[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 6]
[Chapter 174 - The Members]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
THE MEMBERS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Decorum, conduct, etc. Sections 190-496.
2. Leaves of absence. Sections 197-199.
3. Compensation, clerks, etc. Sections 200-211.
4. Mileage, stationery, etc. Sections 212-215.
5. The franking privilege. Sections 216-223.
6. Statutes relating to bribery and contracts. Section 224.
7. Resignations. Sections 225-231.
8. Seniority. Sections 232-235.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
190. By rule the Member is restricted as to his movements during
business or debate, and as to wearing his hat and smoking.
Members may not remain near the Clerk's desk during a vote.
The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper are charged with the enforcement
of certain rules relating to decorum.
On December 12, 1907,\2\ the Speaker,\3\ after directing the clerk to
read section 7 of Rule 13, said:
The Chair has found it necessary to have the rule read, especially
the clause relating to smoking, that Members may understand the rule
and understand that it is the duty of the Sergeant at Arms and
Doorkeeper to see that the rule is strictly enforced.
191. Before the adoption of rules, while the House was proceeding
under general parliamentary law, the Speaker held that Members might
not remain near the Clerk's desk during a vote.
Prior to the adoption of rules by the House, those rules which embody
practices of long established custom will be enforced as if already in
effect.
On March 15, 1909,\4\ during a roll call, and prior to the adoption
of rules by the House, Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, raised the point
of order that Members congregated about the Clerk's desk should be
required to be seated.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The rules of the House, if we had rules, prohibit Members from
standing at the Clerk's desk during a roll call, and the Chair will
assume, analogous to those rules or following those rules or because of
the practice of the House heretofore, in this instance that Members win
not be at the Clerk's desk during a roll call.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to Chapter XLL.
\2\ First session Sixtieth Congress, Record, p. 304.
\3\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\4\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 21.
Sec. 192
192. Officers and employees of the House may not remain near the
Clerk's desk during a vote unless their duties so require.
On January 7, 1910,\1\ Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the
point of order that an officer of the House whose duties did not
require his attendance at the desk remained there during a roll call.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The rule is silent as to employees of the House; but the Chair
believes that the employees of the House should not be at the Clerk's
desk unless their duties require it.
Hitherto, so far as the Chair recalls, with some length of service,
employees of the House, both of the majority and minority, have
sometimes come to the desk during a roll call without protest; but if
protest is made, as it is, the Chair will see, if his attention is
brought to it, and even without that, if he notices it, that they do
not come to the clerk's desk during a roll call.
193. Discussion of the importance of observing, the rule against
remaining at the desk during roll call, and smoking in the Hall of the
House.
In order to interrupt a Member having the floor, it is necessary
first to address the Chair.
On May 23, 1912,\3\ while there was no business pending before the
House, the Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair wishes to call the attention of Members to two or three
rules that are constantly violated, thoughtlessly, no doubt, but the
violation of which works absolute confusion. The Chair does this now
when nobody is doing the particular thing of which Members complain.
Some of the Members are in the habit of crowding about the desk when
a roll call is being called. That is absolutely forbidden by the rules.
We got into considerable difficulty at the beginning of the Sixty-first
Congress about that very thing.
There is a rule against smoking in the House. That ought to be
enforced.
Further, the proper method of procedure when a gentleman has the
floor and another desires to interrupt him is first to address the
Chair. Of course, the Chair cares nothing about that, except that that
is the way to preserve order and keep down dissension in the House.
194. Members may not personally address the clerks at the desk during
roll call.
All requests by Members as to whether recorded or how recorded on a
roll call are properly addressed to the Speaker from the floor and not
to the clerks at the desk.
On March 14, 1914,\5\ at the beginning of a roll call, the Speaker
\4\ said:
Before the Chair puts the motion to go into the Committee of the
Whole House, inasmuch as there is quite a large attendance of the House
this morning, the Chair desires to make a statement. It is against the
rule for Members to come to the Clerk's desk during roll call, asking
how they voted or trying to get their names in when they did not vote.
Of course, Members do it out of no bad intention. It is more
thoughtlessness than anything else, but it bothers the clerks, and it
has been increasing in frequency, lately. The clerks do not want any
trouble with Members of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session, Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 404.
\2\ Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, Speaker.
\3\ Second session, Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 7022.
\4\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\5\ Second session, Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 4850.
Sec. 195
House, and can not afford to have any. The rule prohibits any Members
being around the Clerk's desk during roll calls.
195. On June 22, 1916 \1\ after the previous question had been
ordered on the fortifications appropriation bill, the Speaker \2\ said:
Before the votes are taken on the fortifications appropriation bill
and the amendments thereto, with the consent of the House the Chair
desires to make two or three remarks. There are rules in this House
that are habitually violated, generally, the Chair thinks, without any
intention of doing so. One of them is that Members shall not crowd
about the Clerk's desk when the roll is being called. Members keep
coming up and disturbing the Clerk during a roll call, asking whether
they are recorded, or how they are recorded, or desiring to be recorded
when they have no right to be recorded. It casts suspicion upon the
integrity of the proceedings.
196. On March 3, 1919 \3\ Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, raised a
question of order against Members approaching the desk and addressing
the tally clerk while the roll was being called.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
197. Members may not introduce occupants of the galleries during a
session of the House.
The Speaker is forbidden to recognize for motions to suspend the rule
prohibiting the introduction of persons in the galleries.
Section 8 of Rule XIV provides:
It shall not be in order for any Member to introduce to or to bring
to the attention of the House during its sessions any occupant in the
galleries of the House; nor may the Speaker entertain a request for the
suspension of this rule by unanimous consent or otherwise.
This rule was adopted, April 10, 1933,\4\ to protect the House from
the interruptions and confusion attending the introduction of visitors
in the galleries by Members from the floor. The custom had long been a
subject of criticism and Speaker Garner in former sessions \5\ had made
it a policy to decline recognition for that purpose.
198. The House has by resolution revoked all leaves of absence and
directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to deduct from the salary of Members
compensation for days absent without leave.
On August 25, 1914,\6\ the House passed a resolution revoking all
leaves of absence granted to Members, and directing the Sergeant-at-
Arms to enforce the law requiring him to deduct from the salary of
absent Members compensation for the days absent.
Following the passage of the resolution, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, asked, as a parliamentary inquiry, if the resolution revoked
all previous leaves of absence, including those granted on account of
sickness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 9790.
\2\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
\3\ Third session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4914.
\4\ First session Seventy-third Congress, Record, p. 1449.
\5\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 14051.
\6\ Second session Sixty-third Congress, Record, p. 14229.
Sec. 199
Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, contended that it revoked all leaves
of absence in effect at the time of its passage, regardless of the
cause for which granted.
The Speaker \1\ sustained Mr. Mann's contention, and said:
That is true. The Chair will state his recollection for the benefit
of other Members, a great many of whom never had anything to do with
it, that in the Fifty-third Congress, in the summer of 1894, this
statute was enforced, and I paid $28 and some cents myself to go down
in Virginia to make two speeches. But my recollection about it is that
the Sergeant at Arms had some kind of a document down there that you
had to sign, and you certified how many days you had been absent. If
you did not make the certification you would have been here every day.
Speaker Reed sneered at the statute as ``a police court regulation.''
Nevertheless it had the effect of keeping a quorum here.
Mr. Sereno E. Payne, of New York, added:
Mr. Speaker, my recollection about the enforcement of that statute is
that there was a certificate gotten up by the Sergeant at Arms which
the Members of the House were required to sign, and most of them
certified that they were present during the whole time. I think there
were only about half a dozen of us--and I was included in that number--
that suffered any deduction from our salary on account of it, and my
recollection is that nobody suffered after the first month and that
they overlooked the certificate.
The resolution remained in force until October 15,\2\ when Mr.
Underwood offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That House resolution 601 directing the Sergeant at Arms to
enforce section 40 of the Revised Statutes of the United States is
hereby repealed.
During debate on the resolution, Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia,
asked if the passage of the pending resolution could be interpreted as
providing for the reimbursement of those Members whose salaries had
been docked under the provisions of the original resolution.
Mr. Underwood replied in the negative.
The resolution was then agreed to, yeas 81, nays 8.
199. Application for leave of absence is properly presented by filing
with the clerk the printed form to be secured at the desk rather than
by oral request from the floor.--On December 17, 1931,\3\ following a
number of requests for leave of absence by Members asking recognition
from the floor, the Speaker \4\ suggested:
The Chair would like to make this suggestion to gentlemen who in the
future desire to provide leaves of absence for their colleagues. There
is provided at the Sergeant at Arms desk, on the Speaker's right,
blanks for just such purposes. The Chair would suggest that Members
avail themselves of that means of securing leaves of absence. These
blanks, when filled out and given to the Clerk, will be laid before the
House prior to adjournment for the approval of the House. The Chair
thinks that by this means much of the time of the House will be saved.
200. It is not in order to request leave of absence for colleagues
from the floor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 14051.
\2\ Journal, p. 989; Record, p. 16676.
\3\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 721.
\4\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
Sec. 201
The rules do not provide for announcement of how colleagues would
vote if present, and such procedure is by unanimous consent only.
Members are not permitted to obstruct the well of the House during
roll call.
On February 1, 1929,\1\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, rising to
a parliamentary inquiry said:
I would like to propose a parliamentary inquiry to the Speaker. There
has been a growing custom lately that during a roll call Members go
into the well of the House and create such confusion that it is very
difficult for the clerks to hear and impossible for Members in the Hall
to hear their names when called. Furthermore, there is no provision in
the rules that provides for a Member to explain his vote or how a
colleague would vote if present. I think the Speaker should call
attention to these infractions of the rules.
The Speaker \2\ replied:
I am glad that the gentleman from New York has asked this question.
The Chair has had in mind making a statement touching the matters he
mentions. In the first place, the Chair thinks that gentlemen should
not ask leave of absence for their colleagues on the floor of the
House. It simply consumes time. They should be in writing and blanks
are provided for that purpose. Hereafter the Chair will refuse to
recognize gentlemen who ask for leave of absence for their colleagues
from the floor.
As to the second question asked by the gentleman from New York,
whether the announcement by Members that their colleagues if present
would vote so-and-so, is contrary to the rules of the House. The Chair
has no knowledge of any rule that gives Members that privilege. Of
course, a Member might obtain unanimous consent to make such a
statement, and the Chair hereafter will ask if there is objection to
making the statement.
With regard to Members standing in the well of the House during an
important roll call, Chair thinks that the rule prohibiting it ought to
be strictly enforced, and will enforce it from now on.
201. The compensation of Speaker and Members.
The statutes \3\ fix the compensation of the Speaker at $15,000 \4\
per annum, and the compensation of Members, Delegates from Territories,
and Resident Commissioners from Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands,
at $10,000 per annum each.
202. The provision of the act of July 16, 1914, relating to payment
of salary of Members of Congress for period elapsing between election
and death of predecessor, is permanent law.
Since 1914 Members elected to fill vacancies occasioned by death of
predecessor are paid salary from date of election only.
A certificate issued by the Speaker of the House of Representatives
within the meaning of sections 47 and 48 of the Revised Statutes and as
such is conclusive upon the accounting officers of the Treasury.
At a special election held June 5, 1919, Mr. James O'Connor was
elected a Representative from the first congressional district of the
State of Louisiana to fill a vacancy occurring by the death, on April
28, 1919, of Albert Estopinal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Seventieth Congress, Record p. 2624.
\2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\3\ Revised Statutes, sections 35, 37; U.S. Code, title 2, sec. 31;
title 3, sec. 45; title 48, sections 893, 1093. 43 Stat. L., p. 1301.
\4\ Speaker raised from $12,000 and Members from $7,500 by
legislative appropriation act of 1925. (43 Stat. L.)
Sec. 203
Following the practice of the Sergeant at Arms since 1914, Mr.
O'Connor was paid salary from the date of his election only. A claim
for salary for the period elapsing between his election and the death
of his predecessor being submitted to the Auditor for the State and
Other Departments, the claim was disallowed because of the provisions
of the act of July 16, 1914,\1\ as follows:
The salaries of Representatives in Congress, Delegates from
Territories, and Resident Commissioners, elected for unexpired terms,
shall commence on the date of their election and not before.
On appeal to the Comptroller of the Treasury, the comptroller, on
July 17, 1919, disclaimed jurisdiction under the following statute: \2\
Sec. 47. The salary and accounts for traveling expenses in going to
and returning from Congress of Senators shall be certified by the
President of the Senate, and those of Representatives and Delegates by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Sec. 48. The certificate given pursuant to the preceding section
shall be conclusive upon all the departments and officers of the
Government.
Thereupon the question was submitted in the form of a personal letter
to the Speaker,\3\ who responded:
July 28, 1919.
Yours received. I am of the opinion that the act of July 16, 1914, to
which you refer, is permanent law. I was on the Committee on
Appropriations at the time, and my recollection is that we thought the
then-existing practice of giving to an incoming Member salary from the
date of the death of his predecessor was unreasonable and that he had
no claim for payment for any period before his election, and it was to
accomplish that that the legislation was passed. Believing that to be
the law, of course I can not encourage you for any remedy.
Thanking you for the courteous manner in which you preferred your
request, I am,
Yours respectfully,
F. H. Gillett.
This letter is construed in the opinion \4\ issued by the Comptroller
of the Treasury \5\ under date of August 25, 1919:
The action by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as
expressed in his letter of July 28, 1919, to Mr. O'Connor is a
``certificate'' within the meaning of sections 47 and 48 of the Revised
Statutes and, as such, is conclusive upon the accounting officers of
the Treasury, and the appeal is therefore dismissed for want of
jurisdiction to determine the case upon its merits.
203. Payment of salaries of Members at any other rate than that fixed
by law is not authorized.
A Member may remit back to the United States any portion of his
salary, and amounts so remitted are covered into the general funds of
the Treasury and are not subject to recovery.
Only one check monthly may be issued to Members in payment of salary,
such check to correspond with the legal rate of pay due for the current
month.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2 U.S.C. 37.
\2\ 2 U.S.C. 48.
\3\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\4\ Decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury, Appeal No. 29861.
\5\ Comptroller Walter W. Warwick.
Sec. 204
On March 19, 1925,\1\ in response to a request from the Sergeant at
Arms of the House, the Comptroller General of the United States \2\
rendered the following decision:
Public No. 624 fixes the legal rate of pay for Members of the House
of Representatives, and payment at any other rate would be an improper
payment. You are advised therefore that acceptance of salary
certificates calling for an amount less than at the rate provided by
law is not, authorized.
You may only make payment of salary at the rate fixed by law. A
declining to receive payment of salary at the rate fixed by law or the
difference in amount between the old and the new rate of salary does
not necessarily affect the right thereto, nor as a general rule
preclude the individual or his legal representatives from subsequently
making a claim as for unpaid salary. The accounts of the Government are
entitled to be kept and payments made so that the transactions will
appear therefrom as closed, and if one does not for personal reasons
wish to retain the whole amount which the law provides he shall be
paid, he is free to remit back to the United States such amount as he
does not wish to retain with a statement of his reasons therefor. The
transaction will then appear as an acquittance to the United States of
any future claims for salary and the remittance back made by the
individual is in the status substantially of a gift to the United
States which may properly go into the general funds of the Treasury
without being subject, to future claim for unpaid salary, as would be
possible should any other rule be followed.
As a general rule, several checks should not be issued to pay a
single obligation of the Government and there appearing no interest of
the United States to require payment by more than one check, you are
advised that one check only should be issued therefor.
204. It is the custom to grant to the widow or other dependent of
deceased Member one year's salary.
The payment of a year's salary to widows of deceased Members is a,
gratuity, and in event of the death of the beneficiary prior to payment
there is no authority to make payment to any one else.
In conformity with long-established custom under which a year's
salary is. granted to the widow or heirs of a deceased Member, the act
of March 28, 1918,\3\ appropriated as follows:
To pay the widow of Ebenezer J. Hill, late a Representative from the
State of Connecticut, $7,500.
Mrs. Hill died May 23, 1918, without having received payment of the
amount appropriated, and Clara M. Hill, administratrix of her estate,
applied for payment.
On September 26, 1918, in response to a request from the Clerk of the
House, the Comptroller \4\ of the Treasury decided: \5\
An appropriation of this character is a gratuity. Prior to making the
appropriation there existed no legal right in anyone to the amount
provided, and the making the appropriation gave no legal right to
anyone beyond the one named in the appropriation. The fact that the
widow incurred indebtedness or otherwise obligated herself because of
the appropriation furnishes no legal reason for paying the amount to
one not named or comprehended in the appropriation. It, is not a relief
measure but a gift, and the one named by Congress to receive the gift
being unable to receive it because of death, the gift can not be paid
to a representative of the one named without, the specific authority of
Congress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MSS. Vol. XLIII, p. 891.
\2\ Comptroller General, J. R. McCarl.
\3\ Stat. L., p. 497.
\4\ Comptroller Walter W. Warwick.
\5\ 25 Comptroller's Decisions, p. 251.
Sec. 205
205. Subsistence expenses of members of committees on official
missions are not reimbursed at commuted rates or on per diem allowances
but on vouchers for actual expenses.
On April 21, 1931,\1\ the Comptroller General of the United States
\2\ handed down the following decision:
Members of congressional committees engaged in the examination of
estimates in the field are not civilian officers or employees of the
departments or establishments within the purview of the subsistence act
of 1926, nor are their traveling expenses payable from appropriations
for ``traveling expenses``, but under the specific provisions for
``examination of estimates for appropriations in the field.'' They may
not be reimbursed for their subsistence expenses at a commuted rate nor
granted a per diem in lieu of subsistence, but are limited to actual
expenses.
206. Old and new systems of providing clerks for Members.
Clerk hire is paid from date of filing of credentials and not from
date of election.
Clerks designated by Member are placed upon the roll of employees of
the House, and are subject to removal by the Member, with or without
cause.
Allowance for clerk hire was first authorized in the joint resolution
approved March 3, 1893,\4\ not to exceed $100 for any month during a
session to Members who were not chairman of committees entitled to a
clerk. By the act of July 7, 1898,\5\ the allowance was extended to all
members throughout the year except to chairmen of committees during a
session.
Under the provisions of the legislative appropriation act of 1907,\6\
each Member and Delegate received $1,500 annually for the hire of
clerks necessarily employed by him in the discharge of official duties.
On November 8, 1911,\7\ in response to an inquiry from the Clerk of
the House, the Comptroller of the Treasury \8\ held that Members elect
should be paid this allowance from and including the date on which
their credentials were filed and not from date of election.
The amount provided for clerk hire was increased in 1917 \3\ to
$2,000, in 1919 \4\ to $3,200, and in 1924 \9\ to $4,000, with the
provision that no person receive a salary therefrom in excess of
$3,300; in 1929,\10\ to $5,000, no person to receive in excess of
$3,900 per annum. The Joint Resolution of January 25,1923,\11\ provides
that the amount shall--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comptroller's Decisions, A-36217.
\2\ Comptroller J. R. McCarl.
\3\ 39 Stat. L., p. 1076.
\4\ 40 Stat. L., p. 1219.
\5\ 30 Stat. L., p. 687.
\6\ 34 Stat. L., p. 942.
\7\ 18 Comptroller's Decisions, p. 337.
\8\ Comptroller Walter W. Warwick.
\9\ 2 U.S.C. 74.
\10\ 46 Stat. L., p. 38.
\11\ 2 U.S.C. 92.
Sec. 207
be paid by the Clerk of the House of Representatives to one or two
persons to be designated by each Member, Delegate, and Resident
Commissioner, the names of such persons to be placed upon the roll of
employees of the House of Representatives, together with the amount to
be paid each, and Representatives, Delegates, and Resident
Commissioners elect to Congress shall likewise be entitled to make such
designations.
And further provides--
That such persons shall be subject to removal at any time by such
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner with or without cause.
207. The act \1\ of June 20, 1929, provides:
The clerk hire for each member, Delegate, and Resident Commissioner
shall be at the rate of $5,000 per annum and shall be paid in
accordance with the act of January 25, 1923: \2\ Provided, That no
person shall receive a salary from such clerk hire at a rate in excess
of $3,900 per annum.
Under this statute the allowance of clerk hire is increased from
$4,000 to $5,000, and the maximum amount payable to any one person is
increased from $3,300 to $3,900.
No Member may appoint more than two persons to receive compensation
from the allowance and appointments are not retroactive to a date prior
to a current month.
The allowance is paid in monthly installments and is not cumulative.
Any portion of a monthly allowance not absorbed reverts to the
Treasury.
208. Death or resignation of a Member terminates the employment of
clerks designated by him.
On July 29, 1919, in response \3\ to a request of the Clerk of the
House, the Comptroller of the Treasury \4\ rendered a decision in the
claim of S. L. Irby, designated as clerk to Mr. J. Willard Ragsdale, of
South Carolina. Mr. Ragsdale died July 23, 1919, and the question arose
as to whether the employment of the clerk was automatically terminated
by the death of the Member or whether the clerk served until the
appointment of a clerk by Mr. Ragsdale's successor.
The comptroller decided:
In view of the facts that the clerks are personal appointees, that
they are subject to removal in the discretion of the appointing
authority, and especially that they are necessarily employed by a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner in the discharge of his
official and representative duties, as set forth in the act of March 1,
1919, I am of the opinion that the death or resignation of a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner terminates the employment of the
clerk appointed by him under the authority of the acts quoted.
209. On March 6, 1920,\5\ in response to a request of the financial
clerk of the Senate, the Comptroller of the Treasury \2\ rendered a
decision on the status of persons designated by Mr. John H. Bankhead,
of Alabama, and acting as personal clerks and as clerks to committees
of which he was chairman at the time of his death.
The comptroller held:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 46 Stat. L., p. 32.
\2\ U. S. Code, title 2, sec. 92.
\3\ 26 Comptroller's Decisions, p. 726.
\4\ Comptroller Walter W. Warwick.
\5\ 26 Comptroller's Decisions, p. 86.
Sec. 210
At the time of his death Senator Bankhead was chairman of the
Committee on Expenditures in the Interior Department, which committee
is not one specifically provided with clerkships. If the clerks who
served under him and under his committee were appointed by or for him
as his individual clerks you are not authorized to continue them on the
pay roll for any period subsequent to his death.
210. The statute providing for clerks for Members does not require
the designation of two clerks, but merely limits the number to not more
than two.
Payment of clerk hire from lump sum appropriations to persons carried
on the rolls in another capacity is additional compensation and
prohibited by law.
The statute prohibiting payment of two or more salaries exceeding
$2,000 per annum in the aggregate applies to clerks to members.
One person may be designated as clerk to two Members if the aggregate
compensation is within the limitation prescribed by law.
On July 18, 1919,\1\ the Clerk of the House submitted to the
Comptroller of the Treasury the following inquiries:
First. Is the Clerk of the House authorized to pay compensation at
the rate of $3,200 per annum to one clerk regularly designated and
placed on the rolls as clerk to a Member of the House?
Second. May a person be carried on the rolls in the dual capacity of
clerk to a Member at $300 per annum and at the same time as janitor to
the Committee on Public Lands, and, if so, may the additional
compensation authorized by section 7 of the act of March 1, 1919, be
paid in each instance?
Third. May a Member of the House designate a person to be a clerk
under the provisions of Joint Resolution No. 104 at compensation of or
exceeding $2,000 per annum if such person be on the roll of employees
of the House as a committee clerk or in another capacity?
Fourth. Is the additional compensation authorized by the act of March
1, 1919, payable to a Member's clerk at any rate of basic compensation
below $2,500?
Fifth. May one person be designated as clerk to two Members, provided
the aggregate compensation of the two employments, including the so-
called bonus, does not exceed $2,000 per annum?
The comptroller \2\ replied:
You are advised that if a Member shall elect to designate only one
person as his clerk at a salary not exceeding $3,200 per annum and the
name of such person shall be regularly placed upon the roll of
employees of the House at such rate of compensation, you would be
authorized to pay said person at the rate of compensation so fixed.
As to the second point; the salary or compensation of the position of
janitor to the Committee on Public Lands is fixed by law.\3\ Therefore,
the payment from the lump sum appropriation for clerk hire of
additional compensation to the person holding such position is
prohibited by the provisions of section 1765, Revised Statutes.
The so-called bonus at the rate of $240 per annum is to be paid to
each civilian employed (with certain exceptions). In no circumstances
can one person receive more than $240 a year, or at that rate. The
bonus does not apply to offices or positions but to a person--a civil
employee of the Government. He can not draw more than one bonus.
The third question is answered in the negative as in direct
contravention of the provisions of section 6 of the act of May 10,
1916.\4\ See also answer to your second question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 26 Comptroller's Decisions p. 51.
\2\ Comptroller Walter W. Warwick.
\3\ 10 Stat., L., 1218.
\4\ U. S. Code, title 5, sections 58, 59.
Sec. 211
In answer to your fourth question you are advised that the additional
compensation authorized by Section 7 of the act of March 1, 1919,\1\ is
payable to the clerks in question subject, of course, to all of the
limitations and restrictions in said section relative to rates of
compensation, the 60 per centum limitation, payments from lump-sum
appropriations, requirement of duty with respect to time, certificate
as to ability and qualifications, etc.
Your fifth and last question is answered in the affirmative.
211. Compensation of clerks may be paid on the third of each month.
On February 21, 1921 \2\ the Comptroller of the Treasury \3\ decided
that the month for dividing the annual compensation of clerks to
Members into monthly installments may begin on the 4th of each month,
and payment may be made on the 3d of the month, which would be
coincident with the payment of Members.
212. A Member unseating another is not entitled to clerk hire prior
to taking of oath and designation of clerks.
On February 25, 1921,\4\ the House decided the Pennsylvania election
case of John R. Farr v. Patrick McLane against the sitting member and
seated the contestant. Thereupon, Mr. Farr designated clerks, and the
question arose as to whether such clerks were entitled to compensation
from the beginning of the Sixty-sixth Congress.
The Clerk of the House addressed to the Comptroller of the Treasury
an inquiry as to whether Mr. Farr was entitled to clerk-hire
allowance--
as a Member-elect from and including March 4, 1919, to June 30, 1919
``and'' to clerk-hir6 allowance from July 1, 1919, to and including
February 24, 1921, he having unseated another who drew clerk-hire
allowance from March 4, 1919, to June 30, 1919, and designated persons
to receive such allowance from July 1, 1919, to February 25, 1921.
On March 2, 1921,\5\ in response to this inquiry, the comptroller \3\
decided:
The appropriations for the fiscal years 1920 and 1921 \6\ do not
provide for the payment to the Member for clerk hire as in the
appropriation for the fiscal year 1919,\7\ and I understand also that
during the period covered by the second question, July 1, 1919, to
February 24, 1921, Mr. Farr did not and could not comply with the
requirements of the joint resolution of July 11, 1919,\8\ by
designating persons to be paid clerk hire and having them placed upon
the roll of employees of the House of Representatives with the amount
to be paid to each. In addition there is the express direction in the
proviso to the appropriation for the fiscal year 1920,\9\ that no part
of the clerk hire ``shall be paid to any Member, Delegate or Resident
Commissioner.''
Although there is some difference in the language of the last two
appropriations from that for the fiscal year 1919, the clear intent of
all three appropriations is to pay for clerk hire ``necessarily
employed'' and that there shall be a showing of such employment. This
negatives whatever authority there may be in the appropriations for the
fiscal year 1919 to pay the Member the clerk hire; and as to the last
two appropriations, there being no provision for payment to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 Stat., L., 1267.
\2\ 27 Comptroller's Decisions P. 743.
\3\ Comptroller Walter W. Warwick.
\4\ Third Session Sixty-sixth Congress, Journal p. 253; Record, p.
3910.
\5\ 27 Comptroller's Decisions P. 766.
\6\ 41 Stat., 637.
\7\ 40 Stat., 764.
\8\ 41 Stat., 162.
\9\ 40 Stat., 1219.
Sec. 213
the Member, the requirements to designate the persons to receive
payment precludes payment to anyone else.
The two questions are answered negatively.
213. The disposition of stationery allowance to Members through the
stationery room.
Purchase through the stationery room of articles other than
stationery and necessary office, supplies is restricted by law.
Since 1893 a sum has been regularly appropriated allowing each Member
$125 for stationary for each regular and special session of Congress.
This allowance is placed to the credit of Members in the stationery
room at the beginning of each session and may be disposed of in two
ways: A Member may either draw the entire allowance of $125 in cash
when the session of Congress for which the allowance is made convenes,
or may leave it to his credit and charge against it for stationery and
office supplies, as needed, until exhausted.
A Member drawing the allowance in cash thereby withdraws his official
credit account from the stationery room and thereafter purchases are on
a cash basis, chargeable to him personally. When the allowance is
permitted to remain to the Member's credit and exhausted through the
purchase of supplies charged against it, additional stationery or
supplies are likewise charged to his personal account.
For the convenience of Members, purchases from the stationery room
made after official accounts have been closed, are charged to their
personal accounts and statements rendered to them monthly.
Purchases through the stationery room of articles other than
stationery and office supplies necessary to the conduct of public
business is restricted by the Act of February 20, 1923,\1\ as follows:
No part of the funds herein appropriated shall be used for the
purpose of purchasing by or through the stationery rooms articles other
than stationery and office supplies essential to and necessary for the
conduct of public business.
214. Statutes authorize the sale of stationery for official use and
the binding of official documents for Members by the Public Printer at
cost.--The sale of stationery by the Public Printer at cost is
authorized by the act of June 5, 1920,\2\ which provides:
Paper, envelopes, and blank books required by the stationery rooms of
the Senate and House of Representatives for sale to Senators and
Members for official use may be purchased from the Public Printer at
actual cost thereof and payment therefor shall be made before delivery.
Orders for such supplies are placed through the House stationery
rooms and payment is required before delivery.
The following resolution adopted by the Joint Committee on Printing
August 14, 1913, restricts the requisitioning of embossing:
Resolved, That the Public Printer be requested to discontinue the
embossing of letterheads, note heads, and envelopes for Congress, its
officials, committees, and Members: Provided, That such embossing may
be done if the cost thereof, in excess of the amount that printing the
same would cost the Government, is charged to the person so ordering.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 Stat. L., p. 1280; U. S. Code, title 2, secs. 110-112.
\2\ U.S. Code, sec. 110, p. 9.
Sec. 215
Authorization for binding of official documents by the Public Printer
at cost is provided by law \1\ as follows:
That the Public Printer be authorized to bind at the Government
Printing Office any books, maps, charts, or documents published by
authority of Congress, upon application of any Member of the Senate or
House of Representatives, upon payment of the actual cost of such
binding.
215. Boxes are provided for the mailing of frankable matter.
On May 9, 1911,\2\ Mr. John C. Floyd, of Arkansas, from the Committee
on Accounts, submitted a report \3\ from which the following is an
excerpt:
The duty of distributing packing boxes for frankable matter remains
that of the Clerk, and it will not impose a heavy duty on the force at
his command to discharge it in such manner as the Clerk may direct.
Heretofore these boxes have been distributed from the Clerk's document
room. For the information of new Members we will state that an annual
appropriation of $3,000 is made as a part of the House contingent fund
for packing boxes, intended for the shipment of bulky frankable matter.
This custom has obtained for any years, the item dating back to 1857,
when ``boxes for books'' were provided for; in 1862 the term ``packing
boxes'' was first and has since been employed. These boxes are secured
by contract pursuant to the act of March 3, 1901 (Supp. R. S., vol. 2,
p. 1530), and paid for out of the contingent fund upon vouchers
approved by the Committee on Accounts. Each Member is entitled to 3
boxes--1 large pine, 1 large redwood, and 1 small pine. The latter is
generally used for sending out bedding plants from the Botanic Garden
to any given address, the box being labeled here and sent to the garden
with a Member's frank. The large boxes are convenient for mailing
documents and files of official correspondence to Member's homes at the
end of a session.
With the increase in the membership of the House in 1913, this
appropriation was increased to $4,500 and has remained unchanged in
subsequent appropriation bills, except in that of 1920, when it was
stricken out on a point of order. In 1921, although included in the
bill, the appropriation was not expended as the rapid rise in prices
following the wax rendered it inadequate. The following year it was
found sufficient to provide each Member with one box, and since, that
time the quota has been limited to one substantial box for each Member.
216. Discussion of various services of the House, including the House
restaurant, House barber shops, and stationery and mileage allowances
to Members.
On April 6; 1922,\4\ in a debate proceeding under unanimous consent,
Mr. Frank W. Mondell, of Wyoming, discussing various services of the
House, said:
Mr. Speaker, in view of what has been said about the restaurant, the
barber shop, and the stationery room, I think it is proper that there
would be a brief statement made with regard to those institutions at
this time. For many years, certainly far beyond my 25 years of service,
certain colored men have been employed in the House who in addition to
their other duties, for which they were paid a small salary, serve the
Members and the employees of the House as barbers. I have never been
shaved or had a hair cut in the House for which I have paid less than I
would pay at any commercial shop anywhere. The necessity for the
maintenance of barber shops in the House is apparent to anyone who
knows anything about the business of the House. Members and employees
can not always find the.time to go down town. It is necessary to have a
barber shop. The barbers in the House are paid a small sum for work
which they actually perform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U. S. Code, sec. 161, p. 1425.
\2\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 1153.
\3\ House Report No. 25.
\4\ Second session Sixty-second Congress. Record, p. 5120.
Sec. 217
In addition to that they serve the Members and employees, and they are
paid for that service by the Members or the employees whom they serve.
We have had for many years a session allowance of $125 each for
stationery. We procure that stationery through the stationery room.
There lies on my desk to-day a statement from the stationery room to
the effect that my stationery account is exhausted. That is not an
uncommon experience; it is, I think, the usual experience of Members
who endeavor to serve their constituents by answering promptly and
fully their correspondence.
We do furnish a room for a restaurant in this building. That is
absolutely essential for the conduct of the business of the House and
for the accommodation of those who have business with the House and its
committees or of the visiting public. All are treated alike and all pay
the same price. Quite recently an arrangement has been made under which
under certain condition it is possible that there will be something of
a charge on the contingent fund for the maintenance of the restaurant,
but that is doubtful. We pay at the restaurant for what we obtain
there, and pay, I think, a very good price.
The mileage allowance is granted once a session of Congress. For one,
I desire to offer testimony to the effect that during my service here,
while I never have traveled except as it was necessary to travel
between Washington and my home, the mileage allowance made to me,
though it is a considerable sum, has not fully paid the bill.
During the course of the debate Mr. Finis J. Garrett, of Tennessee,
asked:
I would like to ask the gentleman from Wyoming if he knows how long
it has been the law that a Member of Congress shall receive 20 cents a
mile each way over the shortest traveled route between his home and
Washington?
Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, replied that the rate was
established in 1866, and Mr. Thomas U. Sisson, of Mississippi, added:
One of the first controversies that came up on the floor of the House
after the Government was organized was the equalization of compensation
of Members of Congress. In order that their compensation might be
equalized the fathers of this Republic and the First Congress--or I
think the second-provided that mileage should be paid from the home of
the Member to the city of Washington and return, so that every Member
of Congress might receive exactly the compensation for services
rendered here.
Continuing the discussion, Mr. James R. Mann, of Illinois, said:
Each Member of the House is entitled to a credit In the stationery
account of $125 for each session of Congress. The average cost to the
average Member of the House for his stationery supplies amounts to a
great deal more than $125 for each session of Congress. That allowance
was made years ago, before a Member of Congress even had a secretary,
much less two. It is credit in the stationery room. The Member of
Congress can withdraw the entire $125 in cash if he chooses to do so.
That is what I have usually done since I have been a Member of the
House. Then he pays for his stationery or other supplies of that
character as he gets them in cash out of his own pocket. Having the
right to withdraw the $125 in cash, he may obtain from the stationery
room any kind of supplies which they will purchase for him, and it is
then charged up to his $125, but when he does that he pays the other
bills for his stationery out of pocket.
217. Conditions under which the franking privilege is exercised by
the Member.
There is no provision of law under which the frank may be used for
return reply.
Limit of weight of matter mailed under frank is specified by law.
The franking privilege does not extend to air mail, or with certain
exceptions to foreign mails unless forwarded by Department of State.
Sec. 217
The franking privilege extends to telegraph service relating to
official business.
Ex-Members of Congress are entitled to the franking privilege until
the first day of December following expiration of their term of office.
The law \1\ extends to Members of Congress the privilege of mailing
free under their frank the Congressional Record and extracts therefrom,
public documents printed by order of Congress, and correspondence upon
``official or departmental business.''
Communications which a Member of Congress desires to send to his
constituents containing a recital of facts relating exclusively to his
public record in Congress or requesting their views on questions
pertaining to legislative matters, but embodying no comment of a
personal nature or solicitation of personal favor, are regarded as upon
official business and, therefore, frankable. The test of frankability
of mail is whether its contents relate solely to official or
departmental business. Letters and other matter mailed under the
congressional frank should be wholly official and not directly or
suggestively personal.
There is no provision of law under which a person receiving a request
from a Member of Congress for information, official or otherwise, may
send such information in the mails free of postage in an envelope
bearing the frank of such Member of Congress furnished by the
Member.\2\
The weight for official correspondence mailed under the frank of a
Member of Congress is limited to 4 ounces. The limit of weight of
matter on official or departmental business except ``for books and
documents published or circulated by order of Congress,'' is not
exceeding 4 pounds for each package.\3\
Public documents are mailable regardless of their weight, and,
therefore, a packing box containing public documents only, is mailable
under frank without, regard to its weight. If a box weighs more than 4
pounds and contains any matter in addition to public documents, it is
not frankable. A package containing stationery and correspondence
constituting the official files of a Member of Congress addressed to
himself, to be mailable under frank, must not exceed 4 pounds in
weight. Correspondence sent by a Member of Congress upon official
business to other than a Government official can not be mailed under
frank if it exceeds 4 ounces in weight.
Official mail in franked envelopes is not entitled to be dispatched
by air mail unless the regular postage for air mail is prepaid thereon.
Ex-members of Congress are entitled to the franking privilege until
the first day of December following the expiration of their respective
terms of office. The Congressional Record or parts thereof may not,
however, be carried in the mails free of postage under the frank of an
ex-Member of Congress.\4\
The franking privilege extends to the Territories and insular
possessions of the United States and, by special conventions, to
Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Panama, but to no other foreign country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Code, title 39, see. 235; 20 Stat. L. p. 10.
\2\ Sections 608 and 610, Postal Laws and Regulations, 1932.
\3\ U.S. Code, title 39, sec. 327; section 577 Postal Laws and
Regulations, 1932.
\4\ 18 Stat. L., p. 343; 28 Stat. L., p. 622. U.S. Code, title 39,
sec. 325, title 39, sec. 326.
Sec. 218
However, official mail addressed under the frank of a Member to
accredited representatives of the United States in foreign countries
and forwarded in care of the Department of State wi1l be carried free
in diplomatic pouches.
Telegrams relating to official or departmental business are frankable
when endorsed by the Member as ``official business'' or ``Government
business.'' Such messages are subject to review by the Committee on
Accounts, and when found to relate to other than official business are
charged to the personal account of the Member. The payment of telegraph
tolls on a frank of a Member began in 1906 with the discontinuance of
franks issued gratuitously to Members by telegraph companies. Such
payment is without specific statutory authorization except as a
necessary expense of the House and is provided through allocation from
the fund for miscellaneous items appropriated in the legislative bill.
218. The weight of official correspondence and public documents
mailable under the frank is specified by law.--On June 6, 1929.\1\ Mr.
Ross A. Collins, of Mississippi, under leave to extend his remarks in
the Record, inserted the following:
Post Office Department,
Third Assistant Postmaster General,
Washington, July 23, 1928.
Mr. William Tyler Page,
Clerk, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.,
My Dear Mr. Page: In reply to your letter of the 18th instant, in
regard to the franking privilege of Members of Congress, I have to say
that section 85 of the act of January 12, 1895 (28 Stat. 622), embodied
in sections 479 and 481, Postal Laws and Regulations, provides as
follows with regard to the franking by Members of Congress of public
documents and mail upon official or departmental business:
``The Vice President, Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in
Congress, the Secretary of the Senate, and Clerk of the House of
Representatives may send and receive through the mall all public
documents printed by order of Congress; and the name of the Vice
President, Senator, Representative, Delegate, Secretary of the Senate,
and Clerk of the House shall be written thereon, and the proper
designation of the office he holds; and the provisions of this section
shall apply to each of the persons named therein until the last day of
December following the expiration of their respective terms of office.
(Sec. 479, Postal Laws and Regulations.)
``The Vice President, Members and Members elect of, and Delegates and
Delegates elect to Congress shall have the privilege of sending free
through the mails, and under their frank, any mail matter to any
Government official or to any person, correspondence, not exceeding 1
ounce in weight upon official or departmental business. (The limit of
weight for official correspondence under this paragraph was increased
to 4 ounces by the act of April 28, 1904, 33 Stat. 441, sec. 481,
Postal Laws and Regulations.)''
Except as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the limit of weight
of public documents and matter on official or departmental business
mailed under the frank of a Member of Congress is governed by the law
embodied in section 450, Postal Laws and Regulations, which, in so far
as it is applicable to matter mailed under the frank of a Member of
Congress, provides that the limit of weight of mail matter ``is hereby
declared to be not exceeding 4 pounds for each package thereof * * *
except for books and documents published or circulated by order of
Congress.''
It will be seen from the foregoing that the 4-pound weight limit does
not apply to public documents. However, in order that a package may be
exempt from this restriction as to weight and be mailable under frank,
it must contain public documents only. If a package or box weighs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 2435.
Sec. 219
more than 4 pounds and contains any matter in addition to public
documents, it is not frankable. A package containing stationery and
correspondence constituting the official files of a Member of Congress
addressed to himself, to be mailable under frank, must not exceed 4
pounds in weight. Correspondence sent by a Member of Congress upon
official business to other than a Government official can not be mailed
under frank if it exceeds 4 ounces in weight.
If matter which is not frankable should be inclosed in a package or
box with public documents, the whole would be thereby rendered
unfrankable.
The foregoing is the law which governs the mailing of all public
documents and official matter by Members of Congress, and is applicable
regardless of whether the matter is deposited for at Washington, D. C.,
or at any other post office.
Sincerely yours,
R. S. Regar.
Third Assistant Postmaster General.
219. There is no provision of law under which the frank may be used
for return reply.--On July 21, 1930, in reply to an inquiry from the
Clerk \1\ of the House, submitted at the instance of Mr. Conrad G.
Selvig, of Minnesota, the Third Assistant Postmaster General \2\
rendered the following opinion:
Is is improper under the law to furnish envelopes bearing frank for
the use of individuals in reply to letters, and individuals receiving
such envelopes can not lawfully use them to mail matter free of postage
under the frank of a Member of Congress. * * * Furthermore, there is no
provision of law under which a person receiving a request from a Member
of Congress for information, official or otherwise, may send such
information in the mail free of postage in an envelope bearing the
frank of such Member of Congress.
220. The Committee on Accounts reserves the right to limit the
franking privilege on telegrams and declines to authorize the franking
of cablegrams.--On March 9, 1933, the Committee on Accounts issued the
following bulletin:
The Committee on Accounts desires to bring to the attention of
Members of the House, with a view to their cooperation, the practice of
using telegrams and cablegrams, payment for which is made out of the
contingent fund of the House with the sanction of the Committee on
Accounts.
This practice, and it is only a practice, is neither specifically
authorized by law nor prohibited.
The Postmaster General pursuant to law, has established Government
rates, and Members of Congress are accorded the privilege, somewhat
analagous to the franking privilege on letter correspondence, of
sending telegrams on official business. Each member is provided with an
identification card furnished by the telegraph companies through the
Committee on Accounts, to which committee the companies submit monthly
bills, accompanied by the telegrams. These telegrams are carefully
checked, and for telegrams on other than official business refunds are
made by the senders and the amounts covered back into the contingent
fund. The franking privilege of a Member will be revoked if he fails to
make such refund by the sixth day of the month following the receipt of
the notice.
(1) ``Book,'' block, or identic telegrams to a list of newspaper
addresses, telegrams in the nature of news, congratulations,
condolence, or of a political or personal nature are not official, and
will be charged back to the Members. No telegram shall be held to be
official giving the result of legislation in committee or on the floor,
or in answer to propaganda desiring to know the views of Members.
Telegrams notifying candidates for office of their appointment are not
official. No telephone call carrying any toll will be considered as
official.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ William Tyler Page, of Maryland, Clerk.
\2\ Third Assistant Postmaster General Robert S. Regar.
Sec. 221
(2) The Committee on Accounts has no authority to O. K. cablegrams.
Such communications may be sent through the medium of the State
Department.
221. Opinion of the Attorney General on the law authorizing the
franking of public documents.
While speeches or reports printed in the Congressional Record are
frankable, the addition of price lists, indices, or any other matter,
written, printed, or stamped, destroys the privilege.
The statute authorizing the addressing of franked matter ``on behalf
of'' a Member does not authorize the extension of such privilege to
purchasers of frankable documents.
On March 9, 1914,\1\ in response to a request of the Third Assistant
Postmaster General, the following opinion was transmitted:
Post Office Department,
Office of the Assistant Attorney General,
Washington, March 9, 1914.
Third Assistant,
Division of Classification:
I have considered your letter of March 4, 1914, submitting pamphlet
of a speech of Representative George J. Kindel, delivered in the House
of Representatives on January 16, 1914, on the back of which is an
imprint reading as follows:
``Every citizen will profit by studying the tables contained in
Kindel's speech on express and parcel-post rates. Copies of speech in
franked envelopes delivered to your address at the rate of 1 copy free;
10 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, $1; 1,000 copies, $10; 10,000 copies,
$100. Address George J. Kindel, M. C., Washington, D. C.''
This imprint is not a part of the Congressional Record.
You ask to be advised whether the imprint is, under the law, a
permissible addition to copies of the Congressional Record, or parts
thereof, mailed under frank in parcels not exceeding 4 ounces in
weight.
The law authorizing the franking of the Congressional Record and
parts thereof by Members of Congress in section 5 of the Postal Servi6e
appropriation act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. L., 343), which is as
follows:
``That from and after the passage of this act the Congressional
Record, or any part thereof, or speeches or reports therein contained,
shall, under the frank of a Member of Congress, or Delegate, to be
written by himself, be carried in the mail free of postage, under such
regulations as the Postmaster General shall prescribe.''
On December 19, 1913, I advised you that, under the provisions of
this act, the addition of an index, which did not appear in the
Congressional Record, made to a pamphlet containing speeches delivered
in the Senate, rendered the matter unmailable under the frank of a
Senator. This opinion was in accord with a former opinion of this
office of November 3, 1905 (4 Ops. A. A. G. P. O. D., p. 1), in which a
similar ruling was made.
The addition of the imprint on the back of the pamphlet submitted by
you in this case appears to me to be a more flagrant violation of the
letter and the spirit of the act than the added index in the case
cited, in view of the fact that the index related to the subject matter
of the speeches included in the pamphlet, while the matter contained in
the stamp is advertising and relates solely to the sale and
distribution of the pamphlet in this case. You are therefore advised
that the addition of the imprint renders the pamphlet of Mr. Kindel's
speech unmailable under the act above quoted.
The following appears in the imprint on the speech above referred to:
``Copies of speech in franked envelopes delivered to your address at
the rate of 1 copy free; 10 copies, 10 cents; 100 copies, $1,'' etc.
Apparently, Mr. Kindel proposes not only to frank this unfrankable
matter in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-third Congress. Record, p. 5544.
Sec. 222
bulk, in direct violation of law, but to sell to the purchaser the
right to use the frank in the distribution of the matter by the
purchaser himself.
The act of January 12, 1895 (ch. 23, Sec. 85, 28 Stat. L., 601, 622),
confers authority for franking public documents printed by order of
Congress. This office has decided that two conditions are necessary to
authorize the franking of matter mentioned therein:
1. That the matter shall be sent or received by one of the designated
parties; and
2. That the matter transmitted shall be a public document printed by
order of Congress.
The opinion continues:
``This statute does not give the right to Congressmen to extend to
others the privilege of sending public documents printed by order of
Congress through the mails, but simply gives the right to Congressmen
themselves to send such documents. This of course, does not mean that
the actual mailing of the documents shall be made by the Congressman,
but simply that the mailing shall be in truth the sending by the
Congressman of such matter.'' (4 Ops. A. A. G. P. O. D., p. 4.)
Section 494 of the Postal Laws and Regulations, authorizing the
sending of franked matter in bulk to an addressee, who may address and
mail it, was adopted under authority of the act in question. This
section authorizes the placing of addresses on such franked matter by
the addressee only, ``on behalf of ``the Congressman whose frank is
used, and cannot be extended so as to legalize such a transaction as
the one in question, where the privilege itself is being made the
subject of sale, and the proceeds of which flow to the Congressman
whose frank is thus being used. Aside from the fact that none of the
pamphlets are subject to frank, in view of the addition of this
imprint, as explained in the first part of this opinion, even if they
were originally frankable, their distribution by purchaser under the
frank would be illegal.
You are further advised that the advertising features of the imprint
render the pamphlet unmailable as official correspondence under section
492 of the Postal Laws and Regulations.
The pamphlet is returned to you herewith.
W.H. Lamar,
Assistant Attorney General.
222. Subject matter eligible to the franking privilege. Application
of the law governing the franking privilege.
On September 6, 1916,\1\ Mr. Charles Curtis, of Kansas, caused to be
read, in the Senate, a circular letter mailed by Mr. Henry F. Ashurst,
of Arizona, under his frank. The letter, which was addressed to Mr.
Ashurst's constituents, discussed his record in the Senate, outlined
his position on certain public questions, enumerated bills which he had
supported, named the Senate committees on which he was serving, and
gave his vote on various measures considered in the Senate. Mr. Curtis
stated that he considered the letter a violation of the franking
privilege. Thereupon, Mr. Ashurst submitted the following opinion on
the propriety of transmitting the letter under frank:
Post Office Department,
Third Assistant Postmaster General,
Division of Classification,
Washington, July 6, 1916.
Hon. Henry F. Ashurst,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
My Dear Senator: Referring to your call to-day, submitting a draft of
a circular letter, a copy of which is inclosed, which it is your desire
to send to your constituents and inquiring whether
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-fourth Congress, Record, p. 13918.
Sec. 223
it is frankable, I have to say that a careful examination of the
circular shows that it is upon official business, and therefore
frankable under the law.
Yours very truly,
A. M. Dockery,
Third Assistant Postmaster General.
223. The franking privilege is authorized by statute, and denial or
curtailment of the privilege to any particular Member may not be made
by simple resolution.
On November 11, 1919,\1\ Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, proposed to
offer, as privileged, a resolution prohibiting the mailing under frank
of a certain speech appearing in the Congressional Record of the
previous day.
Mr. Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, made the point of order that the
franking privilege was authorized by law and could not be limited by
simple resolution.
The Speaker \2\ sustained the point of order.
224. There is no statutory provision for the mailing of matter under
the frank of a deceased Member.
On January 13, 1930, in response to a formal inquiry from the Clerk
\3\ of the House, the Third Assistant Postmaster General \4\ submitted
the following decision:
In reply to your letter of the 10th instant, I have to invite your
attention to the inclosed abstract from the laws governing the franking
privilege and to inform you that there is no provision of law under
which matter can continue to be mailed free of postage under the frank
of a deceased Member of Congress.
225. Opinion of the Attorney General as to construction of the
statute forbidding Members being interested in contracts.
Definition of the terms ``agreements'' or ``contracts'' within the
meaning of the statute prohibiting Members from entering into certain
contracts.
On March 12, 1908,\5\ the Secretary of the Interior addressed to the
Attorney General a request for an official opinion upon the following
question:
Are agreements for the purchase of lands, for water rentals, for
conveyance of water rights and similar instruments, contractual in
form, relating to the adjustment of vested water rights, executed in
behalf of the United States by some officer of the Reclamation Service
for purposes within the purview of the reclamation act \6\
``agreements'' or ``contracts'' within the meaning of Revised Statutes,
sections 3739-3742, requiring the insertion of the stipulation in
section 3741.''
The opinion of the Attorney General \7\ submitted March 20, after
quoting the material sections of the statutes referred to, says:
The language of section 3739 is not that which it would seem natural
to use in framing a statute intended to forbid all contracts by Members
of or Delegates to Congress, made with or on behalf of the United
States, except those specially excepted. Language similar to that in
the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 8308.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\3\ William Tyler Page, of Maryland, Clerk.
\4\ F. A. Tilton, Third Assistant Postmaster General.
\5\ Opinions of Attorneys General, p. 537.
\6\ U. S. Code, title 39, sections 411 et seq.
\7\ Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte.
Sec. 225
beginning of section 3742, would seem more appropriate for such
purpose. And for this reason, and because of the language used in other
portions, this section might be thought to only forbid that any Member
of or Delegate to Congress should be interested in or in part the
beneficiary of any contract made by another person with or on behalf of
the United States. But the same reason and policy which would dictate
this would, equally at least, forbid that such Member or Delegate
should be the sole party in interest in such contract.
Besides this, the language, when carefully considered, makes it clear
that the sections were intended to prevent any such Member or Delegate
from being in any way a party to such contracts. Thus-section 3739
provides that no such Member or Delegate shall ``undertake, execute,
hold, or enjoy, in whole or in part, any contract or agreement made or
entered into on behalf of the United States by any officers or persons
authorized to make contracts on behalf of the United States.''
This plainly forbids any such Member or Delegate to make or be a
party to such contract, either by himself or with others. And while
section 3741, in saying that in any such contract with the United
States there ``shall be inserted an express condition that no Member of
(or Delegate to) Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of
such contract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise therefrom,''
would seem to indicate something different from a contract made
directly with such Member or Delegate, yet I do not think this can
overcome the plain meaning of the other portions of the sections and
especially of section 3742, which provides that--
``Every officer who, on behalf of the United States, directly or
indirectly, makes or enters into any contract, bargain, or agreement in
writing or otherwise, other than as are hereinbefore excepted, with any
Member of [or Delegate to] Congress, shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall be fined three thousand dollars.''
This plainly includes every such contract not thus excepted, and, as
we can not suppose that it was intended to impose this penalty for an
act which the other sections permitted, it must be taken that their
prohibition is as broad as is that of this section.
The papers to which you refer and samples of which are transmitted
with your note are certainly ``contracts'' or ``agreements'' as those
words are used in the sections referred to, and as they are executory
and continuous in their nature, and for an indefinite future
performance, they are not within the exception of section 3740, but are
within the prohibition of these sections.
This construction makes these provisions forbid that any Member of,
or Delegate to, Congress shall be a party to, or interested in any
contract with, or on behalf of, the United States, which is in its
nature executory and continuous as to future performance, and perhaps
this is just what was intended by these sections.
With the policy or expediency of forbidding a Member of Congress to
be a party to, or interested in a contract which Congress alone can
authorize, or how far such prohibition should, or should not, extend we
have no concern. This is for Congress alone.
From the nature of the contract transmitted with your note it is
manifest that in case a person with whom it is desired to make such
contract is a Member of, or Delegate to, Congress, it would interfere
with the carrying out of what is contemplated by the reclamation act
referred to, if he could not enter into such contract, when willing to
do so; and that it would be to the advantage of the Government to be
permitted to make such Member the same kind of contract that it makes
with any other person in aid of such reclamation project. And it may
well be thought as it is urged here, that Congress did not intend that
these sections should operate to prohibit such contracts as these, and
that, had the attention of Congress been called to this, it would have
modified these sections as to their application to the reclamation act.
But in dealing with a statute fairly plain in its meaning, such
considerations have no place; and in such cases the legislative intent,
even if it were susceptible of legal ascertainment, cuts little figure
except as it is expressed in legislative enactments, and when so
expressed the legal meaning of what is said must be taken to express
the legislative intent, wherever that interest is material.
Sec. 226
And it is familiar law that even in a clear casus omissus a matter
omitted by inadvertence or by being overlooked or unforeseen, cannot be
supplied by construction.
After careful examination of the whole subject, I am of the opinion
that the contracts to which you refer are within the prohibition of
sections 3739, 3740, 3741, and 3742, Revised Statutes, and your
question is answered in the affirmative.
226. A Member may resign his seat by a letter transmitted to the
House alone.
Instance wherein a Member tendered his resignation to take effect at
a future date.
While not required, it is customary for a Member to notify the House
of his resignation.
When received, a resignation is laid before the House by the Speaker
and no action by the House is required.
On January 5, 1921,\1\ the Speaker \2\ laid before the House the
following communication:
1089 Commonwealth Avenue,
Boston, Mass., January 3, 1921.
Hon. Frederick H. Gillbert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Sir: I hereby tender my resignation as the Representative in the
Sixty-sixth Congress from the ninth congressional district of
Massachusetts, such resignation to take effect on the 5th day of
January, 1921.
Respectfully, yours,
Alvan T. Fuller.
In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Joseph Walsh, of
Massachusetts, as to whether any action should be taken by the House in
acceptance of the resignation, the Speaker said:
The Chair finds the precedents are to the effect that when a person
resigns he generally resigns to the governor of his State and notifies
the Speaker, although there are precedents where a person has resigned
directly to the Speaker; and in that case, at least in one instance,
the House has adopted a resolution ordering the Speaker to direct the
Clerk to notify the governor of the State. The Chair does not think it
necessary that that be done. The Chair presumes the governor of the
State will also be notified by the gentleman himself.
In answer to a further parlimentary inquiry by Mr. Martin B. Madden,
of Illinois, as to whether a Member was required to notify the House of
his resignation the Speaker replied that while it was not necessary it
was customary.
227. Instance wherein a Member tendered his resignation to take
effect at a future date.
A Member having resigned during vacation, transmitted to the Clerk a
letter of notification which was laid before the House when Congress
reconvened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 1017.
\2\ Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
Sec. 228
On December 1, 1924,\1\ the first day of the session, the Speaker
laid before the House the following communication, which was read and
laid on the table:
August 28, 1924.
The Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir: Quite a long time ago I forwarded a formal resignation of
my seat in Congress to Gov. R. A. Nestos, Bismarck, N. Dak., to take
effect on September 2, 1924.
Yours, respectfully,
George M. Young.
228. A Member who has tendered his resignation to take effect at a
future date is entitled to exercise all rights of membership prior to
that time.--On May 13, 1929,\2\ the Speaker laid before the House the
following communication:
Washington, D. C., May 10, 1929.
Hon. Nicholas Longworth,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Speaker: I beg leave to inform you that I have this day
transmitted to the Governor of the State of Minnesota my resignation as
a Representative in the Congress of the United States from the fifth
district of Minnesota, to be effective at the close of business June
30, this year.
Respectfully yours,
Walter H. Newton.
Subsequently, on June 13 \3\ Mr. Newton answered to his name on a
yea-and-nay vote on the passage of the bill (H. R. 1) to establish a
Federal Farm Board to promote the effective marketing of agricultural
commodities in interstate and foreign commerce,. and to place
agriculture on a basis of economic equality with the other industries.
The roll call having been completed, Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas,
submitted a parliamentary inquiry as to Mr. Newton's vote.
The Speaker \4\ replied:
His resignation does not take effect until June 30.
229. An exceptional instance wherein a Member having notified the
House by letter of his resignation to take effect at a future date was
permitted to withdraw the communication.
A request for unanimous consent that the Journal show proceedings
which did not take place was denied by the House.
The Record failing to include communications read from the desk and
objection being made on that account, the Speaker directed that they be
printed in the Record of the following day.
On February 3, 1927,\5\ Mr. Finis J. Gaxrett, of Tennessee, submitted
as a parliamentary inquiry:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Sixty-eighth Congress, Record, p. 6.
\2\ First session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 1195.
\3\ Record, p. 2789.
\4\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Sixty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 2908.
Sec. 229
Mr. Speaker, I desire to make an inquiry concerning the Record.
Yesterday there was read to the House from the Clerk's desk a letter
from the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mills, advising, as I recollect,
that there was being transmitted therewith a copy of a letter which he
had addressed to the Governor of the State of New York, being his
resignation as a Member of the House. That proceeding does not appear
in the Record. I presume the Chair has some knowledge of the reasons
why it did not appear?
The Speaker \1\ explained:
The Chair will be glad to relate the circumstances. The Chair laid
before the House just before adjournment a letter from the gentleman
from New York inclosing a copy of a letter which he had just addressed
to the Governor of New York announcing his resignation as a Member of
this House. Subsequently, just after adjournment, a gentleman came to
the office of the Speaker with the statement that the gentleman from
New York had decided to withhold his resignation for some time and had
telegraphed, as the Chair understood, to the Governor of New York,
stating that he did not desire to present his resignation at this time,
and requested the Chair to withhold his original letter from the
Record. In view of the fact that the gentleman from New York intends to
withhold his resignation as a Member of this House and has not been
sworn in as Undersecretary of the Treasury, his letter being simply a
statement of the fact that he was about to transmit a letter of
resignation on which the House was not compelled to take any action
whatever, the Chair assumed that there would be no objection to leaving
out of the Record the fact that his letter had been sent. Of course, if
any gentleman should make any objection to that course or should
request that the letter be printed in the Record, under all the
circumstances the Chair would be glad to have that done.
The letter from the gentleman from New York simply notifies the
Speaker of the House that his resignation was in course of
transmission. It had not been accepted. Of course, the ordinary
procedure, as the Chair recollects, is, when a Member resigns, to
tender his resignation to the governor of the State, and when the
resignation is accepted, he notifies the House to that effect. Then the
House is officially notified of the resignation. In this particular
case the House was not notified because the resignation was not
accepted.
Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, protested:
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the integrity not only of the Record
but of the Journal of the House of Representatives, I think that letter
and the letter to the Governor of New York ought to appear in the
Record. If no withdrawal of the resignation had occurred upon the part
of the gentleman from New York, that letter would have been sufficient
for the Clerk, in the organization of the House, to have known that Mr.
Mills was no longer a Member of the House of Representatives.
I am sure there is no objection to Mr. Mills continuing as a Member
of the House of Representatives. I really wish he could continue as a
Member. I think he more ideally represents and has a better knowledge
of a class of people in this country that are potential politically
than any other man who has been here during my time. I think this
instance here illustrates it very conclusively. We have the gentleman
from New York appointed as Underseeretary of the Treasury. We have his
name sent to the Senate in the morning and confirmed in the afternoon.
We find on the same afternoon--and his purpose was to take the oath to-
day, I might say--that he visits the White House, that the President
and he have an interview, and that he wires the Governor of New York
withdrawing his resignation as a Member of Congress for the time being.
I do not know at the present moment for how long.
I think in the interest of the integrity of the Record, as well as of
the Journal, this matter should appear in the Record and the Journal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
Sec. 230
Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, submitted a request for unanimous
consent that:
both the Journal and the Record may show that on yesterday the
gentleman from New York informed the Speaker that he had withdrawn his
resignation, which he had intended to submit to the governor of his
State, and that he requested that his communication to the House be
withdrawn from the House.
Mr. Garrett objected.
Mr. Speaker, I would venture to suggest that it does not seem to me
it is proper to have that request granted, for this reason, that it was
not something which occurred in the House. The letter from Mr. Mills
was, of course, read from the desk. Privately, Mr. Mills advised the
Speaker that he had withdrawn his resignation.
Now the query is: Can you have your Journal show what occurred
outside of the House at a private conference with the Speaker?
Ought the House to grant unanimous consent to show an act which did
not take place in the House? Certainly I am not trying to embarrass
anybody about this matter, but I do question whether the Journal of any
legislative body on earth ought to show or ever has been made to show
something that occurred outside of that body.
Mr. Garner then requested that the communication appear in the Record
and the Speaker, by unanimous consent, directed:
The Chair will, then, direct that the letters be inserted in the
Record.
The letters referred to follow:
February 2, 1927.
Hon. Nicholas Longworth,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Speaker: I inclose herewith a copy of a letter to the
Governor of the State of New York, tendering my resignation as a
Representative in Congress from the seventeenth New York district.
Very sincerely yours,
Ogden L. Mills.
----------
February 2, 1927.
Hon. Alfred E. Smith
Executive Chamber, Albany, N. Y.
My Dear Sir: I hereby tender my resignation as Representative in
Congress from the seventeenth district of New York, to take effect at
noon on Thursday, February 2, 1927.
I shall very much appreciate it if you will do me the courtesy of
sending your acceptance by wire, addressed to me collect, House of
Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Very truly yours,
Ogden L. Mills.
230. The Speaker having been elected Vice President and a Member of
the succeeding Congress at the same election, transmitted to the
governor of his State his resignation as a Member elect.--On January 1,
1933, John N. Garner, of Texas, who had been elected Vice President and
a Member of the Seventy-third Congress in the general election of
November 8, 1932, transmitted to the governor of his State the
following communication:
Sec. 231
Hon. Ross Sterling,
Governor of Texas.
Sir: I hereby tender to YOU my resignation as a Member elect to the
National House of Representatives for the Seventy-third Congress, the
term of which commences on March 4, 1933.
My election as Vice President of the United States makes it
impossible for me to qualify as a Member of the Seventy-third Congress.
I submit my resignation at this time so you may take such action as
you deem proper to select my successor that he may qualify by March 4
next.
Respectfully,
John N. Garner.
231. Form of resignation of a resident commissioner and notification
of the appointment of his successor.--On April 4, 1932,\1\ the Speaker
laid before the House the following communication:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C., April 4, 1932.
Hon. John N. Garner,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
Sir: I beg leave to inform you that I have this day transmitted to
the Governor of Porto Rico my resignation as Resident Commissioner from
Porto Rico, to take effect April 11, 1932.
Respectfully yours,
Felix Cordova Davila.
On April 28,\2\ the following was received from the Clerk and laid
before the House:
House of Representatives,
Clerk's Office,
Washington, D. C., April 28, 1932.
Hon. John N. Garner,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: I beg to inform you that the certificate of appointment of
Hon. Jose L. Pesquera as Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico to fill
the vacancy caused by the resignation of Hon. Felix Cordova Davila, in
due form of law, has been filed in this office.
Yours very truly,
South Trimble,
Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Thereupon, Mr. Pesquera, appeared and took the oath of office.
No action was taken by the House with reference to either
announcement.
232. The executive of a State sometimes informs the House that he has
received the resignation of a Member.
On June 30, 1921,\3\ the Speaker laid before the House a
communication from the Governor of Iowa, informing the House that Hon.
James W. Good, Member of Congress from the fifth district of Iowa, had
tendered his resignation, effective June 15.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 7419.
\2\ Record, p. 9142.
\3\ First session Sixty-seventh Congress, Record, p. 3253.
233. A discussion of the unwritten rule of seniority of service.--On
May 11, 1928,\1\ Mr. Guy U. Hardy, of Colorado, in the course of
remarks inserted in the Record said:
Seniority is a powerful influence in the United States Congress. The
unwritten law of seniority of service is rarely set aside.
The preferred office rooms in the House Office Building are assigned
the Member of longest service. A Member's rank in committee is
according to seniority and his place at committee table is in order of
length of service. The chairman of the committee, while selected by the
committee on committees, is almost always the oldest member of his
party on the committee.
Conferees who meet with the conferees of the Senate to iron out
differences on bills where the two Houses have not agreed are usually
the oldest members on the committee which has that particular bill in
charge.
The committee on committees is made up for the most part of the
Members who have served longest from their respective States. As a
rule, Members have to serve some years before they are put on the
Appropriations or Ways and Means Committees. The Rules Committee is
made up of older Members--no majority member having served for less
than 10 years. And the same may be said of the steering committee,
there is no one on that committee who has served less than 10 years.
Fifty-seven Members in all out of the total membership of 435 have
served 16 years or more. The Speaker, both party leaders, and 15
chairmanships are held in this group. Those who have served five
terms--10 years or more--number only 182. All the key positions, nearly
all the chairmanships, almost every Member who is ever a conferee, a
large majority of the Ways and Means and Appropriation Committees, all
the Rules Committee, all the steering committee, most all of the
committee on committees, and minority ranking Members (future possible
chairmen) on practically all committees are included in this group.
234. The title ``Father of the House'' as applied to the member of
longest continuous service.--On March 4, 1933, Mr. Gilbert N. Haugen,
of Iowa, retired from the House, having served without interruption
from March 4, 1899, a term of 34 years, the longest continuous service
in the history of the House.
On March 23, 1932,\2\ Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, the
minority leader, rising in his place, said:
Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House and of the
country to the fact that we have with us a man who, to-day, completes
33 years and 20 days of continuous service in the House of
Representatives.
This is the longest period of continuous service that any person has
ever been privileged to serve in this House. I refer to that grandest
old Roman of them all, Gilbert N. Haugen, of Iowa. [Applause, the
Members rising.]
Mr. Speaker, may I add that during all these years Mr. Haugen has
always stood foursquare to every political wind that has blown. He has
not only rendered able, honest, and efficient service to his district,
but he has rendered patriotic service to his Government. I know I speak
the voice of both his Republican and Democratic colleagues when I
extend to him our heartiest congratulations on his long and useful
service. I want the people of his district and the State of Iowa to
know that he has the affection and respect of all his colleagues here
in the House, and we hope his life may be spared for another 33 years
and that he may be with us and continue his efficient and useful
service here.
The Members of the House again rose and stood in applause.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 8440.
\2\ First session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 6730.
Sec. 235
235. At the close of the Sixty-seventh Congress, Mr. Joseph G.
Cannon, of Illinois, retired from the House, after a service extending
from March 4, 1873, to March 4, 1923, with the exception of the Fifty-
second and Sixty-third Congresses, a total of 46 years, the longest
service in the history of either House. He presided as Speaker in the
Fifty-eighth, Fifty-ninth, Sixtieth, and Sixty-first Congresses.
On December 29, 1920,\1\ under a special order in honor of the
occasion, Mr. William A. Rodenberg, of Illinois, said:
Mr. Speaker, this day marks an important event in the political
history of our country. Until yesterday the record for length of
service in the Congress of the United States was held by the late
Justin Smith Morrill, of Vermont, whose combined service in the House
and Senate covered a period of 43 years 9 months and 25 days. To-day
that remarkable record of congressional service is surpassed by one day
by our distinguished and beloved colleague, the Hon. Joseph Gurney
Cannon, of Illinois. An event of such great national interest calls for
more than passing mention. Twice during his long service he went down
in defeat, but they were only temporary defeats, and he was on each
occasion returned by his constituency at the following election. The
two occasions to which I refer were the elections for the Fifty-second
and the Sixty-third Congresses.
These interruptions operated against his being known as ``Father of
the House'' when on some four or five occasions other Members who had
seen but a fraction of his service attained the title. This has caused
the historian to say:
``Very early in its history the House adopted the English custom of
designating for this duty (i. e., administering the oath to the Speaker
elect) the Member of longest continuous service, known as ``Father of
the House.'' For four Congresses John Quincy Adams bore this title.
Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, held it for six terms, and William
D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, sustained it with great credit for 16 years
out of a service of 15 terms. Speakers Randall and Crisp interrupted
the custom by designating William S. Holman, of Indiana, to officiate.
Holman had served as many terms as the then ``Father,'' but not
consecutively.'' \2\
But, irrespective of the temporary interruptions in his long and
distinguished career, the event we commemorate today securely
establishes Joseph G. Cannon in the place of ``Father of a the American
Congresses.''
In the course of the proceedings, Mr. Champ Clark, of Missouri, who
was in charge of time, in yielding to Mr. Isaac R. Sherwood, the date
of whose birth was August 13, 1835, said:
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the oldest man that ever served in
the House of Representatives, General Sherwood, of Ohio.
Mr. Sherwood said in part:
Mr. Speaker, it is true that I am the oldest man who ever served in
this historic Chamber, but I have always been told that there is no
virtue in being old. If there were, I would be the most virtuous here.
Uncle Joe Cannon has honored this Chamber with the longest service of
any man who ever served in any parliamentary body in the world.
In conclusion Mr. Sherwood said:
After the 4th of March next I shall bid farewell to Congress, and
Uncle Joe will then be the oldest Member of Congress and the oldest
member of any parliamentary body in the world, and I wish him a parting
God bless with all my heart.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Sixty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 794.
\2\ Alexander's History and Procedure of the House of
Representatives, p. 35.