pensation for the soldiers, we need money for all sorts of purposes, and here you have a chance to save the income on $3,000,000, and I am sure that gentlemen on the other side of the aisle who are so strong for economy will vote for this measure and sustain the committee. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HILL of Maryland. Oh, I shall answer the gentleman's question before he asks it. It is true that I differ from the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON], in charge of this bill, on certain matters, but that has nothing to do with this. This is a straight matter of economy. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to answer a question? Mr. HILL of Maryland. I am sorry, but I have no time. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. SUMMERS]. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. RICHARDS]. [Applause.] Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my first appearance, and important to me because of that fact, and, secondly, on account of the vital interest of my people in the matter before the committee. Mr. BLANTON. Is the balance of the gentleman's delegation with him on this question? Mr. RICHARDS. I wish to say the balance of the delegation-the whip and chairman of the delegation--are all here and present before the committee and in strict accord. Now, I might be presumptuous in taking issue with the noted chairman of the Committee on Appropriations [Mr. MADDEN]. I do not yield in Americanism to any man. I want to legislate for America and Americans, but I do think that he is mistaken in his position when he accuses us of taking issue with the committee on facts. I want to state right now that there is a disagreement as to the facts. My limited experience before this body has taught me that we get nowhere by force. We have no business demanding anything; we may not be any better off with persuasion, but I do feel that you good American men and women, when a real emergency exists and you have the facts recommending proper legislation, will legislate for the good of your fellow Americans. You are the judges of those facts as well as his committee. I want to inform you I have a peculiar State to represent. I hold a unique position as a Member of this body. I can not help but recall an allusion made by my friend from Florida, wherein he brought in a figure of speech as to an apple pie, and when the good Lord cut off a slice for Nevada I desire to say that if it came out of the same pie Florida came from, my friends, Florida got all the apples and Nevada got the crust-hard-baked alkali and sage brush for trimmings. [Applause.] Now, the State occupies a unique position in the scheme of things that goes to make up this great Government. It is different from any other State politically, economically, industrially, geographically, and topographically. Our people are of the highest type mentally, morally, and socially. They are the vanguard of the only remaining frontier section of our country. Mr. SUMMERS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this question has been very well presented by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. SINNOTT] and others in its legal phases, and they have shown that the President of the United States and the Commissioner of the General Land Office have ample authority to act in all of these cases where the offices should be closed. I want to consider this with you for just two or three minutes as a business proposition. Let us forget politics; let us forget the fanciful suggestions that large sums of money will be saved by closing these offices. I do not believe that there will be any considerable sum saved for the Public Treasury. I am very certain that for every dollar that is saved to the Public Treasury some poor homesteader is going to pay out two or three or four dollars in transacting necessary business with the office. Suppose any one of you were in the position of a large landowner, as is the United States. Let me take one office as an illustration; and many others are in a similar situation. Take the office at Yakima, Wash. Two years ago they consolidated the offices of register and receiver and now have one official in charge. We will say that was in the interest of economy. Let us consider that one official as a real-estate agent for the United States, just as he might be acting for any great landowner. He had 186 customers that he actually transacted business for during the year; and I do not mean that many merely came into his office and had conversation with him, but he actually transacted business and closed up deals with 186 customers during the year. He made preliminary contracts on 56,000 acres, and he closed up on 19,000 additional acres. He issued deeds or patents to 73,000 acres, and he has 194,000 acres yet to sell-yet to close Would any business man operating a real-estate office who had 194,000 acres yet to dispose of close that office? And when no other office is being maintained closer than 150 miles from there? And when it would cost every prospective customer at least $25 to go and talk the matter over and get the necessary information to become a possible settler on those lands? up. Mr. SEARS of Florida. Will my colleague yield? Mr. SEARS of Florida. The gentleman from Maryland said that if we abolished these offices we would save $102,000. Let me call attention to the fact that the present bill increases the appropriation for the General Land Office in Washington for personal services here in Washington $167,850, or $65,000 more than what the gentleman from Maryland claims would be paid. Time will not permit my going into detail as to the particular thoughts I possess, but some day I hope to add to the entertainment of the Members of this House in reference to Nevada and the history of that State and carry you from the time of its severance from the then great Territory of Utah to the modern law of severance now promulgated in my home town of Reno, Nev., where we administer to the ills of those troubled with domestic infelicity, to the great joy, happiness, and comfort of those most intimately concerned and to the great discontent and dissatisfaction of the modern reformer. Mr. BLANTON. Some of the sojourners in Florida go to the gentleman's State once in a while. Mr. RICHARDS. The gentleman is taking up my time. Because I have a peculiar State, surrounded by peculiar conditions, I am satisfied I will oftentimes appear before this body to ask an exception to the rule rather than the rule itself, and if I do and I at times appear peculiar I hope you will overlook the fact, because I am only a son of the sagebrush soil and as their patriot interested in a handful of people which goes to make up that Commonwealth of 77,000 souls. In this connection I want to draw your attention to another feature, as far as my representation is concerned in this. I represent more public land and less people than any Member of this body, and in connection with that I want to say, and coincident with it, that these public lands in the present state of development are the worst public lands that God ever made, while I think the people I represent are the best that God ever made. [Applause.] Now for the Elko land office situation. The following is a table showing public-land States, together with their respective holdings. Attention is called to Nevada: Kansas. Mr. SUMMERS of Washington. Let me say to my friend I attach no particular weight to the statement that we should close these offices in the various States and bring this business to Washington. Every Member of Congress here knows that is constantly urged. The effort is being made to concentrate all the business of the United States here in Washington. [Applause.] Now, are we going to assist in building up this great bureaucracy here in the city of Washington, or are we going to keep this business out where it is being actually transacted, where the people can see the land, have personal conference with the one with whom they must transact their business? It seems to me that considering this strictly as a business proposition and not influenced by oratory and loud talking and the charge of pork barrel raid on the Treasury and charges of that kind, that are being made here to-day to influence votes, that you are going to retain all of these offices that have any considerable amount of business yet to transact in their respective districts. You are going to retain them instead of closing them up and making it necessary for the poor homesteader to have to transact his business 2,000 or 3,000 Washington. miles away and subject to all the delays that we know are going to follow. Gentlemen, consider it, I say, as a business proposition and vote accordingly. [Applause.] Wisconsin. Oklahoma Alabama. Montana_ Colorado.. Acres. 2,842 5, 014 9,084 19. 216 29,685 36, 940 37, 100 87,058 97, 851 112, 936 193, 023 275, 026 278, 352 1, 184, 588 5. 908, 156 7,753, 129 10, 040, 912 13, 677, 583 Nevada contains nearly one-third of the total public-lands acreage in the United States. Elko office has jurisdiction over 18,538,443 acres, one-tenth of the total public lands of the Government. Jurisdiction of Elko office embraces the following counties: All of Elko, all of Eureka, all of Lander, all of White Pine, part of Nye, and part of Lincoln. Serving an area of 40,000 square miles, this office has become a cherished business asset to the people of this section of my State. It is a part and parcel of the economic structure of things and essential from all angles as much as their post office. Deprive my people thereof and you bring upon them great inconvenience, suffering, both in a physical and financial way, and retarding the State in its development. Should you abolish this office you sweep into the office at Carson City a mass of applications and contests foreign to its territory and far removed from the scene of activity. The officials would be unfamiliar with the matters litigant, to say nothing of the additional inconvenience and expense to the claimants from a viewpoint of prohibitive cost. This would result ofttimes in disaster to all parties concerned and great detriment to our State. A miscarriage of justice is easily conceivable under such circumstances, because the rightful claimant might be unable to finance a showing before the proper official and thereby be deprived of his rights by one otherwise not entitled thereto. There are but two land offices in the State of Nevada, the one in question serving over 18,000,000 acres and one in Carson City serving over 34,000,000 acres. They are over 300 miles apart, the railroad expense between Elko and Carson City being about $25, and the overland travel is upon the roughest of roads. The people situated farther east, north, and south of Elko must of necessity suffer additional hardship of a similar nature. Why deprive my people of this governmental function that does not cost our country a cent? I say this in the face of the fact that the argument is made by our opponents to the effect that the Government is being deprived of its land and not being properly remunerated therefor. The land in my State is absolutely worthless without the hand of man, and the Government should encourage entry upon such lands, thereby bringing into existence taxable wealth, a home for an American citizen, and more people and more prosperity for our section. Again, this is a governmental policy and should not be measured by the dollar rule. If you could but see the condition and the service the Elko office renders, the paternal hand of the Government would be extended rather than withdrawn. Compare my request to the cost and the loss to the Government in the instances of a bombing and scrapping of an obsolete battleship. I do not take opposition to such things. It may be good business conducive to good government and proper protection to our people, but compare the difference in the results of the dollar spent. The fighting ram is a loss to start with covering an expenditure of millions, an engine of war created for the purpose of exterminating our fellow men, while the dollar spent in assisting a homesteader to make a home for himself and family is not only conducive to good citizenship and a building from within that is just as essential as protection from without, but it is a living asset of happiness and wealth to our people for all time and a monument to good government. Give us the price of a few battleships and we shall make a desert a blooming paradise, creating millions of wealth and homes for thousands of people. Consider the public funds for rivers and harbors. No one objects to this. It is a governmental policy in conserving and We all contribute to the same protecting its natural resources. willingly. The Government has no desire to commercially exploit the same for its welfare, but does this big thing for the good and welfare of its people. This is as it should be. I appeal to you men to forget politics and to vote for this amendment. To you of the Democratic side I appeal most ardently to reflect upon your inherent Democratic faith. There is not one of you who has not sworn allegiance to foster and approve legislation that is beneficial to the under man. My colleagues on the other side of the House are forever asserting their desires and ambitions to legislate for the good and welfare of their fellow American. This is an opportunity for all. appeal to all of you in whom the teachings and the spirit of the Nazarene has permeated your soul in the slightest degree to exemplify that Great Emancipator and evidence those teachings by doing a little charity for a handful of people in a section of our country who are in need of it. I The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Nevada has expired. Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission that the gentleman from Nevada may extend his remarks in the RECORD. Mr. RICHARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that permission. I am only a suckling in this aggregation of intellect, virtue, and sobriety, but I expect some day to absorb those charming human characteristics to any extent that I am not now possessed of them. [Laughter and applause.] Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we represent the affirmative. I thought the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON] should conclude. The CHAIRMAN. It is customary that the gentleman in charge of the bill shall have the opportunity of closing. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. COLLIER] five minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for five minutes. Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the House, I think I can with some truth say that in the 15 years that I have served as a Member of this House I have been to a large extent an advocate of economy. But I believe, my friends, in a common-sense economy, an economy that brings about economy. We have heard it stated here time and time again during this discussion that a saving of $170,000 would be brought about by the abolition of these offices. I deny it. I deny that it will save half of that sum. I deny it because if work done heretofore at these local offices is to be transferred elsewhere and done at other places it will require additional forces elsewhere, and therefore I deny that it will produce a saving. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not basing my objection to the pending paragraph of the bill on the ground of economy. I think this debate itself well shows that economy is very much a local I have sat here all day and heard my good friend from Texas [Mr. BLANTON] declaim about economy. Gentlemen, I wish to say we are fortunate enough to have engaged in a new industry in and about the vicinity of Elko ; namely, that of prospecting for oil by drilling, together with the extraction of that commodity from oil shale. Every confidence is had and every hope held out for producing wells, in which event the Elko oflice will be a boon to my people, as well as a source of great income to the Government. The produc-issue. tion of oil from oil shale is passing through the experimental stages; wonderful results have been accomplished; and from latest information I obtained people are confident that it will soon be a practical industry, which, again, will renew the activities of the Elko office to the great benefit of our Government. We possess mountains of shale within our public lands. Always keep in mind that it is at present serving a pioneering and deserving people of the farming and mining world. In fact, they are pioneering in every activity nature has favored us with. It is known as a State of few people and magnificent distances, which shows we are still pioneering. Yet I heard it stated here to-day that he had introduced into this House in one day a number of public building bills at a proposed cost that would run the Jackson land office for a century and a quarter, even if it never took in a cent of receipts. But the Jackson office turned into the Public Treasury last year about $4,000. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. CARTER, a man whom I not only regard with friendship, but with affection, threatens this House, and issues an ultimatum, and says that any Democrat who votes against this item in the bill will be estopped forever from coming back here and talking state in each case how much it cost during the last fiscal year to operate the office and then what were the receipts. Now, I want to emphasize this: That when we speak of receipts we are not talking about fees for the service performed; we are and voting for economy. And then he takes up all the remainder of his time in explaining why he had helped to take land offices out of other men's States and had left one in the State of Oklahoma. Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for talking about all the receipts that come into the office, every a question? Mr. COLLIER. Yes; I yield. Mr. CARTER. Does not the gentleman know that when I first came to Congress there were seven land offices in Oklahoma, and that all of them have been discontinued except one, and that has been consolidated? [Applause.] Mr. COLLIER. I will let the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON] do the applauding on that statement. Now, gentleman. I want to say another thing, and say it sincerely and from the bottom of my heart. I regret very much that this great Appropriations Committee of 35, clothed with more power than a few years ago was thought possible for the House ever to give-I regret to see that on every bill which they introduce they encroach upon the jurisdiction of other committees, and to-day they are encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Public Lands. [Applause.] I have not the time, in the limited time as my disposal, to go into the land-office situation in my own State in detail. I only refer to the law in force to-day that provides that even when the acreage of the public land is under 100,000 there should be one land office situated in that State. What are you going to do? Are you going to abolish a land office that has been in existence for over 100 years? What are you going to do with the records for that period? Are you going to pile up those records and send them to Washington, when in doing that some of them may be lost or destroyed? Talk about economy! Everyone has access to the records at Jackson, and they can go and look at those records, while if this change is made they will have to come to Washington or else consult a lawyer here in the city of Washington. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. The gentleman from Michigan has 15 minutes remaining. dollar taken into the till, whether it was the price of land sold, and whether the money represented returns from leases. For instance, paralleling my friend's illustration, if I owned a million acres of land scattered over the West, and in Nevada I had an agent who was costing everything he got for the land which he sold for me, everything he got for any leases of land and then 50 per cent more; how much longer would I keep that agency? [Applause.] I would give somebody the land rather than to maintain the agency, and I suppose that would meet with wide response in the West. Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, General Lord, the Budget commissioner, a few months ago said to me that when a budget commissioner became popular it was time to get a new budget commissioner. And on the same principle I believe that when the time ever comes when the Committee on Appropriations is really popular it will be time to get a new Committee on Appropriations. In the abstract everybody is for economy. In the concrete nearly everybody is for economy in the other fellow's State. But when it comes to abolishing an office in our district that is a different thing entirely. That is why there is all this fuss. Mr. SUMMERS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMTON. Yes; for a brief question. Mr. SUMMERS of Washington. It must be remembered that these agents are selling no land, but that these are homesteaders with whom they are dealing, and they are only collecting a small fee from them. Mr. CRAMTON. Well, that is more or less true. But the Yakima office, for which the gentleman is appealing, took in a total of $5,734, and the cost to operate the office was $6,233, 109 per cent of all its receipts. During the last fiscal year the earnings of the Montgomery, Ala., office were $6,000 plus, and the expenses $5,259, 87 per cent. But the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HILL] comes here with the picture of a check, not in that fiscal year but in this one. That check represented the income received by the Government for coal leases and was for $87,000. Now, that $87,000 would have come into the Treasury just the same if that office had been abolished. That office has nothing to do with the supervision of leases and it gives no care to them except to acknowledge receipt of a check when it comes; it could just as well have gone direct to the Washington office. After I saw the gentleman's picture of a check I called up the Land Office and asked them about that particular thing, because the committee has tried not to be arbitrary about this and is always ready to receive information. I asked the Land Office whether that land-leasing proposition justified the retention of that office, whether there was anything in it to make any difference, but I could get no expression from the Land Office to indicate that that gave any reason for the continuance of the oflice. Now the Committee on Appropriations simply acted upon their best judgment in the light of the best information they have. They bring the bill into this House, and it is not a personal matter with the committee what action the Committee of the Whole takes. I would not ask anyone here to vote with this subcommittee as a favor to us. I only ask that you weigh the facts and keep in mind the nation-wide demand for economy. And understand that economy is not secured alone by saving millions, but in saving thousands as well when the chance presents itself. [Applause.] Now what is the situation? This committee has been studying this matter for two or three years. Two years ago we eliminated such offices as we could. Last year we took out two or three more, and this year we have recommended to the House the abolishment of the offices that seem to have the least excuse for continued existence. My friend from Nevada [Mr. RICHARDS] glorified his State as the State of divorce. My friend RICHARDS ought to be in favor of this bill. It is a bill to divorce a lot of politicians from their jobs. [Laughter and applause.] Mr. RICHARDS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMTON. The gentleman does not advocate divorces? Mr. RICHARDS. I do not advocate the divorcing of Republican officials from jobs if it is not going to be a benefit to the people of the community they are serving. Now, in Arkansas my friend has made an argument for the continuance of Harrison. There will remain two offices in Arkansas if the action of the committee is concurred in. Mr. CRAMTON. I realize the gentleman's position. One gentleman, my friend from Washington, Doctor SUMMERS, made an appeal to have this considered as a business proposition, as a business matter, and he told about some office which had three customers a week, and he appealed to us. He said "As long as things are as they are, why should you not continue these offices? If you were the owner of a lot of land, would you not continue your agents?" Not a minute would you continue any of these offices if it was your land because here is what it does, and this House has not had it explained to it. I am going to read to you the figures about these various offices Harrison cost last year 122 per cent of the total receipts. In Colorado, Lamar cost only 54 per cent, and that would seem to be a good office to continue, but the total acreage is only 3,528, about one-sixth of a township. Mr. HARDY. But the gentleman knows there are a couple hundred thousand acres filed on and which have not yet completed the patenting process. Mr. CRAMTON. That may be, but it may also be true that they are going to give them up. Mr. HARDY. The gentleman does not think they are going to give them up, does he? Mr. CRAMTON. Of course, I do not know that positively. The other office, Sterling, has under its supervision 7,583 acres unentered and unappropriated, and that office costs 136 per cent of the revenues to maintain it. Mr. McDUFFIE. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McDUFFIE. Did the subcommittee try to ascertain or figure on how many additional clerks or office men it would take in Washington to do the work if these offices are abolished? Mr. CRAMTON. Yes. If I am not interrupted too much I will come to that. Now, take the office at Gainesville, Fla. It costs 53 per cent, and there are something less than four townships of land available for entry in that State. Topeka, Kans, 2,842 acres, or about one-eighth of a township, yet available. and it costs 184 per cent of the revenues to maintain it. Let me emphasize to you the pork-barrel nature of the amendment offered by my friend from Florida [Mr. CLARK]. His amend ment proposes not only to save his office but it proposed to save the one in Topeka, Kans., as well, because the only way this kind of a movement can ever get by is for everybody to stick together and save all alike. So it is a regular pork-barrel proposition. Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLANTON. With reference to what my colleague from Texas said as to receipts, is it not a fact that all of the offices which we seek to abolish brought in only $133,000 in revenue? Mr. CRAMTON. I will have that figure in a moment; yes. Louisiana, we have heard from them. They have 9,000 acres, less than half a township, and it costs 99 per cent of the revenues to maintain it. The office at Cass Lake, Minn., I will say to my friend, the former whip, required 95 per cent of the revenues to maintain. Mississippi, Jackson, we just heard an appeal about. There are 19,000 acres, less than a township, with 58 per cent of the revenues to maintain it. Mr. KNUTSON. Will the gentleman yield? Why does not the gentleman give the acreage in the Cass Lake office? Mr. CRAMTON. Well, I do not know that it helps the Treasury very much to have two or three hundred thousand acres of swamp land that nobody is going to enter upon. Since the gentleman is on his feet, I will tell why I do not pay much attention to the acreage in connection with Cass Lake. The report shows that of the five counties in the district that have any acreage, there are Beltrami and Cass, where it is said to be "generally swampy." Then there is ItascaMr. KNUTSON. I challenge that statement. Mr. CRAMTON. I am just reading the official report of the Land Office. Koochiching "swampy, but generally timbered "; then there is Hubbard, "agricultural," 240 acres. And I have done my friend an injustice, there is also Itasca County, 840 acres, "agricultural." There is a total of 1,080 acres of agricultural land left in that district unentered. Mr. SNYDER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SNYDER. In that connection, I might suggest we have Just sent a million dollars up there to those people so the land can not be worth very much anyhow. Mr. KNUTSON. That was for the Indians. Mr. CRAMTON. I am sorry I can not yield further. My time is about up and I think you need this further information. I can not go through this in detail. The full details appear on pages 102 to 106 of the hearings. Amendment offered by Mr. BLACK of Texas: Page 12, line 17, strike out the words "Montgomery, Alabama," and in line 18 strike, out the words "Gainesville, Florida." The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLACK]. The question was taken, and the amendment was rejected. Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to perfect the text. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan offers a preferential amendment, which the Clerk will report. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. CRAMTON: Page 12, lines 10 and 11, strike out the words "and Sacramento," and on page 12, line 21, strike out strike out the words "Alliance and " before the word "Lincoln." Mr BLANTON. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. That would leave in the bills the names of the States where those them in, I presume. towns are situated. The gentleman does not want to leave It is charged there is to be no saving in this proposition. One gentleman has said that by reason of this economy in the field we have added many thousand dollars to the appropria- the words "Great Falls and" before the word " Kalispell," and also tion here in the District. I say to you that we have not added one penny to the bill in the District by reason of these economies in the field. I say to you further that after the committee made up the list of offices that were to be abolished and to be consolidated we called in Mr. Bond, of the Land Office, and asked him what would be the savings we could make in the bill; and I have them listed here. It runs a little better than $100,000 that the Land Office says will be the saving from this action. Further, if you check up the 21 offices that are to be abolished, you will find the total receipts of the 21 offices-that is, all the land fees, the leases, and everythingamount to $132,949 and the expenses $115.000. Mr. ALLGOOD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMTON. So that practically everything taken in for the 21 offices was paid out, and there is one feature of that to remember, if my friend will pardon me a moment; that $132,000 did not go into the Treasury of the United States. These land offices are in the main supported out of the Treasury itself, because 90 per cent of that $132,000 went into the reclamation fund and in other funds to the States themselves and only onetenth, $13.000, went into the Treasury and $115,000 went out of the Treasury to maintain these 21 offices. Mr. ALLGOOD. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMTON. I will yield for a very brief question only. Mr. ALLGOOD. Very well. You say there is no additional expense by moving this work to the city of Washington. If you are doing this for the sake of economy, why did you not, in your bill, do away with all the offices? Mr. CRAMTON. I will tell you frankly that if I could have my way I would go further than we did in this bill. Mr. ALLGOOD. Why did you not recommend that? Mr. CRAMTON. I am trying to get something accomplished and offer something that will go through. I knew I could not get by with a sled-length proposition like that. Here is the situation as to the saving. The Land Office has contemplated transfers of clerks from an abolished office to a neighboring office where the business will go. Mr. ALLGOOD. Will the gentleman yield for another question? Mr. CRAMTON. In just a moment. The savings that we report are the net savings as figured by the Land Office, keeping in view the necessary transfer of some land-office clerks. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. STENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I move the time of the gentleman be extended two minutes, in order that I may ask him a question. Mr. CRAMTON. There are other offices in those States. For what purpose does the gentleman rise? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment and the gentleman may follow it in the bill, because it is perfecting the original text. would appear if it was adopted. Mr. CLARK of Florida. amendment be read as it would appear if adopted. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida asks that the objection, the Clerk will so read the text. Without I was asking that it be read as it Mr. BLANTON. I object, Mr. Chairman. We can understand the elimination of those three words. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard and the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. WINGO. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that it is not only proper to read the amendment, but to read the text as it would read if the amendment was adopted. Mr. BLANTON. The gentleman would be correct if the amendment had not been once reported. Having been once reported by the Clerk, the gentleman's point of order is not well taken except it can be done by unanimous consent. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the amendment was read when offered, and without objection it will be again reported. Is there objection? There was no objection. Page 12, lines 10 and 11, strike out the words "and Sacramento." Page 12, line 21, strike out the words "Great Falls." Also strike out the words "Alliance and." Mr. COLLIER. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. COLLIER. Did the agreement as to the extension of time refer to all amendments to the paragraph? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed that it covered the paragraph and all amendments thereto. Mr. WINGO. Does the Chair rule that the House has no right to have the full report show how the text would read with the amendment adopted? The CHAIRMAN. It is in the power of the House, but until otherwise ordered the Clerk will report the amendment. Mr. WINGO. What is the object in preventing the House from knowing what it is voting on? The CHAIRMAN. The committee can do it at any time. Mr. WINGO. Then I move that the Clerk read the text as it would read if the amendment was adopted. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas moves that the Clerk read the text as it would read as amended by the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON]. The motion was agreed to. The Clerk read as follows: Registers and receivers: For salaries and commissions of registers of district land offices and receivers of public moneys at district land offices, at not exceeding $3,000 per annum each, $232,000: Provided, That the offices of the registers and receivers at the following land offices are hereby consolidated, and the applicable provisions of the act approved October 28, 1921, shall be followed in effecting such consolidations: Little Rock, Ark.; Eureka, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Hailey and Blackfoot, Idaho; Bozeman, Mont.; Las Cruces, Roswell, and Fort Sumner, N. Mex.; Burns, La Grande, and Vale, Oreg.; and Rapid City, S. Dak.: Provided further, That the following land offices and the offices of register and receiver thereat are hereby abolished, effective not later than July 1, 1924: Montgomery, Ala.; Harrison, Ark.; Lamar and Sterling, Colo.; Gainesville, Fla.; Lewiston, Idaho; Topeka, Kans.; Baton Rouge, La.; Marquette, Mich.; Cass Lake, Minn.; Jackson, Miss.; Kalispell, Mont.; Lincoln, Nebr.; Elko, Nev.; Clayton, N. Mex.; Dickinson, N. Dak.; Vancouver and Yakima, Wash.; and Wausau, Wis. Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I think Gainesville, Fla., ought to be included in the amendment. Mr. CRAMTON. I will accept that. Mr. JOHNSON of Washington. I make the same suggestion in regard to Vancouver. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma make the motion? There is one amendment to the text, and only one other can be offered. Mr. CARTER. I move to amend by adding Gainesville, Fla. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment by Mr. CARTER to the amendment of Mr. CRAMTON: In line 18, page 12, strike out the words "Gainesville, Fla." The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the | amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CRAMTON) there were 75 ayes and 88 noes. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CRAMTON]. The question was taken, and the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CLARK] to the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. SINNOTT], and the Clerk will again report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment by Mr. CLARK of Florida: Amend the Sinnott amendment by striking out the second proviso. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amendment to the amendment. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CLARK of Florida) there were 88 ayes and 83 noes. Mr. CRAMTON. I ask for tellers. Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed as tellers Mr. CRAMTON and Mr. CLARK of Florida. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported that there were 139 ayes and 109 noes. So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon as amended by the amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. CLARK]. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CLARK of Florida) there were 99 ayes and 83 noes. So the amendment of Mr. SINNOTT as amended was agreed to. Mr. CRAMTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment which I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: The CHAIRMAN. The question is on agreeing to the amend ment. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. CRAMTON) there were-ayes 125, noes 25. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD on the matter that we have been discussing by inserting therein an article from one of the Jackson papers. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD by inserting therein a certain article from a newspaper. Is there objection? Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is this article of a political nature? Mr. COLLIER. It is on this land business, and it is not very long. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. UNDERHILL. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman if it is his own composition or something else? Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request and ask unanimous consent to extend my own remarks in the RECORD. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? TAX-EXEMPT SECURITIES-PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I have the honor to present House Joint Resolution No. 147, which I hope may have your earnest consideration, and, omitting the formal opening, it reads as follows: The United States shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income derived from any securities issued by or under the authority of the United States or any State before or after the ratification of this article whenever said income so derived shall exceed the sum of $12,500 per annum. If this proposed amendment to the Constitution should finally be adopted by the people, the holders of the great fortunes invested in tax-exempt securities will at once be encouraged to begin paying taxes on them or sell them and invest their money in some way more conducive to the maintenance and extension of general business. This is the purpose of all the proposed taxing laws now before us, and I am able positively to assure you that that end will be reached at once whenever this shall go into effect. It will absolutely solve and dispose of that gigantic problem which is wracking the country from cellar to garret and threatening the prosperity and perhaps the existence of our republican, self-governing civilization. There has been some criticism of it offered by the suggestion that it is retroactive taxation. I have taken full cognizance of the seriousness of that suggestion and met that difficulty. Under this plan no change will be made concerning incomes of $12,500 and less. The improvement will be entirely with regard to taxes on incomes above $12.500, but there will be no change in the taxing attitude toward incomes of $12,500 or less. Those people of small means or moderate means or ordinary fortunes have invested their hard-won dollars in these State, county, municipal, and Federal tax-exempt securities and, in my judgment, it would be very unjust and wholly unnecessary to cast any further burden of taxation on those people. We are out to reach the great fortunes and great incomes and there is absolutely no other way proposed that will make them taxable, but that does not compel us to shift burdens onto smaller people who already are carrying as great a load as they possibly can, I do not wish to increase the taxes of men who already pay their just share, which great fortunes do not. If we should undertake to compel everybody to either begin payment of taxes on those bonds or sell them, such vast quantities would be thrown on a market without any resources as would cripple the business of the country and lose us millions and millions of dollars. I should be against that unnecessary violence. Furthermore, if this should become the law of the land, the States, the cities, the counties, and the Government could still avoid the tremendous increase of their debts which would follow an attempt to put all these bonds under additional taxes. If, however, we permit these bonds to be held in amounts as large as $250,000, it is my judgment that the modest and moderate fortunes of this country could meet the situation and avoid an enormous loss in their values, and we would avoid the tremendous increase in taxes which would occur if we did away with them entirely. It is practically conceded by everybody now that no practical plan for meeting this problem has been presented anywhere as |