² The reference here (as always when pages are given without further citation) is to the Congressional Record, 69th Congress, 2nd Session, vol. 68.

³ President Coolidge, in his annual message of December 7, 1926, suggested that appropriations be made biennially, thus relieving the short session. The plan was condemned by Chairman Madden of the House Committee on Appropriations (pp. 82, 5860), who said that he was “expressing the consensus of opinion of the House.” It is hard enough, he argued, to estimate now, without incurring the necessity of deficiency appropriations; besides, the annual discussion in committee and on the floor is invaluable in discouraging administrative extravagance.

⁴ The Republicans held their lines in connection with the other senators elected in 1926 who were entitled to sit in the 69th Congress: Stewart, Iowa; Robinson, Ind.; and Gould, Me. Mr. Gould was chosen at a special election late in November to fill the vacancy caused by Fernald's death. He was sworn in at the opening of the session, but on December 7, by a vote of 70 to 7 (6 Republicans, 1 Democrat), the Senate adopted the resolution of Walsh of Montana that the committee on privileges and elections investigate the charge that Mr. Gould had been instrumental in 1912 in offering a bribe to a Canadian official in furtherance of a client's business interests. The report of the committee, accepted in the Senate on March 4 without debate (p. 5680), declared that the alleged circumstances fourteen years before had nothing to do with Mr. Gould's election to the Senate.

⁵ The following comment illustrates a widespread impression: Mr. Blanton: “The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Begg] occupies a unique position here in the House. If there is an assistant Speaker here in the House, it is the gentleman from Ohio. If there is an assistant floor leader, it is the gentleman from Ohio” (Jan. 17, p. 1803).

⁶ See, for example, Mr. Curtis' confession (March 4, p. 5663) that he would not have moved for the recess on the night of March 3 if he had not believed “as confidently as a man could believe that the urgent deficiency bill would be taken up at 8:30 by unanimous consent.”

⁷ U. S. Daily, Dec. 14, 1926, p. 1. The items were: S. 2929, refunding railroad indebtedness; S. 1618, the “truth-in-fabric” bill; S. 3331, Boulder Dam; S. 62, French spoliation claims; H. R. 10729, creating bureaus of prohibition and customs: H. R. 3821, placing prohibition employees under the merit system; H. R. 3858, foreign commerce service. H. R. 10729 and 3858 became law.

⁸ Nine special rules for privileged status were reported by the rules committee and adopted, covering eight bills. Another was adopted but laid on the table, the bill it concerned passing under suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote (a virtual substitute). Four resolutions had been reported and were pending at the close of the session. The new discharge rule adopted in the first session was not operated. Four motions were initiated, but none received sufficient signatures. The Democratic leaders made a gesture in connection with their tax reduction measure (H. R. 14590). On January 24, Minority Leader Garrett, admitting that the Democrats could furnish only 174 of the 218 names required, said “the doors are still open and we hope you will come forward” (p. 2172).

⁹ On its final passage in the Senate on March 2, H. R. 10729 (which had passed the House in May, 1926) was favored by 71 and opposed by only 6 senators: Wadsworth, N. Y., Republican; and Broussard, La., Bruce, Md., Edwards, N. J., Gerry, R. I., and King, Utah, Democrats (p. 5373). Many remarks on prohibition were excited by H. R. 17130, for government control of the manufacture of medicinal spirits through a limited number of licensed manufacturers, which passed the House on March 1 by 209 to 151 (p. 5209). The Administration's original plan for a government corporation had previously been rejected by the committee on ways and means. Regarding the general problem of prohibition, it was announced that 61 members had organized “under the unofficial name of “the committee on modification of the Volstead Act” (p. 2036).

¹⁰ Public Resolution No. 71, approved March 4, forbids the Federal Power Commission to issue any permits or licenses on the lower Colorado until the interstate pact is approved by Congress, or, if not sooner approved, until March 5, 1929.

¹¹ Authorized in the first session by S. Res. 195 and further empowered by S. Res. 227, 258, 324. For its partial report, see S. Rept. 1197.

¹² The introducer was almost casual; if he was disingenuous, however, in saying, “I do not think there will be any objection to it,” he was certainly no more so than Senator Reed of Pennsylvania, who, in asking mildly that it go over until he could consult representatives of Mr. Vare, remarked: “At first sight the only criticism I have of it (S. Res. 364) is that it does not go far enough‥‥. I do not imagine there will be any trouble about it tomorrow” (p. 4288). On February 24 his opposition was more definitely revealed; he preferred (he said) that the investigation be conducted by the standing committee on privileges and elections and that, if any ballots be examined, all be examined (p. 4653). On February 25, repudiating his own floor leader, he threatened a filibuster. Majority Leader Curtis, speaking of the request of Reed of Missouri that the consideration of S. Res. 364 be made a special order by unanimous consent, said, “I hope the agreement will be entered unto.” “I am sorry,” said Senator Reed of Pennsylvania, “I shall have to object‥‥. We are tired in Pennsylvania of being singled out for investigation‥‥. I do not think it [the resolution] can be disposed of in the space of one night. If we once start, there will not be much else done in the Senate at this session” (p. 4816). Reed of Missouri had a threat of his own: “‥‥ we will get the authority or the Senate will not do any more business at this session; I notify you of that” (p. 4818).

¹³ During the night of March 2–3: by Robinson of Ark., Blease objecting (p. 5490); by Reed of Mo., Blease objecting (p. 5495). Later during morning of March 3: by Reed of Pa., Norris objecting (p. 5565); by Robinson of Ark. (p. 5559); by Glass, Reed of Pa. objecting (p. 5571); by Reed of Mo., Reed of Pa. objecting (p. 5576). On March 4, concentrating on the deficiency bill: by Reed of Mo., amending Curtis' suggestion, Reed of Pa. objecting (p. 5655); by Reed of Mo., Howell objecting (p. 5664); by Bratton, Walsh of Mass, objecting (p. 5665); by Warren, Walsh of Mass. objecting (p. 5666); and by Glass (involving the buildings bill), Reed of Pa. objecting with the words, “I am not going to let the Reed resolution be stuck on any bill as an amendment” (p. 5679). The statement just quoted illustrates a fear that complicated the attempt to reach an agreement, for on the other hand there were senators like Howell (p. 5664) who had important, relevant amendments pending; causing the venerable chairman of appropriations to say, “The way to kill it is to object merely that each man shall have his own damned way” (p. 5664).

¹⁴ Pp. 5520, 5560. Senator Swanson: “I would like to ask the Senator if that Democrat [Blease] did not come to him and did not the Senator advise him and ask him to object?” Senator Reed of Pa.: “That Democrat consulted with a number of us from time to time during the night.” Senator Swanson: “I ask him [Reed of Pa.] if he did not ask him to object. That is a direct question.” Senator Reed of Pa.: “I must decline to yield any further” (p. 5520).

¹⁵ See the colloquy, nearly conclusive on this point, at pp. 5556 and 5519, especially the remark of Senator Reed of Pa. that he had opposed the earlier attempt at agreement “because I was convinced at that hour of the night all of these great bills would have been whisked through in an hour or so.”

¹⁶ The select committee decided on March 4 to continue its investigations. On the question of Senator Reed's (Mo.) attitude during the session regarding his powers in the absence of S. Res. 364, see his remarks at pp. 901–2, 4277–8, and 4819, when, in reply to a direct question from Senator Watson, he said: “My opinion is that we have the right to sit during the recess of the Senate, but I am not clear on it.” On March 3, pp. 5542–3, Senator Borah said in debate that the committee would continue to have full powers, and he repeated this in a letter to Chairman Reed on March 8 (U. S. Daily, March 19, 1927). At the end of March the committee's attorney was seeking a court order to impound ballots in Pennsylvania. On April 7, in naming Fess to take Goff's place, the Vice-President virtually endorsed the committee's continuance. Senator Fess subsequently refused to serve.

¹⁷ The Administration began making what shifts it could, announcing that it was prepared to handle veterans' loans under the new act (Public No. 762), that it had upwards of eight millions available to undertake some thirty-five buildings during the year, but that pensions might have to go unpaid during the last two months of the current year and that the work of federal courts might be curtailed during that period.

¹⁸ S. 4808-H. R. 15474, being (Senator McNary said) a more “liquid” form of the bill in the preceding session, retaining the equalization fee, but dropping the “tariff yardstick,” providing that the farm board be selected from nominations made by farmers' conventions in twelve districts, permitting loans to coöperatives, and naming as basic commodities cotton, wheat, corn, rice, tobacco, and swine. The House committee reported H. R. 15474 on January 14 by a vote of 13 (8 Republicans, 5 Democrats) to 8 (4 Republicans, 4 Democrats), preferring it over the Curtis-Crisp and Aswell plans. The Senate committee unanimously reported S. 4808 on January 22. The Senate bill, amended, passed on February 11 by 47 (24 Republicans, 22 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor to 39 (22 Republicans, 17 Democrats), and was substituted for H. R. 15474 in the House by a special rule, passing on February 17 by 214 (113 Republicans, 97 Democrats, 2 Farmer Labor, 1 Independent, 1 Socialist) to 178 (108 Republicans, 70 Democrats). It was vetoed February 25 (below, p. 310).

¹⁹ Senator Bruce remarked: “At the last session of Congress hardly a voice was raised in the State of Maryland to ask me to vote for the McNary-Haugen bill ‥‥. But now ‥‥ the people of Maryland are beginning to ask me to vote for the McNary-Haugen bill” (p. 3307).

²⁰ The reactions of the cotton surplus need no comment. Regarding tobacco, Representative Kincheloe (Ky.), who was said to have carried perhaps sixteen members over with him on the bill, remarked in explaining his own shift since the first session: “‥‥ my tobacco farmers and tobacco farmers of other states have changed position on this question because they have gone as far as they can” (p. 3636). Apart from the manoeuvering of groups interested in particular commodities, there was a persistent rumor of trading by which the Parker emergency coal bill was held in committee. See remarks by Representatives Treadway, p. 4136, and Fish, p. 4035. Forty-seven representatives shifted from their position against the McNary-Haugen bill in the first session.

²¹ In addition to the regular message read by the clerks of the separate houses on Dec. 7, 1926, and the regular budget message on Dec. 8, a total of 99 messages passed from the White House to Congress during the lifetime of the 69th Congress.

²² An interesting special problem of veto procedure was inconclusively raised by the action of the House committee on judiciary in reporting a resolution declaring that a bill passed in the first session (H. R. 5218, relating to the Shawnee tribe) which had gone to the President on July 2 but which had not been signed by him was nevertheless law, on the ground that the adjournment mentioned in the constitutional clauses regarding the veto is the final adjournment, and not the interim adjournment between sessions. For the argument of the committee, see H. Rept. No. 2054. It may be added that President Coolidge, following Lincoln and Wilson, signed H. R. 11329, passed July 1, on July 13, Congress having adjourned on July 3, 1926. See Rogers, Lindsay, “Power of the President to Sign Bills after Congress has Adjourned”, 30 Yale Law Jour., 1 (1920).Google Scholar

²³ The branch-banking feature, especially, provoked one of the most stubborn conference delays of recent years. It was broken when, on January 24, Chairman McFadden made a motion to pass a compromise form of bill. “A vote for the motion,” he said, “is a vote for the bill without the Hull amendment, and a vote against the motion is a vote for no branch-banking legislation” (p. 2176). The troublesome Hull amendment had stipulated that the permission to national banks to engage in branch banking in states permitting the practice to state banks should not apply to the states (26 in number) which do not permit branch banking at present. The bill, shorn of this in what amounted to a Senate victory, was passed in the House on January 24, the compromise provision on branch banking being accepted by 298 to 166. After clôture had been invoked in the Senate (above, p. 300), it passed on February 16 by 71 (40 Republicans, 31 Democrats) to 17 (9 Republicans, 7 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor). On March 4, without a record vote, the Senate directed the committee on banking and currency to “conduct a thorough investigation of alleged lobbying activities in connection with the banking bill” (S. Res. 335, p. 5681).

²⁴ Senator Dill remarked in defense of his acceptance of this: “Ah, but the exceptions are controlling. The exceptions give the commission the supreme power ‥‥ the Secretary of Commerce has no power if anyone objects to his exercising it” (p. 3115). The compromise bill was accepted in the Senate on February 18 without a record vote. Previously on February 7 there had been a test of strength on Senator Pittman's motion that the measure be made temporary, which was lost by 48 to 29 (p. 3238). The five members of the new commission were named by the President on March 1.

²⁵ An attempt in the Senate to have the purchase price of the Cape Cod Canal reckoned as the capitalization at 7½ per cent of its average earnings during the last three years was defeated by 28 to 51 (p. 822). The item in regard to the Illinois River improvement contains the proviso: “Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing any diversion of water from Lake Michigan.” The act is quite silent regarding the larger problem of the Great-Lakes-to-Atlantic route.

²⁶ Below, p. 316. The data in the table, as well as the statements in the text above, are drawn from the “Review of Appropriations, etc.” by Chairmen Madden and Warren and by Mr. Byrns, ranking minority member of the House committee, in the issue of the Record of March 12, p. 5857 ff., supplemented by some information obtained directly from the House committee.

²⁷ On March 14, 1927, the Department of State announced a modus vivendi by which most-favored-nation treatment has been extended to June, 1928. U. S. Daily, March 15, 1927.

²⁸ Senator Borah asserted in the course of debate: “‥‥ every indication now is that they are not going to accept the reservations” (p. 3404).