H.R. 1

H. R. 1

All the thousands of bills thrown into the hoppers of Congress are numbered and initialed: "H. R.*1, 2, 3, ... 5359," etc.; "S./- 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . 2917," etc. The honor of being "H. R. 1" this year went to the tax reduction bill. And many other honors were last week heaped upon H. R. 1. Five days had been spent in general debate. Five days were given last week to detailed consideration and amending. Then the bill was passed.

Not only was action swift, it was decisive. Not a single important amendment to the bill was made on the floor. As amendments were brought up by this man, by that, they were promptly voted down. And the final majority for the bill was 390 to 25.

Such opposition as there was, was carried on almost single-handedly by Congressman Henrv T. Rainey of Illinois--fiery, white-haired, 65, like the President an Amherst man ('83), unlike the President, a Democrat. Since 1903 he has served continuously in the House, with only a recess of two years given him by his constituents at the time of the Harding landslide. Many Democrats, including such prominent members as Garner, ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, stood by the bill. But Rainey never flagged in opposition. Every controversial point he fought:

He fought to raise the maximum surtax from 20% (in the bill) to 25%, and lost 196 to 117.

He fought to decrease personal exemptions of married persons from $3,500 (in the bill) to $2,500, and lost viva voce.

He fought to deny personal exemptions to persons with incomes over $20,000, and lost viva voce. He proposed the same thing for persons with incomes over $45,000, and lost 103 to 31.

He fought to repeal entirely the tax on pleasure automobiles (although the bill cut automobile taxes more than half), and he lost 188 to 95.

He put up his greatest fight to increase the maximum estate tax from 20% (in the bill) to 25%. "What has made possible the perpetration of these taxing outrages at the present time?" said he. "Let me tell you. Bryan is dead, Wilson is dead, Roosevelt is dead, La-Follette is dead, Gompers is dead. They may have differed in many matters, but if they were all living they would unite in their opposition, to this bill. . . . And now may I mention the names of some other leaders on this side? You will recognize them as I mention them-- Clark, DeArmond, James, Kitchin, Padgett, Moon, Flood, who died, all of them, at their posts of duty, fighting, all of them, during their lives, and their deaths seem untimely against the principles for which you gentlemen stand. Oh, other leaders will rise. These puny and little leaders who control now will not control always. I apologize. I had almost violated the rules and traditions of this House. . . . Other leaders will come hereafter and will take up the standards dropped from the nerveless dead hands of Bryan and Wilson and Roosevelt and LaFollette and Gompers. Other leaders will come and carry their standards, and when they do they will not be alone. There is a God who doeth all things well in this world in spite of what you gentlemen stand for. [Applause.] . . . This Mellon plan to which the majority side of this House cringes and creeps, hinges about the estate tax. This is the tax that Mr. Mellon wants removed above all taxes. ... I have confidence in the perpetuity of this Government, as much confidence as Gompers and all the rest of them had. But I recognize that we are an emotional people here in the United States, as emotional as they were in France a hundred years ago, as emotional as they are everywhere else; and unless in some way you cut down these tremendous estates, the greatest the world has ever known . . . something may happen in the future in this country of ours."

And he lost again, 154 to 75.

At last, when the House (as Committee of the Whole) had overruled him every time and the bill was ready, he moved, to return it to the committee to have the surtaxes and estate taxes raised to 25% maximum. Again he lost, 267 to 147. Forty-three Democrats joined with the regular Republicans against him.

So the Committee of the Whole referred the bill to the House for a formal vote. Nearly all jumped on the band wagon. Only 25 negative votes were passed--by two Socialists, three Farmer-Laborites, ten Republicans (mostly from Wisconsin) and ten Democrats--among them Rainey--bloody but unbowed.

So the House passed its non-partisan tax bill and sent it to the Senate--almost unanimously, almost without a change. So the bill went to the Senate where a half of that body (more or less, no one can yet say) were sharpening their claws to tear it to pieces, prepared to fight over every hair on its body, with the chances nearly equal whether it will emerge the same creature or quite another. But Senate leaders none the less expressed a hope that it would emerge before March 15.

/-First introduced in the House of Representatives.

+First introduced in the Senate.