HEARINGS BEFORE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE. 41 
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE F. BURGESS, REPRE- 
SENTATIVE FROM TEXAS. 
Mr. Burerss. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a suggestion with 
reference to my friend Haugen’s questions to my colleague, Mr. Field. 
I saggest that the aspect of the matter presents not a State, but a 
Federal, question as a matter of law and duty that the Government 
owes to the people, and that this bill is not grounded upon precisely 
the same position unanimously subscribed to by this committee when 
it introduced and passed without objection in the House the foot-and- 
mouth disease bill. The idea of that bill was not to remunerate the 
citizens of a particular State by condemning their cattle and paying 
for them, but to prevent the spread of that disease into the sister 
States, as a Federal question and a Federal duty. So here we are not 
suppliants at anybody’s table. If it were a mere question of taking 
care of our own, I am proud to say that the Lone Star State will be 
able to do it to the limit that any other State is; but it is a national 
duty to take hold of this question and prevent this threatened destruc- 
tion of an interstate industry. 
Mr. Lamp. That is the point. 
Mr. Burerss. There is no need of any discussion about what this 
or that State ought to do, or has done, with reference to the foot-and- 
mouth disease, or any other question. 
Mr. Henry. Weare all agreed on that point. 
Mr. Burcess. The question here is that it is the duty, as I see it, of 
the Federal Government to take hold of this matter and to prevent, 
if possible, by the expenditure of quite a considerable sum of money— 
if necessary $10,000,000—the spread of this destructive agency. Ten 
million dollars would be a modest sum to spend if you could prevent for 
twenty years the spread of this boll weevil into the other cotton States, 
even if it destroyed the industry in Texas. Undoubtedly that is true, 
and an effort ought to be made to do it. My idea personally, so faras 
my own defense goes, for clamoring for an appropriation of $500,000 
is that to create a larger fund does not mean that a cabinet officer of 
our Government, if he is not of my party, will fool the money away, 
or spend it foolishly, or squander it in any way, any more than he did 
in the matter of the foot-and-mouth disease. But we do not know what 
contingencies may arise. We do not know what the extent of expendi- 
tures may be necessary in a week or in two weeks during the cotton 
season when these boll weevils may spread and threaten not only 
Louisiana but Arkansas and the Indian Territory. They may appear 
in Mississippi, whether from speculative evil purposes or by possible 
conveyance from the methods of commerce, and certainly it is undoubt- 
edly not only the privilege of the National Government but it is its 
solemn duty to protect these others States against this injury, and an 
abundant fund ought to be provided with which to do it. To have a 
large fund will create confidence, inspire cooperation, and produce 
beneficial results, even if all of it is not expended. 
I thank the committee. 
Mr. Haveen. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be placed in the atti- 
tude of opposing any appropriation that can be judiciously expended. 
I voted most cheerfully for this appropriation last year. — 
Mr. Burerss. I hope the gentleman will vote for it this year. 
