¹ See Representative Pou's, remarks, Congressional Record, April 11, p. 10.Google Scholar

² For a similar agreement in the Senate, see American Political Science Review, Vol. 14, p. 75. The House procedure was discussed on April 18, and the debate contains some interesting information about the control of the majority over minority committee assignments.

³ See American Political Science Review, Vol. 14, p. 75. In the debate on the Republican proposal, Senator Williams quoted a Latin verse, now a very rare occurrence in the Senate, and Senator Brandegee, with great frankness, described the majority's intentions in a parody of Kipling's, “Recessional” (Congressional Record, April 18, p. 340)Google Scholar:

“The tumult and the shouting dies,

The captain and the kings depart,

And the steam roller is about to start.”

⁴ The Senate leaders (both of the majority and minority) proposed a recess from July 7 to July 28, but their concurrent resolution was beaten (27–24) by the agricultural “bloc,” which desired legislation for the relief of the farmers (amendments to the Federal Farm Loan Banks, the grain futures bill, etc.). See Congressional Record, July 5, p. 3501.

⁵ “Private members, like governments, have all got legislation on the brain and think that the primary business of Parliament is to legislate, whereas in fact it is to look after the administration of existing laws so well that no new laws or very few are necessary.” “A Student of Politics” (said to be Herbert Sidebotham) in the London Times, April 17, 1920; quoted, with some excellent remarks, by Burns, C. Delisle, in Government and Industry, p. 61 (London, 1921).Google Scholar

⁶ The Senate committee on privileges and elections reported to the Senate (September 29) on the Ford-Newberry contest, and the resolution to dismiss Ford's petition was debated at intervals until the adjournment.

⁷ An interesting question was raised when President Harding, in signing the bill, wrote to Congress that the normal expiration of enlistments would probably approximate one-half the reduction that Congress had ordered. But, he added, “I would not feel justified in asking the Secretary of War to enforce the dismissal of men who have enlisted for a definite term of service. There seems to be a moral obligation involved, the violation of which would be demoralizing to the spirit of the army itself.” The letter continued: “If a probable deficit develops in a just procedure to reduce our enlisted forces, I will report to the Congress at the earliest possible day.” The act expressly provided that no deficit should be created. In this connection it is interesting to recall the statement made by President Wilson when he signed the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act of 1913, which provided that the funds appropriated for the enforcement of the antitrust laws should not be used for the prosecution of agricultural associations or trade unions. In a memorandum made at the time of signature, Mr. Wilson said: “I can assure the country that this item will neither limit nor in any way embarrass the actions of the Department of Justice. Other appropriations supply the Department with abundant funds to enforce the law.” The President said that if he had had the power to veto items in appropriation bills, this exemption would have gone out. See Harvey, George, “Six Months of Wilson,” North American Review, November, 1913 and American Year Book 1913, p. 24.Google Scholar

⁸ See American Political Science Review, Vol. 14, p. 670.

⁹ The House of Representatives passed a bill on May 29, 1920, although it was not intended that it should become law in that form. It was certain that the Senate would not consider it and it seemed wise to take some action before the presidential campaign. See American Political Science Review, Vol. 15, p. 79. The Senate committee also reported a bill in February, 1921, but it was not considered.

¹⁰ On August 20, Representative Cockran sought to secure consideration by the House of a resolution appointing a committee of nine members “to consider what measures should be taken to vindicate the rights and privileges which have been violated and invaded by this action of the President of addressing a communication respecting legislation to the Senate, and not to the Congress, as required by the Constitution.” The resolution was laid on the table. Congressional Record, p. 5788. In September, 1918, President Wilson appeared before the Senate and urged the passage of the then pending Woman's Suffrage Amendment, describing it “as a vitally necessary war measure,” and “as vital to the right solution of the great problems which we must settle immediately when the war is over.” The House had approved the amendment in January, 1918. See American Political Science Review, Vol. 14, p. 80. Mr. Wilson also delivered an address on the essentials of permanent peace to the Senate (January 22, 1917) “as the council associated with me in the final determination of our international obligations.” See Scott, , President Wilson's Foreign Policy, p. 245.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., October 29, p. 7798.

¹² The resolution was dated July 2, 1921, but the formal proclamation of peace was not made until after the ratification of the peace treaties. It was issued on November 14, but was dated back to July 2.

¹³ Before the session began, it was predicted in some quarters not far removed from the capitol, that the real control of foreign policy would be vested in the Senate, which, incidentally, was not enthusiastic over the appointment of Mr. Hughes as secretary of state. There was slight, if any, fulfillment of this prediction. The Senate ratified the treaty with Colombia, at the request of the administration and with remarkable promptness. (It was held over from the special session of the Senate, March 4–14, to approve appointments, and was taken up in the special session of Congress.) Mr. Wilson's much decried idealism was translated into interests, and Senators who voted against righting a wrong were in favor of ratifying to secure oil and harbor privileges. Some other unimportant treaties were ratified: the treaties with Germany and Austria went through as proposed by the administration, and while President Harding was very tactful in appointing Senators Lodge and Underwood to his disarmament commission, the initiative here has been Secretary Hughes' and not the Senate's. One interesting incident of the relation of the President and Congress with regard to foreign affairs, was the failure of Mr. Harding to reverse President Wilson's action in refusing to carry out the provisions of the Jones Shipping Law. See American Political Science Review, Vol. 14, p. 670.

¹⁴ See Congressional Record, June 3, P. 2090 and June 7, pp. 2234 ff.

¹⁵ See Congressional Record, May 9, p. 1114, and May 14, p. 1429. On July 7, following the resignation of Mr. Wolcott, the senior senator from Delaware, Senator Walsh raised the question of whether a quorum of the Senate consisted of 48 or 49. The discussion seemed to indicate that although the practice of the Senate adopted the former number, a strict interpretation of the constitutional provision would require the latter number. See Congr. Record, p. 3633.

¹⁶ It was pointed out that during the Sixty-sixth Congress the House of Representatives lost time equivalent to tenworking days in having the roll called on points of no quorum that were made by a single representative.

¹⁷ See American Political Science Review, Vol. 15, p. 81.

¹⁸ There was a roll call later on the question of whether the Senate 50 per cent surtax amendment should be agreed to.

Attention should also be called to the fact that the House passed two important bills under suspension of rules. The rural posts roads bill, providing for assistance to the states in road construction was passed under suspension of rules with the House not allowed to propose amendments, and the same day (June 27) the leaders put through the anti-beer bill. This was intended to overturn the attorney-general's ruling and was an emergency measure, introduced by the chairman of the rules committee himself, because he thought that the Volstead supplemental act had too many details and covered too many subjects to throw it open in the House at that time for debate, amendment and vote. On this occasion, however, by unanimous consent, debate continued for four hours instead of the customary forty minutes. It was said in defense of such a procedure that, thus limited as to its action, the House would deliberate “in a much more dignified manner.”

¹⁹ See American Political Science Review, Vol. 15, p. 370.

²⁰ Attention should be called, however, to the fact that the change in the House rules requiring matters added to bills in the Senate which would have been subject to points of order if originally proposed in the House, to be brought in by the House conferees for separate votes, again resulted in the House being able to have its way as against the Senate. This was particularly true with regard to the naval appropriation bill. The House forced substantial reductions. In the discussion of the conference report on the naval bill in the Senate, there are some very plaintive references to the effects of this House rule. Reference should also be made to the Senate debate on November 23 on the conference report on the tax revision bill. This contains a very valuable discussion of the powers of conference committees.