members of the military and naval forces of the United States, including the Marine Corps, and who died between April 6, 1917, and July 2, 1921, both dates inclusive, together with the home address, rank, military or naval organization, place of death, and address of the nearest relative, to each such person listed.

SEC. 2. Fifty thousand copies of such lists shall be printed and bound together as may be directed by the Joint Committee on Printing, and of this number 35,000 shall be for the use of the House of Representatives and 15,000 shall be for the use of the Senate.

SEC. 3. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this resolution.

THE STRANGE CASE OF FLORIDA V. MELLON (S. DOC. NO. 102) Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, I should like to have printed as a Senate document a very masterly essay on the subject of the Federal estate tax entitled "The Strange Case of Florida v. Mellon," published in the Cornell Law Quarterly and written by Arthur W. Machen, jr., of the city of Baltimore, one of the most distinguished lawyers of our city.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Maryland?

Mr. KING. It has already been published in the RECORD, but I have no objection to printing it as a document.

Mr. BRUCE. I assure my friend that it should be printed as a document. It is truly an able and masterly paper. Mr. KING. I am not objecting.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

TAX REDUCTION

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1) to reduce and equalize taxation, provide revenue, and for other purposes.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senate this morning to take up the individual surtax provision of the revenue bill, but the senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. SIMMONS] has just been called to a conference, and therefore I shall ask that we take up the corporation tax amendment, on page 15, line 19, for discussion.

CORRUPTION IN PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS Mr. CUTTING. Mr. President, in one of the most important political speeches delivered this year the senior Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH] said:

The improper use of money in politics presents a problem as broad and deep and vital as representative democracy itself, and the people know it. Partisan fencing will not satisfy them. Purity of the ballot and integrity of officials are the beginning and the end of popular government.

The distinguished Senator from Idaho went on to say that the scandals in the public history of the United States during the last few years were really too fundamental to be used for purposes of irresponsible partisanship. The Vare and Smith cases, Teapot Dome and Elk Hills, the Continental Trading Co. and the Hays deficits, Queens County sewers and publicutility lobbies are, after all, only surface symptoms of a deepseated disease in our national life. All of us naturally grow indignant over the revelations which have been made, but it is important that our indignation should not evaporate in denouncing corruption, when it may be possible for us to take constructive action to strike at the roots of corruption.

A disease of this kind can not be cured or remedied by purely legislative action, but we, as the legislative body of the United States, would be recreant in our duty if we did not take what steps we could take to do our share in remedying the condition which exists.

The present Federal corrupt practices act was passed in 1925. I do not wish to make any criticism of it. It was, on the whole, a substantial advance on previous legislation of the kind. But in the last three years our eyes have been opened to a great many matters which were not apparent to us in 1925.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSON in the chair). Does the Senator yield to the Senator from Minnesota? Mr. CUTTING. I yield.

Mr. SHIPSTEAD. The corrupt practices act of 1925 was an amendment of the corrupt practices act of 1910, and specifically exempted primary elections from the provisions of the corrupt practices act, and practically gave free hand to these people, public-service corporations, and other corporations, who buy the Government by buying seats in the Senate, to go the limit. Congress itself has not made any provision for closing the door to corruption in primary elections. Under that act they said it was all right to buy the Government in primary elections, which in 42 States are the actual elections. In the general election Congress said they must be more circumspect.

Mr. CUTTING. Mr. President, that is very much the point I intend to take up, and I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his very clear remarks.

As I see it, the chief defects of the present Federal corrupt practices act are, first, as the Senator from Minnesota so ably stated, that it fails to include primaries or nominations by conventions.

Second, that the responsibility under the present act is laid entirely on the treasurer of a political committee and not on the candidate, where it properly belongs.

Third, that while it purports to limit campaign expenditures, as a matter of fact it allows so many exemptions that it is impossible for any poor man to compete on a basis of equality with a rich one.

Fourth, that it allows contributions to be made through nonofficial agencies.

important subject of postcampaign deficits. Fifth, that it provides no method for dealing with the all

Sixth, that it creates no effective or continuing machinery to enforce its provisions.

Mr. President, the matter of legislation of this sort is an enormously complicated one. I know it has engaged the attention of some of the ablest Members of this body for a great many years. I would not want anyone to think that I am suggesting that after a few months' labor I have offered any program which is adequate to deal with the situation as a whole. But at least I have spent a good deal of time in working out the measures which I introduced yesterday. They are not fully satisfactory to me. I am sure they will not be satisfactory to the Judiciary Committee without many amendments. Nevertheless, I feel that they represent a substantial advance from the present situation, and I should like to take the time of the Senate for a few minutes to explain the prin ciples which I am trying to embody in the proposed legislation. I have introduced five measures. The first is a constitutional amendment giving Congress authority to legislate concerning the nomination as well as the election of candidates for Congress. That measure is perhaps the least important of the five, because I feel personally that Congress already has that authority. The Senate will recall the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Newberry case. Four members of the court decided that Congress had not authority to enact legislation dealing with primaries. Four members of the court believed that the law in existence at that time, the law of 1911, was constitutional. The ninth member of the court, Justice McKenna, declared the law unconstitutional because it had been enacted prior to the passage of the constitutional amendment dealing with the election of United States Senators. I feel, therefore, that if the case were presented to the Supreme Court again the chances are that they would declare constitutional a measure dealing with primaries; but that is a great chance to take, and I have therefore proposed a constitutional amendment in order to make the matter absolutely sure.

Secondly, I have introduced an amendment to section 5, Article I, of the Constitution which would make that article read:

Each House shall be the judge of the election, returns, and qualifications of its own Members, but no candidate who, in his campaign for nomination or election, shall have violated any of the lav regulating such nomination or election shall be eligible for membership in either House.

I introduced that in the form of a constitutional amendment because the best legal advice I could obtain was to the effect that such legislation would be unconstitutional unless embodied in an amendment. The object of the proposal, of course, is to insure that no one may be elected to a Federal public office or to legislate as a Federal official who himself may have been guilty of violation of any Federal statute in obtaining his nomination or election.

If such an amendment were adopted, of course the Senate and the House would still remain judges of the qualifications of their membership. They would be the judges of the facts dealing with any particular case. But I did want to establish the particular penalty of ineligibility and to place a direct responsibility on the candidate, which, so far as I can see, does not exist under present statutes or present constitutional provisions.

Third, I have proposed an act to create a commission on elections. I suggest such a commission not as an independent governing body or a separate bureau, because I dislike bureaucracy as much as any Member of this body, but simply as an agency of Congress. It would be a continuing body. It would be an auditing body. It would audit reports, investigate credentials, and handle contest cases. It would report facts to the Congress for their action. It would have no authority on

Under our Constitution I do not think that particular method would be proper. I have suggested the method of election by the two Houses of Congress in joint session assembled, to select from names on nomination of the Civil Service Commission. I am not entirely satisfied with that suggestion, but I offer it for want of anything better. If we had direct election by the Members of Congress, it seems to me we might easily fall into the danger of having a bipartisan commission, which would practically mean that the representatives of each political party on the commission might be selected on the ground of their partisan loyalty to their respective parties. I feel that we ought to have nominations sent in by some outside body, and one of the qualifications which I have suggested in the bill for the selection of nominees is a "lack of partisan prejudice.”

It seems to me that such a commission is absolutely necessary in order to vitalize and enforce the provisions of any corrupt practices act. Since I have been in the Senate a large part of the time of three Senators has been taken up by the investigation of one single contest case. I refer to the committee of which the Senator from Colorado [Mr. WATERMAN] is chairman. In the last few days we have had the beginning of a series of investigations by a very able senatorial committee of the campaign expenditures of candidates for the Presidency. I know that that committee is doing everything in its power to carry out the purposes of the resolution which created it, but I do not see how, under the present law, such a committee can do anything except make a very superficial survey of a situation which ought to be investigated thoroughly and effectively.

A permanent commission of this sort would be absolutely essential in order to provide information not only as to some spectacular contest case, such as the one which comes to us from Pennsylvania, but with reference to the accounts and credentials of every candidate for a Federal office.

One provision of the bill authorizes the commission to investigate the possible advantages of a system of voting by mail and of a system under which all campaign expenses should be borne by the public. I do not want to argue those points now because both suggestions are so important that it would take entirely too much time. They are matters which I believe should be thoroughly investigated by some continuing body.

In the fourth place, I have introduced a corrupt practices bill dealing with the nomination and election of Senators and Representatives. This measure makes several important changes in the present act. It retains the specific limitations of the present statute. I do not know whether those limitations are the best possible ones or not. They vary, as Senators know, from $10,000 to $25,000, varying with the size of the States. It may be that some better figures could be devised. My attention was called a short while ago to the English system by which more money may be expended in the rural districts than in the great cities. There may be something to be said for that plan. It is obvious that it costs more to reach 30,000 electors in the State of Nevada than it would to reach 30,000 electors massed in one ward of a great city. I am more interested in the principle than I am in the exact figures, and I have left the figures as they are in the present corrupt practices act.

The feature in which I am most interested in my proposal is that it does away with the exemptions provided in the present act.

Senators are, of course, aware that at present moneys expended for postage, writing, printing, and all forms of publicity are exempted. As a practical result, of course, this means that a candidate may spend millions of dollars for publicity purposes and not be held responsible in any way for his accounts.

I think that is a dangerous principle. The bill which I have introduced specifies exactly what are legitimate campaign expenditures. They are confined to expenditures for the purpose of presenting information, arguments, and advice to electors as to the issues of the campaign. A candidate or his duly authorized agent or committee may lawfully present information, arguments, or advice to the electors by use of the mails, telephone, telegraph, advertisement in newspapers, or by posters or on billboards, the radio, personal solicitation, and public meetings. I believe that covers about all which ought to be allowed as legitimate expenditures. The bill does exempt State assessments and fees and personal traveling and subsistence

Under the proposed bill every candidate must either personally receive contributions and make expenditures or appoint an agent or committee to act for him in receiving and expending money. No one else may spend any money whatever except by authorization from the candidate or his agent. The entire responsibility is on the candidate. Every contribution or expenditure must be entered on the candidate's accounts within 24 hours from its receipt or disbursement, and the accounts are to be open at all times to public inspection. Each candidate has to file his report with the commission on elections on the 30th and 10th days before the date of election or nomination, and also on the 15th day thereafter. The primary elections and nominations by convention, in such States as do not have primaries, are also included in the legislation.

The same financial limitations are placed on the primary campaign as have hitherto been applied to the general campaign. The last bill which I have introduced deals with campaign expenditures by candidates for President and Vice President. The provisions as to the responsibility of candidates as to the publicity of accounts, reports, and so forth, are identical with the provisions of the bill applying to candidates for Congress. The first section provides a limitation of expenditures for the nomination of candidates for President and Vice President and for the election of such candidates.

Mr. DILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CUTTING. I yield.

Mr. DILL. Do I understand the Senator has a bill to limit or control candidates for President? Mr. CUTTING. Yes.

Mr. DILL. Does the Senator think that the Congress of the United States has any right to enact legislation regarding candidates for President? There is no recognition of candidates for President in the Constitution of the United States. The present system of having candidates for President of the United States has grown up as a custom. The Constitution provides that the Electoral College shall select the President.

Mr. CUTTING. I understand the difficulty suggested by the Senator from Washington. I should like to call his attention to the fact that under the amendment to the Constitution which I am proposing the Congress shall have power to legislate concerning the nomination and the election of any candidates for office, including Senator, Representative in Congress, President, and Vice President of the United States.

Mr. DILL. Then the Senator does not intend to press his bill until after the amendment to which he has referred shall have been adopted?

Mr. CUTTING. Mr. President, that is a constitutional question which it is very difficult for me to pass on. I think that as a practical proposition the law should apply to all candidates under our present form of government, including actual candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. Mr. DILL. But that is not so legally.

Mr. CUTTING. If it is not so legally, then it is up to the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives to enact legislation which will insure the legality of such measures. I do not believe the Electoral College ought to be retained as a permanent institution, Mr. President.

Mr. DILL. I thoroughly agree with the Senator. I am not criticizing him, but I want to get the Senator's view as to that question because of the fact that no candidates for President are recognized in the Constitution; I do not see how we have a right to legislate regarding them until we have amended the Constitution so that they may be recognized.

Mr. CUTTING. That is what I propose to do. It seems to me that no candidates for any office are specifically recognized by the Constitution. We have reached a stage, however, where candidacies are a vital factor in our political system; and if the bills which I have suggested do not take care of that situation-and very possibly they do not-then they ought to be amended and this whole question should be gone into with great care.

Mr. DILL. I did not wish to interrupt the Senator's discourse, but I wanted to get his view.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield to the Senator from Maryland? Mr. CUTTING. I do.

Mr. BRUCE. I should like very much, indeed, to know in just what respect our present laws on the subject, especially the corrupt practices act, State and Federal, fall short of securing the purity of elections. As the Senator knows, in some States-it is certainly true in my State when a man becomes a candidate for the United States Senate, as I am now, he has

two bodies of law to deal with-the State law and the Federal law. I have had occasion recently, as I have often had occasion heretofore, to weigh every line of legislation relating to the candidacy of one for the office of United States Senator, and I am at a loss to see how laws can be made more drastic, more searching, than the corrupt practices acts of the State of Maryland and of the Federal Government. As the Senator knows, the corrupt practices act of the Federal Government refers to the State corrupt practices acts, and I must say that certainly there is no lack of interest in my State, at least, so far as the Federal and State corrupt practices acts are concerned. It seems to me they are wisely framed, considering the object they have in view.

So I do not see just the occasion for any further reform. I have never in my life spent a dollar unlawfully in any election contest, and, so help me God, I never expect to do so so long as I live. Accordingly, from that point of view, I am not the least concerned about any legislation the Congress may pass; but, at the same time, why multiply corrupt practices acts, seeing that the ground is already properly covered by State and Federal legislation?

The Federal corrupt practices act, as the Senator knows, provides just how much may be expended in an election and exactly for what purposes any money can be spent at an election. I am speaking now more particularly of candidates for the United States Senate. The corrupt practices act of the State of Maryland also covers the same ground. Our corrupt practices act is very detailed and very exhaustive, and seems to have been very wisely conceived to accomplish the purpose in view. That is likewise true of the Federal corrupt practices act, which was introduced some years ago by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. WALSH], and which I have had occasion to study recently a little more closely than I had occasion to do in the first instance.

So the Senator, if I am not trespassing too much on his time, would oblige me very much by stating specifically in what respect the State and Federal corrupt practices acts at the present time fall short of the prime object of securing freedom and purity of elections.

Mr. CUTTING. Mr. President, I do not know whether the Senator was present when I began my remarks.

Mr. BRUCE. I did not happen to be present.

Mr. CUTTING. I tried to make the point plain at that time, but I shall try to answer the Senator when I get through with my exposition.

Mr. BRUCE. I will read the Senator's remarks in the RECORD; I will not trouble the Senator to answer the question at this time.

Mr. CUTTING. I should like to get through with the exposition I am making, and then I will yield to any questions. Mr. BRUCE. I repeat, I will read the remarks of the Senator in the RECORD. I do not wish to take up his time.

Mr. CUTTING. The bill which I am proposing, as I have said, contains the same provisions as to responsibility of candidates and as to publicity of accounts, reports, and so on, as I have mentioned in regard to the congressional corrupt practices act.

In the first section expenditures for the nomination on the part of a candidate for President or Vice President are limited to $10,000 in any one State and to $480,000 in the Nation as a whole. Of course, the idea of that is that in most of the States, or in a large number of States, at any rate, there will be no necessity for spending anything like as much as $10,000; and that the money saved in that way may be devoted to the general expenses of the campaign, such as maintaining national headquarters, and so on. After nomination the limitation of expenditures is made three times that amount; that is, $30,000 in any one State or $1,440,000 in the Nation as a whole.

I am not sure that those are the best possible figures, but I am more interested in the general principle of the bill than in the particular figures. Those figures may be too high, and I am inclined to think perhaps they are, though they are very much lower than the amounts which have been spent in any of the presidential campaigns in the last few years. At any rate, that is a minor problem which may be taken up by the committee.

Mr. DILL. Who does the Senator propose to have enforce this provision of law in regard to candidates for the Presidency?

Mr. CUTTING. The Congress of the United States.

Mr. DILL. What control has the Congress of the United States over candidates? The Electoral College passes on the candidates for President.

Mr. CUTTING. That brings up the same point I discussed with the Senator a few moments ago; namely, my proposed constitutional amendment.

Mr. DILL. I do not understand the appropriateness of such legislation from the constitutional standpoint.

Mr. CUTTING. If the Senator has no objection, I should like to explain the proposed legislation, and then go into these matters of detail.

This morning I noticed that the first section of this bill is so framed as to suggest that perhaps the candidate for President and the candidate for Vice President may each incur campaign expenses to the amount indicated. The wording is perhaps a little ambiguous in that respect. Of course, the intention was that since the President and the Vice President are making a joint campaign, or, rather, since the electors pledged to them are making a joint campaign, there would be only one source of expenditure. It is not intended to duplicate the expenditures on behalf of each candidate.

No limit is placed on individual contributions up to 30 days before the election, but in the last month contributions are limited to $10,000, and in the last 15 days to $5,000.

The further one goes into the question of legislation dealing with elections the more illogical the whole system of privately financed campaigns appears to be. Yet, so long as we have such a system it seems unreasonable to limit the amount of money that any individual may contribute. It seems to me that under the present system the best we can do is to insure full publicity for all such expenditures. That is why large contributions should be forbidden within the last few weeks before the election, when possibly they can not be made public to the people as a whole.

No contribution can be made in any name except that of the individual who provides the money.

A novel feature, and I think a very important one, is that dealing with postcampaign deficits. I do not believe that the Senate of the United States require any suggestions as to the danger which that problem brings up, in view of the revelations which we have had made to us during the last few months. The difference between a contribution to a deficit and a contribution toward campaign expenditures before the election is very definite.

Take the case, for instance, of Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Sinclair stated before the Public Lands Committee that he did not know whether he was Republican or Democrat, but he had been interested in the Republican campaign at one time and had contributed to it. The important point to notice is the exact time when Mr. Sinclair become interested in the campaign. We have no evidence that he contributed to the Republican campaign fund at any time before the election. Possibly he did; perhaps he contributed to the campaigns of both parties, for aught we know. A contribution made to a preelection fund would have been in the nature of a gamble, but a contribution made to a deficit and particularly to a deficit of the party which had been successful in the election was simply putting his money over the counter and getting a return for his investment. That is a danger which is not dealt with under our present statutes at all.

I have tried to deal with this problem, first, by providing that any deficit is illegal which, added to the campaign expenditures, exceeds the total amount allowed by the law, and, secondly, that individual contributions to a deficit are limited to $1,000.

Mr. President, I am sorry to have taken so much of the time of the Senate.. I hope especially that the very distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee will not think that my remarks imply in any way that the proposed legislation which I have suggested will adequately solve any problem which he and other very able Members of the Senate have spent years in investigating. I do feel that they represent an advance on present legislation. I certainly have no pride of authorship in these measures. I should be glad to have the Judiciary Committee take them and tear them to pieces and substitute something else which might be more adequate to meet the purposes in view. Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President

Mexico yield to the Senator from Nebraska?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from New

Mr. CUTTING. I yield.

Mr. NORRIS. Of course, the Senator knows, from his study of this question, that it is a very difficult one to solve correctly, even to one's own satisfaction. The Senator realizes, too, that the Judiciary Committee, with the work they have on hand, probably will not be able to take up the question that he has submitted at this session. They have had such a bill, and have reported a bill; but I do want to say to the Senator that I have been very much interested in what he has said. I am very much interested in the plan he has outlined.

It is a new one. I was informed of it, as the Senator probably knows, before he introduced his bill and before he made his speech; and I have been thinking about it a great deal. I am not sure but that he has taken a step in advance of any that has yet been taken, and one that may be of very great practical benefit.

I know that the Members of the Senate, and particularly the members of the committee, are deeply interested in the subject. I hope, however, the Senator will realize that at the present time the committee is closing up its affairs for the session, and Congress is about to adjourn, and that we per

S. 4422, Seventieth Congress, first session

A bill to create a commission on elections, to define its duties, and for other purposes

Be it enacted, etc., That there is hereby created a commission to be known as the commission on elections (hereinafter referred to as the commission) to be composed of five commissioners elected as hereinafter provided.

SEC. 2. (a) The five commissioners first elected shall be elected at a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives from a list to be submitted by the Civil Service Commission, of the names, in

the program will necessitate an amendment to the Constitution, which the Senator has provided in part of his plan. Its difficulties ought not to prevent us from taking it up, however; and I assure the Senator that I shall be very glad indeed to cooperate with him in doing whatever I can, in my weak way, to help bring about proper legislation.

Mr. CUTTING. I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his remarks. I realize that his committee is one of the most hard-working of all the committees, and I realize that the chairman himself is one of the most hard-working Members of the United States Senate. I had hoped to be able to get these measures in shape to present them a long time ago; but, as the Senator will realize, there are so many obstacles at every step one takes in such legislation that it has taken me a good many months to get as far as I have. I believe, of course, that the committee could substantially improve on the legislation as it is presented.

The only reason why I suggest to the Senator that it might be possible to get at least a start on this form of legislation is on account of its exceptional importance, going, as the Senator from Idaho has pointed out, to the very fundamentals of representative government. Our Government can not endure under conditions as they have existed in the last few years.

It is for that reason alone that I should like most respectfully to suggest to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that if there is any way in which they can get started on this legislation, even in the short space of time that remains, it might substantially help the Nation in the very important crisis which it is going through at this time.

I do not desire to say anything more on this subject, Mr. President, except to request that the text of these measures be made a part of my remarks in the RECORD.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The joint resolutions and bills referred to are as follows: Senate Joint Resolution 149, Seventieth Congress, first session Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relative to the nomination or election of Members of Congress, President, and Vice President of the United States Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE

"The Congress shall have power to legislate concerning the nomination or election of any candidate for the office of Senator, Representative in the Congress, President, and Vice President of the United States, and to prevent fraud and corrupt practices in the nomination and election of Senators, Representatives, President, and Vice President."

Senate Joint Resolution 150, Seventieth Congress, first session Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, relating to eligibility of Members of Congress Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, in lieu of the first paragraph of section 5 of Article I thereof, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the several States:

"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members; but no candidate who, in his campaign for nomination or election, shall have violated any of the laws regulating such nomination or election shall be eligible for membership in either House. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide."

basis of fitness by reason of experience, character, temperament, and lack of partisan prejudice. One of such commissioners shall be elected for the term of 2 years, and one for 4 years, one for 6 years, one for 8 years, and one for 10 years. The terms of office of all successors to such commissioners shall expire 10 years after the expiration of the terms for which their predecessors were elected; except that a commissioner elected to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was elected shall be elected only for the unexpired term of his predecessor. Ninety days before the expiration of the term of any such commissioner, the Civil Service Commission shall nominate four citizens having the above qualifications and submit their names to the Congress in alphabetical order, from these four nominees and the commissioner whose term is expiring the Congress shall in joint session elect a successor. Upon the occurrence of a vacancy otherwise than by the expiration of the term of office, a commissioner shall be elected from a list of five citizens so nominated and submitted. At all joint sessions for the election of commissioners each Member of the House of Representatives shall have one vote and each Senator four and one-half votes. Any commissioner may be

removed at any time by concurrent resolution of the two Houses. (b) Each commissioner shall receive a salary of $15,000 a year, together with actual and necessary traveling and subsistence expenses while away from the principal office of the commission in the performance of duties vested in the commission by this act or, if assigned to any other office established by the commission, then while away from such office in the performance of such duties.

(c) The commissioner so elected for the two-year term shall during that term be the chairman of the commission, and during each succeeding two-year period the commissioner whose term expires therewith shall be the chairman.

SEC. 3. Vacancies in the commission shall not impair its powers, and a majority of the commissioners in office shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of the business of the commission.

SEC. 4. The commission

(a) Shall maintain its principal office in the District of Columbia and such other offices as it deems necessary.

(b) Shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed. (c) Shall make such regulations as are necessary to execute the functions vested in it by this act.

(d) May (1) appoint and fix the salaries of such experts and a secretary and other officers and employees, and (2) make such expenditures (including expenditures for personal services and rent at the seat of government and elsewhere, for law books, periodicals, and books of reference, and for printing and binding) as may be necessary for the execution of the functions vested in the commission and as may be appropriated for by the Congress from time to time. No salary in excess of $10,000 shall be paid to any officer or employee of the commission. All expenditures of the commission shall be allowed and paid upon the presentation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the chairman out of money which may be appropriated for that purpose. (e) May hold such hearings, require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, papers, and documents, administer such oaths, and take such testimony as it deems necessary for the execution of its functions.

SEC. 5. (a) Any commissioner or duly authorized agent of the commission may sign subpoenas, administer oaths, examine witnesses, and receive evidence. Such attendance of witnesses and the production of such documentary evidence may be required from any place in the United States, at any designated place of hearing. In case of disobedience to a subpoena the commission may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence.

(b) Any district court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person, issue an order requiring such person to appear before the commission or to produce documentary evidence if so ordered or to give evidence touching the matter in question, and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof.

(c) No person shall be excused from testifying or deposing, or from producing documentary or other evidence in obedience to a subpoena, before the commission, on the ground that the testimony or evidence may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture;