DOCSLIB.ORG

A Study of Political and Sectional Voting Alignments in the United

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Mudy A STUDY OF POLITICAL AND SECTIONAL VOTING ALIGNMENT) IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 1921-1929 by Patrick Gene O'Brien A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Office for Graduate Studies, Graduate Division of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1968 MAJOR: HISTORY (RECENT AMERICAN) >BY: lser Date Order No............................^ ^ § No. Of Volumes ........ ................. Color .......................................... Trim S iz e ...... ......... Vol. No. /Sylu^L/ Part No................................. M onths............... o express my Y ea r.................................... Imprint ( ) ye* ( ) no l e r ’ Wh° Provided me with the aavanuagt ui ^ x ights into American politics of the 1920's which were the basis of this disser­ tation. He also contributed to the enterprise through encouragement and advice. Dr. Alfred H, Kelly read the manuscript and made a number of valuable suggestions for its improvement. My thanks are also extended to Dr. Lloyd Edwards and Mr. Donald Leaky of Kansas State Teachers College Data Processing Center who assisted me with the statistical design of this study and wrote the IBM programs. All errors of omission and commission are, of course, my own. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A brief reference is inadequate to express my appreciation to Professor Raymond C. Miller, who provided me with the advantage of his perceptive insights into American politics of the 1920's which were the basis of this disser­ tation. He also contributed to the enterprise through encouragement and advice. Dr. Alfred H, Kelly read the manuscript and made a number of valuable suggestions for its improvement. My thanks are also extended to Dr. Lloyd Edwards and Mr. Donald Leaky of Kansas State Teachers College Data Processing Center who assisted me with the statistical design of this study and wrote the IBM programs. All errors of omission and commission are, of course, my own. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S .............................................. INTRODUCTION .............................. 1 Chapter I. A POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 1921-29 8 II. A MEASUREMENT OF DIVISION AND LIKENESS BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES ............ .... .......... 29 III. AN ANALYSIS OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTY COHESION ....................... 4l IV. A MEASUREMENT OF THE PARTY LOYALTY OF REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC SENATORS .......... 64 V. THE REPUBLICAN INSURGENTS: THEIR PARTY PRACTICES AND THE LIBERAL TRADITION ......... 97 VI. A STUDY OF SECTIONAL VOTING PATTERNS . 0 „ . 114 CONCLUSION........................... ................... 141 APPENDIX ...................................................1^6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 157 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Political Composition of Geographical Regions--United States Senate, 1921-1929 12 2, Interparty Likeness by Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 37 3* Comparison of Interparty Likeness in the 1920's with the Average Interparty Likeness (1880-19^0) on Certain Issues . .................. .......... 38 4. Number of Times that Various Percentages of the Democrats Vote Together, 1921-29 ..... ^3 5. Number of Times that Various Percentages of the Democrats Vote Together According to Issues, 1921-29 ...... ... ^5 6 . Democratic Cohesion According to Issue for Each Congress with the Average Cohesion for the 67th Through the 70th Congress, 1921-29 ^8 7. Comparison of Democratic Cohesion in the 1920's with Their Average Cohesion Between 1880-19^0 on Selected Issues . ............................. ^9 8. Number of Times That Various Percentages of the Republicans Vote Together, 1921-29 .... 52 9. Number of Times that Various Percentages of the Republicans Vote Together According to Issues, 1921-29 ........................ 5^ 10. Republican Cohesion According to Issue for Each Congress with the Average Cohesion for the 67th Through the 70th Congress, 1 9 2 1 - 2 9 ......................................... 55 11. Comparison of Republican Cohesion in the 1920's with Their Average Cohesion Between 1880-19^0 on Selected Issues ........... .... 5° V TABLE PAGE 12. Comparison of Democratic and Republican Cohesion According to Issue, 1921-29 .... 58 13. Comparison of Democratic and Republican Cohesion on Substantive and Non- Substantive Issues, 1921-29 ......... 59 14. Republican Loyalty Index ........... 67 15. Democratic Loyalty Index . ................. 84 16. Selective Loyalty Index for Republican Senators, 1921-1929 . ....................... 100 17. Cohesion Index for Geographical Regions, 1921-29 ...................................... 115 18, Cohesion Index for Central States Senators for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 • • • 118 19* Cohesion Index for Central States Republicans for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-29 .... 120 20. Cohesion Index for Central States Democrats for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-29 .... 121 21. Cohesion Index for the Eastern Senators for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-29 ...... 122 22. Cohesion Index for Eastern Republicans for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 .................................... 23. Cohesion Index for Eastern Democrats for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 ..... 125 24. Cohesion Index for the Southern Senators for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 ..... 127 25. Cohesion Index for Southern Democrats for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 ..... 128 26. Cohesion Index for Southern Republicans for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 129 27. Cohesion Index for Western Senators for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 ....•••• 131 vi TABLE PAGE 28. Cohesion Index for Western Democrats for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 ........... 132 29• Cohesion Index for Western Republicans for Each Issue and Congress, 1921-1929 ........... 133 30. Likeness Between Democrats and Republicans From the Same Section, 1921-1929 ........... 135 31. Likeness Between Democratic Sectional Groups, 1921-1929 ...........* .............. 135 32. Likeness Between Republican Sectional Groups, 1921-1929 136 33. Likeness Between Sectional Groups of One Party with Sectional Groups of the Other Party, 1921-1929 ....................... 136 3^. Likeness of the Urban and Rural Groups and the Likeness Between the Urban and Rural Sections, 1921-1929 • • • • ........... 137 35. Likeness Between the Urban and Rural Sections Upon Selected Issues, 1921-1929 137 INTRODUCTION The politics of the 1920's, often caricaturized in a few simple generalizations, prove upon thoughtful investiga­ tion to be exceedingly complex.-*- Several common and casual assertions about "twenties" politics should come under critical reanalysis, including traditional descriptions of the extent and character of party division. The usual historical generalization is that, although conservativism was the predominant political attitude, both parties were fragmented by sectional and ideological struggles. As a con­ sequence there was a breakdown in the party system. This dissertation tests this conclusion through an examination of voting patterns in the United States Senate from the 6?th through the 70th Congress (1921-29), Virtually every politi­ cal history of the era touches upon Senate voting align­ ments, but there is no extant study with the scope, structure, and methodology of this dissertation. The need for this investigation stems from severe deficiencies in political studies of the 1920's. Many des­ criptions are little more than tedious exposes of debauchery lFor a perceptive critique of "twenties" historio­ graphy see Kenry F. May, "Shifting Perspectives on the 1920's," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIII (December, 195^)» ^05-27• 2 and incompetence,^ Moreover, nearly every political study is written from the liberal "frame of reference." Some political critiques of the 1920's can be dismissed as fundamentally liberal vendettas, but even responsible scholars reflect the same bias which is all but universal among practitioners of the historical craft.3 This study is neither a defense nor advocacy of a political group or philosophy. The conclusions herein are based upon a detached analysis of Senate voting patterns and presented with a determination for accuracy. The historian should be eclectic in his methodology. Any technique should be adopted which will contribute to clarity, precision, and insight into the historical topic. Traditional research techniques have usually been used as a basis for descriptions of politics and parties in the 1920's. The results have often been impressive, but the methodology has sometimes contributed to excessive selectivity in materials, reliance upon fragmentary data, casualness in definitions, and little regard for criteria. The dimensions classic of this type is Samuel Hopkins Adams, Incredible Era: The Life and Times of Warren Gamabiel Harding (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1939 )~T 3a representative study of the polemic school is Karl Schriftgiesser, This Was Normalcy: An Account of Party Politics During Twelve Republican Years: 1920-1932~ TBoston '• Little, Brown and Company, 19^8), whereas Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order 1919-1933 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957T~?sflects the scholarly bias. 3 of methodology have recently been expanded by historians who have developed new techniques and adopted others, primarily, from the social sciences,^ Ideas and methods advanced by these historians are incorporated into this dissertation. This study should be perceived as paralleling standard politi­ cal histories of the 1920*s,
Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 111 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 111 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 111 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION SENATE—Wednesday, November 18, 2009 The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY Since coming to the Senate in 1959, called to order by the Honorable TOM LEADER Senator BYRD has cast more than 18,500 UDALL, a Senator from the State of The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- votes. No one else, past or present, New Mexico. pore. The majority leader is recog- even comes close. He is the only Sen- nized. ator who has ever been elected to nine PRAYER full terms in this body. He has presided The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- f over both the shortest session in Sen- fered the following prayer: SCHEDULE ate history—not even one second Let us pray. long—and presided for the longest con- Eternal God, the Lord of life, we love Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, the Senate will be in a tinuous period—more than 21 hours. No You but not enough. We look to You one has ever served on a Senate Com- but depend too often on our own period of morning business. Senator ROCKEFELLER will then be recognized mittee longer than Senator BYRD. Just strength. We listen for You but make a days after being sworn in, he joined the lot of noise ourselves at the same time. for as much time as he may consume. Appropriation Committee he would We try to understand, as long as it Following his remarks, there will be an later chair.
  • Wheeler and the Montana Press

    Wheeler and the Montana Press

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1954 The court plan B. K. Wheeler and the Montana press Catherine Clara Doherty The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Doherty, Catherine Clara, "The court plan B. K. Wheeler and the Montana press" (1954). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8582. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8582 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TfflS OOCTBT PLAN, B. K. WHEELER AND THE MONTANA PRESS by CATHERINE C. DOHERTY B. A. , Montana State University, 1953 Presented In partial fulfillment ef the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 1954 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: EP39383 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI OisMftaebn Ajbliehing UMI EP39383 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
  • Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968

    Richard Russell, the Senate Armed Services Committee & Oversight of America’S Defense, 1955-1968

    BALANCING CONSENSUS, CONSENT, AND COMPETENCE: RICHARD RUSSELL, THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE & OVERSIGHT OF AMERICA’S DEFENSE, 1955-1968 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joshua E. Klimas, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor David Stebenne, Advisor Professor John Guilmartin Advisor Professor James Bartholomew History Graduate Program ABSTRACT This study examines Congress’s role in defense policy-making between 1955 and 1968, with particular focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), its most prominent and influential members, and the evolving defense authorization process. The consensus view holds that, between World War II and the drawdown of the Vietnam War, the defense oversight committees showed acute deference to Defense Department legislative and budget requests. At the same time, they enforced closed oversight procedures that effectively blocked less “pro-defense” members from influencing the policy-making process. Although true at an aggregate level, this understanding is incomplete. It ignores the significant evolution to Armed Services Committee oversight practices that began in the latter half of 1950s, and it fails to adequately explore the motivations of the few members who decisively shaped the process. SASC chairman Richard Russell (D-GA) dominated Senate deliberations on defense policy. Relying only on input from a few key colleagues – particularly his protégé and eventual successor, John Stennis (D-MS) – Russell for the better part of two decades decided almost in isolation how the Senate would act to oversee the nation’s defense.
  • President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Bill of 1937

    President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Bill of 1937

    President Roosevelt and the Supreme Court bill of 1937 Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Hoffman, Ralph Nicholas, 1930- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 26/09/2021 09:02:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/319079 PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE SUPREME COURT BILL OF 1937 by Ralph Nicholas Hoffman, Jr. A Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Department of History and Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Graduate College, University of Arizona 1954 This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the Library to be made avail­ able to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without spec­ ial permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other in­ stances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: TABLE.' OF.GOWTENTS Chapter / . Page Ic PHEYIOUS CHALLENGES TO THE JODlClMXo , V .
  • University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan the UNIVERSITY of OKLAHOMA

    University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan the UNIVERSITY of OKLAHOMA

    This dissertation has been 65-12,998 microfilmed exactly as received MATHENY, David Leon, 1931- A COMPAEISON OF SELECTED FOREIGN POLICY SPEECHES OF SENATOR TOM CONNALLY. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1965 ^eech-Theater University Microfilms. Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE A COMPARISON OP SELECTED FOREIGN POLICY SPEECHES OF SENATOR TOM CONNALLY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DAVID LEON MATHENY Norman, Oklahoma 1965 A COMPARISON OP SELECTED FOREXON POLICY SPEECHES OP SENATOR TOM CONNALLY APPROVED BY L-'iJi'Ui (^ A -o ç.J^\AjLôLe- DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express thanks to Professor Wayne E. Brockriede and members of the University of Oklahoma Speech Faculty for guidance during the preparation of this dissertation. A special word of thanks should go to Profes­ sor George T. Tade and the Administration of Texas Christian University for encouragement during the latter stages of the study and to the three M's — Mary, Melissa and Melanie — for great understanding throughout the entire project. TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................... Ill Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ......................... 1 Purpose of the S t u d y ..................... 6 Previous Research......................... 8 Sources of Material....................... 9 Method of Organization ................... 10 II. CONNALLY, THE SPEAKER....................... 12 Connally's Non-Congresslonal Speaking Career.......... 12 General Attributes of Connally's Speaking............................... 17 Conclusion . ........................... 31 III. THE NEUTRALITY ACT DEBATE, 1939............. 32 Connally's Audience for the Neutrality Act Debate.............. 32 The Quest for Neutrality ............ 44 The Senate, Connally and Neutrality.
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary

    Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary

    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
  • Legislative Limelight: Investigations by the United States Congress By

    Legislative Limelight: Investigations by the United States Congress By

    Legislative Limelight: Investigations by the United States Congress by John Ignatius Hanley A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Eric Schickler, Chair Professor Robert Van Houweling Professor Anne Joseph O’Connell Fall 2012 Legislative Limelight: Investigations by the United States Congress © 2012 By John Ignatius Hanley Abstract Legislative Limelight: Investigations by the United States Congress by John Ignatius Hanley Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Eric Schickler, Chair Academic studies have often emphasized the law-making aspects of Congress to the exclusion of examining how Congress uses its investigative power. This is despite the fact that Congress possesses great power to compel testimony and documents from public and private persons alike, and that exercises of the investigative power are among the most notable public images of Congress. While several recent studies have considered investigations in the context of relations between the executive and legislative branches, far less effort has been committed to looking at how much Congress uses coercive investigative power to gather information on non- governmental actors. I develop several new datasets to examine the historical and recent use of investigations of both governmental and non-governmental institutions. A major component of this work is a comprehensive study of all authorizations of subpoena power granted to committees over the period 1792-1944. I find that for both Executive and outside subjects, divided control of government was positively associated with the volume of investigations in the House, but not in the Senate.
  • The Legislative History of the Burke-Wadsworth Act Of

    The Legislative History of the Burke-Wadsworth Act Of

    THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BURKE-WADSWORTH ACT OF 1940 By DONALD EUGENE HOUSTON vi Bachelor of Science Midwestern University Wichita Fallsu Texas 1960 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 0 1969 :01<LAISM'A STAlfE tuN1w:ifsJft b.llBRA.~V THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE BURKE-WADSWORTH ACT OF 1940 Thesis Approvedi Dean of the Graduate College 729968 ii PREFACE The American military tradition has been that a small Regular Army backed by the militia should defend the Nationo The second aspect of that tradition has generally found the United States not preparing for war until after the nation was involved in combato The Burke-Wadsworth Act of 1940 represented an attempt to change that philosophy and create a.n enlarged trained Army with a large force of Reserves o This was to be doneu hopefullyu to avoid having the United States enter World War IIo The progress of the Burke-Wads­ worth bill from its initial beginnings to its enactment provides the basis for this studyo The writer.wishes to express his sincere appreciation to those who have aided in the preparation of this thesiso Special considerations must go to Dro Norbert Ro Mahnkenu the major thesis adviseru and Dro John Ao Sylvesteru both of whom read and offered much constructive criticismu as well as guidance and encouragemento Lastu but far from leastu appreciation goes to my wifeu Guyla Ann Houstonu who readu editedu corrected and typed the thesisu and whose con­ stant encouragement led to its completiono Any errors in iii fact or interpretationv howeveru remain the responsibility of the writero iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page .
  • Congressional Record—Senate S617

    Congressional Record—Senate S617

    January 22, 1997 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S617 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there tunda, will serve to remind future gen- a case pending in the United States any other Senators in the Chamber erations of his service to his State and District Court for the District of Co- who desire to vote? to his country. lumbia, and ask for its immediate con- The result was announced—yeas 99, Just 2 days after the Charleston, WV, sideration. nays 0, as follows: ceremony, ROBERT BYRD achieved an- Mr. President, on April 9, 1996, Presi- [Rollcall Vote No. 1 Ex.] other major distinction. On January 13, dent Clinton signed into law the Line YEAS—99 1997, he became the fourth longest serv- Item Veto Act. This act was the prod- Abraham Faircloth Lieberman ing U.S. Senator in the history of our uct of years of legislative consider- Akaka Feingold Lott republic, with a service record of 38 ation and much protracted debate. Allard Feinstein Lugar years and 10 days. Beginning January 1 of this year and Ashcroft Ford Mack Baucus Frist McCain Think of it, Mr. President. Of the through the year 2004, the Line Item Bennett Glenn McConnell 1,843 past and present senators, only Veto Act provides the President with Biden Gorton Mikulski three have served longer than ROBERT the authority, under a set of carefully Bingaman Graham Moseley-Braun YRD ENATOR circumscribed limitations, to cancel Bond Gramm Moynihan C. B . In another 3 years, S Boxer Grams Murkowski BYRD will exceed the 41-year service particular items of appropriation, di- Breaux Grassley Murray record of my immediate predecessor rect spending or limited tax benefit in Brownback Gregg Nickles from Mississippi, John C.
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present

    CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present

    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
  • Sixty-Fifth Congress, First Session.

    Sixty-Fifth Congress, First Session.

    - SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. - 99 . ~ I ... atnngrtssinnal ·Jtcnrd. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE SIXTY -FIFTH _CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION. Hale Lewis Pomerene Stone SENATE. Hardwick Lodge .Ransdell Sutherland Hitchcock McCumber Reed Swanson lfoNDAY, ApriZ 13, 1917. Rusting McKellar Robinson Thompson James . McLean Saulsbury Tillma n The first session of the Sixty-fifth Congress commenced this Johnson, Cal. Martin Sbafroth Townsend day at the Capitol, in the city of Washington, in pursuance of Johnson, S.Dak. Myers Sheppard Underwood Jones, N. Mex. Nelson Sherman Vardatna n the proclamation of the President of the United States of the Jones, Wash. New Shields Wadsworth 21st <lay of March, 1917. Kellogg Norris Simmons Walsh The VICE PRESIDENT (THOMAS R. MARSHALL, of Indiana) Kendrick Overman Smith, Ariz. Wa rren Kenyon Owen Smith, Ga. Watson called the Senate to order at 12 o'clock noon. King Page Smith, Md. Weeks Rev. J. L. Kibler, of the city of Washington, offe1·ed the fol­ Kirby Penrose Smith, Mich. Williams Knox Phelan Smith, S.C. Wolcott lowing prayer : La Fo1lette Pittman Smoot In the simplicity of our hearts, 0 God, and in the very depths Lane Poindexter Sterling of humility we come into Thy presence. At the opening of this extraordinary session of Congress we come first to seek Thy Mr. FLETCHER. I desire to announce that my colleaguo guiding hand. Amid the confusion and violence of the world [Mr. TRAMMELL] is unavoidably absent on account of sickness in his family. to-day w~ can not know the things that may shortly come to pass. Lead us, 0 God, through the darkness until the day Mr.
  • Congressional Record-Sen Ate

    Congressional Record-Sen Ate

    18 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. }fARcH -15, Second Lieut. Guy H .. Wyman, Eleventh Cavalry, to be first M.ESSAGE FR-OM THE PRESIDENT. lieutenant from March 10; 1913, yice First Lieut. John P. Has­ son~ Sixth Cavalry, promoted. A message in writing from the PreSid~t of the United .States was communicated to the Senate by · l\Ir. · Latta, one of his CORPS OF ENGINEERS. secretaries. Capt. 'Michael J. McDonough, Corps of Engineers, to be major STATEMENT OF APPROP~IA.TIONS . from February 27, 1913, vice Maj. Chester Jiarding, promoted. Mr. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous con­ First Lieut. Harold S. Hetrick, Corps of Engineers, to be sent to print certain matter in the RECORD. I may say in ex­ captain from February 27, 1913, vice Capt. Michael J. Mc­ planation that it is usual for the Committees on Appropriations Donough, promoted. of the House and Senate to .submit on the last day of the sessjon First Lieut. William A. Johnson, Corps of Engineers, to be a statement giving a history of the appropriation bills und the captain from February 28, 1913, vice Capt. Edward M. Adams, sum total of the appropriations, also the estimates from the retired from active service February 27, 1913. departments and the amounts at the various stages ·Of progress APPOINTM.ENTS IN THE ARMY. of the bills-amounts of the bills as brought into the House and MEDICAL RESERVE CORPS. voted upon there, and as they came to the Senate, and so forth. The stress of business near the close of the last session of the To be fi1·st lieutenants with rank from Ma.1·ch.