coordinate these as in their opinion conditions warrant, and supple-partment of Agriculture showing what the effect would have mented by such additional facilities and powers as may from time to time be provided by legislation.

Spring wheat, Minneapolis.

place of A. E. Daneri. Incumbent's commission expired August place of Peter McKee, resigned.

Mary F. Hight to be postmaster at Youngsville, N. C., în place of St. Elmo Pearce. Incumbent's commission expired July 28, 1923.

Paul E. Bruce to be postmaster at Mars Hill, N. C., in place of W. O. Connor. Incumbent's commission expires January 26, 1924.

NORTH DAKOTA.

Jack Chester Sammons.
Robert Walker Knox.
Henry Arnold Karo.
George Livingston Anderson.

Frederick Gurnee Outcalt.

Charles Pierce.
Hibbert Morse Hill.

POSTMASTERS.

IDAHO.

Elvira R. Denny, Leadore.
Kenneth E. McBride, Salmon.

NEBRASKA.

Elmer V. Barger, Benkelman.
Russell Mooberry, Dorchester.

NORTH DAKOTA.

Arthur Nelson, Courtenay.

OKLAHOMA.

Bernard H. Buchanan, Collinsville.
Elace B. Lairmore, Dewar.
William G. Johnston, Oklahoma City.

PENNSYLVANIA.

Wayne M. Culley, Burgettstown.
Nathaniel E. Lyons, Cheat Haven.
Harry O. Campsey, Claysville.
Margaret L. McKee, Clintonville.
Blair Rorabaugh, Clymer.
Clarence E. Keffel, Donora.
Luther J. Lukehart, Dubois.
Glenn V. Rice, Eldred.

Fred L. Webster, Emporium.
Harry C. Best, Enon Valley.
John C. Chamberlain, Everett.
Roy R. Rhodes, Freedom.
William R. Smith, Harmony.
Riddile S. Rankin, Hickory.
William H. Law, Koppel.
Lula Buffle, Lock No. 4.
Frank Kerr, Madera.

J. Herbert Evans, Mather.
Tillie U. McLaughlin, Midway.
Harry J. Bearer, Monessen.
Eranious E. Bentel, Rochester.
George Glenn, State College.
Harry A. Thompson, Tyrone.
Frances H. Diven, West Bridgewater.
PORTO RICO.

Fernando Montilla, San Juan.

TEXAS.

John C. Flanagan, Crystal City.
William D. Hawthorn, Elkhart.
Eva M. Eckel, Hempstead.
John A. Wear, Hereford.
John E. Noyes, Robstown.

Sadie M. Boulware, San Angelo.
William A. Farek, Schulenburg.

WITHDRAWALS.

Executive nominations withdrawn from the Senate January 16,

1924.

PROMOTIONS IN THE ARMY.

To be captains.

First Lieut. Harry Thurber, Quartermaster Corps, from December 23, 1923.

First Lieut. Louis Arthur Witney, Infantry, from December 24, 1923.

First Lieut. Ade Orrill, Infantry, from December 28, 1923. First Lieut. Oscar Glenn Stevens, Infantry, from December 29, 1923.

First Lieut. William Thomas Brock, Infantry, from December 30, 1923.

First Lieut. John Edward Langley, Corps of Engineers, from January 1, 1924.

(The resignation of First Lieut. Harry Thurber, Quartermaster Corps, January 11, 1924, necessitates the removal of his name from the nomination list and causes a change in the vacancies for all first lieutenants Junior to him who have been nominated for promotion.)

POSTMASTER.

Clarence C. Bowser to be postmaster at Renfrew, in the State of Pennsylvania.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

WEDNESDAY, January 16, 1924.

The House met at 12 o'clock noon.

The Chaplain, Rev. James Shera Montgomery, D. D., offered the following prayer:

Our Father, who art in heaven, let Thy kingdom of peace dwell in all our minds. Stay the tumult and unrest which sometimes surge in our breasts, that with patience, courage, and calmness we may meet our duties and our conflicts. We ask for Thy guidance in word and in act. Oh help us to see and appreciate the really great and best things of life. Sustain and support us in the presence of every temptation, and may we never be blinded by evil passions or swayed by impulses which are wrong. With generous hearts may we love Thee and follow the Master and the beautiful teachings of His cross. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.

undo what seems to be about to be done, I believe the best in-
terests of the country will be injured. For two days we have
listened to talks by men on both sides of the question and both
sides politically. It ill behooves any man to attack the motive
or the purpose of another man prompting his making a speech
advocating any side of the proposition. However, I happen to
have been here for four years, and I have seen the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. GARRETT] operate, and I have seen the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] operate, and I know of the
capability of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CANNON]. Each
one of those men is high-minded, clean cut, qualified to do
business of the highest magnitude, but also each one is willing
to avail himself of every political advantage to his party. I
have no quarrel with them on account of that. If I were in
the minority and could handicap the majority by holding out
the olive branch to a small crowd on the majority side, enough
to disrupt and cripple the machinery whereby the majority
functions, I would do it, and I do not care who knows that I
would do it, because I am a partisan on questions that affect
national policies, and if I were not a partisan I would either
be a Democrat or I would belong to some other party than the
Republican Party. If the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
GARRETT] is absolutely sincere in his statement made the other
day that he would not vote for anything for the minority to
which he would not subscribe as a member of the majority,
then I ask him whether he is willing to state to the Democratic
Members this morning that they are free from any political
bonds to vote their convictions on this question, and that as
minority leader, he will undertake at no time to bring party
pressure on them to support him?

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEGG. I yield.

Mr. BLANTON. I want to say that our Democratic leader never throws any lariat about the neck of his followers unless it is under party caucus dictation. He leaves us free; he does not hamstring us.

Mr. BEGG. Then I ask the gentleman from Texas this question: I have been told-and I can not quote exactly because I am not permitted to be in the Democratic Party's caucusthat a Democratic Party caucus is bound by a two-thirds majority. Is that the fact?

Mr. BLANTON. I want to say that the gentleman is getting away from this question.

Mr. BEGG. Oh, I am on the question.

Mr. BLANTON. I happen to know that the gentleman from

The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed Tennessee has told the gentleman from Texas that he can vote to answer to their names:

The SPEAKER. The unfinished business is the report from the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 146, which the Clerk will report by title.

The Clerk reported the title of the resolution.

Mr. RAMSEYER. Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a par-
Hamentary inquiry. Are we still proceeding under the general
rules of the House to consider amendments to section 22?
The SPEAKER. We are.

Mr. RAMSEYER. When will it be in order to offer a sub-
stitute for the entire section 22?
The SPEAKER. At any time after the perfecting amend-
ments have been disposed of.

Mr. BEGG. Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, until some development comes about so that either the Democratic or the Republican side has a majority sufficiently large to

any way he pleases on this question without violating any Democratic principle.

Mr. BEGG. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not need to answer my question.

I asked him the point-blank question that could be answered by yes or no, and neither he nor the gentleman from Tennessee rose in their places to say it is not so.

Mr. DAVEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEGG. I can not yield to the gentleman. Now, my friends, I am not worried about taking a position on public questions, nor do I believe one man in Congress is so much more courageous than another, so I will not claim for myself any superior credit because of extraordinary courage along that line, but I am courageous enough to fight to the limit of my ability in defense of the basic principle of government that has made the prosperity of the Nation from a wilderness to the leading power in the world, and that basic principle is nothing other than the majority rule. I want to ask you, you men on this side, if you subscribe to the doctrine of a minority party of 180 men claiming unto itself any more responsibility for legislation than a minority party of 75? Why, if you follow that principle out and you are sincere and all you want to do is to discharge a recalcitrant committee, if all you want to do is to get legislation out on the floor and an opportunity to vote upon it when a majority of the American people are in favor of it, there is not a single one of you will vote for 100 or 150 but will support the majority rule idea.

The very last man of you believes in the basic principles of government that converted the wilderness into productive fields, that changed the wax candle and tallow dip into the electric light, that converted the stagecoach into the automobile, the Pullman car, and the airplane, and I could go on indefinitely. My friends, these things would not have been if you would have had a provision in the Constitutional Convention providing for bloc representation like my friend from Wisconsin said he wanted. I respect my good friend from Wisconsin for his views and for his courage in saying that be believes the Congressmen from Wisconsin, 11 or 15 or 50, have a right under this form of government to demand the time of

the National House of Representatives to consider propositions
that can not command a majority. I say to you men on this
side and men of Democratic faith, you men who stand by the
doctrine of State rights, I believe that if you think back and
look beyond the immediate advantage of a party gain to-day
you will not vote for any number less than a majority. What
will happen? What will happen if this becomes a part of the
rule--and I want to say, before taking up that phase of the
question, to every Democrat and to Mr. NELSON and his gang,
or crowd-that is not a very polite reference. [Laughter and
applause.] I do not mean to be unkind in the reference.
Mr. BLANTON. That is an honest expression from the soul.
Mr. BEGG. I want to say that I believe if a majority of the
membership, numerically, of the House of Representatives
want the privilege of casting a vote on any question the ma-
jority ought to have it, but no minority has any right to dic-
tate the position that will be taken by the majority legisla-
tively. What will happen?

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. Will the gentleman yield right

there?

Mr. BEGG. I will yield for a question.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. It is a question I want to ask just before you go to the other argurient. What is the rule of the Senate in regard to discharging a committee?

Mr. BEGG. I am sorry to say I do not belong to the Senate. The gentleman can go over there and get the rules and read them just as intelligently as I could.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. One Senator can move to discharge a committee, and a majority of the Senate voting with him will take it up.

Mr. BEGG. Do they ever do it?

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. I think they do.

Mr. BEGG. They do not do it, because it is unworkable and unsportsmanlike, if you please, to force the majority to step out and do something they do not want.

Mr. WINGO. A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BEGG. I do not mean in reference to this resolution. I mean the man who will advocate a thing that he knows has not a majority for the purpose of forcing the majority to take a stand on it is a demagogue.

Mr. HILL of Maryland. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEGG. Yes.

Mr. HILL of Maryland. I am with the gentleman, and I am in favor of 218. But that could be done under your old rule, Mr. MCKEOWN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. BEGG. I will yield briefly.

Mr. MCKEOWN. There is nothing compelling Members to sign a petition to bring out a bill, is there?

Mr. BEGG. Oh, that is so absolutely plain to me that it does not even need an answer or a question. If a representative of any organized minority in the United States comes and peddles a petition around here you will sign it and so will I, and if you do not sign it they will publish it back in your district that you are against the proposition. And such a great statesman as Uncle Joe Cannon made the statement on the floor of the House that he was stampeded into voting for the Adamson law, and that he wished a thousand times that it had not been done.

Now, gentleman, if this Congress can be stampeded to vote for a good law-and all of you, both sides, are criticizing the propaganda for the Mellon tax plan, conceding that a tax plan is good, and we all agree to that statement; we all agree that a tax plan is good for this Congress-if it can be stampeded to vote for a good law it is only a question of a short time until it can be stampeded to vote for a bad law. [Applause.] And the American people are not suffering because we have not passed enough laws. What they want is relief from too many laws. [Applause.]

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEGG. In just a minute.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Would not that same pressure that the

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. If one man in the Senate can not gentleman thinks he would succumb to be applicable to 218 as make it work, how can you expect

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. Of course, over in the Senate-
Mr. WINGO. Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. WINGO.

It is contrary to the rules of the House to refer to the Senate. We have got enough confusion, and if you seek to settle the rules of the Senate you make a worse confusion.

Mr. BEGG. I maintain the remarks I have just made have not been discourteous to any other body.

Mr. GARRETT of Texas. I do not think the remark a discourtesy to refer to the Senate in the way I did,

Mr. SANDERS of Indiana. I think the point of order is well taken, and I withdraw my question.

Mr. BEGG. Now, what will happen in the practice here if this rule is adopted providing for even 150? I am one man who does not subscribe to the doctrine of anything under a majority. But let us say 150. Why, yesterday the genial gentleman from Baltimore, Major HILL, always on the alert, introduced this resolution, and incidentally it happens to be Resolution 150. It reads as follows:

well as 100?

Mr. BEGG. No; because the majority here recognizes the basic principle of majority rule, and a man who is not a good enough sport to play along with the majority after having his day in court lacks some of the principles of our old fathers who fought for liberty. Mr. CONNOLLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEGG. Yes..

Mr. CONNOLLY of Pennsylvania. Do I understand the gentleman to say that if a petition were circulated, such as he mentions, would the gentleman sign it?

Mr. BEGG. Oh, the average man will sign if his friend comes to him and asks him to do it as a favor.

Mr. CONNOLLY of Pennsylvania. I want to say to you that if the amendment passes, either with 150 or 100, I shall refuse to sign any petition unless it is fathered by a majority.

Mr. BEGG. I am frank to say to you on this side, and to the friends of the proposal on our side, that the time will not be long, if this becomes a law, until you feel about it the same as I do; that you are trying to substitute petition government for downright study and deliberation. I could use this illus

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Com-tration, but to save several people from being embarrassed, and mittee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H. R. 4119, entitled "An act to amend the national prohibition act, to create Federal local option districts, and for other purposes," under the five-minute rule. After the completion of such consideration the committee shall arise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, whereupon the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and all amendments thereto without intervening motion except one motion to recomnrit.

And here is the bill H. R. 4119. It is only the old doctrine of local option in prohibition.

Now, I have no hesitancy at all in saying that there is no legislative right for the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HILL] to force the time of this House in voting on a modification of that law unless he can do one of two things, either get his bill reported out of committee in orderly procedure or else command a majority of the House to his petition. [Applause.] And you boys do not, all of you, have 100 per cent dry or 100 per cent wet in your communities. If you want to cater to demagogy with apologies to my friend from Maryland [Mr. HILL], and I do not call it that because he has done it-if you

want to cater

Mr. HILL of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

maybe all of us, I will not be pointed, not personal, and sev-
eral of my colleagues right here will verify what I say on that
question. We held up a resolution for 18 months here that I
am safe in saying would have been passed if it had ever got
on the floor of the House, and what national disaster might
have followed the stampede on the passage of that bill God
knows. We can not calculate what it might have been.
A re-
sulting war was not beyond the realm of possibility.
Mr. EVANS of Montana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?

Mr. BEGG. Yes.

Mr. EVANS of Montana. Does the gentleman mean the House to understand that the judgment of the gentleman himself and six of his colleagues would be better than that of the House?

Mr. BEGG. Of course not; but that was not the case, for every time we came on the floor of the House Members would say to us, For God's sake, do not let it get out, for if you do I shall have to vote for it." Mr. MCKEOWN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BEGG. I can not yield now.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman declines to yield.

Mr. BEGG. In this Congress there was introduced seriously

a resolution in our committee that the mover evidently be