DOCSLIB.ORG

Adopting House Rules for a New Congress: the Turn of the Century Turn from Open, Rules Committee Proposals to Closed, Majority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Adopting House Rules for a New Congress: the Turn of the Century Turn from Open, Rules Committee Proposals to Closed, Majority Adopting House Rules in a New Congress: From Democratic Deliberation to Partisan Monopoly Donald R. Wolfensberger Director, The Congress Project The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Paper prepared for presentation at a Congress Project program on the opening day of the 110th Congress, Thursday, January 4, 2007 at the Woodrow Wilson Center. This paper is adapted in part from a paper by the author published in the Congressional Record of Jan. 7, 1997 (page H-16)--the opening day of the 105th Congress. 1 Introduction: For more than a century now, on the opening day of each new Congress the House of Representatives considers a resolution reported by the majority party caucus (usually designated as House Resolution 5), adopting the standing rules for that Congress. The resolution ordinarily states that the rules of the previous Congress are adopted as the rules of the new Congress, together with certain additional amendments recommended by the majority party caucus. The resolution is usually called up by the House majority leader, in the case of Republicans, or, in the case of the Democrats, the likely chairman of the Rules Committee (which does not come into existence until the rules are adopted). The majority manager of the resolution is recognized for one hour of debate, half of which is yielded to the minority leader (or a designee) as a matter of courtesy and tradition. At the end of the hour, the majority manager moves the previous question to bring the resolution to a final vote. If the previous question is defeated, then the minority is recognized for an additional hour and may offer its own substitute amendment or individual amendments. Since 1981, the minority has also been offering a motion to commit the rules resolution to a select committee (to be appointed by the Speaker) with instructions to report back immediately certain amendments specified in the resolution (a practice resurrected from the early 20th Century). However, neither the previous question motion nor the motion to commit receives any additional debate time, and both attempts by the minority to open the resolution to amendment are usually defeated along party lines.1 It seems ironic that the House of Representatives spends just one hour of debate on one of the most important decisions for that Congress--the rules that will govern the House and its committees for the next two years, and that the resolution establishing those rules is not subject to floor amendments by Members who must abide by those rules over the ensuing two years. An examination of House history, however, reveals that the adoption of House Rules has not always been such a closed and partisan affair. The Early Years: Under the Constitution, “each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.” By the time the First Congress convened in 1789, most Members were well steeped in parliamentary procedure based on experiences in the Continental Congress, its successor Congress of the Confederation following independence, and colonial legislatures. All drew heavily on precedents from the British Parliament. Thomas Jefferson, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice which he wrote for the Senate as Vice President (and thus the President of the Senate) from 1787 to 1801, draws heavily on British precedents, beginning with its very first lines in section regarding the “Importance of Adhering to Rules:” Mr. Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of Commons, used to say, “it was a maxim he had often heard when he was a young man, from old and experienced Members that nothing tended more to throw power into the hands of administration, and those who acted with the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding; that these forms are instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the 2 majority, and that they were in so many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority against the attempts of power.”2 The House of Representatives in the first Congress was supposed to convene on March 4, 1789, but it wasn’t until April 1 that it achieved a quorum to do business. On that day the House elected Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania as Speaker. On April 2 the House authorized and appointed an eleven-member select committee “to prepare and report such standing rules and orders of proceeding as may be proper to be observed in the House.”3 Five days later Representative Elias Boudinot of New Jersey, chair of the select committee, reported a set of four rules to the House dealing with the duties of the Speaker; the duties of members relating to bill introduction, speaking and voting; bill preparation by committees and consideration by the House; and the composition and procedures for considering legislation in the Committee of the Whole House. According to the Journal, after the proposed rules were read, the question was put and the rules were “agreed to by the House.” 4 Six days later the select committee reported an additional eight rules to the House, five of which were adopted after the resolution had been read and debated by paragraph. The rules dealt with Members’ service on committees, leaves of absence, the creation of a Committee on Elections, and a requirement that the Clerk take an oath of office. The other three rules, relating to the duties of the Sergeant at Arms, were committed to the Rules committee for further consideration, and then reported back the following day and adopted by the House without further amendment.5 The precedent had been set for a select committee on rules to be appointed in each Congress to report any additional changes in the rules from the previous Congress. Its recommendations would then be subject to debate and amendment by the House. Following disposition of the rules amendments, the select committee would go out of business. Beginning in 1797, the House adopted the rules of the previous Congress before even appointing the select rules committee. In the Congresses between 1811 and 1822, no rules changes were made, and in two of those Congresses the House didn’t even bother to create a rules committee. In 1822, on the other hand, the rules committee reported 14 amendments to the rules, dealing mostly with parliamentary procedure, and these were adopted with only modest changes made by the House.6 Although a standing committee system had evolved by the 1830s, the rules committee remained a select committee well beyond that. It wasn’t until 1841 that House rules gave the select committee authority to report at any time, meaning it would continue in existence for the duration of a Congress. As the history of the rules committee indicates, it was sporadically active, reporting major revisions in House rules in 1837, 1860, and 1880. It was even briefly made a permanent committee in two Congresses (1849-53), but did so little that it was demoted to a select committee for another 28 years. It wasn’t until the massive revision of House rules in 1880 that the committee was finally made a permanent standing committee. Prior to that, the Speaker had been made a member of the committee in 1859, and its chairman beginning in 1860. 3 George Galloway, in his History of the United States House of Representatives, gives us a good description of how the reports of the select committee on rules were handled by the House in the years following the Civil War. “The customary practice in post bellum days,” he writes, “when a new House met, was to proceed under general parliamentary law, often for several days, with unlimited debate, until a satisfactory revision of former rules had been effected.” He goes on to cite examples of such extended debate on the rules for a new Congress. For instance, after the general rules revision of 1880 (which included making the Rules Committee a permanent standing committee of the House), “Two days were consumed at the beginning of the 48th Congress (1883), 4 days at the 49th (1885), 6 days at the 51st (1889), 9 days at the 52d (1891), and 6 days at the opening of the 53rd Congress (1893).” “On three of these occasions,” Galloway concludes, “two months or more elapsed before the amended code was finally adopted, in striking contrast to the celerity with which the old rules have been rushed through in recent times.”7 The Modern Rules Committee is Born: When Rules Committee became a standing House committee in 1880, it soon took on an additional responsibility to that of recommending changes in the standing House rules. It became the scheduling arm of the majority leadership by reporting special rules which were resolutions that allowed specified bills to be considered immediately, as opposed to having to await their turn on the Calendar. This development also marked the beginning of stronger party governance in the House though it did not immediately affect the open treatment for adopting House Rules at the beginning of each Congress. The person who recognized the full potential of the Rules Committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker and as an arm of the majority leadership was Congressman Thomas Brackett Reed (R-Maine). First elected to the House in 1876, he became a Member of the powerful new standing Committee on Rules in 1881. Republicans lost control of the House in 1882 but were back in power briefly in 1889-90 and elected Reed as Speaker. By this time, Speaker Reed had developed his own ideas about why House rules existed. To him, “the object of a parliamentary body is action, and not stoppage of action,”8 the role of the majority party was to pass its legislation, and the function of the rules was “to facilitate the action of the majority.”9 During debate in January 1889 on a resolution to dispense with the time- consuming call of the states and territories during the final days of the 50th Congress, Reed, the author and manager of the resolution (even though still a minority member of the Rules Committee), offered his views on the purpose of House rules: The rules of this House are not for the purpose of protecting the rights of the minority, but to promote the orderly conduct of the business of the House.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sample Pages
    Introduction and Study Guide This is the first edition of Speakers of the House of Representatives 1789 - 2009. With infor- mation that has never before been gathered into one volume, it not only includes detailed biographies of the 53 men and woman who have served as Speaker, but offers a wealth of supportive material that combines for a complete picture of the Speakers and the speaker- ship - the history, the power, and the changes. With detailed content, thoughtful arrangement, and several “user guide” elements, Speakers of the House of Representatives is designed for multiple levels of study. CONTENT Speaker Biographies This major portion of the work - comprises 54 detailed biographies that average 7 pages long. This section is arranged chronologically, beginning with the first Speaker — Frederick Muhlenberg, who began his term in 1789 - and ending with the current Speaker - Nancy Pelosi, who was elected in 2007 as the first female Speaker of the House. Each biography starts off with an image of the Speaker and dates of service, and thoughtfully categorized into logical subsections that guide the reader through the details: Personal History; Early Years in Congress; The Vote; Acceptance Speech; Legacy as Speaker; After Leaving the Speakership. Each biography is strengthened by direct quotations — easily identified in italics — of the Speaker, or influential colleagues of the time. In addition, scattered throughout the bio- graphical section are unique, original graphics - from autographs to personal letters - that not only give the reader an inside look at the Speaker, but also at the times during which he served. Biographies also include Further Reading, and cross references to Primary Docu- ments that appear later in the book.
    [Show full text]
  • 1934-1935 Obituary Record of Graduates of Yale University
    '"'"JLJ'^:_-'i .j' *-*i7i in T.' "-. \ f .'/" ; Bulletin of Yale University New Haven 15 October 1935 Obituary Record of Graduates of Yale University Deceased during the Year BULLETIN OF YALE UNIVERSITY if Entered as second-class matter, August 30,1906, at the'post ^ office at New Haven, Conn,, under the Act of Congress ofJ July 16, 1894, Acceptance for mailing at the special rate of postage pro- vided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authonzed August 12, 1918. The BULLETIN, which is issued semimonthly, includes: 1. The University Catalogue. _ - - 2. The Reports of the President and Treasurer. s_ 3. The Catalogues of the several Schools. 4. The Alumni Directory and the Quinquennial Catalogue. 5. The Obituary Record. ; \ Bulletin of Yale University OBITUARY RECORD OF GRADUATES DECEASED DURING THE YEAR ENDING JULY i, 1935 INCLUDING THE RECORD OF A FEW WHO DIED PREVIOUSLY, HITHERTO UNREPORTED NUMBER 94 Thirty-second Series • Number Three New Haven • 15 October 1935 YALE UNIVERSITY OBITUARY RECORD* YALE COLLEGE Augustus Field Beard, B.A. 1857, Born May 11, 1833, in Norwalk, Conn. Died December 22,1934, in Norwalk, Conn. Father, Algernon Edwin Beard; a hat manufacturer and banker in South Norwalk; representative in State Legislature; son of Dr. Daniel Beard and Betsy (Field) Beard, of Oakham, Mass., and Stratford, Conn. Mother, Mary Esther (Mallory) Beard; daughter of Lewis and Ann (Seymour) Mallory, of Norwalk. Yale relatives include. James Beard (honorary M.A. 1754) (great-grandfather); and Dr. George M. Beard, *6i (cousin). Wilhston Academy. Entered with Class of 1856, joined Class of 1857 following year; on Spoon Committee; member Linoma, Sigma Delta, Kappa Sigma Theta, Alpha Delta Phi, and Scroll and Key.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Era
    CATALOGUE THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-SEVEN The Federal Era WILLIAM REESE COMPANY 409 Temple Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 789-8081 A Note This catalogue is devoted to the two decades from the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 to the first Jefferson administration and the Louisiana Purchase, usually known to scholars as the Federal era. It saw the evolution of the United States from the uncertainties of the Confederation to the establishment of the Constitution and first federal government in 1787-89, through Washington’s two administrations and that of John Adams, and finally the Jeffersonian revolution of 1800 and the dramatic expansion of the United States. Notable items include a first edition of The Federalist; a collection of the treaties ending the Revolutionary conflict (1783); the first edition of the first American navigational guide, by Furlong (1796); the Virginia Resolutions of 1799; various important cartographical works by Norman and Mount & Page; a first edition of Benjamin’s Country Builder’s Assistant (1797); a set of Carey’s American Museum; and much more. Our catalogue 338 will be devoted to Western Americana. Available on request or via our website are our recent catalogues 331 Archives & Manuscripts, 332 French Americana, 333 Americana–Beginnings, 334 Recent Acquisitions in Americana, and 336 What I Like About the South; bulletins 41 Original Works of American Art, 42 Native Americans, 43 Cartography, and 44 Photography; e-lists (only available on our website) and many more topical lists. q A portion of our stock may be viewed at www.williamreesecompany.com. If you would like to receive e-mail notification when catalogues and lists are uploaded, please e-mail us at [email protected] or send us a fax, specifying whether you would like to receive the notifications in lieu of or in addition to paper catalogues.
    [Show full text]
  • Officers, Officials, and Employees
    CHAPTER 6 Officers, Officials, and Employees A. The Speaker § 1. Definition and Nature of Office § 2. Authority and Duties § 3. Power of Appointment § 4. Restrictions on the Speaker’s Authority § 5. The Speaker as a Member § 6. Preserving Order § 7. Ethics Investigations of the Speaker B. The Speaker Pro Tempore § 8. Definition and Nature of Office; Authorities § 9. Oath of Office §10. Term of Office §11. Designation of a Speaker Pro Tempore §12. Election of a Speaker Pro Tempore; Authorities C. Elected House Officers §13. In General §14. The Clerk §15. The Sergeant–at–Arms §16. The Chaplain §17. The Chief Administrative Officer D. Other House Officials and Capitol Employees Commentary and editing by Andrew S. Neal, J.D. and Max A. Spitzer, J.D., LL.M. 389 VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:53 Dec 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00389 Fmt 8875 Sfmt 8875 F:\PRECEDIT\WORKING\2019VOL02\2019VOL02.PAGETURN.V6.TXT 4473-B Ch. 6 PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE §18. The Parliamentarian §19. General Counsel; Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group §20. Inspector General §21. Legislative Counsel §22. Law Revision Counsel §23. House Historian §24. House Pages §25. Other Congressional Officials and Employees E. House Employees As Party Defendant or Witness §26. Current Procedures for Responding to Subpoenas §27. History of Former Procedures for Responding to Subpoenas F. House Employment and Administration §28. Employment Practices §29. Salaries and Benefits of House Officers, Officials, and Employees §30. Creating and Eliminating Offices; Reorganizations §31. Minority Party Employees 390 VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:53 Dec 04, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 8875 Sfmt 8875 F:\PRECEDIT\WORKING\2019VOL02\2019VOL02.PAGETURN.V6.TXT 4473-B Officers, Officials, and Employees A.
    [Show full text]
  • Lpennmglvaniaerman Genealogies
    C KN LE D M E A OW G NT . Whil e under o bl ig a t io n s to various friends who have aided him in the compilation of this genealogy , the author desires to acknowledge especially the valuable assistance rendered him E . by Mrs . S . S . Hill (M iss Valeria Clymer) C O P YR IG HT E D 1 907 B Y T HE p ennspl vaniazmet m an S ociety . GENEALOGY O THE HIESTE R F MI F A LY. SCUTCHEON : A r is zu e , o r . a Sun , Crest : B e tween two horns , surm ount o ffr o n t é ing a helmet , a sun m as in the Ar s . Th e origin of the Hiester family was the Silesian Knight Pr em iscl o ro s Hii s t e rn iz flo , who urished about 1 3 2 9 and held the o fli ce o r T of Mayor, own Cap o f tain , the city of Swine ford . f . 1 o A D . 4 8 0 the Patrician and Counsellor Swineford , ( Adolphus Louis , called der Hiester , obtained from the E mperor Frederick letters patent , whereby he and his posterity were authorized t o use the coat- o f- arms he had inherited from his ancestors , to whom it was formerly o f granted , with the faculty transmitting the same , as an hereditary right and privilege , to all his descendants . - - - D r . o n Lawrence Hiester , b Frankfort the Main , Sep 1 1 6 8 . 1 8 1 tember 9 , 3 , d Helmstedt , April , 7 5 8 , Professor 1 2 0 of Surgery at Helmstedt from 7 , and the founder of 6 n n a n i e r m a n o e t Th e P e sylv a G S ci y .
    [Show full text]
  • 1St to 4Th Congress
    First – Fourth Congresses Mar. 4, 1789 – Mar. 3, 1791; Oct. 24, 1791 – Mar. 2, 1793 Dec. 2, 1793 – Mar. 3, 1795; Dec. 7, 1795 – Mar. 3, 1797 Administrations of George Washington Historical Background ............................................................................................................. 1 War or Peace? ............................................................................................................................. 3 Economic Trends and Conditions ....................................................................................... 4 Constitutional Amendments ................................................................................................. 4 Major Treaties............................................................................................................................. 5 Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases ................................................................................ 6 1789 Events ................................................................................................................................. 6 President 1790 Events ................................................................................................................................. 6 George Washington 1791 Events ................................................................................................................................. 7 1792 Events ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Whig Party in Pennsylvania
    i^: ST' ^ILj^ZsTQ THE WHIG PARTY IN PENNSYLVANIA BY HENRY R. MUELLER, A. M. Professor of History, Muhlenberg College Sometime University Fellow in History, Columbia University SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE Faculty of Political Science Columbia University NEW YORK 1922 . • . • • • . ^4 A\ & MY MOTHER PREFACE The study was undertaken as the result of a suggestion from Professor William A. Dunning of Columbia Univer- sity. The original intention of the author was to confine the investigation to the last decade of the existence of the Whig party in Pennsylvania. As the work proceeded, it became necessary to examine portions of the early period of the party. It was soon evident that for the sake of unity and continuity the history of the Whig party in Pennsylvania should be presented from the time of its for- mation until its disappearance. The late Charles McCarthy in his excellent The Anti-Masonic Party and Miss Margue- rite G. Bartlett in The Chief Phases of Pennsylvania Politics in the Jacksonian Period have covered the period in which the Whig party was formed but not with the Whig party as the main interest. Consequently, despite the previous work in the field, the authi-r felt justified in including this mater- ial. Pennsylvania during the period of the Whig party was undergoing an extensive expansion in manufacturing and mining, which tended to draw her to the policy desired by the New England states. On the other hand, conditions similar to those existing on the frontier persisted in the mountain districts of the state until the close of the period.
    [Show full text]
  • Tariff Politics and Congressional Elections: Exploring the Cannon Thesis Andrew J. Clarke* University of Virginia Andrewclarke@V
    Tariff Politics and Congressional Elections: Exploring the Cannon Thesis Andrew J. Clarke* University of Virginia [email protected] Jeffery A. Jenkins University of Virginia [email protected] Kenneth S. Lowande University of Virginia [email protected] While a number of studies have examined the politics of tariff decision making in the United States, little work has examined the subsequent political effects of tariff policy. We help fill this gap in the literature by analyzing—both theoretically and empirically—the electoral implications of tariff revision. Specifically, we investigate the veracity of the Cannon Thesis – the proposition advanced by Speaker Joe Cannon in 1910 that the majority party in the U.S. House was punished when it made major revisions to the tariff. We find that from 1877 to 1934, major tariff revisions were, on average, associated with a significant loss of votes for majority-party members – both regionally and nationally – that translated into a loss of House seats. We find support for the notion that major tariff revisions generated inordinate uncertainty among various business interests, which the opposition party could then use (by leveraging fear and market instability) to mobilize its base and gain ground in the following election. Our results provide a new explanation for the delegation of tariff policymaking to the Executive branch. *All authors were equal contributors. Paper presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Congress & History Conference, University of Maryland. We thank Richard Bensel and Chuck Finocchiaro for comments. Introduction The tariff – and international trade more generally – has been among the most contentious issues in American politics since the Nation’s inception.
    [Show full text]
  • Paintings and Frescoes
    CHAPTER XXI PAINTINGS AND FRESCOES EFORE the commencement of the Capitol extension, the large Westward the Course of Empire takes its Way [Plate 302], by paintings for the panels in the Rotunda were completed, with Emmanuel Leutze, a German artist of prominence, was ordered by one exception. Henry Inman, one of the four artists with General Meigs July 9, 1861, and completed in 1862. The representation whom contracts were made for the historical panels, died of pioneers with their wagons and camping outfits, the mountain BJanuary 17, 1846, without having commenced the painting, although scenery, and Daniel Boone, always attracts the attention of visitors. The he had received $6,000 on account for the work. March 3, 1847, a method of applying the paint to the wall adopted in this painting has contract was made with W. H. Powell to paint the vacant panel. It was been used only in this one instance in the Capitol. The basis is a thin not placed in the Rotunda until 1855. This panel, The Discovery of the layer of cement of powdered marble, quartz, dolomite, and air-worn Mississippi [Plate 299], is intended to depict De Soto and his small lime. The water colors are applied on this cement and fixed by a spray band of followers, the first Caucasians to see our mighty Mississippi. It of water-glass solution. By the method employed it is much easier to is a spirited composition, in no sense realistic, idealizing both make corrections in the painting than with ordinary fresco work. Spaniards and Indians. The Battle on Lake Erie [Plate 301], by W.
    [Show full text]
  • Owens-History of Congress Conf 18May15
    Macon and Stevenson: The Evolution of the Proto-Partisan Speakership in the Ante Bellum House.1 John E. Owens The Centre for the Study of Democracy The University of Westminster, London and Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies American University, Washington, DC Paper presented to the Congress and History Conference, Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 21-23 May 2015. 1 Special thanks to Jim Thurber for providing a congenial base for my research at the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at the American University, Washington, DC. Thanks also to Barbara Bair for assistance with the Stevenson and Van Buren papers at the Library of Congress. 1 There is broad agreement in the literature that the US House of Representatives did not acquire a partisan speakership until at least after the Civil War. Why this type of speakership emerged at this time has to do with the political context provided by an increasingly stable and competitive the two-party system and the agency of individual speakers. Parties within the House and outside became increasingly cohesive and polarised (Cooper and Brady 1981; Jenkins 1999; Rohde and Shepsle 1987) and the speakership of the became “an artefact and architect of party government” (Peters 1997: 51) as majority party members tended to choose speakers like Blaine, Randall, Reed, and Cannon who were partisan activists, more ideologically extreme, less conciliatory, and more likely to appoint party loyalists to committees and chairs (Brady 1973: 43-92, 143-80; Brady, Cooper and Hurley 1979: 26-49; Cooper and Brady 1981: 414-15; Finocchiaro and Rohde 2007: 259-70; Galloway 1976: 128-159; Hinckley 1983: 166-67; Schickler 2001: 27-84).
    [Show full text]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1909, TO MARCH 3, 1911 FIRST SESSION—March 15, 1909, to August 5, 1909 SECOND SESSION—December 6, 1909, to June 25, 1910 THIRD SESSION—December 5, 1910, to March 3, 1911 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 4, 1909, to March 6, 1909 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES—JAMES S. SHERMAN, of New York PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—WILLIAM P. FRYE, of Maine SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—CHARLES G. BENNETT, of New York SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—DANIEL M. RANSDELL, of Indiana SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JOSEPH G. CANNON, 1 of Illinois CLERK OF THE HOUSE—ALEXANDER MCDOWELL, 2 of Pennsylvania SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—HENRY CASSON, of Wisconsin DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—FRANK B. LYON, of New York POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—SAMUEL LANGUM ALABAMA R. Minor Wallace, Magnolia CONNECTICUT SENATORS CALIFORNIA SENATORS John H. Bankhead, Fayette Morgan G. Bulkeley, Hartford Joseph F. Johnston, Birmingham SENATORS Frank B. Brandegee, New London REPRESENTATIVES George C. Perkins, Oakland REPRESENTATIVES Frank P. Flint, Los Angeles George W. Taylor, Demopolis E. Stevens Henry, Rockville Stanley H. Dent, Jr., Montgomery REPRESENTATIVES Nehemiah D. Sperry, New Haven Henry D. Clayton, Eufaula William F. Englebright, Nevada City Edwin W. Higgins, Norwich William B. Craig, Selma Duncan E. McKinlay, Santa Rosa Ebenezer J. Hill, Norwalk J. Thomas Heflin, Lafayette Joseph R. Knowland, Alameda At Large–John Q. Tilson, New Haven Richmond P. Hobson, Greensboro Julius Kahn, San Francisco John L. Burnett, Gadsden Everis A. Hayes, San Jose DELAWARE William Richardson, Huntsville James C.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Doc. 108-222
    FIFTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS MARCH 4, 1903, to MARCH 3, 1905 FIRST SESSION—November 9, 1903, to December 7, 1903 SECOND SESSION—December 7, 1903, to April 28, 1904 THIRD SESSION—December 5, 1904, to March 3, 1905 SPECIAL SESSION OF THE SENATE—March 5, 1903, to March 19, 1903 VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE—WILLIAM P. FRYE, of Maine SECRETARY OF THE SENATE—CHARLES G. BENNETT, of New York SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE SENATE—DANIEL M. RANSDELL, of Indiana SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JOSEPH G. CANNON, 2 of Illinois CLERK OF THE HOUSE—ALEXANDER MCDOWELL, 3 of Pennsylvania SERGEANT AT ARMS OF THE HOUSE—HENRY CASSON, of Wisconsin DOORKEEPER OF THE HOUSE—FRANK B. LYON, of New York POSTMASTER OF THE HOUSE—J. C. MCELROY ALABAMA Hugh A. Dinsmore, Fayetteville Thomas M. Patterson, Denver SENATORS John S. Little, Greenwood REPRESENTATIVES Charles C. Reid, Morrillton John T. Morgan, Selma John F. Shafroth, 9 Denver Joseph T. Robinson, Lonoke 10 Edmund W. Pettus, Selma R. Minor Wallace, Magnolia Robert W. Bonynge, Denver REPRESENTATIVES Herschel M. Hogg, Telluride George W. Taylor, Demopolis CALIFORNIA At Large–Franklin E. Brooks, Ariosto A. Wiley, Montgomery SENATORS Colorado Springs Henry D. Clayton, Eufaula George C. Perkins, Oakland Sydney J. Bowie, Anniston Thomas R. Bard, Hueneme CONNECTICUT 4 Charles W. Thompson, Tuskegee REPRESENTATIVES SENATORS J. Thomas Heflin, 5 Lafayette James N. Gillett, Eureka Orville H. Platt, Meriden John H. Bankhead, Fayette Theodore A. Bell, Napa Joseph R. Hawley, Hartford John L. Burnett, Gadsen 6 Victor H. Metcalf, Oakland REPRESENTATIVES William Richardson, Huntsville Joseph R.
    [Show full text]