Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:39:08.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Session of the Seventy-first Congress, December 2, 1929, to July 3, 1930; Special Session of the Senate, July 7–211

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

Membership. Even in seasons when politics are pointing toward congressional elections of unusual interest, the filling of vacancies in the House attracts little attention. Political perspectives are almost unavoidably narrowed by the reaction of presidential government; localism confuses general tendencies; and the prevalence of one-party areas further conceals trends which can be read only by a close scrutiny of relative returns. It is not that the opportunity for by-elections is lacking. In the course of the session under consideration, twenty-three seats in the House were vacated, five by resignation and eighteen by death. The resulting replacements brought the Democrats a net gain of one; for, though losing their sole foothold in Pennsylvania, they won in the third district in Kentucky and the second district in Massachusetts. In the latter, never previously represented by a Democrat, the victory of W. J. Granfield in the special election on February 11,1930, was widely noted and deemed significant by many, although it was not clear whether it indicated a desire for drink or a dread of depression.

The Senate came to grips at last with the long-delayed problem of the Pennsylvania senatorship. In accordance with an understanding reached in the special session, Senator Norris's resolution (S. Res. 111) to deny William S. Vare a seat in the Senate came up on December 3. Debate closed on December 6, when the resolution was adopted by a vote of 58 (25 Republicans, 32 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 22 (all Republicans).

Type
American Government and Politics
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , November 1930 , pp. 913 - 946
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 a note on the first session of the 71st Congress, see this Review, vol. 24, p. 38. For notes on the 70th Congress, see vol. 22, p. 650, and vol. 23, p. 364; and on the 69th Congress, 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.

References

2 A republican vote was gained in the contest in the 14th district of Texas between A. McCloskey, Democrat, and H. M. Wurzbach, Republican, in which the latter (the former incumbent) was declared to have been elected; the committee's report was unanimously accepted. The other contests did not result in party shifts. At the end of July, not counting nine unfilled places, members lísted as Republicans numbered 261, Democrats, 164, Farmer Labor, 1. At the same time, the Senate contained 56 Republicans, 39 Democrats, and 1 Farmer Labor member.

3 In this the Senate followed the finding in the report of the committee on privileges and elections, tardily tendered by Senator Shortridge on December 5 (S. Rept. 47).

4 71st Congress, 2nd Session, S. Rept. 43, part 3. The report closed with the statement: “It was nowhere revealed in the testimony of Mr. Grundy that either he or anyone on his force was in a situation to offer any enlightenment to members of either House on any matters pertinent to the discussion of the tariff bill not available to them on application to the Tariff Commission and other branches of the government. The inference is irresistible that it was believed by him and by those associated with him that by reason of the very substantial aid he had rendered as revenue raiser for political campaigns he would be able to influence the action of his party associates in the Congress.”

5 S. Res. 185, which was referred to the committee on privileges and elections, and on which that committee reported unfavorably on January 31 (S. Rept. 147), ending the matter.

6 See table in this Review, vol. 24, p. 40 (February, 1930)Google Scholar.

7 A troublesome four-to-four deadlock in the committee on committees was broken on January 8 when Senator Smoot voted for La Follette.

8 What was said to have been the first filibuster in the House in eight years—a statement the writer has not attempted to verify—led on May 14 to an order for the arrest of members in the effort to obtain a quorum. The bill under consideration (H. R. 2152, for the establishment of a foreign agricultural service) was understood to be disapproved by the administration, and it was apparently the leaders who sought to impede the measure. On May 16, however, the bill was passed without a roll-call by a vote of 195 to 75; and, approved by the President on June 5, it became Public Law No. 304.

9 The controversial item was an appropriation of $10,660,000 for immediate work at Boulder Dam. Arizona's spokesmen attacked, among other things, the fairness and legality of the contracts in connection with the completed project arranged by the Secretary of the Interior. On June 21, a point of order against the appropriation made by the representative from Arizona was not sustained and an amendment offered by him was rejected, 29 to 101. On June 26, several amendments offered by the Arizona senators were lost without a record vote.

10 On April 8, the House committee on the election of president, vice-president, and representatives in Congress reported a somewhat similar proposal (H. J. Res. 292, H. Rept. 1105).

11 The relations between the houses are involved in a concurrent resolution (H. Cone. Res. 41) which passed the House on July 3, but has not been acted upon by the Senate. It proposes to create a joint committee to study procedure in cases of impeachment. In this connection it is noted that on January 29 the committee which, pursuant to resolutions adopted in the 70th Congress (H. Res. 431, 434), had been investigating charges against Grover M. Moscowitz, a judge in the eastern district of New York, reported that it did not find sufficient facts on which to base an impeachment, although it did “not approve each and every act of Judge Moscowitz concerning which evidence was introduced.” It recommended that no further action be taken (H. Rept. 1106). The stand of the committee was confirmed by a resolution adopted in the House on April 8 (H. Res. 204).

12 H. R. 2667, passed by the House on May 28, 1929, by a vote of 264 (244 Republicans, 20 Democrats) to 147 (12 Republicans, 134 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor).

13 In a prepared statement issued on March 11, at a time when the disintegration had gone far, Senator Nye of North Dakota reviewed the story: “For months real progress was made …. then came the development of sugar, cement, lumber, oil craving and appetites, engineered by astute and experienced high tariff lords like Grundy, who is now teaching so-called party leaders how to lead …..” Speaking on March 24, Senator La Follette described the bill which was about to pass as “the product of a series of deals, conceived in secret, but executed in public with a brazen effrontery that is without parallel in the annals of the Senate.” At the close of a warm discussion of the oil lobby on March 20, Senator Waterman (C o.) said: “I have stated upon the floor of the Senate, and I have stated in the presence of senators elsewhere, that, by the eternal, I will not vote for a tariff upon the products of another state if the senators from that state vote against protecting the industries of my state, and I stand upon that platform.

14 For comment on the relation of the tariff controversy to the revival of support for Philippine independence, see below, p. 941.

15 Senators who changed their position on sugar rates, voting for retention of existing rates on January 16 and for the Smoot amendment on March 5, were Jones (Wash.), Metcalf (R.I.), Pine (Okla.), and Schall (Minn.), Republicans; Ashurst (Ariz.), Dill (Wash.), Hayden (Ariz.), Thomas (Okla.), and Trammell (Fla.), Democrats.

16 Senators who voted against the duty on cement on January 31 and for it on March 7 were Couzens (Mich.), Nye (N.D.), and Pine (Okla.), Republicans; Tydings (Md.) and Wagner (N.Y.), Democrats. Pittman (Nev.), a Democrat, was paired against the duty in the earlier vote and for it in the later one. It should be noted that Nye later moved for reconsideration of the votes on sugar and cement in order to purge himself of what he called the “sugar-cement-lum-ber-oil combination.” When the Senate acted on his motion on March 13, the new lines held, in the face of the counter-attack, by a vote of 38 (13 Republicans, 25 Democrats) to 47 (38 Republicans, 9 Democrats) in the case of sugar, and of 38 (14 Republicans, 24 Democrats) to 47 (37 Republicans, 10 Democrats) in the case of cement.

17 A summary was presented at the same time by Senator Smoot, expressed in terms of ad valorem rates (based on the dutiable schedules, and weighted with reference to imports in 1928), which showed the following comparative rates: under the 1922 act, 34.61 per cent; under the bill as it left the House, 43.15 per cent; under the finance committee bill, 40.54 per cent; and under the bill as it passed the Senate, 38.99 per cent. Senator Harrison gave 35.10 per cent as the corresponding figure for the measure at the time it was reported by the committee of the whole on March 4.

18 The Democrats who voted for it were Broussard and Ransdell (La), Trammell (Fla.), Copeland (N.Y.), Bratton (N.M.), Kendrick (Wyo.), and Pittman (Nev.). The five Republicans who voted against it were Blaine and La Follette (Wis.), McMaster and Norbeck (S.D.), and Norris (Neb.). Shipstead, Farmer Labor (Minn.), was paired against it. Fletcher, Democrat (Fla.), was paired for the bill.

19 The resolution (H. Res. 197) was agreed to by 241 (227 Republicans, 14 Democrats) to 153 (19 Republicans, 133 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor). This step was preceded by a canvas of the situation by the steering committee, and gentlemanly understandings were reached among the majority members regarding separate votes later on particular items—notably a promise to a sugar group comprising members from thirteen sugar-growing states, presided over by Mr. Crampton of Michigan. Beginning on April 4, Mr. Garner, ranking minority member, began to tell the House of the day-to-day happenings in conference, and the actions of the conferees were probably better known than usual.

20 The tactical plans were arranged, or at least announced, on April 24 at a White House breakfast—one of several instances during the session of that firmly-grounded instrument of government.

21 A Senate amendment providing that cement for use on public works might be imported free was defeated by 167 (45 Republicans, 122 Democrats) to 221 (192 Republicans, 29 Democrats).

22 In the final roll-call in the House, the Democratic members who voted for the measure were distributed as follows: La., 7; Fla., 2; Tex., 1; Colo., 1; Calif., 1; Wash., 1; Mass., 1. The Republicans in the negative comprised: Wis., 7; Minn., 4; S.D., 2; Iowa, 1; Mo., 1; Okla., 1; Calif., 1; N.Y., 2 (Mr. LaGuardia and Mrs. Pratt); Ky., 1.

23 Democrats who voted for the conference report were Broussard and Ransdell (La.), Fletcher and Trammell (Fla.), and Kendrick (Wyo.). Republicans who opposed it were: La Follette and Blaine (Wis.), McMaster and Norbeck (S.D.), Norris and Howell (Neb.), Frazier (N.D.) (with Nye paired against it), Schall (Minn.), Brookhart (Iowa), Pine (Okla.), and Borah (Idaho). On the eve of the final vote, speaking in the Senate on June 12, Senators Reed and Grundy of Pennsylvania, confessing their disappointment with so imperfect a tariff, announced that they had nevertheless decided to prop up its tottering fabric. Pose or not, their reluctance went well with the Administration's attempt to emphasize the extent to which agricultural rates had been increased. President Hoover, in a statement released on June 15, pointed out that according to Tariff Commission estimates, “the average rate upon agricultural raw materials shows an increase from 38.10 per cent to 48.92 per cent, in contrast to dutiable articles of strictly other than agricultural origin, which show an average increase of from 31.02 per cent to 34.31 per cent.”

24 “I have,” the President wrote, “instituted systematic, voluntary measures of coöperation with the business institutions and with state and municipal authorities to make certain that fundamental businesses of the country shall continue as usual, that wages and therefore consuming power shall not be reduced, and that a special effort shall be made to expand construction work in order to assist in equalizing other deficits in employment.”

25 See below, p. 939.

26 An amendment to the federal aid road act authorized an additional $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 1931, raised the regular allotments for the two following years from $75,000,000 to $125,000,000, and increased the maximum contribution on the part of the national government from $15,000 to $25,000 per mile (H. R. 5616, approved April 4, Public No. 90). Meanwhile, a joint resolution had made available an additional $31,400,000 for use in the current year (H. J. Res. 241, approved February 7, Public Res. No. 7).

27 H. R. 11781, approved July 3, Public No. 520. In the form in which it passed the House on April 25, it carried authorizations aggregating $116,285,027; the Senate added items totaling $28,596,875. It was said that the ultimate cost of the projects that it sanctions will be near $350,000,000. In the course of its consideration, the most controversial feature was the item permitting the state-owned canals in New York to be taken over without cost to the United States, which (if New York agrees) will maintain them at an estimated annual cost of $2,500,000. The advocates of the St. Lawrence proposal found a threat in this clause. A seven-state group headed by Burtness (N.D.) and Brigham (Vt.) was gathered, but their effort to dislodge the item failed, 59 to 148. In the Senate, by way of reassurance, the provision was altered by adding the qualification that, if taken over, the canals are to be operated “as barge canals only, and not as, or with any intention to make them ship canals, or to hinder or delay the improvement of the St. Lawrence Waterway as the sea way from the Great Lakes to the ocean.” The bill passed in the Senate without a record vote, but not until Senator Blaine's amendment limiting the discretion of the Secretary of War in approving Great Lakes diversion had been accepted on June 19 by a vote of 45 (25 Republicans, 19 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 21 (12 Republicans, 9 Democrats).

28 H. R. 6120, approved March 31, Public No. 85. This act, taken in conjunction with other legislation in recent years, contemplates the appropriation of $500,000,000 for public buildings in the next ten years, at the rate of about $50,000,000 annually. The attention to the beautification of the District of Columbia has been a notable theme in recent legislation. The care with which its future is being guarded was illustrated in a resolution, authorizing the erection (without expense to the United States) of a memorial to William Jennings Bryan, which states that it must not be “on any ground within one half mile of the Capitol.”

29 P. 929. The table is rearranged material from S. Doc. 212, comprising the annual statements prepared by Mr. Sheild and Mr. Rea, clerks of the two committees on appropriations.

30 S. 3061, passed by the Senate on April 28 and by the House on July 1, approved July 7, Public No. 537, enlarging the list of industries for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics must collect monthly unemployment statistics.

31 In his regular message, the President said: “I have been opposed to the basis of the quotas now in force and I have hoped that we could find some practical method to secure what I believe should be our real national objective: that is, fitness of the immigrant as to physique, character training, and our need of service.”

32 S. 51, the Harris bill, which originally proposed to bring all Central and South American countries within the quota system, but was amended to apply only to Mexico. It was passed in the face of State Department disapproval, reiterated in a statement on August 5, which said: “The immigration of Mexicans into the United States has been reduced so drastically during the past sixteen months that it is no longer a problem. The result has been accomplished through strict law enforcement measures put into effect by American government officials …..” U. S. Daily, August 6, 1930. S. 51, amended by inserting administrative features from the Box bill (H. R. 12382), was reported by the House committee on May 23 (H. Rept. 1594). Previously, on March 13, the committee had reported a bill (H. R. 10343, H. Rept. 898) which proposed quotas for all countries of the western hemisphere based upon the number of citizens of the United States departing for permanent residence abroad.

33 In committee of the whole on April 21, Senator Norbeck's amendment for the repeal of national origins was adopted by a vote of 39 (28 Republicans, 10 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 34 (14 Republicans, 20 Democrats). It was coupled with a proposal to cut the quota percentage from 2 to 1½. In the Senate on April 24, however, the repealing clauses were stricken out by 37 (17 Republicans, 20 Democrats) to 36 (26 Republicans, 9 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor). The bill, after being recommitted, was stripped of all but provisions relating to Mexico.

34 Lobby Investigation. Hearings before a sub-committee of the committee on the judiciary, United States Senate, 71st Congress, pursuant to S. Res. 20. The testimony of the executive officers of the Association Opposed to the 18th Amendment appears especially at pp. 3829-4128 (April 16-25); of representatives of the Anti-Saloon League, at pp. 4279-4642 (May 8-22). The recalcitrancy of Bishop Cannon on June 5 and 11, which the sub-committee voted on June 12 to condone on the ground of irrelevance of questions relating to campaign activities in 1928, is dealt with in S. Rept. 43, part 10.

35 H. R. 8574, passed in the House on Feb. 8, in the Senate on May 14, approved May 27, Public No. 273. An amendment offered by Senator Tydings (Md.) proposing to require that the formula for industrial alcohol should be made non-poisonous was defeated, 19 (10 Republicans, 9 Democrats) to 54 (34 Republicans, 20 Democrats).

36 Additional circuit judges were provided in the fifth and third circuits (Public Nos. 326, 327), additional district judges in the Minnesota district, southern district of California, and southern district of Florida (Public Nos. 276, 447, 449), and two additional judges each for the supreme court and the court of appeals of the District of Columbia (Public Nos. 390, 391).

37 See below, p. 937.

38 Popularly called the “one gallon bill.” On the motion to recommit in the House on June 3, the vote was 67 to 195, but only 29 asked for the yeas and nays. In an amended form, the bill passed the Senate on July 2 without a division.

39 The division at the time of passage on June 3 was 181 to 48, with no record vote.

40 The vote on June 3 was 228 (150 Republicans, 77 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 108 (53 Republicans, 55 Democrats). It may be noted that H. R. 5266, approved May 29, Public No. 287, though it related also to waiving jury trial, dealt with a relatively unimportant procedural change in civil cases.

41 The prohibition controversy was indirectly involved in the bill to establish a combined border patrol (H. R. 11204) passed July 1 by a division, without a record vote, 181 to 52.

42 H. R. 2029, for coins to commemorate the Gadsden purchase, vetoed April 21, the attempt to repass the bill failing on April 22, 96 to 243; S. 476 regarding Spanish-American war pensions, vetoed May 28, but repassed on June 2, becoming Public No. 299; H. R. 1198, authorizing the United States to be made a party defendant in a suit by Oregon regarding the title to land and water rights in Malheur Lake, vetoed on June 6; and H. R. 10381, amending the Veterans Act of 1924, vetoed on June 26, for which another bill was substituted.

43 S. 1909, extending the time limit for a bridge over the Rio Grande at Weslaco, passed by the Senate on November 14 and by the House on December 11; and S. 3853, presented to the President on July 3, and H. R. 2782, presented on July 1—both private relief bills.

44 Okanogan Indians v. U. S., 279 U. S. 655, 73 L. ed. 894 (1929), enunciating the principle that “no return can be made to the House when it is not in session as a collective body and its members are dispersed.”

45 The bill carried graduated increases of 20 to 30 per cent, accompanied by a reduction of the minimum length of service necessary from 90 to 70 days. The additional cost was said to approximate $12,000,000 annually. The President vetoed it on the ground of the reduction of the service period, the fact that it departed from the principle of excluding awards for disabilities due to “vicious habits,” and his belief that personal need as well as disability should be a requirement.

46 For the specific purpose of making it possible to pass H. R. 13174 immediately after receiving the veto message, without amendment, a rule (H. Res. 271) was adopted on June 26, by 228 to 139, providing: “that it shall be in order, beginning on Thursday, June 26, 1930, until the end of the present session of Congress, for the speaker to recognize members for motions to suspend the rules.”

47 The most important amendment was adopted by a vote of 37 (9 Republicans, including both progressives and regulars, 27 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 26 (all Republicans). The bill itself passed by a vote of 56 to 11. The conference report was adopted in the Senate by 48 (35 Republicans, 12 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 14 (6 Republicans, 8 Democrats) and in the House by 194 (191 Republicans, 3 Democrats) to 117 (7 Republicans, 109 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor).

48 In point of quantity of legislation, a level seems to have been reached, at least temporarily. In the special session, 5,824 items—bills and resolutions of various kinds—were introduced; in the second session, 8,223. The total, 14,047, is properly compared with the number of proposals introduced in the first session of the 70th Congress, 14,750. In the special and second sessions, 927 public and private laws and resolutions were passed, compared with 993 in the first session of the preceding Congress. Considering the second session alone, 883 items were passed, of which 518 were public laws, 84 public resolutions, and 281 private laws and resolutions. In point of origin, 570 were House bills, and 55 were House joint resolutions; 228 were Senate bills, 30 were Senate joint resolutions. In the course of the second session, the House committees reported 1,918 items, of which 1,403 were acted upon, leaving 515 pending at the session's close. Congress was actually in session 156 days.

49 See p. 934.

50 The vote was 46 (23 Republicans, 22 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 27 (20 Republicans, 7 Democrats). So active was the alarm regarding a possible Northern Pacific Great Northern merger that a group in the House, with its focus in the Minnesota delegation, talked of filibustering against adjournment unless S. J. Res. 161 was passed.

51 In pressing his case regarding Muscle Shoals, Senator Norris was aided by being able to draw heavily upon the hearings before the sub-committee investigating lobbying pursuant to S. Res. 20., especially the testimony in February and March of Chester H. Gray, representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation, and of C. H. Huston, long connected with the Tennessee River Improvement Association, and chairman of the Republican National Committee. See S. Rept. 43, parts 7 and 9 (May 21-22). The hammering that followed the hearings caused Mr. Huston to yield the party chairmanship to Senator Fess of Ohio.

52 Palpable support for independence was being gained in the United States because of the desire to curtail importations like sugar and to cut off Philippine immigration.

53 In the House, this measure elicited as near an approximation of a party vote as roll-calls in Congress come, except in matters like organization. It passed on January 24 by 243 (225 Republicans, 18 Democrats) to 107 (1 Republican, 105 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor). In the Senate it slipped through on the consent calendar.

54 See above, p. 932.

55 H. J. Res. 251, approved June 27, Public Res. 98. While in the House, Huddleston's amendment was adopted, 123 to 120, providing “that said commission shall not consider and shall not report upon the conscription of labor.” The Senate struck out the words, “without profit,” after the phrase, “may be taken for public use.” On June 20, the House concurred, 190 (172 Republicans, 17 Democrats, 1 Farmer Labor) to 117 (12 Republicans, 105 Democrats).

56 It was stated that the resolution applied “to candidates and contests before senatorial primaries, senatorial conventions, and the contests and campaign terminating in the general election, November, 1930.” The select committee was constituted of Nye (N.D.), chairman, Goldsborough (Md.), Patterson (Mo.), Republicans; and Wagner (N.Y.) and Dill (Wash.), Democrats. During the primaries it busied itself especially in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Nebraska.

57 Speaking for the sub-committee of the Senate committee on the judiciary to investigate lobbying pursuant to S. Res. 20, passed in the special session, Senator Caraway, its chairman, said on June 13 that he “had no reason to believe further witnesses will be called.” The sub-committee of the committee on naval affairs, which, pursuant to S. Res. 114, was to review the activities of W. B. Shearer, published hearings but tendered no report. Its chairman, Senator Shortridge, was quoted as saying on June 14 that Shearer was only an observer, and besides he sought parity. The sub-committee of the committee on post offices and post roads, having looked into the sale of federal offices in certain southern states pursuant to S. Res. 42, submitted its report on March 15 (S. Kept. 272).

58 H. Res. 220. “An American resolution,” said the chairman of the rules committee, when it passed on May 22, by a division of 210 to 18. The Speaker appointed to it Fish (N.Y.), chairman, Nelson (Me.), Bachmann (N.J.), Republicans, and Driver (Ark.) and Eslick (Tenn.), Democrats.

59 H. Res. 258, approved June 24. The committee was to deal with the general election only. It was provided, explained Mr. Snell, in case “a n abnormal situation develops during the campaign.”

60 In an extremely confusing interplay of forces, it seems incontestable that at the outset the most active element was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which called attention to an alleged statement by Mr. Parker (never denied by him) when gubernatorial candidate in 1920: “The participation of the negro in politics is a source of evil and danger to both races and is not desired by the wise men of either race or by the Republican party of North Carolina.” Frank Kent went so far as to say in the Baltimore Sun of April 28: “His rejection—if he is rejected—will be due solely to negro fear of regular Republican senators who have to vote openly …..” Labor's grievance was voiced in a prepared statement presented by President Green of the American Federation of Labor and printed in the Record of April 29. I t stressed the complaint that in the case of Lewis v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal Company, 18 F (2d) 839, Judge Parker “went far beyond the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Hitchman case.

61 On May 20, the appointment of Owen J. Roberts was confirmed.

62 In addition to the naval treaty, nineteen treaties and conventions were ratified in the course of the second session.

63 Hearings were held during May by the foreign relations committee, as well as by the naval affairs committee, whose chairman became a prominent, if not effective, critic of the treaty. The foreign relations committee reported the treaty favorably on June 23, without amendment or comment. Two minority reports were submitted. One was an individual report by Senator Shipstead, basing disapproval upon the Senate's failure to receive all the documents (S. Rept. 1080, part 1). The other, prepared by Senator Johnson (Calif.) and signed by Senators Moses (N.H.) and Robinson (Ind.)—all Republicans—was submitted on June 30 (S. Rept. 1080, part 2).

64 The Senate was actually in session on twelve days, aggregating nearly sixty-nine hours spent wholly in discussion of the London treaty.

65 Those in the negative were: Bingham (Conn.), Hale (Me.), Moses (N.H.), Robinson (Ind.), Pine (Okla.), Oddie (Nov.), and Johnson (Calif.), Republicans, and Walsh (Mass.) and McKellar (Tenn.), Democrats. The largest vote east for any of the defeated reservations was 11 (6 Republicans, 5 Democrats). Regarding the talk of clôture, see above, p. 917.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.