Слике страница
[blocks in formation]

Evans, Calif. Hudson MacGregor ś
Evans, Mont Hull, Morton D. Magrady Selvig
Fenn Jacobstein Mapes Sinnott
Fish James Martin, Mass. Sirovich
Fitzgerald, Roy G. Jenkins Merritt Smith
Fitzgerald, W. T. Johnson, S. Dak. Michener Snell
Fletcher Johnson, Tex. Miller Somers, N. Y.
Fort Johnson, Wash. Monast Speaks
Foss Jono's Montague Stalker
Frear Kading Mooney Stedman
Free Kahn Moore, Ohio Stobbs
Freeman Rearns Morgan Strong, Pa.
Freneh Kelly Morrow Summers, Wash.
Frothingham Kerr Murphy Sumners, Tex.
Garner, Tex. Ketcham Newton Swank
Garrett, Tex. Korell Solois Swick
Gifford Kvale Oliver, N. Y. Swing
Glynn LaGuardia Parker Taylor, Colo.
Green Lampert Peavey Temple
Hadley Lanham Porter Tilson
Hancock Larsen Pratt Timberlake
Hardy Lea Rathbone Treadwa
Hastings Leavitt Reece Underhil
Hawley Lehlbach Reed, N. Y. Vincent. Mich.
Hill, Wash. Luce Rogers Wainwright
Hoch McClintic Sabath Warren
Hoffman McFadden Sanders, N. Y. Watres
Hooper McKeown Sanders, Tex. Welch, Calif.
Houston. Dei. McLaughlin Schafer Woodruff
Howard, Okla. McLeod Schneider Zihlman

Abernethy Doutrich Lyon Sullivan
Anthony Doyle McSweeney Taber
Auf der Heide I)rane Maas Tatgenhorst
Bacon Eaton Manlove Taylor, Tenn.
Beck, Pa Fisher Mansfield Tillman
Begg Garber Michaelson Tinkham
Blanton Garrett, Tenn. Moore, N. J. Underwood

loom Gibson Nelson, Wis. Updike
Boies Golder Norton, N. J. Watson
Howling Graham O'Connor, N. Y. Weaver
Boylan Hammer Oldfield Welsh, Pa.
Bulwinkle Hudspeth Palmer White, Kans.
Butler Hughes Perkins Williamson
Carley goe Pou Wilson, Miss.
Cohen Johnson, Okla. Rayburn Winter
Connally, Tex. Kendall Reid, Ill. Wolverton
Connolly, Pa. Kent Sears, Fla. Wurzbach
Dickstein Kiess Sears, Nebr. Yates
Dominick King Stevenson Yon
Douglass, Mass. Kunz Strother

So the motion to recommit was agreed to. The Clerk announced the following pairs:

On this vote:

Mr. Gibson (for) with Mr. Bacon (against).

Mr. Manlove (for) with Mr. Kiess (against).
Mr. Boylan (for) with Mr. Tatgenhorst (aga
Mr. Sullivan (for) with Mr. Wolverton
Mr. McSwain (for) with Mrs. Norton of

Mr. Bloom (for) with Mr. Weaver (against). Mr. Carley (for) with Mr. Hammer (against).

Mr. Dickstein (for) with Mr. Bulwinkle (a Mr. O'Connor of New York (for) with Mr.

inst) against). ew Jersey (against).

[ocr errors]

Mr. Garrett of Tennessee (for) with Mr. Nelson of Wisconsin (against). Mr. Wilson of Mississippi (for) with Mr. Abernethy (against).

Mr. White of Kansas (for) with Mr. Pou


Mr. Dominick (for) with Mr. Auf der Heide (against).

Mr. Cohen (for) with Mr. Moore of New Mr. Williamson (for) with Mr. Douglass

Until further Mr. Boies with

notice : Mr. Oldfield.

[ocr errors]

(against). sachusetts (against).

Mr. Taylor of Tennessee with Mr. Connally of Texas.

Mr. Beg

with Mr. Tillman. Mr. Golder with Mr. Stevenson.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

to recommit the bill.
The question was taken ; and there were-yeas 186, nays 164,
answered “present" 1, not voting 80, as follows:

[Roll No. 831


Adkins Deal Johnson, Ind. Ramseyer
Allen Denison Rem Rankin
Allgood De Rouen Kincheloe Ransle

lmon Dickinson, Iowa Kindred Reed, Ark.
Andresen Dickinson, Mo. Knutson Robinson, Iowa
Arnold Dowell Kopp Robsion, ky.
Aswell Drewry Kurtz Romjue
Ayres Driver Langley Rowbottom
Bachmann Edwards Lankford IRubey
Bankhead Elliott Leatherwood Rutherford
Bee Eslick Leech Sandlin
Beers Estep Letts Shallenberger
Beli Fitzpatrick Lindsay Shreve

Bland Fulbright Linthicum Simmons
Brand, Ga. Fulmer Lowrey Sinclair
Brand, Ohio Furlow Lozier §of
Brigham Gambrill McDuffie Sproul, Ili.
Browning Gardner, Ind. McMillan Sproul, Kans.
Buchanan Gasque McReynolds Steagall
Buckbee Gilbert McSwain Steele
Burdick Goldsborough Major, Ill. Strong, Kans.
Burtness Goodwin Major, Mo. Tarver
Busby Gregory Martin, La. Thatcher
Bushong Greenwood Mead Thompson
Byrns Griest Menges Thurston
Campbell Griffin Milligan Tucker
Canfield floor Moore, Ky. Westal
Cannon Hale Moore, Va. Vinson, Ga.
Carew Hall, Ill. Moorman Vinson, Ky.
Celler Hall, Ind. Morehead Ware
Chapman all, N. Loak. Morin Wason
Chase Hare Nelson, Me. Weller
Christopherson Harrison Nelson, Mo. White, Colo.
Clague Haugen Norton, Nebr. White, Me.
Cochran, Mo. Hersey O'Brien Whitehead
Cochran, Pa. #o O'Connell Whittington
Cole, Iowa Hill, Ála. O'Connor, La. Williams, Ill.
Cole, Md. #; Oliver, Ala. - Williams, Mo.
Collier Holaday Palmisano Williams, Tex.
Collins Hope Parks Wilson, La.
Combs Howard, Nebr. Peer Wingo
Corning Huddleston Pral Wood
Cox Hull, Wm. E. Purnell Woodrum
Crisp Hull, Tenn. Quayle Wright
Cullen rwin Quin Wyant
Dallinger Jeffers Ragon
Davis Johnson, Ill. Rainey


Ackerman Bowles Chalmers Crowther
Aldrich Bowman Chindblom Curry
Andrew Box Clancy Darrow
Arentz Briggs Clarke Davenport
Bacharach Pritten Colton Lavey

arbour Prowne Connery Dempsey
Beck, Wis Burton Cooper, Ohio Doughton
Berger Carss Cooper, Wis. I}ouglas, Ariz.
Black, N. Y. Carter Crail Dyer
Iłlack, Tex. Cartwright Cramton England
Bohu Casey Crosser Englebright


If she were here, she would vote “nay.”

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. On motion of Mr. RANKIN, a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the bill was recommitted was laid on the table.



Mr. Speaker, I desire to announce that the

1, one of the

gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. HAMMER
conferees on the several omnibus pension bills, is out of the
city, and I ask that another conferee be appointed in his stead.

The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Moore].


Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks In tlie Record on the renpportionment bill.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record on the reapportionment bill. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker, I shall support the majority members of the committee by voting for this reapporlionment bill that is long overdue; but I would be unfair to myself and my constituents if I did not tell you that in my honest judgment, aftor the exhibitions we have seen recently on the floor of this House, that I am heartily in favor of reducing the membership by half, increasing the pay to $15,000, and deducting therefrom $100 for each day's absence, except for sickness or some preeminently legitimate excuse, in line with the bill I introduced In a previous session of this House.

I feel profoundly that it would make for better legislation, and I believe, as an incident, would be less legislation, which is what our people, overburdened with laws, need.

The citizens of the United States are the greatest crowd of joiners in the world, and every organization has some pet legislation it sponsors. This fits in with the general plan of the great Government bureaucracy that exists in Washington, seeking continually to enlarge itself, with ramifications and relations all through the United States. Each little red-tape boss and the particular crowd in his department, in his or her little bureaucracy, is seeking to add to his or her importance by increasing the force, the indirect benefit being self-gratification and the direct benefit increased salary—and more taxes for the people back home to pay.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Mr. Speaker, I nm opposed to this bill, H. R. 11725, for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress. It is true that there should have been a reapportionment after the result of the census of 1920 was ascertained: that, however, is water which has gone over the dam. and while Congress ignored its constitutional obligation to make the reapportionment at that time, it is certainly too late now to make it upon that census.

It would be manifestly unfair, because the population of tie country has increased something around 20 per cent, which increase has not been equal throughout the country; certain sections have grown in population much faster than other parts of the country. We can, therefore, very well afford to wait two years, inasmuch as it has been so long since the last census. We can then obtain the basis upon which to rest the reapportionment, namely, the census of 1930.

The Constitution intended that the Congress should make the reapiwrtioument after the census, and certainly never contemplated that one Congress would endeavor to hang over the head of some succeeding Congress a sword of Damocles, as it were, to be brought into operation in the event the Congress which should make the reapportionuient failed in its constitutional obligation.

I am opposed to delegating to the Secretary of Commerce n work which should be performed, as well as a constitutional obligation under the Constitution, by Congress alone. I do not criticize the people for being restless and demanding a reapportionment, but certainly this bill, if it became a law, would not bring about a reapportioument any quicker than the Congress in session after the 1930 census could perform that duty.

Suppose, for instance, when that Congress assembles, it should decide, which is again its privilege, that a larger membership shall be provided for; or, say, perhaps it should determine that a smaller representation should be provided, and it should puss a bill along those lines. That bill would then proceed to the President for his signature. The President might determine that he did not agree with the reapportionment of Congress, but rather felt that 435, as provided under this bill, should be adhered to, and so the President should veto the bill. Then, unless the Congress was able to pass the reiipportionment act over the President's veto, the act which we are being asked to pass to-day would take effect, and the Congress vested with the power under the Constitution to make the apportionment would be deprived of its constitutional right by this act of the Seventieth Congress.

We are merely juggling with figures at the present time, and, while many estimates have been made as to the probable rep' resentation of the various States of the Union, there are no figures upon wbicb we can base a certainty. My State, Mary

land, for instance, might secure six Representatives, as she now has. On the other hand, by some mere fraction, she might only have five. We men representing Maryland would feel very small, indeed, if it should turn out that we were really entitled to six under the cenus of 1930 and had obtained only five under this bill. This is a very dangerous measure. According to the language of the bill it is not merely a temporary proposition, but for all time should Congress fail to perform its duty of reapportionment. The Secretary of Commerce could step in and perform that duty for the Congress. In other words, it is delegating a perpetual power to one of the departments of the Government to perform a duty which the Congress in its wisdom or unwisdom fails to do, and whenever the Congress fails to do that, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the Secretary of Commerce under this act performs the duty for the Congress.

Certainly none of my constituents can expect me, nor do they expert me, to vote for a. bill so directly opposite to the mandates of the Constitution, so directly opposite to the benefits und Interest of the country, and so absolutely futile when we realize that Congress will meet and perform the duty when the time arrives. The fact that Congress has not performed the duty under the 1920 census should not be subject to the severe criticism which some people try to bring against it. We must rememlier that when the 1920 census was taken it was soon after the war, and much of the population in various States of the Union was of a floating nature, drawn from outside territory to the centers of governmental activities, and reconstruction and natural conditions had not resumed normalcy. What, therefore, might have been apportioned then to a State after its natural conditions were restored would be unfair, and perhaps in some instances in excess and in others insufficient.

We must further realize that at that time there were vast numbers of measures for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country before Congress. It is useless for me to mention these various measures, but we can all recall the vast amount of legislation which was necessary after the war.

I shall therefore oppose this bill; but if I am in Congress after the 1930 census is taken will use my utmost endeavor to bring about a proper, satisfactory, and constitutional reapportionmeut.


Mr. BRITTEN. Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a conference report on II. R. 5898, to authorize certain officers of the United States Navy and Marine Corps to accept such decorations, orders, and medals as have been tendered them by foreign governments in appreciation of services rendered, for printing under the rule.


Mr. CROWTHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record on the benefits of the protective tariff.

The SPEAKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection.

Mr. CROWTHER. Mr. Speaker, all real Americans are proud of the high standard of living conditions enjoyed by the folks who toil on the farms and in the great Industrial plauts of this country.

Steady employment at good wages means more and better food, better clothing, better homes, more of them owned instead of rented, more opportunity for the children's education and advancement, a savings account for the proverbial "rainy day," and a chance to get acquainted with a few of the world's luxuries rather than to grind out an existence with bare necessities as the only reward for service.


The protective tariff policy, a fundamental of Republican faith, has been instrumental in the betterment of living conditions of our American workmen to a degree that lias excited the wonder of the wor.ld. Never before in the country's history has there been such a concerted effort to break down this tariff policy. The most insistent demand comes from the International bankers, who, having loaned vast sums abroad, are vastly more concerned regarding industrial success in Europe than they are for the welfare of American workmen and their families. Like Shylock, these bunkers cry out and demand their pound of flesh; and if in the taking the lifeblood of American industry is drained to the last drop, it will be to them but a mere incident. The attitude of the international bankers has brought great joy to the Democratic camp, and they welcome this new convert to the free trade, alias "tariff for revenue," faith, and Mr. Importer, from his retreat furnished gorgeously in orientajs, shouts a loud "Amen, brother."


Under a protective tariff hill, in which the rates hoth specific and ad valorem have been Incessantly attacked by the leaders of the Democratic Party as too high, there has developed a constantly increasing flood of imports into the United States. The total imports for 1027 are in excess of $4.000,000,000. The frequent statements of Democratic leaders and newspapers that we were shutting out the world and giving them no opportunity to trade with us are not borne out by the facts.


Pottery products and glassware have been imported in great quantities in spite of (he tariff. Potteries and glass factories have been running part time for more than a year. I am reliably informed lhat if the potteries of this country were to run at full capacity they could supply but 75 per cent of our needs. For a long time the}7 have been running at about 50 per cent capacity, and the gap is being tilled by imported goods.

Handkerchief manufacturers have felt the depression in their business because of the rapid growth of importations, and have applied to the Tariff Commission for an investigation looking to an increase of duty.

The candle manufacturers find themselves in the same predicament, and millions of candles for decorative purposes sold last Christmas were all labeled "Made in Germany."

Manufacturers of Pullman slippers found that they were gradually being put out of business due to the flood of similar products from Europe, and which, because they were made wholly of leather, came into the market, duty fre«.

Glove manufacturers have just about held their own in competition with foreign-made goods, although imports have increased considerably under the present rates. Employment during the last two years in this business has been just fair. The fabric-glove industry has ceased its activities in the United States, and the cotton fabric gloves for sale at the store counters are all marked "Made in Germany" or "Made in Saxony." As always happens when an American Industry is put out of business by insufficient protection the price of these fabric suede gloves is very much higher than when we made them in this country.


Four hundred thousand tons, or 800,000.000 pounds, of copper were imported from foreign countries in 1926 in addition to 300,000,000 pounds of concentrates with copper content. The copper mines of Michigan and other Western States are struggling for existence.


The rates on agricultural products should be raised high enough to keep out unnecessary imports or at least raise their price sufficiently to give our American farmers a chance to compete. We import hundreds of millions of pounds of vegetable oils every year. More than 78.000.000 pounds of cheese was shipped to America in 1926. over 8,000,000 pounds of butter, and 22,000.000 iwunds of milk, milk powder, condensed milk, and cream. Conservatively, this would be the product of a million cows that would make a home market for alfalfa, bran, corn, and other feeds. Why not make the rates high enough to allow the folks in the dairy industry in the United States to reap this benefit?

We also imported 300,000 dozen eggs in shell, and of whole eggs, frozen. 10,000.000 pounds; of dried eggs and egg albumen, more than 15.000.000 pounds. Why not allow the American poultryman to enlarge his business and supply some of this demand?

Vegetable-oil imports take the place of hog fats as well as butter, cheapening the price of hogs and forcing the farmers to sell their pork in low foreign markets.

We imported 80,000,000 pounds of tomatoes in their natural state in 1926 and 83,000,000 pounds of canned tomatoes, besides 18,000,000 pounds of tomato paste, the canned tomatoes and tomato paste being imported from Italy. Mexico also ships into the States vast quantities of these same products.


Milk, sour milk and buitermilk, and cream, condensed or evaporated, and whole or skimmed milk powders. Mutter and cheese and substitutes. Live poultry and dressed poultry. Eggs, frozen or dried, or preparations of albumen. Onions, tomatoes, turnips, buckwheat, and flax. Hay, straw, and corn.



If in addition to the .list I have suggested we can have a thorough revision upward of agricultural schedules, we can provide a tariff that will shut out unnecessary imports and improve the condition of our folks on the farms. We are now importing peanut oil and low-gr:;de eggs from China, coconut oil from the Philippines, cattle hides from Argentina, cheese from Italy and Switzerland, wool from Australia and New Zealand, silk from Japan, and flax, fruit, vegetables, rice, nuts, and many other products from every country in the world.

If we have this great loss to our American fanners under the present tariff laws, what can we expect but absolute disaster to our people if the Democrats have their way and reduce the tariff rates all along the line?


Let me call your attention to the fact that Europe is now shipping to the United States about $500,000.000 worth of agricultural products more than we are shipping to them each year. Rates on agricultural products must be based on the difference in production costs as in industrial products, for we desire that the standard of living on the farms shall be just as high as that accorded to the industrial workers. Let us have protection that really protects American workers, and play no favorites whether they live and toil in the North, the South, the East, or the West.


If it were not for these excessive Importations which take the place of products raised on the American farms, the problem of surplus would be greatly simplified. All sorts of experts, bankers, professors, and economists have been advising the farmer to slow upon production. If we can stop this flood of agricultural imports amounting to the vast sum of $1.000,000,000 a year, we shall not have to worry so much about what to do with the surplus. If we make the tariff rates sufficiently high to keep out these products, we shall soon be rid of the surplus problem.


Do not lose sight of the fact that of the more than $4,000.000.000 worth of imports that we received from Europe in 1927 that 04 per cent of them came in duty free, and only 38 per cent paid duties at the customhouse.



Ask the free trader why prices are as high and frequently higher on imiiorted goods that are on the free list than they are on goods which jwy a duty at the customhouse. Ask him to explain his parly's charge that the duty is a tax and adds to the cost. Ask him to explain why the goods on the free list are increased in price if his theory is that the existence of a tariff is the factor that raises the price.

The beneficial results of free trade or tariff for revenue only have never made their appearance during any Democratic administration. The advantages of a protective-tariff policy under which industry has thrived, labor has profited and saved, living standards have advanced, and the United States the most envied Nation in the world, is well worth the careful study and consideration of the American people.



If the history of tariff protection showed that the effect of a protective tariff upon articles had been to enhance their cost, and that the people have been imposed upon and robbed in that way, there might be some plausible excuse for free trade or low tariff; but, on the contrary, history reveals quite (he reverse.

Whenever a protective tariff has been levied upon any article which we have been able to produce successfully the ultimate and speedy result has been to greatly reduce the cost of such article, and to this there is no exception.

This being true, how can it consistently be claimed that a protective tariff is a robbery? It furnishes employment to our people and gives us tlie product at a reduced price.

It Is no answer to say that the reduced price is the result of improved machinery and improved methods, for these very improvements are brought about by the stimulus and competition produced by the protective tariff.


With fair protection we may always depend upon the active competition among our own people to keep prices as low as is consistent with the payment of fair wages to those who do the work, and that is all any American ought to desire. It is certainly not to be desired that our laborers shall be reduced to the same scale of wages as those of England or Europe, simply that the product of their labor may be had at a lower price. This is riot demanded by the best interests of our country, nor do the people desire it.


The Democratic I'arty advocates a tariff for revenue only. The history of their attempts to make tills policy work is a long record of failure. Whenever we have had a Democratic tariff bill it has brought about reduction of wages and a general leveling down of values. Such tariff bills have always failed of their primary purpose, which was presumed to be the raising of revenue. I'ond issues and special taxes have always followed the Democratic policy of tariff for revenue only. The Wilson-Gorman bill, pasted by the Democrats in 18!M, can-led an income tax amendment to provide for the estimated loss in customs revenue of $75,000,000. After the Underwood-Simmons bill, passed by the Democrats in 1913, had been in effect a short time President Wilson sent a message to Congress asking that special taxes be levied to meet the current expenses of the Government.


The situation is like this: A few of the Democratic Members of Congress are protectionists. More of them would like to be, if they could only forget their early training and overcome the prejudice of certain of their constituents who are wedded 10 free trade. If you discuss the subject with Democrats, they will assure you that they are not for free trade, but that they believe special interests are benefited by the protective tariff. They never attempt to explain the hard times and shrunken pay roll that makes life miserable for our folks who work for wages under Democratic tariff laws.


Then again, some Democrats believe in enacting what they term an "economic tariff," but always they set their faces against any suggestion that it should be a protective tariff. The title "protection" is anathema to them! The result is that when they write a tariff act they write one that fails to protect industry and its employees and also fails to provide revenue.

They have admitted that the Underwood bill provided "incidental protection," which, of course, did not help industry, and, as the records will prove, failed to provide necessary revenue. So you see that when the Democrats write a tariff bill they do not all stand on common ground. Some are for free trade and have advocated burning all the customhouses. My friend and colleague from Nebraska I Mr. Howard] is more constructive in his desire to use them as sehoolhouses. If that purpose is ever accomplished. I trust that the libraries of those schools will contain the historical reminiscences of the periods of suffering and distress among our people, both of the farm and of the mill, during the Cleveland administration. Compare their present condition and enjoyments and opportunities to-day and credit the favorable balance to a protective-tariff policy that has made for a general condition of advancement and prosperity.


Ask the American farmer what kind of a market or price he expects for his produce when the great industries of tlie Nation are running at half time or completely shut down. Ask them if the foreign-made merchandise on the store shelves is any cheaper in price than American goods of the same quality. Ask him if he prefers the importers to make exorbitant profits and send the money to Europe to help fill their pay envelopes, or if he would rather that money was added to the pay roll of American workers, who would spend it for what he bends his back and sweats his brow to rai-e. There is a new generation of American farmers, who were small boys during the Cleveland administration, but thoy remember something of the Wilson administration, when the Underwood-Simmons bill was in force. They all know that the World War saved us from Industrial and agricultural disaster that we were headed for straight at that time.


The question of a high wngo, with opportunity for its increase with the development of industry and the skill of the workmen, is a vital necessity to continued progress of the people of this Nation. The worker;; and their families, who are the producers, are also the consumers, and their purchasing power must be gradually increased, for no longer are we satisfied that our American workmen yhall be able to just barely exist, but must be able to purchase not only necessities but some of the comforts and luxuries and still have a margin that will permit them to keep an account In a savings bank or a building and loan association.


If they remember that under the sort of tariff legislation the Democrats wrote the mills discharged thousands of employees and the remainder worked on part time.

Ask the wives and mothers who assumed the difficult task of trying to make the one dollar on half-time pay feed and clothe the family and pay the rent and doctor's bills, when it was hard enough to accomplish with a full-time pay envelope. They will not welcome a return of Democratic free-trade policies or even the makeshift tariff for revenue only. There are men and women still working In the shops who remember the long line of American workmen and their families during the Cleveland administration who waited for their loaf of bread and pail of soup in order to keep body and soul together.

What has happened can happen again, but I have an abiding faith in the common sense and understanding of'the American people, and when they have even the shadow of a doubt as to the return of these conditions they will deny to the Democratic Party the opportunity of making it possible.


Mr. VESTAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H. R. 6104, to amend sections 57 and Gl of the act entitled "An act to amend and consolidate the acts respecting copyright," approved March 4, 1909, with a Senate amendment, and agree to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment merely adds the word "as."

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana asks unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H. It. 6104, with a Senate amendment, and agree to the Senate amendment. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the bill and the Senate amendment.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The Clerk read the Senate amendment

The Senate amendment was agreed to.


Sundry messages In writing fmm 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 of the House of the following titles:

On May 17, 1928:

H. R 120. An act to add certain lands to the Missoula National Forest. Mont;

H. R. 158. An act to amend chapter 137 of volume 39 of the United States Statutes at Large, Sixty-fourth Congress, flrst session;

H. It. 332. An act validating homestead entry of Englrhard Sperstad for certain public land in Alaska;

H. R. 4927. An act for the relief of Francis Sweeney;

II. It. 8105. An act to provide for the membership of the Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy, and for other purposes;

H. R. 8307. An act amending section 5 of the act approved June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. L. 218), so as to authorize the sale of timber on class 3 of the Oregon & California Railroad and Coos Hay wagon-road grant lands;

H. R. 8337. An act to amend the air mail act of February 2, 19'_'5, as amended by the act of June 3, 1926;

II. R. 8474. An act for the relief of Elmer .1. Nead;

II. It. 9363. An act to provide for the completion and repair of customs buildings in Porto Rico;

H. R. 9612. An act authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to allow Norman P. Ives, jr., credit on other lands for compliances made in homestead entry. Gainesville 021032;

H. It. 9789. An act for the relief of Sallie E. McQueen and Janie McQueen Parker;

H. R. 11475. An act to revise and codify the laws of the Canal Zone;

H. It. 11716. An act authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Interior to issue patents to Ethel L. Saunders, and for other purposes;

H. R. 11852. An act providing for the confirmation of grant of lands formerly the United States barracks at Raton Rouge, La., to the board of supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College;

H. R. 12049. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to sell to W. H. Walker. Ruth T. Walker, and Queen E. Walker, upon the payment of $1.25 per acre, the southeast quarter section 34. township 2 north, range 14 east, Choctaw meridian, Clarke County, Miss.; and"

H. II. 12383. An act to amend section 11 of an act approved February 28, 1925 (43 Stat. 1064. U. S. C., title 39), granting sick leave to employees in the Postal Service, and for other purpose*.

On May 18. 1928:

II. R. 491. An act authorizing the attorney general of the State of California to bring suit in the Court of Claims on behalf of the Indians of California;

H. R. 10,':(iO. An act to confer additional jurisdiction upon tho Court of Claims under an act entitled "An act authorizing the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota to submit claims to the Court of Claims," approved May H, 1926;

H. It. 11022. An act to extend medical and hospital relief to retired officers and retired enlisted men of the United States Coast Guard; and

H. .1. lies. 184. Joint resolution designating May 1 as Child Health Day.


Mr. SNBLL. Mr. Speaker, I present a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York presents a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

House Resolution 213

Rftnlrcd, Tlmt after the adoption of Ibis rule it shall be In order in the consideration of H. B. 13873, for the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations in charge of the bill to offer an amendment in the niiturc of a substitute for the language on page 47, lines 3 to 12, inclusive, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2. Uul« XXI, or cluuse 7 of Kule XVI.

Mr. SNKLL. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is presented at this time on account of the unanimous request of the Naval Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee. It is not very often that the Rules Committee goes as far as to make in order matters that are not in order on a regular appropriation bill, but certain conditions have arisen whereby the people in charge of the Government high explosives, whereby they feel that it is very important, that these appropriations be made in order nt this Itme. It makes in order an appropriation for moving the high explosives which are stored at the present time along the eastern const to the more sparsely settled regions of the West, also Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. I understand there is no opposition from any sources, and I move the adoption of the resolution.

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, which requires a two-thirds vote.

The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the resolution was agreed to.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the stale of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 13873) making appropriation to supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1928. and prior fiscal years, to provide supplemental appropriations for the fiscal years ending June 30. 1928. and June 30. 1929. and for other purposes; and pending that motion I will ask the gentleman from Tennessee if we can agree upon time for general debate. I would suggest that we have 15 minutes on a side.

Mr. BYRNS. I understood the gentleman was very anxious to complete consideration of the bill as soon as possible, and while I have two or three requests for time. I am going to waive any remarks of my own. 1 think it will be entirely satisfactory to have 30 minutes on the side. This is in accordance with my understanding with the gentleman, and I have made some promises in view of the statement of the gentleman that we would have an hour.

Mr. WOOD. If the gentleman can not get along with any less than that amount of time. I would suggest giving the gentleman one-half hour on his side and taking 15 minutes on this side.

Mr. BYRNS. That is entirely satisfactory. I do not want it for myself.

Mr. WOOD. Then it may be agreed that general debate shall be limited to three-quarters of an hour, 30 minutes to Ik? eontrolled by the gentleman from Tennessee, and 15 minutes by myself.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana moves that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 13873, and pending that asks unanimous consent that general debate on the bill be limited to three-quarters of an hour, 15

minutes to be controlled by himself, and 30 minutes by the gentleman from Tennessee. Is there objection?

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Reserving the right to object, can tho gentleman state what his purpose is with reference to completing the consideration of the bill?

Mr. WOOD. It is the desire of the committee, if possible, to complete the consideration of the bill to-night. The Senate has asked us to get it over there to-night if possible.

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

There was no objection.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state "f the Union for the consideration of the bill II. R. 13873, the second deficiency bill, with the gentleman from Massachusetts | Mr. Tbeadway] in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Appropriations, in presenting the accompanying bill making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1928. and prior fiscal years, to provide supplemental appropriations for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1928, and June 30, 1929. and for other pun>oses. submit the following in explanation thereof:

The estimates upon which the bill is based were submitted in Senate Document No. 47 and in the following House documents of the Seventieth Congress: Nos. 204, 212, 213, 218-223, 225, 227, 229-231, 234, 235, 237, 239, 240, 245, 249, 250, 254-203, 266. 267. 270-277. 279-285, and 287-299. Estimates totaling $3.110.000 submitted in House Document No. 74 of the present session in connection with Ihe transfer of ammunition from Army ordnance depots at Curtis Bay, AM., and Raritan, N. J., action on which \\-nti postponed by the first deficiency bill, fiscal year 1928, are also considered in connection with this bill.

The total amount of Budget estimates considered in the preparation of the bill is $103,949,006.27.

The amount recommended to be appropriated by the bill is $99.032.885.70. This sum is $4,916,720.51 less than the Budget recommendations.

Of the $99,000.000 recommended to be appropriated in the bill, approximately §84,000.000 is due to new laws or treaties recently in effect and for which this bill affords the first opportunity for appropriation.

The aggregate of the bill is caused by several very large items. A broad distribution by general totals is as follows:

Settlement of war claims aet (alien property) $50. 000, 000. OO

Purchase of Cape Cod Canal bonds 6,230.000.00

Acquisition of triangle properties in the District of

Columbia -^ 5, 000, 000. 00

Public buildings projects under the act of May 25,

Ifla!, as amended 17.513.500.00

Ammunition storage and redistribution. Army und

Navy 3. 108. 159. 00

Marine Corps, on account of extraordinary expenses in

connection with expeditions to China and Nicaragua. 2, 353. 747. 60

Post Office Department, transportation of mall to foreign countries by aircraft 1,750.000.00

I desire to call your particular attention to this la-st item. It is the purpose of the Post Office Department, if this appropriation is made, to establish, as soon as practicable, mail routes to Cuba, to the Central American nations, and to some of the South American countries. This is very essential. Other nations have been trying to get the exclusive right of carrying aerial mail to these countries. Of course, the United States, occupying the position that she does and under her policy, could not consent and will not consent to other nations having such an exclusive privilege. We are therefore either compelled to enter upon this enterprise ourselves or else assume a dog-in-themnnger attitude and not permit other nations to do it.

It is thought that after a while this service will prove remunerative. At first it was a question of whether or not anyone could be induced to undertake this character of business.

The Postmaster General has informed us that he already has a number of corporations and Individuals who have signified their intention to enter upon this work. The hearings upon this proposition are very edifying and illuminating. They demonstrate the possibility of carrying the mail through the air at a profit. It has already been proven that contracts that were originally let when it was thought they would be absolutely destructive to the concerns that undertook to carry the mail by air are to-day showing a profit, and in consequence of these con

« ПретходнаНастави »