Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:50:04.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

First Session of the Seventy-first Congress1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Arthur W. Macmahon
Arthur W. Macmahon*
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(April 15,1929, to November 22, 1929). Almost the last word said in the Senate before the adjournment of the special session was a remonstrance from the chair. “No one in the gallery has a right to laugh,” said the Vice-President, “and the occupants of the galleries will be in order. That includes the press gallery.” It has been easy to laugh. Seldom, however, has a single session of Congress held greater interest for the observer of social forces. Seldom has the salutary rôle of the Senate in our present political complex been more convincingly demonstrated.

Membership. The general election of 1928 seated 268 Republicans, 166 Democrats, and one Farmer Labor member. Three of the four vacancies that developed before the new Congress convened were on the Democratic side. At the opening of the special session, the Republican majority was 103, compared with majorities of 39, 60, 15, 167, and 39 in the Congresses elected in 1926, 1924, 1922, 1920, and 1918, respectively. Even in the more nearly poised, less regimented Senate, the weight of the majority seemed to afford a considerable margin of safety, with 55 Republicans (not including a junior senator from Pennsylvania) listed in opposition to 39 Democrats and one Farmer Labor member.

Organization. No innovations in procedure or outcome marked the institution of the party instrumentalities summarized in an attached table. The four preparatory caucuses were held between the first and the fifth of March. The House Republicans continued their organization without material change.

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 1930 , pp. 38 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1930

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

1

For notes on the 70th Congress, see this Review, vol. 22, p. 650, and vol. 23, p. 364. 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. 257; 14, pp. 74, 659; 15, p. 366; 16, p. 41; 18, p. 79; 19, p. 761.

References

2 Regarding the special session of the Senate on March 4 and 5, 1929, see p. 57 below.

3 Of the seven women in the 71st Congress, four (Rogers, Mass., Kahn, Calif., Langley, Ky., Republicans, and Oldfield, Ark., Democrat) were originally elected to take their husband's places. This theory of office is not narrowly connubial. During the special session, for example, on the death of the Rev. O. J. Kvale of Minnesota, the sole Farmer Labor member, his son, Paul J. Kvale, was chosen in a special election to carry forward his father's purposes. Elements of relationship were interestingly present, though not crucial, in the election of Ruth Hanna McCormick as one of Illinois' representatives at large and of Ruth Bryan Owen as a member of Congress from Florida. Altogether, seven of the members of the House elected in 1928 died before the end of the special session.

4 The case of William S. Vare was not disposed of in the special session. On September 9, 1929, Senator Norris submitted a resolution (S. Res. 111) denying him a seat in the Senate. This went over by agreement to the regular session, for consideration on December 3. On December 5, Senator Shortridge filed a report (S. Eept. No. 47) from the committee on privileges and elections regarding the contest brought against Vare by William B. Wilson (the Democratic candidate in 1926) in which, by a committee vote of seven to four, it was held that Vare had been legally elected. On December 6, the Norris resolution was adopted by a vote of 58 (25 Republicans, 32 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 22 (all Republicans, although three Democrats were announced to be paired against it). The Senate then adopted a resolution (S. Res. 177), offered by Senator Reed of Pennsylvania, declaring that William B. Wilson had not been elected; the division on the latter was 66 to 15 (5 Republicans, 10 Democrats). On December 11, the governor of Pennsylvania appointed Joseph R. Grundy, president of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association, to fill the vacancy. On the following day, a resolution (S. Res. 185) pressed by Senator Nye was referred to the committee on privileges and elections, with the direction that it submit a “report covering the right of Mr. Grundy to his seat in the Senate.” Mr. Grundy was then sworn. It was announced that the committee would take up the matter on January 6, 1930.

5 During the course of the special session, three senators died: T. B. Burton of Ohio, Republican, replaced by the appointment of R. C. McCulloch, Republican; F. E. Warren of Wyoming, Republican, whose seat was to be filled by a special election in January; and L. D. Tyson of Tennessee, Democrat, replaced by W. E. Brock, Democrat.

6 See p. 40.

7 The quotation is from a publication styled “The Labor Digest—a national newspaper published in behalf of labor—vol. 1, no. 1” (sic). A good example of Watson's emollient applications was his speech in the Senate on October 31, 1929. The writer is aware that a case can be made for Mr. Watson's selection as leader on the ground that, geographically, he is near the pivot in the balance of the agricultural and industrial elements in his party. His formula for their reconciliation is easy: whatever goes up must come down.

8 Senator Watson left for Florida at the end of October “to rebuild his shattered health.” The floor leadership, so far as there was any, devolved on Senator Jones, with Senator McNary as de facto aide. In December, Senator Watson was quoted as saying that he would not seek to return to the Senate in 1932; it was time, after thirty-six years in public service, to build his “personal fortune.”

9 The committee on appropriations was elected on November 11, consisting, temporarily, only of those of its members in the 70th Congress who were in the new House. On December 3, 1929, the Republican committee on committees (working, in turn, through a sub-committee) began the review of requests and the making of majority assignments. The minority assignments, recommended by the Democratic members of the ways and means committee in their capacity as a party committee on committees, were approved at a minority conference on December 5. In view of the fact that immediate action on emergency radio legislation was desired, assignments to the committee on merchant marine and fisheries were hurried in order that this committee might be elected at once. It was not until December 12 that the others were formally chosen in the House by the adoption of resolutions offered by the majority and minority leaders. As a partial concession to the request of Mr. Garner, voiced in the House on December 2, the membership of the judiciary committee was increased to 23. The ratio of majority and minority members on the important committees was made 14 to 7, instead of 13 to 8, subject to the humane principle (announced by the majority leader on December 2) “that where the Democrats have lost no one from a committee they will retain the same number they now have.”

10 On May 9, the name of the “committee on territories and insular possessions” was changed by resolution to read “committee on territorial and insular affairs.”

11 In early January the positions were given to Senator LaFollette of Wisconsin and Senator Thomas of Idaho.

12 In the course of the special session, upwards of 5,000 bills (including pension bills) were introduced in the House, and over 2,000 in the Senate. In the House they were “informally referred” (in the words of the speaker), in the sense that they were tagged by the legislative clerk. The outstanding enactments were Public No. 10, H. R. 1, approved June 15, being the Agricultural Marketing Act, supplemented by Public No. 15, approved June 18, appropriating $150,000,000 of the authorized $500,000,000 revolving fund and $1,150,000 for expenses; and Public No. 13, S. 312, approved June 18, for future decennial censuses and reapportionments. Among a number of minor enactments were: Public Res. No. 1, H. J. Res. 56, approved May 2, reappropriating funds to fight the Mediterranean fruit fly; Public No. 8, H. R. 3548, approved June 13, reappropriating money to aid in rehabilitating flooded farm lands; Public Res. No. 2, H. J. Res. 59, approved May 17, reappropriating funds in aid of storm-stricken vegetable and fruit growers in the Southeast; Public Res. No. 7, H. J. Res. 82, approved June 6, appropriating $39,000,000 to pay amounts due railroads for transporting mails under a Commission order; Public No. 22, S. 669, approved June 25, regarding the suit in connection with the withdrawn Northern Pacific land grants; Public Res. No. 15, H. J. Res. 97, approved June 15, appropriating $3,000,000 for a site for a municipal center in the District; Public No. 11, H. R. 1648, approved June 17, amending sec. 5 of the Second Liberty Loan Act; Public Res. No. 20, H. J. Res. 80, approved Oct. 17, authorizing a postponement in connection with the French debt, later covered by the general settlement act passed in the second session and approved December 18.

13 The final vote on the passage of the farm relief bill (H. R. 1) in the House on April 25 was 366 to 35 (2 Republicans, 33 Democrats).

14 The Republicans in opposition were distributed as follows: Wis., 5; Minn., 2; S.D., 2; N.D., 1; Mich., 1; Iowa, 1; Kansas, 1. The Democrats who, in supporting the motion, voted against the debentures plan, were distributed thus: N.Y., 13; Fla., 3; Va., 3; Ohio, 2; Mass., 2; R.I., 1; N.J., 1; W.Va., 1; Ind., 1; Ky. 1; Mo., 1; La., 1; Miss., 1; Ariz., 1; Calif., 1.

15 The writer will not attempt here to examine the extent to which McNary-Haugenism really triumphed despite the rejection of the equalization fee and the debentures plan. George Peek does not seem to have been in Washington, but the act would have been impossible without the years of political pressure, of group consultation, and of technical consideration that lay behind it. The final answer rests, of course, in the use of the vast discretion of the Federal Farm Board.

16 Of the twelve Republicans, seven were from Wisconsin, two from Kansas, and one each from South Dakota, Iowa, and New York. All of the five Democrats who voted for the rule were from Louisiana. The tariff bill itself passed the House on May 28 by a vote of 264 (244 Republicans, 20 Democrats) to 147 (12 Republicans, 134 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor). At this time the source of the 20 affirmative Democratic votes was: La., 6; Fla., 4; Tex., 2; with one each from Calif., Col., Ind., Mass., N.T., Ohio, R.I., and Wash.

17 The President's letter appears as Appendix A in 8. Rept. No. 3, on the “agricultural surplus control act,” April 23, 1929. The majority report said: “Section 10 provides a mechanism of export debentures which the board may use at its discretion in meeting special situations which the board may find it impossible to meet adequately under the loan, stabilization corporation, and other provisions of the act. .… Under the export debenture plan a bounty may be granted upon exports of raw agricultural commodities or their food products. The bounty is payable in a form of currency denominated export debentures. The amount of the bounty so payable upon the export of an agricultural commodity is one-half the amount of the import duty on such a commodity. In the case of exports of food products, the bounty payable is proportionate to the amount of raw commodity consumed in the manufacture of the product. Debentures are legally tenderable at their face amount in payment of import duties.”

18 On May 8, on the crucial motion of Senator Watson to strike out the debentures section, the vote was 44 (42 Republicans, 2 Democrats—Ransdell, La., and Wagner, N.Y.) to 47 (13 Republicans, 34 Democrats). The bill passed the Senate on May 14 by an affirmative vote of 54 (21 Republicans, 33 Democrats), with only two Democrats—Wagner, N.Y., and Walsh, Mass.—among the 33 in opposition. On June 11, when the Senate refused to agree to the conference report eliminating debentures, only 4 Democrats—Wagner, N.Y., Ransdell, La., and Fletcher and Trammell, Florida—were among the 43 willing to accept the report, against 46 (13 Republicans, 32 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) in the negative. On Oct. 19, when practically the same debentures provision (having been finally dropped from the farm bill) was added to the tariff bill, the vote was 42 (14 Republicans, 28 Democrats) to 34 (31 Republicans, 3 Democrats—Wagner, N.Y., Walsh, Mass., Kendrick, Wyo.)

19 Unanimous consent agreements in the Senate are bent to purposes that distantly resemble the operation of special rules in the House. Such was the agreement of May 10 “that on and after the hour of 3 o'clock P.M. on the calendar day of Monday, May 13, 1929, no Senator may speak more than once or longer than 10 minutes upon the pending farm relief bill. . …” Such was the understanding agreed to on May 24 by which the time each member could henceforth speak on the census and reapportionment bill was limited to 30 minutes, although here also with no attempt to fix the date of final passage. Another outstanding example was the agreement of October 18 limiting each senator to 20 minutes on the debentures amendment to the tariff bill and requiring a vote at one o'clock on the following day. In this instance, it should be noted, the proposal was practically identical with an amendment previously debated in connection with the farm relief bill; moreover, it was clear that it was bound to pass. In connection with the tariff bill as a whole, unanimous consent agreements were used to arrange an earlier meeting time and evening sessions. Beyond that, they failed.

20 The 7 Democrats in the negative were: Walsh, Mass.; Trammell, Fla.; Broussard and Ransdell, La.; Heflin, Ala.; Steck, Iowa; and Dill, Wash. Later, with the ball in their possession, the coalition turned down the idea of restricting revision to the agricultural rates. On October 21, when, after six weeks on the special and administrative features, the Senate was about to take up the rate schedules, Thomas of Okla., Democrat, moved that the bill be recommitted with instructions to strike out all but the special and administrative provisions and the sugar, tobacco, and general agricultural schedules. This was defeated by 64 to 10 (7 Republicans, 3 Democrats).

21 It will be interesting to note, if a future tariff revision occurs when the Democrats are in formal control of the Senate, whether they will respect the solemn repentance of the elderly Simmons on October 21, deploring the traditional partisan methods in tariff-making in committee, which, he admitted, had been employed in 1913.

22 The Senate committee on finance made 431 changes in the rate schedules and the free list: 177 were increases; 254 were decreases. The Senate dealt with 11 of 15 rate schedules before adjournment, and (according to the Tariff Review for Dec. 1929) considered 288 amendments. “In 163 instances proposed increases were eliminated and the present duties restored or the rates were reduced below those in the existing law. In 125 cases, increases were made over existing rates and 60 of these were on agricultural or related products.”

23 The members seem to have been: Allen, Kan.; Glenn, Ill.; Goldsborough, Ma.; Hastings, Del.; Hatfield, W.Va.; Herbert, R.I.; Kean, N.J.; McCulloch, Ohio; Patterson, Mo.; Townsend, Del.; Vandenberg, Mich.; and Waleott, Conn.

24 The outcome is likely to be crucially affected by the composition of the conference committee. An interesting plea by Senator McKellar for coalition recognition there was issued through the Democratic National Committee on October 7. Even more, it will depend upon the possible development of a larger group of insurgent Republicans in the House. In the vote on the passage of the tariff bill on May 28, only 12 Republicans were in the negative, distributed as follows: 5 from Minn.; one each from Iowa, Kan., N.Y. (LaGuardia), Penn. (James Beck, on the ground of constitutional objections to the flexible tariff provision), S.D., and Wis.—the lack of insurgency here being surprising, although perhaps less so in view of the placing of Frear on the ways and means committee.

25 Rifts in the coalition appeared (though not seriously, for Democratic senators from the East are at the moment almost non-existent) when Walsh of Massachusetts cried out against the proposal of a higher duty on raw wool.

26 It is impracticable, but also unnecessary in view of the attention they have commanded, to trace the work of the sub-committee of the Senate committee on judiciary (Caraway, chairman, Walsh of Montana, Borah, Blaine, and Robinson of Indiana) in investigating lobbying, under S. Res. 20, agreed to October 1; or of the sub-committee of the committee on naval affairs (Shortridge, chairman) in looking into the activities of W. B. Shearer, at the Geneva naval conference especially, in behalf of certain shipbuilding companies, under S. Res. 114, passed on September 14. The latter was suspended in mid-October, to go over to the new year. Parts of the report of Caraway's committee (S. Rept. 43) were submitted to the Senate from time to time, on special matters. One of these concerned the action of Senator Bingham of Connecticut—one of the most prominent exponents of the cogent “aged industries” argument for the protective tariff—in placing Charles L. Eyanson, assistant to the president of the Connecticut Manufacturers' Association, on the rolls of the Senate. This action was declared to be “contrary to good morals and senatorial ethics” in S. Res. 146, adopted on November 4 by 54 (22 Bepublicans, 32 Democrats) to 22 (all Republicans).

27 In his message on April 16, President Hoover favored the consideration of “certain matters of emergency legislation that were partially completed in the last session, such as the decennial census, the reapportionment of congressional representation, and the suspension of the national-origins clause of the immigration act of 1924, together with some minor administrative authorizations.” Mr. Hoover did not have his way about national origins. Reluctantly, on March 22, he had proclaimed the quotas, effective July 1. Senator Eeed led the defense of the clause. “If I am an insurgent or pseudo,” he said, “we will have to make the best of it.” The Senate committee voted 4 to 2 against reporting the repealer (S. 151). Senator Nye, N.D., pressed a resolution (S. Res. 37) to discharge the committee. On June 13, the resolution was allowed to go to a vote, failing by 37 (27 Republicans, 10 Democrats) to 43 (19 Republicans, 24 Democrats).

28 In conference, confronted by an adamant House, the Senate practically abandoned the provision for civil service in census organization. This had originally been written into the bill by the amendment proposed by Senator Wagner, N.Y., Democrat, adopted on May 24 by 42 (11 Republicans, 31 Democrats), to 37 (36 Republicans, 1 Democrat). The Senate provision calling for a census of radio sets was also dropped. A compromise was reached by which the census of population was to begin April 1, 1930, instead of November 1, 1929, as the Senate wished, or May 1, 1930, as the House wrote it. The conference report was accepted in the Senate on June 13 by a vote of 48 (40 Republicans, 8 Democrats) to 37 (9 Republicans, 28 Democrats).

29 For the fifth time, on June 7, the Senate passed the constitutional amendment sponsored by Senator Norris (S. Jt. Res. 3, popularly called the Lame Duck Amendment). The vote was 64 (36 Republicans, 28 Democrats) to 9 (7 Republicans, 2 Democrats).

30 In urging the change, Senator Jones referred to the leak by which two press syndicates circulated stories purporting to give the exact roll call on the confirmation of Irvine L. Lenroot as a justice of the Court of Customs Appeals, as a result of which (despite protests from such senators as LaFollette) the committee on rules sought to rebuke Paul R. Mallon, of the United Press Association, and to deny his association the privilege of the floor. Senator Jones said on May 21: “It simply emphasizes the impractical character of our rules with reference to the transaction of business in executive session.”

31 Alexander Legge, chairman, confirmed by 67 (43 Republicans, 24 Democrats) to 12 (4 Republicans, 8 Democrats); S. R. McKelvie, grains, confirmed by 50 (38 Republicans, 12 Democrats) to 27 (8 Republicans, 19 Democrats); and C. W. Williams, cotton, confirmed by 57 (39 Republicans, 18 Democrats) to 20 (5 Republicans, 15 Democrats).

32 At a special session on March 5, the Senate confirmed the eight cabinet nominations submitted by President Hoover, and by resolution directed the committee on judiciary to “inquire and report …. (1) whether the head of any department of the United States may legally hold office as such after the expiration of the term of the President by whom he was appointed; ((2) whether, in view of the provisions of the laws of the U. S., Andrew W. Mellon may legally hold the office of Secretary of the Treasury…..”

33 By main groups, the figures were: (1) Civilian (other than postmasters), 616 nominations, 544 confirmed, 1 withdrawn, 71 unconfirmed; (2) Postmasters, 793 nominations, 757 confirmed, 2 rejected (Dillon, Mont., and Jamestown, N.D.), 34 unconfirmed; (3) Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, 2,324 nominations, 2,255 confirmed, 4 withdrawn, 65 unconfirmed. The refusal of the Senate in open session on November 20 to confirm A. C. Gruwell as postmaster of Dillon seemed hopeful. The nominee received a rating of only 70.60 per cent in an examination in which the present incumbent (apparently satisfactory) was given 86.60 per cent (including 5 per cent for war service), and another candidate 78 per cent.

34 Not yet ratified: convention (signed March 27, 1929) regarding the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser River system. Ratified: arbitration treaties with Ethiopia (signed Jan. 26, 1929), Roumania (signed March 21, 1929), Belgium (signed March 20, 1929), Luxemburg (signed April 6, 1929), Portugal (signed March 1, 1929); treaties of conciliation with Ethiopia (signed Jan. 26, 1929), Roumania (signed March 21, 1929), Belgium (signed March 20, 1929), Luxemburg (signed April 6, 1929); and, with a reservation regarding scope of prisonmade goods, the convention and protocol signed at Geneva Nov. 8, 1927, and July 11, 1928, for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.