Revenue Legislation

this action.

What the House did is rather meaningless, with reference to the final form of the legislation. The procedure of that body is so gag-ruled by a few bosses that real deliberation is impossible. Members have small opportunity to be heard, and less to influence the result.

When the measure goes to the Senate, it will be more adequately considered.

Probably the sequel will be a very different bill. Although, under the Constitution, the House originates revenue legislation, it is in the Senate that such laws are really written.

We must wait, therefore, until the Senate acts, before being able to present any dependable idea of the final provisions of the new tax proposals.

Abernethy, North Carolina; Allgood, Alabama; Almon, Alabama; Arnold, Illinois; Aswell, Louisiana; Auf der Heide, New Jersey; Ayres, Kansas; Barkley, Kentucky; Bell, Georgia; Black, New York; Bland, Virginia; Bowling, Alabama; Brand, Georgia; Briggs, Texas; Browning, Tennessee; Busby, Mississippi; Byrns, Tennessee; Canfield, Indiana; Cannon, Missouri; Carew, New York; Carter, Oklahoma; Chapman, Kentucky; Collins, Mississippi; Connally, Texas; Connery, Massachusetts; Crosser, Ohio; Cullen, New York; Davey, Ohio; Davis, Tennessee; Dickinson, Missouri; Dickstein, New York; Douglass, Mass.; Drane, Florida; Driver, Arkansas; Edwards, Georgia; Eslick, Tennessee; Evans, Montana; Fisher, Tennessee; Fulmer, South Carolina; Gambrill, Maryland; Gardner, Indiana; Garrett, Tennessee; Gasque, South Carolina; Goldsborough, Maryland; Green, Florida; Greenwood, Indiana; Griffin, New York; Hammer, North Carolina; Hare, South Carolina; Hastings, Oklahoma; Hawes, Missouri; Hayden, Arizona; Hill, Alabama; Hill, Washington; Howard, Nebraska; Huddleston, Alabama; Hudspeth, Texas; Hull, Tennessee; Jacobstein, New York; Johnson, Texas; Kemp, Louisiana; Kincheloe, Ken

tucky; Kindred, New York; Kunz, Illinois; Lankford, Georgia; Larsen, Georgia; Lee, Georgia; Lindsay, New York; Linthicum, Maryland; Little, Kansas; Lowrey, Mississippi; Lozier, Missouri; Lyon, North Carolina; McKeown, Oklahoma; McMillan, South Carolina; McReynolds, Tennessee; McSwain, South Carolina; McSweeney, Ohio; Major, Missouri; Mead, New York; Milligan, Missouri; Montague, Virginia; Mooney, Ohio; Moore, Kentucky; Moore, Virginia; Morehead, Nebraska; Morrow, New Mexico; Nelson, Missouri; Norton, New Jersey; O'Connell, New York; O'Connor, Louisiana; O'Connor, New York; Oldfield, Arkansas; Oliver, Alabama; Oliver, New York; Parks, Arkansas; Prall, New York; Quayle, New York; Quin, Mississippi; Rainey, Illinois; Rankin, Mississippi; Reed, Arkansas; Romjue, Missouri; Rouse, Kentucky; Rubey, Missouri; Sabath, Illinois; Sanders, Texas; Sears, Florida; Shallenberger, Nebraska; Smithwick, Florida; Somers, New York; Steagall, Alabama; Stevenson, South Carolina; Swank, Oklahoma; Taylor, Colorado; Thomas, Oklahoma; Tillman, Arkansas; Tucker, Virginia; Underwood, Ohio; Upshaw, Georgia; Vinson, Kentucky; Warren, North Carolina; Weaver, North Carolina; Weller, New York; Whitehead, Virginia; Wilson, Mississippi; Woodrum, Virginia; Wright, Georgia; Fletcher, O.; Gilbert, Ky.; Wingo, Ark.

Ten Independent Republicans-Beck, Browne, Cooper, Frear, Lampert, Nelson, Schafer, Schneider and Voigt, of Wisconsin, and Sinclair and Rathbone -voted for the Rainey motion, as did Carss, Kvale and Wefald, Minnesota Farmer-Labor members, and Berger and La Guardia, Socialists.

On the final passage of the bill, however, only twenty-five voted "nay"-10 Democrats and those last named above except Rathbone.

The Democrats to take that position were:

Collins, Mississippi; Green, Florida; Drane, Florida; Howard, Nebraska; Huddleston, Alabama; Morehead, Nebraska; Rainey, Illinois; Rankin, Mississippi; Sabath, Illinois; Sears, Florida.

data for an even longer time. The result is an excellent bill. I might say in the language of the old song, "This is the way I have long sought, and mourned because I found it not.'

"You will not expect me to say that this is a perfect bill, for there is no such thing as a perfect bill, except in the mind of a single individual. If you or I were permitted to write an entire tax bill without aid, advice, or even a suggestion of any other person, a perfect bill would be the result. That is, it would be perfect in the estimation of you or me. The bill that we are about to pass and send to the Senate is a product of the combined wisdom of 25 honest, independent-thinking men, all earnestly striving to give the country the best tax law possible. Fifteen of these men belong to one of the great political parties, and 10 of them belong to the other, but they have not divided along party lines. They have had such help as the best experts in the country, those who are best informed as to the actual workings of our tax laws, have been able to give."

"Mr. Chairman, at last, after all these years, I find myself in accord with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Tilson), the majority leader of this House. This bill is, in his language, a great 'Christmas present.' There never has been anything like it in the history of taxing bills in all the centuries in the history of any nation. There never have been 'Christmas presents,' if that is what you call them, handed out like these.

"There are 42 men in the United States who will get a 'Christmas present' out of this bill of $20,000,000. There are 214 men in the United States who will get a 'Christmas present' out of this bill of over $60,000,000, and those are the 214 men, and the only 214 men, who paid the 40 per cent surtax in this country. And 2,300,000 taxpayers get Chrismas presents, too; and you congratulate yourselves upon that also, I suppose. They get Christmas presents of $10 apiece.

"What magnificent liberality that is as we go home to spend the Christmas holidays. I wish I could quote hymns as the majority leader can quote them, but I agree with him that at last he and you, gentlemen on the Republican side, who have imposed this taxing outrage upon the people of the country have at last found 'the way you long have sought.'

"What a magnificent Christmas present you Republican leaders have given the people of the United States! You have permitted them indefinitely in the future to pay war taxes on their admissions. What a magnificent Christmas present you have given the people of the country who buy automobiles ! You have kindly permitted them to continue paying war taxes on the purchases they make, and you have continued indefinitely through the future years these very irritating, oppressive sales taxes and

stamp taxes. But you were compelled to do it in order to give to the great surtax payers of the country and very rich the Christmas presents they demanded from the Republican side of this Chamber. How generous you have been to the bootleggers of the country-those who defy the laws! You have given them cheaper raw material and better raw material out of which to manufacture their product. How kind you have been to the customers of bootleggers! You have given them a Christmas present also. You have given them the assurance that the stuff they buy from bootleggers may be pure.

"This bill which you denominate a collection of Christmas presents will not prove satisfactory when the people of the country find out how they have been betrayed and what this bill really accomplishes in its reductions."

one

In fact, a situation has developed in which the Democrats must choose between Rainey on side and the Garrett-Garner combination on the other.

It has resolved into a contest for leadership between statesmanship and politics.

Rainey is right. Through a protracted and brilliant Congressional service, he has never compromised with his convictions. He has been in Congress longer than any single Northern Democrat, and always independent-even within his own party.

Seniority has operated to give greater organization power to men of the Garrett-Garner type, but logically Rainey should be at the top. He has every qualification.

Whether in the immediate future Democratic Congressmen follow Rainey or Garrett will afford a pretty conclusive test of their right to the confidence of the country.

with reference to the settlements with Latvia, Rumania, Esthonia, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Italy -six separate adjustments.

These measures will have to survive a lot of Senate criticism.

In the House, hearings will soon begin on these adjustments, under the auspices of the Committee on Ways and Means.

That body is pretty well controlled by the bipartisan organization, but at least one minority member, Congressman Rainey, of Illinois, is sure to be of an inquiring state of mind. From him the public may expect more than a "me, too," attitude.

The King resolution follows:

"Resolved, That a select committee of five Senators be appointed by the President of the Senate, which committee is hereby authorized and directed to investigate the acts of the Alien Property Custodian and the administration of the Alien Property Custodian's office, and particularly to investigate the following matters and things: (a) The seizure and appraisal of property, the care of the property seized, whether or not waste has been permitted in relation thereto, and the costs and fees allowed paid for such care; (b) the sale and conversion of property by the Alien Property Custodian, whether or not authorized by law; (c) whether such conversions have been by public sale or through private negotiations; (d) whether or not the moneys received by such conversions were adequate and represent the real value of the properties converted; (e) whether or not sales have been made to agents, officials, attorneys, or other persons having fiduciary relations to such property; (f) the sale of patents, trade-marks, and trade-names to to the so-called Chemical Foundation, a corporation of Delaware, or to any other persons or corporations, and the sale of properties of the Bosch Magneto Co.; (g) and further to investigate the relations of the Department of Justice to the business and affairs of the Alien Property Custodian, whether there has been any influence or pressure exerted by any Government official or officials, or other persons, to prevent criminal or civil proceedings in relation to any of such transactions; and generally to investigate all matters touching the legality, good faith, and necessity of all transactions and conversions affecting the property held in trust by the Alien Property Custodian.

"The committee is authorized to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, and to sit during the session or during any recess of the Senate and at such places as may be deemed advisable. Any sub-committee duly authorized thereto shall have the same powers as are conferred upon said select committee by this resolution."

World Court

Last March the Senate entered into an agreement to begin consideration of the World Court issue December 17. Accordingly, on that date, debate began. The resolution under discussion was that of Senator Swanson, providing for "adhesion on the part of the United States," with the following reservations:

"1. That such adhesion shall not be taken to involve any legal relation on the part of the United States to the League of Nations or the assumption of any obligations by the United States under the covenant of the League of Nations constituting part 1 of the treaty of Versailles.

"2. That the United States shall be permitted to participate through representatives designated for the purpose and upon an equality with the other States, members, respectively, of the council and assembly of the League of Nations, in any and all proceedings of either the council or the assembly for the election of judges or deputy judges of the Permanent Court of International Justice or for the filling of vacancies.

"3. That the United States will pay a fair share of the expenses of the court as determined and appropriated from time to time by the Congress of the United States.

"4. That the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice adjoined to the protocol shall not be amended without the consent of the United States.

"5. That the United States shall be in no manner bound by any advisory opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice not rendered pursuant to a request in which it, the United States, shall expressly join in accordance with the statute for the said court adjoined to the protocol of signature of the same to which the United States shall become signatory.

"The signature of the United States to the said protocol shall not be affixed until the powers signatory to such protocol shall have indicated through an exchange of notes, their acceptance of the foregoing reservations and understandings as a part and a condition of adhesion by the United States to the said protocol."

Swanson for It

Senator Swanson started discussion in a long and carefully prepared speech, advocating that this nation join the others as an active part of this international tribunal. His closing appeal was as follows: "Let us adhere and conform our practices to our preachments. For more than half a century we have been the leading advocates of a world court, and to its creation our ablest statesmen and jurists have devoted their best efforts. Are our efforts in this direction earnest and sincere, or do they consist of mere empty lip service? Is the Senate to reject a World Court, assented to by 48 nations, which court has been substantially constructed on the plan of the court which at The Hague Conference of 1907 the United States offered to the world? Have we no pride in establishing a reputation for consistency and sincerity? Are we

to confine our efforts for a world court to pleasing platitudes in its behalf as a means for peace and the outlawry of war and to be induced by fervid eloquence to consume years and years in the fruitless chase of the will-o'-the-wisp of an ideal court through the marshes of a wrangling and contentious world? Are our fears to be appealed to and the whispering dangers to frighten us to reject adherence when the pending resolution, with its reservations, is sufficient to silence every fear, relieve every apprehension, and protect every possible right? Are we not satisfied that our President and two-thirds of the Senate are sufficient in every case to protect us from every possible danger and from the perpetration of any possible wrong? Are we to be induced to reject this court in pursuit of a court which has no existence except in the imagination of some fervid minds? Are we to abandon a substance in a wild adventure for a shadow? Are we to be misled by the flattering appeal for an American court, when reflection would convince us that if such a court was constituted it would have only one litigant, and that would be ourselves? Are we to be deceived by the opponents of this court, who purpose, if possible, to encumber the resolution of ratification with amendments which would either diminish the court's usefulness or else compel the rejection of the reservations by other assenting nations, and thus prevent our adherence?

"Mr. President, I am strongly persuaded from every moral consideration, from every material consideration, and from every political consideration of duty and responsibility, not only to ourselves but to the world, that we should adhere to this World Court, with the reservations suggested, and be one of the potential factors in shaping its destiny, in extending its usefulness, in giving wisdom to its decisions, and in making it a world temple of justice and laws, where all nations can go to have their international differences and disputes decided."

Speaking of "that committee of jurists" who originated the World Court, he said:

"They did not go into conference for the purpose of creating a court separate and independent from the league. They did not go into conference, whatever their views previously may have been, for the purpose of creating a world tribunal independent of this political institution. They went into conference for the purpose of performing the task which had been imposed upon them, and that was to create an organ, a component part, a legal department, of the League of Nations. Will anyone doubt that men of their ability would be able to accomplish what they desired to do in this respect? If this court is not a department of the league, if it is not a legal division of the League of Nations, then it is because they failed in the effort and the design

which they had in view when they entered upon their work."

As to partisanship on this issue, Borah's position is:

"We are here to determine the question of whether we think it is wise, whether we think it is safe for our country and in the interest of peace, to adhere to this court; and by that we will be governed, and by nothing else, in my opinion. I do not feel, therefore, that I am any less embarrassed than the other Senators. I venture to say that when the vote is cast, each Senator will vote his convictions and not his party's platform. Mr. President, if a man could be found who, notwithstanding he believed this proposal unwise, unpatriotic, and a menace to his country, would still vote for it because his party's platform declared in its favor, he would be the slimiest party slave that ever wriggled his way through the United States Senate."

To Be His Own Master

Young Bob La Follette, who very properly succeeded his father as Senator from Wisconsin, has already justified the faith of his friends. The manner in which he met the advances of the Old Guard amply demonstrated his independence and common sense. There was quite a turmoil in the minds of pro-Coolidge Senators as to how he should be received, and what should be done with him, partisanly speaking.

Finally it was decided to permit him to be called a Republican, and to be assigned to committee positions on Indian Affairs, Manufactures and Mines and Mining.

When these decisions had been reached, Young Bob-young only in years-made it clear that he would assume no obligations which might in any way restrict his freedom to follow a progressive course. His letter to Senator Watson was a masterpiece, as follows:

"At the recent special election held to fill the vacancy created by the death of Robert M. La Follette, I was designated as the regular Republican nominee by the voters of Wisconsin at the primary, and duly elected under such designation.

"In announcing my candidacy, and throughout my campaign, I declared my allegiance to the Progressive principles and policies of government as interpreted and applied by the late Robert M. La Follette throughout his entire public career. The platform upon which I was nominated and elected was that upon which he announced his successful candidacy for the Senate in the Republican Party of 1922, and upon which the Republican members of the House of Representatives from Wisconsin were elected at the same time.

"I shall during my service in the Senate adhere to the letter and the spirit of the platform upon which I was elected, and shall follow the independent course which I have marked out for myself.

"With these facts before the committee, should they assign me to committees, as indicated by the press, I shall accept such formal assignments."