where the RECORD may record us, can have a vote on some substantial measure. Why, gentleman say it is not expedient; they fear people would be petitioning us. That is not a worthy consideration. That is a consideration merely of your personal convenience. I say that that kind of a consideration ought never to obscure a great question of public policy, and that is, whether or not there shall be provided an instrument whereby the real majority of the Representatives of the people can express itself, not every few minutes, not every day-but give the people a chance to express themselves through their Representatives just once in a while, every two weeks, and the rest of the time you can do the rest under the general rule. Gentlemen, this is just a question of letting a bill die in a committee from nonaction, neither for it nor against it; to let it die of pernicious anemia, or to bring it out in the sunlight and give it a chance for its life where all the country may look and listen and see what the issue is and how it shall be decided. That is our faith over here at least it is mine, and though I speak for nobody but myself, I know it is the faith of many on this side; and that is the faith that is in keeping with real, democratic, liberal institutions, not only to-day but for all time in the past during the struggles and growth of liberty throughout the world-and that is, to give the popular branch that comes fresh from the people a chance once in a while to really register its voice and register its vote. [Applause.] Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, we are always entertained and sometimes enlightened whenever the gentleman from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY] appears before us. The gentleman from Texas was very, very careful not to go into the actual details of the workings of this rule. He was content to devote himself to chiding us, his good Republican friends, in that gentle and good-humored way, of which he is such a master. The consideration of any change in the rules necessarily involves partisan discussion. The rules of any legis lative body are to facilitate legislative business in accordance with the wish of a majority with due consideration for the minority. However, the adoption of this rule goes beyond mere party lines. It Mr. Speaker, I believe thoroughly in the representative principles of government. It was under a government of this character that our fathers fought and won our independence. was while working under this principle that we adopted our Constitution, and thereby made to the world the greatest single contribution to the science of government. It was this great instrument which created this House to perpetuate that principle. Gentlemen. I believe that the House of Representatives is the greatest deliberative body in the world. I know that a great majority of you, my colleagues on both sides of this aisle, agree with me. Its position in our scheme of government I want maintained and its effectiveness left unimpaired. This proposed change will immeasurably destroy the prestige of the House as a deliberative body and further the destruction of the representative principle, the basis of our Government. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON] in an effort to justify this rule and his espousal of it called as witnesses some of the great characters of American parliamentary history. He cites Washington, who counseled his countrymen against actions by bloes and groups to substantiate his own efforts to further bloc and group action. He cites Hamilton, the great champion of legislation by deliberation, to further his efforts to place this great deliberative body at the mercy of a small minority of bill peddlers. Thomas B. Reed will be known as a Speaker and leader of his party who forced a minority to permit a majority to do business. We can all imagine what the late James R. Mann would have thought of a rule of this character. Yet my friend even cites him as an exponent of petition legislating. Gentlemen, can you imagine Washington. Hamilton, Reed, or Mann drawing up a petition and peddling it from door to door of the Capitol and House Office Building? No; it takes a better imagination than mine. These men believed in the representative idea. This means legislation after deliberation. Deliberation in an assembly as large as this means a hearing before a committee by parties appearing for and against-a frank discussion of every phase of the legislative proposal and its effect upon the entire country, and then calm and independent judgment by each Member. I believe in that kind of deliberation, and this rule, which is a complete innovation, would in great measure destroy it. It displaces deliberation as that word is known in all legislative assemblies by the peddling of petitions. Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the present rule of the House for the discharge of committees. I have yet to see it successfully invoked. It has occurred to me that in some way the machinery of the House should provide an opportunity for the consideration of the discharge of a committee which, contrary to the wishes of a majority, was withholding action on the measure. Such a rule, of course, should be safeguarded so as not to permit of its abuse. We have a membership of 435, any one of which is privileged to introduce any number of bills. There were nearly | 15,000 bills introduced in the last Congress. Many of them, we know, the Members introducing never expected even a hearing. Some of them are of major, while others are of minor importance. There must be some means, therefore, of separating the legislative wheat from the chaff. Therefore we have this system of committees, and you men upon both sides of the aisle will bear me out in saying that in the selection of the membership of the committees of the House the greatest care is exercised; questions of geography enter in; questions of difference of opinion enter in. We have, for example, on the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce men with extremely conservative views on the railroad question. Then, on the contrary, we also have men upon that committee whose opinions are directly the opposite. This is true of all the committees. The result is our committees reflect in the main the judgment of the House. They constitute a cross-section, if you please, of the House itself. We have legislation which affects individuals, communities, localities, branches of the Government, and so forth. Before those measures are considered, these individuals, localities, or departments of the Government affected have ample opportunity to appear before the committees to there express their own opinions. It has been my experience during the two terms I have served here to have repeatedly received measures for our consideration, drawn up in many instances by Government officials attached to one of the departments, which, if enacted into law in the form in which they were drafted, would have practically put out of business other bureaus and other departments of the Government. All of these things require what? They require hearing, consideration, and deliberation, first in the committee and then upon the floor of the House. The bill before us upsets that whole proposition. And let me say that originally, in the history of the House, it was not within the right of any one Member to introduce a bill. A Member had to get the consent of the House in order to introduce a bill in the first instance. committees that there are many measures introduced that do requests to support this or that specific measure. The bills The bill comes before us. You have 100 petitioners, and it comes before us upon the question of consideration. The gentleman from New York [Mr. FisH] has well illustrated just how that would apply. Then you take up the question of consideration. There has been no consideration of it, no opportunity for the localities to appear before the membership of the House and express their views. There has been no opportunity for individuals adversely affected to appear. In fact, we would in this instance deny their day in court to the locallties and persons interested. Well, the bill is up for consideration. It then takes its place in advance of every other measure on the calendar that has been considered carefully in committee and has been reported out favorably and is on the calendar of the House or Committee of the Whole. We therefore take the product of de liberative work in a legislative assembly and supplant it with the work of the petitioner and propagandist; we put the work of the latter at the head of the program. If a majority is not obtained for consideration of the measure, does it go back to the committee? No; it goes on the calendar of the House and takes its place right alongside of the various measures that have been in committee and that have received the consideration of the committee after a full and complete hearing. I say that is contrary to all existing principles of legislation. What are the reasons given for this radical change? The reason is that the committees do not report. In my period of service here I do not know of any measure of great importance in which the people were greatly interested that has ever been kept in committee for any considerable length of time. It may be, but I do not know of it. I know there are measures that have appealed to some of us and we have been disappointed as to how they have been considered and come out of the committee. I do not know of any bill of great national importance that has been deliberately withheld. The tendency is when we are disappointed at the way our own bills are being cared for to magnify their importance and our own position regarding them. We all do it, and do it unconsciously. The gentleman from New York [Mr. FISH] in his admirable address, in illustrating the need of a proper rule for the discharge of committees, committed the same sort of an error. come before the House without a full, fair, and complete hearing and deliberation in a committee. He would supplant that plan and permit measures to come before us merely because 100 Members requested it. Many of these would know little about the bill, signing only because requested by the author or some one else. Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. And is it not also true that after it was initiated by only 100 Members, there would be only 10 minutes debate on each side, upon which the majority of the membership would have to form their opinion and then vote? Also, is it not true that having voted, then those in charge of the bill could talk 10 minutes and move the previous question and have a vote on the whole matter in less than 30 minutes? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. The gentleman is correct in his statement of the predicament in which this House would find itself if it adopts this rule. Mr. WOODRUFF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WOODRUFF. Is it not further true that after this vote is had, after 20 minutes of debate, the House votes not to pass the bill but simply to consider it under the general rules of the House? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Yes; the House then votes to consider the proposition under the rules of the House and proceeds to consider it. He cited the instance where he had introduced a bill for in- Mr. WOODRUFF. Where there will be full and free opportunity for discussion of the bill? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Oh, no. If there were opportunity for full and free discussion under such circumstances, we would not get anything done in this House. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. WOODRUFF), with his experience not only in the last Congress but some years prior thereto, knows that this House must do business through committees; that it can not properly do business here on the floor without there having been first the fullest consideration in committee. Mr. WOODRUFF. The gentleman is a member of the Com The very proposition that the gentleman from New York uses to illustrate the necessity for a proper rule to discharge a committee falls down. The very proposition embodied in his bill had been in the first place considered by the House and rejected. Some months later, after additional information had been gathered the information was not available at the time the amendment was considered-the committee did report out a bill, and it is now a part of the war risk insurance act. But the very need of this rule was not borne out by the illustration given by the gentleman from New York. That is true of other instances that have been used. The point is that this rule will work to destroy the principle underlying deliberative assemblies. Most will admit the situation warranting action will arise rarely. Surely there is a way to provide for a proper method of discharge of a recalcitrant committee without sacrificing the principle of deliberation involving a full and complete hearing and without surrendering the control of the House to a minority. The whole petition idea is wrong and wrong in principle. If we must have it, then the greater number of petitioners required the better. I am dead against 100. I am not in favor of the 150, although I like it better than the 100. I am still more in favor of the majority of the membership of the House, but I have a pronounced conviction against the idea of using a petition for this purpose. I am no expert upon the rules of the House, but it does seem to me that the men who have served here for years ought to be able to get up some plan whereby, when occasion presents itself and there is need of it and the committee refuses to do business, the subject can be brought up on the floor and disposed of by a majority vote as a straight legislative proposition. Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Is not that what we are trying to do now? One hundred simply call it up, and then we will have to have a majority vote. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. But the gentleman from Oklahoma ignores the whole proposition. A bill can not ordinarily Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Yes. Mr. WOODRUFF. I think the gentleman will recognize the fact that for many years there has been a real sentiment in this country for what is called the truth in fabric bill. How long has that bill been slumbering in the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. I do not know that the bill has been slumbering there at all. To the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce there are referred during the Congress about 1.000 bills, approximately. The truth in fabric bill is one of any bills that were introduced and which were pending there during the last Congress. That is the only Congress in which I have been a member of that committee. Mr. WOODRUFF. Then I shall enlighten the gentleman to this extent, that to my knowledge that bill has been before that committee for the last 12 years. As I stated before, there is a real sentiment for the enactment of that legislation by Congress. The gentleman further realizes as well as I do that no committe takes up for consideration all bills. I think many Members of the House introduce bills that they never expect the committee to consider. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Surely. We both know that. Mr. WOODRUFF. But at the same time, the gentleman also knows that in the country there is a real sentiment for the enactment of that legislation, and as a member of that committee, I hope from now on that he will see to it that the committee does consider it. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. The gentleman does not know that there is any sentiment representing a majority of the people of the country in favor of that bill or of any other measure. I am in accord with the gentleman from Michigan in this, that there should be in the rules of the House some procedure for the discharge of a committee whenever a majority of the membership of this House really feels that a committee should be discharged from its consideration. I have no objection to having it come up before this body by means of a motion to discharge the committee if such a motion is considered in a deliberative way, but I do object to this innovation in a deliberative body of initiating the consideration of bills by petition. Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BANKHEAD. The gentleman having expressed himself in favor of some workable discharge rule, does the fact not impress the gentleman that the best parliamentarians on his side of the House, as well as some of the best on this side of the House, particularly the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP), and others who have given this question great thought, Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. No; I am not at all satisfied Mr. BANKHEAD. The gentleman overlooks the fact that a majority of the Committee on Rules is here sponsoring the essential features of this proposition and have brought it in here with a recommendation that it be adopted. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Oh, the gentleman knows something about the circumstances in reference to the situation. The gentleman knows the predicament that some of us are in, and the position of some gentlemen on this side is that this is the best thing that can be obtained, but they do not favor it and I do not favor it. Mr. BANKHEAD. The gentleman ought not to put his party associates on the Committee on Rules in the attitude of saying that they are bringing this matter up as a matter of compulsion. Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Mr. BANKHEAD. What does the gentleman say as to that? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Well, the gentleman can place his own construction upon that. Mr. BANKHEAD. But I would like to have the gentleman's construction. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. They can speak for themselves, Mr. BLANTON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BLANTON. Is not this the evil about the 100 proposi- Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. What particular measure is that? Mr. BLANTON. The gentleman knows what measure it was; it was bill No. 13, and he could get a majority of those present to vote consideration. Then, is it not a fact that after a debate of five minutes, as the proponent of that measure he could move the previous question and cut off all debate and put the bill on passage? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. stated it correctly. The gentleman, I think, has Mr. BLANTON. And so it is true with any other measure. Mr. JEFFERS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. JEFFERS. Does the gentleman recollect at the time in Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. I remember this, that some Mr. JEFFERS. Does not the gentleman remember Mr. JEFFERS. Does not the gentleman remember at that Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. I may not know what they had in mind, but I know what they stated. Mr. JEFFERS. I am asking the gentleman just what they stated then, that they had in mind a program? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. I have answered the gentleman as to that, but I recollect they said they did believe in a change of these rules, and they are trying to carry it out the best way they can. Mr. JEFFERS. Just a moment. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. I must decline to yield further. Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will permit, what was said is in the RECORD and I think both the gentlemen are mistaken in quoting Mr. LONGWORTH, and I hope the' gentleman will not undertake to quote the leader on this question. My recollection is that it has not been stated quite accurately. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. The gentleman from Minnethat certain gentlemen on his side of the aisle made that statesota did not attempt to quote anybody. He said he remembered ment. Further than that, he did not say. Mr. JEFFERS. I want to say I did not attempt to quote Mr. LONGWORTH, I asked the gentleman from Minnesota what his understanding was as to this matter at that time on the part of the majority leader. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Gentlemen, I do not intend to take up much further time. You have heard of great dissatisfaction with another legislative body in reference to the failure of legislation. This legislation was of the character in which the Members of the House and the people throughout the country were greatly interested. One can go through the calendar of that legislative body and find dozens of bills that failed of passage that had passed another legislative body. Why? Because the rules of that organization permit the minority, yea, even an individual, to take up and consume so much time that general benefit of the entire country failed of passage. the will of the majority was thwarted and legislation for the that legislative body has been under severe criticism and there And are those who advocate the amending of the rules of that body for the purpose of enabling the majority to really function and prevent obstructionist tactics by a minority. There are chairmen of great committees of this House in this Chamber who know whereof I speak. They have witnessed the fruits of their labor come to naught because of the obstructionist tactics of a small minority. Now, then, with this experience fresh in our minds, with the country still crying for cloture there, are we going to commit the same mistake? Mr. Speaker, I trust the better judgment of this House will prevail. The maintenance of proper deliberation in a legislative assembly is the keystone of the arch of representative government. This initiation of legislation will destroy it. I plead with you, regardless of party considerations, to stand fast to the representative idea and vote this change down. [Applause.] Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that there is not a quorum present. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana makes the point of order that no quorum is present. The Chair will count. [After counting.] One hundred and seventy-six Members are present—not a quorum. Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. The SPEAKER. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant at Arms will bring in the absentees, and the Clerk will call the roll. The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed Bell Garber Hill, Ala. Howard. Nebr. Hull, Tenn. Kahn Logan McNulty Martin Miller, Ill. Newton, Mo. Pou Sabath Ward, N. C. Winslow Rainey Winter The SPEAKER. Three hundred and seventy-three Members have answered to their names. A quorum is present. Mr. SNELL. Mr. Speaker, I move to dispense with further proceedings under the call. The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Doorkeeper will open the doors. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. | And then it is said that this will produce a heaven for the propagandists; that the propagandists will multiply under it. Mr. MCSWAIN. Mr. Speaker, I shall consume but a few Let me tell you, my friends, what I think will happen. The minutes of the time of the House to present what seems to me propaganda that is based on reason and justice and fairness and to be a common-sense view of the proposition now pending; sound economics, bottomed by constitutional authority, will not an expert view. I make no pretense to an expert under- pass; and that propaganda which is unsound and which is standing of the rules of this House. When I am face to face unwise and unconstitutional will be brought up here in the with a parliamentary problem I go to some of the experts in daylight and given a public trial, a public condemnation, and a my own party for its solution. In that I am something like public execution and be dead forever. [Applause.] The propathe lawyer from one of the inland towns of my State, where gandist lives on hope, and when you put the thing to the test they have no admiralty business generally, who was under ex- and try it out in the open some of the lobbies will die. Why? amination for permission to practice as a proctor in the ad- Because they live on hope. They are organized now; they miralty court. The judge asked him how he would proceed | have elegant suites and parlors. They go back to the annual to file a libel against a vessel flying the flag of a foreign coun- meetings of the organizations which they represent and say, try, and he thought for a moment and said, "I would go down" We will have a better chance in the next Congress; that conhere to Charleston "-which, by the way, is a seaport townservative, reactionary, standpat committee would not let our "and get some of those lawyers who know how to do it, and bill come out, but next time we will have a better chance. pay them to do it for me." Just go on paying my salary, keep on paying my rent, keep on paying my stationery bill and other expenses, and next time we will obtain more than we ever obtained before," and on hope, on promise and vain prospect the propagandist continues from year to year. But bring it into the open; throw it into the open forum and let the men who are responsible to their constituents vote; go on record and kill it forever and bury it. But to the layman this seems to be about the common sense of the discussion: How is this legislation brought before the House now? A Member introduces a bill and it goes to a committee of 21, and 11 members of that committee can report the bill and put it on the calendar, or 11 members of that committee can keep the bill from being reported and off the calendar and out of the hands of the House under the existing rule forever. Now, what is the proposed change? I can see nothing radical or revolutionary about it. I recognize that these rules are important, and, in my humble judgment, second only in importance to the Constitution of the United States itself, because, while the Constitution erects the framework of government, by these rules this branch of the legislative part of the Government functions. The rules are the constitution of the House of Representatives. Now, ought not the constitution of the legislative machine be so amended as to make it possible to discharge a committee that has had ample opportunity and has shown obviously no inclination to report a bill? Every person who has debated this question has admitted, in the first place, that the existing rule is a dead letter, and, in the second place, that there ought to be some improvement of the rule. There is no question about that. We all stand together up to that point. [APplause.] Now, if under the existing rule the 11 men who happen to be members of a particular committee can bring a bill into this House and put it on the calendar for consideration i due course, how is it at all irrational and revolutionary or dangerously radical to permit 100 men upon their official responsibility to sign a petition to bring the matter up for consideration in the House, so that if one-half or more of the House decides to discharge a committee and put it on the calendar, it can be done? So that, although the 100 men have no particular expert information about the bill, they must have enough to assume the responsibility before their constituents and before the country for putting their signatures to an instrument that will go into the RECORD. And surely 100 men who have given the matter sufficient study to be responsible for that act ought to equal the act or the judgment of 11 men who, perhaps, have given it no more careful consideration. In other words, one Member of the House ought to be equal to one-tenth part of a member of a committee, and that is about the ratio at which it is placed. Even that is not a fair comparison, because the 100 can not put the bill before the House for consideration. The 100 can not discharge the committee. The 100 can only ask the House whether a majority of the House wants the committee discharged. It has been assumed by some of those who have opposed the amendment in toto that by means of this proposed rule dangerous legislation can be brought out. They have not only opposed 100 or the 150, or merely a majority of the House to be injected into this rule, but they have opposed and condemned the entire proposition, lock, stock, and barrel. It has been claimed by them that by this enginery, this machinery, radical legislation will be put upon the statute books. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. The gentleman has referred to a constitutional question growing out of the activities of the propagandist. Now, does he want to sponsor a plan which would permit the discussion of a question of constitutionality, as is provided in this rule, for 20 minutes, 10 minutes for and 10 minutes against? Mr. MCSWAIN. I will say to the gentleman that if the Members of this House have not learned about the Constitution before they came here; if they do not already know the Constitution. they could not learn about it in two hours' or two days' debate; and they are unfit to sit as Members of the House, because the only oath we took here was that we would support and defend the Constitution, and nothing else. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield further? Mr. MCSWAIN. Yes. Mr. NEWTON of Minnesota. The gentleman knows that repeatedly bills have been introduced in this House which were unconstitutional. Mr. MCSWAIN. Yes; I know that hundreds of unconstitutional bills have been introduced, and if a hundred Members will sign a petition to bring those bills up for consideration, and if a majority of the Members vote to put the bills on the calendar, then I am ready to vote to kill these bills and to assume the responsibility in so doing; and that would be the best way to stop the dangerous undermining of the Constitution by those who profess to be its friends. We know how to fight the publicly avowed enemies of the Constitution, but those Members of Congress who encourage their constituents to believe that certain economic, sociological, and sentimental theories can be enacted into Federal statutes are carrying on a process of destruction from within that may ultimately bring down the constitutional structure in chaos upon the heads of our children and grandchildren. I stand ready to record my vote to kill the last one of this brood as dead as Hector. [Applause.] The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California [Mr. LINEBERGER] is recognized. Mr. LINEBERGER. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, I realize that this question of changing the rules has been debated in the last two days perhaps as exhaustively, if not more exhaustively, than any question that has come before the House since I have been a Member of this body. I have always been, since I came here, in favor of the liberalization of the rules of this House; but when I say I am in favor of the liberalization of the rules of the House-which to a certain extent, in the minds, I believe, of a majority of us, are antiquated and somewhat reactionary-I am not for the radicalization of the rules of this House. for that would be going to the other I am very glad to say that there has been one suggestion by extreme. I am not for any proposition that will overturn the the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. BEGG] that I can agree with, and American principle of the rule of the majority, whether it be that is this: That the country is suffering from a multiplicity for the purpose of delaying and heckling this House or for any of legislation. Now, one use that I would like to see this legis- other legislative purpose, even though the purpose to be lative corkscrew applied to would be to bring to the considera-served for the moment seems to be a serious and legitimate tion of this House the repeal of a lot of legislation that you one. have already put upon the statute books, so that instead of heaping up laws, instead of multiplying legislation, this instrumentality can be used to strike from the statute books some of the vicious legislation that has already found its way there. I realize that this motion does not go quite as far as some of my colleagues have interpreted it to go, but at the same time I realize that this is an entering wedge whereby certain minorities in this country may establish the precedent of minority rule. | [Applause.] The American people are watching this The distinguished leader on the Democratic side of the House, contest. The old stock in this country-the stock which hewed its the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT], has not spoken homes in the wilderness, drove the savage hordes back, and con- on this subject, so far as I am informed, and I for one should quered this vast continent and in which runs still the blood of be very glad indeed to hear him express his opinion before dethe pioneer-is somewhat vitally interested in the preservation bate on this bill is ended. I do not think there is any question of the ideals and the institutions for which our forefathers about the way in which the gentleman from Tennessee is going fought; and they are watching this contest, I am sure, both to vote on this matter, but in the minds of a great many of his North and South and East and West, with a great deal of colleagues who know him for his sound judgment and his able interest. They demand that representative republican institu- statesmanship there is some doubt as to what his personal opintions by the will and under the rule of the majority be main-ion and convictions may be in this matter. tained. I recognize, further, that a small number in this House calling themselves progressives—and God save the word—are not progressives at all but radicals, and we should not mince words but call a spade a spade. Mr. LAGUARDIA. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. LINEBERGER. I would prefer not to yield until I finish. Mr. LAGUARDIA. This is for the purpose of making a correction. If the gentleman will refer to page 949 of the RECORD he will find that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT] has spoken. Mr. LINEBERGER. Well, I accept the correction. If the Will the gentleman yield? They have killed responsible party government in this Con- Mr. JEFFERS. Our forefathers, my friends, believed in a government of checks and balances. Our great Federal system, founded with the three branches of government, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches, is the pillar of the American scheme of government. The three branches I have mentioned did not just happen to be so constituted. After the Constitutional Convention had studied the various systems of government, both past and present, they decided that that form of government was most likely to preserve for them and posterity the principles for which they had fought and inspired them during the dark days of the Revolution. It was said at the time that any other system carried within it the seeds of its own dissolution. So I believe that whenever you substitute minority government for majority government, whether it be on the floor of this House for the purpose of calling up a bill, whether it be in committee or whether it be in party caucus, such substitution carries with it the seeds of dissolution of our American institutions. Let us follow the gentleman from New York [Mr. MAGEE], who rose from his place yesterday and made a speech such as is seldom heard in this House. He said that where a matter of principle is involved let us fight it out to the last ditch and to the last man. [Applause.] I have the highest respect personally for gentlemen, like the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], who believe in the system that they are trying to put over in this House. They are radicals calling themselves Republicans, but radicals nevertheless, and are proud of it. I may be somewhat lacking in understanding, but I can not understand the attitude of the gentlemen on the other side of the House-the Democrats-who have just as vital an interest in the fundamental principles of American government as we Republicans have; I can not understand why for the moment they propose, for temporary political advantage, to allow themselves to enter into a coalition with men who at heart hold views that are the very antithesis of their own and of the traditions of their party. I also admire the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN], an outstanding member of his party, who got up here yesterday and so eloquently and ably defended the position taken by Mr. MAGEE and others of both sides of the House. He showed himself capable of rising above party considerations, and his constituency should honor him for it. The right of the American people to have at all times a majority expression to determine the policies of this great body is a right which I consider is guaranteed to them by the fundamental principles under which we govern. [Applause.] No man can serve as a Member of this great body on either side unless he be elected with a majority or a plurality of the votes cast in his district, and he has no right as a Member of this body to assume that any legislation in which he is interested shall have the right of consideration unless it can marshal a majority of the votes of this body to bring about such consideration, if he desires to appeal to it to bring about his desires. The question involved is fundamental, and I am enough of a fundamentalist to believe that no compromise whatever can be had on a question where principle is involved. [Applause.] Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes. Mr. JEFFERS. What authority have you for the statement that there is something in the minds of a great many of his colleagues regarding his personal position in the matter? Mr. LINEBERGER. Oh, I have the same authority that the gentleman and his colleagues have when they make similar statements here on the floor of the House regarding the intentions of the Republican Party or the membership of the Republican Party. It is a mere assumption. I admit that. Mr. JEFFERS. On your own part. Mr. LINEBERGER. Yes; I admit that. It is not debatable. I do not think I am far wrong, however. Mr. JEFFERS. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT] not being present in the Hall now, I thought it well to have that question answered. Mr. LINEBERGER. That is all right. I have no objection whatever to the gentleman's remarks. Resolutions of minorities and roll calls for the consideration of their pet measures, as every Member knows, would consume most of the time of the House from now on until adjournment if this resolution were permitted to pass, and we have to face the practical and the political exigencies of the situation. The country is waiting for definite, constructive, affirmative action on several great pieces of legislation that are now pending before committees and which will shortly be before this body, I hope; and they have a right to have consideration of that legislation in preference to the consideration of the views of the minority. We well know, and the gentlemen on the Democratic side know, that the chaos and disorganization about which so much has been said under the existing circumstances would be worse confounded if this resolution were to pass, and I am of the humble opinion that that would not displease the gentlemen on the Democratic side. [Laughter.] We can not have any compromise on this subject, whether it be with Democrats, radicals, or those of demagogic trend of mind on either side of the House or among the public. We have a definite obligation and responsibility before the country, both as citizens and as members of a majority party, presumed at least to be in control of the destinies of legislation now pending before this body. What shall it profit us if we gain a temporary political advantage in the passage of this resolution and jeopardize a fundamental concept of American Government? I say to you gentelmen it is not worth the price, if you believe in the American principle of majority rule. [Applause.] And you can not justify yourselves in the position you are taking before the people of the country, and you know it. Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Will the gentleman permit an interruption? Mr. LINEBERGER. I yield. Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Is the gentleman in favor of majority rule in the United States? Mr. LINEBERGER. I am. Mr. SHALLENBERGER. Is it not a fact that the faction of the Republican Party with which the gentleman aligns himself no longer has a majority in this House, but has control of the committees of this House, and does not the gentleman fear that if this rule becomes a law, when it is put into action a majority of this House will take from those committees important legislation and pass it upon the floor of the House? Mr. LINEBERGER. Certainly. |