piling the necessary information to get it passed by their legislatures, and finally to come down here and discuss the matter with you gentlemen.

Mr. MICHENER. Of course, the real trouble with this is that the labor pains incident to the forming of a new commission or new agency are not severe, but the youngster, once born, takes on life and robustness, and in each Congress we are asked to give just a little more power; and before we know it we have a regional agency set up of the type referred to by the chairman of the committee.

Mr. BANE. In other words, you contemplate that in the development of the Council of State Governments there will be developed a major level of government?

Mr. MICHENER. We are planting a germ the same as we do every time we set up a commission or agency, just as sure as night follows day. If this legislation is enacted, you will be back here, possibly not at the next Congress but at the following Congress, asking an elaborate extension-more power, more personnel, more money. That is my view, based upon experience. That never has failed in a single bureau or commission or agency of this kind set up or officially recognized by the Congress.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. That is what I had in mind in asking you to address yourself to that question, as to whether this might tend in the direction of greater power and greater significance, generally, to this commission, as time goes on.

Mr. BANE. I think, I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the council will tend to be more significant, more useful, and will develop and grow.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. If I understand you correctly, you are hopeful that it will be more helpful and more significant, but you are giving us the assurance that it is not your intention and you do not anticipate that it will increase the scope of its present jurisdiction?

Mr. BANE. No, we do not anticipate that, in any sense of the word, this council will become an agency or organization with control over the States or control in the governmental field at all.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Or that it would change from its present status of an advisory board?

Mr. BANE. That is correct.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And so far as its activities among the States, it calls for voluntary agreements among the States, but it has no power or compulsion over any State?

Mr. BANE. At any time, under any circumstances.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. And you do not anticipate ever seeking to obtain. such powers?

Mr. BANE. That is correct.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Have you any other witness?

Mr. BANE. Yes.

Mr. TOLAN. Mr. Bane, how many States are now active in this Council of State Governments?

Mr. BANE. Forty-one.

Mr. TOLAN. Is it your intention to get the other seven in?

Mr. BANE. That is our objective.

Mr. MICHENER. If this bill is enacted, you will certainly have no difficulty getting the other seven in.

Mr. BANE. Pardon me?

Mr. MICHENER. If this bill is enacted into law, you will have no trouble in getting the other seven in, because your movement will have been recognized and financed by the Federal Government?

Mr. BANE. I think, without doubt, if this bill is enacted it will be assistance along that line. I think, in any event, however, within the next few years practically all of the States will come in. Within a period of 4 years 41 States have, by legislative action, become members of the council.

Mr. ROBSION. How many of these 41 States contributed to this work in the last year?

Mr. BANE. The States will contribute to the council for the next year directly and to special projects approximately $75,000 a year. That will be supplemented by approximately the same amount from the Spelman fund.

Mr. ROBSION. Do you find in your investigation that there is any tendency among the States themselves to erect barriers within the States?

Mr. BANE. Within the States themselves?

Mr. ROBSION. Yes; within the States themselves; trade barriers?

Mr. BANE. We do not concern ourselves at all with what would be the tendency of a State within its own boundaries. We are interested in interstate matters.

Mr. ROBSION. I know; but do they erect trade barriers affecting interstate commerce by building up what you referred to a moment ago, the situation on the Hudson River and the Delaware River and other places that are so geographically, physically, commercially, and every other way entwined with each other that there seems to have to be some sort of solution to the problem? Now, your agency acts as a go-between in getting these elements together to work out the solution?

Mr. BANE. Correct.

Mr. ROBSION. And conciliates, like we had your conciliation in other lines of business activities?

Mr. BANE. Would you like me to be specific on that point? For instance, on April 5, 6, and 7 of this year we had a national meeting on the question of interstate trade barriers, in which 43 of the States. were represented. The Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the W. P. A. all cooperated in that conference. I think we have done a great deal toward blocking further development of interstate trade barriers.

Mr. BARNES. Is there any precedent for this type of legislation?

Mr. BANE. Yes. This [indicating] is primarily in the international field. Here are organizations and agencies, some 30 or 40 of them, contained in this book which is entitled "American Delegations to International Conferences, Congresses and American Representation on International Institutional and Commissions, With Relevant Data." I would like to put this in the record, if that is agreeable.

Mr. BARNES. Just put in that one page in the record, so we will have the heading. Is there anything domestic, like the American Bar Association or the National Rivers and Harbors Congress? Mr. BANE. I am not advised on that.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The exhibit you just introduced will speak for itself, and you have that as a precedent for a proposal of this kind,

which has to do with the relationships between the Federal and State Governments in the United States of America?

Mr. BANE. I would not say that it is a direct precedent, but I would say that it is a precedent to the extent that the Federal Government has, for many years, going back to 1880, contributed funds to organizations and agencies that have that relationship.

(The matter referred to by Mr. Bane is the Publication 1300, Conference Series 40, Department of State, entitled "American Delegation to International Conferences, Congresses, and Expositions, and American Representation on International Institutions and Commissions, With Relevant Data," which is on file with the Judiciary Committee.)

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bane.

Mr. BANE. I should like to ask Mr. Treadway, who was, for many years, in the Indiana Legislature and is now secretary and treasurer of the Indiana Commission on Cooperation, to make a statement with respect to this matter.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. We will be very glad to hear Mr. Treadway.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TREADWAY, SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE INDIANA COMMISSION ON COOPERATION

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. How long do you expect it will take you to present your statement, Mr. Treadway?

Mr. TREADWAY. Not very long, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to let the record show the report of the Indiana Commission on Interstate Cooperation as an exhibit. It recites, in the early pages of the report, the Indiana Act creating the Indiana Commission on Interstate Cooperation.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. It may be filed for the record.

Mr. TREADWAY. The matter of cooperation is not a new effort of the States. They have endeavored to work together for a number of years and in a very comprehensive manner. The only study that has ever been made on that subject, of which I do not have a copy, is a thesis which was written in Wisconsin on the subject of methods in cooperation, by which the various departments and State officials were attempting, in good fashion, to cooperate with local commissions, boards, and administrative officials of the other States. This study was made in 1930 and discloses that, in the State of Wisconsin, an enormous sum of money was being expended by the representative States in an effort to cooperate with the other States and with the Federal Government.

The Indiana Act was adopted in 1937 and, as I say, is similar, if not practically identical, with the other State legislation on that subject. Reading one or two sentences from our act, I would point out that, while the Council of State Governments is a nonprofit organization, in our Indiana Act, and in similar legislation, we have inserted this language in the act:

In addition to the purposes hereinafter specified, it shall be the function of this commission to carry forward the participation of this State as a member of the Council of State Governments, which council is hereby declared to be the joint governmental agency of this State and other States which cooperate through it.

And the purposes are recited: First, the adoption of compacts, and as you gentlemen take notice of that, it requires the consent of Congress in each instance; second, the enactment of uniform and reciprocal statutes; third, the adoption of uniform or reciprocal administrative rules and regulations; fourth, uniform cooperation of Government officials and employees with one another; next, the interchange and clearance of research and information; and, finally, and any other suitable purpose.

Now, the Indiana Commission and the other State commissions are without legislative, executive, or judicial powers. There is that recited in these acts, of formulating proposals, and by facilitating those ends. Interstate cooperation is entirely voluntary, and unless it could be conceded that the States would relinquish the sovereign power, and Congress consented to it, a new governmental device, as a governmental unit, legislative, executive, or judicial, or quasi such, would be beyond my present imagination.

We have had a three-point program in Indiana during the past year, which has been consummated. One was looking toward the correction of the Ohio River pollution. The Ohio River is a part of the territory of Kentucky. It was reserved by Virginia in its grant of the Northwest Territory and, as such, has remained a part of Kentucky. The pollution of the Ohio River is not a Federal problem; it is not a problem that Indiana, alone, can solve, or that Ohio alone, can solve, or Pennsylvania or West Virginia.

For instance, the city of Cincinnati obtained authority to issue $3,000,000 in bonds to build a disposal plant for the city of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, at the present time, dumps its raw sewage into the Ohio River, with the cities of Lawrenceburg and other Indiana cities within 10 miles down the river obtaining their drinking water from the same river. Cincinnati obtained authority from the taxing authority to issue $3,000,000 in bonds to build a sewage-disposal plant, but it did not make sense for Mayor Stewart, of Cincinnati, to go ahead with the construction of the disposal plant, when he had no protection whatever from similar disposal problems upstream, and that plant will not be started until this proposed compact has been ratified by the States involved and is submitted and meets the approval of Congress. Indiana was the first of the Ohio Basin States to adopt the pollution compact.

The second point of our interstate program sponsored by this cominission was that concerning the Great Lakes fisheries. The United States Bureau of Fisheries gave us a written opinion that, within 3 years, commercial fishing would be extinct in the Great Lakes, it having reached the point where it is not commercially advantageous to go into the Great Lakes with the fishing fleet, due to depletion, without any regard to the replenishment of commercial fish, without regard to the size of the seines, or other regulations.

The commercial fishermen, up to this year, have played each State against each other, in avoiding adequate regulation; and through the means offered to Indiana and adjoining States, through participating in the council, it was possible, through a group of meetings, a number of meetings held at Detroit and Chicago, to work out uniform State laws and regulations that are being put into operation at this time, at the request of the fishermen, who would, up until a year ago, have vigorously opposed such legislation.

The third has been the settlement of the beer controversy between Indiana and Michigan, as Mr. Bane has told you. The twenty-first amendment threw directly into the laps of the 48 States, and without any considerable warning that the amendment would be adopted by the States as rapidly as it was, the problem of devising some means of handling the liquor situation.

Your State of Michigan, sir, has what is known as the monopoly system, such as is found also in Pennsylvania, and I believe a total of eight States, where we have different treatment, each State being left to its own devices.

I would say that the liquor situation is the only commodity that is entirely free, by the Constitution of the United States, from control, as being interstate commerce, in comparison to any other commodity, but warranting the existence of some agency whereby the States may meet the changing conditions in that phase of interstate commerce, over which the Federal Constitution and the courts have no jurisdiction.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. May I interrupt you there?

Mr. TREADWAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. To develop the record so we can present the situation to Congress fully, is not that an indication of the trend that I have discussed, that this is a new field that your organization will go into?

Mr. TREADWAY. I think not, no effort having been contemplated or considered for the bringing of the States together into any governmental unit. The only function that the council has contemplated, or we have contemplated, has been the interchange of thought, looking toward amicable adjustments within the States themselves.

I called upon the Governor of Michigan, the late Governor Fitzgerald, unofficially and without any authority, without any authority to bind the State of Indiana, and with Senator Callahan, who likewise had no authority to bind the Governor or the Legislature of Michigan, and we worked out a formula, which he submitted to the liquor commission, the Governor, and the senate and the house liquor committees in Michigan-and we did the same thing in Indiana-and each State acted separately to correct and wipe out trade barriers that had stalled the free flow of trade in those States at the State line.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. You did a good job, and the fact that you did a good job accomplishing a very desirable end-might that not lead your group to feel that something should be done that would put teeth in your organization, so as to

Mr. TREADWAY. I think not. We would be quite willing for the Congress to submit a new amendment removing any such question. We are just dealing, sir, with the situations that we do not make, and our organiaztion has tended toward the possible solution of the facts as we found them, not as we have made them.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. The better job you do, the more desirable your organization will be, and perhaps it would become so desirable that it would appear to be more desirable in the future, and I am just wondering whether that will tend to create a situation, in which you will come to the conclusion that you ought to be given some power, in order to make your work more effective.

Mr. MICHENER. Was that solution of the Michigan problem worked out by the legislature or through the liquor commissions?