Datasets:

Eugleo

/

us-congressional-speeches

like 0

I did say "impertinent."

S

Mr. STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I will accept the amendment.

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I think it is not pertinent to any question now before the Senate.

S

Mr. STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

" Impertinent " has several meanings.

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I do not mean it in any particularly opprobrious sense. but I mean it as impertinent.

S

Mr. STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

The Senator now states that he means that it is immaterial. Mr. President. I do not think it is immaterial. I do not think it is impertinent. I do not think it is insolent to inquire. I do think it is the business of the Senate. Conferees usually meet behind closed doors. A Senator who is not on the conference. according to my understanding. is not In the habit of going to a conference room to try to interpose his judgment or opinion. The thought of the whole transaction is that these two bodies of men meet. the one side to represent the Senate. the other side to represent the House. and to compose. if possible. the differences existing between the two Houses of Congress. However we may regard the two Houses of Congress. however the public may have come to regard them. they nevertheless are the legislative bodies representing the greatest country on earth. They are the agency created by the people to bring into law the will of the people. When differences exist between the two bodies of Congress. the chosen representatives of each body meet to compose those differences.. and I say that the admission of a paid lobbyist. if he was atdmitted. to interfere in the deliberations between these two bodies of men. meeting to compromise the differences of the Congress. was not only an innovation but a piece of unwarranted and unmitigated insolence. Such conduct is destructive of unembarrassed legislation. and it is unfair. for it admits the representative of one side to a controversy. Have we three bodies of legislators. one the House. another the Senate. and the third the AntiSaloon League? When the Senate conferees seek to reach an agreement with the House conferees. is there a third party to be consulted. a third organization to be drawn into the deliberations? If Wayne B. Wheeler. representing the AntiSaloon League. then why not some.gentleman representing the "saloon league." if such a thing exists? The truth is. this is lobbying gone mad. The lobbyist who infests Washington. even though he confines his activities to appearing before the standing committees convened in open session to publicly argue questions pending and to buttonholing Members of Congress. has for a long time been a stench in the public nostrils. We have had antilobbying investigations carried on for years. The anathema maranatha of the Presidents of the United States have been heaped upon them. We have criticized them for their pestiferous activities in invading the offices of Members of Congress. We have held them up to obloquy and scorn as they have sat in the galleries of the two Houses. but it appears that this gentlemanand I take the refusal of the Senator to answer a question as an admissionhas the impudence to carry his propaganda and his presence into the secret. if not sacred. confidences of the conferees. Mr. President. it is the unwritten law of this body that we do not ask a conferee. when reporting. to state what any member of the conference said or to tell how any member of the conference voted. but that which is denied the Senate is at least in part given to this gentleman. who has the cool effrontery to walk into a conference meeting. I say such conduct is the business of tIme Senate. and I say it is not impertinent to inquire about it. -I Mr. President. I am: anxious to see the eighteenth amendmient to the Constitution given every chance to function. When it became. a part of the fundamental law of the United States. it became my law. I have little respect for those who supported that amendment in the Senate and in the House who have been. since its enactment. deliberately violating its plain provisions. I have little respect for a man who votes for prohibition with whisky on his breath. whether he be in or out of Congress.. But the amendment was adopted. As I remarked the other- day.. I made no opposition to the passage of the Volstead Act. although I believed it to be a measure of great extremity and of unnecessary harshness. But. sir. we are now presented. not with the question of enforcing a law of the land. a fundamental law. but we are faeed with the. proposal. as I construe the socalled beer bill. of violating the fundalental law of the land. Just one word on that. Before the eighteenth amendment was passed everyone conceded that the Federal Government had no. power to. interfere with the manufacture. sale. or use of intoxicating liquors within. the States. The power conferred by the eighteenth amendment is expressly limited to the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The beer bill. so. called. prohibits the prescribing of beer for medicinal purposes- Unless. the word " beverage " is construed to include. " medicinal." then there is. no constitutional authority to pass. this. statute.. If the language employed in the Constitution and the bill is given its ordinary meaning. then the- terms " medicinal" and. " beverage " are not synonymous. A court. that declares them to be. synonymous will disgrace the temple of: justice where it convenes. I care not whether it be the Supreme Court of the United States. sitting in. the Capitol. or a justice of the peace holding forth at the crossroads. What is it that distinguishes a free country from a despotism? It is not the form of government. for a government may be Klonarchical in form and yet afford great liberties to the citizen and protect him in those liberties. Whether the government be an autocracy. a democracy. or a republic by name. the question of freedom or slavery is always to be determined by this test: Are the people protected in their naturaLE rights. in. their great fundamental rights. those rights which. Thomas. Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence in the- words "the right to l1fe. liberty.. property. and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable"? The government that. protects those rights is a free government. The government that denies them is a despotism. Jefferson wrote those words in the light of the history of the world. He knew the policemen. of Louis XIV had proceeded without warrant to ransack the homes of cringing. subjects. He had seen men dragged to: the Bastile without a charge and there allowed to rot through the long and bitter years. He was gazing at the picture. of Eunope and witnessing. the spectacle. repeated recently in Russia. of policemen at any hour of the day or nfght battering down the doors. of homes.. searching the premises.. beating the occupants. of the. house- into insensibility.. and dragging. them intor exile. shrinking. cowering creatures.. not: citizens. but subjects and slaves. In this light. and in the light of English. history.. was written the fourth amendment. It was intended to forever guarantee to every man the right to walk the highways without. molestation. and without search. the right to maintain his home. his barn. his " curtiage." if you please.. and to hold it sacred against the invasion of any man. Even the king hiiself was halted at the threshold. The. " right of castle " was. above- the right of the. monarch.. even though the " castle " was. a. hovel occupied by an inpoverished cotter.. The exception made was when a court. according to. the law.. issued its warrant. supported by oath. giving authority to a. representative of the court to enter under the form and protection of the law. That law has been graven upon the tablets of our hearts. It is blazoned above the temple of American. liberty. For a century it has been affirmed. and reaffirmed. by the courts of the land. I have no respect for a man. whether lie be a Member of the House of Representatives or- elsewhere.. who proposes to whittle down the Constitution. of the United States. who tries to leave it. as does this amendment of the House.. so that an officer can go into every building except a residence. who puts the discovery of a bottle of beer above the Constitution. who in the pursuit. of his favorite pastime of hunting somebody who may take a drink is willing to destroy that Constitution in defense of which he held up his hand and before Almighty God swore he would maintain. protect. and preserve. A man who thinks more of " getting " a bootlegger than he does of preserving the palladium of human liberty is not fit to be 11. a legislative. body and he. is not fit to be a citizen. of the United States. I larve more respect for an anarchist who. in. his ignorance and blindness. stands upon a. soap box. declaiming against. all government than I have for the man. who. will! in this body or the House of Representatives swear before theAlmighty that he will preserve the Constitution of the United States anti then employ the authority and power the people vested in him to destroy that sacred instrument. Neverthelbss we find an amendment brought. in. here whic reads: That no. officer. agent. or employee of the United States. while engaged: in. the enforcement of this act. the national prohibition act. or any law in reference to the manufacture or taxation of. or traffic in. intoxicating liquor. shall search any private! dwelling without a warrant directing. such search. and no. such warrant shall issue unless there. is reason to believe such dwelling Is used as: a place in which liquor is manufactured. for sale or sold. Then follows a definition of a private dwelling. Read that in connection with what was rejected. The language rejected was: That any officer. agent. or employee- of the United States engaged. in the enforcement of this act. or the national prohibition. act.. or any other law of the United States.. who. shall search or attempt to search the property or premises: of any. persor without previously securing. a search warrant as. provided by law.. shall. be guilty of a misdemeanor That language they rejected. and yet it. is the Constitution of the United States. buttressed and backed. by the- decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States from. the first day down to the present time. They reject it as. unworthy a place in. the statute books: of the country. although its blazing: light comes from the Constitution itself. They also rejected this language:: Any person not a duly authorized officer. agent. or employee of. the United States who. shall. under color of claim to be acting as such. in the enforcement of this. act. or the national prohibition: act. or anyt other law of the United States. subject. or cause any person. to be sub eeted to the- deprivation ofi any rights. privileges. or immunities secured or guaranteed by the Constitution. of theUnitect States! shall be deemed guilty of a felony Then they bring in a proposition whih-

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President-

S

Mr STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from South Dakota?

S

The PRESIDUNG

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

I will yield in just one lomentwLich by implication authorizes every act:of. vandalism.. every act of illegality.. every act of unlawful and unconstitutiona invasion that may occur. except such: as take place withi. the: home.

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr.. President-

S

Mr. STERLENG

Unknown

STERLENG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I yield to the Senator.

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Y merely want to. asit the Senator in regaud to the language that. he has qnotedand I understandl that lie has quoted from. the amendluent that. he. originally offered. a part of which language is. incorporated in. the. amendment adopted by the Senatewhether he does. not think that language- is too. broad and: compreliensive and vague. in a way. and that if we attempt to cover the questions involved in the amendment we should not say that it should be unlawful without cause to search and seize and make arrests. to detain. and so: forth. any individual. rather thau to. use the broad language that the: Senator has used ih his amendirent?

S

Mr.. STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr: Puesident.. I need not digress to inquire. whether the amendment I offbredf could. Have been imnprovedi in its phraseology.. that. is- not. the- questiom. The principle is the thing. and there can be no: debate. about the principle save between those who- favor- the prilleiple and. those who oppose it..

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. will the Senator yield to me a moment?

S

Mr. WARREN

Unknown

WARREN

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I yield for a moment for a question. Does the Senator wish. to introduce a bill?

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I merely dbsthe the Senator to yield for a moment.

S

Mr. WARREN

Unknown

WARREN

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I will ask the Senator not to ask me to. let him introduce a bill. for 1. an nearly through.. andt I shalli yield: the floor in a moment M0r.. WARREN. I did not wish to introduce.a bill now. but 1. wish. to make at suggestion: right in: line with what the Senator is now saying. and. as I understand. he. is. about to conclude. Of course. the Senator anti I voted on the same side of this question.. The motion is. merely to take the matter to eonference. and I very much desire that it may go there quickly. in order that there! may be brought out a: measure which. of course... willi be a. preferred measure:.. but in order to. facilitate. the convenience of Senators. 1 simplr desime- to say that when the matter. agaihi comes up. there will be an opportunity fbr the Senate them to discuss it when. the conference report is made..

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I wish to read just a few words- from the ldecision of Boyd against The United States. That is a case where 192 1. the Government undertook to compel the production of certain books and papers. In discussing the history of the fourth amendment. the court says: In order to ascertain the nature of the proceedings intended by the fourth amendment to the Constitution under the terms " unreasonable searches and seizures." it is only necessary to recall the contemporary or then r eent history of the controversies on the subject. both in this country and in England. The practice had obtained in the Colonies of issuing writs of assistance to the revenue officers. empowering them. in their discretion. to search suspected places for smuggled goods. which James Otis pronounced " the worst instrument of arbitrary power. the most destructive of English liberty. and the fundamental principles of law that ever was found in an English law book." since they placed * the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." This was in February. 1701. in Boston. and the famous debate In which it occurred was perhaps the most prominent event which inaugurated the resistance of the Colonies to the oppressions of the mother country. " Then and there." said John Adamris. " then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child independence was born." The court further declares: As every American statesman during our revolutionary and formative period as a Nation was undoubtedly familiar with this monvient of English freedom. and considered it as the true and ultimate expression of constitutional law. it may be confidently asserted that its propositions were in the minds of those who framed the fourth anndment to the Constitution. and were considered as sufficlently explanatory of what was meant by unreasonable searches and seizures. * * * The great end for which men entered Into society was to secure their property. That right Is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by positive law are various. Distresses. executions. forfeitures. taxes. and so forth. are all of this description. wherein every man by common consent gives up that right for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England every invasion of private property. be it ever so minute. Is a trespass. No main can set his foot upon my ground without my license but he. is liable to an action. though the damage be nothing. which Is proved by every declaration In trespass where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon t he soil. If he admits the fact. he is bound to show. by way of justication. that some positive law has justified or excused hin. The justification Is submitted to the judges. who are to look into the books and seo if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law or by the principles of the common law. If no such excuse can be found or produced. the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant and the plaintiff must have judgment. Continuing. the court. at page 633. states: We have already noticed the intimate relation between the two amendments. They throw great light on each other. For the " unreasonable searches and seizures " condemned in the fourth amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself. which. In criminal cases. is condemned in the fifth amendment. and compelling a man " in a criminal case to be a witness against himself." which is condemned In the fifth amendment. throws light on the question as to what is an " unreasonable search and seizure " within the meaning of the fourth amendment. And we have been unable to perceive that the seizure of a mans private books and papers to be used In evidence against him is substantially different from compelling him to be a witness against himself. We think it is within the clear intent and meaning of those terms. We are also clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a mans property by reason of offenses committed by him. though they may be civil in form. are in their nature criminal. At page 635 we find this language: It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen. and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principlis. We have no doubt that the legislative body Is actuated by the same.motives . but the vast accumulation of pulic business brought before it sometimes prevents it. on a first presentation. from noticing objections which become developed by time and the practical application of the objectionable law. .In Weeks against United States (232 U. S.. 390) Mr. Justice Day quotes with approval from Cooley on the Constitution: Judge Cooley. in his Constitutional Limitations. pages 425. 426. in treating of this feature of our Constitution. said: " The maxim that every mails house is his castle is made a part of our constitutional law in the clauses prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and has always been looked upon as of high value to the citizen." At page 390 the learned justice says: "Accordingly." says Lieber in his vork on Civil Liberty and SelfGovernment. 02. in speaking of the English law in this respect. *.no mans house can be forcibly opened. or he or his goods be carried away after it has thus been forced. except in cases of felony. and then the sheriff must be furnished with a warrant and take great care lest lie commit a trespass. This principle is jealously Insisted upon." Continuitng. Justice Day declares: In the Boyd case. supra. after citing Lord Camdens judgment in Entick v. Carrington (10 Howells State Trials. 1029). Mr. Justice Bradley said (630) : " The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach further than the concrete form of the case then before the court. with its adventitious circumstances. they apply to all invasions on the part of the Government and its employees of the sanctity of a mans home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the essence of the offense. but it is the Invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security. personal liberty. and private property. where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offenseit is the invasion of tis sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Canmdenls judgmlent.". * * * In Bram iV. United States (168 U. S.. 532) this court in Speaking by the present Chief Justice of Boyds case. dealing with the fourth and fifth amendmnents. said (544) : It was in that case demonstiated that both of these amendments contemplated perpetuating. in their full efficacy. by means of a constitutional provision. principles of htunanity and civil liberty. which had been) secured] in the mother country only after years of struggle. so as to implant them in our ilnstitutions in the fullness of their integrity. free from the possibilities of future legislative change. (P. 391.) Observe this warning found omn pages 392 and 393: The tendency of thoe scho execute the criminal latws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions. the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution. should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which pfeol of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenotice of such fundamental sights. * * * The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment. praiseworthy as they are. are not to be nided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land. (P. 393.) I call special attention to this language of the opinion: The effect of the fourth amendment is to put the courts of the United States and Federal officials. in the exercise of their power and authority. under limitations and restraints as to the exercise of such power and authority. and to forever secure the people. their persons. houscs. papers. and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures tinder the guise of the lale.. This protection reaches all alike. whether accused of crime or not. and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted tunder our Federal system with the enforceient of fic lars. (Weeks v. United States. 232 U. S.. 1. c.. 301. Opin. ion by Justice Day.) Even a fanatic lot In pursuit of quarry ought to be halted by the opinion of the great jurist I have quoted. The Weeks case is followed and approved in Lumber Co. against United States (251 U. S.. 385. Opinion by Justice Holmes.) The facts appear in the syllabus.

S

Mr. REE

Unknown

REE

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

The question is upon the motiol of the Senator from South Dakota . who 1las moved that the Senate disagree to the amendments made by the House to Senate amendments numbered 10. 15. and 32.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

Mr. President. the Senator understands that to mean that the conferees will insist upon the amendments that the-

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

That the Senate had agreed to.

S

Mi. STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

Unknown

08181921.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Insist upon all of them and reject the House amiendmnents?

S

Mr. REED

Unknown

REED

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

We shall insist on them. of course. in conference.

S

lir. STERLING

Unknown

STERLING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

The question is on the motion of the Senator from South Dakota. The motion was ngreed to.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

Mr. President. the question before the Senate. as I understand. is on the nienduient offered by the Senator from New York to strike out section S of the road bill.

S

Mi. WARREN

Unknown

WARREN

Unknown

Unknown

08181921.txt

It is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. HARRELDI to that section. Tie aiendnent to the amendment will be stated.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

CLEMr. On page 7. line 22. it is proposed to strike out the words " and directed."

S

The READING

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorium.

S

Mr. HARRISON

Unknown

HARRISON

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

The Senator from Mississippi suggests the absence of a quorui. The Secretary -will call the roll. The roll was called. and the following. Senators answered to their name: Ashibrst GoCodinag MCCorillk Silulonls all Hale McKellar Staniley Borab Harrold McNary Sterling Branldegeo IHarrisoni Nelson .Sutheriland Brousard I1eflin New Townsend Calder Jones. WOsh. Norbeck Tranumell Capper Kellogg Oddle Wadsworth Caraway King Thipps Walsh. Mass. Curtis Latti Reed Warrei Fletcler Lenroot Sheppard Willis Glass Lodge . Shortridge

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

I desire to announce the absence of the Senator from Now Ilampslire [Mr. :KiEis] on account of death in his family. I will let this anniouncemllent stand for the day. I desire. also. to announce the absence of the Senator from Pennsylvania o1 official business. I will let this announcement stand for the day.

S

Mr. CURTIS

Unknown

CURTIS

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Fortythree Senators have responded to their names. There is not a quorium present. The Secretary will call the names of the absentees. Tie reading clerk called the names of the absent Senators. and Mr. CAMRON and Mr. fTTCHCOCK.lanswered to their linlues when called.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

Fiftyone Senators have answered to.their names. A quorum is present. The pending question is the amendment to the committee niendmnient proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma to strike out. on page 7. line 22. the words " and directed."

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

Mr. President. I do not intend to discuss the motion to amend made by the Senator from Oklahoma. I just want to get the parliamentary situation straightened out. ill my own mind. nt least. Is thiat offered as an amendmemnt to iy amendment?

S

Mr. WADSWORTIT

Unknown

WADSWORTIT

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

The ainendment of the Senator from New York is in the natoire of n motion to strike out. and the amendment1 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma is to perfect the text of the portion which vw Senator from New York moves to strike out.

S

Mr. TOWNSEND

Unknown

TOWNSEND

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

A parliamentary inquiry. Mr. President. Of course. the acceptation of the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma would not preclude the putting of the motion offered by the Senator from New York?

S

Mr. KING

Unknown

KING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

No. that will be the next amendment to be considered.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

I want to say just a word. Mr. President. I hope this aiendinent will not prevail. but I do not propose to discuss it at length. I want the Senate to understand that one of the contentions that is made now is that the authorization of the Congress in these matters is not always observed.

S

Mr. TOWNSEND

Unknown

TOWNSEND

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I wish to add to what the chairman of the committee has said that in my judgment if that change is made section 8 might just as well be stricken out of the bill.

S

Mr. SIMMONS

Unknown

SIMMONS

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. under that provision of the committee amendment the Secretary of War can prevent the delivery of any of this material to the Secretary of Agriculture by simply refusing to declare that it is surplus.

S

Mr. 1IARRELD

Unknown

1IARRELD

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

In that case lie would have to find the fact. and the assumltion is that the Secretary of War would find the fact as the fact is and not find it against the fact.

S

Mr. SIMMONS

Unknown

SIMMONS

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

As a matter of fact. though. he must find that it is surplus before he can authorize it to be delivered. and so to direct him to do a thing simply leaves him in the attitude of refusing to declare that it is surplus. So that after all you can not reach this material unless the Secretary of War is willing to allow it to be allotted to the Secretary of Agriculture.

S

Mr. HARRELD

Unknown

HARRELD

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. the way the section now reads. the Secretary of War.is authorized and directed to turn over these surplus supplies. If you strike out " and directed." although lie would be authorized to turn it over. there would. be no direction to turn it over and there would be pressure brought to bear on him so as not to turn it over. and in the absence of this instruction to turn it over there will be some excuse for him not to turn it over. But if we leave that in the law he will say. then. to those who bring that pressure to bear. "I have no discretion in the matter iow as to tuining it over. Here is the surplus. and I am directed by an act of Congress to turn it over." That gives him something to hide behind.

S

Mr. HEFLIN

Unknown

HEFLIN

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

The question is upon agreeing to the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

The question now is upon the motion to strike out section . the amendment proposed by the Senator fror New York [M~r. WADswoRTI] to the committee amendment.

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

Mr. President. I do not intend to take the time of the Senate. but in a rather hastily conducted colloquy yesterday with the Senator from Michigan. I was asked the question as to how many motor trucks the War Department had. I misunderstood the question. and answered it by saying 9.000. That is not correct. I realized the error after the colloquy had ended. but did not have an :opportunity to correct the statement. I had in mind another matter which involved 9.000 trucks. That is the number of trucks which the Post Office Department lhas received from. the Whr Department. The fact is that the War Department has all told. I believe. in the neighborhood of 17.000 to 18.000 trucks. which. faccording to their earnest statement to the committee. is 1.500 less than the lumber of trucks they ought to have for an Army of 150.000.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Then they have no surplus.

S

Mr. TOWNSEND

Unknown

TOWNSEND

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

No. Something was said yesterday. too. about surplus property. This thing is of such vast importance. and involves so:many hlindreds -of millions of dollars. that we ought to have all the facts we can get on it. The Senator from Ohio I asked me certain questions. or made certain observations. about the sale of property. and I might just as well put the last authentic figures into the REcoRn. This statistical report is under date of August 13 and contains information on the subject of sales of surplus supplies up to .Tuly 29. 1921. Up to that date. practically the 1st of August. the present nionth. there had been received from sales $827.818.848. -and there had been transferred to other departments $134.000.000 worth of property. The total of sales and transfers up to August 1. therefore. is $961.952.459. To show that they :are still working at it. because some Senator asked why they do not sell more. let me give a little further data. The question indicated that the Senator has not asked about the matter and informed himself. In the five weeks immediately prior to July 29 they sold $10.500.000 worth of stuff for cash. They transferred $4.398.000 worth to other departurents. I a other words. sales are goipg on all the time. and I have bein contending that the property should be sold by the Federal Covernment and the money put into the United States Treasury rafher than be given away to any other Government or community.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President-

S

Mr. SIMMONS

Unknown

SIMMONS

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Can the Senator give us any information as to the original cost of the things that have been sold?

S

Mr. SIMMONS

Unknown

SIMMONS

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I can. I have it right here. The receipts for the property which has been sold have netted the Government 55.9 per cent of the cost price.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

That is the average of all sales?

S

Mr. WARREN

Unknown

WARREN

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

The average of all the sales. 55.9 per cent. I stated to the Senator from Ohio yesterday that it was 55 per cent. I understated it by ninetenths of 1 per cent. Now. just a word-

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. before the Senator leaves that subject. is he able to inform the Senate whether the prices now being obtained represent as large a percentage of the cost as those earlier obtained?

S

Mr. HITCHCOCK

Unknown

HITCHCOCK

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

No. of course. not. The percentages which are now being obtained. of course. are lower than those obtained in the first six or seven months of the activity. for two obvious reasons. When the sales commenced prices in this country and all over the world were very high and they got good prices for things. Secondly. the things that were easiest to sell naturally sold first and the longer the activity continues the harder it is. comparatively speaking. to clean up the surplus. the department finding itself in possession. months and perhaps two or three years after the war. of things that civilians will not buy except at purely nominal figures. so of course the percentage of recovery is bound to gradually go down. down. down.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Can the Senator put into the REcoRD the amount sold in each month. or in each year?

S

Mr. HITCHCOCK

Unknown

HITCHCOCK

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I can not do that now.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President-

S

Mr. McKELLAR

Unknown

MCKELLAR

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Tennessee?

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

Certainly.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I wish to ask the Senator if the figures lie has there include the $400.000.000 worth to the French Government?

S

Mr. McKELLAR

Unknown

MCKELLAR

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

They do not. only things sold in this country.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

In the United States?

S

Mr. McKELLAR

Unknown

MCKELLAR

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I wished to call attention to that.

S

Mr. McKELLAR

Unknown

MCKELLAR

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Now. just a word about the motor vehicles. I think Senators ought to know about these. because I hear so many observations that must be founded on incomplete -knowledge. Justlet me read this. as an official statement coming from the War Department. not gotten up for the purpose of this debate at all. but sent out as a part of a regular statistical report: On December 18. 1920. the Secretary of War authorized the disposition of 26.995 motor vehicles by transfer to other Government activities and by sale at public auction. On July 1. 1921That is just this summer- .this surplus was increased by 1.562 motor vehicles. making the total surplus 28.557. Up to August 6. 1921Only 10 days ago22.704. or 80 per cent of that surplus. had been disposed of. This surplusThat is. the 28.557. which has been declared since December 18. 1920. just last winteris in addition to the 44.225 motor vehicles declared surplus and disposed of prior to November 16. 1920. In other words. the War Department has given away or has sold 66.000 motor vehicles. and yet Senators say that it is difficult to get anything out of the War Department. Of the 66.000. 44.000 were given away. Against that I protest. That is the reason why I offer the amendment to strike out section 8. which will perpetuate this policy of transferring. free of charge. Government property from one department to another without anything being credited to the first department or charged to the second and what is ultimately done with the property.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President-

S

Mr. JONES of New Mexico

Unknown

JONES

New Mexico

M

08181921.txt

Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from New Mexico?

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

I yield.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I should like to inquire of the Senator from New York if he has the figures showing the percentage of cost of motor vehicles that has been derived from sales?

S

Mr. JONES of New Mexico

Unknown

JONES

New Mexico

M

08181921.txt

I am afraid I have not. There are only two statistical tables here in this whole volume with respect to surplus property. and they do not go into such detail as thait. I could give the Senator a good deal more information on the general character of property sold and the amount received for the different kinds of property. but I do not think I can give the percentage of recovery on each kind.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I was rather curious to know what percentage had been received from motor vehicles.

S

Mr. JONES of New Mexico

Unknown

JONES

New Mexico

M

08181921.txt

A very small percentage.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

That is what I suspected.

S

Mr. JONES of New Mexico

Unknown

JONES

New Mexico

M

08181921.txt

That is because the ones that have been sold are practically the wornout trucks. Nearly all those that have been given away were the good ones. Occasionally some bad ones were given away besides. but thousands of brandnew trucks that had never been used at all. thousands and thousands of them. were given away. Of course there is no recovery on them.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I was led to make this inquiry by an observation down at Camp Pike. in Arkansas. last winter. I observed there several acres of trucks out in the weather not being cared for in any respect. I understand that since that time a shelter of some sort has been put over them. but there were acres of them there then just simply exposed to the elements and no use being made of them whatever. I might add that at that time I observed a number of sheds there that were not being utilized at all.

S

Mr. JONES of New Mexico

Unknown

JONES

New Mexico

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. I hope the amendment of the Senator from New York will not be adopted. What was the situation when we entered upon this policy? The Federal Government was voting money to aid the States. which were required to put up an equal amount in an extensive roadbuilding program. We.voted over $100.000.000 for that purpose. That work has been going on. At that time confessedly the States could not buy the machinery and road material in the market to enable them to go on with the work to the extent that they were doing. At that time the War Department had a vast amount of this material. which would have to be sold in the market or turned over to the States for a useful purpose for the benefit of all the people of the United States. Confessedly. taking the high prices. the Senator admits the War Department only got 55 per cent of the cost. and yet that material was worth par full cost to the States.

S

Mr. KELLOGG

Unknown

KELLOGG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

That figure is on every kind of thing which they sold. The list of articles which they sold would cover a whole page. There were many different kinds of articles. . -Mr. KELLOGG. Presumably they did not get any more for the road material than they got for the other material.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

But they did not sell the new trucks.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

That was worth more than 55 per cent of the cost to the States. and it enabled the country to go oi immediately with a road program and enabled the States to get the material. The -Senators mistake. it seems to me. is that he teats the War Department as entirely separate from the United States and the people of the United States. and he treats the State governments in the same way. I had always suPosed that the War Department was simply an agency of the people of the country. of the Government. and that the States were really a part of the Union. and to aid the States with material as well as to aid them with money was one of the objects of Congress in passing the legislation. The argument now made is that the War Department can have no accounting. There is nothing to prevent the War Department from having a complete accounting for everything that is turned over. and charging it on the books so they will know exactly where they stand. The argument is made here that the States have been selling this material and a great deal has been made of what has been done in the State of Ohio. Immediately when the charge was made in the newspapers or wherever it was about these things. the Agricultural Department undertook to find out just how much had been done. They asked every State to report and 40 of the 48 States have reported. They have made a calculation and as nearly as they can determine. and they have determined it very accurately. I think. about onehalf of 1 per cent of the material which has been awarded to the States was found unfit for road work for various purposesmachines worn out. parts of machines worn out. or parts of machines that were not suitable. and they have been sold. It is a bagatelle as compared to the whole. Many States have not sold any. The State of Minnesota has not sold anything and many others have not. Suppose the States had not sold this material. would it have been any money in the pockets of the people of the country to send it back to some camp to have it handed back to the War Departmnent and the War Department then sell it? The War Department now confessedly has a very large amount of material which it has not yet sold three years after the close of the war. and if it is used for the benefit of all the people of the country. it is not turning it over to a foreign Government or alien Government or giving it away. It is being used by the people of the United States. Why is it that some of the States received certain material that was not available for building roads? The Department of Agriculture has said that they made out requisitions and received invoices or statements from the War Department of the material furnished and that the material furnished did not comply with the inventory furnished and that when some of the material was received it was unfit for use and has been sold. but the amount that has been sold is very small.

S

Mr. KELLOGG

Unknown

KELLOGG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Has the Senator made any inquiry as to whether the Department of Agriculture has requisitioned 5.000 horses from the War Department?

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I have not.

S

Mr. KELLOGG

Unknown

KELLOGG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Does the Senator suppose the War Department could avoid filling that requisition accurately?

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Yes. the War Department can refuse to fill it under the law.

S

Mr. KELLOGG

Unknown

KELLOGG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Not if the horses are declared surplus.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Yes. they can. I do not agree with the Senator in his construction of the law at all. I am not anxious for the War Department to give away material. but it is econoiny for all the people to have material that confessedly can not be sold today for 50 per cent of Its cost and can not be used by the States.

S

Mr. KELLOGG

Unknown

KELLOGG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. I am somewhat surprised at the arguiment made by the able Senator from Miinnesota. I think that his criticism. certainly implied. of the argument made by the Senator from New York is somewhat unfair and scarcely up to the high standard which the Senator from Minnesota usually maintains. He complains because of the suggestion that the War Department is separate from the States. and insists that he had supposed that the War Department was an agency of the people because the Government belongs to the people. Of course. this Government belongs to the people. no one denies it. The people. under the Constitution and the law. direct the course of the Government. Departments can be created and the representatives of the people can direct that money be taken from the Treasury. or property taken from one agency and transferred to another. But because of- such power there is no sufficient reason. Mr. President. why ve should pursue policies that are uiwise and uneconomical and that are at variance with the principles of sound and saine business administration and of common sense.

S

Mr. KING

Unknown

KING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Will the Senator yield?

S

Mr. KELLOGG

Unknown

KELLOGG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

In what has this policy been uneconomical?

S

Mr. KELLOGG

Unknown

KELLOGG

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. it is to my mind not only productive of waste and extravagance but gross inefliciency in administration if the course here advocated is followed. The employment of revolving funds. the transfer of money or property from one agency to another. particularly when no accounting is required. the adoption of a system which permits the use of funds appropriated for one year. or for a specific purpose. to be expended during some following year and for a different purpose. the transfer of property from one department to anotherall or either of these things tend to waste and extravagance. Such a course. in my opinion. should not be permitted. I assert that it is uneconomical when departments or agencies or States or executive instrumentalities. either of the Federal Government or of the States. may obtain property for the asking. property which belongs to the Government and has not been paid for by the Government itself. Gifts. as a rule. are not appreciated. and officials. no matter how honest. are not as careful with funds or property attained as gifts. If they have to tax the people to purchase needed property in communities they will use less and bestow better care upon the same. My information is that considerable property has been distributed to the States. which was absolutely necessary for their use. and that if the States had been compelled to buy the same they would have acquired but a fraction of it. As long as it was being freely distributed States took much not needed. If gratuities are to be distributed. few objections are made to its reception. even though its use is problematical. Indeed. we know of the millions foolishly expended by the people. because the property acquired is bought at "bargain prices." We are very. glal to receive property when we can get it for nothing. When property is received by transfer from one agency of the Government to another without payment the demands for such transfer will be far greater than if the property must be paid for in cash or charged against the appropriation account given by Congress to such purchasing agency. Mr. President. the proper thing to do. in justice to the War Department. which is charged with enormous appropriations. and out of which the property in question was paid for. is to authorize the War Department to sell the surplus. and if the States want the surplus to give them the preference right to purchase. but let them pay for it. and pay the fair cash value of the same. The money so paid would go into the Treasury. and would reduce taxation pro tanto. Senators talk as though the War Department owned the property and intended to dispose of it for the benefit of some officers or some agency. The property is owned by the United States. The War Department is only the custodian. and if it sells the property the money is covered into the Treasury. It thus relieves the people of the burden of taxes to the extent of the amount so placed in the Treasury. As stated. if there is surplus property let it be sold and give the States who need it for road building the preference right to buy.

S

Mr. KING

Unknown

KING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

That is a very different proposal. I should subscribe to a proposition of that kind at any moment. but politics will creep into this thing of free transfers and dispositions of property just as surely as we sit here in the Senate. When the Government says. " I stand ready to give you something." the demand will be accelerated by those who are politically interested in becoming popular through the free distribution of something belonging to the Government.

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

I stated. Mr. President. that it is unfair to the War Department. charged as it has been wifh billions of dollars of appropriations in carrying on the war. now to charge against it property which it can sell and recoup some of its losses and put on the credit side some of the funds with which it has been charged. It has been stated hereand no one denies itthat $100.000.000 of property have been turned over to the Agricultural Department for distribution among the States. What credit has the War Department for that $100.000.000? What did the States pay for that $100.000.000 of property? Theoretically the Government of the United States appropriates $1 for road purposes for every dollar which the States appropriate. actually the Federal Government is putting up iore than 50 per cent. The Federal Government puts up the 50 per cent of cash. and then. by the votes of Senators and Representatives. it takes away $100.000.000 of property of the United States and turns that over to the States. forsooth. because the " Government of the United States belongs to the people! " Mr. President. everybody seems willing to take something from the Government. In this Chamber Senators condemn the extravagance of administration and the burdens laid upon the people and then vote to spend hundreds of millions which are not imperatively required or to take property from the Government which could be sold for some amount. which would diminish the aggregate sum required for governmental expenses. It seems as though everyone was ready to put his hand into the Treasury or upon the property of the Federal Government. Few seem to regard the taxpayers or to have the interests of the Government at heart. Let me add that if we have the interests of the Government at heart we have the interests of the people at heart. If we serve our country well we serve the people well. The $100.000.000 worth of property which has been turned over to the States ought to have been sold by the War Department. giving the States the preference right to buy that which they required. My good friend from Alabama [MI. 1EFLIN] yesterday said that the policy which had been pursued was opposed by some of the manufacturers of automobiles. trucks. and so forth. I have no knowledge upon that matter. It would seem to me that no advantage would be derived by the manufacturers from the adoption of what I insist is the fair and rational course to pursue. My suggestion is not that the materials not required by the War Department be kept from the market. On the contrary. I have heretofore advocated the prompt sale of all surplus supplies. Months ago I offered measures compelling the sale of all surplus war supplies and materials. I now suggest that in making such sales the States have the first opportunity to secure such commodities as they need in their road work. This course would not result in the situation claimed by the Senator from Alabama. Mr. President. the argument made by the Senator from New York yesterday upon the pending motion is unanswerable. We may bandy words and profess great devotion to the people. but the plain fact is that we are asked to commit the Government to a wasteful and foolish policy. one which in the end will hurt the States and injure the people. If we persist in this policy of transferring front one department to another property regarded as surplus. we will witness the development of a vicious and wasteful system. which will invade other departments and corrode and corrupt administrative activities. It will lead to demands that property which may be required by a department of the Government be declared surplus in order that States or municipalities or Federal agencies may secure it without cost. It will encourage departments to part with property which may be valuable and of service in order that officials therein may get newer designs or different makes. If property may be declared as surplus for the purpose of having some other agency or States acquire it. the inclination to so declare it will be greater. because it will be recognized that the department so parting with the property will be able to secure an appropriation for needed supplies. This policy will lead Stated and Fed. cral agencies to agitate to secure a finding that certain desired property is surplus. The evils are so numerous that will flow from this plan that I can not see how Senators can support it.

S

Mr. KING

Unknown

KING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Will the Senator yield?

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Does the Senator from Utah yield to the Senator from New York?

S

The PRESIDING OFFICER

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Special

08181921.txt

I yield.

S

Mr. KING

Unknown

KING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

From a very hasty examination of other sections of the pending bill. I discover a provision which authorizes the transfer of title to real estate in the possession of the United States between. departments without the authority of Congress..

S

Mr. WADSWORTH

Unknown

WADSWORTH

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Of course. Mr. President. that will follow. Pretty soon we shall permit the various departments of the Government. under general. sweeping statutes such as this. to "swap" and exchange property at will andto make distribution of property which some official of the Government may not think is presently needed. Some man may be particularly interested in the development of some activity with which he is not charged. and he may declare some property as not necessary for the agency with which he is connected. in order that it may be declared surplus for distribution to some agency or instrumentality of the Government in which he may have some indirect interest. I do not mean a financial or a pecuniary interestit may be merely a sentimental interest. but the policy is wrong. As I have said. Mr. President. and as I now repeat. the continuation of this policy now will leads to its- extension until there will be demands for a general distribution of all property in all departments- and all agencies of the Governnent to the States. If we are going to declare property unnecessary or unsuitable for service in any agency or department of: the Government there ought to be a board charged with the -disposition. of it. and. if some other department needs it. let that department pay for it its reasonable value. crediting. to the department or bureau parting with the title and charging the other department or bureau which obtains it with the value or the amount- to be paid. and charge that .against the -appropriation which is made to the purchasing agency or department. So. with respect to surplus property held by the War Department. if we are.to give to the States any rights in the matter let us pass a law by. which property that. may be declared to be unnecessary. for use by the War Department shall be sold. the preference right to purchase being given to the States. If I understood the Senator from Minnesota correctly. he differed from the construction placed upon section 8 by the Senator from New York. His interpretation. as I understood him. of that section was that there was no obligation whatever upon the War Department. if it has..for example. 5.000 horses which are unnecessary for. immediate use in the War Department. to honor the requisition which might be made by the Department of Agriculture. Section 8 reads: That the Secretary of War be. and. he is hereby. authorized and. directedHe has no discretion. he is "directed"to transfer to the commissionThe section having been amended. it now reads " the Secretary of Agriculture "upon his request all surplus war material. equipment. and supplies not needed for the purposes of the War Department but suitable for use in. the improvement of highways. and that the same shall be distributed among the highway departments of the several StatesAnd so forth. Now. first. the Secretary of War is commanded to transfer. upon the request of the Secretary of Agriculture. " all surplus war material. equipment. and supplies "-under what circumstances? When "not needed." What do the words "noti needed " mean? They interpret themselvesnot needed now. not needed -within a reasonable time in the future. not essential for the conduct of the activities of the War Department. One Senator a moment ago adverted to thefact that there was some property still on hand not disposed of. It was only recently that Congress decided to reduce the Army to 150.000 men. It would have been improvident in the extreme for the War Department to have disposedof equipment needed for an army of 200.000 men before the Army had been reduced to 150.000 men. The reduction which was effectuated only a few days ago by reason of legislative enactment. of course. will result in considerable property of the War Department not now being needed. Therefore. if there are 5.000 horses or any other number not now needed by the War Department and requisition were made by the Secretary of Agriculture. the Secretary of War would be compelled to make the transfer. I am not able to follow the learned Senator from Minnesota in his position that this section would not impose the obligation upon the Secretary of War to make transfer. upon request. ofany property which lie has and which. is not needed immediately or within a reasonable time by the War Department. Mr. President. it seems to me that. the only wise and the only. proper thing to do is to strike out this section. If we are going to depart from the policy which we announced ofhaving a 5050 contract. let us say so. It is not a 5050 contract. it has been heretofore 33?-66Jthat is to say. the Federal Government appropriated $200.000.000 - and the States put up $100.000.000and this bill. if there shall be any considerable surplus property under the War Department. will mean -the Federal Government shall put up another $100.000.000 in cash and a large amount. $25.000.000 or $50.000.0001 worth. of property. and the States shall only put up $100.000.000 in cash.. It is deceptive on its face. It is not a 5050 proposition. In the interest of honesty. in the interest of fair dealing with the departments. in the interest of economy. and finally in the interest of the people themselves the motion of the Senator from New York should prevail.

S

Mr. KING

Unknown

KING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. I regard this section of the bill as so important that I am not willing to let the argument of the Senator from Utah go entirely without answer. The Senator from New York on yesterday stated thait he had for months been battling with this same question upon the floor of the Senate. and the Senator stated what.is true. Every time any proposition has been made here that took from the War Department any of its surplus war materials. the Senator from New York. acting as the spokesman of: the War Department. has strenuously opposed such proposition. When the proposition was made to transfOr these trucks and tractors to the States for the purpose of road construction under the cooperative plan the Senator from- New York was .here. speaking not so much for himself as a Senator. or as the chairman of the Military Affairs Committee. but speaking the wishes of the War Department. opposing it. Then we were told that there were no more of these machines than were needed or might in the near future be needed.

S

Mr. SIMMONS

Unknown

SIMMONS

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Mr. President. will the Senator yield?

S

Mr. KING

Unknown

KING

Unknown

M

08181921.txt

Just: a moment. if the Senator pleases. Then we thrashedoutithe question ofwhether it shouldbe the policy of the United States Government to -turn over to the States. to aid in the construction of roads. such surplus war materials as it might have. and after a long discussion. in this Chamber. at least. it was decided by a definite and an emphatic majority that that policy should be adopted and pursued by the Federal Government. and. notwithstanding the attitude of the War Department. it turned out that they had as.many as 44.000 trucks that they could spare to the States.

S

Mr. SIMMONS

Unknown

SIMMONS

Unknown

M

08181921.txt