February 14, 1933 (2)

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE] that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 211, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I desire to address myself to the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin to take up for consideration the joint resolution providing for the submission of the question of the repeal of the eighteenth measure. amendment to the States.

I now am opposed to the joint resolution. I presume it will be in such form when we come to a final vote upon it that I shall still be opposed to it at that time and shall vote against it. I presume that statement will lessen the effect of what I have to say, but I think it fair to make the record full and complete.

While I am opposed to the joint resolution, I know of no reason, so far as the resolution itself is concerned, why it should not be voted upon by the States at the earliest practicable date. I can see nothing to be gained by delaying action upon the part of the States, assuming that there are a sufficient number of votes in the Senate and the House to submit the proposed constitutional amendment; and if the situation with reference to the calendar of legislative business were different, I should not interpose any objection whatever to taking up the joint resolution for consideration at this time.

I was one of the members of the subcommittee which had to do with the framing of the joint resolution, and I think my colleagues will bear me out when I say that I sought in no manner to delay the consideration of the question. I should not seek now to delay it if it were not for the situation, as I see it, with reference to the legislative calendar.

Furthermore, Mr. President, I do not see how voting upon the joint resolution and submitting it by Congress prior to the 4th of March will expedite the ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment or its rejection by the States in any respect whatever. By the time it shall have reached the States very few of the legislatures will be in session; it will be practically impossible to secure any final action-! should say it will be impossible to secure any final action-by the present legislatures; there will not be a sufficient number in session to make any considerable showing with reference to action upon the joint resolution. Even if we should incorporate an amendment which would provide for ratification by conventions instead of the legislatures, still no progress would have been made, for the legislatures undoubtedly will have to provide for such conventions. So I can see no progress to be gained in the question of time by reason of our acting upon the joint resolution prior to the 4th of March. There are bills upon the calendar, however, upon which speedy action should be had, and which will lose much of their effect and much of their benefit to those whom we would serve if they are not speedily enacted. I do not think it is practically po.ssible to take up this joint resolution and dispose of these other bills to which I am going to make reference in a moment.

If we take up the joint resolution I think we must make up our minds, as was indicated yesterday by the able Senator from California [Mr. JoHNSON], that any matter of relief legislation either for the farmers or of a general nature must be postponed until after the 4th of March. After the 4th of March there will be no special session called certainly before the middle of March or the first of April; and then it will be, say, the 1st of May before we are organized and before we shall have opportunity to consider and pass upon these questions, act as speedily as we may, and that will rob two of these measures of very much of their benefit.

For instance, we have on the calendar what is known as the bankruptcy bill, or, as I prefer to call it, the insolvency bill, which includes the measure introduced by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] looking to a composition of the indebtedness upon the farms throughout the United States. Certainly there can be no measure of more importance for immediate action than that measure; and if it is not enacted at this session hundreds and perhaps thousands of homes and farms will have been forfeited or abandoned, if not held by force, by reason of the delay. It does seem to me that we are confronted with the question of whether we are going to adjourn without having done anything with reference to relief for agriculture or for the general relief of unemployment if we proceed with the consideration of this I need not say to the Senate how serious the situation in the country is. Every Senator knows it. It would be merely repeating what is in the minds of Senators to say how serious the situation is in the agricultural regions. If something is not done along the lines covered by the bill introduced by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON], or some measure of that kind, literally thousands of these people are going to lose their farms, unless, as I say, they proceed to do as they have been doing-hold their farms by force.

It is often said that there is impending in this country a revolution; and that, of course, is discounted very largely by many people. Mr. President, there is already a revolution, and it has been consummated in many places. There are places in the United States now where courts can not operate, where the processes of the courts are frustrated by sheer force; and that spreads from the old State of Pennsylvania to the State of Idaho.

I read a day or two ago of where a crowd of farmers took possession of a sale in Pennsylvania and decided how it should be conducted, when it should cease, and under what circumstances the sale should be made. I read.in my State that where an effort was made to foreclose a mortgage, the gentleman who undertook to do it was tarred and feathered and sent out of the State. We know what is happening in Nebraska and Minnesota and Iowa.

Mr. President, every farmer in the United States is looking with anxious solicitude to the Congress of the United States to know whether or not anything is going to be done prior to the 4th day of,March. If nothing is done by that time, knowing the situation as they will know it, this condition will be accentuated and aggravated beyond the power of language to portray.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Utah?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. KING. The Senator is familiar with the fact that both political parties pledged themselves to submit to the people this question of the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. In view of the pledges of the two parties, does not the Senator think the matter might be taken up and disposed of within a very short time?

Mr. BORAH. I think the parties can control some things, but not time in the Senate of the United States.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. NORRIS. Is it not true that the new Congress is going to convene soon after the 4th of March, and these pledges can be redeemed by the party that will then be in power, and redeemed at a time to which it is only fair to say that all the resolutions of both political parties had reference when they agreed to them?

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator permit another question?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. KING. Does the Senator from Nebraska mean that the Republican Party is absolved from its pledge to redeem the promise made? If not, it is in power to-day. It has the Executive and the Senate. Why should not it proceed to the redemption of its pledge?

Mr. NORRIS. Well, I do not know. The country seemed to go over to the other side and place the responsibility and the power in the Democratic Party. They have not gone into power yet; and I do not want to be so cruel to them as to insist that they carry out their pledges before they get in power.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I recognize that a general pledge touching this subject was made by both parties, and that there is a party obligation to submit this question; and I have no desire to stand in the way of its submission. We are confronted, however, with a situation in which, if this pledge is car - carried out, it is proof positive that other pledges which have been made can not be carried out; and I am simply contending before the Senate now that we ought to make up our minds at this time as to whether we are going to carry out our pledges with reference to relief of agriculture and unemployment relief. Those were acute questions in the campaign, thoroughly discussed by both parties, and pledges made without any equivocation, far more direct as to one party than the pledge with reference to repeal.

We not only have the insolvency bill to which I have referred, but we also have the unemployment bill, pending · on Chair. the calendar of the Senate; and both those questions are matters which certainly call for immediate action.

The question with me is, Can we dispose of this joint resolution and also dispose of these other matters? If I thought we could do so, it would not make a particle of difference to me which precedes the other, just so that we are able to dispose of them before the 4th day of March.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The questions involved in the joint resolution which the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE] has moved to consider are comparatively simple and few in number. Does not the Senator from Idaho think that if the Senate really wishes to transact business it can dispose of this question and vote on the joint resolution, and also consider the emergency relief legislation, including the amendments to the bankruptcy law to which the Senator has made such impressive reference?

I agree that if a situation is brought about where the Senate must elect between a bill authorizing the composition of farm indebtedness and legislation relating to the liquor question, it would present an embarrassing and difficult situation with respect to the repeal resolution. It seems to me, however, that there are only a few questions to be determined in connection with this subject of submitting a joint resolution for the repeal of the eighteenth amendment; and I say now that there is scarcely a Member of the Senate who does not already know exactly how he is going to vote.

I intend to offer amendments, at the request and suggestion of Senators on both sides of the Chamber, that will reach a resolution as to the preference of the Senate between conventions and legislatures as the agency for ratification, and also an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the joint resolution which will provide for repeal without imposing upon the Federal Government the obligation to prevent the return of saloons or to impose constitutional arrangements for the prevention of the importation of alcoholic liquors into dry territory.

Realizing that it is possible under the rules of the Senate to prolong a debate indefinitely, and knowing that the Senator from Idaho never indulges in the practice of filibustering, I am wondering why we can not do the sensible and practical thing-discuss this joint resolution fairly, and the amendments that are proposed to it, and vote on it.

I desire to make this additional suggesti-on: · If it is necessary to accomplish that end and to pass upon the various bills to which the Senator from Idaho has referred, we ought to be willing to stay in session here of evenings. We always do that toward the close of a session, especially a short session. If the Senate really desires to do business, there is no reason why we can not vote on the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE] and on the amendments that are proposed to the joint resolution and dispose of this question between now and 10 o'clock to-night, and then proceed to the consideration of the so-called bankruptcy bill and other measures of relief, including the destitution relief bill.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, may I make a suggestion there? ·

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Certainly.

Mr. BORAH. I have not the faith that the Senator has that we shall be able to do that, and yet I agree with him that there is really no reason why we should not. But, Mr. President, if that is true, the farm bill is now on the calendar; and in view of the fact that that bill has to go to the House, and will undoubtedly take time, would not the Senator from Wisconsin be willing to let us dispose of the farm bill first, with the understanding that as soon as that is disposed of this measure is to follow? That will give us an assurance of doing something for a situation which every Senator here knows is a dangerous one.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE and Mr. BARKLEY addressed the

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield; and to whom?

Mr. BORAH. I yield to the senior Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Mr. President, it seems to me that the unemployment relief bill is entitled to precedence over the bankruptcy bill. I am interested in both; but the unemployment relief bill has been on the calendar for many days. I have patiently awaited an opportunity to get it up for consideration, and have received sympathetic assurances from the leaders on both sides of the Chamber that the bill is entitled to consideration; but at every conference I was met with the statement that there was a general understanding that the repeal joint resolution should be given an opportunity for hearing first.

I feel, Mr. President, that I could not agree to the procedure which the Senator from Idaho has suggested, because I feel a certain responsibility and obligation so far as the unemployment-relief legislation is concerned.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I can well understand the feeling of the Senator from Wisconsin. I know his deep interest in the subject, and he has given a vast amount of time to it. He knows the facts of the situation, and I am thoroughly in favor of his measure. I mentioned it as one of the measures we ought to pass before the 4th of March. But I felt this way in regard to the matter, that the States and the cities are, in a measure, taking care of that situation, although I have no idea that they will be able to carry on any great length of time. It seemed to me, in view of the fact that the American farmer, the backbone of law and order in the United States, is now defending his title with force, that there was a necessity for prompt action, not only for the relief which such action would give, but for the psychological effect which it would have upon those who are getting into a state of mind so that we can not foretell what will happen in the United States.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, which farm bill has the Senator in mind, the one that has been reported from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry?

Mr. BORAH. I have reference to the bill which has been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, known as the bankruptcy bill, but really a composition bill, or insolvency bill, which, I think, has tremendous merit. I know that there is a difference of opinion about it.

Mr. BARKLEY. I do not want to get into an argument over that bill now, but, having in mind the farm situation with respect to foreclosure of mortgages, I wanted to inquire . of the Senator whether he thinks the bankruptcy bill, so called, would offer any real relief or remedy to the average farmer?

Mr. BORAH. I think it would offer real relief, and I think . it would offer the most immediate relief. The allotment plan, whatever good there may be in it, could not operate sufficiently speedily to protect those who are being sold out. The bill offered by the Senator from Arkansas has speedy action in view. I believe that it would accomplish it in a reasonable way. It would bridge over the chasm until there . was a possibility that the people might save their farms and save their homes, either through resuscitation of the eco­ . nomic situation generally or through some relief measure which may be passed by Congress.

Mr. BARKLEY. If the Senator will yield further, . I may say that I am in entire sympathy with what the Senator has in mind, and with the plans to alleviate the situation. A subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency has been considering for some days, and has reported to the full committee, a measure dealing with the temporary needs for a period of two years while we undertake to write permanent legislation for the farm-mortgage situation. That measure would not require the farmer to take advantage of the bankruptcy law in order to get the benefits of the relief offered.

Mr. BORAH. The bill of the Senator from Arkansas would not require the farmer to take advantage of the bankruptcy law. He would not even be referred to as a bankrupt; he would be referred to as a debtor, and the other man as a creditor. It would furnish an arrangement by which they might compose their differences and readjust them in accordance with the equities of the situation.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The arrangement for compositions contemplated by the bill to which the Senator from Idaho has referred would work in with the bill which the Senator from Kentucky has in mind, to be reported, we hope, from the Committee on Banking and Currency. . When compositions are made between farmers and their creditors, if the bill the Senator from Kentucky has in mind, a temporary measure for suspending foreclosure, is passed, _ it will enable the farmer who has composed his indebtedness . in a satisfactory way with his creditors to refinance his obligations over a period, which will save him from seeing his home sold from under him.

The Senator from Idaho is entirely correct; without some arrangement to scale down these debts, it will be impossible, 1n my judgment, to refinance them under present conditions.

Mr. BORAH. Certainly. As has. been said upon the floor of the Senate, the indebtedness of the farmers of the United States now is something like twelve or thirteen billion dollars. That is the amount of the face of the paper. Measured by commodity prices which prevailed at the time the indebtedness was contracted, the debt now amounts to nearer $30,000,000,000, and unless we can do something, such as what is provided in the bill to which we have made reference introduced by the Senator from Arkansas, unless we can scale down the interest, unless we can reduce the mortgage itself, there will be absolutely no hope for the American farmer, because a return of prices of commodities will not come in time to save him. He must have a remedy at hand.

I have gone over all the bills introduced by different Senators who are anxious to deal with the situation, and the only bill that would afford immediate relief and place the farmer in a position where he could really adjust himself to the situation and perhaps get an extension of economic life, in my judgment, is the bill introduced by the Senator from Arkansas.

The allotment plan is lying back in the committee, and the longer it lies in the committee the more it will be opposed. I do not know whether it will be reported or not. If it does, it could not possibly affect favorably the situation until another crop has been sowed and reaped.

Therefore, Mr. President, I beg with all earnestness that we make absolutely certain that the 4th of March shall not pass before we enact a measure which will enable the farmer to get some relief against the crushing forces which are now driving him from his home.

It seems to me nothing less than fair to the situation to put the bill of the Senator from Arkansas ahead of the joint resolution of the Senator from Wisconsin. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose to waste time upon either one of the measures, taking time for the sake of taking time, but I feel rather intense about the fact that we should not put ahead of farm relief the matter of repealing the eighteenth amendment, when the legislatures of the States could not possibly act upon it within the next 12 months.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, I agree with what the Senator from Idaho has said, although I expect to vote for the joint resolution of the Senator from Wisconsin. I do not see why we can not have a unanimous-consent agreement to vote within a reasonable time. If the consideration of the joint resolution should lead to extended debate, I would be ready at any time to vote to lay it aside for the consideration of more important and more pressing business. In regard to what has been said here to-day about saving the farmer, I need not recall what has been repeated for the last 10 or 15 years. I do want to call attention, however, to the fact that there are those who now need to be saved other than the farmer. It is very easy to talk about scaling down the debts of the farmer, and that ought to be done, but when it is done, let us bear in mind also, when we are dealing with the debts of the farmers, that we are dealing with the savings of . millions of other people. The farm mortgages are piled up in the life insurance companies and savings banks. The savings of the people are invested in these mortgages. If the desire is to save the farmer, bear in mind the savings of those whose funds are invested in the mortgages of the farmers. And if we come to pass legislation to cut the mortgages of the farmers in two, we must frame some compensatory legislation to take care of those who have invested their savings in farm mortgages.

If we write down the face of a farm mortgage, we will have to write down the face value of life insurance policies and savings bank accounts. This will not be necessary if we write down the interest rate rather than principal.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HATFIELD in the chair). Does the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Senator from Idaho?

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I yield.

Mr. BORAH. I have talked with the representatives of some insurance companies, and they would a great deal rather have a mortgage on a farm on which the farmer has a chance to pay out than to have a farm which they would have to take over and pay taxes on themselves, run by a tenant who would be less capable than the man who is now on the farm. Their security lies in the fact of getting prosperity to the American farmer. Otherwise their savings are worthless.

Of course, we would have to take into consideration the insurance companies, the policyholders, and so forth, but it is not correct to say that the insurance policies and the savings accounts would be scaled down in the same proportion in which the farm mortgages were, because they are deriving benefit out of the fact that their security is made better by reason of the readjustment which is to be made.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, I make no denial of anything the Senator has said. I am talking about protecting the savings of the people, and I think it can be done without writing down the face of the mortgages. We can preserve the savings and the principal involved at the expense of income by writing down the interest rates, instead of taking it out of capital savings.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I yield.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Of course, logically the same result would be accomplished by a reduction of the interest payment where the payment comprehends amortization as by scaling down the debts, although in a less degree.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. But the Senator must bear in mind the conditions which now exist with respect to farm mortgages. In many parts of the country those who have their savings invested in farm mortgages are losing them by reason of the foreclosures which are in progress and by reason of the fact that at the sale the property brings practically nothing. The lands are so depreciated and the prices bid are such that those who have savings in farm mortgages are losing far more now than they could possibly lose under the arrangement for compositions contemplated by the bill to which reference has been made. And they realize it. I have encountered no substantial objection on the part of actual investors who are alleged to have their savings in farm mortgages. They know that unless something is done, and speedily done, they will lose practically everything they have invested in those mortgages, and they infinitely prefer an arrangement which will give them good security, even though they have to sacrifice a part of the principal.

If the present condition is permitted to go on and gather volume, we will see a most alarming situation in all the agricultural sections of the country. Farmers are going to the courthouses and objecting to sales for taxes and under mortgage foreclosures, and when sales are made the property is bringing practically nothing. Not only is the investor losing but that measure of confidence and hope which is essential to a revival of business is being constantly diminished.

I do feel, however, that there is no occasion for reaching the conclusion now that so simple a matter as is involved in the repeal resolution must be treated as if it were a subject of great complexity, and debated after the character of frequent proceedings in the Senate for days and weeks. If we desire to do business, and will demonstrate the fact by staying here at night, we ought to vote on this joint resolution before the end of the day.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President, I have no desire to continue the debate on this farm question now, but I want to say a few words of warning lest when we deal with the farm question we do not initiate measures which will bring on a worse condition than exists now.

As I said in the beginning there are two sides to the question. If we begin on the theory of reduction through bankruptcy proceedings, we will have to go through to the ultimate conclusion. We are not going to be able to stop with farm mortgages. We are going to have to cut, possibly by 50 per cent, every bond issued in the United States. Go ahead and do it, but what happens to the liabilities? The liabilities are piled up against these assets. If we are going to take the bankruptcy route instead of some other way of more constructive legislation, we will close every bank in the country and bankrupt every life-insurance company in the country. I do not believe farmers can be saved in that

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield to the Senator from Maryland?

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. I yield.

Mr. TYDINGS. I realize the necessity for solving the farm problem so far as we can, but it strikes me that the purpose of the joint resolution embraced in the motion of the Senator from Wisconsin is well known to everybody. I do not see why at 4 o'clock this afternoon we can not vote on it and all amendments to it.

Mr. BORAH. Very well. Let us get an agreement to that effect right now.

Mr. TYDINGS. Let me s;ay to the Senator from Arkansas that at 4 o'clock this afternoon every man will know what he wants, and we can vote on the proposal and every amendment pending to it.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, if we can not do · it by 4 o'clock this afternoon, we can do it at 9 o'clock to-night.

Mr. BORAH rose.

Mr. TYDINGS. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 o'clock this afternoon the Senate proceed to vote upon Senate Joint Resolution 211 and all amendments thereto, without any further debate of any kind.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

Mr. BORAH. I will wait until we hear from the request of the Senator from Maryland.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, it would take until two weeks after the 4th of March to reply to all the arguments the Senator from Maryland has made on the booze question in the Senate during the last year, so I shall object to his unanimous-consent request.

Mr. TYDINGS. Will the Senator set some time to which he will consent? I want to get to the agricultural problem and its solution. That is the only reason why I made the suggestion.

Mr. BROOKHART. Yes; I will agree that a. vote shall be taken on the first day of the first session of the new Congress.

Mr. TYDINGS. Here we are, Mr. President, with a great need for agricultural legislation. I, as one who believes in the repeal of the eighteenth amendment, am ready to eliminate all debate, to say not a word about it at all, and to take a vote at this very minute without any debate at all, - because every Senator knows how he will vote. No votes are going to be changed by discussion or argument. Therefore I ask unanimous consent that after 2 o'clock, one hour from now, there shall be no further debate on the joint resolution or any amendment offered thereto, and that we shall proceed to vote upon the joint resolution and all amendments offered thereto without any further debate of any kind.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, this is just a little bit worse than the other request, so I object to it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard .

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I desire briefly to reply to one or two suggestions made by the distinguished Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH]. I do not believe the Senate should be led into the assumption that a repeal resolution will pass at the next session of the Congress that will not delay ratification of such a resolution four years. As I understand, there are some 41 or 42 State legislatures now in session. In none of the States in which the legislature is in session is the legislative period less than 60 legislative days. Sixty legislative days carry the final adjournment of the legislature of such States a trifle beyond the 4th of March. There is another class of States which have a 90-day limitation on their legislative sessions. Then there are other States having longer periods of limitation and some without any limitation whatever.

Therefore if the joint resolution is acted upon by this Congress it can go to 41 or 42 State legislatures immediately for action. If that does not occur, if the joint resolution is defeated at this session of the Congress, then Senators can make up their minds that since there will be very few state legislatures meeting in 1934 there will be no chance for ratification whatever until the legislative sessions of 1935. If the convention system is agreed upon as the mode for ratification, then it is obvious that ratification will be deferred about four years, or even more.

Mr. President, the subject of the eighteenth amendment has been a disturbing political question in the country for the last few years. The political parties have finally resolved upon the question very definitely. Now is the time and now is the occasion to carry out that resolve which in my opinion reflects the mature judgment of the people of the country. When the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH] undertakes to exaggerate the importance of the so-called bankruptcy bill in order to displace the consideration of this repeal measure, it seems to me that the Senate might well be informed of some matters respecting the so-called bankruptcy proposal.

The Senator from Idaho knows full well my opinion about the bankruptcy measure. In my humble opinion, the passage of the measure so far as it relates to agriculture means more distress and harm to agriculture. Unless the bankruptcy measure or insolvency measure, or whatever it may be called, is modified to protect the farmer in his right to his homestead, in his right to his exemptions, then we are placing all that he has in the hands of those who want to tyrannize over him as creditors.

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Arizona?

Mr. BLAINE. Mr. President, I point · this out to show that there is a keen difference of opinion, and it is an easy matter to exaggerate the importance of particular measures, whether they are so-called farm-relief measures or unemployment-relief measures. I have heard the debate going on for the last several years.

I will yield to the Senator from Arizona in just a moment, unless the Senator has something apropos of what I have just said.

Mr. ASHURST. I am sure the Senator does not wish to give the inference--because the Senator is too able a lawyer to give such an inference--that the Congress has power, in dealing with the manner in which the estate of a bankrupt shall be distributed, to override or annul State laws as to homestead exemptions and dower rights. Congress has no such power.

Mr. BLAINE. I appreciate the attitude of the Senator from Arizona. Of course, as the Senator from Arizona well understood when the bill was before the committee, it was my contention that the bill, in so far as it undertook to deprive the farmer of those rights, would be unconstitu­ platform. tional; but the bill as reported out by the committee assumes that authority, and it is proposed to drive that bill through the Congress with that authority in it. I must therefore assume that the other members of the Judiciary Committee, all of whom are distinguished lawyers, disagree with my position respecting the invalidity of those provisions of the bill. I do not believe that those lawyers, all objects. able men and sincere men, would report out a bill which they believe would be held to be invalid and unconstitutional in any of its provisions.

Mr. ASHURST. I hope the Senator will do me the justice to recall that I stated in the committee just what I said here a moment ago. Congress has no power to sweep away the homestead exemption or the dower right which some States have seen fit to grant to their citizens.

Mr. BLAINE. The bill takes the property and all property of the debtor-exempt property, homestead rights, and all other property-and puts it under the control and jurisdiction . of the court, and the court may determine the priority of payments out of the proceeds from that property.

It was not my purpose to engage in a discussion of the so-called bankruptcy bill. I merely wanted to point out these matters in order, if possible, to indicate the exaggerations to which men are prone to go in advancing some of their particular theories and opinions.

Mr. President, in my opinion not only can the joint resolution be disposed of but the bill providing for revenue from the manufacture and sale of malted liquors can be passed, the so-called farm-relief measures can be considered and passed, the unemployment-relief measure can be passed at this session of Congress if Congress will get down to work. But if the Senate is to meet at 12 o'clock noon and adjourn or recess before 6 o'clock in the afternoon, with the interminable debate that is carried on, then we can not do it. Senators will recall that we took 21 or 22 days on one bill. One appropriation measure consumed two weeks of the time of the Senate. As I recall, we held night sessions during the consideration of that appropriation bill only on two nights, and then not later than 10 o'clock at night. If the Senate is willing to work, if the Senate is industrious, if we want to consider any of these propositions, if it is our conscientious opinion and belief that these measures should be passed, then we can legislate if we will stay here until a reasonable hour of the night.

Mr. President, I shall not discuss the merits of this proposition; that I shall forbear presently. It could be pointed out as to the great benefits that would flow to agriculture and to the workingmen of this country if we once should take prohibition out of the Constitution and permit the Congress and the States to legislate freely upon the subject; but I am not going to discuss that feature at this time.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. BLAINE. I want first to make a unanimous-consent request; and I do so in the interest of expedition not only of the joint resolution but of all other legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that, beginning at 3 o'clock this afternoon, no Senator shall speak more than once or longer than 15 minutes upon the motion.

Mr; BROOKHART. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. BLAINE. I yield.

Mr. BROOKHART. There has been an enormous amount of debate on this question in the Senate during the last year or two, in nearly all cases from the wet side. It is the wets who have done the talking. They have corrupted the public sentiment of the country; they have brought the big newspapers into line with them; they have created a political situation here that may be binding on the next Congress. At the present time the House majority would stand on one party platform, and, if the Republicans were united, the Senate majority would stand on a different This is the most controversial subject in the United States, and to bring it up in this short session at this late day, and after all that the wet side of the question has done in the last year is the most unreasonable proposition ever presented to the Senate; and, of course, I shall object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa

Mr. BLAINE. I am sure the Senator from Iowa can not charge that I have devoted much time of the Senate to a discussion of the wet and dry question. The time that I have consumed on that subject during my tenure here has been very limited. I have desired action, not words.

Now, Mr. President, just another suggestion. I shall renew this request at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I want to be · reasonable; there is nothing about the motion that is technical; everyone understands the motion. Therefore I want to suggest to the Senator from Iowa and to other Senators who may object to the unanimous-consent request that, if I can obtain the floor, at 2 o'clock I shall renew my request, placing the hour then at 4 o'clock; and in the event that I can not obtain unanimous consent on some reasonable ground, I shall then ask the Senate to stay in continuous session until this motion can be determined, and we shall undertake to decide whether or not a majority of the Senate can function.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, let me say that I have never, as has been previously stated, engaged in a filibuster here, but there are two ways by which one can filibuster; and if there is going to be an undertaking in the first hours of this debate to wear men down physically in order to get a vote, I assure the Senator from Wisconsin that there will be two sides to that proposition.

Mr. BLAINE. I accept the assurance of the Senator from Idaho, but I want to point out to the Senator from Idaho that if he is going to get action upon the so-called bankruptcy bill, if he is going to . get action upon other legislation of a general character, he will find that it will require industry and attention, and that we can not adjourn or recess between 5 or 6 o'clock and transact the business of the Senate. It will require night sessions and sometimes, perhaps, sessions long into the night. It is not a question of wearing men down; it is a question of determining whether or not we are going to pursue a course of industry in the Senate, or are we going to surrender to a small minority.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, the Senator is now speaking about a different proposition. I am perfectly willing to utilize all reasonable hours; I am perfectly willing to come here at 10 o'clock in the morning; but, Mr. President, we are not going to stay here all night-! serve notice of that factand make any progress whatever.

Mr. BLAINE. Then, Mr. President, I will mellow my request. If we shall not have made some reasonable progress within the next hour or two, I shall request the Senate to stay in session at least until 10 o'clock this evening.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, I rise merely to seek information and direction from the Senator from Idaho. ·with my colleague, I represent a State wherein is located the city of Chicago, representing one-half of the population of that State. That city, its toilers, its laborers, and its people generally may be said to have a great interest in the measure referred to by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FoLLETTE]. A large element in that city have equally a very great interest in the repeal of the eighteenth amendment and the results which may directly flow therefrom.

On the other side are the farmers of the great State of Illinois. My colleague and myself have tried to voice their interest. They are, of course, greatly concerned in any form of relief for agriculture. I therefore wish to ask the eminent Senator from Idaho a question. First, however, I call his attention to the fact that the statement he made on the floor of the Senate a few moments ago, that the socalled bankruptcy bill, to which he has alluded, would carry relief to the farmers in their present unhappy distress, will reach very far, and because of his eminent position here will be circulated generally, so that the belief will prevail that in this particular measure there is a feature of some nature that will give to the farmer as such immediate relief. I am unable to see in the bankruptcy bill what provision it is that my eminent friend the Senator from Idaho alludes to as covering such a subject and describing such a; possibility of relief. I rise to ask the Senator from Idaho, both because of his association with the Judiciary Committee and his well-known position on questions of relief in behalf of the needy, what provision of the bankruptcy bill that is now before us, which many of us have considered in committee, does my eminent friend feel is addressed to agriculture whereby the farmer would get any immediate relief if that bill were passed?

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I referred to that portion of the bill which incorporates a measure introduced by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON], dealing exclusively with the question of the indebtedness between the farmer and his creditors, and which sets up the machinery for composing the differences with some detail. I do not know whether the Senator is referring to the bill that passed the House; that bill contained no such provision; but if the Senator will refer to the bill as it came out of the Judiciary Committee, he will see that we have incorporated in it the bill introduced by the Senator from Arkansas dealing with that subject.

Mr. LEWIS. I do refer to the bill coming out of the Judiciary Committee, and my judgment was, upon reading it, that the provision that permits the composure of obligations between creditor and debtor, as suggested by the Senator from Arkansas, calls for the consent of the creditor to the desires of the debtor, and therefore presumes special negotiations between the debtor and the creditor. We will thus be launched upon individual action on the part of the debtor and the creditor, which will extend estate. through such periods of time that I fear none of us, in view of the tendency of creditors generally, will live long enough to see such a composure as could relieve the farmer who might finally be yielded to or that would be of any benefit whatever to any of those who may be interested. · Such is my fear. I would hope to the contrary, but I wish to point out to the eminent Senator from Idaho that that bill as it stands, instead of giving relief to the farmer, turns him over to the creditor to consent to that relief or to withhold it, to the complete destruction of the debtor at the will of the creditor.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I desire to put in the RECORD, in connection with the question asked of me by the able Senator from Illinois, a portion of the bill reported from the Judiciary Committee, beginning with section 75 and including the remainder of the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, that order will be made.

The portion of the bill referred to is as follows:

SEc. 75. Agricultural compositions and extensions: (a) Courts of bankruptcy are authorized , upon petition of at least 15 farmers within any county who certify that they intend to file petitions under this section, to appoint for such county one or more referees to be known as conciliation commissioners, or to designate for service in such county a conciliation commissioner previously appointed for an adjacent county. In case more than one conciliation commiss i oner is appointed for a county, each commissioner shall act separately and shall have such territorial jurisdiction within the county as the court shall specify. A conciliation commiss i oner shall have a term of office of one year and may be removed by the court if his services are no longer needed or for other cause. No individual shall be eligible to appointment as a conciliation commissioner unless he is eligible for appointment as a referee and in addition is a resident of the county, familiar with agricultural conditions therein and not engaged ln the farm-mortgage business, the business of financing farmers or transactions in agricultural commodities or the business of marketing or dealing in agricultural commodities or of furnishing agricultural supplies. In each judicial district the court may, if it finds it necessary or desirable, appoint a suitable person as a supervising conciliation commissioner. The supervising conciliation commissioner shall have such supervisory functions under this section as the court may by order specify.

(b) Upon filing of any petition by a farmer or creditor under this section there shall be paid a fee of $10, to be transmitted to the clerk of the court and covered into the Treasury. The conciliation commissioner shall receive as compensation for his serv ­ ices, including all expenses, a fee of $10 for each case docketed and submitted to him, to be paid out of the Treasury. A supervising conciliation commissioner shall receive as compensation for his services a per diem allowance to be fixed by the court, in an amount not in excess of $5 per day, together with subsistence and travel expense~ in accordance with the law applicable to officers of the Department of Justice. Such compensation and expenses shall be paid out of the Treasury. If the creditors at any time desire supervision over the farming operations of a farmer, the cost of such supervision shall be borne by such creditors or by the farmer, as may be agreed upon by them, but in no instance shall the farmer be required to pay more than one-half of the cost of such supervision. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent a conciliation commissioner who supervises such farming operations from receiving such compensation therefor as may be so agreed upon . No fees, costs, or other cha r ges shall be charged or taxed to any farmer or his creditors by any conciliation commissioner or with respect to any proceeding under this section, except as hereinbefore in this section provided. The conciliation commissioner may accept and avail himself of office space, equipment, and assistance furnished him by other Federal officials, or by any State, county, or other public officials. The Supreme Court is authorized to make such general orders as it may find necessary properly to govern the administra t ion of the office of conciliation commissioner and proceedings under this section; but any district court of the United States may, for good cause shown and in the interests of justice, permit any such general order to be waived.

(c) At any time within five years after this section takes effect a petition may be filed by any farmer, or by any creditor of such farmer, stating that the farmer is insolvent or unable to meet his debts as they mature, and that it is desirable to effect a composition or an extension of time to pay his debts. The petition or answer of the farmer shall be accompanied by his schedules. The petition and answer shall be filed with the court, but shall, on request of the farmer or creditor, be received by the conciliation commissioner for the county in which the farmer resides and promptly transmitted by him to the clerk of the court for filing. If any such petition is filed, an order of adjudication shall not be entered, except as provided hereinafter in this section.

(d) After the filing of such petition or answer by the farmer, the farmer shall, within such time and in such form as the conciliation commissioner shall determine, file an inventory of his (e) The conciliation commissioner shall promptly call the first meeting of creditors, stating in the notice that the farmer proposes to offer terms of composition or extension, and inclosing with the notice a summary of the inventory, a brief statement of the farmer's indebtedness as shown by the schedules, and a list of the names and addresses of the secured creditors and unsecured creditors, with the amounts owing to each as shown by the schedules. At the first meeting of the creditors the farmer may be examined, and the creditors may appoint a committee to submit to the conciliation commissioner a supplementary inventory of the farmer's estate. The conciliation commissioner shall, after hearing the parties 1n interest, fix a reasonable time within which application for confirmation shall be made, and may later sale; extend such time for cause shown. After the filing of the petition and prior to the confirmation or other disposition of the ment; composition or extension proposal by the court, the court shall exercise such control over the property of the farmer as the court deems in the best interests of the farmer and his creditors.

(f) There shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of, the conciliation commissioner a final inventory of the farmer's estate, and in tl1e preparation of such inventory the commissioner shall give due consideration to the inventory filed by the farmer and to any supplementary inventory filed by a committee of the creditors.

(g) An application for the confirmation of a composition or extension proposal may be filed in the court of bankruptcy after but not before ( 1) it has been accepted in writing by a majority tn number of all creditors whose claims have been allowed, including secured creditors whose claims are affected, which number shall represent a majority in amount of such claims, and (2) the money or security necessary to pay all debts which have priority unless waived, and in case of a composition, the consideration to be paid by the farmer to his creditors has been deposited in such place as shall be designated by and subject to the order of the court.

(h) A date and place, with reference to the convenience of the parties in interest, shall be fixed for a hearing upon each application for the confirmation of the composition or extension proposal and upon such objections as may be made to its confirmation.

(i) The court shall confirm the proposal if satisfied that (1) it includes an equitable and feasible method of liquidation for secured creditors and of financial rehabilitation for the farmer; (2) it is for the best interests of all creditors; and (3) the offer and its acceptance are in good faith, and have not been made or procured except as herein provided, or by any means, promises, or acts herein forbidden. In applications for extensions the court shall require proof from each creditor filing a claim that such claim is free from usury as defined by the laws of the place where the debt is contracted.

(j) The terms of a composition or extension proposal may extend the time of payment of either secured or unsecured debts, or both, and may provide for priority of payments to be made during the period of extension as between secured and unsecured creditors. It may also include specific undertakings by the farmer during the period of the extension, including provisions for payments on account, and may provide for supervisory or other control by the conciliation commissioner over the farmer's affairs during such period, and for the termination of such period of supervision or control under conditions specified.

(k) Upon its confirmation a composition or extension proposal shall be binding upon the farmer and his secured and unsecured creditors affected thereby: Provided, That such composition or extension shall not impair the lien of any secured creditor, but shall affect only the time and method of its liquidation. .

(1) Upon the confirmation of a composition the consideration shall be distributed under the supervision of the conciliation commissioner as the court shall direct, and the case dismissed. Upon the confirmation of an extension proposal the court may dismiss the proceeding or retain jurisdiction of the farmer and his property during the period of the extension in order to protect and preserve the estate and enforce through the conciliation commissioner the terms of the extension proposal. The court may, after hearing and for good cause shown, at any time during the period covered by an extension proposal that has been confirmed by the court, set the same aside, reinstate the case, and modify the terms of the extension proposal.

(m) The judge may, upon the application of any party in interest, file at any time within six months after the composition or extension proposal has been confirmed, set the same aside and reinstate the case, if it shall be made to appear upon a trial that fraud was practiced in the procuring of suc;h composition or extension, and that knowledge thereof has come to the petitioners since the confirmation thereof.

(n) The filing of a petition pleading for relief under this section shall subject the farmer and his property, wherever located, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. In proceedings under this section, except as otherwise provided herein, the jurisdiction and powers of the court, the title, powers, and duties of its officers, the duties of the farmer, and the rights and liabilities of creditors, and of all persons with respect to the property of the farmer and the jurisdiction of the appellate courts, shall be the same as if a voluntary petition for adjudication had been filed and a decree of adjudication had been entered on the day when the farmer's petition or answer was filed.

( o) Except upon petition made to and granted by a. court of bankruptcy after hearing and report by the conciliation commissioner, the following proceedings shall not be instituted, or if instituted at auy time prior to the filing of a petition under this section, shall not be maintained, in any court or otherwise, against the farmer or his property, at any time after the filing of the petition under this section, and prior to the confirmation or other disposition of the composition or extension proposal by the court: (1) Proceedings for any demand, debt, or account, including any money de.ntand.;

(2) Proceedings for foreclosure of a mortgage on land, or for cancellation, recision, or specific performance of an agreement for sale of land or for recovery of possession of land;

(3) Proceedings to acquire title to land by virtue of any tax (4) Proceedings by way of execution, attachment, or garnish­ ( 5) Proceedings to sell land under or in satisfaction of any judgment or mechanic's lien; and

(6) Seizure, distress, sale, or other proceedings under an execution or under any lease, lien, chattel mortgage, conditional sale agreement, crop payment agreement, or mortgage.

(p) The prohibitions of subdivisions (o) shall not apply to proceedings for the collection of taxes, or interest or penalties with respect thereto, nor to proceedings affecting solely property other than that used in farming operations or comprising the home or household effects of the farmer or his family.

q) A conciliation commissioner shall upon request assist any farmer in preparing and filing a petition under this section and in all matters subsequent thereto arising under this section and farmers shall not be required to be represented by an attorney in any proceeding under this section.

(r) For the purpose of this section and section 74, the term farmer " means any individual who is personally bona fide engaged primarily in farming operations or the principal part of whose income is derived from farming operations, and includes the personal representative of a deceased farmer; and a farmer shall be deemed a resident of any county in which such farming operations occur.

WORK OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS FROM JULY 24, 1922, TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1922

Mr. SHEPPARD. Mr. President, I feel justified in fighting this motion with every weapon at my command.

I have addressed the Senate so often on the subject of prohibition that I desire at this time to take up another question.

About 10 years ago--10 years lacking just 6 days-! addressed the Senate on the subject of the proceedings of the League of Nations, and brought those proceedings to July 24, 1922. I now propose to give an account of the league's transactions from July 24, 1922, to September 30, 1922.

PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

The league's official journal for September, 1922, shows that by September, 1922, the following 34 members of the league had ratified their signatures to the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice: Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Haiti, India, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, SerbCroat-Slovene State, Siam, Union of South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Venezuela;

That the following 13 had accepted and put into force among themselves the optional clause: Austria, Brazil, China, Denmark, Haiti, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay;

That the following had not yet ratified their signatures to the statute: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Estonia, Latvia, Liberia, Luxemburg, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Salvador.

BARCELONA CONVENTION OF APRIL 20, 1922

The official journal also shows that by September, 1922, Albania, Bulgaria, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, India, New Zealand, and Italy had ratified the Barcelona convention and statutes of April 20, 1922, relating to freedom of transit and the regime of navigable waterways of international concern; that Albania, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, India, and New Zealand had ratified the additional protocol of that date relating to the regime of navigable waterways of international concern; and that Albania and Bulgaria had ratified the Barcelona convention of that date recognizing the right to a flag of States having no sea coast.

TRAFFIC IN WOMEN AND C.HILDREN

The official journal shows further that by September, 1922, the following members of the league had signed the convention on the traffic in women and children, adopted at Geneva, September 30, 1921, and known as the convention of 1921: South Africa, Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Great Britain, Canada, China, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway, Netherlands, Persia, Poland and Free City of Danzig, Portugal, Rumania, Siam, Switzerland, Sweden.

That the following members had ratified their signatures: South Africa, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, Canada, India, New Zealand, Norway, Siam.

That the following nonmembers of the league had signed said convention: Germany, Hungary.

RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENT TO THE COVENANT

The official journal further shows that by September, 1922, t he following members had ratified the amendments to the covenant submitted October 5, 1921: Denmark, Italy; and that Norway had ratified all the amendments except the amendment to article 6.

REPLIES AS TO EXPENDITURE ON ARMAMENTS

It is further shown by the official journal that on June 22, 1922, the Italian Government, from which the league had, on June 7, requested a reply to its letter of January 17, 1922, regarding the resolution of the second assembly on the question of limitation of national expenditure for the next two fiscal years, replied confirming that Government's letter of May 23, 1921, in which was stated a willingness to adhere to the similar resolution by the first assembly, provided all the other league members would also adhere, excluding naval estimates for purposes not connected with war preparations, such as naval instruction, naval signals, and so forth. To an inquiry, dated June 7, regarding the same resolution, the Swiss Government in July, 1918, replied that on September 14, 1921, the head of the Swiss delegation in the assembly had stated the reason preventing the Swiss Government from limiting its military expenditure in 1922 and 1923 to a sum no larger than that of 1921, namely, the unusually small military outlay for that year due to pressure of other expenses; that this temporary condition was disappearing; and that it had hoped to be able not to exceed in 1923 and 1924 the expenditures on armaments in 1922. To a similar inquiry, dated June 17, the Finnish Government answered on July 10, 1922, with a reaffirmation of its letter of April 26, 1921, stating that it welcomed the proposal for a general limitation of armaments, and had adopted a policy of decreasing the period of military service.

On July 10, 1922, the Japanese Government replied to the league's letter of January 19 on military expenditure that said government maintained the attitude expressed in its letter of April 26, 1921; that it desired, however, to draw attention to the fact that the total estimates for military, naval, and air expenditure in its 1922 budget were lower than those of 1921; that a further decrease was in view for 1923; that these reductions seemed to be in conformity with the assembly's recommendation. The Netherlands Government on July 25, 1922, advised that its military and naval expenses were lower in 1922 than in 1921; that it pointed to this fact in connection with the second assembly's armament recommendation. The Norwegian Government on July 26, 1922, pointed to similar reductions in response to the league's inquiries of January 17 and June 7, 1922. On July 31, 1922, the Government of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes advised in response to the league council's decision of January 13, 1922, submitting the recommendations of the first and second assemblies on the subject of reduction of armaments, that it had reduced the numerical strength of its army to the minimum compatible with its necessities; that it was making, and would continue to make, every effort within its power to comply with these recommendations of the league.

REPLIES RELATING TO SECOND ASSEMBLY'S ACTION ON ARTICLE 16

On July 19, 1922, the British Government replied to the league's letter of January 27, 1922, stating that said government approved generally the resolutions of the second assembly regarding article 16 of the covenant, which set up provisional rules for the council's guidance pending compliance with article 26 as to ratification of proposed amendments to article 16, provided the other league members concurred. The British Government added, however, that the meaning of resolu ti on 2 was not clear, but was presumably intended to be me r ely declaratory, and to mean that the obligation to adopt economic pressure arose only in the specific cases covered by articles 16 and 17, that if it was intended to preclude economic pressure except in case of actual war, a new obligation would be created requiring an amendment to the covenant and beyond the scope of a mere rule, that the resolution should be redrafted to make it clear. The British Government suggested further that the distinction suggested by resolution 14 between civil and military populations was hardly possible under modern conditions, and that the word " civil " had probably crept in through oversight.

The Swedish Government replied on July 21, 1922, to the league's inquiry of January 27, 1922, that it had encountered constitutional and legal difficulties in connection with the question of economic pressure and could not for the present furnish any definite information.

CONVENTION BETWEEN GREECE AND BULGARIA CONCERNING RECIPROCAL EMIGRATION

On July 28, 1922, the mixed Greco-Bulgarian Emigration Commission advised the league that on July 27 it had extended until October 15, 1923, the period fixed in article 4 of the convention between Greece and Bulgaria concerning reciprocal emigration signed at Neuilly-sur-Seine on November 27, 1919. The letter stated that in view of its importance the commission thought the decision should be communicated to the league. The text of the decision accompanied the letter.

PROTECTION OF MINORITIES IN LATVIA

At this point there appears in the league's official journal a letter from Doctor Walters, Latvian minister at Rome, written on July 17, 1922, to Mr. da Gama, Brazilian representative on the council of the league, to whom had been referred the question of minorities in Latvia. The letter began by stating that the writer had received Mr. da Gama's telegram of June 19, 1922, and noted with great satisfaction that Mr. da Gama was now considering the memorandum transmitted by the writer on behalf of Latvia.

The writer, Doctor Walters, then referred to the preliminary report which Mr. da Gama had drafted for the council and challenged its intimation that in the case of protection for minorities Latvia was in the same position as the countries which had concluded treaties with the Allied Powers. He contended that these countries depended on the peace treaties for their boundaries, and to a certain extent for their national life, whereas Latvia was in no such condition; that she was recognized de jure as an independent state by the allied powers without qualification at the supreme council held on January 26, 1921, and later by the other states, that Latvia had made no such agreement as the states in question had made when they accepted articles 86 and 93 of the treaty of Versailles by which they agreed to embody in a treaty with the allied powers such provisions as said powers might deem necessary to protect the interests of the inhabitants differing from the majority in race, language, or religion.

Latvia had undertaken only to approach the league council for the purpose of discussing the protection of minorities, thereby accepting the assembly's recommendation of December 15, 1920, a recommendation not legally binding, not imposing a condition, but expressing a desire, a recommendation based on the principle that the rights of minorities remain within the jurisdiction of the state, and merely appealing to the good will of the state to see that these rights were established. The recommendation had invited the Latvian representative to arrange with the council as to the details involved in the application of such rights. The assembly had not required the creation of any international or supernational law concerning minorities, and still less had authorized the council to draw up any such ordainments. It must above all be remembered, the writer continued, that assembly recommendations must conform to the covenant, which requires that a state's internal government shall in no way be violated.

The assembly had expressed a desire, without exacting it as a condition, that Latvian laws should be brought into harmony with existing general principles, the assumption being that if no agreement should follow, each party would be where it was at first. Latvia was carrying out socially and legally the principles regarding minorities in the peace treaties voluntarily, and not as a matter of obligation under treaties imposed by force, bilateral in form, but unilateral in reality. She could be bound only by treaties which were really international and reciprocal, and until a reciprocal arrangement for some general scheme of protection for minorities had been reached she reserved the right freely to make her own internal laws. In the meantime there should be drawn up for Latvia, as had been done for Finland, a declaration recognizing that the Latvian guaranties, as set forth in the memoranda Latvia had supplied, were adequate for minority protection. The writer held that if any particular right of minorities in Latvia should be internationalized, or described as a right of general concern, a menacing situation might develop both for Latvia and for peace. Such a course might endow every other State and the league its navy. with a political right of intervention .if it considered these rights had been threatened. Pursuant to instructions from his government the writer would refuse to sign a unilateral declaration the effect being under the terms of articles 4 and 5 of the covenant that no decision, either as to subjectmatter or procedure, could be taken.

THE OPIUM TRAFFIC

The league journal next contains a memorandum sent by the United States Government to the Netherland Government in accordance with the opium convention of 1912 and transmitted by the latter Government to the league for distribution to all league members signatory to the convention. The first observation in the memorandum relates to the contraband trade in opium in China, dealt with in article 15 of said convention, and states in reference to the fact that the powers having treaties with China had been directed to article 15 that the United States Government had concluded a treaty with China on November 17, 1880, as to commercial intercourse and judicial procedure. By article 2 of that treaty both Governments had agreed to prohibit the importation of opium into the United States by Chinese citizens and the importation of and traffic in opium by citizens of the United States in China. Accordingly, Congress had enacted a law on February 23, 1887, prohibiting importation of opium into the United States by Chinese citizens and the importation, transportation, purchase, and sale of opium on the part of China by citizens of the United States. Every effort had been made to enforce the law, and large quantities of opium had been destroyed by authorities of the United States functioning in China.

The second observation recited section 6 of the act of Congress approved January 7, 1914, relating to import certificates and the regulations applicable thereto, and described further legislation pending in Congress.

The third observation related to the statistics the United States had been compiling as to production, manufacture, and sale of narcotic drugs within its territory and added that it was prepared to communicate through the Netherland Government to the powers signatory to the International Opium Convention an annual report comprising these statistics and such information concerning the illicit traffic in such drugs as would in its opinion assist in combating the opium evil. The United States thought that the adoption of the suggestions in the notes of the Netherland Government on these subjects by all the signatory powers of the international convention would bring about better regulation of the traffic in narcotic drugs.

INTERNATIONAL HYDROGRAPHIC BUREAU

The official journal next contains a notation to the effect that the directing board of the International Hydrographic Bureau at Monaco had advised the league that Egypt had been authorized by its Council of Ministers on March 25, 1922, to become a member of the bureau. The journal noted that this brought the number of countries associated .with the bureau to 22.

The journal then presents a summary of information received from the states belonging to the Hydrographic Bureau showing what their hydrographic offices had done in 1921 and intended doing in 1922.

Chile reported that the hydrographic service of its navy in 1921 had made 14 surveys of bays, harbors, and so forth, on the Chilean coast; that 15 charts of ports, anchorages, channels, and portions of the coast of Chile had been drawn and made ready for engraving; that 4 charts were being · engraved, 4 others were being drawn, that 2 had been engraved, and 1 reproduced by photolithography. Chile reported further that in 1922 surveys of the western entrance to the Magellan Straits and of the coast of the Province of Tacna had been completed; that 3 new coastal charts, with numerous plans, and 1 plan of ports in the Gulf of Aranco were being engraved, and 3 new plans of various ports were being prepared.

Greece reported that on account of war conditions and the death of its hydrographic director, only work of strictly local nature had been done in 1921 by the hydrographic service of Japan reported that the hydrographic service of the Imperial Japanese Navy had made in 1921, 9 new surveys in the Caroline and Marshall Islands, and 2 sketch surveys on the coast of Siberia, 4 resurveys of the coasts of Japan, 4 of Korea, and 2 of Taiwan; had published 11 new charts compiled from Japanese sources, 114 from foreign sources, and 4 miscellaneous; had issued 19 new editions of charts from Japanese sources, 23 from foreign sources, and 18 miscellaneous; had published 3 volumes of sailing directions, 1 list of lights, tide tables for 1922, and a volume of miscellaneous reports on hydrography. Japan further reported that it was engaged during 1922 in making 4 hydrographic surveys on the coasts of Japan and of its dependencies, in making search for and examination of 2 reported shoals, in making observations of tidal currents, in making magnetic surveys at various points in Japan, and in publishing 12 new charts. Siam reported that the hydrographic office of the Royal Siamese Navy had during the fiscal year 1921-22 made a survey of part of the east coast of Siam and had published 2 charts and 2 tide tables; that the work projected for 1922-23 consisted of 2 surveys of parts of the Siamese coasts and the publication of 6 charts and of the tide tables for 1923.

RELIEF WORK IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

The league's official journal here notes that at Paris on February 26, 1921, the council of the league recommended that the League of Red Cross Societies and the Interna- tional Committee of the Red Cross form a joint council to deal with voluntary relief work in Europe, the council agreeing in such event to notify all league members and ask them for assistance; that after the formation of such joint council the league council on June 22, 1921, so notified and requested league members suggesting, first, free transport by governments of material destined by the joint council for use of distressed areas; second, exemption from customs duty for all . such material; third, opportunities for local purchase of foodstuffs and necessities at lowest prices. On July 8, 1922, a reply had been received from Czechoslovakia stating that substantial reductions had been secured in transport rates.

SAAR BASIN

The league journal then shows that on July 27, 1922, the chairman of the governing commission of the Saar basin had written the league a letter advising concerning the work of the advisory council constituted in the Saar territory by the governing commissioners' decree of March 24, 1922, the members of the council having been elected on June 25, 1922. The letter stated that the governing commission had appointed as chairman of the council Mr. Kessmann, a former Reichstag member belonging to the Center Party having a majority in the advisory council; that at the opening of the council's first session the chairman of the governing commission read a message to the council from the commission, a copy of which was attached to this letter to the league. After the reading of the message representatives of the different political parties in the council asked to speak in reply in order to state their political programs. Copies of their addresses accompanied this letter to the league. The advisory council then appointed a com 4 mittee to examine the draft rules of procedure for the council drawn up by the governing commission. The commission took under consideration the opinions expressed by the council as to those rules, but acted immediately on the recommendation of the council regarding payment of its members.

STAFF LIST OF SECRETARIAT AND INTERNATIONAL LABOR OFFICE

The official journal next presents a staff list of the secretariat of the league and of the International Labor Office with salaries paid each official and employee in accordance with the first assembly's resolution of December 17, 1920.

REGISTRATION OF INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS WITH LEAGUE

The official journal for October, 1922, shows that in April, 1922, the British Empire, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, and Sweden had filed with the league ratifications of the convention of October 20, 1921, regarding the nonfortification and neutralization of the Aaland Islands, that Italy had filed its ratification in May, 1922, Latvia in September, Poland in June. On September 6, 1921, Panama filed its adhesion to the convention of September 30, 1921, on the suppression of the traffic in women and children, subject to ratification. Sweden and Siam, in August and September, 1922, respectively, filed protocols regarding amendments to the covenant submitted October 5, 1921.

CONVENTION OF ST. GERMAIN ON TRAFFIC IN ARMS

According to the official journal, Canada, on July 28, 1922, replied to the league's letter of June 13, 1922, in reference to the arms traffic convention of St. Germain that it was prepared to agree to ratification by His Majesty as soon as all the principal allied and associated powers were prepared to ratify, and subject to safeguards against nugatory action by nonsignatory states. Estonia replied that the question of adherence would be submitted to the next session of the State assembly. Portugal replied that its ratifications of the international conventions signed at St. Germain on September 10, 1919, concerning the liquor traffic in Africa and the control of the traffic in arms and munitions had been delivered at Paris on July 17, 1922.

LIMITATION OF NATIONAL EXPENDITURE ON ARMAMENTS

Siam replied on August 19, 1922, to the league's note of March 8, 1921, regarding limitation of armament that internal conditions made her situation exceptional, but that every effort would be made to limit the military budget for the succeeding two years in accordance with the spirit of the assembly's recommendation.

MINORITIES IN LATVIA

The league journal sets out a letter to the league from Doctor Walters dated July 31, 1922, and giving a detailed account of the condition of minorities in Latvia.

SAAR BASIN AND DANZIG

The league journal sets out the secretary-general's report on the Saar Basin and Danzig, summarizing important features for consideration of the twenty-first meeting of the league council.

INCURSIONS OF BANDS IN FRONTIER DISTRICTS OF STATES BORDERING ON BULGARIA

The official journal contains a copy of a memorandum filed with the league which had been sent on June 19, 1922, by the Bulgarian Government to the Greek, Rumanian, and Serb-Croat-Slovene Governments. It is stated that the Bulgarian Government, · actuated by a sincere desire, of which it had given many proofs, to solve the question of the armed bands of which the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government had complained, had proposed on June 9, 1922, that a Serbo-Bulgarian mixed commission should be formed to decide what immediate steps should be taken to restore peace on the frontier and to clear neighboring districts of all elements which threatened peace; that on June 14 the Royal Serb-Croat-Slovene Government sent a reply appearing to indicate that it considered such a commission inadvisable. The Bulgarian State then stated that inasmuch as the object it had in view was cooperation of two official forces in suppressing any threatening movements in the frontier zone, it suggested that the military and administrative authorities on the Serbo-Bulgarian frontier should agree on a plan of common action and should organize telegraphic and telephonic communication between the posts in the frontier zone for the exchange of information relating to movements of armed bands in order to facilitate pursuit.

On July 16, 1922, the Rumanian, Greek, and Serb-CroatSlovene Kingdoms replied in a note, a copy of which was filed with the league, accepting the Bulgarian proposal, but adding that in order to render the proposal effective the three Governments were of opinion that the Bulgarian Government should withdraw from the frontier zone all officials and State servants and all comitadjis notorious in the countries bordering on Bulgaria, and should in future suppress the activities of the so-called charitable associations which. under cover of charitable work, organized the dispatch of armed bands into the territory of the three Governments to terrorize the population precisely as was done under Turkish rule.

On August 17, 1922, the Bulgarian Government, in a letter to the Greek, Rumanian, and Serb-Croat-Slovene Governments, a copy of which was filed with the league, stated that as a result of the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations adopted at the meeting of July 19, 1922, in which the Bulgarian Government recommended the opening of direct negotiations on the question of armed bands, it noted with pleasure the acceptance of its proposal of June 19, 1922. It was greatly surprised, however, by the preliminary conditions required, stating that the first suggested removal from frontier zone of officials and other persons alleged to be guilty of illegal activities. These demands, the letter continued, contained fresh accusations and imposed responsibilities not established by any inquiry or legal investigation and could not be accepted. The letter insisted in joint action in line with the proposal of June 19.

According to the official journal, Mr. Dendramis, director of the permanent Greek secretariat accredited to the League of Nations, stated in a letter to the secretary general of the league, dated August 18, 1922, that in a note dated June 17, 1922, Mr. Mikoff, the Bulgarian representative accredited to the League of Nations, had requested the secretary general to draw the attention of the league council to the dispute between Bulgaria and her neighbors as a result of the activities of Bulgarian armed bands; that on page 4 of this note it was asser~d that Greek armed bands and agitators enter Bulgarian territory. The letter from Dr. Dendramis added that this was so baseless that the Bulgarian Government itself denied ever having made such a statement; that the Bulgarian delegation to the league had said that the rumors that Bulgaria had accused her neighbors of invading her territory with bands was devoid of foundation.

The league's official jom·nal next sets forth a letter from the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government to the league reviewing the dispute with Bulgaria to the time of the Bulgarian note of August 17, already mentioned, and stating that the SerbCroat-Slovene Government would suggest to Greece and Rumania that the three governments would request that the Bulgarian Government remove notorious comitadjis officials from the frontier to the interior of Bulgaria and cease to allow refugees from neighboring countries to establish themselves on the frontier where they were a source of disturbance.

REPRESENTATION OF CUBA IN THE LEAGUE

On September 11, 1922, Cosme de la Torriente, presiden~ of the Cuban delegation in the assembly of the league, addressed a letter to the secretary general asking him in view of paragraph 5, article 7 of the covenant to inform league members and the Swiss Federal Council that under decree 806, issued by the Cuban Government June 1. 1922, the present representatives of Cuba in the Assembly of the League of Nations had been made permanent representatives. The decree of the Cuban Government accompanied the letter. It recited that whereas membership in the league imposed international obligations, the fulfillment of which would materially contribute at the present time to furtherance · of friendly relations and to strengthening the position of Cuba as a sovereign state, the President of Cuba, Alfredo Zayas, by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the constitution and laws and by advice of the Ministry of State, decreed first that the recommendations in the memorandum on the second assembly of the league submitted by Mr. Torriente be approved; second, that the League of Nations auxiliary committee referred to in recommendation No. 12 of chapter 14 of the memorandum, be created and summoned to meet immediately; third, that a department of the ministry of state be created to deal with matters relating to the League of Nations; fourth, that the appointment of the Cuban delegation to the assembly of the League of Nations be permanent, and that in recognition of their valuable services at the second assembly the following gentlemen be appointed to be representatives in accordance with article 3 of the covenant: Messrs. Torriente, Aguero, and DeBlanck, and that Mr. Campa be appointed a substitute representative and secretary general to the delegation, and so forth.