western part of the United States prior to the war. Due to increased costs of materials and supplies and wages of employees, the expenses of operating railroads in this country increased heavily between 1915 and 1920. Under such increased costs it became impossible to continue operation of the carriers in this country under the rates formerly in effect. While there has been a considerable drop in prices since 1920, the prices of almost everything still average about 50 per cent higher than in 1914. Freight rates were first increased in 1918 by 25 per cent, and again in 1920 by varying percentages, the increase in western territory being 35 per cent, except that in the territory west of the Rocky Mountains the increase was only 25 per cent. Speaking generally, these increases applied alike to all traffic except that on grain the increase of 1918 was limited to a maximum of 6 cents per 100 pounds, so that the rates on that commodity that were more than 24 cents were not increased as much as other traffic.

During the depression of 1921, which was particularly pronounced in the grain-raising regions of the West, this commission conducted an investigation of grain rates throughout the West and reduced the rates on wheat, hay, and their products to the extent of removing one-half of the increase imposed in 1920. On coarse grains and their products the same reduction and an additional 10 per cent (reduction) was made. The effect quite generally was to reduce wheat rates 13 per cent and coarse-grain rates 20 per cent. The commission reduced all other rates on July 1, 1922, by 10 per cent. It is therefore apparent that, speaking generally, grain rates in the West have been reduced to a greater extent since 1920 than rates on other commodities.

In 1923 the commission conducted another investigation of grain rates in the West. Its decision was rendered on July 10, 1924, and was to the effect that the evidence did not warrant further reductions in rates. Rates and Charges on Grain and Grain Products (91 I. C. C. 105). A copy of the commission's decision setting forth the facts upon which this conclusion was reached is inclosed.

A third investigation of grain rates in the West was started on December 30, 1926, and is known as part 7 of the commission's general investigation under the Hoch-Smith resolution, No. 17000. The first hearing in this case was held at Dallas, Tex., commencing May 9, 1927, and lasted 3 weeks. Further hearings have been held at Wichita, Kans., 5 weeks; at Minneapolis, Minn., 8 weeks; and at Chicago, 11 weeks, the latter hearing ending in March of this year. Three additional hearings are to be held, the first to commence at Seattle, Wash., on May 22, and the other two to be held at Los Angeles, Calif., and Portland, Oreg., respectively, and to follow immediately after the close of the Seattle hearing. Self-evidently much of the testimony with respect to the Montana-Idaho-Washington situation will be developed at these later hearings and therefore is not yet in the possession of the commission.

Notwithstanding that grain rates in the western part of the United States have been reduced since 1920 to a greater extent than have rates on other commodities, it is true that, speaking generally, rates for like distances in Canada are somewhat lower than those in the United States. I make this statement, although I do not have complete and accurate information with respect to the rate situation in Canada because railways in that country are not required to file with this commission their tariffs applying between points in that country. However, I will endeavor in this letter to give you such information as is in my possession with respect to the relative wheat-rate situation in this country compared with Canada.

In 1924 the United States Tariff Commission made an investigation of this subject, and its report to the President was printed by the Government Printing Office under the caption, "Wheat and Wheat Products." According to that report the average weighted rate on Canadian grain to ports on Lake Superior such as Fort William and Port Arthur was 14.1 cents per bushel. The Tariff Commission estimated that comparable rates from American points to Duluth averaged 4.77 cents per bushel higher. These respective figures reduced to rates per 100 pounds would be 23.5 and 7.9 cents. The same report found the westbound rates from the Canadian Provinces to Canadian ports to be about the same as the westbound rates from points in the United States to Puget Sound ports, and higher than the eastbound Canadian rates to the Lake ports. I have every reason to believe that the figures prepared by the Tariff Commission are substantially correct. Since that time there has been comparatively little change in the rates in the United States, but some change has been brought about in the Canadian situation by reason of an order entered by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada on September 12, 1927, which was made as a result of an investigation made pursuant to a resolution by Parliament adopted June 5, 1925. Briefly stated, the order of the Canadian commission made no changes in the eastbound rates from main-line points to ports on Lake Superior. It did, however, extend to points on branch lines which formerly had higher rates, rates to the Lake Superior ports substantially the same as those from main-line points. As I understand that the rates quoted by the Tariff Commission represented largely main-line hauls, the relative situation in the United States and Canada with respect to transportation eastward through Great Lakes ports and thence by water therefore remains

about the same as it was found by the Tariff Commission in 1924. Said order also required that westbound rates to Pacific ports be made substantially the same as eastbound rates for like distances to Lake Superior ports and made a reduction in the export rate all-rail from Fort William and Port Arthur to Quebec for export, from 34.5 cents down to 18.34 cents.

I am not prepared to express a definite opinion as to the precise effect of the Canadian commission's order upon the transportation charges actually paid by Canadian grain producers. I am inclined to think that the heavy reduction from Fort William and Port Arthur to Quebec will have comparatively little effect, because, as I see the situation, it consists principally of bringing down the all-rail rate from these ports to a basis which will still be higher than the water or water-and-rail rate already available via the Great Lakes from Fort William and Port Arthur. Presumably the principal effect of this change will be to have a greater percentage of the grain move over the railroads and a less percentage via the Lakes, although it may not even have this effect, because the water rates will still be lower. Grain produced in the United States and shipped to Duluth would pay from Duluth to Quebec by water substantially the same rate as grain from Fort William and Port Arthur to Quebec by water. Therefore the net disadvantage of American grain would be represented by the difference in rail transportation from the point of production to Duluth as compared with Canadian grain transported to Fort William or Port Arthur.

If shipped by water from Duluth to Buffalo, and thence by rail to New York, the charge for the rail transportation from Buffalo to New York would be 13.5 cents per 100 pounds, to which would have to be added the water rate from Duluth to Buffalo. The latter rate fluctuates considerably. Sometimes it is as low as 1.5 cents per bushel, not including elevation, insurance, and similar charges, and at other times it is considerably higher. The total charge from Duluth to cars at Buffalo probably would be under ordinary conditions from 8 to 9 cents per 100 pounds.

The effect of the reduced westbound rates to the Pacific coast ports will probably be to increase the movement through the Pacific ports as compared with the eastbound movement to Atlantic ports, but I do not know whether or not it will actually reduce the transportation charges paid by the producers to any material degree.

I am not aware of any recent reduction of 3 cents per 100 pounds or any other amount in export rates on grain from Montana, such as mentioned in your letter.

I think it might be well also to call attention to some factors which bear upon the relative rate situations in Canada and the United States. The railroad policies of the two countries are vitally different. In the United States we have private ownership and management. There are

many strong and powerful systems and many weaker lines. The stronger lines are, generally speaking, in position to make rates lower than those in effect on the weaker lines, but the policy of Congress, as declared by the transportation act, 1920, is to maintain a system of rates which will build up an adequate transportation machine for the country as a whole on a basis which will enable the weak lines as well as the strong lines to live and serve adequately the communities along their lines. The important thing, however, is that the lines of this country are wholly dependent upon the revenues derived by them from transportation. The situation in Canada is materially different. Practically all the mileage in Canada is owned by two systems-the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. The former is owned by the Government of Canada. It embraces practically all the weaker lines in Canada. The Canadian Pacific is a strong line comparable to the strong carriers in this country, such as the Union Pacific. Consequently, Canada is in position to impose a level of rates which will be as low as a strong line, such as the Canadian Pacific, can stand, regardless of the effect upon the revenues of the Canadian National, deficits in which are made up from the public treasury. That such deficits have in fact been incurred by the Canadian National is evidenced by the fact that in 1925 it failed to earn enough to pay the interest on its debt by $42,197,664 and failed likewise in 1926 to the extent of $29,894,072. I have not available the figures for 1927.

Many years ago the Canadian Pacific was granted a charter to build a line from Lethbridge, Canada, through what is known as the Crows Nest Pass into British Columbia. At that time it was given an extensive land grant and a subsidy of $3,500,000. In return it agreed, among other things, to reduce the then existing rates on grain to the Lakes by 3 cents per 100 pounds and to maintain those rates perpetually unless permitted by the Canadian Government to raise them.

Those rates were made effective in 1899, at which time costs of railway operation were materially less than they are to-day and at which time the level of rates in the United States were, generally speaking, lower than it is to-day. Between July, 1919, and July, 1923, the Canadian Government permitted the Canadian Pacific to charge higher rates than were permitted in this so-called Crows Nest Pass agreement, but on July 7, 1923, it required a return to the rates which were made effective in 1899. Those rates applied principally from mainline points, and are those upon which the computations of the Tariff

Commission above mentioned were made, and, of course, they are also the rates upon which the reduced rates from branch-line points to the Lakes made effective in September, 1927, were based.

At one of the hearings in the grain-rate investigations now being conducted by the commission a witness for the Great Northern Railway introduced an exhibit purporting to show the taxes per mile of road paid by the Great Northern in the States in which it operates as compared with the taxes paid by Canadian lines which operate immediately north of the Canadian border. According to this exhibit the taxes per mile in the States of Washington and Idaho are, respectively, $1,264 and $1,602, whereas in comparable parts in British Columbia the taxes of the Canadian lines per mile of road are shown as $301. The exhibit indicates that the Great Northern paid in the period covered by the exhibit taxes amounting to $9,280,137, whereas if the taxes had been at the same rate per mile of road as paid by the Canadian lines such taxes would have been $1,623,706. difference of $7.656,431 represents 42 per cent of the gross revenue received by the Great Northern for transporting grain and grain products in the same period. In other words, the carrier contends that if its taxes were at the same rate as in Canada it could reduce its rates on grain to a basis as low or lower than that in force in Canada and still make as much net revenue as it now makes.

The

I do not, of course, vouch for the accuracy of the exhibit or for the deduction drawn therefrom by the carriers, but I am informed that its substantial accuracy was not questioned. If said exhibit does portray a true relative picture of the taxes paid in the United States and Canada, it would go a long way to explain the existing difference in rates in the two countries.

Pages 67 to 72 of the commission's annual report to the Congress for the year 1927 contain an outline of the investigations made by the commission under the Hoch-Smith resolution. As you can undoubtedly obtain a copy of that report from the Library of Congress if you do not already have it in your office, I will not attempt to reproduce that information in this letter. Since that report was issued hearings in all of the 11 parts therein mentioned have been proceeding as rapidly as the commission's appropriation and staff permitted.

Very truly yours,

J. B. CAMPBELL, Chairman.

In the foregoing letter Chairman Campbell states that the general commodity price level now is about 50 per cent higher than in 1914, but I remind the commission that the primary market wheat price-the price received by the farmer in the State of Washington-has probably not averaged more than 25 per cent during the past several years above the pre-war price. The railroad taxes referred to in this letter are assessed, collected, and expended by the towns, counties, and States through which the roads pass and, of course, can not be influenced in any way by act of Congress.

The following brief table of comparisons is vitally interesting: Carload wheat rates in cents per 100 pounds in United States and Canada

little monkey business that is going on between the White House and the Capitol, and that has been going on ever since I have been here. The President comes in with a message and asks the Congress to do this, that, and the other. We start out to do these things, and we spend money on them. Then there is a howl from the White House, and it is generally the congressional leaders on the Republican side who lead the pack in the House protesting against the expenditure of the money. That is hypocrisy and political bunkum of the lowest order. The other day one of the bulldogs of the Treasury in the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. SNELL], read to the House a warning, in which he itemized certain problems that were going to be attended to by the Congress, and he pretended to be alarmed at the cost of them. I took occasion to read the message of the President one day when I did not have much else to do, and found that the President sent word to Congress that he wanted all of these things done. I am wondering whether the President expected these things to be attended to without the expenditure of money.

The President said something about flood control in this message. We passed a bill for flood control, and the President in conference with some distinguished statesmen put a "the " where an "a" should be and changed a comma to a semicolon, and the bill was thus so amended as to satisfy his idea of economy and was signed, with no substantial change in the bill at all. Notwithstanding this, the chairman of the Rules Committee was alarmed at the cost of flood control. Then the President said something about doing something about Muscle Shoals. We tried to do something about Muscle Shoals, and the gentleman from New York again was alarmed. Then we have Boulder Dam, with the same thing occurring, and also with respect to the Virginia Road, and the same thing also in respect to the vocational education bill. The President wanted something done about farm relief. Of course, we hear about that in every session of Congress. Then there is the good roads bil. The President had a message on that, too. He also said something about the Clark memorial, and yet on May 8 the chairman of the Committee on Rules takes a fling at Congress because Congress tried to do something about this program that the President sent to Congress, which he said we ought to take care of.

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLACK of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. CRAMTON. Can the gentleman from New York point out to the House any message from the leading Democratic candidate for the Presidency with reference to farm relief, Muscle Shoals, or any other national problem except prohibition?

Mr. BLACK of New York. I will say that when the leading Democratic candidate of the Democratic Party becomes President there will be cooperation between the White House and the Capitol, and when the leading Democratic candidate becomes President, when he sends a message to this Congress, he will mean it. During his service as Governor of the State of New York he has sent messages to the legislature and has made a Republican legislature do things that were desired by the people, whereas the President in the White House now, in his six years' service, has not succeeded in doing anything to make the Congress follow his leadership.

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BLACK of New York. I can not yield.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. FREAR).

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.

Mr. FREAR. Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of speaking until the gentleman from New York [Mr. BLACK] misstated the effect of the flood control bill, which he says was approved by the President with no substantial change in the bill after its passage by the House. A week's effort to expose the viciousness of the bill as it passed the Senate and House appears to have been wasted in seeking to enlighten him. Anyone familiar with the facts knows that the bill as changed and modified will save the Federal Government several hundred millions of dollars, depending in amount upon the exact plan hereafter adopted. Pos

Mr. BLACK of New York. Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I shall call the attention of the House to a

sideration of the bill, and that may account for his error.

I will not repeat what has been set forth in the RECORD beyond a brief correction of his statement that should not go

unchallenged. The flood control bill was before the House committee for about five months, during which time over 300 witnesses were heard. A bill was reported out by the House committee, but opposed by six Republican members of the committee. Their minority report disclosed many unjust provisions in the bill which would cost the Federal Government $1,400,000,000 instead of $325,000,000 carried in the bill, or a billion dollars more than the camouflaged amount named in the bill. These figures were actual estimates reported by Army engineers. was a member of that minority.

I

The flood control bill was not pressed for passage in the House, but immediately thereafter the Senate committee held brief hearings on a Senate flood control bill and this bill was rushed through the Senate with less than two hours' discussion, passing the Senate unanimously, carrying $325,000,000, although its estimated cost by engineering experts reached over a billion dollars. After passing the Senate in order to influence House action that had been halted by the minority report disclosures, the Senate bill with modifications was hurriedly reported by the House committee. That bill was debated by the House for over a week's time and its viciousness and extravagance was exposed so that when the House voted on my motion to recommit the bill a total vote against the bill in favor of such motion reached 167, or far more than enough to sustain a veto. Additional support was assured for that emergency if necessary. This result, in view of its unanimous passage by the Senate and overwhelming sentiment at the outset in the House, was a surprise to those who expected to railroad the bill through Congress and override the President on a sympathy plea. The flood control bill that passed the Senate and with slight modifications was reported to the House provided that the eral Government must buy or condemn approximately 4,000,000 acres of land for flood ways or secure flowage rights. This it was estimated by Army engineers would cost the Government $200,000,000 or more based on the brief survey they had made. The House bill also compelled the Federal Government to buy all land along the Mississippi River that was overflowed because of Government levees on the other side of the river or else to secure flowage rights.

No estimate of this enormous cost could be offered by anyone because it was simply a blanket insurance of all land so affected along 1,000 miles of the river. Next under the bill the Federal Government was made liable for all costs of relocating railways and railway damages estimated by railroad engineers at over $71,000,000. Estimates of these and other costs reached anywhere from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000 for flowage rights, damages, and other governmental liability under the bill.

This bill with slight changes, I believe, was voted for by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BLACK of New York. Then the Republican side of the House confesses extravagance on the flood control bill as originally introduced.

Mr. FREAR. I have stated the facts, although I voted against it; but, as to that, did not the gentleman from New York [Mr. BLACK] vote for it, and did not all of the Tammany Democratic delegation from New York vote for it?

Mr. BLACK of New York. I did vote for that. I am glad to say I did it.

Mr. FREAR. That is what makes possible the enormous waste of which the gentleman from New York complains.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. The Republican side always does well when it follows the lead of progressive Republicans like the gentleman from Wisconsin and myself. [Laughter.]

Mr. FREAR. Let me say that no more valuable Member of the House can be found than my distinguished friend from New York, Major LAGUARDIA, and at this time I express my appreciation for his aid in exposing the objectionable features of the flood control bill when before the House, and in compelling its acceptance as finally passed. That exposé enabled the President to secure concessions which saved to the Federal Government several hundreds of millions of dollars, as first stated. The bill was so emasculated and expurgated by the conferees that its best friend would not have recognized it in the bill which finally received the President's signature and became law. In a brief word, the 4,000,000-acre purchase of flood-way lands was eventually stricken from the bill. The unlimited damage to 1,000 miles of Mississippi River lands due to Government levees built on the opposite side of the river, was also finally stricken from the bill. In their stead is a modest provision that flowage damages must be beyond those of 1927 or of any other flood before the Government is responsible. It is estimated this will not cost the Government 2 per cent of the enormous land purchases proposed in the Senate and House bills, or far less than the annual interest charge on the bill

These included the entire Tammany Democratic delegation from New York as stated, with possibly one or two exceptions. Whatever restrictions and savings were accomplished by the Week's fight against the reported bill belong entirely to Republicans who made certain a vote that would sustain a presidential veto.

During the last Democratic control of the House a decade ago I devoted much work in exposing different "pork barrels with the Federal Treasury furnishing the cash that went into needless uncommercial waterways and public buildings. Several of these bills were blocked in the House or Senate, but if the hopes of the gentleman from New York and of his party colleagues are realized in the next House or if the next administration should be Democratic, I point to their last record as a warning of what may be looked for in the future.

This is not a prediction, but is in answer to any attempt to minimize the change in amount and character wrought in the Mississippi flood control bill as finally passed by Congress. No measure in recent years has approached that bill in importance and no greater improvement has ever been brought about during my experience by an unyielding, courageous, constructive minority than is found in that same bill as finally passed by Congress. Everyone believes in flood control, but in addition to eliminating vicious, extravagant provisions and reducing the cost of flood control to a comparatively low figure, opportunities for graft, pork, and waste have been reduced to a minimum in the bill as finally passed.

I submit that it was well worth the effort.

Mr. BYRNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. AYRES].

Mr. AYRES. Mr. Chairman, I saw an article in this morning's Post by George Rothwell Brown. I heartily agree with the sentiment expressed in this little squib. It is as follows:

The spilling of the blood of more marines in Nicaragua leads to the conclusion that if this isn't a war we'd better get out, and that if it is, we'd better send down a force large enough to win it.

I do not intend to launch into a severe criticism of the administration's Caribbean policy, although I am not at all satisfied with it. I want to be fair, knowing we have certain duties and responsibilities that we must, as a Nation, discharge so long as we maintain the Monroe doctrine. Yet it would seem this could be done in a more satisfactory manner than by pursuing the present policy. I was hopeful that the International Conference of America recently held at Habana, Cuba, would accomplish something in the way of a treaty or arrangement whereby the United States could be taken into good fellowship with the other nations in this hemisphere.

There have been a great many speeches made in both branches of Congress within the past three months severely criticizing the administration's policy in Nicaragua. It is an easy matter to criticize. In fact, this is a Nation of critics. This is especially true in a presidential election year. It is one thing to criticize and altogether another thing to offer constructive criticism.

That our policy in the Caribbean is unpopular in LatinAmerica is stating it mildly. It is unpopular even in the United States among the masses. The press throughout the Nation, regardless of political affiliation, complains bitterly of our policy in Nicaragua. The Latin-American press denounces such a policy in the most vehement manner, and the press in other foreign countrics refers to the policy as our dollar diplomacy.

As a Nation we have certain obligations to meet. We must protect American lives and property in foreign lands. That does not mean, however, that as a Nation we are to follow the adventurer into a foreign land with an army to protect him and his property. There is a limit to which our country has to go to carry out the doctrine of protection to American life and property. So long as we adhere to the Monroe doctrine we have still another obligation to meet. It is unnecessary for me to explain that doctrine, which is or should be familiar to all, even the school children of this country. European nations have interests in most, if not all, of the Latin-American countries. They also have an obligation to meet in protecting the lives and property of their nationals in the South and Central American countries, but the Monroe doctrine forbids an aggressive move on the part of any nation foreign to this hemisphere toward any of the Latin-American Republics. Therefore, under certain circumstances we are compelled to assume that responsibility or else abandon the Monroe doctrine. I am a firm believer in the Monroe doctrine, for it was established, not alone for the protection of the weaker nations of this hemisphere but also for the protection of the United States. It declares:

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early state of the wars which so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it; and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that Our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference.

It can be seen that the statesmen of this Nation at the time the Monroe doctrine was established recognized the fact that if the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of this continent, it would endanger our peace and happiness. It denies the right of any foreign power to establish or extend a system to any part of this hemisphere which might be considered dangerous to our safety. It also was intended as a safeguard to the South and Central American countries from foreign aggression.

It is plain, however, that the Monroe doctrine confers no power upon the United States to interfere with the internal affairs of any other country. This was so declared by Monroe himself within a short time after its adoption. He said:

The new states are settling down under their governments, elective and representative, in every branch similar to Our own. In this their career, however, we have not interfered, believing that every people have the right to institute for themselves the government which in their judgment may suit them best.

A more recent interpretation of the Monroe doctrine was made by that eminent lawyer and statesman, Mr. Root, in which he said:

The declaration of Monroe was that the rights and interests of the United States were involved in maintaining a condition, and the condition to be maintained was the independence of all the American countrics. ** A false conception of what the Monroe doctrine is, of what it demands, and what it justifies, of its scope, and of its limits has invaded the public press and affected public opinion within the past few years. Grandiose schemes of national expansion invoke the Monroe doctrine. Interested motives to compel Central or South American countries to do or refrain from doing something by which individual Americans may profit invoke the Monroe doctrine. Clamors for national glory from minds too shallow to grasp at the same time

The intolerance

a sense of national duty invoke the Monroe doctrine. which demands that control over the conduct and the opinions of other peoples, which is the essence of tyranny, invokes the Monroe doctrine. Thoughtless people who see no difference between lawful right and physical power assume that the Monroe doctrine is a warrant for interference in the internal affairs of all weaker nations in the New World. Against this suppositious doctrine many protests, both in the United States and in South America, have been made, and justly made. To the real Monroe doctrine these protests have no application.

It is clear that we have no right to interfere with the internal affairs of any of our southern neighbors by reason of anything that appears in the Monroe doctrine, which simply declares that the European nations shall keep their hands off of the Latin-American countries; but in no sense does it provide that the United States shall exercise powers and authority not therein specifically provided. We should frankly admit that just so long as we insist upon a strict adherence to the Monroe doctrine on the part of foreign nations, there are certain and well-defined obligations that must be met by this Nation.

The most serious question, to my mind, is what is the best plan or method of meeting these obligations. It is unnecessary for me to reiterate that our policy in Nicaragua at this time is losing us that friendship, respect, and confidence of our LatinAmerican neighbors. It seems to me this could be obviated. I realize that it would never do to advocate a League of Nations of this hemisphere, because it would be misinterpreted if for no other reason than a political one. But there should be a coalition of all of the American nations, calling it by any namePan American Union or Association of American Nations, it matters not what it may be called, just so articles of agreement may be entered into whereby when it becomes necessary to police any one of such nations by outside forces, then all of the other nations shall be consulted as to the policy or manner in which it shall be done. I am confident that if this Nation should invite Central and South American nations to join with us in policing any incorrigible state, whether it be Nicaragua, as at this time, or some of the others in the future, it would be well received on the part of those countries. It was a great disappointment to many that such an arrangement did not materialize at the Habana meeting.

Now that we are in Nicaragua there is no doubt but that we shall have to remain until the present difficulty is settled. However, with the present trouble settled we should not assume that it will not be soon repeated either in Nicaragua or some one of the other countries; so why not prepare for the next difficulty by formulating some kind of a coalition of these countries whereby all of the American nations can be taken into consultation, and by so doing establish a feeling of friendship, respect, and confidence, instead of jealousy and suspicion, which now exists. Certainly this can be done without the United States having to surrender any of its prerogatives or powers it now rightfully possesses.

Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BLACK] in order that he may answer my question.

The CHAIRMAN. The time on that side is in the control of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. BYRNS].

Mr. CRAMTON. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New York may extend his remarks to answer the question I asked of him.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan asks unanimous consent that the time of the gentleman from New York be extended. Is there objection?

Mr. BLACK of New York. I say I will answer the gentleman on March 5, and I will have a brown derby on. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? There was no objection.

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Clerk read the bill for amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no further request for time, the Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Speaker's Office: For an additional clerk in the Office of the Speaker at the rate of $1,200 a year, fiscal year 1929, $1,200. Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Woop: On page 3, after line 7, insert the following:

"Sergeant-at-Arms Office: For additional compensation during the fiscal year 1929 at the following rates: Cashier, $500; messenger, $770;

in all $1,270, of which $600 shall be paid from the appropriation for the fiscal year 1929 for a stenographer and typewriter for such office which is hereby made available therefor."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. CANNON: On page 3, after line 7, insert as a new paragraph:

"Office of the Clerk: For additional amount necessary to make the compensation of the Journal Clerk, two reading clerks and the tally clerk, at the rate of $5,000 per annum during the fiscal year 1929, $3,930, to be available in addition to the appropriation for the salaries of such positions in the legislative appropriation act for the fiscal year 1929. And the salary of each of the said positions is hereby fixed at $5,000 a year for such fiscal year and thereafter."

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment is the equalization of the salaries of the four men at the desk.

buildings that were needed all over the United States, and particularly in New Orleans, as a result of the cessation of building during the war and for several years thereafter, that my addresses on the subject on the floor of the House, my reminders to the country of the deplorable conditions that existed in the marine hospital particularly, tended to stimulate and accelerate the movement that led to the passage of the act of 1926, the first great constructive measure of legislation on the subject of public buildings and their construction in the United States. I will always remember with profound pleasure the interest I succeeded in arousing in the subject after I had spoken upon the Washington-Lincoln Memorial Bridge on the day that measure was under consideration. I was assured by any number of friends that that modest speech was going to produce some result. I hope it did for I will always feel that it is an honor to be associated in the most insignificant manner with an act that took the construction of public buildings out of the field and realm of the pork-barrel scheme of legislation, whereby political influence and not necessity made for the location of Federal buildings. That act, I repeat, has made for the construction of buildings where they would serve a useful purpose,

The amendment was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows:

Hereafter the Sergeant at Arms of the House is authorized, in the disbursement of gratuity appropriations, to make deductions of such amounts as may be due to or through his office or as may be due the House of Representatives.

Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon offers an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. SINNOTT: On page 4, after line 6, insert as a new paragraph:

"Committee on Public Lands: For defraying such expenses as may be deemed necessary by the Committee on Public Lands in connection with the securing of information preliminary to the preparation of legislation within the jurisdiction of such committee, including transportation and traveling, per diem in lieu of subsistence not to exceed $8, and other incidental expenses, fiscal years 1928 and 1929, $5,000, to be disbursed under the direction of such committee." The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. O'CONNOR of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. it is particularly gratifying to me to vote for this bill, H. R. 13873, a 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 purposes, for the reason that on page 78 there is an item reading:

New Orleans (La.) quarantine station: For commencement of construction on a site owned by the Government of a new quarantine station, together with necessary auxiliary structures and facilities, outside service lines, and approach work, $150,000, under an estimated total cost of $425,000. This item is written into the deficiency appropriation bill under the authorization contained in section 5 of the public buildings act approved May 25, 1926.

From the time I first came to Congress I have worked with all of the energy that I could throw into the work for the purpose of securing a quarantine station and a marine hospital for the city of New Orleans and a light ship off the entrances of the Mississippi River. I think that I can say with pardonable pride, in view of my intense interest in the subject of public

binger to other acts that must follow as a consequence of the merit which is so clearly to be seen to-day in such legislation. Some day we will arrive legislatively to the common-sense and therefore intellectual height to make lump-sum appropriations annually for the improvement of our waterways with a mandate to the engineers whose force should be increased to make for expeditiousness in the work that lies in the future to go ahead and improve the rivers in a scientific manner instead of in accordance with the system that prevails to-day, which makes for the adoption of projects that are unrelated to each other and therefore prevents that development which would make for a perfect waterway transportation system.

In no other way can we make our great rivers and their tributaries the wonderful assets they should be to this Republic. But that is another story, as Kipling says. To return to our mutton, as the French proverb has it. When the movement was first started for a public-buildings program in 1924 I joined in the movement enthusiastically and most hopefully. I knew that New Orleans had a claim for a marine hospital and quarantine station and a lightship that no commission or governmental agency that might be created could ignore. We had the facts, and facts are the truth, and I knew that " ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" could be relied upon to vindicate and make triumphant our demands for the treatment to which we were entitled. I knew from the attention given to my feeble efforts on the floor of the House when I recited in simple language the wretched, dilapidated, and antiquated conditions that existed at the marine hospital; how our sailors who served our country on ships that went into every port in the world were crowded into fire traps-wooden structures that would be a disgrace to Haiti; how the Government, a great, proud, opulent Government, ignored business and maintained a quarantine system that would be deemed to be obsolete in Patagonia; I knew, I repeat, from the profound interest manifested that similar conditions existed in other parts of the country and that a movement would soon be strong enough to pass any well-thought-out bill through the House. To the chagrin and disappointment of the advocates of the first House bill, that of 1925, it failed in the Senate. I was one of the House Members that vainly endeavored to persuade Members of the Senate to pass the bill because it was a trail blazer and would mark for the wonders which have been accomplished under it. But the leaven that leavened the lump was at : work. Public opinion-the mightiest factor in the life of the Republic; substantially the highest law of the land spoke in no uncertain tone-authoritatively decreed that procrastination should come to an end, so that the next year the bill of 1926 became the law.

I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that my work in some small way with that of my colleagues who voted for the bill of 1925, though it failed, marked the way for the act of 1926. That paved the way for the amendment of 1927. Under the amended act the country will erect buildings wherever they are needed, and the scandalous manner in which they were constructed a number of years ago will be regarded only as an episode in the life of a country which had to undergo its growing pains and pass through the hectic period of youth. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would again call the attention of the House to the fact that the best way to meet months of depression or cycles, as they are called, is by a coordination in the performance of all public works by the Federal, State, county, and municipal Governments throughout the United States.

In