USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 5 > Part 3
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75
The message was referred by the house to the Joint Com- mittee on Ways and Means. In the senate the message was likewise read and referred in concurrence. Almost immedi- ately thereafter the committee reported in the House "An Act making an appropriation to defray certain military and naval expenses," which took its several readings without de- lay in both branches. It was then, as is customary, engrossed on parchment in the office of the Secretary of the Common- wealth, and speedily returned to the house for enactment. It received the signature of Speaker John L. Bates, and was immediately sent to the senate, where it was enacted, signed by President George E. Smith, and rushed to the executive office. In twenty-five minutes from the time the governor's message was received in the House, the engrossed bill was being signed by His Excellency. This act of ten lines stands as Chapter 347 of the Acts of 1898.
QUESTIONS OF ORDER
It is commonly supposed that legislative sittings are en- livened and sometimes greatly delayed by the frequent rais- ing of points of order, both of the serious kind and those made for evident purposes of filibuster. In Massachusetts during recent years, delay by far-fetched points of order has been rare. The Senate and House Journals of 1929, for example, reveal only three Senate points of order during a session of over five months, and nine in the House. The av- erage for forty years may be estimated as eight in the Senate and eighteen in the House. Twenty-three points of order were raised in the Constitutional Convention of 1917-19.
Occasions on which decisions of presiding officers have been overruled have been extremely rare. During thirty-six annual and four special sessions of the General Court, and all
10
GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
the sittings of the Constitutional Convention, not one such occasion can be found. Appeals from decisions may have averaged one a year. President John Lewis Bates of the Constitutional Convention, when that body was about to ad- journ its 1917 session, said to the members: "You have been willing to accept every decision, right or wrong. You have acquiesced in every, petty tyranny in which the Chair has in- dulged." This attitude has long been the spirit of legislators in Massachusetts. Doubtless presiding officers have been so keen to carry on this reputation unsullied, that their rulings have been impartial and fair, carefully and correctly made.
WOMEN LEGISLATORS
The Nineteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution was proclaimed, August 26, 1920, as "valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution." The General Court of 1920 passed an emergency statute providing that "Every female citizen having the qualification of male voters . shall have the right to vote in any city, town or . state election, or primary or caucus," this act to take effect "upon the adoption of the proposed amendment to the federal constitution which provides that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." This legis- lation was approved on June 2, became effective on August 26, and enabled the women of Massachusetts to participate with full privileges in the fall elections of 1920. The Massa- chusetts Constitution was so far forth altered; and a formal amendment was made November 4, 1924, on which date Article LXVIII of the Amendments was approved.
The following year, in order to put at rest the question as to whether or not women were authorized to hold public office, it was enacted that women "shall be eligible to elec- tion or appointment" to all State and county offices, positions, appointments and employments. In November, 1922, two women were chosen as representatives to the General Court, and six others have been chosen subsequently. The names of these eight women, who deserve a place in this history, will be found in the chapter of this volume relating to the public activity of women.
11
WOMEN LEGISLATORS
Precedents are established by first happenings. Not every legislator can establish a precedent ; but on February 18, 1926, Miss M. Sylvia Donaldson of Brockton not only established a precedent, but made important legislative history, when requested by Speaker John C. Hull to preside over the de- liberations of the House. A part of the Journal record for that date is as follows :
"The Speaker then appointed Mr. Jewett of Lowell and Mrs. Hart of Lynn a special committee to escort Miss M. Sylvia Donaldson of Brockton to the chair.
"Miss Donaldson being in the chair, Mr. Speaker Hull ad- dressed the House as follows :
" 'Madame Speaker: For the first time in the history of The General Court of Massachusetts a woman has been called to the Chair in one of its branches, and is now presiding over the House of Representatives. Yours, Madame Speaker, is a distinct and signal honor, . . and while this tribute paid to you this day is personal and deserved because of your now nearly four years' faithful and efficient service in this Cham- ber, it is also general, and you now stand there as the repre- sentative of all the women of this great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and happily and signally demonstrate the fact that to-day neither the ballot, nor public office, nor the highest gift within the power of this House, is denied to any citizen "on account of sex."
" 'Your colleagues are glad to confer this honor upon you, and in their behalf I offer you and all the women of the Com- monwealth our heartiest congratulations. . . . and may I say to you, and through you to all the women of the Com- monwealth, that as the men have in the past welcomed the women to the privileges and duties of suffrage and of public office, so do we to-day welcome you and them to the pleasant and honored privilege of presiding over "the greatest deliber- ative body in the world",-and I use that expression ad- visedly and quote the words of one qualified to judge.
" 'Madame Speaker, we who are about to subject ourselves to your guidance do so with full confidence in your integrity, ability and efficiency. Madame Speaker, we salute you!'"
12
GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
COMMITTEE SYSTEM
The Massachusetts General Court has long made frequent use of the joint-committee system. Legislative measures are introduced into either Senate or House (not both) and are referred to committees composed of members of both branches. Committees report in either branch (not both) "having reference to an equal distribution of business between the two branches, except that money bills shall be reported to the House."
The number of joint committees in 1890 was thirty-two, and in 1929 was thirty. During these years the total had not exceeded thirty-three nor fallen below thirty. In addi- tion, the Senate has five standing committees of its own, and the House seven.
These committees are required by rule to report on all mat- ters referred to them, and this rule is not suspended or ignored. Not one matter in a thousand, duly referred, fails of report. Nor are matters referred to committees in any haphazard manner. The rules provide that matters shall be referred "to the appropriate committees," and the system is so nearly ironclad that the actual work of referring has come to be one of the perfunctory duties of the clerks.
VOLUME OF LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
The General Court of 1890 considered approximately 1,300 propositions. 'By 1906 the annual number had increased to above 1,400; but for several years thereafter, with one ex- ception, substantial increases were shown, until a maximum of 2,744 propositions were filed in 1914. The succeeding dozen years evidenced a gradual although irregular falling off in the volume of business, the records for 1927 showing approximately 1,400 propositions referred to committees. In 1928 and 1929 these figures again were increased slightly.
What percentage of measures filed for consideration be- comes law? In 1890 the number of acts and resolves totalled 535. In 1929 the number was 442. The average for the fifty years beginning with 1880 was 610. During the most prolific ten years of this period (1910-19) the average was 837. The last five years show a substantial decrease in the
13
LENGTH OF SESSIONS
number of measures "coming through" into law, the average being 430 per annum.
Another question frequently asked: What percentage of matters referred by the General Court to the next annual session is taken from the files for consideration during that subsequent session? It is commonly supposed, that all mat- ters referred to the next annual session automatically be- come a part of the docket of measures for consideration in such subsequent session. On the contrary, no measure is taken from the files except upon the request of a member or member-elect; and the request must be made previously to "five o'clock in the afternoon on the second Saturday of the annual session" or it becomes subject to a rule requiring a four-fifths vote in each branch for suspension. Figures' for the recent ten-year period show that only 20 per cent of such referred measures are taken from the files for consideration at the next annual session, though many are reintroduced, in the same or in modified form, as new measures. Previ- ously to 1924 it required a motion from the floor to take a matter from the files. Beginning with that year, any mem- ber or member-elect may make the request to the clerk.
LENGTH OF SESSIONS
The annual legislative sessions from 1890 through 1929, inclusive, averaged 163 days from the first Wednesday in January to the date of prorogation-an average of about 23 weeks. Sittings customarily have been' held on the first five week days, the Monday and Friday sittings often being curtailed by the late arrival and early departure of members residing in distant cities and towns. The date of prorogation has averaged about June 14. The sessions of 1911, 1919 and 1928 continued for 206, 206 and 204 days, respectively. Prorogation on July 28 in the year 1911 was the latest date of sitting since the political year was established in 1831, to begin on the first Wednesday in January.
The shortest session during this forty-year period was that of 1927, which, for the first time since 1880, reached proro- gation in April, 114 days from the first Wednesday in Jan- uary. The General Court is not exempted by the Constitu-
14
GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
tion from sitting on legal holidays, although it seldom does so. The 1919 and 1930 sessions began on January 1st, though that date had been a legal holiday since 1917.
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
In 1928 the house of representatives learned the meaning of those impressive words of the Constitution: "The house of representatives shall be the grand inquest of this common- wealth." For the first time since 1821 the House was face to face with impeachment proceedings. Precedents one hun- dred and seven years old were examined, and were found to conform with the procedure followed in recent years by Con- gress and in various States ..
Upon an order duly presented and adopted, a special com- mittee of nine members was appointed to investigate the acts and conduct of an elected State officer. Three months later the committee reported certain findings and conclusions, to- gether with a resolution of impeachment "for misconduct and maladministration in his said office as disclosed in the evi- dence and findings submitted to this House," and "that this House do proceed to impeach . at the bar of the Hon- orable the Senate of this Commonwealth." The resolution was adopted on a roll-call vote of 196 yeas to 18 nays. The special committee then was directed "to prepare and report articles of impeachment." Whereupon the State officer sub- mitted his resignation to the General Court. Articles of im- peachment were reported, however; but resolutions were sub- stituted therefor declaring that by reason of said resignation "there is now neither necessity nor occasion for further pro- ceeding for his removal"; that "such proceedings are hereby discontinued"; and that the articles of impeachment "be placed on file without further present action thereon."
CHANGE IN THE QUORUM
The forty-year period beginning with 1890 has seen 41 amendments of the Constitution approved by the voters (Articles XXX-LXX), most of them on matters submitted by the Constitutional Convention of 1917-1919. Ten of these affected procedure in' the General Court; and 16 modified the
15
MILEAGE AND SALARIES
powers of the General Court, largely in the direction of grant- ing that body wider jurisdiction.
Article XXXIII (approved November 3, 1891) made a majority of the members of each branch of the General Court "a quorum for the transaction of business." But it has yet to be determined whether "a majority of the mem- bers" should be interpreted to mean a majority of all pos- sible members, of all elected members, of all qualified mem- bers, of all members voting, or of all members present when a vote is taken. The House settled this matter for itself by adopting (February 8, 1892) the following new rule: "One hundred and twenty-one members shall constitute a quorum for the organization of the House and the transac- tion of business." The House always proceeds to business at the appointed hour without regard to the number of repre- sentatives present, except on those rare occasions when a count of the House is requested. The Senate rules make no mention of the quorum, but in actual practice the president does not proceed with the business of a sitting until twenty- one' senators have appeared.
MILEAGE AND SALARIES
Down to 1893, under the Constitution, "The expenses of travelling to the general assembly, and returning home, once in every session, and no more, shall be paid by the govern- ment." The General Court in that year adopted a "table of distances" of the several cities and towns from the State House, and authorized by statute a payment of two dollars a mile for travelling expenses, that sum to include all travel- ling expenses for the session. In 1924 the scale was ad- vanced to $4.20 a mile-making a maximum of $640. Mem- bers from Boston receive $21 flat.
Salaries of legislators in 1890 were $650 a year. In 1892 Governor Russell approved an act to increase the compensa- tion to $750. The act further provided that: "No railroad corporation shall issue to the governor, lieutenant-governor, any member of the council, any judge of the supreme judicial court or the superior court, probate court, municipal or dis- trict court, or county commissioners, or any member or mem-
16
GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ber-elect of the legislature, any free pass, or any ticket en- titling him to transportation at a less rate of fare than is demanded of the public generally."
In 1911 the compensation of legislators was increased to $1,000 over the veto of Governor Eugene N. Foss; in 1919 to $1,500 over the veto of Governor Calvin Coolidge; and in 1929 to $2,000 over the veto of Governor Frank G. Allen. In each instance it was provided that the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House should receive double the compensation of other members. No distinction has been made between the compensation of senators and representa- tives. These salaries are "for each regular annual session," and are in addition to the mileage allowances.
CONSTITUTIONAL RECESSES
The Constitution of 1780 gave both Senate and House the power "to adjourn themselves," but added the proviso that "such adjournment shall not exceed two days at a time." Un- der this restriction the General Court frequently recesses from Thursday to Monday (Sunday not being taken into consideration ).
One of the amendments of the Constitutional Convention (approved November 5, 1918) provides that "The general court, by concurrent vote of the two houses, may take a re- cess or recesses amounting to not more than thirty days; but no such recess shall extend beyond the sixtieth day from the date of their first assembling." Proponents of methods to shorten the legislative sessions, and especially to speed up committee work during the early weeks, had for some years been suggesting that a few weeks given early in the session to committee work only, would result in keeping the Senate and House calendars full, thereby inducing to longer daily sittings and to earlier prorogation.
The Constitutional Convention experimented with this method in 1917, holding but one sitting during a period of three weeks. The General Court, however, has been loath to give the matter a trial, and only once has availed itself of the provisions of this amendment. On Friday, February 18, 1927, it was voted to "take a recess, under the provisions of
17
GOVERNOR IN LEGISLATION
Article LII of the Amendments to the Constitution, from the hour of adjournment to-day until Wednesday next (Feb- ruary 23) at two o'clock P. M." This recess, of course, was not for the benefit of committees, but solely to make it un- necessary to hold a sitting on the Saturday or Monday pre- ceding the holiday.
THE GOVERNOR IN LEGISLATION
Other amendments submitted by the Constitutional Conven- tion (approved November 5, 1918) gave additional power to the governor in connection with his constitutional authority to approve or disapprove legislative measures. (1) "The gov- ernor, within five days after any bill or resolve shall have been laid before him, shall have the right to return it to the branch of the general court in which it originated with a recommendation that any amendment or amendments speci- fied by him be made therein." (2) The governor received power to "disapprove or reduce items or parts of items in any bill appropriating money. . . As to each item dis- approved or reduced, he shall transmit to the house in which the bill originated his reason for such disapproval or reduc- tion, and the procedure shall then be the same as in the case of a bill disapproved as a whole."
His Excellency promptly took advantage of this new power and returned five such bills in 1919. Since that time an av- erage of six bills have been so returned, the yearly number varying from one to seventeen. In most instances the gov- ernor's recommendations were adopted; occasionally the General Court has preferred to reject the bill rather than amend it.
The power to disapprove or reduce items in appropriation bills has been exercised on one occasion only. Upon the general appropriation bill of 1925 Governor Alvan T. Fuller placed the following endorsement at the end thereof : "I dis- approve Items 274b, 365a, 485a. I reduce Item 269 to $60,- 000; Item 271 to $150,000; Item 362a to $586,000; Item 442 to $586,940; Item 606 to $50,000. The remainder of this bill I hereby approve." Thus another precedent was es- tablished for the use of a constitutional power.
18
GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
In taking action on these eight items under the constitu- tional provision that "the procedure shall then be the same as in the case of a bill disapproved as a whole," the question was stated in each instance: "Shall the Item pass, notwith- standing the objections of His Excellency?" On each of the eight roll-call votes the governor was sustained.
APPROPRIATION BILLS AND THE BUDGET
In 1889 the General Court passed 26 appropriation bills. Ten years later the number was 88, boards and commissions having increased rapidly in number. In 1909 the number was 103, the custom of enacting a separate bill for each di- vision of government still prevailing. This method continued until the number reached 110 in 1917. The following year the number was reduced to 17, the department and sinking fund appropriations being combined in a single bill "making appropriations for the maintenance of departments, boards, commissions, institutions and certain activities of the Com- monwealth and for interest, sinking fund and serial bond requirements."
In 1918, also, the General Court passed a bill establishing a budget system for the Commonwealth, which placed in the hands of the governor the duty of submitting to the General Court a classified budget embodying "all estimates, requests and recommendations for appropriations or other authoriza- tions for expenditures from the treasury of the common- wealth . and . . definite recommendations of the governor as to the financing of the expenditures recom- mended and the relative amounts to be raised from ordinary revenue, direct taxes or loans." At the annual election of 1918, the voters approved Amendment LXIII of the Consti- tution, establishing this system as a constitutional requirement.
EFFECT OF BIENNIAL ELECTIONS
Ardent opponents of biennial elections prophesied disas- trous results in their effect upon legislators and legislative sessions-that fewer members would be reelected, and that legislation, therefore, would be in less experienced hands ; that the first session of a legislative term would be short
19
DIRECT LEGISLATION
and perfunctory, and the second session long and contentious. The records do not bear out this prediction.
At the last five annual elections (1915-1919) an average of 148 members of the House were returned to their seats, while of the 92 new members, 19 had had previous experience. At the first five biennial elections (1920-1928) an average of 136 members of the House were returned to their seats; while of the 104 new members, 18 had had previous experi- ence in the General Court.
During the first ten years under biennial elections the open- ing session of the two-year legislative term averaged 130 days, the second session 166 days.
The number of measures filed for consideration averaged 1,574 during the first session and 1,686 during the second. The number of acts and resolves becoming law averaged 484 during the first session, and 527 during the second.
PROCEDURE UNDER DIRECT LEGISLATION
Elsewhere will be outlined the influence on legislation in Massachusetts of the Initiative and Referendum Amendment of the Constitution, approved November 5, 1918. But its effect upon legislative procedure should be noted here.
This amendment prescribed new duties for the General Court, duties requiring' a method of procedure not thereto- fore contemplated. Each initiative petition comes through the hands of the secretary of the Commonwealth, who shall, "upon the assembling of the general court, transmit 'it to the clerk of the house of representatives, and the proposed meas- ure shall then be deemed to be introduced and pending."
Procedure in committee is prescribed in detail, as follows : "The petitioners and all parties in interest shall be heard, and the measure shall be considered and reported upon to the general court with the committee's recommendations, and the reasons therefor, in writing. Majority and minority re- ports shall be signed by the members of said committee." Initiative petitions are the only class of measures upon which committees are required to report the reasons for their recommendations.
If an initiative petition proposes an amendment of the
20
GENERAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Constitution, "such proposal shall, not later than the second Wednesday in June, be laid before a joint session of the two houses, . . . shall be voted upon in the form in which it was introduced, unless such amendment is amended by vote of three-fourths of the members voting thereon in joint ses- sion. . Final legislative action in the joint session upon any amendment shall be taken only by call of the yeas and nays, . and an unfavorable vote at any stage preceding final action shall be verified by call of the yeas and nays." No initiative petitions proposing an amendment of the Constitution have yet been filed down to the end of 1929.
It was provided, also, that proposed amendments of the Constitution "introduced into the general court by a member of either house" should be considered likewise in joint session, provided consideration thereof "is called for by vote of either house." This proviso makes it easy to shelve amendments so introduced; and the records show that very few of them have been called up for consideration in joint session. An elaborate rule (Joint Rule 23) was adopted to cover the many necessary stages of procedure on which the amendment was silent.
For ninety-eight years (1821-1918) proposed amendments of the Constitution had been handled by the General Court in much the same manner as bills and resolves. Amendments, in fact, were embodied in resolves; and after the third read- ing, the question, instead of coming on the passing of the resolve to be engrossed, was put on agreeing to the Article of Amendment. This, under the Constitution, required a majority vote in the Senate and a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. The Amendment of 1918 pro- vided for a majority vote in joint session "of all the members elected," thus destroying the veto power of either house over the other, and taking away the power of a minority of one third of the members of the House to block any proposed constitutional amendment.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.