*

commission and a careful hearing before Congress of all concerned. That no revision of any specific schedules will have approval of the Democratic Party which in any way interferes with American standard of living and level of wages. That nothing will be done that will embarrass or interfere in any way with the legitimate progress of business, big or small." Tariff revision by specific subjects and schedules has already been explained and Democratic precedents referred to, with approval, also the utilization of a fact-finding commission. The insistence that legitimate business and labor would not be injured by Democratic tariff revision might well have been made stronger by an affirmance that both would be greatly benefited. Smith's Louisville reference to tariff protection was not submitted to Democratic congressional candidates for approval or disapproval. He has a right to construe them as he sees fit.

While it is true that many individual Democrats, and many Republicans as to that, entertain various shades of tariff views, and are free to express and maintain them, yet it is equally true that individuals, regardless of their varying views, must function with one of the political parties in the enactment of tariff legislation, and that should be the party whose tariff policies in actual practice most nearly reflect the views of such individuals. It clearly follows from the above citations that no Democratic Congressman is under the slightest prior obligation that would now handicap him in making application of suitable and fundamental tariff policies to our present day economic conditions. This is his first and highest duty in any event. This conclusion is doubly fortified by the historic record of the Democratic Party on tariff and economics. The brightest chapters in its achievements and its service to the people have grown out of its fights for economic policies based on the general welfare of the Nation.

It of course was possible for a Democrat to subscribe to the method and program for dealing with the tariff as outlined in Governor Smith's Louisville speech. It was neither necessary nor possible, however, that in so doing a Democrat should concur in his expressed view that the tariff could be taken out of politics, or to other individual and abstract views he suggested relative to the merits or demerits of tariff protection, because the Raskob telegram expressly omitted these passages in the Smith speech. It was not difficult therefore to subscribe to his plan of piecemeal tariff revision, aided by a factfinding commission; and that in doing so, to quote Smith, there should be sustained opposition to any revision that would afford "shelter of extortion and favoritism," etc., and to any revision that would not "safeguard the public against monopoly created by special tariff favors." This was the substance and essence of the Smith Louisville suggestion on which the Raskob telegram was based.

Respectfully submitted.

о

CORDELL HULL.

EXTEND THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC RESOLUTION NO. 92

MAY 11, 1929.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. CRAMTON, from the committee of conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 59]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. No. 59) to extend the provisions of Public Resolution No. 92, Seventieth Congress, approved February 25, 1929, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken out and inserted by said Senate amendment insert the following:

That the provisions of the public resolution entitled "Joint resolution for the relief of farmers in the storm and flood stricken areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama," approved February 25, 1929, and any appropriation made thereunder, are hereby made applicable to any storm or flood occurring in any such area subsequently to the date of the enactment of such public resolution of February 25, 1929, and prior to the date of the enactment of this joint resolution: Provided, That the Secretary of Agriculture, in his discretion, may make loans and advances to vegetable and fruit growers for the fall and winter crop of 1929-30 to an amount not exceeding $25 per acre. And the Senate agree to the same.

LOUIS C. CRAMTON,

JOSEPH W. BYRNS,

Managers on the part of the House.
CHAS. L. MCNARY,

ARTHUR CAPPER,

Jos. E. RANSDELL,

Managers on the part of the Senate.

HR-71-2-VOL 1—23

The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 59) to extend the provisions of Public Resolution No. 92, Seventieth Congress, approved February 25, 1929, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon and recommended in the accompanying conference report:

The public resolution approved February 25, 1929, authorized the appropriation of $6,000,000 for the making of loans or advances to farmers and fruit growers in the storm and flood stricken areas of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama for the 1929 crop. The pending resolution as it passed the House merely extended the provisions of the resolution of February 25, 1929, to farmers and fruit growers in the same areas suffering from storms or floods which occurred after February 25, 1929. The Senate amendment to the House resolution enlarged the area for relief by including storm and flood stricken areas in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi and authorized the appropriation of $1,000,000 in addition to the $6,000,000 carried under the authority of the resolution of February 25, 1929, and also raised from $3 to $50 per acre the amount of advances to vegetable and fruit growers and made such increase applicable to the fall and winter crop of 1929-30. The conference agreement restores the provisions of the House resolution, eliminates the additional authorization for $1,000,000, confines the area to the six States originally specified, but accepts the Senate provision for extending the loans or advances to vegetable and fruit growers for the fall and winter crop of 1929-30 modified so as to raise the amount from $3 to $25 per acre instead of $50 per acre as the Senate proposed.

LOUIS C. CRAMTON,

JOSEPH W. BYRNS,

Managers on the part of the House.

2

O

71ST CONGRESS 1st Session

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AIRPORTS, NATIONAL CAPITAL

{

REPORT
No. 12

MAY 25, 1929.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. ZIHLMAN, from the Joint Commission on Airports, submitted the following

PRELIMINARY REPORT

The Joint Commission on Airports, created under the authority of Public Resolution No. 106, Seventieth Congress, approved March 4, 1929, presents the following in the nature of a preliminary report:

The commission organized on March 6, 1929, and proceeded to consider the problem of formulating recommendations to Congress for providing the National Capital and the District of Columbia with adequate airport facilities. At the outset of its deliberations the joint commission, upon an expression of opinion on the part of its members, declared itself to be a unit in the conviction that these facilities should be, not only sufficient for present and anticipated aviation needs so as to serve Washington's maximum requirements, but also of an extent and completeness that should reflect the Capital's national eadership and become a model for other cities in their development of municipal aids to aviation.

As a preliminary step to that end, the commission solicited and readily obtained assurance of cooperation from the various governmental departments concerned as well as from the government of the District of Columbia, and the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, an assurance that, the commission is happy to acknowledge, has been abundantly fulfilled.

In order that the board might be in possession of expert opinion and advice bearing on its problem a series of public hearings was inaugurated, which extended over a period from April 8 to 30, 1929, and brought together a notable coterie of foremost airport engineers and aviation experts, including the managers of the Cleveland, Buffalo, and Ford airports; the chief engineer of the city of Baltimore; Assistant Secretaries for Aviation in the War, Navy, and Commerce Departments; noted fliers of those governmental branches and of the air mail; and last, but by no means least in imparting worthwhile information, Col. Charles A. Lindbergh. The statements of these and other witnesses before the board are embodied in a ★ 5-27-29

volume of hearings comprising 196 pages, that has been pronounced by persons qualified to judge to be a very satisfactory compendium of information on the subject of municipal airports.

Coincidental with the assembling of this data, the joint commission has been making, and is still engaged in, a study of available sites for an airport in the vicinity of the Capital City, and in this investigation has had the benefit of the technical knowledge of requirements and the engineering training possessed by Maj. Donald A. Davison, the Assistant Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia, and Maj. Carey H. Brown, Assistant Director of Public Buildings and Public Parks of the National Capital.

These suggested sites number more than a score, many of them possessing advantages of one nature or another, but not all of them by any means suited to the needs of the Capital in this respect. Various factors entering into the solution of the problem must be and are being studied, such as distance from the civic and business center of the city, accessibility by highways and means of overland transportation, altitude, contour of ground, drainage, the prevalence of fog, and situation respecting prevailing wind directions, together with the cost of land and the probable expense of grading and development.

The joint commission is still at work on this many-sided inquiry, and is unable to submit a circumstantial report until more is learned about properties available for airport purposes and the cost thereof.

Believing that the most economical method of procedure, and the course best suited to the interests of all concerned, is to authorize the National Capital Park and Planning Commission to acquire lands for airport purposes, or options for such purchase, subject to the approval of this joint commission, the commission recommends legislation making an appropriation of $500,000 for that purpose and suggests the immediate passage of the following joint resolution:

JOINT RESOLUTION Making an appropriation for the acquisition of lands for an airport or airports for the National Capital and the District of Columbia

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $500,000, to be immediately available and to remain available until expended, for the acquisition by the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, subject to the approval of the Joint Commission on Airports, of lands, and/or options to purchase lands, for an airport or airports adequate for the needs of the National Capital and the District of Columbia.