Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:58:31.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Second, Third and Fourth Sessions of the Sixty-Seventh Congress: December 5, 1921–September 22, 1922; November 20–December 4, 1922; December 4, 1922–March 3, 1923*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Lindsay Rogers
Lindsay Rogers*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 1924 , pp. 79 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1924

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For previous notes on the work of Congress, see American Political Science Review, vol. 13, p. 251; vol. 14, pp. 74, 659; vol. 15, p. 366; vol. 16, p. 41.

References

1 Congressional Record, September 20, 1922, p. 14127.

2 The House of Representatives took a recess from June 30, 1922 to August 15, 1922.

3 Among the measures which passed the House of Representative but failed of approval by the Senate were the shipping bill; the anti-lynching bill; the railroad refunding bill; the blue-sky securities bill; the bill to prevent corrupt practices; the revision and codification of the federal statutes; a bill regulating radio communication; a bill providing standard measures for fruits and vegetables; a bill to prevent the manufacture of adulterated and misbranded food and drugs; a bill for the improvement of the foreign service; the naval omnibus bill, and a bill to establish standards of weights and measures for wheat-mill and corn-mill products.

4 See American Political Science Review, vol. 16, p. 43.

5 Congressional Record, July 7, p. 10860, ff.

6 The Fordney bill holds the record for time consumed in the consideration of tariff measures. The McKinley bill was introduced in April and became law in October; the Wilson bill was introduced in December and became law (without the President's approval) the following August; the Dingley bill was introduced in March and was agreed to in July; the Payne bill was introduced in March and was concluded in August; and the Underwood bill was introduced in April and became law on October 3, 1913.

7 For a discussion of this clause in connection with a Senate amendment tacking a sales tax to the Bonus Bill, see Congressional Record, August 30, p. 13004.

8 On the tremendous powers of conference committees and their ability to thwart the opinion of one House of Congress see the speech of Senator Simmons, , Congressional Record, p. 14035Google Scholar (legislative day of September 16); and the proceedings in the House, August 22, p. 12695 ff., and September 13, p. 13557 ff.

On August 25th, 1922, a bill creating additional district judges (H. R. 9103) was referred back by the Senate to the conferees on the ground that it omitted matter agreed upon by both Houses and inserted new matter. This rule is not invoked very frequently. In this case the point of order was quite technical and the legislation by the conferees was not important. See Congressional Record, p. 12806.

In the Tariff Bill both the Senate and the House fixed a 7 cent duty for longhaired staple cotton which was placed by the conferees on the free list. For a similar point of order—in respect of legislation by the conferees on the Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act (H. R. 10874)—see Congressional Record, September 14, 1923, p. 13624 ff. On the general question of conference committees see my article, “Conference Committee Legislation,” North American Review, March, 1922.

9 See my article “Parliamentary Commissions in France, II,” Political Science Quarterly, December, 1923.

10 “No Senator or Representative shall during the time for which he was elected be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.”

11 Congressional Record, February 22, 1922, p. 3215; Feb. 23, p. 3285; and Feb. 24, p. 3325 ff.

12 See American Political Science Review, vol. 14, p. 666; vol. 15, p. 80; vol. 16, p. 45.

13 During the second session, President Harding vetoed three other measures: H. R. 77, a bill for the consolidation of certain forest lands; H. R. 6380, a bill to amend the charter of the Masonic Mutual Relief Association of the District of Columbia, and H. R. 6679, a bill to divide the state of Texas into four judicial districts. Except in the case of the bonus bill, President Harding's troubles with Congress were not made manifest in vetoes.

14 In spite of the fact that congressional business was much less congested than usual in respect of the appropriation bills, 99 measures received President Harding's approval on March 4. Forty-four were signed at the White House and fifty-five at the Capitol, the last bill being signed five minutes before Congress adjourned. There were no pocket vetoes and there was no attempt to reraise the question presented by Mr. Wilson in signing bills after the adjournment of Congress. See American Political Science Review, Vol. 14, p. 669.

15 For the dates in previous congresses, see American Political Science Review, vol. 13, p. 260; vol. 14, p. 82; vol. 15, p. 367.

16 Under the old system appropriations for a single department were frequently found in a number of bills. The war department grants, for example, were contained in five different measures. The new bills, eleven in number, are based on the departments and other units of organization. War department appropriations are in one bill and are divided to show the amounts for military and non-military activities. The following table explains the changes:

The new bills are composed of items for each department or establishment heretofore distributed in several bills, as follows:

1. Agricultural: Items for that department formerly in the Agricultural and sundry civil bills.

2. Commerce and Labor: Items for those departments formerly in the sundry civil and legislative, executive, and judicial bills.

3. District of Columbia: Items formerly carried in the District of Columbia bill and all other items in the sundry civil and legislative, executive, and judicial bills chargeable in part against the revenues of the District of Columbia.

4. Executive office and independent offices: Items formerly carried for these purposes in the sundry civil and legislative, executive, and judicial bills.

5. Interior Department: Items for this department formerly carried in the sundry civil, legislative, executive, and judicial, and pension bills.

6. Legislative branch: Items for the Senate, House, joint congressional committees and commissions, Capitol police, legislative drafting service, Architect of the Capitol, Library of Congress, Botanic Garden, and Government Printing Office (exclusive of printing and binding for the executive departments), formerly in sundry civil and legislative, executive, and judicial bills.

7. Navy: Items for the Navy formerly carried in the Navy bill and for the Navy department proper, formerly in the legislative, executive, and judicial bill.

8. Post Office: Items formerly carried in the Post Office bill and for the Post Office department proper, formerly in the legislative, executive, and judicial and sundry civil bills.

9. State and Justice: Items for those departments and the courts formerly carried in the sundry civil, legislative, executive, and judicial, and diplomatic and consular bills.

10. Treasury: Items for the Treasury department formerly in the sundry civil and legislative, executive, and judicial bills.

11. War: Items for the War department formerly in the Army, fortification, legislative, executive, and judicial, river and harbor, and sundry civil bills. The bill is divided into two titles, namely, one title for the military activities and expenses directly related thereto and the other for the nonmilitary activities.—Congressional Record, July 12, 1922, p. 11063.

17 See Congressional Record, March 1, 2, 3, 4, 1922.

18 Mr. Moses, March 1, p. 3578.

19 For discussions of the same problem in the House, see American Political Science Review, vol. 15, p. 372.

20 Rule 16, Sec. 3.

21 For complaints in the Senate of the important House rule limiting the right of the House conferees to agree to certain amendments without a vote of the House (American Political Science Review, vol. 15, p. 373 and vol. 16, p. 52) see Congressional Record, December 14, 1922, p. 434 and p. 452.

22 This attitude of attempting to have his way in spite of Congress (instead of sending a veto message and fighting the issue out) recalls his position when Congress refused to increase the army as he desired. See American Political Science Review, Volume 16, Page 44. For a discussion in the House, see Congressional Record, January 20, 1923, pp. 2, 127, ff.

23 The draft reads as follows:

“The Congress shall have power concurrent with that of the several states to limit and prohibit the labor of persons under the age of eighteen years.” See 67th Congress, 4th Session, Senate Report, no. 1185, reprinted in the Congressional Record, February 24, 1923, p. 4469.

24 For a memorandum on legislation which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional see Congressional Record, February 24th, 1923, p. 4549 ff.

25 See hearing before a subcommittee of the committee on the judiciary, United States Senate, January 16, 1923; Hawke v. Smith 253 U. S. 221 (1920); and in respect of the possibility of states changing their votes, Willoughby on the Constitution, Volume I, p. 522. The Brandegee amendment, reported favorably by the Senate committee on the judiciary in the 66th Congress and providing that proposed amendments should be invalid unless ratified within six years from the date of their proposal by Congress, was again discussed in the Senate. Four amendments (relating to the apportionment of representatives, the compensation of members of congress, titles of nobility, and non-interference with slavery) are apparently still pending and could be ratified by the states if they so desired. See Congressional Record, January 30, 1923, p. 2713.

26 A number of amendments were also introduced changing the term for representatives to four years; providing for the election of the President and Vice President by direct vote; giving Congress power over the nomination of representatives and regulating their apportionment according to population. The propositions to amend the Constitution are classified in the Congressional Digest, March, 1923, p. 172. A list is also given in “Hearing Before the Sub-Committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 67th Congress, 4th Session, on S. J. Res. 40, a Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, January 16th, 1923, pp. 16–17.” For a discussion of the Norris amendment see Congressional Record, January 30, 1923, p. 2695; February 12, p. 3538, ff. and February 13, p. 3612, ff.

27 In his message presenting this measure to Congress, President Harding said: “Frankly, I think it loftier statesmanship to support and commend a policy designed to effect the larger good to the Nation than merely to record the too hasty impressions of a constituency…. When people fail in the national viewpoint, and live in the confines of community selfishness or narrowness, the sun of this Republic will have passed its meridian and our larger aspirations will shrivel in the approaching twilight.”

28 See Brown, George Rothwell, The Leadership of Congress, Chapter 12.Google Scholar

29 Senate Document No. 302, 67th Congress, 4th Session; Congressional Record, February 16, 1923, p. 3807.

30 On the general question of reorganization see Willoughby, W. F., Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the National Government (1923).Google Scholar

31 See American Political Science Review, vol. 16, p. 51.

32 Congressional Record, p. 4891.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.