The Fallon standard. (Fallon, Nev.) 1920-1958, 1924-09-17


q reply to the charges made by John
w. Davis that the Republican party
had not treated the reclamation
farmers right and that through lack
of agreement had been responsible
for the defeat of the measures, comes
back and publishes a statement to
the effect that Senator Pittman OF
Nevada was the responsible party.
Senator Pittman. in a recent bull
letin addressed to the homesteaders
of the reclamation projects. states:
The following are the facts with
regard to the defeat of the reclama-
tion act of 1924. recommended by
the fact-nnding commission
The act was prepared by the COM
mittee on irrigation and reclamation
of the United States senate, of which
l am a member, and was offered
upon the floor OF the senate as an
amendment to II. X. 1853. being the
second deficiency appropriation bill.
The amendment il found on page 79
of the bill. and designated In the bill
for purposes of reference and report
as amendment IS.
The bill. after passing the senate
with this amendment IS and other
amendments, went to the house of
representatives The house refused
to agree to this amendment 5s carry
ing the reclamation act, and also re-
fused to agree to other amendments
placed on the bin by the senate. and
asked for q conference upon the dis
agreement to these amendments be-
tween the two houses.
The house appointed as conferees.
on behalf of the house, Messrs. Mad
den. Anthony and Byrns.
The senate agreed to the confer
ence and appointed. on behalf of the
senate. Senators Warren. Curtis,
Jones, Oyerman and Harris
A number of amendments were
agreed TO by the conferees, and both
of the conferees in agreeing to such
amendments.
At O'Clock p. m. on June 7. 1924.
being one hour before final adjourn.
ment. Senator Warren of Wyoming
presented a final conference report
sigAo.. by all Of the conserees On
behalf OF the senate and house.
which. in part, read as follows:
"The committee of conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two
houses on certain amendments of the
senate TO the bill (H. II. 9559) max
Ing appropriations 10 supply def
ciencies in certain appropriations for
the fiscal year ending June 80, 1925.
and for other purposes, having met,
after full and free conference have
agreed 10 recommend and do recon-
mend to their respective houses as
follows:
THAT the seante recede from Its
amendments numbered 80. 35 and
IS.
THAT the house recede from its
disagreement to the amendment OF
the senate numbered 2S and agree
to the same.
1.-THE committee OF conference
have not agreed on amendments
numbered 2s. 81. IS and So"
This report will be found on pages
1929 and 1899 of the Congression-
al Record OF June 7. 1924.
I call attention to the fact that the
report expressly states that the con
ferees could not agree on amend
ment 68. which was the amendment
carrying the whole reclamation act
OF 1924.
After the report was presented.
the following action was taken by
the chairman of the conferees. a.
shown on page 1928 of the Con-
gressional Record of June 7th:
''Mr. Warren. l move that the re-
port be adopted"
What would have been the effect
II this motion had been adopted?
The committee on enrolment of bills
would have taken the report and
would have made up the act includ
ing the amendments that had been
reported by the conference commit
tee as agreed to. As the report ex-
pressly stated that amendment 5S
was not agreed to. II could not have
been placed in the act as enrolled for
the signature of the vice president,
the speaker OF the house and the
president OF the United States. Re
member. the question was not on the
passage of the bill, but on the adop-
tion of the report and the report
would govern and determine what
should be in the act. If subsequent
TO the presentation of the report the
house of representatives had with.
drawn it's objection to senate amend
ment IS. then IL was the duty of the