is no moral basis for it, and, therefore, no immorality, apparently, if France should repudiate the debt. I read further from Mr. Loucheur: In conclusion, the creditor nations can not claim anything from France until the latter has collected from Germany. Even then, if France collects the maximum possible from Germany, she will not be able to pay America. Upon another occasion the same authority said, speaking before the Chamber, if I remember correctly, at least speaking publicly in France: I do not count the interallied debts in my calculations. Why? Because we can not pay them. This statement elicited great applause. Mr. BORAH. Mr. Loucheur. I read further: Turning then to the future policy of France, the speaker declared that the choice was "either a strong exporting Germany that can pay, or our security. Between the two I should not hesitate to choose. I choose security." In a debate which took place some few weeks ago in the French Chamber of Deputies, Poincare said: We are debtors toward our allies-we were reminded of it yesterday-for advances and ammunition which was received during the war, in the interest of the common victory. [Loud applause on the left, in the center, and at the right.] Mr. BERTHON (interrupting). That means that you do not intend to pay! [Interruptions and exclamations in the center and at the right.] Mr. POINCARE. It would be just, it would be equitable to grant priority to reparations, but since, until now, you have not agreed to that, maintain to us, at least in the A and B bonds, the 26,000,000,000 of gold marks which the Spa percentage guarantees us and reserve to us, in the C bonds, the sums which you intend to claim from us as interallied debts. This was a statement which he was supposed to have made at the Spa conference. [Long applause on the same benches.] I am pleased to see that the immense majority of this House, without distinction of parties, considers this system equitable. [Renewed applause on the same benches.] These debts correspond, in general, to purchases of arms, material, ammunition, and provisioning for armies fighting side by side. They were war expenses, and war expenses incurred in the common interest. [Renewed and loud applause.] Mr. L. L. Klotz, Clemenceau's Finance Minister, has written a book about the war in which he assails America for its debt policy. He denounces us in effect as Shylocks. He not only clearly indicates the debt will not be paid but says "What a strange mentality is that which can lead a good people and representatives of a great Nation to sustain or even conceive such claims toward an ally." In the letter which Mr. Mellon has written in response to a resolution of the Senate we are advised that the representative of France came to this country; that he presented no proposition for the settlement of the debt; that he presented no proposition for the adjustment of the debt, and although this is not stated in a letter, it is a fact he declined to consider every proposition which was presented to him for the payment or an adjustment of the debt. He then returned home for further advice from his Government, which, of course, was a diplomatic way of saying that the Government called him home, as there was nothing further to consider between the Governments of the United States and France with reference to the debt. Since that time. we are advised by the letter, no proposition has been made by the French Government, and at the present time there is no proposition pending as to the settlement of this debt. So we have this situation, therefore, a debt of nearly $4,000,000,000, overdue for nearly five years, $650,000,000 of that unpaid interest, with the leading public men of France saying that it is not possible to pay the debt, and no proposition for its adjustment, either at any time in the past or now, pending which condition, if it existed between private creditors, would be regarded as a repudiation of the debt. which is of concern to us, and that is the debt which is due us. I call attention here to the fact that during the last year France has loaned large sums of money to other Governments in Europe. She loaned Poland 400,000,000 francs, at 5 per cent interest; Rumania 100,000,000 francs, at 5 per cent; Yugoslavia 300,000,000 francs, at 5 per cent; and Hungary 500,000,000, at 5 per cent. The latter loan, we are advised by the debates which took place in the Chamber, was to be utilized largely in enlarging what is known as the Shodu munition works in Hungary, although I have since seen a statement to the effect that those works are in Czechoslovakia. I do not know the boundaries well enough to be able to say as to that; but, anyway, this money was loaned for the purpose of enlarging those works in order to make the plant bigger and more productive than Krupps was during the war. So, as a practical proposition, France, while contending she is unable or unwilling to meet the obligation which is due the United States, seems to be in a position to loan vast sums of money to other countries and for purposes which are inimical to our view of what is right and proper under the present condition of affairs. France to-day is the greatest military power in the worldI think the strongest military power at the present time that has ever existed in Europe. She has an army of 750,000 men. The American taxpayer is doing his part in sustaining that army just as fully as if it were our own Army. It is difficult for one to understand the necessity of an army of 750,000 men in France at the present time. It can hardly be defended upon the ground of a defensive army. The fact is that through the power of her army, of her military men as trainers or as generals in other armies in Europe, and through her military alliances and her military treaties, she is now from a military standpoint dominant in Europe. For one, I can not reconcile myself to the policy of our re maining silent upon the subject while the debt remains in its present condition, practically repudiated, and vast sums of money being expended by France for the maintenance of a great menacing military establishment. As I said a moment ago, it would be no concern of ours except in a most general way as to what France should do with her money, to whom she should loan it, or as to what she should do with reference to the army; but when we are advised that they are unable to pay and a manifestation of their unwillingness to pay is given, it becomes a matter of legitimate discussion and consideration to examine into the internal affairs of that country. France, with 1,400 craft in her aerial navy, is expending 211,000 francs additional for aircraft. She expects and plans to have 2,560 airplanes in 1925. At the present time France's aerial force is four times as strong as England's and ten times that of the United States. When you think of an army of 750,000 men, an aerial force such as is now being built or constructed, with the military alliances which we know to exist, one is perfectly justified in saying that all this is for the sole purpose of a military dominancy of a continent, and to this the taxpayers of the United States are being made to contribute. In this connection I desire to have read at the desk a statement which appeared only within the last day or two from the vice president of the Belgian Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will read as requested. The reading clerk read as follows: SAYS AMERICA OWES EUROPE $88,000,000,000--BELGIAN SENATE OFFICIAL FIGURES WAR DEAD AT 100,000 FRANCS EACH-SAYS THEY SAVED us. BRUSSELS, January 12 (Associated Press).-Henri La Fontaine, vice president of the Belgian Senate, has made a statement to the correspondent explaining and elaborating his allusions to America's obligations to Europe in the course of his Senate speech on Thursday. In this address he said: "It can not be denied that we fought for America and that we saved her; consequently we are entitled to expect effective help from her. Our Government ought to have the courage to tell this to the American people." The Senator's explanatory statement follows: Counting every killed soldier as representing 100,000 francs of capital destroyed and each mutilated soldier 50,000 francs, France, Great Britain, and Italy, with 2.650,000 dead and 3,000,000 mutilated, suffered a total capital loss of 415,000,000,000 gold francs. Adding 500, If a man were owing one of us and the debt were overdue Of course, the business of France with other nations would be no concern of ours if it did not materially affect a matter represents for the three countries 1,065,000,000,000, or 8,520 per head of population. "The United States, with 50,000 dead, 100,000 mutilated, and 100,000,000,000 francs war debt, bears only 1,000 gold francs per head. The total amount for the three Allies and America, taken together, represents 5,025 gold francs per head of population. "Consequently, to hear a fair share, the Americans ought to pay an additional 4,025 gold francs per head-that is to say, about $88,000,000,000-instead of claiming $12,000,000,000 from Europe. 'Nobody has courage enough to dare to say this to the Americans. If the latter realized it, many of them undoubtedly would admit the justness of the claim that we saved America and that more than 2,500,000 of our men died for her. That is what European statesmen ought to tell America. "The American war debt represents only 10 per cent of the national wealth, whereas the British debt represents 40 per cent and the French debt 50 per cent. "We further ought to protest with the greatest energy against the American tariff." Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I now ask that there may be read at the desk a telegram from General Foch under date of June 1 and 2, 1918. it is very clear to me that those in authority are seeking to bring about a state of public opinion, both in that country and in this, which would enable them to be rid of the debt without the payment of it. Now there is a vast amount behind this matter that one is not free to discuss, not at this time, anyway. If the details of what has transpired between the governments or the representatives of the governments were fully known, I think we should have no doubt about their intention to repudiate their debts to us. For myself, I am not willing that a policy of acquiescence in any such program shall continue. We are under the same obligation to the taxpayer to deal with this situation as we are to protect him from the unnecessary burdens of his own Government, and we shall not manifest good faith or any real desire to aid the American taxpayer if we permit him to carry the burdens which he is now debts be paid or so adjusted as to put them upon a business basis and in the process of final payment. EUROPE'S OBLIGATIONS. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Sec- carrying without insisting in unmistakable fashion that these retary will read as requested. The reading clerk read as follows: The terrible anxiety of France, Great Britain, and Italy, which led them to fully accept American terms, is shown by Exhibit 13, in which Foch, Clemenceau, Lloyd-George, and Orlando implored American aid June 3, 1918, as necessary to avoid entente defeat. EXHIBIT XIII. (Action taken at conference June 1 and 2, 1918.) The Prime Ministers of France, Italy, and Great Britain, now meeting at Versailles, desire to send the following message to the President of the United States: "We desire to express our warmest thanks to President Wilson for the remarkable promptness with which American aid in excess of what at one time seemed practicable has been rendered to the Allies during the past month to meet a great emergency. The crisis, however, still continues. General Foch has presented to us a statement of the utmost gravity, which points out that the numerical superiority of the enemy in France, where 162 allied divisions now oppose 200 German divisions, is very heavy, and that, as there is no possibility of the British and French increasing the number of their divisions (on the contrary they are put to extreme straits to keep them up), there is a great danger of the war being lost unless the numerical infirmity of the Allies can be remedied as rapidly as possible by the advent of American troops. He therefore urges with the utmost insistence that the maximum possible number of infantry and machine gunners, in which respect the shortage of men on the side of the Allies is most marked, should continue to be shipped from America in the months of June and July to avert the immediate danger of an allied defeat in the present campaign owing to the allied reserves being exhausted before those of the enemy. In addition to this, and looking to the future he represents that it is impossible to foresee ultimate victory in the war unless America is able to provide such an army as will enable the Allies to establish ultimate superiority. He places the total American force required for this at no less than 100 divisions and urges the continuous raising of fresh American levies, which, in his opinion, should not be less than 300,000 a month, with a view to establishing a total American force of 100 divisions at as early a date as this can possibly be done. "We are satisfied that General Foch, who is conducting the present campaign with consummate ability and on whose military judgment we continue to place the most absolute reliance, is not overestimating the needs of the case, and we feel confident that the Government of the United States will do everything that can be done, both to meet the needs of the immediate situation and to proceed with the continuous raising of fresh levies calculated to provide as soon as possible the numerical superiority which the commander in chief of the allied armies regards as essential to ultimate victory. (From The Great Events of the War, published by the National Alumni, 1920, Vol. VI, p. 187.) Mr. BORAH. Carlo Schanzer, formerly Italian Foreign Minister and Minister of Finance, declared in the month of December last as follows: There is nothing on Italy's conscience if we do not pay America our debts. We contributed in blood; America in money. Ours was a contribution which could not be counted in money. If America should make us a present of our debts and withdraw her accounts against us. she would leave nothing for which we would have regret, and we would not lose our self-respect, for our contribution has been dearly paid for in human sacrifice, not to be calculated in dollars. Nearly five years have passed since the creation of these debts. The policy of the United States has been most lenient, So much so that the debtors have evidently come to the conclusion that we are not going to insist upon the payment of the debts, and they are preparing their own conscience and the Conscience of their people for a repudiation of them. I do not believe that the Italian people as a people or the French people as a people would readily entertain any such proposition. But [Excerpt from speech of Judge Gary, for which leave was asked to print.] There is at present a strenuous agitation in favor of canceling or reducing the debts of foreign countries to the United States. From the viewpoint of the United States and also many foreign countries who borrowed money at a time when it was very much needed, with uneonditional promises to pay, the proposition would appear to be irrational and preposterous, To the ordinary American mind it is unthinkable. The debtors should have an abundance of time to pay their obligations and a reasonable rate of interest, but that they should desire to repudiate an honest national debt is beyond the comprehension of Americans, to say the least. When the Government which precipitated the terrible World War announced that it considered a solemn international agreement, which it had previously entered into, as only a scrap of paper," the whole world was startled. It was believed at first the one who made the statement did not accurately represent the attitude of his country, and when it was found he did, most nations, including those who are now in. debted to the United States for borrowed money, denounced the statement as an outrage and placed the nation that stood for the repudiation of an honest agreement as in disgrace and without the pale of civilization. With much greater reason, when a nation, relying upon the friendship of another nation, borrows money for immediate needs for a definite time upon an absolute, unconditional promise to pay, there is reason to question the bona fides or even the sanity of those who propose repudiation. Most of us remember clearly what took place and what was said during the war by those who borrowed money; how urgent they were, how profuse in promises, how grateful for accommodations; and it is difficult to believe there is a change in sentiment. It is insisted repudiation is not proposed or desired by a large majority of the people of any one of the debtor nations; that these debts, or any part of them, should be canceled. The recent address of the Hon. Gaston Liebert confirms this view. There are many in this room who have listened to declarations by individuals of debtor countries conforming to what is now being said. Likewise it is desired to emphasize that everyone here entertains for the people of the debtor countries referred to feelings of sincere and deep friendship and esteem, and would not say or do anything intentionally to interfere with or decrease these sentiments. There fore, everything that has been or will be said on this occasion is said as much for and in behalf of the foreigners as the Americans. PAID OUR OWN EXPENSES. According to the published reports, it has lately been said by one of the foreign leaders in governmental matters, referring to war debts, that the war was fought by and for all the countries participating for their joint benefit and safety. Even though this may be a complete, fair, and accurate statement, which is not admitted, it may be urged in answer that as far as we were concerned we paid all our own expenses and furnished our own men and that they served efficiently and with great credit to themselves. It has been asserted by certain foreign nations that they are willing to pay their debts when their debtors pay them and not before. Did anyone ever before hear such a condition insisted upon by any selfrespecting, solvent individual or nation? Does any one of these foreign nations, through its courts, allow individual debtors to other individuals to postpone payment until these debtors have collected their claims against third parties? What would a foreign court say to such a defense to a suit brought upon a note given for borrowed money? The pride and sense of honor and regard for established reputation for integrity and fair dealing will not permit our foreign friends to repudiate or attempt to cancel their financial obligations to this country. They will reject the suggestions by any of their officials that solemn promises, made for consideration paid in good money, shall be canceled or reduced. If our United States Congress should vote in favor of any reduction in the principal of the foreign debts, whether as an intended act of generosity or otherwise, it would receive no genuine response of gratitude from the debtor, and, on the contrary, it would be charged by a majority, at least, of the people of this country with attempting to contribute the moneys of others for motives that are not commendabie. We do not ask Congressmen to be economical with their own money, but with ours it is different, notwithstanding we do not believe in false economy nor object to true and real generosity. FALSE GENEROSITY. In pleading for the exercise of real generosity we are at the same time objecting to an attempt by anyone in official or private life to substitute false generosity, especially by the contribution of funds which rightfully belong to another. There has been too much of this. If the foreign debts to this country were canceled or reduced, except by consent of at least a majority of the Americans, it would be outrageous, for it would be a mere transfer of the burden from one nation to another whose people are already carrying a very heavy load. We in this country desire the friendship of every other country and may be depended upon to do everything just and reasonable to maintain the cordial and friendly relationship with all of them; but when it comes to the point of being generous beyond the limit of obligations we must reserve to ourselves the decision as to what is appropriate; and in the consideration of all such matters we should not forget that charity begins at home and that the necessities and comforts of our own people are not to be overlooked or neglected. True generosity regards always of highest importance actual obligations to our own dependents. This is good doctrine for all of us as individuals and for our lawmakers as official administrators as well. Let us be grateful for the blessings and mercies bestowed upon us. Especially let us be joyful for the friendship and esteem of our foreign acquaintances, whom we respect and love. Let us be forever thankful for the service and support of our splendid soldiers, who in time of darkest peril bared their breasts to a ruthless, powerful enemy. Let us be grateful for being alive and permitted to live in this glorious, honorable, and universally respected country. And let us always be truly generous up to the limit of reason and propriety, reserving to ourselves the right to determine when, where, and how much. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for calling attention to the European propaganda for the honorable (sic) repudiation of their debts to America. On the 18th of December last I submitted for the RECORD testimony which ought to satisfy any careful and conscientious student that the war which is now called "our" war by Mr. Schanzer and other European statesmen, who are trying to lay the foundation for repudiation of the debts due America, was "their" war. I demonstrated, I think, that a secret treaty was negotiated between the President of France and the Russian Czar in 1892 contemplating this war; that there were held nine annual secret conferences between the general staffs of France and of Russia planning this war; that it was the Russian policy to create a general war as the only means of obtaining the Dardanelles and special influence in the Balkans over the Slavs; that Sazonoff, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Sukhomlinoff, the Russian Minister of War, and Janvans Keritch, the head of the mobilization division of Russia, willed this war, and the war was willed by the leading statesmen in charge of the foreign affairs of France. not America's war; not "our" war; it was "their" war; and the proof is overwhelming, not from German sources but from French, Russian, Belgian, and English, that it was "their" war, contrived and willed by their authorities. It was The remedy to prevent future war is plain. This war was created by a few men in absolute control of the foreign offices of Russia, of France, of Great Britain, uncontrolled by their parHaments and with power to make war. The remedy is to put the foreign offices under parliamentary control. In Great Britain this plan is about to be advanced in London by Ramsay Macdonald, who probably will be the Premier of England next week. He proposes, according to the public press, that the foreign affairs of the British Empire shall be put within the control of the Parliament of Great Britain. Then there will be some measure of publicity and public safety; then public measures threatening war shall have some measure of responsibility to the people who die on the battle field and pay the costs of When the French Republic, or, I should say, the French people, have the vision to see the importance and necessity of putting the management of French foreign affairs under the control of their Parliament another such intrigue as caused this war. war will no longer be possible through the secret processes of the old ambitious diplomacy of Europe. This was not America's war. We were drawn into it against our will, and when at last we went into it we did not go into it as the enemies even of the German people, but we went into it as the antagonists of the military dynasty of Germany, against those leaders who held the German people subject to military control. We were opposed to militarism in Europe, which interfered with our peace and dignity, which sank our ships on the sea and murdered our citizens when on their lawful errands. We were justified in our action. The foundation, however, for the repudiation of these debts, that the World War was our" war, has been completely exploded, and the scholars and historians of Europe have now in their hands the most overwhelming and abundant testimony to verify that which I have stated here on the floor. Let the advocates of peace and the enemies of war read this record of secret diplomacy, learn the mechanism of how diplomats make war, and learn the remedy of how to prevent diplomats from making war. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I hope that the American people understand that the World War Foreign Debt Commission has at no time given any cause for any European Government owing the United States for advances made to it during the World War to believe that its debt will be canceled. There is not a member of that commission who has the least thought of our Government canceling a single debt of a foreign nation to us; and I say this because I am fully aware of the feeling and have listened to the expressions of every member of that commission. Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Utah a question? Mr. SMOOT. I yield. Mr. CARAWAY. I should like to ask the Senator from Utah, who is a member of the World War Foreign Debt Commission, if there can be any hope held out to the American people that the European Governments are going to pay us within the near future? Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I am fearful that there is very little hope of that; but I will say to the Senator from Arkansas, as well as to the American people, that it is not because those foreign countries have not been requested by the commission to arrive at some definite settlement of their debt to us. Not only once have they been so requested, but they have been requested over again to do so. Mr. CARAWAY. May I ask the Senator-if it would not be dealing with some secret that he should not reveal-do the representatives of the foreign governments insist that they are under no obligations to pay us? Mr. SMOOT. I will say to the Senator from Arkansas that before our commission they have never gone quite so far as that. So far as I know, all statements which could be construed as a repudiation of the foreign debts have been in cable dispatches and reports from individuals discussing the question with Government officials. I wish it were possible to impress upon the people of the countries to which the Government of the United States advanced money just the position that their representatives took by expressions made by them when they came to America and asked America to assist them in the war. I can remember well, Mr. President, some of those foreign representatives making declarations that their countries had their backs to the wall; that they were already bled white, and the war was lost unless America came to the rescue, not only with men but with money. I have no patience with the statements which are made so often that this was America's war. If I were going to express an opinion as to the reason why Premier Baldwin was defeated at the last election in England, I would say that it was because he upheld the honor of the British Government and recognized and directed a settlement of the debt which England owed to America. Burdensome as it was upon the English people, he took the position that no matter whether the amount was $4,600.000,000 or twice that figure, the British Government could not afford to fail to meet every obligation. Mr. McKELLAR. Mr President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Utah yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. SMOOT. I yield. Mr. MCKELLAR. Does not the Senator think that Premier Baldwin's advocacy of a high protective tariff for Great Britain had a great deal to do with his defeat? Mr. SMOOT. No, Mr. President; I think that was a minor question. Mr. MCKELLAR. If the Senator will permit me just one further observation, the Senator has certainly noticed the British newspapers, and the consensus of opinion as voiced in the British newspapers is that Mr. Baldwin's defeat was due in a large measure to his advocacy of a protective tariff policy. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I happen to know where the powerful opposition against Mr. Baldwin came from, and it existed before he made a public statement that he was going to advocate a protective tariff for Great Britain. I know that there was the severest criticism of him because of the settlement made by him of the debt which Great Britain owed to the United States. I heard predictions made by leading men that his administration would be short indeed, giving as a reason that the debt which England owed became a reality, if you please, through the efforts and the sanction of Mr. Baldwin. That same opposition claimed that all the debts of all the countries involved in the war should have been settled at one and the same time. What the World War Foreign Debt Commission can do further than it has done, I am not prepared to say at this time; but I do know that there will be no lack of effort on the part of the commission to see that the obligations of foreign governments to the United States are settled. Of course, Senators know that we can not take any action to force a foreign government to settle its obligations. Our efforts will have to be directed along a different line. Mr. McKELLAR. again? Mr. President, will the Senator yield Mr. SMOOT. I yield. Mr. McKELLAR. I heard the Senator's statement as to his belief that these debts would never be canceled, and I wish to approve heartily and fully all that the Senator has said on that subject. Can the Senator tell us what steps have been taken in regard not to the payment of the French debt, for of course the debt itself can not now be paid, but the settlement of the debt so as to begin the payment of interest by the Republic of France? Mr. SMOOT. No steps whatever by France have been taken, Mr. President. Mr. MCKELLAR. I will say to the Senator--and I am sure he will agree with me, for the Senator was over there that France to-day is one of the most prosperous people in the world. The cost of living is not much more than half what it is over here. They have made splendid crops. They are not only recovering fast, but they have recovered. They have splendid roads, splendid schools, and splendid farms. They have rebuilt their devastated regions, and so far as the outward eye can see certainly France is in a splendid economic condition to-day. Does not the Senator think that our commission should itself take some steps and make some suggestion to France that it is time that France was beginning to pay her interest? Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, no country in the world can be in a splendid economic condition when her expenditures are greatly in excess of her income. Mr. MCKELLAR. I was not speaking of the Government. The Senator misunderstood me. My remarks had reference entirely to the prosperity of the people of France. As a matter of fact, the Senator knows, as we all know, that the French Government does not tax its people in the way that we tax ours, and the fall of the franc is largely due to an economic policy which I think is bad; and I think the Senator agrees with that proposition, too. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I can not go into detail as to what was stated at the conferences; but I will say that I suggested at that time that unless France's expenditures were reduced or her income increased she would see her franc getting less and less valuable. I might as well say now that the French people have been loyal to their Government, and have loaned it the money necessary to make up the deficit each year; but if France is compelled to go into the markets of the world and borrow gold, the people of France will see her frane go still lower than it is to-day. It is true that the crops in France are wonderful, and I may say that the crops in all Europe are perhaps as great as they have ever been in the history of the world. Not simply in one country, but in Belgium and Holland and the Scandinavian Countries and Germany and France, the crops are exceedingly large; and if the expense of maintaining the various governments were normal, as it was before the war, all the countries owing us could begin within a very short time to meet their obligations. Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I did not intend, by anything I had to say, to offer criticism upon the Debt Commission. I understand that the Debt Commission's powers are limited, but there are other departments of the Government which can speak more directly and effectively upon this subject, and those I had in mind. We might go back a few decades and consult the precedent established by Andrew Jackson, who established a very good precedent in regard to the collection of foreign debts when they were unnecessarily delayed. LEASE OF NAVAL OIL RESERVE LANDS. Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, I wish to call to the attention of the Senate a matter in which the American people are vitally interested. We shall soon have upon the calendar a bill to make an appropriation for the further development of the Navy. We shall be told that the Navy is our first line of defense; that some day we shall find that our national existence will depend upon an efficient Navy, and that any man who will not vote for the largest appropriations for naval development is either not wholly loyal or not well informed of the necessities. Ships may travel only by the use of fuel. Most modern battleships preserve the fuel with which our navies were to be propelled burn oil. The two administrations prior to this took care to in the future. President Taft set aside some reservations of oil, and President Wilson followed with another reservation, undertaking to conserve for the future use of the Navy a sufficient supply of oil. These were in three reservations, known as oil reservations Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Harding, during his administration, issued an Executive order, which I presume all now will agree that he had no authority to do, undertaking to transfer these reservations from the control of the Navy to the then Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Fall. When Mr. Fall got in possession of them, through this Executive order, without notice to the country he negotiated some kind of a deal with two oil people and parted with the last gallon of America's naval reserve fuel. It so happened that about the time Mr. Fall made the secret contract he also became very prosperous, and bought ranches down in New Mexico and made many costly improvements. The public, learning of the leasing or the giving away or the selling of these oil reserves, became inquisitive; and as I now recall, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. KENDRICK] introduced a resolution to make inquiry in regard to one of these reservations, known as the Teapot Dome, which is located in Wyoming. After some little trouble, a resolution went through the Senate authorizing an inquiry. The oil people came in, and wanted to say offhand that they had made a contract in which they were more patriotic than business wise; that they took this fuel off our hands because some other oilmen were going to steal it, although at the same time they prefaced their remarks by saying that the oilmen were getting tired of being thought to be unpatriotic; that they were among the most patriotic citizens in America. They then said, however, that they took this oil off our hands because other "patriotic" oil producers were going to steal it from us. That, however, is a little repetition of matters with which I am not particularly concerned at this time. The contract, for whatever purpose it was consummated, and for whatever consideration, was made secretly. The then Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Fall, went out of office to devote his attention to his ever-increasing private business matters that were demanding his attention. The investigating committee commenced to inquire with reference to the suddenly very vastly increased apparent prosperity of Mr. Fall, and he came before the committee and made a statement. Other evidence was offered, and then he declined to go back before the committee, but claimed the privilege of writing a letter, in which he expressed a great deal of indignation that the American people should be at all inquisitive as to where he got his money, or what he did with public property. It had been positively proven, however, that about the time Mr. Fall let his friend Sinclair have the Teapot Dome he left Washington with $100.000, and carried it down to Texas and deposited it. It seems that he used the same kind of a conveyor for cash that Gas Dick Addicks did when he came down to Delaware to try to corrupt that State and come to the Senate; he brought his money in a suitcase. As I remember, when they were buying city councilmen in San Francisco that was the means of carrying about their money. I mention the means of carrying the money from Washington to New Mexico or to Texas in a suitcase only because I thought that the Secretary of the Interior at least should have invented some other means of transporting it. I do not think he had any right to steal the copyright of Addicks and others as to transporting large sums of money, raised by mysterious means for mysterious purposes, in a suitcase. At all events, Mr. Fall made a statement, rather resentfully, from a hotel here, after he had been here some days, with reference to where he obtained the money that he carried to Texas in a suitcase, and his reasons for carrying it. He said he was preparing to buy a ranch down in New Mexico, and that the banking facilities were limited, and therefore he took along the cash. He concluded with a burst of indignation by saying: The gentleman from whom I obtained it- and who furnished me the cash was the Hon. Edward B. McLean, of Washington, D. C. Immediately after that the Hon. Edward B. McLean hired two lawyers and made a statement. It seems as if no man can risk giving his version of any transaction without hiring a lawyer. He hired the Hon. A. Mitchell Palmer, with whom he had been on very unfriendly terms; but this was an investigation that was being pushed very relentlessly by the distinguished Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH], and it was thought, I presume, that if a former Democratic Attorney General should come forward as the representative of Mr. McLean in his effort to remember where he got the $100,000 that he let Fall have that would end that controversy. Mr. A. Mitchell Palmer said this: Mr. McLean is now in Florida for the winter and is obliged to remain there, owing to the condition of his own health and that of his wife. Incidentally, I have observed that whenever a man does not want to go before a grand jury or any other inquisitorial body his health fails. I have known more robust constitutions ruined by criminal courts than by all other plagues combined. Anyway Mr. McLean is now in Florida for the winter and is obliged to remain there, owing to the condition of his own health and that of his wife. He has requested me to say that if you desire a complete statement from him in reference to said loan for the record of your hearings he will be glad to give it. He has just telegraphed me as follows: "In 1921 I loaned Fall $100,000 on his personal note. I have never met Harry Sinclair, nor have I ever met Doheny or any of the socalled oil crowd.” That is the telegram. The investigating committee sent a subcommittee down to Florida, consisting of the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH], and took a first-hand statement from Mr. McLean. Incidentally, Mr. McLean's real lawyer-Mr. Lambert-went along to advise his client, and I have no objection, because I think he needed him to enable him to remember just exactly what did occur, and when he got with his real lawyer he remembered that he never loaned Fall a dollar in his life. But he said that Fall came to him and wanted to borrow some money and he gave him some checks, and that afterwards Mr. Fall gave him his note, or something that he presumed was a note-I do not think he ever took pains to examine it-and that these checks were, in a day or two, returned to him uncashed, with the statement by Mr. Fall that he had gotten the money from some other source, and therefore did not require it; and, therefore, that he never let Fall have one dollar. The Senator from Montana then wrote a letter to Mr. Fall who is now also down in Florida for his health, putting up at the same hotel with that other invalid, Mr. McLean-and called his attention to the fact that Mr. McLean had repudiated the statement he made to the committee that he had obtained from him $100,000, and asked him if he would care to make a further statement, inasmuch as his other one was evidently erroneous. He declined to do so, except that he wrote a letter, which I shall, with the permission of the Senate, include in the RECORD, in which he said, McLean told the truth. I never got any money from him." " Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Iowa? Mr. CARAWAY. I presume so. I should take it for granted that a man would not own a paper and put it to the uses to which the Post is put except for what seemed a good reason to him. Anyway, Fall says that McLean told the truth, saying, "I did not get any money from him, but I got it from somebody, and it is nobody's business from whom I got it." I should like to include also in these remarks the statement that apparently Mr. Fall is not registered under his own name in Florida. He has invented another, and puts opposite that, "Charge to account of Mr. McLean." McLean says he did not authorize him to do it; that he is just loaded on him for that hotel account. Nobody could see Mr. Fall except McLean and his lawyers, and after the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH had kindly agreed that he would not haunt them any further and left Florida, Fall came out and said, "I am not going before that man WALSH or any other man. If ever I take a notion to tell where I got my money, I will tell." Mr. President, if the former Secretary of the Interior had wanted to enter a plea of guilty of having entered into a corrupt conspiracy for the sale of every gallon of America's reserve naval fuel, he could not have more effectively done it by going before a proper officer and subscribing to an affidavit that he received money from Sinclair and others for the sale, and not the lease, of American oil land, because to call it a lease is to apply a misnomer to it. Under the contract they undertook to convey absolutely every gallon of America's reserve fuel. For 150 years Benedict Arnold has been considered as a man beyond whose place of degradation no one could descend, because in time of war, for reasons which may have appealed to him, he undertook to sell and convey a little rocky fortress on the Hudson River to the British Army. He was a traitor because he undertook to sell an American fortification to Great Britain. It would not have been determinative of the struggle between the colonists and Great Britain if he had succeeded in delivering West Point; but if the people in charge of the American Navy are to be believed when they tell us that our very national existence depends upon the Navy as our first line of defense-and they have done it in the past and will do it in the future-when they tell us that we would be lost without the Navy, and then sell every drop of America's reserve fuel for the Navy, how much more infamous it is to have sold every gallon of our reserve oil than it was for Benediet Arnold who wanted to sell only a rocky fortress on the Hudson River! That is not all. The present Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Denby, signed that contract. His Assistant Secretary, Mr. Roosevelt, admitted that he was somewhat active in the matter. They now say, in order to stand from under, that this was just a mere matter of detail, which great men like them had no time to consider; that it was just a detail. A detail of selling every gallon of America's naval reserve fuel was a detail with which they did not bother their great minds! Oh, I want to say this-and it is as charitable as anybody else will ever be with them-if they regard that as a mere matter of detail, and they know as little about the matters that come within their jurisdiction, they ought never to have been intrusted with our first line of defense, as they call the Navy. Mr. President, I introduced a resolution to cancel those leases. It met with immediate objection by the Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT], and I am conscious that it has gone to its sleep. I realize, and everybody realizes, that when these resolutions were denied the right of immediate consideration by the Senate they have found their resting place during the remainder of this Congress. But there is a public conscience in America, mistake it though some people may. The American people will know about this, because, as I said, Mr. Fall first said positively and without any kind of equivocation, without any hope of having an avenue of escape, that he got this hundred thousand dollars from Edward McLean. I want to read what he said in order that I may make his statement so much more impressive. He said: I have at my ranch at Three Rivers a perfectly secure vault- and in view of the banking situation with reference to the Harris heirs Those are the people from whom he was going to buy a Mr. CARAWAY. I do not think he is the editor; he is the ranchowner. Mr. BROOKHART. Does he have anything to do with those beautiful editorials written about the political immorality of the insurgent Republicans? and of the diversified interests represented by the eight heirs, I expected, until I arrived at El Paso, to be compelled to meet the $91,500 The gentlepayment immediately, so I took money with me in cash. man from whom I obtained it |