CONGRESSIONAL .RECORD-SENATE .7 have an abiding faith in their capacity, integrity, and high pur· PRESIDENT WILSON AND PROHIDITION :vo e. I have no fears for the future of our country. It is , Mr. "BORAH. Mr. President, I ask permission to have printed bright with hope. in the RECORD an article appearing in the New York Times In the pre ence of my countrymen, mindful of tbe solemnity written by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLAss]. of this occasion, knowing what the task means and the r~ The VIGE PRESIDENT.' Without objection, it is so ordered. sponsibility which it involves, I beg your tolerance, your aid, The article is as follows : · and your cooperation. I ask the help of Almighty God in this service to my country to which you have called me. NEW LIGHT ON WILSON AND PROHIBITION-IN A CHALLENGE TO WETS SENATOR GLASS REVEALS IN:'l"ER lllSTORY OF THE LATE PRESIDENT'S At 1 o'clock and 41 minutes p. m. the Senate returned to its ATTITUDE .AND SHOWS HOW HE DEVISED A DIFFIDlE.NT ENFORCEMENT Chamber, and the Vice President resumed the chair. POLICY FOR THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOUR OF DAILY MEETING (It has been repeatedly asserted that President Wilson was opp
Ashl.Jrst Glass McMasmr Smoot ~HE VETO MESSAGE Barkley Glenn Mc1~ary Steck Bingham Goff Metcalf Steiwer His veto message pointedly reflects this opinion and this view onJy. Blease Goldsboxough Moses Stephens Borah Gould Norris Swanson It was comprised within several paragraphs, .as follows : Bratton Greene Nye . Thomas, Idaho To the House of Representatives: Broo.khart Hale Oddie Thomas, Okla. I am returning without .my signature H. 6810, "An act to prohibit Broussard Harris Overman Townsend R. Burton Harrison Patterson Trammell intoxicating beverages, and to regul.&te the manufacture, production, use, Capper Bastings Phipps Tydings an.d sale of high-proof spirits for other -than beverage purposes, and to Caraway Hatfield Pine Tyson ...insure an ample supply of alcohol and promote its use in scientific Connally Hawes Pittman Vandenberg Copeland Hayden Ransdell Wagner research and in -the development of fuel, dye, and other lawful in- Couzens Hebert Reed Walcott dustries." · Dale Hetlin Robinson, Ark. Walsh, Mass. Deneen Johnson Robinson, Ind. .Walsh, Mont. The -subject matter treated in this measure deals with two distinct Dill Jones Sack-ett Warren phases of the proh~bition legislation. One part of the act under con Edge Kean Schall Waterman ..siderntion seeks to . enforce war-time prohibition. The other provides Fe s Xendrick -Bheppard Watson Fletcher Keyes Shortridge Ior ·the eliforcement which was made necessary by the adoption of the Frazier K.i~ Simmons constitutional amendment. I object to and can not approve that part George Mcfi.ellar Smith of this legislation with reference to war-time prohibition. It has to Mr. BRATTON. My colleague [Mr. CuTTING] is necessarily do with the enforcement of an act which was passed by reason of the absent. This announcement may stand for the day. emergencies of the war and whose objects have been satisfied in the Mr. NORRIS . .I desire to announce that my .colleague .[Mr. demobilization of the :Army and Navy, and· whose repeal I have already HowELL] is detained from the Senate on account of illness. Bought '1rt tbe bands of Congress. Where the purposes of particular The VICE.PRESIDENT. .Eighty-five Senators have answered legislation arising out of war ·emergency bave been satisfied, sound to their names. A quorum is present. The -Senate will receive public policy makes clear the reason and 'Ilecessity for repeal. a message from the President of the United States. It will not be difficult for Congress in considering this important mat· MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT ter to separate these· two queitions and effectively to legislate regarding them, inaking the proper distinction between temporary causes wbich A message in writing from the President of the,United States arose out ot war-time emergencies and those like the constitutional was communicated to the Senate .by Mr. Latta, one of .his secre· amendment ot prohibition which is now part of the fundamental law taries. of the CQUntry. In all matters having to do with the personal habits PRIN'ff.N 1_0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 1{ARCH 5 and the power of impeachment, it would seem to follow neces opinions I respect very highly consider that the Senate has no sarily that either House may transact legislative business when power to transact legislative business in such a session as this. convened in extraordinary session. However, it would seem as I myself agree exactly with what I understand to be the though the question before us is not so large as that. expressed opinion of the Senator from Montana. I believe that With respect to the other matter, it is suggested that this reso the Senate has power in the session in which it is now called lution ought to be divided, and the first part sent to the Judiciary to pass bills. Of course, they do not become laws, because the Committee and the last part to the Committee on Finance. That House is not yet in session to act on them. I believe that once opinion must arise from a misconception of the resolution. The either· House is called into session by the President there is no resolution asks, first, for the opinion of the Judiciary Com restriction save the limitation of the Constitution itself on what mittee as to whether the head of a department can bold office the House can do when called. after the expiration of the term of the President by whom he Be that as it may, the facts in Mr. Mellon's case have so was appointed ; and, second, whether, in view of circumstances, often been threshed over that there is not much doubt about Mr. Mellon is eligible to hold the office of Secretary of the the situation. The laws mentioned in this resolution have re Treasury. peatedly been cited and discussed and construed, and the effort Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President-- has been to apply them to the known circumstances of Mr. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Montana Mellon's case. · yield to the Senator from Connecticut? I do not see how the Senate can get any new light on this Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield. matter from any of its committees. I think the question has Mr. BINGHAM. Is it not true that the second part of the been settled so often that no useful purpose would be served by resolution, which directs the Judiciary Committee to examine the adoption of this resolution. But there is certainly no dispo in to certain facts alleged in connection with Secretary Mellon sition on my part to try to obscure- the facts or prevent any and his ability to hold office, is precisely the kind of matter inquiry into them, and, to put an end to the matter, I withdraw which is considered by any co~ittee to whom nominations are my motion that the resolution be referred to the Committee on referred, and which must be considered by the committee in Finance, and I shall interpose no objection to the adoption of making recommendations as to the confirmation of the nomi the resolution. nees? Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, it seems to me it is quite clear Mr. WALSH of Montana. Yes; I suppose so. I suppose that that the resolution presents at least two propositions to the every committee to whom a nomination is referred must first Senate, one of which is purely and solely a question of law, and address itself to the question as to whether the man named is is peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the Senate by virtue of eligible to appointment, but in a.ll ordinary cases the committee its constitutional duty to pass upon nominations made by the has no such duty to perform at all. It is very rightly assumed President. The first proposition is whether the head of a that there is no legal objection to the appointment. department once appointed can hold over after the term of the Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield President who appoints him. It strikes me that that is a ques further? tion peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the Senate, and one Mr. W .A.LSH of Montana. I yield. upon which the Senate ought to pass. Mr. BII\"'GHAM. Does the Senator mean to imply that this I want to consider the balance of the resolution just a is in the nature of the beginning of an impeachment proceeding? moment. As I look at it-and I will say that I have not had any Mr. WALSH of Montana. No. time to examine or look into it carefully-it seems to me clear Mr. BINGHAM. Then it is difficult to understand why the that the Senate ought not to go into the second matter. The Committee on the Judiciary has anything to do with the matter statute cited in the resolution makes it a misdemeanor if the whatsoever. Secretary of the Treasury is engaged in a certain business. Of Mr. WALSH of Montana. Why not? course, that presents a question of fact, as to whether he is Mr. COUZENS. Mr. President-- engaged in the business, and if he is, then, under that statute, The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Montana a question of impeachment is immediately presented. yield to the Senator from Michigan? Mr. REED. Or of indictment. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield. Mr. NORRIS. Yes; or of indictment. As far as we are con Mr. COUZENS. I suggest to the Senator from Connecticut cerned, -I think the question of impeachment is the only one to and to the Sen~tor from Montana that it is not a .question of consider, because if there is an indictment, the Department of the eligibility of Mr. Mellon to be Secretary of the Treasury, Justice has that in charge, and could proceed without any action but in the opinion submitted to the Senate by the Senator from on our part. Pennsylvania the question was raised as to whether an office Mr. COUZENS. Mr. President-- holder in the Treasury Department was eligible because he was The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska not a director but simply a stockholder. That is not a question yield to the Senator from Michigan? of fact; it is a question of the interpretation of the statute, as Mr. NORRIS. I yield. to whether or not under the statute a man who is not a director Mr. COUZENS. I would like to ask the Senator if he has any is eligible to be Secretary of the Treasury _if he is a stock recollection of any announcement by the Judiciary Committee holder. I think that was. a ·clear line of distinction in the argu or any committee of the Congress as to what constitutes interest ments we have had heretofore. in business as mentioned in the statute? Mr. REED rose. Mr. NORRIS. No; if I have, for the time being, at least, I Mr. WALSH of Montana. The Senator from 1.\Iichigan is an have forgotten. it. ticipating me. I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania Mr. COUZENS. Will the Senator yield further? in a moment. I want to state, on that branch of the subject, Mr. NORRIS. I yield. that there is here no disputed question of fact, no serious con Mr. COUZENS. Does not the Senator think it is a duty of troversy as to what the facts are. The Senator from Penn the Judiciary Connnittee to interpret the statute as read, as to sylvania has on at least one occasion, and I think perhaps on what constitutes an interest in business, whether the mere fact more than one, given what purport to be the facts of the case, that a man is a director or stockholder gives him an interest in and upOn that statement of facts he gives such an interpreta a business? tion of the law as establishes the eligibility of Mr. Mellon to Mr. NORRIS. If the Senator will permit me to proceed just hold the position. I do not imagine there is going to be any a moment, I think I will make that clear. controversy as to the facts ; I do not see how any particular Ordinarily there would not be any objection to giving such an controversy can arise as to the facts. So the matter resotves interpretation. This statute particularly says, in so many itself simply into a question of law, as to whether, upon the words, that a Secretary of the Treasury who is guilty of the acts conceded facts, the incumbent is ineligible under the . statute. enumerated is guilty of a misdemeanor. That being clearly a question of law, where might the reso The Constitution of the United States confers exclusive. lution more appropriately go than to the Committee on the juriSdiction upon the House of Representatives to impeach Judiciary, the members of which are selected because of at officials who are guilty of misdemeanors or high crimes. The least assumed acquaintance with the law? House would have to decide, the ~?ame as a prosecutor would I now yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania. have to decide in a case in court, whether the defendant, or Mr. REED. Mr. President, I think we can shorten this whole whether, as in this case, the respondent, was guilty of a mis matter and end the discussion about it. Before I speak about demeanor. The Senate ought to hold itself aloof, because in the resolution, however, I want, in a sentence or two, to address case the House should impeach it would become necessary for myself to the observations of the Senator from Montana about the Senate to try the impeachment. the power of the Senate to transact legislative business when It seems to me, having exclu§ive jurisdiction of such trials, it alone is called to meet without the House of Representatives. we ought not to consider this matter, first, because we have no I know that there is great disagreement among the membership impeachment jurisdiction ; and, second, we should not express of the present Senate on that question, and that lawyers whose in advance an ~pini,on, either as to fact or law, on the action 192~ CONGR.ESSIONAL RECORD-.SENATE II of a public cfficial who, WJder the Constitution, is liable to im object tben, and I think probably it would be the duty of the peachment by the House and trial by the Senate. Senate to go into the very question which would be directly -To me it seems perfectly clear that that part of the resolu pr.e :ented to it. But we do not find ourselves in that position. tion ought to be eliminated. Suppose, for instance, we ·should That questi()n is not presented. We must g<> out to get it, and agree to the resolution, and the Judiciary Committee should as it stands n()W it seems to me that the only power under our report, after looking up the law, that in its judgment the Secre Go-vernment to go into the question is lodged in the House of taTy of the Treasury had not violated any law, and let us sup Representatives. pOse that the Senate approved that deei ion. We would have Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield right in gone on record then officially upon a question that, -so far as that connection? any effect is concerned, we wou1d have no jurisdiction to try The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska until an impeachment proceeding came regularly before us. yield to the Senator from Alabama? Suppose that afterwards the House began impeachment pro J.lr. NORRIS. Very well. ceeclings against Mr. Mellon, and found that he was guilty, and Mr. HEFLIN. The Senate is sitting to-day to receive the impeached him, and tbe ~rtic1es O'f impeachment came to the nominations of the President to membership in his Cabinet. Senate as a court to try Mr. Mellon. We would have already Eight out of the ten names have been sent to us. We have -con gone on record on the merits of a question upon which, regard-· .firmed the eight. Have we not the right to inquire why the less of bow we should find, we could not aet unless the official others were not sent down· and to challenge the right of either were impeached and we should be trying him foy a violati()n of one of the incumbents to hold office without confu·mation by the the· law. It would at least put the Senate in rather ~n embar Senate? rassing position. Mr. NORRIS. If we take steps t() .make the inquiry, perhaps Suppose we find the reverse of what I have suggested and not improperly, then we would get an official communication, the Judiciary Committee holds, upon hearings, that Mr. Mellon I take it, from the President in which he would take a definite is guilty and that he has violated the law, what are we going stand. If in that case he would take the stand that it. was not to·'('lo about it? We can not try him. We can not both impeach necessary, that he already had a Secretary of the Treasury and him and try him. We are at the end of the string so far as the therefure had no name to submit because there was an incum Senate is concerned. We hav-e held that he is not guilty. We bent in the office, that would at once present-not to us, but to have in reality taken the place of the House of Representati-ves. the House of Representatives--the question whether or not Mr. . HEFLIN. Mr. President-- under those circumstances they ()Ught to proceed with impeach The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska ment proceedings against Mr. Mellon. yield to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. KING. Mr. President-- II\Ir. NORRIS. In ju t a moment. We have said officially to ~e VICE PRESIDR..'\fT. Does the Senat<>r from Nebraska the House of Representatives, "We have decided this matter yield to the Senator from Utah? now upon our own e<>mplaint and we have held so and so, and Mr. NORRIS. I see the Senat()r from Wes.t Virginia still on you are ousted ()f j~isdiction." With the clear provision of the his feet. I do not know whether· he wants to ask me a further Constitution before us in regard to impeachment it seems to me question or not. If so, I yield first to him. . we ought not to consider the second part of the resolution. Mr. GOFF. . I wondered if the :Senator in answering the 1}ues I yield now to fhe ·senator from Alabama. tion of the Senator from Alabama intended that that was an Mr. HEFLIN. Would not that situation, if the Senate answer which covered the question which I proposed to him. should find it to exist, be a strong intimation to the President Mr. NORRIS. As I understood the question ()f the Senator of the necessity for action? from West Virginia, I think" I had already answered it. Mr. NORRIS. I think so. Mr. GOFF. The Senator from Nebraska th-en would agree 1\Ir. HEFLIN. We are called into extra· session to help the that it is not the prerogative (}f the Senate to force the E:x.ecu Pres-ident in organizing the Government. We have already ap tiv-e to send in nomin-ations fOil executive offices ()r to assume proved some of the members of his Oabinet. There are two that it would not confirm nominations wh!ch have not been nominations which the Presi-dent has not ·sent down. In order sent in? . to perform our part of this work have we not the right as the Mr. NORRIS. As I understand the question, I would answer Senate, apart from the House, 't() inqnire of the Pl'esident as to it in the affirmative. I do not think we ()Ught to assume that. the status of the other two names whieh have not been sent If the President, for instance, had no heads of departments and dawn'? I think we have, regardless of the House. sent in no nominations therefor he might be liable to impeach-· Mr. GOFF. Mr: Pres-ident-- ment, but it would not be our prerogative to start such a pro The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska ceeding. We must always bear in mind that in case the move yield to the Senat'Or from We t Virginia? ment is inaugurated through the House of Representatives we l\fr. NORRIS. In just a moment. Let me answer first the will have to sit here as a court. · · Senator from Alabama. I think there is romething in the sug . Mr. KING, · ~fr. WATSON, and Mr. HEFLIN addressed the gestion made by the Senator from Alabama. I would loak upon Chair, · it differently from the way I would look upon the matter if the The VICE PRESIDENT. Does tpe Senator from Nebraska name· of Secretary Menon was before us to net u{}()n, but it is yield; and if so, to whom? not. As I understand, it will not be before u& If the name Mr. NORRIS. I yield first to the Senator from Utah. were presented here, then, as a pat~t of our duty to pass upon Mr. KING. I hope I have misunder tood the able Senat<>r it, we,-in executive session and as a part of obr executive busi from Nebraska. As I interpreted his rem-arks he conveyed the ness, C()uld go into the question, but we are not g.oing to be pre thought that ineligibility -rested upon, if I may use the word, sented with that predicament, ·I und>erstand, and ·until we are impeachability. · . . . I believe we ought not to act upon it, because we are, as I look Mr. NORRIS. No; I do not want to convey that idea, but I at it, trespassing upon tbe constitutional prer<>gattves of the want to get .the idea to the Senate that if a · nomination should ll&use of Representatives. ' come h'ere and for any reason we, either .as matter of fact ()l' law, I now yield t() the Senator from West Virginia. thought the nominee ought not to be confirmed, we would have Mr. GOFF. The Senator from Nebraska: has answered one full authority and it would be our duty to look into all the of the questions which I intended to ask him, and that is what questions involved and pass on them as in our judgment we right or authority the Senate has to consid~r this question other thought was right. than by anticipation and by assumption of a prerogative which Mr. BARKLEY. 1\ir. President-- cloes not now exist, the name of Secretary Mellon not being The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the SenatQr from Nebras:;ka before the Senate for consideration. yield to the Senator from Kentucky? If we should borrow the phrase "jurisdiction to act/' what Mr. NORRIS. In just a moment. I want to call attention right has the Senate in its corrtirmatory capacity to pass upon to the faet that we do n()t have that condition confronting us. the question unless it assumes that the name will come or will There is no nomination before us about which we can ratse that be here? I do not want to propound a double question. If the question. In other words, we are going outside to take up a Senator will answer that question by either agreeing or disagree hypothetical question. ing, then I would like to propound a second question. Mr. KING, Mr. GOFF, Mr. BARKLEY, and Mr. WATSON Mr. HEFLIN. :Mr. President-- addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska ~rhe VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska yield to the Senator from Alabama? yield ; and if so, to whom? Mr. NORRIS. In just a moment. I want first to make an Mr. NORRIS. I yield further to the Senator from Utah. other statement in regard to the suggestion made by the Senator Mr. KING. I suppose the Senate may take cognizance of from Alabama. If Mr. Mellon's name should be sent to the , knowledge possessed by the general public. We are advised, Senate and tbe Senate would therefore be required· to act upon and no one will conb.·()vert it, that it is the purpose of the it 1n its capacity as a part of the appointing power, 'I would not President not to send to the Senate for confirmation the names 12 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE MARCH 5 of persons to fill the positions of Secremry of Labor and Sec That would eliminate any reference to a particular office retary of the Treasury. With that knowledge and in view of the bolder and would determine the matter, at least in so far as the fact, which seems to be conceded by able lawy~rs here, that we opinion of the Committee on the Judiciary could determine it, have the right to proceed to legislative business, may we not be as to whether a man who is a stockholder is not entitled under confronted with that situation? Knowing that there are many the code. to hold office, or whether the prohibition is limited to cases where persons are holding over long beyond the pe1iod a directorship. The controversy has been over the question as for which they were appointed-we have hitd that question. be to whether Mr. Mellon, having resigned as a director in various fore the Committee on the Judiciary in many cases-may not corporations, thereby became eligible to hold the office in ques the Senate ask the Judiciary Committee to advise it in respect tion; but there has been no interpretation by anyone as to to that important legal question? And if perchance in giving whether, being a mere stockholder, he is holding the office in that advice it might reveal the fact that some person was in violation of the statute. eligible to office and that persistence in holding office rendered Mr. NORRIS. If the House of Representatives undertakes to that person subject to impeachment, does the Senator contend bring impeachment proceedings against Secretary Mellon on the that that would deprive the Judiciary Committee or the Senate grou.~d that t_he section of the code cited is violated, the very of the right to make an investigation? question that 1s propounded by the Senator from Michigan would l\lr. NORRIS. No; I would not say that. The first prop<) be involved in that procedure. I would not like to pass on it sition will be on the first part of the resolution. It seems to for them. I do not believe we ought to try to state an opinion me it is perfectly proper to refer it to any committee or to the for them to follow. Judiciary Committee to get an opinion as to whether those offi Mr. COUZENS an.d Mr. KING add1·essed the Chair. cials do hold over or do not. .But the question of qualifications The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator yield further; outside of that is not before us now and can not come before and if so, to whom? us officially. We are concerned with the fact that under the Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator from Michigan. peculiar constitutional provision we are not the body that ought 1\fr. COT.!Z.ENS. Mr. President, assuming, without reference :first to pass upon that question. to any indtvtdual, that a name was sent to the Senate for con Mr. McKELLAR, Mr. GOFF, and Mr. BARKLEY addressed firmation and the Fina~ce Committee, in considering as to the Chair. whether or not the nommee should be confirmed, should ask The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska the Judiciary Committee for its interpretation of the law as for yield ; and if so, to whom? instance, whether the nominee being a stockholder iri a ~om Mr. NORRIS. I yield :first to the Senator from Kentucky. parry was ineligible under the law or whether his being a Mr. BARKLEY. I would like to submit this inquiry to the director in such company would render him ineligible under the Senator from Nebraska : Suppose we pass the resolution and law, it seems to me it would be perfectly proper to ask that the Committee on the Judiciary makes its investigation and re question of the .Judiciary Committee. ports back to the Senate that the two men in question do not Mr. NORRIS. I think it would be perfectly proper under properly hold over, and then, in addition to that, reports that those circumstances. . Mr. Mellon, by reason of his business connections, is not eligible, Mr. COUZENS. And for the Finance Committee to obtain what can the Senate do about it? an opinion from the Judiciary Committee as to that question. Mr. NORRIS. I do not know. Mr. NORRIS. I think th~t would be perfectly proper; but Mr. CARAWAY, Mr. WALSH of Montana, and Mr. McKEL we do not have that condition now confronting us. In this case LAR addressed the Chair. there is no nomination before us. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska l\lr. COUZENS. Assuming, for instance, that a nomination yield ; and if so, to whom? comes here and the question arises whether the nominee's hold Mr. NORRIS. I yield :first to the Senator from Arkansas. ing stock in a certain .character of company makes it a violation Mr. CARAWAY. The Senate can refuse them their pay and of the statute for him to hold the office it seems to me that the refu e to recognize lny act they may perform. Senate has a perfect right to ask the Judiciary Committee to Mr. NORRIS. We could. interpret the law as to whether there is a violation of the Mr. CARAWAY. We do not have to give to them a dollar statute involved. out of the Treasury in the way of pay until they are confirmed Mr. NORRIS. I agree with the Senator that would be per by the Senate. fectly proper. If we had a nomination before us and referred it to a committee, and that committee desired to bring in a Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President-- The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska resolution asking to have the matter referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, or to any other committee for that matter, yield to the Senator from Kentu~ky? for their advice as to the interpretation of the law, I think that Mr. NORRIS. I yield. Mr. BARKLEY. May I suggest, in reply to the inquiry of would be a proper step for them to take. the Senator from Arkansas, that the Senate itself can not de Mr. COUZENS. WiH the Senator yield to me further? Mr. NORRIS. I yield to the Senator. prive these men of their salaries? The appropriations for the Mr. COUZENS. It seems to me that we have a perfect right payment of their salaries have been made by the Congress, by to have the judgment of the Judiciary Committee, without re-. both the House and the Senate, and it seems to me the Senate spect to individuals, if we shall ask that committee for it. itself could not further interfere in the matter of the payment l\1r. NORRIS. Mr. President, I think we have. I am not of their salaries. denying that the Senate may ask the Committee on the Judiciary l\Ir. NORRIS. The Senate could act in the way of passing a for its opinion on any question; but we have only a hypothetical resolution in connection with the matter. case now before us. If we were going into court with that Mr. COUZENS, Mr. GOFF, and Mr. McKELLAR addressed kind of a proposition we would not have any standing; we the Chair. · would immediately be thrown out of court. We have not an The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska actual case before us now. I now yield to. the Sen-ator from yield; and if so, to whom? West Virginia. Mr. NORRIS. I will yield to no one for a moment. The Mr. GOFF. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator from Senate could take that course and refuse to agree to a future Nebraska this question: In "View of the general discussion which appropriation. I do not believe the matter is before us or has prevailed, assuming that a nomination were before the should be given any further consideration at this time. Senate for confirmation, and there were a suggestion that im Mr. COUZENS. Mr. President-- peachment proceedings might lie, would the Senate be permitted The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Nebraska to deny its prerogative of confirmation merely because it might yield to the Senator from :Michigan? assume that impeachment proceedings could be maintained Mr. NORRIS. I yield. against the nominee whose name was before the Senate for Mr. COUZENS. I understand the Senator from Nebraska confirmation? very well, and I concur in his conclusion. I am wondering if a Mr. NORRIS. I do not think so. substitute, such as that which I am about to suggest, would not 1\Jr. GOFF. I agree with the Senator. be approp1iate under the argument advanced by the Senator M~. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, the objection offered from Nebraska. I would suggest something to this effect: by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRIS), the chairman of Whereas section 243, of title 5, and section 63, of title 26, of the the Committee on the Judiciary, to the resolution is entitled to Code of Laws hnve been variously interpreted as to whether the holding the most profound respect, but it does not occur to me that it of office under those sections of the code is limited to the question of is at all a serious one. The situation to which he adverts con being a director of an incorporation, or includes stockholders who are fronts Uf'l in the case of every nomination that comes to this not directors: Now, therefore, be it body. As was §O clearly intimated by the Senator from Con Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to ad·vise necticut [Mr. BINGHAM], every time a nomination comes before the Senate as to its opinion thereon. the Senate the committee to which it is referred is charged 192~ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 13 with the duty of ascertaining whether unde~ the law t4e nomi a person to hold office beyond the term for which be was nee is eligible to the place. Accordingly, the committee ;may appointed, and was not deterred from making an iQvestigation report that he is eligible; tl!at is the ~ole question that is de because of the ·possibility of the ·person by persisting in holding bated here upon his confirmation; and the Senate reaches the his office and exercising the functions thereof might subject concl.usion that he is eligible. himself to impeachment. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President-- Mr. GOFF. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana The VICID PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Montana yield to me? yield to the Senato~ from Nebraska.? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Montana Mr. WALSH of Montana. I will yield in just a moment. yield to the Senator from West Virginia? However, subsequently impeachment proceedings may be insti l\fr. WALSH of Montana. I yield. tuted ag{linst him upon the ground that he is holding office in Mr. GOFF. I should like to propound to the Senator in defiance. of the law; the. Senate is called upon to trY the im view of what I understood his statement to be, this question: peachment; we have got to go over exactly the same ground Suppose, in a supposititious case, a resolution should go to the again, and we are in exactly the same situation that we would Judiciary Committee, and suppose the Judiciary Committee be in provided an opinion were rendered by the Judiciary Com should submit a report either in favor of eligibility or against mittee concerning the eligibility of Mr. Mellon and he were sub eligibility ; tl1en suppose the question of ·confirmation were sequently impeached by the House of Representaqves. So tl!ere presented to the Senate, and the ·Senate voted in favor of con is nothing extraordinary about this at all. firmation; and later the facts were submitted to t,b.e House as a Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana basis for impeachment proceedings and the impeachment pro yield to me now? _ ceedings we1·e instituted; would not the Senate of the United Mr. WALSH of Montana. I now yield to the Se~tor from States by such action disqualify it...<::elf as a fair and impartial N~braska. trial ti.ibunal? Mr. NORRIS. I tried to make the point clear, Mr. President, Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, we have had that but perhaps I failed to do so. If there were a nomination be question up before. The expression of opinion by individual fore us, then it would be perfectly proper to obtain the opinion Senators or by the Senate itself does not in any wise whatever of the Judiciary Committee even to aid another committee in disqualify it from sitting as a court of impeachment. pasSing on the qualifications of the nominee, although that might Mr. GOFF. Then, I understand the Senator's answer to be involve an inquiry into something that was impeachable which that it would not disqualify the ~enate to act as an impartial might be acted on by the House of Representatives; in other tribunal, as the trial court? words if we had an actual nomination, the Senate ought not to Mr. WALSH of Montana. It would _not di qualify it but stop because an investigation might disclose that the nominee whether the Senate remains an impartial body or not i; an might be impeached for some alleged offense. I wanted to draw other thing. There is no provision for challenging any Member a distinction between a case actually before us and the hypo- of the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment because of any thetical question that has been propounded. . .opinion that he may have entertained or expressed .theretofore. Mr. WALSH of Montana. I understood that was the Sena M.r. GOFF. Now let me propound a further question. tor's position. · Mr. REED. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana Mr. McKELLAR and Mr. KING addressed the Chair. yield to me? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Montana M.r. GOFF. Just a moment, and then I will cease asking questions of the Senator. If the Senator its an attomey in a yield ; and if so, to whom? Mr. WALSH of Montana. I will yield to the Senator from case knew that a judge before whom the case was pending had Tennessee directly. I understood clearly that the Senator from expressed a definite and conclusive opinion, would not the Sen Nebraska pointed out the distinction which he has mentioned, ator file an affidavit of prejudice against the judge_and not but that does not affect the situation. The Senator presented permit him to sit and try the issue which was pending in the as a serious objection to this resolution that if the committee court over which he presided? reported upon it, the Senate adopted or rejected the report of l\Ir. WALSH of Montana. The Senator from West Vi,rginia, the committee and declared its attitude with respect to the excellent lawyer as he is, knows that for years and years there matter, and the official -were subsequently impeached, we would was no such statute and a litigant was obliged to try his case before a judge, notwithstanding he had eA-'1)ressed an adverse then, the Senator said, be in an embarrassing position here; opinion. but we would be in exactly the same position with respect to Mr. GOFF. I think :we corrected that defect some time ago. each officer who should be impeached whose eligibility became l\Ir. REED. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a ques a subject of discussion in' the Senate at the time that he was con tion? firmed. I now yield to the Senator from Tennessee. The VICE ·PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Montana Mr. MoKELLAR. In further answer to the Senator from yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania? Nebraska, the Senator says that there is no concrete case before Mr. REED. I yield to the Senator f.r.om West Virginia until us. Let us assume as to one of the places that was filled this he has concluded. morning, that of Secretary of the Interior, for instance, that the l\Ir. GOFli'. The further question I wish to propound is this _: President -had not sent a nomination to the Senate but had Is it not the duty of Senators, ex~rcising their judicial preroga merely designated some man to fi.U that place; is it not perfectly tive and striving to maintain it, to keep themselves in such a manifes.t that we would have a right to refer the matter to the position that they will not disqualify themselves as an impar Judiciary Committee if we desired in sucli .a case as that? If tial tribunal by the expression of such an opinion? that is so, surely we have a right to refer this case where Mr. . Mr. WALSH of Montana. Not to the disregard of positive Mellon is being kept in office. duties before them. Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, there is another Mr. REED. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to 11 ques suggestion I want to make in this connection. tion? Mr. KING. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves that The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Montana point, will he allow me to interrupt him? yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from :Montana Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield. yield to the Senator from Utah? Mr. REED. What is the use of all this? We all know the Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield to the Senator from Utah. House is not going to impeach Mr. Mellon; we all know that Mr. KING. The Senator will recall that in the Judiciary there is no chance of that; so why should we debate moot COmmittee at a recent session of the Congress a question was questions? Why not adopt the resolution and be done with it? before that committee somewhat cognate to that now under The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the discussion. The President of the United States nominated a resolution. Mr. Reed for judge in Alaska. The committee took th~ matter Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, before we adopt the resolution, under advisement and reported adversely. The name was in view of something that was said about the legislative power withclrawn, but the President then declined to send another of the Senate as a Senate, I merely wish to detain the Senate name in. That term of Congress expired and Mr. Reed con long enough to read section 1 of Article I of the Constitution, tinued to bold the office. The Judiciary Committee at the fol as follows: lowing session considered the question as to whether or not l\1r. Reed could continue to hold that office. I had the honor All legislative powers herein granted- shall be vested in a Congress to submit a report to the Senate of the United States from ot the United States, which [Congress] shall consist of a Senate and the Judiciary Committee, concurred in by the chairman of the House of Representatives. committee, in which that question was discussed. So the Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, if the view taken by the Senator Judic>iary Committee bas gone into the question of :the right pt from Idaho is correct, then neither body can adopt a resolu- 14 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 1\f.ARCH 5 tion regarding a matter that pertains P'eculiarly to it without Mr. COUZENS. But, Mr. President, the Senator has already the consent of the other body. · said that in case of an impeachment we would be prejudging l\1r. BORAH. No, l\lr. President, I made no such suggestion the question. If that is correct, we will have prejudged the and made no suggestion from which such an inference could question with respect to a collector of customs or a collector of be (]rawn. I was speaking of legislative duties, not of executive internal revenue whose case may be specifically before the com duties. mittee. In other words, the Senate may confirm either one of Mr. w ALSII of Montana. Mr. President, in conclusion I these nominees; and in that event, if the Senator from Nebraska want to read another provision of the Constitution, namely, is correct, the committee will have prejudged that case the section 3 of Article II, as follows : same as they will have prejudged the other case. He [the President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Mr. GOFF. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their con The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it. sideration such measures as be shall judge necessary and expedient; Mr. GOFF. Has the Senate of the United States power and he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of authority to consider moot questions? them. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair will not pass upon that question. Mr. BORAH. He may convene them separately, but being . 1\Ir. NORRIS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield- convened they have no legislative power except as a Congress; Mr. COUZENS. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska. and there is no Congress except a Senate and a House of Repre Mr. NORRIS. I hope the Senator will get the idea that I sentatives when they are both convened. desired to convey. I wanted to express the opinion and the Mr HEFLIN. Mr. President, I wish to make this point as judgment that in case we were called upon to act under our clear ·as I possibly can. We have been called into extraordinary constitutional responsibility about the appointment of public ses.'3ion to help the President organize the executive department. officials in our confirmation or rejection of them, we ought to We are proceeding this morning to help him to the extent of go through with the matter, no matter what the result might approving the nominations of eight members of the Cabinet. be, even though it would give us information, or, as the Senator There are two more members whose names have not been sub puts it, prejudge a case that might arise afterwards in the mitted. It is the function of the Senate to advise and consent case of the same individual as the result of impeachment pro to the appointment of members of the Cabinet. There are two ceedings refe1·red to the Senate by the House of Representatives. whose ·names have not been .submitted to the Senate, and one I can see how that might occur. 'Ve ought not to shirk our of them it seems, is objectionable to a good many Senators. If duty if it comes, even though it might be said that we had the Sen~te should be in the frame of mind .to reject one of these rather disqualified ourselves, if there were such a thing under and the President knowing that-I am just using that as an the law. In the case of the Senate it is legally impossible to illustration-should decline to send that particular man's name disqualify ourselves; yet we might put ourselves before the here, then as to one executive department, the nomiJ\ation. of country in such a position that our judgment would not com the head of which the Senate has a right to confirm, the oppor mand the same respect, the people would not have the same con tunity is withheld from it because, it may be, the Senate would fidence in it when we had rendered it. So I can see how there not agree to that particular appointment. might be a confliction there; and if Mr. Mellon's name were When a portion of the list is submitted, the Senate being a before us now for confirmation I should be in favor, then, of body to advise and consent with the President on such appoint going clear through with the matter and inaking the complete ments we have the right as a body separate from the House to investigation that we were called upon to make, even though ask w'hy a certain name has not been sent here and to inquire impeachment might occur afterwards, and we might be required further if that particular person under the law as it exists is to try him for the same offense. entitled to sit as a member of the Cabinet. Mr. COUZENS. Then I do not see the difference between I do not think it makes any difference whether the House is in what the Senator says now and the adoption of this resolution. session or not. We can do this, and our action on it in no way For my part, I prefer that this resolution be not passed in this affects the House. 'Vhether we decide to do it or not to do it, form. I agree with very much of what the Senator from Ne the House is not involved. braska has said ; but I submit, as a member of the Finance Com 1\Ir. COUZENS. Mr. President, there has been much discus mittee, that if I want to know from the Judiciary Committee sion of the subject of this being a moot question, and it has been the interpretation of a statute before considering the confirma said that we are asked to pass upon hypothetical cases. I desire tion of a nominee to be collector of customs or collector of to point out that in the months to come there are going to be internal revenue, I am entitled to have it, if the Senate agrees submitted to the Congress for confirmation the names of col with me in submitting the question to the Judiciary Committee lectors of customs and collectors of internal revenue, both of for examination. whom are appointed under this statute. The Committee on The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the Finance are going to be asked to report out these names. The resolution offered by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Mc question is going to arise as to whether these collectors of KELLAR]. customs and these collectors of internal revenue hold financial The resolution was agreed to. interests in violation of the statute referred to. I for one, am going to take the position that collectors of inter UNVEILING OF THE STATUES OF HENRY CLAY AND DR. EPHRAIM nal' revenue and collectors of customs who are financially inter M'DOWELL--ADDBESB OF SENATOR FREDEBIO M. SACKETT ested either in importations or in business are not eligible to hold Mr. ROBINSON of Indiana. Mr. President, on last Satur these offices. Many Senators now have complaints of collectors day afternoon there was a ceremony in connection with the of customs who are charged with being financially interested in unveiling of the statues of Henry Clay and Dr. Ephraim Mc importations ; and it seems to me it is not a moot question as to Dowell in the National Capitol. One of our colleagues, the whether or not the proper interpretation of these statutes senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. SAcKErT], delivered a very excludes a man whv is interested in importations or who is impressive address on that occasion. I ask unanimous consent interested in business. If the interpretation of this statute pre that it may be printed in the RECORD. cludes men from holding office who are interested in importa The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? The Chau· tions or in business, then I want to know it, because I am going hears none, and it is so ordered. to fight the confirmation of collectors of customs and collectors The matter referred to is here printed, as follows: of internal revenue who are interested in business or interested We come to-day to dedicate Kentucky's portion in the Nation's in importations ; so it is not a moot question. I shrine. What a wealth of opportunity spreads itself before the people I think the Senator fr.om Nebraska has overstressed the point of our State. Names of Boone and Clark, Lincoln and Davis, Breckin in emphasizing this as a moot question, because the suggestion ridge, Carlisle, Harlan, and Prentice, to call but few of that remark I make is a question of interpretation of the statute, which able roster of the past who have emblazoned themselves upon our his would apply not only to the Secretary of the Treasury , but to toric pages. From the realm of such a coterie it is peculiarly fitting all officeholders who might be incompetent under the statute. that Kentucky places in this hallowed chamber these beautiful statues Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senator of her most worthy sons-Henry Clay, the leader and statesman, and is going to take that course, and I shall be gl~d i~ my weak way Ephraim McDowell, the scientific surgeon. to help him in every respect that I can. Still, It seems to me In the dimming past Virginia bred Kentucky. Many of the men and that be ought not now to assume that the appointing power is women who distinguished our great State in early yeat·s came to her going to appoint men who are disqualified. It will be a very from beyond her borders. Clay and McDowe]l had their birth in that proper thing for us to take up the matter in connection with the Old Dominion which bas given illustrious men to every section of the first one who is appointed where the question arises ; but now, Nation. when there is no such case before us, I repeat, it is a moot Likewise is it fitting that in choosing them we hark back to the question. earliest developJ;Dent of our ~tatehood when the bravest spirits of the 1929 \, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 15 pioneers trod the stage and wrought the marvels that made Kentucky ATTORNEY GENERAL what she is to-day. One hundred and fifty years have passed since thse two men began to live the lives that have won inclusion among William DeWitt Mitchell, of Minnesota, to be Attorney Gen America's illustrious dead. We make no idle choice. Their fame has eral. stood the test of time. By the firesides of the Kentucky they loved POSTMASTER GENERAL and made their own, these two great names have lived' in song and Walter Folger Brown, of Ohio, to be Postmaster General. story. Each has left his imprint on our people, and to each of them there stands within our State a monument that has served to keep SECRETARY OF THE NAVY that imprint green. Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of At Danville, McDowell's home, rises a granite shaft that in itS' the Navy. simple majesty tells the recognition accorded to this man of science by those who have followed in the footsteps of his master spirit. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR At Louisville, within the courthouse shrine, Henry Clay, the states Ray Lyman Wilbur, of California, to be Secretary of the man, lives again in marble, responsi>e to the touch of Kentucky's Interior. greatest sculptor, Joel Hart. Beautiful and resonant of life, the statue SECRETARY OF CoM:M:ERCE serves to keep the faith that su<;ceeding generations may look upon the man who held tlie Nation spellbound in these classic halls. Robert Patterson Lamont, of Illinois, to be Secretary of Tested in popular esteem, as few have been, under the constant glare Commerce. of such memorials, Kentucky confidently enshrines them here to hold SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE a place among the Nation's great. This hall of fame is grander by Arthur M. Hyde, of Missouri, to be Secretary of Agriculture. reason of their presence wrought in eternal bronze. You give them to the Nation. They shall stand here for the glory of the State they loved, a glory that was jointly theirs in the making. For the Congress CONFIRMATIONS and for the people I accept them, and I pledge a nation's sacred honor to maintain and treasure· them through all succeeding years. Executive no.minations confirmed by the Senate March 5, 1929 SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTION OF DIREOTORS OF STANDABD OIL CO. OF INDIANA Mr. STEPHENS submitted the following resOlution ( S. Res. Henry Lewis Stimson, of New York, to be Secretary of State. . 3),_which was ordered to lie on ~e table: SECRETARY OF WAR Resolved, That the Federal Trade Commission be, and it is hereby, James William Good, of Illinois, to be Secretary of War. directed to promptly investigate and report to the Senate whether any persons, firms, or corporations engaged in the attempt to influence or ATTORNEY GENERAL control the election of directors of the Standard Oil Co. of Indiana to William DeWitt Mitchell, of Minnesota, to be Attorney Gen be held on the 7th day of March, 1929, or any other day in 1929, are eral. violating or are conspiring to violate any judicial decree or any Federal POSTMASTER GEJ\TERAL laws prohibiting monopolies, restraint of trade, unfair competition, or other unlawful practices. Walter Folger Brown, of Ohio, to be Postmaster General. ADJOURNMENT SINm DlliJ SECRETARY OF THE NAVY Mr. WATSON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate ad Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of journ sine die. the Navy. The motion was agreed to ; and (at 1 o'clock and 41 minutes SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR P·. m.) the Senate adjourned sine die. Ray Lyman Wilbur, of California, to be Secretary of the NOMINATIONS Interior. Executive nominations received by the Senate March 5, 1929 SECRETARY OF COMMERCE SECRETARY OF STATE Robert Patterson Lamont, of Illinois, to be Secr~tary of Henry. Lewis Stimson, of New York, to be Secretary of State. Commerce. . SECRETARY OF WAR SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE James William Good, of Illinois, to be Secreta-ry of War. Arthur M. Hyde, of Missouri, to be Secretary of Agriculture. ·•··"";) " l .• • ; , :.; c- ":.•·.