² Five deaths occurred before the opening of the session, but a change of party resulted only in the first district of Colorado, where the Democrats gained a seat on what was said to have been the wet issue. At the beginning of Congress the groups were: Republican, 237; Democratic, 195; Farmer Labor, 2; Socialist, 1. Three Republicans—M. B. Madden of Illinois, chairman of appropriations, T. S. Butler of Pennsylvania, chairman of naval affairs, and T. C. Sweet of New York—and one Democrat, J. A. Gallivan of Massachusetts, died during the session. Wood of Indiana and Britten of Illinois succeeded to the important chairmanships. W. R. Green of Iowa resigned to go on the Court of Claims; Hawley of Oregon took his place as chairman of ways and means.

³ The treatment of James M. Beck is in point. He was chosen in a special election in October to fill Vare's seat on the resignation of the congressman-elect, Vare's own kinsman. At the opening of Congress, the Democratic floor leader advanced the objection that Beck had not been a resident of Pennsylvania, and sought to have the oath withheld pending investigation. His motion was rejected, however, 158 to 244. After hearings, a House committee on elections decided by a vote of 6 (5 Rep., 1 Dem.) to 3 (1 Rep., 2 Dem.) that Beck was legally qualified. Tendered on March 17, the report (H. Rept. 975) remained unacted upon at the end of the session. Mr. Beck was only slightly active in House affairs.

⁴ A. A. Jones of New Mexico and W. N. Ferris of Michigan, Democrats, were replaced by A. B. Cutting and A. H. Vanderberg, Republicans; F. B. Willis of Ohio, Republican, by C. Locher, Democrat—all by appointment.

⁵ Constituted originally in the 69th Congress under S. Res. 195, the attempt expressly to empower it to act between Congresses had provoked the filibustering duel between the two Reeds in March, 1927. Despite opposition from the chairman of the Senate committee on audit and control, it had sought to act in the interim. Its existence was confirmed in the 70th Congress by S. Res. 10, adopted on December 12, by 58 (16 Rep., 41 Dem., 1 Farmer Labor) to 21 (20 Rep., 1 Dem.)

⁶ S. Res. 112, p. 1781. (The reference, as always when pages are given without further citation, is to the Congressional Record, vol. 69). A word about the aftermath must suffice. Official Illinois had intervened in the hearings to the extent of sending its attorney general and a legislative delegation. On February 9, 1928, Governor Small named Smith to fill the vacancy and ordered a senatorial primary on April 10. In the débacle of the Small-Thompson-Crowe faction, Smith lost the nomination to Otis F. Glenn by 656,158 to 525,847.

⁷ S. Res. 68, agreed to without debate on December 17, p. 781, cited the fact that the Wilson-Vare contest had been referred to the committee on privileges and elections. On March 4, 1927, it renewed this reference. Noting the investigation that was being conducted by the special committee, the resolution authorized each committee to consider evidence taken by the other.

⁸ On May 28, in the case of James A. Reed, et. al., Petitioners, v. the County Commissioners of Delaware County (72 L. Ed. 462), the United States Supreme Court held that the special committee, under the authority granted to it by the Senate, did not have the right to invoke the power of the judicial department. As a matter of fact, the documents in question had already been secured; the point was carried up because of its interest in law. In another connection, the Senate on March 24 ordered the arrest of T. W. Cunningham as a recusant witness (S. Res. 179, p. 5491). The matter was later certified to the U. S. district attorney (p. 5565).

⁹ P. 11. The committees thus abolished were: alcoholic liquor traffic, railways and canals, woman suffrage, industrial arts and expositions, mileage, and eleven committees on expenditures. Altogether, 129 assignments were involved, although 17 of these had not been filled in the 69th Congress. As an offset, a committee on expenditures of 21 was created, and the membership of 13 important committees was increased—from 21 to 23 in the cases of commerce and judiciary and from 15 to 21 in the other instances. In this way 86 new assignments were made possible. Of the members affected, furthermore, 54 had four or more committee assignments in the 69th Congress.

¹⁰ Action on December 6 was confined to the committees on ways and means and appropriations. In connection with the latter, the Democratic spokesman, Garner, offered the names of only the hold-over minority members, for (he explained) “under our organization on this side of the House we must report to the caucus for the confirmation of the action taken and we have not yet had that caucus” (p. 130). A colloquy between Mr. Tilson and Mr. Connally brought out that the Republican committee on committees is not required to report formally to a caucus (p. 485). On December 12 the complete, lists were offered on separate motions of the two floor leaders.

¹¹ Norris was already chairman of judiciary; Couzens, of education and labor; McNary, of agriculture; Johnson, of immigration; and Borah, of foreign affairs. Perhaps the only committee assuredly under strictly regular control was privileges and elections, and even it had been forced to share its power with the special committee.

¹² The others were Blaine of Wisconsin, Frazier and Nye of North Dakota, Republicans, and Shipstead of Minnesota, Farmer Labor. Senator Norris did not join in the correspondence; indeed the writer gathers that he thought it a mistake. On December 13, in seeking to reply to Harrison's innuendo, LaFollette inserted the whole correspondence in the Record, pp. 541–2.

¹³ Below, pp. 665, 682. The statement in the text construes the vote on the proposed rider regarding Nicaragua on the naval appropriation bill as meeting the second item.

¹⁴ Senator Robinson remonstrated in the course of one of Heflin's anti-Catholic tirades, leading Heflin to retort: “So far as I am concerned, I am going to object to the Senator remaining on that committee any longer” (referring to the special committee to investigate the so-called Hearst documents purporting to show attempts by Mexican authorities to bribe certain senators). He added that “The Senator from Arkansas cannot remain leader of the Democrats and fight the Roman Catholics' battle every time the issue is raised in this body without some expression from a constitutional Democrat” (p. 1721). Robinson promised to call a conference on the following day and challenged Heflin to move the selection of another leader. By a vote of 35 to 1 (Trammell of Florida), the conference contented itself with a resolution expressing “its confidence in the leadership of Senator Robinson and his services on the special committee …..” Many people regretted that the bare facts gave Heflin (who did not attend) a chance to say: “The conference refused to pass a line that smacks of censure of me or of my position” (p. 1765).

¹⁵ Senate Methods, (a) Republican. In addition, a committee on committees of nine members, appointed by the Floor Leader, exists, (b) Democratic. The preliminary organization caucus was held on March 5, 1927. It authorized the Floor Leader to choose the steering committee, which worked out committee assignments. The three ranking minority members of each standing committee were made committees of the minority conference.

¹⁶ House Methods, (a) Republican. The preliminary caucus on organization was held on February 21, 1927, consisting of the members-elect. It authorized a committee on committees consisting, as usual, of one member from each state having Republican representation, selected by the Republican members of the delegation and having proportional voting power. The steering committee was chosen by this body, (b) Democratic. The preliminary caucus was held on March 1, 1917. In addition to the leaders, it chose the Democratic members of ways and means and authorized them, as usual, to act as a committee on committees. The assignments were ratified at a second caucus on December 8.

¹⁷ Regarding the extent to which the business of the House is done by unanimous consent, see below, p. 681. It may be added, from a different angle, that no serious attempt was made to use the discharge rule adopted December 7, 1925. Johnson of South Dakota waved a petition blank in connection with a bill for war-time conscription of wealth, but faded when the chairman remarked that he would be glad to have hearings if only Mr. Johnson would request them (April 5, p. 6212).

¹⁸ On May 26, for example, Reed of Pennsylvania announced that he had in his pocket a petition bearing more than sufficient names for use on a bill regarding promotions in the air corps (H. R. 12814, p. 10345). It was not used, in view of the position of Boulder Dam as unfinished business.

¹⁹ On May 26, for example, motions to take up the bills for army promotions (H. R. 12814) and naval construction (H. R. 11526) were defeated by votes of 16 to 51 and 22 to 43, respectively (p. 10361).

²⁰ S. Jt. Res. 164, approved May 29, Public Resolution No. 65, was whisked through at the last minute; it provides for a recheoking of the Boulder Dam site before the next session by a board of experts to be appointed by the President. This group began work in July.

²¹ Color was furnished at the close when Bruce of Maryland, Democrat, sought to speak against Johnson's motion (made at the urging of Robinson, Democratic floor leader) that Boulder Dam be made a special order for the opening day. “Ayes and noes, ayes and noes,” Robinson bellowed, waving his arms to a shouting chorus. The roll had indeed started (though the Record is not revealing on this point) when LaFollette intervened with an appeal to the rules of the Senate. Such alertness and such parliamentary sense deepen respect for the youngest of senators even among his political opponents. At this moment, amid confusion, the Senate was taken into executive session to cool, and the show was spoiled. Heflin furnished pathos during the final hour, which King filled with Turkish wrongs to Armenia; he moved about with what was evidently a speech in his hand, suffering visibly.

²² A further factor, no doubt, was their belief that it may sometimes be in-convenient, even embarrassing, to have Congress in session too near to election time.

²³ Altogether, 13 bills were returned with veto messages. Three of these were overridden. Two of the bills in question affected salaries, etc., in the postal service and together, the President argued, meant an added cost of $9,321,000 annually. Thus H. R. 5681 created a differential of 10 per cent for night work by postal employees. The vote to pass it over the veto in the House was 319 (161 Republicans, 155 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Farmer Labor) to 42 (39 Republicans, 3 Democrats); in the Senate, 70 to 9 (all the latter being Republicans). H. R. 7900 gave fourth-class postmasters an allowance for fuel, light, and equipment. The vote to pass it over the veto was 319 (161 Republicans, 155 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Farmer Labor) to 46 (41 Republicans, 5 Democrats); and in the Senate 63 to 17 (14 Republicans, 3 Democrats). The third successful attempt involved S. 777, for the retirement of disabled emergency officers, assimilating their treatment to that of regulars. The overriding vote in the Senate was 66 (24 Republicans, 41 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 14 (13 Republicans, 1 Democrat); in the House, 245 to 101. In addition, one other attempt to override a veto passed one house. This concerned S. 3674, for aid to the amount of $3,500,000 a year for three years in the construction of roads on unappropriated unreserved lands and non-taxable Indian lands, etc. Having passed the Senate on May 24 by 57 (19 Republicans, 37 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 22 (17 Republicans, 5 Democrats), the bill failed in the House on the next day by 161 to 182. Two other attempts were brought unsuccessfully to a vote in one house. One of these was a minor bill, S. 750, to commission band masters; it missed two-thirds by 44 (11 Republicans, 32 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 32 (25 Republicans, 7 Democrats). The other attempt concerned the farm surplus bill, S. 3555; it failed by 50 to 31 (below, p. 665). Of the other bills that received messaged vetoes, the most important was H. R. 11026, for the co-ordination of public health activities. Two others concerned the War Department—H. R. 7752 (reserve supplies) and 8550 (small arms practice); two more dealt with Indian tribes (H. R. 167 and S. 1480); two were private (H. R. 4664 and 10139). For four pocket vetoes, see below, p. 668.

²⁴ Hearings on H. R. 1 began October 31, 1927, when Secretary Mellon recommended: (1) reducing the corporation tax from 13½ to 12 per cent; (2) permitting very small corporations the option of being taxed as partnerships; (3) readjusting surtax rates in the brackets between $18,000 and $70,000; and (4) repealing the estates tax. He opposed changes in the automobile, theater admission, or stamp taxes. The total reduction, he said, could not safely exceed $225,000,000. The repudiation of the Treasury plan began even in the committee on ways and means, which decided to recommend a total reduction of $250,000. It decided against the repeal of the estates tax, 17 to 6, and against the surtax reduction in the middle brackets, 21 to 2. The Democrats found allies enough, when the bill got on the floor, to insert and sustain amendments providing for the graduated corporation tax (136 to 132; 212 to 182); dropping consolidated returns by affiliated companies (158 to 153; 219 to 187); and eliminating the automobile sales tax instead of halfing it as the committee suggested (166 to 142; 245 to 151). With the Republican leaders gathered in a huddle like a disconcerted backfield, the bill passed the House on December 15 by 365 to 24 (21 Republicans, 1 Democrat, 1 Farmer Labor, 1 Socialist) (p. 718). It carried a total reduction estimated at $289,000,000. Secretary Mellon asked the Senate to defer consideration until the income tax returns were received in March. The Senate committee agreed to this by 11 to 9—a party vote. On April 6 the Secretary renewed his proposals and urged a limit of $201,115,000. The Democrats took issue; the committee reported by a strictly party vote, apart from the estates tax, on which the committee reversed itself and decided (after a tripartite conference in which the White House was involved) not to recommend repeal. In the Senate the committee's draft was changed by the adoption of an amendment for a graduated corporation tax by 40 (2 Republicans, 38 Democrats) to 38 (37 Republicans, 1 Farmer Labor); by the rejection of a committee amendment to make the income tax reductions retroactive by 54 (13 Republicans, 40 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 28 (27 Republicans, 1 Democrat); and by the adoption of the Norris amendment for publicity of returns by 27 (12 Republicans, 14 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 18 (13 Republicans, 6 Democrats). The retention of the estates tax, furthermore, was sustained against Bingham's motion by 30 (11 Republicans, 19 Democrats) to 43 (25 Republicans, 17 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor). In the end the graduated corporate income tax was voted out and dropped in conference; so, too, were the surtax reductions and the provision for publicity of returns. The conference report was accepted in the House on May 26 without opposition. In the Senate a vote was had only on the provision for income tax publicity, which lost by 23 (11 Republicans, 11 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 57 (27 Republicans, 30 Democrats). The bill was approved on May 29 (Public No. 562). The prospective net reduction was put at $222,485,000, but because of deferred dates in the inauguration of some of the changes, the curtailment in the present fiscal year will probably be much less.

²⁵ The Mississippi flood of 1927 had given rise in June to talk of an extra session, and in default of that it was assumed that there would be important action in the regular session. The “Jadwin plan” in its original form contemplated work totaling $296,400,000, i.e., $185,400,000 for flood control, aided by local contributions amounting to 20 per cent, and $111,000,000 for channel stabilization, borne wholly by the United States. Hearings were held in both houses. The Reid bill (H. R. 8219) was reported to the House on February 16 by a vote of 11 to 6; it involved plans totaling $473,000,000, to be borne wholly by the national government. On March 28 a Senate bill (S. 3740)—somewhat nearer to the Jadwin plan, but stripped of the requirement of local contributions—slipped through unanimously in record time for a bill of such magnitude. On April 2 the House committee reported this bill in amended form. There were intimations that the President disapproved of it because the authorizations were too indefinite; indeed he was quoted as saying that it was “the most extortionate proposal that has ever been made on the nation's revenues.” The House leaders in close touch with the White House offered amendments. Madden, for example, was beaten on such an amendment by 142 to 73, Tilson by 119 to 67 and 306 to 139. The bill was passed by the House on April 24 by 254 (85 Republicans, 168 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 91 (86 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 Socialist, 1 Farmer Labor) (p. 7426). Even in conference, friction with the President continued. He indicated that he would veto the bill unless changes were made. At this point it was called back into conference, and it was considered in at least one discussion at the White House offices. On May 8 it was said that the President considered the payment of damages to have been the principal difficulty in connection with the measure. The bill was signed on May 15 (Public No. 391). The authorized appropriations total $325,000,000. On June 8 General Jadwin announced that 12 per cent of the job would be finished within a year and the whole within ten years.

²⁶ The act in general adopts the project recommended by the chief of engineers, General Jadwin, as given in H. Doc. 90, but among other stipulations it provides for a board of three—the chief of engineers, the president of the Mississippi River Commission, and a civil engineer appointed by the President from civil life—to consider engineering differences between the plan of the chief engineers and that of the commission, subject to the final decision of the President.

²⁷ Only one member dissented, i.e., McClintock, an Oklahoma Democrat, whose minority report proposed 15 submarines and alterations on existing battleships to enable them to carry aircraft, calling for $93,000,000 in all. McClintock's proposal, offered as an amendment in committee of the whole, was rejected by 22 to 129. On March 15 Representative Huddleston took notice unfavorably of Secretary Wilbur's presence on the floor, leading to some comment on the practice (pp. 4962–3).

²⁸ The McNary-Haugen bill (S. 1176, rewritten as S. 3555; H. R. 7940, rewritten as H. R. 12687). Mr. Aswell of Louisiana, ranking Democrat on the committee on agriculture, introduced H. R. 9278, which proposed a revolving fund without the equalization fee. Mr. Ketcham of Michigan offered the so-called debenture plan (H. R. 10568) in behalf of the National Grange. The Senate committee unanimously reported the McNary bill on March 8 (S. Rept. 500). The House Committee voted to retain the equalization fee by 13 (7 Republicans, 6 Democrats) to 8 (6 Republicans, 2 Democrats), and rejected the debenture plan by 13 to 8. The bill itself was reported in the House on April 15 by 15 (9 Republicans, 6 Democrats) to 6 (4 Republicans, 2 Democrats) (H. Rept. 1141). The Senate acted first. On April 11 it decided to increase the revolving fund to $400,000,000, by a vote of 42 (16 Republicans, 25 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 30 (22 Republicans, 8 Democrats). On April 12 it refused to strike out the equalization fee, the vote being 31 (18 Republicans, 13 Democrats) to 46 (22 Republicans, 23 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor). The vote on final passage on April 12 was 53 (24 Republicans, 28 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 23 (14 Republicans, 9 Democrats), with 2 Democrats and 3 Republicans paired for and 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans paired against it. The House at once voted to substitute S. 3555 for the House bill. Debate began in late April. An upset threatened on May 2, when the committee of the whole voted by 141 to 120 to insert the Aswell bill as an amendment to one of the sections. The proponents of the equalization fee rallied, however, and all the other sections in the original bill were retained. On a critical roll-call in the House next day, Aswell's substitute was rejected finally, 146 to 185. On May 3 the bill passed the House by 204 (101 Republicans, 100 Democrats, 2 Farmer Labor, 1 Socialist) to 121 (68 Republicans, 53 Democrats), with 18 Republicans and 18 Democrats paired in favor of it and 27 Republicans and 9 Democrats paired against it. The conference report was adopted in the House on May 14, 205 to 117, and in the Senate on May 16 without a record vote. The President vetoed the bill on May 23; and an attempt in the Senate to override the veto on May 25 failed narrowly by 50 (20 Republicans, 29 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 31 (19 Republicans, 12 Democrats). Four senators who had voted for the bill on April 12 voted to sustain the veto: Curtis, Waterman and Sacket, Republicans, and Fletcher, Democrat. A further phase of the matter was the attempt of Senator Reed of Missouri to attach the debenture plan to the tax bill; his rider was rejected by 23 (5 Republicans, 18 Democrats) to 53 (33 Republicans, 19 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) (p. 9697).

²⁹ In this connection, for example, see the remarks of Representative Aswell p. 7590, and Senator Brookhart, p. 6425. An attack on Herbert Hoover, prepared by George N. Peek (who remained the chief strategist of the forces working for the bill), is found at pp. 6174–79. It is interesting that the percentage of Democratic members of the House who voted for the McNary-Haugen bill increased from 57.1 in 1927 to 65.5 in 1928, whereas the percentage of Republicans voting for it increased from 51.5 to 56.6 It is noteworthy also that both Democratic senators from New York voted for it, and that 6 Democratic members from New York City voted for it or were paired in favor of it in 1928.

³⁰ Senator Brookhart, who opposed the equalization fee, said on this point: “As a measure of comparative justice, I have provided in my substitute that the government shall pay the lossés of the export corporation up to $600,000,000 (p. 6061). This led Senator Norbeck to observe: “This seems to be a case where we have to contend with the real conservatives and the real radicals joining against the farmer. We have not only got to fight Boston on this bill, but we have to fight Brookhart” (p. 6526).

³¹ S. Jt. Res. 46, offered by Senator Norris. The Madden-Willis bill (H. R. 44, revised as H. R. 8305—S. 2786) embodied the one outstanding private bid—that of the AmericanCyanamid Company. During the consideration of S. Jt.Res. 46, Senator Harrison offered an amendment that virtually revived the Underwood plan (passed by the Senate in 1925 by 50 to 30), for a lease accompanied by the guarantee of a production of 40,000 tons of fertilizer annually. It was rejected by 48 to 26.

³² H. R. 13383, for a five-year fishery program; H. Jt. Res. 238, to double the credits for veterans' preference; and a private bill.

³³ H. Rept. 2054, 69th Congress, Second Session, which favorably recommended a resolution to declare that H. R. 5218, passed a few days before the adjournment of the first session, had become law despite the failure of the President to sign it. The rulings referred to were on February 26, 1927 (vol. 58, pp. 4928–34) and December 9, 1927 (vol. 69, pp. 396–402).

³⁴ Okanogan, etc., Tribes of the State of Washington v. U. S. Court of Claims, decided April 16, 1928: “The attempted distinction between adjournment of one or the other session is unsound.” It was said appeal might be taken. For subsequent comment, see U. S. Daily, June 5 and 14, 1928.

³⁵ A caustic statement by Senator Norris was issued on June 8. U. S. Daily, June 9, 1928. Some remarks by Mr. Norris indicated that he might seek to have Congress raise the legal issue, as it conceivably might do in connection with appropriation legislation.

³⁶ Of the 993 items, 638 were House bills, 283 Senate bills, 46 House joint resolutions, and 26 Senate joint resolutions: so that, formally considered, 68.8 per cent of the measures approved by both branches originated in the House. The statistics on this and related points are those of E. F. Sharkoff, tally clerk of the House.

³⁷ The estimated cuts in the House bill totaled $13,400,000, but in the Senate the ideas of McKellar, ranking Democrat, triumphed over those of Chairman Moses and the slashes were increased to $38,550,000. The presidential eyebrows lifted; Moses despaired of agreement; but at the last minute a compromise was patched up.

³⁸ The amendment was adopted by 236 to 134 after the House had voted, 168 to 140, against a ruling of the chair sustaining a point of order against it (p. 4767). Action in the Senate was tied up with the question of confirmation of four members of the Radio Commission. They were confirmed on March 30, but the vote on one was said to have been 36 to 35.

³⁹ This is practically the last of the debt settlements. The failure of a some-what related piece of legislation may be noted here. H. Jt. Res. 247 proposed to empower the Treasury to join with Austria's other creditors in facilitating a $100,000,000 loan by subordinating their liens to the new loan. The measure was reported in the House and a special rule was offered, but inexplicably neither came to a vote.

⁴⁰ “Computations are indefinite and uncertain,” remarked Senator Johnson, “and the experts who made them want more time.” It seems that the application of the clause would increase the quotas of sixteen countries—(notably Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, in much lesser numbers, Italy and Russia), and would decrease those of fourteen countries (notably Germany, the Irish Free State, the Scandinavian countries, and Poland).

⁴¹ Hearings were held in both houses on bills to extend the quota plan to the Western Hemisphere. With the departments of State, Interior, and Agriculture seemingly in opposition, with the Labor Department's support qualified, and with beet-sugar growers and southwestern railroads and agriculturalists against the change, the progress of such bills promised to be slow. A bill (H. R. 10078) to make deportation procedure more drastic was reported in the House on January 30, almost in the form in which it passed in 1926.

⁴² In the background hung the larger questions involved in the so-called stabilization proposal (the Strong bill, H. R. 11806, for example) and the attempts to restrict speculative credits. In the latter connection, Senator LaFollette's resolution was reported favorably on April 30, 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats being in favor and 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats opposed (S. Res. 113, S. Rept. 1124).

⁴³ A measure (H. R. 5623) to permit declaratory judgments under certain circumstances passed the House on January 25. A proposal (S. 749) to allow the Supreme Court to make uniform court rules for common law actions was unfavorably reported by a vote of 10 (3 Republicans, 7 Democrats) to 5 (all Republicans). Reaching much further than these, however, is Norris' bill (S. 3151), favorably reported in the Senate, to deprive the federal district courts of such civil jurisdiction as arises from diversity of citizenship. The delay of the anti-injunction bill (S. 1482) has been explained elsewhere (above, p. 655).

⁴⁴ The bill (H. R. 11026) for the coördination of health activities was vetoed (above, p. 661). S. 4382, for changes in the foreign service looking toward more equitable promotions, passed the Senate on May 10.

⁴⁵ S. Res. 52, adopted on January 16 by a vote of 54 (12 Republicans, 41 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 34 (32 Republicans, 2 Democrats). It stated that “many of the rates in existing tariff schedules are excessive”, and that “the Senate favors an immediate revision downward of such excessive rates, establishing a closer parity between agriculture and industry …..” On the following day, the House sustained the Speaker in holding that it was not necessary to refer it to a committee; the vote was 183 (176 Republicans, 7 Democrats) to 164 (12 Republicans, 151 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) (p. 1659). As for House punctilio when the Senate ventures to take the initiative in money-raising matters, see their return of S. Cone. Res. 4 which sought to interpret the meaning of the phrase “imported broken rice” in the tariff act (p. 1578); also their return of S. 789, with Garrett's tart comment: “In view of the numerous times we have had to perform this act, it would be well to quote it [the Constitution] for the benefit of the other distinguished body” (p. 2776).

⁴⁶ S. Res. 128, adopted on February 10 by 56 (18 Republicans, 37 Democrats) to 26 (22 Republicans, 4 Democrats). The immediate excitant (LaFollette said) was the action of the New York state leaders. It declared it to be “the sense of the Senate that the precedent established by Washington …. has become, by universal concurrence, a part of our republican form of government, and that any departure from that time honored custom would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free institutions.” The original contained the additonal words: “that the Senate commends observance of this precedent by the President.” On Fess' motion, neatly accepted by LaFollette, this phrase was dropped.

⁴⁷ The sneer was that of Senator Bruce, who added that Walsh of Montana “seems to find the same degree of pleasure in investigation that some men find in intoxication” (p. 3080).

⁴⁸ H. Res. 232. The euphemistic phrase is quoted from the explanation of Mr. Snell in offering the resolution a day before the close of the session. “It is not,” he said further, “to be a general snooping committee to go all over the country ….” (p. 10730). The members are Lehlbach, N. J., chairman, Newton, Minn., Nelson, Me., Republicans, and Ragon, Ark., and Black, N. Y., Democrats.

⁴⁹ On February 2 and 3, Stewart, chairman of the board of the Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, refused to answer two questions regarding the Continental Trading Co. On February 3, without debate or a record vote, the Senate ordered his arrest in order to compel an answer (S. Res. 132). Taken temporarily from the custody of the sergeant-at-arms by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus, he was remanded on February 23 and thereafter prosecuted on appeal to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. On April 24 he testified before the Senate committee. The order of arrest was accordingly vacated by the Senate, but the resolution (S. Res. 207) expressly indicated a desire that the prosecution of Stewart for the crime of contempt (for which he had been indicted in the meantime) should take its course. He was brought to trial on May 30 and acquitted on June 14, after a jury deadlock of over twenty hours. S. Res. 207 had directed the district attorney to look into the possibility of an indictment for perjury. This remains open.

⁵⁰ S. Rept. 1326, Part 2, which is printed with useful chronological summaries of the whole naval oil reserve scandal in the Record, May 29, pp. 10649–74. The original investigation had been ordered by the 67th Congress (S. Res. 282, adopted April 28, 1922), but had come to a halt in 1924 when Sinclair refused to testify.

⁵¹ An inquiry was conducted in the field under S. Res. 105, adopted February 16. Senator Reed of Pennsylvania remarked at the time: “…. the greatest industry save agriculture is in a similar plight …. there exists at this time the most intense suffering on the part of all who are in that industry, union and non-union, operator and miner ….” (p. 2410). Numerous bills were introduced, aimed at the chronic disorganization, but no action was taken.

⁵² Originally the Administration proposed that the investigation should be by a presidential commission. This passed the House on January 7 (H. Jt. Res. 131) and was reported in the Senate by a strict party vote in committee. It was amended on the floor in favor of a joint congressional committee by a vote of 51 (8 Republicans, 42 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 32 (all Republicans). In the end the Senate voted to have its own inquiry, since the House would not accept the conference report.

⁵³ The Independent Offices Appropriation Bill (H. R. 9481), as reported, contained a stipulation which would have limited ”economic” investigations by the Federal Trade Commission to those directed by concurrent resolutions; but this, fortunately, was striken out in committee of the whole, January 23.

⁵⁴ One of the many reverberations of the lake cargo cases was S. Conc. Res. 10, which was adopted on February 9 with one opposing vote, but which was not acted on in the House. In the thin disguise of a request for information, it sought to rebuke the commission for “decisions …. in any sense influenced by the competitive advantage or disadvantage of the producers in one state, district or section …..”

⁵⁵ Congressional Record, Appendix, June 7, 1928, p. 10907Google Scholar. The data in the text and in the table on p. 680 are drawn from the summaries presented in this issue, supplemented by some information obtained from M. C. Sheild, the experienced head clerk of the House committee.

⁵⁶ Chairman Wood offers the following appropriations in explanation of the increase: war claims act of 1928, $50,000,000; public buildings, under the act of 1926 and the act for the District, $44,635,083; extension of foreign service building program, $2,000,000; aviation increases, $21,732,818; military post construction, $13,819,975; naval construction under the act of 1924, $24,300,000; ammunition storage facilities, $3,108,159; increase for rivers and harbors (Missouri River) $5,886,310; relief of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Kentucky in connection with roads and bridges, $5,197,294; Cape Cod Canal bonds, $6,230,000; flood control, $15,000,000. The modesty of the last item should be noted; quite different from appropriations are authorized appropriations, which may extend over many years. It may be added that for the fiscal year 1929 the three items of interest, debt charges, and veteran's bureau take 46.7 per cent of the total appropriations exclusive of the Post Office Department.

⁵⁷ There were only three noteworthy increases: agricultural, $1,008,954, due to an addition of $1,000,000 for roads and trails; war, $6,655,208 because of an item for the Missouri River; naval, $880,905, because of increase of authorized enlisted strength.

⁵⁸ Eight only of the 46 committees had been reached up to March 10, with about 23 possible Calendar Wednesdays left for 38 committees. Royal Johnson remarked: “The committee of which I am chairman (immigration and naturalization) has not been called on a Calendar Wednesday probably for six years” (p. 4657).

⁵⁹ Senator McKellar's still more guarded substitute was lost, 20 to 53; Heflin's more drastic one, 15 to 60. On April 16 the Senate had requested the Secretary of the Navy for information about costs, losses, etc., in connection with operations in Nicaragua (S. Res. 198, p. 6772).

⁶⁰ Pp. 2904, 2940. The proposed rider read: “Without authorization by Congress no part of the funds appropriated by this act shall be expended in the transportation of any portion of the armed forces provided for in this act to the territory of a foreign country over which the United States does not possess sovereign jurisdiction.”

⁶¹ Apart from the arbitration treaties with France, Germany, and Italy, these were: Netherlands, protocol interpreting arbitration treaty of 1913 (p. 3640); Poland, extradition treaty (p. 3640); Honduras, extradition treaty (p. 4890), and another respecting friendship, commerce, and consular rights (p. 10210); Mexico, convention regarding livestock (p. 5709); Greece, smuggling alcoholic beverages (p. 10209); Latvia, friendship, commerce, and consular rights (p. 10205); an additional protocol to the Pan American Sanitary Convention (p. 3639); the new International Radiotelegraph Convention (p. 5305); a convention for the unification of rules regarding bills of lading (p. 5376); and a revision of the International Sanitary Convention of 1917 (p. 5380). Of the 14, seven had been signed in 1928; only two antedated 1927. It may be added that solicitude for the pending treaty on gas warfare led Theodore E. Burton to attempt to eliminate an item of $55,000 for gas masks from the War Department appropriation bill; his motion failed by 21 to 70 (p. 2762). The House assumed modest initiative in treaty-making in H. Jt. Res. 268, Public Resolution No. 56, requesting the President to negotiate treaties for protection from liability to military service. Borah's resolution (S. Res. 157) that there should be a restatement of the rules of war at sea in anticipation of the 1931 armament conference remained in the hands of the committee. Nor was there action on far-looking suggestions like S. Jt. Res. 14, by Senator Capper, for the renunciation of war. Burton's resolution (H. Jt. Res. 183) to forbid the export of arms to belligerent countries except with the consent of Congress was reported in the House on January 30, only to encounter opposition which seemed to include the secretaries of war and the navy.

⁶² Each year, happily, sees the tendency stronger in Congress to utilize the staffs of the able legislative counsel of Senate and House; they are never adjourned.