The money and who furnished me the cash was the Hon. Edward B. McLean, of Washington, D. C. That does not admit of any explanation. Neither Mr. Palmer nor Mr. Lambert nor any other lawyer he may hire can ever add to or take from that positive declaration that "I got the cash from Hon. Edward B. McLean, of Washington, and I took It with me." McLean says, "I never let him have a dollar," although prior to that he had authorized Mr. Palmer to say to this committee, hoping that that would quiet them, that in 1921-and I am reading now from McLean's statement--the first one-" In 1921 I loaned Fall $100,000 on his promissory note." He did not do it. He knew he did not. Fall never got $100,000 from him, and knew he did not, and therefore I want to suggest this, that men of great positions, as both of these gentlemen are; men of high standing, as both of these gentlemen are; men of great intelligence, as both of these gentlemen are, do not make statements that are not true unless there is some reason for it. Honorable men, I would dare say, never do unless the emergency is exceedingly great. I do not think a common liar will tell a lie unless he thinks the truth would hurt. If there was nothing wrong with the source from which Fall got his money why did he not tell the source in the first place? Why did he tell a willful and deliberate falsehood, as he did, to the committee, when he said "I got this money from the Hon. Edward B. McLean, of Washington, D. C., and I took it with me in cash"? He did not do that. Why did he say that? Then why did McLean, from his sick bed in Florida, wire a lawyer here overnight in Washington to say to the committee, "Yes, I let him have that money," and then McLean, under his oath, said "I did not let him have a dollar. I did write two or three checks and gave them to him." But it is remarkable that he can not remember now on what bank he drew those checks. He has no stubs or any other evidence to show that he ever drew a check. I know that there is something wrong with it, and I know, and I know that every reading man and woman in America will know that Albert B. Fall, the Secretary of the Interior, sold every gallon of the American reserve fuel to oil speculators, one of whom boasted that he was going to make $100,000,000 out of his share of the loot. Of course, I imagine that if it were not for my distinguished friend, the present Attorney General, all these men would be indicted, but I am conscious that as long as he sits at the helm of the Department of Justice they may sell the White House and be absolutely immune from any prosecutions in the Federal courts. FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS. The bill (S. 56) for the allowance of certain claims for indemnity for spoliations by the French prior to July 31, 1801, as reported by the Court of Claims, was announced as next in order. The senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. This is a very important bill, and I ask that Mr. WILLIS. LODGE] is absent. it may go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. CHARLES HURST. The bill (S. 661) for the relief of Charles Hurst was considered as in Committee of the Whole and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $1,000 to Charles Hurst, of 217 East Sixth South Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, as full compensation for injuries sustained by his minor son, Fred Hurst, when a United States Army motor ambulance from Fort Douglas, Utah, through the negligence of the driver thereof, collided with the automobile in which such Fred Hurst was riding, on November 12, 1918, on South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, causing such Fred Hurst to be thrown to the pavement and to sustain a compound fracture of his right leg, permanently crippling such Fred Hurst and necessitating medical expenses amounting to $669.50. Mr. WALSH of Montana. May I ask the Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOTт] if he is familiar with the case? Mr. SMOOT. Yes. The boy is in very bad shape even now, and this will only pay his medical expenses. His father has been put to that expense many, many times over. Mr. WALSH of Montana. This covers his medical expenses? Mr. SMOOT. Yes. There is no direct appropriation for medical expenses, but his medical expenses were $669.70. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. BILLS PASSED OVER. The bill (S. 894) to extend the time for the refunding of taxes erroneously collected from certain estates was announced as next in order. Mr. WILLIS. Let the bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will go over. The bill (S. 1506) for the relief of Capt. Edward T. Hartmann, United States Army, and others was announced as next in order. Mr. DIAL. Let the bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will go over. Therefore we are faced with this humiliating situation, that for the first time in the history of America, so far as I know-lagher; Long Bros. Grocery Co.; A. Rieger; Rothenberg & and I hope it will be the last time-a Cabinet officer betrayed Schloss; Ryley, Wilson & Co.; and Van Noy News Co. was the high trust imposed in him, and for a corrupt consideration announced as next in order. sold the very means by which our national existence is to be protected and be himself protected, and except for what I may see fit to say about it, we will never hear any more of the resolution seeking to cancel the leases on the Teapot Dome and the other oil reserves. FRANKLIN A. SWENSON, The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report the next bill on the Calendar. The bill (S. 925) for the relief of Franklin A. Swenson was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and was read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Franklin A. Swenson, of Salt Lake City, Utah, from any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $300, to reimburse the said Franklin A. Swenson for expenditures made to defend an action brought by the United States against said Franklin A. Swenson and others to condemn to the use of the United States certain lands for a post-office site in Salt Lake City, Utah, which action was abandoned by the United States: after the value of said lands had been ascertained in such action. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. Mr. DIAL. Let the bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. The bill (S. 1769) to carry out the findings of the Court of Claims in the case of the Fore River Shipbuilding Co. was announced as next in order. Mr. OVERMAN. Let the bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will go over. The bill (S. 1861) authorizing the Court of Claims of the United States to hear, determine, and render final judgment in the claim of Elwood Grissinger was announced as next in order. Mr. SMOOT. Let the bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will go over. FOREST RESERVES IN NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA. The bill (S. 377) limiting the creation or extension of forest reserves in New Mexico and Arizona was considered as in Committee of the Whole and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That hereafter no forest reservation shall be created, nor shall any additions be made to one heretofore created, within the limits of the States of New Mexico and Arizona except by act of Congress. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. STOCK-RAISING HOMESTEADS. The bill (S. 381) to amend section 2 of the act entitled "An act to provide for stock-raising homesteads, and for other purposes,” approved December 29, 1916 (39 Stat. L. p. 862), was considered as in Committee of the Whole and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That section 2 of the act approved December 29, 1916, entitled "An act to provide for stock-raising homesteads, and for other purposes" (39 Stat. L. p. 862), be, and is hereby, amended to read as follows: "SEC. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, on application or otherwise, to designate as stock-raising lands subject to entry under this act lands the surface of which is, in his opinion, chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops, do not contain merchantable timber, are not susceptible of irrigation from any known source of water supply, and are of such character that 640 acres are reasonably required for the support of a family: Provided, That where any person qualified to make original or additional entry under the provisions of this act shall make application to enter any unappropriated public land which has not been designated as subject to entry (provided said application is accompanied and supported by properly corroborated affidavit of the applicant, in duplicate, showing prima facie that land applied for is of the character contemplated by this act), such application, together with the regular fees and commissions, shall be received by the register and receiver of the land district in which said land is located and suspended until it shall have been determined by the Secretary of the Interior whether said land is actually of that character. That during such suspension the land described in the application shall not be disposed of; and if the said land shall be designated under this act, then such application shall be allowed, otherwise it shall be rejected, subject to appeal. Where after application for designation under this act the applicant establishes and maintains residence on the land until final action on such application, the settler may, if the land be not designated under this act, change his application to one under the enlarged homestead law if such lands be designated thereunder, or to one under the ordinary provisions of the homestead law: Provided, That if the settler shall change his application he shall embrace therein the lands upon which his principal improvements are located, and conform to the provisions, limitations, and conditions of the applicable law." Mr. STERLING. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. JONES] in just what respect this would change the grazing homestead law. I do not have the law before me. Mr. JONES of New Mexico. Under the existing law, until after the lands are classified an entryman or an applicant for such land can obtain no right whatsoever to the land. It really excludes from entry or appropriation under the stock-raising homestead law any lands which have not previously been classified as subject to the act. The proposed amendment would change the law in this respect. It would allow an entryman or proposed entryman to make an application to enter a particular piece of land under the stock-raising homestead act in the regular way, paying the ordinary fees as though it had been classified. If it should afterwards develop that the lands were not subject to such classification, but were subject to what is known as the enlarged homestead law, the half section law, he might then convert his application to an entry under that law. If it were subject only to the regular homestead law, the 160-acre law, he would have a right to convert his application to an entry under that law and get the benefit of his residence and improvements on the land. Now, if he makes his application for entry under the stock-raising homestead law and it should not be classified as subject to entry under that law, then the applicant loses the benefit of his residence and of all his improvements. Mr. STERLING. It gives the entryman or would-be entryman then a preference right to the land that is unclassified at the time he attempts to make entry? JESSIE M. WHITE. The bill (S. 827) for the relief of Jessie M. White was considered as in Committee of the Whole and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to Jessie M. White, widow of Mark White, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $2,500, in compensation for injuries sustained in the discharge of his duties while employed in the Canal Zone, and which resulted in his death. Mr. WALSH of Montana. May I ask the Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER] whether a case of that kind is not taken care of by the general compensation act? I imagine that act applies to such cases in the Canal Zone. Mr. FLETCHER. No; it seems this case was not covered by that act because it was referred to the department, and they held that they could not under the compensation act take care of the matter. The accident occurred in November, 1908. The man White was a locomotive engineer on the Panama Railroad. A blast was discharged and a stone fell on his back, from which accident he later died. The department held that inasmuch as he died during that year when the law was not applicable and while the appropriation was not in existence, he must get his relief in some other way. Mr. WALSH of Montana. What would have been the amount of the compensation under the general act if it had been applicable? Mr. FLETCHER. I think it would have been $2,797.20. I introduced a bill in the Senate during the last session. The committee reduced the amount to $2,500, and so I have accepted the report of the committee as made on the bill at the last session and fixed the amount as they then suggested. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Let me ask the Senator how it comes about that relief has been delayed so long as 15 years? Mr. FLETCHER. The bill has passed at different times. I think it passed at the last session. I know there was a favorable report on it at the last session. I think it has passed this body and perhaps passed the other body, but never passed the two bodies in any one Congress. It has merely been a matter of delay, which is really inexcusable. The bill ought to have been passed years ago. I have accepted the amendment of the committee as proposed at the last session. I have introduced the bill only for the amount which the committee reported in favor of at that time. Mr. SMOOT. I will say to the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH] that the practice at the time this injury occurred, on November 18, 1908, was to pay the injured person one year's salary. I do not know what the salary of this man was, as I am not a member of the committee, but I take it for granted that the committee has followed that practice, and that $2,500 per annum was his compensation. Mr. FLETCHER. That is probably what the committee have done. Anyway, I have accepted the report of the committee, and I should like to have the bill passed. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. LIEUT. HENRY N. FALLON, RETIRED. The bill (S. 946) for the relief of the family of Lieut. Henry N. Fallon, retired, was announced as next in order. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, there does not seem to be any report accompanying that bill. Mr. SMOOT. Yes; I understand there is a report accompanying the bill, though it may not as yet be printed. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I should like to know something Mr. JONES of New Mexico. It gives him that preference about that measure. It seems rather an unusual case. right under any of the various homestead laws. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I inquire of the Senator if the language of the bill in section 2 conforms with the language of the present act down to the proviso? Mr. JONES of New Mexico. It does. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I observe that while it does speak of the land as "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops," it does not exclude mineral lands. Mr. JONES of New Mexico. Under the grazing homestead law all mineral lands are permitted to be entered, but they are entered with the reservation of the mineral rights. Those are the general provisions of the stock-raising homestead law, and this only amends that general law in the respect stated; that is, section 2 is amended to read "as follows," and the other provisions of the stock-raising homestead law are not modified in any particular. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. Mr. SMOOT. The bill covers a new class of claims, I will say to the Senator, so it had better go over. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, wherever a report on a bill has not been on the calendar sufficiently long for Senators to read it, I ask that the bill may go over, in order that Senators may have an opportunity to read the report. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LADD in the chair). The bill will go over. EUGENE K. STOUDEMIRE, The bill (S. 1323) for the relief of Eugene K. Stoudemire was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The bill was reported from the Committee on Claims with an amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and to insert: That the United States Employees' Compensation Commission shall be, and it is hereby, authorized to extend to Eugene K. Stoudemire, who suffered the loss of an eye on August 3, 1915, while in the discharge of his duty as engineer on the towboat Alabama, in the river and harbor service of the Government, the provisions of an act en titled "An act to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their duties, and for other purposes," approved September 7, 1916, compensation hereunder to commence from and after the passage of this act. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as agreed to. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I should like to inquire whether the claim embraced in the bill is one which falls under the general compensation act? Mr. SMOOT. What is the date of the injury proposed to be compensated for? I have not examined the bill. Mr. WALSH of Montana. It is August 3, 1915. Mr. HEFLIN. I appreciate the Senator's suggestion. I did not know that that was the case. That makes it stronger. I hope the Senator from Montana will allow this bill to be passed. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I withdraw my objection, Mr. President. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. BILLS PASSED OVER. The bill (S. 1732) for the relief of Benjamin F. Spates was Mr. SMOOT. Then, I think the general compensation act announced as next in order. applies. Mr. WALSH of Montana. A hurried examination of the report discloses that the claim was rejected by the commission. I ask that the bill may go over. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will go over. Mr. HEFLIN. One moment, Mr. President, I was engaged at my desk at the moment the bill was being read, and I desire to ask is that a bill which was introduced by me? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is Senate bill 1323, and was introduced by the Senator from Alabama. Mr. HEFLIN. I hope the Senator from Montana will withdraw his objection to the bill. The committee has reported an amendment to the bill, and I have no objection to the amendment of the committee. I should like to have the bill passed as proposed to be amended by the committee. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Will the Senator from Alabama explain why it is that relief in this case is not had under the general compensation law? Mr. HEFLIN. I have not the report at hand just now, but I will say to the Senator that I think this bill passed the Senate at the last session of Congress, but failed to pass the other House-that is my recollection about the matter-and that the claim does not come under the class of claims covered by the general statute. Mr. WALSH of Montana. If the Senator will pardon me, I will read from the report, as follows: The evidence shows that the claimant, Eugene K. Stoudemire, was employed as a steam engineer in the river and harbor service of the Government and that in the course of his work, and without negligence on his part, he received injuries which resulted in the loss of an eye. It further appears that he was paid $130.67 for the 43 working days following the date of injury, during which he was incapacitated, and $24.50 for subsistence during the same period; this total amount of $155.17 being made under the provisions of the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat. 537), which was the employees' compensation law in force at the time of the injury. Notwithstanding the report of the Chief of Engineers that “no reason is apparent for paying him an increased amount by special legislation," your committee is of the opinion that the case is a deserving one and that Mr. Stoudemire is entitled to receive the benefits of the present employees' compensation act, and therefor recommends that the bill be amended so as to place the claimant under the provisions of the act approved September 7, 1916. Mr. President, it is certainly setting a very bad precedent to create this commission, authorizing it to pass upon all such claims, and then, when it rejects a claim, allow the claim to come before Congress for special legislation in order to take care of it. That commission was created, as I understand, in order to relieve Congress from the necessity of considering measures of this character; and unless there is something exceptional in its nature, I should not think that Congress ought to be appealed to to grant relief. Mr. HEFLIN. of General Beach? Was the Senator reading from the report Mr. WALSH of Montana. No; I was reading from the report of the committee which cites the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers. Mr. HEFLIN. In the report which I have the committee say that this man is entitled to relief beyond that which he has already had. If that is true, Mr. President, it shows that the amount paid him under the provisions of the act as it now stands is not adequate. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I made the statement a few minutes ago that I thought at the time of the accident the compensation law had been enacted, but I see now by reference to it that the act was approved September 7, 1916. Therefore the compensation act did not pass and become a law until after the injury occurred. and consequently an act of Congress is required in order that the claimant in this case may fall under the provisions of that law. Mr. WALSH of Montana. That seems to be a very stale claim, dating back to 1885. Mr. SMOOT. Yes; that is the case. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I ask that it go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. The bill (S. 1035) for the relief of the city of New York was announced as next in order. Mr. WILLIS. Mr. President, that is a very important measure relative to the city of New York. It chances that temporarily both Senators from New York are absent from the Chamber. I therefore suggest that the bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. The bill (S. 1664) for the relief of Dr. C. LeRoy Brock was announced as next in order. Mr. SMOOT. I ask that that bill go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. over. The resolution (S. Res. 90) submitted by Mr. LENROOT on December 18, 1923, was considered and agreed to, as follows: Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to appoint an assistant in the Senate document room, at a compensation of $1,500 per annum, to be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate until the end of the Sixty-eighth Congress. RESOLUTION PASSED OVER. The resolution (S. Res. 118), submitted by Mr. SMOOT on the 9th instant, providing that any person or agency investigated by any Senate committee shall have the right to be present in person and by attorneys and to present evidence in their own behalf, was announced as next in order. Mr. SMOOT. I have been asked to request that that resolu- over. ORDER OF BUSINESS. The bill (S. 49) for the relief of Elizabeth H. Rice was announced as next in order. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I fail to find in my bound volume any report on this bill or on the remaining bills on the calendar. I rather think that we ought to have an opportunity to look at the remainder of the bills on the calendar before they are considered. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I think we can finish the calendar to-morrow, and if there is any objection to the remaining bills the reports on which have not as yet been printed, I ask that they may go over. I understand that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WILLIS] is interested in the last bill on the calendar, the report on which has been printed, and that he desires to have that bill considered. Mr. WILLIS. Yes. If it is possible, in accordance with my suggestion to the Senate of yesterday, I should like to call up the oil pollution bill. A number of us have been giving a great deal of attention to it, and I think we can complete the bill to-day. Mr. FLETCHER. If the idea is to take up the calendar where we left off-to-morrow-I shall not object. Mr. SMOOT. I think we can dispose of all the bills on the calendar to-morrow. Mr. WILLIS. It is only half past three o'clock, and why can we not proceed? Mr. FLETCHER. There is one bill on the calendar which I should like to have considered. Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, my request was where the report on the bill had not been printed the bill should be passed over. Senators have a right to read the report before they are asked to act upon a bill. If reports are available on any of the bills remaining on the calendar, or if there are bridge bills or other bills to which there would naturally be no objection, I suggest to Senators to ask unanimous consent to have them considered. There are only five or six more bills remaining on the calendar. Mr. FLETCHER. I will say with reference to Order of Business No. 61 that it is a bill which passed the Senate at the last session and it has been reported favorably by the committee at this session. I do not believe there can be any possible objection to it. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I do not feel that we ought to make any distinction, Mr. FLETCHER. Very well. Mr. WALSH of Montana. If the Senator from Ohio gave notice that he would call up the bill to which he has referred, I should not like to object to its consideration. Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President, I should like to add that, as we have nearly concluded the calendar, why not go on with it? There are two or three bridge bills that really ought to be passed and to which there can be no objection. I should like to see the Senate proceed with the calendar. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, if the Senator takes that position about it, then I shall object to each of the relief bills until an opportunity is accorded to us to examine the reports. Mr. WILLIS. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator, in fairness, that he ought not to object to a bill that is of general character, the last bill on the calendar. That is not a relief bill at all, and I gave notice that I should ask to have it taken up. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I said that the Senator having given notice that he would take it up, I should not object to its consideration. Mr. WILLIS. I thank the Senator.. I did not understand his former statement. Mr. CURTIS. Now I suggest that the calendar be called, and we can object to each bill as it comes along unless there is a proper explanation. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I object, then, to Senate bill 49. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana objects, and the bill will be passed over. BILLS PASSED OVER. The bill (S. 1572) for the relief of the New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co., of Bayonne, N. J., was announced as next in order. Mr. SMOOT. I ask that that go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. The bill (S. 1765) for the relief of the heirs of Agnes Ingels, deceased, was announced as next in order. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I ask that that go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. The bill (S. 1330) for the relief of the estate of Ely N. Sonnenstrahl, deceased, was announced as next in order. Mr. SMOOT. Let that go over. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be passed over. H. B. STOUT. The bill (S. 831) for the relief of H. B. Stout was considered as in Committee of the Whole and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to H. B. Stout, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $475.30 as compensation for expenses incurred by him while employed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, district of Florida, during the months of February, March, April, May, and June, 1921. Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, I will say in reference to that bill that the report is here, and I have just handed it to the Senator from Montana. It is the same report that was made last year when the bill was passed. The bill is simply to reimburse this clerk in the Internal Revenue Department for expenses incurred while engaged in the discharge of his official duty. Mr. SMOOT. The bill passed on account of some service at Miami instead of Jacksonville; did it not? Mr. FLETCHER. Yes. This man was sent to Miami. His headquarters were in Jacksonville. Mr. SMOOT. I remember the bill. Mr. FLETCHER. He was sent to Miami, and these expenses were incurred there, and he was paid by the collector, and the amount was disallowed because his headquarters were in Jacksonville. The bill had been reported from the Committee on Commerce with amendments, on page 1, line 3, after the words "That the," to strike out "consent of Congress is hereby granted to the Pamunkey Ferry Co., duly incorporated under the laws of Virginia, and its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate," and insert "times for commencing and completing the construction of"; in line 7, after the word "bridge," to strike out" and approaches thereto" and insert "authorized by act of Congress approved January 30, 1922, to be built by the Pamunkey Ferry Co."; in line 10, after the word "River," to strike out at a point suitable to the interests of navigation"; on page 2, line 1, after the word "Virginia," to strike out "in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled 'An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters,' approved March 23, 1906," and insert "are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from the date of approval hereof," so as to make the bill read: 66 Be it enacted, etc., That the times for commencing and completing the construction of a bridge authorized by act of Congress approved January 30, 1922, to be built by the Pamunkey Ferry Co. across the Pamunkey River at or near Sweet Hall, in King William County, to a point opposite in New Kent County, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, are hereby extended one and three years, respectively, from the date of approval hereof. SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved. The amendments were agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to extend the time for the construction of a bridge across the Pamunkey River in Virginia." COLUMBIA RIVER BRIDGE. The bill (S. 484) to extend the time for the completion of the construction of a bridge across the Columbia River between the States of Oregon and Washington at or within 2 miles westerly from Cascade Locks, in the State of Oregon, was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the time for the completion of the construction of a bridge and approaches thereto across the Columbia River at a point suitable to the interests of navigation at or near a point within 2 miles westerly from Cascade Locks, in the county of Hood River, State of Oregon, authorized by the act of Congress approved February 3, 1920, is hereby extended to February 15, 1926. SEC. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER BRIDGE. The bill (S. 160) authorizing the State of Georgia to construct a bridge across the Chattahoochee River between the States of Georgia and Alabama at or near Fort Gaines, Ga., was considered as in Committee of the Whole, and was read, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the State of Georgia be, and is hereby, authorized to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge and approaches thereto across the Chattahoochee River, at a point suitable to the interests of navigation, between the States of Georgia and Alabama, at or near Fort Gaines, Ga., in accordance with the provisions of the act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906. SEC. 2. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed. OIL POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS. The bill (S. 1942) to protect navigation from obstruction and Injury by preventing the discharge of oil into the coastal navigable waters of the United States was considered as in Committee of the Whole. The bill had been reported from the Committee on Commerce with an amendment. Mr. WILLIS. I ask unanimous consent that the formal reading of the bill be dispensed with, and that it be read for amendment, the first consideration being given to the committee amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The Mr. McKELLAR. Mr. President, before that is done, will the Senator make a brief statement as to what the bill is? Mr. WILLIS. Certainly. Mr. President, this is a bill which has been considered very fully by the Committee on Commerce and the subcommittee thereof. In the last Congress the fact was brought to the attention of the Senate and the committee that very serious evils were flowing from the pollution of coastal navigable waters by the discharge of oil or sludge into those waters from ships and other floating craft, as well as from land plants. That injury takes a number of different forms. First, it increases tremendously the fire hazard. This heavy oil, while itself not especially inflammable-that is to say, if you drop a match into the scum it will not catch fire-soaks into the piers and bulkheads and piles, so that when a fire starts in a warehouse section it is added to very much by the fact that the timber has been soaked with this black oil, so that the fire hazard is increased very seriously, and there have been very serious fires growing out of this pollution. That is the first consideration. Secondly, and perhaps equal in importance with that, was the effect the deposit of oil in the waters was having upon the food supply-upon the oyster beds, upon the fish life. There were estimates before the committee as to the decrease in our national food supply because of this evil. Of course, they were necessarily only estimates, but without doubt it is a serious menace. There can not be any question about that. In the third place, a great many people who lived along these coastal waters complained because of damage to their property. In the fourth place, the owners of bathing beaches made very serious complaint, it being, of course, a nuisance, as the Senator will recognize. When persons going into the sea at these bathing beaches come out they have to take a bath in gasoline before they are sufficiently cleansed to be presentable to their families. The committee therefore gave very careful consideration to the matter. We had hearings occupying one full day, from 10 o'clock on, and the committee has prepared this bill from a consideration of three bills that were referred to it-a bill introduced by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE], one introduced by the Senator from New York [Mr. WADSWORTH), and one introduced by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. EDGE]. It was thought, to avoid multiplicity of amendments, that it would be best to prepare a committee bill; and we have therefore written this one, taking out of the three bills I have named what we regard as the best provisions. Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, about how much is it going to cost to enforce the provisions of this bill, and how big a department will be required, or who will be designated to enforce it? Mr. WILLIS. I am glad to call the attention of the Senator to that very matter. It is not going to cost anything additional, because it is provided in the bill, in section 7, that it shall be administered by the Secretary of War. The language is: That the Secretary of War is charged with the administration of this act, and for this purpose he may make use of the organization, equipment, and agencies, including engineering, clerical, and other personnel, employed under his direction in the improvement of rivers and harbors and in the enforcement of existing laws for the preservation and protection of navigable waters. So far as the committee is advised, there will be no substantial increase in the cost. I will say to the Senator that the committee is not at all in favor of the establishment of a new bureau, and there is nothing in the bill to provide for that. The Secretary of War is to use the agencies that he now has in carrying it into effect. Mr. McKELLAR. So it does not mean that there will be an increase of the present bureau and the building up of a large organization for the enforcement of the bill? Mr. WILLIS. No; there is no such purpose in mind at all, and I think no such effect will flow from the enactment of the bill. Mr. MCKELLAR. I hope that if a lot of new clerks are sought to be employed by the department, and a request comes up for an appropriation for their payment, the Senator will oppose it. Mr. WILLIS. I will join the Senator in all proper measures for economy to hold these expenditures down, because, frankly, I think no additional expenditure is necessary. Mr. MCKELLAR. I know, and the Senator knows, that usually when these additional duties are imposed it means the employment of a large number of clerks and porters, and messengers and stenographers and chiefs of bureaus, amounting to many, many thousands of dollars. Mr. WILLIS. The committee thought it had guarded against that very situation by section 7, and believes that it has done so. Mr. JONES of Washington. Mr. President Mr. WILLIS. I yield to the Senator from Washington. Mr. JONES of Washington. I suggest, too, that we thought we had a law that covered this very matter in a provision of the river and harbor bill several years ago which provides a penalty for putting refuse matter in streams, and so forth, until the courts held that that did not apply to oil, and this bill is practically to extend the application of that law to this substance. * Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, I had the same thought that the Senator from Washington had. I was about to call the attention of the Senator from Tennessee to the fact that we attempted to legislate on this question away back in March, 1899, but in that legislation we used the words "throw, discharge, or deposit, ** whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed." Consequently, when the courts came to consider cases where there had been a deposit of oil that did not absolutely physically impede or obstruct navigation, and therefore the oil cases fell. It is to cover that situation that this legislation is needed, I think, very largely. It is confined entirely to oil pollution. It does not refer to ashes or other things, and I think it is very important legislation. Mr. WILLIS. The Senator is absolutely correct in that. I desire to supplement my statement, if I may have permission, by printing in the RECORD the committee report, which covers the facts very fully. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? PREVENTING THE OIL POLLUTION OF NAVIGABLE COASTAL WATERS OF THE The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1942) to protect navigation from obstruction and injury by preventing the discharge of oil into the coastal navigable waters of the United States, having considered the same, report it back to the Senate with the following amendment: In line 1, page 2, after the word "individual," insert the words "firm, partnership, association, or corporation"; and recommend that the bill when so amended be passed. The subject of oil pollution of navigable coastal waters of the United States was thoroughly considered by the Committee on Commerce and by a subcommittee thereof. Extended hearings were held and the interested parties were given full opportunity to present their views. The evidence submitted convinced the committee that the negligent casting of refuse oil into the sea by oil-burning or oil-carrying steamships has become a serious menace to the maritime and fishing industries of the United States. Land plants have added to the danger of this menace by permitting the discharge of oil into coastal navigable waters. The hearings developed the fact that these refuse oils floating upon the surface accumulated about the foundations of buildings on tidewater, on the piles, piers, and bulkheads in harbors so as to increase to an alarming extent the fire hazard. While these oils are of heavy character and not readily inflammable, when a fire is started from some other cause the fact that piers and bulkheads are soaked with this oil greatly increases the fire hazard. It was made clear, in one or two instances at least, that great fire losses came very largely from these sources. It was made very clear to the committee that the discharge of these oils has had a very disastrous effect upon the fisheries. Great numbers of fish, oysters, clams, crabs, and lobsters have been destroyed, and in this way the national food supply has been materially decreased. Furthermore, serious complaint was made by persons frequenting bathing beaches along the Atlantic coast. These bathing beaches have been rendered in some instances unfit for use by the deposit of oil |