which to dispose of his products? These recommendations are exactly the results that will follow the enactment of this legislation.

I quote from the report of the Joint Commission of Agricultural Inquiry of the first session of the Sixty-seventh Congress to determine, among other things, the cause of the present condition of agriculture. "In the last 10 years the total number of mortgages on farm lands and buildings owned by their operators has more than doubled and has increased proportionately more than the value of the lands and buildings, Railroad service, like any other service or commodity, must be sold at a price within the reach of the people who pay for it. Freight rates, therefore, must bear some relation to the prices which it is possible to obtain for the commodities transported. Numerous instances were brought to the attention of the commission in which it was shown that the total receipts from shipments, especially of fruits and vegetables, were absorbed by railroad charges in transporting them to market, leaving to the producer nothing for his time, labor, and investment in producing them. No industry can survive or prosper under such conditions."

Gentlemen of the committee, note the language of this commission: "It is clear that there is an imperative necessity for the formulation of a definite program looking to the permanent development of agriculture, with a view of relating agriculture with the various agencies of distribution in such a way as to avoid duplication, waste, and loss in the common purpose to deliver the products of the farm to the consumer in the most economical and efficient way. The warehouse system of the United States is a decentralized and disintegrated system, subject to the widest variations of regulation of the warehouseman's liability in the different States. This situation does not lend itself to systematic marketing or orderly financing of farmers' crops. The farmer can not hope adequately to control the marketing of his products or to have influence in proportion to his number and Importance in the absence of a warehouse system which will enable him to hold or sell his crops as his own judgment or the judgment of the cooperative association of which he may be a member dictates."

Mr. Chairman, how can he hold or sell his crops as his judgment dictates under any warehouse system which fails to extend credit on his warehouse receipts? It can not be done. When he gathers his crops he must either borrow on his warehouse receipts or sell at once to pay his debts, his taxes, and buy something to eat and wear. The bili I am presenting to you for your consideration now meets adequately all these suggestions. It will absolutely enable him to hold his products until he can sell on a fair market. He can store his crops and borrow money on his warehouse receipts and not be compelled to sell when the market is forced down. As a matter of fact, the price under such a system can not be controlled by outside and unjust influences. Secretary Wallace, of the Department of Agriculture, before the Traffic Club of Philadelphia, January 9, 1922, said:

"Agriculture provides the railroads with more than 20 per cent of their total tonnage, and indirectly with as much more. But for the agricultural tonnage many of our great transportation systems would fail."

The report of the Secretary of Agriculture for 1921 says: "Marketing is as truly a part of production as is the growing of the crops, for the crops have no value unless they can be put into the hands of those who need them. The assembling, storing, and distributing of farm products are productive enterprises, and those engaged in this work require much the same economic and technical information as that required by farmers." Gentlemen of the committee, if a bill similar to the bill we are now considering were enacted into law, our officials would not have to worry about marketing the products of the farm. The storage would be provided and the selling done as needed and the demand required. We all believe in organization and cooperation. Political parties are organized among us for the purpose of promoting and disseminating their ideas of government.

INDORSEMENT OF H. R. 2843.

FARMERS' EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE

UNION OF AMERICA, OFFICE OF PRESIDENT,

Washington, D. C., March 4, 1992.

Business men and those engaged in the different professions organize for mutual protection and assistance, and such encouragement should be given the farmers. Organization and cooperation should be the watchword of the farmers. In union there is strength, and no other organization or business need fear the organization of the farmers for the purpose of obtaining a reasonable price for their products, because with such prices he will buy more and can pay his debts and meet all his obligations. Nothing would stimulate business so much as such a system.

This bill meets my hearty approval, and in my Judgment is a most constructive measure. The farmers of this country need not only a comprehensive and far-reaching system of marketing, but they are also sorely in need of sufficient money for long periods of time and at a low rate of interest. In my judgment your bill will assist most materially in bringing about the consummation of the end sought to be reached by the farmers, who are the producing class of all countries. I have also read with pleasure the argument made by you in defense of your bill before the Committee on Agriculture of the House on February 8, 1922. The observations in which you indulged on that occasion and the data presented strike me as unanswerable.

At your convenience I would like to have a conference with you in regard to your bill, and if you find where I can be of assistance in promoting your bill please let me know. With assurances of high regard, I am, Very truly yours,

SIR: I have examined with considerable interest your warehouse bill. I heartily indorse it and would be glad to see it become a law. I don't see any reason why the Government should not make appropriations to help agriculture, as much so as the railroads. If they will appropriate an equal amount for the agriculture of the country, I am sure there will be less complaint among the farmers. I see no reason why the Government should not guarantee a profit to the farmers as well as to the railroads. Push your bill, and I am sure all farm organizations in the cotton-producing States will support your measure. Very truly,

The bill under consideration also has the following indorsements: Cotton Growers' Association of Wayne, Okla.; Cotton Growers' Association of Civit, Okla.; farmers' meeting at Foster, Okla.; general meeting at Drake, Okla.; cotton-growers' meeting at Washington, Okla.; Farmers' Union local, resolution from Noble, Okla.

The Muskogee County Farmers' Union, in convention May 19, 1921, petitioned the Oklahoma delegation in Congress, among other recommendations, as follows: "That they give their solid support to the Swank warehouse bill," Like resolutions were adopted by the following Farmers' Union locals in Oklahoma :

No. 256, McClain County; No. 531, McIntosh County; No. 13, Coal County; No. 11, Le Flore County; No. Seminole County; No. 315, Mayes County; No. 165, McClain County; No. 375, Payne County; No. 433, Dewey County; No. 31, Choctaw County; No. 17, Coal County; No. Seminole County; No. 319, Pontotoc County; No. 16, Le Flore County; No. 340, Garvin County; No. 167, Grady County; No. 523, Hughes County; No. 119, Le Flore County; No. 387, Pawnee County; No. 129, McClain County; No. 33, Coal County; No. 80, Seminole County; No. 527, Muskogee County; No. 491, Pottawatomie County; No. 262, Hughes County; No. Caddo County; No. 101, Hughes County; No. 72, McClain County; No. 339, Caddo County; No. 96, Le Flore County; No. ——, Coal County; No. 451, Stephens County; No. 32. Seminole County; No. 191, Latimer County; No. 316, Choctaw County: No. 187, Seminole County; No. 309, Le Flore County: No. 294, Choctaw County; No. 210, McClain County; No. 164, Seminole County; No. 528, Pushmataha County; No. 216, McClain County; No. 171, Pushmataha County; No. 466, Okfuskee County; No. 389, Mayes County; No. 117, Pottawatomie County; No. 168, Lincoln County: No. 416, Le Flore County; No. 254, McCurtain County; No. 53, Coal County; No. 252, Latimer County; No. 526, McIntosh County; No. 67, Stephens County; No. 38, Pontotoc County; No. 98, Noble County; No. 522, Le Flore County; No. 545, Pawnee County; No. 183, Payne County; No. 150, Le Flore County; No. 514, Coal County; No. 431, Cleveland County; No. 112, Seminole County; No. 549, Le Flore County; No. 326, Pawnee County; No. 82, Hughes County; No. 14, Coal County; No. 550, Le Flore County; No. 6, Lincoln County; No. 504, Seminole County; No. 533, Jefferson County; No. 81, Pontotoc County; No. 331, Seminole County; No. 233, Lincoln County; No. 209, Seminole County; No. 202, Kiowa County; No. 85, Hughes County; No. 289. Stephens County; No. 160, Lincoln County; No. 155, Lincoln County; No. 516, Custer County; No. 354, McCurtain County; No. 346, Caddo County; No. 469, Haskell County; No. 348, Dewey County; No. 325, Seminole County; No. 108, Seminole County; No. 243, Hughes County; No. 43, Seminole County; No. 169, Noble County; No. 8, Cleveland County; No. 207, Pittsburg County; No. 79, Payne County; No. 551, Le Flore County; No. 566, Jackson County; No. 180, Seminole County; No. --, Beckham County; No. 411, Le Flore County; No. 271, Pottawatomie County; No. 3, Okfuskee County; No. 212, McCurtain County; No. 203, Washita County; No. 207, Lincoln County; No. 483, Caddo County; No. 102, Beckham County; No. 62, Beckham County; No. 186, Lincoln County; No. 296, Seminole County; No. 510, Pushmataha County; No. 222, McCurtain County; No. 184, Coal County; No. 429, Pontotoc County; No. 172, Le Flore County; No. 322, McCurtain County; No. 111, Stephens County; No. 247, Cleveland County; No. 465, Coal County; No. 520. Choctaw County: No. 178, Pushmataha County: No. 541, Le Flore County; No. 137, Le Flore County; No. 519, Latimer County; No. 323, Seminole County; No. 241, Pawnee County.

Mr. SWANK. Oklahoma has a permissive warehouse law, and the legislature in 1923 passed an act "to regulate the storage, grading, and marketing of cotton and other nonperishable farm products." Among other things, this act provides that the commissioner shall have power to acquire property for the warehousing of agricultural products by lease, and provides further that no rent shall be paid until the operating expenses of such warehouses so leased have been paid from the income of the warehouse so leased. An appropriation of $15,000 was passed to carry out this act.

The principal warehouse law of Oklahoma was approved March 26, 1923. This act provides for warehouses for the storage of all agricultural, livestock, or poultry products. It provides that any farmers' cooperative association, with the approval of the superintendent, my lease property to be used as a warehouse. No rent in excess of 75 per cent of the income from sald warehouse shall be paid therefor. Agricultural products may be stored in these warehouses by any grower or producer, or any growers' or producers' marketing association.

To carry out the provisions of this law the legislature appropriated $1,250,000 to be placed in a revolving fund to be known as the "State warehouse revolving fund." The State board of agriculture is authorized to invest these funds in first-mortgage bonds on local warehouse

properties owned by any farmers' cooperative associations organized as provided by law. This investment must not exceed 50 per cent of the appraised value of any such warehouse property, exclusive of the value of the laud on which the warehouse is located. The board may make similar investments on terminal warehouses not exceeding 60 per cent of the value of the property.

Now, I will be glad to have you gentlemen ask questions concerning the bill. Mr. KINCHELOE. This $100,000.000 appropriation is for the purpose of cooperating with the State in building warehouses? Mr. SWANK. Yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. After the warehouse is built, if the farmer gets a warehouse receipt, then the law provides that he may go→→→ Mr. SWANK. To the intermediate credit bank.

Mr. KINCHELOE. To the intermediate credit bank?
Mr. SWANK. Yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. In section 4 you include specifically grain, baled cotton, broom corn, wool, and any other nonperishable farm product suitable for storage and shipment. What is the idea of leaving out corn and tobacco?

Mr. SWANK. It includes corn and tobacco.

Mr. JOHNSON. Isn't fruit in cold storage nonperishable?

Mr. SWANK. I do not know how that would be considered, but it would be determined by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. CLARKE. How far has private enterprise gone in utilizing the funds provided for in your State?

Mr. SWANK. Under the law I have mentioned?

Mr. CLARKE. Yes.

Mr. SWANK. The bill was approved March 26, 1923, and I am not just sure what has been done at this time. One million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars has been appropriated.

Mr. CLARKE. Don't you think if there had been any immediate need there would have been at once some demand upon this fund? Mr. SWANK. There may have been.

Mr. CLARKE, I think it would be interesting for the committee to know that. I want to know whether through cooperation or through the State itself the people in those immediate localities that are being affected are making any effort to avail themselves of the opportunity? MP. KINCHELOE. Have you any cooperative marketing system in your State?

Mr. SWANK. Yes.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Are they building any warehouses?

Mr. SWANK. I do not know how many, but I know of some. Mr. KINCHELOE. The reason I asked is that in my State they are building them.

Mr. SWANK. Those are the tobacco growers?

Mr. FULMER. In places where they already have warehouses, for instance, like South Carolina

Mr. SWANK. Under this bill the board of control could buy such warehouses.

Mr. FULMER. You propose to take them over if they want to come in? Mr. SWANK. Yes.

Mr. FULMER. In South Carolina we have warehouses all over the country under the State system.

Mr. RUBEY. Mr. Chairman, some years ago, I don't just remember what year or what session of Congress it was, we passed three acts in one appropriation bill. We went to the Rules Committee to get a rule to make those three acts in order. The first was the grain grading act, the second was the warehouse act, and the third the cotton futures act. Those were all passed in that same appropriation bill. That warehouse act provides that these private warehouses that were built with private money might become subject to the Government and be inspected by the Government at the request of the owner or of the people who put up the warehouse. That is the way that works. Mr. KINCHELOE. I am not familiar with that act. It was passed before I came here.

Mr. RUBEY. That was passed in 1916.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Were any of those warehouses built with Government money?

Mr. RUBEY. No; they were not built with Government funds, They were built with private funds, but they are subject to inspection by the Government if they want to come in under Government supervision.

Mr. SWANK. That is the only Federal warehouse law we have. Mr. JOHNSON. Here is what is bothering me. Mr. SINCLAIR has a bill here which does seem to me to cover the same ground, and you men might possibly get together and make it into one bill.

Mr. SWANK. I think one of the best features of Mr. SINCLAIR'S bill is the provision for storage facilities.

Mr. JOHNSON. Here is what occurred to me. If this bill is similar to the Sinclair bill, how do you expect to get either or both of them through Congress in that condition? Is not it possible to take these two bills and make one bill out of the whole thing in some way? Mr. SWANK. It might be done.

Mr. JOHNSON. So that you might be willing to support one or the other of the bills?

Mr. SWANK. Mr. SINCLAIR'S bill, in my judgment, will help present conditions.

Mr. JOHNSON. I simply make the suggestion. Suppose the committee reports favorably both of these bills. There is really conflict between

them.

Mr. CLARKE. Why not put the two together?

Mr. SWANK, The Sinclair bill provides $100,000,000 for the purpose of buying and selling farm products and building warehouses as this bill proposes to build them.

Mr. CLARKE, But does not this bill go further? It contains really an authorization for $600,000,000?

Mr. SWANK. Yes; the Sinclair bill does through the issuance of bonds, but the appropriation asked is $100,000,000. This is a loan which is to be paid back ultimately.

Mr. SINCLAIR. This bill provides for additional funds to be raised through the Farm Loan Bureau and would be practically the same plan as my bill except I raise funds through the Federal reserve bank.

Mr. TINCHER. Mr. Swank, you know that I have some sympathy with the warehouse proposition.

Mr. SWANK. Yes; you called my attention to a bill you introduced when I was before the committee last February, and I read that bill. Mr. TINCHER. I notice you refer in this bill, in line 16, to the Federal Farm Loan Bureau, that it shall make provision for loaning money on Federal warehouse receipts.

Mr. SWANK. Yes.

Mr. TINCHER. What organization is the Federal Farm Loan Bureau? Mr. SWANK. That is the bureau that has supervision of the intermediate credit banks.

Mr. KINCHELOE. That is the Federal Farm Loan Board, isn't it?
Mr. SWANK. That bureau has charge of the intermediate credit banks.
Mr. JONES. The Federal Farm Loan Bureau was established by the
Federal Farm Loan Board.

Mr. SINCLAIR. Is that the legal and official term?
Mr. SWANK. Yes.

Mr. TINCHER. Some of the most ardent supporters of the Sinclair bill in the last session of Congress, in response to questions of Congressmen here, denied that it was the intention of the proponents of the Sinclair bill to build warehouses.

Mr. SWANK. Well, the erection of warehouses is provided for in that bill.
Mr. TINCHER. They said they would be opposed to the bill.
Mr. SWANK. These two bills would work together.

Mr. TINCHER. Your idea is that the Government will own these warehouses?

Mr. SWANK. The Government and the State, or the Government and the cooperative association, according to which furnishes the money. Mr. TINCHER. Have partnership warehouses?

Mr. SWANK. Yes,

Mr. SWANK. Yes; I know that.

Mr. SWANK. I am submitting it to the committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. I want to help the farmer if I can.

Mr. SWANK. Mr. SINCLAIR and I have not conferred at all.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think you ought to try to get a bill that we can get out of here.

Mr. TINCHER. Your idea is to benefit the farmers of the country by the passage of a warehouse bill, such as yours would be, to effect the more orderly marketing of the farmer's products?

Mr. SWANK. That is what would result, and in order to better market those products there must be a storage system.

Mr. JONES. Yes; but they do not.

Mr. TINCHER, Your idea is by affording a place of storage they would have more orderly marketing because you offer a credit relief to them. Is it your idea to offer the farmer credit so that he can market his produce in an orderly manner?

Mr. SWANK. Yes; to afford him credit if he needs it, so he will not be compelled to sell, whether he wants to or not, regardless of the price. It would be to his advantage to have his products stored in large quan tities in one place.

Mr. CLARKE. What limitation would you put on the question of time and authority to sell? Is that lodged in somebody, so that there won't be an accumulation and they won't take 80 per cent of it and let it stay there?

Mr. SWANK. They would sell as they desire to sell under this law. Mr. JONES. The creditor would probably control that; the man he owed the money to would insist on payment when it came due. Mr. JOHNSON. But the Government is the creditor under this. Mr. JONES. No; not as I understand it.

Mr. SWANK. The Government would have nothing to do with it except appropriate part of the money and supervise the administration of the act.

Mr. TINCHER. Here is the thing that worries me. If we report a bill out, it has to be presented on the floor of the House and we would have to explain that the reason for the Government going into the warehouse business was to enable the farmer to hold his products until he gets a market which is orderly, and the reason for having the Government warehouse is to afford him a place to store it; we do not offer any new loan facilities or credit facilities, because you propose to put the machinery we now have into effect; and I am wondering how far that $100,000,000 would go toward building these warehouses, and I am wondering if there isn't in Oklahoma now and in every State where they have taken advantage of it, approved warehouses under the law, as Mr. RUBEY explained a little while ago, where they can, if they actually have the product, store it and get the credit. Mr. SWANK. Take your own State of Kansas. How many Government warehouses have you?

Mr. TINCHER. Coming under that law, I do not know. I want to do anything that will help the people of my State, but I doubt if there are many in Kansas who have farm products for sale and who want to sell them but what can obtain all the credit they want right now, perhaps more than 80 per cent. If a man has wheat, it is good collateral and he can get money on it; if he has corn, he can get money on it.

Mr. SWANK. Don't you think he would get more if he had a place where the product could be stored?

Mr. CLARKE. I want to refer again to the point I made. I think It would be peculiarly interesting to this committee to show that the State of Oklahoma has already provided a fund that could be utilized, and just exactly what has been done by the people of your own State toward the utilization of the instrumentalities which they have at hand.

Mr. SWANK. That law was approved last March. It takes some time to get machinery of that kind into operation.

Mr. SINCLAIR. When the good roads bill was passed there were few States that had any good roads law. It was a hit-and-miss affair in all States. But they immediately conformed to the principles and rules laid down by the Federal Government, and with this warehouse bill they could do the same thing.

Mr. CLARKE. There is no necessity for cooperation so far as the States are concerned. There is no Federal law concerned. Here is a State law and an instrumentality at hand for the utilization of

$1,250,000. Now, a year's time would be abundant time to get the thing started, and we will then find out whether it is being utilized. Mr. SWANK. I can not say whether any of these loans have yet been made or not.

Mr. CLARKE, You could get that information.

Mr. SWANK. Yes; but it takes some time to get the machinery working.

Mr. KINCHELOE. How does that law provide for the expenditure of the $1,250,000? It is loaned to individuals for the purpose of building warehouses?

Mr. SWANK. To farmers' cooperative associations.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Is there anything in this bill that provides for the apportionment of this $100,000,000 among the various States? Mr. SWANK. No; except the Government duplicates an appropriation made by any State.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Suppose my State, for instance, would come up and want a good deal more than they are entitled to and they have the money.

Mr. SWANK. The object of the bill, as I have stated, is for the Government to duplicate what the State appropriates for that purpose. Mr. KINCHELOE. I do not imagine that $200,000,000 would go very

far.

Mr. SWANK. This is for $100,000,000.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I know; but the States put up $100,000,000. Mr. FULMER. I would like to answer Mr. Clarke's question in connection with this proposition. One reason for this bill would be this: In South Carolina, under the State law last year, there was a question whether or not the intermediate credit banks would handle such warehouse receipts, and the cooperative manager said he had quite a lot of trouble in handling the warehouse receipts in New York and wanted to force all of these warehouses into the Federal system. Another advantage of the bill would be that you would get Government grades, better grades than the State grades, and that would make these receipts better collateral, and it would be easier to secure a loan. As it is now, under the State systems, you do not get the proper grading and you can not get the loan easily, and you can not get as much as you would get on the kind of receipt issued.

Mr. VOIGT. Suppose under this bill 4149 the local cooperative organization appropriates $5,000 to build a warehouse. Then the United States is bound to furnish the other five thousand? Mr. SWANK. Yes.

Mr. VOIGT. Where does the title in the warehouse rest? Mr. SWANK. Jointly in the State and the Government, or the association and the Government, as to which furnished the money.

Mr. JOHNSON, Does the Government lend the money under the same conditions as the States lend it?

Mr. SWANK. I do not provide for a loan. The Government and State will appropriate a like amount of money as is done on hard-surfaced roads.

Mr. VOIGT. Suppose in the case that I have cited, where the local cooperative association gives $5,000 and the Government gives $5,000, your bill does not provide anything for dividends on this $5,000 put up by the local cooperative association?

Mr. SWANK. The bill provides that the warehouses shall be operated at cost, but that any net earnings by the Federal Loan Bureau on the loans provided shall be used to construct other warehouses.

Mr. VOIGT. What I am getting at is this: Do you suppose that they will contribute $5,000 when no provision is made for any return on the investment?

Mr. SWANK. The bill does not provide for a return of the money contributed.

Mr. KINCHELOR. They wouldn't be likely to do it under that arrange

ment.

Mr. SWANK. I think they would.

Mr. SINCLAIR. It seems to me there is one other phase of this warehouse bill that would have to be considered. When you come to the question of terminal warehouses, and that, I think, is the most important part of the whole bill, how are you going to provide for a State to contribute its share when that State is interested, perhaps, in storing the products of a dozen different States? Take, for instance, Kansas City, which would be a terminal market for the Southwest, and St. Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis. Now, is the State of Missouri or the State of Illinois or the State of Minnesota going to supply funds; that is, 50 per cent of the funds necessary to build a terminal to take care of the products of other States?

Mr. SWANK. They could do that.

Mr. KINCHELOE. But the question is, Would they do it?

Mr. SINCLAIR. Yes; would they do it?

Mr. SWANK. Well, of course, that can not be answered positively, but that would work out all right.

Mr. KINCHELOE. In other words, would the State of Missouri be willing to contribute 50 per cent of the funds to build a terminal warehouse to store products of the farmers of North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and so forth? Would any one of those States be

willing to appropriate 50 per cent of a fund to build a big warehouse for the benefit that would accrue to farmers of other States? Mr. SWANK. They should be given an opportunity.

Mr. TINCHER. I introduced my bill at the suggestion of an organization interested in helping the agricultural sections, and then we had a survey out in my State of warehouse facilities and we found they were so adequate, that there were so many warehouses under State regulation and Federal regulation, privately owned, that if we constructed any new ones we would put those out of business and praetically destroy them. Your idea here is to have them purchased? Mr. SWANK. Or leased as needed when they come up to Federal requirements.

Mr. JOHNSON. Isn't it possible for you and Mr. Sinclair to take these two bills and write them into one bill that will cover the question? Mr. SWANK. That might be done.

Mr. SINCLAIR. The gentleman from Kansas has a bill also.
Mr. JOHNSON. Then they should all get together.

Mr. SWANK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for its patient hearing.

SOLDIERS' BONUS.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the RECORD on the bonus question. They are my own remarks.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the RECORD on the bonus question. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this compilation shows that 38 States and Territories will benefit financially by the enactment of a bonus measure, while 15 States and Territories will suffer hardships.

The following table sets forth, I believe, the amount the soldier bonus will cost each State and Territory, on a basis of $500 to each of the 3,900,000 men who served in the Army-. and this does not include those serving in the Navy, Marine Corps, and nurses. It further shows the amount each State and Territory will receive and the amount they will turn back into the Treasury, based on the 1922 report of the Treasury Department.

These figures are not guaranteed to be absolutely accurate, but are, in all cases, within a few thousand dollars of the correct amount. The figures are conservative, being compiled on a much lower basis than those given out by the actuaries of the Treasury Department.

This table is compiled to indicate the total each State and Territory will have to pay and which of the States would benefit from a money standpoint and which would be injured in the same manner. The figures clearly show that 15 States and Territories will be called upon to pay more taxes than their veterans would receive, and 38 States and Territories will receive for their veterans more money than they will return to the Treasury.

For example, New York will receive $189,493,000 and will pay $557,140,000, or $367,647,000 more than that State will receive. Michigan receives $68,676,500 and pays $114,700,000, or $46,023,500 more than it will receive. Pennsylvania will receive $151.944,500 and pay $195,000,000, or $43,055,500 more than it receives. On the other hand, Missouri will receive $66.926,500 and pay $5,000,000, benefiting to the amount of $61,926,500. Texas will receive $82,100,500 and pay $31,451,600, benefiting to the amount of $50,648,900. Iowa will receive $50,000,000 and pay $13,000,000, benefiting to the amount of $37,000,000.