Kkyv; ., SC*/* OT 'tf"i.i* r £«^ «**■ '"tJSL*** \<\\S VA^S" (QortieU Hnio«r0itg ffiibranj Jttjara. SJem Ijncfe THE GIFT OF PnsWxrt VY. Ir.YCMi^ Cornell University Library JK1323 1915 .H25 olin Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924032646931 YOUR CONGRESS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE POLITICAL AND PARLIAMENTARY INFLUENCES THAT DOMINATE LAW MAKING IN AMERICA By LYNN HAINES PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL VOTERS* LEAGUE 831-33 WOODWARD BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. Copyright, 1915, by Lynn Haines. NATIONAL CAPITAL PRESS WASHINGTON, u. C. TO WHOM IT SHOULD CONCERN: I am not inscribing this little book to my wife whose counsel guided me, nor to my parents who gave me the desire for such work, but to the common citizen whom I shall never see or know: the individual to whom I would carry the message that laws more than labor determine what each of us shall have to enjoy; that government means more, not in sentiment, but in dollars and cents, than does his or her business, regardless of how great that private enterprise may be. CONTENTS The individual's material interest in government is suggested in the dedication — Page To Whom It Should Concern . 3 IN THE FOREWORD The Reasons for It . . . 9 More House Than Senate . 10 The System Rather Than Individuals . 1 1 Another "Double Standard" . 12 Set forth the scope and purpose of the book. CHAPTER I POLITICIANS AT PLAY . 13 Includes a series of incidents which illustrate the plunder of congressional politics and the general character of members. These stories include : The Congressional Time Clock. . 13 A farcical attempt to make members earn their salaries. Forty Cents a Mile ... IS All sides of the mileage graft; and The Mulhall-McDermott Fiasco 28 In which the politicians make a defensive fight. Such incidents, which are not isolated examples, but typical of the system, signify something big and vital— that modern politics is not the means to good government, but an end in itself, this end being office and the perquisites of office. This truth is elaborated 6 YOUR CONGRESS CHAPTER II Page MODERN POLITICS— AN INTERPRETATION 38 Ninety-five per cent of the attention of Congress is given to political matters. There is a chart showing the comparative time given to various issues. The basic elements of the end-in- itself political system — Patronage. 41 The Pork Barrel 42 Perversion of Public Opinion, and 44 Bi-Partisanship . . . 46 are traced to their common center, parliamentary conditions in Congress. The immediate problem is big politics, rather than big business. Political reform must be carried on through (1) parliamentary reconstruction, (2) adequate educational publicity, and (3) the anti-spoils, anti-political, balance of power position in elections and legislation. There follows a defining of — Insurgency . . ... 52 Before determining upon remedies for parliamentary conditions it is necessary (1) to know the history of rules reform, and (2) to understand conditions as they exist today. The first part of this preliminary ground is covered in — CHAPTER III THE EBB AND FLOW OF INSURGENCY . S3 Where there is traced, with a diagram illustrating each stage, the history of rules reform efforts in the House, from the rise of insurgency in 1907 to its collapse in 1911. Both individual and party elements are detailed, with the sham battles of the bi- partisan machine duly emphasized. Getting at the Truth of It. .... 66 Has to do with the perversion of public opinion in reference to rules reform in 1911, and leads to — YOUR CONGRESS 7 CHAPTER IV Page LEGISLATING WITH A DARK LANTERN 67 In which present parliamentary conditions are discussed in detail. Organizing the House — Then and Now . . 69 Details the processes of reassembling the congressional machine. The Closed Caucus 75 A vicious instrumentality that touches legislation at every point, is discussed in all its phases. The Disfranchising of Members 80 Through the caucus principle is illustrated with a map and figures. The Control of Committees . 86 Includes the amazing story of the "discharge calendar.'' The Rules Committee . 92 With its almost absolute authority over all questions of procedure, is next considered. After showing how the unlighted, undemocratic congressional machine is organized and controlled, each stage of legislation is studied: The Individual Member . . 96 How and where he becomes submerged, the things he has to do in order to survive in politics : Standing Committees. . 100 Their organization, plunder practices, and obstructive powers; The Committee of the Whole. 103 The House under an assumed name ; The Open House . . 105 Showing how few and inadequate are the opportunities for a direct and public facing of issues; and — 8 YOUR CONGRESS Page The Conference Committee 106 The final, inevitable vicious instrumentality of a bi-cameral Congress. In a general summary of parliamentary conditions and practices, it is revealed that there is no regular orderly procedure — that the rules are such that the smallest minority may block legislation which the leaders do not want, while, when the reigning oligarchy does desire action, all rules are trampled under foot. The object of this book is constructive. Insurgency failed because it never presented adequate constructive remedies. Where Credit Is Due . . . 110 Discloses the sources of assistance in preparing — CHAPTER V RECONSTRUCTING CONGRESS 112 In which there are outlined the principles upon which needed parliamentary and political and institutional changes should be founded. As Citizen Instead of Subject .... 125 A small essay on democracy, introduces — CHAPTER VI THE NATIONAL VOTERS' LEAGUE . 127 With an outline of the organization and publicity objects of this movement. The Appendix ... . ... 137 Contains a table of votes revealing the attitude of all members on fifteen important political andparliamentary tests. THE REASONS FOR IT My life work is in the development of the National Voters' League. I want this book to interpret and aid that movement. With no other interests to intrude, I have had unusual oppor- tunities to study Congress at close range. It is my ambition to know what is vital about the National Government. I expect to write an annual book on Congress. I want that book to become an institution, more and more in demand as a right educational influence. I hope for this volume that it may advance that ambition. Human happiness should be the goal of government. I desire happiness for myself. The most enduring foundation for indi- vidual peace of mind is general contentment, which can exist only when those in public position have a vision of the functions of government and are wholesomely performing their duties to society. It is only selfish that I should want this book to help toward better government. Our government is, at least it should be, the exercise of sover- eignty in the interest of society. At present politics is the only instrumentality through which moral and economic truths may be translated into the life of the people. Instead of being, as it should be, only the agency, the means, to that end, which is the common welfare, modern politics has become an end in itself, this end being office and the ever-increasing perquisites of office. I want this book to show the perverted character of modern politics. In our desire for greater industrial democracy, we have placed the cart before the horse. We have attempted economic changes without first controlling politics, the only means of their accomplish- ment. Politics must be given new character, new aims and ends, before much moral and. economic advancement can be secured through politics. I would have this book emphasize that immediate problem, which is not so much big business as it is big politics. And I am venturing to outline the fundamental remedies whereby modern politics may be converted from principal to agent in government. 9 10 YOUR CONGRESS Above all else, I hope that this book may do a little toward teaching the importance and meaning of government. When each individual sees his or her material interest in public affairs, then politics will be shorn of its professionalism and its plunder. I have written of the past and present in Congressional matters. The immediate future is the object of it all. Political recon- struction can only be built upon an adequate understanding of the conditions that require correction. MORE HOUSE THAN SENATE These revelations relate largely to the House of Representatives. The problems of the Senate are different, and far less difficult. Both democracy and deliberation exist to some extent in the upper branch of Congress. Its membership is not too large to be work- able. It has no gag rules. Its members are not elected by districts, and their longer terms remove them still more from the bargainings of politics. The Senate has thirty record votes to every one in the House. THE SYSTEM RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALS The House has a system against which individuals do not count. Only in the rarest events do individuals stand out apart from its machine. This book deals mostly with the system. If it did seek to portray personalities, and praiseworthy perform- ances, I would first single out these men: Sydney Anderson, of Minnesota, as a protest against the whosesale disfranchisement of the minority, braved the ridicule of colleagues by resigning from the Ways and Means Committee. It marked his independence and made the country think. Robert Crosser, of Ohio, is an independent Democrat who labored conspicuously for democracy in the District of Columbia and the municipalizing of its utilities. James A. Frear, of Wisconsin, made two notable, though futile, fights; one against the Rivers and Harbors pork barrel bill, and the other in the Whaley election contest case. YOUR CONGRESS 11 Edward Keating, of Colorado, refused to be yoked and driven by the Democratic leaders. He did creditable work in the Colorado strike matter and for the woman suffrage amendment. M. Clyde Kelly, of Pennsylvania, was the only consistent advocate of publicity on the Rules Committee. In and out of that body, he fought gag rules and methods. William Kent, of California, is the only political independent in the House. He affiliates with no party, coming to Congress in all ways free and independent. In that respect he stands as the prophet of a new and advanced order. David Lewis, of Maryland, has led and is leading a masterful fight for the postalization of telephone and telegraph. Charles A. Lindbergh, of Minnesota, is the hardest worker in the House. He was the first to rebel against the caucus and Cannonism, and there has been no sign of waning, no decrease of industry, in the subsequent years which saw other insurgents weary of the struggle. William J. MacDonald, of Michigan, was the most conspicuous new member in the last Congress, through his persistent attempts to thwart the bi-partisan machine in its whitewashing of all and everything connected with the Mulhall expos&. Victor Murdock, of Kansas, is one of the original insurgents whose opposition to machine methods has increased with the years. John M. Nelson, of Wisconsin, another of the original anti- Cannon group, has remained consistent in that attitude. In the Mulhall-McDermott matter he stood fearlessly against the whitewash. Raymond B. Stevens, of New Hampshire, one of the few inde- pendent Democrats, proved his ability and independence in numerous things. His best work was in the darkened Interstate Commerce Committee and against the water power program of the bi-partisan politicians. Clyde Tavenner, of Illinois, made an able and determined fight against the private manufacture if munitions of war. And the five Republicans — Cary and Cooper, of Wisconsin, Mapes, of Michigan, and Norton and Young, of North Dakota, 12 YOUR CONGRESS who refused to join the harmony movement within their party, their independence being evidenced in the refusal to support James R. Mann for Speaker, certainly would be entitled to special recognition. ANOTHER "DOUBLE STANDARD" If a grocer's helper kept his family larder supplied with articles surreptitiously taken from his employer's shelves, the practice would not be called legitimate. If a clothier's clerk were to garment himself, in the stillness of night, from the stock of his employer, that, too, would be illegal. If the teller of a bank were to divert to his own uses a portion of the money passing through his hands, he would hardly be called a good citizen. Why are the petty misappropriations of private life considered so different from those in public affairs 1 CHAPTER I POLITICIANS AT PLAY The Congressional Time Clock The House of Representatives, engaged in the making of laws for the rest of us, has for years taken lightly one of its own enactments. There is a statute which forbids Congress- men their salary when not attending sessions. Our national legislators have always honored this law a thousand times more in breach than observance. Last year, on August 25, the leaders suddenly decided that there was too much Congressional truancy. Perhaps they arrived at this decision because the public was beginning to take notice of no-quorum difficulties. At any rate, they started the time clock and arranged to check up members in the most effective way — no attendance, no salary. And they adver- tised far and wide this devotion to public business. That was a significant phase of the incident. Advertising is the life of politics. Had these politicians not desired advertising, they might have done no more than enforce the old law on the subject. Of course that could not have been done in such a way as to yield the coveted advertising, because publicity so founded would also have advertised the fact of their having so long ignored the law. Accordingly, with trumpets tuned high, they passed a new resolution, which was as follows : HOUSE RESOLUTION 601 Resolved, That all leaves of absence heretofore granted to Members are hereby revoked. Resolved further, That the Sergeant at Arms is hereby directed to notify all absent Members of the House by wire that their presence in the House of Representative is required, and that they must return without delay to Washington. Resolved further, That the Sergeant at Arms is directed to enforce the law requiring him to deduct from the salary of Members their daily compensation when they are absent for other cause than sickness of themselves and their families. 13 14 YOUR CONGRESS This was remarkable. It said to Congressmen, "You are neglecting your official duties ; return to work and remain at your task; otherwise you will be arrested and brought back." It charged the makers of law with disrespect for and the breaking of law. It was an admission that leaves of absence had not been legally founded. In instructing the disbursing officer in this special exigency to enforce a law which had so long been disobeyed, it showed the necessity of at least a double enactment to validate a statute so far as the authors of it were concerned. It constituted a confession that a law affecting members was not to be taken seriously unless the House specifically, in a subsequent action, commanded its enforcement. House Resolution No. 601 accomplished its purpose. Many members hurriedly returned and stood around — in working clothes. It brought to Washington Congressmen who had been so persistently away that the doorkeepers hardly recog- nized them. Others did not return. Possibly they knew what the sequel was to be. The advertising ended at this point. Subsequent develop- ments lacked the spotlight. Only a careful searching of the records would disclose that on March 3, 1915, the last all-night session, with only a sleepy, worn-out few present, under sus- pension of the rules, without debate, this resolution was adopted : HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 437 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That- the Speaker be, and he is hereby, directed to certify for payment of the respective amounts heretofore deducted from the annual salaries of Members of the House in obedience to H. Res. 601, agreed to August twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and fourteen. And the Sergeant at Arms is directed to pay said Members the amounts so respectively certified. That was the sequel of the sham attempt to make members earn their salaries. The politicians, with blare of trumpets had docked themselves, and then, with the lights of publicity turned off, quietly returned the money to their own pockets. YOUR CONGRESS 15 This refunding resolution was even more remarkable than its predecessor. The first resolution put temporary life into an unrepealed, but dormant and neglected statute. The second one, without repealing either, set aside not only the previous advertising resolution which had supplemented the law, but also the solemn statute itself. More astounding than all other features, the public is denied every financial detail. I made repeated attempts to get a list of the members involved, with the amounts refunded to each, all of which were futile. As a last resort, I sought the aid of Congressmen who tried in vain to obtain the infor- mation for me. Forty Cents a Mia The story of what one session of the last Congress did to save its mileage plunder is equally illuminating. Here, again, Congress does not encourage inquiry. No details of its mileage profits are published, and a most insist- ent investigation failed to discover them. First, I sent an assistant to four different public officials, each of whom had the information, but all refused to disclose it. Then I wrote to the chairman of the House Committee on Mileage, whose only committee function is to prepare mileage data. He replied that he did not have the figures, and directed me to the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House. That office most emphati- cally refused to give out the dollars and cents details. Then Congressmen tried without success to obtain the figures for me. We only know that it costs the country 40 cents a mile, Congressional distance — 20 cents each way — to get its legis- lators to and from regular sessions of Congress. There is a suspicion that in many cases the distance "actually traveled" is less than the number of miles for which the public pays, a suspicion which naturally increases with the secrecy surround- ing the subject. In the earlier days of the republic, this mileage allowance was recognized as a legitimate part of a Congressman's in- 16 YOUR CONGRESS come. On July 28, 1866, an act was approved, of whicli Section 17 was as follows : That the compensation of each Senator, Representative, and Dele- gate in Congress shall be $5,000 per annum to be computed from the first day of the present session, and in addition thereto mileage at the rate of 20 cents per mile, to be estimated by the nearest route usually traveled in going to and returning from each regular session. In 1907, on February 26, a law was passed which raised the salary of members from $5,000 to $7,500. Section 4 reads : That on and after March 4, 1907, the compensation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Vice-President of the United States, and the heads of executive departments who are Members of the President's Cabinet, shall be at the rate of $12,000 per annum each, and the compensation of Senators, Representatives in Congress, Dele- gates from the Territories and the Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico, shall be at the rate of $7,500 per annum each. At this point, mileage took on its present questionable char- acter. Its legitimacy became a matter of doubt. I do not mean to infer that Congress entertained any doubt, at least none was ever manifested. The law of 1907 repealed the law of 1866. Congress agrees to this in so far as increased sal- aries are concerned, but has assumed that the repeal did not extend to the mileage allowance. Moreover, there has been no specific subsequent enactment authorizing mileage, except- ing in annual appropriation bills. Not being a proper subject of advertising, the politicians have gone on assuming that the repeal force of the law of 1907 stopped short two commas from the end of a paragraph. Throughout this recital, as in every consideration of the subject, we find members referring to 20 cents a mile each way as "existing law." In recounting what happened in respect to mileage in the Sixty-third Congress, it should be remembered that every Congress goes through much the same farcical procedure. Mileage is always a part of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial appropriation bill, which is considered once a year, at every regular session. No longer able to disguise it, the play seems to have taken the character of a demonstration to the people that the poli- YOUR CONGRESS 17 ticians of the House are opposed to the plunder; that it is "forced" upon them. In the first scene, on April 3, 1914, the Appropriations Committee reported this substitute for the old, unpopular provision: For actual traveling expenses incurred by Senators, including actual traveling expenses of immediate and dependent members of their families, incurred in going to and returning once from each session of Congress by the nearest route usually traveled, the same to be paid on certificates duly approved as in the manner heretofore prescribed for the payment of mileage, $25,000. There was a similar paragraph for House members. Whether or not it was so intended, the phrasing of this substitute was full of cleverly masked plunder. Under its provisions, members might have traveled royally at public expense. And the words, "immediate and dependent members of their families," could have been construed to include serv- ants, and friends masquerading as servants. The words "each session" also were significant. The suggested change was so phrased as to include special assemblings of Congress. In all probability this substitute would have resulted only in a varia- tion of the same plunder. But it served the purposes of the play. It should be stated at this point that bills, after leaving com- mittees, are first considered in Committee of the Whole, which is the House under an assumed name. The alias enables Congressmen to violate the Constitution in reference to roll calls. They call themselves the Committee of the Whole and then have the rules provide that there shall be no record votes in the Committee of the Whole. The House, in the darkness of the Committee of the Whole, made short work of this substitute. Twenty-cent mileage each way was quickly placed in the bill. Representative Good, of Iowa, made the first move. He proposed the follow- ing amendment: Page 2, lines 4 to 10 inclusive, strike out the paragraph and insert : "For mileage of Senators $51,000." 18 YOUR CONGRESS Mr. Good stood for the old mileage rate, and worked and voted that attitude out in the open. But obviously the play was to have the Senate bear the brunt of the odium for con- tinuing the plunder. Senators are farther from the people; they do not face re-election so often. The House, then, under its assumed name, without a record vote, magnanimously de- cided to give Senators 20 cents a mile. It would follow, of course, that the Senate would either refuse to receive that amount or else insist that House members get the same. The House knew that the Senate would not refuse. It would not have served the purposes of politics to reach the appointed climax at once, and the play progressed. Sev- eral other amendments were proposed. 1 Mr. Foster's proposal to eliminate the "dependent members of families" part, the chief joker in the committee substitute, was voted upon and rejected. Mr. Bartlett's 10-cents-a-mile amendment shared the same fate. The amendment of Mr. Good, providing 20-cent mileage for Senators, was adopted, 73 to 41. Then for a time the parliamentary hair-splitters held sway. Points of procedure were raised, questions as profound and ponderous as though the fate of the universe, rather than a little petty plunder, were the issue. Finally, Mr. Bartlett's amendment was voted down again, its second demise. Follow- ing that, Mr. Page's 5-cents-a-mile suggestion received the dis- approval of the House, 32 ayes to 63 loud noes. Next, Mr. Thompson insisted that his wild proposal to abolish all mileage be considered. Mr. Good sought to reflect 1 Among these amendments were the following: By Mr. Bartlett, of Georgia: Strike out "$51,000" and insert "$25,000." By Mr. Page, of North Carolina: Page 2, line 10, strike out the sum "$25,000" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "$12,750_: Provided, That hereafter each Senator, Representative, Delegate, and Resident Commissioner shall receive mileage at the rate of 5 cents a mile, to be estimated by the nearest route usually traveled in going to and return- ing from each regular session, in lieu of the present rate of 20 cents a mile." By Mr. Thompson, of Oklahoma: Page 2, strike out all of lines 4 to 10, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "That all laws and parts of laws now in force allowing mileage to Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners, be and the same are hereby, repealed." By Mr. Foster, of Illinois: Page 2, lines 5 and 6, strike out the following language* "Including actual traveling expenses of immediate and dependent members of their families." YOUR CONGRESS 19 on the standing of this amendment by making a point of order against it. In this crisis, Mr. Madden, of Illinois, proposed : That upon the filing of a written statement of any Senator, Repre- sentative, Delegate, and Resident Commissioner to the effect that he does not desire to accept the amount credited to him for mileage it shall hereafter be the duty of the disbursing officer to cover the amount standing to the credit of any such Senator, Representative, Delegate and Resident Commissioner, back into the Treasury of the United States. Whereupon the House burst into laughter and applause. When quiet had been restored and sober statesmanship reigned once more, the Congressional Record pictures the immediate subsequent proceedings as follows : "The Chairman : The question is on the substitute offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madden) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma. "The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it. "Mr. Madden : Division, Mr. Chairman. "The Committee divided ; and there were : ayes 68, noes 27. "So the substitute was agreed to. "The Chairman : The question is on the amendment as a substitute. "The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes seemed to have it. "Mr. Thompson, of Oklahoma: Division, Mr. Chairman. "The Committee again divided ; and there were : ayes 26, noes 66. "Mr. Thompson, of Oklahoma : Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. "Tellers were refused. "So the amendment as a substitute was rejected. "Mr. Murdoch: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. "The Chairman : The gentleman will state it. "Mr. Murdoch : Has the Madden amendment been adopted ? "The Chairman: It has not." And neither had Mr. Thompson's. Mr. Madden's proposal had been substituted for Mr. Thompson's and then rejected, thus disposing of both without a direct vote on the one which was dangerous. That is a favorite form of Congressional humor. We find it recurring hundreds of times every session. Mr. Good now came forward with another 20-cents-a-mile amendment, this time in reference to House members. After the author had explained, "Mr. Chairman, I want to say one word, that the amendment I offer is to restore existing law," 20 YOUR CONGRESS the Good amendment was adopted, 37 to 35, rather a small minority of 435 members. In the meantime, Mr. Madden had recast his "covering back into the treasury" proposal to have it provide that in cases where members had not drawn their mileage money within 90 days "after the same has become available," it should be returned to the vaults of Uncle Sam. Ninety min- utes would have safeguarded members about as well. This time Mr. Madden's amendment was held to be out of order. Not being a political "parliamentarian," I cannot explain why. All this occurred in the Committee of the Whole, where the rules specifically forbid record votes. It is easy to see why 20 cents a mile each way for both Senators and Representa- tives had been placed in the bill. But after a measure has gone through the recordless Committee of the Whole, the House, minus its alias, has to consider it. And, if amendments have been adopted in the Committee of the Whole, it is pos- sible to secure a yea and nay vote upon them in the House. If an amendment has been rejected in the Committee of the Whole, that ends it so far as a record vote is concerned. The usual machine way is to have the bill presented by the organi- zation leaders in the form in which they desire it to pass, and then vote down all amendments in the Committee of the Whole. But in the case of mileage, the Appropriations Com- mittee appeared as opposed to the old rate, and hence could not report the bill in that form. So 20-cent mileage was pro- vided in Committee of the Whole, and the opportunity for a record vote came later. The House acted on this momentous question April 17, 1914, with a duly recorded vote. The mileage of both House and Senate was included. 2 'Amendment adopted in recordless Committee of the Whole: Page 2, lines 4 to 10. inclusive, strike out the paragraph and insert: "For mileage of Senators. SSI, 000." Page 12, line 19, strike out the paragraph beginning on line 19. on page 12. and including line 2, on page 13, and insert: "For mileage of Representatives and Delegates and expenses of Resident Commissioners, $175,000." YOUR CONGRESS 21 A vote for this combined amendment meant the old rate for both bodies. A vote against it, so Speaker Clark held, meant a return to the bill of the questionable substitute reported by the Appropriations Committee in the original bill, the one pro- viding for actual traveling expenses for "each session," in- cluding "immediate and dependent members of their families." Under its assumed name, without roll calls, the House had chosen 20 cents a mile. Here, acting as itself, with a roll call which the public could see and in part comprehend, the House did not endorse the position it had taken in darkness. The action of the Committee of the Whole was voted down, 95 to 242, with 94 not voting. The question then passed automati- cally to the Senate. Duplicity is the keynote of modern politics. Most decep- tions are successfully concealed. In this case the official records disclose no hint of what actually happened when the mileage question was passed on to the Senate. It is reported that certain House members discarded their make-up and hur- ried over to the Senate, where they pleaded with Senators to save their mileage ; that they appeared almost openly as lobby- ists against the position they had voted in their own body. The Senate received this momentous matter on June 15, 1914. The question was divided. First Senators voted on the $51,000 item for their own allowance at 20 cents a mile. This was quickly adopted, 23 to 9, without a roll call, although Mr. Kenyon sought vainly to secure a record vote. Then, with House members in the background, with their refrain in the air, "Remember our mileage; save us from our- selves," the Senate took up the other portion of the fated question : For mileage of Representatives and Delegates and expenses of Resi- dent Commissioners, "$175,000." This time Mr. Kenyon was successful in getting a record vote which resulted 42 yeas to 17 nays, with thirty-six not voting. 22 YOUR CONGRESS What had happened to this point? The House had passed one kind of mileage provision ; the Senate, in compliance with its own desires and the whispered wishes of the House, had rejected the House amendments and re-adopted the old rate. The two branches of Congress were in disagreement, what looked to be a contrived, prearranged disagreement. That meant a conference committee to reconcile the differences between House and Senate. When the House and Senate failed to agree, a conference committee consisting of Messrs. Thomas S. Martin, Lee S. Overman and F. E. Warren for the Senate, and Messrs. Joseph T. Johnson, Joseph W. Byrns and James W. Good for the House, were appointed by the Vice-President and the Speaker. All three of these Senators and Mr. Good on the House side had voted for the old rate; Mr. Byrns had voted against it, while Mr. Johnson had not voted either way. The minds of these conferees soon met on all features of the Legis- lative, Executive and Judicial appropriation bill excepting the mileage question. Early in the controversy the conference report on the bill was adopted in all respects save that of mile- age. That disposed of all other phases of the measure. Mileage alone was in disagreement. Bear this in mind. It has a subtle bearing on subsequent acting. On June 25, 1914, Mr. Johnson, of South Carolina, repre- senting the House conferees, addressed the Speaker and said, "I ask now that the clerk report Senate amendment No. 1 which is still in disagreement." The play might have ended here, but the House was not yet ready to have mileage "forced" upon it. The politics of the situation seemed to demand more reluctance, and the House made a flank movement in favor of 5-cent mileage. Mr. Cox, of Indiana, moved "to recede and concur in Senate amend- ment No. 1, page 2, with the following amendment :" "For mileage of Senators, $25,000, and hereafter Senators shall be paid mileage at the rate of 10 cents per mile each way while traveling from their homes to Washington City and return by the ordinary and usual routes of travel, once at each session of Congress." YOUR CONGRESS 23 Mr. Mann "reserved" a point of order, and there was some running debate, mostly political. Then — Mr. Byrnes, of South Carolina, moves to amend by striking out the' figures "$25,000," and inserting the figures "$12,500," and by striking out the words "10 cents" and inserting the words "5 cents." There was much less likelihood that the Senate would accept 5-cent mileage than the 10-cent kind. That may have been why Mr. Byrnes' amendment to Mr. Cox's amendment was adopted on a roll call, 132 to 94, with 207 not voting. Next the amended amendment was adopted, with another roll call, which fixed the Senate's rate at 5 cents a mile. On the following day, June 2G, Senate amendment No. 30 came up, which it will be remembered restored the old 20-cent rate for House members. Mr. Johnson, of South Carolina, moved the adoption of a 5-cents-a-mile substitute. Mr. Mann, of Illinois, made a preferential motion, that the House recede and concur, which meant abandon its own posi- tion and adopt that of the Senate — 20-cent mileage. There was another roll call on this indirect facing of the question, and by a vote of 60 to 184, with 189 not voting, the House refused to recede, which- the Speaker held to mean insistence on its first position of actual traveling expenses for "each ses- sion," including "dependent" members of Congressional fami- lies. Mr. Mann is recorded as voting against his own motion. I do not know why. At this point 7 the House had voted 5-cent mileage for Sena- 7 After this vote had been taken, dividing consideration of House and Senate mileage, whereas they had before been considered together, Mr. Falconer of Washington secured the floor and in a spirited speech reviewed the farce. These are excerpts: "By a series of parliamentary gymnastics the House just now voted not to recede from the House disagreement to the Senate amendment on House mileage, and now, Mr. Speaker, we have a record vote of the same men, economists, if you please, last evening voting 5 cents per mile for Senators' mileage allowance and today voting actual traveling expenses for Representatives and their families. " Mr. Speaker, was there ever a more complete demonstration of political trimming by parliamentary chicanery? What is the purpose and what is the effect on the public? "Mr. Speaker, 'mileage' and 'graft' have for some time been held up by the press of the country as synonymous terms. Is there a man here who believes the present mileage is graft? If so, why did he not object to the unanimous consent to consider Senate and House mileage in one vote by Mr. Byrns of Tennessee when this bill was before the House? " Mr. Speaker, there has been no proposition on which I have voted, or had a chance to vote where 20-cent mileage or a less amount for House members has been involved. Why do not the conferees eliminate this parliamentary tangle with the Senate and put the House on record on House mileage? 24 YOUR CONGRESS ators and actual expenses for themselves. As the House and Senate were farther apart than before, the play continued, with the conference committee in the center of the now dark- ened stage. On July 1, with all other parts of this great appropriation bill settled, remember that, the House conferees again reported, with Mr. Johnson as their spokesman. He said: "We have been able to agree upon every item in the bill except amendments 1 and 30. These amendments, as the membership well knows, deal with the mileage of Senators and Representatives and Dele- gates in Congress. In the last conference, which was the third, the Senate absolutely refused to recede from its position upon these two amendments." The end was in sight. The House was getting ready to "yield." Mr. Johnson continued : "I am not an authority on parliamentary law, but I understand that it is a long-established precedent in all legislative bodies that where one house proposes legislation in an appropriation bill and the other house finally and flatly refuses to accept that legislation the House pro- posing it must yield. In other words, one legislative body has no au- thority to force legislation upon the other body." A little farther on this small cloud, soon to loom large, was suggested by Mr. Johnson : "The conferees on the part of the Senate have assured the conferees on the part of the House that they would rather kill the bill than let this provision go in it." The controversy over mileage had begun to threaten the passage of the great appropriation bill of which it was a part. But Mr. Johnson moved that the House further insist upon its amendment to Senate amendment No. 1 — 5-cent mileage for Senators — and insist on its disagreement to Senate amend- ment No. 30 — actual expenses for House members. 8 " Mr. Speaker, the result of this whole matter, taking as it has many hours of debate, has been that some Members of this House have been advertised the country over as guardians of the public funds, while actually sparring behind parliamentary methods for 20-cent mileage." • In the debate which followed, more straws rode the breezes. From the remarks of Mr. Cox of Indiana, we glean: "Now, here comes a threat, an absolute threat, from the grave and sedate Senators of the United States to the House of Representatives, to this effect: 'We propose to let this b >? appropriation bill fail rather ;than give up our mileage. ' . . . The burden is not upon this House if this bill fails. The burden is upon the Senate of the United States and if there is any odium attached to the failure of this bill, let them and them alone be responsible Let no Member of this House undertake to take the responsibility from their shoulders " YOUR CONGRESS 35 There was another roll call and by a vote of 125 to 138, with 170 not voting, the motion to recede on Senate amendment No. 1 was defeated. A further conference was demanded. In the Senate, on July 13, 1914, Mr. Martin, of Virginia, reported for the conferees, emphasizing the same parlia- mentary points that had been raised in the House. 9 After long and dignified Senatorial debate, Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey, proposed this amendment : Omit the matter inserted by the House amending said amendment, omit the matter stricken out and inserted by said Senate amendment, and in lieu thereof insert the following: "For mileage of Senators, $51,000: Provided, That after the fiscal year 1915, no mileage or other allowance for expenses in attendance on sessions of Congress shall be paid to any Senator, Representative, Delegate from a Territory, or Resident Commissioner." Vice-President Marshall ruled the Hughes amendment out of order. I do not know why. Mr. Martin then moved that the Senate further insist on its amendments, which was done, by a vote of 55 to 7, with thirty-four not voting. And the play went on. Returning to the House, on July 14, J. J. Fitzgerald, of New York, took charge. Mr. Fitzgerald was a much bigger, more influential "leader" than Mr. Johnson. This change of Mr. Mann, minority leader and bell weather for the regular republicans, said: "Mr. Speaker, in all parliamentary bodies which consist of two parts of equal authority, there come times when one body must yield to the other. Where there are differences of opinion we endeavor to reconcile those differences through the appointment of conference committees, giving and taking. But the time often comes when one body proposes some- thing new and the other body declines to accept it ; Being of equal authority, it is a natural ruie of procedure that that legislative body constituting half of the whole which proposes a new matter must in the end yield unless the other body consents, because the bodies are coequal. When the Senate proposes an amendment to a House appropriation bill which inserts a new principle, unless in the end the House is willing to accept it the Senate must recede. And likewise, when the House proposes a new proposition and the Senate refuses to accept it the House must recede, because unless this procedure should be followed one of the two bodies becomes superior to the other. "Now, we have reached the point where we will have to put aside, it seems to me, a matter of pride and use common sense. If we are going to yield, let us yield now. If we are going to say that we will not pass the legislative bill unless we can have our way about a new proposition, we stamp ourselves as incapable legislators." 9 Mr. Martin said: "The conferees on the part of the two Houses have been unable to agree on the question of mileage for Senators and Members of the other House. "So far as the Senate conferees are concerned, they feel practically, indeed distinctly, instructed by the Senate to adhere to the existing law. It is a recognized principle in mat- ters of this sort in all legislative bodies when there is an existing law and one House proposes to change it, that the house proposing the change must yield, unless the house to which the proposition is made is satisfied with the change. The Senate has expressed its dis- approval of the provision of the House of Representatives in this bill, which is a change of existing law." 26 YOUR CONGRESS command was a sign that the end was near. He made this motion : "Mr. Fitzgerald moves that the House recede from its amendment to the amendment of the Senate No. 1, and recede from its disagree- ment to the amendments of the Senate Nos. 1 and 30 and agree to the same." Mr. Fitzgerald, as chairman of the great Appropriations Committee, in arguing for his motion, emphasized the fate of the bill itself. 10 Other House leaders followed suit. 11 With the bi-partisan leadership practically unanimous for surrender, the House "yielded." By a vote of 132 to 131, with 180 not voting, Mr. Fitzgerald's motion was adopted. Twenty cents a mile, both ways, for both House and Senate, had been saved. Political records had been made, honor pre- served and everybody was satisfied. So the play ended. Such plunder plays will always occupy the time and atten- tion of the politicians who make our laws so long as there is a bi-cameral Congress. With two branches, one or the other, and often both, can play politics to their hearts' content. Disagreements between House and Senate occur on practi- cally every public measure. The conference committee, with its darkened procedure and privileged reports, then takes 10 From Mr. Fitzgerald's remarks: This bill carries $36,000,000 for the support of the departmental services of the Govern- ment. The difference involved between mileage at the rate of 20 cents a mile and the amount estimated and fixed in the bill to pay the actual expenses of Members and their families amounts to $100,000. So far as I am concerned, in view of the action of the Senate, I believe that the House, having demonstrated its desire to make the reduction in the amount of mileage and having resorted to everything within reason that could be justified under parliamentary law to effect its purpose, that the time has now come for the House to recede from its position and agree to the Senate provision and permit the bill to become law. We gain nothing by further agitation and discussion. The responsibility for the failure to reduce_ the mileage from the amount fixed by law must be borne by the body which declines to yield in any respect, and we should not, in our desire to change this mileage, whatever be our motive, longer delay the enactment of this bill, so important to the maintenance and conduct of the Government." 11 Mr. Gillette of Massachusetts, the ranking republican member of the Appropriations Committee, said: " Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the argument made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fitzgerald) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Underwood), but I criticize them because they did not make that argument two weeks ago instead of today." Mr. Underwood, democratic leader, delivered this ultimatum to the followers of himself and Jefferson: " It is the duty of every man on this side of the House, who is responsible to the country to maintain this Government, to pass this bill at this time regardless of his views on the question of whether there should be mileage or whether mileage should be abolished " (Applause.) Mr. Mann, republican leader, had already expressed his attitude. He did again. YOUR CONGRESS 27 charge. The conference committee has in it greater possibili- ties for evil results than any other parliamentary institution. The fate of a big appropriation bill was involved in this mileage plunder. In fact, mileage was made the overshadow- ing element in a $36,000,000 measure. The system is such that all sorts of questionable matters are included in appro- priation measures. In addition to the fact that the present methods of making appropriations is basicly wrong, there is invariably this added evil of loading appropriation bills with alien things. It would seem a simple matter to legislate once and for all on this mileage question. Certainly it ought not to be given a position in which it would overshadow all else in a great appropriation bill. This mileage farce recurs every regular session. From twelve to fifteen big appropriation bills are considered every year — twice in each Congress — by both House and Senate. The politicians delight in these measures. They take up from one-third to two-thirds of the time of each regular session. The politicians like to kill time. They are privileged bills and can be used as buffers to prevent the consideration of politi- cally dangerous questions. The politicians like that feature. But, more important than all else, the pork barrel ramifies in a thousand directions from these annual appropriation measures. The politicians live on pork. Obviously, there should be a responsible budget method of appropriating public money, one that would divorce the pork barrel and legislation. It is hardly necessary to outline the mileage farce as it was repeated in the last session of the Sixty-third Congress. There were the same disagreements, the same conference com- mittee, the same "reluctant yielding" by the House, the same final result — 20 cents a mile both ways for both House and Senate. This time, however, the play lagged, was less spir- ited, and somewhat shorter. Nearby elections always speed up the acting. These little stories are not the only plunder tales that might be told. But they are sufficient to evidence a most important 28 YOUR CONGRESS truth, that self-interest, which means politics, is the first and last and intermediate consideration of those who make our laws. From the viewpoint of professional politicians, "public service" has come to mean "serve us." These stories reveal Congress in this attitude of self-interest. I want now to pre- sent the House in a related, but very different role — a desper- ate defensive struggle to save its system. In this there will be seen the same clever posing and playing, and the same sequel — victory for the politicians. Whether fighting to gain plunder or to save plunder, it is always the parliamentary sys- tem that enables the politicians to prevail. Keep that in mind. The Mulhaia-McDermott Fiasco This generation has known no political earthquake like that of the Mulhall expose, which came June 29, 1913. The whole country was stirred to the depths by what Martin M. Mulhall had to reveal. For years the people had believed that Congress was con- trolled by well-organized special interests. Mr. Mulhall's was a stirring story because it supplied much of previously hidden proof. He named names and cited incidents. His statements were corroborated in important particulars. The invisible government at Washington at last became partly visible, even to the blinded partisan. The history of the lobby investigation by the House which followed might be divided into three periods, each representing a distinct crisis for those involved : First, the Mulhall charges of corruption against Congress- men, on June 29, 1913, which astounded the nation, and neces- sitated a vindicating investigation; Second, the report of the investigating committee, five months later, on December 9, 1913, when the bi-partisan pro- gram of further delay was carried out, and both discussion and a record vote averted, by steam-rollering everything into the hands of another committee ; and YOUR CONGRESS 29 Third, the fixing of a time for a final facing of the issues, on July 20, 1914, after a year of delay, when the House was saved from going on record by the resignation of McDermott. Briefly summarized, the net results of the exposure and investigation are as follows : 1. All members excepting Mr. McDermott were vindicated of the Mulhall charges. Every one who understood Congres- sional procedure and practices expected that. 2. Mr. McDermott was made the goat, shielded as long as possible, and then "forced" to resign. Every political spasm like the Mulhall expose has to have a goat. 3. Action upon the real issues of the investigation was so long delayed that the fine edge of the people's indignation had time to wear away. Delay always dulls popular indignation. The only unbelievable thing about it is that Congress could dally along for a full year with about the most important issue it had faced in decades, in all that time permitting only five minutes of discussion and not a single roll call. That is the part which the public should consider. At every stage of the protracted proceedings, the Mulhall-McDermott matter pre- sented questions of the highest privilege. If the House leaders could keep under cover for twelve months the most highly privileged matter, what chance have the people of getting action out in the open on questions of ordinary legislative routine ? It will be remembered that the Senate had a lobby inquiry under way at the time of the Mulhall expose. Thereupon the Senate committee turned its lobby investigations in that direc- tion. The first few days of the Senate inquiry into the Mul- hall charges seemed to develop proof of their accuracy. It also became evident that House members were involved in a serious way. Then, although the Senate was already investi- gating the matter, the House decided upon an investigation of its own. 30 YOUR CONGRESS The House resolution for an investigating committee was considered July 5, 1913, but not adopted until July 9, an adjournment being forced by lack of a quorum. The fight over the question of legal assistance for the committee dem- onstrated the extent to which the House is boss controlled. Jefferson Levy, of New York, moved to strike from the reso- lution the words which gave the committee authority to em- ploy a lawyer or lawyers to help with the investigation. On the 5th Minority Leader James R. Mann led his Republican followers in support of the Levy amendment. When the House met again — on the 9th — Mr. Mann announced that he had changed his mind, and moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Levy amendment had been adopted. Practically every Republican who had voted with him on the former occa- sion again followed him in exactly the opposite direction. In- dividual thinking and individual action in the House have been reduced to the minimum. The resolution adopted contained a joker which proved most useful to the politicians in the crisis of the inquiry: the com- mittee was empowered to investigate, but given no authority to make recommendations. This was made the excuse for the sidestepping of the House, on December 9, which will be detailed later. The Committee at Work The investigating committee appointed by Speaker Clark consisted of Messrs. Garrett, of Tennessee, chairman; Cline, of Indiana, Russell, of Missouri, and Roddenbery, of Georgia, Democrats; Stafford, of Wisconsin, and Willis, of Ohio, Re- publicans; and Nolan, of California, Progressive. Mr. Rod- denbery became ill and was replaced by Mr. Ferris, of Okla- homa, early in the investigation. The protracted illness of Mr. Nolan finally compelled his resignation, that place being taken by Mr. MacDonald, of Michigan, shortly before the committee ended the taking of testimony. YOUR CONGRESS 31 This select committee began its work July 12, 1913. The hearings continued until September 19. As has been sug- gested, Mr. McDermott was kept pretty much in the limelight, the press helping to sensationalize his conduct with lobbyists. At the same time the investigation of his relations with the pawn brokers and liquor interests was never carried quite far enough to establish either his guilt, or more far-reaching revelations involving other Congressmen. All the other House members brought into the Mulhall charges were vindicated. An accident interfered with the even course of the com- mittee. The illness and resignation of Mr. Nolan necessitated the substitution of another Progressive member. W. J. Mac- Donald had just been seated in the House, his election contest resulting in his favor August 25, 1913. As he was without committee assignments of any kind, it was only natural that he should be given Mr. Nolan's place on the lobby committee. That marked a change in the proceedings. As soon as Mr. MacDonald could get into the swing of the inquiry, he began to ask questions which tended to direct it into more vital chan- nels — the underground activities of the National Association of Manufacturers. A few days later, on September 19, 1913, the committee terminated its hearings. The Bi-partisan Machine The investigating committee reported to the House Decem- ber 9, 1913. The majority report, signed by Finis J. Gar- rett, Cyrus Cline, Joe J. Russell, Scott Ferris, Wm. H. Staf- ford and Frank B. Willis, contained not a line of recommenda- tion, and was accompanied by no resolution upon which the House could act. William J. MacDonald, however, pre- sented a minority report and the following privileged resolu- tions : Resolved, That the House proceed forthwith to determine whether under the report of your select committee on lobby investigations it has not been shown that J. Philip Bird, John Kirby, Jr., James A. Emery, Martin M. Mulhall, and other officers and agents of the Na- tional Association of Manufacturers have been engaged in systematic, 32 YOUR CONGRESS continuous practices against the order and dignity of the House and in improper and vicious lobbying activities rendering them liable to punishment by this House for contempt. Resolved, That this House proceed forthwith to determine whether under the report of your select committee on lobby investigations Representative James Thomas McDermott, of the fourth congres- sional district of the State of Illinois, has not been shown guilty of disgraceful and dishonorable misconduct, and venality, rendering him unworthy of a seat in this House and justly liable to expulsion from the same. There followed a series of parliamentary, or rather unpar- liamentary, episodes such as occur but rarely in the whole history of Congress. First, Mr. MacDonald was jockeyed off the floor, not being permitted to move the adoption of his resolutions. The in- justice of this is apparent to anyone. The majority members of the committee had offered no motion which would brine the issues before the House, they taking refuge in the joker already referred to in the resolution creating the committee. Neither would they allow the dissenting member to interfere with the "nothing doing" program. Second, Mr. Garrett moved that the MacDonald resolu- tions, which were of the highest privilege, and the reports of the select investigating committee be referred to the Judiciary Committee. Third, to shut off all discussion, the previous question on Mr. Garrett's motion was moved and carried. Fourth, in the attempt to get a record vote on the Garrett motion, only twenty-three members, according to the official record, joined in the demand for a roll call. As thirty-four, or one-fifth of those present, were necessary to secure a roll call, this failed. Only the Progressives and a few independent Republicans and Democrats were for a record vote. Fifth, only 168 members were present, not a quorum; but when Mr. MacDonald made the point of order of no quorum, which automatically should have compelled a roll call on the Garrett motion, under the rules, no attention was paid to his demand. Instead the House hurriedly adjourned. YOUR CONGRESS 33 The Garrett motion had carried and everything was steam- rollered into the hands of the Judiciary Committee, 133 to 34. In this, the crisis of the whole Mulhall-McDermott matter, there was neither discussion nor a record vote. A Question of Veracity Realizing that the attempt to get a roll call on the Garrett motion was likely to be the last opportunity for a record vote on the issues of the lobby investigation, acting for the Na- tional Voters' League, I made an effort in the only possible way to obtain the names of those who had then signified that they were for open action. This letter was sent to all members of the House: "Dear Congressman : The National Voters' League desires to secure for publication a list of those Members who joined in the demand for a roll call on the question of referring the lobby reports and Mr. MacDonald's resolutions to the Judiciary Committee when that issue came up in the House December 9. "Will you aid us in this by answering these questions? "1. Were you present in the House on that occasion? "3. Did you rise and join in the demand for a roll call on the above- mentioned motion? "We will appreciate an early answer. "Very truly, In response to this letter the National Voters' League has on file the statements of forty-seven members of the House that on December 9, 1913, they arose and joined in the demand for the roll call in question. In addition to the forty-seven, eight members were not certain, but the majority of these re- plied to the League's query in such a way as to imply that they also had supported the demand for the roll call. One member telephoned that he had voted for the roll call. Sixteen returned more or less evasive answers. Fifty-six, many of whom said they would have favored the roll call had they been present, replied that they were not in the House on that occasion. Two stated that they took no part in the proceedings because their 34 YOUR CONGRESS names were involved in the Mulhall charges. Only five out of the 135 who replied stated that they were against the roll call. 12 Here 56 members stated or implied that they rose and joined in the demand for a roll call on the Garrett motion: the Congressional Record gives twenty-three as the number who were on their feet at that time. The League had expected accurate information and was as much astonished as anyone at the discrepancy. Eight Months More of Delay The Judiciary Committee kept all the issues of the Mulhall- McDermott matter buried away from the House from Decem- ber 9, 1913, until April 24, 1914. Then a report from a ma- jority of the committee was made by Mr. Floyd of Arkansas, with a recommendation that Mr. McDermott be censured. The old convenient contention that a member cannot be more severely punished for offenses committed in and against a previous Congress was embodied in the report. An important thing to note is that this committee, like the select committee, kept the spotlight on Mr. McDermott rather than the bigger subjects of the investigation. Mr. Nelson, of Wisconsin, filed a scathing minority report from the Judiciary Committee and recommended Mr. Mc- Dermott's expulsion. The Judiciary Committee delayed action for five and one- half months. After the pressure of public opinion had doubt- less influenced the filing of a report from that committee, » The forty-seven who replied definitely that they joined in the demand for a roll call are as follows: Sydney Anderson, William A. Ashbrook, Silas R. Barton, Ellsworth R. Bathrick, Charles W. Bell, Stanley E. Bowdle. M. E. Burke, Philip P. Campbell, Ira C. Copley, Louis C. Cramton, Charles H. Dillon, Jeremiah Donovan, John J. Esch, John R. Farr, H. Robert Fowler, George E. Gorman, Courtney W. Hamlin, W. H. Hinebaugh, Willis J. Hulings, Albert Johnson, Edward Keating, M. Clyde Kelly, Thomas F. Konop, William L. LaFollette. Fred E. Lewis, W. J. MacDonald, James Manahan, Andrew j. Montague, Victor Murdock, William F. Murray. George A. Neeley, John I. Nolan, P. D. Norton, Dennis O'Leary. Percy E. Quin, John E. Raker, Arthur R. Rupley, Dorsey W. Shackleford, R. B. Stevens, Tom Stout, Howard Sutherland, H. W. Temple. Charles M. Thomson, J. B. Thompson, Anderson H. Walters, Otis Wingo and Roy O. Woodruff. The eight members who were in doubt, but the majority of whom replied to the League's query in such a way as to imply that they also demanded the roll call, are as follows: Robert Grosser, John J. Eagan, W. R. Green, E. L. Hamilton, Walter I. McCoy, N. J. Sinnott, Luther W. Mott and John H. Small. The member who telephoned that he stood up to ask for the roll call is H. T. Helgesen. YOUR CONGRESS 35 there was a further delay of three months, during which time the report and everything connected with the investigation rested on the House calendar, with only one member, Mr. Floyd, who made the majority report, having the privilege of bringing the matter before the House. Finally Mr. Floyd promised to call up the report and gave notice to the House, July 20, 1914, that he would do when consideration of the Adamson dam bill was finished. Then, after a year of total delay, when there seemed no other way to preclude discussion and a roll call, there came Mr. McDermott's resignation. The sequel to his retirement was unfolded in a meeting of the Judiciary Committee, July 28, 1914, when Mr. Floyd was instructed to move that the whole McDermott-Mulhall matter be tabled, which, however, was never done. Why Did McDermott Resign ? The public knows that on July 21, 1914, James T. Mc- Dermott, a member from the Fourth District of Illinois, re- signed his seat in Congress. That is about as far as the people have been given an opportunity to comprehend the unusual incident. It is of no very great consequence that Mr. McDermott retired under fire, that he was facing almost certain censure and probable expulsion, because of his connection with Martin M. Mulhall, of the National Association of Manufacturers, and other lobbyists. The important thing for the people to know is the relation of his resignation to the system that pre- vails in the House of Representatives. Mr. McDermott's place in the Mulhall expose was never im- portant. He was the most insignificant sideshow feature. Yet all through the investigation his petty relations with lobbyists were so emphasized and kept before the public as to eclipse the really consequental issues. However, anomalous as it may seem, all the time that he was being painted a political pervert, Mr. McDermott apparently was aided and his punishment 36 YOUR CONGRESS postponed as long as possible. It would appear as though the "system" desired to save him, yet demonstrated so much of his misconduct as might be necessary to divert attention from the vital phases of the inquiry. For more than a year Mr. McDermott served that purpose. Whether designedly or not, he became the buffer. Whenever important issues of the investigation began to threaten, the spotlight played upon him. When the House could no longer dodge or delay an open vote in any other way, there came his weakly staged retirement. By his own confession, borne out by circumstantial evidence of the most convincing kind, Mr. McDermott's resignation could hardly have been voluntary ; obviously it was encouraged by his colleagues in the House who did not dare to face free discussion and a record vote. By Mr. McDermott's resignation, 13 the House was spared the politically dangerous vote upon the question of his ex- pulsion, which would have involved discussion of the whole matter. By having this artificially enlarged scapegoat efface himself, evidently it was hoped also to wipe the slate clean of all the issues of the Mulhall expose. The most astounding revelation of political corruption that this generation has known thus passed into history with its real issues undecided and undiscussed. The work of Mr. MacDonald on the select investigating com- mittee, and in his fight to emphasize and get open action on the vital phases of the inquiry, stands out conspicuously. Mr. Nelson's fight within the Judiciary Committee was of the same high courageous order. The public should bestow unstinted credit upon men who persist in opposing the all-powerful, bi- partisan organization in such matters which mean life or death to the system. The Progressives, led by Messrs. MacDonald, Murdock and Kelly of Pennsylvania, bore the brunt of the fight to compel all members to go on record in the crisis of the controversy. » It is interesting to note that Mr. McDermott was reelected to Congress. Help in his reelection was undoubtedly a part of the bargaining in his resignation. YOUR CONGRESS 37 Had it not been for the determined vigilance of no more than a half-dozen members, the bi-partisan program in refer- ence to the Mulhall-McDermott matter would in all prob- ability have been consummated without the least hindrance. As it was, of course, all the fighting was futile. The struggle to eliminate sham, secure adequate discussion and obtain record votes, will always be futile until the parliamentary practices of the House are shifted from bossism to a basis of demo- cratic deliberation. There is a temptation to continue these recitals of the poli- ticians at play. Their purpose has been to supply samples of Congressional atmosphere, to suggest how the plunder and ex- pediencies of politics outweigh all other elements in legislation. The great need of this day and hour is a subordination of the interests of professional politicians to the common welfare. The business of politics should give way to the business of government. CHAPTER II MODERN POLITICS— AN INTERPRETATION Big politics, more than big business, is the immediate and common problem which we have to face. Politics is the gateway to everything government has to offer or to withhold from the people. At present no real advancement in industrial conditions, no vital change in gov- ernment, can come excepting through political action. No economic theory, no moral idea, can become a reality except- ing through the instrumentality of politics. And that is the only legitimate function that politics has — to serve as the agency for the application of economic and moral principles to the life of the people. Politics should be only the means to that end; but modern political organization has become an end in itself. This end is office and the ever-increasing per- quisites of office. In the last short session of the Sixty-third Congress there were passed 244 bills and resolutions. Of this number 229 related to one or both of the basic elements in the political system — patronage and pork. Less than thirty were measures in which the general public had an interest. Adding such perennial incidents as the mileage grab and misappropriated clerk hire, and special events like the sham attempt to make members earn their salaries and the Mulhall-McDermott mat- ter, one gets a startling, but not an unfair, picture of the American Congress in action. Congress is the source and center of practically all that is perversive in modern politics. The situation in the national legislature may be illustrated in the diagram on the opposite page. The darkened space represents, comparatively, the portion of the law-making field occupied by the system for itself, an overwhelming preponderance of Congressional attention being 38 YOUR CONGRESS 39 given to matters involving the selfish interests of the poli- ticians as such — spoils, patronage, pork barrel projects, and all manner of log rolling bills which strengthen the members in their hold upon the positions and perquisites of public life. THE FIELD OF C0N6KBSS10A/AL GOVE/WMENr labor LegU la Hon Suffrage High wayOevelnd no motion to recommit. It was charged in the discussion, and not disputed, that this \ rule was a verbatim copy of one formerly drawn and used by the old \Republican organization. It was adopted, 221 to 110, with 101 not Dting (2). These two roll calls — columns 1 and 2 — illustrate how little reliance can be placed in party protestations in reference to the rules. The Cullop Amendment. — The next two roll calls — those in the columns marked 3 and 4 — relate to attempts to incorporate in a judi- cial bill a provision requiring the President to make public the recom- mendations upon which he based the appointment of federal judges. The question came up first in the Sixty-second Congress. On Janu- ary 24, 1912, page 1287, Mr. Cullop, of Indiana, offered this publicity amendment to a general judicial bill: That hereafter, before the President shall appoint any district, circuit, or supreme judge, he shall make public all indorsements made in behalf of any applicant. The Cullop amendment was adopted by the House, 151 to 85, with 155 not voting (column 3). In view of what happened later it is obvious that many of the Democrats who voted for the publicity provision in 1912, were playing politics by seeking to embarrass a Republican President. (It will be remembered that the thirteen Democrats who opposed the Cullop amendment in 1912 were roundly roasted by Mr. Bryan.) The same issue was presented in the last Congress, with the political situation exactly reversed. This time the Republicans sought the YOUR CONGRESS 139 embarrassment of a Democratic administration by voting quite gen- erally for the amendment, while eighty Democrats repudiated their former position by voting against the amendment. On May 10, 1913, page 1477, the House, by a vote of 171 to 84 with 175 not voting (column 4), adopted the so-called Cullop amendment to the Phila- delphia judgeship bill, the amendment here being presented by Republi- can leader James R. Mann, who voted against his own proposal. These roll calls, one in the Sixty-second and one in the Sixty-third Congress, are here placed in parallel columns so that the public may see the inconsistency of many members. This issue reached two other roll calls besides those given, and of the membership of the last House, 115 voted on both sides. This furnishes one of the best illustrations of political voting. In both columns — 3 and 4 — "a" indicates a vote in favor of the Cullop publicity amendment. Panama Ca>nal Tolls. — There is further inconsistency, or lack of conviction, or responsiveness to leadership, exemplified in the two votes recorded on the question of Panama Canal tolls. The Doremus amendment to the canal bill, which was adopted by the House May 23, 1912, page 7019, by a vote of 147 to 128, with 117 not voting (5), exempted American coastwise vessels from the payment of tolls. The same issue came before the House March 31, 1914, page 6323, when the tolls exemption law was repealed, 247 to 162, with twenty-three not voting (6). Of the 266 Congressmen who were members in 1912, forty voted one way on the tolls question in 1912 and took the opposite side of the same issue in 1914. In both columns — 5 and 6 — "a" indicates a vote for free tolls. The Democrats Save Cannon. — The real crisis in which was seen the beginning of the present bi-partisan combination has been described. This was at the time of the adoption of the rules of the Sixty-first Congress, when Mr. Fitzgerald led a Democratic group to the support of Speaker Cannon. "A" in this column (No. 7) indicates a vote for the Fitzgerald amendment. The Norris Resolution (8). — Later in that Congress, on March 19, 1910, page 3436, the deserting Democrats voted with all the other anti-Cannonites for the Norris resolution, which increased the rules committee and eliminated the Speaker from it. This was the much discussed victory over the Republican machine. The Norris resolution was adopted, 191 to 156, with 42 not voting. An "a" indicates an affirmative vote. 140 YOUR CONGRESS To Vacate the Speaker's Chair (9).— The Fitzgerald Democrats may have supported the Norris resolution thinking that it would be followed by the removal of Mr. Cannon and the election of a Democratic speaker. The attempt to depose Cannon was' made on the same day (page 3438), but it failed because several insurgent Republicans voted against the motion to vacate the Speaker's chair, thus saving Mr. Can- non in that crisis. This vote, 155 to 192, with 41 not voting, is given in column 9. An "a" indicates a vote in favor of declaring the Speaker's chair vacant. The Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy. — Another significant roll call in that Congress occurred January 7, 1910, page 404, on the question of taking the appointment of the committee to investigate the Depart- ment of the Interior and Bureau of Forestry (the Ballinger-Pinchot matter) out of the hands of Speaker Cannon and having that com- mittee elected by the House. This amendment carried, 149 to 146. with 92 not voting. In column 10, "a" indicates a vote in favor of electing the committee. These four roll calls in the Cannon period show not only the incep- tion of bi-partisanship as a machine, but the personnel of the original insurgents. It can readily be seen that none of the roll calls already described are very reliable. They are too full of partisanship and politics. They are chiefly useful in so far as they serve to point out those members whose conduct indicates that they are primarily politicians. But the next five columns of the tabulation contain as many record votes which more generally reflect the bi-partisan combination on one side and the independent members on the other. These roll calls are the most important to be found in the history of the last Congress. To Clear Calendar Wednesday (11). — Students of the procedure of the House know that the bi-partisan leaders can control directly the activities of all daily sessions, excepting those on Calendar Wednes- days. Privileged business or special orders, always in the hands of the leaders, have the right of way over all ordinary matters. But Calendar Wednesday was supposed to be above and beyond manipula- tion. That was intended to be one day each week on which nothing could prevent the consideration of bills reported from committee. However, through unfortunate chance or deliberate manipulation, Cal- endar Wednesday was "log-jammed" in the Sixty-third Congress by a comparatively unimportant bill upon which the politicians filibustered for eleven weeks. The only explainable object of this filibuster was to prevent the reaching of a number of vital matters, such as the YOUR CONGRESS 141 presidential primary bill, safety at sea legislation, various labor bills, rural credits legislation, the national prohibition amendment, woman suffrage, etc. To break this long filibuster and restore to Calendar Wednesday its functions, a motion was made April 22, 1914, page 7636, to drop consideration of the judicial code bill, which was the buffer. This motion was defeated, 115 to 167, with 151 not voting (11). Those voting "aye" were against the filibuster and in favor of ending the further abuse of Calendar Wednesday. As indicating a fairly clear-cut division among those members who wanted action and the bi-partisan machine obstructionists, this roll call is one of the most valuable in the last Congress. The Fitzgerald Salary Amendment (12). — Heretofore the salaries of the legislative, executive and judicial officers of the National Gov- ernment have been fixed by statutes; and appropriation bills, at least in so far as salary increases were concerned, could not disregard the figures named in existing law. But, at the eleventh hour in the con- sideration of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial appropriation bill, Mr. Fitzgerald offered an amendment repealing all laws relating to salaries appropriated for in the measure and making the provisions of that measure the substantive law on the subject. In other words, Congress could, under this amendment, change the salaries of Congress- men, Senators and other federal officials without having the changes subject to points of order and in a way vastly less public than when it had to be done through separate, bona fide bills. This amendment added greatly to the already powerful political and legislative influence of the Committee on Appropriations. It established a dangerous precedent. The Fitzgerald amendment was adopted on April 17, 1914, page 7372, by a vote of 193 to 136, with 102 not voting (12). An "a" means a vote in favor of its adoption. As in the case of the attempt to break the filibusterers' hold upon Calendar Wednesday, this roll call is a highly important test. The leaders of both old parties and the bi-partisan machine were for the proposal, while the progressives and the independents of all parties who understood the issue were opposed to the change. The Whaley Case (13).— In column 13 will be found another sample of the working together of Democratic and Republican "organizations." This is the roll call in which the House refused to investigate seemingly well-authenticated charges of corruption in the election of Richard S. Whaley, of South Carolina. The charges were made by Mayor John P. Grace, of Charleston, who, at his own expense, brought witnesses to Washington and collected a mass of evidence against the' validity of Whaley's election. Mayor Grace had not been a candidate against 142 YOUR CONGRESS Mr. Whaley, but sought the investigation as a citizen. The Committee on Elections, No. 1, in a manner which suggests how Tammany used Sulzer as an example and a warning, turned the investigation against Mayor Grace and thereby appeared to serve notice on people in the South that it was not safe to interfere in such matters. The point to the incident is that it discloses the lack of teeth in the federal corrupt practices act. In each district where the election to Congress is virtually decided in the primary and not the regular election, as is the case throughout practically all of the South, the defeated candidate in the primary is not recognized nor given rights before Congress as is done with a candidate defeated in the November election. When a defeated candidate in the regular election desires to bring a contest for a seat in Congress, the way is open before him ; he has a well- established standing; his rights and interests are safeguarded; his contest expenses are paid by the House. But the candidate defeated in a primary must prosecute a contest at private expense and with obstacles at every turn ; or interested individuals must face the same handicap, as did Mayor Grace in this case. In truth, the federal corrupt practices act hardly applies in those sections of the country where there is dominance by a single party. In the South particularly it would seem as though primary election corruption can be carried on with practical assurance of immunity so far as Congress is concerned. In this roll call on the Whaley case the House voted to reindorse that condition, as had been done in the passage of the corrupt practices act without specific provisions for the correction of primary election frauds. James A. Frear, a member of Elections Committee No. 1, presented a minority report and a resolution for an investigation. This resolution was defeated on January 27, 1914, page 2487, by a vote of 98 to 227, with 108 not voting. In this column — 13 — an "'a" indicates a vote in favor of the investi- gation. The Underwood Cotton Futures Amendment. — Another significant roll call occurred on September 30, 1913, page 5288. The Senate had adopted a provision in the tariff bill, known as the Clarke amendment, which struck at gambling in cotton futures. In the House, Mr. Under- wood offered an amendment which greatly modified the Clarke amend- ment and, it was charged in the debate, carried recognition and regula- tion of stock gambling in cotton so far as in effect to be a step toward legalization of it. Afterward, as was to be expected, in the contro- versy between, the House and Senate over the Clarke amendment and the Underwood substitute, all legislation on the subject of cotton YOUR CONGRESS 143 futures failed. By a vote of 171 to 161, with 96 not voting (14), the House adopted the Underwood cotton futures amendment. An "a" indicates a vote for the Underwood amendment. To Displace District Day (15). — A roll call, somewhat similar in significance to that when the attempt was made to shake Calendar Wednesday free of the filibuster, occurred on June 8, 1914, page 10827. The rules give two Mondays of each month to bills relating to the District of Columbia. That calendar then contained bills of very great importance, such as the Buchanan bill to amend the building law to safeguard the lives of workmen, while the Crosser bill providing for municipal ownership of the street railways of Washington had been reported from the committee. Seemingly to prevent the reaching of such bills a motion was made to displace District Day on the Mon- day named above. This motion was carried by a vote of 202 to 64, with 167 not voting. In this column — 15 — an "a" indicates a vote in favor of displacing District Day. i-Affirmative vote i-Negative vote 3-Answered present >-Not voting > t Alabama a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 15 U XI a 3 z O I u a , 1 •a 3 a bo A o» e° J- 3 3 0, pi 9} bo 3 .a£ lH u 1 0) Q a ii a <= — a *3 O a QJ < a o o •§ ox HO ■ ^ 11 0) O O.S Htt< 1* 11 m £ o*3 HO 1 ■« B Jj u O 1 h S 2 o '5 OU 8J.6P ■3 8 j= > *1 51 ■a J * a 1 S 1 3. W. Taylor 1 ) 1897 n a a n a o n a 2 3. H. Dent. Jr.... ' J1909 n a a a n n n a a a n n n n a 3 H. D. Clayton.... I )1897 n a a P a n n a a a o n n I P. L. Blackmon. . I ) 1911 a a n n n n a n n n n a n o o 5 J. T. Heflin I 5 1904 n a a a a a 6 R. P. Hobson I )1907 n o o o a n a a o a n 7 J. L. Burnett I 5 1899 n a o n a n a a a o n a n 8 C. C. Harris I 31914 9 0. W. Underwood. 3 51895 n a a n a a n a a a a n a a J. W. Abercrombie ! 51913 a a n n a n a Arizona 1 Carl Hayden 1 31912 a a a a a a o a Arkansas 1 r. H. Caraway... I 31913 a n n n n n n 2 iv". A. Oldfield. ... ] 3 1909 n a a a n n n a a a n n n n n 3 J. C. Floyd 31905 n a a n n n n a a a o o n n a 4 31913 a a n n n o n n ■S H. M. Jacoway.. . D1911 a a a n n a n n n a (1 3. M. Taylor D1913 a a n n n n n a 7 W. S. Goodwin. . . D1911 a a n o o o o a California 1 11911 o a n n a n J. E. Raker D1911 a a a a a n n a a a C. F. Curry Ri9i: n n n a a a n n n t 1 Julius Kahn R190. a n n o a a a n n n a a a o i J. I. Nolan P190. ! . .. a a a a n a S J. R. Knowland. . R190" 1 a n a a a a n n n o a n D191 i ... a a n n a o a 3 E. A. Hayes. R190 5 a u ii o a a » a n a a a a n 144 i-Afnrmative vote i-Negative vote 3- Answered present }-Not voting a. o '> "o bo a '5 c 'Si QJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 'u n a "o u OJ G a Z 0) I Sf 5S M 1 ft 03 Pi OJ "3 PS M nl Of) .as o B >-. > d S {g-d u o 1 S-S O rt ~ W A > e £ §B oS eg o ■c Q V % 1 o t ca a, u CJ •E a 'a a Hi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ■c 5 o u i! Z bo o 1 a a> *5 a! to .as t- 8 E 1) a R V 1 < O o a K E2 < o « o C 4) ex 1*8 0> U W O Ti c32 •DO CO* p VI Jl ^o B-*» bo* 3 w e .■ti * o IS V -4-. ng 1! m a, |! •>" a) O.C HO ■SB li «o 8 o hah 1 > cd ct ffl 4 o"rt HO 1 si E<3 1 ■Se Ota ■3 8 is .5 II SI 11 •si o ■d 3 V M 01 o rt HQ R S.J. Tribble D 1911 a a o a n n n n n 9 T. M. Bell D 1905 n a o a n n n a a n n n n a 10 T. W. Hardwick. . D 1913 n a a a n n n a a a n a o 11 J. R. Walker D 1913 a a n n n n n 12 D. M. Hughes. . . . D 1909 n a a n n n a a o n n n n a Idaho 1 B. L. French R 1911 n n n a a a a n n ? A. T. Smith R 1913 n n a a a a n Illinois 1 M. B. Madden. . . R 1905 a o n n n n a n n n a a n a 2 J. R. Mann R 1897 a n n n a a a n n n P a n a .1 G. E. Gorman. . . . D 1913 a a a n n n 4 J. T. McDermotl. D 1907 n a P a n a a a a a D n n a n 5 A. J. Sabath D 1907 n a o a n n n a a a n o n a n 6 J. McAndrews D 1913 a n a n o n a 7 D 1911 a o a n n n n n a 8 D 1909 n a a n ti n a a a n n a o P. A. Britten R 1913 n n n a n a n 10 C. M. Thomson. . P 1913 n o n a n a n 11 Ira C. Copley. . . . P 1911 o o a n o o a n 1? W. H. Hinebaugh. P 1913 n a a a o o n 13 J. C. McKenzie. . . R 1911 n n o n n a n a 14 C. H. Tavenner . . D 1913 a a n a n n n IS S. A. Hoxworth. . . D 1913 a o o o o o Ifi D 1911 a a a a n D n n a 17 L. Fitz Henry D 1913 n a n n n o n IS F. T. O'Hair D 1913 a n n o n n n 10 C. M. Borchers... D 1913 • a n n a o a a 20 D 1903 n a o a n a n a a o o a n a a 146 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p-Answered present o-Not voting > CM 0J 1 £ "o bo a 1 '5 m 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS "C O] S is .a z 3 PS SP c a 1 ft 4> 1 .SJol i a u < 9- o s ■a 82 < Pi 1 01 ft 0J W O H"d 62 i Ch rdO CO\ OH-. Br o is ft£ en o oeO 13 3 J a (D ft CO OjO "H On y « CO ,_. >*3 HO "3 1 ii o o.S Hft. u rt J3 .Q a; o*rt HO h spS f lj O to s».» V 4J *-" OJ A > Is 31 14 H o C 3 o ™ 21 J. M. Graham. . . . D 1909 n o o a n a n a a a n a n o ?.? W. N. Baltz D 1913 o n n a n n n 23 M. D. Foster. . . . D 1907 n a a a n n n a a a a n n a a 74 H. R. Fowler D 1911 a a a n n a n P n 25 R. P. Hill D 1913 a a n n n n a .. W. E. Williams... D 1913 a a n n a n a L. B. Stringer D 1913 a a n n n a a _ Indiana 1 D 1913 a a n n a n a 2 W. A. Cullop D 1909 n a a a n o n a a a n n n a a 3 Wm. E. Cox D 1907 n a o a n n a a a a n n o a 4 D 1905 n a a a n n n a a a o a n a 5 R. W. Moss D 1909 n o a o n n n a a a a o n o a fi F.H.Gray D 1911 a a a n o P n n. n 7 C. A. Korbly D 1909 n a n n n n P a o o o 8 J. A. M. Adair. . . D 1907 n o a o n n n a a a o a n o a 9 M. A. Morrison... D 1909 n a n n n n n a a a a n a o 10 J. B. Peterson D 1913 a a n a n o 11 G. W. Rauch D 1907 n o a o n n n a a a n o n a a 1? C. Cline D 1909 n a a o n n n a a a n n n o p 13 H. A. Barnhart. . . D 1908 n o a n n n a a a o a n a Iowa 1 C. A. Kennedy. . . R 1907 a n o a o a a n n n a a a n a 2 H. Vollmer D 1914 n n 3 D 1913 a a n o o n n 4 G. N. Haugen. . . . R 1899 n n o o n n n a n a o n a n a 5 J. W. Good R 1909 n n n o n n n a n a a a a n a S. Kirkpatrick — D 1913 a a n n a a n S. F. Prouty R 1911 o a o n n o o o o 147 a-Affirmative vot* n-Negative vote p-Answered present o-Not voting > t *o bo C 'c a i CO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 •c V a "o u Jo E Z 0J 3 X s! s 3 a 4> o O s Q c E < "5 u c ..s "rt 4 5 .2 Q i .1 O rt HQ 8 H. M. Towner.. . . R 1911 n n a o a a a n g W. R. Green R 1911 n n a n n a o 10 F. P. Woods R 1909 n n a a n a n a a n a n a ii R 1912 n a a a a a o Kansas l D.R.Anthony, Jr. R 1907 a o o o a a o o n a a n a i J. Taggart D 1911 a a o a a o n n a 3 P. P. Campbell. . . R 1903 a n o a a a n n n a a a o o 4 D. Doolittle D 1913 a n a n a n S G. T. Helvering. . D 1913 a a n a n n a 6 J. R. Connelly.... D 1913 a a n a a n n 7 G. A. Neeley D 1912 a a a n o 8 V. Murdock P 1903 n n a a o a n a a a a n o n n Kentucky 1 A. W. Barkley. . . . D a a n n n n a 2 A. 0. Stanley D 1903 n o o n n a a a o o o a 3 R. Y. Thomas, Jr. D 1909 n a a a o n n a a a n o n a n 4 Ben Johnson D 1907 n a a o n n n a a o n n a n 5 S. Sherley D 1903 n a n P n n a a a n a n a ft A. B. Rouse D 1911 a a o n n n n a 7 D 1909 a a o a o n n a a a n n o o R H. Helm... D 1907 n a a o a n a a o n n n n <) W.J. Fields D 1911 o a o n n n n a 10 L W. Langley R 1907 a n a o a a n n o o a P n n 11 R 1911 n n n n a o o n n Louisiana 1 A. Estopinal D 1908 a o a a a P P o n o n a a 7 H. G. Dupre D 1910 a o o a a n a n o 3 R. F. Broussard.. D 1897 a o a a a a a n n a a 148 i-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p-Answered present D-Not voting t, u O u CO "o a '5o m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 1 to 5 Si G 3 2 to Vj to o ■fr it: tor i" W n * ~£ "o: li c32 Go 1> — So fa 6 o "i's a 6 U3 O C H> IS a W B CD S CO £2 y- >-8 0.q HO i ® u- O w-S o.E HA. 1 SK fa> mS OltJ HO *0 a; Id S "I .-a 6 fa< u o T g § cSs t: to J3 > Pfa a X .2 Q CO o % w Ps O rt HQ 4 J. T. Watkins D 1905 n o a a a n n a a a n n n a a S W.Elder D 1913 o a n a n a 6 L. L. Morgan .... D 1912 a n a o a n a 7 D 1913 a o n n n n a 8 J. B. Aswell D 1913 a o n n u n a Maine 1 A. C. Hinds R 1911 n n n o a o a n ? D.J.McGilltcuddy D 1911 a a a n a n a 1 J. A. Peters R 1913 a a a a o 4 F. E. Guernsey. . . R 1908 a n n o a a a n n n o o a n Maryland 1 J. H. Covington. . D 1909 n a P a n n a a a a n a o 2 J. F. C. Talbott.. D 1903 n o o a n n a a a n a o a C. P. Coady D 1913 n a 4 J. C. Linthicum. . D 1911 o a a n o a n a 5 F. 0. Smith D 1913 a n n 6 D 1911 o o o a n o a n a Massachusetts 1 A. T. Treadway.. R 1913 n a a o a n n 2 F. H. Gillett R 1893 a n o P n a n n o n a n a 3 C. D. Paige R 1913 a a n a 4 R. E. Winslow R 1913 o o a a a n R 1913 n a a a n a n 6 A. P. Gardner R 1902 a a n o n n n a n o a a a o a 7 M. F. Phe'.an D 1913 a a a n n a F. S. Deitrick D 1913 a a a n a a 8 9 E. W. Roberts... R 1899 a n o o a a a n n n , o a a n o W. F. Murray D 1911 a o a a a n a n a 1U 11 D 1907 n a n a n a a a n a o a o 149 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p-Answered present o-Not voting t 0. u *o bo 'c c •a m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 14 IS I 3 •s £ 6 3 2 "3 bo §1 is ^2 o *0: 1'i cSa GO 2 o bO-H h B o Is $ CO o is 1 a CO HO o.S i >, £■§ *£ ^ U mj 0*rt HO si u o 1 1/1 OS xi > gj3 u S -o B o ■c ts S p, o cl HQ f J. A. Gallivan. . . . D 1914 n n J.J. Mitchell D 1913 a a n a a 14 E. Gilmore D 1913 a a n o a n a 15 W. S. Greene R 1898 a n n a a a n n n a a n n 1ft T. C. Thacher.. . . D 1913 a a n n a n a Michigan 1 F. E. Doremus.. . D 1911 o a a a a o a o o 1 S. W. Beakes D 1913 a n n a a n a % J. M. C. Smith... R 1911 n n o a a a a n a 4 E. L. Hamilton.. . R 1897 a n n n n n a n n n a n n n a •i R 1913 n a a a a a n n 6 S. "W. Smith R 1897 a n n a a a n n n a a n n o 7 L. C. Cramton. . . R 1913 n o a a n a n n 8 J. W. Fordney R 1899 a n o o o a n n o a a n n a 9 J. C. McLaughlin. R 1907 a n a n a a a n n a a n a 10 R. 0. Woodruff. . . P 1913 n o a a n a n n 11 F. 0. Lindquist. . . R 1913 n a o o o o \~> W. J. MacDonald. P 1913 a a a n n n P. H. Kelley R 1913 n o a a a n o o Minnesota 1 R 1911 n a a n n a n a n o 2 W. S. Hammond.. D 1907 n a n n a n n a a a n a n a a 3 C. R. Davis R 1903 a n a a n n n a a a a a a a o 4 F. C. Stevens R 1897 a n o o n n a n n n a a a a 5 G. R. Smith R 1913 n a a a n n o 6 C. A. Lindbergh... R 1907 n o a o n n n a a a a n a o n 7 A. J. Volstead R 1903 a n a o n n n a n a a a o n a 8 C. B. Miller R 1909 a n a o n n a a n a o n a 9 H. Steenerson. . . . R 1903 a P a a " n a a " " a n a n n 150 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote P-Answered present o-Not voting V i 173 *o w> C •a a '& V m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ■5 'C a "3 u V 2 1 bo .8 3 3 a a> m CO O^ .go! u o s a V B St < u s < a U 8 o •a „ H si as w 0} In jn o "3: fi (32 i Os -do § S3 §s £6 o IS a P u c uE (Si o mO c « a .a ~u V ■3 ID a CO u 2 |S ■-* C3 HO > v CD +J ■3 6 «o S o s*s o.g rS-g feg: is >. en a HO 1 fa* 1 1 h 5 u 31 11 ft w V t u ■c M Q 13 CJ cd g. o rt hQ R 1913 n a a o o a n Mississippi 1 E. S. Candler, Jr.. D 1901 n a o a n a n a a o o n n a 2 H. D. Stephens... D 1911 a a a n n n n n n 3 B. G. Humphreys. D 1903 n a o n n n n a a a o a n a 4 D 1909 a a a o n n n a a a n n n a 5 S. A. Witherspoon D 1911 a a o n n n n n n 6 B. P. Harrison.. . . D 1911 a o o a a n a n n 7 P. E. Quin D 1913 a n n n n 8 J. W. Collier D 1909 a a a n n n a a a n a o a a Missouri 1 J. T. Lloyd D 1897 n o a a a n n a a o n a n a 2 W. W. Rucker. . . . D 1899 n o a o o n n a a a n 3 J. W. Alexander. . D 1907 n a a n a n n a a a o a o a a 4 C. F. Booher D 1907 n a a n n n n a a a a n n a a 5 W. P. Borland.... D 1909 o a o a n a a a a n o 6 C. C. Dickinson. . D 1910 a a a n n a a n a n a a 7 C.W.Hamlin D 1907 n o a a n n n a a a a n o a 8 D. W. Shackleford D 1899 n o a o o " n a a a n a n o n 9 D 1897 n o o o a n a a o o 10 R. Bartholdt R 1893 a n n o a n a n n n o a o o o 11 W. L. Igoe D 1913 a a a a a n a 12 L. C. Dyer R 1911 n a a P a n a o o 13 W. L. Hensley. . . . D 1911 a o a n n n n n a 14 D 1911 a a a n n n a n a 15 P. D. Decker D 1913 a a n n n n a 16 T. L. Rubey D 1911 a a a n n n n a Montana D 1913 a o n 1 o a 1 151 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p- Answered present o-Not voting > t OJ o •£ to CO *o w £ V m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 o ■c s ■8 »- -Q 2 V 1 d 3 a "3 GO crj Orr> .jjS rt i- o o 6 qj Q QJ a < o c ..& •3" J3 !> Si 11 1 5 U I d D 1913 a o n n n n n Nebraska 1 (. A. Maguire. . . . D 1909 n a a a n n n a a a n n n a a ? D 1911 a a a a n a o a .1 J. V. Stephens... D 1911 a o a n n a n a 4 Z. H.Sloan R 1911 n a n n a a n a n 5 R 1913 n a a a n a n 6 A. P. Kinkaid... . R 1903 n n o n a n a n o a n o n n Nevada S. E. Roberts R 1911 a n a o a a o New Hampshire 1 i. E. Reed D 1913 a a n n n n n ? R. B. Stevens. . . . D 1913 o o n n a a a New Jersey 1 " J B '" R 1911 P n a a P a n ? J. T. Baker D 1913 a n n n a a .1 r. J. Scully D 1911 o o n n n a 4 A. B. Walsh D 1913 a n o o n a a S W. E. Tuttle, Jr. . D 1911 a a n a n o a fi A. C. Hart D 1913 n a n a 7 D. H. Drukker. . . R 1914 o 8 E. F. Kinkead.... D 1909 n a a a a n n a a n a n a 9 W. I. McCoy D 1911 a n. n a n. a in E. W. Townsend . D 1911 a n o n n a o a a 11 J. J. Eagan D 1913 P n n n a a 12 J. A. Hamill D 1907 n a o n a n n a a o o o a New Mexico H. B. Fergusson. . D 1912 a a a a n ii a n a a 152 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote P- Answered present o-Not voting New York I 0) C/2 *o w c ■a c ■a m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 •c a 1 "3 0) § g 1" J3 3 ft « 1 bo tci r E B Q c V 1 < o c a> E c2 «3 a o 3 V o *2 « G a> <£ as (32 •DO M G E6 o d £ aS C/3 O i a w »2 HO u o s-s r o.S "•a n £ E-U a* s 1 VI V 11 is og 8< ■jj CO 3 i 1 o rt 1 D 1913 a o n n n n a 2 D. O'Leary D 1913 o a a a o a .1 F. E. Wilson D 1911 a o a o o a o o 4 H. H. Dale D 1913 a o a 5 J. P. Maher D 1911 a a a o o o a 6 W. M. Calder R 1905 a n a a n n n o o a o 7 J. J. Fitzgerald... D 1899 n a a a a a a a a n a a n a a R D.J. Griffin D 1913 o o a n o o a 9 D 1913 a o n n a o a in H. A. Metz D 1913 o o a o o n a n D. J. Riordan. . . . D 1906 P o P a a a a o o a o n o 12 H. M. Goldfogle.. D 1901 n o a a a a a o n o a o n G. W. Loft D 1913 n o a D 1911 a o o n o o o a 15 M. F. Conry D 1909 n a o o a a a a a a n a o n a P. J. Dooling D 1913 o a a o a 17 J. F. Carew D 1913 o o a o o n n 18 T. G. Patten D 1911 o a a a o a n o 19 W. M. Chandler.. P 1913 n a a a o o 20 J. A. Cantor D 1913 n n n 21 H. George, Jr D 1911 o o a n n o a 22 D 1913 o o a n a o a 23 J. A. Goulden.. . . D 1913 a a a n a n a W. R. Ogle^by.. . . D 1913 a o n a n n B. I. Taylor D 1913 o o n n a n a 26 R 1913 n n a o a a o a G. McClellan D 1913 a o n n a a 2/ P. G. Ten Eyck. . D 1913 a n n a n a 28 R 1913 n o a a a n o 29 153 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p-Answered present o-Not voting t _o CO "o c ■5 c ■Q V to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ■c 5 "o b 1 4) "3 Pi 8P Or si ft o 6 G cog MO G in to i o. rt o* a- >*s O.G AS li |S EH o.E 1 >. §1 .-e-S .. £.5 O t 0. O i o bo c '5 a 'u m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t c 3 "o i~ 4) B 3 Z Cg a I M Oc .So •s- s o B a I < a 3 O a e < a _o O 4J W 0) I- "cdE-" Pit; J3 o *3: If r Ch -do CO- 5 B, 3 v a o &<)•*-» rr, F c IS « E e-E CO c ticU C w Id s 4) P. C/3 »2 "So- ox HO ■ i 1 So Sf o.£ 1 > m £ o"rt b *rt B o I !■! OS n D 1913 a o n n o n a R. J. Bulkley D 1911 a a n n n a n a D 1913 n a n o a a n Oklahoma 1 R 1907 a n n n P a a n n n a o o a 2 D. T. Morgan.. . . R 1909 a n n a a a a n n n a n n a n 3_ . S. Davenport . . D 1911 a a a n n n n 4 2. D. Carter D 1907 n a a a o n n a a a n a o , p ■ D 1907 n a a a n n n a a a n n n n a iV. H. Murray D 913 a a a a n n 155 a-Affinnative vote n-Negative vote p-Answered present o-Not voting p. V U "> u it CO "S u t c ■a pa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t V .1 D *o fe .O Z a M i a u I bo d u u o s Q § B2 < o o c tu 6 *o < o *3 u +J en c = 0) o fit- 's » et i=: Q2 in ii c32 o is p.8 Cfi o HP5 i en JS2 |.fc F-CJ . <0 .SB ai o o.E HP. f 8 p3S o'rt HO 1 I CIS •5 8 ■a > fi •35 .a O 1 p. .2 P SJ O tf HQ D 1913 a n n a a O a J. B. Thompson. . D 1913 a a n n o n n Oregon 1 W. C. Hawley.... R 1907 a n o a a a a n. n n n a a a ? N. J. Sinnott R 1913 n a a a n a n .1 A. W. Lafferty. . . P 1911 n a a a a a n a n Pennsylvania 1 W. S. Vare R 1912 o a a a a n 7 G. S. Graham. . . . R 1913 n o a a o o o 3 R 1906 a n o n a a n n o n a o n o 4 G. W. Edmonds.. R 1913 o a a a 5 M. Donohoe D 1911 o a a n a n n 6 D 1913 a n n n a n a 7 T. S. Butler R 1897 a o o o a a a n n n a o n n a 8 R. E. Difenderfer. D 1911 o P o a a n n n 9 W. W. Griest R 1909 a o n o a a a n n n o a o n 10 J. R. Farr P 1911 o a a o a a o a n 11 J. J. Casey D 1913 a a n o n n 1? R. E. Lee D 1911 a o n a a n n n n 13 J. H. Rothermeal . D 1907 n a a n a n n a a a n o P 14 W. D. B. Ainey.. . R 1911 o o o o a o a a a 15 E. R. Kiess R 1913 o o a o o o 16 J. V. Lesher D 1913 o n n o n n n 17 F. L. Dershem D 1913 a n a n a n 18 R 1913 n o a a a a n 19 W. W. Bailey D 1913 a a n n n n ?n A. R. Brodbeck.... D 1913 a n n n n n 21 C. E. Patton R 1911 n o o o a o a a o 22 R 1913 « n a a a n 156 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p-Answered present o-Not voting 4) U CO *o be ,C '2 c Hi m *1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 'B w Q *o t- V 1 3 z 1 Oo. §1 a (2 *5 cm « CM .aS %" i-. o s V Q c a < & "3 o a a£ a o o R ° c Si <.2 as rtE-" ^2 O B n bo-y £a o is j-jj co o boO C ui V) V. V •a (L> Pi CO »s St 8.S "3 | o> o o.E "•a i| ■•9-S U ID m £ o'rt HO 1 u o T n >..3> Jg •c E 8-8 H 5 u a rt "p, rn a* O d HP 73 W. N. Carr D 1913 a a n n o n 74 H. W. Temple.... P 1913 n a a a n a n 75 M. W. Shreve. . . . R 1913 n o a a a n n 26 A. M. Palmer.. . . D 1909 n a a n o n n a a a o n a o 27 J.N. Langham . . . R 1909 a n o a a a n n n o o a n o ?S W. J. Hulings P 1913 n a a a n a n 70 S. G. Porter R 1911 o o a o a o a a n ^n M. C. Kelly P 1913 n a a a o a n ... 31 J. F. Burke R 1905 a o n a a a n n o o o o a p 32 A. J. Barchfeld... R 1905 a o o a a a n n n o a o n o A. R. Rupley P 1913 n a a a n a n R 1913 n o a a o a n A. H. Walters.... P 1913 n a a a n a n P 1913 o a a a n a Rhode Island 1 G. F. O'Shaunessy D 1911 o n n o a a a o a 2 P. G. Gerry D 1913 a o n o a n a 3 R 1913 o o a a a o n South Carolina 1 R. S. Whaley D 1913 a n o a o a 2 J. F. Byrnes D 1911 a a n n n n a n a 3 D 1903 n a a a n a a o o a n a a 4 J. T. Johnson .... D 1901 n a o o o n n a a o n o n a a 5 D. E. Finley D 1899 n a a o n a n a a n a J. W. Ragsdale. . . D 1913 a a a o a o a 7 D 1901 n a o o o n n P P a o a n a a South Dakota C. H. Dillon R 1913 n a a n n a n 1 2 R 1909 it n n ii o t% a n n n a a o a 157 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p- Answered present o-Not voting t u 'E V CO "o be c 1 •B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS Q "o i- f 2 4> U 3 ft "3 on, SP Otr> o a Q c 6 T) < ft o 1 c 1 d*> & o +> IB S ° *o a, C Is I 1 > (A d a Oh ■a p 8 0, .a O <4 HQ 3 E. W. Martin R 1908 a a n P a a n n o O o o Tennessee S. R. Sells R 1911 o o o a a o n a n 2 R. W. Austin R 1909 n n n a a a a n n n a a a n n 3 J. A. Moon D 1897 n a a a n o a o n a n a 4 C. Hull D 1907 n a a a n n n a a a n a n n 5 W. C. Houston... D 1905 n a o n n n a a a o o n a a 6 J. W. Byrns D 1909 n. a n n n n a a a n a n a a 7 L. P. Padgett D 1901 n a o o a n n a a a n a n a a 8 T. W. Sims D 1897 n a a o n n n a a a n a n n 9 F. J. Garrett D 1905 n a n n n n n a a a n a n n a K. D. McKellar. . D 1911 a o n n n n a Texas H. W. Vaughan... D 1913 a a n n n n n ? D 1909 n a n. o n n n a a a n a n a 1 J. Young D 1911 a a a n n n n n a 4 D 1913 a n n n n n n n S J. Beall D 1903 n a o a n n n a a a n n n 6 R. Hardy D 1907 n a a a n n a a a n a n n a 7 A. W. Gregg D 1903 n a a a a n n a a o n a n n a 8 J. H. Eagle D 1913 o a n n n a 9 G. F. Burgess.. . . D 1901 n a o n o n n o o a o a n a a in J. P. Buchanan.. . D 1913 a a n n a n a n R. L. Henry D 1897 n o a a n n n a a a n o o o a 17 D 1911 a a a n n n n n a 13 J. H. Stephens. . . . D 1897 n a a a n n n a a a o a n o a 14 D 1897 n a o n n n n a a a n o n a o 15 D 1903 n a a P a n n a a a n n n n a 16 W. R. Smith D 1903 n a a a n 11 n a a a a n " n ° 158 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p- Answered present o-Not voting 0. 1 at CO *3 bo B "c C 'K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jl 12 13 14 15 S u 3 2 1 bo « .y """ 3 3 p. 1 M 01 Cm .«S U O o B Q a m H S2 < | o 1 E E£ < p. jd "3 O £H n u a> i- St <° W p. 8 w o Hjs cl2 t & *ao CO- E « 2 o Br Is e2 tl ccg «C n K ■£* to "s ■3 a nJO- OX HO I v Ih •JE & o S| o.E H&< 1* Eg A! t- pq S 0"c3 HO b "3 E ~E u O 1 11 >..a ° d 61 ■o E t>fr, X 5 8 «j "a. w 3>, O rt HQ H. W. Sumners... D 1913 a o n n n a D. E. Garrett D 1913 a a n n n n n Utah J. Howell R 1903 a o o o a a a n n n a o a a a J. Johnson R 1913 n n a a a n n Vermont 1 F. L. Greene R 1912 n n a a a a n 2 F. Plumley R 1909 a n o n o a a a n a a n a Virginia 1 D 1891 n a a a n a a a o a o a ? E. E. Holland.... D 1911 a n n o n n a n a ,1 A. J. Montague. . . D 1913 o n n n a o a 4 W. A. Watson. . . . D 1913 a a n a o a 5 3. W. Saunders. . D 1906 n o o n o " n o o a o a n a o fi 3. Glass D 1902 n o o o n n o o a n P n a a 7 f. Hay D 1897 n a a n o n n a a a n a o a a 8 3. C. Carlin D 1907 n P a o n a a a a o o a o 9 C. B. Slemp R 1907 a o n o o a a o o n o o n 10 H. D. Flood D 1901 n a a a o n n a a a n o n a a Washington 1 W. E. Humphrey . R 1903 a n n n a a a n n n a a a n a 2 R 1913 n o a o a a n 3 W. L. LaFollette.. R 1911 n a a a a a a a n J. A. Falconer F 1913 n a a a n a n J. W. Bryan P 1913 n a a a n a o West Virginia 1 M. M. Neely D 1913 n n n n W. G. Brown, Jr. . D 1911 a a a a n n n 3 R 1913 o n a a n n 159 a-Affirmative vote n-Negative vote p- Answered present o-Not voting >• CO a. i £ u a 1 u CO m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 ii 12 13 14 IS o ■c S u V ■O a 0> "3 1 a 0) ho (-. o o E Q e B2 < 0. ^o o 3 V 6 < O ~ CO ES- SE at <£, i=: si o rtH w O o: (32 •DO is £6 © & « .SS sa to o MO 03 js CI) CJ a en «2 >*s HO ■ £ to.-S .5 6 It flj o s*s o.S HO. i >. 11 ^ u jU»CJ CQ jjj HO h "3 S 5 8 ! b s ° cs a> J3 > 5m la 11 .3 3 •c Dl 3 § O cfl 4 H. H. Moss, Jr... R 1913 n o a o a O n 5 R 1901 a n P a n n P o o O P H. Sutherland.... R 1913 n o a a n a n Wisconsin 1 R 1893 n n a a a n a a a n n a n ? M. E. Burke D 1911 a a a n n o a n o 3 R 1906 n a a a a n a a a n a n n 4 W. J. Cary R 1907 n n P a n a n a a o a o o P n 5 W. H. Stafford. . . R 1913 n a n a n n n a n a n n 6 M. K. Reilly D 1913 a a n a n n a 7 J. J. Esch R 1899 a n P n n o o o n a n a n a 8 E. E. Browne .... R 1913 n o n a n a n 9 T. P. Konop D 1911 a a o n n a a n n 10 J. A. Frear R 1913 n a a a n a n a 11 R 1909 n n a o n n n a a a a n a a Wyoming F. W. Mondell... R 1899 a ii n a a n n n a n a 160 y <*-> ■ * * A