life. We forget the black record of coal, the Gargantuan muddle of the railroads. It does not occur to us that here is a chance to start afresh-and start right. Who is to plan, own, and control giant power? The same type of profit seeker who has smeared himself and the politicians with crude oil? The banker, the utilities magnate, and the railroad autocrat? Or the public, as in Ontario? 1 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to state that I extremely regret that my erring friends, the Democratic Senators, some of whom seem to be in favor of Ford's Muscle Shoals offer. who need the information which I believe it will be my privilege to offer to-night, are none of them here. The CHAIRMAN. Let me add at that point that they were very anxious to have all the hearings closed before we got all the testimony in. Mr. MARSH. If I had been trying to make any sort of case for Henry Ford's offer I would prefer not to have had the hearings at all myself, because the longer they go on the less Mr. Ford's chances are for getting it. You have been told, I understand, that the farm organizations of the South are just tumbling over themselves for this Ford Muscle Shoals offer. I have the honor to represent on national legislation the Farm Labor Union of America, an organization with abort 300,000 members, whose headquarters are in Bonham, Tex., and 1 requested special instructions in this matter because of the statement that has been made that the southern farmers are in favor of Ford's Muscle Shoals offer. I received, under date of April 14, 1924, a letter signed by the national president, W. W. Fitzwater, and the national secretary, S. H. Coffey, which I would like to read into the record, addressed DEAR MR. MARSH: In regard to the attitude of the F. L. U. of A. will s that our organization is opposed to the control of the national resources ef our Nation by individuals or corporations for private gain and we are este cially opposed to the leasing of our resources for long periods of time that could not be terminated when the public welfare would be better served !1 the termination of same. Our organization has gone on record to this efet and if it is not asking too much of you we would be grateful and indee to you if you will kindly use your influence to the end that our national resources be retained by the Government and operated not for private ga but for the general welfare of the people, and we are especially opposed " the leasing of Muscle Shoals whereby the people of the South who use the products proposed to be manufactured would be at the mercy of a priva corporation. Hoping that you may look after our interests in this case in a manner tha will conform to the attitude of our organization on these questions, unos ditionally as to Muscle Shoals. With kind personal regards and best wishes, I am, Very truly yours, W. W. FITZWATER, National President. It will be interesting to Ford's friends from the South and this committee to know that they have something like 300 organizer out busy getting in new members in this farmers' organization of the South. There seems a little question as to whether the American Federation of Labor are in favor of Ford's Muscle Shoals offer, and therefore, that I might know the position of the American Federation of Labor, I wrote to the president, Mr. Gompers, and have the following letter from him, dated April 30, 1924, which I will read into the record. It is short. He wrote to me as managing director of he Farmers National Council, as follows: Your letter of April 22 received and contents noted. That you may know the attitude of the American Federation of Labor oward the Muscle Shoals project, as well as all other projects contemplating uperpower legislation, permit me to quote the following action of the A. F. f L. convention at Portland: "Resolved, That this organization is unanimously opposed to the subsidizig or granting of other Government financial aid to any private corporation r corporations for the purpose of establishing a privately owned and operated ower system, or to any encouragement whatever to a privately owned and berated superpower system: and be it further "Resolved, That we individually and collectively urge upon our respective tate legislatures and upon the Federal Government, and cause to be given e utmost publicity, the necessity for a coordinated public development and ntrol of said water resources for the service of the people at cost, giving due gard to the fourfold duty of water for domestic supply, for irrigation, wer production and navigation, and to the necessity for flood water storage d control and to the rights of political subdivisions to the measure of cal control in these matters; and that we favor and urge the withdrawal d curtailment of special privileges to private interests controlling this natural source for incomplete and costly development for private profit." Very truly yours, SAML. L. GOMPERS, President American Federation of Labor. At a meeting of the National Grange national convention held in ttsburgh last November the following action was taken on Muscle oals. I will read a part of it. The grange repeats its former declaration that this development of natural ources at Muscle Shoals, Ala., should be leased or sold by the Government the highest bidder on such terms as will best safeguard and protect the inests of the public or that it be operated by the Government at once. Now, you have your choice of what they mean. They favor two ngs, apparently, or rather an alternative. I am not, of course, resenting the National Grange in any respect, but that is the sition they took. They continue: o do this effectively, measures should be enacted into law which guarantee, t, that nitrate and fertilizer production to the capacity of the project will continually carried on; secondly, that the entire project be made available military uses in times of war; third, that experimental and research work established to develop and to discover new and improved methods for fixing ogen and manufacturing fertilizers; fourth, that sufficient power shall be ranteed in times of peace to operate the project at its full capacity; fifth, : provisions be made for reimbursing the Government the additional money ired to complete the project. am unable, after careful study of Mr. Ford's offer, to find rein his offer complies in any respect with the requisites which the resolution formely adopted by the National Grange are laid vn as the condition and prerequisite condition on which they ild approve any leasing of Muscle Shoals to any private com pany. It seems to me Mr. Ford's offer is directly contradictory of their stipulations. We have left one so-called farmer organization which is reported to be in favor of Ford's Muscle Shoals offer, and there is a principle at issue, which is not, as I understand it, the specific details of one offer or another, but the fundamental proposition, shall we give away, practically, or alienate or lease these natural resources I want to discuss the position of that organization, the American Farm Bureau Federation. Shortly after the war the American Farm Bureau Federation was started. You may recall, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com mittee, that they insisted upon Government retention of Muscle Shoals and development of it. They wrote a letter, after the House turned down an appropriation of some $10,000,000 to complete some project down there (I think it was Dam No. 2) that the action of the House was evidently dictated by corporation influence, and they were called on the carpet, the President, Mr. Howard, and the Washington representative, Mr. Gray Silver, before the House Committee on Expenditures in the War Department, and stated that they did not mean what they said, but they were very strongly then for Government ownership and development of Muscle Shoals. Then some how or other they saw a great light, just as you remember Saul on the way to Damsacus, saw a great light, and I will admit there was one great similarity between Ford's offer for Muscle Shoals and Damas cus, that both of them are noted for their steel. Anyhow, the Farm Bureau Federation has suddenly changed its viewpoint. In a letter from the executive vice president of the Chicago Boari of Trade last June, which I think is interesting on this subject, the say this. This letter is addressed to me as managing director of the Farmers' National Council: DEAR SIR: We have investigated the matter of the $100,000 appropriation and we now have some definite information that throws more light on wh really transpired. This is taken from "The county agent and the Farm Br reau." by M. C. Burritt, page 169: “Julius Rosenwald, of Chicago, through the Council of Grain Exchanges. made available $100,000 at the rate of $1,000 per county for the first 1 counties to organize. This offer in connection with the local enterprise chambers of commerce was undoubtedly no small incentive in securing apports ment of agents in many counties." The former president of this association in referring to this matter in address gave some credit for this $100,000 to this exchange, but the only inter est that we had in the matter was as a member of the Council of Grain Eschanges, and it was through a Mr. Bert Ball, who was in charge of that depar ment of the council that the interest in this matter was aroused and the tribution above stated secured through the philanthropy of Mr. Rosenwal The Council of Grain Exchanges was in existence for a few years and eve tributed small sums of money for crop-improvement work, but when the matter had progressed far enough so that private initiative in this way was unnee sary the writer as president of the Council of Grain Exchanges at that tirterminated the bureau and everything that went with it. Very truly yours, That letter is illuminating. JOHN R. MAUFF, Executive Vice President So far as I know Mr. Ford's offer has not changed in the slighes degree, since, I think it was, nine members of your committe signed a report on bill 4831, Part I, in which you statedThe CHAIRMAN. What are you reading from? Mr. MARSH. I am taking this from your report on the Ford Muscle Shoals offer, S. 4831, in which you stated that practically the Ford Muscle Shoals offer meant a gift to him from the Government of what was equivalent to fourteen and a half billion dollars. Now, it seems to me that that situation is just as true to-day as when Mr. Ford made his offer. The CHAIRMAN. I think I ought to say I did not say in that report, Mr. Marsh, that it was the same as giving him $14,000,000,000, but I did say that if we used the same theory of amortization that he asked us to use in what he claimed was a payment of all the money we had in it, and had the same rule applied to what the Government did for him, assuming money to be worth 6 per cent interest, in a hundred years it would amount to that much. Mr. MARSH. During the life of the lease that he asked. Mr. MARSH. Yes; I so understand it, and if interest were compounded. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MARSH. It is really astounding that Mr. Ford should have the temerity to renew his offer. It is deeply regretable that he has not the courage to come and personally defend it and it is quite clear, it seems to us, that no man who wants a thing from the Government and who lacks either the principle or the courage to come and defend his offer, is entitled to any consideration at the hands of any committee. Now, again, I regret that my Democratic friends are not here, because I am going to say I can not see how any man could consistently oppose the Teapot Dome lease and look in a looking-glass and look at himself anywhere else where he would be reflected, and say that he would be for Ford's Muscle Shoals offer, because it is unquestionably much more serious than he Teapot Dome lease, and I think that some of our southern Senators are going to have to give an accounting of themselves if hey vote for Ford's Muscle Shoals proposition, to an enlighted ·lectorate of southern farmers. Mr. Ford's offer does not guarantee to manufacture any cheap 'ertilizer. I don't know how he-well, I do know how it was done. It was a bait held out to try to get the farmers to support it, but hat was no justification for Mr. Ford attempting to establish the rinciple of a State Church, as he does in this bill. It is a very illy proposition. I say the principle of a State Church. This bill olemnly says in section 15 of Ford's Muscle Shoals offer, the one hat came over as the McKenzie bill, pages 11 to 12 of the Senate ill: The three leading representative farm organizations, national in fact, amely, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grange, the 'armers' Educational and Cooperative Union of America, or their successor r successors (said successor or successors to be determined in the case of ontroversy by the Secretary of Agriculture), shall each designate not ore than seven candidates for said board in the first instance, and therefter, for succession in office, not more than three candidates. Now, you can not by act of Congress make a lie the truth, even if ou try to put it through by trying to put Ford's Muscle Shoals ffer across. I just want to call the attention of our Democratic rethern to the political stupidity of their asserting that the Ameri can Farm Bureau Federation, which is being fought tooth and nail in the South by every progressive farm organization, is one of the three leading farm organizations, national in fact. Mr. Chairman, I have read a good many bills. I have never vet seen any act of Congress which attempted to state that the Presby terians, the Baptists, and the Catholic Church are the three leading denominations national in fact, and it is as much an impertinence. and as much contrary to the spirit of our American institutions for any man, even when he tries to get through such a grand and enormous swindle as Ford's Muscle Shoals offer, to ask anybody to incorporate in a bill language which states what are the leading farm organizations. Of course I recognize that there is an election ap proaching that is going to be very interesting, and that the most important aspect of this measure is the political side. The Farm Labor Union of America is publicly opposed to most of these farm organizations because of the position they took on the Esch-Cummins law and other pending legislation, but perhaps I had better not refer to that. But they are very much opposed to them. No Member of Congress, it seems to me, should consent to bill which picks out three farm organizations, which unfortunately indorse measures of such tremendous injury to the farmers, and sa those are the three leading farm organizations. That provision is not germane to the subject. I don't know what it was worth to those organizations to have themselves so denominated in this bill, but I do know it has cost them a great many members. In this Ford Muscle Shoals offer there is a joker, which I have not seen discussed very much, but which I think is very important. if I understand it correctly. Not being a lawyer, about all I am good for is to detect the jokers and frauds in bills, but it seems to me that this bill says very specifi cally that in tinie of war all of the development at Muscle Shoals is to be utilized for war purposes, and where the farmers are going to get their nitrates or their fertilizers under those conditions. don't see. The purpose, or avowed purpose of course we under stands that providing fertilizer was just a smoke screen-is to enable Ford to rob the American people by act of Congress, which is the most popular and favored way to do, of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of water powers annually, and the farmers might get a little fertilizer during peace times at such cost as he might see fit to incur in the manufacture of fertilizer, his profit over and abore such cost being limited to 8 per cent. In view of the fact that the railroads have been able to contribute so generally to busting the farmers with a guaranty of only 6 per cent, what could Ford do in furnishing fertilizers under that costplus plan with one-third extra percentage after all the expensive outlay he wanted to incur in the manufacture of fertilizer. Mr. Then I understand there is to be a good deal of research in con nection with this. In section 14, paragraph (a), line 20, says Ford agrees to determine by research whether by means of electric furnace methods and industrial chemistry there may be produced on a commercial scale fertilizer compounds of higher grade and at lower prices than farmers and other users of commercial fertilizers have in the past been able to obtain and to determine whether in a broad way the application of electricity and industrial chemistry |