Let the President and let the Secretary act under these statutes and give the various Members an opportunity to present the situation and the claims of their particular land offices. Then we have another statute. Day before yesterday there was a good deal said on the floor regarding the provision on the first page of the appropriation bill about the reclassification act. You were asked, Are you going to nullify the reclassification act? The same question can be put with the same pertinency and the same relevancy to the consolidation of all of these land offices, except two, mentioned in the first part of this paragraph. Mr. ABERNETHY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SINNOTT. Just let me conclude this idea. These land offices are all consolidated in the very face of an act approved October 28, 1921, which sets forth the policy of Congress and provides when these land offices shall be consolidated. That act provides that the land offices, or, rather, the office of register and receiver, shall be consolidated when the compensation of both the register and receiver falls below $4,000. Every one of these offices, with the exception of two, proposed to be consolidated are what are known as maximum offices; at least, the compensation of the register and the receiver is over $4,000 and can not be consolidated under this act which I have cited. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon has expired. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida asks unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, I have been at a loss to ascertain just what actuated the committee in undertaking the abolition of these offices. It certainly did not come from any recommendation of the Interior Department, the department which administers the public land laws of the United States. These people undoubtedly know better than Members of Congress in regard to the matter. They ought and presumably do know better than anyone else just what offices are necessary and just what offices ought to be abolished. A few days ago, on the 21st of this month, I addressed a letter to the Commissioner of the General Land Office to see how they felt on this subject. I will read the reply of Goveruor Spry, Commissioner of the General Land Office, dated the same day, addressed to myself: Mr. SINNOTT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to January 21, 1924, relative to the clause in H. R. 5078, making proceed for three minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon asks unanimous consent to proceed for three additional minutes. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. Mr. SINNOTT. If this provision goes through, so far as these 12 offices are concerned-or at least 10 or 11 of themyou have a practical repudiation or a nullification of this act of October 28, 1921, which marks and sets forth the policy of Congress regarding the consolidation of land offices. appropriations for the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1925, providing for the closing of the land offices at Gainesville, Fla., and six other places. The provisos under the title, "Registers and receivers, district land offices," were not sponsored by this office, but were drafted by the subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations handling the Interior Department. In my statement before the subcommittee (p. 101 of the hearings) I said: This office has no specific recommendation to make relative to the discontinuance or consolidation of land offices ... It must be borne in mind that local land offices are maintained for the Now, notwithstanding the argument I have made against the committee action, in the interest of harmony and in the interest of a compromise that will give the Members a further convenience of the public and not primarily as money-making inyear's opportunity to remedy any wrong that may be done I have offered this compromise amendment. Mr. ABERNETHY. Will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. SINNOTT. Yes. Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand the Appropriations Committee by this act are really legislating these offices out of existence. Is not that so ? Mr. SINNOTT. Yes; and they are consolidating 12 or 13. Mr. ABERNETHY. Is not that the practical effect of it? Mr. SINNOTT. And legislating some 20 out of existence. Mr. ABERNETHY. This matter has not come before the Public Lands Committee, has it? Mr. SINNOTT. No; it has not been before our committee. Mr. PERKINS. Why do you say the committee is acting under the acts of 1840 and 1852? Mr. SINNOTT. The act of 1840 provides that whenever the quantity of public land remaining unsold in any district is reduced to less than 100,000 acres, and so forth. That is the rule that they invoke in some cases, but I contend, of course, that that statute is not apposite to to-day's conditions and the administration of the land laws to-day, because we no longer sell the public lands, and whenever an acre of land is entered by a homestead entryman they class it for their use in the committee as land sold. Of course, I contend it is not sold. Mr. PERKINS. You claim it ought not to be taken out until the title vests in the entryman. Mr. SINNOTT. It should not be taken out until the title | vests or until final proof is made. Mr. LARSON of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SINNOTT. Yes. Mr. LARSON of Minnesota. Is it the purpose of the gentleman's amendment to give an opportunity to those interested to present the matter in a businesslike way to the Secretary of the Interior or to the Commissioner of the General Land Office ? Mr. SINNOTT. It will give them an opportunity to present it to the commissioner or to the Secretary or to the proper legislative committee of the House. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes. stitutions." The Interior Department appropriation bill, as drafted by the House Committee on Appropriations, provides for the consolidation of the offices of register and receiver at 14 land offices, for the abolition of 7 offices, each the last office in the State involved, and the closing of 15 other offices, making a total of 22 offices to be abolished. If the bill passes in its present form, we will, of course, consolidate the 15 land districts above mentioned with other districts in the States in volved, but the public land business in the 7 States wherein the remaining land offices are proposed to be abolished will necessarily have to be handled here in Washington through correspondence with publicland claimants. There are two laws governing the maintenance of district land offices. Section 2248. Revised Statutes, provides that when the area of public land remaining unsold in any land district is reduced to less than 100,000 acres it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to discontinue the land office, and the land involved shall be subject to sale at some one of the district land offices most convenient. Section 2250 provides that whenever the cost of collecting the revenue from the sale of public lands in any land district is as much as one-third of the revenue collected in the district it may be lawful for the President, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to discontinue the land office in such district and annex the same to some adjoining land district. We believe that the interests of the public and also the Government can best be served by the maintenance of land offices at convenient points, so long as the expenses are not in excess of the earnings. There are less than a dozen offices where the expenses exceed the earnings. There is herewith inclosed a photostat copy of a statistical statement which was furnished to the House Committee on Appropriations at its request, showing the entries made and expenses incurred at all of the local land offices during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1923. The statistics relating to Gainesville will be found in the statement. Very respectfully, WILLIAM SPRY, Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the photostat copy referred to. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. The matter referred to is printed on the following page. Grand total.. 8, 412, 951, 141 6, 415, 001. 56 6, 200, 828. 85 9,395, 815.835 185, 933, 242 463,001.68 8,867, 618.61 343,042.90 378, 503. 56 721,546. 46 Land Service as a whole. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Of course each gentleman is more familiar with his local land office than he is with others. I want to state that there are to-day in the land office at Gainesville, the only land office in my State, applications for 2,000 patents to the public lands, upon which these officers must pass. In the first place, we have over 96,000 acres of public land in the State of Florida to-day. I can not understand the reason for any arbitrary rule that fixes the particular number of acres as a criterion to determine whether an office should be abolished. We have over 96,000 acres of public land undisposed of. Last year the receipts of that office-and mind you, my friends, the officers must get their compensation out of the receipts of the office-the receipts of the office last year were over $13,000, and the expenses were about $7.000. We actually turned into the Treasury of the United States over $6,500 as absolutely net profits from the operation of this office. The offices of the register and receiver at that office have been consolidated, and there is but one officer filling both places. Now I want to call your attention for a moment to a letter from the gentleman who is acting now as register and receiver: Hon. FRANK CLARK, M. C.. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES LAND OFFICE, Gainesville, Fla., January 15, 1924. Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CLARK: I hand you herewith a little more information on the condition of this office; also, I want to say that there are something over 2,000 patents pending on our records and it looks to me as 38.1 We called upon the United States land office at Gainesville, Fla., and find that the land office is located on the third floor of the Government building in three very comfortably furnished rooms, with all and more fine fixtures than are actually needed. They have no incidental expenses except $6 per year post-office box rent, and the force consists of a register at a salary of $500 with commissions. both not to exceed a total of $3,000; one chief clerk at a salary of $1,620 and bonus; one law clerk at a salary of $1,500 and bonus; and one temporary stenographer-clerk at a salary of $1,020 and bonus, who is to be dispensed with on January 31, 1924. The report of the General Land Office, Washington, D. C., for the year ending June 30, 1923, shows that there were 563 applications, etc., made this year, involving over 33,000 acres of land. That the cash receipts were $13,818.48, with expenses of $7,311.41, which shows the office to be paying. Since that time the offices of the register and receiver have been consolidated, thereby doing away with the receiver's salary; also that there are still over 85,000 acres of the Government surveyed land and over 1,100 acres of unsurveyed land in Florida. The business of December, 1923, as compared with December, 1922, is as follows, showing about 75 per cent increase: Original applications.. Contests initiated.. Letters received. Letters mailed... Money received.. 1922 1923 35 114 55 163 2 14 714 900 $682.38 872 1,220 $1,039. 41 This office is doing more business than 50 other land offices out of the 92 land offices in the United States. With this record we can not see why this office should be closed. People having business before the land office will have to go to Washington or employ an attorney there to attend to their business. We trust that our citizens of Florida and those of other States who contemplate locating in Florida will write their congressional delegation to retain this land office at Gainesville, Fla. Mr. Chairman, Florida is a big State. Most people do not look on it in that way; but let me tell you when you travel from Pensacola to Key West you have been as far as you would in traveling from Jacksonville, northern Florida, to Philadelphia. It is the biggest State territorially east of the Mississippi River save one, and that is Georgia, which has about a thousand square miles more. Look at the inconvenience, trouble, and expense it would be to the people who desire to get a homestead in that State to come to Washington to transact their business, to try their contests, and try every question arising affecting a patent on a homestead. It is often necessary that the homestead applicant, the contestant, and the contestee, must go in person to the office where their rights are to be tried and determined. You can not transact all the business by mail, and these people as a general rule are too poor to undertake the expense of this long trip to determine their rights. Mr. ALMON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ALMON. Would it not cost the Government as much to administer the matters from Washington as it does now in these respective States? Mr. CLARK of Florida. A good deal more, because the clerks in the General Land Office are paid a salary out of the Treasury, and officers in the local land offices are paid out of the receipts of the office. Mr. PERKINS. But the letter that the gentleman read indicates that the statutes are still in force. Mr. CLARK of Florida. The statutes are still on the books. Mr. PERKINS. And they are acting under those statutes. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Possibly; but the point I make is this: That primarily the offices were not established for profit, but for the convenience of the people seeking homestead rights in this country. It was recognized and it is still recognized that they are people of limited means. The Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts and people of that type do not take up homesteads in Florida, Oregon, and elsewhere in the country. They are taken up by the poorer class of people, the people who have to dig their livelihood out of the soil, people who raise families, people who are the mainstay of the Government not only in time of peace but in time of war. They go upon the farms and rear their families and make their living out of the dirt itself. I am speaking for that class when I am asking that the whole business of the Government be not transferred to Washington. [Applause.] Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLANTON. Can the gentleman name a millionaire in the United States to-day who is not down in the gentleman's State of Florida? Mr. STEVENSON. Oh, there are some of them in New Orleans. Mr. WILSON of Louisiana. And some have gone to Europe. Mr. KNUTSON. And perhaps the gentleman from Florida can inform the gentleman from Texas how many millionaires there are in Florida who are doing business with the land office. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Not one, but let me read the gentleman why they go to Florida. The poor people go there, the rich people go there, and the time is not far distant when all of them will be there, at least as many as we can entertain, and we welcome them all. I read from Vanity Fair of February, 1924: Nature made Florida heaven. America divided heaven up like an apple pie each piece different. You can get life as modern as next minute, in Florida-as ancient as the Everglades themselves. But there's not a commonplace mile on the peninsula and it's as American as jazz Mr. CRAMTON. They are paid out of the receipts if the receipts are sufficient, but sometimes they are not and they brilliant past belief, vital as a newspaper, young as life, the richest get the balance out of the Treasury. Mr. CLARK of Florida. But why abolish an office where they are turning their receipts into the Treasury over and above the expenses? Mr. MORROW. Would not there be a great inconvenience to the people if the office were transferred to Washington? Mr. CLARK of Florida. Certainly there would. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask for five minutes more. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? Mr. BLANTON. Reserving the right to object, I want to ask a question. Mr. CLARK of Florida. There is no need of that. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. BLANTON. I did not want to take it out of the gentleman's time. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask about the time for the few of us who are supporting the provisions in the bill and against the amendment. Of course, we should be granted an equal division of the time, and I hope the gentleman will be as liberal with us. Mr. CLARK of Florida. I never objected to a man's talking in my life. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. Mr. PERKINS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. PERKINS. The argument of the gentleman from Oregon was that the statutes of 1840 and 1852 were repealed by implication. Is it not true that the department considers the statutes now operative? Mr. CLARK of Florida. I do not know what the department considers. I think the gentleman from Oregon is right; I think the statutes were passed to apply to a time very different from the times now. Palm Beach-the diamond hub of a platinum universe-enormous, winter resort in the world. Golf under summer skies. Seas as blue as heaven with the foam on. Bathing, boating, flying, motoring-spend ing! Miami-the climate of the Garden of Allah, the links of one's fondest dreams. And I now want the very particular attention of the gentleman from Texas. St. Bimini-45 minutes from Broadway. Daytona and the million-dollar highway to Tampa, and the speedway at low tide. Petersburg-goldenest orange on the tree-growing faster than any of the rest, with ambitions that end nowhere and a climate to correspond. For the soul with a different tempo there's St. Augustine-Old World, appealing, pleasant, shady, comfortable-a city that even a live board of trade couldn't spoil. And Key West, at the other end of the magic carpet. Key West that the train runs boldly out across the sea to get to, marvelous mother of pearl, rose coral, and sapphire sea, full of low houses, an American city (perhaps) with a Spanish accent with a town at the end that is only itself and no other, 'quaint, (certainly). And Long Key, where the tarpon jump. And off the end of Florida, Nassau, and Cuba, blue, bluer, bluest, and gold. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired. Mr. CLARK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask for two minutes more. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. CLARK of Florida. And would the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON] destroy a land office in so beautiful a climate? Would he deprive the poor people of the sand-ridden end of Texas from going down there where there is no drought, where the cattle can eat the grass every day in the year, and where water flows from a million springs and a million clearwater lakes dot the landscape? Will my friend deprive his own constituents of that privilege? Not only are these benefits to be found there, but the land office there is actually paying |