opera, for instance--personally, I do not like it, but a good many people do like it, and I admire those that do like itwould have to pay the tax. In other words, it is argued that we are taxing talent in this matter; and because of the small amount of taxes that we would obtain by virtue of leaving it over $3 it seems to me we might eliminate the whole proposition, and this one war nuisance tax would be gotten behind us. Of course, if the Senator wants to contend further on the proposition, it just takes up that much more time.

Mr. SMOOT. I prefer to.

I take it that this applies also to the West-sometimes gives a guaranty on the part of some of its enterprising citizens, and in that way they secure now and then grand opera in those communities. But why impose upon them, upon a few gentlemen or a few citizens who are so eager to see grand opera that they are willing to pay exorbitant prices for admission and guarantee that the total receipts will not be below a certain sum? Would it not be well to strike out this little pittance of a million dollars and let every part of this country have an opportunity to enjoy the better type of spoken drama, to see tion from these performances which we used to get from the better Shakespearean plays?

Mr. SMOOT. I am perfectly willing to have that done.

Mr. HEFLIN. Let us have a vote now.

Mr. HARRISON. I call for the yeas and nays.

nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, before the vote is taken I wish to say just a word.

I want to say, with reference to the request that I made of the Senator in charge of the bill, that I had expected this bill to come up earlier in the day, and made the appointment which has been spoken of, thinking that by the hour named we would have disposed of it; but, while I am on my feet, I want to discuss briefly the amendment that is now before the Senate.

I heard the argument or statement of Mr. Brady. It was one of the most interesting to which I have listened in a long time. Of course, in the position he occupied, Mr. Brady was ready to take and had to take what he could get. He wanted to get as much as he could, and he expressed the opinion that so far as his association was concerned it would be very gratifying if the exemption was moved up to $3. He discussed, however, the effect of this heavy tax upon the spoken drama. He said that before the admissions tax was imposed the spoken drama was played in all parts of the United States; that it went to the smaller towns. Especially did he lay stress upon the fact that it played in the South, which at that time had but few small cities, and that these smaller communities were given the benefit of the spoken drama, with all its educational advantages and effects. As a result of this heavy tax, he said, the spoken drama now was almost exclusively confined to the larger cities of the country; that they had practically ceased to pay any attention to the South or to those States in the West with only small towns, and that as a result of that these people were denied the benefits of hearing the spoken drama as interpreted by the highest talent in the profession. That he pronounced deplorable. That he denounced as something that denied to a large portion of the United States the educational benefits of the spoken drama.

He called attention to the fact that the movies had been substituted for the spoken drama in these sections of the country. I had not thought of it in that light before, but I did remember when I was a younger man, before I came to the Senate, how I enjoyed the plays that visited the little town in which I lived, then a town of not over 10,000 people, and how the people of North Carolina and all these little towns had the benefit of the visitation of these troupes, giving Shakespearean plays and other great educational performances; and it seemed to me that while the movies are also enlightening and educational, they are not to be compared in many respects to the spoken drama. The sections that have had them substituted altogether for the spoken drama have suffered on account of it, and suffered for the sake of a very small revenue income which it was supposed would be derived from the tax.

The majority on the Committee on Finance agreed to raise the exemption, and it may be that as a result of that increase to $3 in the exemption some classes of those companies that play the spoken drama may come to the South, may go to the West, the smaller towns of the South, the smaller towns of the West; but I am inclined to think that while the increased exemption will mitigate the evils of the situation it will not give those sections that are now excluded from these enlightening performances full restoration of what they lost through the imposition of this tax.

There is only a million dollars in dispute. I do not see why we should haggle about a thing of this sort for only a million dollars' revenue. There is no such emergency as requires a tax of this sort, especially a harmful tax yielding such a small amount as this yields. That there is no emergency requiring such a tax is shown by the large surpluses that are constantly piled up in the Treasury.

Raising the exemption to $3 will not enable grand opera to go to the South. Its towns are too small to justify its coming. Now and then some ambitious community in the South-and

as a rule, but the women of our country almost without an exception enjoy it to the fullest, and yet by reason of this tax, as I say, a large part of the people of this country are prohibited from hearing it because of the burdensome tax imposed upon it. That tax now has been reduced so that it will remain as it was before, above $3 upon grand opera, and exclude it. It will remain, as before, above $3 upon the spoken drama, and exclude it. Is $1,000,000 in the Treasury of the United States so badly needed by the Government that it should deny the privilege of enjoying these plays and hearing this grand music?

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes.

Mr. COPELAND. And, of course, I may say to the Senator, it is not alone the rich. Many of the most lowly of our people are interested in these fine plays and this fine music.

Mr. SIMMONS. Why, of course; and if they are induced to come to a community by reason of the guaranty given by a few citizens of the community, the poor can not take advantage of it. The rates will have to be so high that they will be prohibitive except to the people who are well-to-do in life. It seems to me if there is any tax in this bill that is utterly unjustified, it is the retention of this $1,000,000 tax; and that is the total revenue the tax yields.

I regret very much that the chairman of the committee does not feel at liberty to consent, without having a vote upon it, to let this $1,000,000 tax go.

Mr. SMOOT. If this amendment went out it would make no difference whatever in the matter of grand opera. The tax is not going to hurt any person who is able to pay $10 or $11 for opera seats. We desire to have this as a tax program in order that if there were to be a raise of the tax in the future we could simply raise the rate, and there could never be any complaint about it.

The spoken drama up to $3 would never pay a cent of tax. There are very few little towns in the United States in which the people could ever or would ever afford to pay $3 for a ticket. The movies have taken the place of the spoken drama; there is very little of it left. If it were free of tax it would never be revived again, in my opinion, as long as the theaters charge the rate they do, and Mr. Brady said they were compelled to charge such a rate on account of the expenses. It will never be revived again in the United States. We have on hand now the spoken movie, in which the person appears, you hear his voice, you see him upon the platform, and that can all be witnessed for 35 or 50 or 75 cents. It seems to me that we ought to retain this tax, even if we want to increase the taxes in the future; and I want to say frankly that if the plans are carried out upon the five or six great projects that are being pressed here and in the other House, and they become law, I do not see how we are going to avoid it. Therefore, for that reason, I hope the Senate will support the committee amendment. Mr. SIMMONS. Does the Senator take the position that remitting this million-dollar tax would embarrass the Treasury? Mr. SMOOT. Not to-day. I thought I explained that that would not embarrass the Treasury.

Mr. HARRISON. May we not have the amendment reported now? Mr. SMOOT. I think the proper way to proceed would be for the Senator from North Carolina to offer his amendment now.

Mr. HARRISON. The "enator has offered his amendment, and I just asked that it be reported.

Mr. SMOOT. It is lying on the table.

Mr. SIMMONS. It is on the table, and I ask that it be reported.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported.

The CHIEF CLERK. The Senator from North Carolina offers the following amendment: On page 195, to strike out lines 3 to 23, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

(a) Section 500 (a) of the revenue act of 1926 is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 500. (a) There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid"(1) A tax of 25 per cent of the amount paid for admission to a prize fight, or boxing, sparring, or other pugilistic match or exhibition, for which the amount paid for admission is $5 or more: Provided,

That an equivalent tax shall be collected on all free or complimentary tickets or admissions to such prize fight, or boxing, sparring, or other pugilistic match or exhibition, and the tax shall be on the amount for which a similar seat or box is sold at the said match or exhibition;

"(2) Upon tickets or cards of admission to theaters, operas, and other places of amusement, sold at news stands, hotels, and places other than the ticket offices of such theaters, operas, or other places of amusement, at more than 50 cents in excess of the sum of the established price therefor at such ticket offices plus the amount of any tax imposed under paragraph (1), a tax equivalent to 50 per cent of the whole amount of such excess, such tax to be returned and paid, in the manner and subject to the interest provided in section 502, by the person selling such tickets."

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, this amendment is in three sections. One section provides for the taking off of the admission tax. The House adopted the provision with reference to boxing and sparring matches, and so on, which we do not disturb, which is included in this amendment. In other words, by this amendment we leave the tax which the House incorporated in the bill.

Mr. SMOOT. The Senate committee also leaves it in. Mr. MCKELLAR. The Senator means the committee leaves it in on boxing matches?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes; and on prize fights. The third section of the amendment deals with this situation: Under the law now there has been a custom which has grown up in the large cities that hotels and certain theater brokerage firms sell theater tickets.

Mr. SMOOT. Which are known as scalpers' tickets.

Mr. HARRISON. They are known as scalpers in some instances, but the large hotels of the country carry these tickets for the convenience of their patrons.

Mr. SMOOT. This is the present law.

Mr. HARRISON. In the amendment which the Senator from North Carolina proposes, he permits a service charge of not more than 50 cents for each of these tickets which are sold in these hotel lobbies and brokerage offices.

Mr. SMOOT. That is the present law.

Mr. HARRISON. If they charge more than that, there is a penalty imposed. Consequently, we do not disturb the law in these other features particularly, but we do take the admission tax off by this amendment, whether the admission is over $3 or under $3.

Mr. SACKETT. What is the amount of the penalty imposed? Mr. HARRISON. The penalty is 50 per cent of the amount charged by these people for the services rendered.

Mr. SACKETT. Fifty per cent of the amount charged? Mr. HARRISON. Fifty per cent in excess of the established price, I should say.

Mr. SACKETT. That would be 25 cents?

collected from admission dues, certainly the reason should be just as great not to retain the $1,000,000 that we do collect by virtue of this.

I submit that when we consider the expenses incurred in the administration of the law, the trouble that is imposed upon the theatrical profession in the sale of these tickets, and so on, this million dollars can be well made up in some other way, and that all the admission taxes should be taken out of this bill. principle of the surtax, does he not? Mr. President, the Senator believes in the

Mr. EDGE.

Mr. HARRISON. Oh, yes; I believe in the principle of the surtax.

Mr. EDGE. This involves very much the same principle; if one can afford to pay $3 for a ticket, it is not a great burden to pay a small amount of taxation.

Mr. HARRISON. I am surprised at my friend from New Jersey making that argument, because I presume that, outside of the great city of New York, more of these talented people come from New Jersey than from any other State. I suppose the people of New Jersey, which is really next to New York, like to see real legitimate drama, spoken drama, and grand opera and these talented people. I am surprised the Senator wants to impose this penalty upon them. I can see very little likeness or similarity between the imposition of a surtax and the imposition of a tax on people who go to a real good show that might cost $5, where the finest talent are "strutting" their goods on the stage, rather than to go to the Gayety down here, where the admission is probably 50 or 75 cents. I want to encourage people to go to the very best in this country. I want to encourage the people in this country with talent, who have educated themselves for the stage, for the drama, and for grand opera to employ their talent and make great money if they want to without being embarrassed by the Federal Government. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. COPELAND.

Mr. HARRISON. I yield. Mr. COPELAND.

The Senator from New Jersey speaks of this as a surtax. As a matter of fact, we put a surtax upon the rich, but just as many of the people who buy these tickets are poor as are rich.

Mr. SMOOT. A ticket costing over $3?

Mr. COPELAND. Yes; tickets costing over $3.
Mr. SMOOT. They may be in New York.

Mr. COPELAND. A man may be a truck driver and yet have a love of the stage or of grand opera, and he is entitled to go, and he should be given consideration just as much as those who are able to pay high prices.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, in the very forceful presentation to the committee by Mr. Brady he showed that a few years ago in all the cities throughout this country the finest, highest class theatrical troupes visited the cities, and people in those communities could see those shows. Mr. COPELAND. The poor people. Mr. HARRISON.

Yes; the poor people could see them; but not to-day. Because of the obstacles being thrown in their path, discouragement upon the part of the Government, and many other things, there is hardly any legitimate theater in the country. The people are now going to see motion pictures, and so on. When the people from my section of the country

Mr. SMOOT. That is correct.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, does the amendment repeal existing law respecting these admissions? Would that law be terminated under this amendment?

Mr. HARRISON. It does repeal the existing law with reference to the admission tax; yes. That is the object of the Simmons amendment.

Mr. Brady, who has represented the theatrical people for a long time, not with any pay coming to him, but because of his love of the work, made one of the finest presentations before the committee that was ever made before it. He had us all crying there for a little while, in speaking of the great men and women who had shed luster on the theatrical profession.

I do not believe any member of the committee wants to penalize the talent of these people. We all know that in the large cities and here in Washington-often the theaters charge more than $3. It may be more than they should charge, but they do charge more at times. If the public wants to pay it, it is up to the public; but it seems to me that a decade after the war is over, when this war tax was imposed, it is time for us to eliminate it; and if there is good reason for the Congress to eliminate $17,000,000 out of the $18,000,000 that is now

first things on their program is to see a fine show there, or the grand opera; they want the best; and I presume that is the way with the people from Utah, and from other States.

I submit, Mr. President, that this figure of $3 was not fixed at the instance of Mr. Brady.

Mr. Brady wanted to strike out the admission tax altogether. The theaters of the country and the theatrical patrons want to strike it all out. But when the chairman of the committee, in his suave way, put it to Mr. Brady, "Would you not accept $3," of course, he would accept $3 in preference to a dollar, which was put in the bill in the House, or in preference to the 75 cents that is fixed by the present law. I submit that the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina should be accepted.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator? Mr. HARRISON. Yes.

Mr. SIMMONS. Does not the Senator know it to be a fact that in parts of the country where these fine plays do not go there are numerous people who will travel at heavy expense to the larger cities, at least once a year, maybe twice a year, for the purpose of enjoying the kind of play that is denied them at home?

Mr. HARRISON. That is quite true.

Mr. SIMMONS. We have taken all the tax off the movies; we have taken all the tax off circuses; we have taken all the tax off everything of that kind except the spoken drama. Mr. SMOOT. Except where the admission is over $3. Mr. SIMMONS. Except where it is in excess of $3.

Mr. FLETCHER. Can the Senator say whether taking the tax off the movies has reduced the price of admission to the public?

Mr. SIMMONS. I presume it has, and I think it has. I think it will have that effect.

Mr. SMOOT. In some cases, and in some cases not.

Mr. SIMMONS. Why, I ask the Senator, take the tax off these other things, circuses and movies, and retain it qualifiedly or to a limited extent upon these other performances? Mr. HARRISON. The reason is just as strong for taking it off this as for taking it off these other things. I ask the chairman of the committee if he will not agree to let us strike this out? Mr. SMOOT. The chairman of the committee can not do that.

Mr. HARRISON. Then let us vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces that before a vote can be taken on this amendment, it will be necessary for the Senate to vote on the two committee amendments on page 195, lines 11 and 23. The clerk will read the amendments, because these will perfect the amendment which the Senator from North Carolina proposes.

Mr. SMOOT. It will be just the same thing.

Mr. HARRISON. I ask unanimous consent that we vote on the amendment as it is pending now.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, the Senator must modify that request. Let us vote upon this amendment as a substitute for the committee amendments as reported.

Mr. HARRISON. That is right.

Mr. SACKETT. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee whether the committee has considered at all the penalty provision on speculation in tickets?

Mr. SMOOT. That is in the present law.

Mr. SACKETT. That is in the present law; and is not changed by the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina? Mr. SMOOT. It is changed very little. It is not changed as the Finance Committee reported the bill, but it is changed in the last four lines of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. SACKETT. Has the committee examined that change to see whether it amounts to anything or not?

Mr. SMOOT. No; but I know that the scalpers desire to have this change made.

Mr. FESS. Let the question be stated.

Mr. SMOOT. The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS] offers an amendment as a substitute for section 500. Mr. FESS. Then we will have to vote on these amendments before we vote on that.

Mr. SMOOT. We certainly would; but unanimous consent was asked to vote upon this amendment as a substitute for the committee amendment as reported.

Mr. FESS. I wanted to know what we were to vote on. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed as a substitute by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS].

Mr. HARRISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. SMITH (when his name was called). I have a general pair with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. WATSON]. Not knowing how he would vote, I withhold my vote.

Mr. SIMMONS (when the name of Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas was called). I was requested by the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. ROBINSON] to announce that if he were present he would vote "yea" on this question.

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. CURTIS. I transfer my pair with the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. ROBINSON] to the Senator from Idaho [Mr. GOODING], and vote "nay."

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania (after having voted in the negative). I have a general pair with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BAYARD]. I transfer that pair to the Senator from Vermont [Mr. DALE], and allow my vote to stand.

Mr. BRATTON. I have a pair with the junior Senator from Indiana [Mr. ROBINSON]. I am not at liberty in his absence to vote, but if allowed to do so I would vote "yea."

Mr. SMITH. I transfer my pair with the senior Senator from Indiana [Mr. WATSON] to the junior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. KENDRICK], and vote "yea."

Mr. JONES. I desire to announce the following pairs:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. DU PONT] with the Senator from Florida [Mr. TRAMMELL]; and

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. PINE] with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LOCHER].

I also desire to announce the absence of the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. NORBECK] and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. CUTTING] on business of the Senate. If present, both Senators would vote "nay" on this question.

The result of the roll call was-yeas 40, nays 40, as follows:

The VICE PRESIDENT.

Robinson, Ark.

Robinson, Ind.

Reed, Pa. Sackett

Schall Shipstead Shortridge Smoot

Steiwer Vandenberg

Warren Waterman

Trammell

Watson

The yeas are 40 and the nays are 40. The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS] in the nature of a substitute is not agreed to.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I would like to give notice that there will be another vote on the Simmons amendment when the bill is in the Senate unless some Senator on the other side of the aisle desires to change his vote and come over to us.

Mr. SMOOT. Now, Mr. President, I would like to have the amendment agreed to as reported.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment will be stated. The CHIEF CLERK. On page 195, line 11, strike out "$1 or less" and insert in lieu thereof "$3 or less," so as to read:

(1) A tax of 1 cent for each 10 cents or fraction thereof of the amount paid for admission to any place, including admission by season ticket or subscription, to be paid by the person paying for such admission; except that in case the amount paid for admission is $3 or less, no tax shall be imposed, and except that in case of admission to a prize fight, or boxing, sparring, or other pugilistic match or exhibition, for which the amount paid for admission is $5 or more, the tax shall be 25 per cent of such amount: Provided, That an equivalent tax shall be collected on all free or complimentary tickets or admissions to such prize fight, or boxing, sparring, or other pugilistic match or exhibition and the tax shall be on the amount for which a similar seat or box is sold at the said match or exhibition.

The amendment was agreed to.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The next amendment passed over will be stated. The CHIEF CLERK. On page 195, line 23, strike out " $1 or less" and insert in lieu thereof "$3 or less," so as to read: Amounts paid for admission by season ticket or subscription shall be exempt only if the amount which would be charged to the holder or subscriber for a single admission is $3 or less.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee on Finance in charge of the bill whether he would be willing to take up, somewhat out of its order, the amendment with regard to club dues?

Mr. SMOOT. I am perfectly willing to do so. It will be found in section 412, on page 196.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment will be stated. The CHIEF CLERK. On page 196, line 5, the committee proposes to strike out "5 per cent" and insert in lieu thereof "10 per cent," so as to read:

(a) Section 501 of the revenue act of 1926 is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 501. (a) There shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid

a tax equivalent to 10 per cent of any amount paid

"(1) As dues or membership fees to any social, athletic, or sporting club or organization, if the dues or fees of an active resident annual member are in excess of $10 per year; or

And so forth.

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. President, I wish to state to the Senate that the revenue derived from club dues amounts to $10,000,000 a year. The House proposes to reduce that tax to $5,000,000; that is to say, the House adopted a rate just one-half of the present law. It is in opposition to the amendment proposed by the Finance Committee of the Senate, restoring the tax eliminated by the House, that I wish to ask the Senate to indulge me just for a moment.

I believe that both parties have repeatedly, through their official spokesmen in the administration and in Congress, expressed the desire that we should get rid as quickly as possible of these small rates that were imposed during the war when a great emergency existed, and which are generally characterized as nuisance taxes. The tax upon club dues is largely of that character. There was a time in our history when only the rich were able to indulge in the pleasure of belonging to clubs. But that time has passed and there is hardly a town of 5,000 inhabitants in the country to-day that has not what is called a country club, with golf links attached. Golf was formerly a sport of the rich. There were but few clubs with golf courses in the country, and they were confined largely to the rural surroundings of the larger cities of the country.

But that game has to-day become one of the most fashionable amusements in which our people indulge. The little clubs with golf courses have in their membership the relatively poor as well as the relatively rich. It is a sport that is indulged in by women as well as by men. It is a sport that conduces to good health, to vigorous manhood and womanhood. Not only lovers of sports indorse it but leading scientists and physicians of the country join in proclaiming it one of the most healthful amusements to which men and women now resort.

whether he desires to defeat or to carry the motion; and I take the view of the Senator from Pennsylvania that when there is a tie vote the Vice President has a right to vote.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Not only a right but a duty, Mr. President.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Not only a right but a duty as well.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. And if he disagrees with the adversaries of the amendment it is his duty to register his vote and carry the motion.

Mr. SWANSON. Mr. President, if the Senator will permit me, it seems to me the failure of the Vice President to vote shows that he was opposed to the amendment, because his vote for it would have carried it.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. The Constitution does not provide for implying or inferring what his intent is.

Mr. SWANSON. The Constitution can not compel him to vote, I should think.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. The Constitution compels all of us to vote unless we are excused.

Mr. BLEASE. Mr. President, I submit, on the point of order, that it required a majority vote to carry that amendment, and unless there was a majority vote it was lost. Being lost, obviously there was no requirement or necessity for the Vice President to vote.

I now raise the point of order that the roll call having been finished and the result announced, and other business having been transacted, it is not in order for the Vice President to cast his ballot, any more than it would be for an individual Senator who has now come into the Chamber.

Mr. President, I do not wish to pursue the matter further than to make this brief statement. I might speak more at length, but, as I said, I believe it unnecessary at this time. Mr. COPELAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SIMMONS. Certainly.

Mr. COPELAND. How much will we lose if we leave off the tax entirely?

Mr. SIMMONS. We would lose $10,000,000. If we cut it in half, we will have $5,000,000 still left. The House proposal was to reduce the tax one-half, and I am asking that we adopt the House amendment. The majority of the Finance Committee have asked that the House amendment be stricken out and the present tax retained.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania, Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry. On the last roll-call vote I understand that the vote of the Senators was equally divided; and I rise to ask how the Vice President is recorded as having voted?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The name of the Vice President was not called. The parliamentarian informs the Vice President that in the case of a tie vote on an amendment, where the tie vote defeats the amendment, it is not the custom to call the name of the Vice President. If my name had been called, I should have voted "nay."

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. I suggest that under the Constitution it is the duty of the clerk to call the name of the Vice President when the Senators are equally divided.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair is informed by the parliamentarian that it is necessary for the Chair to direct the clerk to call his name; and the Chair now directs him to call his name.

The CLERK. The Vice President.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, just a moment. As I understand, the vote was 40 to 40; and, as it was an amendment, the amendment was lost by reason of the tie vote.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment was lost on a tie vote.

Mr. BORAH. I can not quite understand what effect the Vice President's vote will have.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, was the vote 40-40 or 50-50? [Laughter.]

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, undoubtedly it is the parliamentary rule that a motion requires a majority to carry it. If the vote is evenly divided, the motion is lost; but in view of the provisions of the Constitution, it seems to me that the Vice President is charged with the duty of voting,

Mr. BLEASE. I ask that the roll call be taken over, if my friend insists on his point of order; but under all parliamentary usage, where there is a motion made, in order to carry the motion a majority must vote in favor of it, and if there is not a majority the motion is lost; and if another Senator should come in now he certainly would not have a right to cast his vote.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. President, I want to resent the imputation that the Vice President has not done his duty, and I am delighted to know that the imputation does not come from this side of the aisle. I know, and the other Senators know, that the Vice President does want to discharge his duty, because we will not forget an occasion when he hastened back here at top speed in order to perform his duty. [Laughter.]

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, leaving the comedy out for a moment, I do not think the question is wholly a laughable one. Every motion conceivable to be made in the Senate is lost if the vote upon it is a tie. There is nothing peculiar about this amendment. The passage of every bill is defeated if the vote be a tie; so that the plain intention of the Constitution was that wherever a tie vote existed, the Vice President should vote. His vote is not dispensed with by reason of the fact that the motion is lost when there is a tie, because that is true in every case and the Constitution must have had it in mind.

I

I do not advance the suggestion facetiously or lightly. think the question ought to be ruled upon and acted upon, and that in time it might become of extreme importance; and if there is any doubt about the procedure to be followed it ought to be settled now.

Mr. DILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. I yield.

Mr. DILL. I call the Senator's attention to the constitutional provision. It does not require the Vice President to vote. It is a permissive provision. It says:

but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Precisely. That is true of the Senators. Each Senator has a vote; but the whole intention of the Constitution is that every one having a vote shall vote unless excused.

Mr. DILL. But there is nothing compulsory about it. Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. There is nothing compulsory in terms upon the Senators.

Mr. DILI. I do not think the Vice President has failed to discharge his duty at all.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President, in order to settle the thing, I move a reconsideration of the vote. Then we can take another vote.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Florida. Without objection, the motion is agreed to.

Mr. SHORTRIDGE. No, Mr. President.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. I call for the yeas and nays on the original reconsidered motion.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will call the roll. Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, I ask to have the question stated. I do not understand it.

Mr. SMOOT. The yeas and nays were not ordered.

Mr WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, a point of order. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Is this the motion to reconsider, or has the motion to reconsider been adopted?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The roll call is on the motion to reconsider.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. President, a point of order.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.

Mr. BINGHAM. Is it in order for a Senator who is in the minority to move to reconsider?

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I make the point of order that the motion to reconsider is out of order, because the original vote was an illegal vote, and it can not be ratified by another one of the same kind.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The point of order is overruled. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President

Mr. TYDINGS. I have the floor. Let me state the matter, please.

Mr. SMOOT. I thought the Senator was through.

Mr. BINGHAM. Has the Chair ruled on the point of order which I raised?

Mr. TYDINGS. Have I the floor, Mr. President?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Florida did not have the right to make the motion to reconsider.

Mr. FLETCHER. Then I call on the Senator from Pennsylvania to make it.

Mr. TYDINGS. I still have the floor, have I not?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Maryland has the floor.

Mr. TYDINGS. Then the only way we can correct the RECORD, there being an illegal roll call, is to have the roll recalled on that amendment, without any motion to reconsider.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The point of order is overruled. Mr. SMOOT. I ask unanimous consent that the roll call that was taken be set aside, and that another roll call on the amendment now take place.

The VICE PRESIDENT.

Without objection, it is so ordered. The Secretary will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the roll.

So Mr. SIMMON's amendment, in the nature of a substitute, was rejected.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I desire to offer a substitute for the committee amendment by moving to repeal section 501 of the present statute.

Mr. SMOOT. The committee amendment is to restore 10 per cent, the existing law.

Mr. BARKLEY. My motion is to repeal section 501 altogether. I offer this as a substitute for the committee amendment, which restores the tax from 5 per cent, as carried in the House bill, to 10 per cent, as under the present law.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The vote will be taken first upon the committee amendment, since it seeks to correct what the Senator would strike out. The amendment will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 196, line 5, it is proposed to strike out "5 per cent" and insert "10 per cent."

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. BARKLEY. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will state it.

Mr. BARKLEY. Without regard to the action taken by the Senate on the committee amendment, will I still have the right to move to repeal this whole section?

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will have that right. Mr. SMOOT. The first amendment voted on, however, will be the committee amendment for 10 per cent.

Mr. REED of Missouri. I ask to have the amendment stated. The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment will be restated. The Chief Clerk restated the amendment.

Mr. SMOOT. That is existing law. In other words, we impose the same tax upon club dues as is imposed in the existing law.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President, it is a very serious question in my mind as to whether the anti-nuisance-tax crusade is a wise one. The fact is that the tax upon moving pictures, upon theaters, and amusements in general is the easiest paid tax there is. A good deal of it comes from a class of people who pay no other taxes. It is a voluntary tax, because no one is compelled to attend any of these places of amusement unless he feels able to pay his way into the theater or other place of amusement. It brings in a large income, and its burden is

Mr. CURTIS (when his name was called). I have a pair with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. ROBINSON], which I transfer to the Senator from Idaho [Mr. GoODING], and will vote. I vote "nay."

66

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania (when his name was called). Making the same announcement as before, I vote nay.” The roll call was concluded.

Mr. JONES. I have been requested to announce the following general pairs:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. DU PONT] with the Senator from Florida [Mr. TRAMMELL];

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. PINE] with the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LOCHER]; and

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. WATSON] with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH].

The result was announced-yeas 39, nays 42, as follows:

be but very little money saved to the patrons of these places; that the reduction in tax will be absorbed by the proprietors of the places; and that there will be, in fact, no reduction.

I voted for the amendment to take the tax off theaters proper, because if you are going to exempt the moving pictures, then clearly the exemption ought to be extended to all classes of theatrical amusement. If we ought to encourage anything, it is the legitimate drama, which certainly has not sunk quite to the depths that the moving pictures have in many instances.

Now it is proposed to impose a very heavy tax on clubs. The Senator from North Carolina spoke of golf clubs. If that were the only kind of clubs concerned, it would not arouse much sympathy with me. I am not opposed to ladies and gentlemen playing golf if they want to, but this provision applies, as I understand it, to almost all kinds of clubs.

The fact is that the club is in many instances the home of many people, and if not the home, it is the place where they resort for a portion of their meals. A tax levied upon a club is a good deal like levying a tax upon a home. It applies not only to the great club, with its wealth, but it applies to the club that is of ordinary size. Many of these clubs are barely able to exist; the only way they can pay this tax is by increas ing the charges to the patrons; and the patrons are simply a number of men and women who have organized for the purpose of having some place where they can go and enjoy an evening meal. In some instances single men live at the clubs, and it is a tax upon their rooms.

If the tax is to be levied upon homes, it ought to be levied upon every hotel in the land, and I can not see why it should not be levied on the homes themselves. I am opposed, therefore, to increasing the tax on these clubs, and I think that if we are going to take it off theaters, off moving pictures, particularly off moving pictures, we ought to take it off clubs; but in principle I believe that these so-called nuisance taxes are not nuisance taxes at all; they are taxes which get a very large revenue for the Government. Most of them are taxes upon pleasure; most of them are taxes nobody has to pay unless ho