July 12, 1909

The action of Congress, l\1r. Speaker, js a keen disappointment to the American people, and especially to the toiling millions who were expecting at least partial relief from the burdens of exce si\e taxation.

Mr. CLi r' E. Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the submission of the income-tax amendment to the Federal Constitution because I have rn always believed it to be one of the most equitable and just systems of taxation. In doing so, however, I incorporate with · my vote my understanding of the · pre ent conditions surrounding the disposal of this measure. I very much believe the leaders of the Republican party in Congress are not sincere, -and do not really want to amend the Constitution so that an in­ · come tax can be laid without doubt of its constitutionality .

- Some of the mo t influential men in · Congress, now asking that the proposed amendment be submitted, are known to be unalterably o p posed to the imposition of an income tax. In my opinion the reason for the enthusiastic support this measure is receiving from leading Republicans, both in the Senate and the House, is to commit the country and Congress to the theory that Congress can not now pass a valid income-tax law which the Supreme Court would uphold" as constitutional, if required to pass upon it, and that therefore the amendment is necessary. That assumption would put the entire matter in abeyance for at least three or four years. Then, too, a submission of such an amendment would require three-fourths of the States to ratify it before it could become effective, and if the enemies of . the income tax could defeat its ratification in 12 States the entire question would be forever put at rest.

Gongre s has been in session now four months devising measures to produce revenue to meet the ordinary expenses of the Government and at the same time protect the interest that · have found especial favor at the bands of tile .Republican party · and meet the - deficit of nearly $100,000,000. During all this time "DO man has risen in his place and · denounced the income tax · as an inequitable and unjust measure. No objection has been . made to it, except that it was inquisitorial in character and should be applied only in times oi great · national stress. No man has dared to oppose it because it asks great masses of wealth, in most instances wrung from the people under nn iniquitous high-tariff policy that no one subscribed to except the parties who are especially benefited by tha-t policy, to pay their fair share of taxes.

I believe in an income tax because it 'taxes what a man really has. It taxes wealth, not want; accumulated · possessions, instead of consumption. It responds to · the ideal Democratic doctrine of taxation, viz, that taxes ought to be laid proportionately upon those who are best able to bear them. All taxes are burdensome, and when they are assessed so as to reach those who are best able to bear them they are then correctly apportioned. "The very fact that both the House and the Senate added a · new source of · revenue to their respective measures is a confession that the general tariff bill finally framed would not produce suffi.ci en t re'\ en u e.

The doctrine that Congress had the power under the Constitution to lay an income tax was the theory and in part the practice of this Government for nearly one hundred years. There had been full acquiescence in the constitutional power of Congress to enact such legislation. The act of 1861 ta-xed incomes “derived from any kind of . property · or from any profes ion," and that act was amended in 1864 and at various intervals after till 1870. Its constitutionality was not questioned -and it was a fruitful source of revenue. The decree of the Supreme Court of the United States declaring the income-tax law of 1 94 unconstitutional surprised and shocked not only the legal fraternity of the Jund, but the great masses of the people, who had so long believed and acted upon the belief that the law was secure in its constitutional guaranty. That general · opinion, with all due respect to the court, is still generally adhered to.

P.ubli~ thought llas naturally turned toward the the . ory of taxmg meomes because · of the magnitude of industriaJ and corporate ~ortun.es that . have escaped their share of the burdens: Th~ ratio of mve~trnents in real · and personal property has mateTially changed m two decad-OS, the per onal holdings being yastly. greater than. twenty years -ago. The public mind, viewmg with alarm the mcreasing power of these vast combinations of wealth and their threatened menace to our full and free enjoyment of our institutions, looked a.bout not onJy for .a remedy to prevent the JJOSsible - evil influence, but to check the growth of these accumulations, and at the rune time r ach them for a fail' share of the taxes they should justly contribute to their own support and that of the GeneTal Government.

I was in full accord with · om· President when he questioned the necessity of a constitutional amendment, .as declared in the Democ atic platform adopted at Denver. ‘The President, in his acceptance of the nomination for the Presidency by the Republican party on July 28, 1908, said: -

The Democratic platform demands two constitutional amendments, \ on~ providing for an income tax and the other for the election of the United States Senators by the people. Mi my judgment, the amendment ,· to the Constitution for an income tax is not necessary.' I This was not a conclusion hastily arrived at by the President; he had a year before spoken on this subject. On August 19 \ 1907, in an address delivered at Columbus, Ohio, he said: ' A graduated income tax would have the tendency to reduce the motive l for the accumulation of enormous wealth, but the Supreme Court has held an income tax not to be a valid exercise of power by the Federal Government. The objection to it from a practical standpoint is its inquisitorial character· and the premium it puts on perjury. In times of great national need, however, an income tax would ·be of great as­ · si s tance in · furnishing · revenue to carry on the Government, and it is not free from doubt how the Supreme Court, with changed membership would view a new income-tax law under such conditions. The court was nearly evenly divided in the last case, and during the civil war great sums were collected by an income tax without judicial .interference and, as it was supposed, under the federal power.

The income-tax law of 1894 was declared unconstitutional by a bare majority of the court, and in the decree all four of the judges dissenting :filed opinions. The President, knowing the very narrow margin under which this opinion obtained, the circumstances under whic~ it was rendered, the opinion of eminent judges tha.t the decision was unsound, the changed personnel of the court, believed the question ought again to be submitted for review . .So strong was he of the rnlidity of an income-tax law, properly drawn, that he did not hesitate to say tha.t the question should be agaiB presented. Courts in all the States have reversed their opinions · on important and momentous questions, and that without 1llly reflection upon themselves . In view of the great difficulty involved in amending the Oonstitutio~ and justly so, too, would it :not ha>e been wise to have passed an income-tax law and . asked the Supreme Court to -again -pass upon the question? If the court should deny to the federal power the a:uthority, "there would ' Still be left to us the course we are now pursuing .

But, Mr . - Speaker .. 1:he President did not insist 11pon an ineome-tax .measure when he convened .Congress in this extraoTdinary session . When the Ways and Means Cvmmittee submitted what was known as the "Payne bill," it included an inheritance tax, which it was said was included at the special instance and request of the President. - The · bill passed this body with that provision. After the bill was taken up in the Senate, the President of the United States :Sent a special message to Congress, suggesting the . adoption of what is known as the " corpora.tion tax," assessing all corporations 2 per cent on the net income of the corporation in excess of i;;5,000 . The Senate elimina.ted the inheritanee ta:K: and substituted the corporation · tax . It is a matter of . general knowledge that the leading members of the Finance Committee in the Senate are 01Jen and avowed enemies - of the income tax, and that the a~­ ceptance of the corporation-tax feature for the inheritance tax as incorporated in .the House bill was for the sole and only purpose of defeating the income tax . It was also reported in the press · and among the Members of both Houses, . and there .has been 110 denial of the fact, that per onally there was as much objection on the part of lealling members of the Finance Committee to the coTporation tax ns there was to the income tax . Yet the upper House of Congre s proposes to submit a constitutional amendment to the people in order to give Congress the authority to do what leading Sena.tors declare they . are opposed to.

Can there be much speculation as to the purpo e of submitting the proposed amendment? Not only can the 6 New England States that hn\e grown "rich beyond the dream of avarice," contributed by the grea-t Central West, with G other States that have enjoyed a partners h ip in the plunder, defeat the propo ed amendment, but ev e n th o ug h the full number · of 12 States · di .. rectly could not be induced to join: in the defeat, opportunity is given to pack the senates of other smaller States having a very limited representation, so that it would not concur with the other legislative branch of the body and still defeat the amendment. I vote for the submission - of this amendment, because I believe, as Congress is now constituted, it is the last chance to pave the way to some contributions from the great masses of wealth that do not now contribute to their own protection by the General Go-vernment. I do so, too, with the full knowledge of the scheme whereby the income-tax proposition has been betrayed into ambush by its pretended friends to be silently slaughtered by that quiet hand that is so subtle and at times so powerful in state legislatures. I do so with the hope that the overwhelming force of public sentiment in the West will see to it that the purpose of . tho e who are responsible for the plan will not accomplish the desired result.

For years the Democratic party has advocated the income tax as a just measure for raising revenue. It has developed public sentiment to such an extent that the . Republican party that heretofore has vigorously denounced it now covertly espou es its adoption. Even if the Payne bill or the Aldrich bi11 would have furnished sufficient revenue, I would still be in favor of an income tax, because. of the strong principle of justice and equity the proposition involves. I would enact a graduated income-tax law, reform the schedules in the dutiable list, lower · the rates of duty on articles of common necessity, enlarge the free list, and lift the burden from the backs of the toiling millions of American citizens in part and place it on the pocketbooks of the idle rich. Our wealth-our congested wealth-is so great and the expenses of the General Government so large that it seems to me we are bound to reform our sources of revenue.

For more than fifty years the income tax has grown in popular favor, not only in this country, but among the great powers of Europe. In England, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, the Netherlands, and even in the new possession of Hawaii an income tax has become a fixed and settled feature of their taxing policy. In England the Government has for more than sixty consecutive years collected an income tax, the last year the amount from that one source alone being more than $165,000,000.

When the British income tax was first laid, the revenue derived from the same was used to reduce by so much the protective duties against importations of general use, thereby forcing great accumulations of wealth to pay a share of the cost of their protection and removing, in part, the burdens of taxation from the poor.

Reference has been - made by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to the argument of l\Ir. Gladstone, who, like the chairman, was an enemy of an income tax, in which Mr. Glad tone said he was opposed to the income-tax law because it would make a "nation of liars. ~ · This statement is quoted with approval as a forceful argument by the chairman against the income tax. The distinguished gentleman ought to be told that i\Ir. Gladstone in 1874 dissolved Parliament and appeale.d to the ' people, promising them if he were returned to power he would abolish the income-tax law. On a square presentation of the issue Mr. Gladstone and his party were crushed with humiliating d~ feat. The income tax has been retained and is now a permanent factor in the revenue system of the country. Can it be possible that because a man will lie about his property possessions he should not be taxed? John Sherman said: uAll taxes are inqui · itorial, and the income tax is least so of any system." What is the trend · of public thought in this country with reference to this question? More . than 40 States in fifteen years ha-ve appointed commissions to examine and inquire into the con titutional provisions of sister States, with reference to their methods of producing revenue. Thirteen States have rn amended their constitutions so as to remove · all question of their authority to tax incomes. The increasing popularity of this equitable and just system can not be diverted; it conduces to a fail" and equitable distribution of the burdens, and is based upon the universally accepted principle of taxation, that in addition to the tax on articles of consumption there should be a direct tax on incomes, · properly graduated. In all the changes of fifty . years in our economic and industrial conditions, establishing ) new alignments of wealth, new forms of investments by which the wealth of society is produced · and distributed, the income tax has met with n<;> new arguments against it. Always and everywhere when the demand for greater justice in the di . distribution of the burdens of taxation has arisen, the income tax has bee.n resorted to. In this country of ours with the greatest commerce, both internal , and external, the greatest wealth, the greatest opportunity for expansion of our natural resources, why should we not reach these colossal fortunes and combinations for some support of the Go"Vernment in whose system of taxation they have found so much favor?

Gentle.men oppose an income-tax law because of its inquisi· torial character. Ascertaining the basis of any system of taxation is of necessity inquisitorial, and yet these same gentlemen advocate a corporation-tax law whose chief merit is the authority it gives the Government to invade the privacy and pry into and spy upon the business and methods of ·corporations with an army of inquisitors. The alleged income tax is abandoned in the Senate for one reason, viz, that Congress could not enact a law that would withstand a constitutional attack: but at the same time the Senate substitutes a corporation tax, labeled " a special excise tax," that, in the opinion of many distinguished lawyers both m the House and Senate, contains the same provisions that made the law of 1894 vulnerable in the Pollock case. Aside from the question of whether the present corporate amendment-the "special excise-tax" law-contains the elements of every just tax system--elements es entially necessary-equality in the distribution of the burdens it imposes, may not the legislator inquire whether or not as a permanent policy the General Government ought to be permitted to reach out to these .local corporations, creatures of purely state legislation, and take from the States this source of revenue? Upon what theory may the Federal Government inquire into the private business of a purely local corporation, not doing or attempting to do an interstate business, but acting under the limitations of a state statute that created it, fixed its rights, powers, duties, and obligations? If the Federal Government may put its hand into the treasury of the corporation, divide its profits between the company and the Government, in defiance of state law, why may it not go further and limit and define the powers and duties of the corporation, fix the character of its operations and expenditures, restrict the state legislature in the privileges it may confer in a corporate act, and the judiciary of the State in its construction? If the federal power is to be permitted to override state boundary lines, subtract from the States their means of income, may it not continue to take more and more, till the recognized, separate, and independent rights of the States become a mere fiction? This condition deserves serious consideration. The strong, and, I may say, an almost irresistible, tendency in a representative government is toward a centralized power in the federal head. It can not but alarm all those who understand the preservation of the rights of the States to all those powers not especially delegated under the Constitution to be material and necessary to our perpetuity . A century has given these independent sovereigns that compose this federation those separate rights and functions that demand our respect and protection. ·

It has been said that the people are prejudiced against corporations. This is not correct. They are prejudiced against trusts and combinations that crush competition and dominate legitimate line of business for their own selfish purposes. Almost every kind of business in every community is carried on by local corporations . They are an indispensable agency in conducting the business of the country. They furnish a means for investment by thousands of persons with small capital Local corporations do not shrink from the payment of taxes, but they • want no fa •oritism shown in apportioning the burden, and no discrimination made between classes of persons engaged in the same · identical busine s, nor between classes, differently organ· ized and competing for the same business.

I would vote for a corporation-tax amendment, properly drawn, if I could do so without my vote counting for the passage of the pre ent unequal and unjust tariff measure now before Congress. I would do so only when the law taxed all corporations and all associations equally, especially when engaged in the same line of business, without discrimination. I would vote under those conditions for a temporary measure, because I believe it is my first, highest, and most patriotic duty with my vote to relieve the present embarrassment of the Government of ninety millions of deficit and the deficit that will occur during the next two years rather than consent to an issue of bonds, and not that I believe a corporation tax can be drawn free from all objections, or that it is an ideal measure of taxation or wholly free from constitutional doubt. I would do so, too, believing that speedy and just legislation would follow to remove, even in a temporary measure, as far as possible, the inequalities hidden in the law.

It has been said that the publicity feature of the bill will enable the Government to circumscribe the operations of the combinations and give the independent corporation a more faV"orable opportunity for trade. Exactly the opposite must be the result. A knowledge of the business, capital invested, indebtedness, customers of the small independent corporation struggling with the trust monster for a foothold in the trade of the country will always in some way be available to the trust, thereby giving it the means to drive its independent rival out of business and make the field of the trusts' operations wider and less restricted-its mastery more complete.

If we accord entire good faith to the authors of the AldrichPayne bill, they have raised the duties so high on so many articles of common consumption that all competition has been destroyed. In the language of the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Senator CUMMINS], "complete, substantial, and effective competition is no longer a factor in American commerce." No man in all this tariff discussion has uttered a more pungent truth than this same Senator when he said "the rights of the consumer of any article or commodity to competition is dearer and higher and more sacred than the right of the producer to protection." This competition, which of right belongs to every American citizen, is in the iron grasp and safe-keeping of the manufacturers of New England. The Aldrich bill has intrenched them behind a tariff wall that leaves ninety millions of consumers to their tender mercies. It has levied a rate of trib­ Mr. MANN. ute on the dwellers in the Mississippi Valley and given them power to collect it. Out of the honesty and industry, the thrift and economy of the merchant, the farmer, the mechanic, the day laborer must come the tax money of the manufacturer. If I had the power, I would relieve the people from the clutch of greed and avarice, from their commercial thraldom; I would pass a graduated income tax, reduce the duties on articles of necessity, and lighten the burdens of the poor. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER. The time for debate has expired; all time has expired.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I desire to have my amendment submitted, and ask that it be reported from the Clerk's desk.

l\Ir. PAYNE. I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that no amendment is in order.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. I want to be heard on the point of order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York makes the point that no amendment is in order. The Chair is ready to rule, but out of courtesy will hear the gentleman from Texas briefly. · · ··

1\Ir. HENRY of Texas .• I desire to make a statement in regard to the amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Chair hopes that the gentleman will confine himself to the point of order, which is that the joint resolution, under the order made by unanimous consent, is not amendable.

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. I shall confine myself strictly to the point of order, and it is upon that which I desire to be heard. Mr. Speaker, my amendment is to strike out the following words in lines 5 and 6 of the joint resolution, "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States," a,nd insert ment . " when ratified by convention in three-fourths of the several States." ·

Now, Mr. Speaker, upon the convening of Congress this morning the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] asked unanimous consent that this resolution be taken up and considered until 4 o'clock, and at that time, to wit, 4 o'clock, the House should proceed to vote upon the resolution.

There was no objection to that agreement, and therefore the House agreed that it would consider the amendment until 4 o'clock and then vote upon it. There was nothing said in regard to any amendment to the amendment that might be offered, and hence if the original proposition was subject to amendment at first it is now undoubtedly subject to amendment. What action has this House taken to prevent an amendment to the amendment? Absolutely none. l\Ir. ~"'N. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. HENRY of Texas. I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MAl\"'N. Under the ordinary practice at this stage of the proceedings there would be a motion or demand for the previous question.

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. Yes.

Mr. MANN. Does not the gentleman think it fair to consider that the unanimous-consent agreement takes the place of the previous question, in order that the House might have a longer time for debate, and that at the end of that time the House proceed to a vote as though the previous question had been ordered?

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. I agree to that, and am glad the gentleman asked the question and to know that he agrees with Mr. l\IANN. · The previous question would shut off the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HENRY o:t Texas. Not at all. I have studied tMt question, and I want to make a statement about it now. We agreed that we would vote at 4 o'clock, which superseded a motion for the previous question, and such action certainly can not be construed as tantamount to ordering the previous question. There was not an agreement that this amendment should not be amended. There was nothing standing in the way of an amendment to an amendable proposition whenever the time came to vote upon it, and the previous question not having been demanded, such demand has long since been waived. I hope that answers the gentleman's proposition.

Mr. MANN. Well, it seems to me quite the revers.e. I thought the gentleman and I agreed that the unanimous-consent agreement practically amounted to ordering the previous question.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. No; I did not say that it was tantamount to ordering the previous question, but only superseded the previous question and took it out of the power of anyone to call for it or the House even to order the same. You could not take it out of the power to demand the previous question unless it was considered in effect--

Mr. HENRY of Texas. If it was properly demanded under the rules. But here, where we agreed to vote at 4 o'clock on this amendment, it could not at that time appropriately supersede such order.

Mr. MANN. The agreement to vote at 4 o'clock is certainly equivalent exactly to the previous question being ordered, because the previous question, after it is ordered, is simply that you vote at once, at a certain time.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. Now, Mr. Speaker, I gave notice early in the debate that at the proper time I should offer this amendment, and understood from the Chair that there should be proper opportunity to submit the amendment. Here we have only agreed to vote at 4 o'clock. We have not agreed in any way to preclude any amendment to this amendment. Therefore I say that it is clearly within the rule when I stand here now and offer my amendment. ·

Mr. JAMES. I suggest to the gentleman that when he gave notice he would offer the amendment there was nothing said by the gentlemen on the other side about the previous question.

The SPEAKER. The Chair begs the gentleman's pardon. The Chair called the attention of the gentleman to the condition of the order made by unanimous consent, so, so far as the ' Chair is concerned, the Chair is not embarrassed by any judgment by confession touching the matter.

Mr. HENRY of Texas. The Chair is not "embarras sed," and neither am I embarrassed; but as a Member of this House I only desire that this matter be fairly submitted for _ the con ­ sideration of the membership, and while the Speaker is in such a "fair" and "unembarrassed" state of mind 1 · believe he will be constrained to rule that nothing has been done which prevents our now voting upon this amendment to the amendI hope that there is nothing in the Chair's present " amiable mind" that will prevent him giving a just ruling, as this manifestly would be, on this occasion, the previous question not having been moved, and nothing but an agreement to vote at 4 o'clock, after a consideration of the bill until that time, having been entered into by the House of Representatives. And also, 0 according to the rules of this House, and in accord with logic and right reasoning, we are at this instant entitled to a vote upon my proposition. And I ask that the Chair rule with me on this just proposal and meritorious amendment and authorize the House to vote whether or not the Senate resolution shall be changed in the way suggested by me. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

The SPEAKER. The Chair will rule in this case according to the order of the House, whatever the consequences of that ruling may be. It is not the office or the duty of the Chair to disobey the rules of the House upon one hand as its presiding officer, or set aside the order upon the other. Now, what is the situation? In colloquy between the gentleman from New York [Mr. PAYNE] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CLARK] as to time for discussion upon this joint resolution it was agreed, in substance, .that general debate should be closed upon the resolution at 4 o'clock, at which time a vote should be taken upon the joint resolution. Now, then, in the opinion of the Chair, that is equivalent to the previous question, by unanimous consent, and if there was no such thing as the previous question under the rules of the House an agreement made by unanimous consent that a vote shall be taken upon a joint resolution at a given time would only be dispensed with by the same unanimous consent, in the opinion of the Chair, that made the agreement; so that the agreement operates as the previous question, and was something more than the previous question, because under that agreement, made by unanimous consent, in the opinion of the Chair it would! require unanimous consent to l:IIlmake it. Therefore the Chair must hold that the point of order is well taken upon the amendment.

l\fr. HENRY of Texas. Always desiring to be perfectly fair with the Speaker, and regretting that after a diligent search I can not find any authority to sustain him on this occasion, I Sabath feel constrained to respec(fully appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas appeals from the decision of the Chair.

l\Ir. PATh""E. l\Ir. Speaker, I make the point of order that the House having determined to vote at 4 o'clock, this appeal Bingham is dilatory.

The SPEAKER. The Chair is not prepared to hold that the appeal is dilatory. It there fs any doubt in . the premises, we Craig will solve it in favor of entertaining the _ appeal.

l\Ir. PAYNE. I mo-v-e to lay the appeal on the table.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York moves. to Fas ett lay the appeal on the table.

The question was taken, and the Chair announced that the ayes seemed to have it.

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. Division, Mi". Speaker; and to sav.e time I call for the yeas- and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

'l'he question was taken . ; and there were-yeas 186, nays. 144, answered "present" 2,, 'Ilot voting 55, as follows:

YEAS-186.

Alexander, N. Y. Ellis Kennedy, Iowa Perkins Allen Elvins Kinkaid, Neb!."~ Pickett ' Anthony Ames ~~[~ebright ~~~~and ~!.~Y Austin Fish Kopp Pray Barcbfeld Focht Kronmiller . Prince Barclay Foelk.er Ki.istermann Reeder Barnard Fordney Langham Reynolds Bartboldt Foss Langley Roberts Bates Foster r Vt. Law Rod enbe rg Bennet, N. Y. Foulkrod Lawrence Scott Bennett, Ky. Fuller- Lenroot Sheffield Bou tell Gaines Lindbergh. Simmons Bradley Gardner, Mass~ Longworth Slemp Brownlow Gardner, Mich. . Loud Smith, Ca l. Burke, Pa. Gardner, N. J. Loudenslager Smith, Iowa Burke, S. Dak. Gillett Lowden Smith, Mich. Burleigh Goebel Lundin Snapp Butler Good McCreary Southwick Calder head Graff McKinlay, Cal Stafford Campbell Grant McKinley, Ill. Steenerson Capron Green.e- · McKinney Sterling Cassidy Gronna McLachian, Cal. Stevens, Minn. Chapman Guernsey McLaughlin, Mich.Stur g i ss Cock s~ N. Y. Hamer Mc::\Iorran Sulloway Cole Hamil to n Madison Swasey Co o k Hann a Mann · Tawn ey Cooper, Pa. Haugen Martin, S. Dak. Taylor, Ohio Coop e r, Wis. Hawle-y Miller, Kans. T e ner Coudrey Haye s Mill e r , Min.a. Thistl ewoo d Cowles Henry, Cann. Mondell Thomas, Ohio Creager Higgins foon, Pa. Til son Crow Hill Morgan, Mo. Tirr e ll Currier Hinshaw Morgan, Okla. Townsend Dalz ell Hollingsworth Mor se Volstead Da vidso n Howell, N. J ~ Murdock Vr eelan d Davi s Howland Murphy Wan g-e r Dawson Hubbard. Iowa Needham Wa shbur n De nby Hubbard, W. Va. Nelson We eks Diek em a: Hugh es, W. Va. Norris Wh eele r Dodd s Hull , Iowa Nye Wiley · Dou g las Humphrey, Wash. Olcott Wilson. In Draper Johnson, Ohio Olmsted Wood, N. i. Dri sco ll, M. E. Joyce Pa:i:ker Woods, Iowa Dur ey Kahn Par so ns Young-, Mich. Dwi g ht Keifer Pa y ne Edwards-, Ky. Kendall Pear.re

NAYS-144.

Adair Cline Godwin Korbly Adamson Collier Goldfogle Lamb Aiken Covington Gordon Lassiter Alexander, Mo. Cox, Ind. Graham, JU. Latta Ans berry Cox, Ohio Gregg Lee Ashbrook Cravens Griggs Lever Barnhart Cullop Hamill Livingston Bartlett, Ga. De.Armond Hamlin Ll oyd Beall, Tex . Dent Hammond McDermott Bell, Ga . Denver Hardwkk McHenry Boehne Dickson, Uiss. Hardy Macon Booher Die s Harrison 1\fa gui re , Nebr. Borland Dixon, Ind. Heflin Martin, Colo . Bowers Driscoll, D . A. Helm Ma y nard Brantley Edwards, Ga . Henry, Te:)• Mays Broussard Estopinal Hobson Moon, Tenn . Burgess Ferris Hou stoL. Mo e re, Tex. Bur leso n Finley Hughe • ,, Ga . Morrison Burnett Flood, Va. Hugh< : s, N . J. Moss Byrd Floyd, Ark. Hull , 'J.'enn. Nicholls Byrns Gallagher Humphreys, Miss. O'Connell Candler Garner, Tex: . J a:nes Oldfield Can tr ill Garrett Jctmieson Padgett C ar lin Gill, Md. .John so n, Ky. Palriiet', A. M. Carter Gill, i\Io. 1 .Tones Peters Clark,. Fla . Gillespie Keliher Pou Clark; 1\10, GilmoFe Kinkead, N. J. Pujo Clayton Glass Kitchill. . Rainey

Randell, Tex. Sa:underir Smith, Tex. Thomas, Ky. . Ransdell, La. Shacklefo1rd Sparkman Thomas, N. C • Ranch Sh-arp. Spight Tou Yelle Richardson Sheppard Stanley Underwood Robinson Sims Stephens, Tex. Wallace Rothermel Sisson Sulzer Watkins Rucker, Mo. Slayden Taylo:r, Ala. Webb

Small Taylor, Colo. Wickliffe

ANSWEREn "PRESENT" 2.

Bartlett, Nev. Foster, 111.

NOT VOTlNG-55.

Anderson Garner, Pa. Lovering Rhinock Andrus- Goulden McCall Riordan

Graham, Pa. . McGuire, Okla. Rucker, Colo.

Calder Griest Madden Russell Cary Hay Mal by Sherley Conry Heald Millington Sherwood

Hitchcock Moore, Pa. Sperry

Crumpacker Howard :Morehead Talb-0tt Ellerbe Howell, Utah Mudd Weisse Fairchild Hu.ff Page Willett

Johnson, S. C. Palmer, H. W. Wilson, Pa.

FitzgeFald Kennedy,. Ohio Patterson Woodyard Fornes Lafean Poindexter Young_ RY. Fowler Lindsay Reid

So the motion to lay the appeal on the table was agreed to. The following pairs was announced:

Until further notice: l\Ir. CALDER with l\fr. REID. l\Ir. KENNEDY o.i Ohio with Mr. TALBOTT, Mr. CRUMPACKER with Mr. ANDERSON. l\Ir. GRIEST with Mr. ELLERBE. l\Ir. HENRY \V. PALMER with l\Ir. WEISSE. Mr. BINGHAM with Mr. SHERLEY. l\Ir. HOWELL of Utah with l\lr. LINDSAY. Mr. l\lADDEN with l\Ir. RUSSELL. Mr. 1\iALBY with Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Sl'ERRY with Mr. CRAIG. l\ir. HUFF with lli. HITCHCOCK. Mr. Yo-UNG of New York with l\lr. WILSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. WOODYARD with l\Ir. WILLETT. Mr. MUDD with Mr. RUCKER of Colorado. Mr. MOOREHEAD with l\Ir. RHINOCK. l\Ir. Moore of Pennsylvania with l\.Ir. PATTERSON. l\Ir. MILLINGTON with l\fr. PAGE. Mr. McGuire of Oklahoma with l\Ir. LEvE&. Mr. LoVERING with Mr. JOHNSON of South Carolina. Mr. LAFEAN with Mr. HowA.RD. Mr. GRAHAM of Pennsylvania with 1\Ir GOULDEN. Mr. Garner of Pennsylvania with Mr. Fornes. Mr. FAIRCHILD with l\Ir. FITZGERALD. Mr. CARY with Mr. CoNRY. Mr. ANDRUS with l\Ir. RIORDAN (transferable). l\lr. FASSETT (far.) with l\.Ir. BARTLETT of Nevada (against). On · this vote : Mr. McKINLEY of Illinois (favor) with l\Ir. Foster of Illinois (against). Mr. HENRY of Texas. l\Ir. Speaker-- The SPEAKER. For what purpose. does the gentleman rise? 1\fr-. HENRY of Texas. After- the announcement of the vote. The vote was then announced as above re corded.

l\fr. HENRY of Texas. I offer the following motion, to recommit with instructions, under the rule adopted on the. 15th : day of March of this year.

Mr. PAYNE. I call for the regular order.

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. It is the regular order under the rule.

The SPEAKER. The Chair suggests to the gentleman that that motion will be in orde-r after the third reading of the joint . resolution.

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. Well, I only want to save the point; I do not want to waive anything.

The SPEAKER. The question i s on the third reading of the joint resolution.

The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading, and it was accordingly read the third time.

Mr. HENRY of Tex.as. Now I offer the following motion, to recommit with instructions.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman an opponent of the joint resolution?

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. I am opposed to it as long as there is any chance under the rules to amend it and make it a better proposition; and the Chair, according to the press and otherwise, has announced that that rule would be liberally construed. ' The SPEAKER. ' “After the previous question shall have been ordered on the passage of a bill or joint resolution, a motion to recommit shall be in order; and the Speaker shall give preference of recognition for such purpose to a l\fernber who is opposed to the bill or joint resolution."

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. Nobody else is making any motion.

The SPEAKER . That is - for the Cha i r to · find out first.

1\fr. HENRY of Texas. I appeal to the Chair for information. yeas

The SPEAKER. Is there any Member opposed to this j oint resolution? •

1\fr . GARDNER of Massachusetts. ~fr. Speaker, I am opposed to the joint resolution, and move to recommit .

The SPEAKER. . The gentleman moves to _ recommit the joint Adair resolution-

1\Ir. GARD:NER of Massachusetts. . . And on that I move the Aiken previous question . .

The SPEAKER (continuing). To the Committee on Ways Ames and . .Means, and on that moves the previous question .

l\Ir. HENRY of Texas. A parliamentary inquiry .

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

l\lr. HENRY of Texas. Under your own rules, does not my motion take precedence?

The SPEAKER. No ; this is a motion to recommit. .

Mr . HENRY of-Texas . Another parliamentary inquiry . Mine is a motion to recommit with instructions . Does not a motion to recommit with instructions take precedence?

The SPEAKER. But the ·· gentleman moves the previous question upon his motion to recommit to the Committee on Ways and Means. That motion is in order. ·

The question was taken, and the previous question was ordered .

The question was taken · on the question to recommit, and it Bradley was rejected.

The SPEAKER. The question .is on the passage o f the joint resolution.

Mr . . HULL of Tennessee. A parliamentary inquiry .

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. HULL of Tennessee. I desire to inquire of the Chair Burleso n whether, under Article V of the . Constitution, the Chair - holds that the affirmative action of two-thirds of the membership o f Byrd this House iS necessary to pass this resolution? Byrns

The SPEAKER. By consent, the Chair will have the · decisions read. The decisions and precedents are many, both in the House and' in the Senate. Without objection, the Clerk Capron will read .

The Clerk read as follow . s :

7027 . '£he vote require d on a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution i s two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being present. &nd not two-tJ;iirds of .th~ entire membership . .. On May 11, 1898, Mr . John B. Corliss, of 11ch1gan, called up the Jomt re;iolution Cline {H.J. Res . 5) proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing for the election of Senators of the United States . . . Cole The question being taken on the passage of the resolution, there were--yeas 184, nays 1 1 ; and the Speaker announced that the joint Cook resolution was passed, two - thirds having voted in favor thereof . ·

Mr. EBE::-<EZER J. HILL, of Connecticut, called attention to this clause of the Constitution :

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments," : and made the point of order that the vote required was two-thirds <Jf the entire membershipnot two-thirds of a quorum .

The Speaker said : Crow " The question is one that has been so often decided that it seems Cullop hardly necessary to dwell upon it . The provision of the Constitution Currier says ' two-thirds of both Houses.' What constitutes a House? A quorum of the member ·s hip, a majority-<me-half and one more . ‘That Davi8 is all that is necessary to constitute a House to do all the business Daw so n that comes before the House . Among the business that comes · before De the House is the reconsideration of a bill which has been vetoed by the · D e nby . President; another is a proposed amendment to the Constitution; and Dent the practice is uniform in both cases, that if a quorum of the . House Denver is present the House is constituted, and two-thirds of those voting are sufficient in order to accomplish the object . It has nothing to do with the question of what S t ates are present and repr·esented cir what Dies States are present and vote for it. It is the House of Representatives in this instance that votes and performs its part of the function. If Dodds the Senate does the same thing, then the matter is submitted to the Douglas States directly, and they · pass upon it .

"The first Congress, I think, had about 65 Members, and the first amendment that was proposed to the Constitution was voted for by 37 Members, obviously not two-thirds of the entire House. So the Allen question seems to have been met right on the very threshold of our Government and disposed of in that way.” ·

The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded .

7028. On February 2G, 1869, the Senate agreed, by a vote of yeas 39 nays 13 to the report of the committee of conference on the resolu ­ tion (S. J. 'R. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States (suffrage amendment) . ·· .

Ir. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, made the point of order that as the Senate consisted of 74 Members a vote of 50 was necessary to constitute the two-thirds vote . · . ·

During the debate Mr. Lyman Trumbull, o:I' Illinois, recalled that the Bingham same question was raised befor·e the WM", in the last years of Mr. Buchanan's administration when Mr. Breckenridge was presiding officer of Cary the Senate, and after debate the Senate decided by a large vote that Conry the two-thirds required was two-thirds of the Senators present, if a quAru~clsion having been asked, the President pro tempore sustained · the view enunciated by Mr. Trumbull , as in accordance with the p r ecedents . .

The SPEAKER . The question is on the passa g e of the joint res o lution . l\ Ir. CLARK of M i ssour i. Mr . Speaker, on · t hat I ask for th e and nays .

The yeas and nays were ordered.

· The question was taken; and there we r e-yeas 318, nays 14 , answered " present" 1, not voting 55, as follows:

YEAS-318.

Driscoll, D . A . James Peters

Adamson Driscoll, M . E. Jamieson Pickett Durey Johnson, Ky. Plumley Alexander, Mo. Dwight Johnson, Ohio Pou Alexander, N. Y. Edwards, Ga. Jones Pratt

Edwards, Ky. Joy c e Pray

Ans berry Ellis Kahn Prince Anthony Elvins Keifer Pujo _ Ashbrook Engle bright Keliher Rainey Austin Esch Kendall Randell, Tex. Barclay Estopinal Kennedy, Iowa Ransdell, La. Barnard Ferris Kinkaid, Nebr. Rauch Barnhart . Finley . Kinkead, N. J . Reeder Bartholdt Fish Kitchin Reynolds Bartlett, Ga. Flood, Va. Knapp Richardso n Bates Floyd, Ark . Knowland Roberts Beall, Tex . Focht Kopp Robinson Bell, Ga. Foelker Korbly Rodenberg Bennet, N. Y. Foss Kron miller Rothermel Bennett, Ky. Foster, Ill. Kiist e rrnann · Hucker, Mo. Boehne Foster, Vt. Lamb Sabath Booher Foulkrod Langhnm Saunders Bo!·land Fuller Lan g ley Scott . Bou tell Gaines Lassiter Shackleford Bowers Gallagher Latta Sharp Gardner, Mich . Law Sheffield Brantley Gardner, N. J. Lawrence Sheppard Broussa1·d Garner, Tex . Lee Simmons Brownlow Ha1Tett Lenroot Sims Burgess Gill, Md . Leve1· Sisson Burke, Pa . Gill, Mo . Lindbergh Slayden Burke. S. Da.k . Gillespie Livingston Sl e mp Burleigh Gillett Lloyd Small Gilmor·e Longworth Smith, Cal. Burnett Glass _ Loud Smith. Iowa Butler Godwin Loudens l age r Smith, Mich. Goebel Lowden Smith. Tex.

Gold fog le Lundin Snapp

Camobell Good McDermott Sparkman Candlei· Gordon McHenry Spight Cantriil Grnff McKinla.v . Cal. Stalford Graham, Ill. McKinney • Stanley Carlin · Grant l\IcLachlin, Cal. St ee nerson Carter Greep.e McLaughlin, Mich . Stenhen . • '['e x. Cassidy Gregg McMorran St e rling Chapman Grig-gs Macon Stevens. Minn. Clark, Fla . Gronna Madison Sturgiss Clark. Mo. Gu e rnsey Maguire, Nebr. Sulloway Clayton Hamer Mann Sulzer Hamill Martin, Colo. Swasev . Cocks, N. Y. Hamilton Martin. S. Dak. Tawnev Hamlin Maynard Taylo1·. Ala. Collier Hnmmond Mays 'l'aylor . Colo. Hann a Miller, Kans . •.raylor, Ohio C o oper, Pa. Tiardwick Mill e r. Minn. Tenet · Cooper. Wis . H ardy Mondell Thistlewood Coudrey · Harri. :o n Moon. Pa. 'l'homas, Ky. Covin !!to n Haug e n Moon. T e nn. Thomas. N. C, Cowl es Hawley l\foore, T e x . Thomas, Ohio Cox, Ind. Ha.v l\Iorgan, Mo. Tl! on Cox, Ohio Ha:ves Morgan, Okla . Tirrell Cravens Heflin Morrison •.rou Velle Creager H e lm Mors e Townsend Henry, Tex . Mos s l nderwood Higgins Murdock VolsteadHin s haw Murphy Vr ee land Davidson Bobson · N ee dham Wallace : · Hollin gs worth . Nel so n " ' an ge r Houston Ni.-cbolls ·wash burn Armond Ho-w e ll. N . J. Norris Watkins

Howland Nye W ebb ffobbard . Iowa O'Connell Wickliffe

Ilubbard , W. Va. Oldfield Wiley

Dickson, Miss . Hughes, Ga . Olm ste d Wilson. Ill. Diekema Hughes, N. J. l'ad '!"ett Wood, N. J . Hughes, ,V . Va. !'a ime r, A. M . Woods, Iowa Dixon. Ind. Hull, Iowa P ar k er Young, Mich. Hull, Tenn: Par ons The Speaker

Humphrey, Wash . Pa yne

Draper Ilumphreys, Miss. Perkins

NAYS-14.

Fordney l\Ic Ca ll Weeks

Barchfeld ' Gardner, Mass . M cCrea ry Wheeler Calder head Henry, Conn. Olcott Dalzell Hill Sou thw ick

ANSWERED " PRESENT "-1 .

Bartlett, ~ ev .

NOT VOTI.NG-55 .

Anderson Garner Pa. _ McGuire, Okla . Rhinocit Andrus Go _ ulden McKinley, Ill. Hiordan Graham, Pa . Madd e n Hu cke r, Colo, Calder Griest l\fall>y Ru s ell Heald ,filling-ton S herley Hitchcock Mo o r e , Pa. R he nvood Craig Howard Morehead Sperry Crumpacker Howell, Utan -. Mudd Talbott Ellerbe Huff Page WC'!s~e Fail-child Johnson, S. C. Palmer, H . W . 'Vill ett: Fassett Kennedy, Ohio .?at terson W'il s on, Pa . Fitzgernld Lafean I:- arre · woodyard Fornes Lindsay Pt indexter Young , N. Y . Fowler L overi n g Re:'.d

So Etwo-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the joint resolution was passed.

Mr. FOSTER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I have a pair · with from the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. McKINLEY]. that if he were present he would vote "aye." I therefore _ will allow my vote to stand.

The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded.