² In a subsequent report (S.Rept. 1870, filed on March 3), the special committee investigating campaign expenditures said: “Unless the expenditure of more than $600,000 in the primary in behalf of the ticket headed by Senator Davis can be construed as in itself constituting corruption, the evidence … does not disclose any corruption for which he may be held personally responsible.” On February 25, Senator Davis appeared voluntarily before the subcommittee of the committee on judiciary which had been investigating lobbying, in order to deny that he ever lobbied for or against a tariff measure. On February 28, the Senate authorized (S.Res. 475) the continuance of the subcommittee and made a small additional appropriation to enable it to investigate the allegation that a member of the Senate received $100,000 or more in connection with the item on sugar in the tariff of 1930.

³ The contest of Thomas Heflin, former senator, against William Bankhead concerned the primary election of August 12, 1930. In addition to those involving Alabama and North Carolina, notice of a contest against Senator Schall of Minnesota, Republican, was filed on March 3 by his defeated opponent.

⁴ On July 12, Representative LaGuardia announced that he had circularized a group of “Progressives” regarding the desiderata of rules reform. He emphasized the need of a provision restricting each state to one member on the committee on ways and means. Previously, in a statement which appeared in the United States Daily of June 1, Representative Robert Luce, well-known student of legislative organization, complained of congressional maladjustment from the stand point of the effect of waste of time in defeating desirable legislation.

⁵ The rule (XXVII, subd. 4) as amended on December 7, 1925, has never been successfully invoked. During the short session of the 71st Congress, it was said that a petition in behalf of H.R.14567, having to do with cash advances on veterans' adjusted compensation certificates (an object realized in another way in other thirds. Previously the House rejected in committee of the whole the proposal that legislation) received at least 118 signatures.

⁶ Speaking in defense of the rules committee, Bertrand Snell of New York, its chairman, said on January 31: “There has never been a time since the gentleman from New York has been chairman of that committee when there has been an important controversial piece of legislation before it that he has not gone personally to the Republican whip and asked him to canvass the House on the question in hand for the guidance of our committee and also had a great many other individual members from different sections of the United States canvassing the sentiment of members of their parts of the country, and, as far as possible, we have tried in our official capacity to fairly represent and reflect that sentiment, and the best proof I can offer you for the truth of that statement is, as far as I can now remember, that there has never been a single recommendation of that committee since the gentleman from New York has been chairman turned down by the House of Representatives.” At the same time, Mr. Snell avowed his faith as follows: “If I understand the function of the rules committee of the House, it is to act in harmony with the majority sentiment of the majority of the House of Representatives. It is to act in coördination and harmony with the steering committee of the House. It is the duty of the rules committee, as I understand it, to act, as far as possible, for the protection of the administration and the administration program of legislation.”

⁷ See p. 946 below.

⁸ The successive dates of its acceptance by the Senate were: February 13, 1923; March 14, 1924; February 15, 1926; January 4, 1928; and June 17, 1929. On May 18, 1928, it was voted on in the House, receiving 209 (118 Democrats, 89 Republicans, 2 Farmer Labor) to 157 (55 Democrats, 102 Republicans), less than two-thirds. Previously, the House rejected in committee of the whole the proposal that in even-numbered years sessions should end on May 4.

⁹ In his official review of the session, made public on March 13, John Q. Tilson, the majority leader, said: “By the ‘lame duck’ proposal, instigated and kept alive by an inane but catchy phrase, it is seriously proposed to amend the fundamental law of the land in order to remedy a situation brought about by the archaic rules of the Senate.”

¹⁰ The chief item was the amendment to the Interior appropriation bill carrying $25,000,000 for general relief purposes. The conference statement said “There will be no objection to the modification of the amendment in conference so as to specify another agency than the Red Cross to distribute the fund.” In the final outcome, “general relief” was contracted to drought relief through loans, essentially. Another item on the list related to the Capper amendment to the Army appropriation bill, making food held by the Federal Farm Board available for relief. The conference statement announced that “the final passage of this amendment will be firmly insisted upon.” This demand was not met. Senator Capper's proposal was begun as S.J.Res.210; as passed by the Senate on January 26, it involved authority to dispose of 20,000,000 bushels of wheat “to provide food for the distressed people in the various parts of the United States.” This was not even reported in the House. On January 29, the proposal was attached as an amendment to the War Department appropriation bill (H.R.15593) by a vote of 46 to 16.

¹¹ Senator Borah, for example, said in the Senate on February 2: “I am perfectly willing, if a majority of the Senate is willing to do the same thing, to say that not another appropriation bill shall pass this body until the hungry are fed, until the sick are taken care of, until the government of the United States has met its obligations to its citizens.” Senator LaFollette (having joined with Senator David Walsh of Massachusetts in questioning mayors of all places over 5,000 regarding the extent of unemployment) made a number of notable analyses of the situation; for example, on December 20 and January 9. No one can say that congressional debate during the session was lacking in concrete realization of problems.

¹² Certain questions put by Senator Thomas at the opening of the daily session on March 4 have interest for the student as well as for all who speak in public. Mr. Thomas of Oklahoma. “The first parliamentary inquiry: Is there any Senate rule that provides just how fast a member addressing the United States Senate must speak his words” The Vice President. “That is a matter for the Senator to determine for himself.” Mr. Thomas of Oklahoma. “The second parliamentary inquiry: I have before me numerous notes. Owing to the fact that I was detained on the floor night before last until 3 o'clock in the morning, and detained upon the floor last night until after 1 o'clock, I have not had time to arrange my notes properly, and it may be that during the discussion I may waste a few seconds of time in looking for the data I desire to use. Because of that fact I do not wish to be considered as yielding the floor. ….” Mr. Bingham. “Under the rules of the Senate, how long may a Senator stand at his desk arranging his notes without talking” The Vice President. “That would be a question for the chair to determine when the question came up.”

¹³ A source of agitation for a special session was the announcement of the Department of Agriculture on June 16 that it was not allowed by law to use drought relief funds appropriated in the preceding session to remedy distress due to drought in the new season.

¹⁴ On January 15, the Senate adopted a resolution (S.Res. 401) by which the Secretary of Agriculture was informed regarding the “intent and purpose” of the Senate when it “voted for the drought relief measure.” He was told that relief should be given to stricken families, even in counties “where the distress caused by the drought is not general.” Less perspicuous, perhaps, was the advice “that it is the sense of the Senate that the relief here provided should be granted wherever the conditions and facts justify it, and the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby requested to see that it is done.”

¹⁵ The student of the working relations of the branches of government will profit by pausing to note a clumsy but not untypical incident. While the conference report was before the Senate, questions were raised regarding the interpretation that the Secretary of Agriculture would put on it and the spirit with which he would administer it. The query was put to him in a resolution (S.J.Res. 440) which pursued him to another city where he was making a speech. His telegraphed reply on February 12 was marked by a balanced obscurity which reminded Senator Norris of the Wickersham report. A somewhat different use of a resolution occurred on February 27 (S.Res. 479), when the Secretary was “requested to inform the Senate immediately: First, why the fund of $20,000,000 … has not been made available … and second, when he proposes to act in this matter.”

¹⁶ There were persistent rumors, even open charges, that the Arkansas senators, spearheads in the drive for emergency relief, were willing to compromise in the end, even to the length of overlooking the aspect of general as distinguished from drought relief, after they had been seen by Harvey L. Couch of Little Rock, banker, director of utilities, leading citizen, and Red Cross relief chairman for Arkansas.

¹⁷ It is interesting, on the other side, to recall the characteristically neo-Jeffersonian comment in an editorial in the late New York World of February 3, 1931: “The Democratic party is playing with dynamite. In the last week its leaders in Congress have placed it in a position where it can properly be charged with an irresponsible willingness to raid the public treasury. If the party does not extricate itself promptly from this position, if in fighting for these measures it forces an extra session and identifies itself with inflation and subsidy, it will have achieved the miracle of reëstablishing the morale of the Republican party.”

¹⁸ The $40,000,000 reduction was thus explained in the report from the committee on appropriations: “In separating this sum of $110,000,000 from the total request of $150,000,000, the committee has segregated those items which have the broadest national scope, which have an unquestioned public need to be served, and which will give the most and immediate employment when the appropriations are made and placed at the disposal of the departments charged with the responsibility of expending them.”

¹⁹ The Senate surrendered also in dropping an amendment sponsored by Senator Couzens requiring the employment of local labor, if available, and the observance of local wage standards.

²⁰ The President's statement, while commending Senator Wagner and Representative Graham for working out “an admirable measure in which they have adopted the constructive suggestions of the various government departments,” properly speaks of the work done in developing the idea by Otto Mallery of Harrisburg, and also Edward Eyre Hunt of the Department of Commerce. Senator Wagner, for his part, still has justification for his remark on June 21: “There has been inexcusable sluggishness in the consideration of the bill. Although it has long enjoyed universal approval, it was halted and resisted at every step in its legislative journey.” The act creates an ex-officio Federal Employment Stabilization Board, but it was indicated that its administration would be a function of the Department of Commerce. On June 16, D. H. Sawyer, a consulting engineer, was appointed director.

²¹ See p. 946 below.

²² S. Doc. 272, February 19, 1931.

²³ The veto message added on this point: “Inquiries have been made of the most responsible and experienced concerns that might possibly undertake such lease, and they have replied that under the conditions set out in the bill it is entirely impractical for them to make any bid.”

²⁴ On July 14, the President announced the appointment of a commission to advise regarding the disposition of Muscle Shoals. He appointed to it two representatives of the War Department and the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. The other members were named by the governors of Alabama and Tennessee under authority given by their legislatures. The commission solicited “informative bids.” On August 14, one of the representatives of Tennessee resigned, explaining that a majority of his associates were “apparently proceeding along a well-defined and preconceived plan to devote the property primarily to the production of fertilizer.”

²⁵ Those who shifted to the negative were Couzens (who favored the measure previously, but who was paired against over-riding the veto) and Thomas of Idaho, Republicans, and Steck of Iowa, Democrat. The other Democrats in the negative were Ransdell of Louisiana and Tydings of Maryland.

²⁶ The Treasury (whose hostile views were predicated partly on the injurious effect which the undertaking might have on the bond market) estimated that the measure involved a potential liability of $1,720,000,000.

²⁷ H.R.17054 (veterans' loan, repassed over veto); S.J.Res.49 (Muscle Shoals, the attempt to over-ride failing); and also—all of minor importance—H.R.1036, 3368, 6997, 13584, S.3165.

²⁸ S.3060 (employment exchanges); S.543 (pay of rural carriers); and also H.J.Res.357, H.R.8677, S.3924—all of negligible general interest.

²⁹ It was said that approximately 400 bills, mostly of minor importance, were presented within the few days before adjournment. For an earlier discussion of the problem, see Rogers, Lindsay, “The Power of the President to Sign Bills after Congress has Adjourned,” Yale Law Journal, XXX, pp. 1–22 (Nov., 1920)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ The commission took the view that the tenure of members of the old staff automatically terminated on December 22, when a majority of the newly constituted commission met. Mr. King was subsequently reappointed.

³¹ The district attorney was advised by the Attorney-General to lend his name, but not other aid. A subcommittee of the Senate committee on judiciary announced on February 18 that John W. Davis and Alexander J. Groesbeck had been engaged as special counsel. Suit was filed on May 4.

³² Hearings before the Committee on Finance, U. S. Senate, 71st Congress, 3d session, on the Confirmation of Members of U. S. Tariff Commission, Dec. 6, 8, and 9, 1930, p. 7Google Scholar.

³³ It was announced on July 28 that Mr. Fletcher, whose only purpose had been to energize the reorganization of the commission's work, would leave it about November 15.

³⁴ See the summary table on p. 953.

³⁵ The limited character of the legislation enacted gives no idea of the verbal attention that prohibition received in connection with the attempt to pass a relatively drastic enforcement act for the District of Columbia (S. 3344, which may have served as a buffer, though it seemed on the verge of passing the Senate); in connection with the report of the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, transmitted to Congress on January 20; and in connection with the usual attacks incidental to appropriations.

³⁶ The renewal of maternity aid on a permanent basis (S.255) nearly passed; the conference report had been accepted in the House and was pending in the Senate. An important bill on copyrights (H.R.12549), having passed the House on January 13, 185 to 34, was the unfinished business of the Senate at the end. The Capper-Kelly resale price bill, sometimes called “fair-trade bill” (H.R.11), passed the House on January 29 without a record vote, but was not reported in the Senate. The motor bus bill (H.R.10288) was taken up in the Senate at the beginning of the session, but was recommitted on December 4 by 51 (25 Republicans, 26 Democrats) to 29 (20 Republicans, 8 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor), and a sub-group of the commerce committee failed to decide upon the next step to take. A measure to clarify the Radio Act (H.R.11635), having passed the House on April 30, 1930, and the Senate on February 17, was caught in conference. The question of new legislation on railroad consolidation marked time, but (on the basis of an investigation made by special counsel of the commerce committee under S.Res.290), S.6276 was introduced by Senator Couzens on March 3 in preparation for the new Congress. The measure for Philippine independence (S.3822) died on the Senate calendar.