Dizzy

If one is to understand what happened in the Senate last week in regard to the disposal of Muscle Shoals, one has to arrange facts in a simplified manner. In the first place, there have been four chief proposals for the disposal of the Muscle Shoals property:

1) The Ford plan, which provided to sell part and lease the rest of the Muscle Shoals property to Henry Ford.

2) The Norris plan, which provided for Government operation.

3) The Underwood plan, which instructed the President to lease the plant to private operators.

4) The Jones plan, which created a commission to study the disposal of the property and report in a year.

Last session, the House passed 1) the Ford plan and sent it to the Senate. The Senate failed to act on the bill before it adjourned last June. Before Congress opened again, Mr. Ford withdrew his offer--so it was obvious that the bill had to be amended. It was brought before the Senate, amended by substituting 2) the Norris plan. After a month's debate, the Senate amended the bill again by substituting 3) the Underwood plan (TIME, Jan. 19). Last week, in the course of two days, the Senate proceeded to tie up the measure in knots as follows:

First, the bill was amended by substituting 4) the Jones plan for the Underwood plan. Second, it was amended by substituting 2) the Norris plan for the Jones plan. Third, it was amended by substituting 3) the Underwood plan for the Norris plan. Then an attempt was made again to amend the bill toy substituting 4) the Jones plan for the Underwood plan. This last attempt failed. Finally, the bill (composed of 3)--the Underwood plan--was passed by vote of 50 to 30.

Technically, the bill had now passed both Houses of Congress. But the Senate had made "amendments". The usual course of procedure when amendments are made is to hold a joint conference and compromise. But the Senate "amendments" constituted a complete change of the bill from 1) the Ford plan to 3) the Underwood plan. A compromise or a conference hardly seemed appropriate.

The House may recommit the bill to committee, in which case it is probable that no final action will be taken this session. At any rate it is a problem, with the fate of the bill depending on the decision of the House.