Senator CARAWAY. A minute ago you could not even remember the town where a man lived, but you did keep it all in mind when you were going after them.

Mr. TRUSLER. I could make up a list myself, couldn't I, off the other list?

Mr. WALSH. You made another list of your own?

Mr. TRUSLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALSH. You made a little list of your own?
Mr. TRUSLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALSH. Then when we were examining you about one list you had another which you copied off?

Somersaults on Postal Salaries

THE

HE POWER of the President over Congress, a power that is political rather than constitutional, has again been illustrated conclusively. The power of partisanship, of patronage, has again prevailed.

In May, 1924, the Senate passed a measure appropriating money for an increase of postal service salaries. The vote then was 73 for to 3 against. President Coolidge vetoed the bill.

On January 6th of the present session, the Senate faced the question of passing the bill over the veto, with the amazing result that the opposition increased from 3 to 29. Exclusive of other differences, seventeen Senators completely reversed their former attitude, in response to the magic influence of "standing by the administration."

Seldom have there been more striking instances in the field of political somersaults than on this occasion. The result was that the President's veto was sustained-by a margin of one vote.

Here are the 17 who changed their votes in order to stand with the President (C. R., May 27, 1924, p. 9597 and C. R., January 6, 1925, p. 1321): Republican Lame Ducks-Ball, Bursum, Sterling; Democratic Lame Duck-Dial;

Other Republicans-Cameron, Capper, Cummins, Curtis, Hale, Harreld, Keyes, McKinley, Oddie, Pepper, Phipps, Watson, Weller.

Seven Republicans who did not vote in the roll call of last May voted against the bill and with the President this time. They were:

McCormick (Lame Duck from Illinois), Ernst, Fernald, Greene, Norbeck, Smoot and Warren.

In addition, Coolidge had the votes of two new Republican Senators - Butler of Massachusetts and Metcalf of Rhode Island.

The list of 55 Senators who voted to pass the bill over the veto is made up of 21 Republicans, 33 Democrats, and one Farmer-Laborite, as follows:

Republicans-Brookhart, Couzens, Dale, Edge, Elkins, Frazier, Gooding, Howell, Johnson, Calif.; Jones, Wash.; Ladd, La Follette, McLean, McNary, Means, Moses, Norris, Reed, Pa.; Shortridge, Stanfield, Wadsworth.

Democrats-Ashurst, Bayard, Broussard, Caraway, Copeland, Dill, Edwards, Ferris, Fletcher, George, Gerry, Glass, Harris, Harrison, Heflin, Jones, N. Mex.; Kendrick, McKellar, Mayfield, Neely, Overman, Pittman, Ransdell, Robinson, Sheppard, Simmons, Smith, Stanley, Swanson, Trammell, Underwood, Walsh, Mass.; Walsh, Mont.

Farmer-Labor-Shipstead.

Among the Republicans voting to override the veto it is interesting to note the name of Edge, who led the fight of the Republicans against the President, side by side with Brookhart, Ladd, Frazier, and La Follette, who were nominally read out of the party by the Republican caucus for opposing the President in the campaign.

Means, the newly elected Republican from Colorado, showed his independence of Coolidge by his vote against the veto, in contrast with the two new Eastern Senators, Butler and Metcalf.

Elkins of West Virginia has the distinction of be

ing the only retiring Republican to vote against the President. Stanley, and Walsh of Massachusetts, Democratic lame ducks, did not follow the example of Dial.

Dial's vote would have passed the bill, but so also would the votes of two other Democrats, King of Utah and Owen of Oklahoma, who did not vote but were paired against the bill. Owen, whose term expires with this session, was not a candidate for reelection. Shields, Democrat, of Tennessee, also failed to vote and was not paired; however, the addition of his vote alone, the others voting as they did, would have made the result 56 to 29, still twothirds of one vote below a two-thirds majority.

In the pairing each non-voting Senator who was opposed to the bill of course cancelled two non-voters who were for it. This is the list of non-voting pairs: King, Democrat, against, paired with Wheeler, Democrat, and Johnson of Minnesota, Farmer-Labor, for; Owen, Democrat, against, paired with Reed of Missouri and Stephens, Democrats, for; Spencer, Republican, against, paired with Ralston and Bruce, Democrats, for.

Besides Shields, the only Senator not voting and not paired, was Lenroot, Republican, of Wisconsin. Summarized, the 55 who voted for the bill comprised 47 who voted for it before, 7 not voting before, and one newly elected Senator-Means of Colorado; the 29 who voted against it comprised three who were its sole opponents before (Borah, Fess, and Willis), 17 who changed their votes, including four lame ducks, and seven not voting before, including Lame Duck McCormick, and the two new Coolidgeites-Butler and Metcalf.

The charge of patronage seeking, as a motive, especially now that the election is over, was hurled against those who changed their votes. One of the Democratic Senators put it in these words:

"Mr. President, the effort to serve the king here is what caused the change in the vote before the election and after the election. Last year Senators were looking out for themselves. They were seeking to serve their country. They were trying to do justice by the postal employees. But the election is over and now they come to serve the king, he who holds the appointing power."

Washington has been full of rumors of the "lining up" of votes to sustain the veto, and that the bill was being kept from a vote till a sustaining number could be secured.

Whether or not the President personally used the threat of power, it is useless to deny that the vast power of the President is there and that many Senators cast their votes with their eyes on that power. Time and again that fact has been illustrated in recent administrations. It is being illustrated now with respect to Muscle Shoals; it is illustrated here. Seldom, however, is the performance staged so dramatically, or accompanied by so many magnificently acrobatic political somersaults, as in the postal salaries veto.

The National Bankers Get Action

ON JANUARY 9th, under a special gag rule, the

House machine took up what Congressman Nelson (Wisconsin) characterized as the "omnibus McFadden special privilege bill."

Speaking against this measure, Mr. Nelson said (C. R., p. 1599):

"I can not support the McFadden bill for the further reason that I have looked into this pork barrel, and I do not believe that Uncle Sam can afford to be so lavish in his gross favoritism to the national bankers. I have here a consolidated statement showing something of the privileges given in this bill:

1. Consolidations made easier.

(a) Makes it possible to take over State banks and trust companies without having them first take out national charters.

2. Grants indeterminate—that is, perpetual-charters instead of 99 years.

(a) This enables national banks to engage in trust business extensively.

3. Permits banks to hold real estate for future accommodation purposes instead of merely for immediate building purposes.

4. Permits banks in outlying districts of cities over 50,000 to start with $100,000 capital instead of $200,000. 5. Permits stock dividends.

(a) This enables surplus to be divided among stockholders without payment of income tax.

6. Liberalized loan features.

(a) Permits partners and members of same firm each to borrow up to 10 per cent of capital and surplus.

(b) Sets limit of 15 per cent over 10 per cent above mentioned for loans secured by indorsed notes having maturity of not more than six months.

(c) Exempts bankers' acceptances from any limitation based on capital and surplus. Exempts obligations secured by lien on livestock in transit valued at 115 per cent of face of loan up to 15 per cent over 10 per cent mentioned above.

(d) Exempts notes secured by Government bonds since April 24, 1917, up to 15 per cent over 10 per cent mentioned above.

(e) Exempts loans secured by obligations of the United States or any State under Federal farm loan act up to 15 per cent over the 10 per cent mentioned above.

7. Liberalizes report requirements.

(a) Permits a vice president or assistant cashier to swear to annual statement formerly requiring oath of president or cashier.

8. Permits safe-deposit business.

(a) National banks may lease boxes or own stock in corporations conducting safe-deposit business.

9. Permits national banks to loan on improved real estate, including farm land within 100 miles of location up to 50 per cent of actual value of real estate and up to 25 per cent of their capital and surplus.

10. Permits national banks to do a general bond business. 11. Permits national banks to establish branches. (a) Unlimited number in cities under 25,000 people. (b) One branch in cities 25,000 to 50,000 people. (c) Two branches in cities 50,000 to 100,000 people. (d) Unlimited number in cities over 100,000 people.

"Mr. Speaker, this gift comes somewhat after the Christmas season is over. But no doubt it was intended to be ready in time. I have unrolled the wrappings and the tissue paper inclosing the precious powers, privileges, and grants of indirect subsidy to the various groups of bankers. Talk about pork barrel, talk about log-rolling, talk about sugar-coating a bill; here is a perfect specimen of all the evils

of log-rolling legislation. It is to be presumed that each of these privileges has value. How much value in millions, hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, who knows? I am sure the bankers behind this bill realize that they are not being given gold bricks. Let me lift up a few chunks of rich pork and see if we can get an estimate of their value.

"Consolidation of national banks with State banks made easier. How much is it worth to legalize the practice of buying up State banks with innumerable branches so as to have the privilege of branch banks?

"Perpetual charters instead of for 99 years, with the ensuing privilege of engaging in a general trust business. How much is this piece of pork worth? What bankers are clamoring for that privilege? How much is it worth?

"The privilege of holding real estate without length of time for 'accommodation' in the great cities. Who wanted that pork? How much is that worth in millions of unearned increments?

"And this is a little piece of pork. Reducing capital from $200,000 to $100,000 in certain cities. Who wants that pork? Why is it in this bill? To get their support for the other privileges? Who knows?

"Then the five provisions in the bill removing loan restrictions, permitting partners or firm members individually to borrow up to 10 per cent of the capital and surplus of the banks. What is the effect of these privileges? What are they worth? Who knows? Who can tell us in terms of profit?

"The privilege now of doing a general safety-deposit business? What is the value of that in millions of dollars? It is pretty good pork. It will attract support of bankers for this bill.

"The privilege of loaning money more extensively than ever on real estate and farm land. How much is this juicy pork worth?

"So I say talk about a pork barrel, talk about logrolling, talk about an omnibus rivers and harbors bill, or an omnibus public building bill, what of an omnibus bankers' special privilege bombing bill, full of indirect subsidiaries of incalculable value?"

"To begin with it is clear to my mind that for Uncle Sam to enact this bill, considering his raw treatment in this session of the farmers and wageworkers, by far the greater part of his national household, would be gross favoritism and flagrant injustice.

"The railway brotherhoods, numbering millions and supported by other millions of workers, asked for the passage of the Howell-Barkley bill. That did no more than set up tribunals whereby wageworkers might secure fair treatment. At the most, they only asked for a living wage. What was the attitude toward this measure by the railway executives, who are but the spokesmen of the great banking houses that own and control the stock and securities of the great railway systems? Unwavering hostility. Responsive to this organized opposition by capital what did many of our esteemed Republican colleagues in the House do to the Howell-Barkley bill? It long lay dormant in committee. When finally the committee doors were battered down by a discharge they made use of every parliamentary means to prevent its passage.

"Again, farm organizations, cooperating almost as a unit, supported by the overwhelming sentiment of

the farmers of the land, asked for the passage of the Haugen-McNary bill. They pleaded for justice. They asked to be placed on a par with the other children of Uncle Sam. They had been ruined by deflation. They pointed out and proved that they had been deflated by the Federal Reserve Board under the instigation of the great banking houses of the land. But the Haugen-McNary bill and all other farm legislation met here with overwhelming defeat.

"But now come Uncle Sam's favorite and fortunate sons, the members of his family that control his capital, few in number by comparison, making huge profits, asking for the omnibus McFadden special privilege bill. Apparently the selfish special interests back of this measure are powerful enough to secure its passage, but it seems incredible to me that Members of Congress who opposed the fair and reasonable demands of the wage-workers and farmers will now turn around and support such a specialprivilege measure as the one here before us."

The Bill Passes Overwhelmingly

S THE Nelson remarks indicate, the debate was interesting, but the bi-partisan forces easily carried the day, passing the bill on January 14th by a viva voce vote of 172 to 65.

The only opposition directly a part of the public record was revealed in the roll call on a motion to recommit. On that occasion the dissenters (those against the measure) were (C. R., p. 1904-5):

Allen, Allgood, Almon, Bankhead, Beck, Berger, Black, Tex.; Blanton, Box, Boyce, Browne, Wis.; Browning, Busby, Cannon, Carew, Carter, Connally, Tex.; Cooper, Wis.; Deal, Dickinson, Mo.; Driver, Evans, Mont.; Frear, Garber, Gardner, Ind.; Garner, Tex.; Garrett, Tenn.; Garrett, Tex.; Gilbert, Goldsborough, Hammer, Haugen, Hayden, Hill, Ala.; Hill, Wash.; Howard, Nebr.; Howard, Okla.; Huddleston, Humphreys, Jeffers, Johnson, Tex.; Jones, Jost, Keller, Kvale, Lankford, Linthicum, Lowry, Lozier, McClintic, McDuffie, McKeown, Major, Ill.; Major, Mo.; Milligan, Montague, Moore, Ga.; Moore, Va.; Morehead, Morrow, Nelson, Wis.; Oldfield, Oliver, Ala.; Park, Ga.; Parks, Ark.; Peavey, Quin, Raker, Rankin, Rathbone, Rayburn, Romjue, Rubey, Sabath, Salmon, Sanders, Tex.; Schneider, Sears, Fla.; Sinclair, Steagall, Stengle, Strong, Kans.; Swank, Taylor, Colo.; Thomas, Ky.; Thomas, Okla.; Tillman, Voigt, Wefald, Wilson, Miss.

A Suggestion for Butler

[S it wise," asks a subscriber, "for the President

"Is wise, too much in the way of 'support' from

his 'bell hops' in Congress? Take the postal salaries bill, for example. Why wouldn't it have been better, from his purely partisan and personal point of view, not to insist on such an astounding reversal on the part of the Senate? Seventeen had to change their vote, 'to sustain the President.' Aren't these extreme demonstrations of political pressure likely to make America think, not much, of course, but at least slightly, of their meaning to our institutions? If I were President, I shouldn't overdo the thing, merely as a precaution against giving the common folks too good an excuse 'to get hot under the collar.'

"P. S. Don't publish my name. I am not a candidate."

Do Manufacturers Think?

By M. F. BOYD

(The Searchlight is not an advocate of any economic policy; its mission is truth-telling about politics and government; but this brief article by Mr. Boyd is an interesting outside contribution to the Muscle Shoals debate; therefore we gladly give it publication.-The Editor).

ONE

NE day the American manufacturer will do some real thinking about such issues as Muscle Shoals. Today he is not thinking, but merely reacting to prejudice.

The cost of power is a big item in the cost of production of any article. A manufacturer in Ontario, Canada, uses hydro-electric power at about 2 cents per kilowatt hour. A manufacturer in New York State pays 10 cents or more per kilowatt hour.

In other words, one of the basic elements in the cost of production favors the Canadian manufacturer and handicaps the American manufacturer in competition. Other things being equal, prices of goods manufactured by hydro-electric power are cheaper in Ontario than in New York-cheaper in Canada than in the United States. On the basis of this development, when Canada begins serious competition in the world market with the United States we shall be undersold. Then the American manufacturer will either beg for subsidies from Congress or insist on power as cheap as it is in Canada and as many European nations are planning to make it. The development of Muscle Shoals contains this issue of vital importance to American producers. Power can be sold under government construction and operation at cost-at the 2-cent rate prevailing in Ontario.

Under private operation the rate will be from three to six times higher, handicapping the American producer, compelling higher prices to the ultimate consumer, and giving an unnecessary advantage in the world market to competitors for trade.

The U. S. Government can borrow money at this writing at 4 per cent. That is cheap money. Private concerns must pay from 6 to 10 per cent. That is dear money.

Besides this, there is the difference in point of view. If the government operates Muscle Shoals it will do so on the basis of selling the power produced at cost-that is to say, it will sell it at operating and maintenance cost plus interest on capital invested at 4 per cent with, say, 1 per cent for amortization. By this means, at the end of thirty or forty years the bonds representing government capital investment will have been redeemed and the power will then be sold at operating and maintenance cost only. That is to say, under government operation the cost will decrease year by year.

Under private operation the opposite development takes place. The first object of the power corporation is to make as much profit as possible. To do this the corporation charges as much as the traffic will bear for the power it produces. It pays a much higher rate of interest for capital investment, and it never contemplates the complete redemption of the

bond issues. When they mature another bond issue takes their place. And in the meantime the corporation executives spend endless ingenuity, not toward decreasing production and selling costs, but toward devising ways' of showing such costs to be high and ever higher, necessitating high and ever higher prices to be paid by power users.

The American manufacturer has a prejudice against government ownership and operation. At the same time he is seeking to cheapen costs of production. He can cheapen his production costs if he insists upon government operation of power plants. Because of his prejudice, however, he refuses to face the facts. Hence, while he reduces production costs in one direction-by cutting wages, for example he deliberately increases his costs by refusing to admit the advantage of having Muscle Shoals operated by government.

A few years hence, faced with the merciless competition of more progressive manufacturers in Europe, the American manufacturer will demand that the government buy out the power corporations in order that the cost of power may be reduced. But the corporations will have a whole lot of inflated values by that time and will make the governmentwhich means the taxpayer-pay through the nose. The net result will be the subsidizing of the American manufacturer, which will take the form of government operation at a loss, the difference being met from taxation.

This stupidity can be stopped now if our manufacturers will do a little real thinking.

The Power of Patronage

A great American once said:

When

"I believe that the time will come-God grant that it may come soon-when the man who controls a convention or a nomination by the bribery of patronage will be held in the estimation of the American people to be just as guilty as the man who bribes by the payment of the cold cash. that time comes the political boss will be standing upon his political St. Helena, looking across the sad waves at disappearing worlds that once were his and whose people formerly bowed down before his throne in humility and submission.

"The evil of political control by patronage is not confined alone to the officeholders themselves. Many of the political bosses do not occupy public positions. They get their pay not directly from the Federal Treasury, but by the control of appointments; they receive their compensation in thousands of devious ways by the favor extended to them through public officials who hold official positions on account of their recommendation. Political machines could not live overnight were it not for the wonderful power of patronage." Who can tell us the author and the occasion? A year's subscription to The Searchlight will be given for the first correct answer.

In commenting upon the weather of Washington, Senator Heflin produced this letter to illustrate:

"DEAR BILL: If you have not started for Texas, don't. This is the most hellacious climate in the world. On yesterday, while driving a yoke of steers across the prairie, one of them had a sunstroke, and while I was skinning him the other one froze to death."