On March 9, 1928, Representative Watson introduced another bill (H. R. 11921), evidently designed as a substitute for H. R. 351, the principal change being the elimination of the penal provision contained in the bill first introduced. I am in favor of the enactment of legislation designed to end the undesirable practice of sending merchandise for sale to people who have not ordered it. Sincerely yours,

Hon. LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS,

WALTER F. BROWN.

POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., January 28, 1930.

Chairman Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR PHIPPS: Answering your letter of the 24th instant relating to S. 610, a bill to prohibit the sending of unsolicited merchandise through the mails, I will state that in our judgment the bill would be improved by omitting therefrom the exception made in favor of religious, charitable, and eleemosynary institutions. While merchandise emanating from such sources is less objectionable than merchandise handled purely for purposes of individual profit, yet to most addressees such shipments constitute an annoyance. Moreover, the administration of the law would be rendered somewhat more difficult by having an excepted class.

Very truly yours,

WALTER F. BROWN.

The following is an extract from the Annual Report of the Postmaster General for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1929:

UNSOLICITED PARCELS OF MERCHANDISE SENT THROUGH THE MAIL FOR SALE

In preceding reports attention was directed to the practice of using the mails for the purpose of sending unsolicited articles through the mails for sale. There were hearings held before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads upon a bill there pending, at which time the department presented urgent reasons why legislation should be enacted. However, no bill was reported out. The recommendation for appropriate legislation is renewed.

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

REPORT

[To accompany S. J. Res. 9]

The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the resolution (S. J. Res. 9) for the amendment of the acts of February 2, 1903, and March 3, 1905, as amended, to allow the States to quarantine against the shipment thereto, therein, or through of livestock, including poultry, from a State or Territory or portion thereof, where a livestock or poultry disease is found to exist, which is not covered by regulatory action of the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted with the following amendments:

Add at the end of sections 1 and 2 the following:

If the Secretary of Agriculture after proper investigation shall determine that a quarantine of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, as authorized in this paragraph, is unwarranted or no longer necessary, he shall by order terminate the same and such quarantine shall thereupon cease.

The bill, thus amended, meets with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture, whose letter to the chairman follows:

Hon. CHARLES L. McNARY,

Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

United States Senate.

MAY 8, 1929.

DEAR SENATOR MCNARY: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 19, transmitting for consideration and report, a copy of Senate Joint Resolution 9, for the amendment of the acts of February 2, 1903, and March 3, 1905, as amended. While the department has not had sufficient time to give this resolution extended consideration, attention is invited to the fact that a similar resolution passed the Senate in the last Congress after having received the department's approval, with the exception that that resolution as passed did not contain the provisos shown in lines 18 to 20, page 2, and lines 1 to 3, page 4, with regard to the approval of a specific test by the Secretary of Agriculture. The department believes the provisos referred to improve the resolution. It is also thought that

it can be further improved if there be added at the end of section 1 and again at the end of section 2 the words: "If the Secretary of Agriculture after proper investigation shall determine that a quarantine of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, as authorized in this paragraph, is unwarranted or no longer necessary, he shall by order terminate the same and such quarantine shall thereupon cease." This language will, it is believed, enable the Secretary of Agriculture to prevent the continuance of unreasonable quarantines if any such

occur.

The department does not believe, however, that this measure comes within the class of measures described as 'emergency farm relief" and, therefore, demanding the attention of this session.

Sincerely yours,

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

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1164]

The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1164) authorizing and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate all phases of crop insurance, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

THE CROP INSURANCE PROBLEM

1. NEED FOR CROP INSURANCE

The r sk involved in crop production must be recognized by all who have any familiarity with agriculture. The farmer may himself reduce this risk to some extent through diversification and safeguards of various kinds but he can not eliminate it. Many thousands of farmers every year find that all their efforts and precautions have been largely in vain, and that by reason of some climatic or other hazard beyond human control their investments in prospective crops have been largely or completely lost. Such an experience occurring to a newly established farmer, or to any other farmer who has failed to accumulate substantial reserves, often means serious privations and not infrequently practical, if not technical, bankruptcy.

The modern method of dealing with unavoidable risks is that of insurance. There is no insurmountable or valid reason why the insurance of growing crops against hazards beyond the control of the farmer should not be available at a cost commensurate with the actual risk involved. This view has been expressed frequently by practical insurance men as well as by students of agricultural economics. The same view was expressed by the Secretary of Agriculture in his reply to the questions raised by Senate Resolution 51 of the Seventieth Congress.

2. INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE HAVE ELABORATE INSURANCE FACILITIES

The manufacturer and the merchant insures his plant against fire and wi storm; his plate glass against breakage; his business and income against accide interruption by means of use and occupancy insurance. He may and frequ

of

88,