have the rates made so that it would abolish itself in practical application; and what I fear is that we are giving a direction to the Postmaster General here the effect of which, if he follows it, will be to abolish the parcel post.

The rates provided for are somewhat reduced here. The 2 cents parcel service charge is abolished entirely. I remember when we put that on. I should like to ask the Senator from New Hampshire now if the results under that service have been about what it was anticipated they would be when we put it on? Mr. MOSES. Very closely, I will say to the Senator.

Mr. NORRIS. Now as to the rates. That is the only change made in the rates? Mr. MOSES. That is the only change made in the rate for mere transportation; but, Mr. President

Mr. NORRIS. Before the Senator leaves that, how much money did we get during the last year from this service charge of 2 cents a package?

Mr. MOSES. Something like $18,000,000.

Mr. NORRIS. Of course, it is safe to say that that much would be lost by that reduction.

Mr. MOSES. Oh, clearly.

I do not want to take the Senator from the floor.

Mr. NORRIS. No; I am glad to have the Senator interrupt me, because I am trying to get information.

Mr. MOSES. I share with the Senator the opinion that the people of the country do not care a rap whether the Postal Service is self-supporting or not. What they want is service; and I have been grieved and shocked at times to see the manner in which some branches of the Postal Service have been made to suffer because of what I conceived to be a false idea of real economy.

We have repeatedly made provision here in Congress for the maintenance and the extension of certain classes of the Postal Service; and yet we have seen Postmasters General, in pursuit of the will-o'-the-wisp of economy, fail to carry out the plain intent of Congress, thereby bringing about a reduction in Postal Service which has been very detrimental to the business of the country.

The Railway Mail Service, for example, has not for many years been maintained at the point of personnel or of pound mileage of transportation such as Congress by its appropriations has intended the Postal Service to have; and yet all those elements detrimental, as I believe, to the efficiency of the Postal Service as a governmental unit-are made use of to make up a record for efficient administration of a great executive department, contrary, as I maintain, to the desires of the people and contrary to the expressed intent of Congress in the appropriation bill.

As for the parcel post, the Senator is quite right in saying that nobody wants it to be done away with.

As far as the Rural Free Delivery Service is concerned, nobody wants even to curtail that. In all the testimony which the subcommittee took-and that subcommittee was the most diligent of any body of its character that I have known in my service in the Senate-not a line of testimony was adduced in any section of the country looking to the reduction of anything in the Postal Service except the payment of money on the part of the public. Everybody wanted to pay less money and to get better service.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, what the Senator says about the Post Office Department often really misconstruing what seems to be the plain meaning of the law, in order to make a record of economy, agrees absolutely with the conclusion I have reached from several years of experience in looking up various items that have been called to my attention connected with the Post Office Department. I am glad to know that the judgment I have formed is also the judgment of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think that a great many Postmasters General have gone to the extreme and have often misinterpreted law that to me seemed to be perfectly plain, for the sole and only reason that they wanted to make a record of economy; and they did it, in my judgment, at the cost of efficient service.

Sometimes, I think, in administering some statutes that we passed, the Postmaster General, with the idea in view of saving as much money as possible, has not been fair to some of the employees, particularly in the rail service. I have had my attention called several different times to statutes that we had passed-I helped to pass them, or voted for them, at least, and I thought I understood them when I voted for them-to do some particular thing; I have no particular thing in mind now; some amendment to the law because we thought that as a result of the way it had been administered an injustice had happened or inefficiency had occurred; and I have seen it all perverted by the construction put on the new law by the Postmaster General.

We

It is always difficult to complain of the Postmaster General or any other public official who is trying to economize, because every one of us would like to see economy practiced everywhere; but we can be foolish about it, I think. can economize at the expense of efficiency; and the Post Office Department is something that is established and maintained, as I view it, for the comfort and the convenience and the happiness and the education of all the people. We have to pay that bill anyway, and it does not make very much difference whether we pay it in one way or whether we pay it in another. It does not make very much difference, if we are going to get a certain amount of efficiency and have a certain work done, whether we pay it by buying postage stamps or whether we pay it out of the Treasury directly. It is all paid, in any case, by the people of the country.

Mr. MCKELLAR. Mr. President

Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. MCKELLAR. I just want to suggest that the average yearly increase in the postal revenues is 7 per cent; and the Senator can easily see that just from the ordinary increase of business the deficit that we now have is not at all likely to continue. Indeed, the Postmaster General, I think, about a year ago testified that probably within less than two years, with the normal increase of business, the increased revenues would wipe out the deficit.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I want to say just one word more about parcel post. I do not believe it is necessary to argue that we all want to maintain it; we want it to be efficient; we do not want to cripple it. If a higher rate would ruin it, I would be opposed to making the rate higher. If it can pay its way, I would be glad to have it do so. I think we are all convinced that it can not pay its way; that there will be a deficit in this particular class, as there will be in some other classes in the Post Office Department.

Suppose we pass the pending bill and the Postmaster General does what 1 really think we direct him to do by this measure, that he increases or doubles the rates on all parcel post. Everybody will be criticizing the Postmaster General, and yet he can come back here and say, "I have done that under the law you passed, where you even used the word 'direct,' telling me how to carry it out." I do not believe we ought to pass this kind of a measure.

Mr. MOSES. I understand this has been in the law ever since the parcel-post law was enacted, and we simply carried it over in this description of fourth-class matter, with the rates, so that this measure in itself would be complete in its language without making various provisos.

Mr. NORRIS. One of the objects I had in view was to call the attention of Senators to this matter, and I wanted to get an expression, if I could, from other Senators, and I wanted it to go to the country in the Record. I particularly wanted an expression from the chairman of the committee, and I have now obtained it. If the Postmaster General were disposed to take such a step, he probably would be deterred somewhat if his attention were called to the discussion.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. May I call attention to the language immediately following on lines 10 and 11, where it is provided that the Postmaster General "is hereby directed, subject to the consent of the Interstate Commerce Commission after investigation."

Mr. MCKELLAR. That has been the law for a number of years, and it has not been resorted to yet.

Mr. NORRIS. Does the Senator go on the theory that it will not be resorted to? Mr. MCKELLAR. I do not believe it will be.

Mr. NORRIS. Does the Senator want the Postmaster General to carry out that law?

Mr. MCKELLAR. No; I prefer that he should not.

Mr. NORRIS. Would it not be better to put in an amendment saying, "This is the law, but we do not want you to enforce it?"

Mr. MCKELLAR. No.

Mr. NORRIS. Should we not express out true judgment? Do we expect to say to the Postmaster General that he shall disregard this law and obey all other laws?

Mr. MCKELLAR. It is not mandatory upon him.

Mr. NORRIS. I do not know. It says that he is hereby directed, if he can get the consent of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. MCKELLAR. Provided a certain state of facts arises.

Mr. NORRIS. That state of facts, at least judging from his figures, has already arisen. He has already demonstrated by his investigation, so the chairman of the committee tells us, that the parcel post does not pay its own way, and if it does not pay its own way, we say he shall raise the rates.

Mr. MOSES. The Senator misunderstood me. That was the case prior to the application of the service charge. The estimated deficit in fourth-class matter in the fiscal year 1923, according to the cost-ascertainment report, was something between six and seven million dollars. According to the report of 1925, after putting in the service charge of 2 cents for each package of fourth-class mail matter, we increased the revenue about $18,000,000, so that under the present rate structure fourth-class mail matter, parcel post, is self-sustaining and pays a profit.

Mr. MCKELLAR. It is more than self-supporting.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, why does not the Senator from Nebraska suggest an amendment to strike out lines 3 to 15, inclusive?

Mr. NORRIS. I want to say to the Senator from New York that I would be glad to do that if I thought there was any show on earth of having it approved by the Senate; but we are considering this bill, in my judgment, in a way other than that in which we should consider it. It is one of the most important items of legislation that we have had before us at this session, and I insist that it ought to be properly considered and disposed of by the Senate, but with the vast amount of other legislation that we are going to try to consider and pass before the 4th of March it is a physical impossibility to give to this the attention it ought to have.

I realize, too, that perhaps a very large majority of the Senate is in favor of the other bill to be considered to-night, after we dispose of this one, and I suppose I will be criticized a great deal for saying what I have said. If I had my way about it, I would not insert in the bill the language which has already been approved, as a matter of fact, by the committee. If there is any possibility of taking it out, I will help to take it out, and I will move to take it out, but I think I realize the situation here to-night, and that you could not take it out if you had a regiment of soldiers here to pull one end of the string.

JANUARY 18 (calendar day, JANUARY 19), 1932.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. Vandenberg, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (S. 573) granting the consent of Congress for the construction of a bridge across Clarks Fork River, near Ione, Pend Oreille County, in the State of Washington, have considered the same and report thereon with an amendment, and as so amended, recommend that the bill do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

Lines 6 to 9: In line 6 change the colon to a comma, and beginning with the word "Provided," strike out all the language down through line 9, inserting in lieu thereof the following:

in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled "An act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March 23, 1906. The bill thus amended has the approval of the Departments of War and Agriculture, as will appear by the annexed communications.

WAR DEPARTMENT, January 4, 1932. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Commerce, United States Senate.

So far as the interests committed to this department are concerned, I know of no objection to the favorable consideration of the accompanying bill (S. 573, 72d Cong., 1st sess.) granting the consent of Congress for the construction of a bridge across Clarks Fork River, near Ione, Pend Oreille County, in the State of Washington, if amended as indicated in red thereon.

PATRICK J. HURLEY, Secretary of War.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, January 6, 1932.

Hon. HIRAM W. JOHNSON,
Chairman Committee on Commerce,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of December 17, transmitting a copy of a bill (S. 573) with request that the committee be furnished with such suggestions touching its merits and the propriety of its passage as the department might deem appropriate.

This bill, would authorize the commissioners of Pend Oreille County, Wash., to construct a bridge across Clarks Fork River, near Ione, Wash. The location indicated for the proposed bridge is not on the system of Federal-aid highways approved for State of Washington. However, the bill is without objection so far as this department is concerned.

Sincerely yours,

R. W. Dunlap, Acting Secretary.

O