No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
(December 3, 1928, to March 4, 1929). “I have stated universally to various callers,” wrote the President-elect to the President on January 28, 1929, “that it would be improper for me to express any views on current matters of the administration.” It is aside from the point to question the complete consistency of Mr. Hoover's added remark (the subject being the cruiser construction bill): “As you know, I warmly support your own views, and you may so inform others if you wish to do so.” The truth is that the President-elect would have set the tone of the short session if he had merely failed to state that there would be no special session. As soon as his willingness to call Congress back in April was known, most of the steam escaped and pressures in connection with farm relief which might have involved the whole program were forestalled. Under these relaxing circumstances, the cynosure of the session came to be the ironical juxtaposition of the left-over cruiser bill and the multilateral peace treaty in the Senate. Meanwhile the momentum of the inherently decentralized congressional system carried it past the dead-points of the interregnum and produced interesting, and even noteworthy, bits of domestic legislation.
1 For a note on the first session, see this Review, vol. 22, pp. 650–683 (August, 1928)Google Scholar. For notes on the 69th Congress, see vol. 20, p. 604, and vol. 21, p. 297. For earlier notes, prepared by Lindsay Rogers, see vol. 13, p. 251; 14, pp. 74, 659; 15, p. 366; 16, p. 41; 18, p. 79; 19, p. 761.
2 The House committee on ways and means, having organized in sub-committees on December 6, held hearings on general tariff revision between January 7 and February 25. This committee and the committees on agriculture of both houses were authorized to act between sessions. Hearings on farm relief began in the Senate on March 25 and in the House on March 27. The Senate meanwhile had met in a brief special session on March 5 to receive and confirm cabinet appointments. It referred the question of the status of Secretary Mellon (whose name President Hoover did not deem it necessary to submit) to its committee on judiciary.
3 As a result of the 1928 elections, the new division of the House for the 71st Congress was: Republicans, 268; Democrats, 166; Farmer Labor, 1.
4 In its final report the committee says: “The examination of Dr. Kirby developed the fact that, within a few days after the postponement secured on May 18, 1928, and from that time until the first day of August, 1928, the said William S. Vare was able to have consulted with attorneys, to have appeared before the committee, and to have made such presentation of his case as was necessary” (S. Report No. 1858, p. 14).
5 Meanwhile the sub-committee (headed by Senator Waterman of Colorado) of the regular committee on privileges and elections has investigated the contest between Vare and William B. Wilson, the Democratic candidate in the 1926 senatorial election, thus far without result. On the legal side, involving the Senate's power, interest attaches to the case of Barry, Sergeant-at-Arms, et al., v. United States, ex rel. Cunningham, argued in the Supreme Court on April 23, 1929 (No. 647). Expenditures in the New Jersey Republican senatorial primary of 1928 were investigated by the special committee (acting through a sub-committee headed by Senator McNary), which on February 22 (S. Report 1861) said: “There was no evidence of any character produced which would indicate that any of the candidates for United States senator expended more than the statutory allowance.”
6 The preliminary caucuses to organize the 71st Congress were held before the adjournment. On March 2, the Republican caucus in the House renominated Speaker Longworth and reflected John Q. Tilson as floor leader. The Republican committee on committees (consisting of members chosen by the Republican state delegations) organized on March 5, 1929, and, among other acts, chose the steering committee and determined the Republican assignments to ways and means (giving a vacancy to J. A. Frear, of Wisconsin, a LaFollette supporter, who was formerly on the committee), to agriculture, and to rules. At the Democratic caucus on March 1, John N. Garner of Texas (ranking minority member on ways and means, who has been in the House for thirteen continuous terms, being exceeded on his side in length of service only by Pou of North Carolina) was named floor leader in place of Finis J. Garrett, who was defeated for the Senate in Tennessee in 1928. In the Senate, the Republican caucus on March 5, 1929, chose Watson of Indiana as leader, Jones of Washington as assistant leader (so-called), and Fess of Ohio as whip. The Democratic caucus on the same day made no notable change, except that Sheppard of Texas replaced Gerry of Rhode Island, defeated for reëlection in 1928, as whip.
7 The items which became law were as follows: H. R. 11526, cruiser construction; S.2901, prohibition penalties; S. J. Res. 117, Nicaraguan Canal survey; H. R. 8298, produce market in District of Columbia; S. 4937, continuing powers of Radio Commission; and H. R. 13929, enlarging the Capitol grounds. S. 1093, to prevent the sale of cotton and grain in future markets, was defeated in the Senate on February 14. The recommended bills which were not voted on were: H. R. 11725, for reapportionment; H. R. 393, for taking the census; and S. J. Res. 208, to authorize a street-railway merger in the District of Columbia.
8 The “discharge rule” was not operated. In the lifetime of the 70th Congress two petitions for entry upon the calendar of “motions to instruct committees” were filed but did not receive sufficient signatures.
9 The matters given consideration under special rules were the Greek debt, the Austrian loan, four bills for additional judges, reapportionment, increased aid for vocational education, migratory bird refuges, storm relief in the South-east, four bills regarding aliens (including the postponement of the national origins clause, which failed to pass the Senate), the prolongation of the powers of the Radio Commission, load lines for vessels, civil service retirement (a bill later killed by pocket veto), educational war-orders, prohibition penalties, and the Nicaraguan Canal survey. In addition, two special rules for consideration, though reported, were not brought to a vote.
10 In the second session of the 70th Congress the Senate received 4,209 nominations from the President and confirmed 4,043. None were rejected, but 12 were withdrawn and 154 remained unconfirmed at the end of the session.
11 The seventeen states and their prospective losses are: Ala., 1; Ind., 2; Iowa, 2; Kan., 1; Ky., 2; La., 1; Me., 1; Mass., 1; Miss., 2; Mo., 4; Nebr., 1; N. Y., 2; N. D., 1; Pa., 1; Tenn., 1; Vt., 1; Va., 1.
12 The estimated gains would be: Ariz., 1; Cal., 6; Conn., 1; Fla., 1; Mich., 4; N. J., 2; N. C, 1; Ohio, 3; Tex., 2; Okla., 1; Wash., 1. Twenty states would not be affected.
13 Senator Vandenberg wrote on March 2, 1929: “Reapportionment has again been defeated in the Senate ….. The handiest ‘excuse’ was the academic quarrel over a mathematical method for handling remainders. Thus the tail has again wagged the dog. Based on the 1920 census, the difference between ‘major fractions’ and ‘equal proportions’ involves just three seats out of 435” …..(Appendix to the Record of March 2).
14 Senator Vandenberg added that, in recommitting the bill by agreement, he did so with the “promise that reapportionment will reappear in the next Congress in the special session and stay before the bar of the United States Senate until it is acted upon.” Early action will be necessary, at least on the bill to provide for the fifteenth census. H. R. 393, for this purpose, passed the House on May 21, 1928, but sank with reapportionment in the Senate.
15 H. R. 11526, passed by the House on March 17, 1928, by a vote of 287 to 58, after the Administration's naval construction program had been trimmed in committee from one of $725,000,000 to about $274,000,000.
16 The Kellogg (or Paris) Pact, so-called, was tendered to the Senate in a special message on December 4. Secretary Kellogg appeared before the committee on foreign affairs on December 7 and 11; a transcript of his comment was made public on December 28. The vote in the committee was: for the treaty, 14 (7 Republicans, 6 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor); opposed, 2 (Reed and Bayard, both Democrats); not voting, 2 (Moses and McLean). The treaty was favorably reported on December 19 without explanation. The report was accompanied (with implied disapproval) by a proposed resolution of reservation in four parts, suggested by Moses.
17 Executive Report No. 1, read just before the final vote was taken and printed in the Record of January 15.
18 Blaine of Wisconsin, Republican, who had lost in a viva voce vote in his attempt to attach a proviso (in which he had in mind some British official statements) that ratification by the United States did not imply the admission of implications contained in diplomatic notes circulated regarding the treaty.
19 In all, thirty-two treaties were approved by the Senate in the second session of the 70th Congress—the highest number (it was said) in any session since 1914. They are listed in the United States Daily of March 6, 1929.
20 Space forbids comment on the interesting, if irregular, attempt of Mr. Britten, chairman of the House committee on naval affairs, to enter into direct communication with the British prime minister regarding a joint meeting of his committee and a select committee of the House of Commons.
21 S. J. Res. 117, approved March 2, Public Resolution No. 99, authorized $150,000 to enable the War Department to investigate the practicability and cost “of constructing and maintaining (1) …. additional locks and other facilities at the Panama Canal …. and (2) any other route for a ship canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.” The investigation of the possibility of a canal across Nicaragua is specifically mentioned. This measure passed the House on March 1 by a vote of 185 to 56.
22 Of these, 577 were private. Nine omnibus pension bills were enacted, incorporating 7,620 private bills.
23 H. R. 5773, which had passed the House on May 25, 1928, by a vote of 219 (105 Republicans, 111 Democrats, 2 Farmer Labor, 1 Socialist) to 137 (91 Republicans, 46 Democrats).
24 Provisionally signed November 24, 1922.
25 The measure passed the House in the first session, May 15, 1928, by a vote of 303 to 39 (22 Republicans, 17 Democrats), amended to delay its operation three instead of two years. In the Senate, however, “for the fourth time since 1908” (protested Senator Hawes on May 17) its passage was “defeated by just a few men.” In the second session, Senator Goff's motion to direct the committee on judiciary to inquire into its constitutionality was defeated on December 19, by a vote of 13 (10 Republicans, 3 Democrats) to 62; and (amended to stretch the postponement of its operation to 5 years) it was passed on the same day by 65 (29 Republicans, 35 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 11 (8 Republicans, 3 Democrats). State legislation in point is digested in the Monthly Labor Review, March, 1929, vol. 28, pp. 126–137Google Scholar. About a dozen states now have important restrictive legislation which will be released fully when the national act takes effect.
26 Langeluttig, Albert, The Department of Justice of the United States (1927), p. 195Google Scholar.
27 The final votes in the Senate on April 18, 1928, and in the House on February 9, 1929, were unanimous. Two outstanding bones of contention had been dropped: (1) the proposal of a federal license for hunting migratory birds, as a means of financing the scheme; (2) the proposal to allow limited hunting in the refuges, in the discretion of the Department of Agriculture. On March 19, 1929, the Biological Survey indicated that sanctuaries were needed in at least 125 concentration areas.
28 Speaking on February 19, 1929, Senator Dill said: “Some of the cases now pending in the District Court of Appeals go to the very heart of the law. The most important probably is the case of the General Electric Company of Schenectady, station WGY …..“ (Nos. 4870, 4871, 4880.)
29 A phase of lively interest was the attempt again to suspend or repeal the national origins clause of the act of 1924. The House was willing. Meeting in an unwonted Sunday session on March 3, a resolution for postponement (H. J. Res. 402) was passed by a vote of 191 (144 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 2 Farmer Labor) to 152. In the Senate, however, the attempt encountered the stubborn defense of Senator Reed of Pennsylvania, the outstanding proponent of national origins in Congress. Having convened on March 3, the Senate almost immediately adopted a pious motion to adjourn, by a vote of 39 to 36, and the opportunity to suspend the national origins clause was lost so far as the short session was concerned. On March 22 President Hoover reluctantly proclaimed the new quotas, effective July 1 unless action is taken by the special session. A proposal (S. 1437) to apply the quota system to Mexico was favorably reported in the Senate on December 14.
30 The justification for the further loan was said to lie in the fact that the United States did not loan Greece its full proportion in the inter-allied loan. This feature of the bill, particularly, excited minority opposition in the committee and in the house. On December 10 the bill carried by what was nearly a party vote: 171 (157 Republicans, 13 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 155 (23 Republicans, 130 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor, 1 Socialist). It was said in defense of the settlement that, expressed as a percentage of present cash value, it represents a settlement at 34½, compared with 26½ in the case of Italy.
31 Hearings were held by the committee on expenditures in the executive departments in January and February, 1929, on H. R. 16722, for the consolidation of activities affecting war veterans. Previously, in March and April, 1928, the same committee had held hearings on the Wyant bill, H. R. 8127, for the consolidation of construction and engineering functions.
32 Students of administration will find interest in the bill (S. 5154) to create a “United States court of administrative justice,” introduced by Senator Norris for educational purposes and explained by him in the Record of January 3. On a very different side of the judiciary, mention may be made of two investigations, to be made by subcommittees of the House committee on judiciary, looking toward possible impeachment of Judge F. A. Winslow of the southern district of New York (H. J. Res. 425, approved February 26, Public Resolution No. 93), and of Judge G. M. Moscowitz of the eastern district of New York (H. J. Res. 431, approved March 2, Public Resolution No. 102). After the resignation of Judge Winslow on April 1, the committee dropped action.
33 This proviso (suggested by Senator Reed of Pennsylvania and accepted by Senator Jones) was adopted on February 19 by 58 (35 Republicans, 23 Democrats) to 25 (6 Republicans, 19 Democrats). The motion of Senator Bingham of Connecticut to remove the penalty from first offenses lost by the neatly balanced vote of 31 (16 Republicans, 15 Democrats) to 51 (24 Republicans, 27 Democrats). In final form the measure then passed by 65 (36 Republicans, 29 Democrats) to 18 (5 Republicans, 13 Democrats.) On February 28 the House approved it by 283 (161 Republicans, 120 Democrats, 2 Farmer Labor) to 90 (44 Republicans, 46 Democrats.)
34 The most important of these were an amendment to the civil service retirement law (S. 1727); the self-styled federal tort claims act (H. R. 9285); a proposal permitting the United States to be made a party defendant in certain cases (H. R. 13981); and measures touching the life-saving service (H. R.16656), and the Ouachita National Park (S. 675). The remaining six were private bills. In addition, three were vetoed because companion bills had already become law.
35 See the printed brief for the government, prepared by W. D. Mitchell and R. P. Reeder, and a brief on the other side, prepared by Representative H. W. Sumner, as amieus curiae. Earlier, on December 22, 1928, President Coolidge transmitted to Congress a memorandum on the point. (H. Doc. 493)
36 On February 16 (temporary paging 3741–7) the Speaker held this action proper, ruling “whenever the circumstances are such that members of the committee feel it necessary to procure legislation and they have a quorum present, that meeting is legal if it occurs in the committee room on the regular day.”
37 The net reductions of the estimates by Congress by fiscal years since the establishment of the budget have been: 1923, $312,361,792; 1924, $10,741,504; 1925, $9,024,637; 1926, $12,596,495; 1927, $6,716,064; 1928, $7,752,939; 1929, $9,331,779.
38 P. 382. The information was supplied directly (in the absence of the usual official summaries by the chairmen of the committees) by M. C. Shield, head clerk of the House Committee on Appropriations.
39 The item read in part: “For increasing the enforcement force, $24,000,000, or such part thereof as the President may deem useful, to be allocated by the President as he may see fit …. and to remain available until June 30, 1930.”
40 The vote on the conference report—66 (33 Republicans, 33 Democrats) to 16 (7 Republicans, 9 Democrats)—had to do mainly with the unsuccessful attempt to attach a proviso for some kind of open procedure in tax refunds—a matter much bruited during the session.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.