1935

5093

Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to which were referred the following bills, reported them each without amendment and submitted reports thereon:

S. 1535. A bill to provide funds for cooperation with White Swan School District, No. 88, Yakima County, Wash., for extension of public-school buildings to be available for Indian children of the Yakima Reservation (Rept. No. 429); and

S. 1536. A bill to provide funds for cooperation with the public-school board at Covelo, Calif., in the construction of public-school buildings to be available to Indian children of the Round Valley Reservation, Calif. (Rept. No. 430).

BILLS INTRODUCED

Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, the second time, and referred as follows: By Mr. WHEELER:

A bill (S. 2514) granting a pension to Crooked Face Child; to the Committee on Pensions.

By Mr. COPELAND:

A bill (S. 2515) to create a commission to make recommendations to the Congress with respect to the use of the bequest to the United States by the late Oliver Wendell Holmes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

1932 ", approved March 27, 1934, which were ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

REGULATION OF TRAFFIC IN FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS-AMENDMENT

Mr. CONNALLY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 5) to prevent manufacture, shipment, and sale of adulterated or misbranded food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics, and to regulate traffic therein; to prevent the false advertisement of food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics, and for other purposes, which was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

AMENDMENT OF SILVER PURCHASE ACT

Mr. MCCARRAN. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced a bill, being Senate bill 2507, to amend the national Silver Purchase Act by repealing two sections thereof. Yesterday afternoon the New York News Bureau ticker came out with the statement that:

Senator MCCARRAN charged that only effect of sections of the Silver Act which he would repeal has been to abolish the free American market in silver

And so forth.

In order that the RECORD may clarify the situation, I ask to have inserted in the RECORD a letter addressed by me to the Honorable Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury, together with the report of the New York News Bureau

By Mr. MALONEY:

A bill (S. 2519) directing the Court of Claims to adjudicate the claims of the F. Mansfield & Sons Co. and others, for compensation for injuries to oyster beds; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. LEWIS:

A bill (S. 2520) for the relief of T. D. Randall & Co.; to the Committee on Claims.

By Mr. THOMAS of Oklahoma:

A bill (S. 2521) amending section 5 of Public, No. 264, Seventy-third Congress, approved May 29, 1934, relative to the appointment of Naval Academy graduates as ensigns in the Navy; to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. NYE:

A bill (S. 2522) for the relief of Erick Keck; to the Committee on Finance.

By Mr. HAYDEN:

A bill (S. 2523) authorizing payment to the San Carlos Apache Indians for the lands ceded by them in the agreement of February 25, 1896, ratified by the act of June 10, 1896; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

By Mr. TYDINGS:

A bill (S. 2524) amending section 112 of the United States Code, Annotated (title 28, subtitle "Civil suits; where to be brought"); to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BARKLEY:

A bill (S. 2525) to amend the act approved June 16, 1934, entitled "An act to provide relief to Government contractors whose costs of performance were increased as a result of compliance with the act approved June 16, 1933, and for other purposes "; to the Committee on the Judiciary. RELIEF OF WATER USERS ON IRRIGATION PROJECTS AMENDMENTS

Mr. HAYDEN submitted amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill (S. 1305) to further extend the operation of the act entitled "An act to further extend the operation of the act entitled 'An act for the temporary relief of water users on irrigation projects constructed and

There being no objection, the letter and report were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Hon. HENRY MORGENTHAU,

APRIL 4, 1935.

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. HONORABLE AND DEAR SECRETARY: I am this day introducing a bill amending Public Act No. 438, passed by the Seventy-third Congress, and commonly known as the Silver Purchase Act."

My bill simply strikes out sections 6, 7, and 8 of the act. I want to assure myself that we are heartily in accord with certain somewhat obscure corollaries which seemingly must have escaped Congress in the hasty passage of this legislation.

May I ask you if you do not think me right in judging that section 6 is somewhat superfluous in providing authorization for you, with the approval of the President, "to investigate, regulate, or prohibit, by means of licenses or otherwise, the acquisition, importation, exportation, or transportation of silver and of contracts ", etc., when the very act, though permitting the Government to trade, so penalizes persons who trade in silver as to make regulation unnecessary?

With respect to section 6, is it not possible that Congress, after having provided for the regulation of the security exchanges by a commission, did not carry the theory a step too far by selecting one commodity and burden you with the responsibility for its regulation while it destroyed trading in that commodity?

With respect to section 7, is it not your thought, as well as mine, that the nationalizing of silver by Presidential proclamation August 9, 1934, has already accomplished the purposes for which it was designed and that the freeing of silver may have the effect of encouraging an advance in its price which is bound to increase the production costs of goods competitive to our own and produced in the so-called "silver countries "?

Respecting section 8, I have given this no little attention, and I am seeking information from you as to whether the 50-percent profit tax has yielded to the Treasury any revenue of consequence. I am wholly at a loss to know precisely how our Government operates under the provisions of the present act in acquiring silver. If I read the language correctly, am I to assume that any party selling to the Government is subject to the tax of 50 percent of the profit such party makes on the transfer? Seemingly the law, which we enacted with the aim of raising the world price of silver, placed a burden upon your Department of collecting from the vendors of bullion a 50-percent tax on any profit they may have made on their transaction. Whether the Treasury commission a Federal Reserve bank, for example, as its agent, or whether it purchase directly in the foreign market, the vendor seemingly is subject to a 50-percent profit tax which the purchaser must assume. May I assume, if this is so, a vendor would seek out any other market but that of the United States to escape the penalties of the tax?

Or, in the efficient administration of your office, has it been necessary to use an intermediary between our Government, or an agency of our Government, as a secondary agency or instrumentality who may purchase abroad at the market price and resell to the Treasury or its agent silver at the same price paid in the market and certify the absence of any profit to avoid the imposition of the tax?

I ask this question, for I have been until recently unaware that section 8 levies this tax of 50 percent on silver profits on all transfers and thereby must practically preclude the purchase and sale of this commodity within our jurisdiction.

1935

a perfect and binding contract of sale, but do not amount in themselves to an actual sale. Nor can the property be treated as actually sold until the terms of sale have been met or waived and the purchaser has received or is entitled to receive a conveyance thereof. For until then the title to the property is still in the mortgagor, and the only interest acquired by the purchaser is the right to receive a conveyance of the property upon complying with the terms of sale."

While there are some expressions to the contrary in the opinion in Union Trust Co. v. Biggs (153 Md. 50, 137 Atl. 509), that case merely decided that a judgment against the defendant in foreclosure, rendered after the sale but before its confirmation, did not constitute a lien upon the property sold; and it is to be interpreted. in our opinion, as relating the effect of the confirmation to the date of the sale, rather than as changing the wellsettled rule as to the effect of judicial sales on the rights of the parties prior to confirmation. See Whiteley v. Whiteley (117 Md. 538, 544); Loft, Inc., v. Seymore (148 Md. 638, 645). But at all events, the decision in Mizen v. Thomas, supra, is the latest expression of the Maryland court and we accept it as laying down the rule now in force in that State.

"As the bankrupt had not lost his rights in the mortgaged property as a result of the unconfirmed foreclosure sale, we think that the foreclosure proceedings should have been stayed. The statute is highly remedial in character and should be liberally construed. The evident purpose of Congress was to grant to farmer debtors the relief which it prescribes in all cases where an interest in their property remained in them at the time of the filing of petitions under the act." (See Paine v. Capitol Freehold & Land Co. (8 Fed. Supp. 500); In re Laumon (8 Fed. Supp. 886); In re Cope (8 Fed. Supp. 961); In re Mines (9 Fed. Supp. 1); In re Dufy (9 Fed. Supp. 166).) As said by Judge Lindley in the case last cited:

"Viewing the bankruptcy amendment in connection with the remaining sections of the Bankruptcy Act and the recent amendments thereto, it seems to me evident that Congress intended to reach every kind of property interest or property right which the bankrupt then had, including rights to redeem; that Congress intended that the bankrupt should have an opportunity to preserve the then existing status of foreclosure or other insolvency proceedings until it can be determined whether any rehabilitation is impossible. This does not mean that Congress has said that mortgages shall not be enforced. It does not mean that liberty of contracts shall be interfered with or property confiscated, but it does mean that the court, within its jurisdiction and within the limits announced by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (290 U. S. 398, 54 S. Ct. 231, 78 L. Ed. 413, 88 A. L. R. 1481) will preserve the existing status of property rights of the bankrupt until convinced that no good purpose is being served by so doing." For the reason stated, we think the learned judge below erred in denying the prayer of the petition for stay of proceedings in the State court. The order appealed from will accordingly be reversed and the case will be remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. As appeal to superintend and revise under section 24 (b) of the Bankruptcy Act is the proper method of review, the order appealed from will be reversed in no. 3778 and the appeal in no. 3797 will be dismissed.

In no. 3778 reversed.

In no. 3797 appeal dismissed.

REGULATION OF TRAFFIC IN FOODS, drugs, anD COSMETICS The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 5) to prevent the manufacture, shipment, and sale of adulterated or misbranded food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics, and to regulate traffic therein, to prevent the false advertisement of food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics, and for other purposes.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on what are known as the "Bailey amendments" to the pending bill. Mr. METCALF. Mr. PresidentThe VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

CONDITION OF COTTON-TEXTILE INDUSTRY

- Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, in the Providence Journal of yesterday I notice a list of the cases on relief in the cotton-textile mill towns in my State. The list shows a total increase over those on relief last year of 4,896. I ask unanimous consent the article from the Providence Journal, to which I have referred, may be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the article will be printed in the RECORD.

(See exhibit A.)

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the closing within the week of four additional mills in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, affecting as it does the employment of several thousand workers, impels me at this time again to call the attention of the Senate to the general situation affecting the textile industry of the eastern and southern Atlantic States.

5099

Unable to enlist the sympathies of the executive branch of the Government, upon which is the responsibility for effecting recovery of the great industries of the country, we who are conversant with the existing conditions, are receiving the pleas of employers and employees to secure a change of attitude.

Far from draining the resources of the farmers, the textile industries of the country are their best customers. Secretary of Agriculture Wallace, however, has a psychology that cannot be either understood or interpreted by industry. For instance, in order to reduce the carry-over of cotton, he would starve industry into paying a high price for its raw material. A natural price for cotton is not objected to, as it would be reflected not only in our own product but that of the whole world, for the world would be paying on the same basis.

However, what really is happening is that Secretary Wallace is killing off the domestic customer of the cotton farmer without providing new customers for him. He cannot sell more cotton abroad than can be absorbed, a fact that has been made patent to, but has failed to influence the Government officials.

When a merchant finds himself overstocked, his first thought is to divest himself of whatever may be his excess merchandise. Sometimes he has to sacrifice even more than his profits to dispose of that for which at normal prices there is little or no demand. I do not contend that the cotton farmer must sell his excess at a loss or below a normal figure, but I do insist that it is poor psychology artificially to raise the price so high that we get into that vicious circle which results in the closing of the mills and the placing of more thousands upon the relief rolls.

It must be realized that "price", as I refer to that factor, means what the mills have to pay for cotton before it can be processed. We have to give consideration to many things in this regard. There is the influence of the Government's loan policy, whereby an advance of 12 cents is provided as a basis for the farmers upon which to realize on their cotton. Then there is the processing tax, which, in my State, amounts to about 40 percent of our pay-roll outlay. We have code wages to pay, although there is no opposition to that, except as it may affect the whole picture.

But while the mills are being subjected to these harassing matters the administration stands by idly and, despite section 3 (e) of the National Industrial Recovery Act, permits Japan to flood our markets with textiles, the product of cheap oriental labor.

Foreign trade is the strange fetish of the administration. It would sell cotton abroad and permit the return of the finished goods in competition with our mills, which cannot face it. At the same time, the administration calls upon us to provide $4,800,000,000 of work-relief money.

It has been whispered about that persons in high places believe the present agitation for relief in the cotton and cotton-textile industries to have been fomented by cotton speculators.

Closed mills and workers walking the streets in the mill towns attest to the futility of holding speculators in cotton responsible for the putting of men and women on relief.

The administration's tariff policies are being repudiated, at least privately, by the very followers of the Democratic Party who brought about the adoption of the present reciprocal trade agreement law. They thought, it appears, that it would lead to the narrowing of what they were pleased to call

the disparity between agricultural and industrial prices", never dreaming for a moment that there was more than tarif involved, or that farm products would be affected both directly and indirectly, as will be found to be the case.

The trouble is, as I see it, the unwillingness of the administration to admit a mistake. It fears loss of prestige. That already is becoming a fact because of administration acts of commission and omission.

No loss of prestige can come from putting men and women back to work, taking them off the relief rolls, and restoring their self-respect. It is the protest of the unemployed and the hungry that will bring about disrespect for the administration.

1935

has just closed I desire to say that I have never known any inan to act more sincerely, more conscientiously, more honestly, and more vigorously than did the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS). If he had been one of the most earnest advocates of the joint resolution, if he had prepared every line and word in it, he could not have been more devoted to what the Senate directed him to do in making him a conferee.

I voted for the joint resolution, as everyone knows, and have supported it all the way through, as everyone also knows; and I take the greatest pleasure in testifying to the absolute fairness and correctness of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in every essential particular connected with it.

Mr. CUTTING. Mr. President, in view of what was just said by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS], I desire to assure him and other Senators that I have never had the remotest conception of implying in any way that his views on the joint resolution as a whole would influence him in the position he would as a conferee take about it.

I think I stated in the remarks I made a few moments ago that I was completely certain that the Senator from Virginia and other members of the conference committee had done as well as they thought possible with the situation as it arose. I am casting no blame either on the present conferees or any other conferees appointed by the Senate. I was calling attention to what I think, echoing the words of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. ROBINSON), is a bad principle.

The Senator from Virginia has said quite correctly that it has become the custom of the Senate for the chairman of the committee in charge of a bill to suggest the members of his committee in the order of seniority on both sides. It is the custom I am assailing and not the personnel of the conferees nor the action taken by the conferees. The custom is one which is not authorized by the manual of the Senate relating to conferences. I invite the attention of the Senate to the wording of a part of section 17 of that manual, as follows:

Statement of principles governing the selection of conferees on the part of the House, namely:

(NOTE.-These principles and provisions are also applicable to the Senate and in harmony with its practice.)

The House members of conference committees, called the managers on the part of the House, are appointed by the Speaker. (NOTE.-The Senate members of conference committees, called the managers on the part of the Senate, are appointed by the Presiding Officer, by unanimous consent, under the custom of the Senate. Rule XXIV, clause 1, provides that all committees of the Senate shall be appointed by ballot unless otherwise ordered.)

That is almost a verbatim statement of rule XXIV of the Senate. After speaking of Senate committees it provides: All other committees shall be appointed by ballot, unless otherwise ordered, and a plurality of votes shall appoint.

While the custom has grown up of allowing conferees to be appointed, by the Senator in charge of a bill, it has no justification in the statement of the rule governing conferences which is provided for in the conference manual.

I shall read one more paragraph from the conference manual. Referring to the conferees, it provides:

They are usually three in number, but on important measures the number is sometimes increased. In the selection of the managers the two large political parties are usually represented, and, also. care is taken that there shall be a representation of the two opinions which almost always exists on subjects of importance. Of course, the majority party and the prevalling opinion have the majority of the managers.

These words I should like to emphasize:

Of course, the majority party and the prevalling opinion have the majority of the managers.

It is also almost the invariable practice to select managers from the members of the committee which considered the bill. But sometimes, in order to give representation to a strong or prevalling sentiment in the House, the Speaker goes outside the ranks of the committee.

It therefore becomes apparent that only two methods are suggested as to the selection of conferees. One is in accordance with the rules of the Senate that they shall be appointed by ballot, unless otherwise ordered. The other is that they shall be appointed by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.

5137

The other day when a conference committee was appointed on another matter of legislation the senior Senator from Michigan (Mr. COUZENS] declined to serve on the ground that he was opposed to the action of the Senate. The Vice Presi dent then in the chair made the following statement:

The Senator from Michigan and other Senators realize that ordinarily the Chair does not appoint conferees. The conferees are suggested by the Senator in charge of the bill, and the Chair

formally appoints the Senators whose names are sent up by the Senator in charge of the bill. Otherwise the Chair might exercise bis discretion with reference to those who are in sympathy with the bill and those who are opposed to it.

My only reason for referring to the matter at all, and I want to reiterate this for the benefit of the Senator from Virginia and other members of the conference committee, is not to cast blame for anything they have done but in an effort to call the attention of the Senate that the sooner we return to the principles originally laid down for conferexces, the better it will be for the cause of legislation.

REGULATION OF TRAFFIC IN FOOD, DRUGS, AND COSMETICS The Senate resumed consideration of the bill (S. 5) to

prevent the manufacture, shipment, and sale of adulterated or misbranded food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics, and to regulate traffic therein; to prevent the false advertisement of food, drink, drugs, and cosmetics, and for other purposes. Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending amendment will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. The pending amendment is the amendment of Mr. BAILEY, as follows:

In section 711 (a), on page 45, line 7, it is proposed to insert a semicolon after the word “found" and to add the following:

"Provided, however, That not more than one seizure action shall be instituted in cases of alleged misbranding, except upon order to show cause, and then upon a showing by the Secretary that such article is misbranded in manner or degree as to render such article imminently dangerous to health, or that such alleged misbranding has been the basis of a pricr judgment in favor of the United States in a criminal prosecution or libel for condemnation proceeding respecting such article under this act: And provided further, That said single seizure action shall, on motion, be removed for trial to a jurisdiction of reasonable proximity to the residence of the claimant of such article."

In section 401 (a) (1), on page 13, it is proposed to strike out all of lines 19 and 20.

In section 402, on page 16, it is proposed to insert a new subsection between lines 2 and 3, to be designated as (b), and to read as follows:

"If it is dangerous to health under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertising thereof."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Unanimous consent was granted to consider the three amendments as one.

Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, I do not see the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. BAILEY] in the Chamber.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I will say to the Senator from Tennessee that the Senator from North Carolina was very unexpectedly called to his home in North Carolina this afternoon by reason of a very serious heart attack suffered by a member of his family and therefore will be out of the city until Monday.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, I am exceedingly sorry the Senator from North Carolina was called away because of illness in his family. If he were here, if he cared to speak further on the pending amendment, undoubtedly what he would say would accord with his statement of April 3. He said then at the end of his remarks that he had made his point. If Senators who wish to know what the Senator from North Carolina would say if he were present-though, of course, I am not authorized to speak for him-will turn to page 4914 of the RECORD of April 3, they will find incorporated in his speech the criticism the Senator had of the provision which he seeks to amend.

Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Scnator from New York yield to the Senator from Arkansas? Mr. COPELAND. Certainly.