example of cutting down armament by building but 36 vessels, while the other naval powers have carried on extensive naval construction; i. e., Great Britain has built or appropriated for 96 vessels; Japan, 126 vessels; France, 152 vessels; and Italy, 109 vessels.

At the present time Japan has a building program approved and appropriated for which when completed will bring her navy, by the end of the year 1936, up to the full strength allowed by the treaties, except for one aircraft carrier and six destroyers; Great Britain, to reach treaty strength, will have to build 80 ships. We, alone, have no adequate future building program, and must authorize the building of approximately 118 ships to attain full treaty strength. To attain equality in modern ships in each category with Great Britain it will be necessary for the United States to build 47 ships, and to attain merely equality with Japan 80 ships. To maintain the ratio allowed us with Japan by existing treaties it will be necessary for the United States to build 112 vessels. The United States Navy, instead of being on a ratio of 5 to 3 with Japan, as permitted by the treaties, is, as far as immediate availability of ships is concerned, on a footing of practical equality with that country, and unless we build more ships by the expiration of the treaty, in 1936, we shall at that time be on a tonnage parity with Japan only, as far as modern ships are concerned, and in number of ships shall have but 68 ships to her 156.

The testimony shows nothing to lead the committee to believe that the other naval powers of the world intend to curtail their building programs in the slightest degree. Further, there has been no change in world conditions to lead the committee to believe that the naval ratios now established by treaties should not be maintained, and practical necessity, we believe, demands that the United States take full advantage of the privileges accorded by the London treaty, which this bill seeks to authorize. The bill permits the United States only such naval strength as its delegations obtained at the Washington and London conferences, and reaffirms our intention to build up to that strength if others do the same.

We believe it is imperative that the United States authorize a building program at this time and thus give notice to the world that we intend to maintain the ratios established by the Washington and London treaties.

There is nothing in the bill that would in any way force the laying down of all the ships permitted us under the treaty allowances, either by the end of the year 1936 or at any specified future date. Appropriations for actual construction authorized by the bill will await the action of the Congress.

It is believed, however, that enactment of the bill into law will have a stabilizing effect on world affairs; it will signify that the United States intends to build up its Navy if other nations build up theirs; it will put us in a better bargaining position in negotiations seeking further disarmament, and our influence to bring about further disarmament rather than being lessened by lack of a building program will be enhanced.

The amendment proposed by your committee clarifies the language of the bill, and conforms to the general text thereof.

72D CONGRESS 1st Session

}

SENATE

{

REPORT No. 290

ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER PLANT, DISTRICTS OF NORTH AND SOUTH KONA, HAWAII

FEBRUARY 24, 1932.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. BINGHAM, from the Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 307]

The Committee on Territories and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 307) to approve Act No. 256 of the Session Laws of 1931 of the Territory of Hawaii, entitled "An Act to authorize and provide for the manufacture, maintenance, distribution, and supply of electric current for light and power within the districts of North Kona and South Kona, on the island and county of Hawaii, Territory of Hawaii," having considered the same, report favorably thereon and recommend that the bill do pass without amendment.

This is a bill to authorize L. C. Child, his associates, successors, and assigns, or such corporations as he may or they shall cause to be incorporated under the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, to supply and distribute electric light and power within the districts of North Kona and South Kona, on the island and county of Hawaii, Territory of Hawaii. The expected capitalization of the power company will be $50,000 with about $35,000 to be issued at the present time. The subscribers are all local residents. No foreign capital has been sought to date. The franchise will be turned over by Mr. Child to the local corporation for the sum of $1.

The population to be served are the villages extending from Honalo in North Kona to Kahauloa in South Kona, and surroundings, a distance of 6.6 miles; the population of these districts amounts to about 9,000 persons, who are in need of such service.

The rates to be charged are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission of the Territory of Hawaii, and the franchise is not exclusive.

Mr. TOWNSEND, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2827]

The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2827) to amend the act known as the perishable agricultural commodities act, 1930, approved June 10, 1930, having considered the legislation report thereon with the recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment:

On page 2, line 6, strike out the entire sentence which reads, "No person buying such commodity in intrastate commerce for canning shall be considered as a 'dealer'," and substitute therefor the following sentence:

No person buying any such commodity for canning and/or processing within the State where grown shall be considered a "dealer" whether or not the canned or processed product is to be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce.

There follows a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture recommending the enactment of the legislation with the above-stated amendment.

Hon; CHARLES L. McNARY,

United States Senate.

FEBRUARY 15, 1932.

DEAR SENATOR: I have your letter of January 11, asking for a report on S. 2827, introduced by Senator Goldsborough, "To amend the act known as the perishable agricultural commodities act, 1930, approved June 10, 1930."

This bill would amend the definition of the term "dealer," as set forth in paragraph 6 of the first section of the perishable agricultural commodities act, by including therein the following: "No person buying such commodity in intrastate commerce for canning shall be considered as a 'dealer.'" The apparent purpose of this amendment is to exempt from the operation of this act canners who buy raw materials within the State in which such materials are canned. The perishable agricultural commodities act does not apply to transactions in canned, processed, or dried fruits and vegetables. The act operates only in con

The

nection with interstate transactions in fresh fruits and vegetables. Canned fruits and vegetables not being included in the act, the term "dealer" therefore applies to canners only with respect to their purchases of raw materials. definition of interstate or foreign commerce, as set forth in paragraph 8 of the first section of the act, however, in the opinion of the solicitor of this department, requires the licensing of canners and other processors who buy and can or process fresh fruits and vegetables all within the same State, because the canned or processed product is later marketed in interstate or foreign commerce. The department is of the opinion that such persons might well be exempted from the operation of the perishable agricultural commodities act. It is believed, however, that canners or processors who buy in interstate commerce carloads of fresh fruits and vegetables, as defined in the act, should be licensed and be made subject to the act in the same way as any other person buying or selling fresh fruits and vegetables in carload quantities in interstate commerce. It is our opinion, also, that if canners are to be exempted as indicated, the exemption should also include others who purchase fresh fruits and vegetables for processing.

It is not believed that the language incorporated in S. 2827 will fully accomplish the purpose contemplated. It is therefore suggested that the sentence "No person buying such commodity in intrastate commerce for canning shall be considered as a 'dealer,'" which begins in line 6 on page 2 of the bill, be stricken out and the following substituted therefor: "No person buying any such commodity for canning and/or processing within the State where grown' shall be considered a 'dealer' whether or not the canned or processed product is to be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce.'

With this modification, the department recommends the enactment of this bill. ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary.

Sincerely yours,

O