and put the money into the Treasury of the United States, and not expend it for improvements here. For these reasons I am perfectly willing that the amendment shall be disagreed to. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I want to call the Senator's attention to the fact that this is a revenue measure, and it should have originated in the House of Representatives, in my opinion. Mr. MCKELLAR. If the Senator will yield, I have heretofore made a point of order on the ground that this is a tax measure, and I am going to renew that point of order. It should originate, under the Constitution, in the House of Representatives and has no place here at this time. I made the point of order when it came up before, and I shall renew the point of order at this time, for the reasons suggested. Mr. SMOOT. I did not know the Senator intended to make a point of order. Mr. MCKELLAR. I have no objection to the matter being discussed, of course. Mr. BALL. I would like to state that I do not believe it to be a revenue measure. With that amendment disagreed to, there is no change so far as the revenues to be raised are concerned. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Delaware yield to the Senator from Kansas? Mr. BALL. I yield. Mr. CURTIS. I suggest to the Senator that if the point of order is to be raised and there is any question about it, why would it not be better to have that settled first, because we want to get through with the calendar to-day if we can? Mr. BALL. I was not in the Chamber when the bill was brought up, and I did not know whether the point of order had been waived or not. I think it is important that some action shall be taken. The matter seems to be blocked in the House, and I did not see any reason why we could not pass the bill in the Senate; and if there were any question after the bill was passed in the House, it would come back to the Senate: but unless some action is taken within the next week, the reciprocal relations between Maryland and the District will be canceled. Mr. CURTIS. I fully realize that, but if the point of order is to be made, why not have it made and settled? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that the Senator from Tennessee has objected to the further consideration of the bill, and under Rule VIII the bill will go over. Mr. MCKELLAR. No, Mr. President; I made a point of order against the bill on the ground that it is a revenue measure, and that under the Constitution of the United States all revenue-raising measures must originate in the House of Representatives, and that this bill has no place on the calendar of the Senate. I make the point of order against the bill on that ground. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is not familiar with the bill, and will hear the Senator from Delaware on the point of order. Mr. KING. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would like to make a suggestion, and then he may reply if he desires to. I do not speak upon this matter with any degree of certainty, because it is a question to which I have given but little attention, but I suggest to the Chair that in determining the question of the point of order raised by the Senator from Tennessee, the Chair should take into account the fact that this measure deals with the District of Columbia. If it were dealing with the general subject of revenue as it applied to the United States, then obviously it would be subject to a point of order, because such legislation, under the Constitution, must originate in the House of Representatives. But I am inclined to think that when Congress is dealing with Territories or with political subdivisions such as the District of Columbia, with respect to their local and what might be denominated their purely provincial needs, then such a measure as this is not subject to the point of order suggested by the able Senator, because it does not deal with the general subject of revenue for the United States. Suppose we were dealing with some revenue measure relating to Hawaii or Alaska and the measure had to do only with either or both of those Territories. Can it be said that legislation which dealt with the subject of revenue or licenses in Alaska or Hawaii was general revenue legislation within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States? I am not at all dogmatic upon this question, but I do suggest to the Chair that in my opinion this is not the character of revenue legislation contemplated by the Constitution, and that a bill dealing with the District of Columbia alone does not come within the constitutional provision, and it would seem to me that that position is strengthened when it deals rather with the police powers of the District of Columbia or of Congress in dealing with this political subdivision rather than the taxing power. Mr. MCKELLAR. This bill provides for a tax which would be paid into the Treasury of the United States. It would be for general purposes. It would go into the Treasury of the United States just exactly as do the moneys which arise from tariff taxes or internal revenue taxes or any other taxes. The taxes raised by this bill would be mingled with and become a part of all the revenues of this Government. This is as completely a revenue bill as it is possible to make it. The funds are not to be set aside; they are to be intermingled with other funds of the Government. They would be a part of the general revenue of the Government, and it is impossible, it seems to me, that any theory could be urged against a measure of this kind originating in the House of Representatives, as is required by the plain terms of the Constitution. Of course, if the Constitution is a mere scrap of paper, by which no one is bound, there is no reason why we can not legislate, if we have no Constitution; but if we are going to follow the Constitution, it is perfectly clear that this tax bill comes directly within the inhibition that the House of Representatives only has authority to initiate legislation in respect thereto. Mr. KING. I should apologize to the President pro tempore for intruding my opinion on a matter as to which doubtless there are precedents, and which involves construction of the Constitution, without further preparation; but I again suggest to the President that Congress oftentimes has the function which belongs to a Territorial legislature, and that it is acting for a Territory. As I stated a moment ago, if Congress deals with Alaska, it deals with one of its Territorial possessions, and in dealing with them it performs a function of the Territorial legislature. Mr. SMITH. May I ask the Senator his opinion as to whether the objection raised by the Senator from Tennessee would be fundamentally changed if the amendment proposed by the Senator, providing that this money shall go into the treasury of the District for the purpose of contributing our quota to the expenses of the District and the city, were inserted in the bill? Mr. KING. I think in part that would cure the defect. I was under the impression, until the Senator spoke, that the, money went into the District funds and was part of the 60 per cent contribution paid by the District of Columbia to meet the expenses of the District. Mr. BALL. Mr. President, if I could make a brief statement I think I could make the matter clear. There is a part of the tax of 2 cents a gallon that goes directly into the United States Treasury and a part of it goes to the District. The amendment which I propose would not affect the tax of 2 cents a gallon whatever. Mr. SMITH. Under the amendment the Senator proposes would no part go into the General Treasury? Mr. BALL. Under the amendment I propose only the tax on the automobile itself is affected and not the tax on the gas. But, Mr. President, I do not think this is a revenue measure. There are certain measures the intent of which is to raise revenue. Those are revenue measures. The intent of this bill is to bring about automobile reciprocity with Maryland. I think the amendment that I suggest is such that the tax will not be increased and will not be materially lessened as received by the District. In other words, it does not affect the revenues of the United States, neither increasing nor lessening them. Incidentally there is a certain amount of revenue raised which offsets the revenue formerly raised by the taxation of the automobile itself. It is arranged so that the two will about equalize each other. There is no chang in the amount of the revenue to be collected. It is clearly not the intention of the bill that it should be a revenue bill. It is merely an incidental fact that it does raise some revenue in that way. Mr. SHORTRIDGE. Mr. President, some of us would like to hear the discussion of the Senator from Delaware. The matter involves a question of law raised as to the constitutionality of the measure. Therefore I ask for order in the Senate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order. Mr. BALL. I had concluded all I wished to say. It is in my judgment not a revenue bill. Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, I want to call attention to the purpose of the bill as explained by the author of it. It provides for a tax on motor-vehicle fuel sold within the District of Columbia, and for other purposes. Its pronounced purpose is first the raising of revenue. In line 4 it differen tiates between registration fees fixed in the bill and provides for a tax of 2 cents per gallon on all motor-vehicle fuel sold within the District of Columbia. It could not possibly be any more clearly and unequivocally a tax measure. Permit me to call the attention of the Chair to section 7 of Article I of the Constitution: All bills Not some bills, not excluding any bills applying to the District of Columbia, but all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. It was the manifest purpose of the makers of the Constitution that such bills and all bills of this kind for raising revenue should originate in the House of Representatives and that amendments may be concurred in in this body. It is one of the prerogatives of the House of Representatives to originate revenue bills. It ought not to be infringed in this body. I understand a bill like this is being considered in the House now. Why the haste for the passage of this bill? Why is it sought to jam it through the Senate contrary to the Constitution of the United States? I remember when I objected to it a little while ago quite a furor was raised because of the objection I made to it, and yet since that time I have found most of the people in the District are opposed to the bill, and many resolutions have been sent to me in opposition to it. Now the Senator comes in with an amendment to the hill which he says will make it satisfactory to the people of the District. Whether it is satisfactory to them or not, it is eertainly opposed to the plain mandate of the Constitution. There is no reason in the world why the bill should not be passed in the House and amendments offered on the floor of the Senate. It is no more important than other bills. It may be that it will constitute a reduction of taxes on automobile owners in the District. It may be very proper that the tax on automobile owners should be reduced or taken off entirely, but it is no more important than that other taxes ought to be reduced in like amount on the residents of the District. Mr. LENROOT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MCKELLAR. I will yield in just a moment. It is well understood that the public utilities companies in the District are charging enormous rates and those rates apply to all the people, not to a special class like the bill under consideration, but to all the people, and we can not even get a hearing on that matter. Up to date we have not been able to get a hearing on that other class of tax reduction affecting all of the people in the District. I think they ought to come in equal steps. When the bill comes over from the House, where it should properly have originated, then we can take it up and discuss it and amend it as we see fit, but surely there can be no doubt about the proposition that under the plain mandate of the Constitution it is not in order here. I now yield to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. LENROOT. I was not in the Chamber when the question came up. Does the Senator raise the question of a point of order? Mr. McKELLAR. I do. Mr. LENROOT. The question is whether the bill would be constitutionally passed, is it not? The Senator contends it would not and I am inclined to agree with him. Mr. MCKELLAR. Yes; I think that is true. Mr. LENROOT. Does the Senator think it is the function of the Chair to pass upon the constitutionality of bills? Mr. MCKELLAR. I think when a point of order is raised it is the function of the Chair to say that the bill can not be considered under the rules of the Senate, because the Constitution of the United States provides that the bill shall originate in the House of Representatives, and therefore this body could not originate such bills under the rule. Mr. LENROOT. Could not the same point of order be raised upon every bill the constitutionality of which is questioned, because the point could be made that the Constitution does not permit the Congress to consider this kind of a bill? Mr. MCKELLAR. It may be, but I do not believe I follow the Senator in his peculiar views. Mr. LENROOT. The point of order is that it is in violation of the Constitution. Mr. MCKELLAR. Yes; the Constitution of the United States. Mr. LENROOT. I submit it is not the function of the Chair to pass upon the question of whether bills are or are not in violation of the Constitution. Mr. JONES of New Mexico. The question, it seems to me, is whether the bill is properly in the Senate or not. Mr. McKELLAR. Of course. In other words, I think when a bill that is manifestly in contravention of the plain mandate of the Constitution is reported to the Senate it ought not to be permitted to come before the Senate at all. Mr. LENROOT. Of course, the same rule would apply to whether it was manifestly so or not; it would be for the Chair to decide whether or not the bill did raise revenue, would it not? Mr. MCKELLAR. That is true, and that is the point I have raised in my point of order. Mr. LENROOT. 1 merely submit that it is a matter which the Senate should decide and not the Chair. Mr. SWANSON. Mr. President, I desire to make a brief statement with reference to this tax. The difficulty of a settlement between Maryland and the District of Columbia, and at one time Virginia, was the peculiar situation of the city of Washington. This gasoline tax is usually used in all other States and in the large cities to pay for the improvement of roads which the automobiles use, In Virginia the fund from the gasoline tax is used entirely for road improvement. I think in Maryland and other States it possibly follows the same course. Here is the District of Columbia that uses the roads of Maryland, uses the roads of Virginia, and pays no tax whatever toward the improvement and construction of those roads. If the city of Washington was in Virginia or in Maryland the gasoline tax would go to improve the surrounding roads, and it would be beneficial to the citizens of Washington, and they would benefit thereby. But on account of being separated from both Maryland and Virginia, and the gasoline tax not being used for road construction like it is in every other State in the Union, the people of Maryland feel that their roads are used without any compensation and that if the people of the District of Columbia pay a gasoline tax it ought to go toward the construction and improvement of the roads they use. It seems to me that a just solution of the question would be that the gasoline tax when imposed should be divided between Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia for the purpose of improving the roads used by the people who have automobiles and cause a deterioration in the roads by that use. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SWANSON. Certainly. Mr. MCKELLAR. The Senator may be entirely right in his argument. Of that I am not prepared to speak. But does not the contention of the Senator show how necessary it is that the point of order should be sustained and that such a bill should come from the House, when the Senate could amend it in accordance with the Constitution? Mr. SWANSON. I am not discussing the point of order; I am calling the attention of the Senate and the attention of the people of the District of Columbia and the attention of the people of Virginia and the attention of the people of Maryland to the fact that a fair and just solution of the question would be that the gasoline tax when collected ought to be used to improve or construct roads which the owners of the automobiles use. That is done in nearly every State. At this time I am not arguing the point of order, but what I want to do when the time comes is to see if we can not get a fair division of this fund. I believe that the people of Washington would not object if the fund should be used to improve the roads within 25 or 50 miles around Washington which the citizens of Washington use every day. I am sure the people of Virginia and the people of Maryland feel that the citizens of Washington who are taxed for gasoline ought to get some benefit from the tax by the improvement of the roads over which their automobiles go. I simply make this statement in order that the people of Virginia and Maryland and the District of Columbia and the Senate and the House of Representatives may be thinking out what is a fair disposition to make of the gasoline tax. Mr. MCKELLAR. Will the Senator yield again? Mr. SWANSON. Certainly. Mr. MCKELLAR. Then I understand the Senator does not subscribe to the view expressed by the chairman of the District Committee that the gasoline tax ought to be used in lieu of taxation on all automobiles in the District of Columbia? In other words, the present bill, if passed with the amendment that has been suggested, would result in exempting all the automobiles of the District from personal property taxation. I do not believe that any property ought to be exempt from taxation. It is not fair and it is not just. Mr. SWANSON. I have not read the details of the bill; I do not know its features; but I have been thinking of the matter during the last few weeks. I dislike to see the Federal Government departing from the well-established policy of the States that the tax collected from the sale of gasoline used in cars that use the roads should be diverted and used for anything except for the improvement and construction of roads over which those automobiles go. That is the almost universal policy in all the States. Washington is peculiarly situated in that she can not improve the roads outside of Washington. She can not give any assistance to the surrounding States, although she would be glad to do it. Her people are generous and liberal and broadminded, but she can not appropriate money. All of the large cities do aid in the construction of roads immediately surrounding them. If Washington were situated as a part of the political body either of Virginia or Maryland, she would be glad to do it. The only way for her to pay her proper share of the burden in connection with road improvement around Washington is for the gasoline tax to be dedicated for that purpose. Roads in the District of Columbia need improvement because out in the suburbs the roads are used by citizens from the adjoining States when they come into the District. Part of the fund could be properly dedicated for road improvement and construction and repair, and a portion of it used in Washington and the suburbs. In order to carry out the policy of nearly every State in the Union this fund ought to be used for the construction and improvement of roads that the citizens of Washington use. When the question comes up in the Senate I may offer an amendment of that kind. I wish to do what is just to Washington, what is just to Virginia, and what is just to Maryland. It seems to me that this fund could properly be used for the benefit of the two States and the city of Washington in order to eliminate the friction which always exists between those jurisdictions in connection with automobiles which travel mutually in the three communities. It seems to me that Congress ought to deal liberally with Washington in that respect, and allow this fund to be used by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia as the States use such funds, for the improvement of roads within the District, which add to the development and improvement of the city as much as they do to the development and improvement of the immediately surrounding country. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is of the opinion that he has no authority to declare a proposed act unconstitutional. The only precedent which the Chair has been able to find since the question arose was presented to the Senate in 1830, and the Vice President then in the chair ruled in accordance with the suggestion which the Chair has just made, holding that it was a question which must be submitted to the Senate and one which could not be ruled upon by the Chair, which entirely coneurs with the views of the present occupant of the chair in the matter. The question before the Senate. therefore, is, Shall the point of order made by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. MCKELLAR], which is that the bill now under consideration is unconstitutional and should have originated in the House of Representatives, be sustained? [Putting the question.] The " ayes" have it, and the point of order is sustained. The bill will be indefinitely postponed. THE CALENDAR. Mr. LADD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the bill (S. 484) to extend the time for the completion of the construction of a bridge across the Columbia River between the States of Oregon and Washington at or within 2 miles westerly from Cascade Locks in the State of Oregon. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, had we not better proceed in regular order with the calendar? I think it will be better to do so than to take up bills out of order. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will state the next bill in order on the calendar. The bill (S. 987) to extend the time for the completion of the municipal bridge approaches, and extensions or additions thereto, by the city of St. Louis within the States of Illinois and Missouri, was announced as next in order. Mr. JONES of Washington. That bill. I understand, after having passed was restored to the calendar at the request of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. MCKINLEY]. The Senator is not now present, and I therefore suggest that the bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will go over. GEORGE T. TOBIN & SON. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. 130) for the relief of George T. Tobin & Son, which had been reported from the Committee on Claims with an amendment, in line 6, after the words sum of," to strike out "$258.88" and insert "$248.98," so as to make the bill read: Be it enacted, eto., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to George T. Tobin & Son, of New Castle, Del., out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro priated, the sum of $248.98, sald sum being due George T. Tobin & Son for merchandise furnished to the Reedy Island naval station mess during the year 1918. The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. MARION B. PATTERSON. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. 244) for the relief of Marion B. Patterson. Tenn., $20,963, in full compensation for claims on account of It proposes to pay to Marion B. Patterson, of Shelby County, the losses or reduction on salary and allowances sustained by her late husband, Brig. Gen. R. F. Patterson, from January 1, 1898, to May 28, 1906, during which time he was United States consul general at Calcutta, India, through the method of settlement adopted by the United States Government in connection with the fluctuation in the value of the Indian rupee. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. LAND PATENT TO BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. 511) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue patent in fee simple to the board of regents of the University of Arizona, State of Arizona, of Tucson, Ariz., for a certain described tract of land, which had been reported from the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys with an amendment on page 2, at the end of line 12, to insert: And provided further, That the above-described tract of land be purchased by the board of regents of the University of Arizona, at the rate of $1.25 per acre therefor. So as to make the bill read: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Interior be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to issue patent as hereinafter limited to the board of regents of the University of Arizona, State of Arizona, of Tucson, Ariz., for the following-described tract of land, to wit: The southeast quarter of section 29, in township 9 south, range 23 west, of the Gila and Salt River principal meridian in Arizona, said tract of land to be occupied and used solely for educational and investigational purposes: Provided, That there shall be reserved to the United States or its assigns all oil, coal, or other mineral deposits found in the land, and the right to prospect for. mine, and remove the same: Provided further, That this grant of land shall be subject to all prior valid existing rights under the land laws of the United States, and that if the grantee shall fail to use the land for educational or investigational purposes or shall devote the same to other uses the title thereto shall revert to the United States without further action on the part of the United States upon a finding of such failure by the Secretary of the Interior: And provided further, That the abovedescribed tract of land be purchased by the board of regents of the University of Arizona at the rate of $1.25 per acre therefor. The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. read the third time, and passed. BUILDINGS FOR BOTANIC GARDEN. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. 211) to provide for the building of a conservatory and other necessary buildings for the United States Botanic Garden. It proposes to authorize an appropriation of $800,500, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be expended under the supervision of the Joint Committee on the Library, for the building of a conservatory and other necessary buildings for the United States Botanic Garden. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. POWER OR RESERVOIR SITES. The bill (S. 665) to amend section 13, chapter 431, of an act approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. L. p. 855), so as to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue trust and final patents on lands withdrawn or classified as power or reservoir sites. with a reservation of the right of the United States or its permittees to enter upon and use any part of such land for reservoir or power-site purposes, was announced as next in order. Mr. HARRISON. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GERRY], who is temporarily out of the Chamber, would object to that bill if he were present. So I object for him. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WILLIS in the chair). The bill will be passed over. LOUIS LEAVITT. The bill (S. 88) for the relief of Louls Leavitt was announced as next in order, and the bill was read. Mr. REED of Missouri. I will inquire how much is carried by the bill? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is informed that the bill carries an appropriation of $620,623.33. Mr. REED of Missouri. Is there any Senator present who knows anything about it? That is a pretty large sum. Mr. SMOOT. Why not let the bill go over? Mr. REED of Missouri. I do not want to object to the bill, but I should like to know something about an appropriation of that size. Mr. CAPPER entered the Chamber. Mr. REED of Missouri. I understand the Senator from Kansas [Mr. CAPPER] reported the bill. Mr. CAPPER. The bill is in charge of the Senator from New York [Mr. WADSWORTH), who is not here to-day, and I therefore ask that it be passed over. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be passed over. UNITED DREDGING CO. The bill (S. 593) for the relief of the United Dredging Co. was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The bill was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the claim of the United Dredging Co., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the city and State of New York, for damages caused to its plant in the harbor of San Diego, Calif., by the U. S. S. Brant on April 21, 1920, may he sued for and submitted to the United States District Court in and for the Southern District of California, sitting as a court of admiralty and acting under the rules governing such court, and said court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such suit and to enter a judgment or decree for the amount of such damages and costs, if any, as shall be found to be due against the United States in favor of the owners of said dredging plant, or against the owners of said dredging plant in favor of the United States, upon the same principles and measures of liability as in like cases in admiralty between private parties and with the same rights of appeal: Provided, That such notice of the suit shall he given to the Attorney General of the United States as may be provided by order of said court; and it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to cause the United States attorney in such district to appear and defend for the United States: Provided further, That said suit shall be brought and commenced within four months of the date of the passage of this act. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. ETHEL WILLIAMS. The bill (S. 646) for the relief of Ethel Williams was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to appropriate $5,000 to pay Ethel Williams, of Atlanta, Ga., as full compensation for permanent injuries sustained in a motoreyele accident at Camp Gordon, Ga., on May 2, 1920, which was caused by the negligence of a chauffeur driving a motor cycle the property of the United States Army at Camp Gordon, Ga. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, WILLIAM H. LEE. The bill (S. 796) for the relief of William H. Lee was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to William H. Lee. lieutenant commander. United States Navy, $828.29, being the amount of restitution made by him out of his private funds for money stolen from his safe by a man serving under him, for which he was held responsible, while stationed as recruiting officer for the United States Navy in the city of San Francisco, Calif., on December 30, 1920. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. charter value, together with the destruction thereof, of a small steamboat, known as the Paint Rock, taken and used by the United States, and while in their possession accidentally destroyed and never paid for, all while the said C. C. Spiller, deceased, was a loyal citizen of the United States, as evidenced by the findings or report dated June 27, 1864, of a board of claims designated by the commanding officer of the Department of the Cumberland, by Special Field Orders, No. 104, dated April 12, 1864, still of record in the War Department. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. MARGARET NOLAN. The bill (S. 1219) for the relief of Margaret Nolan was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The bill was read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the Veterans' Bureau, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sums required to carry out the provisions of this act, to be disbursed by it as hereinafter directed, in full settlement for personal injuries sustalued by Thomas Nolan on the 28th day of April, 1919, when run down by an ambulance belonging to the United States Army at Third Street and Third Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. The Veterans' Bureau is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the Methodist Episcopal Hospital, of Brooklyn, N. Y., the sum of $150 in full settlement of its claim for the treatment of Thomas Nolan for the injuries above mentioned; to Elliott, Joues, and Fanning, of 215 Montague Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., the sum of $150 in full settlement of all charges and claims for services in connection with the claim for the above mentioned injuries; to Margaret Nolan, of 369 Hoyt Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., the sum of $350 in full settlement of all claims for disbursement and loss in connection with the injuries to her son, above mentioned; and to Margaret Nolan, the mother of Thomas Nolan, the sum of $25 per month for a period of 99 months, to be used in aiding the said Thomas Nolan to secure a practical education. If for any reason it should become impossible or impractical to make such payments to the mother before the last amount above provided shall have been paid for the benefit of the said Thomas Nolan, then the Veterans' Bureau shall make the payments to the legal guardian of the said Thomas Nolan. The Veterans' Bureau may require such reports as it may deem proper to show the money paid is being properly used for the education of the boy as intended, and may suspend payment for want of such reports. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. J. B. GLANVILLE AND OTHERS. The hill (S. 1253) to reimburse J. B. Glanville and others for losses and damages sustained by them through the negligent dipping of tick-infested cattle by the Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of Agriculture, was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas ury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $105.25 to J. B. Glanville; the sum of $60 to R. Pendergraft; the sum of $205 to Daniel H. Mehl: the sum of $350 to E. C. Stockebrand; the sum of $1.193 to Albert Matti; the sum of $80 to Fred Beine; the sum of $100 to George M. Miller; the sum of $70 to R. F. Morton; the sum of $9,102.98 to George F. Shotwell; the sum of $100 to Romain Gurley; the sum of $3.740.54 to W. F. Huntsinger; the sum of $662.79 to Arthur Letts; the sum of $7.080.74 to James Dobbs; the sum of $36,198.60 to MeCready, Shroyer & Gafford; the sum of $3,106.20 to Pet Nation: the sum of $52.528.31 to Fred Nation; the sum of $13.960 10 Carl Nation; the sum of $19,987.56 to Nation & Berns; the sum of $4,743.10 to Donaldson & Barker; the sum of $15.039.91 to Charles II. Giddings; the sum of $2,446.05 to F. L. Giddings; the sum of $278 to June Williams; the sum of $1.112.53 to F. Wesley Barker: the sum of $9,587.98 to T. M. Stribling: the sum of $5,885.37 to Whittington & Sweeney; the sum of $12,830.16 to Crocker, Robb & Kitzelman: the sum of $26,841.56 to Hudelson & Crocker Bros.; the sum of $12.966.30 to Hudelson, Whittington & Crocker Bros.; the sum of $4.261.44 to Clay & Easiey; the sum of $152.49 to G. F. Brough: the sum of $6,445.04 to Rube Allen; the sum of $482.26 to Robert L.. Wood; in all the sum of $251,703.16, for losses and damages sustained by them through the negligence of the veterinary inspectors employed by the Bureau of Animal Industry, Department of Agriculture, in their failure to properly dip 4.231 head of Texas cattle that were shipped from Fort Worth stockyards in April, 1919, by Fred Nation to Kansas, where they infested the native Kansas cattle with the Texas fever tick. Said ums to be paid to each of the above-named parties in full for all losses and damages so sustained by them. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. CITY OF BALTIMORE, MD. The bill (S. 1761) to reimburse the city of Baltimore, State of Maryland, for moneys expended to aid the United States in the construction of works of defense during the Civil War, was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the city of Baltimore, State of Maryland, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $173,073.60, expended by said city in carrying out the request of Maj. Gen. R. C. Schenck, United States Army, to aid the United States in the construction of works of defense in and around the city of Baltimore on account of the Civil War. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS. Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, I desire to give notice that to-morrow morning, following the morning business, I shall speak on agricultural conditions and the Norris-Sinclair and McNary bills as remedies for the situation. DEBT OF FRANCE TO THE UNITED STATES. Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, the most important subject, from a domestic standpoint, at least, now before the country is that of lifting a part of the tax burden which now rests upon the American people. It is not only an important subject, but it is one of the most difficult subjects with which Congress has to deal. It seems more difficult for Congress to reduce expenses, cut out bureaus, abolish unnecessary offices than any other task with which it has to deal. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, if the Senator from Idaho will yield to me, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is suggested. The Secretary will call the roll. | materials $407,341,145.01, making a total of $3,990,657,605.64, In round numbers, France at this time owes us, we might say, $4,000,000,000. Upon page 2 of the Secretary's letter are given certain items noted as items of payment upon this debt. I desire to say in regard to those, in order that they may not be misunderstood, these items which are designated as payments are only adjustments. For instance, the letter says: Items Nos. 1 to 8 in the above schedule of payments constitute in reality the result of final adjustments of accounts. To explain this more fully, in certain instances where a credit had been established or an advance had been made to the Government of France for some purpose, and the total amount of the credit or advance was not required, the balance of the credit was withdrawn or the unused portion of the advance was repaid and credited in part as a payment on account of the principal. Items Nos. 6 and 7 are commented upon in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury for the fiscal year 1920, page 58. Items Nos. 9 and 10 represent claims of the French Government against the United States Railroad Administration. The checks for these amounts due to the French Government at the times the claims were liquidated were indorsed over to the Treasury and credited as a payment on account of principal of the obligations of the French Government. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, no part of the principal and no interest upon this French debt has been paid since its creation. Some five years have gone by since this debt was created, but not only has no part of it been paid, but when you consider the record as a whole and take the situation as it really exists there has been a declination upon the part of the French Government even to adjust its payment. There is every indication, in other words, that the French Government is not only declining to meet the payment even of the interest, or any portion of it, but is declining to make such an adjustment as a debtor acting in good faith would naturally desire to make in order to meet its obligations. The circumstances under which this debt was incurred are still fresh in the memories of all of us, as are the assurances The roll was called, and the following Senators answered which were given and the understanding which was had at the Johnson, Minn. Jones, N. Mex. Owen Sterling Walsh, Mass. Weller Willis The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy Senators having answered their names, a quorum is present. Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, the subject of tax reduction and the curtailment of the national expenditures gives evidence already of presenting some difficulties in the way of accomplishing any real results. One of the features of the question of national expenditures and the reduction of taxes is that of our foreign debts. The taxpayer is not only carrying the burdens of his own Government, but things have so come about that he is carrying the burdens of foreign governments; and if we are in earnest, as I assume we are, and if we realize the tremendous burden of taxes now resting upon the people of the United States and its effect, as I assume we do, we will not overlook the necessity of adjusting in some way our foreign debts. Indeed, Mr. President, in my opinion, we are confronting a repudiation of the debts upon the part of foreign governments, with the exception of one or possibly two governments. There is unmistakable evidence coming not only from the press of foreign governments but from the men high in public authority in these governments that these debts are not to be paid. I am only going to deal to-day with the debt of one of these countries, and that is the debt due us from France, although there are other governments whose attitudes in regard to this subject might just as well be discussed as that of France, and undoubtedly they will be discussed later. According to a letter which I received from the Secretary of the Treasury under date of December 8, 1923, France at this time owes as the principal of the obligation $2.933,265,231.96, and there is now due upon it in the way of accumulated interest $650,051,228.67, and there is due for the sale of surplus war time. No one would have thought for a moment that there would have been any such view of the debt at any time as now seems to prevail in France, or such an attitude toward its payment as now seems to obtain. When we recall the statements made at the time and the statements made now we are forced to conclude that good faith in this transaction is imperiled. While of course nominally this amount is due to the Government of the United States, as a matter of fact it is an amount due to the taxpayers of the United States. We had no money and had no means of loaning except through the benevolence and the aid and the assistance of the taxpayers. We recall very well indeed how men were besought, how they were even driven, under circumstances which they thought were most adverse to them, to buy Liberty bonds in order to make this loan, and in considering this debt we can only consider it as a debt due to the taxpayers of the United States. We ought to be just as anxious and just as vigilant for the collection of the debt and as insistent upon its adjustment as we were in bringing the taxpayers to the attitude of mind where they were willing to lend this money to foreign governments. I read in the press dispatches a statement from Loucheur, in which he says: Americans, especially the American people who are hardest to convince, must know that their war debts can not be recovered. As we know, this gentleman is one of the most prominent men in the political and financial life of France. He said further: No system permitting the payment of the interallied debt can be created. Annulment of the war debt is, fatally, necessary. America will be forced to realize this sooner or later. It is an illusion to think that the war credits can be recovered. |