the case is permitted to go to trial in a civil court first.

This is a system that has been permitted to develop and grow because Congress is anxious and has been for years anxious to pass laws with broad, general application, and leave them to some bureau, to some commission, to administer, and to formulate rules having the effect of laws letting bureaus and commissions legislate upon questions that affect the property and the liberty of the people of the United States.

I did not feel that I should be doing justice to the State which I in part represent, and to the people of the United States, if I did not say a few words in protest against this unAmerican system of government within the Government of the United States, whose proceedings to a large extent are secret. Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President, I desire to present an amendment and ask to have it printed in the RECORD and also printed for the use of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that order will be made.

The amendment is as follows:

Amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. REED of Missouri to the bill (H. R. 1) to reduce and equalize taxation, provide revenue, and for other purposes, viz: On page 245, after line 13, insert the following: TITLE VI-AGRICULTURAL EXPORT DEBENTURES

SEC. 801. EXPORT DEBENTURES.

(a) Agricultural commodity: The term "agricultural commodity." as used in this section, includes all agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy commodities and products, all livestock and products thereof, all products of poultry and bee raising, all nuts and edible

products of forestry, and all other commodities not specifically mentioned herein which are produced on farms and the processed or manufactured products of such commodities.

(b) On and after the 1st day of July next after the approval of this act the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue an export debenture to any person exporting from the United States to any foreign country and not previously exported, an agricultural commodity in either the original or processed condition in an amount equal to 25 per cent of the value of such product paid to the farmer in the purchase of the same for export under such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture may prescribe: Provided, The total quantity of such exportation so valued shall amount to $3,000 or more and be exported in one vessel.

(c) The Secretary of the Treasury shall receive such debentures at their face value in payment of all import duties.

SEC. 802. ADMINISTRATIVE AND PENALTY PROVISIONS.

(a) Preparation of debentures: The Secretary of Agriculture shall prepare and issue, or cause to be prepared and issued, all export debentures, and shall prescribe the terms and conditions in respect of export debentures. The Secretary is authorized to have such debentures prepared in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

(b) Obligations of United States for penal purposes: Export de bentures issued under the authority of this title shall be obligations of the United States within the definition in section 147 of the act entitled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the penal laws of the United States," approved March 4, 1909, as amended.

For expenses in the administration of the functions vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by this title there is authorized to be ap propriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $200,000, to be available for such expenses incurred prior to July 1, 1929.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President, I ask permission at this time to make a brief statement of the purposes of this amendment.

To state the question in a very few words, when the war was over, when it was generally anticipated that there would be a rapid reduction in prices of all kinds of goods, the repre sentatives of the great manufacturers of this country flocked in to the Committee on Finance and protested that they desired to have the tariff advanced on practically every article used by the people; and they gave as one of their chief reasons that they desired to maintain the war level of prices upon manufactured goods after the war was over.

They succeeded in having enacted substantially the law they demanded; and this was done at about the time that the Euro

pean market was in the worst possible condition. All Europe was bankrupt. Prices were at the lowest ebb. Agricultural products exported from America were being sold upon that bankrupt European market, and the price of the articles exported fixed the price in our domestic market. What happened, therefore, was that Congress by law created a condition which resulted in the artificial increase of the price of manufactured products, while the great economic law operating everywhere reduced the price of all that the farmer had to sell to the lowest level of the world's markets. The gap between this artificial level of prices at which the farmer must buy and the world level upon which he must sell is the gap of bankruptcy through which the farmers of the United States are being forced. It is useless now to stand and discuss the whole tariff question; but the acute situation is that the farmer of to-day must sell his products on the European level, and he must buy upon an American level artificially created by two conditions. One is a tariff law which prohibits the farmer from bringing into the country goods that he may desire to purchase in the same market where he has been compelled to sell. The other is the organization of combinations this side the tariff wall which exact the last possible penny of price which can be exacted and at the same time undersell European goods enough to keep them out of this market.

To my mind, nothing is more anomalous, more nonunderstandable than that the producers of the great agricultural districts of this country have not come to understand that if they are forced to buy upon a market which is artificially raised above the general level and, at the same time, must sell upon that general level, the inevitable result is bankruptcy.

All kinds of nostrums have been proposed. Some of them may have merit as partial remedies, but the real remedy lies in affording to the farmers of this land the opportunity to buy on the same level upon which they are compelled to sell. That is a remedy which reaches through the years and that is based upon sound and irrevocable and indisputable economic principles.

Without criticizing measures that have been proposed, withcut saying that some measures which have been proposed may afford a temporary relief, I nevertheless assert that the relief must necessarily be temporary. What ought to be done is to go down to the basic reason for agricultural depression.

It is a natural right, sir, for a man to sell his products in the highest market, in whatsoever market, indeed, where he may see fit to sell it. It is a natural right to buy in any market that is deemed the most advantageous. We have interfered with that natural right. We deny to the farmer who raises 10,000 bushels of wheat and who sells it, directly or indirectly, in Liverpool, England, the right to buy there an equal value of goods and bring them in the United States, because, when he comes to the United States, we exact an enormous tribute for the privilege of bringing those goods into the country. That law, be it remembered, was not passed for the purpose of raising revenue at all. It was passed for the purpose of enriching certain special favored institutions and organizations. It was the law of the legislative pickpocket and marauder. It is as contrary to the principles of free government as the ball and chain and the shackles upon the wrists are contrary to human liberty.

The purpose of this amendment is to permit the exporter of farm products to bring into this country free of duty an equal value of goods. It is to permit the farmer of this country to have the right to buy in the market where he must sell. I would like to see the scribes and Pharisees and hypocrites who have been pretending to be in favor of the farmer answer on this floor why they refuse to allow the farmer, who they declare is oppressed and outraged and bankrupted, the right to buy in the place where the conditions of the world compel him to sell? Other measures, either bills or amendments, somewhat similar to this, have been proposed. Objection has been raised to the practicability of some of them. I have tried in this measure to avoid most of the difficulties to which my attention has been called. I do not present this amendment as the perfection of human reason, but I do present it as a measure of relief and as a real measure of relief.

I do not think it is likely to pass. I think that the influences which control the Treasury Department and sent it before the committee to demand that the tariff be raised so that inanufacturers could maintain war prices will be still at work. I expect that the organized lobby of all of these gentlemen and institutions that want a law to enable them to levy and force tribute upon the American people will be here, and will be as potential in the future as it has been in the past.

I expect that that party which has been financed in every campaign out of the moneys extorted from the American people by law will obey the lash and answer to the command of the

gentlemen who furnish their campaign funds. But I intend, as far as my very limited powers will go, to afford to this country an example of the power and force which that lobby can command, of the subservience which it can compel, and to point out the falsity and the infamy of the claim that farmers can be protected by levying on imports into this country of farm products, when as a matter of fact we have a surplus and must export.

I want a roll call on this ultimately, to determine who it is, when a farmer asks for bread, hands him a stone; when he asks for fish, hands him a serpent. I have waited a long time to introduce such a proposition as this. Indeed, I offered one at the last session of Congress, but as there was no revenue bill to which I could attach it, I was obliged to allow it to lie in abeyance. The bill is here now, and before we conclude the consideration of this revenue measure I shall ask a vote upon this amendment, and I shall desire to make a good many more remarks on it.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, it is not my purpose to detain the Senate any length of time in the discussion of the pending amendment. The issue, it seems to me, is clear-cut. The question which the Senate must decide is whether or not we are to continue to permit the cloak of secrecy to be thrown around one of the most important functions of Government.

The fight for the publicity of income-tax returns started in this body in 1921. An amendment similar to the one presented by the Senator from Nebraska was presented by my father. The amendment was rejected after considerable debate.

In the 1924 contest over the then pending revenue bill an amendment proposed by the Senator from Nebraska, identical with the one now pending before the Senate, passed this body by a vote of 47 to 27. It went to conference, the conference report was a compromise, and, like so many compromises, it was ineffectual. It provided, not for a simple declaration that income-tax returns should be public, as are other records of the Government, but it provided, instead, that only the amount of taxes paid by the taxpayer should be published. The return was surrounded with secrecy as before. That compromise, in my judgment, defeated the entire purpose of the amendment. It was of little or no avail to the public that the amount of tax paid by a taxpayer should be a matter of public record.

The return remained as secret as before and, therefore, there was no opportunity for an examination of the return either by the officials of the State or by a Senator or a Representative or by other interested parties. In 1926 this same amendment was presented by the Senator from Nebraska and defeated by the Democratic-Republican coalition on the then Mellon tax plan.

It is evident, from the course of the debate, that there is little or no interest in the proposition presented by the Senator from Nebraska. There has been small attendance in the Senate to listen to the arguments which have been made in support of the amendment, and no Senator has chosen to rise and defend the committee's position. It seems to me that the question presented is one of vital importance and of grave public concern. I should be derelict in my duty as a representative in part of the State of Wisconsin if I should permit a vote upon the amendment without voicing my support of the proposition.

The State of Wisconsin has had experience with the provision has likewise had an experience now of over five years in which of law providing for the secrecy of income-tax returns, and it income-tax returns have been public records under a provision that an audit of income-tax returns filed for the years 1913 to very similar to the one now pending. It is a significant fact 1923 prior to the publicity of income-tax returns in Wisconsin resulted in the assessment of back taxes against income taxpayers amounting to $9,000,000 in round numbers. Following the adoption of the provision making income-tax returns to the State of Wisconsin public records the audit of returns has disclosed no like failure on the part of the taxpayers to make their just contribution to the State under the provisions of law. When the 1926 revenue bill was under consideration my colleague was then Governor of Wisconsin. The income-tax publicity provision in our State had been in existence for three years. I telegraphed him asking what had been the experience of the State under the publicity provision. He responded, and I quote his telegram because it is equally applicable now as then. The experience of the State since 1926 has not altered the facts and conclusions which he furnished:

Fears created by repeal of secrecy clause in State income tax law were unfounded and there is no demand to reinstate secrecy clause. Benefits flowing from publicity of income-tax returns have been substantial and direct. Greater care has been taken in making income returns by taxpayers, resulting in more accurate and full returns of incomes. Publicity of income-tax returns has promoted generous and