UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

THE COMMITTEE ON 

WAYS AND MEANS 

A 

4: :. 

s\ 

,i 

A BICENTENNIAL HISTORY 

1789- 1989 
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

THE COMMITTEE ON 

WAYS AND MEANS 

A BICENTENNIAL HISTORY 

1789-1989 

By Donald R. Kennon 

and 

Rebecca M. Rogers 
1ST ROW LEFT TO RIGHT 

Robert T. Matsui 

Beryl Anthony, Jr. 

Ronnie G. Flippo 

Byron L. Dorgan 

Barbara B. Kennelly 

William J. Coyne 

Michael A. Andrews 

Sander M. Levin 

Jim Moody 

Nancy L. Johnson 

Don Sundquist 

2ND ROW LEFT TO RIGHT 

Don J. Pease 

Marty Russo 

Frank J. Guarini 

Thomas J. Downey 

Richard A. Gephardt 

Ed Jenkins 

Andy Jacobs, Jr. 

Fortney Pete Stark 

Charles B. Range1 

J.J. Pickle 

Sam M. Gibbons 

iV 
Chairman Dan Rostenkowski 

Guy Vander Jagt 

Philip M. Crane 

Bill Frenzel 

Dick Schulze 

Bill Gradison 

William M. Thomas 

Raymond J. McGrath 

Hank Brown 

Rod Chandler 

3RD ROW LEFT TO RIGHT (STAFF) 

Reginald Greene 

Francis Canavan 

Rufus Yerxa 

Janice Mays 

Charles M. Brain 

Robert J. Leonard 

Phillip D. Moseley 

James D. Clark 

Margaret Hostetler 

Wendell Primus 

Tim Crippen 

V 
Contents 

Foreword Dan Rostenkowski 

Acknowledgments 

Introduction 

164 1- 1789 

Antecedents: Legislative Finance 

Committees in Great Britain and America 

1789-1 80 1 

Origins: The House Committee of Ways 

and Means 

180 1-1 829 

The Jefferson Republican Committee 

1829- 186 1 

Appropriations, Banking, and the Tariff 

186 1-1 865 

Financing the Civil War 

1865- 1890 

The Gilded Age Committee 

1890- 1 933 

Reform and Revenue 

1933- 1959 

From the New Deal to the Cold War 

1959-1975 

The Mills Committee 

1975-1989 

The Post-Reform Committee 

Meeting Places of the Committee 

Chairmen of the Committee 

Committee Members Serving in Higher Offices 

or Attaining Other Accomplishments 

ix 

xii 

1 

5 

23 

55 

95 

143 

173 

215 

27 1 

3 19 

357 

387 

390 

39 1 

vii 
Committee Membership by Congressional 

Session 393 

Biographies of Committee Members 

Jurisdictional History of the Committee 

Notes 

Sources 

Index 

Credits 

432 

449 

47 1 

50 1 

513 

525 

About the Authors 526 

Cover Illustration: The Committee on Ways and Means in session, as 

illustrated in an 1888 Harper’s Weekly. 

G.P.O. Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Kennon. Donald R.. 1948- 

The Committee on Ways and Means : a bicentennial history, 1789-1989. 

(House document; 100-244) 

At head of title: United States House of Representatives. 

Bibliography: p. 

Includes index. 

Supt. of Docs. class. no.: Y 1.1/7:100-244 

1. United States. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means-History 2. United States. 

Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means-Biography. I. Rogers, Rebecca M. (Rebecca 

Mary), 1957- , 11. United States. Congress. House. Committee on Ways and Means. 111. Title. 

KF4997.WsK4 

... 

Vlll 
Foreword 

n July 24, 1989, the Committee on Ways and Means celebrates 0 its bicentennial. The Committee on Ways and Means is the 

oldest committee of the Congress. Its history is a large part of our 

nation’s history. The responsibilities vested in the committee have 

placed it at the center of some of the most critical legislative decisions 

faced by the Congress. 

The prestige accorded the committee is due in part, of course, to 

the breadth of its legislative jurisdiction: all revenues, the management of the public debt, tariff and trade laws, the Social Security and 

Medicare systems. These responsibilities alone would make it a committee of note. But just as important to its reputation has been the 

manner in which the members of the committee have exercised those 

responsibilities. 

On the occasion of this two hundredth anniversary of the committee, I hope readers will forgive me for some self-indulgence, but I 

think this history is fascinating. And I hope that historians, political 

scientists, students, and citizens who just want to know a little more 

about this country of ours will read this book and feel the same way. 

But more important, I hope that we can learn from this impressive 

story. History is of little value if we do not derive from it some lessons for the future. 

One lesson to be learned is the importance to sound government 

of the legislative process itself. I am frequently described as being as 

much interested in the process as I am in the substance of legislation. 

Well, it’s true, and the reason is simple: the process affects the substance. Time and time again, we have seen that the principle of majority rule, combined with the procedures and precedents that allow for 

all views to be heard and considered, is the purest way to produce 

good law. 

Reasonable people can differ over any number of policies. This 

history details many of these differences. The wonder of our legislative system is that such differences are aired in free, open, and often 

spirited debates. The legislative process at its best is inclusive, not exclusive. It strives to assure that all points of view, all interests, are 

heard. The results, while never perfect, benefit from this exchange of 

views. Our legislative efforts would be futile if they did not enjoy respect, and that respect is best guaranteed through a decision-making 

process that is fair and open. 

Another lesson from this history is that while no member can or 

1x 
should ignore his constituency, the process of legislating should encourage and assist representatives in rising above purely parochial interes ts. 

One cannot read the history of the Committee on Ways and 

Means without recognizing the important role played by certain individuals at critical points in our nation’s history. The history of the 

committee is replete with examples of legislators who, through the 

strength of their convictions, were able to lead the country in a direction it might not otherwise have gone. Examples include Gallatin, 

Randolph, Stevens, Underwood, Hull, Doughton, and Mills. 

I believe that the greatness of the Committee on Ways and Means 

lies in the fact that regardless of the issue, throughout its history, the 

representatives on the committee have sought not only to serve their 

constituents, but also to serve the national interest. This commitment 

will be sorely tested in the years to come. 

Today we face enormous and seemingly permanent budget deficits the likes of which have never been seen in our history. This generation’s unwillingness to pay for the government it demands means 

that future generations will be saddled with an intolerable debt 

burden. This situation did not begin in the 1980s, but it has increased 

dramatically during this period. 

What is disturbing is not so much the size of the debt; significant 

debts have accumulated in the past, especially in times of war. Much 

more troubling is our seeming inability to even debate, much less 

decide, on those changes necessary to reduce or eliminate the oppressive budget deficit. However, in the end it must be done or our nation 

will suffer the consequences. 

One can only wonder if this is not one of those critical periods 

when it is necessary to look beyond narrow parochial interest, a time 

when strong leadership is required. The future of our children and 

their children depends upon the leadership we exert today. Perhaps 

this history can provide some guidance to meeting today’s challenges. 

I sincerely hope so. 

This work is the product of countless hours by numerous individuals. Those who read and enjoy these pages should be grateful to all 

of them. First and foremost is Fred Schwengel, President of the U.S. 

Capitol Historical Society. Fred’s vision of all committees of the Congress having their own written history led to a cooperative arrangement with the Committee on Ways and Means in order to celebrate its 

bicentennial. This work is the latest of Fred’s contributions to our 

greater knowledge and appreciation of the history of Congress. 

Donald R. Kennon and Rebecca M. Rogers of the Capitol Historical Society, the authors of the work, are to be congratulated. They 

were able to research, analyze, and write the history of the Committee 

on Ways and Means in an interesting, informative, and scholarly 

manner, facing the deadline of the committee’s bicentennial. Students 

X 
of congressional history and those of us associated with the Committee on Ways and Means are indebted to them for their hard work and 

scholarly commitment. 

A large debt of gratitude is also owed to the five individuals who 

served as the advisory board for this work: Dr. Richard Baker, Historian, Senate Historical Office; Dr. Charles 0. Jones, Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin; Mr. Fred Pauls, Chief of Government Division, Congressional Research Service; Dr. Robert Peabody, 

Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University; and Dr. Raymond Smock, Historian, Office of the Bicentennial. The members of 

the advisory board contributed generously of their time and made valuable suggestions as the work proceeded. It is fair to say that the success of this work is in large measure due to their involvement. In addition, Judy Schneider of the Congressional Research Service devoted 

countless hours in assisting in this project and deserves a special note 

of appreciation. 

I would also like to thank those persons in government agencies 

such as the National Archives, the Department of the Treasury, the 

Internal Revenue Service, the Congressional Research Service, and 

the Ofice of the Architect of the Capitol who have given freely of 

their time and efforts. They have also contributed greatly and often 

anonymously to the success of this work. 

A special thanks is extended to Charles M. Brain, Assistant Staff 

Director of the Committee on Ways and Means, who first approached 

me with the idea of a written history of the committee in celebration 

of the bicentennial and who coordinated the efforts of all of the contributors. 

Finally, each member of the Committee on Ways and Means must 

thank all those committee members who have served before them. We 

have been entrusted with a precious legacy. We must resolve to pass it 

to future members of the committee with its pride, dedication, tradition of excellence, and willingness to confront the difficult issues of 

the day intact and untarnished. 

n 

Dan Rostenkowski, Chairman 

XI 
Acknowledgments 

Undertaken as a cooperative venture between the U.S. Capitol 

Historical Society and the Committee on Ways and Means. this 

project could not have succeeded 

without the inspiration, foresight, 

and devotion to congressional 

history provided by Chairman 

Dan Rostenkowski and Fred 

Schwengel, President of the Historical Society. Charles M. Brain, 

Assistant Staff Director of the 

Committee on Ways and Means, 

supervised all phases of the 

project with keen interest and a 

dedication to accuracy and fairness. Margaret Hostetler, Ralph 

Birch, Gage Price, and other 

members of the staff made significant contributions. Ralph Birch’s 

expert knowledge of the printing 

process was particularly crucial to 

the book’s timely completion. 

The five members of the advisory board acknowledged in the 

Foreword: Richard Baker, Ray 

Smock, Robert Peabody, Charles 

Jones, and Fred Pauls, contributed far more to this project than 

this book reflects. Whatever value 

the work has as historical scholarship is largely due to their guidance. The book’s shortcomings 

reflect the authors’ inability to 

translate the advisory board’s 

suggestions into the text. 

The following individuals and 

institutions also contributed reference assistance for the text or for 

the illustrations: David J. Rabasca, 

Holly Mirchell, James Blakely, 

and Mary Ison, all of the Library 

of Congress; R. Michael McReynolds, Charles E. Schamel, Robert 

W. Coren, and William F. Sherman, all of the National Archives; 

Jane Barton and Anita Claybrooke of the Treasury Department; Peggy Diamond of the 

Bureau of the Public Debt; Shelley E. Davis of the Internal Revenue Service; Lynn W. Vosloh and 

Charles Rand, Numismatic Division of the Smithsonian Institution; Barbara Wolanin, Florian 

Thayn, Pam Violante, John Hackett, and the staff of the Architect 

of the Capitol; the staff of the 

Congressional Research Service, 

Government Division; and William B. Bushong. U.S. Capitol 

Historical Society fellow. Professor Randall Strahan of Emory 

University graciously allowed the 

authors to use the manuscript of 

his forthcoming book on the 

committee in the 1970s and ’80s. 

Special thanks go to the production staff, especially to editor Paul 

Martin, design director Cindy 

Scudder, illustrations editor Winthrop Scudder, and caption writer 

Richard Crum. Without their professionalism and attention to 

detail, this book could not have 

been produced to schedule. 

The authors wish to single out 

Ms. Judy Schneider, Specialist in 

American Government, Congressional Research Service for special praise. Ms. Schneider read 

every one of the several drafts of 

this manuscript and offered 

expert advice at every stage. She 

also prepared an exhaustive and 

invaluable jurisdictional history of 

the committee. 

The authors owe a debt of gratitude to each of these individuals. 

But, in a sense, the most important debt is the one that we owe 

to each other. This book could 

not have been written without the 

contributions of each coauthor. 

Donald R. Kennon bore the primary responsibility for writing the 

text, and Rebecca M. Rogers conducted the research and wrote detailed chapter outlines. Each coauthor read and revised the initial 

chapter drafts. It proved to be a 

productive partnership. 

xii 
Introduction 

he celebrated American humorist Will Rogers once joked that T “outside of traffic, there is nothing that has held this country 

back as much as committees.” Most students of congressional procedure have disagreed with the perception of committees presented in 

that commonly held view. Scholars have long recognized the importance of congressional committees to the legislative process. In the 

1880s, Woodrow Wilson, a young political historian who would later 

become the 28th President of the United States, argued in a now classic phrase that committees represented “miniature legislatures” in 

which the real work of Congress was performed.2 The authors of a 

recent study conclude that an understanding of committees is central 

to an understanding of how Congress functions. Most policy decisions 

are made in committee before bills ever reach the floor of the House 

or the Senate. Moreover, they contend, it is in these panels that members voice their most significant input into the legislative process and 

develop their reputations and careers as lawmakers. 

Of the current standing committees in the House, the Committee 

on Ways and Means ranks as one of the oldest, most prestigious, and 

most important. First established as a select committee on July 24, 

1789, it was discharged less than two months later. Reappointed continuously from the first session of the Fourth Congress in 1795, the 

panel functioned essentially as a standing committee before it was formally listed as such in the House Rules on January 7, 1802. Until 

1865, the jurisdiction of the committee (referred to as the Committee 

of Ways and Means before 1880) included the critically important 

areas of revenue, appropriations, and banking. Since 1865, the committee has continued to exercise jurisdiction over revenue and related 

issues such as tariffs, reciprocal trade agreements, and the bonded 

debt of the United States. Revenue-related aspects of the Social Security system, Medicare, and welfare programs have come within Ways 

and Means’ purview in the 20th century. 

Appointment to the Committee on Ways and Means has been a 

prized goal almost since its creation. The roster of committee members who have gone on to serve in higher office is impressive. Eight 

Presidents and eight Vice Presidents have served on Ways and Means, 

as have 21 Speakers of the House of Representatives. For most of the 

20th century, the Democratic members controlled their party’s committee assignments, serving as the Democratic Committee on Committees. Moreover, because of the importance of revenue bills, which 

1 
under the Constitution must originate in the House, the 19th century 

chairmen often served as the de facto floor leaders. Before the post of 

majority leader became an official position of party leadership at the 

turn of the century, the chairman of Ways and Means had most often 

performed the function of directing floor consideration of legislation. 

From 1899 to 1919, the chairman was the official majority leader. 

Chairmen such as John Randolph and Thaddeus Stevens before 1899 

and Oscar W. Underwood after 1899 were acknowledged masters of 

legislative influence. As terms of legislative service have lengthened in 

the 20th century, chairmen Robert L. Doughton and Wilbur D. Mills 

have exerted an influence over revenue legislation that each spanned 

more than a decade. 

In ten chronological chapters, this book attempts to trace the 

contributions of the Committee on Ways and Means. A study of this 

one panel in effect provides a window on the growth of the federal 

government and the development of House procedure. Over 90 years 

ago, Lauros G. McConachie, in the first comprehensive study of the 

congressional committee system, posited that each legislature has “its 

own external and internal conditions.” This study adapts McConachie’s model by treating the history of the Committee on Ways and 

Means from two perspectives: first; in the context of the institutional 

development of the House of Representatives; and second, in relation 

to its involvement in the important legislative accomplishments of 

each period. 

The first two chapters trace the origins of the House Committee 

on Ways and Means from its Anglo-American antecedents. The earliest known ways and means committee was created by the British 

House of Commons in 1641 within the context of the movement for 

legislative autonomy from executive control of the public purse. 

American colonial and state legislatures imitated British practices, but 

adapted them to local political realities. While the British panel was a 

committee of the whole on revenue only, American ways and means 

committees tended to be smaller bodies, some with appropriations as 

well as revenue responsibilities. The U.S. Constitution incorporated 

the experience of legislative autonomy by granting to the House of 

Representatives the exclusive right to originate revenue bills. 

During the first decade of the Federal Congress, legislative procedures evolved slowly, especially those relating to public finance. The 

House created a Committee of Ways and Means in 1789, but discharged it in favor of the executive Department of the Treasury under 

Alexander Hamilton. After Hamilton left office, his political opponents were able to reestablish the Committee of Ways and Means on 

what might be referred to as a “semi-standing” basis, just as other 

select committees that functioned in essence as standing committees 

were subsequently recognized as such in the House Rules.5 

The last eight chapters provide a narrative history of the commit2 
tee from 1800 to the present. Although these chapters take a narrative 

rather than a thematic approach, several themes stand out. One central theme is the complex but crucial relationship between the committee and the executive branch, especially the Department of the 

Treasury, and in the 20th century, the Internal Revenue Service and 

the Social Security Administration. The committee and Congress have 

generally been most productive when both branches have been controlled by the same political party. From the time of President 

Thomas Jefferson’s strained but initially productive relationship with 

Chairman John Randolph to that of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. 

Johnson with Wilbur Mills, the committee has most often responded 

favorably when executive initiatives have been submitted by a President whose party has a majority in the House. In recent decades, the 

phenomenon of “divided government”-a President and Congress of 

different parties-has compelled both the executive and congressional 

leaders to compromise to reach workable agreements. 

For 200 years, Congress has indeed worked most effectively as a 

vehicle to divert potentially divisive and disruptive issues into legitimate channels. The demands and needs of business, industry, consumers, and taxpayers have all been directed through the Committee 

on Ways and Means. From its beginnings, the committee received petitions and requests from ordinary citizens as well as organized business and private groups on issues as diverse as relief from a tax on 

whiskey stills to plans for a national lottery. As early as the second 

decade of the 19th century, Ways and Means held hearings on issues 

within its jurisdiction, although this procedure did not become institutionalized until after the Civil War. 

The formalization of congressional hearings as a means to gather 

information reflected a third theme in the committee’s history-the 

growth of the committee and the increasingly technical nature of both 

the procedures it utilizes and the issues it considers. The membership 

and staff have grown steadily since 1802. The committee’s size increased modestly before the Civil War from seven to nine. By the 

1880s, membership had reached 13, but it stood only at 17 by the end 

of the century. From 1919 to 1975, 25 members composed the committee. Membership currently stands at 36, following the increases 

mandated by the 1974 committee reforms. The committee’s staff 

evolved more slowly at first, but it has mushroomed in the 20th century. The first permanent clerk was allotted to the committee in the 

1850s. By the end of the 19th century, the staff only numbered one 

clerk, one assistant clerk, and one stenographer. By the 1960s, the 

staff had grown into the 20s. In recent years, the number has approached and exceeded one hundred. 

As the committee grew in size, the use of subcommittees to facilitate its workload evolved from an informal to a formal procedure. Although the records of committee proceedings are incomplete, miss3 
ing, or haphazard for much of the early 19th century, it is evident that 

subcommittees were appointed for certain purposes from as early as 

the late 1850s. Thaddeus Stevens’ committee during the Civil War, 

for instance, utilized subcommittees to consider revenue and banking 

and currency issues. After the Civil War, it was common for subcommittees to be appointed to prepare portions of tariff bills dealing with 

general categories of imports. The use of permanent subcommittees 

became formalized in the 20th century, but they were not used during 

the chairmanship of Wilbur D. Mills ( 1958- 1974) because the chairman preferred to centralize decision-making at the full committee 

level. Since the committee reforms of 1974, six permanent subcommittees have been appointed. 

Subcommittees and an enlarged membership and staff were made 

necessary not simply by the growth of the House, but also by the 

changing nature of the central concerns that have faced the committee. Ways and Means’ most basic responsibility has been to devise the 

legislation to provide the revenue to finance the federal government. 

Loans, in the form of bonds or certificates of indebtedness, have been 

one major means to raise money, especially in times of war. The tariff 

was the principal individual source of revenue throughout the 19th 

century. As such, it was a hotly contested political issue, particularly 

because the tariff could be used not only to raise revenue, but also to 

protect domestic industry from cheaper foreign imports. In 1934, the 

responsibility for tariff rate-making was transferred to the executive 

branch, but Ways and Means continues to exercise jurisdiction over 

tariffs and reciprocal trade agreements. In the 20th century, the 

income tax has become the principal source of revenue, beginning 

briefly during the Civil War, but becoming much more important after 

ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913. The addition of Social 

Security and Medicare in the New Deal and the 1960s, respectively, 

has greatly compounded the complexity of the issues confronting 

Ways and Means. 

For 200 years, the Committee on Ways and Means has fulfilled its 

legislative mandate. At times, it has functioned efficiently and harmoniously, such as during the Civil War and the early years of the New 

Deal. At other times, the committee has been frustrated and torn 

apart by partisan bickering. It has been led by chairmen who rightly 

rank among the legislative giants of Congress, but it has also been 

headed by legislators whose names history has long obscured and ignored. The committee’s history is significant both for its accomplishments and its shortcomings, its well-known leaders and its unknown 

members. This first attempt to chart its history, it is hoped, suggests 

something of both upon which other scholars can build. 

4 
‘‘Eueq legislatave 

proposition zcrhich has 

been passed or rqected 

since the jirst 

eslablashment of a 

legzslature an this country, 

has been determined to be 

law, or not law, by the 

forms of parliamentary 

proceedings. ’’ (Thomas 

Jefferson, 1778) 

1641 *I769 

Antecedents: Legislative Finance 

Committees in Great Britain and 

America 

s in Great Britain and in a had nearly a tenexperience with legislati nce committees. In 

House of Commons h ed its control over 

its autonomy from the Crown-when it estaband means committee as a Committee of the 

Whole House with jurisdiction over revenue. American and early state 

legislatures adopted British parliamentary practices, and adapted them 

to local conditions. American ways and means committees tended to 

be smaller bodies that included appropriations as well as revenue maton of the United States incorporated the experican legislative auton by granting to the 

es the exclusive right riginate revenue bills. 

he control over public finance lay at the very heart of the devel- T opment of representative government in the Anglo-American tradition. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the elected representatives of 

the people in both Parliament and the American colonial legislatures 

sought to limit the autocratic power of the Crown or its representatives to levy taxes without their prior consent. The Constitution of the 

United States in 1787, moreover, institutionalized this concept by bestowing upon Congress the power to levy taxes. When the First Federal Congress assembled in New York City in the spring of 1789, its 

members were in virtual agreement that the popularly elected house 

of the legislature should initiate money bills. There was less agreement on how public finance was to be administered. 

The purpose of legislative control over public finance was to separate those who administered the laws from those who made the laws 

and levied the taxes. In principle this made for good government, but 

in practice there has always been a close connection between administration and legislation. By the mid-18th century, the British had developed a parliamentary cabinet system that intermixed legislative and 

executive functions. The heads of the executive departments were also 

5 
the leaders of the House of Commons; these members not only made 

the laws, but they were also responsible for administering them. 

Legislative and executive functions were also mixed in the American Continental Congress in the 1770s and 1780s. An early experiment with legislative committees gave way to a reliance upon executive boards and ultimately to the creation of executive departments, 

including the Department of Finance under Robert Morris. Although 

Morris and most of the members of the Board of Treasury were not 

taken from the ranks of Congress, they were considered to be the 

agents of the legislature. This intermingling of legislative and executive functions formed a frame of reference for the members of the 

First Federal Congress as they considered both the legislative procedures and the administrative mechanisms to levy and to collect taxes 

under the new Constitution. 

Parliament and the Taxing Power 

The members of the First Federal Congress were well aware of the 

history of representative government in England and the long and 

bloody power struggle between King and Parliament. The control 

over public finance, known in the 18th century as “the power of the 

purse,” was central to the contest between the executive and legislative branches of government. The creation of the Committee of Ways 

and Means in the House of Commons in 1641 was an important development in legislative efforts to restrain the financial prerogatives of 

the Crown.2 

Before the English Civil War in the mid-17th century, the monarchy resisted Parliament’s attempts to limit its financial autonomy. 

Throughout the Middle Ages, large revenues from lands owned by 

the Crown and from certain customary dues had kept the monarchy 

financially independent from the legislature, except for certain “extraordinary” needs, such as the waging of war. For such expenses the 

Crown had traditionally obtained a bill of “aids and supplies” from 

Parliament. Rather than appropriating a specific sum, bills of aids and 

supplies enabled the King to levy taxes. Although such bills became 

the accepted method for imposing taxes, the House of Commons had 

no control over how such moneys were spent.3 

During the 17th century, Parliament sought to obtain control 

over finance by devising institutional mechanisms to ensure that 

moneys would be spent according to its wishes. One of these mechanisms was the creation of small committees selected from the membership to investigate the disposition of public funds. A second and 

ultimately more enduring mechanism was the creation of two finance 

committees: the Committee of Supply (1620) and the Committee of 

Ways and Means (1641). The function of the Committee of Supply 

6 
The birthplace of the Ways and 

Means tradition: Members of 

Great Britain’s House of Commons convene in this I708 

illustration of the lower house 

of Parliament. Seeking autonomy fiom the Crown and control over money bills, the Home 

of Commons in I641 created 

the first Committee of Ways 

and Means to oversee revenue 

matters. Parliament S committee 

became the prototype of ways 

and means committees set up to 

deal with financial concerru by 

several assemblies in colonial 

America. 

I 

was to consider the needs, or “estimates,” of the government as requested by the Crown, and to appropriate a given sum for that purpose. The Committee of Ways and Means then considered precisely 

what its name implied, the “ways and means for raising the Supply 

granted” to the Crown. The House of Commons, by utilizing these 

two committees, separated the legislative functions of appropriations 

and re~enue.~ By meeting as Committees of the Whole House, these 

committees also provided greater procedural flexibility and privacy, 

since the Speaker-considered to be the “king’s man”-was excluded 

from the proceeding^.^ 

In addition to asserting its claim to originate supply bills, the 

Commons also sought to limit, if not repeal, the right of the House of 

Lords to amend or to reject money bills. The lower house passed several resolutions in the mid- 1600s that limited the upper body’s power 

to amend its legislation.6 The lower house no longer defined its role 

7 
as merely a supplier of funds for use at the Crown’s discretion, but as 

a body with the ability to determine how those funds were to be 

spent. For the most part the upper house acquiesced in this distribution of power, which established the basic relationship between the 

two Houses of Parliament that exists today. 

Finally, in 1689, the English Bill of Rights settled the long struggle between the Crown and Parliament. One key provision eliminated 

the Crown’s authority to impose taxation: 

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer 

time, or in other measure than the same is or shall be granted, is illegaL7 

Thus, by the 18th century the balance of power between the three 

levels of the British government had been achieved: The Crown retained the authority to request bills of supply, but only the lower 

house, through the deliberations of its two finance committees, could 

grant these funds by statutes authorizing expenditures and imposing 

specific taxes-measures which the upper house could accept or reject 

but not amend.8 This relationship defined the parameters of power 

between the executive and legislative branches in the Anglo-American 

world, and set the stage for the conflict over public finance in the 

American colonial legislatures prior to the Revolution. 

Finance Committees in American Colonial Legislatures 

Before 1775 

American colonial legislatures both imitated the British parliamentary 

model and adapted it to the conditions of colonial status. In Great 

Britain, the executive (the Crown) and the legislative branch (specifically the lower house) shared the power to initiate finance legislation. 

Two conditions had to be met before the enactment of such measures: the Crown had to request money and the Commons could then 

define the terms of its monetary grant. In time, the executive request 

became more a matter of form compared to the actual power of the 

Commons to initiate money bills. In the American colonial legislatures, the lower houses similarly denied the right of both governors or 

upper houses to initiate or to amend such measures. 

Colonial government bore a striking resemblance to the parent 

country. The executive function was represented by the governor, 

either a Crown appointee in the royal colonies or an agent of the proprietor in the proprietary colonies. Most colonial legislatures were 

composed of an appointed upper house, usually referred to as the 

governor’s council, and an elected, representative lower house or as8 
A draft of the Declaration of 

Rights composed by the House 

of Commons opens wilh an 

assertion of grievances against 

KingJames 11 and follows with 

a listing of 13 rights. These 

grieuances fmed tk centerpiece of the British Bill of 

Rights adopted in 1689. This 

act limited the power of the 

lhrone, mured the right of 

Parliament to meet freqwntly 

and to have freedom of speech 

in &bates, and confinned the 

nght of Commons to control 

public finances. The Constitution ofthe United States incorporated many of these principks, including the exclusive 

right of the House of Representatives to oripate revenue bills. 

I I 

. 

sembly. Throughout the colonial period, the lower houses jealously 

maintained their similarity in function and authority with the British 

House of Commons, in spite of periodic attempts by the Crown to 

check the assemblies’ control over colonial finan~e.~ 

The power to originate money bills, to audit accounts, and to determine how taxes should be spent were the three basic components 

of the assemblies’ efforts to control colonial finance. Like the House 

of Commons, the American legislatures assumed power over expenditures by appropriating specific, detailed revenues, and by appointing 

9 
officers to dispose of the sums. In the process, colonial legislative procedure imitated British precedent in which the basic principles and 

terms of a revenue bill were discussed in Committee of the Whole 

House; the procedure differed in that a smaller committee would then 

be appointed to draft specifically defined legislation. In the case of a 

military emergency the King, through the governor, would requesl a 

monetary grant. The lower house would then convene into a committee of ways and means to determine the methods of raising money, 

and a select committee would draw up the necessary “supply” bill. 

The reason that the colonies did not use a Committee of the Whole 

for appropriations remains obscure, but it possibly reflected the belief 

that once general principles had been decided by the entire membership, the technical details could be better worked out in a smaller 

committee selected for that purpose. 

Some colonial assemblies established committees with the same 

names as those in existence in Parliament, but the number of members varied to suit the needs of each legislature. In New York, for instance, the Assembly created, following British custom, committees on 

Grievances, Elections, and Courts of Justice; these were Committees 

10 
During the British-French 

struggle for control of North 

America, Redcoats slip down 

the St. Lawrence River, land 

at a small cove, and climb to 

the Plains of Abraham ouerlooking Quebec (lefi). From this 

commanding position, the 

troops forced the French to 

surrender the city on September 

13, 1759. The British victory, 

led by Gen. James Woye 

(right), mortally wounded 

during the attack, made British 

dominance of Canada ineuitable and foreshadowed the end 

of the French and Indian War. 

In the I750s, as France and 

England clashed in colonial 

Ammka, Virgania and North 

Carolina each appointed 

British-style ways and means 

committees to raise funds for 

military defense against Indian 

attacks. 

I 

of the Whole, appointed during each session to handle claims and 

hear elections disputes. The committees of Virginia's House of Burgesses had similar names, but their memberships were smaller, with 

additional members appointed during the course of a session as the 

need arose. Most colonial committees were given permission to meet 

as they wished, and to call for any papers or persons that could provide additional information for their reports. lo 

During the colonial period, standing committees tended to be utilized in large and populous colonies with strong commercial and cultural ties to Great Britain." In these areas, competing local interests 

prompted the adoption of sophisticated legislative methods previously 

developed in the mother country. The only exception among the 

large colonies was the Massachusetts Assembly, which generally preferred to transact its business through committees created for a specific purpose, i.e., those which are today known as select committees. 

The legislatures in smaller and less populated colonies also elected to 

employ this method. 

The colonial development of ways and means committees reflected a pattern of imitation and adaptation. Ways and means committees 

were originally appointed in the colonies to supply money for the 

King's use in special circumstances. Legislative records reveal that 

several of the colonies, such as Virginia and North Carolina, appointed ways and means committees during the 1750s for military purposes, specifically to defend the frontiers from Indian attacks, and 

11 
then ceased to reappoint such committees once the necessity for special funds had ended.13 These ways and means committees were 

Committees of the Whole House like that of the House of Commons. 

Twenty years later, during the Revolution, many of the state legislatures again used ways and means committees for essentially the same 

purposes. This time, however, they patterned their committees on the 

example of some of the larger states, such as Pennsylvania and Virginia, whose ways and means committees were smaller bodies that administered additional financial chores. Thus the idea of ways and 

means committees evolved sporadically in America, first in the colonies whose legislative procedures were most closely patterned on the 

British model, and later in other colonies as an informational agent of 

the House in the preparation of tax plans. 

State Legislatures During the American Revolution 

Independence posed new and complex problems for American legislators. The early state governments were faced with the task of creating 

legislatures whose structure combined elements of British parliamentary procedure with notions of the accountability of the government 

to the governed. This was a knotty problem because the basic procedural structures of the existing colonial legislatures were rooted so 

12 
American colonists protest the 

Stamp Act (lefi). When Parliament imposed taxes without 

representation in the mid17605, the colonies united in 

outrage, A riot helped lead to 

the repeal of the Stamp Act, but 

colonial discontent lingered and 

later exploded in the Revolutionary War. At right, jirebrand Patrick Henry rouses the 

Virgtnia House of Burgesses. 

The Revolution prompted more 

colonies to form ways and 

means committees to jinance the 

war. During and after the 

Revolution, the states faced the 

problem of blending British 

parliamentary rules with new 

notions of self-gouernment. 

‘f 

r 

firmly in parliamentary precedent. While certain practices associated 

with the British system were unacceptable, such as the arbitrary exercise of sovereign power by one branch of government, Americans 

nonetheless revered their shared Anglo-American political heritage. 

Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue as a member of Virginia’s 

House of Burgesses in January of 1778. Jefferson rejected the Senate’s right to amend revenue bills, arguing that the new state constitution did not give the upper house “equal powers over money bills.” 

Jefferson further justified the House’s exclusive jurisdiction over revenue bills on the basis of British parliamentary practice. He was careful 

to qualify this assumption with the argument that the authority of the 

House in this area did not stem from a blind adherence to British 

custom, but rather as a natural outgrowth of common law: 

Nor do we, by this, set up the Parliament of England as the 

expositor of our constitution but the law of Parliament as it 

existed . . . a law coeval with the common law itself, and no 

more liable, as adopted by us, to subsequent change from 

that body than their common or statute law, which we in like 

manner have adopted. To suppose this branch of law not existing in our code would shake the foundation of our whole 

legal system, since every legislative proposition which has 

been passed or rejected since the first establishment of a legislature in this country, has been determined to be law, or 

not law, by the forms of parliamentary proceedings. 

The focus of American state legislatures shifted from British precedent during the Revolution as they encountered the increased finan13 
cia1 burdens of the war, as well as the need to demonstrate the accountability of the government to the people. 

The Revolution posed financial problems for the state governments that exceeded those faced by the colonial legislatures. The 

lower houses had always levied taxes to meet the ordinary expenses of 

government, but war placed an added strain on the public purse. Most 

of the newly created states were reluctant to levy unpopular direct 

taxes. To finance the war effort they turned to the more acceptable 

expedient of printing securities and currency, whose value steadily depreciated.15 By the end of the Revolution the state governments had 

also incurred sizable debts to private citizens for supplies and services 

rendered during the Revolution. 

From an administrative standpoint, the Revolution had a significant impact upon public finance in America. New mechanisms were 

instituted in the state legislatures to handle the complex problems of 

taxation, currency, loans, and the issuance of bonds and other securities. One of these mechanisms was the creation of legislative finance 

committees to fulfill three functions: 1) to investigate ways and means 

of financing the war, 2) to examine methods for settling public accounts after the war, and 3) to oversee the disbursement of public 

moneys by state of€icials.16 

14 
A journal report reprints the 

proceedings of the Continental 

Congress, America ’s first national governing body. During 

the Revolutionary War, the 

Continental Congress and state 

hgihtures evolved different 

procedural machinery to deal 

with appropriations and tax 

matters. State assemblies preferred standing committees. On 

the other hand, the Continental 

Congress and its successor, the 

Confderation Conp-esses, 

vested executive boardr and 

departments with frscal chores. 

These diverse practices were 

usefiul frames of reference for 

representatives to the new Federal Congress in 1789. 

JOURNAL 

OF THE 

PROCEEDINGS 

C 

OF THE I 

ONGRES 

Held at PHILADELPHIA, 

scptcmbrr 5. 1774- 

I 

P HI L AD E L P HI A; 

Printed by WJLLXAM and THOMAS BRADFORQ. 

at the findon Gofee Hoqe. 

DCC,LXXIV. I 

Between 1776 and 1790 more of the state assemblies began to 

create specialized, policy-oriented finance committees. Although not 

formally designated as such, some of these were committees of ways 

and means, charged with broad jurisdiction over money matters. The 

evolution of these ways and means committees in the early state legislatures was largely the result of experimentation. In New York, for example, the House created both a ways and means committee and a 

committee to consider means for supplying the treasury. A standing 

committee formally designated as “Ways and Means” was eventually 

appointed in Massachusetts in 1780. This committee of nine members, selected by ballot, was instructed to devise ways and means to 

supply the treasury for military and contingent expenses, but it went 

beyond these narrow instructions to recommend sweeping changes in 

the state’s treasury department and currency laws. In other reports 

the committee suggested various tax plans and submitted estimates of 

the revenues to be gained from these sources. 

By 1781, the Massachusetts Ways and Means Committee pre15 
The thrashing of a government 

official by a frustrated propertyholder excites New England 

townspeople. This engraving reveals the anger gnawing at citizm who were losing their 

possessions through seizures for 

overdue debts and delinquent 

taxes in the @ression years 

immediately a)er the Revolution. Massachusetts courts virtually ignored pleadings for 

rejbnn. In desperation, a group 

of debtors-led by a sympathetic office-holder, Daniel 

Shays-took up arms. Though 

quickly defmed, Shays ’ Rebellion of 1786-1 787 honstrated the potential for further social unrest under the 

weak Articles of Confederation. 

The insurrectionists thur unwittingly bolstered the movement 

that led to the creation of the 

17.5 Constitution in 1787. 

pared the budget, and even drafted appropriations and tax bills, a task 

that most state legislatures still delegated to select committees. By 

consolidating control over revenue and appropriations, this early legislative committee exercised jurisdictional powers similar to those 

later assigned to the Committee of Ways and Means by the House of 

Representatives. For the next six years the Massachusetts House did 

not appoint a standing finance committee. Beginning in 1788, the 

House appointed a standing committee on finance and in 1789 added 

a standing committee on revenue. These committees were charged 

with far-reaching duties over public credit, debts, government expenditures, revenues, and the state treasury department. Select committees 

were assigned to perform certain specific functions within the jurisdiction of the standing finance and revenue committees.ls 

Pennsylvania and South Carolina also appointed ways and means 

committees during this period. Pennsylvania’s committee, composed 

of one member from each county and the city of Philadelphia, prepared revenue plans and estimates, but did not draft bills. South 

Carolina’s committee not only prepared the budget and suggested 

revenue and appropriations, but also framed tax bills. Thus, by the 

time the Constitution was ratified, several of the states had experi16 
mented with the idea of standing finance committees to administer 

tax, currency, and appropriations measures. l9 

The Continental Congress 

The Continental Congress, unlike the state legislatures, exercised 

both legislative and executive functions, in what was nonetheless a 

confederation with limited authority. Each state was granted one vote 

in Congress in order to maintain the jealously guarded equality of the 

states. Although the Articles of Confederation empowered Congress 

to borrow money, to regulate coinage, and to emit bills of credit, it 

did not have the power to tax, since it could only allocate the costs of 

government among the states.20 

Between September 1774 and May 1775, Congress transacted a 

wide variety of business through select committees assigned to a specific duty. These select committees provided Congress with information and drafted resolutions and bills, but they had limited authority 

and were disbanded upon completion of their designated tasks. Standing committees were not initially used by Congress because of the 

members' inexperience, and because of disagreements between various factions concerning the powers to be exercised by such panels. 

Some members thought that committees should exercise the executive 

function in order to permit the entire membership to attend to the 

enactment of laws and statutes. This system would have been similar 

to the British cabinet system, in which the heads of the executive departments held seats in the House of Commons, led by the Prime 

Minister. Other members proposed that executive functions should be 

delegated to boards whose membership would be derived from outside of Congress. The administrative history of the Second Continental Congress between 1775 and 1789 was largely a story of experimentation with these two formulas.21 

Problems with the exclusive use of select committees became apparent during the Second Continental Congress. Members with multiple committee assignments were overburdened, and the problems and 

complexities associated with organizing the war effort made further 

specialization necessary. As a remedy, Congress in 1775 and 1776 created a group of standing committees entrusted with executive duties 

and functions. One of these committees was a standing committee of 

five members appointed in February 1776 to supervise the Treasury. 

Although this committee basically operated as an accounts committee 

to examine the accounts of the treasurers, it was also instructed to 

consider ways and means of supplying the army, to superintend the 

emission of bills of credit, and to ascertain the population of the 

states in order to enable Congress to determine revenue quotas due 

from each state.22 Although subsequent reorganizations took place, 

17 
this congressional finance committee remained in operation until it 

was superseded by the Department of Finance in 1781. 

The standing committee system inaugurated by Congress in 1775 

eventually encountered difficulties similar to those experienced by 

select committees in earlier sessions. Periodic relocations of Congress 

and poor attendance hampered the ability of standing committees to 

function effectively. The Continental Congress experimented with the 

creation of executive boards to remedy this problem, as well as the 

continually deteriorating state of national finance. The dificulties the 

Committee for Superintending the Treasury had experienced in 1776, 

for example, culminated with a resolution in late December, “That a 

committee of five be appointed to prepare a plan for the better conducting the executive business of Congress, by boards composed of 

persons, not members of Congress.” 23 In 1779, Congress completely 

reorganized its fiscal administration by creating the Board of Treasury, only two of whose five members were taken from the ranks of 

Congress.24 

Between 1780 and 1781, Congress replaced its executive boards 

with a system of executive departments to perform most administrative functions. On February 7, 1781, Congress replaced the Board of 

Treasury with the Department of Finance and elected Robert Morris 

18 
“The representatives of the 

people . , . ought to hold the 

purse-stings, ” argued Constitutional Convention delegate 

Elbridge Geny of Massachusetts (right). Gmy, a future 

member of the Committee of 

Ways and Means, equated the 

Senate with Britain’s Home of 

Lords and raised the historical 

objection to granting the upper 

house the power to initiate 

money bills. Delegates struck a 

compromise that distilled more 

than 150 years of legdative 

expm‘ence: The House of Representatives would originate 

reuenue bills; the Senate would 

have the power to reject or 

amend them. At left, George 

Washington presents the final 

drafi of the U. S. Constitution 

for signing on September 17, 

1787. 

as its superintendent. Morris, a wealthy Philadelphia merchant, 

brought some order to the existing financial chaos. Congress appointed select committees to communicate with the superintendent on matters of policy. On June 17, 1782, for example, a committee on finance 

chaired by James Duane was named to inquire into Morris’ management of the Treasury. Morris resigned in 1784 due to continuing congressional criticism and the difficulties of financing a war through the 

weak instrument of the Articles of Confederation. Congress then recreated a three-member Board of Commissioners to administer the 

Treasury.25 

By 1787 most of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention 

were familiar with the basic procedural outlines of public finance in 

the Anglo-American tradition as they had developed in Great Britain, 

the American colonial and state governments, and the Continental 

Congress. Typically, the legislature held the power of the purse 

through its lawmaking function-often utilizing finance committees in 

informational or oversight roles. The executive branch, however, administered public finance through elected or appointed boards or departments of the treasury. 

The Constitutional Convention 

The powers and responsibilities of the national legislature were greatly expanded under the Constitution. Nationalists such as James Madi19 
son and Alexander Hamilton led the movement to revise the Articles 

of Confederation to remedy the central government’s fiscal instability. 

Many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in the spring 

and summer of 1787 shared the belief that the national government’s 

inability to impose and collect tax revenues had been its most serious 

inadequacy. To resolve this problem, the lower house of the legislature, to be known as the House of Representatives, was empowered 

by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: “To lay and collect taxes 

. . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” 

Several issues were discussed at the convention relating to taxation. One controversial question was whether the new government’s 

ability to levy taxes should be specifically designated, or “enumerated,” as one of its powers. The Virginia Plan, introduced by Edmund 

Randolph on May 29, would have given Congress powers and certain 

“legislative rights” not specified, whereas the New Jersey Plan, introduced by William Paterson on June 13, would have vested Congress 

with various enumerated powers, including the ability to tax. This was 

a delicate question. For the delegates to grant Congress powers previously reserved to the states-and to prohibit the states from exercising those powers-would be to establish Congress as the nation’s supreme legislature. It would also limit the states’ resources to establish 

a power base independent of the national government. The Constitution in its final form prohibited the states from laying duties on imports, although they could collect all other forms of taxes. Congress, 

on the other hand, could levy all forms of taxes except export duties. 

Because import duties were by far the more lucrative source of revenue, this arrangement benefited the federal government at the expense of the states.26 

A second and more important issue was whether the upper or the 

lower house of Congress would have original jurisdiction over money 

bills. This issue raised old fears of aristocracy and old arguments 

against the upper house assuming any authority over public finance. 

Some delegates equated the Senate with the House of Lords and thus 

opposed any grant of power to the upper house to originate money 

bills. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, for example, argued that the 

lower house as “the representatives of the people” should have the 

power of origination, because “it was a maxim that the people ought 

to hold the purse-strings.’’ 27 George Mason of Virginia produced the 

most reasoned argument based upon British precedent. “The practice of Engld was in point,” the Virginia legal scholar argued, since 

“The House of Lords does not represent nor tax the people, because 

[it is] not elected by the people.” Mason likewise concluded that “the 

pursestrings should be in the hands of the Representatives of the 

people.” 28 

Not every delegate shared Gerry and Mason’s fears of an aristo20 
“Rise it will”: An illustration 

in the Massachusetts 

Centinel predicts that North 

Carolina will soon join the colonnade of states that have ratified the Constitution. New York 

took its place as the “Eleventh 

Pillar of the great National 

Dome” on July 26, 1788. 

Rhode Island, fractured by 

ant federalist sympathies, was 

the last of the okganal 13 

states to ratfy. Once confirmed 

as the law of the land, the 

Constitution institutionalized 

the right ofthe House of Representatives to prouide the ways 

and means of managmg the 

fiscal responsibilities of the 

nation. 

CEh Fct lj, 

:LEVEN STARS, in qnick I’uccefIion rife- I iLEVEN COLUMNS [trike our wond’rinn eve< 

n o’er the wbdr, hall fwcll die beauteoiq LOME, 

halt-and FREEDOM’, halloa’d home. 

AR1 S in glvrious fplendour !line 

-1 URE ~IVK her llorci divine 1 

refin’d, difpenrc us niorc than gold, 

orld, teach WISDOM to the oldhere hall fir her blcfl ahode. 

cJ, like its parciit GOD 

AW, hall cndlefs PLACE maintain. 

RNlAN AGE,” - tclurn ago 

cratic Senate. Some saw no problem with both houses originating 

such legislation as long as their members remained accountable to the 

electorate either directly or indirectly. Pierce Butler of South Carolina, for example, who denied that there was any close analogy between 

the proposed Senate and the House of Lords, complained that “We 

were always following the British Constitution when the reason for it 

did not apply.” 29 James Madison developed the argument that the 

Senate would have a salutary restraining effect upon potential excesses in the House of Representatives if the upper house were given 

the power to amend money bills originated in the lower house.30 In 

the compromise eventually adopted, the lower house was entrusted 

with the exclusive authority to originate money bills. The Senate, on 

the other hand, would have the power to reject or to amend these 

bills. Articlc I, Section 7 provided the basic framework for the division 

of revenue authority between the two bodies: “All Bills for raising 

Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the 

Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” 

Conclusion 

The combined experience of the British Parliament, American colonial 

and state legislatures, and the Continental Congress provided three 

basic lessons to American legislators in the area of public finance. The 

first lesson was the right of the popularly elected lower house of the 

21 
legislature to initiate revenue bills. The power of the purse had been 

a major issue in the conflict between Parliament and the Crown; in 

the colonies it was a contributing factor to the American Revolution. 

A second lesson had been provided as lower houses experimented 

with mechanisms such as ways and means committees to perform its 

traditional fiscal responsibilities. The House of Commons committee 

was a deliberative body of the whole House on revenue issues only. 

American committees, on the other hand, tended to be smaller, select 

committees, some of which even drafted legislation. The centralizing 

tendencies of national government, as well as the pragmatic problems 

of fiscal administration, contributed to the third basic lesson, which 

was that the legislature must share authority over finance with the executive. In Great Britain this shared power was institutionalized in the 

cabinet system. The Confederation Congress similarly created an executive board and then a department to administer public finance. 

The reports, estimates, and even draft legislation prepared by these 

executive officers created a system of mutual dependence between the 

legislature and its agents. As with any such close relationship, the potential for conflict as well as cooperation was ever present. 

The Constitution of the United States distilled this nearly 150 

years of legislative experience when it granted original jurisdiction 

over money bills to the lower house of Congress. The power to tax 

was at the heart of the new scheme of government. Although the Constitution outlined the basic jurisdictional relationships between the 

various branches of government, Congress was left to establish its 

own legislative procedures. None perhaps was quite so crucial as the 

power of the purse. If the infant republic was to survive, it would have 

to raise the revenue to pay its debts. 

22 
“A conimitfee of ways and 

means are employed in 

investigating our revenues 

and our wants. . . . 

(James Madison to 

Thomas Jeffrprson, 

31 January 1796) 

,. 

1789 *1801 

Origins: The House Committee 

of Ways and Means 

The House of Representatives 

and Means on July 24, 1789, yet that was discharged less 

h the House as a Hamiltonian fioffice, the House 

asserted its autonomy by reestablishing a e finance committee at the urging of James Madison and Alb 

nents of the Washi 

Fourth through Sixt 

the Committee of Ways and Means, which exercised legislative jurisdiction over the Treasury, the revenue, the public debt, and government expenditures. 

he United States in 1789 was an infant republic faced with eco- T nomic troubles at home and challenges from abroad. With a population of less than four million in 13 quarrelsome states, the nation 

faced an uncertain future. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode 

Island, had not even ratified the Constitution when the First Congress 

convened and George Washington was inaugurated as President. Several of the states, as well as the national government, had heavy 

unpaid war debts. Great Britain continued to wage economic warfare 

against the United States while maintaining military outposts in 

Canada and along the western frontier. In order to assert its place as 

a truly independent nation in the world community, the United States 

would have to resolve its financial problems, provide for the payment 

of its debts, and strengthen its economic base. 

The Constitution provided only an incomplete blueprint to help 

Congress resolve these problems. Many procedures would have to be 

developed by trial and error. While the document defined the power 

of the House of Representatives to initiate appropriations and revenue bills, for example, it was silent on the administrative mechanisms 

needed to enforce them. The history of Anglo-American public finance provided three alternative systems of administration: 1) the 

entire membership of the House, as was the case in the British House 

23 
of Commons, 2) a select legislative committee, such as those in several state legislatures, or 3) an executive officer who was also considered an agent of the legislature, which had been the procedure adopted by Congress during the Confederation period. 

Between 1789 and 1801, the House of Representatives experimented with all three alternatives. Congress created the Department 

of the Treasury in 1789, but the first Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, 

formulated and administered policies that proved to be controversial. 

Although Hamilton submitted his reports to the House, he operated 

more as an independent policy-maker than as an agent of the legislature. To redress the imbalance of power between the executive and 

legislative branches, the House created the permanent Committee of 

Ways and Means, just as it had found standing committees for other 

recurring issues to be the most efficient vehicles to facilitate the legislative process. 

The status of the House Committee of Ways and Means changed 

between 1789 and 1801. Thc committcc cstablished in the First Congress was a temporary body-in legislative terms a select committee. 

When the committee was appointed in the Fourth Congress in 1795, 

however, it was referred to as a standing committee, although not in 

the sense that the term is used today. The Committee of Ways and 

Means was not included in the standing rules of the House of Representatives, but it was reappointed by a separate resolution in each 

Congress from 1795 to 1801. Not until the Seventh Congress in 1802 

was the committee included as a permanent standing committee in the 

revised House rules. There was nothing inevitable about the creation 

of the Committee of Ways and Means. Its establishment reflected the 

example of British and American precedents, but it was also a product 

of the development of legislative procedure during the political controversies of the 1790s. 

The First House Committee of Ways and Means, 1789 

The Constitution specified the powers of the House of Representatives, but it left legislative procedure only imprecisely suggested. The 

House of Representatives was empowered to “chuse their Speaker 

and other Officers.” Article I additionally specified, among other 

things, that each House of Congress should meet at least once a year, 

keep ajournal, and “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Based 

upon English precedent and the experience of colonial, state, and 

Confederation legislatures. it would have been reasonable to expect 

the new Congress to utilize finance committees in some fashion. 

As the House of Representatives began to organize during the 

first session of the First Congress in New York City in 1789, committees of supply and of ways and means were established. On April 29, 

24 
The home briefly of the nation 3 

First Federal Congress, Federal 

Hall stand on Wall Street in 

New York City. Oflcials crowd 

the pillared balcony to hear 

George Washington take the 

presidential oath on April 30, 

1789. During the first session 

of the First Congress, a motion 

by House member Thomas 

Fitzsimons led to the creation of 

a ways and means committee on 

JUL) 24, 1789. The panel 

never reported, however, and 

was discharged in Septemberprobably because Congress created a Treasury Department 

under Ahxander Hamilton. 

1789, the House ordered the appointment of a three-member committee chaired by Elbridge Gerry “to prepare and report an estimate of 

supplies . . . and of nett produce of the impost” for the present year. 

The committee on supplies and imposts was further instructed on 

May 8 to collect information on the value of foreign imports and on 

the tonnage of shipping entering and clearing American ports. Gerry 

presented the committee’s report to the House on July 9.2 

The issue of a ways and means committee arose during consideration of the bill to create a treasury department. Members from states 

that had utilized finance committees suggested that the House establish a similar committee. Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire, for 

example, argued against vesting the Secretary of the Treasury with 

the authority to propose revenue plans. He contended that a committee should be appointed for that purpose, if the House as a body was 

not able to prepare such plans. Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania 

moved the creation of a ways and means committee on July 24, 1789. 

Denying that he meant any criticism of Gerry’s committee, Fitzsimons 

recommended, “If we wish to have more particular information on 

these points, we ought to appoint a Committee of Ways and Means, 

to whom, among other things, the estimate of supplies may be 

25 
referred, and this ought to be done speedily.” The favorable reaction 

of the House was recorded in its Journal for Friday, July 24, 1789: 

ORDERED, That a committee of ways and means, to consist 

of a member from each state, be appointed, to whom it shall 

be referred to consider the report of a committee appointed 

to prepare an estimate of supplies requisite for the service of 

the United States the current year, and to report there~pon.~ 

The 1 1-member committee (North Carolina and Rhode Island 

had not yet ratified the Constitution and were therefore unrepresented in Congress) was chaired by Thomas Fitzsimons (PA), the member 

who had moved its creation, and included John Vining (DE), Samuel 

Livermore (NH), Lambert Cadwalader (NJ), John Laurance (NY), Jeremiah Wadsworth (CT), James Jackson (GA), Elbridge Gerry (MA), 

William Loughton Smith (SC), William Smith (MD), and James Madison (VA). Fitzsimons was a Philadelphia merchant, an ardent nationalist, and a signer of the Constitution. After leaving Congress in 1795, 

he would become a founder and director of the Bank of North America and would help organize the Insurance Company of North Ameri~a.~ As a proponent of a strong central government, he was known as 

a Federalist, just as were most of his fellow members on the committee. Only Elbridge Gerry was identified with those who had opposed 

the centralizing tendencies of the Constitution and were therefore referred to as Antifederalists. 

There is no record concerning the work of the committee. For 

example, it did not present a report to the House. The only other 

mention of the committee in the House Journal was on September 17, 

1789. On a motion by Gerry, the House ordered the committee discharged: 

ORDERED, That the committee of ways and means be discharged from further proceeding on the business to them referred, and that it be referred to the secretary of the treasury 

of the United States, to consider and report there~pon.~ 

If the committee never reported to the House and was discharged 

after less than two months, why had the House created it? One historian has concluded that the committee was of little significance, either 

in its creation or its demise.6 Yet, when the committee is placed 

within the context of the creation of the Treasury Department (September 2, 1789) and the appointment of Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury (September 11, 1789), the significance of the 

short history of the first Ways and Means Committee becomes clearer. 

The statute that established the Treasury differed from those that created the other two executive departments (State and War), in that it 

26 
Thomas Fitrsimons of Pennsylvania told the House, “if we 

wish to have more particular 

information . . . we ought to 

appoint a Committee of Ways 

and Means, to whom . . . the 

estimate of supplies may be refmed. . . .” Fitrsimons headed 

that first committee of 1 I members, one from each of the states 

that had then ratified the Constitution. Born in Ireland and 

one of the few Roman Catholics 

to sign the Conrtitution, 

Fitaimons played an 

instrumental role in establishing the nation’s first bank, the 

Bank of North America. 

required the secretary to prepare revenue plans, to report estimates of 

revenue and expenditures, and to give information in person or in 

writing to Congress. The Federalist majority evidently intended the 

Secretary of the Treasury to become an agent of the legislature, much 

the same as the executive departments had been in the Confederation. 

A single individual, responsible to and directed by Congress, would 

be more efficient than a committee with its shifting personnel. By appointing an executive officer, the House rejected the experience of 

state legislatures with finance committees. According to the new formulation, a ways and means committee was not necessary since there 

was an executive department responsible to the House to provide the 

information needed to prepare and draft legi~lation.~ 

Hamiltonian Finance, I 789- 1795 

Between 1789 and 1794, the House of Representatives worked directly with Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton and other department 

heads to administer the finances of the federal government. Thirtyfour-year-old Alexander Hamilton, one of the guiding forces in calling 

27 
the Constitutional Convention, was a brilliant advocate of a strong 

central government. One of the authors of The Federalist, along with 

James Madison and John Jay, he believed that the federal government, 

indeed the nation itself, could survive only if it could establish a “habitual sense of obligation” among the people. To do this, Hamilton 

proposed for the government to operate directly upon the people, especially through taxation. 

As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton recommended what has 

come to be known as “the economic counterpart of the Constitution.” 

The four objectives of Hamiltonian finance were: 1) the funding of 

the debt of the Continental Congress, 2) the assumption of all state 

debts into the national debt, 3) the establishment of a national bank, 

and 4) the enactment of tariffs and bounties to promote American 

manufactures. Accomplishment of these four objectives, Hamilton believed, would strengthen the federal government, and in the process 

restore the credit of the United States both at home and abroad. 

Hamilton’s first Report on Public Credit (January 1790) recommended funding the national debt by the creation of a sinking fund based 

on British precedent. The national debt was composed of more than 

10 million dollars in loans and interest owed to France, Holland, and 

Spain, as well as 40 million dollars owed to individuals in the form of 

war bonds or certificates that had been paid to soldiers and officers of 

the Continental Army or to farmers and merchants for war supplies. 

Additionally, Hamilton wished to assume the debts of the states, 

which amounted to nearly 18 million dollars. His sinking fund was designed to be a separate interest-bearing fund administered by a group 

of commissioners. The fund was to regularly receive specific government revenues, and it was to be used only to meet scheduled payments to redeem the debt and its interest. Originally, the proceeds 

from the sales of public lands were reserved for the fund. Later, in 

1795, other sources of revenue were added, chiefly surplus revenues 

from import and tonnage duties. 

The funding plan passed in spite of opposition from members 

such as Madison, who argued that repaying war debts at full value discriminated in favor of speculators. The debt assumption plan encountered greater opposition-in particular from states such as Virginia, 

Maryland, Georgia, and North Carolina, which either had smaller 

debts or believed that they would benefit more from a general settlement of debts owed by the national government to the states. Debt 

assumption passed in the late summer of 1790 as a result of one of 

the first incidents of legislative logrolling, when the plan was linked 

with the location of the new national capital on the banks of the Potomac River. 

The national bank elicited much less opposition than debt assumption when it was introduced in Hamilton’s second Report on Public 

Credit in December 1790. The Secretary’s Report on .%%nufactures 

28 
Brilliance in financial administration carried Alexander 

Hamtlton to his peak of influence rn Secretary of the Treasury Jrom I789 to 1795. So 

efJicient was Hamilton that the 

House found it expedient to 

refer many revenue matters diredly to him. Soon it seemed 

that this nonelected official of 

the executive branch wklded 

more power OVHJZSCQ~ policy 

than elected legislators. Hamilton's Federalist Leanings toward 

a commercial aristocracy shed 

opposition from Jefferson and 

Madison. The friction contnbuted to the rise of thefirst 

American party system and a 

movement to restore House control overjinance by establishing 

a permanent committee of ways 

and means. 

A 

(December 1791) suggested increased tariffs and direct financial aid 

to manufactures in the form of bounties to promote the self-sufficiency of American enterprise, as well as to attract business support for 

the federal government. Congress enacted a higher tariff in 1792, but 

it did not provide the level of protection to American manufactures 

that the Secretary of the Treasury sought.8 

The House worked closely with Hamilton to prepare annual estimates of revenue and expenditure, the closest equivalent then to an 

annual federal budget. Each year the executive officers submitted estimates to Congress of recommended sums needed to operate their departments. The House then considered these estimates, submitted in 

the form of a letter to the Speaker, and either approved the figures or 

sent them back to the executive departments for revision. Upon approval by a Committee of the Whole House, the estimates were referred to a House select drafting committee to prepare an appropriations bill that required the approval of both Houses of Congress and 

the signature of the President to become law. 

Hamilton's estimates and reports were precise, detailed, and accurate. His estimates for the fiscal year 1793, for example, included 

specific outlays for department expenses and salaries itemized to the 

dollar. More often than not the House accepted Hamilton's depart29 
O€ 
The first ways and means 

committee member to become 

President, James Madison had 

initially sided with Hamilton 

on the need for a strong central 

government. But in the early 

1790s, Madison broke with 

Hamilton. He then played a 

prominent role in the evolution 

of a permanent ways and 

means committee by supporting 

the creation of a select House 

panel that would loosen Hamilton’s gnp on revenue matters. 

Madison sewed on the committee as a minority member. He 

left Congress in. 1800, became 

Secretaq of State under 

Thomas Jefferson, and succeeded him as President in 

1809. 

3 

more closely tied to Great Britain. As such, their center of power was 

in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. The Jeffersonian Republicans, on the other hand, tended to reflect the interests of the 

agrarian, interior regions, and were more favorable to the French 

Revolution. These divisions suggested a basic difference over the kind 

of representative democracy desired for the United States. The Federalists, often called the “fiscal party” by their foes, sought to create a 

centralized state directed by a commercial aristocracy. The Jeffersonian Republicans, whom their opponents often called ‘Jacobins,” favored an agrarian democracy represented by the early stages of the 

French Revolution. Jay’s Treaty, since it involved commercial issues in 

the war between Great Britain and France, formed a pivotal event 

around which all party cleavages clustered. l3 

During the First and Second Congresses, however, the congressional opposition to Hamilton was initially weak and slow to organize. 

Capitalizing upon legislative distrust of executive initiative, where it 

existed, opposition forces harassed the Secretary by requiring detailed 

reports and by prohibiting him from presenting these reports in 

person. On December 3, 1791, Elbridge Gerry reported two resolutions from “the committee to whom were referred several motions for 

31 
CHAIRMEN OF THE COMMITTEE .OF WAYS A 

omas Fitzsimons (F-PA) First Congress, 178 

Fourth Congress, 1795-97 

Fifth Congress, 1797-99 

Sixth Congress, First Se 

Sixth Congress, Second 

obtaining annual and regular statements of the receipts and expenditures of all public moneys. . . .” Gerry argued that the requirement 

of “regular” and “accurate” statements from the Secretary of the 

Treasury should be a standing rule of the House. Other members 

questioned whether one House could bind future Houses by such a 

standing rule. Abraham Clark (NJ) observed that they had no more 

right to adopt such a rule, “than they have to say that the Speaker of 

the next House shall wear a tie-wig.” The resolution nonetheless 

passed: 

Resolved, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the 

Treasury to lay before the House of Representatives . . . an 

accurate statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public moneys . . . . 14 

A second resolution, unrecorded in the House Journal, was not adopted. That resolution would have required the appointment of one or 

more committees to examine the Treasury reports. 

Ways and Means in the Third Congress, 1794 

In 1793, the congressional opposition to Hamilton, led by Jefferson’s 

Virginia colleagues Madison and William Branch Giles, set in motion 

a series of events that revived the idea of a ways and means committee. Giles introduced resolutions in 1793 to censure Hamilton for violations of the loan procedures authorized by Congress. Although the 

House defeated this attack upon the Secretary of the Treasury, Ciles 

renewed the effort in the first session of the Third Congress (December 2, 1793-June 9, 1794) by asserting that Hamilton had exceeded 

32 
his instructions from the President. In Hamilton’s terse response to 

the select committee appointed to examine the Treasury Department, 

he objected “to being required to produce any other authorities.” 

The same day, March 24, 1794, the Secretary wrote to Washington to 

request confirmation that the President, either verbally or in writing, 

had authorized his actions. 

Two days after Hamilton’s response to the select committee, 

James Madison wrote to inform Jefferson of the “enquiry into the 

Treasury.” On a related issue, Madison observed, “The old question 

of referring the origination of Taxes comes on to-day, and will, in 

some degree, test the present character of the House.” l6 Madison’s 

prediction proved correct. On March 26, 1794, the House revived a 

ways and means committee: 

Resolved, That a committee, consisting of fifteen members, be 

appointed to inquire whether any, or what, further or other 

revenues are necessary for the support of public credit; and if 

further revenues are necessary, to report the ways and 

means. 

John Page (VA) made the only recorded speech on the resolution. He 

objected to creating such a committee, even more than the “unconstitutional” practice of calling for a report from the Secretary of the 

Treasury. The whole House should consider ways and means, Page 

argued, rather than a committee of 15. 

Madison’s account to Jefferson, dated March 31, 1794, was as 

follows: 

I forgot to mention in my last that the question whether the 

ways and means should be referred to the Secretary of the 

Treasury, as heretofore, or to a Committee, lately came on, 

and decided the sense of the House to be regenerated on 

that point. The fiscal [Federalist] party, perceiving their 

danger, offered a sort of compromise, which took in Mercer 

Uohn Francis Mercer (MD)], and, with him, sundry others in 

principle against them. Notwithstanding the success of the 

stratagem, the point was carried by 49 against 46. If the 

question had divided the House fairly, there would have been 

a majority of ten or a dozen at least.18 

Madison saw the creation of the committee as both a procedural and a 

political issue. Procedurally, the appointment of a ways and means 

committee reiterated the House’s right to originate revenue bills. 

Politically, the reestablishment of such a committee was a direct attack 

upon the Federalist administration of the Treasury and upon Hamilton personally. David Cobb, a Federalist from Massachusetts, corrobo33 
i 

P 

= - Fea‘eralist William L. Smith of 

South Carolina chaired the 

select committee of ways and 

means formed in 1794 at the 

urgmg of Madison and others. 

Federalists made up the majority of the 15-man committee, 

which seated one representative 

fiom each state. Over objections 

fiom minority members, the 

majority rqborted increased 

import and tonnage duties and 

kplation for excise, stamp, 

and license taxes. Smith also 

led a second select panel which 

met in the Third Congress to 

prepare bills recommended by the 

previou committee. 

~ 

rated Madison’s account of the political motives involved in the committee’s appointment, noting that it accomplished “the favorite object 

which our Southern friends have long been wishing to obtain, that 

of excluding the Secretary of the Treasury from reporting systems of 

Finance.” The members of the committee, he continued, “are too 

good to do any hurt, & we expect but little good from them unless 

assisted.” l9 

The nature of the Federalist stratagem mention by Madison remains unknown. Furthermore, Madison evidently overestimated the 

strength of his own party in several respects. The resolution created a 

select committee, not a standing or permanent committee. In fact, this 

ways and means committee did not differ in its appointment from 

other select committees named to examine the Treasury. Moreover, 

the committee was chaired by a Federalist with a strong majority favorable to Hamilton. 

The 15-member committee appointed on March 26, 1794, was 

chaired by William Loughton Smith (SC) and consisted of one 

member from each state. The size of the committee most likely reflected three considerations: 1) the example of the Confederation 

Congress, 2) the politically expedient desire to allow every state to 

have a voice in public finance, and 3) the example of Pennsylvania’s 

ways and means committee, which consisted of one member from 

34 
each county and the city of Philadelphia. Nine of the 15 members 

were Federalists, including Chairman Smith; Thomas Fitzsimons (PA), 

the chairman of the 1789 Committee of Ways and Means; Benjamin 

Bourn (RI); and Fisher Ames (MA). Six members have been identified 

as Jeffersonian Republicans, led by Madison, William Barry Grove 

(NC), Abraham Baldwin (GA), and Gabriel Christie (MD). Chairman 

William Loughton Smith, on the other hand, was one of Hamilton’s 

strongest supporters. The Secretary of the Treasury had endorsed his 

South Carolina colleague in a bitter reelection campaign, and Smith 

had returned the favor when he helped to defeat the Giles resolutions 

to censure Hamilton in 1793. Smith, according to his biographer, had 

the resolutions thrown out through an adroit parliamentary maneuver.20 Some Federalists, nonetheless, disagreed with Smith’s leadership of Ways and Means. One Massachusetts Federalist noted that although he was “a good fellow,” Smith “has no policy.” This colleague 

feared that the chairman’s penchant for uniting several controversial 

tax measures in one resolution risked defeat when the items might 

pass individually.2 

At first, the committee was referred to in typical select committee 

fashion by its long title, “the committee appointed to inquire whether 

any, or what, further revenues are necessary for the support of the 

public credit, and, if further revenues are necessary, to report ways 

and means.” The committee soon was referred to as the Committee 

of (or “on”) Ways and Means, in part out of convenience, but also in 

part because it was understood that this committee performed the 

function of a ways and means committee. In April, Madison referred 

to the committee as “The Committee on Ways and Means” in a letter 

to Jefferson. A petitition from snuff manufacturers in May requested 

exemption from taxes to be reported from “the Committee of Ways 

and Means.” The House Journal itself began to use the phrase “Committee of Ways and Means.” Finally, when the reports of the permanent Committee of Ways and Means were compiled several years 

later, a House clerk included the March 26, 1794, resolution and the 

committee’s April 17, 1794, report as its first two documents.22 

Thereafter, the committee was referred to as the Committee of Ways 

and Means until 1880, when its title became the Committee on Ways 

and Means. 

The committee met throughout the first session of the Third 

Congress. Some evidence exists that there were spirited debates over 

which taxes could be increased, or what new taxes could be levied. 

Hamilton was called to appear before the committee on at least one 

occasion. According to one member, “he appeared cursedly mortifyed,” but “those on the Committee who had been always opposed to 

references to him on this subject made no great show.” 23 The committee reported recommendations to the House on April 17 for increased import and tonnage duties, and legislation for a variety of 

35 
excise, stamp, and license taxes, as well as a direct tax on land. The 

latter tax was the only one Madison and his followers supported. 

Madison observed that the report “was the work of a sub-committee 

in understanding with the Fiscal Department.” Although there is some 

circumstantial evidence of the use of a subcommittee, there is no 

doubt that Madison’s party agreed with their congressional leader that 

the committee was “composed of a majority infected by the fiscal 

errors which threaten so ignominious and vexatious a system to our 

Country.” 24 

The Federalists capitalized upon the fact that they had a system, 

no matter how ignominious it might seem to their foes, by taunting 

Madison to produce an alternative, which he proved incapable of 

doing. One influential Federalist observed that Madison “owed it to 

himself and to the respect of his friends to have come forward with 

his own system that it might be compared with that of his hated rival 

[Hamilton].” But Madison, “strange to tell” did nothing. “He was a 

silent & inefficient member,” whose single proposal was for a direct 

tax.25 

After the committee’s April 17 report, the House appointed a 

second committee of 15 to prepare bills based upon the report’s recommendations. This second committee’s membership was identical to 

the Committee of Ways and Means even to the order in which the 

names were listed in the House Journal.26 Legislative procedure in this 

early period in the history of the House evidently required the creation of a second and distinct select committee to draft bills, but in 

practice the two committees were identical in terms of membership. 

There was no effort to reestablish the Committee of Ways and 

Means in the second session of the Third Congress (November 3, 

1794-March 3, 1795), possibly because the Federalists had frustrated 

Hamilton’s congressional critics. Political parties, like legislative procedure, evolved slowly. The procedural and political motivations in 

the history of the committee in the Third Congress perhaps appear 

clearer in retrospect than they were at the time. 

Ways and Means in the Fourth Congress 

‘The evidence concerning the establishment of a standing Committee 

of Ways and Means in the first session of the Fourth Congress (December 7, 1795-June 1, 1796), is slight but intriguing. Hamilton retired in February 1795, and was succeeded by Oliver Wolcott, his 

former assistant and one of the first men to make a career of government service. Wolcott was a capable, but not brilliant, Secretary of the 

Treasury who closely adhered to Hamiltonian fiscal policies. 27 His 

report to Congress at the outset of the Fourth Congress set the stage 

for the creation of a standing Committee of Ways and Means. 

36 
PARTY RATIOS IN THE COMMITTEE AN 

CONGRESS 

irst 

Third 

Fourth 

(1789-91) 

(1 793-95) 

( 1795-97) 

First Session 

Second Session 

Fifth 

(1 797-99) 

First Session 

Second Session 

Third Session 

Sixth 

(1799-1801) 

First Session 

Second Session 

1 789- 180 1 

HOUSE 

38 P-26 AA 

9 F-6 57 JR-48 F JR 

F-6 JR 54 F-52 JR 

F-8 JR 

7 F-2 JR 64 F-42 JR 

F-3 J 

PRESIDENT 

Washington (F) 

Adams (F) 

F-Federalis t JR-Jeffersonian Republican 

AF-An tifederalis t tratio 

AA-An n 

Po 

d 

When the House convened in December, it established four 

standing committees: Elections, Claims, Commerce and Manufactures, 

and Revisal and Unfinished Business.2s On Thursday, December 17, 

Albert Gallatin raised the issue of establishing a standing ways and 

means committee. The debates and proceedings on this issue were 

poorly reported, making it necessary to give careful attention to the 

chronology of events and the persons involved. 

William Loughton Smith, the Federalist chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in the Third Congress, had introduced a set 

of resolutions on December 10 in response to the President’s annual 

message. One of those resolutions recommended “that inquiry ought 

to be made whether further means should be provided to reinforce 

the provisions heretofore made for the extinction of the Public Debt,” 

which of course comprehended only a part of Secretary Wolcott’s 

report. It was during consideration of Smith’s resolution in Committee of the Whole House on December 17 that Gallatin first suggested 

37 
reestablishing a ways and means committee. The incident was only 

briefly reported in the Annals of Congress: 

Mr. Gallatin gave in a long amendment. Its object was to 

appoint a committee to superintend the general operations of 

finance. No subject, Mr. G. said, more required a system, and 

great advantages would be derived from it. The motion was 

seconded by Mr. Findley [William Findley (PA)]. 

Mr. W. Smith did not object to the amendment in itself, 

but as embracing a quite distinct object from the original resolution, he apprehended that, in the shape of an amendment, 

it would be out place. The resolution was withdrawn.29 

After a resolution was read “as to a committee inquiring about the 

existing operations on the Public Debt,” John Nicholas (VA) moved to 

substitute Gallatin’s amendment. Gallatin, “on further consideration, 

thought his resolution not sufficiently digested for acting upon.” He 

requested that consideration of the resolution be postponed until 

Monday, December 21, which the House so ordered. The Annals reported that on Friday, December 18, Gallatin “laid on the table his 

resolution respecting the establishment of a Committee of Finance, 

which is to be taken up on Monday next.” 30 

Albert Gallatin learned the 

realities of committee work in 

the Pennsylvania Leplature. 

‘‘I was put on thirty-Jive 

committees, prepared all their 

reports, and drew all their 

bills, ’’ he noted. His labor 

taught him the wisdom of 

having legzslators control the 

public purse. Thus m a member 

of the Fourth U.S. Congress he 

joined the struggle against 

Hamiltonian finance and made 

the first call for a standingfinance committee. Strong partisan leadership from Madison 

and Gallatin, a movement to 

simplfy Home procedure, and 

a desire for the House to assert 

its constitutional role in public 

finance culminated in the creation of a pennanenl Committee of Ways and Means in 

1795. Gallatin sewed on the 

comwiillee almost continually 

until his appointment as Secretary of the Treasuly in 1801. 

38 
The brief mention of Gallatin’s action on the 18th was doubly 

meaningful. It identified Gallatin as the author, or at least the source, 

of the resolution. Secondly, the phrase, “a Committee of Finance,” 

confirmed that the proposed committee exceeded the limited intent of 

Smith’s resolution. Its proponent, Albert Gallatin, was a first-term 

member who had extensive experience in fiscal legislation gained 

from his service on a ways and means committee in the Pennsylvania 

Legislature. He was also the leading economic thinker in the emerging Jeffersonian Republican Party. Although his motives for recommending the creation of a House standing ways and means committee 

are not revealed in the record, he is known to have favored legislative 

autonomy from the executive branch in matters of fiscal policy. His 

action may well have been both an attack upon the Federalist Treasury and the policies of Hamilton, as well as an attempt to assert the 

right of the House to determine public finance policy.31 

The Annals reported that on the Zlst, “Mr. Gallatin called up his 

resolution for the appointment of a standing Committee of Ways and 

Means. This motion was agreed to nem. con. [without dissent].” 32 No 

debate was reported on the resolution, nor was any mention made of 

the votes for or against. Moreover, this was the first reference by 

name of “a standing Committee of Ways and Means,” unless Gallatin’s 

tabled resolution of the 18th to create a “Committee of Finance” 

comprehended the same purpose. The House Journal cited the adopted 

resolution in full: 

Resolved, That a Standing Committee of Ways and Means be 

appointed, whose duty it shall be to take into consideration 

all such reports of the Treasury Department, and all such 

propositions relative to the revenue, as may be referred to 

them by the House; to inquire into the state of the public 

debt; of the revenue; and of the expenditures; and to report, 

from time to time, their opinion thereupon.33 

There could be little doubt that this committee was to be a fullfledged finance committee whose jurisdiction encompassed every 

aspect of the financial policy of the federal government. 

The only debate recorded in the Annals came on the question of 

the committee’s size. The membership of the four standing committees established by the rules of the Fourth Congress varied in size. 

Elections, Commerce and Manufactures, and Claims were set at seven 

members each, and Revisal and Unfinished Business at three members. An unidentified member moved that Ways and Means also consist of seven members, but another member recommended 14. The 

debate revealed both the pros and cons of a large committee. Some 

members argued that large committees wasted time; they were difficult to convene, with the result that a subcommittee generally per39 
formed most of the work. Proponents of a large committee suggested that general principles would be “more satisfactorily determined . . . while the details and examination of accounts might be attended to by a subcommittee.” It is significant that both sides recognized that a large committee would use a subcommittee, considering 

Madison’s allegation that the 1794 committee had done so. 

The House voted to accept the larger figure and proceeded to 

appoint 14 members to the committee, one from each state (the Kentucky delegation had not yet arrived). This suggests that the Committee of Ways and Means was to be both similar to the four standing 

committees in the House rules and yet unique, not only in its manner 

of appointment, but also in its composition. A select group within the 

committee, most probably the chairman and the members of his party, 

would constitute a subcommittee that would determine policy, yet the 

importance of fiscal matters still seemingly dictated a large committee 

in which every state was represented. 

When Christopher Greenup of Kentucky took his seat on the 

24th, he was added as the committee’s 15th member. The committee 

list included five veterans of the 1794 committee: William L. Smith, 

Madison, Baldwin, Bourn, and Nicholas Gilman. The membership 

included nine Federalists and six Jeffersonian Republicans. Moreover, 

the Committee of Ways and Means again was chaired by William 

Loughton Smith, the chairman of the 1794 committee and an ardent 

40 
A plan for the completion of the 

U.S. Capitol in 1806, by renowned architect Benjamin Latrobe, resewed space for a Ways 

and Means meeting room (area 

in color) adjacent to the lobby 

of the House Chamber. The 

sketch constitutes an early 

indication that the panel had a 

room for its exclusive use in the 

early 1800s. 

advocate of Hamiltonian finance. Smith’s appointment raises new questions. Normally a select committee was chaired by the member moving 

its appointment. Granted that this particular committee was referred to 

as a standing committee, but if Gallatin had moved the resolution, why 

was he not appointed chairman? He was appointed to the committee, 

but his name appeared as the fifth on the list. 

Historians have disagreed over the origins of this committee. The 

prevailing interpretation dates back to the views of Hamilton’s son, 

John Church Hamilton, who wrote in the mid-19th century that the 

committee was a Jeffersonian creation to curb the Federalist executive 

branch. Henry Adams, one of America’s first professional historians as 

well as a descendant of Federalist John Adams, similarly interpreted 

the committee’s creation as a partisan action.34 A strong case can be 

made for the partisan interpretation of the origins of Ways and 

Means. Madison in 1794 and Gallatin in 1795 were certainly the 

strongest advocates of the committee. Madison’s letters in 1794 clearly indicated the partisan nature of such an initiative. The fact that 

both committees were dominated by Federalists seemingly downgrades the partisan interpretation, yet Gallatin, who had extensive experience with legislative finance committees, and Madison, the constitutional scholar, undoubtedly were aware of the historical antagonism 

between ways and means committees and the executive in England 

and in the American colonial and state governments. The establishment of a finance committee, whether their party could dominate it or 

not, created the possibility that the House could gain control over the 

power of the purse from the executive, and that eventually Jeffersonian Republicans in the House could use the committee as a vehicle to 

wrest that power from the Federalists. For their part, the Federalists 

did not object to using the Ways and Means Committee to facilitate 

their own fiscal program. 

It has been suggested more recently that the real significance of 

the committee’s creation was admini~trative.~~ The committee, in this 

interpretation, permitted the House to perform its work more eficiently. Yet, the House had handled public finance quite efficiently 

when it left the details to Hamilton. Wolcott was perhaps a less capable Secretary of the Treasury, but he had been in office less than ten 

months when Gallatin recommended creation of the Ways and Means 

Committee. The establishment of standing committees in the Fourth 

Congress was indeed a mark of the institutional maturation of the 

House. Committees did permit the arduous detail work of the legislative process to be performed more efficiently. The partisan motivation, however, cannot be dismissed. Therefore, it is most reasonable 

to conclude that partisanship, the desire for the House to assert its 

constitutional role in public finance, and the movement to make 

House procedure more efficient all contributed to the establishment 

of the standing Committee of Ways and Means in 1795. 

41 
The Committee and the House: Legislative Procedure 

The existence of the standing Committee of Ways and Means altered 

House procedure for finance and revenue issues. While Hamilton had 

reported directly to the House, Secretary Wolcott had to work 

through the committee. Less than a week after the committee’s creation, the Treasury Secretary addressed a lengthy letter to the chairman of the committee that outlined the public debt and the “Sums 

Which Will Annually Be Requisite for Discharging Them.” 36 The 

Secretary of the Treasury continued the controversial practice Hamilton had initiated of drafting bills, but the committee exercised its own 

judgment. The committee met with Wolcott on several occasions to 

obtain more information. Of one such meeting, Chairman Smith reported to the House, “With a view to obtain more perfect information, they [the committee] had a conference with the Secretary of the 

Treasury. . . .” In this particular case, the Federalist committee, unconvinced by the Federalist Secretary of the Treasury, recommended 

to the Federalist House against renewing the excise tax in question.37 

After the committee had reported to the House upon a subject 

Requests for executive branch 

appropriations, such (w this 

estimate of expenses from the 

War Department in 1806, 

were referred to the Committee 

of Ways and Means for review. 

The committee recommended 

action to the House on each 

revenue matter. Afer the leplators considered the measure, 

they would direct Ways and 

Means to bring in an appropriations bill. 

42 
within its jurisdiction, the House would consider the report and then 

direct the committee to bring in a bill. The Committee of Ways and 

Means was kept busy reviewing Treasury Department estimates and 

schemes for new revenues. On January 15, 1796, for example, the 

House considered the committee’s report on estimates “of the appropriations for the support of Government in the year 1796.” After the 

report had been read “without alteration or debate,” the House directed Ways and Means “to bring in a bill or bills accordingly.” Chairman Smith reported the committee’s bill just three days later. During 

House debate on the bill, one member moved to strike out the sum 

for the Mint. John Nicholas UR-VA) observed that the Mint’s deficit 

for the past year alone amounted to $18,300, and “He wished to 

know the meaning of it.” Smith answered that the Committee of Ways 

and Means had given careful consideration to the Mint. “The cornmittee, consisting of fifteen members,” the chairman explained, “were 

too numerous to enter into a detail of every article.” A subcommittee 

had examined the Mint’s request and lowered by half the amount of 

copper to be purchased. Federalist Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, 

the Speaker of the House, complained that Smith seemed reluctant to 

43 
Printed reports on revenues 

such as thts example were a 

rarily in the I790s, when most 

Ways and Means submissions 

were handwritten. During the 

closing years of the 18th centu9, the committee wrestled 

with the question of raising 

new lmes to fund the infant 

republic. The Federalist majority on Ways and Means pushed 

for added reuenues through indirect taxes, such as excise taxes 

on tobacco and distilled spirits. 

Jeffsonians loudly dtsagreed, 

prejm’ng direct lmes on land 

and houses. Federalis1 uiews 

prevailed, but the tax quarrel 

filled the Fourth through the 

Sixth Congresses with lension. 

give information. The chairman then “explained the steps taken by 

the Committee to convince themselves that there was nothing wrong 

in the Mint statement.” 38 Smith’s statements revealed both that they 

continued to use subcommittees for the sake of efficiency and that 

Ways and Means did not hesitate to reduce Wolcott’s estimates. 

The Committcc of Ways and Means consistently demanded detailed estimates from the executive departments. The committee was 

evidently displeased when Wolcott was unable to provide detailed estimates for military appropriations. The Treasury Secretary simply 

submitted estimates under three broad headings: the naval department, military pensions, and the “military department.” Wolcott’s response to Ways and Means’ request for clarification was classic bureaucratic evasion: “Military expenses,” Wolcott argued, had been 

44 
It was the question of new taxes that caused the committee the 

greatest concern-or embarrassment, as Madison put it. Theodore 

Sedgwick, a Federalist from Massachusetts and a future Speaker of the 

House, served with Madison and Gallatin on a subcommittee to consider direct taxes. He was also appointed to the ultimate subcommittee-a subcommittee of one-to report on indirect taxes, a task he 

found perplexing. “I have thought of many taxes, they are all practicable, but the truth is no tax is very palatable,” he wrote.43 

The Jeffersonians on the committee, led by Madison and Gallatin, 

found excise and indirect taxes the least palatable. Excise taxes are 

those placed upon the manufacture, transportation, sale, or consumption of certain goods, such as an excise upon tobacco or distilled spirits. Indirect taxes include excise taxes, sales taxes, and all taxes paid 

to private business persons who then remit the funds to the government. According to Madison the committee considered a duty on salt, 

a stamp tax, an inheritance tax, a tax on leather and hats, and a tax on 

carriages. The committee proposed the stamp tax, inheritance tax, 

and carriage tax, all of which Madison opposed. The Federalist committee even reported direct taxes that the party had previously opposed. Madison saw some humor in the Federalists’ predi~ament.~~ 

The existing excise system had proven inadequate, but the Federalists 

had so denounced direct taxes that they had to resort to arguing that 

taxes on land and houses were indirect taxes. 

The debates within the committee must have been interesting to 

say the least, especially now that Gallatin was at Madison’s side. Madison wrote of his Pennsylvania colleague’s contributions to the committee’s discussions on revenue: “Gallatin is a real treasure in this department of Legislation. He is sound in his principles, accurate in his 

calculations, and indefatigable in his re~earches.”~~ The Federalist 

majority prevailed on revenue issues, but the experience motivated 

Gallatin to prepare a 200-page analysis of American finance. A Sketch 

of the Finances of the United States, printed in November 1796, presented 

the fully developed version of Jeffersonian Republican financial policy 

that Madison had been unable to provide two years earlier. Gallatin’s 

service on Ways and Means proved additionally valuable when he 

later became President Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury in 

1801.46 

The Committee of Ways and Means was reappointed in the 

second session of the Fourth Congress on December 16, 1796. Speaker Dayton laid before the House the Secretary of the Treasury’s estimates for the coming year, following which Albert Gallatin once again 

moved the appointment of “a Standing Committee of Ways and 

Means.” This motion was a verbatim restatement of the resolution 

that created the committee in the first session. No debate or vote was 

recorded on the motion; the Annals simply recorded that a committee 

of 16 was appointed, with William Loughton Smith once more named 

“Old Ironsides, ”a 44-gun 

fhgateJ earns her 

this victory over the British 

fhgute Guerrii.re dunng the 

War 4 1812, Years earlier, 

Ways and hfeans Chairman 

William L. Smith had rallied 

legislative su@port to authorize 

the building Ofthree warships, 

the United States, the Constellation, and the Constitution (Old Ironsides). In 1797, 

in the wake ofFrench violationsof^^^.^^^ neutrality on 

the high seas, construction oj 

the 

Zn 

46 
. 

chairman. Each state again was represented by one member, with 

Andrew Jackson joining the committee to represent Tennessee. Ten 

of the 16 members had served on the committee in the first session, 

including Gallatin and Madison. The committee was evenly split between eight Federalists and eight Jeffersonian republican^.^' 

The Committee of Ways and Means in the Fifth and Sixth 

Congresses 

President John Adams callcd thc Fifth Congress into special session in 

May 1797 to deal with a crisis in foreign policy. The French government, angered by the pro-British Jay’s Treaty and by the failure of the 

U.S. to pay its Revolutionary War debt to France, had begun to violate American neutrality on the high seas. The Federalist Party responded by funding the construction of three warships, the United 

States, the Constitution, arid the Coiistellution, whose principal legislative 

sponsor was Chairman Smith of the Committee of Ways and Means.48 

During consideration of a Senate defense measure to create an 

additional corps of artillery and engineers, Thomas Blount (JR-NC) 

47 
suggested that the subject should be referred to the Committee of 

Ways and Means, which he moved be appointed. Smith argued that 

the committee was not needed until the measures necessary for defense had been determined. William Branch Giles (JR-VA), on the 

other hand, recommended delaying consideration of military increases 

until after the subject of revenue had been considered. The House 

opted to appoint a Ways and Means Committee of seven members 

after debating the numbers of 15 and 13. The names of the members 

were not recorded, nor was the wording of the resolution given.49 

Smith continued to chair the reduced committee during the special session in which he reported to the House a stamp tax, a duty on 

salt, and changes in the system of internal revenue collection. The 

stamp tax and the internal revenue collection both proved controversial. Smith reported a committee bill on June 19, 1797, “to provide 

more effectually for the collection of certain internal revenue.” Gallatin immediately objected. The bill was not germane to the reason the 

special session had been called. Furthermore, he noted, the subject 

had been considered by Ways and Means for two years. Smith’s reply, 

in the refined and genteel language of 18th century discourse, nonetheless indicated the tension that must have pervaded committee 

meetings. The chairman reminded Gallatin that he had agreed that 

the bill had many valuable provisions. Moreover, the Secretary of the 

Treasury had explained the necessity for changes in the revenue collection system. It was preferable to secure additional revenue through 

technical modifications than by imposing new taxes. Gallatin, “who 

was never ready to lay a new tax,” could not object to this. It was not 

Federalist Robert Goodloe 

Harper of Soulh Carolina advanced to the chair of Ways 

and Means in I797 on the 

endorsement of Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott. Though 

considered by many colleagues 

to be a pompow dandy, Harper 

was a strong debater and 

successful lawyer. In the Fifth 

Congress, he moued to reduce 

the number of Ways and 

Means members lo nine. The 

ctiangt ouerlurned the panel 5 

precedent of seating one representative from every state and 

introduced the modern notion of 

balanced sectional representataon. 

48 
surprising, therefore that the committee’s proposed stamp tax on 

legal documents and bank notes proved even more controversial. The 

debate on the bill occupied some 35 pages in the Annals. The House 

passed the measure, only to have it rejected by the Senate.50 

The Committee of Ways and Means was reappointed early in the 

regular (second) session of the Fifth Congress on December 4, 1797. 

A member suggested that a petition on the duty on stills be referred 

to the Committee of Ways and Means, only to learn that no committee had been appointed. John Nicholas (JR-VA) moved the appointment, and the House ordered that a committee of 16, one member 

from each state, be named. Only Gallatin and Thomas Blount were 

carried over from the committee of the second session of the Fourth 

Congress. William Loughton Smith had been given a diplomatic appointment; Robert Goodloe Harper (F-SC) was named chairman. The 

Federalists, moreover, held a comfortable ten to six majority over the 

Jeffersonian republican^.^ 

The new chairman was personally vain and insolent, but he was 

also a vocal Federalist for which he was rewarded with the post on the 

Committee of Ways and Means. Harper was reappointed chairman in 

the third session of the Fifth Congress and the first session of the 

Sixth Congress. Theodore Sedgwick, the Federalist Speaker of the 

Sixth Congress, had serious reservations about Harper, whom he considered lazy and pompous. “I appointed [Harper] at the request of 

the Secretary of the Treasury,” the Speaker wrote to a friend, “because it was apprehended that otherwise the public service might be 

embarrassed. I am sorry I was influenced to do it.” Sedgwick’s letter 

was significant, not only for revealing his opinion of Harper, but also 

because it indicated that the Speaker based his appointment upon the 

recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury.52 

Harper continued to pursue Smith’s plan for additional revenue 

through a direct tax on land, houses, and slaves. On May 1, 1798, he 

presented a committee report that read in part: 

That, in their opinion, it will be necessary to raise the sum of 

two millions of dollars by a tax on lands, houses, and slaves, 

to be appropriated among the several States, according to 

the Constitutional rule, and on the basis of the last census; 

the mode of assessment and collection to be uniform 

throughout the United States.53 

Two members of the committee, James A. Bayard (DE) and Christopher G. Champlin (RI), immediately objected to the report “on the 

grounds of its not having been laid before the Committee of Ways 

and Means since it was drawn by the chairman.” The House evidently 

agreed that Harper had acted on his own initiative because it recommitted the report to the Committee of Ways and Means. 

49 
When the committee was reappointed early in the third session of 

the Fifth Congress in December 1798, the question of size once again 

was raised. Harper moved the appointment of the committee following a motion to create a select committee on the census. Since his 

committee had considered a similar bill in the previous session, 

Harper, according to the Annals “moved for the appointment of a 

Committee of Ways and Means, agreeably to the standing rules and 

orders of the House. The motion was agreed to.” The phrasing of the 

motion and the lack of debate over it suggested that the Committee of 

Ways and Means had become nearly synonymous with those standing 

committees created by the House rules. Harper’s motion to limit 

membership to nine elicited opposition from Nicholas, who “hoped, 

as this is a very important committee, it would consist of sixteen, 

which is a member from every State of the Union.” With the delegations from Delaware and Kentucky absent, the House voted on a 

motion to appoint a committee of 14. The vote was tied at 34-34 

when the Speaker voted against the motion. A motion to create a 

nine-member committee then passed 35-30. Harper once more was 

named chairman, with Gallatin and Blount again reappointed to the 

committee. Regional balance was maintained even though every state 

was not represented. Four members were from the South (South 

50 
Cane-wielding Roger Griswold 

of Connecticut, a future chairman of Ways and Means, attack Matthew Lyon of Vermont on the Housefloor. In 

January I798, tempers grew 

raw in debate over the best way 

to deal with French naval 

belligerency. An insulting 

remark from Gniwold drew 

retaliation from Lyon: He spit 

a stream oJ tobacco juice in 

Griswold’s face. In Februa?, 

denied legal redress, a fmtrated Griswold walked up 

behind Lyon and began beating 

him with a cane. Lyon grabbed 

fire tongs andflailed back. The 

brawl threw the Home inlo an 

uproar, vividly exposing the 

emotional pttch of partisan feelings in Congress in the 1790s. 

Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland), two were from New 

England (Connecticut, Massachusetts), and three represented Middle 

Atlantic states (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey). The Federalists 

maintained a strong two-to-one margin over their political opposition. 54 

The committee’s size remained constant at nine during both sessions of the Sixth Congress (December 2, 1799-March 3, 1801). By 

this time, the appointment of the committee had become routine. In 

the first session, the House resolutions on the President’s annual message referred that portion of the speech relating to “the expenditure 

of public moneys” to the Committee of Ways and Means before the 

committee had even been appointed. Gallatin made the motion to 

name the committee, and an unnamed member moved to appoint one 

member from each state. Harper argued that nine had been a suflicient number in the previous session “and [they] were able to obtain 

every information, and would be more expeditious.” A nine-member 

committee was appointed, with Harper as chairman, but with only 

Gallatin retained from the previous committee. Roger Griswold (FC?), who had served on the Committee of Ways and Means in the 

second session of the Fifth Congress, was named second to Harper. 

Sectional balance was once more maintained with four Southern members (two from South Carolina, one each from North Carolina and 

Virginia), three from New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island), and two from the Middle Atlantic (Pennsylvania, New 

York). The committee contained a party balance of seven Federalists 

and but two Jeffersonian Republicans (Gallatin and Levin Powell of 

Virginia). Speaker Sedgwick’s disgust with the chairman mounted as 

the session continued. He considered Harper’s delay in reporting 

Wolcott’s estimates “wholly inexcusable.” 55 

The Committee of Ways and Means was reappointed without 

debate for the second session of the Sixth Congress on November 20, 

1800. Griswold of Connecticut was named chairman because Harper 

had not yet arrived and also possibly because of Speaker Sedgwick’s 

low opinion of the South Carolinian. Gallatin, who also was not yet 

present, was likewise omitted from the committee list. Regional balance was again maintained with two members from Virginia (Powell 

and John Nicholas) matched by two from Pennsylvania (Henry Woods 

and John Smilie). The Federalists continued to hold a safe majority 

even though the Jeffersonian Republicans picked up an additional 

seat. Chairman Griswold was an active Federalist leader who was both 

eloquent and dogmatic. He is perhaps best remembered for a brawl 

on the floor of the House with Jeffersonian Matthew Lyon in February 

1798, which was widely publicized to the embarrassment of both parties and Congress.56 

The period of Federalist control over the federal government 

drew to a close in 1801, Thomas Jefferson was elected President when 

51 
the tied Electoral College vote was decided by the House of Representatives. His party would have a majority in the Seventh Congress, 

set to convene in December. As the Federalists relinquished control 

over the Treasury Department, as well as the House of Representatives, the status of the Committee of Ways and Means remained unclear. It had been referred to as a standing committee ever since Gallatin’s resolution in 1795, yet the Committee of Ways and Means was 

not included in the standing rules of the House, making it necessary 

for the adoption of a special resolution in each legislative session to 

reappoint the panel. The House apparently adhered to the 18th-century notion of a standing committee to be one that existed throughout 

a session to consider matters within its jurisdiction. By the Sixth Congress the committee’s reappointment had become a routine matter. 

Although its exact parliamentary status might be uncertain, the House 

Committee of Ways and Means had functioned from 1795 to 1801 as 

a standing committee.5’ 

Conclusion 

The House of Representatives resolved the dilemma concerning the 

administration of public finance by creating both the Department of 

the Treasury and the Committee of Ways and Means. Between 1789 

and 1794, the House experimented with executive direction of fiscal 

policy. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton reported directly to the House in a system reminiscent of the procedure utilized by 

Congress during the Confederation period. Following Hamilton’s departure from ofice, the House reestablished the Committee of Ways 

and Means. Although the executive branch continued not only to administer public finance, but also to recommend policy and legislation 

through the Secretary of the Treasury, the focal point of the House’s 

legislative oversight role concerning public finance now became the 

Committee of Ways and Means. 

The committee’s activities between 1795 and 1801 followed a 

routine pattern. During the Fourth through Sixth Congresses, the 

committee considered a wide variety of financial issues, including redemption of the federal debt, the modification of existing excise 

taxes, and the feasibility of soliciting foreign loans and of imposing a 

direct tax on land. The committee also appointed subcommittees to 

consider specific questions, such as appropriations for the national 

Mint. Several of the committee’s tax proposals were controversial, especially a 1798 plan proposing a direct tax on land, houses, and slaves 

that was rejected by the House. 

Two committee activities during this period established a precedent for the evolution of a more active committee role in legislation 

during the 19th century. During the Fifth and subsequent Congresses, 

52 
The House disc 

Committee of Wa 

The Committee of 

The committee’s si 

November 20, 1 The House reappointed the committee without 

the Committee of Ways and Means began to draft bills, a task previously reserved to Committees of the Whole House and select committees. While the committee was not instructed to draft comprehensive 

legislation, it did on occasion draft portions of bills, such as the bill to 

levy a stamp tax. In addition, the committee also began in a tentative 

manner to perform oversight functions relative to the executive 

branch. On two occasions in the Sixth Congress the committee found 

errors in executive department estimates and requested supplementary information from the of€icer in question to prove that the estimates 

were not inflated. 

The committee’s membership during this period was dominated 

by the Federalist Party. Its first two chairmen, William Loughton 

Smith and Robert Goodloe Harper, were both Federalists from South 

Carolina, and its third chairman was Roger Griswold, a Federalist 

from Connecticut. Jeffersonian Republicans always formed a distinct, 

and at times sizable, minority. Albert Gallatin, James Madison, and 

Thomas Blount each served on the committee in several sessions. 

One of the few controversial issues considered during the committee’s reappointments in this period was the question of its size. 

Originally created as a committee with one member from each state 

represented in Congress, the membership of Ways and Means was reduced to seven for the special session of the Fifth Congress (May-July 

1797) and then standardized at nine for the third session of the Fifth 

Congress (December 1798-March 1799) and both sessions of the 

Sixth Congress (I 799-1801). This seemingly unimportant develop53 
ment takes on a fascinating dimension in light of traditional notions 

concerning the nature of ways and means committees in the AngloAmerican world. By settling on a size roughly the same as other 

standing committees, the House retreated from the “grand” committee ideal and accepted the more modern notion that a smaller committee could digest information and prepare legislation more efficiently than a larger one. Balanced sectional representation replaced the 

concern for representing the interests of all of the states. 

The Federalist Committee of Ways and Means developed a close 

relationship with the Federalist Secretary of the Treasury in this 

period. Rather than reporting directly to Congress, as his predecessor 

had, Secretary Oliver Wolcott submitted plans and estimates to the 

committee, which would prepare reports and forward them together 

with supplemental correspondence to the House. The committee also 

conferred with the Secretary in a hearing-like setting to obtain additional information. The committee thus served as a “middleman” between the executive and Congress. Rather than assuming an adversarial relationship with Treasury, the committee collaborated closely with 

all executive departments to save the House from the task of reviewing the time-consuming details of financial administration. 

No single factor can explain why the House established the Committee of Ways and Means as a standing committee during the Fourth 

Congress, nor why it continued to reappoint the committee in every 

session thereafter. The committee’s formation has traditionally been 

interpreted as a Jeffersonian Republican innovation to wrest control 

of public finance from the Federalist executive branch. But it is more 

likely that a climate conducive to the appointment of a standing finance committee was created by a combination of partisanship and 

the desire to streamline House procedure, conditioned by a widely 

shared belief in legislative oversight of public finance. The Federalists 

and the Jeffersonian Republicans achieved a balance between their 

political ideals and the dictates of necessity with the establishment of 

an in-house mechanism to act as an informational liaison between the 

legislature and the executive branch on fiscal matters. In doing so, 

they made a contribution not only to the legislative procedure of the 

House of Representatives, but also to the constitutional doctrine of 

the separation of powers that continues to the present day. 

54 
1801 * 1829 

. . .to examine into the 

state of the several public 

departments; and 

particularly into the laws 

making appropriations of 

moneys, and to report 

whether the moneys have 

been disbursed 

conformably with such 

laws. . . . '' (Annals of 

Congress, 7 January 

1802) 

" 

The Jeffersonian Republican - 

Committee 

ttee of Ways and Means was included as a standing com. 

e revised House Rules of 1802, when its jurisdiction exdude appropriations as well as revenue. Under the leadn Randolph (1801-1807), the committee became the preding committee in the House. Randolph and his succeseriod served as de fact0 majority floor leaders by virtue 

on as chairmen of the committee. The Jeffersonian Rettee succeeded in repealing the Federalist excise taxes 

of the 1790s, and also played a prominent role in financing the LouisiPurchase, the suppression of the Barbary pirates, and the War of 

2. In 1816, the committee drafted the first protective tariff in 

but afterwards briefly surrendered its tarif€ jurisdicittee on Manufactures. 

he development of the Committee of Ways and Means acceler- T ated during the period of Jeffersonian Republican ascendancy 

as issues, events, and personalities thrust the committee to the forefront of legislative procedure in the House. Although this period has 

been named after the President and leader of the majority party, Congress became more independent of presidential leadership, especially 

after Jefferson left ofice in 1809. The development of legislative procedure in the House also strengthened both the committee system in 

general and the Committee of Ways and Means in particular because 

of its jurisdiction over revenue and appropriations. The Republicandominated committee was chaired throughout this era by influential 

party leaders including John Randolph of Virginia, William Lowndes 

and Langdon Cheves of South Carolina, and Samuel Smith of Maryland. 

Historians have characterized this period as one that witnessed 

the rapid decline of the Federalist Party, culminating in an era from 

1816 to 1828 of virtual one-party rule, marked by intense intraparty 

divisions and personal political rivalries. Under Republican rule, the 

size of the national domain doubled with the purchase of the Louisi55 
“found by experience, to be insusceptible of that particular distribution which is observed in the issue of monies appropriated for other 

objects.” s9 Chairman Smith’s report to the House, in the form of a 

resolution, left the sums blank for each of the three categories: 

Resolved, That there be appropriated, for the year 1796, for 

the Military Establishment, including the sum already appropriated, - dollars; for the Naval Department, - dollars; 

and for military pensions, ~ dollars, pursuant to the estimate herewith reported.40 

The resolution was followed in the Annals by the specific sums Wolcott had requested for each category. By reporting blank sums, the 

committee in this case expressed its displeasure with the Treasury 

Secretary’s inability to provide detailed information. 

Evaluations of the committee’s contributions during the Fourth 

Congress varied. Fisher Ames, a Federalist from Massachusetts who 

had served on the Committee of Ways and Means in the Third Congress, thought that they had done nothing “to enlighten the house or 

to guide the public opinion.” The Committee of Ways and Means, 

Ames wrote to Hamilton in 1797, “collects the scraps & fritters of 

facts at the Treasury, draws crude hasty results.” Ames was no friend 

to the “silly reliance” upon committees. He believed that the Democrats had usurped the rightful role of the Federalist executive. “Committees already are the Ministers,” he complained, “& while the house 

indulges a jealousy of encroachment on its functions, which are properly deliberative, it does not perceive that these are impaired & nullified by the monopoly as well as the perversion of information by 

these very Committees.” 41 

The letters of James Madison, on the other hand, gave a much 

different picture of the committee. As a member of the committee, 

Madison was undoubtedly more familiar with the facts than Ames. 

The committee that he described was one that diligently investigated 

the state of the infant republic’s finances and wrestled to find new 

sources of revenue: 

A committee of ways and means are employed in investigating our revenues and our wants. It is found that there are between six and seven millions of anticipations due to the 

Banks, and that our ordinary income is barely at par with our 

ordinary expenditures, and that new taxes must be ready to 

meet near one and a half millions, which will accrue in 1801 

. . . loans, at least, in some form or other, will be indispensable . . . until new taxes can be brought into action. With respect to this, the Committee are now in deliberation and embarra~sment.~ 

45 
ana Territory from France in 1803. Another European conflict drew 

the United States into a second war with Great Britain from 1812 to 

18 15. The ensuing peace and postwar expansion increased the importance of economic issues, including a tariff to protect American businesses, a national bank to provide fiscal stability, and governmentassisted internal improvements such as turnpikes, canals, and railroads 

to promote economic growth. 

Although the national domain doubled, the federal government 

remained small. In 1802 the entire governmental establishment consisted of 9,237 employees, 6,479 of whom were military. Only 291 

federal oficials were located in Washington, DC, including 138 congressmen and a support staff of but 12 clerks, officers, and a librarian. 

By 1829 the Washington establishment had only increased to 625, of 

whom 273 were members of Congress with a staff of 25. By far the 

largest department other than the military was the Treasury, which included revenue collectors and post ofice personnel. The capital city 

reflected the isolation of the federal government. Few roads linked 

Washington to the outside world. Shortly after the government had 

moved to the District of Columbia in 1800, First Lady Abigail Adams 

wandered lost in the woods for two hours while returning from Baltimore. One congressman aptly described the capital as “neither town 

nor village,” a city which “so many are willing to come to and all [are] 

so anxious to leave.” Congressmen clustered in boarding houses 

around the unfinished Capitol, separated from the President’s House 

and the executive departments by a swamp-like bog-a literal representation of the doctrine of separation of powers.2 

As the 19th century began, Congress reevaluated its relationship 

to the executive branch. Jeffersonian Republicans, no longer the party 

in opposition, stressed legislative autonomy from the President and 

the executive department heads, which had been one of the principal 

motives behind the establishment of the Committee of Ways and 

Means in 1795. For several years the committee endeavored to check 

the policies of the Federalist Treasury Department. After 1801 the Republicans found themselves in control of both Congress and the executive. Republicans now began to argue that the executive’s greater 

knowledge and expertise justified deference to the recommendations 

of the executive department^.^ . 

Yet, the older notion of legislative autonomy was never completely abandoned. Thus John Randolph, the first Republican chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, could say, “This House is 

independent of the Executive Branch of Government,” and yet urge 

his colleagues to accept the recommendations of the War Department 

as being “best acquainted with the subject.” But Congress was not 

content to surrender its autonomy through an uncritical acceptance of 

executive measures, even when those measures were submitted by Republicans. Party members in Congress demanded an independent 

56 

expertise, as well as the independent judgment, of those bodies. The 

amended House rules that granted this privilege, however, did not 

represent an innovation. Between 1815 and 1820, some committees 

had been given the power to report by bill when subjects were first 

referred. The rules change codified in 1822 merely provided official 

recognition to what had become a common practice.6 

Both Jeffersonian Republican policy and the incremental development of the House benefited the power and prestige of the Committee of Ways and Means. Fiscal issues were central to the clash between Jeffersonians and Federalists, and the Committee of Ways and 

Means played a major role in resolving those issues in Jefferson’s first 

term through the repeal of Federalist excise taxes. The committee 

also reviewed the executive department’s estimates of revenue needs 

and prepared reports on most revenue and appropriations bills. Legislative autonomy was compromised to the extent that the committee 

and its chairman worked closely with the Treasury Department. In 

fact, throughout this period the committee maintained a close working 

relationship with the Republican Secretaries of the Treasury: Albert 

Gallatin, Alexander J. Dallas, and William Henry Crawford. The committee furthermore exercised an oversight function by examining the 

operations of the Departments of War and the Navy. Certain matters 

relating to foreign affairs were also referred to the committee. In only 

one jurisdictional area, the tariff, did they lose ground, clashing with 

the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures as early as 1801. By 

1819, when that committee split into two separate committees, the 

primary responsibility for tariff legislation had been assumed by the 

Committee on Manufactures. 

Because the Committee of Ways and Means considered the crucial revenue and appropriations bills of the period, its chairman was 

one of the most visible and active members in the House of Representatives. The chairman not only reported for the committee, he also 

led the floor debate on most measures. The committee’s overall preeminent position in the Jeffersonian Republican committee structure 

was best illustrated by Chairman John Randolph’s function as the 

party’s majority leader in Congress. The respect congressmen accorded the committee was expressed by one member who felt obligated to 

defend the reluctance with which he dared to offer an amendment to 

a committee bill. “I propose the amendment with diffidence,” he explained, “because I am also sensible of that deference which is always 

due, and generally paid, to the Committee of Ways and Means.” 

Echoing arguments given in the Fourth Congress to support a small 

committee, this member maintained that the committee “have free 

and familiar access to facts and opinion, which the House, from its 

very nature and its numbers, could not have , . . they perform their 

business with a facility and a dispatch, which would be impractical to a 

large legislative assembly.” 

58 
John Randolph’s Committee, 1801-1807 

When the Seventh Congress convened on December 7, 1801, the Jeffersonian Republican Party had a comfortable 68-38 margin in the 

House of Representatives.s The first official act of the House was to 

elect Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina as Speaker. The following 

day, immediately after the appointment of the standing committees in 

the rules, the House adopted a resolution appointing a nine-member 

“standing” Committee of Ways and Means. Under the revised standing rules adopted on January 7, 1802, five standing committees were 

listed. Included for the first time under oficial House rules was a 

standing Committee of Ways and Means: 

. . . to take into consideration all such reports of the Treasury Department, and all such propositions relative to the revenue, as may be referred to them by the House; to inquire 

into the state of the public debt, of the revenue, and of the 

expenditures; and to report, from time to time, their opinion 

thereon. . . . 

The punctuation may have changed slightly, but to this point the committee’s mandate was a verbatim restatement of the 1795 resolution. 

The standing rule, however, went further and specified the committee’s additional jurisdiction over appropriations and oversight of executive departments: 

. . . to examine into the state of the several public departments; and particularly into the laws making appropriations 

of moneys, and to report whether the moneys have been disbursed conformably with such laws; and, also, to report, from 

time to time, such provisions and arrangements, as may be 

necessary to add to the economy of the departments, and the 

accountability of their officers. 

This language conferred official recognition upon the committee’s 

unique dual jurisdiction over both revenue and appropriation^.^ 

Moreover, the committee’s size was set at seven, the same as four of 

the five other standing committees in the rules. No indication was 

given that two members were removed from the nine-member committee appointed earlier. The House may well have understood this 

rule to apply only to future sessions since the committee appointed 

in the second session of the Seventh Congress consisted of seven 

members. 

The immediate reasons for the elevation of the Committee of 

Ways and Means to standing committee status were never specified in 

the House records. One explanation may be found in the incremental 

59 
growth of Congress as a legislative body. The steady increase in routine work carried over from session to session was one reason that led 

the House to adopt standing rather than select committees for certain 

recurring subjects. The standing committee system was a logical sohtion to the accumulatinP workload of the House. The Committee of 

A chart ofsalaries for federal 

lhe tentative begznning of the Ways 

and Means role in supervising 

approprtations ofpublic 

monies. In 1802, the commitin 

D 

Ways and Means, for example, had been consistently reappointed 

since 1795, thereby providing continuity to its transaction of routine 

tee’s powers were expanded 

beyond revenue to include 

abbrob~ations and ovmsipht 11 1 OJ 

business. Granting standing committee status in the rules was a simple 

recognition of this fact. Indeed the Committee of Ways and Means 

government spendzng. This 

short list zndicate5 how small v 

formed a precedent for the pattern that scholars have discerned in the 

origins of other standing committees. Select committees that were 

the was congressional in the early 1800s, bureaucracy The 

last tally on the document 

regularly reappointed in effect became standing committees, subsequently recognized in the standing rules of the House.1° 

Another reason often cited for the development of the standing 

committee system-the efforts of congressional leaders to transfer 

power from the President to Congress-is only partially applicable. 

Speaker Nathaniel Macon was by all accounts a loyal, if somewhat unexceptional, follower of President Jefferson. Moreover, Secretary of 

the Treasury Albert Gallatin worked just as closely with the chairman 

of the Committee of Ways and Means, who also served as the majority 

party’s floor leader in the House. 

A more plausible explanation for the committee’s increased importance may be found in the men who planned and implemented the 

party’s fiscal policy and the ideological perspective they brought to 

the task. These men, particularly Gallatin and the new committee 

chairman, John Randolph, were predisposed not only to dismantling 

the Hamiltonian system, but also to allocating an increased role to the 

legislature in financial matters. Just as Alexander Hamilton had been 

the preeminent Federalist financial thinker, so too was Albert Gallatin 

the dominant Republican theorist and administrator. Jefferson, recognizing his own inadequacies in finance, relied almost wholly upon his 

Treasury Secretary both to set policy and to administer it with little 

interference. Gallatin, in fact, wrote the sections on finance for the 

President’s annual messages to Congress. While in Congress, Gallatin had attacked the Federalists, especially Hamilton, for exercising 

executive control over finance at the expense of the legislature, and 

therefore of the people. Like Jefferson, he believed that democratic 

rule could best be exercised through elected representatives of the 

people, not through a government in which appointed executive departments initiated and directed legislation. 

The four major goals Gallatin brought with him to office in 1801 

encompased Jeffersonian Republican fiscal policy: 1) a reduction in 

the national debt, 2) a reduction in taxes, 3) the institution of economy in government, and 4) the adoption of specific appropriations by 

the legislature. The last item was especially pertinent to the committee’s new jurisdiction over appropriations bills. Gallatin had urged the 

showed jegzslators the average 

yearly cost of government 

clerks-$l,009.09. 

60 
19 
seemed compelled to ridicule his political foes. He is reputed to have 

said of an opponent, “He is a man of splendid abilities but utterly 

corrupt. He shines and stinks like a rotten mackerel by moonlight.” 

Biographers have attributed Randolph’s compulsive and combative 

personality to his impotence, a condition that was the source of some 

gossip while he lived and that was confirmed by a postmortem examination. Biographers and historians have suggested that he overcompensated for his physical disability in vigorous displays of masculinity 

such as horse racing and duelling. His most bizarre behavior occurred 

during the last decade of his life when he drank hea~i1y.I~ 

Even with an antagonistic personality, Randolph emerged as the 

acknowledged Jeffersonian Republican floor‘ leader in the Seventh 

through Ninth Congresses, largely because of his important position 

as chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means and his oratorical 

ability. Speaker Macon, whose duty it was to appoint all standing committees, named Randolph to the first place on the committee. The 

committees possessed the right to select their own chairmen, but as a 

matter of course the first-named member usually became the chair. 

Macon and Randolph were close friends in spite of, or perhaps because of, their opposite temperaments. There is no evidence that Jefferson played any role in the Speaker’s decision. Although some 

scholars have argued that the majority leadership in this period was 

“distinctly the gift of the President,” the evidence conclusively demonstrates that circumstances forced Randolph upon a reluctant Jefferson. For his part, the new chairman professed humility. “I feel myself 

pre-eminently embarrassed by the station which the partiality of the 

Speaker has assigned me,” Randolph wrote to a friend, one suspects 

more in keeping with the code of a gentleman than out of conviction. 

As chairman, Randolph occupied a prominent position from 

which to exercise majority party leadership. He introduced and led 

floor debate on the most important issues the House considered. 

Given such a disagreeable temperament, his influence can only be understood within the context of late 18th-century politics. As a member 

of one of Virginia’s most important families, he was related to many 

of the state’s most influential leaders, including Jefferson. It probably 

didn’t harm, and may well have helped, that he also claimed descent 

from Pocahontas. He also was capable of close friendships, though 

they were few. But Randolph’s most salient attribute for political advancement was his speaking ability in an era that placed a great emphasis upon both the content and the presentation of speeches to 

affect the decision-making process. Tall, thin, and pale, he must have 

made quite a figure when speaking. His voice according to observers 

was high-pitched, either flute-like or shrill depending upon the desired effect. He used wit, sarcasm, and classical allusions to build arguments that even his enemies could respect. l6 

62 
Randolph’s career as House leader was a tempestuous one. Jefferson tried to make the best of the situation but Randolph remained 

haughty and independent. Moreover, there is ample evidence that he 

was unpopular with most congressmen, including the members of his 

own party. “This Randolph,” one congressman wrote, “is a thorough 

going Democrat, but despising the feebleness of his partisans, he attempts to manage them with so much aristocratic hauteur, that they 

sometimes grow unmanageable and rebel, but they have no body else 

who really possess the talents requisite for a leader.” Randolph finally broke with the President in 1806, and he was removed as chairman of the committee in 1807. 

From the outset Randolph was temperamentally incompatible 

with the role of party leader. He respected Jefferson but he would not 

defer to the President. Late in 1800 he had written to a colleague, “I 

need not say how much I would prefer J. Uefferson for President] - . . 

but I am not like some of our party who are as much devoted to him 

as the Fed[eralist]s were to General Washington. I am not a monarchist in any sense. If our salvation depends on a single man, ’tis not 

worth our attention.” Jefferson, on the other hand, tolerated Randolph while he was useful to his purposes, but the two were never 

close. It would be inaccurate to say, as some have, that Randolph was 

the President’s “legislative lieutenant.” Jefferson understood the 

chairman’s independence. Late in 1803 Randolph had written the 

President to refute charges of his lack of loyalty. Jefferson’s reply indicated the differences between the two men. “I see too many proofs of 

the imperfection of human reason, to entertain wonder or intolerance 

at any difference of opinion on any subject,” the philosopher President wrote, “. . . experience having long taught me the reasonableness of mutual sacrifices of opinion among those who are to act together for any common object.” l9 

Randolph’s relations with Gallatin were closer and more cordial. 

The Secretary of the Treasury provided the chairman’s chief contact 

with the executive. The arrogant, aristocratic Virginian greatly admired the brilliance of the dour, frugal, Geneva-born Pennsylvanian. 

Gallatin and Randolph had been friends since they first met as members of the Sixth Congress. They formed a circle of colleagues together with Speaker Macon and Representative Joseph H. Nicholson of 

Maryland, also a member of the Committee of Ways and Means and 

the cousin of Gallatin’s wife. The group often met at Gallatin’s home 

near the Capitol to discuss legislation. The Secretary even attended 

committee meetings to present plans and suggestions, just as the despised Hamilton had done. On at least one occasion he submitted an 

itemized appropriations bill for the committee’s approval. He had 

even included the sums to be appropriated, a task usually reserved for 

congressional determination. Gallatin evidently made no effort to hide 

his connection with Chairman Randolph, nor did he seem to worry 

63 
P 

Y 

that his actions violated the Jeffersonian Republican theory of legislative autonomy, not to mention his own prior congressional service. 

For his part, Randolph remained a loyal supporter of the Secretary. 

When the chairman denounced a compromise Gallatin had arranged 

to resolve a particularly controversial issue, Randolph conspicuously 

refrained from publicly criticizing his colleague, while privately writing 

to a mutual friend, “for God’s sake, try and find what is the matter 

with [Gallatin].” 2o 

Randolph was a distinct asset to Secretary Gallatin’s programs, although by some accounts his fiscal knowledge was suspect. An opposition newspaper, the Washington Federalist, editorialized that Randolph 

“has been found altogether inadequate to the discharge of his financial functions.” The paper went on to state that a bill the chairman 

had introduced to repeal internal taxes required a clarifying amendment twice the length of the original bill. Randolph’s “knowledge of 

parliamentary proceedings,” the article concluded, “is not less defective, than his skill in fiscal concerns.” None denied the Virginian’s 

preeminence in the legislative process, however. Federalists referred 

to Randolph with mocking respect as “the Chancellor of the Exchequer,” while even the President applied that title to the chairman as 

well as adding to it “First Lord of the Treasury.” 21 

During Jefferson’s first administration, Randolph and the Committee of Ways and Means greatly facilitated three of the four corner64 
Negotiating the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, special envoy 

James Monroe (seated at center 

next to U. S. minister to France 

Robert R. Livingston) studies a 

plat of the area presented by 

Francois de Barbi-Marbois, 

French minister of the public 

treasury. Ways and Means recommended the creation of I I 

million dollars in certificates of 

stock to cover the purchase price 

of the Louisiana tract. The acquisition averted war between 

the United States and France, 

removed a potential political 

issue from the handc ofJefferson ’s Federalist opponents, and 

expanded the nation by 

82 7,987 square miles-westward from the Mississippi 

River to the Rocky Mountains 

and northward from the Gulf 

of Mexico to Canada’s border. 

stones of Secretary Gallatin’s fiscal policy: 1) reduction of the public 

debt, 2) reduction in taxation, and 3) the institution of economy in 

government expenditures. 

The reduction of the national debt was Gallatin’s highest priority. 

He felt contempt for Hamilton’s sinking fund but he could not advocate its abolition since it was seen as a salutary check upon the fiscal 

operations of the government. Therefore, he developed a plan to 

retire the permanent debt within 16 years through the surplus of revenues over expenditures. The 82-million-dollar debt would be eliminated if the government could set aside 7.3 million dollars each year to 

pay the interest and principal. To accomplish this, the Secretary 

planned to drastically cut government spending while only partially 

reducing excise taxes. Tariff duties alone would provide 9.5 million 

dollars annually; internal taxes and other fees would raise the total 

revenues to 10.6 million dollars, which left the government with 3.3 

million dollars above the annual amount needed to retire the debt. 

Since Federalist military appropriations for 1801 alone stood at 3.8 

million dollars, Gallatin understood the necessity to cut government 

spendingz2 

With the cooperation of Randolph’s committee, virtually all of 

Gallatin’s plan was enacted. The only difference of opinion concerned 

excise taxes, whose immediate abolition was proposed in the President’s annual message to Congress in 1801. Gallatin, on the other 

hand, recommended that excise taxes be retained for the time being. 

Randolph compromised the impasse by persuading the Secretaries of 

War and the Navy to cut expenditures by an amount sufficient to 

offset the repeal of excise taxes. With those promises secured, the 

Committee of Ways and Means reported two pieces of legislation, one 

repealing the hated excise tax and the other appropriating 7.3 million 

dollars annually towards the payment of the principal and interest on 

the public debt. The bills were enacted with little opposition in the 

form that Randolph and the committee requested. As a result, the 

debt declined from 82 million dollars in 1801 to 57 million dollars in 

1808, even with the assumption of an additional debt of 11 million 

dollars for the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. Treasury reserves 

increased in the same period from three million to nearly four million 

dol1a1-s.~~ 

Randolph’s compromise simultaneously attacked the national 

debt, repealed internal taxes, and further stimulated economy in government administration, By virtue of his importance as committee 

chairman and floor leader, he was also able to influence foreign policy 

during Jefferson’s first administration. Randolph was the key congressional leader in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. He supported Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison in their desire to purchase 

the territory from Napoleon to preserve peace and to remove a potential political issue from the grasp of the Federalists. Gallatin may have 

65 
arranged for Randolph’s introduction in January 1803 of a resolution 

authorizing two million dollars for expenses incurred in foreign affairs. Following the negotiations, that portion of the treaty relating to 

the purchase price was referred to the Committee of Way and Means. 

According to one of his biographers, “Few men did more than 

[Randolph] to secure the purchase of Louisiana.” His committee’s bill 

creating certificates of stock in favor of the French Republic for the 

1 1 -million-dollar purchase price was passed by Congress on November 10, 1803.24 

The Committee of Ways and Means also played a key role in defeating the Barbary pirates. Jefferson was unwilling to continue the 

payment of tribute to the four North African pirate states, but he had 

found himself without enough funds to support naval operations. The 

frigate Philadelphia and its crew were captured, forcing the President to 

ask Congress to raise naval appropriations to $750,000 a year. Secretary Gallatin, in consultation with Randolph’s committee, devised a 

scheme to finance the campaign against the pirates. Import duties 

were raised 2.5 percent by the committee’s plan, with the increase 

forming a separate Treasury account known as the Mediterranean 

Fund. The chairman was absent when the emergency arose. His friend 

and colleague, Joseph Nicholson, introduced the committee measure 

on March 21, 1804. Federalist Roger Griswold, a former chairman 

and still a minority member of the committee, opposed the measure, 

arguing that the existing duties were high enough. Randolph returned 

in time to vigorously support the committee bill. Although he claimed 

not to be prepared to defend the bill in detail, he proceeded to do 

just that, concluding with a spirited assault upon Griswold’s patriotism. “I shall ever prefer the fair adversary who meets me in the field 

of open enmity,” Randolph boasted, “to the skulking assassin who declines the public combat only that he may spring upon me in an unguarded moment.” 25 With the chairman’s support, the legislation 

creating the Mediterranean Fund passed the House 98-0. The Navy 

financed by the fund was able to blockade the North African coast and 

bring the conflict to an end. 

At the conclusion of Jefferson’s first term, Randolph’s committee 

had reason to rejoice over its achievements. Even years later the chairman could recall with pride: “Never was there an administration more 

brilliant than that of Mr. Jefferson. . . . Taxes repealed; the public 

debt amply provided for, both principal and interest; sinecures abolished; Louisiana acquired; public confidence unbounded.” 

Characteristically, Randolph had overestimated the accomplishments of the first term, just as characteristically he could not remain 

the Jeffersonian Republican legislative leader much longer. He had already clashed with the administration over the Yazoo issue-a politically controversial land fraud-and as the House manager of the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase he further alien66 
The rattle of musketry in New 

Orleans’ Place d ilnnes salutes 

the raising of the American Jag 

and the lowering of the French 

tri-color. The ceremony on 

December 20, 1803, marked 

the official transfer of the Louisiana Territory to the United 

States. The event prompted 

days of rejoicing-known as the 

Louisiana Jubileein 

Washington, DC. Jeflersonian 

Republicans joyfully proclaimed, “Never have mankind 

contemplated so vast and 

important an accession of 

empire by means so pacajic and 

just. ” 

” I 

ated many party members with his overwrought oratory. During Jefferson’s second term, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and 

Means became particularly obstructionist. 

Macon was reelected Speaker of the House at the outset of the 

Ninth Congress in December 1805 and promply reappointed Randolph to chair the Committee of Ways and Means. Jefferson, according to many scholars, would have preferred the appointment of Barnabas Bidwell of Massachusetts to solidify the party’s strength in the 

North, but he declined to interfere either in Macon’s reelection or in 

the Speaker’s choice of committee chairs. Republican dogma on legislative autonomy, not to mention the constitutional separation of 

powers, in this instance at least, prevented the President from intervening. ’ 

67 
First Session, 18 

irteenth Congress, 1813-181 

First Session, 1818-1822 

enteenth Congress, Se 

First Session, 1822-18 

ineteenth Congress, Se 

Randolph clashed with the President over Jefferson’s request in 

December 1805 for a general appropriation to purchase Florida from 

Spain. Randolph chaired both the select committee to which the 

matter was referred as well as the Committee of Ways and Means, 

which considered that part of the President’s annual message that related to American neutrality. Randolph delayed the actions of both 

committees. He left town while the committees recessed. Upon his 

return, the chairman was met by Gallatin at the door of the committee 

room, but he could not be swayed by the Treasury Secretary’s arguments. Gallatin then presented the administration’s resolution for a 

two-million-dollar appropriation for the Florida negotiations to 

second-ranking committee member Joseph Nicholson. Randolph im68 
mediately sought a conference with Jefferson, after which he announced his complete opposition to the policy. In part his reaction 

was due to an enormous dislike for his rival, James Madison, the Secretary of State. In floor debate Randolph alluded to a remark Madison 

reportedly made that France would have to be bribed to allow Spain 

to sell Florida to the United States. “I considered it a base prostration 

of the national character, to excite one nation by money to bully another out of its property,” the chairman moralized.2s 

The House eventually voted the appropriation, but only over 

Randolph’s strong opposition. Many Republican members agreed with 

Jacob Crowninshield of Massachusetts, who stated that the chairman’s 

leadership had left the committee “deranged, disorganized.” Randolph’s actions even alienated his good friend Albert Gallatin, who 

was caught between the chairman’s constant sniping at Jefferson and 

Madison. The Treasury Secretary was forced to sever his personal ties 

with Randolph, although offcial contact continued as a matter of 

course with the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means.29 

Both as chairman of the committee and as nominal floor leader of 

the House, Randolph obstructed the passage of administration bills 

following the Florida affair. He failed to convene the committee, he 

delayed action on appropriations bills, and, it was later charged, he 

then sneered at his colleagues for their inability to act. Jefferson responded by isolating Randolph from his support, ultimately engineering his removal from the chairmanship. Randolph’s principal ally on 

the committee, Nicholson, was eliminated by an appointment to the 

federal judiciary, after which the President tried to persuade Speaker 

Macon to abandon Randolph. 

At the beginning of the second session of the Ninth Congress in 

December 1806, the revolt against Randolph was in full swing. At the 

conclusion of the previous session James Sloan of New Jersey had 

listed several devastating complaints against the chairman, including 

allegations that he tied up committee business, kept the estimates “in 

his pocket, or locked up in his desk,” and held bills until the end of 

the session “when many members are gone home.” Are these the actions of a “champion of liberty,” he asked, or “a petted, vindictive 

school-boy, in the absence of‘ his master . . . a maniac in his straitjacket, accidentally broke out of his cell?” Sloan’s motion to appoint 

all standing committees by ballot failed, but Speaker Macon feared 

that a motion would be made to expel Randolph. Since the Virginian 

was not present in the House when the Speaker named the committees for the second session, Macon with great personal anguish omitted his friend’s name from the list of members for the Committee of 

Ways and Means.30 

Randolph regained the chairmanship soon thereafter through a 

set of unusual circumstances. One of his close friends on the committee, James M. Garnett of Virginia, asked to be excused from service, 

69 
whereupon Macon appointed Randolph to the vacancy. The firstnamed member of the committee, Joseph Clay of Pennsylvania, then 

stepped aside and informed the House that the committee had selected Randolph as its chair. His influence, however, was greatly diminished. When the Tenth Congress convened in October 1807, he was 

finally ousted from the committee following the replacement of 

Speaker Macon. The new Speaker, Joseph Varnum of Massachusetts, 

named George W. Campbell of Tennessee-whom Randolph once 

called “that Prince of Prigs and Puppies”-to chair the Committee of 

Ways and Means, bringing an end to the first of the committee’s great 

 chairmanship^.^ 

In his diary, Randolph attributed his removal to President Jefferson, claiming that this information came “from the most direct and 

authentic sources.” The reaction of the one man who may have been 

that source, Albert Gallatin, provided a better measure of Randolph’s 

chairmanship. “Varnum has, much against my wishes, removed Randolph from the Ways and Means,” the Secretary of Treasury wrote. 

“It was improper as related to the public business, and will give me 

additional labor.” 32 

Committee Operations Under Randolph 

The Committee of Ways and Means under Randolph’s leadership was 

in some ways representative of all Jeffersonian standing committees, 

but in other ways it was unique and preeminent. At the outset of this 

period there were five standing committees: Ways and Means, Elections, Claims, Commerce and Manufactures, and Revisal and Unfinished Business. The Committee of Ways and Means was reduced from 

nine members in 1801 to seven members under the revised rules of 

January 7, 1802. With the exception of Revisal and Unfinished Business with only three members, all standing committees were standardized at seven members. Between 1803 and 1808 four new standing 

committees were added: Accounts, Public Lands, District of Columbia, 

and Post Office and Post Roads. Of the nine standing committees, 

scholars have concluded that the Committee of Ways and Means was 

the most important to the House’s legislative role, especially since the 

revised rules recognized the committee’s dual jurisdiction over revenue and appropriations. 

The Committee of Ways and Means considered a large proportion of the major legislation of Jefferson’s tenure. The committee’s 

broad responsibilities over revenue and appropriations, as well as its 

oversight function, necessitated arduous work. The committee continued its earlier function of compiling the annual budget. Estimates of 

government expenditures were itemized under three broad categories: 

the civil list and general administrative costs, military expenditures, 

70 
With pistol fire, Stephen Decatur fights offa Barbaiy 

parate aboard the figate 

Mashuda. Commodore Decatur 

captured the Algerian flagship 

in June 1815. Three months 

earlier the L’nitrd States had 

declared war 011 Algiers for past 

hostile acts committed against 

U.S. merchant seamen during 

the War of 1812. In 1803, 

Ways and Means had created 

the Mediterranean Fund tojinance a naval blockade of four 

pirate states on Afnca S Barbary Coast. The fundjinanced 

lhe naval force Decalur led to 

North Af.ica an the summer of 

1815. Afer taking the 

Mashuda, the commodore extracted a treaty fiom the dey of 

Alg.lers. Years of extortion on 

the high seas came to an end, 

and American commercial vessels once again sailed the Mediternonean in safety. 

and foreign affairs. The committee normally presented a comprehensive annual report in January for consideration by the House. The 

committee also followed Gallatin’s wishes for specific appropriations. 

The act appropriating funds for the Navy for the year 1804, for example, specified exact sums. The act stated that “the following sums be, 

and the same hereby are, respectively appropriated.” Specific amounts 

were listed ranging from $234,328 for “the pay and subsistence” of 

oficers and seamen to $12,852.76 for clothing and $452 for “military 

stores” for the Marine Corps.33 

The committee, though controlled by Republicans, did not simply 

accept the estimates prepared by the Republican administration. It 

71 
made its own evaluation of the needs of government and acted accordingly. The committee naturally worked most closely with the Secretary of the Treasury, but it also inquired into the operations of the 

other executive departments. Randolph recorded one incident that 

gave a vivid insight into the operation of the oversight function. “I 

called some time since, at the Navy ofice,” the chairman wrote to 

Nicholson in 1807, “to ask an explanation of certain items of the estimate for this year.” Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith called in his 

chief clerk, but neither could provide the necessary information. “I 

propounded a question to the head of the Department-he turned to 

the Clerk, like a boy who cannot say his lesson, and with imploring 

countenance beseeches aid. The Clerk with much assurance gabbled 

out some common place jargon, which I could not take for sterling,” 

Randolph recalled. “. . . There was not a single question, relating to 

the department, that the Secretary could answer.” 34 Considering the 

source, the letter cannot be accepted as an authentic depiction of the 

operation of the Navy Department, but it does provide a revealing 

glimpse of the lengths to which Randolph went to obtain needed 

information. 

The committee’s role in foreign affairs during the Jeffersonian 

period also reinforced its unique importance. A standing committee 

on foreign affairs was not established until 1822. Several matters relating to foreign affairs were referred to the committee, including the 

appropriation for the Louisiana Purchase and the President’s message 

on neutrality in 1805. Other matters were referred to select committees or to the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures. There 

does not appear to have been a clear, consistent rationale governing 

these referrals. Two years after the committee had been referred the 

issue of neutrality, for example, the issue of maritime rights raised by 

the Chesapeake incident was referred to the Committee on Commerce 

and manufacture^.^^ 

Like the members of all standing and select committees, those of 

the Committee of Ways and Means were appointed by the Speaker. 

The House rules of November 1804 stated that “The first named 

member of any committee appointed by the Speaker, or the House, 

shall be the Chairman, and in case of his absence, or being excused 

by the House, the next named member, and so on as often as the case 

shall happen, unless the committee shall, by a majority of their 

number, elect a Chairman.” Randolph’s election by his colleagues in 

December 1806 was the most noteworthy instance in which this rule 

was invoked. There was no clear pattern of tenure for chairmen in 

this period. Randolph, in fact, was the only powerful chairman to keep 

his position for six years.36 

In the absence of a seniority system, the criteria for appointment 

to the committee were party affiliation, previous experience, and geographical balance. Of the 34 appointments to the Committee of Ways 

72 
and Means in the Seventh through Ninth Congresses (1801-1807), 24 

went to Republicans and only ten to Federalists. Though turnover on 

the committee was high, as it was on all standing committees, a core 

of three to four experienced members (Randolph, Nicholson, Joseph 

Clay, and Federalist Roger Griswold) carried over from one to another or more Congresses. Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsyl73 
vania, Massachusetts, and Georgia were represented on the committee 

in each of three Congresses; New York, Delaware, and Tennessee 

were represented in two, all of which corresponds closely to other 

findings that in general the states with the largest delegations were 

given the key committee a~signments.~~ 

The importance of the Committee of Ways and Means to the Jeffersonian committee structure was exemplified by Randolph’s role as 

party leader in the House. The urgency of Gallatin’s fiscal reforms 

thrust Randolph’s committee to the forefront of the legislative process. Randolph’s drive, intellect, and oratorical ability then propelled 

him through a stormy career as House leader. When he was ousted in 

1807, the upheaval rippled through the entire committee structure. A 

completely new Committee of Ways and Means was named, and not 

only was a new Speaker elected, but the turnover in all committee assignments was nearly as great as when the Republicans took control in 

1801. The Committee of Ways and Means remained a key committee, 

but it would be some time before it again reached the level of importance it had achieved under Randolph. 

The Committee of Ways and Means and the War of 1812 

The committee continued to review budget estimates and to oversee 

the expenditures of the executive departments after Randolph was removed. Numerous petitions also provided the committee with a heavy 

workload, but the greatest challenge came from events abroad. The 

European conflict between France and Great Britain inevitably affected the United States. As a nation heavily involved in shipping and 

foreign trade, the United States was drawn into a war that the Committee of Ways and Means was to help finance. 

Randolph’s successor as chairman was George Washington Campbell, a Scottish-born lawyer from Tennessee. Although Campbell was 

later to serve as Secretary of the Treasury, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and as a director of the Nashville branch of the 

Bank of the United States, he was a rather ineffective chairman during 

the Tenth Congress (1807-1809). Gallatin’s prediction that Randolph’s departure would mean more work for the Secretary of the 

Treasury proved all too prophetic, although by some accounts Campbell was both a loyal and effective floor leader.38 

The major issue confronting Congress when it reconvened in November 1808 was the fate of American overseas commerce. Jefferson 

had hastily pushed through the Embargo Act in 1807 in an effort to 

disengage the United States from the economic warfare on the high 

seas between Britain and France. The embargo prohibited American 

ships from disembarking for any foreign port. The impact upon shipping in New England was disastrous. Many Republicans, including 

74 
A Scotland-born lawyer from 

Tennessee, George Washington 

Campbell succeeded John Randolph as chairman of Ways 

and Means in 1807 Although 

a lackluster Leader, he caught 

lhe allention of Congress with a 

posilion paper known as 

“Canipbell’s Report. ” The 

treatise expressed the dismay 

shared by many lawmakers over 

the failure ofJeJfuson 5 

Embargo Act of 1807. 

A 

t 

Gallatin, feared a backlash against their party. With an election looming in 1808, congressional leaders looked to the White House for 

guidance, but Jefferson made no mention of the embargo in his 

annual message to Congress. Campbell, according to Gallatin’s biographer, most likely expressed the mood of Congress to the Secretary 

of the Treasury. The result of Campbell’s collaboration with Gallatin 

was a reformulation of the terms of the embargo that amounted to a 

confession of failure for the President’s policy of peaceful coercion. 39 

On November 22, 1808, Campbell submitted a report to Congress from the select committee he chaired to consider the President’s 

message. Although known as “Campbell’s Report,” it was actually 

written by Gallatir~.~~ In the report Gallatin argued that the nation 

had but three choices: enforce the embargo, submit to foreign domination, or go to war. Not surprisingly the Secretary opted for a renewed enforcement of the embargo. Yet, at the same time, he believed that the United States should prepare for war. Loans, Gallatin 

argued, could easily finance war preparations, his earlier horror of a 

public debt having evaporated after years of experience managing 

one. Campbell’s Report was adopted by the House on December 17. 

A similar measure introduced in the Senate by William Branch Giles 

75 
of Virginia became law on January 9, 1809. The embargo proved disastrous. It did not prevent the nation from being drawn into the European war, and it was financially distressing as well. Customs revenues 

fell from 16 million dollars in 1808 to just over seven million dollars 

in 1809, while military expenditures for preparedness increa~ed.~ 

When the Twelfth Congress convened in 181 1, a new generation 

of political leaders appeared on the scene. Dubbed the “War Hawks” 

by John Randolph, they included Henry Clay of Kentucky, and John 

C. Calhoun and Langdon Cheves of South Carolina. Clay was elected 

Speaker, and he used his influence to appoint fellow War Hawks to 

key committee assignments. Calhoun, for example, was named to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Cheves was appointed to the 

second position on the Committee of Ways and Means, chaired by 

Ezekiel Bacon, a relatively obscure Republican from Massachusetts. 

Bacon was evidently incapacitated at times, for Cheves acted as chairman during certain crucial periods in the committee’s consideration of 

measures to finance the War of 1812.42 

Cheves, who as chairman of the Select Committee on Naval Affairs also helped to strengthen the Navy, steered Gallatin’s finance 

measures through the committee and the House. In a letter of January 10, 1812, to Chairman Bacon, the Treasury Secretary had proposed levying taxes and raising loans. Gallatin accepted the committee’s estimate that an annual loan of ten million dollars would be necessary in the event of war. He also proposed increasing customs 

duties some six million dollars and imposing excise taxes, including a 

reimposed salt tax, to raise another five million dollars. Gallatin’s 

report made it clear that he blamed Congress for the sad state of the 

government’s finances. Congress had refused to impose the taxes he 

had requested, and it had failed to recharter the national bank that 

could have obtained the necessary loans. Cheves led the floor debate 

on the committee’s bill. He spoke in favor of the salt tax, and along 

with Calhoun, he stymied Randolph’s effort to delay consideration of 

the bill. The tax bill finally passed on March 4 with the provision that 

it would not go into effect until after a declaration of war.43 

On May 18, 1812, Cheves, on behalf of the committee, informed 

Congress that only slightly more than half of the annual loan amount 

had been subscribed. The Secretary of the Treasury had asked the 

committee for the authority to issue five million dollars in 5.4 percent 

interest-bearing Treasury notes that would be acceptable for payment 

of all duties, taxes, and debts of the United States. This unprecedented proposal was debated for several days, finally passing on June 17, 

one day before President Madison signed the declaration of war.44 

The committee’s bill to impose war taxes was less successful. Gallatin requested Chairman Bacon, who had resumed his place, to act 

on the fiscal program that had been approved in March. Even though 

war had been declared, the House refused to impose new taxes. On 

76 
A cartoon snapping turtle 

Ograbme, “embargo” spelled 

backwards, clamps down on a 

smuggler whose attempt to deher American tobacco to a 

British merchant ship violates 

the Embargo Act of 1807. In 

repnial against trade restriclions placed on U.S. ships by 

England nnd France during 

the Napoleonic wars, Jefferson 

called for an embargo. It 

prohibited shipment of American raw materials and finished 

products to the European 

belligerents. A drain on American shipping profits, the controversial trade measure was repealed in 1809, three days 

before Je-@erson left office. 

June 26, the House voted by a wide margin, 72-46, to postpone 

action until the following session. Yet once again the House adjourned in March 1813 without passing the tax bill. Gallatin had once 

more appeared before the committee to plead for internal taxes. The 

House refused, but it did approve the Committee of Ways and Means’ 

recommendation to issue another five million dollars in Treasury 

notes and to raise an additional 16-million-dollar loan. Cheves, upset 

nonetheless at the inaction on taxes, warned his colleagues that “the 

imposition of taxes must (eventually) be adopted.” 45 They were 

adopted in 1814, after Cheves had been removed from the committee 

the previous year. 

Cheves was removed from Ways and Means because he differed 

with Clay and many Republicans over the issue of raising revenue for 

the war. Not only did Cheves support the unpopular taxes on items 

such as salt, spirits, and carriages, but he also supported the claims of 

seaboard merchants against the government. The latter issue was 

complicated, volatile, and embroiled the Committee of Ways and 

Means in controversy. 

In November 1812 the committee opened hearings on what was 

called the “merchants’ bond case.” The case grew out of the Jeffersonian embargo and nonintercourse policies. The policy of nonintercourse with Great Britain provided that trade would be resumed when 

the British revoked their blockade of European ports to American 

shipping. After the blockade was rescinded in June of 1812, huge 

shipments of previously ordered goods from Britain were deposited in 

77 
American ports. Congress and the President, however, had declared 

war, and the goods were seized. They were released only after American merchants purchased bonds from the Treasury Department equal 

to the value of the cargoes. By law, the government could keep onehalf of the bonds and customs officers the other half. Gallatin proposed that the custom oficials’ half be returned to the merchants, but 

that the other half be kept by the Treasury to finance the war.46 

Although the merchants had made profits due to the inflated 

prices at which the British goods were sold, they petitioned the Committee of Ways and Means to recover the full amount of the bonds, 

which were in excess of 40 million dollars. Committees of merchants 

represented by counsel, such as the noted New York author Washington Irving, presented testimony. This was one of the few instances in 

which the committee held hearings in the early 19th century. The 

members were understandably unfamiliar with hearing procedure. 

Jonathan Roberts of Pennsylvania complained that members went into 

the hearings unbriefed, and were therefore unable to ask intelligent 

questions. Moreover, since the merchants who testified were “gentlemen of high respectability,” even the chairman was restrained in 

asking questions. “The Committee had no authority to examine 

them,” Roberts protested, “and it pressed no question where any delicacy was felt to answer.” As a result, Roberts considered the testimony vague, erroneous, and self-serving. In his opinion at least, the 

hearings had been of little value.47 

Chairman Cheves, on the other hand, was enthusiastically supportive of the merchants’ position. “I would rather see the objects of 

the war fail; I would rather see the seamen of the country impressed 

on the ocean and our commerce swept away from its bosom,” Cheves 

said, “than see the long arm of the Treasury indirectly thrust into the 

pocket of the citizen through the medium of a penal law.” 48 

The full committee overrode the chairman, siding with Gallatin 

by recommending that the House take no legislative action other than 

referring the petitions to the Secretary of the Treasury. The committee report led to a spirited debate in the Committee of the Whole 

House in which Cheves vigorously opposed his own committee’s position. The chairman, who represented mercantile Charleston, took the 

opportunity to attack the entire restrictive system of the embargo and 

nonintercourse policies. “No cause has contributed so much to the 

civilization of man . . . as commerce,” he argued, adding that “without commerce we would be simple shepherds or barbarian hordes,” a 

statement that no doubt thrilled his agrarian colleagues in the Republican Party. Outraged members threatened to denounce Cheves, and 

Speaker Clay openly criticized his friend. In the end, Cheves, with the 

support of fellow Carolinians Calhoun and William Lowndes, was successful. The committee’s report was defeated 52 to 49. A few days 

later the House passed a Senate bill to repay American merchants for 

78 
6L 
war finance. The Bank had been allowed to expire in 1811 over the 

objections of Secretary Gallatin, who favored its recharter. The question resurfaced in 1814 following a petition from citizens of New York 

City that requested a charter for a national bank “from the sincere 

belief that the establishment of a National Bank will be no less beneficial to the public than to the individuals who may be concerned in 

it.” The House referred the petition to Eppes’ committee. The 

chairman reported on January 10, 1814, that it was the committee’s 

opinion that a bank was unconstitutional. The rcport was concise: 

That the power to create corporations within the Territorial 

limits of the States, without the consent of the States, is neither one of the powers delegated by the Constitution of the 

United States, or essentially necessary for carrying into effect 

any delegated power.52 

The report was mainly the work of the chairman, for when the bank 

came to a vote in October, only Eppes and one other committee 

member voted against it. 

The committee’s division on the bank question was clearly evident when the second-ranking member, John W. Taylor of New York, 

reported a bill in February to charter a national bank in the District of 

Columbia. In debate, Eppes argued that the committee still considered a bank unconstitutional, but that they had reported the bill in 

order that the House could decide the issue. The chairman’s pique 

was obvious when he suggested that if the matter were to be recommitted, “the bill should be referred to a select committee, and not the 

Committee of Ways and Means, who had already expressed their 

opinion on the subject.” 53 No action was taken on the bill, possibly 

because chartering a bank in the District of Columbia did not resolve 

the constitutional issue of establishing branch banks in the states. 

In January of 1814, the Committee of Ways and Means was also 

referred the annual report of the Treasury Department, which outlined an anticipated deficit of 29 million dollars for 1814. In February, 

Eppes proposed a loan of 25 million dollars and another five million 

dollars in Treasury notes to meet the deficit. The bill passed with only 

slight opposition among Republicans. As the war continued to go 

badly, agitation for the creation of a bank intensified, even including 

an attempt to amend the Constitution to permit the incorporation of a 

national bank. The nation’s finances continued to deteriorate under 

the new Secretary of the Treasury, former Chairman George W. 

Campbell, who resigned in late September leaving a nearly destitute 

Treasury. The loans authorized by Congress had not been subscribed; 

banks had suspended specie payments, i.e., the redemption in gold 

and silver of bank notes, and the Treasury was forced to suspend payments on the interest of the national debt in November.54 

Protected by the breastworks 

below New Orleans, militia 

sharpshooters commanded by 

Gen. Andrew Jackson turn back 

the British and saue the Mississippi Valley at the end of the 

War of 1812. The Ways and 

Means Committee’s reliance on 

loans and war taxes to fund the 

American army set a moneyraising precedent used to finance wartime needs. Claims by 

American merchants against the 

U.S. gournmen1 for goods confiscated during the War of 

I812 prompted the committee 

to hold hearings. The “merchants’ bond case” became one 

of the few occasions that Ways 

and Means held hearings 

during the early 191h century. 

80 
Under Eppes, the Committee of Ways and Means reported a program to restore health to the nation’s finances on October 10, before 

Alexander J. Dallas had assumed ofice as the new Secretary of the 

Treasury. The committee report, while admitting that taxes should be 

doubled, recommended the issuance of Treasury notes in small 

enough denominations that they could supply a circulating medium in 

the absence of specie. The notes would be receivable at any time for 

United States stock, purchases of public lands, or payments of taxes. 

Four days after reporting to the House, the chairman informed Dallas 

that no action would be taken on their recommendations until the 

Secretary had had an opportunity to respond. Dallas answered with a 

sweeping program almost completely at odds with the committee’s 

wishes. The Secretary’s report of October 17 requested an annual revenue of 21 million dollars to be raised by doubling excise taxes, but 

the most controversial provision was his recommendation to charter a 

national bank as “the only efficient remedy for the disordered condition of our circulating medium.” 55 

Dallas lobbied the Committee of Ways and Means to accept his 

program, writing to Chairman Eppes: “In these times the establishment of a national bank will not only be useful in promoting the general welfare, but is necessary and proper for carrying into execution 

81 
“I think the wisest man I ever 

knew was William Lowndes, ’’ 

said Henry Clay of this Ways 

and Means chairman from 

South Carolina. During 

Lowndes’ leadership of the 

committee from 1815 to I818, 

Ways and Means wrote the bill 

that repealed taxes imposed 

during the War of 1812 and 

called for the Frst protectionist 

tariff in American history. The 

I81 6 measure put high import 

duties on inexpensive foreign 

goods to enable American finns 

to compete domestically on a 

favorable basis. A proponent .f 

a sound national banking 

system, Lowndes supported the 

chartering of the Second Bank 

of the United States in 181 6. 

some of the important powers constitutionally vested in the government.” 56 The Secretary requested and was granted a receptive hearing before the committee. On October 24 the committee reported to 

the House that it was “expedient to establish a National Bank, with 

branches in the several States.” The resolution was accepted without 

debate, and four days later a motion to delete the reference to branch 

banks in the states was defeated. James Fisk of Vermont reported the 

committee bill on November 7, perhaps an indication that the chairman had not yielded his constitutional objections. The bill was drafted 

along the lines suggested by Dallas, with capital of 50 million dollars 

of which 20 million dollars would be subscribed by the government 

and the remainder by private corporations and individuals. The committee’s proposal was attacked from all sides. Federalists, and Republicans such as Calhoun, Cheves, and Daniel Webster, so altered the 

details that the bill eventually bore little resemblance to Dallas’ outline. President Madison consequently vetoed the bill on January 30, 

1815.57 

The bill that finally established the Second Bank of the United 

States in 1816 was the result of Calhoun’s change of heart. As chair82 
man of the House Committee on Currency, he reported the bill that 

became law on April 10, 1816, with only minor modifications to the 

proposal originally submitted by Secretary Dallas.5E The Committee 

of Ways and Means in the meantime had reported a loan bill that 

became law on March 3, 1815. The Treasury was authorized under 

the terms of the bill to issue 18.5 million dollars in 6 percent government stock, an amount equal to the outstanding Treasury notes. Since 

the notes could be redeemed for the new interest-bearing stock, it was 

hoped that most of the notes could be withdrawn from circ~lation.~~ 

One last unresolved issue of war finance was aIso settled by the 

Committee of Ways and Means. In December of 1817 the committee, 

now chaired by Cheves’ South Carolina colleague, William Lowndes, 

reported a bill to abolish wartime excise taxes. This followed the 

report of the new Treasury Secretary, William H. Crawford, predicting a surplus of three million dollars even without the taxes. That the 

House quickly passed the repeal, on December 11, by a vote of 161-5 

came as little 

The Committee OF Ways and Means under the chairmanships of 

Cheves and Eppes played a key legislative role in financing the War of 

1812. Both chairmen favored loans and the creation of Treasury 

notes; somewhat more reluctantly they accepted increased excise taxes 

that the committee helped repeal once the war had ended. The committee, however, refused to support the incorporation of a national 

bank. Cheves, and Eppes especially, were major roadblocks to Secretaries of the Treasury Gallatin and Dallas in their efforts to charter a 

mechanism to bring some order and soundness to the nation’s banking and currency problems. When the Second Bank of the United 

States was chartered, it was reported through another committee, the 

Committee on Currency. Committee rivalries were inevitable, created 

in part by overlapping jurisdictions, such as that with regard to banking. Political issue-oriented differences and personal rivalries also 

played a role. All of these factors were notably evident in the intense 

rivalry between the Committee of Ways and Means and the Committees on Commerce and Manufactures over tariff policy in the Jeffersonian period. 

The Committee of Ways and Means and the Tariff, 

18 16-1828 

Twenty-four acts modiFying import duties were passed between the 

tariff of 1794 and the general revision enacted in 1816. With minor 

exceptions these acts were drafted For the purpose of raising revenue 

only. The tariff was not a controversial issue in these years: widespread bipartisan agreement existed on the need and propriety of a 

federal tariff to supply revenue. However, with the end of the War of 

83 
1812, the protection of American manufactured goods by means of 

the tariff became a hotly contested political issue. The war had stimulated both American nationalism and the development of manufacturing. When Great Britain dumped cheaper goods on the American 

market after the war, many businessmen and political leaders looked 

for relief to a protective tariff. 

Protectionism postulated that high import duties on cheaper foreign manufactures would permit American industries to compete on 

an equal if not favorable basis, which would help to promote a stronger national economy. President Madison in his December 1815 message to Congress broached the issue of protectionism. “In adjusting 

the duties on imports to the object of revenue, the influence of the 

tariff on manufactures will necessarily present itself for consideration,” the President observed.61 

The House referred the revenue issues raised in Madison’s message to the Committee of Ways and Means, chaired by Lowndes. The 

committee reported a set of resolutions dealing with tariffs and postal 

rates-another source of federal revenue-on January 9, 1816. After a 

month of discussion in the House, the resolutions were referred back 

to the committee with instructions to report bills along these lines. 

The section relating to the tariff read as follows: 

Diversity characterized Samuel 

Smith of Malyland. He 

amassed wealth as a Baltimore 

merchant, then entered Congress 

in 1793 and serued for 40 

years in the House and Senate. 

During the War of 1812, he 

took up arms and led the land 

and sea forces that defended 

Baltimore against the British. 

At separate times he served as 

chairman of Ways and Means 

and of the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures. He 

paid no heed to protocol zf 

ignoring it advanced the cause 

of protectionism that he favored. During a particular 

proceeding in 1820 when 

Manufactures reported a 

protective tarzff bill-a procedure arguably limited to the 

revenue jurisdiction of Ways 

and Means, which Smith then 

headed-he allowed the referral 

without protest. 

84 
Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the rates of duties 

upon imported articles, after the 30th of June next, as that 

they shall be estimated to produce an amount equal to that 

which would be produced by an average addition of forty-two 

per cent. to the permanent rates of duties.6z 

In drafting the Tariff of 1816, Lowndes’ committee relied upon a 

report submitted by Secretary Dallas. The bill recommended a tariff 

rate 42 percent above the prewar rates. It also included an ingenious 

proposal to establish a “minimum” on cotton cloth, suggested by New 

England industrialist Francis C. Lowell to protect American mills from 

cheaper imports from India. All imported cloth valued at less than 25 

cents per yard would be charged with a 25 percent duty at the minimum valuation of 25 cents per yard. The rates reported by the committee on other goods were also protective, but not as high as Dallas 

had requested. As one tariff historian has cleverly observed, “the 

Committee of Ways and Means seems to have been made up with a 

strong majority of protectionists, but not with a majority of strong 

protectionists.” 

The committee bill was reported to the House on March 20, 

passed on April 8, and signed into law by the President on April 27. 

The bill as reported by the Committee of Ways and Means placed an 

average duty of 25 percent on those imports that competed with 

American-made goods. The bill provided for yearly reductions until a 

uniform 20 percent rate was reached in 1819. Lowndes introduced the 

bill, but he fell ill and the responsibility for guiding it through the 

House rested with the second-ranking member, Samuel Smith of 

Maryland. Smith energetically defended the bill, succeeding in increasing the rates on certain types of manufactured iron, but failing to 

prevent an amendment limiting the duration of the tariff to four 

years.64 

Opinions varied on the first protective tariff in American history. 

Smith considered the Tariff o’f 1816 as the best in his long career (he 

served in Congress from 1793 to 1833) because he believed its rates 

were high enough to protect manufacturing but low enough not to 

hurt commercial interests. Others, probably including Secretary 

Dallas, have considered the tariff as protective in intent, but an act for 

revenue only in practice. Tariff scholars have concluded that the 

Tariff of 1816 settled nothing and did little to protect manufactures. 

But opponents of protectionism such as John C. Calhoun detected the 

onset of an ominous trend. Any tariff that even in principle went 

beyond revenue only, Calhoun contended, threatened to become “an 

immense tax on one portion of the community to put money into the 

pockets of another.” 65 As events were to prove, the agrarian South 

especially came to resent protective tariffs that seemingly taxed them 

for the benefit of Northern manufacturers. 

85 
In 1818, Congress passed measures to amend the Tariff of 1816 

by extending the duty on cotton and woolen goods to 1826, and by 

increasing the duties on iron and certain manufactures. These were to 

be the last major tariff measures initiated by the Committee of Ways 

and Means for more than a decade. Popular opinion in the meantime 

had been captured by the tariff issue. Petitions and counterpetitions 

inundated Congress arguing for and against protective tariffs. It is 

perhaps difficult to understand how emotional and volatile the tariff 

issue became in the 19th century. The tariff meant far more than the 

difference between profit and loss for certain manufacturing or agricultural interests. The tariff involved the very nature of what kind of 

political economy would prevail: a basically agrarian Jeffersonian republic, or a bustling, commercial Federalist-Whig society. 

The function of originating tariff bills was transferred from the 

Committee of Ways and Means following the creation of separate 

committees on Commerce and Manufactures by the Sixteenth Congress in 1819. As long as the purpose of the tariff was revenue only, it 

was clearly a subject for the Committee of Ways and Means, but when 

the purpose became primarily the protection of American commerce, 

the tariff fell more properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee 

on Manufactures. Speaker Clay named protective tariff advocates to 

the Committee on Manufactures, to which were referred the majority 

of tariff petitions. The Committee of Ways and Means declined to 

deal with the tariff issue, simply recommending a loan to cover the 

five-million-dollar deficit forecast by Secretary of the Treasury Crawford in 1820.66 

Conflict between the committees was inevitable given their overlapping jurisdictions. The tariff was both a matter of public revenue, 

and, as such, a proper subject for the Committee of Ways and Means, 

as well as a matter concerning Commerce and Manufactures. The two 

committees had tangled over defining jurisdictional boundaries as 

early as 1801. Samuel Smith, as then chairman of the Committee on 

Commerce and Manufactures, was a strong champion of protectionism, while John Randolph’s committee advocated the agrarian position of the Jeffersonian Republican Party, which the chairman once 

cogently expressed: “It is not consonant with the principles of a wise 

policy to lay duties not for the purpose of raising revenue to the government, but to operate as a bounty on any particular species of labor 

at the expense of the community in general on whom taxes are 

laid.” 67 The two men, who were personal foes, and the two committees continually jostled for position. 

In December 1801, Smith had moved that the Committee on 

Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to inquire into the whole 

subject of import duties. In Randolph’s absence, Federalist Roger 

Griswold rose to object on behalf of the Committee of Ways and 

Means, arguing that because import duties were revenue, they more 

A handwritten petition from 

Tennessee cirirens requests Congress to exempt distiller Robert 

Shaddin from payments of duty 

imposed on the making of 

“spirituous liquors. ” Ah-. 

Shaddin should be exempt, they 

argued, because he “is a poor 

man [and] is also blind. ” The 

document illustrates methods of 

communication between congressmen and their constituenb 

around 181 4. The petition also 

shows that Ways and Means 

no/ only coped with complicated 

issues of public finance but 

also, through the committee’s 

jurisdiction ouer revenues, dealt 

with ordinary citizens and their 

everyday concerns about paying 

taxes. 

86 
87 
clearly pertained to his committee’s jurisdiction. Smith countered that 

“it was necessary for the subject to be discussed by commercial men, 

of whom alone the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures was 

composed.” 68 The House agreed with Smith in this instance and referred the subject to his committee. 

A survey of congressional action on the tariff before 1820 provides no clear rationale to govern the referrals of tariff petitions. In 

the Fourteenth Congress, for example, petitions involving questions 

principally of revenue and only incidentally of protection werc referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, but no clear and consistent practice was followed in other sessions. In fact, between 1801 and 

1820 more tariff work was performed by the Committee on Commerce and manufacture^.^^ 

Samuel Smith’s previous attitude on the tariff perhaps explains 

why, as chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means in 1820, he 

allowed the Committee on Manufactures to report a protective tariff 

without protest. Smith’s committee report of April 24, 1820, made no 

reference to the tariff whatsoever, and ignored the other committee 

altogether. Henry Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of Manufactures, 

reported a tariff bill with some professed embarrassment. His committee, Baldwin argued, had been forced to report a bill that went 

beyond protecting manufactures to one that would replenish the 

Treasury because of the inaction of Smith’s committee. Baldwin’s bill 

passed the House but failed in the Senate.’O 

Both the Tariffs of 1824 and 1828 (the infamous “tariff of abominations”) were also initiated by the Committee on Manufactures. In 

the course of debate in 1824, Chairman Louis McLane of the Committee of Ways and Means indicated a general acceptance of Manufactures’ jurisdiction over protective tariffs. When another membcr rcquested that McLane’s committee examine the impact of the proposed 

tariff on revenue, the chairman disagreed, arguing that requests for 

information should be directed to the committee that had drafted the 

bill in question. Since the tariff was drafted to protect manufactures, 

not to raise revenue, it “appertained wholly to the other committee.” 

McLane was, as one might suspect, as ardent a protectionist as 

Samuel Smith. As chairman in 1823, McLane had postponed action on 

the committee’s major business-appropriations bills-in order that a 

proposal from Manufactures to raise the tariff might receive preferential c~nsideration.~ 

The apparent acceptance of the Committee on Manufactures’ jurisdiction over tariffs ended with the uproar accompanying the Tariff 

of 1828. Southern opponents of protective tariffs, inspired by John C. 

Calhoun’s Exposition and Protest, attacked the tariff as unconstitutional 

and dangerous to the South’s peculiar institution-slavery. Calhoun’s 

fellow South Carolinian, George McDufie, became chairman of the 

Committee of Ways and Means in 1827, and in December of 1828 he 

88 
As ardent a protectionist as 

Samuel Smilh, Louis McLane 

of Delaware assumed leadership 

of Ways and Means in 1822. 

He echoed Smith’s general 

interpretation that tanfls had 

more to do with protecting 

American commerce than with 

raising revenues; thus he 

viewed such tan# issues as the 

province of the Committee on 

Manufactures, not Ways and 

Means. His outlook fueled 

heated debate. McLane became 

Secretary of the Treasury in 

1831 and Secretary of State in 

1833 under Presidenl Andrew 

Jackson, exemplfying Ways 

and Means chairmen who went 

on to attain high Cabinet posts. 

1 

reported a bill to reduce the rates of the tariff of abominations. The 

House voted 107-79 to table the bill without debate, but McDuffie’s 

committee had served notice that they intended to reassert their claim 

to jurisdiction over import duties. As the Jeffersonian era merged into 

the Jacksonian period, the tariff had become a volatile political issue 

even more than a question of procedural juri~diction.’~ 

The Committee in Transition: The 1820s 

The inauguration of Andrew Jackson in 1829 has marked a convenient 

line of demarcation between the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian periods. 

Historical processes, of course, are not so abrupt. Change is gradual, 

often imperceptible, and periodization is at best a useful descriptive 

tool. The development of the Committee of Ways and Means from 

1801 to 1829 reflected the politics of the Jeffersonian period to be 

sure, but the functions the committee performed owed as much to the 

growth of Congress as an institution. 

89 
The Committee of Ways and Means remained a key participant in 

legislative affairs in the decades after Randolph left the chairmanship. 

The committee continued to consider and revise executive department budget estimates, to draft appropriations bills, and to oversee 

the expenditures of the departments. The workload was correspondingly heavy. Chairman McLane in the 1820s, for example, complained 

of the burden of committee meetings that were normally held three 

mornings a week while Congress was in session.73 

With the evolution of the speakership under Clay as the focus of 

political and legislative leadership in the House, the chairmanship of 

the Committee of Ways and Means became less important than it had 

been under Randolph. None of his successors tried to make a career 

out of service on the committee. There was little apparent interest in 

making advancement in Congress the sole goal of a politician’s life. 

Cheves, for example, went on to become Speaker of the House, but 

the pinnacle of his public life came in his duties as president of the 

Second Bank of the United States and as chief commissioner of claims 

under the Treaty of Ghent. McLane likewise capped his career as Secretary of the Treasury (1831-1833) and Secretary of State (1833- 

1834), having failed to obtain the appointment to the Supreme Court 

that he most desired. Length of tenure, therefore, was not a priority 

during this period. McLane, contemplating his resignation from the 

committee, observed, “A man loses character by remaining too long, 

without change in one place.” 74 

Chairmen continued to be named by the Speaker, in close consultation with the executive, on the basis both of political ability and financial expertise. Samuel Smith was chosen in 1818 because he possessed “unmatched knowledge of commercial and financial affairs,” 

and because he was closer to President Monroe and Secretary Crawford than he was to Madison and Gallatin. Both Smith and McLane 

were particularly loyal to the Secretary of the Treasury. Part of this 

was in consequence of the closeness with which the committee worked 

with the Treasury. Crawford kept in touch with Smith, not only 

through the 17 reports the Secretary annually made to Congress, but 

also in private correspondence, even to the point of soliciting Smith’s 

advice to present to the Cabinet. McLane refused to leave the committee in 1823, fearing that it would fall into the hands of Crawford’s enemies. McLane’s biographer, moreover, claimed that the chairman’s 

loyalty to the Secretary of the Treasury caused his law practice to 

suffer. 

When Crawford’s chief rival within the party, John Quincy 

Adams, assumed the Presidency in 1825, Speaker John W. Taylor decided that the party leadership could not displace the previous chairmen, including McLane, but that they could name new members more 

amenable to the administration. As a result, only three members of 

the seven on the Committee of Ways and Means were reappointed; 

90 
the four new members gave Adams control of the committee. McLane 

suffered through two more years, but left the committee in disgust in 

1827. “I am giving my talents and wasting my health for my enemies 

and against my friends,” he wrote to his wife.76 

Membership on the committee, as well as the chairmanship, had 

become politicized. From the beginning of the period the Republican 

control of Congress had been reflected in the committee’s composition. The most noticeable changes were the disappearance of geographical balance and the dominance of Southern members. Not only 

was every chairman in this period from the South, with the exception 

of the ineffectual Bacon of Massachusetts and McLane of Delaware, 

the committee itself also developed a distinct Southern slant. In the 

Seventh Congress, the previous concern for geographical balance continued with three members from the South, three from Middle Atlantic states, and three from the North. From the Twelfth through Twentieth Congresses (181 1-1829), however, the South reigned supreme 

with majorities as high as 5-1-1. In part this change represented the 

decline of the Federalist Party, but it also signified the importance of 

Southern leadership to the Republican Party.77 

As the House appointed new standing committees, the Committee of Ways and Means encountered challenges to its traditional areas 

of jurisdiction. The conflict with Commerce and Manufactures over 

the tariff and with Calhoun’s Currency Committee regarding the 

Second Bank of the United States were but two examples of overlapping jurisdiction. The Committee of Ways and Means in the Fourteenth Congress, for example, was referred the subject of tonnage 

duties, that is, the existing tax per ton upon foreign vessels entering 

American ports. Chairman Lowndes reported a bill to regulate tonnage duties, but he admitted that the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

shared jurisdiction. Some ships entering American ports engaged in 

trade with nations that excluded American shipping, which was a 

question of foreign affairs outside his committee’s jurisdiction. The 

House accepted Lowndes’ report and committed the bill to the Committee on Foreign Affairs for considerati~n.~~ 

During this period, the Committee of Ways and Means also considered numerous petitions from private citizens regarding revenue 

matters, of which the merchants’ bond case was but the most controversial. Most petitions were more direct and uncomplicated. In 1814, 

for example, several citizens of Tennessee asked that one Robert 

Shaddin “may be exempted from the payment of the duty imposed on 

spiritous liquors, on the ground that the said Shaddin is poor 8c 

blind.” The committee recommended that the petition be rejected. 

The duty on liquor and stills provided several similar petitions, most 

of which were rejected. Some were imaginative, if not persuasive. 

Mary Andrews, for example, asked to be relieved of the responsibility 

for paying a bond her late husband had taken to secure payment of 

91 
duties on his still. The husband’s fatal illness prevented the still from 

producing suficient income to pay the bond. The committee did not 

agree, arguing that Mrs. Andrews would have been able to pay the 

bond if her agent had conducted her husband’s estate with greater 

diligence. 

Chairman Lowndes announced the committee’s general policy 

governing such petitions in 1817. Two distillers had petitioned for remission of duties on the ground that their wares had been destroyed 

by fire. Lowndes admitted that the petitioners had good reason to ask 

for relief. Indirect or excise taxes, such as those on distilled spirits, 

although paid at the time of manufacture or importation, were considered taxes on consumption to be passed on to the purchaser. It was 

unfair, the petitioners reasoned, not to remit duties on goods destroyed before they were sold. “The committee feel that in many 

cases such relief cannot be denied with much pain,” the chairman reported, “but they think it cannot be granted without imprudence.” 

The payment of duties upon goods, he argued, added to their value, 

which it was the owner’s obligation to insure. The government, in 

short, could not act as an insurance company for American commerce.80 

Other examples of the committee’s broad jurisdiction included 

postal rates and Indian affairs. Postal rates, as sources of revenue, fell 

within the committee’s purview. Rates were doubled during the War 

of 18 12, for example, to increase federal income. The committee’s 

control over appropriations included treaty appropriations involving 

American Indians. During this period, land-hungry Southern whites 

pressed the federal government to confine to reservations the five 

great Indian nations of the South-Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, 

Choctaw, and Seminole. Treaties such as the one concluded with the 

Creek Indians in 18 17 involved treaty appropriations to purchase 

lands or to satisfy claims, which were routinely considered by the 

Committee of Ways and Means.81 

The committee remained preeminent in the field of appropriations. It raised the revenue to finance military operations to fight the 

War of 1812, for example. After the war, under Samuel Smith, who 

had served as a general in the defense of Baltimore, the committee 

resisted strong sentiment to drastically cut military appropriations. 

The role of chairmen in steering appropriations bills through the 

House gave them a leadership position second in importance only to 

the Speaker. Since revenue and appropriations bills were the most important legislation considered by the House, the chairman arranged 

the order of business, fixed the hours of adjournment, and determined when the sessions closed.82 

By 1819, the committee’s control over appropriations was such 

that the chairman, Lowndes, could report an appropriations bill with 

the blanks filled in. It had been the custom for the committee to 

92 
18 12-18 13 

1828 Separate appropriations bill fix rivers and harbors . 

report the various items without stating specific amounts. The 

amounts would be supplied following debate in the Committee of the 

Whole House. Lowndes argued that his committee, having examined 

and revised the executive department estimates, was justified in reporting specific sums. The House, he concluded, could change any 

figure that they deemed necessary or extravagant. In the 1820s, the 

appropriations process became even more refined. A single omnibus 

bill previously had met the needs of all departments, but in 1823 a 

separate appropriations bill for fortifications was passed. This was followed by similar separate bills for pensions (1826) and for rivers and 

harbors (1828). In the following period, separate bills were prepared 

for post ofices and post roads (1844), deficiencies (1844), consular 

and diplomatic service (1856), and for legislative, executive, and judicial expenses ( 1857).85 

Conclusion 

The continued evolution of the standing committee system significantly altered congressional procedure. The original dilemma confronting 

93 
the Jeffersonian Republicans had been the role of the executive vis-ivis the legislature. Their solution was to create a system of shared responsibilities. Although the executive continued to provide information and policy initiatives, it did not dictate to Congress, but rather 

funneled policy through the standing committees as agents of the legislature. The emphasis of the Jeffersonian Republicans on legislative 

autonomy and an increasing legislative workload gradually allowed 

these committees to become more active in the process of drafting 

bills and creating policy. Standing committees thus became truly legislative bodies. This new role of committees in initiating bills marked 

the first significant turning point in the development of our legislative 

system. The practice of according to committees the right to initiate 

legislation within their jurisdictional boundaries contrasted sharply 

with the traditional British parliamentary ideal of committees as subordinate to the instructions of the whole House, a notion that had 

guided Congress since its inception in 1789. The importance of committees as policymakers would be further enhanced as the second 

party system took shape in the 1830s and '40s. 

These changes particularly affected the role of the Committee of 

Ways and Means. As the House developed a more sophisticated institutional apparatus by appointing new Committees, these bodies began 

to impinge upon the jurisdiction of the Committee of Ways and 

Means, most notably in the areas of tariffs and banking. In the 1820s 

the committee shared its authority over tariffs with the Committee on 

Manufactures and over banking with the Committee on Currency, but 

it remained preeminent in appropriations, a subject that would consume more of its energies in the ensuing decades. Jurisdictional challenges notwithstanding, the Committee of Ways and Means remained 

among the most active of the House standing committees. The partisan battles of the Jacksonian period would once again thrust the 

committee into the forefront of congressional politics and procedure. 

94 
“The great body of 

legislatzon was referred 

to the committee of ways 

and means, whzch then 

had charge of all 

appropnatzons and of all 

fax laws, and whose 

chazrman was recognzzed 

as leader of the House, 

practzcally controllang the 

order of zts buszness. ” 

(John Sherman, 1895) 

1829 *I861 

Appropriations, Banking, 

and the Tariff 

The Committee of Ways and Means 

the decades immediately preceding 

nence in 

e period 

1829-1861, the committee’s chairman came to be regarded as the 

d the tariff. The c 

ver the nation’s 

the creation of policy, probably to a larger extent than any other 

ee during the antebellum era. 

ndrew Jackson’s election to the Presidency marked the culmination A of a period of social, economic, and political change that began 

with the American Revolution and intensified after the War of 1812. 

One of the most significant of these changes was the introduction of 

democratic reforms in order to broaden the political base, such as the 

extension of the vote to all adult white males. The Virginia dynasty 

ended with the presidential election of 1824. From the disaffection 

surrounding the election and Presidency of John Quincy Adams, a 

new and vigorous party system began to coalesce at the state level. 

The second American party system developed incrementally between 1824 and 1840. The principal stimulants to the development of 

the new parties were the presidential elections. By 1840, two parties 

of truly national scope competed for control of ofices on the municipal, state, and federal level. The founders of these new parties were 

not all aristocratic gentlemen. Many were from the middle or lowermiddle classes, men who gained prominence in state legislatures and 

who became the nation’s first professional politicians. These men 

built the state organizations that formed the backbone of the Democratic and Whig Parties. 

These developments affected both the composition and the structure of Congress. In the three decades before the Civil War, the 

House of Representatives evolved from a small body of well-to-do 

elites to a much larger, more heterogeneous group representing a 

95 
I 

A charismatic, forcejul leader, 

former Ways and Means 

member Andrew Jackson came 

to office in I829 as the people's President. Political clashes 

over the tariff and the Second 

Bank of the United States 

during his term prefigured the 

tumultuous years leading up to 

the Ciuil War. When South 

Carolina tried to nullfy the 

high protective tariff in I832, 

Jackson ordered armed forces lo 

Charleston. When Congress 

passed a bill to recharter the 

Second Bank of the United 

with economic privilege, he 

vetoed it. As national politics 

polarized around Jackson and 1 hts opposition, two political parties began to evolve: the 

Democratic Republicans, or 

Democrats, and the National 

Republicans, or Whigs. 

1 

1 States, which Jackson charged 

I 

variety of social, political, and ethnocultural concerns. From an institutional standpoint, old procedures were refined both to accommodate changes in the composition and concerns of Congress and to 

bolster the emerging concept of majority rule. The period was also 

one of intense partisan conflict. Each of the great political issues of 

the day-slavery, territorial expansion, the tariff, and the Bank Warprompted sectional tensions while posing internal challenges to a 

Congress incrementally striving to build and to maintain an effective party apparatus. 

The history of the Committee of Ways and Means in this period 

mirrored the institutional and procedural changes taking place in the 

House. By virtue of its broad jurisdiction, the committee was inevitably drawn into many of the major political battles in Congress. The 

committee played important roles in the creation of tariff policy with 

the Tariffs of 1833, 1842, 1846, 1857, and 1861. It also issued reports 

and drafted legislation concerning: the failure to recharter the Bank of 

the United States in 1832; the removal of government deposits from 

the Bank in 1836; and the creation of the Independent Treasury in 

1840, its repeal in 1841, and its resurrection as the Constitutional 

96 
Treasury in 1846. Finally, the committee functioned as the keystone 

of the congressional appropriations procedure. By the outbreak of the 

Civil War, the committee had consolidated its tripartite jurisdiction 

over revenue, banking, and appropriations, functioning as an integral 

element in the legislative operations of the House of Representatives. 

The Committee and the House, 1829-1861 

The period from the inauguration of Andrew Jackson in 1829 to the 

beginning of the Civil War in 1861 was a time of growth, change, and 

conflict for the nation, for the House of Representatives, and for the 

Committee of Ways and Means. Territorial boundaries were increased 

by the annexation of Texas and by the acquisition of land in the 

Southwest as a result of the Mexican War. The population more than 

doubled, in part as a result of a wave of immigration in the 1840s. 

Population growth and western expansion were also reflected in 

political change. The election of Andrew Jackson, the first President 

from west of the Appalachians, ushered in an era of increased popular 

participation in politics. Most states adopted laws providing for universal white male suffrage in the Jacksonian period. The democratization of the electoral process occurred simultaneously with the rise of 

the vigorous second party system that channeled political conflict in 

the young republic. Political campaigns became festive and noisy occasions in which the general public was courted to cast its votes, first for 

the Democratic Party or the Whig Party in the mid-l830s, and later in 

the 1840s and ’50s for a variety of third parties before the Republican 

Partv emerged as the dominant opposition to the Democrats. 

Population growth, political change, and western expansion affected the structure and the composition of Congress. Although the 

House only increased in size from 213 to 236 members, nine new 

states were represented, altering the previous sectional balance of 

power between the Northern and Southern states of the Atlantic seaboard. The House Committee of Ways and Means similarly grewmodestly in size-but more dramatically in function. The committee 

was enlarged from seven to nine members in 1833 before it was further increased to 11 in 1873. During the antebellum period, moreover, the committee solidified its jurisdiction over revenue, banking, 

and appropriations. 

To some critical observers, Congress appeared to be a chaotic debating society that accomplished very little. Alexis de Tocqueville, a 

French observer of American democracy, thought that political parties 

were responsible for this congressional paralysis. “Parties are so impatient of control and are never manageable except in moments of great 

public danger,” he wrote. Another foreign observer, Frederick Marryat, noted that congressional oratory was “full of eagles, star97 
spangled banners, sovereign people, claptrap, flattery, and humbug.” 

He concluded: “It is astonishing how little work they get through in a 

session in Washington.” * 

Beneath the superficial veneer of disorder and inaction, Congress 

was a viable and evolving institution. Even as the House membership 

grew more diverse and fractious, congressional procedures necessarily 

became more specialized, and the standing committee system became 

even more firmly entrenched. In contrast to the previous period when 

one group, the Jeffersonian Republicans, had enjoyed power for a 24- 

year period, between 1829 and 1861, control of the House switched 

hands three times. In spite of the changes in leadership, the House 

created workable institutional arrangements through its committee 

system. Most volatile issues were successfully compromised until the 

slavery issue in the 1850s proved to be irreconcilable. 

Standing committees emerged in the antebellum period as the 

central legislative agents of both the House and the Senate. The 

number of standing committees in the House increased from ten in 

1810 to 39 by the beginning of the Civil War, while the Senate’s 

standing committee system grew to 22 from the 12 created in 1816. 

As the two-party system became institutionalized in Congress, committee duties expanded to include routine involvement in the creation 

of policy and the origination of legislation. 

Two procedural developments during the 1820s prefigured a 

more active role for standing committees in originating legislation. In 

the early Federalist and Jeffersonian Congresses, committees reported 

bills only on prior instruction by the House. In 1814, the House 

adopted a resolution conferring to some standing and select committees the general authority to report by bill. In subsequent years the 

House passed similar resolutions, and in 1820 and 1822 this practice 

was codified in the rules. By the end of the decade the House had 

also dropped the procedure of initially referring all legislation to the 

Committee of the Whole House, and replaced it with first reference to 

a standing or select committee. Such changes assured standing committees such as the Committee of Ways and Means a role in the consideration of most legislation. Committees now served as bodies 

through which the majority party could simultaneously shape policy 

agenda and oversee important legislation. 

Because policy decisions were increasingly made at the committee 

level, the political composition of committees was crucial. The majority party was able to exercise some control over policy decisions since 

the Speaker of the House continued to appoint committees. The 

Speakers were careful, moreover, to permit minority representation 

while providing for majority rule. The usual majority-minority ratios 

on the Committee of Ways and Means in this period, for example, 

were 6-3 and 5-4. Beginning in the early 1830s, the House further 

recognized minority representation by permitting minority as well as 
majority reports. Committee members, in spite of high turnover rates, 

tended to become specialists, digesting the technical information 

within their jurisdiction and then originating legislation for the House 

to consider. 

As had been the case in the previous period, no clear system governed committee appointments beyond the necessity to reflect the 

partisan composition of the House. In the absence of the seniority 

principle, which did not develop until much later in the century, memberships tended to be unstable and reflected shifting political and ideological alliances. Only one member, John S. Phelps (D-MO), served 

five consecutive terms on the Committee of Ways and Means during 

this period, for example, and turnover in chairmanships was also frequent. Only three members served for four terms, and six for three 

terms. Seniority on any given committee was therefore not necessarily 

a significant consideration in committee appointment^.^ 

The balanced sectional representation on the committee that had 

been evident since its creation continued during this period, although 

it was expanded by the addition of more representation from the 

Middle West. New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and either Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New Hampshire were represented on the committee in nearly every Congress. Beginning with the Twenty-third 

Congress, Ohio represented the interests of the Middle West in all 

but two Congresses [Thirty-second (185 1-1853) and ‘Thirty-third 

(1 853- 1 855)], when representatives from Indiana and Missouri were 

present . In the antebellum period, party loyalty, ideological compatibility, 

political expediency, or simple competence proved to be the most important criteria for appointments to a given committee. It was not unusual for congressmen who had only served a few terms to obtain 

chairmanships of prestigious committees such as the Committee of 

Ways and Means. For instance, fourth-term member J. Glancy Jones 

(D-PA) was selected chairman in 1857 over his seven-term colleague 

John S. Phelps, who had served on the committee for three previous 

terms. Similarly, freshmen congressmen were not infrequently appointed to important committees, such as the 35 freshmen members 

appointed to the Committee of Ways and Means between 1829 and 

186 1. The chief motivation guiding the Speaker’s selections often was 

the desire to control certain key legislative measures. In other cases, 

party loyalty, ideological compatibility, or competence proved to be 

the most important criterion. 

The chairmanship of the Committee of Ways and Means provided 

a good example of how this “non-system” worked. By the late 1820s, 

chairmen were regarded as the managers of their committee’s bills. 

Since the Committee of Ways and Means reported so much vital legislation during a given session, it was important for a President with a 

majority of his own party in Congress to have a chairman who could 

99 
push his fiscal programs through the House. If the political situation 

demanded it, a chairman was appointed on the basis of ideological 

compatibility with the President. This was the case with the appointments of Gulian Verplanck in 1832, James K. Polk in 1833, and 

Churchill C. Cambreleng in 1835. 

In some instances the chairman of the Committee of Ways and 

Means was selected on the basis of a second-place finish in the speakership election, such as was the case with Millard Fillmore in 1841, 

while at other times the position was awarded simply as a reward for 

services rendered to the Speaker. The latter was true in the selection 

of Democrat Thomas Bayly of Virginia in 1849, who had delivered 

some key votes for Georgia’s Howell Cobb during the heated speakership contest. 

The politicization of the selection process prompted frequent 

turnover in committee chairs. There were 14 chairmen of the Committee of Ways and Means during the 16 Congresses between 1829 

and 1861, for instance. Only three men, Cambreleng, James Iver 

McKay (D-NC), and George S. Houston (D-AL), chaired the committee for two Congresses each.4 

The powers of committee chairmen were great. They not only decided when the committee would meet, they also set the agenda and 

often drafted legislation on their own initiative. By 1861 chairmen 

also had the benefit of committee clerks, often used as the chairman’s 

personal secretary, and a committee room in the Capitol from which 

to conduct business. The House adopted a rule in 1838 requiring special approval for a committee to hire a clerk. Although such approval 

was routinely granted, it was not until the 1850s that the House Committee of Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance 

became two of the first three committees to obtain regular appointments for full-time clerks. The Committee of Ways and Means was 

also granted a room strategically located on the principal floor of the 

Capitol near the House Chamber. 

The antebellum period was not only a time of change and flux, it 

was also characterized by the increasing technical sophistication of the 

legislative process. Committee rooms and permanent clerks were two 

manifestations of this development. Floor debate similarly reflected a 

greater familiarity with parliamentary procedure, and members were 

further aided in their deliberations by the advent of printed legislative 

and executive documents. By the 1840s, executive communications, 

bills and resolutions, and even committee reports were printed and 

disseminated among the members of the House and the Senate.5 

It was also during this period that the Committee of Ways and 

Means solidified its status within the standing committee system. The 

committee regained jurisdiction over the tariff in the 1830s and continued to exercise its oversight of banking and currency issues. The 

Nullification Crisis over tariff policy and the extended controversy 

Petitions to Congress express the 

concerns of citizens in the early 

1800s. Rangmg from a request 

to repeal duties on stills and 

distilled spirits to a Bible society’s hope that military appropriations would be reduced, 

these petitions were considered 

by Ways and Means. The requests underscore the social and 

political unrest of a nation 

caught in the turbulent times of 

the antebellum period. They 

also indicate that, even as Congress became more diverse and 

fractious, it was evolving into a 

viable institution thal could 

attend to the everyday worries 

of a growing nation. 

100 
niy deviwj .. 

101 
concerning the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States 

were the two central fiscal issues of the period. As such, these issues 

thrust the Committee of Ways and Means to the forefront of partisan 

controversy. In terms of its everyday legislative functions, however, jurisdiction over appropriations and the budgetary process provided the 

most routine business. 

Appropriations and the Budget 

The congressional appropriations process underwent significant refinement during the Jacksonian period. Some of the new procedures 

were instituted in response to the rapidly expanding federal bureaucracy. Other procedural changes reflected shifts in the traditional role 

played by the executive branch, the Senate, and the House of Representatives in the annual appropriations process. In spite of these developments, the Committee of Ways and Means maintained its power 

and influence over the federal pursestrings. 

In 1800 the number of federal employees approached 3,000 (exclusive of military personnel). By 1860, the federal establishment had 

grown to approximately 50,000. Government expenditures correspondingly increased in dramatic fashion. Between 1830 and 1860 

alone, annual federal expenditures more than quadrupled, from 15.1 

million dollars to 63.1 million dollars. In the face of such rapid 

growth, many public officials were determined to maintain efficient 

operations and strict accountability for public expenditures. In 1839, 

Secretary of the Navy James K. Padding wrote that the nation’s expansion “produces a corresponding accession to the duties of every 

public servant. . . . [Rendering] the duties of every officer and every 

clerk more difficult, complicated and laborious.” 

Prior to the 1830s, appropriations statutes were characterized by 

their brevity. The first appropriations bill enacted under the Constitution was only 12 lines long and authorized lump sum expenditures for 

government operations (“the civil list”), War Department expenses, 

the collection of debts owed the government, and the payment of veterans’ pensions. The Jeffersonian Republicans were reluctant to grant 

discretionary powers to the executive branch and sought to adopt 

itemized appropriations for the legislature. As the bureaucracy grew, 

Congress abandoned a single omnibus appropriations measure in 

favor of individual bills for the support of the Army and the Navy, as 

well as for civil and diplomatic expenses. By the 1850s the bulk of 

congressional appropriations were covered in five or six general bills, 

which were supplemented by numerous specific authorizations reported by various House and Senate committee^.^ 

The increasingly complex nature of the appropriations process 

altered the relationships between the executive and Congress and 

102 
103 
between the House and Senate. Legislators came to rely more than 

ever upon the Cabinet to gather information and to contact subordinate officers for additional information related to the estimates and 

expenditures. In addition, the role of the Senate in the appropriations 

process changed in some important respects. During the 1790s and 

early 1800s, the Senate reported fewer authorizations for appropriations than the House, and did not exhibit a tendency to substantially 

alter House money bills. In 1816, the Senate Committee on Finance 

was established as a standing committee, but its jurisdiction over appropriations developed only gradually. By the mid- 1830s, jurisdiction 

over spending rested with the Committee of Ways and Means in the 

House and the Finance Committee in the Senate. At this time, the 

Senate committee began to figure more prominently in the appropriations process by drafting a greater number of authorizations and by 

amending House bills for the benefit of individuals or groups whose 

requests had been overlooked or denied by the House.8 

Congressional appropriations in the Jacksonian era did not emanate from one comprehensive executive budget, but rather from a 

group of estimates prepared by the various departments. The report 

of the Secretary of the Treasury was submitted to Congress in December of each year along with the President’s annual message. In 1842, 

Congress required that all executive department heads submit annual 

reports to serve as supplements to the Treasury rep~rt.~ Customarily, 

the Speaker of the House referred the Treasury report, which consisted of pertinent information on the public debt, receipts, and expenditures, to the Committee of Ways and Means. The committee, after examining the various executive estimates, would conduct the proper inquiries and draft the necessary appropriations bills. 

It bears reemphasis that the Committee of Ways and Means was 

not the only House standing committee to participate in the appropriations process. Other committees were empowered to authorize 

certain outlays of money and prepared bills for this purpose, but only 

the Committee of Ways and Means could appropriate. For example, it 

was not unusual for the Committee on Military Affairs to report bills 

authorizing the annual expenditures for military fortifications. Other 

committees were permitted to make inquiries into the appropriation 

of funds. During the Twenty-third Congress (1833-1835), the House 

instructed the Committee on Public Lands “to inquire into the expediency of making a further appropriation to satisfy military land warrants,” and ordered the Committee on Roads and Canals to consider 

the feasibility of spending money “to improve the navigation of the 

Wabash River.” lo The Committee on Commerce also reported on 

the feasibility of erecting navigational aids such as buoys and lighthouses. In many cases these specific authorizations were incorporated 

into Ways and Means appropriations bills that were approved later in 

the session. 

104 
From 1789 to 1842, Congress appropriated funds on a calendaryear basis. As the approptiations process became more complex, Congress encountered frequent delays in passing its spending bills on 

time, and in 1842 changed the beginning of the fiscal year to July 1. 

Although many expenditures were fixed and maintained with few 

changes over the years, the committee’s responsibilities were quite 

time-consuming. In addition to its own bills, the committee reviewed 

item by item the authorizations reported by other committees. The 

Committee of Ways and Means was empowered to raise or lower the 

amounts of these bills, subject to the approval of the House. The 

committee was also entrusted with the responsibility for reviewing 

Senate-originated money bills or amendments to House appropriations bills. The Committee of Ways and Means also drafted supplementary appropriations (then called “deficiency” bills) to cover operating expenses if a department or agency ran out of funds before the 

end of the fiscal year on June SO. 

Although the Committee on Public Expenditures, originally created by the Jeffersonian Republicans, continued to be appointed, it remained inactive for the most part. The House also created committees 

on “accounts and public expenditures” for each of the executive departments. These committees were given considerable leeway to conduct inquiries into executive expenditures. The oversight functions 

of these committees were gradually superseded, first by the Committee of Ways and Means, and later by other standing committees. In 

other instances the House appointed select committees to investigate 

the internal operations of various agencies, such as the Second Bank 

of the United States (1831), and the Post Office (1834-1835). In 

1842, Congress launched a full-scale investigation into government 

operations and professional standards. With the general concern regarding economy, accountability, and the public trust, it was not surprising that the Committee of Ways and Means conducted routine investigations into government estimates and expenditures as part of its 

jurisdiction, 

In general, the committee’s members, regardless of party afiliation, proved reluctant to sanction excessive appropriations. Many of 

the committee’s chairmen were extremely effective in this oversight 

role. Perhaps the best illustration was Millard Fillmore, the Whig 

chairman during the Twenty-seventh Congress (184 1- 1843). Although 

Fillmore has often been dismissed as an ineffective President, he was a 

thoroughly competent legislator who was extremely conscientious and 

demanding where public expenditures were concerned. 

The committee’s review of expenditures at various times extended into all of the departments and agencies of the federal government. By the 1850s this included the Treasury Department and its 

field service (customs houses, assay offices, and the U.S. Mint), the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (established in 1824), the Post Office, the 

105 
Navy and War Departments, the State Department, the Attorney General’s office, the White House, and the Interior Department (established in 1849). The committee also reviewed expenditures for the 

territories, the House and the Senate support staffs, government 

contractors, internal improvements, and even the repair of federal 

buildings.14 

The committee’s role in the appropriations process revealed the 

breadth of its involvement in the various functions of the government. 

Through its appropriations role, for example, the committee was involved in financing the negotiations for the Smithson legacy that 

formed the basis for the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. 

The power of the purse continued to provide the committee with the 

opportunity to influence foreign affairs. During the Jacksonian period, 

the House was occasionally reluctant to appropriate funds for minor 

diplomatic officers and foreign missions. l5 This broad influence over 

appropriations meant that the Committee of Ways and Means was the 

single most important standing committee in the Congress, especially 

in light of its related jurisdictions over the politically visible issues of 

the tariff and banking. 

The Nullification Crisis 

The House Committee of Ways and Means played an important role 

in the two major political battles of Jackson’s administrations: the attempt to revise the Tariff of 1828, and the contest over the recharter 

of the Second Bank of the United States. The committee clashed with 

the President on both issues, although it was chaired by Jacksonian 

Democrats and was composed of majorities of Jackson’s party. The 

President was not able to have his policies implemented by the committee until he prevailed upon a compliant Speaker of the House, 

Andrew Stevenson, to appoint loyal Congressman James K. Polk of 

Tennessee as chairman. 

The relationship between the executive and Congress entered a 

new phase with Jackson’s Presidency. Previous Presidents, including 

Jefferson, Madison, and Adams, had at times influenced loyal Speakers of the House to name sympathetic chairmen. But Jackson, who 

was not bothered by any Jeffersonian considerations of legislative autonomy, was determined to have a chairman completely within his 

confidence. Jackson, in fact, considered himself the only elected representative of all the people. As such, he expected both his department 

heads and his congressional followers to heed his bidding. 

Andrew Jackson entered ofice with similarly strong convictions 

about the purposes of government. He believed that the federal government should benefit the ordinary people, not just the privileged 

elites. His supporters likewise soon referred to themselves simply as 

106 
A determined opponent of Jackson S initiatives for a high 

protective tans George 

McDufje of South Carolina 

threw his influence as chairman 

of Ways and Means behind his 

state in the Nullzjication Crisis. 

This event was precipitated 

when South Carolina attempted 

to nulltfr duties on wool, 

cotton, hap, and other gooh 

imposed by the Tangs of I828 

and 1832. A three-tenn chairman, McDufje earned fame 

with his “jorty-bale” theory. It 

held that under the tan3 40 

out of evev 100 bales of 

Southern cotton went to the 

enrichment of Northerners. 

Speaker Andrew Stevenson, 

Jackson 5 ally, replaced 

Mchfje as chairman with 

Gulian Verplanck. 

“Democrats.” Although Jackson favored a reduction in government 

functions to stimulate economic opportunity, he nonetheless supported the preservation of the Union through a vigorous Presidency. This 

put him at odds with many Democrats in Congress, particularly those 

who opposed his stances during the Nullification Crisis and the Bank 

War in the 1830s. 

‘The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1 833 stemmed directly from the 

controversy engendered by the Tariff of 1828, which levied the highest protective duties up to that time. Although the division in Congress over the tariff was not purely sectional, protectionist sentiment 

was concentrated among the Northern and Western members, with 

the majority of Southerners opposing what they perceived as a discriminatory tax to hinder the European export market for cotton. The 

tariff issue also raised the question of whether the Constitution sanctioned the imposition of taxes for purposes other than simply raising 

revenue.l6 

During Jackson’s first administration, jurisdiction over the tariff 

was shared between the Committee on Manufactures and the Committee of Ways and Means because of the heated debate over whether the 

purpose of the tariff was only to supply revenue or to provide protection to American manufactures. The former committee had drafted 

most of the tariff bills in the 1820s, when the principal aim of such 

107 
This illwtration j motto, “The 

Union Must and Shall Be Preserved, ’* stemmed from wordc 

spoken by President Jackson at 

a Jefferson Day banquet on 

April 30, 1830. Backers of the 

null@ation theory gave 24 

toasts flavored with states’ 

rights sentiment and thoughts 

of secession. Jackson stood up, 

raised his glass, and said, 

“Our Union-it must be preserved. ’’ His simple reply rallied public opinion to his position and strengthened the 

Union. 

statutes was the protection of American industries. By the 1830s’ however, the Committee of Ways and Means had a powerful justification 

for reasserting its claim to exclusive jurisdiction. Import duties, along 

with the proceeds of public land sales, provided the federal government’s principal source of income. Land sales boomed in the mid1830s, with annual proceeds of 15 million dollars in 1835 and 2.5 million dollars in 1836.l’ The income from land sales, together with 

import duties, created a surplus of revenues over expenditures. Congressmen who favored tariff reduction could thus argue both that 

rates could be reduced without harm to the government’s finances, 

and that the surplus could be distributed to the states. 

The rationale for protectionism was best articulated in Senator 

Henry Clay’s American System, a series of interrelated economic policies. Clay argued that high tariff schedules would both stimulate domestic manufactures and create a home market for the agricultural 

goods of the South and the West. The National Bank would be maintained to facilitate credit and exchange, while the federal surplus 

would be utilized to finance internal improvements to benefit the 

economy. While the advantages of Clay’s system were obvious to the 

manufacturing interests centered in New England and the Middle Atlantic states, they were less obvious in the West, and they were bitterly opposed in the South and by the shipping interests of both the 

South and New England. 

Southern agrarians argued that high tariffs would inevitably raise 

domestic price levels, as well as the cost of imported goods. Even if 

domestic manufacturers became able to produce goods more eficiently, they would not be likely to lower prices that benefited from protective tariffs. Southerners likewise feared that tariff barriers would 

108 
adversely affect their export of cotton to overseas markets, particularly 

Great Britain. A policy of free trade, on the other hand, would benefit 

the South by lowering duties on both sides of the Atlantic. The tariff 

issue came to symbolize the basic economic differences between the 

agrarian slave labor system of the South and the Northern free labor 

system. 

The constitutionality of a protective tariff was also disputed in the 

early 1830s. Essentially, the constitutional issue centered on the dispute over enumerated versus implied powers. The proponents of protectionism argued that Article 1, Section 8, which gave Congress the 

power to regulate commerce, implied the power to encourage manufacturers through high tariffs. Their opponents argued that the Constitution nowhere specified the right to levy protective rates, but did 

clearly state that tariffs were to be enacted for revenue only. The constitutional argument over protectionism reached its peak during the 

Nullification Crisis. 

Many of the events in the crisis took place in South Carolina and 

in the White House, far removed from the purview of the Committee 

of Ways and Means. In the aftermath of the Tariff of 1828, South 

Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun had devised a theory of nullification. According to Calhoun, the Constitution was an agreement between the peoples of the individual states. The states had the right, he 

argued, to nullify the enforcement of federal laws within their boundaries. South Carolina waited four years for Jackson’s administration, in 

which Calhoun was Vice President, to revise the hated tariff. By 1832 

Calhoun had fallen into disfavor with Jackson, and the Vice President 

had become an open advocate of nullification. A specially elected convention in South Carolina nullified the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832, forcing Jackson to take two actions. The President asked Congress to 

reduce the tariff, which it did in 1833, and at the same time he requested the authority to use the military to enforce the collection of 

duties in South Carolina. These actions ultimately defused the situation, but they also contributed to an incident that some historians 

have characterized as a rehearsal for the Civil War. 

The Committee of Ways and Means was involved in the nullification controversy both in the person of its chairman, George McDuffie 

of South Carolina, and in its role in the tariffs of 1832 and 1833. 

McDuffie, who chaired the committee from 1827 to 1832, had opposed the tariff of abominations in 1828. The chairman’s report condemning protectionism was considered by Calhoun to be “the best 

thing he has written or said on the subject.” l9 In his speeches during 

the Twenty-first Congress (1829-183 l), McDuffie propounded what 

became known as his “Forty Bale Theory.” A tariff of 40 percent on 

imported manufactures, he suggested, amounted to taking forty of 

every one hundred bales of cotton for the enrichment of Northern 

manufacturers. McDuMie argued that protective tariffs were a 

109 
perversion of the Constitution that benefited one section of the nation 

at the expense of another. The purpose of the tariff was to make the 

South a slave to the North. The chairman recommended that the existing rates on wool, cotton, and hemp, among other items, be reduced. Although tariff reduction was a topic of much discussion, no 

action was taken during the Twenty-first Congress. Part of the explanation for congressional inaction was the continuing jurisdictional dispute between the Committee of Ways and Means and the Committee 

on Manufactures.20 

Jackson’s first annual message to Congress in 1829 formed the 

catalyst for the committee’s attempt to regain jurisdiction over tariffs. 

The President argued that the effects of the Tariff of 1828 were not 

as harmful as many thought. He generally favored protective tariffs 

that would enable domestic producers to compete on equal terms 

with foreign imports. Several days later, the Speaker of the House, 

Andrew Stevenson of Virginia, appointed a protectionist majority to 

the Committee on Manufactures and a free trade majority to the Committee of Ways and Means. Subsequently, the portion of the President’s annual message dealing with the tariff was referred to the Committee on Manufactures. This committee, as expected, reported a bill 

in January 1830 without any change in the existing schedules, prompting the Committee of Ways and Means in early February to report a 

rival bill reducing duties to the level of the rates of 1816. The House, 

however, indicated that McDuffie’s committee lacked jurisdiction over 

tariffs by rejecting the bill upon its first reading, 107 to 79.21 

The outlook for tariff revision was brighter for the Twentysecond Congress (1831-1833). Not only were the opponents of protectionism more vocal, but the accumulation of a large surplus in the 

federal treasury necessitated either a reduction in tariff revenues or 

some form of distribution to return surplus funds to circulation. The 

Speaker also improved the odds for change by appointing a Committee on Manufactures with a membership equally divided between protectionists and free traders. The committee was chaired by John 

Quincy Adams, who had been elected to Congress the previous 

autumn. Stevenson once more appointed a free trade Committee of 

Ways and Means under the leadership of McDuffie. Tariff reduction, 

as Jackson suggested, was to be a major consideration, but “the interests of the merchant as well as the manufacturer requires that material 

reductions in the import duties be prospective.” The House subsequently took the unusual step of referring the President’s message on 

tariffs to both committees. The section that related to “relieving the 

people from unnecessary taxation” was referred to the Committee of 

Ways and Means, while the subject of “manufactures and a modification of the tariff’ was referred to Adams’ committee.22 

McDuffie’s committee beat Manufactures to the punch by submitting a lengthy report on February 8, 1832. The report concluded that 

110 
The chairman of Ways and 

Means from 1831 to 1833, 

Gulian Verplanck of New York 

replaced George McDuffie, the 

committee ’s antitaniff lea&. 

Ironically, Veqlanck drew 

Jackson’s ire when he would 

not follow the President’s 

opposition to the rechartering of 

the Second Bank of the United 

States. Verplanck wrote the 

Ways and Means majority 

report that declared the Bank 

sound and stable, findings contra? to those Jackson wanted. 

Verplanck ’s defiance cost him 

favor with the administration, 

and his career at the federal 

level ended in 1833. 

protective tariffs “ought to be abandoned with all convenient and 

practicable despatch, upon every principle of justice, patriotism, and 

sound policy.” The Committee of Ways and Means’ report was accompanied by a bill lowering rates over a three-year period. Two 

members of the committee authored a dissenting minority report, 

which argued that “the protecting system is interwoven with the best 

interests of the country.” 23 

Congress chose to ignore McDuGe’s report and bill in favor of a 

bill submitted from the Committee on Manufactures. Adams maintained that his committee’s bill was based upon Secretary of the 

Treasury Louis McLane’s recommendations. The Adams bill formed 

the basis for the Tariff of 1832 signed by President Jackson on July 

14, 1832. It was the final tariff legislation to be reported by the Committee on Manufactures. Although the act reduced rates to the level of 

those in effect before the tariff of abominations, it was still seen as a 

protectionist measure. The South Carolina congressional delegation 

reported to their constituents that “all hope of relief from Congress is 

irrevocably gone.” 24 

The Nullification Crisis ensued as a convention in South Carolina 

met to nullify the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Chairman McDuffe attended the convention to lend his support. President Jackson responded by seeking to take the credit for tariff reduction as well as 

discrediting nullification as treasonous. In order to accomplish tariff 

reduction, the President turned to the Committee of Ways and Means, 

still strongly disposed toward free trade. McDuffe had not returned 

111 
Twenty-second Congress, 

Thirty-second-Thirty 

Congresses, 1851-1855 

Thirty-fifih Congress, 1858-1859 

John Sherman (R-OH) Thirty-sixth Congress, 1859- 186 1 

I* I 

from South Carolina in time for the opening of the second session of 

the Twenty-second Congress. In his absence, Speaker Stevenson 

named Gulian Verplanck (D-NY) to chair the committee. McDuGe’s 

absence also permitted Stevenson to transfer James K. Polk (D-TN) 

from the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Polk was a loyal confidant of 

the President, and Jackson counted on both his Tennessee ally and 

Verplanck to accomplish a reduction in the tariff.25 

Verplanck, Polk, and the committee worked in close consultation 

with Secretary of the Treasury McLane to draft a new tariff bill. Verplanck, a representative of commercial New York, was opposed to 

protective tariffs not only because they erected trade barriers, but also 

because they were most harmful to farmers, artisans, and laborers. He 

112 
admitted, on the other hand, that the Constitution granted Congress 

the authority to levy protective tariffs. The committee prepared a bill 

and a detailed accompanying analysis of revenues expected from the 

tariff. Verplanck began debate on the bill in early January 1833 with a 

brief statement on the necessity for tariff reduction. The chairman 

clearly indicated that this tariff was an act of conciliation. “The committee,” he concluded, “have desired and endeavored to conduct the 

deliberations of their committee room in the spirit of justice, conciliation, and of peace; and it is in this spirit that they now invite this body 

to the examination of the bill before them.” Opposition from protectionists delayed consideration of the committee’s bill. Some congressmen suggested that tariff reduction amounted to surrender to blackmail by South Carolina. Rufus Choate of Massachusetts, for example, 

sarcastically observed, “South Carolina has nullified your tariffs; and 

therefore you repeal them.” 26 

As consideration of the bill bogged down in the House, the 

Senate continued to consider a bill popularly known as the Force Bill 

to authorize President Jackson to use the military to collect import 

duties in South Carolina. Senator Henry Clay then seized the initiative 

in tariff reform by proposing on February 12 a reduction in rates to 

the same levels as those proposed by Verplanck, but over a ten-year 

period rather than the two years of the House bill. The senator’s 

fellow Kentuckian and spokesman in the House, Robert P. Letcher, 

then moved to substitute Clay’s proposal for the bill the House had 

been fruitlessly considering. Verplanck and Polk capitulated, and in 

this fashion the substitute bill became the Compromise Tariff of 1833. 

Along with the subsequent passage of the Force Bill, the Compromise 

Tariff helped to defuse the Nullification Crisis, although South Carolina took the symbolic step of nullifying the Force Bill.27 

The Compromise Tariff of 1833 quieted the tariff issue for nearly 

a decade. The economy prospered for four years before the Panic of 

1837 ushered in several years of depression. The economic disaster of 

the late 1830s owed less to the effects of the tariff than it did to another of the accomplishments of Jackson’s Presidency-the destruction of the Second Bank of the United States.28 

The Bank War 

Andrew Jackson bore a personal enmity against all banks as a result of 

his previous financial speculations. As President, his opposition to 

banking focused upon the Second Bank of the United States, a private 

corporation chartered by the federal government, which owned onefifth of the Bank’s stock. Based in Philadelphia with branch banks 

in 29 cities, the Bank operated as a central banking system. Its credit 

financed farms, businesses, and internal improvements, and its 

113 
notes provided a stable currency. Moreover, the Bank restrained the 

inflationary tendencies of many local banks. Opposition to the Bank 

came from several sources. New York’s Wall Street financiers resented 

the control of the Bank by those on Philadelphia’s State Street. State 

banks and the friends of “soft money”-paper money not backed by 

gold or silver deposits-objected to the restraint the Bank placed 

upon the issuance of inflated bank notes. Some “hard money” advocates, including Jackson, argued just the opposite. The only real measure of value, they believed, was specie-gold or silver coin. 

The Bank’s 1816 charter was due to expire in 1836 unless renewed. Jackson let it be known that he did not favor the Bank’s reColumm of Mother Bank come 

down in a 

depictingJackson S goal of 

destroying the Second 

the United States. Jackson 

considered the governmentand a “hydra bank of corruption. ” 

voters suspibous of banks overwhelmingly supported Jackson 

in his Bank War between 

1832 and 1836. His 

adversaries, on the other hand, 

found fils dictato&! actions 

of 

charter. As the controversy continued, it took on the character of a 

personal vendetta. The President considered the Bank a “monster” 

that he had to destroy. Both Democratic chairmen of the Committee 

of Ways and Means, McDufXe and Verplanck, on the other hand, favored the recharter. Jackson did not find a legislative leader amenable 

to the destruction of the Bank until Polk became chairman in 1833. 

George McDufie, although an opponent of protective tariffs, nevertheless supported the National Bank. President Jackson’s first 

annual message to Congress in December 1829 set the stage for the 

Bank War by announcing that he questioned both the usefulness and 

the expediency of the Bank. The House referred the issue to the 

Committee of Ways and Means, which, under McDufXe’s leadership, 

issued an unqualified endorsement of the Bank on April 13, 1830. 

McDuEe’s report argued that the Bank was constitutional and absolutely necessary to the nation’s economic well-being. The committee 

maintained that the Constitution obligated Congress to create a national bank to establish and regulate a uniform currency and to assist 

the federal government’s powers to collect and disburse public revenues, to borrow money, and to pay the public debt. The committee 

denied the President’s allegation that the nation’s financial structure 

had suffered. The Bank, under the leadership of Nicholas Biddle, had 

created a stable currency, McDufie asserted. The report concluded 

that if the Bank were not rechartered, public finance would be destabilized. Former Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin was greatly 

impressed by the report, which, he wrote to Verplanck, “[was] the 

ablest paper that has issued from any committee of either House.” 2g 

Biddle decided to petition Congress for a recharter of the Bank in 

1832. Henry Clay and other opponents of Jackson had urged this step 

to create an issue for the election year. Biddle’s petition was presented by McDufie on January 9, 1832, and it was referred by the House 

to the Committee of Ways and Means. One month later the committee reported in favor of the recharter. A similar report emanated from 

the Senate Committee on Finance. Anti-Bank forces directed by 

Jackson and led in the Senate by Thomas Hart Benton (D-MO) and in 

the House by Augustine S. Clayton (D-GA) maneuvered to defeat 

cause for pondering an opposition party. From this notion 

would emerge the Whig Party. 

With its charter renewal vetoed 

byJackon, the Second Bank of 

the United States continued to 

function, but not as a federally 

incorporated institution. 

114 
4 

recharter. Clayton brought several charges against Biddle's Bank and 

demanded an investigation before the House voted on the recharter 

bill. The House appointed a special investigating committee chaired 

by Clayton that made an unfavorable majority report. The House nevertheless passed the recharter bill, but Jackson vetoed it on July 10, 

1832.30 

The House and the Senate could not raise the necessary twothirds majority required to override the President's veto. However, 

the Twenty-second Congress adjourned on July 16, 1832, with Jackson's opponents confident that the President's denunciation of the 

Bank would provide the public with a strong motivation for voting 

against him in the upcoming general election. If the President hoped 

for additional help from the Committee of Ways and Means in crushing the Bank in the Twenty-third Congress, he was in error. McDuffie's replacement as chairman, Gulian Verplanck, was also a strong 

supporter of the Bank. He was one of several congressmen to whom 

Biddle, the President of the Bank, had advanced loans, although there 

is no evidence that the chairman's support was anything but genuine. 

When Jackson recommended that the government sell its stock in the 

Bank and called for a congressional investigation of the safety of federal funds on deposit, the matter was referred to the Committee of 

115 
Ways and Means. Verplanck authored a majority report which found 

the Bank strong and solvent. The chairman’s report concluded: 

. . . there can be no doubt of the entire soundness of the whole 

bank capital. . . . Resolved, That the Government deposites may, in the 

opinion of the House, be safely continued in the Bank of the United 

States.” 31 

The committee also submitted a minority report by James K. 

Polk. The young Tennessee Democrat served as Jackson’s eyes and 

ears on the committee. Some of the President’s staunchest supporters 

felt that Polk, not Verplanck, should have been named chairman. Jackson evidently had not foreseen Verplanck’s stand on the Bank. In a 

confidential letter to Polk, the President urged him to cooperate with 

the Secretary of the Treasury in calling for an investigation of the 

Bank, “this hydra of corruption.” The letter ended with an abrupt 

order, “Attend to this.” Although Polk attempted to steer the committee’s investigation in the direction Jackson desired, a majority of the 

members sided with the chairman. Polk then submitted his minority 

report containing a scathing attack upon Biddle and the Bank. Moreover, Polk maintained that the President was justified in taking whatever steps he deemed necessary without congressional authorization. 

On the last day of the session, the House voted to accept the majority 

report in spite of Polk’s arguments. Jackson and Polk were vindicated 

at the polls, where the pro-Bank forces were dealt a crushing defeat. 

Clay lost his bid to unseat the President, and several pro-Bank Democrats, including Verplanck, were defeated for reele~tion.~~ 

Jackson’s ODDonents controlled the Senate. making it even more 

“ 

James K. Polk of Tennessee acquired his nickname, “Young 

Hickory, ” after demonstrating 

fierce loyalty to Jackson, “Old 

Hickory. ” The President 

maneuvered Polk onto the 

Ways and Means Committee in 

I832 to help sway the panel 

from its pro-Bank stance. Polk 

became chairman in 1833. 

Using his position to advocate 

the sale of Bank stock and the 

removal of federal deposits, he 

helped Jackson defeat the 

Second Bank of the United 

States. Polk also spearheaded 

several attempts at currency 

reform. In 1845, he became the 

nation S I 1 th President. Not 

yet 50 years old, Polk took the 

oath of office at an earlier age 

than any of his predecessors. 

1- 1- 

116 
necessary for the President to have a cooperative chairman of the 

Committee of Ways and Means. Speaker Stevenson appointed Polk to 

chair the committee for the Twenty-third Congress (1833-1835) in 

order to direct the administration’s fiscal program through the House. 

The committee was composed of five other loyal Democrats, including 

Churchill C. Cambreleng of New York, Isaac McKim of Maryland, and 

John McKinley of Alabama. Only three pro-Bank congressmen were 

named, but they were also capable men, led by Horace Binney, a close 

confidant of Nicholas Biddle.33 

Jackson’s anti-Bank strategy, decided before the outset of the new 

Congress, was to order his Secretary of the Treasury, former chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means Louis McLane, to cease 

making deposits of federal revenue in the National Bank. Although 

the policy was termed “removal,” no funds would be withdrawn. If 

implemented, government deposits would cease, and funds currently 

on deposit would be exhausted through normal governmental expenditures. McLane refused to carry out the order. Jackson then appointed William Duane, who also declined to execute the policy. Jackson subsequently found an obedient servant in Roger B. Taney. According to the Bank’s 1816 charter, the Secretary of the Treasury was 

required to immediately inform Congress of any alteration in government deposits. The administration planned to have Taney’s report referred to Polk’s committee, which would promptly recommend congressional approval.34 

By the Twenty-third Congress, opposition to the Jackson Administration was crystallizing into a group whose members identified 

themselves as Whigs. The term, first coined in 1833 in response to 

the President’s dismissal of Secretaries McLane and Duane, harked 

back to the 18th-century English Whigs who had defied executive 

usurpation of legislative authority. In this Congress, the Whigs were a 

loose but effective coalition of antiadministration men, who endeavored to thwart “King Andrew” and his fiscal initiatives. Their first 

success occurred in 1834 when Secretary Taney’s report on removal 

was submitted to Congress. The administration’s plan for the government deposits backfired when Jackson’s opponents outmaneuvered 

Chairman Polk. The normal procedure in the House was for the Committee of the Whole to refer the various parts of the President’s 

annual message, as well as the reports of the departments, to the appropriate committees. McDuMie requested that the Treasury Secretary’s report be considered by the Committee of the Whole. Polk, according to his biographer, suspected nothing, but McDuffie and the 

pro-Bank faction took advantage of the unlimited debate in the Committee of the Whole to delay referral of the report to Polk’s committee for a period of two months.35 

The Committee of Ways and Means had spent that two-month 

period working on a report in favor of removal, based upon the flood 

117 
report concerned currency reform. The Secretary of the Treasury proposed that state banks be prohibited from issuing or receiving paper 

notes under five dollars, eventually to be extended to notes under 20 

dollars. In this way, specie would take the place of paper in most everyday transactions. Polk’s committee reported a bill along the lines of 

Taney’s report. The chairman argued that “The general scope and 

tenor [of the bill] is, to make the public money, wherever deposited, 

equal to specie,” and to “gradually introduce in their stead a metallic 

circulation.” 39 During the debate on the bill, one member recommended that the government adopt Gouge’s Independent Treasury 

scheme and abandon the notion of pet banks. Polk and most other 

Jacksonians were not prepared to take that step. Polk’s bill was passed 

by the House, but it was rejected by the Senate, which was controlled 

by the antiadministration faction. The Senate also passed a resolution 

in 1834 censuring the President for removing the deposits and other 

actions “not conferred by the Constitution and the laws.” The resolution was expunged from the Senate record in 1837 after the Democrats gained control of the Senate. 

The Committee of Ways and Means made one more unsuccessful 

effort at currencv reform under Chairman Polk’s direction in the 

second session of the Twenty-third Congress (December 1834-March 

I19 
of petitions that they had received. Taney declined Polk’s request to 

write the committee rer>ort. but the chairman and the Secretary of the 

The Panic of 1837, the subject 

Of this cartoon, unleashed widespread unemployment and 

bankmptcies, and 

in lhe cities. ~ackson ’s trade1’ 

Treasury communicated regularly on the topic. Only two weeks after 

the report was officially referred to the committee, Polk was able to 

rials 

present a 141-page committee report in favor of removal, to which 

Binney appended a 34-page minority report. Polk’s majority report 

argued that the Bank under Biddle’s leadership was an irresponsible 

institution that had deliberately tried to exert economic and political 

pressure to force recharter. Moreover, the chairman maintained that 

mark sits atop Glory, a 

satirical slap at the President’s 

economic leadership. Jackson 

helped touch offIhe panic when 

he required payments for public 

land 10 in gold Or 

siluer coin instead of paper 

money, State 

sbecie, could not 

the removal and distribution of deposits would strengthen the currency system by forcing smaller notes from circulation. The majority’s 

short on 

demand, 

report recommended that Congress pass resolutions paving the way 

for the enactment of legislation to authorize removal. “The main 

object of legislation should be to enlarge the basis of specie, on which 

the circulation of State Banks is to depend for support,” the report 

concluded.36 The real purpose, in other words, was to return to a 

hard money policy. 

Polk’s report and its four accompanying resolutions were debated 

for a month before the House accepted all four on April 4, 1834. The 

first resolution against the recharter of the Bank passed by a 52-vote 

margin. The second, against restoring the deposits, passed by a narrower margin, as did the third resolution supporting continued deposits in state banks. The fourth resolution authorized the appointment 

of an investigating committee to examine Biddle’s administration of 

the Bank.37 

After the success of Polk’s resolutions on removal of the federal 

deposits, the Committee of Ways and Means turned its attention to 

creating a new system of currency regulation. The committee, as well 

as the entire Jackson Administration, were influenced by the theories 

of William M. Gouge, a prominent Philadelphia editor and economist, 

who opposed the concept of banks and paper money. In a book published in 1833 entitled A Short History of Money and Banking in the United 

States, he argued that farmers and workingmen were victimized by the 

overextension of credit by the banks. Gouge also maintained that the 

only sound currency was gold or silver. He suggested that the government should require all revenues to be paid in specie, and that all 

public funds should be held in the government’s own Independent 

Treasury, so-named because it would be entirely removed from the 

private banking system. 38 

Polk asked Secretary of the Treasury Taney to submit his recommendations on the impact of the deposit system upon the currency. 

Taney suggested that the selection of state banks for deposit of federal funds should be left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. This was essentially the Jacksonian “pet bank” policy. Taney also 

suggested that he be free to remove deposits from any bank provided 

only that he notify Congress of his reasons. But the heart of the 

1, 

Banks failed; panic and depression followed. Martin Van 

Buren, Jackson’s successor, believed that the separation of 

federal transactions from banks 

would help ease the crisis. He 

asked Ways and Means to 

drafi legslation for an 

Independent Treasury system. 

The bill floundered in Congress, 

and the worst depression in the 

young nation ’s history continued for jiue years. 

118 
1835). The deposit bill reported by the committee once more encountered opposition from the Whigs, who used the Independent Treasury 

as an effective counter argument. Polk was placed in the uncomfortable position of defending state banks for political reasons. The 

Democrats were further embarrassed because the states had begun 

granting scores of new bank charters, and the state deposit banks 

were using federal funds to back an inflationary expansion of credit. 

The Senate adopted a deposit bill with far more restrictions than the 

House bill. Polk’s committee drafted amendments to bring the Senate 

bill closer in substance to the House version, but the differences between the two were too great to compromise in the few days that were 

remaining in the session. A conference committee was not called, 

and the Twenty-third Congress adjourned without having passed a 

deposit bill. 

Congress finally passed a Deposit Act on June 23, 1836. The 

Committee of Ways and Means, now chaired by Democrat Churchill 

C. Cambreleng of New York, reported a bill in March of that year to 

regulate the federal deposits. Cambreleng had become chairman in 

the Twenty-fourth Congress (1 835- 1837) when Polk was elected to 

the speakership. The new chairman was a representative of the commercial interests of New York City and a colleague of Vice President 

Martin Van Buren, who described his friend as “honest as the steelyard and as direct in the pursuit of his purpose as a shot from a 

[cannon].” Cambreleng had risen from a humble North Carolina 

background to become the confidential agent of New York financier 

John Jacob Astor. Although Cambreleng had been supportive of the 

Bank before the 1830s, he helped lead the Jacksonian opposition to 

the Bank in the House. Cambreleng’s bill “regulating the deposits of 

public money” specified that the Secretary of the Treasury designate 

at least one bank in each state and territory as a repository of public 

deposits. The bill further stipulated that all federal funds would be 

credited as specie and that no bank selected to receive those funds 

would issue bank notes in denominations less than five dollars. The 

Deposit Act further provided for distribution of the federal surplus in 

excess of five million dollars to the states as an interest- and securityfree loan in proportion to their congressional representation.* 

Some 37 million dollars was due to be distributed to the states in 

four quarterly payments under the terms of the 1836 law, but only 

about 28 million dollars was ever transferred due to the economic 

impact of the Panic and Depression of 1837. Shortly after Martin Van 

Buren succeeded Jackson in the White House, several New York 

banks stopped redeeming bank notes in specie, partly in consequence 

to Jackson’s famous “Specie Circular” of 1836 that had announced 

that only gold or silver would be accepted for public land sales. Hundreds of banks were forced to close their doors, unemployment rose, 

and bread riots occurred in some of the larger cities as the effects of 

120 
the depression lasted for several years. Economic historians have debated the role of,rackson’s war on the National Bank and his removal 

and distribution policies upon the economic distress of the late 

1830~.~~ Many of the underlying causes were beyond the President’s 

control, such as fluctuations in the world market and the rapid expansion and speculation in western land. Jacksonian fiscal policy, however, aggravated the overextension of credit and speculation that contributed to the severity of the depression. The Committee of Ways 

and Means under the leadership of Polk and Cambreleng had contributed greatly to the legislative implementation of those policies. The 

President had finally prevailed upon Congress to get what he 

wanted-the Bank destroyed as a national institution, and the deposits 

removed and distributed to the states. Unfortunately, he also 

bequeathed to his successor something that neither man wanted-a 

depression. 

The Independent Treasury 

The tariff and the Independent Treasury continued to be the major 

policy issues confronting the Committee of Ways and Means in the 

aftermath of the Depression of 1837. President Van Buren and the cooperative chairmen of the committee, Cambreleng (1835-1839) and 

John Winston Jones (1839-184 l), succeeded in establishing the Independent Treasury, but the electorate rejected the Democratic Party in 

the elections of 1840 in favor of the Whig Party, which had developed 

from a loose coalition of antijackson men into a national party in opposition to Democratic policies. But Virginian John Tyler, who 

became President upon the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841, 

abandoned the Whig’s fiscal and economic policies for recovery. The 

capable Whig chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, Millard 

Fillmore (184 1-1843), was compelled to create tariff and banking 

measures in the face of presidential opposition. With the election of 

James K. Polk in 1844, an atmosphere of cooperation returned to the 

relationship between the executive and the committee. Polk and his 

brilliant Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Walker, found a chairman 

in James Iver McKay (1843-1847) who was willing and able to support 

administration policies. 

President Martin Van Buren convened the Twenty-fifth Congrcss 

(1837-1839) in special session on September 4 to deal with the nation’s economic ills. Van Buren’s first annual message to Congress 

outlined his policy to divorce the federal government’s finances from 

the banking system. The Treasury, the President argued, could safely 

collect and disburse funds without recourse to any bank. Van Buren 

was fortunate to have key congressional support for his plans. Speaker 

of the House Polk maintained party discipline and order on the floor. 

121 
A stalwart spokesman for two 

administrations, Churchill 

Cambreleng of New York entered Congress in 183 1 and 

served for 18 years. He defended Jackson 2 policies 

against the Second Bank of the 

United States and allied himself 

closely with Martin Van 

Buren’s legdative plalfonn. He 

served twice at the helm of 

Ways and Means and endured 

considprablp fitration trying 

to move Van Buren’s Independent Treasuq program through 

a reluctant Congress. 

The leader in the Senate was the chairman of the Committee on Finance, Silas Wright of New York, who was a devoted follower of Van 

Buren. Cambreleng, who remained the chairman of the Committee of 

Ways and Means, was an equally dependable presidential ally. 

The Senate committee seized the initiative in the special session, 

in part because of Wright’s closer involvement in the President’s creation of policy, but also in part because the Senate was the first to 

organize its committees for the session. The Democrats only controlled the House by 16 votes out of 239. Polk nonetheless gave the 

administration a two-to-one majority on the key committees, including 

the Committee of Ways and Means. Two of the key measures reported by the Senate were easily adopted. Both Houses agreed to suspend 

the final payment of the surplus and to issue ten million dollars of 

interest-bearing Treasury notes. Cambreleng had argued against the 

‘Treasury notes as a deviation from the party’s hard money principles, 

but Van Buren and Wright had prevailed.43 

The key element in Van Buren’s policy failed in the House. In 

spite of Cambreleng’s best efforts, consideration of the bill to divorce 

122 
the federal government’s finances from the banking system was postponed by a margin of less than 20 votes. Cambreleng had tried to 

move the bill quietly through the House, but Francis Pickens of South 

Carolina created confusion with a speech linking the bill with the abolition of slavery. According to Pickens, an Independent Treasury that 

performed banking functions epitomized the capitalist system that 

threatened the existence of slavery. Cambreleng countered this interjection of sectionalism with a radical economic argument against all 

banks. Neither Van Buren nor Wright had linked the bill with such 

radical ~vertones.~~ Cambreleng’s speech created even greater confusion among Democrats, with the result that consideration of the bill 

was postponed to the next session. 

Sectional issues complicated the divorce bill in the following session in 1837-1838. Both Wright and Cambreleng introduced bills 

from their respective committees. The House bill differed in that the 

Committee of Ways and Means inserted a specie clause-i.e., that all 

payments to the Independent Treasury were to be in gold or silver. 

Although this clause was designed to win conservative Democratic 

support, the bill was defeated by less than 20 votes on June 25, 1838. 

In the absence of any legislation, Secretary of the Treasury Levi 

Woodbury had been operating the department in effect as an Independent Treasury. Yet there were no guidelines to follow, which created considerable embarrassment for the party and for the administration when it was revealed in 1838 that the former collector of the New 

York Customs House had embezzled and absconded with 1.25 million 

do11a1-s.~~ 

The Twenty-sixth Congress (1839-1841) brought a change to the 

leadership of the House. Polk had left Congress to run for governor 

of Tennessee and Cambreleng had been defeated for reelection. Van 

Buren’s choice for Speaker, John Winston Jones of Virginia, lost the 

election because of a delay in seating the New Jersey delegation, several of whose members’ elections were contested. Without the New 

Jersey members, the House numbered 119 Democrats and 118 Whigs. 

A small group of Democrats, dissatisfied with the Van Buren Administration, broke ranks with the party and joined the Whigs to elect 

Robert M. T. Hunter, another Virginian, as Speaker. Although Hunter 

gave the Whigs control of most committees, he appointed Jones to 

chair the Committee of Ways and Means with a narrow 5-4 Democratic margin. The House debated the five contested New Jersey seats for 

three months before Jones was able to report the Independent Treasury plan, now renamed the Subtreasury bill, on May 20, 1840. The 

bill was adopted by an almost straight party vote of 124 to 107. Van 

Buren ceremoniously signed it into law on July the 

Although the Senate Committee on Finance had played the more 

important role in drafting and initiating major policy legislation 

during Van Buren’s Presidency, the Committee of Ways and Means 

123 
I PZ 

4 k- 
“Humbug ’’ cartoon in 183 7 

lampoons the array of fractional currency issued by ‘yet 

banks, ’’ those state institutions 

favored to receive government 

deposits following the breakup 

of the Second Bank of the 

United Stdes by Jackson. Most 

people put little faith in the 

depreciated currency and referred to the notes as “shinplasters. ” Van Buren’s face appears on the cartoon tremury 

note as the head of the 

humbug, a symbol of deception. 

Also behind a Jackson-face 

mule stands a caricature of Van 

Buren as Old Hickory S lackey 

catching a flood of worthless 

money. 

tant subjects which came before us our best consideration.” The committee, in Jones’ version, accepted, rejected, or amended administration proposals “as seemed . . . best calculated to promote the interest 

of our common country.” Fletcher was then discharged from the committee at his own request.47 

Both versions of the committee’s procedure were partially correct. The minority had good reason to feel that they were bypassed 

and powerless. The chairman and the majority indeed collaborated 

with the administration. That relationship was a fundamental byproduct of the emerging two-party system, and reflected a clear pattern of 

executive influence upon legislative deliberations and policy-making 

characteristic of the period. However, it was also possible for the committee to alter administration proposals as it saw fit. Chairmen such 

as Polk, Cambreleng, and Jones, who shared the policy goals of 

Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, had been stalwart spokesmen for 

those administrations. Such was not the case with the ensuing Whig 

administration. 

Fillmore and the Tariff of 1842 

The election of 1840 brought a Whig administration to the capital for 

the first time, along with comfortable Whig majorities in both Houses. 

The sudden death of President William Henry Harrison after a month 

in office, however, elevated to the Presidency a man who was ill-suited 

to lead the party. Vice President John Tyler, derisively referred to as 

“His Accidency,” had been a Democrat before breaking with Jackson 

over nullification and removal of the federal deposits. Yet he consistently opposed the cornerstones of Whig economic policy-a national 

bank, protective tariffs, and federally financed internal improvements. 

His pompous and vain personality also contributed to the inevitable 

conflict with Whig legislative leaders, especially Henry Clay in the 

Senate, and the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, Millard Fillmore. 

Tyler initially allowed Clay and the Whig congressional leaders to 

take the initiative in drafting legislation. He supported the repeal of 

the Van Buren Independent Treasury, but he opposed and vetoed 

Clay’s bill to create a new national bank. Tyler then vetoed a second 

attempt to establish a Fiscal Corporation that had originated in the 

Committee of Ways and Means. Two days after the second veto, the 

entire Cabinet resigned, with the exception of Secretary of State 

Daniel Webster. Two days after the Cabinet resignations, Tyler was 

expelled from the party on September 14, 1841.** 

The banking issue became a political football kicked around between the Whigs in Congress and the executive. Tyler proposed his 

own plan, dubbed the Exchequer. The President’s proposal for a 

125 
public institution based in the capital with agencies in the major financial centers was a well-conceived plan, but Clay and his supporters opposed it for partisan gain. As Daniel Webster asked rhetorically, 

“Who cares now about the bank bills which were vetoed in 1841?” 49 

The key role in thwarting Tyler’s Exchequer plan was taken by Fillmore’s Committee of Ways and Means. 

In his early forties, Fillmore was a heavyset but handsome New 

York lawyer and Whig politician. He had run for the speakership of 

the Twenty-seventh Congress (1841-1843), but lost to John White 

(W-KY), Henry Clay’s candidate. Fillmore was named to chair the 

Committee of Ways and Means, where he tried to counter both 

Tyler’s proposals and Clay’s control over the party. The President’s 

Exchequer proposal was tabled during the 1841-1842 session and 

soundly defeated the following year. The result of the Whig controversy over banking was that public funds continued to remain in selected state banks. O 

Fillmore’s handling of the Exchequer plan elicited criticisms that 

were a curious mirror image of Fletcher’s remarks about Cambreleng. 

On January 9, 1843, Fillmore presented his committee’s report on the 

Exchequer, which concluded with a resolution that the plan “ought 

not to be adopted.” A minority report presented by Charles G. Atherton (D-NH) offered an amendment to direct the committee to bring in 

a bill providing for a system of public finance to replace “executive 

discretion.” In response to questioning, the chairman agreed that his 

resolution was a negative one, and that the committee did not intend 

to bring in any bill unless so instructed by the House.51 

Two weeks later, Fillmore read to the House two newspaper articles to the effect that the Whig Party caucus, dominated by the Clay 

factions, had instructed the chairman and his committee to negate the 

Exchequer plan. Fillmore, noting that he had never thought it necessary to respond to any newspaper article, argued that this charge reflected “so grossly on him and the Committee of Ways and Means, 

that he felt it his duty to notice it,” and to label it “unequivocally 

false.” Henry Wise, a Virginia Democrat, offered a rather cogent commentary. He professed not to know whether the caucus had instructed 

the committee in this particular instance, “yet, looking at the past, he 

did know . . . that a caucus, and nothing but a caucus, by its machinery did contrive the legislation of Congress.” This exchange provided 

one of the few evidences of party caucus influence upon the Committee of Ways and Means in this period.52 

Fillmore’s committee in the meantime had been working to provide relief for the business community from the continuing woes of 

the depression. Fillmore pushed through a Senate bankruptcy bill, 

modeled on an earlier New York State measure, that was enacted in 

1842. But most crucial to the Whig plan for economic recovery was a 

return to the protective tariff. By January 1, 1842, the federal debt 

126 
Currencies from Michigan, 

New Jersey, and Massachusetts 

represent money in circulation in 

183 7. The myriad denominations and designs added confusion to a haphazard banking 

structure. Some state banking 

laws were strict, others lax. 

Wildcat banking plagued the 

Midwest and South: A bank 

would issue its note at its town 

branch but would redeem in 

specie only at its main office, 

usually located in a faraway 

place. Counterfeits and notes of 

failed banks flooded the market. 

Saddled with the crisis throughout hk term, Van Burenusing Ways and Means to 

draji deflationary policiesunwittingly prolonged the depression. His successors as President, faced with westward 

expansion and increasing sectional rivalry, found these and 

other issues more pressing than 

the establishment of a stable 

national banking system. For 

30 years, from 1833 to 1863, 

the nation expanded without an 

adequate regulator of currency. 

had grown to 17.7 million dollars from five million dollars in 1840. 

Tyler had called for a new tariff bill to raise revenue in his annual 

message to Congress on December 7, 1841. He blamed Congress for 

the failure to act upon either his tariff or Exchequer proposals, or his 

request for increased Army and Navy appropriations. When the Committee of Ways and Means did act on the tariff, it initially drafted bills 

the President could not support. 

Fillmore and the Committee of Ways and Means linked an increased tariff with the distribution to the states of the proceeds from 

public land sales. Although it might seem inconsistent to raise one 

source of federal revenue while giving away another to the states, Fillmore argued that distribution prevented government funds from 

“being squandered and gambled away by trading politicians and 

127 
1 

reckless demagogues.” Ever since the Compromise Tariff of 1833, 

the receipts from land sales had effectively blocked the need for 

higher duties. The real reason for linking distribution with tariff 

reform was that reducing federal revenues provided an added incentive for returning to a protective tariff, which was Fillmore and Clay’s 

true agenda. For this reason, Tyler vehemently opposed the committee’s plan.53 

In the summer of 1842, the Committee of Ways and Means reported two tariff bills, one temporary and the second permanent, to 

raise rates above the existing 20 percent level while providing for distribution. Tyler, as expected, vetoed both measures, which played into 

the hands of the Whig leadership. Fillmore’s committee then drafted a 

decidedly protective tariff that raised rates to an average of 30 percent. Because this bill eliminated the distribution provision, Tyler had 

no choice but to sign it into law. The Tariff of 1842 accomplished the 

Whigs’ goal of returning to protectionism in order to benefit the business community.54 

Fillmore won high praise from his party colleagues for his handling of both the Exchequer and the tariff. As one of his friends observed, “Fillmore is a great man; but it takes strong pressure to make 

him show his highest powers.” 55 Although he only served for one 

Congress as chairman, he displayed thorough competence and quiet 

efficiency, not only in the highly visible management of major policy 

measures, but also in his behind-the-scenes handling of everday 

128 

One of the few Democratic 

chairmen in the Home during 

the Twenty-sixth Congress, 

John Winston Jones of Virgznia 

lost the election for Speaker to a 

Whig despite a strong endorsement from President Van Buren 

in I839. Later that year Jones 

gained leadership of Ways and 

Means. On May 20, 1840, he 

reported Van Buren i Independent Treasury plan, renamed the 

Subtreasury bill. Congress 

passed the controversial measure, which divorced the federal 

government i finances from [he 

banking system, and the President ceremoniously signed the 

bill into law on July 4, 1840. 
committee business. As chairman, Fillmore diligently examined departmental appropriations requests, often asking for further information to justify seemingly minor expenditures. He wrote to Secretary of 

the Navy Abel P. Upshur on January 15, 1842, for example, “to know 

the reasons which induce you to ask for $5,000 for the contingent expenses of your office, instead of $3,000 the sum usually appropriated 

for that object.” The quantity of such requests suggests that Fillmore 

was both careful to guard the public purse, and less than reluctant to 

harass Tyler’s department head~.~6 

One letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs perhaps best illustrated the chairman’s devotion to detail. Fillmore marked up this 

official’s estimates with a red pencil and returned them with a request 

for further information. In veiled, but nevertheless clear language, the 

chairman suggested that the Commissioner explain his estimates in 

person. Fillmore’s eight specific queries expressed clear dissatisfaction, concluding with an ominous statement: “Finally, on looking at 

my red marks you will note many other things on which I desire a 

brief explanation, and particularly, I would like to know the necessity 

for so large an appropriation of contingencies.” 57 

Polk, the Treasury, and the Tariff 

If Fillmore’s attention to detail reflected the strained relationship between the executive and the committee during Tyler’s Presidency, a 

spirit of cooperation returned with the ensuing Democratic administration of James K. Polk (1845-1849). The Democratic chairman of 

the Committee of Ways and Means during the Twenty-eighth and 

Twenty-ninth Congresses (1843-1847) was James Iver McKay of 

North Carolina. A dour lawyer and planter, McKay was noted for his 

persistence and parsimony. Even Polk found him “grave and stern 

. . . a man of peculiar temperament,” who, even when cooperative, 

was difficult to get along As chairman, he did most of the 

work himself and would not permit the hiring of a clerk, in keeping 

with his reputation as “Old Money Bags.” In McKay, Polk found a 

like-minded, if difficult and independent agent to expedite the administration’s fiscal program, 

Although the Democrats who controlled the House and the 

Senate during the Twenty-ninth Congress shared the President’s economic goals to a large extent, they were jealous to maintain legislative 

autonomy, and they were not hesitant to oppose the administration. 

Polk encountered especially stiff opposition from the Senate during 

this period. Senators tended to be more insulated by their six-year 

terms from presidential and party pressures. Senate committee chairmen, who did not owe their positions to presidential influence, did 

not consider themselves tools of the administration. The Senate 

129 
Dubbed “His Accidency ” by 

detractors, former Ways and 

Means member John Tyb of 

Virgznia was the first Vice 

President to be elevated to the 

office of Chief Executiue by the 

death of his predecessor. Tyler 

served m the tenth President, 

succeeding William Henry Harrison in 184 I. Although nominally a member of the Whig 

Party, Tyler was at heart a 

Jachonian Democrat. As such 

he stood at odds with the Ways 

and Means hadership. He opposed measures for establishing 

a national bank, protective tar- 

$5, and federally financed internal improvements-the 

cornerstones of the Whig economic recovery program. 

Committee on Finance, chaired by Dixon H. Lewis of Alabama, for instance, was far less responsive to President Polk’s initiatives than the 

House Committee of Ways and Means. 

Polk, nicknamed “Young Hickory” for his identification with Jackson, extended his mentor’s theory of presidential leadership. According to Polk, the President had the constitutional obligation not only to 

veto unwise legislation, but also to take the lead in recommending 

policy to the legislature. In his inaugural address, Polk listed the four 

major goals of his administration: 1) a reduction in the tariff, 2) the 

establishment of the Independent Treasury, 3) the settlement of the 

disputed Oregon boundary, and 4) the acquisition of California. Remarkably, all four were accomplished in one term. The Committee of 

Ways and Means played a major role in implementing Polk’s agenda 

by reporting the bills to reduce the tariff and to reestablish the Independent Treasury. 

The Independent (or “Constitutional” as President Polk preferred) Treasury bill was the easier of the two measures to pass. The 

administration sought to separate the federal government from the 

banking community. The Committee of Ways and Means reported the 

bill on March 30, 1846. As introduced by the second-ranking Democrat on the committee, George C. Dromgoole of Virginia, the bill authorized the construction of fireproof vaults in the new Treasury 

building for the safekeeping of government funds. An amendment to 

the bill specified that only specie would be received in payment of 

federal dues. Dromgoole made the principal defense of the bill in the 

House, arguing that banks had no legitimate right to receive public 

130 
funds. The bill passed the House on April 2 by a straight party vote, 

122 to 66. The Senate, on the other hand, delayed consideration of 

the bill for four months. Lewis claimed that other business was more 

urgent, and he resisted Polk’s personal appeals to expedite the bill. 

When finally passed by the Senate on August 1, 1846, the law elicited 

little controversy or attention. Polk did not even note its passing in 

his diary.59 

Part of the relative apathy over the Constitutional Treasury bill 

was the greater urgency attached to tariff reform. For Polk and for 

McKay, reduced tariff duties were the keystone of the administration’s 

economic policy. As chairman of the committee during the previous 

Congress, McKay had introduced tariff legislation in 1844, in large 

part to satisfy the demands of Southern Democrats. Calhoun’s faction 

promised to support the Democratic nominee only if the party lowered the rates of the Whig Tariff of 1842. McKay’s bill was thus designed to create a Democratic campaign issue. The committee carefully drafted a line-by-line reduction in rates. Senator Silas Wright of 

New York referred to it as “by far the best tariff bill . . . which has 

ever been reported to Congress.” The bill failed by only six votes.60 

Polk’s Secretary of the Treasury, Robert J. Walker of Mississippi, 

conducted a thorough study of tariff rates shortly after taking ofice in 

1845. He presented to Congress a voluminous statistical report as an 

exercise in “scientific” tariff revision. Walker provided a solid argument to buttress the Democratic Party’s opposition to protective tariffs. When Polk’s first annual message to Congress in December 

strongly recommended a tariff for revenue only, the Committee of 

Ways and Means turned to Walker for help in drafting a free trade 

tariff. The Secretary of the Treasury called customs officials to Washington, where they worked out a schedule of duties that would provide the maximum revenue without reaching the protectionist levels of 

the previous tariff. The bill was ready for the committee in mid-February 1846, but McKay kept it in committee for over two months. 

Some adjustments were made in committee to make the bill more politically acceptable, and McKay reported it on April 14.61 

As reported, the Walker Tariff bill reduced rates to an average of 

20 percent. Protectionists and free traders descended on the Capitol 

in a massive lobbying effort. One group displayed in a committee 

room a selection of less expensive British goods that would be available if the tariff were reduced. In response, protectionists erected a 

large temporary building near the Capitol, where they presented a National Fair of American Manufactures to show the greater quality and 

lower price of domestic products. Polk toured the fair, but he scoffed 

at the notion that “high duties make low goods.” 62 

The outbreak of war with Mexico in May 1846 complicated the 

issue as Democrats adjusted rates to raise an adequate wartime revenue. The Mexican War proved to involve relatively minor wartime 

131 
expenditures, but Walker’s suggestions to move certain items such as 

tea and coffee from the free list ran into strong opposition. Andrew 

Johnson, then a young Democrat from Tennessee, protested “taxing 

the poor man’s tea and coffee to carry on a war which was mainly for 

the protection of the property of the rich.” 63 The taxes on tea and 

coffee were dropped, but the debate dragged on until early July when 

the measure passed by a vote of 114 to 95. The bill passed the Senate 

later that month by a dramatic one-vote margin. As enacted, the Tariff 

of 1846 set the rates for import duties for over a decade. 

The Committee of Ways and Means dutifully reported appropriations measures to finance the Mexican War. Two days before the 

scheduled adjournment of the first session of the Twenty-ninth Congress, Polk requested an appropriation of two million dollars for use 

in the treaty negotiations with Mexico for the purpose of purchasing 

land. In this August 8, 1846, message, the President revealed for the 

first time the war goal of acquiring territory. Identical language had 

been included in a letter dated the previous day from Secretary of 

State James Buchanan to McKay in his capacity as chairman of the 

Committee of Ways and Means. Neither Polk nor McKay was prepared for the response given to the committee’s bill in the House. 

Some Northern members were suspicious that the real purpose of the 

bill was to extend slaveholding territory. David Wilmot, a Pennsylvania Democrat with free-soil sentiments, introduced a resolution that 

slavery should be excluded from any territory acquired from Mexico. 

The House passed the bill with Wilmot’s amendment, but the Senate 

did not consider it in that session. The Wilmot Proviso marked the 

reemergence of slavery as an issue that would continue to confound 

Congress in the coming decade.64 

The Democrats lost control of the House in the Thirtieth Congress (1847-1849). Samuel Finley Vinton (W-OH) became chairman 

and McKay stepped down to ranking minority member. Although 

Vinton and the Whigs made an attempt to repeal the Tariff of 1846, 

the Democratic Senate prevented any chance for success. Polk tried to 

use McKay to influence the committee, but the situation strained the 

relationship between the two men. McKay left one meeting in an outrage, prompting the President to threaten to break off contact. “I was 

vexed,” Polk noted in his diary, “. . . I considered Gen’l McKay’s 

conduct very rude, and that, unexplained, I would never speak to him 

again.” Although McKay later conveyed his apologies and the two reconciled, the President concluded that “he is an excellent 8c a sensible 

man . . . but his habit is to find fault with everybody & everything.” 65 McKay declined reelection in 1849. One of the few noteworthy accomplishments of Vinton’s chairmanship was the bill providing for the establishment of the Department of the Interior in 1849, 

which Vinton reported out of the committee on February 12, 1849, 

and which was enacted on March 3 of that year. 

132 
A skilled leplator, Millard 

Fillmore chaired the Ways and 

Meam Committee from 1841 

to I843 during Tyler ’s Presidency. Fillmore ’s diligent 

leadership marked a pm’od 

when his party, the newly 

formed Whigs, held a majority 

in Congress for the first time. 

He energetically administered 

the committee’s oversight role, 

which blossomed partially because of the legdature’s ongoing concern with economy in 

spending. He won high praise 

for reporting bills on banking 

and protective tanfls in the face 

of President Tyh’s frequent use 

of the veto. Fillmore’s methodical industry took him to the 

White House in I850 as the 

13th President of the United 

States. 

The President’s influence upon the Committee of Ways and 

Means was clearly evident during this period. During the 1830s and 

1840s, the committee and the executive operated in an atmosphere of 

mutual dependence, with the initiative most often supplied by the 

White House and the Treasury Department. This pattern was interrupted only during Fillmore’s chairmanship while Tyler was President, 

and during the chairmanship of Samuel F. Vinton. The key component of this relationship was party, just as party had consolidated its 

control over the committee appointment process. Presidents such as 

Van Buren and Polk who were effective party leaders were most often 

able to communicate their programs through chairmen of the same 

party. When the President and the chairman and majority of the committee were of different party affiliations, such as Tyler-McKay and 

Polk-Vinton, stalemate or opposition resulted on major policy issues. 

This latter situation increasingly characterized the 1850s, when the 

party system went through a turbulent period of change and reorganization, and when the slavery issue loomed behind even the most routine legislation. All three Presidents in the 1850s; Fillmore, Pierce, 

and Buchanan, encountered at least one Congress in which the opposition party controlled the Committee of Ways and Means. 

133 
The Committee of Ways and Means in the 1850s 

The decade of the 1850s proved to be a period of relative inactivity 

for the Committee of Ways and Means. The committee continued to 

consider appropriations matters, but with the exception of the Morrill 

Tariff as the decade ended, it initiated no major policy legislation. In 

part this seeming inactivity belied the political turbulence of the era. 

The issue of slavery in the territories destroyed the existing party 

system as the Democratic Party split into Northern and Southern 

wings, the Whig Party disintegrated, and a variety of third partiesLiberty, American, and Free Soil-gave way to the Republican Party 

in mid-decade. Central to the vision of the Republican Party was economic growth unhindered by slavery. Building upon the free-soil ideology, the Republican Party preached the virtues of economic opportunity, growth, and expansion in the form of homestead legislation, 

transcontinental railroads, steamship subsidies, and protective tariffs. 

The history of the Committee of Ways and Means would assume a kaleidoscopic aspect as it touched upon all of these issues. 

The committee did not play a prominent role in the Compromise 

of 1850, the first important legislative accomplishment of the decade, 

which attempted to settle the issue of slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico. California was admitted as a free state and New 

Mexico and Utah were created as territories with no restrictions on 

slavery. The slave trade in the District of Columbia was also prohibited, and a more stringent fugitive slave law was enacted. Following the 

“Old Money Bags” was the 

reputation James McKay of 

North Carolina won for being 

frugal. He scrupulously upheld 

the principle of economy to the 

point of forgoing a clerk; the 

Ways and Means chairman did 

all the work himself: He reported appropriations bilk that 

funded the Mexican-American 

War and a measure to fund 

treaty negotiations. The treaty 

bill ignited a great controversy. 

Some Northern members suspected the measure was a ploy 

to extend slauery into tedory 

that Mexico would cede to the 

U.S. The Wilmot Proviso of 

1846 allayed their fears but 

resurrected slavery as an issue 

that would confound Congress 

in the decade ahead. 

134 
Compromise of 1850, Congress experienced a period of relative tranquility. Few legislators were satisfied with the compromise, yet most 

hoped that it would provide a final solution to the territorial problem. 

With the bank and tariff issues momentarily resolved, and with 

the country prospering, the majority of the committee's business concerned routine appropriations. Occasionally the committee considered 

an appropriations request that involved the slavery issue. For example, in February 1853, Chairman George s. Houston (D-AL) received 

a letter from W. Parker Foulke, Chairman of the Board of Managers 

of the Pennsylvania Colonization Society, requesting an appropriation 

for a naval expedition to Liberia to locate a site for colonizing free 

blacks. In the 1840s and '~OS, the committee also periodically received 

estimates from the Secretary of the Navy of the sums necessary for the 

suppression of the illegal African slave trade. There is no indication 

that these proposals prompted extended discussion either in the committee or on the floor of the House.66 

The most controversial committee measure between 1850 and 

1855 was an appropriation for the mail steamship service during the 

Thirty-third Congress (1 853- 1855). Steamship subsidies were among 

the most lucrative of government contracts, and the operators of the 

domestic and international mail routes reaped huge profits with little 

interference from the federal government. Frequent explosions on 

these vessels prompted Congress in 1852 to tighten safety standards 

and to establish a Board of Inspectors under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. Chairman Houston reported the steamship appropriations bill for 1856, which limited contract subsidies and 

slashed the appropriations for one New York to Liverpool line operated by Edward K. Collins. The restrictive clauses of the bill had been 

requested by the Democratic Pierce Administration in its desire to 

prevent further abuses of the system. When the bill came up for consideration, Collins' friends in the House reinstated his subsidy over 

Houston's objections. The House and the Senate passed the bill in 

this form, but the President vetoed it on March 3, 1855. The President's veto was returned to Congress in the final hours of the session, 

causing a stormy scene in the House, but the veto was sustained by a 

vote of 98-79, and the appropriations bill, without the subsidy clause, 

was tacked on to a naval appropriations bill and enacted without further incident.67 

The Thirty-third Congress also witnessed the investigation of 

charges of misconduct against former Chairman of the Committee of 

Ways and Means Thomas H. Bayly (D-VA). Benjamin Green, former 

Charge d'Affaires for the United States in Mexico, charged in 1854 

that Bayly had used his position to secure passage of appropriations 

bills for the payment of indemnities due to Mexico with the knowledge that some of the funds would be paid to prominent Washington 

bankers. Bayly was susceptible to these accusations because of his 

135 
close ties to the banking community, and because his father-in-law, 

Judge John F. May, had considerable holdings in various land and 

railroad ventures. Rumors had also been circulating that Bayly had 

manipulated the Illinois Central Railroad bill through the House in 

return for a gift of Illinois and United States bonds.6s 

The matter was initially referred to a special committee that was 

currently investigating several cases of alleged improper congressional 

conduct. The committee decided that the charges were not within 

their jurisdiction, but Bayly insisted that any charges against his “representative character” be referred to the House. The matter was referred to another select committee which deliberated for several 

months before it found that Bayly, while having made some “erroneous” statements to the House, was not guilty of any impr~priety.~~ 

The atmosphere of relative calm in Congress was shattered by the 

passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in May 1854. This legislation repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 by allowing the residents of 

Kansas and Nebraska to determine whether they would be free or 

slave states. The Committee of Ways and Means became involved in 

the controversy in March 1856, when Chairman Lewis D. Campbell of 

Ohio reported an Army appropriation bill that was amended by the 

Free Soil faction in the House to include a proviso forbidding the use 

of federal troops to support the territorial government of Kansas, currently challenged by a rival antislavery government in Topeka. The 

intent of the proviso, originally introduced by Lucien Barbour, a Free 

Soil delegate from Indiana, was to buy time for the Topeka government until Congress could resolve the question of the legitimacy of 

the rival governments. 

The proviso to the Army bill placed Chairman Campbell in a difficult position. A free-soil advocate, Campbell opposed the KansasNebraska Act. Although he favored “the speedy exercise of all legislative power to exclude slavery from Kansas and Nebraska,” as chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, Campbell felt compelled 

to oppose the introduction of independent legislation into appropriations bills. Campbell believed that this procedure violaled “the rules 

of law, and the usage of this House.” The chairman also stated his 

conviction that the subject matter of the current proviso fell under the 

legitimate jurisdiction of either the Committee on the Judiciary or the 

Committee on Territories. Thus, the entire Army bill would be placed 

in jeopardy “for no better reason than that other committees and the 

House may have failed to perform their duties in regard to the interesting condition of the people of Kansas.” 70 

In spite of Campbell’s opposition, the House passed the Army appropriations bill with the proviso prohibiting the use of troops in 

Kansas. The Senate, on the recommendation of the Committee on Finance, refused to accept the amendment, initially using the argument 

that it infringed on the power of the executive to enforce the laws. 

The mmthead of the leadzng 

abolataonlst newspaper of the 

antebellum penod reflects the 

gathenng momentum to eradacate slavery from the South. 

Such requests as a petztzon for 

funds to colonize freed slaves 

and an appropnatzons bill 

containang a free-soil prouaso to 

prohabat the use of federal 

troops in the Kansas Terntory 

occaszonally drew Ways and 

Means into the slauery questaon, an anflammatory assue 

that refuFed lo go away. 

136 

f 

the United States was in the throes of a severe economic depression 

that lasted until 1859. 

The panic caused a fiscal crisis for the federal government. In the 

early 1850s, federal expenditures, boosted by a Treasury surplus, remained at high levels. During this period Congress was also pressured 

by increasing demands by the various departments for supplemental 

appropriations to meet expenses (also known then as deficiency appropriations). Between 1851 and 1856 deficiencies incurred by the 

federal government fluctuated between 2.5 million dollars and 5.5 

million do1la1-s.’~ The Democratic Congress in 1857 enacted a tariff 

for revenue only that had the effect of substantially lowering federal 

revenues at the very time the panic hit. This sudden change in the 

financial condition of the Treasury left two alternatives to Congress, 

enact a loan bill or increase the tariff. 

The House engaged in a lengthy debate in May 1858 on the state 

of the public finances. Congressional Republicans, attempting to use 

the perceived extravagance of the Democratic Buchanan Administration as a campaign issue, accused the department secretaries of usurping the congressional power of the purse by tranferring funds to purposes other than those for which they were specifically authorized. 

The Republicans also attacked the executive for entering into government contracts before funds had been allocated, thereby forcing 

Republican John Sherman of 

Ohio came to Washzngton, DC, 

in I855 and stayed in public 

office for nearly 50 years. Sherman’s memoirs indzcate that the 

Thzrty-sucth Congress consciously avozded the seething 

mue of slavery. As chairman of 

Ways and Means, Sherman 

was preoccupied with appropnatzons bills His committep 

expenmented wzth delegatzng 

work to indivadual members. 

This prartirt later formed the 

basis of the panel’s formal use 

of subcommittees aunng the 

Civzl War From Sherman’s 

committee came the Morn11 

Tan# bill, enacted in 1861, 

the lart zmportant measure reported by Ways and Means 

before the Czvil War Sherman subsequently became 

chairman of the Senate Fznance 

Committee 

138 
Congress to comply with additional appropriations. John Sherman (ROH) played a prominent role in the debate and even singled out the 

Democratic members of the Committee of Ways and Means for criticism, stating that “If we [Republicans] indicate even the commencement of retrenchment, or point out abuses, we are at once assailed by 

the Committee of Ways and Means.” 73 

The Republican Party made significant gains in the congressional 

elections of 1858, but when the House convened in December 1859, 

no party held a majority.74 The opening of the Thirty-sixth Congress 

occurred just three days after the execution of John Brown for his 

role in the raid on Harper’s Ferry. The selection of a Speaker of the 

House was prolonged by the lack of any party majority as well as by 

sectional animosity. 

Sherman, the Republican candidate, was a third-term congressman of considerable ability, but his previous endorsement of a controversial book on slavery, The Impending CrisW of the South, alienated any 

Northern Democrats who might have supported him, and his supporters could not muster the votes needed to ensure his election. Sherman eventually withdrew from the race in favor of a compromise candidate, a first-term member from New Jersey, former Governor William Pennington, who won by a single vote. Sherman compiled a 

roster of committee appointments that the grateful Speaker adopted. 

According to the Ohio congressman, the Speaker “thanked me kindly, 

stating that he had little knowledge of the personal qualifications of 

the Members . . . and adopted the list as his own.” On January 9, 

1859, with no prior service on the committee, Sherman was named 

the new chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, replacing 

Democrat John S. Phelps of 

The committee’s deliberations during the Thirty-sixth Congress 

(1859-1861) were almost exclusively devoted to appropriations and 

the preparation of a new tariff measure. This focus was due in part to 

the still chaotic state of the nation’s finances, but Sherman also suggested that the legislature was once again consciously avoiding slavery 

by concentrating on issues of a “nonpolitical” character, under which 

appropriations and the revenue now qualified. Sherman also stated 

that at this time the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means 

was recognized as the leader of the House, “practically controlling the 

order of its business.” 76 

Sherman’s attempts to secure the speedy enactment of appropriations bills in the Thirty-sixth Congress were frustrated somewhat by 

the Senate. The Committee on Finance, still under the guidance of 

Virginia’s Robert M. T. Hunter, took an aggressive role in the appropriations process. By 1860, the Southern Democratic majority on the 

Senate committee routinely obstructed the passage of appropriations 

bills passed by the Republican House. For example, the Committee 

on Finance substantially amended two House appropriations bills for 

139 
Indian affairs and the Army. In the case of the latter bill, the Senate 

committee recommended the adoption of 47 amendments, including 

appropriations of $50,000 each for the construction of public buildings in Charleston and in New Orleans. In June 1860, the Committee 

of Ways and Means recommended that the House disagree to all but 

two of the Senate amendments. In the subsequent conference committee, Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia, representing the Committee 

on Finance, informed Sherman that the Charleston and New Orleans 

appropriations had to be included or the bill would be rejected by the 

Senate. Sherman answered that the ultimatum meant that the bill 

would be defeated in the House. Toombs eventually backed down and 

the bill was passed without the Senate amendrnent~.~~ 

The Committee of Ways and Means also prepared a major tariff 

revision in the Thirty-sixth Congress. Such a bill had been considered 

in the winter of 1859, but the then Democratic majority on the committee prevented any real tariff reform. In March 1860, the Republican majority reported a bill “to provide for the payment of outstanding Treasury notes, to authorize a loan, to regulate and fix the duties 

on imports, and for other purposes.” The bill was drafted and reported by Justin s. Morrill of Vermont, a tariff expert who had prepared a readjustment of existing duties in connection with a loan bill 

to raise revenues in 1859. The bill’s intent was to restore the rates 

imposed by the Walker Tariff of 1846, thereby raising nearly 50 million dollars a year in revenues while providing protection for American indu~tries.’~ 

After the bill was introduced, it was debated by the House for two 

months. Chairman Sherman was preoccupied with the committee’s appropriations bills and did not act as floor manager during the preliminary debates on the Morrill Tariff. The task was left to the Vermont 

congressman, who was a brilliant technician, but whose unfamiliarity 

with the House rules allowed the bill to be loaded down with so many 

amendments that it was altered beyond recognition. Chairman Sherman intervened by proposing a lengthy amendment that in effect restored the original provisions of the bill. The House, wearied by the 

long debate, passed the bill on May 10, 1860.79 

The Senate returned the Morrill bill to the House on December 

20, 1860, with the recommendation that consideration be postponed 

until the following session. At the beginning of the Thirty-seventh 

Congress on January 23, 1861, the Senate referred the measure to a 

special committee, which proposed several minor amendments. Both 

the Senate and the House subsequently approved the bill and it was 

enacted on March 5, 1861. The Morrill Tariff was the final important 

legislation of the Committee of Ways and Means before the Civil War. 

The conflict erupted the following month, and the tariff was gradually 

modified out of necessity in the war years by statutes that doubled 

and even tripled the original rates.*O 

140 
COMMITTEE 

ise Tariff of 18 

of abominations 

Independent Treasury repeale 

f 1842 returned t 

of I857 for revenue on 

rrill Tariff returned to p 

In the years immediately preceding the Civil War, the Committee 

of Ways and Means had nine members, six rrom the majority party, 

and three from the minority. It usually met pursuant to adjournment 

of the House’s morning session, between 9:30 and 11 a.m., or at the 

call of the chairman. The committee also convened in the evening if 

necessary. In 1857, the House had finally permitted the committee to 

hire a full-time permanent clerk at an annual salary of $1,800. The 

Committee of Claims was the only other House committee at this time 

allowed to hire a permanent clerk. The other standing committees 

could hire temporary clerks, but only by special House resolution. 

The committee’s first clerk, Robert Cochran, recorded the minutes 

and handled most of the committee’s correspondence, among other 

duties. He was replaced at the end of the first session of the Thirtysixth Congress by George Bassett.81 

Sherman’s committee also adopted the practice of delegating the 

responsibility for certain bills to individual members of the committee.82 Morrill, for example, specialized in tariff legislation, and Elbridge C. Spaulding (R-NY) prepared banking and currency measures, 

while the chairman drafted most of the committee’s appropriations 

bills. When it came to amending appropriations measures, various 

members would be instructed by the committee to prepare amendments once thc panel had decided its basic principles and content. 

Later, during the Civil War, this informal delegation of responsibility 

would develop into a subcommittee system. 

141 
Conclusion 

By the 1820s the status of standing committees of the House of Representatives as legislative policy-makers was assured by revisions in 

the House Rules enabling standing committees to originate bills without prior instructions by Committees of the Whole House. In ensuing 

decades, these bodies gained additional importance as the legislative 

workload intensified and as two-party politics became institutionalized 

in Congress. 

The increasing specialization of operations represented by Chairman Sherman’s delegation of authority in the Thirty-sixth Congress 

was but one byproduct of the development of the Committee of Ways 

and Means during this period. Between 1829 and 1861, the committee’s oversight role in the congressional appropriations process was 

formalized and expanded, as was the chairman’s position as de facto 

floor leader, second in importance only to the Speaker of the House. 

Relations between the President and the Committee of Ways and 

Means were generally harmonious in the antebellum period. However, 

on occasion the committee found it necessary to assert its independent role vis-5-vis both the executive branch and the Senate. The President and the executive departments provided both policy initiatives 

and supporting information for the legislative process, but the Committee of Ways and Means tended to conduct its own inquiries and to 

jealously guard against .any insinuations of executive dictation. The 

Senate Committee on Finance also emerged in this period as both a 

powerful rival as well as a complement to the House committee. But 

perhaps most significantly, the Committee of Ways and Means had 

consolidated its tripartite jurisdiction over revenue, banking, and appropriations, creating a unique power base that became even more 

crucial in the Civil War Congresses. 

142 
“And yet, szr, powerful as 

the committee as 

constituted, euen thew 

powers of endurance, 

physzcal and mental, are 

not adequate to the great 

duty whzch has been 

imposed by the 

emeigenczes of this hzstonc 

time. ” (Samuel S. Cox, 

1865) 

1861 *I865 

Financing the Civil War 

The Civil War marked a pivotal period in the history of the Committee 

of Ways and Means: With the end of the war, the overburdened committee’s jurisdiction over appropriations and banking also came to an 

end. The chairman during this period, Republican Thaddeus Stevens 

of Pennsylvania, was the dominant leader in the House. He delegated 

authority within the committee to subcommittees on revenue and on 

banking and currency, while the chairman retained personal control 

over appropriations matters. The committee originated most of the 

important tax, appropriations, and currency bills in the two war Congresses. In the process, the committee reported legislation that raised 

the protective tariff to its highest levels ever to that time, that instituted the first federal income tax, and that authorized the first national 

paper currency. The workload was so oppressive, however, that Congress split the committee along jurisdictional lines in 1865, when the 

House rules were revised to create separate committees on appropriations and on banking and currency. 

he circumstances under which the Committee of Ways and T Means operated during the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth 

Congresses (1861-1865) were quite different from those existing in 

the 1850s, when sectional tensions had impeded the legislative process. All business, from the election of the Speaker of the House to the 

passage of minor appropriations bills, had been bogged down at various times by seemingly endless quarrels between various congressional factions. After the departure of congressmen from the seceded 

states during the winter and spring of 1860-61, the Republican Party 

was left with a substantial working majority in Congress. In legislative 

terms it proved to be a liberating change. Faced with a grave national 

emergency, the Republican Congress was forced to act quickly. It 

functioned remarkably well during the early stages of the war. As 

Congressman James G. Blaine remarked of the opening months of the 

Thirty-seventh Congress, “In no other session of Congress was so 

much accomplished in so little time.” 

The Committee of Ways and Means was fortunate to have an able 

and forceful chairman during the Civil War. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) 

exercised control over the House as leader of the majority party, and 

he delegated authority within the committee to his colleagues, particu143 
A stern chairman wzfh an acad 

wzt, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsyluanza kept firm control of 

federal purse stnngs. Has fascal 

duties and has parlzamentary 

prowess made hzm the most 

zmportant congressman in the 

House of Represen ta ta ues 

dunng the Ciutl lt'ar. Has 

forceful leadership, which 

encouraged the use of fa* and 

bankang subcommi ttees dunng 

the conflict, greatly ancreased 

the produrlauity 01 Ways and 

Means. Stevens supported 

stronger antislavery polacaes 

than those of Lzncoln and 

aduocated hanh condataons for 

the defeated Soulh, a sharp 

departure from the Preszdent 's 

conczlaatory approach to Reconstruction Afer the Caual 

War, Stevens headed /he Joant 

Commzttee on Reconstruction 

and led the impeachment 

proceedings agaznst President 

Andrew Johnson 

larly Justin S. Morrill (R-VT) and Elbridge G. Spaulding (R-NY), who 

chaired subcommittees on taxation and on banking and currency respectively. Stevens was such an active and influential floor leader that 

he invited favorable comparison with an earlier chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, John Randolph. 

Even with an efficient delegation of authority within the committee, the workload was so great that a movement developed to divide 

the Committee of Ways and Means into three separate standing committees. At the close of the Thirty-eighth Congress, the House Rules 

were amended to divide the functions previously performed by the 

committee among three committees: the existing Committee of Ways 

and Means, and two new committees: the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Banking and Currency. Resentment over 

Chairman Stevens' leadership also played a role in the division of the 

committee. Stevens acquiesced in this decision for political reasons to 

maintain his influence over the Republican Party's postwar Reconstruction policy. 

144 
Thaddeus Stevens’ Committee, 1861-1865 

The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means during the Civil 

War Congresses, Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, was similar by 

temperament and influence to the first great chairman of the committee, John Randolph. Like his Virginia predecessor, Stevens had an abrasive personality, and like Randolph he was the most powerful figure 

in the House. As leader of the majority party in Congress, Stevens 

was the real source of power and influence, not Speaker of the House 

Galusha Grow (R-PA, 1861-1863). 

Thaddeus Stevens possessed a personality that inspired both respect and loathing. He dressed in loose-fitting, wrinkled black clothing, and his gaunt features, stern appearance, and black wig created a 

startling, almost fiendish impression. Like Randolph, Stevens compensated for a physical disability. Although he was born with a crippled 

foot, he vigorously engaged in swimming, horseback riding, and fox 

hunting. He also gambled, but he drank sparingly or not at all. He 

never married, but he evidently enjoyed the company of women. According to rumor he maintained a lengthy relationship with his housekeeper, an attractive young widow.3 

Intellect and a scathing wit were Stevens’ main attributes in 

debate. He once interrupted a colleague, who was pacing up and 

down the aisle while delivering a lengthy speech, to ask: “Do you 

expect to collect mileage for this speech?” On another occasion, a 

fellow congressman had responded to a colleague’s challenge to a 

duel by suggesting that they fight with Bowie knives. Stevens made 

the whole episode appear ridiculous by recommending that dung 

forks would be more appropriate. But he used wit and intellect for 

two main purposes. One was to control the House. Ben Perley Poore, 

a contemporary observer of Congress, recalled that “Thaddeus Stevens was the despotic ruler of the House”: 

No Republican was permitted by “Old Thad” to oppose his 

imperious will without receiving a tongue-lashing that terrified others if it did not bring the refractory representative 

back to party harness. . . .John Randolph . . . was never so 

ingeniously insulting as was Mr. Stevens toward those whose 

political actions he ~ontrolled.~ 

The chairman’s other purpose was to further his causes. Stevens was 

deeply committed to the rights of the underprivileged. He had grown 

up in poverty, one of four young sons of a widowed mother. As an 

adult he was generous, quietly aiding the poor and indigent. He 

championed the cause of universal free education both on the state 

level in Pennsylvania and later on the federal level. His primary passion was the eradication of slavery, an institution that he denounced 

145 
186 1-1 865 

as “a curse, a shame, and a crime.” After the war, Stevens’ reputation 

suffered because of the punitive policies against the rebellious states 

that he advocated as chairman of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Those policies, however, were motivated as much, if not more, 

out of concern for the well-being of freedmen as they were by a desire 

to punish the South.5 

During the rebellion, when procedural skill, bold leadership, and 

force of will were sorely needed, Thaddeus Stevens proved to be a 

wise choice to manage the difficult financial tasks at hand. His most 

important asset as chairman was his parliamentary skill. The chairman 

of the Committee of Ways and Means had special privileges granted 

by the House rules, most notably the ability to take the floor at any 

time to introduce or to call for debate on committee legislation, and 

the right to take precedence in debate on most issues considered by 

the House. In the role of bill manager, Stevens had no equal. His 

ruthless use of parliamentary procedure to end debate and call for an 

immediate vote effectively held the House to consideration of the 

measure at issue. On several occasions he moved to close debate 

within one hour, or five minutes, or one minute, or once even that all 

debate “be terminated in one-half minute.” 

Another strength was Stevens’ ability to delegate responsibility. 

The committee had an exceptionally heavy workload during the Civil 

War, and Stevens, who had no formal training in public finance, left 

the task of preparing the highly technical tax, currency, and loan bills 

to his more experienced colleagues. John Sherman of Ohio, who 

served with Stevens on the committee before he moved over to the 

Senate, suggested in his memoirs that the Pennsylvania congressman, 

“while a dangerous opponent in debate” was less interested in the 

more mundane aspects of committee work than he was in managing 

bills through the House. “He was better in the field of battle than in 

the seclusion of the committee,” Sherman recalled. “Still, when any 

contest arose in the House over bills reported by the committee, he 

was always ready to defend his actions.” Stevens formalized a trend 

begun in the late 1850s of dividing the committee’s responsibilities 

along jurisdictional lines. According to Elbridge G. Spaulding, the 

committee would meet at the beginning of each session and divide the 

workload among several subcommittees consisting of three to four 

146 
members each. Justin S. Morrill, a tariff expert, headed a subcommittee on taxation, and Spaulding, a former state treasurer, was the 

chairman of a subcommittee on currency and loans, while Stevens remained personally in charge of appropriations bills at the full committee level.’ 

The Committee and the Lincoln Administration 

The committee’s relationship with the Lincoln Administration began 

on friendly terms. Stevens and Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. 

Chase, a former governor of Ohio, had been friends since the early 

1840s. Both men shared an opposition to slavery. They corresponded 

regularly, and neither man made any pretense to financial genius, 

though each possessed what was known in the 19th century as a 

strong-willed personality. Their relationship remained cordial until 

after Chase had bcen appointed to the Supreme Court. On the other 

hand, Stevens differed greatly with the President. The chairman grew 

impatient with Lincoln’s caution in prosecuting the war, and he resented the President’s hesitancy to adopt the abolition of slavery as an 

immediate war goal. Toward the end of the war, Stevens also dissented from the President’s moderate and compassionate approach to Reconstruction. 

Lincoln’s strong leadership contrasted sharply with the weak 

Presidents of the 1850s. Some of his early decisions, such as blockading the South and suspending the writ of habeas corpus, restored 

vigor to the Presidency, but they also formed the basis for a lengthy 

confrontation with the legislative branch. Although Congress cooperated in the early part of the Thirty-seventh Congress, Lincoln’s conduct of the war offended not only the small but vocal Democratic opposition, but also many Radical Republicans dedicated to the destruction of slavery. Radicals, including Stevens, objected to the President’s 

dismissal in the fall of 1861 of Gen. John C. Frknont, who had decreed the emancipation of the slaves of disloyal citizens within the 

military district of Missouri. Stevens and his colleagues were not only 

outraged at Lincoln’s reluctance to embrace immediate emancipation, 

they also criticized his conduct of military operations. Dismayed by 

Gen. George B. McClellan’s procrastination and the President’s inability to prod him to action, the Radicals created the Joint Committee on 

the Conduct of the War in 1862. The committee investigated allegations of fraud and incompetence in the War Department, probed governmental security (even rumors that Mrs. Lincoln was a spy), and 

promoted the prosecution of the war to abolish slavery. Congressional 

resentment of Lincoln’s practice of presidential power was also directed at his successor, and culminated in the impeachment of Andrew 

Johnson in 1868.* 

147 
Lincoln’s role in war finance was less controversial, because he 

left financial matters to Chase. The President had never been interested in economics, and he recognized his limited knowledge. When financiers criticized one wartime currency measure, Lincoln still signed 

the bill, reasoning that he was not “exclusively responsible” for it. He 

reportedly referred financial inquiries to the Secretary of the Treasury: “Go to Secretary Chase; he is managing the finances.” 

Stevens cooperated with Chase for the most part. He gave the administration loyal support when it came to appropriating money for 

the war effort. Stevens readily assented to the huge amounts needed, 

but he urged economy in the expenditure of money and was critical of 

excessive outlays for the military. For these reasons, the chairman was 

cautious in his support of an appropriation requested by the administration to raise a special force to protect Kentucky from invasion by 

the Confederate Army. Declaring that “there are already 660,000 men 

under arms somewhere . . . [which] can be very well spared,” Stevens 

warned against the folly of “piling mountains upon mountains of debt 

and taxation, until the nation is finally destroyed by the operations of 

this war.” 

The chairman was also selective about backing appropriations for 

public improvements, especially pork barrel measures thinly disguised 

148 
Depicted as a drum major, as military necessities. One such measure, the Illinois Canal Bill prep. 

Chase of Ohio marshals a brigade of dollars to help couer the 

North? civil War presisented during the Thirty-seventh Congress, proposed a five-year 

project to construct a canal between the Mississippi River and Lake 

Michigan in the event of a war with Great Britain. Stevens delayed the 

dent Lincoln, who admitted bill by referring. it to a Committee of the Whole House, which, com- ” 

that his Of&nance 

was limited, put all such matters in the hand of Chase, The 

plained a colleague, was like “consigning it to the tomb of the Capulets.” On the other hand, the chairman enthusiastically endorsed apUnion mainly ra&d war fund 

through loans and taxation. 

propriations during the Thirty-eighth Congress for internal improvements that would benefit all regions - of the country equally, such as ,., the transcontinental railroads. lo Putting its reuenue, banking, 

and appropriations authority to 

work, Ways and Means orin- Stevens’ parliamentary prowess and his control over the federal 

nated mosi Ofthe key legasl~tiue 

masures that&nanced union 

war efforts. 

purse strings made him the most powerful congressman in the House 

during the Civil War. Some members complained of his despotic practices during debate on important bills, but the relations between Stevens and his colleagues on the committee were generally harmonious. 

In both war Congresses, the Republicans held solid majorities on the 

committee of 6-3 and 7-2, with the Democrats in the minority supporting most committee measures. There was only one piece of legislation, the Legal Tender Bill of 1862, that caused serious divisions 

within the committee. In other areas a working consensus existed 

among the members on both issues and the division of labor necessary for the committee to function efficiently. 

Early War Finance Initiatives, 186 1 

The House Committee of Ways and Means originated the key legislative measures to finance the Union war effort, as it had similarly financed the War of 1812. Once again at the committee’s suggestion, 

Congress increased excise taxes and secured loan issues. During the 

earlier war, the committee had recommended the creation of treasury 

notes as a circulating medium. They took the more controversial step 

in 1862 of suggesting the establishment of a national paper currency. 

Finally, the committee presented plans for a federal income tax, similar to one that had been suggested in 1815 by Secretary Dallas but 

that had been rejected by the committee at that time. 

When the Thirty-seventh Congress convened in special session 

on July 4, 1861, the nation had been in a virtual state of war since 

April 15. President Lincoln had declared that a state of insurrection 

existed in the seceded Southern states, and he had called upon the 

loyal state governors to provide 75,000 militiamen. The President had 

also blockaded Southern ports and removed funds from the Treasury 

to cover war expenses without prior congressional authorization. 

Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase submitted his first 

report to Congress in early July. The appointment of Chase to the 

Cabinet had been prompted by political considerations. After his elec149 
tion, Lincoln had offered the two most prestigious Cabinet appointments, State and Treasury, to William H. Seward of New York and to 

Chase. Seward and Chase, who had been the President’s chief rivals 

for the Republican nomination in 1864, were the leaders of the conservative and liberal wings of the party. Their appointment reflected 

the desire of the new President, a moderate, to forge a coalition embracing the major ideological elements of the party. Chase had declined the post, citing his inexperience in fiscal matters, but he later 

accepted it, as he said, in order not to “shrink from cares and labors 

for the common good which cannot be honorably shunned.” Seward 

proved to be an excellent Secretary of State, but Chase’s record at the 

Treasury Department was mixed.’ 

A former United States senator and governor of Ohio, Chase was 

an able lawyer, a hard worker, and a self-righteous opponent of slavery, but he lacked the experience and training necessary for the position of Secretary of the Treasury. Thaddeus Stevens was also unschooled in public finance, but he more than compensated for this deficiency with his aggressive leadership qualities. At critical points in 

the war, Stevens also proved to be flexible enough to accept innovative methods to meet drastically escalating government expenditures. 

Chase, on the other hand, as a hard money advocate of the old 

school, lacked Stevens’ force and vision in dealings with Congress. 

Treasu y Secreta y Chase 

pushed the sale of government 

war bonds to the public to help 

retire bank loans. But his plan 

fell short when Union losses on 

the battlefield in 1861 shook 

public confidence. The nation 

faced a nearly exhausted Treasuq and a desperate need for a 

stable currency. Chase 5 solution to the crisis, the creation of 

a currency guaranteed by federal bonds and printed by national banks, received faint 

support from Ways and Means. 

The committee fauored a bill 

that became the Legal Tender 

Act of 1862. It authorized 

paper money printed and 

backed by the credit of the 

government. In 1864, Chase 

left the Treasury to become 

ChitfJustice of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

150 
Fortunately, Chase maintained a close working relationship with 

the banking community, most notably through Jay Cooke, a wealthy 

Philadelphia banker. Cooke performed a role in marketing government securities similar to that provided by Robert Morris during the 

Revolutionary War. From his Washington office across the street from 

the Treasury Department, Cooke orchestrated a nationwide campaign 

to sell war bonds using advertisements, mass rallies, patriotic speakers, and brass bands. Without his salesmanship and capital, which he 

contributed in liberal amounts, the war effort would have suffered at 

Chase’s direction. Cooke agreed with Chase that the war should be 

financed by loans rather than by taxes, and his considerable influence 

probably delayed the Treasury Secretary’s conversion to taxation as a 

necessary fiscal expedient.’ 

The financial picture that Chase outlined in his first financial 

report was not promising. During the previous Buchanan Administration, the federal government had accumulated a 20-million-dollar 

yearly deficit. The Thirty-sixth Congress consequently passed a loan 

act authorizing the issue of ten million dollars in Treasury notes to be 

supplemented by the higher import duties imposed by the Morrill 

Tariff of 1861. The tariff helped to bring in some additional revenues, 

but by July 1861 the government was faced with a 30-million-dollar 

deficit in addition to the projected military expenditures for the 

coming year. In his report to Congress, Chase requested 350 million 

dollars in appropriations. Of this sum, he recommended that onequarter could be raised through taxation and the remainder through 

borrowing in the form of Treasury bonds sold to banks and the general public. 

The Committee of Ways and Means promptly responded to the 

Secretary of the Treasury’s request. On July 9, Stevens reported a bill 

authorizing Chase to borrow 250 million dollars over the next 12 

months. The chairman ensured prompt passage of the bill by suspending the rules and limiting floor debate to one hour. The loan bill 

was subsequently approved with only five dissenting votes. On the 

heels of this measure, Stevens reported a 150-million-dollar military 

appropriations bill that was passed by both the House and the Senate 

after only brief consideration. 

Congress’ next action was to authorize a comprehensive revenue 

plan. Consequently, the Committee of Ways and Means reported two 

bills, the first a tariff, approved by the House on July 19 and containing moderate increases on items such as coffee, tea, and sugar.14 On 

July 24, Justin Morrill of the subcommittee on taxation reported the 

second measure, a bill providing for a direct tax and various internal 

duties. Borrowing from an earlier measure proposed in 1813, the omnibus bill provided 30 million dollars in revenues derived principally 

from real estate taxes apportioned on a state requisition system. In his 

introductory remarks on the bill, Stevens admitted that while its terms 

151 
“Old Fuss and Feathers, ’’ Gen. 

Winfield Scott appears on a 

$100 U.S. bond, one of the 

Civil War loan issues auwere “most unpleasant,” approval was necessary since “annihilation 

of the government is the alternative.” l5 

The committee’s tax bill encountered strenuous objections from 

representatives of land-abundant Western states. Leading the opposition, Schuyler Colfax of Indiana labeled the land tax “the most odious 

tax of all we levy.” In debate, Colfax complained that the bill’s provisions favored the wealthy, whose investments were tied up in stocks 

and bonds, stating: “I cannot go home and tell my constituents that I 

voted for a bill that allowed a man, a millionaire, who has put his 

property into stock, to be exempted from taxation, while a farmer 

who lives by his side must pay a tax.” l6 As an alternative, he proposed that the direct tax clause be replaced by a tax on stocks, bonds, 

mortgages, money, and interest, as well as an income tax. 

On the strength of these arguments, the House recommitted the 

bill with instructions to provide for other taxes. The following day the 

Committee of Ways and Means reported its inability to revise the bill 

to provide for direct taxes in a manner consistent with the Constitution. After further debate the House passed a resolution authorizing 

the committee to raise such sums as might be deemed necessary “by 

internal duties or direct taxation on personal income or wealth.” The 

bill was reexamined in the committee and an alternative was proposed 

whereby direct taxes would be reduced by ten million dollars and supplemented by an income tax of 3 percent on all incomes exceeding 

$600. Morrill designed and introduced the income tax provisions of 

the bill. “The indirect or income tax which is to be raised by this bill 

will be, in my judgment,” Morrill maintained, “at least twice as much 

as what we shall raise by direct taxation.” l7 He argued that the 

income tax, which had been considered an indirect tax since it had 

first been discussed in 1815, differed from a direct tax on land. Most 

members of Congress agreed with Morrill. The revenue bill was 

passed by the House on July 29, 1861, by a vote of 77-60. 

The House bill was amended by the Senate before a conference 

committee compromised the differences between the two versions. 

The House tariff and revenue bills were considered together by the 

thonzed by lepslation reported 

by Ways and Means in 1861. 

Behevzng vzctoq would come 

easily in the opening monh of 

the war, Northerners-such as 

those crowding a Wall Street 

bank (right)-thusiasticalij 

invested in war bonds. 

152 
Senate, which determined that the direct tax could be supplemented 

by moderate duties on both imports and incomes. Subsequently, the 

Senate Committee on Finance reported a revenue bill amending the 

House version to provide a 5 percent income tax on all incomes 

above $1,000 with a lower rate levied on incomes of U.S. citizens residing abroad and on income derived from government securities. 

The revenue bill eventually forged in conference committee contained 

the direct tax provision recommended by the House, an income tax of 

3 percent on incomes above $800 for citizens residing in the United 

States and 5 percent on those living abroad. Congress also decided to 

tax securities by 1.5 percent. This bill was signed into law by President Lincoln on August 5, 1861.lS 

The income tax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1861, however, 

were never enforced. The tax applied to income generated in 1861 

and was to be paid on or before June 30, 1862. Chase and the Treasury Department delayed implementation of the statute, expecting 

Congress to modify the tax in its next session. He praised Congress in 

December of 1861 for postponing “the necessity of taking steps for 

the practical enforcement of the law.” Chase cited every excuse for 

delay-the lack of accurate statistics and the large number of incomes 

exempt from the tax. He continued to favor loans and direct taxes 

rather than the income tax.1g 

153 
The Legal Tender Act of 1862 

In August 1861, Secretary of the Treasury Chase journeyed to New 

York for a meeting with prominent bankers for the purpose of obtaining the loan authorized earlier that year by Congress. Convinced that 

the war would be short, the financiers from New York, Boston, and 

Philadelphia agreed to supply the Treasury with 50 million dollars in 

exchange for a subscription of the same amount in federal securities. 

Two additional loans of 50 million dollars would be made in October 

and December. Chase stipulated that the bank payments would be 

made in specie, as specified by the terms of the Independent Treasury 

Act. In addition, Chase agreed to encourage public investment in the 

national loan through the purchase of notes at attractively low interest 

rates payable to the banks.20 Buoyed by substantial popular support, 

the first two payments took place without complications. 

Chase’s policy proved to be shortsighted. By December 1861, the 

war was going badly and public interest in purchasing government 

bonds had dwindled. In addition, the Secretary’s insistence on specie 

payments caused a serious drain on the nation’s gold reserves. As a 

result, the banks and the general public began to hoard whatever limited gold was available. Faced with the prospect of depleted gold reserves and severely depreciated government securities, the banks suspended their payments to the federal government, an action that 

posed an immediate threat to the war effort.21 

By January 1862, the financial situation was critical. Government 

expenditures had exceeded Chase’s July estimates by 200 million dollars, and current war costs were nearing the then staggering sum of 

two million dollars a day. Foreign trade was hindered by the war 

effort, with a corresponding decline in customs revenues. The gold reserves in the Treasury were so low that it had also been forced to suspend specie payments. The unexpected action of the banks in suspending specie payments had left Chase hard-pressed to provide fresh 

fiscal alternatives. The best available option would be for Congress to 

enact some monetary plan to provide a stable currency not backed by 

specie. 

Although he opposed the issuance of government notes in principle, Chase left the door open for the adoption of this expedient in his 

report to Congress in which he stated that the legislature possessed 

the authority to control credit circulation under its power to regulate 

commerce and to regulate the value of coin. Chase suggested that the 

currency issues of the state banks could be replaced by one of two 

measures: the gradual withdrawal of these notes and their replacement by U.S. notes payable in coin or on demand, or the creation of a 

system of national banks authorized to issue notes for circulation also 

convertible into coin by the pledge of government securities.22 Chase 

personally recommended that Congress adopt the second plan. 

154 
The song “How Are You 

Green-Backs ” lampoons the 

controversy over paper currency 

during the Civil War. Greenbacks, named for their color, 

werefirst issued by thefederal 

government in 1862. The W.S. 

notes served as legal tender 

payable on demand for all debts 

except tariff duties, interest on 

the public deb[, and the firchase of public land. The Legal 

Tender Act of I862 authorized 

the creation of greenbacks afier 

an intense debate over the currency issue inflicted the only 

seriow division among the 

Ways and Means Republican 

majority during the war. 

Greenbacks depreciated steadily 

throughout the war; thq finally 

regained par value under the 

Resumption Act of 1875. 

c N //////// N //// ,‘ 

TEN DOLLARS. 

Chase’s report was referred to the Committee of Ways and 

Means, where Spaulding’s subcommittee on loans and currency produced a very different bill that formed the basis for the Legal Tender 

Act of 1862. As introduced by Spaulding on December 30, 1861, the 

committee’s currency bill provided for the issue of 50 million dollars 

in Treasury notes, payable on demand. The most significant and controversial aspect of Spaulding’s bill was that the notes would be 

“lawful money and legal tender in payment of all debts, public and 

155 
K. 

private, within the United States.” This paper money would be legal 

tender in payment of all taxes and debts owed to the government, and 

would also be reissued “from time to time as the exigencies of the 

public service may require.” 23 The essential difference between the 

two plans was that Chase’s notes would be guaranteed by government 

bonds and would be printed by the national banks, but Spaulding recommended that the government itself print paper money backed by 

its own credit. His bill was read twice and recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means for further con~ideration.~~ 

The currency bill caused a serious split within the committee’s 

membership, one that cut across party lines. In preliminary discussions, opinion was divided as to whether Spaulding’s bill should be 

presented to the House. The measure was supported by Republicans 

Stevens, Spaulding, and Samuel Hooper of Massachusetts. Morrill, 

Valentine S. Horton of Ohio, and minority member Erastus Corning 

of New York actively opposed the bill; Republican members John 

L. N. Stratton of New Jersey and Horace Maynard of Tennessee took 

no active part in the committee’s deliberations. The ranking minority 

member, John S. Phelps of Missouri, was absent, attending to the 

problems of his war-torn home state. After several days of deliberations a vote was taken that found the committee equally divided along 

these lines. The committee allowed the bill to be reported to the 

House when Stratton finally voted in its favor.25 

On January 7, 1862, Spaulding once more reported his bill, now 

labeled H.R. 187, to the House. Before taking this action, the committee had made some modifications to the measure, raising the treasury 

note issue to 150 million dollars but retaining the legal tender clause. 

The bill encountered stiff opposition from several quarters, principally from the Secretary of the Treasury and his advisor Jay Cooke, from 

opponents of paper money in the House, and from the financial and 

banking community. On the day the bill was reported, Cooke’s brother wrote to him about the volatility of the currency issue, stating that 

“the Committee of the House are perfectly wild on the subject,” and 

A legal tender note illustrates 

one type of paper currency in 

circulation during the Civil 

War. In 1863, the National 

Banking Act, drawing on fiscal 

concepts espoused by Ways and 

Means, revamped the nation ’s 

banking system and stimulated 

war bond sab bj introducing 

another form of paper money, 

the national bank note. It remained the foundation of U.S. 

currency until 1914. 

156 
S 

1 CONGRESS COMMIlTEE HOUSE PRESIDENT 1 

D Lincoln (R) 

D 

mentioning Chase’s opposition to the bill: “I learn (but not from Gov 

C) that he has declared that if Congress persists in such a course, and 

fails to carry out his policy, bank bill included-he will no longer be 

responsible for the national finances by remaining in the Treasury.” 26 On January 8, Chase held his annual dinner for members of 

the House Committee of Ways and Means and the Senate Committee 

on Finance, with Jay Cooke also present. The currency was the primary subject of discussion, but Chase was unable to change the minds 

of the House members favorable to Spaulding’s bill. 

Meanwhile, House members who supported hard money, that is, 

gold and silver coin only, raised their own objections to the currency 

bill. These congressmen rallied around the committee’s minority 

report authored by Morrill. The Vermont Republican believed that 

the issuance of inflationary paper currency by the federal government 

would spell fiscal disaster. Morrill prophesied that the circulation of 

worthless paper money would “be of greater advantage to the enemy. 

. . . It will injure creditors; it will increase prices; it will increase 

many-fold the costs of the war.” 27 Other representatives questioned 

the constitutionality of paper money. The leaders of the opposition in 

the House in addition to Morrill were Ohio Democrats George H. 

Pendleton and Clement L. Vallandigham. 

Chairman Stevens vigorously defended the legal tender bill. In 

committee he had originally expressed doubts about its constitutionality, but he quickly changed his mind when he came to the realization 

that Spaulding’s plan was the government’s only alternative. His response to the strict constructionists in debate was that the Constitution’s prohibition upon the states “to make anything but gold and 

silver coin a tender in payment of debts” did not necessarily apply to 

Congress. Besides, he added, “If nothing could be done by Congress 

except what is enumerated in the Constitution, government would not 

last a week.” 28 

157 
The leading Northern financial institutions made one last effort 

to stop the legal tender bill. While the bill was being debated, delegates from banks in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia traveled to 

Washington to lobby Congress. On January 11, an informal meeting 

took place between members of the Committee of Ways and Means, 

the Senate Committee on Finance, Secretary Chase, and the representatives of the banks. The son of former Secretary of the Treasury 

Albert Gallatin, James Gallatin of the New York National Bank, delivered the principal speech in opposition to the legal tender bill. He 

argued that more revenue could be raised through taxation without 

the issuance of paper money. Loans could also be floated on the open 

market, a practice often derided as “shinning.” Spaulding ridiculed 

the idea of selling depreciated government bonds, or “shinplasters.” 

As Spaulding described the meeting, it became “somewhat conversational in character.’’ No consensus was reached, and the committee 

stuck to its version of the bill. On February 6, after several versions of 

the bill were presented to and debated by the House, the bill, with the 

legal tender clause intact, was approved by a vote of 93 to 59.29 

The legal tender bill was then considered by the Senate Committee on Finance. Chairman William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, who was 

expected to guide the bill through the Senate, expressed skepticism 

about the measure and its potential “to encourage bad morality, both 

in public and in private.” 30 The Senate committee subsequently reported a bill authorizing the issuance of paper currency, but stipulated 

that the notes would not be payable for interest on securities, for 

tariff duties, or for purchases of public land. These restrictions were 

included to protect certain revenues from currency depreciation. The 

measure passed the Senate by a vote of 30 to 7 after a long debate in 

which Fessenden and several other senators attempted unsuccessfully 

to strike out the legal tender clause altogether. Several disagreements 

between the two bodies were worked out in conference committee, 

and the bill, with the Senate amendments substantially intact, became 

law on February 25, 1862. In July an additional 150 million dollars of 

paper currency, referred to as “greenbacks” because of their appearance, were authorized by statute. All other forms of currency were 

gradually eased out of circulation. The passage of these acts were the 

only major accomplishments of Spaulding’s short congressional 

career. “The father of the greenbacks” returned to Buffalo at the conclusion of the Thirty-seventh Congress to resume his banking 

career. 

The Internal Revenue Act of 1862 

The passage of the Legal Tender Act enabled Congress to print the 

currency needed to pay the government’s expenses, but it did not 

158 
Tax expert Justin Mom’ll 

headed the Ways and Means 

subcommittee on taxation and 

brought his genius forfinance 

to bear on the problem of funding the Union’s Civil War 

eJfort. The series of internal 

revenue bills that Mom‘LL prepared inspired the basic legal 

machinery behind today 5 Internal Revenue Sewice and its 

tax-collecting powers. As a 

member of Ways and Means, 

the Vermont congressman also 

authored the MorriLL TantAct 

of 1861. Its main provisions 

increased existing tariff rates in 

order to provide for payment of 

outstanding treasury notes. 

Mom‘ll became Ways and 

Means chairman in 1865, and 

on three diffent occasions between I877 and I898 he 

sewed as chairman of the 

Senale Finance Committee. 

solve the revenue shortage. In the winter of 1862, Congress steered 

its course away from a reliance on loans toward taxation as the principal means to finance the war. This shift in policy stemmed partly from 

a favorable change in public opinion. The nation’s newspapers, for 

example, urged the imposition of additional taxes, and even began to 

pressure Congress to provide the necessary leadership. An editorial 

appearing in the New York IVorld in January 1862 charged that the 

House Committee of Ways and Means was inappropriately named, 

since it provided “neither the leadership nor the means of meeting 

the public debt.” The editorial further criticized the “spouting wretches” in Congress for wasting time in discussing issues other than the 

nation’s finances, “the only real question now before the country.” 32 

In the spring of 1862, a tax bill finally emerged from its “Serbian 

bog of delay,” to use the I$’Odd’S colorful phrase for the Committee of 

Ways and Means. The delay was more than justified by the complexity 

of the issues and by the thoroughness of the committee’s recommendations. In response to Secretary Chase’s earlier request for 50 million dollars in additional revenues, the committee’s bill provided taxes 

to yield 150 million dollars. This measure, as originally reported by 

159 
Morrill, was more comprehensive than the Revenue Act of 1861. It 

extended the income tax by applying a mildly progressive scale of 3 

percent on persons owning or earning between $600 and $10,000, 

and 5 percent on incomes above $10,000. The bill also imposed an 

inheritance tax and included other excise, license, and stamp taxes 

similar to those levied during the War of 1812. The bill was passed 

without significant opposition in Congress or among the general 

public. The President signed the Internal Revenue Act on July 1, 

1862. The law provided for the first federal income tax in American 

history. Moreover, it incorporated the two seemingly radical principles 

of progressive rates and withholding. The rates of 3 percent and 5 

percent recommended by Morrill were retained, and the law further 

provided for withholding of the tax from government salaries, both civilian and military, and from interest and dividends paid by railroads, 

banks, trust, and insurance companies.33 

For such an apparently radical departure in federal tax policy, the 

income tax elicited little public opposition. The first Commissioner of 

Internal Revenue, George S. Boutwell, set up an ofice in the Treasury with but three clerks to collect the tax. The confusion inherent in 

such a vast system, coupled with the inevitable evasion of the tax, kept 

collections to less than one-half of the original estimates. Congress 

also passed a new tariff revision in 1862, drafted by the Committee of 

Ways and Means partly to supply additional revenues and partly to 

offset the impact of internal revenues on domestic commodities. The 

bill had a protectionist slant that benefitted domestic producers and 

manufacturers, particularly of iron and wool, while also providing additional revenues.34 

Income Tax and Tariff Revision in 1864 

The Committee of Ways and Means produced three new measures in 

1864-two income tax revisions and one further tariff increase-as the 

cost of the Union war effort continued to exceed revenues. The 

income from both the Tariff Act and from the Internal Revenue Act 

of 1862 had proved disappointing. Morrill’s subcommittee on taxation 

once again set to work m 1864 to double the tax yield of federal revenues. On April 14, Morrill reported the committee’s bill to increase 

the income tax to 5 percent on all incomes over $600. This proposal 

would have eliminated the principle of progressive rates, although the 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue had recommended an increase in 

the graduated scale. Both Morrill and Stevens argued emphatically 

against taxing higher incomes at increased rates. The chairman asserted that a progressive income tax was “a punishment of the rich man 

because he is rich.” Morrill similarly argued that such a tax was unjust 

and would lead to evasion of the law. “This inequality is in fact no 

160 
The federal gouemment 's first 

income tax form (below and 

following page) bears a heading 

dated 1862. Critical financial 

demandr of the Civil War 

prompted Ways and Meam to 

steer away from loans and 

move toward taxation as the 

primary method of raising adequate fundr. Revenue bills reported by the committee became 

law in 1862 and 1864, the 

first income tax measures enacted in U.S. history. A section 

of the 1862 law (right) sets 

two tax rates, 3 and 5 percent. 

The tax law of I864 set forth 

graduated rates of 5 to I0 percent (see following table) and 

allowed for withholding of taxes 

on salaries of government 

employees. 

................ 

6. Pram inbrat or diridolld. 011 any boo& or other evidoncw of indobtsdacr of 

my milrod or Cdrpmtim.. .............................. 

............... 

8. Fmm property, acllritier, or atoaks ownod in tb. United &tw by r citbn 

tiiorsof.rsliding abnmd, not in the mpbpent of tbe Oovemment of 

the United Btatw.... ............................................ 

.............. 

td ............. 1% Fromdvortimmont~.. ................................................ It. !lh @inn, truetw, eseentor, or adminiitor of tb. property 0~ rotate d ............ 14. )%om dl DPW not hemh onomentad. ................................. 

161 
............ ............... paid for rsnt of the drdl ....................... 

8. hOwl#p*ab8h?CdWWpbh& 

.................. 

.............. 

................ .............. 

162 
INCOME TAX REVISION OF 1864 

RATES PROPOSED BYWays 

Committee 

and Means 

of House 

I__ 

Senate - 

5% on incomes 5% over $600 5% over $600 

over $600 

7.5% over 

$10,000 $5,000 

10 %over 10% over 

$25,000 $15,000 

less than a confiscation of property,” the chairman of the subcommittee on taxation stated. “People who are taxed unequally on their incomes regard themselves as being unjustly treated, and seek all manners of ways and means to evade it,” he concluded.35 

The House amended the committee’s bill to include three graduated rates: 5 percent on incomes over $600, 7.5 percent on incomes 

over $10,000, and 10 percent on incomes over $25,000 (the annual 

salary of a member of Congress was $3,000). The Senate Committee 

on Finance modified the rates, and the final Senate version retained 

the rates but lowered the upper income brackets to $5,000 and 

$15,000. The conference committee recommended commencing the 

10 percent bracket at $10,000. The bill also included an increased inheritance tax provision recommended by the Committee of Ways and 

Means. The rates recommended by the conference committee as well 

as the increased inheritance tax were incorporated in the Income and 

Inheritance Tax Law of June 30, 1864.36 

In spite of these increased taxes, Chase continued to fear that 

revenues would not meet the government’s war needs, especially the 

pressing need to recruit more soldiers. In order to pay a bounty for 

new recruits, Morrill and the committee proposed a joint resolution 

imposing an income tax surcharge of 5 percent on all incomes over 

$600 for the previous year. The House and Senate pushed the resolution through so that it became law on July 4, 1864, the last day of the 

first session of the Thirty-eighth Congress. The committee under Stevens and Morrill’s guidance had also increased the protective tariff 

rates to the highest level the nation had ever experienced. Manufacturing groups had created national organizations such as the National 

Association of Wool Manufacturers, the American Iron and Steel Association, and the National Manufacturers’ Association to lobby Congress for higher tariffs. The resulting Tariff of 1864, which raised the 

average rate from 37 to 47 percent, remained in effect with only 

minor changes until 1883.37 

163 
In addition to imposing higher tariffs and income taxes, Congress 

periodically revised the excise tax rates. Some of these changes 

proved to be controversial, as had always been the case with excise 

taxes. In January 1864, Stevens introduced a bill to raise the tax on 

whiskey from 20 to 60 cents a gallon, in accordance with a recommendation by Secretary Chase. Whiskey speculators, in anticipation of the 

higher tax, began to hoard the commodity. In protest, Fernando 

Wood of New York proposed an amendment that citizens with whiskey currently on hand should pay 40 cents a gallon, the difference between the old and new rates. Chairman Stevens voted with a majority 

On ornate Ways and Means 

stationery, the yamboyant uniting of ThaddezLs Stevens proclaims lhe disinterest of “Old 

Thad’’ in becoming Secretary of 

the Tremury. Stevens expressed 

his gratitude to Republican colleagues who wanted to put his 

name into consideration for the 

position. He wrote this letter 

about a month after a faction 

of consmatiue and moderate 

Republicans attempted unsuccessful(y to remove him as 

chairman of Ways and Means. 

In 1865, Stevens took charge 

of the newly formed Appropnations Committee and remained 

ik vocifrous champion until 

his death at age 76 in 1868. 

164 
of the House to omit the amendment from the final bill. A disgruntled 

Wood then accused Stevens of collusion with the liquor lobbyists by 

persuading some members to vote against his amendment. A rumor 

began to circulate that the chairman himself was personally “interested” in whiskey, and that he had even telegraphed information to the 

lobbyists when the vote was pending on the tax bill. According to Stevens’ biographer, the source of this rumor was a member of the Committee of Ways and Means. Stevens confronted the member and demanded to know on what authority he was circulating this slander, an 

action that effectively killed the rumor.38 

The Committee of Ways and Means not only considered the 

means to raise money, but also the ways to spend it. Appropriations 

was Chairman Stevens’ personal forte. One bill the committee reported in January of 1864 caused him some minor embarrassment. The 

Confederate Army had destroyed much private property in Pennsylvania during the invasion that led to the fateful battle at Gettysburg in 

July 1863. One of the properties destroyed was Stevens’ Caledonia 

Iron Works. The chairman was criticized by some of his colleagues 

when he proposed the reimbursement of Pennsylvania for losses sustained in the invasion. Stevens sold his property to avoid criticism, 

and he wrote a sarcastic letter to Simon Cameron, a wealthy Pennsylvanian, suggesting that “as you sometimes buy good bargains I suggest you buy my late Iron works.” 39 

The Impact of Civil War Revenue 

By the end of the Civil War, the United States government no longer 

relied on customs duties as its principal source of revenue. Congress 

had implemented a comprehensive revenue system of taxation between 1861 and 1865 based upon customs duties, income taxes, and 

excises. Taken together, the various war revenue acts marked a milestone in the nation’s history. Although enacted as emergency measures, most of which were repealed after the war, the income taxes established a precedent of direct government intervention in the lives of 

American citizens to a degree that had not previously existed. The 

Revenue Acts of 1861, 1862, and 1864 also created a bureaucracy to 

administer the tax. For example, the Revenue Act of 1862 provided 

for the establishment of the Internal Revenue Bureau with personnel 

to assess and collect taxes in revenue districts throughout the United 

States. 

In addition to its tax initiatives, the war Congresses also revamped the nation’s banking system with the enactment of the National Banking Act of 1863. This statute did not originate in the Committee of Ways and Means, but it did reflect certain basic concepts 

first recommended by Elbridge Spaulding in a committee bill drafted 

165 
in 1862 but not acted upon. The 1863 bill, drafted by the Senate 

Committee on Finance, was proposed largely as a means of stimulating the sale of war bonds. The act, as signed by the President on February 25, 1863, required all banks chartered under its terms to invest 

one-third of their capital in United States securities deposited in the 

Treasury Department. The National Banking Act regulated state 

banks, helping put an end to the wildcat banking methods prevalent 

before the war.4o 

The Committee of Ways and Means, though not directly responsible for the National Banking Act, had nevertheless built an enviable 

record of achievement by the dose of the second session of the 

Thirty-eighth Congress on March 3, 1865. In addition to the major 

pieces of legislation discussed in this chapter, such as the Revenue 

Acts of 1861 and 1862, the Legal Tender Act of 1862, the Tariffs of 

1862 and 1864, and the Income Tax Revisions of 1864, the committee had reported 126 bills in the two war Congresses, involving 3.8 

billion dollars. The committee reported appropriations bills for matters as varied as establishing an assay ofice in Carson City, Nevada, 

166 
The human side of Ways and 

Means appropriations during 

the Civil War appears in this 

sketch of a [Inion camp. Covered wagons loaded with supplies arrive during mess. 

Monies raised by H7ay and 

Means kept Union soldiers 

bttterhd, clothed, and outjitted 

than Confederate troops. Euen 

so, camp lfe was hard. Top 

pay for a Union infantrv private was $1 6 a month. He had 

to endure sickness, keep warm 

in lice-infected blankets, and 

eat weevil-infested bixuits 

harder than a “ten penny 

nail. ’’ War stress put Ways 

and Means on an overtime 

work schedule. The committee 

reported 126 Ciuil War bills 

rangzng from iiiternal inipouements to outjtting the .hny 

and the Navy. Chairman Stevens, alert for pork barrel 

mea.su.res disguised as military 

necessities, achieved economy in 

war expenditures. 

increasing the salaries of government clerks, and opening an exhibition in London, as well as the more important bills funding the Army 

and the Navy. The workload was correspondingly heavy. According to 

Morrill, the committee worked “day and night, week days and Sundays.” 41 The committee’s efficiency was considerably enhanced by 

the de facto division of responsibilities for appropriations, revenue, 

and currency issues among the chairman and the subcommittees. As 

had been the case before in the committee’s history, an informal arrangement became officially recognized in the rules, in this instance 

when the committee was split into three standing committees along 

these jurisdictional lines. 

The Division of the Committee, 1865 

On March 2, 1865, the day before the Thirty-eighth Congress ended, 

the House adopted a rules revision that split the Committee of Ways 

and Means into three separate standing committees. Jurisdiction over 

appropriations and over banking and currency was granted to two 

new committees, with the Committee of Ways and Means retaining jurisdiction over revenue matters. Outside of its creation, this was the 

most momentous development in the committee’s history. The reason 

given at the time for the division was the oppressive workload during 

the Civil War. Subsequent writers have repeated the claim that the increased workload was the primary motive for the split of the committee. Stevens’ biographers have added that the chairman’s age, 73, and 

his waning endurance also prompted the action.42 

The committee’s records for the two war Congresses provide 

ample evidence of a heavy volume of business. The petitions, correspondence, and reports contained in the records provide an insight 

into the breadth of the committee’s jurisdictional responsibilities. The 

documents submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue were both useful and wide-ranging. 

A report from an inspector of the Internal Revenue office with suggested changes in the excise taxes was detailed and precise, for example. Similarly pertinent was a report submitted by Chase recommending a large import duty on Chinese firecrackers and palm-leaf fans. 

But others bordered on the ridiculous, such as one petition requesting a tax on dogs, which “would in some degree abate a universal nuisance.” 43 

Man); subjects competed for the committee’s attention. In addition to the ubiquitous requests for tax relief, such as printed circular 

petitions from pharmacists and brewers, the committee also received 

requests for tax increases and pay raises. G. B. Lewis of the Cleveland 

Land Warrant Office, for example, asked that his tax be increased 

over tenfold, in order “to raise the standards of [the] profession” and 

167 
Mr. COX, from the Select Go 

me Select Committee on the Rules of the .Ueuae of I following reaol& : 

Resolved, That rule 74 be amended so aa to add to the standing m-i-8 

to be appointed at the commencement of each Congress, and to consist of nine 

members eacbCmmittee ma Appropriations. 

Committee on Banking and Currency. 

Cornmattee on the Pac;Jic Railroad. 

Said amendment to take effect from and after the close of @e present aOn 

Resolved, That the following be added to the atanding rules of the g:i from and after the close of the present Congrew : 

Rule -. It shall be the duty .f the Committee on the Pm$c Railroad to 

take into consideration all such petitiolls and matters or thinga relatiwe to railroads or telegraph lines between the Ma’sshai~. vdy and the Pam$ic -t w shall be presented or shull cnme ha quiwtwn, and be referred fo them by tlle 

House, and to report thew opinion thereon, together with such prqwaititm rekatave thereto aa to them ahall seem expedient. 

Rule -. It shall be the duty of the Comm&ee .f Ways und Meaaa to iulce 

intn consideration all reports of the !l!remwy Department, am? nrch &propositions relative to rabing revenue and providing waya and meam. f@ t&e w 

port ofthe goumtmat, aa ahall be peseuted or &alZ come in puwtbn and be 

referred to them by the Hme, and to report their ophim thereon by bill w otheru~ise, w to them shall seem expedient. . Rule -. It shall be the duty .f tAe Committee on Banking and Bank Owren y to take into conaideration all propo&im relative to banking aird i?h cm- ren y as shall 6s presented or shaW come in qwth, ad be referred lo thnn @ 

the Hwe, and to report thereon by &ill w othde. 

&solued, That from and after the close of the remt Gongrees rule 76 be 

arnpnded 88 fnuowa : strike out after the wOr%ls coneideration,” in line 2, 

to and including the word ‘6 expenditure,” in line 6, and inaert in lieu thereof: 

** aU ezemtive cmmunieat-, ad *A ot&er prvodh C regard to Mm@ng 

on the seueral devartments of the govemmeRt aa nay be premd and referred 

“to keep scalawags out.” Colonel B. C. Tilghman, commanding officer of a regiment of black troops, requested that his men receive a 

clothing allowance equal to that allocated to white soldiers. Tilghman 

pointed out that nine of his men killed in battle died owing the government money for their clothing and therefore forfeited pensions for 

their families. Other requests for appropriations were less obviously 

justified, such as that of President Lincoln’s private secretary, John Nicolay, for the cost of a horse and carriage used to deliver messages.44 

Many items, though necessary, were equally as minor as the 

matter of Nicolay’s carriage. It is ironic, but nonetheless a central reality of legislative procedure, that a committee confronted with the 

A landmark report by a select 

House rules committee resolves 

to streamline Ways and Means 

in I865 by creating separate 

standing committees on appropriations and on banking and 

currency. The excessive workload of Ways and Means 

during the Civil War made the 

need for divided duties clear. 

Agang Chairman Thaddeus Stevens may have agreed to split 

Ways and Means to silence 

opponents growing dissatisfied 

with his desire to control Reconstruclion and wilh his 

leadership in general. On 

March 2, little more than a 

month before the Civil War 

ended, the new committees were 

created. Ways and Means retained jurisdiction over revenue 

matters, principally taxes and 

tan@, a function the committee 

continues to exercise today. 

168 
problems of financing a war to save the Union would be compelled to 

consider the Capitol gardener’s request for an extra horse and cart, or 

the Commissioner of Public Buildings’ recommendations for repairs 

to the roof of the Library of Congress in the Capitol. Even a request 

for the committee to visit the Government Hospital for the Insane for 

dinner may not have provided a welcome respite. Whether important 

or trivial, all of these matters demanded the committee’s attention. 

This diverse and demanding workload formed, if not the primary 

reason, at least the context within which the committee was split.45 

Thaddeus Stevens’ desire to control Reconstruction and the 

growing dissatisfaction of some Republicans and Democrats with his 

leadership may well have been another reason behind the decision to 

divide the Committee of Ways and Means. With the war virtually won 

in early 1865, the chairman’s thoughts turned to the procedure by 

which the rebellious states would return to the Union. He was determined that Congress, not the President, would set the terms under 

which the seceded states would be readmitted to the Union. In order 

to maintain his control over the party, Stevens may well have agreed 

to split his committee both to appease his opponents and to provide 

his loyal lieutenants with their own power bases. In any event, dividing the committee’s functions would allow him more time to devote to 

Reconstruction policies, 

Toward the end of the second session of the Thirty-eighth Congress in early 1865, the committee had fallen far behind in its work. It 

was not able to report a tax bill until less than a month remained in 

the session, and then the bill did not provide all of the revenues requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. Samuel S. “Sunset” Cox, an 

Ohio Democrat working with a number of younger Republican members, initiated a movement to break up the Committee of Ways and 

Means in order to weaken Stevens’ power in the House leadership. 

James F. Wilson (R-IA), taking advantage of the committee’s failure to 

keep up with its workload, introduced a proposal in mid-January to 

revise the House rules in order to divide the committee.46 

The debate over the rules revision bore all the signs of a carefully 

orchestrated effort to protect the reputations of Stevens, Morrill, and 

the Committee of Ways and Means. Cox asked that the House take 

action on the report of the Select Committee on Rules recommending 

the creation of standing committees on appropriations and on banking and currency. Cox presented a detailed argument in favor of the 

report, emphasizing that the Committee of Ways and Means had been 

overworked, but denying that the split was in any way a criticism of 

the committee or of its leadership. He denied that the action “cast any 

reflection upon the Committee of Ways and Means,” stating that 

“Each member of the Ways and Means has his specialty-each Olympian.” Yet, he continued, “even their powers of endurance, physical 

and mental, are not adequate to the great duty which has been 

169 
imposed by the emergencies of this historic time.” The Ohio Democrat concluded his remarks with a detailed listing of the 126 bills reported by the committee in the previous two Congresses as fitting 

proof that it was ~verburdened.~’ 

Stevens and Morrill both affected an air of indifference over the 

proposed division. “I do not feel any interest in the matter at all,” the 

chairman stated. He would not oppose any action the House chose to 

take. He did express some doubts about separating the revenue and 

appropriations functions, though with no great sense of conviction. 

Morrill likewise questioned the propriety of dividing the jurisdiction 

over revenue from that over appropriations. “In ordinary times 

. . . ,” he stated, “I should deem it indispensable . . . that this committee should have the control of both subjects, in order that they 

might make both ends meet.” 48 Both men protested just enough for 

the sake of appearance, but not enough to change the outcome. 

James Garfield, a Republican from Ohio, presented what may be 

considered the concluding speech in this scenario. Garfield argued 

that revenue and appropriations were “quite distinct in their nature,” 

and could easily be divided between two committees. The Committee 

of Ways and Means could base its revenue estimates easily enough 

upon the Committee on Appropriations’ estimates of government expenditures. Garfield concluded by repeating Cox’s assurance that the 

action, since it applied to future Congresses, did not imply any criticism of the current committee. With the Committee of Ways and 

Means’ reputation appropriately recognized and reassured, the House 

adopted the rules revision.49 

For such a monumental change in the committee’s jurisdiction, 

the split into three committees had occasioned little debate and even 

less opposition. The degree to which the action had been predetermined was indicated when Speaker Colfax named the standing committees of the Thirty-ninth Congress in December 1865. Morrill was 

named to chair the Committee of Ways and Means, and Stevens was 

appointed to chair the Committee on Appropriations. Both actions 

had been outlined in Cox’s speech on March 3. Theodore Pomeroy 

(R-NY) was named to chair the Committee on Banking and Currency, 

although Cox had anticipated that Samuel Hooper of Massachusetts 

would receive that honor. Hooper, however, was the only member appointed to both the Committee of Ways and Means and the Committee on Banking and Currency.50 

The jurisdiction of the Committee of Ways and Means may have 

been diminished, but its prestige remained intact. A contemporary account of the Thirty-ninth Congress observed that the committee “has 

ever been regarded of the first importance.” The committee’s control 

over revenue bills, this author concluded, “gives the Committee of 

Ways and Means a sort of preeminence over all other committees, 

whether of the Senate or the House.” 51 

170 
861 Thaddeus Stevens 

1864 Income an 

or area of revenue 

Conclusion 

The Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth Congresses marked the first 

major turning point in the history of the Committee of Ways and 

Means. In one sense, the trend toward centralization of the House’s 

legislative authority over finance in this one standing committee 

reached its greatest development between 1861 and 1865, as the extraordinary wartime conditions led to fundamental changes in the federal revenue and currency system. The committee devised the means 

to raise revenues for vastly increased wartime expenditures not only 

by increasing the tariff, authorizing bonds, and imposing excise taxes, 

but also by the unprecedented levy of a tax upon incomes. Moreover, 

paper currency in the form of greenbacks was authorized to meet the 

demand for a circulating medium of exchange. 

A significant corollary to the committee’s success was the role of 

the chairman as the de facto majority leader of the House. Thaddeus 

Stevens consolidated the position to a degree unmatched in the antebellum period. His friendship with Treasury Secretary Chase, and Lincoln’s lack of involvement in financial administration, lessened the occasion for conflict between the committee and the executive. The 

171 
committee’s dealings with the Lincoln Administration, therefore, were 

relatively harmonious, even though the relationship between Congress 

and the executive reached new heights of tension and bitterness that 

would culminate with the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. 

The committee’s internal organization also reached an unprecedented degree of sophistication. Subcommittees were formed to 

handle the major jurisdictional areas of revenue and banking and currency. Their formation allowed not only for greater expertise, but also 

for greater eficiency as the committee’s workload intensified under 

the demands and pressures of war. These bodies were a sign of the 

institutional maturation that would continue in the postwar period 

with the routine use of hearings and the origins of the seniority 

system. Yet, for the Committee of Ways and Means, they also pre-figured the division of the committee at the end of the war. 

The war years marked a turning point in a second fundamental 

sense because the House rules were revised in 1865 to divide the 

committee’s authority over finance with the creation of two new committees. The breakup of the committee was motivated by pragmatic 

and political reasons, rather than by philosophical or procedural considerations. The workload was too great for one nine-member body; 

furthermore, in the minds of many members, too much power was 

concentrated in the hands of Thaddeus Stevens. The result was that 

the control over finances in the House was decentralized among three 

committees. From 1865 on, the Committee 

be confined to the major jurisdictional area 

of Ways and Means would 

of revenue. 

172 
“There are IUIO places of 

internieril in this Hoiise 

zn whzch all leplatzon 

lookzng to reform zn our 

revenue and customs 

duttes is buried. One zs 

the goigeous mawoleunr 

of the Ways and Means 

Commzttee. . . . 

(Represent0 fizle James A. 

Mck‘enxe, 1880) 

,. 

1865 *I890 

The Gilded Age Committee 

n of separate committ 

three majosi of the Rules Com 

he image of the United States in the postwar period has been T taken from the title of an 1873 novel by Mark Twain and Charles 

Dudley Warner, The Gilded Age, in which the authors satirized the 

nation as a land of corruption and materialism. Accurate or not, the 

label has stuck. The period has become one characterized by dishonest lobbyists, weak or corrupt Presidents, and a Congress dominated 

by crass politicians for sale to the highest bidder. Congressman James 

McKenzie’s 1880 criticism that the Committee on Ways and Means 

was a legislative mausoleum for revenue reform reflected this prevailing pessimism. 

The idealism of the Civil War as a crusade to save the Union and 

to free the slaves was also a casualty of the conflict. Postwar America 

sought escape from that horrendous bloodbath through tangible rnaterial progress. Although politicians waved the “bloody shirt,” and 

popular culture produced other examples of “patriotic gore” in the 

form of novels, poetry, and songs, most Americans sought to forget 

the painful memories of the harsher realities of war. Lincoln’s plea 

that the dead shall not have died in vain was answered with bigger 

factories and more railroads. The cynicism of Twain, Warner, and 

McKenzie about business and politics was a result of the changed cultural atmosphere. Society and government were not as corrupt as 

173 
those critics thought, but both were convinced that Americans saw 

economic success as both a personal and a social panacea. 

Congress in the Gilded Age 

Historian Henry Adams, a contemporary observer, once described 

congressional government in the Gilded Age as “poor in purpose and 

barren in results.” In fact, Adams noted, “one might search the whole 

list of Congress, Judiciary, and Executive during the twenty-five years 

1870-1895 and find little but damaged reputations.” Adams’ cynicism about Congress was shared by scholars, journalists, and even by 

some representatives themselves. During these years the House chamber, nicknamed the “Bear Garden” because of its raucous and contentious atmosphere, was plagued by periodic political scandals, bogged 

down by outdated legislative procedures, and hampered in its effectiveness by the obstructionist tactics of minority members from both 

parties. By the late 1870s the popular image of the legislature as a 

corrupt and ineficient institution had become so widespread that humorist Mark Twain was prompted to remark: “It could probably be 

shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress.” 

In spite of such a negative public image, the period was not without its accomplishments. The organizational experience gained 

through the mobilization of the Union Army carried over to the 

professionalization of government service. All aspects of American 

life, from industrial combinations to labor unions, participated in the 

organizational revolution of the postwar period. Change was accompanied by the usual abuses, and some areas lagged behind, including 

congressional procedure, which necessitated reforms in the 1880s and 

’90s. Traditionally, for example, government employees had obtained 

their positions through the patronage of members of Congress or the 

President. A number of public scandals, most notably the corruption 

of many Grant Administration officials, aroused a movement to 

reform the Civil Service. During the Hayes and Arthur Administrations (1877-1885), the liberal wing of the Republican Party led the 

reform effort that culminated in the passage of the Pendleton Civil 

Service Act of 1883, which established competitive entrance examinations for prospective government employees. By the turn of the century the act had been amended several times to improve its enforcement 

provisions. Congress also recognized the need to regulate certain industrial practices with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This statute, enacted during the Democratic Cleveland Administration, created 

a five-member commission whose primary function was to regulate 

railroad rates. Congress also approved the appointment of several 

presidential commissions to evaluate the nation’s tax structure. The 

174 
A.LNVd SOILW NI 3HL 33LLIMM03 GNV 3H.L SllOH 
adiunct to conpressional Drocedure. None of these characteristics LobbYtSts in an 1860 magazine D 

e Aerged fully developed in' this period, but their appearance suggested that more was at work in the Gilded Age Congress than greed and 

iLLwiration Swarm 

congressional committee room. 

The bwjness ofinfluencing 

corruption. government ojficials by repThe senioritv svstem had develoDed in the Senate before the rexntatives ofspecial interest ii groups reached professional 

statw during the Gilhd Age, 

At times. the technical infoma1870s. This system allowed members to remain on a committee as 

long as they wished, and gave committee chairs to the member with 

the longest consecutive service. While the House lagged behind the 

Senate, by the last two decades of the century, seniority accounted for 

nearly two-thirds of all committee chair appointments. Moreover, 

there was a slight but decided movement toward longer tenure of 

congressional service. There had been a high turnover rate in congressional membership during the antebellum era. After the war, 

length of service increased, suggesting a growing orientation among 

members toward a career in congressional service. Members who entered the House in the 1850s and 1860s, for example, averaged only 

two terms of service, while those who entered in the 1870s averaged 

three, and those in the 1880s averaged four. 

This tendency toward professionalization was counterbalanced by 

institutional growing pains in both chambers. Federal jurisdiction had 

expanded into unprecedented areas during the Civil War, creating 

new administrative complexities. The House of Representatives also 

grew in size from 212 to 325 members between 1870 and 1890. Many 

of the existing House rules and procedures, originally devised for a 

smaller legislative body, had not yet undergone extensive revision. 

Consequently, for much of this 25-year period, effective management 

of legislation and floor debate were beset by difficulties stemming 

from outmoded rules.5 

Both the House and the Senate made tentative efforts to modernize internal operations. Committees began to conduct legislative hearings on a regular basis. This practice was based upon the authority of 

both Houses to call for persons or papers to assist in their deliberations. In the 18th century the House's investigative function was 

largely confined to the consideration of disputed elections and 

breaches of conduct by public officials, but it also included legislative 

oversight, a concept formalized through the annual budgetary review 

process. The House originally conducted most of its hearings in the 

Committee of the Whole House, but gradually delegated this task to 

standing committees. In the decades immediately following the Civil 

War, most House hearings concerned ethics violations. As the period 

progressed, standing committees routinely held hearings on individual 

bills and employed methods of gathering testimony and presenting information similar to those utilized by presidential commissions.6 

Although the growing significance of congressional hearings is 

well documented, the role of subcommittees is more conjectural. 

During the Civil War, for example, the Committee of Ways and Means 

tion that lobbyists su@l&d to 

congress enhanced the 

efficiency of government during 

this era, EntruJted with power 

over rmenu matters, Ways and 

Means was a pnme target for 

lobbying. 

176 
had used jurisdictional subcommittees-those with regard to the 

broad areas of revenue, appropriations, and banking and currencybut the division of the committee in 1865 removed the need for such 

bodies. In the 1870s and '80s there are references to select subcommittees for purposes such as hearings on specific topics. It could be 

argued that the division of the committee in 1865 along the lines of 

its three subcommittees reflected the same concern for specialization 

that prompted the creation of subcommittees. This was especially true 

in the area of finance. Not only did the House divide financial jurisdiction among the Committee of Ways and Means, the Committee on 

Appropriations, and the Committee on Banking and Currency, but the 

Senate also created a separate Committee on Appropriations in 1867. 

In the 1880s, the House further subdivided the appropriations function among several standing committees, to the point that by 1900 the 

control that once had been exercised by the House Committee of 

177 
Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance had been dis- Democracy passes through dantributed among nearly 20 committees.’ 

Lob by in g 

As congressional hearings became more commonplace and committee 

functions ever more specialized, the activities of lobbyists, the socalled “Third House” of Congress, underwent a significant change. 

Representatives of special interests had sought to influence legislation 

from the earliest days of the republic, but these efforts accelerated as 

the government grew in size and scope. In the postwar era, lobbyists 

descended upon the Capitol in ever increasing numbers at the beginning of each session. The story of Gilded Age congressional politics is 

punctuated by the sometimes scandalous methods, including bribery 

and sexual favors, that some lobbyists employed to inform, persuade, 

influence, or even buy support. 

The contemporary public image of lobbying was synonymous 

with corruption and greed. One popular novelist depicted lobbyists as 

unsavory influence peddlers: “Men of unwholesome skins, greasy garments, brutish manners, filthy minds, and sickening conversation . . . 

decayed statesmen, who were now, indeed, nothing but unfragrant 

corpses.” Another contemporary observer argued that lobbying was 

“legitimate and honorable.” This journalist emphasized that most of 

the agents seeking to influence Congress “would not think of trying 

to buy votes.” In spite of this negative image, lobbying was a necessary, legitimate, and at times beneficial function. There were occasional instances of bribery and corruption, but lobbyists performed a 

needed informational role by serving as a means of communication 

between private interest groups and Congress. Governmental efficiency was actually enhanced by the developing technical expertise and 

statistical information supplied by the more circumspect lobbyists. lo 

The most notorious lobbying scandals occurred during the Grant 

Administration (1869-77). The worst scandal was the Crkdit Mobilier 

(1872), in which 18 members of Congress, including Speaker of the 

House Schuyler Colfax and Chairman of the Committee of Ways and 

Means Henry L. Dawes, were alleged to have accepted gifts of stock to 

influence contracts for the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad. 

(Dawes and several of the others were absolved.) Another scandal involved allegations that the Pacific Mail Steamship Company had engaged in bribery to obtain a federal subsidy. The Committee of Ways 

and Means investigated the case in 1875, and as a result, Ellis H. Roberts (R-NY) reported the committee’s bill to create the first system 

ever to regulate lobbying. The committee’s plan required all “agents 

and attorneys prosecuting claims or demands before Congress and 

the Executive Departments” to register with the clerks of the House 

gerous watt& in an 1880s cartoon that portrays Ways and 

Means Chairman William R. 

Morrison of Illinois and 

APpropriationr Chairman 

Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania tuggzng the helmsman 

of the ship of state in opposite 

directionr. Momion advocated 

tang reform, stea‘ng the 

nation away from the shoals of 

a protectionist tang (Scylla). 

Randall steered a course 

toward protectionism and away 

from the whirlpool of free trade 

(ChaTbdis). Monopoly poses 

another pmd ahead, whik civil 

service reform lies adnit. 

Throughout the pa’od, issues of 

revenue and tan# were prime 

concm of Ways and Means. 

178 
and the Senate, as well as the clerks of the committees with which 

they dealt. Moreover, the bill required lobbyists-although that term 

was conspicuously avoided-to disclose their expenditures. The Roberts bill was adopted by the House, 113 to 31, on the last day of the 

Forty-third Congress, but the Senate had no time to act upon it. The 

House adopted a resolution the following year to require agents and 

attorneys to register, but it applied only to the House; it was limited 

to the duration of the Forty-fourth Congress; and it did not require 

financial disclosure. Congress did not adopt a system of registration 

as sweeping as that recommended by the Committee of Ways and 

Means until 1946.' 

The Speaker and Committee Chairmen 

In addition to the origins of seniority, the development of legislative 

hearings, and the growing sophistication of lobbying, the postwar decades also witnessed a consolidation of the Speaker's powers and the 

179 
Henry L. Dawes (R-MA) 

increasing importance of committee chairmen. These latter two developments worked at cross purposes. The increased number of committees and the power of their chairmen seemingly decentralized congressional procedure, which was counteracted by the control exercised 

by the Speaker. 

The consolidation of party leadership in the speakership somewhat overcame the inertia and decentralization attendant to the committee structure. Candidates for the speakership were selected bv the 

party caucuses; the Speaker was subsequently elected by ballot in the 

House chamber. Through his continued power of appointment, the 

Speaker was able to appoint members who were sympathetic to his 

policies to important committees, and thereby influence the content of 

legislation. 

Most of the Speakers in this period were competent leaders. 

Schuyler Colfax (R-IN, 1865-71), James G. Blaine (R-ME, 1871-75), 

Samuel J. Randall (D-PA, 1877-81), John G. Carlisle (D-KY, 

1883-89), and Thomas Brackett Reed (R-ME, 1889-91) were all able 

parliamentarians and party leaders. Only Michael Crawford Kerr (DIN, 1875-77) and J. Warren Keifer (R-OH, 1881-83) were disappoint180 
ments. During the 1880s the efforts of Randall, Carlisle, and Reed to 

revise the House rules resulted in a strengthening of the majority’s 

ability to control the flow of legislation and to command party loyalty 

in committee and on the House floor. These reforms were particularly 

aimed at the minority’s delaying tactics, including the “disappearing 

quorum,” a procedure to prevent floor action by refusing to answer 

quorum calls. 

The influx of new members and territories as well as the presence 

of administrative details left over from the war prompted the creation 

of additional committees. Thirteen new standing committees were established and the jurisdiction of some of the existing ones were 

changed to meet new needs. This development streamlined House 

procedure to a certain extent, but it also had the effect of creating 

jurisdictional rivalries between committees. 

Some contemporary observers, such as Woodrow Wilson in his 

pioneering study Congressional Government (1 885), saw only decentralization resulting from the changes in the standing committee system. 

“Power,” Wilson wrote, was “divided up, as it were, into forty-seven 

seignorities, in each of which a Standing Committee is the courtbaron and its chairman lord-proprietor. These petty barons . . . exercise an almost despotic sway within their own shires.” Wilson conciuded that chairmen were prevented from cooperating by their mutual 

jealousies. l2 

House committees were not at their productive peak in this 

period. Compared to the Civil War and the early years of Reconstruction, when standing committees had operated effectively and produced much substantive legislation, committees during the 1870s and 

early ’80s were hindered by territorial chairmen, obstructionist minority tactics, and outmoded procedures. Committee chairmen had the 

ability to pigeonhole legislation they opposed or to expedite measures 

they favored. In addition, because the rules made them floor managers of their bills, chairmen controlled the House debate on all legislation emanating from their committees. Thus the “little legislatures” 

acquired a reputation as “legislative cemeteries” where chairmen accumulated personal power to the detriment of the parent body. 

For legislative cemeteries, standing committees were appropriately housed in mausoleum-like rooms in the Capitol. New House and 

Senate wings had been constructed in the late 1850s and completed 

during the war. Key committees were given conveniently situated 

rooms near their respective chambers. Although the Senate rooms 

were more gaudily and lavishly ornamented by European artisans, including Italian-American artist Constantino Brumidi, the House committee rooms were also appointed in the grand style. The Committee 

of Ways and Means, for example, met in two rooms that are today the 

Speaker’s office (H-209 and H-210). Located just outside the House 

chamber on the East Front of the second (principal) story of the Cap181 
itol, the committee’s rooms had originally been intended for the 

House Post Ofice and the Sergeant at Arms. The committee occupied 

H-210 in 1867 and H-209 from 1870 to 1908. From 1901 to 1908 

the committee had both rooms. These rooms were constructed as fireproof masonry vaults with fireproof cast iron trim and encaustic tile 

floors. Rococo-style marble mantels and intricately painted ceilings 

with shields, emblems, and other decorative designs adorned the 

room. Illuminated by gas lighting, these rooms understandably 

evoked funereal images. It was probably only coincidental that a 

former member, Thomas Brackett Reed, collapsed and later died in 

1902 shortly after meeting with his old colleagues in the committee 

room. 

The secluded location of these club-like sanctuaries protected 

members from the chaotic commotion of the House chamber and 

halls crowded with lobbyists, journalists, ofice seekers, and curious 

constituents. Since the House did not construct a separate ofice 

building until the early 19OOs, most congressmen conducted business 

at their desks in the House chamber or in committee rooms. As 

length of service increased, a spirit of camaraderie developed, at times 

bizarrely manifested. During the 1880s, for example, the death of a 

member occasioned a funeral party characterized by expensive meals 

and heavy drinking. A train was chartered to carry the deceased home, 

accompanied by a select delegation of his colleagues, liberally lubricated with champagne. Both the funerals and the funeral junkets were 

held at government expense. The bills for silk scarves and gloves for 

the pallbearers, caskets, and undertakers, as well as the trip and its 

refreshments, were scattered throughout the miscellaneous expenses 

of the House to conceal the total amount.14 

These congressional funeral processions provided an apt metaphor for the Gilded Age. On the surface they might have appeared 

scandalous, just as so much of government and society seemed 

marked by corruption. But on a deeper level, the death of a colleague 

was to a congressman-like the deaths of so many thousands during 

the Civil War had been for the nation-a numbing reality from which 

a recourse to material pleasures was a welcome escape. If congressmen seemed obsessed with career, organization, and material gain, 

both individually and collectively, it should not have come as a surprise-so was almost everyone else. 

Beneath the veneer of corruption and materialism, Congress was 

an institution in transition. Hearings, lobbying, rules changes, and the 

increasing specialization of membership and committees indicated an 

institutional response to changed circumstances. In addition, the Republican domination of the House ceased with the end of Reconstruction in the mid-seventies. An active two-party system characterized the 

remainder of the period, providing a further dimension to the history 

of Congress and its committees. 

182 
An elaborate advertisement sent 

to Ways and Means attests to 

the pride businessmen took in 

their products during the Gilded 

Age. In this pm'od, big business 

flowered under the protection of 

high tanys, Ways and Means 

received many letters, petitions, 

and ah from companies eager 

to praise the committee S 

Rqublican majority for its support of American industry. 

183 
BY A 

-- 

,%NEHEMIAH G. ORDWAY, Esq., 

..... ... ...................... .. __ 

.................. 

The Committee in the Gilded Age 

The forces at work in the development of the House were also evident in the evolution of the Committee on Ways and Means in the 

Gilded Age. Although the committee’s functions were reduced by the 

creation of separate committees with jurisdiction over appropriations 

and banking and currency, the original committee was now able to 

specialize in revenue matters. The size of the committee expanded as 

A congressional summons 

signed by the Speaker and the 

Chk of the House commands a 

businessman named Martin to 

appear before the Ways and 

Means Committee on January 

6, 1875. During the Gil&d 

Age, Ways and Means began to 

hold hearings on a routine 

basis. The committee listened to 

testimony from witnesses and 

traveled around the country to 

gather information on tax and 

tar# measures. Also during 

this period, Ways and Means 

conducted two hearings to 

examine the conduct of government ofjcials and employees. In 

the early 1870s, the committee 

rooted out malfeasance in the 

Treasury Department and inquired into alleged bribery of 

congressmen by lobbyists. 

184 
the workload increased, and it regularly held hearings to obtain 

needed technical tax and tariff data. Chairmen, though not strictly appointed because of seniority, did tend to possess greater fiscal expertise than some of their antebellum counterparts. All of the chairmen 

in this period played a significant role in majority party leadership, 

some as floor leaders and others as members of the Rules Committee. 

Although the committee surrendered some of its jurisdiction, it 

lost little presiige. In 1865, both the Committee of Ways and Means 

and the Committee on Appropriations, for example, were granted the 

privilege of reporting bills at any time for consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. The 1880 rules revision further granted 

precedence to revenue and appropriations measures over other bills. 

The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations tended to become 

floor leader of the House in the period from 1865 to 1896. The floor 

leader, or the majority leader, was not an official position, but rather a 

function usually performed by the committee chairman presenting the 

most pressing legislation, either in terms of quantity or importance. 

The Speaker, by virtue of his appointment of chairmen, thus also selected the floor leader. 

Before the Civil War, the chairman of the Committee of Ways 

and Means had performed that function. But after the creation of the 

Committee on Appropriations, Thaddeus Stevens in effect took the 

majority leadership with him when he became chairman of the new 

committee. Subsequently, the majority leadership alternated between 

the two chairmen in this period. Chairmen of the Committee on Ways 

and Means who served as floor leader included William R. Morrison 

(1875 and 1883), Fernando Wood (1879), William D. Kelley (1881), 

and Roger Q. Mills (1887).15 

In 1880, Speaker Samuel J. Randall appointed a standing Rules 

Committee consisting of five members (three majority, two minority). 

This committee had previously been a select body appointed at the 

beginning of each Congress to report changes in House rules and 

procedures. Speaker John G. Carlisle in 1885 appointed the chairmen 

of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Appropriations to serve with him as the majority members on the Rules 

Committee. This bolstered the status of the revenue committee chairman as a key majority party leader. By packing this committee, the 

Speaker and the two most powerful chairmen were able to control the 

flow of legislation on the floor, as well as influence the revenue and 

appropriations process. 

The composition of the Committee on Ways and Means also underwent several changes, not the least of which was the name of the 

committee itself. Before the 1870s, its title had always been the Committee of Ways and Means. In the ’70s, “of’ was often replaced with 

“on” in committee reports and documents. The rules revision of 1880 

standardized the names of all standing committees by the use of “on.” 

185 
Thus, for example, the Committee of Accounts became the Committee on Accounts, and likewise the Committee of Ways and Means 

became the Committee on Ways and Means.17 

With its name standardized, the committee’s membership was 

also altered to accommodate a growing workload and the increased 

membership of the House. Membership increased from the nine of 

the Civil War period to 11 in 1873 and to 13 in 1879. The Northern 

and Republican domination likewise evaporated. The Republican 

Party controlled the House and the committee for only half of the 12 

Congresses from 1865 to 1889. The first Southern member since 

before the Civil War, Lionel A, Sheldon (R-LA), did not take his seat 

until 1873, but in the following Congress the new Democratic majority included three members from the states of the former Confederacy. 

The majority party continued to maintain comfortable majorities on 

the committee, no matter how slim their margin was in the House. 

Thc Republicans in 1881, for example, had an overall majority of only 

12 seats in the House, but named eight of the 13 members to the 

Committee on Ways and Means.ls 

Committee appointments remained in the hands of the Speaker in 

the postwar period. In 1882, the House considered a proposal presented by Kepresentative Godlove S. Orth (R-IN) to entrust a standing board of 11 members chosen by party caucuses with the nomina186 
Prominent Republicans Robert 

C. Schenck of Ohio Cfar I.ft), 

James A. Ga$eield, ako from 

Ohio (heft), and Henry L. 

Dawes of Massachusetts (right) 

sat on Ways and Means after 

the Civil War and guided programs to strengthen the nation 5 

war-ravaged financial structure. Nicknamed “Poker Bob ’’ 

for his expertise at cards, 

Schenck sewed as chairmcsn of 

Ways and Means fiom I867 

to 1871. Destined fw the 

Presidency, Garfield enjoyed an 

18-year career in Con.e.ss. He 

hungered to be Ways and 

Means chairman, but to his 

dismay the post repeatedly went 

to others. In 1871, the Sfieaker 

of the House bypassed Garfild 

and named Dawes chairman. 

P 

tion of all committee members. The proposal was defeated by a wide 

margin, but committee selection criteria shifted noticeably as experience and specialization in a particular field became more important. 

The chairmanship of the Committee of Ways and Means before the 

Civil War had been an honor customarily reserved for the runner-up 

in a speakership contest, or as a reward for a key supporter. Most of 

the ten chairmen who served between 1865 and 1890, on the other 

hand, were primarily known for their expertise in tax issues. William 

D. Kelley (R-PA), who chaired the committee from 1881 to 1883, was 

a good example of the rule of specialization and expertise. He served 

on the committee for an unprecedented 20-year period (1869-1 889) 

as a strong advocate of protective tariffs, especially for the iron industry of his home state. Nicknamed “Pig-Iron” Kelley, he had a monomania about the tariff, a subject he had studied his entire life. “Mr. 

Kelley thinks tariff, talks tariff, and writes tariff every hour of the 

day;” one journalist noted, “a roommate of his tells me that he mumbles it over in his dreams during the night.” l9 The appointment of 

Henry L. Dawes (R-MA) in 18’71 was the exception that proved the 

rule. Dawes had not served on the committee, and he had no special 

claim to expertise. He wrote to Speaker Blaine: “I cannot believe that 

you will put me on the Committee of Ways and Means against my 

wishes. . . . I have earned the right to decline a service so against my 

187 
wishes-against my habits of thought, and so outside of all my experience in Congress that I shall surely fail.” 2o 

The future careers of several chairmen reinforced the expertise 

that they either had brought with them or that they had acquired as a 

A post-Civil War cartoon depic& a haggard Uncle Sam as 

h carries the taxpayer’s burden 

while wined and 

dined by lobbyists, merrily pant 

result of their service. Two of the three chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee during this period, for example, were former chairmen of the House committee. John Sherman, who had headed the 

Committee of Ways and Means before the Civil War, chaired the 

Senate committee from 1864 to 1865 and from 1867 to 1877. Justin 

S. Morrill, the first postwar chairman of the House committee, chaired 

the Senate Finance Committee for all but two Congresses between 

1877 and 1898.21 This heightened emphasis on expertise as an important criterion for the chairmanship of the House’s revenue committee further illustrated the general trend in the House toward 

professionalization of legislative service. 

The committee did not escape the Gilded Age with its reputation 

untarnished. Two chairmen in particular were linked with corruption. 

Robert C. Schenck (R-OH, 1867-70) earned the nickname “Poker 

Bob” after he left the committee to accept a diplomatic assignment in 

Great Britain. His expertise in cards impressed an English duchess to 

whom he wrote a letter describing the game of poker. The letter was 

subsequently published, but far more embarrassing was the use of his 

name in the sale in Great Britain of stock in a Nevada silver mine. 

Although a congressional investigating committee uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing, it criticized such endorsements by diplomats. 

Schenck resigned and returned to Washington, where he published 

Draw Poker in 1880. Fernando Wood (D-NY), who chaired the committee from 1877 to 1881, was even described by a sympathetic biographer as “unquestionably” corrupt. Wood had begun his political 

career in New York City’s notorious Tammany Hall Democratic machine. He was elected mayor three times, but broke with the Tweed 

Ring to found his own rival organization, Mozart Hall. Graft prevailed 

in city government in the 1850s and ’~OS, and Wood and his brother 

benefited from city contracts. One building he owned was leased to 

the city for offices, which remained empty but which were then rented 

on the open market. Wood may have been corrupt, but he was also 

competent. As a member and as chairman of the Committee on Ways 

and Means, he consistently defended the interests of the New York 

merchants and financiers he represented.22 

Until the formal establishment of the seniority system in the 20th 

century, there appears to have been no set system guiding the appointment of chairmen. As in the “non-system” of the Jacksonian 

period, in some instances a close political or personal relationship 

with the Speaker made a difference, but this factor did not necessarily 

secure success. Some able and powerful representatives were disappointed in their efforts to become chairman. Perhaps the most intertax breaks to manufacturers 

and pass such pork barrel 

appropriations as the river and 

harbors bill. As idealism turned 

to cynicism after th war, the 

public began to qy out against 

corruption in Congress. This 

cartoon captures that public 

mood; an 1873 novel by Mark 

Twain and Charles Dudley 

Warner, The Gilded Age, 

gave the era of excessive materialism its name. 

188 
-..--.--_II 

esting and revealing example in Gilded Age politics was that of James 

A. Garfield of Ohio. 

Garfield began his long House tenure in the Thirty-eighth Congress (1863-65). After just two terms of service, Garfield evidently 

considered himself a choice candidate for the chairmanship of the 

Committee of Ways and Means, yet he declined to actively campaign 

for the position. Unfortunately, Garfield's hard money stance on currency issues and his lack of parliamentary expertise ultimately removed him from consideration. When committee appointments were 

handed out at the start of the Fortieth Congress, Speaker Colhx 

appointed Schenck to the post and put Garfield at the head of the 

189 
Military Affairs Committee. Garfield, who considered himself “greatly 

wronged” by Colfax’s decision, nevertheless acquitted himself well as 

chairman.23 

Garfield’s next opportunity came during the Forty-first Congress 

(1869-71). After Colfax left the House to become Vice President 

under Grant, James G. Blaine of Maine assumed the speakership. Garfield now had every reason to expect that the chairmanship of the 

vaunted Committee of Ways and Means would be his. The Ohio congressman had even struck a gentleman’s agreement with Blaine that 

he would be named chairman in exchange for his support in the 

speakership contest. Blaine nevertheless once more bypassed Garfield 

in favor of Schenck. One year later, Garfield’s prospects again brightened when Schenck was defeated in the midterm congressional elections and the chairmanship of the committee was once again vacant. 

For an entire year, Garfield actively lobbied for the position until he 

was “about as certain as he could be” of the appointment. The seat 

remained open until the beginning of the Forty-second Congress. In 

spite of Garfield’s confidence, and although his friends applied pressure upon Speaker Blaine, the chairmanship went to Henry L. Dawes 

of Massachusetts. Garfield was appointed chairman of the Committee 

on Appropriations. He was finally appointed to the Committee of 

Ways and Means in the Forty-fourth Congress-although as a minority member. 

Committee Hearings 

The committee began to hold hearings in this period on a routine 

basis, appointing subcommittees, subpoenaing witnesses, taking testimony, and even traveling around the country to gather information. 

An undated newspaper clipping in the committee’s records, for example, states that Schenck’s committee traveled from Sacramento to 

Omaha on the Pacific Railroad “with as much comfort, convenience 

and sense of safety as they ever traveled over any road in the Eastern 

states.” The article, by committee clerk George Bassett, also reported 

that four subcommittees had been appointed to consider tariff duties 

on various classifications of goods.24 

Although most hearings dealt with customs duties, two important 

investigations into government corruption were conducted by the 

Committee of Ways and Means in the 1870s. In 1873, the committee 

investigated the moiety system of the Treasury Department. The 

moiety system, which had existed since the 1790s, authorized informers to collect a percentage of delinquent customs revenues recovered 

through their efforts. The practice was repealed in the Forty-second 

Congress (1871-73), but the Secretary of the Treasury was allowed to 

appoint three persons to assist the government in cases of tax evasion 

190 
1874 

1878 

1879 

1880 

1881 

1882 

1884 

1886 

the National Debt 

Metals and Metal Ores 

Manufactures of Cotton 

Pottery 

Iron and Steel 

Pig Iron and Iron Ore 

Flax 

Bituminous Co 

and delinquency. One of the agents appointed by Secretary William 

A. Richardson was John D. Sanborn, who collected over $400,000 and 

pocketed a commission of approximately $200,000. The House instructed the Committee of Ways and Means to investigate the revenue 

laws, the moiety system, and Sanborn’s contract with the Treasury Department, which the committee determined violated the spirit of 

the law. Sanborn not only assisted in the recovery of revenue, he 

even collected funds, a practice the repeal of the moiety system 

prohibited. 25 

The committee examined Sanborn, Richardson, and others implicated in the case. The Treasury Secretary disclaimed responsibility: “I 

191 
. 

Doors of the New York Stock 

Exchange close in the face of 

stockholdms during the Panic 

of 1873. Failure of several 

northeast investment fim 

touched osf the his, which 

ushered in aJiue-year depression, one of the worst yet SUJ 

fered by the nation. The hard 

times filed hand for inflationary monetary policies, and 

Congress responded. Legwlators 

approued the circulation of an 

additional 18 million dollars in 

greenbacks. Later, the Resumption Act sanctioned unlimited 

circulation of national bank 

notes and the gradual reduction 

of greenbacks. Ways and 

Means reported tax and tansf 

leplation in this period designed to help sofien the blow of 

the depression. 

do not know the least thing about it any more than about ten thousand other things that are done in the different divisions of the Department. . . . I sign without reading.” 26 The committee condemned 

the Sanborn contract, but it did not discover any evidence of criminal 

intent. Two of Richardson’s subordinates resigned, and President 

192 
Grant appointed the Treasury Secretary to the Court of Claims. 

The following year the House instructed the committee to investigate allegations that the Pacific Mail Steamship Company had bribed 

members of Congress to secure a lucrative mail subsidy. A subcommittee, chaired by Horatio C. Burchard (R-IL), conducted hearings at 

the Fifth Avenue Hotel in New York City from December 28, 1874, to 

January 2, 1875, before returning to Washington to continue the investigation. The committee discovered that the company had disbursed through its agent, Richard Irwin, over $800,000 in his lobbying effort. Of that sum, $125,000 had been paid to William S. King, 

the postmaster of the House of Representatives. Although King 

denied that he had received any money, it was believed that he had 

channeled it to members of the House to influence their votes. King 

sought refuge in Canada, and the president of the company remained 

on an extended vacation in Europe. Since Irwin steadfastly denied any 

wrongdoing, the committee was unable to make a case against any of 

the principals, but it did recommend tighter restrictions upon lobbying. The authority of congressional committees to conduct similar 

hearings was curtailed by the Supreme Court, which ruled in 1880 

that Congress was not empowered to investigate the affairs of private 

citizens unless information was provided necessary to enact a law.27 

Most hearings concerned customs duties. In 1880, for example, 

the committee held hearings on the duty on steel rails. Several representatives of railroads testified, including Henry A. Poor, editor of the 

Railway Manual, who appeared on behalf of the Illinois Central “and a 

large number of other railroad companies.” William H. Grace, on the 

other hand, prefaced his testimony with the statement: “I have the 

honor to appear before you, not as the professionally retained attorney of any railroad or corporation, but as the unpaid advocate of the 

workingmen of America.” 28 Most of the testimony in these hearings 

were arguments for or against protective tariffs, often accompanied by 

statistical evidence. Some testimony was simple, direct, and informative, such as that provided by Isaac Cook of St. Louis on a proposed 

tax on native wines to prevent the production of adulterated wine. 

Cook presented a detailed description of how to make adulterated 

champagne through the use of alum, gelatin, and carbonic acid, 

“which have the effect of disorganizing alike the wine and the consumer’s stomach. Nausea and headache are among the ill results.” 

The committee promptly concluded its report with the recommendation that the bill “do pass.” 29 

The committee’s clerk handled the administrative details accompanying the hearings. He arranged for travel when necessary, took 

notes on the meetings, and corresponded with witnesses. The committee continued to employ one permanent clerk in this period, who 

was appointed by the chairman, subject to the approval of the committee, and paid at public expense. Sometime between 1880 and 

193 
I P6 
The specter offederal surpluses 

grows into a dragon-size problem for Congress in this Puck 

magazine cartoon of the early 

1880s. With the eblic till 

embarrassingly fat, it becam 

harder for congressmen to convince voters of the need for high 

tan$ duties. The possibility of 

fellera1 surpluses and the potatial headache of trying to justijj 

them ahted Ways and Means 

in the 1870s to begin reevaluating th.e nation’s tax 

structure. Initiatives by the 

committee moved Congress to 

repeal th Civil War inheritance tax. Th.e committee’s 

proposals to redwe income tax 

rates met heavy resistance. 

Eventually, in 1872, Congress 

allowed the leplation authorizing the income tax to expire. 

function. George Bassett, the clerk appointed in 1860, continued in 

his position through Dawes’ chairmanship (187 1-75). Bassett took dictation in shorthand from the chairman and transcribed his correspondence as both congressman and committee chairman. The clerk 

was obviously overworked. The files contain items that do not pertain 

to the committee, such as the chairman’s letters to his constituents on 

patronage matters, and even the clerk’s own personal correspondence. 

One letter to Bassett from an ailing friend thanked him for a bottle of 

whiskey. “It came very opportunely,” the friend wrote, “as the Dr had 

ordered milk punch, and good whiskey is the essential ingredient.” 31 

If the clerk was overloaded, so too was the committee. The 

volume and sophistication of demands increased in the Gilded Age. 

Not only were private petitions from individuals and printed circular 

petitions still received, but the committee was also flooded with telegrams, advertisements, and pamphlets, all requesting that attention be 

given to a particular subject. The aftermath of the war provided the 

impetus for much of the correspondence. Schenck, for example, like 

all members of Congress, was inundated with requests for government jobs by former Union soldiers. He answered one request, “on 

file among hundreds of others,” by cautioning the veteran that the 

horde ofjob seekers was “far beyond the number of places to be supplied.” 32 An advertising pamphlet from Jewett’s Patent Artificial Leg 

Company, submitted to support extra duties on artificial limbs, was 

equally moving-and more pertinent to the committee’s function. 

Every soldier who had lost a limb in the war was entitled to an artificial one at government expense. Since the recipient had to bear the 

cost of repair or replacement, the pamphlet argued that their product 

deserved protection because of its superior design, durability, and 

ease of maintainen~e.~~ 

The telegraph allowed witnesses and lobbyists to stay in close 

touch with the committee. Several examples are included in the committee’s records. One witness telegraphed the chairman in 1868, for 

example, to urgently ask: “Have not heard from you. When will I be 

wanted?” 34 A U.S. attorney in Brooklyn asked the committee to 

excuse a witness whom he had subpoenaed as a witness in a court 

case.35 And the treasurer of the Boston Elastic Company, concerned 

over a tariff provision on “webbing, gallouses etc.,” followed up a 

morning telegram with a longer letter claiming that the measure 

would bring “utter ruin to the elastic weaving industry.” 36 

Most of the correspondence from companies was similar-selfconfident, even boastful, both in form and content. The very stationery that companies used indicated their pride-in large bold letterheads often featuring impressive engravings of the company’s factory 

or headquarters. The traditional deferential language of petitions- 

“your petitioner prays [or begs] the attention of”-disappeared in the 

Gilded Age, replaced by more businesslike statements of economic 

195 
self-interest. Emor E. Smith, manufacturer and sole proprietor of 

Smith’s Greenback Bitters, an alcoholic tonic, pointed out the inconsistency of taxing him as a distiller-or rectifier-when all he did was 

to add ingredients to previously distilled spirits. “I don’t rectify,” 

Smith protested, “I only mix.” 37 Businessmen felt little reluctance to 

offer their opinions, even on issues unrelated to their industries. 

Frank Adams, President of the Akron Sewer Pipe Company, for example, wrote to Garfield on the match tax and the stamp tax on bank 

checks. “Undoubtedly you have your mind made up what in your 

judgment ought to be done with both,” he stated, “but I propose to 

give my ideas, which may possibly clash with yours.” 3g 

These few examples can provide only a sampling of the informational overload that descended upon the committee from hearings, 

lobbying, and correspondence. It was ironic that although the committee’s .jurisdiction had been reduced, its workload had increased. 

John G. Carlisle of Kentucky 

(immediate right) drew praise 

for his knowledge of parliamenta7y law. Speaker of the House 

from 1883 to 1889, and later 

Secretary of the Treasury, Carlisle served as ranking minority 

member on Ways and Means in 

the Ffty -Jirst Congress 

(1889-1891). As Speaker, he 

and fellow Democrat and Ways 

and Means Chairman Roger Q. 

Mills (far right) fought hard 

but in uain to thwart Republican protectionists with the Mills 

bill of 1888. Carlisle S penchant 

for fairness in an age of extreme 

partisanship supports his reputation as one of the ablest SpeakEven as the Committee on Ways and Means considered the revenue 

and tariff issues of the Gilded Age, it was confronted with the internal 

obstacles of its own workload and lack of adequate staffing. The committee, moreover, had to function within the framework of the House, 

and increasingly in this period, it was compelled to react to a more 

active Senate in revenue matters. 

ers ofthe House. 

Postwar Financial Reconstruction 

Between 1865 and 1879, the House of Representatives wrestled not 

only with the terms and procedures for the reconstruction of the 

Union, but also with restoring the nation’s finances. The House Committee of Ways and Means was deeply involved in the latter campaign 

in the early postwar period. Congress inherited a complex and problematic financial legacy from the Civil War. The postwar debt in 

March 1865 amounted to approximately 2.9 billion dollars in a bewildering variety of notes and bonds. The primary issue associated with 

the debt was how to refinance the many forms of indebtedness at 

equitable terms without creating a shortage in federal gold reserves. 

As government expenditures declined after the war, legislators also 

faced the prospect of lowering the public’s tax burden while raising 

enough revenue to meet its immediate needs. Finally, Congress had to 

decide how best to restore the nation’s currency on a sound basis. 

The public debt, federal revenues, and currency matters were all 

interwoven into this tangled financial web. 

The committee’s first postwar initiatives concerned revenue. After 

1865, the question of tax reduction became an important political 

issue. In 1866 federal revenues from customs duties and internal taxes 

imposed during the war amounted to 558 million dollars. Congress 

authorized a Special Commission on the Revenue in 1865 to study the 

196 
‘1 L 

problems of postwar taxation. In 1866, Congress authorized the Secretary of the l’reasury to appoint a special commissioner of the revenue to report to Congress on the existing tax structure. David A. 

Wells, who had chaired the 1865 commission, was named commissioner. During the life of his office (1865-70), Wells issued a series of 

four reports recommending a reduction in tariff duties and excise and 

internal taxes. Although Congress did not lower customs duties substantially, it did pass several internal revenue acts between 1866 and 

1870 in which the income tax and most of the excise taxes imposed 

during the war were either repealed or substantially reduced. 

The Republican majority on the Committee of Ways and Means 

favored the continuation of a protective tariff policy. Subsequently, 

tariff rates generally remained high, with some downward revision in 

articles such as pig iron, coal, coffee, tea, and molasses. The early 

postwar legislation reflected the interests of manufacturers, who favored high duties because they afforded protection to domestic industries. On the other hand, Western farmers were especially hurt by 

high rates imposed on manufactured articles such as textiles and machinery. While sentiment in favor of tariff reform did not emerge in 

the House until 1872, as early as the mid-1860s the high tariff policies 

of a group of representatives from the Eastern manufacturing states 

stirred opposition among Western members of both parties. 

197 
The continuance of the income tax was also complicated by controversy. During the war the income tax had been enormously unpopular throughout the nation. Later, Americans were divided over its 

future. Eastern manufacturers, who favored the benefits accrued by 

high tariffs, pressured the government to repeal the income tax. 

Lower income groups, on the other hand, largely from the West and 

South, favored retention of the income tax because of tax breaks the 

legislation provided to incomes below a certain level. As in the case of 

the tariff, the income tax issue tended to polarize Congress by region 

as much as, if not more than, by party. 

The first congressional income tax battle occurred in April 1866, 

when Chairman Justin Morrill (R-VT) introduced a bill to remove the 

graduated provisions contained in the 1864 Revenue Act. Morrill, a 

fiscal conservative and a vigorous champion of protectionism, was a 

moderate on the income tax. While favorable to high tariffs as a 

means of protecting domestic industry, Morrill, unlike other more extreme protectionists, did not advocate the repeal of the income tax. 

He had opposed the principle of progressive tax rates-higher percentage rates on higher incomes-when the tax had been originally 

imposed, and he seized upon this opportunity to urge the abolition of 

graduated rates. In his remarks on the bill, Morrill argued that a graduated tax was unfair because it distributed the tax burden unevenly 

among the general population. As an alternative, the chairman proposed a flat 5 percent tax on all incomes over $l,000.39 

Morrill’s tax proposal did not reflect the current majority sentiment of the House. His plan was opposed by Democrats and by Radical Republicans who wanted to place the tax burden more heavily 

upon the upper income brackets. The most extreme proposal along 

these lines was one offered by Lewis Ross (D-IL), who favored a progressive tax scale with a maximum rate of 25 percent on incomes exceeding $60,000. The House finally compromised by passing a bill incorporating a plan advanced by Republican Frederick Pike of Maine. 

Pike’s plan taxed incomes between $1,000 and $5,000 at 5 percent 

and imposed a maximum rate of 10 percent on incomes exceeding 

$5,000. Morrill strenuously opposed this proposal, arguing that the 

principle of progressive taxation “can only be defended on the same 

ground the highwayman defends his acts,” but the bill was amended 

and passed in spite of his objection^.^^ In July 1866, the Senate Finance Committee reported to the House that since time was running 

out in the current session and the bill required many changes, the 

income tax should remain in its current form. The House agreed to 

the Senate’s recommendation, and the tax, with only a few minor 

changes, was continued until 1870. 

In November 1866, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue recommended that the amount of exemption be raised from $600 to 

$1,000. Morrill introduced the committee’s bill in February of the fol198 
unconstitutional because it discriminated between rich and poor. The 

Senate experienced a similar transformation and passed the bill in less 

than three days on March 2, 1867.*l 

The Committee of Ways and Means was also preoccupied with 

currency matters during the Thirty-ninth Congress. The currency was 

part of the committee’s responsibilities by virtue of its connection to 

Treasury bonds and the federal debt, subjects remaining under the 

committee’s jurisdiction. During the Civil War, the federal government had authorized the issue of nearly 450 million dollars in paper 

currency. The value of this currency was less than that of coin or currency backed by gold. Paper money was popular with the general 

public because it was easier to obtain for liquidating debts. On the 

other hand, fiscal conservatives favored withdrawal of the greenbacks 

from circulation to restore the national currency standard to a specie 

basis, a policy known as contraction. The resumption of specie payments by the Treasury Department and the redemption of the federal 

debt in gold were measures favored by holders of high-interest-bearing government bonds and by bankers, who, under the existing 

system, regulated the flow of currency.42 

The postwar currency controversy began in 1866 when Congress 

granted Treasury Secretary Hugh ‘McCulloch wide discretionary 

powers over the debt. McCulloch favored a policy of contraction and 

resumption. The first postwar refunding measure, prepared at the 

Treasury Department, gave McCulloch the power to convert shortterm securities into long-term bonds and also provided for the partial 

withdrawal of greenbacks from circulation. The House defeated the 

bill in its original form and referred it to the Committee of Ways and 

Means for further consideration. The committee reduced the amount 

to be withdrawn from circulation, and in this form the House passed 

the bill. The Senate also agreed to the measure over the objections of 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman John Sherman, who thought 

that it gave McCulloch excessive power to disrupt the nation’s flow of 

currency. The Refunding Act was signed into law on April 12, 1866.43 

A silver certzficate from the 

Gilded Age recalls the push of 

cheap-money advocates and 

silver producers to restore the 

free coinage of silver. Gold proponent John Sherman backed a 

compromise, the Bland-Allison 

Act of 1878. Its provisions inclu&d the nation’s first subsidies for silver producers, 

called for limited coinage of 

silver, and allowed exchange .f 

the coin for silver certajcates 

valued at $1 0 or higher. 

200 
Shortly after the passage of the Refunding Act, the Committee of 

Ways and Means led a congressional revolt against Secretary McCulloch’s policies. During the first session of the Fortieth Congress 

(1867), Chairman Schenck reported a bill to prohibit the Secretary 

from any further contraction of the currency by retiring greenbacks 

from circulation. The bill passed the House by an overwhelming 

majority and met very little resistance in the Senate. This bill was supplemented by other Refunding Acts, one reported by the Senate Finance Committee in 1868 and the other by the Committee of Ways 

and Means in 1869. These measures provided means to refund the 

debt on the specie standard without having to resort to contraction of 

the currency.44 

By the start of the Forty-first Congress, the national debt was 

steadily declining and federal revenues, bolstered by high protective 

tariffs, were steadily increasing. The prospect of a Treasury surplus 

prompted Congress once again to evaluate the tax structure. A surplus created many problems for the federal government. First was the 

obvious dilemma of justifying to voters the continuation of high tariff 

duties and other taxes in a time of budget surplus. Second was the 

problem of how to spend a surplus. During the postwar era, proposals 

for distribution to the state governments resurfaced, but none were 

seriously considered. Instead, Congress preferred to allocate funds 

through generous veterans pension bills and through pork barrel legislation. Finally, a few politicians argued that Congress was obligated 

to make the surplus directly accessible to the public, either through 

the sale of government bonds or through general circulation as currency. Owing to the complex nature of federal banking and the political volatility of the currency question, it was not surprising that the 

House steered away from this option as well. 

Two important sources of federal revenue, the income and inheritance taxes, were scheduled to expire in 1870. As the expiration date 

approached, opposition to the taxes increased. Fearful that Congress 

might renew the income tax, banking and manufacturing groups organized an Anti-Income Tax Association, which lobbied for an immediate repeal. The New York Tribune reflected this growing repeal sentiment in a February 5, 1869, editorial: “The Income Tax is the most 

odious, vexatious, inquisitorial, and unequal of all our taxes.” 45 

Chairman Schenck introduced a bill in May 1870 to reduce some 

internal taxes and to repeal the wartime inheritance tax. The latter 

move met with almost universal support, but the committee’s income 

tax recommendations were more hotly debated. Schenck proposed 

that the tax be lowered by raising the minimum exemption to $1,500 

while retaining the flat 5 percent rate. Several members of Congress 

argued that the income tax could be abolished altogether. One of the 

strongest repeal advocates was Pig-Iron Kelley, who reasoned that the 

revenue lost from the repeal of the income tax would provide an even 

20 1 
Controversy over currency inspired noted cartoonist Thomas 

Nast to pen this drawing. It 

implies congressional softsoaping of issues behind the 

Resumption Act of 1875. The 

leplation stemmed from a 

struggk between inflationists 

who wanted to keep greenbacks 

in circulation and those who 

wanted to place currency on a 

sound specie basis. The 

Resumption Act gave Secretary 

of the TreasutyJohn Sherman, 

former chairman of Ways and 

Means, authority to pay hard 

currency for any greenback 

worth under $50. The public 

preferred greenbacks because 

they were easier to obtain than 

coin. Fears that the redemption 

value of paper currency would 

be less than money backed by 

specie subsided in 1879 afh 

Sherman built up the nation's 

gold reserves and brought the 

greenback to par. 

lowing year, again stressing the necessity of lowering taxes. The bill 

proposed a flat 5 percent rate on incomes over $1,000. The elimination of the progressive taxation principle, it was estimated, would 

reduce government revenue by more than 36 million dollars. Several 

amendments were introduced to restore graduated rates, but none 

succeeded. Garfield perhaps best illustrated the House's changing 

mood. Previously a champion of the Civil War measure, he now 

argued that the progressive income tax was unethical, unsocial, and 

199 

Protectionists and reformers 

squared off on the taniff issue 

during the 1870s and ’80s. 

Democrat Samuel J. Randall 

(top, far le?) and Republican 

William D. Kelley (top, left), 

both of Pennsylvania, spoke out 

for a high taniff: Randall, later 

Speaker of the House, served on 

Ways and Means from I881 

to 1883. Kelley chaired Ways 

and Means during the Fortyseventh Congress. Demomats 

William R. Morrison of Illinois (below, far left) and Roger 

Q. Mills of Texas (below, left) 

championed reduced duties and 

tariff refom. Morrison headed 

Ways and Means in I884 

when the committee presmted 

its jrst important postwar 

tani measure under Dmocratic hahship. The bill, calling for a 20 percent cut in 

rates, failed. Mills succeeded 

Morriron as Ways and Means 

chairman and unsuccessjiully 

worked to move a tanireduction bill through Congress. 

Throughout much ofthis era, 

Rtpublicans controlled the 

House, and their protectionist 

views prevai&d. The cartoon 

portrays their fears of low 

duties and free &a&: Cheap 

foreign goods drive down prices, 

close factories, and put the 

working man out on the street. 

stronger case for the necessity of a high tariff to supply revenue. The 

House nevertheless retained the income tax, though further lowering 

it to a 3 percent rate on incomes above $2,000. 

The tax bill then moved on to the Senate, where it was endorsed 

by the Finance Committee but was stalled on the floor by Roscoe 

Conkling (R-NY) and Charles Sumner (R-MA). Conkling hoped to 

eliminate the income tax completely and managed to persuade the 

Senate to strike out any reference to it in the bill. Eventually, after 

parliamentary manueverings back and forth, the Senate voted 26-25 

to reconsider the vote against the income tax. In the final debate on 

the bill, Senator Sherman made an eloquent appeal for the tax and 

swayed some crucial undecided votes. The tax was salvaged, but in an 

amended version that further reduced the tax rate to 2.5 percent on 

incomes over $2,000. The final version of the bill incorporated this 

provision and also stipulated that the tax would be expressly limited 

to the years 1870 and 1871, “and no longer.” 46 

By 187 1, the nation’s finances were improving so rapidly that the 

income tax lay open to further repeal initiatives. During the third session of the Forty-first Congress (1870-7 l), the antitax forces launched 

yet another campaign, and this time their efforts succeeded. The 

Grant Administration was divided on the income tax. The President’s 

choice for Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Gen. Alfred Pleasonton, recommended repeal in a letter to Samuel Hooper (R-MA), who 

had succeeded Schenck as chairman of the Committee of Ways and 

Means. The Secretary of the Treasury, George S. Boutwell, contradicted Pleasonton in another letter to Hooper, arguing that repeal 

would seriously disrupt the government’s revenue. The chairman and 

the committee recommended the repeal of the income tax on February 7, 1871, but the House refused by a vote of 117-91 to suspend 

the rules to allow for consideration of the bill.47 

The Senate in the meantime had considered its own repeal proposal in the second session of the Forty-first Congress. On July 14, 

1870, the next to last day of the session, the Senate passed a bill to 

repeal the income tax by a vote of 26-25. The House refused to consider the bill, simply returning it to the other body on the grounds 

that under the Constitution revenue measures could not originate in 

the Senate. With no income tax legislation adopted in 1871, the 

income tax was allowed to expire in 1872.4s 

After the expiration of the income tax, the currency once again 

became a hotly contested political issue. The Panic of 1873 and a subsequent depression increased popular agitation for inflationary monetary policies. Viewing the currency issue as a means for partisan gain, 

congressional Democrats also became more unified in their demands 

to stop further contraction of the currency. Faced with a choice between contraction and the resumption of specie payments, the Senate 

Finance Committee presented a measure in 1874 that provided for 

203 
J 

the circulation of an additional 18 million dollars in greenbacks. Soon 

after this bill was enacted, the Republicans lost control of the House 

and maintained a narrow majority in the Senate. In the lame duck session of the Forty-third Congress, the Republicans engineered passage 

of the Resumption Act, which sanctioned the unlimited circulation of 

national bank notes and the gradual reduction of greenbacks to 300 

million dollars. After January 1, 1879, greenbacks worth under $50 

would be redeemable in coin. 

In 1877, President Rutherford B. Hayes appointed John Sherman 

as Secretary of the Treasury. Sherman’s primary task was to prepare 

for the resumption of specie payments. He did so by building up the 

nation’s gold reserves and by selling newly issued Treasury bonds. 

But Hayes and Sherman had to deal with a House of Representatives 

with a 153-140 Democratic majority. In the Forty-fifth Congress, a bill 

to repeal the Resumption Act nearly passed. Opposition to resumption lessened after passage of the Bland-Allison Silver Purchase Act of 

1878. This statute authorized the government to purchase a limited 

quantity of silver for general circulation. On January 2, 1879, resumption by the government of payments for Treasury notes in gold was 

finally achieved. 

204 
“Who Can Ride the Muk?” 

ash Uncle Sam in a cartoon 

from an 1883 issue of Puck 

magazine. The sketch lampoons 

the taniff question, a bucking 

issue that has ihrown both 

Democrats and Republicans. 

The frustration of trying to 

saddk-break the tariff along 

party lines pinches the faces of 

two humorless clowns. Glaringly at oddr, the caricatures 

represent taniff protectionist and 

editor of the Republican New 

York Tribune, Whitelaw 

Reid, and tariff reformer and 

editor of the Democratic Louisville Courier-Journal, Henry 

Watterson. 

The Committee of Ways and Means and the Tariff, 

1870- 1888 

The tariff in the 1870s and ’80s reemerged as the controversial political issue that it had been before the war. The Panic of 1873 and the 

resulting economic depression provided the Democratic Party with the 

opportunity to offer alternatives to the prevailing Republican economic policies. Downward tariff revision, many Democrats argued, would 

both stimulate domestic consumption and encourage other nations to 

lower their tariff barriers. 

The Committee of Ways and Means’ jurisdiction over tariffs was 

complicated not only by partisan politics, but also by the Senate’s 

more aggressive role in the Gilded Age. A sense of greater prestige 

had always been attached to service in the Senate, but not perhaps to 

the degree stated by former chairman Justin Morrill, who spent the 

last 21 years of his life there. “There is no gift, no office to which I 

could be appointed,” Morrill remarked, “that I would accept in preference to a seat in the United States Senate. I consider that the highest honor that could be bestowed on me, and its duties the highest 

function I could perform.” 49 In part because of the Finance Committee’s greater stability--it had only two chairmen for 25 out of the 31 

years between 1867 and 1898-the Senate was more assertive in 

amending revenue bills, even on at least two occasions substituting its 

own bill for the House measure. 

The House had refused to act upon the Senate-drafted version of 

the income tax repeal in 1871. In 1872, the House similarly opposed 

the Senate’s attempt to dictate tariff policy. The Committee of Ways 

and Means, chaired by Dawes, had introduced two bills, one on tariff 

duties generally, and a second repealing duties on tea and coffee. 

Both bills passed the House, but the Senate Finance Committee reported only the latter measure, with its own comprehensive tariff bill 

tacked on in the form of amendments designed to reduce rates by 10 

percent. A bill that had left the House only four lines long, returned 

with 20 pages of amendments. The House erupted in outrage at the 

Senate’s action. Dawes offered a resolution, overwhelmingly adopted, 

that the substitution of a new measure exceeded the Senate’s constitutional authority to amend revenue bills. Incredibly, the House by a 

parliamentary manuever then recommitted its own bill to Dawes’ committee with an amendment incorporating the 10 percent reductions of 

the Senate bill. It was this bill that the House passed and that became 

the Tariff of 1872.50 

The Republicans were able to quiet the demand for tariff revision 

with the meager reductions of the 1872 act, but the Panic of 1873 created the need to increase federal revenues. Dawes, still chairman of 

the Committee of Ways and Means, introduced a bill in February 

1875 to repeal the 10 percent reductions and to increase rates on 

205 
several items. The Senate made no amendments to the House bill, The Committee on Ways and 

and it was signed by the President on March 3, 1875. 

There was no significant tariff legislation from 1875 to 1883 in 

spite of the fact that the Democrats controlled the House for six of 

those eight years. Moreover, the Democratic chairmen, William R. 

Morrison (IL) and Fernando Wood (NY), were both champions of 

downward revision. The Senate, however, remained Republican for 

four of the six years of the Democratic House. The Democrats were 

also far from united behind tariff reform, as several important Eastern 

leaders favored protectionism. 

Morrison’s attempt to reduce rates failed in the Forty-fourth Congress (1875-77), as did Wood’s efforts in the following session. Roger 

Q. Mills (D-TX), who would chair the committee from 1887 to 1889, 

introduced a resolution in the Forty-fifth Congress “that the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to so revise the tariff as to make 

it purely a tariff for revenue, and not for protecting one class of citizens by plundering another.” 51 Although this particular resolution 

failed because of its wording, Wood’s committee prepared a reduction 

of the tariff. The chairman, according to one source, initiated the 

practice of assigning responsibility for preparing tariff bills to a subcommittee composed of the majority party members of the full committee. The bill failed to pass the House, even though Wood defended it as an effort “to resuscitate American commerce.” 52 

The nation’s finances were on a more stable basis by the end of 

the Hayes Administration in 1881. The debt was refunded, the currency question was temporarily resolved through specie resumption, 

and the sluggish economy of the 1870s had been stimulated by an upswing in industrial productivity. As a result, federal surpluses again 

reached embarrassing proportions. These surpluses prompted a campaign for reform in which the tariff resurfaced as the nation’s preeminent political issue. 

The reform element was represented in Congress by Democrats, 

primarily from Southern and Western states, and by the liberal wing 

of the Republican Party. Both protectionists and reformers agreed on 

the need to reduce federal surpluses, but differed over the nature and 

degree of those reductions. Politicians and the public were not the 

only groups interested in the outcome of tariff legislation. Each time a 

revenue measure was to be considered, lobbyists swarmed around the 

Committee of Ways and Means’ room “like flies on a molasses 

barrel.” 53 

The first major tariff battle of the postwar era occurred during 

the Forty-seventh Congress. In 1882, President Chester A. Arthur appointed a Tariff Commission whose duties were “to take into consideration and to thoroughly investigate all of the various questions relating to the agricultural, commercial, mercantile, manufacturing, 

mining, and industrial interests of the United States, so far as the 

Means in session, as illustrated 

in an 2888 Harper’s 

Weekly, conveys the clublike 

atmosphere of committee rooms 

during the Gilded Age. In the 

House, this was an era of 

powerful committee chainna 

who had the ability to bu7y 

kpslation they opposed or to 

expedite measures they favored, 

cawing such panels as Ways 

and Means to earn reputations 

as “leplative cemeteries. ” One 

represatalive, peeved by dilatory tactics, humorously refared 

to Ways and Means as “a gorgeous mausohm.’’ The illustration is of today’s Room 

H- 209, located directly off the 

House Chamber. Among those 

pictured here with Chairman 

Roger Q. Mills, seated at far 

right, are: a future Speaker, 

Thomas B. Reed; a future 

President, William McKinhy, 

standing at center; a future 

chairman, William 1Vilson; 

and a past chairman, William 

Kelley. 

206 
LOZ 
episode, the Senate tacked on its bill in the form of 103 pages of 

amendments to a three-page House bill reducing some internal revenues. In spite of constitutional objections, the House was compelled 

to consider the Senate bill when it could not bring the Committee of 

Ways and Means’ measure to a vote. 

The tariff situation in Congress was further complicated when the 

Republicans lost their House majority in the fall congressional elections. In January 1883, House Democrats tried to block passage of a 

last-minute protectionist measure by initiating a filibuster against the 

Committee of Ways and Means’ bill. At this juncture, Thomas Brackett Reed (R-ME), a member of the Rules Committee, engaged in some 

adroit procedural manuevering. The Senate bill was currently tabled 

in the House. Reed routed the Democrats by securing recognition 

from Speaker Keifer to submit a privileged Rules Committee report 

on the Senate amendments, forcing a majority vote and thereby terminating debate on the House committee’s bill. The minority party had 

to agree to send the pending bill to a conference committee controlled by protectionist members from both Houses of Congress-the 

House delegation was headed by Chairman Kelley. The conference 

committee bill made some minor reductions but remained highly protectionist in its overall provisions. On the last day of the Forty-seventh 

Congress, the President signed the bill, now known as the Mongrel 

Tariff because the effort at tariff reduction ended in a reaffirmation of 

protecti~nism.~ 

The Democratic Party, which was generally more receptive to 

tariff reform, controlled the House between 1883 and 1885. In the 

Forty-eighth Congress, the reform wing of the party, led by John G. 

Carlisle of Kentucky, Morrison, and Mills, elevated Carlisle to the 

speakership. He subsequently appointed Morrison chairman and Mills 

as the second-ranking member of the Committee of Ways and Means, 

with the aim of enacting a complete revision of the existing tariff 

structure. Kelley remained as the ranking minority member on the 

committee. 

In spite of the leadership’s efforts, reformers were unable to 

secure substantive results. Part of the problem lay with a lack of party 

unity on the tarifF. The sectional character of the issue rendered the 

majority leadership’s efforts to enact a reform measure that was agreeable to all Democrats difficult at best. In the Forty-eighth and Fortyninth Congresses, an able antireform Democratic element, led by 

feisty protectionist Samuel J. Randall of Pennsylvania, frustrated several attempts to pass new tariff measures. Ineficient House machinery 

as well as the obstructionist tactics employed by the minority party 

also thwarted the majority’s efforts. Bills were sometimes delayed in 

committee or buried in the House calendar, a device commonly used 

to stall legislation. Representative James A. McKenzie (D-KY), a tariff 

reformer, cleverly summed up the situation when he remarked: 

208 
There are two places of interment in this House in which all 

legislation looking to reform in our revenue and customs 

duties is buried. One is the gorgeous mausoleum of the Ways 

and Means Committee . . . and the other is the Calendar of 

this House. A member introducing a bill here can decide 

whether he prefers to have it buried with that sort of splendid interment which the Ways and Means affords, or that it 

should go to the Calendar, which is the potter’s field of legislation. . . . When an ambitious member drafts a measure 

looking to revenue reform and presents it to the House . . . 

it is no stretch of the imagination to say that he can detect 

the dolorous notes of the “Dead March in Saul” as the Clerk 

sings out, “Ways and Means, and printed.” 56 

In 1884, the Committee of Ways and Means presented its first 

important postwar tariff measure under Democratic leadership. The 

bill was introduced by Chairman Morrison, and provided general reductions of 20 percent. Morrison advocated across-the-board tariff reductions, which earned him the nickname “Horizontal Bill” among his 

colleagues. His measure was opposed by protectionists from both parties who favored maintaining the existing tariff schedules. This bill 

was ultimately defeated in the House by a five-vote margin provided 

by Republicans and the antireform wing of the Democratic Party 

headed by Randall. 57 

209 
After the defeat of the Morrison bill, radical tariff reformers in 

the House demanded that Carlisle remove Randall from his chairmanship, but the Speaker resisted this course of action. Instead, he allowed Morrison to introduce several rules amendments intended to 

deprive Randall of some of his influence as chairman of’ the Committee on Appropriations. The amendments included partial distribution 

of annual appropriations jurisdiction to several committees, a proposal that was subsequently approved.58 Morrison, the loser in the tariff 

fight, had at least obtained some measure of revenge against Randall. 

However, the Pennsylvania congressman still managed to muster 

enough votes to defeat two more tariff measures sponsored by the 

Committee of Ways and Means in the Forty-ninth Congress. 

A Democrat was elected President in 1884 for the first time in 

over a quarter of a century. Grover Cleveland favored an extensive revision of the tariff system, but the House did not pass a reform measure until late in his administration. During the Fiftieth Congress, 

Cleveland surprised the nation by devoting his entire annual message 

to the Treasury surplus and to the pressing need for tariff reform. 

Cleveland called protective tariffs a “vicious, unequitable, and illogical 

source of unnecessary taxation,” and he proposed to dispose of the 

surplus through tariff reduction and the removal of duties on raw materials. These remarks spurred the otherwise “Do Nothing” Congress 

into prompt action. In 1888, the Committee on Ways and Means drew 

up a reform measure under the leadership of Roger Q. Mills, who had 

succeeded Morrison as chairman. Mills continued the practice begun 

by Wood of excluding the minority from any role in drafting tariff legislation. There were even allegations that this particular bill was 

framed in a subterranean chamber of the Capitol with no opportunity 

given to manufacturers to testify. According to Republican protectionists, the Democratic majority allowed free trade pamphleteers and 

Treasury Department clerks to draft the bill. Mills, on the other hand, 

claimed that he outlined most of the bill himself. “I worked for six 

months at home by myself to prepare a bill,” the chairman stated.59 

Only after he had presented it to the committee had he realized the 

need for revisions. Only four House Democrats voted against the 

Mills bill in July, an improvement in party unity over the two preceding Congresses. While the House considered this bill, the Senate 

drafted a staunchly protectionist measure, again reflecting the sentiment of its Republican majority.60 

Congress adjourned before the Senate could consider the House 

bill. When it reconvened later in the year, Cleveland had lost the 

Presidency to Republican Benjamin Harrison. Encouraged by this development, the Senate Finance Committee substituted its own bill for 

the House measure and in this form the “amended” Mills bill, now 

altered beyond recognition, was returned to the House, where it was 

recommitted to the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Mills 

210 
later reported a resolution declaring the Senate’s action unconstitutional. Mills also demanded that the bill be returned to the Senate, 

but these recommendations were never considered by the House. The 

Mills bill subsequently expired without a formal jurisdictional confrontation between the House and the Senate over the proper origin of 

revenue bills. The following Republican-controlled Congress would 

once again reimpose protective rates in the McKinley Tariff of 1890. 

Rules Changes and 

1880- 1890 

the Chairmanship of the Committee, 

During the 1880s the House implemented important rules changes. 

These revisions had the dual effect of strengthening the power of the 

Speaker and eliminating some dilatory practices that had impeded the 

transaction of legislative business. The principal actors in the reform 

process were the Speaker and the majority members of the Rules 

Committee, which, from 1885 to 1891 included the chairmen of the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

Beginning in 1858, the Speaker of the House had been appointed 

a member of the Rules Committee. The postwar proliferation of 

standing committees also increased the Speaker’s power because of 

his continued control over committee assignments. By choosing his 

committee leaders wisely, the Speaker could acquire a group of faithful lieutenants to implement the policies of the majority party. This 

system made sense in principle, but the flow of legislation in practice 

was often interrupted by the obstructionist tactics of the minority. 

In 1885, Speaker Carlisle appointed the chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Appropriations to 

become, with him, the three-man majority of the five-member Rules 

Committee. As a majority member on Rules, the chairman of Ways 

and Means was subsequently involved in the creation of important 

procedural precedents affecting the House as a whole. The Rules 

Committee was also authorized in 1883 to report special orders governing the consideration of other committees’ bills. Special orders allowed the Rules Committee to set the time and method for consideration of a particular bill, but this power was not exploited until after 

Thomas Brackett Reed became Speaker in 1889. 

The most notable example of the involvement in House operations of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means was that 

of Republican William McKinley of Ohio. Along with Speaker Reed 

and Joseph B. Cannon of Illinois, McKinley assisted in mapping out a 

floor strategy in the Fifty-first Congress to eliminate some of the dilatory tactics that had long hindered the House’s ability to enact the 

majority’s legislative agenda. Reed masterminded these initiatives and 

employed his two colleagues on Rules as floor managers. A minority 

211 
member of the Rules Committee could not expect to be consulted. As 

former minority member Benton McMillin (D-TN) recalled: 

The Speaker would send for me and say, “Well, Mac, Joe 

[Cannon] and McKinley and I have decided to perpetrate the 

following outrage, of which we all desire you to have full 

notice.” Whereupon he would read and give me a copy of 

whatever special order had been adopted by the majority of 

the committee. . . . He never tried to catch us napping; but I 

can assure you that the Committee on Rules was never a debating society . . . . 61 

A powerful orator and innovative Speaker of the House, 

Thomas Brackett Reed of 

Maine saved as part of the 

three-man majority of the 

House Rules Committee along 

with the chairmen of Ways and 

Means and Appropriations. in 

the Fiftr-first Congress (1889- 

189 1 ), Reed threw the House 

into turmoil. He arbitrarily replaced the traditional “disappearing quorum” with the 

“counting quorum. ” Reviously, a House member had 

to cast his vote to be considered 

present. A group of obstructionists, therefore, could withhold 

thar ballots and halt progress 

on a bill due to lack of a 

quorum. The Speaker’s bold 

action eliminated this ploy. in 

lican presidentzal nomination to 

William McKinley, the man he 

had started on the road to the 

White House by his appointment to the chairmanship of 

Ways and Means. Reed himself 

served on the committee in five 

Congresses. 

212 
The most important Rules Committee campaign of this Congress 

was launched against the “disappearing quorum,” a tactic traditionally 

used by the minority to obstruct the operations of the House. The 

House could not conduct its business without a quorum-50 percent 

of the membership plus one. Since absenteeism was high in this 

period, members of the minority party could delay House action by 

simply refusing to vote, thereby preventing a quorum. They would 

appear on the House floor when a quorum call was issued, but they 

would not answer-disappear-when the vote on the bill in question 

was taken. 62 

In 1890, Speaker Reed and his lieutenants on the Rules Committee decided to eliminate this obstacle to the majority’s ability to legislate. Their opportunity came on a divided vote in a disputed West 

Virginia election. For three days, Reed, with able floor assistance provided by Cannon and McKinley, upheld the presence of a quorum by 

simply counting as present all members in the chamber, in spite of 

persistent efforts by the Democrats to obtain a point of order against 

the Speaker’s actions. According to one reporter, the House was in a 

state of bedlam with “such disorder that many words of the participants could not be heard and chronicled by even the official stenographers on the floor, much less by those in the press gallery.” 63 Eventually, Reed prevailed and the procedures for counting quorums were 

rewritten in the rules. Such reforms helped the House to operate 

more efficiently, and dramatically increased the power of the Speaker 

and the chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means and the 

Committee on Appropriations in their roles as members of the Rules 

Committee. 

Conclusion 

With its jurisdiction reduced to revenue- and tariff-related areas, the 

Committee of Ways and Means helped to revise the Civil War income 

and inheritance taxes, which were ultimately repealed or allowed to 

expire in the 1870s. The committee’s tariff legislation reflected the 

protectionist leanings of Congress. Democratic-inspired efforts to 

reduce the prevailing high tariff rates failed in the mid-70s and again 

in 1888. Republican protectionists quieted demands for more drastic 

revision in 1872 with a symbolic 10 percent reduction, but the party’s 

Mongrel Tariff of 1883, which continued in effect for the remainder 

of the decade, was strongly protectionist. 

Congress was the dominant branch of the federal government in 

the postwar period. Consequently, the House and the Senate, not the 

President and Congress, were the principal contestants in disputes 

over revenue. The Senate exercised a more active role in creating tax 

213 
policy in the Gilded Age by not only amending House bills, which it 

had often done in the past, but also by originating entirely new 

revenue legislation in the form of amendments to often unrelated 

House revenue bills. While the House opposed this development as a 

violation of its constitutional prerogatives, it did not consistently curb 

Senate revenue initiatives during the 1870s and '80s. The content of 

revenue legislation, especially in the late 1880s, was dictated at times 

more by the Senate Finance Committee than by the Committee of 

Ways and Means. 

Between 1865 and 1890, the House moved haltingly toward improved methods of administration and legislative procedure. Some 

changes, especially the evolution of routine legislative hearings, 

helped the Committee on Ways and Means to operate more efficiently, while rules reforms instituted in the 1880s reinforced the traditional role of the committee's chairman as a party leader. In addition to 

strengthening the ability of the majority party to govern, these procedural revisions spurred opposition from those who feared that concentrating power in the Speaker and the majority leadership would infringe upon the rights of the minority. These concerns increased 

during the 1890s, and set the stage for further reforms in the Progressive Era. 

2 14 
“This is no& n battle over 

percentages, over this or 

that tamffschedule; i& is a 

battle for human 

freedom. ’’ ( M fllzam L. 

Wilson, 1894) 

1890 *1933 

Reform and Revenue 

Between 1890 and 1933, the Committee on Ways and Means was most 

as the most powerful 

he period from 1890 to 1915 was an era in our nation’s history T in which reformers attacked privilege and autocracy. This reform 

impulse was first manifested against the existence of trusts and high 

tariffs in the business community, and later burgeoned into a comprehensive reform movement known as Progressivism. Changes were also 

wrought in Congress when a group of representatives rebelled against 

the Speaker’s rigid control over the legislative process that had existed since the early 1880s. In different ways, both factors enhanced the 

position of the Committee on Ways and Means. The importance of 

tariff reform focused attention upon the committee, and congressional 

reform strengthened its leadership role. 

The congressional revolt against Speaker Joseph Cannon in 1910 

was engineered by a group of Insurgent Republicans and members of 

the Democratic Party. Its most significant result was to bar the Speaker from membership on the important Rules Committee and to divest 

him of the power to appoint that committee’s members. When the 

Democrats gained a majority in 191 1, the party caucus transferred authority over all committee assignments to a Committee on Committees composed of the Democratic members of the Committee on 

215 
d 

As chairman of Ways and 

Meam, Oscar W. Underwood 

of Alabama was one of the 

most powerful members of the 

House. By virtue of hls chairmanship, he also served as 

Democratic majority leader and 

chaired the Democratic 

Committee on Committees, a 

body of fellow Ways and 

Means party members who con3 

trolled committee abbointments. 

I 

Ways and Means and chaired by that committee’s chairman. Because 

the majority floor leader typically chaired the Committee on Ways and 

Means, the control over assignments remained in the party leadership’s hands, not solely in those of the Speaker. Accordingly, the real 

power in the House during the Sixty-second and Sixty-third Congresses (191 1-1915) was Committee on Ways and Means Chairman Oscar 

W. Underwood of Alabama. Although the caucus also adopted a rule 

prohibiting members from serving on more than one of the 14 major 

House committees, Underwood and his Democratic colleagues were 

able to influence the Rules Committee’s composition through a high 

turnover rate of appointments. 

The Republicans created a separate party Committee on Committees to determine House committee assignments in 1917. The party 

caucus dictated that the floor leader could no longer chair a legislative 

committee-in effect severing the connection with the chairmanship of 

the Committee on Ways and Means-and that no committee chairman 

could sit on the Rules Committee. The Democrats soon adopted similar rules, and by the 1920s both parties applied the seniority principle 

with greater regularity. Both parties also designated the Committee 

on Ways and Means (along with the Committee on Appropriations 

and the Rules Committee) as an exclusive committee, whose members 

were prevented from serving on any other committee. These changes 

permitted committee chairs once again to become independent of the 

Speaker’s control, if not quite the baronial masters of independent 

fiefdoms described by Woodrow Wilson in 1885. 

Thus in the Sixty-ie’cond and 

Sixty-third Congresses he governed theflow of all leplation, 

not just revenue bills. In 1913, 

he introduced the Underwood 

Tar@ The refrm bill broke 

52 years of Republican protectionism and provided for the 

first federal income tax levied 

under the newly rattjied 16th 

Amendment. 

216 
The Committee and the House, 1890-1930 

The process of modernization begun in the post-Civil War Congress 

accelerated between 1890 and 1930. The history of the House of Representatives was characterized in these four decades by three important developments: 1) the evolution of a formal leadership structure, 

2) the decline of the Speaker’s discretionary power to make standing 

committee appointments, and 3) the gradual emergence of seniority 

as the sole criteria guiding standing committee appointments. These 

developments shifted the focus of power and influence from the 

Speaker, who had emerged in the post-Civil War Congresses as the 

dominant figure in the House, to the party leadership. In 1910, the 

role of the Committee on Ways and Means as an instrument of party 

leadership was bolstered by reforms in existing procedures for committee assignments. Subsequently, the chairman of the Committee on 

Ways and Means would become a key player in the House’s leadership structure by virtue not only of his continuing role as floor leader, 

but also because of his new role in the committee selection process. 

The political and legislative influence of the chairman of the 

Committee on Ways and Means was institutionalized during the chairmanship of Oscar W. Underwood (191 1-1915). The Alabama Democrat not only chaired the committee, but he also served simultaneously as majority leader and chairman of the Democratic Committee on 

Committees. Underwood used these three roles to influence all legislation, not just revenue bills. 

Underwood was confirmed as chairman of the committee on 

Ways and Means by the party caucus in January 191 1. When asked by 

a reporter if he thought his position was more important than Speaker 

Champ Clark’s, he succinctly replied, “It is.” As chairman of the 

party’s Committee on Committees, he assigned committee posts with 

diplomacy and tact. He kept a large map on the wall of his office 

marked with the congressional districts in order to maintain some sectional balance in his selections, although he most often chose chairmen on the basis of seniority. Underwood also opposed the interference of the party’s titular leader, three-time presidential candidate 

William Jennings Bryan. Representative Ollie James (D-KY), a friend 

of Bryan’s, suggested that the Nebraska orator and former member of 

the Committee on Ways and Means be allowed to sit in on the committee’s organizational meetings, but Underwood succeeded in defeating the resolution. 

Underwood proved to be an aggressive majority leader. Although 

he was not a member of the Rules Committee, the chairman of the 

Committee on Ways and Means was able to influence the other committee’s composition through his power over assignments. Moreover, 

Underwood remained on good terms with the Rules Committee’s 

chairman, Robert L. Henry (D-TX). As floor leader, Underwood also 

217 
used the Rules Committee in tandem with the party caucus to schedule the legislative agenda of the majority party. In fact, the party 

caucus was the real key to Underwood’s power. No Democratic-controlled committee could report a bill without caucus approval. The 

Alabama congressman encouraged spirited debate in caucus and a 

united front once a decision had been reached by a two-thirds majority. Furthermore, all Democrats were pledged to support bills from his 

Committee on Ways and Means. Although the party caucus did not 

always follow Underwood’s lead, it did often enough that complaints 

of Cannonism were replaced with references to Underwoodism. Subsequent chairmen lacked the influence of Underwood. In the 1920s, 

party caucus rules prohibited the chairman of the Committee on Ways 

and Means from also serving as House majority leader. Democratic 

chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means continued to chair 

their party’s Committee on Committees, but they had to share leadership with the majority leader and the Speaker. 

The Committee on Ways and Means assumed much of its modern 

shape and function during this period. At the beginning of the Fiftysecond Congress (1891-1893) the committee consisted of 15 members, ten from the majority party and five from the minority. As the 

technical complexity of issues increased and as the overall size of the 

House grew from 325 in 1890 to 435 in 1930, the committee slowly 

expanded in size. Nineteen members (1 2 majority, seven minority) 

were appointed to the committee for the Sixtieth Congress (1907- 

1909). The committee was expanded to 25 members in the Sixty-sixth 

Congress (1919-1921). The committee remained at this number until 

it was increased to 37 members in the Ninety-fourth Congress (1975- 

1977). During the 1920s, the 25 members were normally divided into 

15 from the majority and ten from the minority, except for the Sixtyseventh Congress, when the split was 17-8.3 

The selection of chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means 

increasingly corresponded to the seniority principle in this period, 

whereby the majority member with the longest consecutive service on 

the committee was named chairman. Seniority governed virtually 

three-quarters of all chair appointments by the turn of the century, 

and by the 1920s it was dictating practically all appointments to 

House standing committees. At the beginning of this period, the 

runner-up in the party caucus for the speakership was named floor 

leader and chair of the Committee on Ways and Means. Two exceptions were the selections of William Springer (D-IL) in 1891 and 

Claude Kitchin (D-NC) in 1915. Speaker Charles F. Crisp bypassed his 

rival in the caucus, and the former chairman of the committee, Roger 

Q. Mills, to name Springer, who was more sympathetic to the Speaker’s policies, and who had bartered his support for Crisp in return for 

the chairmanship. Such a departure from seniority was not uncommon 

in 1891, but it was much more unusual in 1915 when Speaker Champ 

218 
Nelson Dingley, Jr. (R-ME) 

Sereno E. Payne (R-NY) 

Fifty-fourth-Fifty-fifth Congresses, 

1895- 1899 

William R. Green (R-IA) 

Congresses, 1923-1928 

Seventy-first Congress, 1929-1931 

the third session of the ongrem. Payne served ou 

of the Seventieth Congress. Hawley s 

Clark bypassed ranking member Dorsey Shackleford to choose Kitchin, who was considered more fit for the post of majority leader that 

accompanied the chairmanship of Ways and Means. 

Seniority was a sign of the maturation of the House as an institution. As congressional service came to be seen as an end in itself-a 

career-congressmen came to expect rewards and promotions on the 

basis of prior service. In part, seniority also came to be the rule in the 

selection of chairmen, because demonstrated interest and ability in 

the subject area increasingly became the key criteria governing the appointment of rank and file members, whether nominated by the 

Speaker or chosen by the Committee on Committees of either party. 

This was perhaps more true of the Committee on Ways and Means 

than other committees. Years of service were needed to gain mastery 

over the technical details of tariff and revenue issues. The men chosen 

to chair this committee from 1890 to 1930 were often characterized as 

2 19 
experts in the field. Dingley, Payne, Underwood, and Fordney were 

particularly noted for their command of detailed statistical material. 

Since the committee’s primary jurisdiction remained tariff and revenue issues following the creation of the Committee on Appropriations 

in 1865, this knowledge of complex revenue data provided the chairmen with distinct advantages in leading committee deliberations on its 

bills and their subsequent consideration by the House. 

The criteria for rank and file appointments to the Committee on 

Ways and Means remained the same, whether the choices were made 

by the Speaker (before 1911) or by the Committee on Committees of 

each party. Those who had served an apprenticeship in Congress, performed other assigned committee tasks with diligence, and who were 

sound on party policy tended to be favored. Prior congressional service became a far more important criterion in this period. Before the 

Civil War, the appointment of first-term members had not been uncommon. Forty-six freshmen members were appointed between 1820 

and 1865 alone, and ten between 1865 and 1900. None were named 

between 1900 and 1920, however, and only two freshmen-one a replacement member-were named in the 1920s. The fact that the overwhelming number of new members were in their second, third, or 

fourth term meant that appointments were reserved for those who 

had demonstrated legislative competence and party loyalty. 

Seniority also provided a remarkable degree of continuity to the 

committee’s membership. In the 1870s, for examplc, slightly less than 

half (49.6 percent) of the members of the Committee on Ways and 

Means carried over from one Congress to the next. In the 1880s, this 

figure only rose to slightly over half (55.5 percent). Yet, from 1890 

through 1930, the percentage of continuity never dropped below 65 

percent, and reached a high of 87.6 percent for the 1920s. This increased stability was even more significant in view of the fact that 

party control of the committee changed hands five times in this 

peri~d.~ 

The increasing stability of membership as well as the expanded 

size of the committee made it possible to divide the workload and to 

provide for specialization of function. Subcommittees were perhaps 

the most notable sign of increasing specialization within the committee. Although no evidence suggests the existence of a permanent subcommittee system in this period, the committee continued and expanded upon the previous practice of utilizing select subcommittees. 

On August 30, 1893, for example, the committee adopted a resolution 

stating that it was authorized to “conduct any inquiries relating to the 

subjects under its jurisdiction, by sub-committees or otherwise, that it 

might deem necessary.” The resolution specifically addressed subcommittees for the task of tariff revision, since the previous week the committee had authorized Chairman William Wilson (D-WV) to appoint 

“the usual subcommittees.” 

220 
Turn-of-the-century swivel 

chairs denote the 17 members 

who once pulled up to this table 

in the Ways and Means 

Committee Room, as it looked 

around 1905. The chamber, 

now designated H209, stand 

on the principal floor of the 

House wing in the Capitol. 

From 1870 to 1908, the room 

smed as the office of the Ways 

and Means chainnan. Members 

of the committee would retire to 

this sanctuaq to &liberate 

away from the commotion of 

public crowds in the hallways 

of the Capitol. Floral medallions and classical motifs embellish panels in each comw of the 

room; lavish shields, emblems, 

cornucopia, and 0th decorative designs adorn th ceilangs. 

Today, H209 and th adjoining room are used by th 

Speaker of the Home. 

On August 29, the chairman had announced the lists for subcommittees on customs, internal revenue, administration of customs laws, 

the public debt, and reciprocity and commercial treaties-which, by 

that time, evidently were the usual subcommittees. Each panel consisted of five members, three Democrats and two Republicans. When the 

committee actually drafted controversial legislation, such as tariffs, the 

majority party members often met as a caucus. Chairman Wilson, for 

example, called the entire committee together on November 27, 1893, 

to announce, according to the committee minutes, “the placing of the 

tariff bill, just completed by the majority, before the minority.” The 

growth of specialization was indicated in 1913 when the Committee 

on Ways and Means divided into 17 subcommittees to draft the schedules of the Underwood tariff bill. 

The practice of holding hearings to solicit information on revenue and other topics also expanded during this period. Chairman 

McKinley in 1890 and Chairman Wilson in 1893 made quite an issue 

out of holding open public hearings to avoid the criticism caused by 

22 1 
the closed hearings held for the Mills bill in 1888. These public hearings were mainly exercises in public relations; Wilson actually held 

secret sessions to draft his tariff bill. If hearings became routine, they 

were dispensed with in times of emergency. Chairman Kitchin, for example, held no hearings to draft the Revenue Act of 1917, citing the 

emergency of the war. 

Though members might complain that hearings were simply the 

“usual rubbish,” they did fulfill two necessary goals. Hearings offered 

groups affected by revenue bills the opportunity to state their cases, 

and the hearings also helped to provide the committee with needed 

information, though in many instances it was more information than 

any committee could digest. The Progressive Era’s emphasis upon rational and scientific planning contributed to the usefulness of the data 

supplied through the hearings. The expert advice of Treasury Department oficials, the staff of the Tariff Commission, and scholars in the 

fields of economics and political economy provided a solid base of information. 

By 1930, tariff hearings procedure had settled into a routine pattern, as exemplified by those held between January 7, 1929, and February 27, 1929. The committee, chaired by Willis C. Hawley (R-OR), 

organized and conducted the hearings on a schedule-by-schedule 

basis. On December 5, 1928, the committee gave public notice of its 

intention to hold hearings on the tariff. The public notice specified 

the time and place of the hearings and informed interested parties of 

the procedure to be followed in applying to testify, as well as the prescribed form in filing briefs. The committee made no effort to circulate the notice among those who might be affected by tariff revision, 

nor did it attempt to screen the applicants. As a result, more than 

1,100 persons sought a hearing before the Committee on Ways and 

Means, creating over 11,000 pages of testimony and briefs taken in 43 

days and five nights.6 

The chairman and the members expedited the hearings by proceeding methodically, paragraph by paragraph, through the schedules, 

and by minimizing irrelevant questions and answers. Chairman 

Hawley interrupted questioners and witnesses alike to remind them to 

keep to the point. “I do not think we can go into a discussion of tariff 

principles at this time,” he observed. “We have 288 witncsscs [yet to 

hear].” ’ The chairman indeed made frequent computations of the 

number of witnesses to speed up the proceedings. “We have spent an 

hour and a half on eight witnesses,” Hawley observed on one occasion. “We have 19 more to hear. At this rate we will not get through 

until midnight.” When his patience wore thin, he was more direct: 

“Hurry it up, and get right down to the point. Do not drift about. 

What is it?” * In spite of Hawley’s efforts and the rule of relevancy, 

the hearings took whatever direction the witnesses wished. Questions 

were gentle, more like bargaining between equals, and little effort was 

222 
In 191 4, the passage of the 

Harrison Narcotic Drug Act required importers, manufacturers, and akalers in narcotic 

drugs to jill out this Internal 

Revenue form before they could 

order, sell, or transfer their 

merchandise. The leplation 

evolved from the alarm sounded 

by scientists and physicians who 

saw a link between the easy 

flow of unregulated opium and 

cocaine and the rising crime 

waue in America. Ways and 

Means held hearings on the 

drug issue, since the proposed 

legislation to outlaw 

nonmedical use of opium and 

its den'uatiues contained a reuenue provision. Chairman 

Unhood later uoiced his 

regret for supporting the measure. Once the Harrison Act labeled drugs criminal, he 

claimed, the outlawed substances became major items of 

commerce for the undmorld. 

SERIES 

made at uniformity. Finally, the committee urged witnesses to file 

briefs in lieu of oral testimony. Many witnesses feared that their briefs 

would not be read and insisted upon a hearing. 

As a result of the need to expedite the proceedings, an average of 

one witness was heard every 12 minutes, with 48 pages of testimony 

taken every hour. The committee's clerk and two assistants accorded 

some organizational help, as did experts from the Tariff Commission, 

but the committee was handicapped by the haste with which the hearings had to be administered. The Tariff Commission assigned its ex223 
perts to assist the committee’s members with the technical language 

of tariff legislation and jurisprudence, as well as to help analyze the 

statistical information the commission had collected. This expert 

advice helped, but it is understandable that one contemporary student 

of congressional procedure concluded that the hearings demonstrated 

that Congress had become “a great, sluggish court of review,” overwhelmed by “the mass of microscopic material which it is powerless to 

survey.” The primary function performed by hearings was political. 

They allowed a semblance of access to concerned individuals and 

groups. Hearings also afforded publicity to controversial topics. 

Through its revenue jurisdiction and hearings procedure, the 

committee became involved in two particularly controversial social 

issues in this period-the legislative movements to regulate the narcotics trade through taxation and to remove tariff restrictions on the 

importation of birth control devices. The movement to control narcotics was one of many efforts to purify American society in the Progressive Era. Opium, the most prevalent narcotic drug before the turn of 

the century, was easily available as a pain reliever and relaxant. Only 

after heroin and cocaine became more widely used in the early 1900s 

did the identification of drug use with criminality and sexual deviancy 

develop. In 1910, David Foster (R-VT), chairman of the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs, introduced three measures to eliminate the nonmedical use of narcotics. Together, the bills amended previous legislation prohibiting the importation and use of opium and other narcotics 

for nonmedical use by imposing taxes and new regulations on their 

manufacture and distribution. Because the bills were revenue measures, they were referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. The 

committee held hearings at which Dr. Hamilton Wright, the leading 

opponent of the international drug trade, linked drugs with crime and 

sex. lo Although the Foster measure died, the Democratic Sixty-third 

Congress passed an antidrug bill in 1914. The Wilson Administration 

and Majority Leader Underwood supported passage of the Harrison 

Anti-Narcotics Act to regulate the sale of opium. All persons engaged 

in the importation, manufacture, or sale of narcotics were required to 

register and to pay an occupational tax as well as a commodity tax on 

drugs imported or manufactured in the United States. 

Although Underwood supported the Harrison Act, he later regretted having forced the drug market into the criminal underworld. 

One dealer, he observed, could hide thousands of dollars worth of 

drugs under his coat to sell to children on the street.” The alarming 

criminal trade in narcotics prompted the committee to take action 

again in 1922. The federal grand jury of Seattle, Washington, warned 

the committee that “immediate action” was necessary “to suppress a 

rapidly growing evil that would quickly undermine the manhood and 

womanhood of America.” The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

likewise asked for the committee’s help, since the state was unable to 

224 
I CONGRESS PRESIDEN? 

Fi ftv-fourth 
curb the drug trade “without further assistance from the Federal Government.” l3 The resulting Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of 

1922 authorized the Commissioner on Narcotics to determine the legitimate levels of imports needed for medical and scientific purposes, 

and prohibited all other imports, especially of opium that could be 

used for smoking or for the manufacture of heroin. Tougher Treasury 

Department regulations, however, provided greater controls on illegal 

drug trafficking. l4 

Although all legislative efforts to legalize the distribution of birth 

control information and devices failed during this period, the hearings 

given to the subject provided a national forum for a controversial 

issue. Margaret Sanger, the President of the American Birth Control 

League, attempted to attract congressional support in the early 1930s 

for the repeal of the federal Comstock Law, which prohibited the 

mailing, interstate transportation, and importation of contraceptive 

materials and information. Sanger’s efforts, however, were handicapped by her political inexperience and her self-righteous faith in the 

cause. The first congressional sponsor of birth control legislation was 

Senator Frederick H. Gillett (R-MA), who in 1930 was completing his 

first term in the Senate. Although he had served with distinction for 

16 terms in the House, including three as Speaker, he was a lameduck Senator without power or influence. 

In the Democratic Seventy-second Congress, the bill was sponsored in the House by a second-term member, Franklin H. Hancock 

(D-NC), who provided little support when he commented that he had 

no definite opinion on its merits. Since the bill was written as an 

amendment to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 to permit the importation of birth control devices and information, the measure was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, where Congressman 

John W. McCormack (D-MA) prevailed upon the committee not to 

hold hearings. Sanger’s outraged followers inundated the committee 

with appeals to grant them a hearing.15 The letters came from 

sources as widely varied as two poor black women in Pennsylvania and 

historian Will Durant, who informed the committee that the current 

laws “decree that America shall be peopled hereafter almost exclusively by those families that are lacking in prudence, and that have 

neither the ability nor the means to transmit our cultural heritage.” 

Many of the letters questioned the opposition of McCormack and the 

Catholic Church on religious grounds. Adele A. S. Brown, a New 

York City social worker, wrote, “. . . being a perfectly good Presbyterian, I object to the damn Catholic opponents being able to get their 

way. . . . Yet, they, the Catholics, are the people bringing the high 

number of undesirable citizens into the United States.” I6 

When the committee bowed to public pressure and held hearings 

on the Hancock bill in 1932, the testimony was notable only for 

McCormack’s clashes with witnesses he found hostile to the Catholic 

226 
Church. The bill died in committee, as did a similar measure in the 

Senate. Federal restrictions on birth control were not officially eased 

until after a Supreme Court decision in 1936 removed the final obstacles to the dissemination of contraceptive information and devices 

through physicians. l7 

For its many duties connected with hearings, the committee’s staff 

remained small-a clerk and two assistants. The staff arranged hearings, processed applications, transcribed testimony, and filed briefs 

and relevant correspondence. The staff also maintained a library for 

the members consisting of a complete set of the Congressional Globe and 

Congressional Record, as well as U.S. Statutes at Large and other books 

pertinent to the committee’s work. One retiring clerk, Kuter W. 

Springer, reported to the committee in 1893 that he had found the 

library in a sad state due to “the borrowing of books and failure to 

return them.” He had replaced missing volumes at his own expense 

and had filled in the remainder of the shelves with “dummy” books 

turned upside down “to prevent confusion.” Like all good librarians, 

he had stamped the books on both covers and inside and out with the 

committee’s imprint. The clerk had also collected some 1,200 to 1,500 

items from the previous summer’s Columbian World’s Exposition in 

Chicago to assist the committee in its tariff considerations. The committee accepted the clerk’s final report and tendered its appreciation 

“for his care of and interest in the work of the committee.” l8 

The committee was more open to executive branch policy initiatives in this period than it had been during the post-Civil War period 

of congressional government. The Wilson bill in 1894 reflected President Grover Cleveland’s initiative in tariff reform. President McKinley 

likewise called a special session of Congress to revise the tariff in 

1897, and restored presidential leadership in the process. President 

Woodrow Wilson, who viewed himself as the leader of his party in 

Congress, directly influenced the Underwood Tariff and the War Revenue Acts. The Committee on Ways and Means maintained legislative 

autonomy by rejecting executive recommendations on several occasions. The committee refused to include Taft’s request for a corporate 

income tax provision in the Payne tariff bill, and Kitchin raised the 

rates of the excess profits tax requested by Wilson. In the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon provided the policy initiatives, 

but the committee exceeded even his requests for tax reduction. 

This period also brought some semblance of order to the committee’s relationship with the Senate, but one that was not particularly 

welcome to supporters of the House’s prerogative to originate revenue bills. The late- 19th-century dominance of the Senate continued 

well inro the 20th century, which can be seen in the fate of the committee’s tariff bills. The Senate Finance Committee freely used the 

amending process to alter House bills beyond recognition. As examples, 496 amendments were made to the McKinley bill, 634 to the 

227 
822 
A beleaguered Uncle Sam battles the tentacles of trusts and 

big business that stem fiom the 

body of protectionist tanr polities in force since the Civil 

War. This cartoon appearing 

in Puck magazine underscores 

the complex taniff issues that 

confronted Ways and Means 

fiom the McKinley Tanfof 

1890 to the Smoot-Hawley 

Taniff of 1930. During this 

period, progressives of both parties vainly attacked protectioniim (with the single exception oj 

the Underwood Taniffin 

1913). They argued that high 

duties benefited such trusts as 

copper, oil, steel, and rubber at 

the expense of the consumer. 

Revenue Policy, 1890- 1930 

The 19th-century American economy was characterized by boom-andbust cycles. Eras of prosperity were periodically interrupted by panics 

and depressions-in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, and 1893. The Republican Party traditionally argued that high protective tariffs were necessary for continued prosperity. High tariffs, they reasoned, protected 

American labor from cheaper foreign competition and also kept farm 

prices high to benefit agriculture. The party’s protectionist policy 

during the Civil War sanctified and legitimized high tariffs. The party 

responded to opposition by altering specific methods and by tinkering 

with rates on various commodities, but it never abandoned the principle of protectionism. 

The Democratic Party in the late 19th century developed a freetrade philosophy associated with President Cleveland and chairmen of 

thc Committee on Ways and Means, Roger Q. Mills, William Morrison, and William L. Wilson, They argued that a lowered tariff, along 

with the free coinage of silver and the issuance of greenbacks, would 

eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles. Their tariff policy, while not 

strictly free trade, envisioned a tariff rate low enough to provide both 

revenue and mild protection to American business. The Democratic 

Party also contained a group of high-tariff leaders, such as Samuel J. 

Randall of Pennsylvania and Arthur Pue Gorman of Maryland, who 

frustrated the tariff reform efforts of the 1880s and 1890s. By the turn 

of the century, no real reform effort in Congress had succeeded. Economic historians have found no evidence to suggest that high or low 

rates had a great impact upon economic conditions. The tariff debate 

was more “an exercise in political rhetoric and partisan faith” than 

anything else.* 

With the return of prosperity, the tariff debate focused upon who 

profited most from protectionism. Progressives of both parties argued 

that high tariffs benefited the trusts and big business more than consumers. The tariff, they argued, was a regressive tax upon basic commodities that took proportionately more from those least able to pay. 

Reformers within each party called for tariff reform, though they used 

different terminology and methods. Republicans recommended that 

customs duties equalize the differences between the cost of production at home versus overseas costs so that domestic and foreign goods 

could compete on an equal basis. The competitive tariff advocated by 

Democratic reformers was essentially the same concept in different 

rhetorical garb. The Republican effort at tariff reform, the Payne-Aldrich Act of 1907, was blocked by traditional protectionist Republicans in the Senate. 

The Payne-Aldrich Act did contain a provision calling for an 

income tax. Since the tariff provided most of the federal revenue, no 

real reduction was possible without an alternative source of funds. 

229 
The Democratic reform effort, in the form of the Underwood Tariff of 

1913, accomplished a major reduction in customs duties and the institution of a tax on personal and corporate income. 

Republican majorities in the 1920s returned to the protectionist 

principle with the Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley Tariffs. The 

tariff controversy in this decade centered on the issue of reciprocity 

initially raised in the McKinley Tariff of 1890. Republican isolationists 

in the 1920s were unwilling to acknowledge the effects of tariff policy 

on international trade. Rather, they constructed a high tariff barrier 

around the United States in an effort to insulate the nation from 

international economic conditions. 

The tariff had become an ever more time-consuming and technical issue by the end of the 1920s. As the number of items covered by 

import duties multiplied, the amount of legislative work mushroomed. 

For example, the Tariff of 1816, the first protective tariff, had only 

covered four-and-a-half pages in the statute book. The Morrill Tariff 

of 1861 had increased to 20 pages, but even it was dwarfed by the 

expansion between 1890 and 1930. The McKinley Tariff of 1890 consisted of 50 pages; the Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909 covered 100 

pages; and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 was over 190 pages long. 

The sheer volume of tariff legislation became a major impetus for the 

adoption of the reciprocity principle, whereby tariff rates would be de- 

"The foremost champion of 

protection" is William AlcKinley reported the press in 1894. 

TI1e congenial Republican replaced fellow Ohioan James 

Garfield on Ways and Means 

in 1880. Nine years later, 

losing a race for the Speaker's 

job. he took over Ilkys and 

Aleans and authored a new 

tarlff bill. The McKinley Tarafl 

of I890 inaugurated the highest protectionist rates iir history 

to that time. It also included 

.4meiica 's fiwt tarafl reciprocity 

proikion. Voters upset over the 

high tarafl turned h4cKinley out 

of Congress. After sewing as 

governor of Ohio, McKinley 

was bl-ought back to nalional 

office in 1897 as the 251h 

President. 

230 
termined through agreements negotiated by the executive branch. 

Secretary of State James G. Blaine had first suggested reciprocity in 

the 1880s, and a few experiments were subsequently made with American possessions such as Hawaii and the Philippines as well as with 

Latin American countries, but reciprocity did not fully succeed until it 

was adopted during the New Deal in the 1930s. 

The Committee on Ways and Means and the McKinley 

Tariff of 1890 

When William McKinley (R-OH) was named chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means by Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed on December 9, 1889, the future 25th President of the United States had already developed a reputation as a strong protectionist. During debate 

in the previous Congress on the Mills bill, McKinley had argued that a 

protective tariff was a righteous patriotic duty. “Let England take care 

of herself,” he declared, “. . . but in God’s name let Americans look 

after America.” 22 The chairman’s popularity and political influence 

were evident when he lost the party caucus contest for the speakership by a single vote to Reed. The brilliant and sarcastic new Speaker 

then rewarded his colleague with a seat on the important Rules Committee, as well as the chairmanship of the prestigious Committee on 

Ways and Means. Included among the Republican majority of the 13- 

member committee were future chairmen Nelson Dingley of Maine 

and Sereno E. Payne of New York. Democratic members were led by 

the able John G. Carlisle of Kentucky, former Chairman Roger Q. 

Mills, and Benton McMillin of Tennessee. 

President Benjamin Harrison’s first annual message to Congress 

in December 1889 recommended tariff revision, but once again the 

real impetus came from Congress. The process of creating the McKinley Tariff followed the familiar pattern of tariff legislation in the late 

19th century. Originating in the Committee on Ways and Means, the 

bill was substantially altered by the Senate Finance Committee before 

a conference committee resolved differences between the two versions. Though known as the McKinley Tariff, the final bill was quite 

different from the one recommended by the Ohio congressman. 

The McKinley committee’s first venture into tariff revision in 

1890 came with the drafting of a bill to reform customs administration. The bill, signed into law on June 10, 1890, created a Board of 

General Appraisers to determine a more uniform valuation of goods 

at different ports. One principal object of the law was to create a 

means to protect the government from having to refund large sums 

declared to have been collected illegally. 

The commit tee held extensive public hearings on tariff revision. 

McKinley and his fellow Republicans had criticized the previous 

23 1 
Democratic committee chaired by Mills for holding secret tariff hearings in the Fiftieth Congress, and they were anxious to avoid similar 

complaints. They were of course unsuccessful, but one Democratic 

member of the committee did admit that “I do not know of a single 

manufacturer or laborer who desired to be heard that has not been 

accorded a full and free hearing.” 24 The chairman reported the committee’s bill on April 16, 1890. It passed the House on May 21 by a 

vote along party lines of 164-142. The Senate, whose Finance Committee was chaired by the powerful Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode 

Island, added 496 amendments to the McKinley bill; the House accepted 272, and the two bodies compromised on 173.25 The Senate 

amendments were largely of a technical nature, raising many of the 

rates proposed by the House bill, but with the exception of a reciprocity provision, the Senate did not fundamentally alter the protectionist nature of the bill as prepared by the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

The Tariff of 1890 included a number of new features. It was the 

first tariff to include a complete schedule of protective duties upon 

agricultural products. The purpose of these duties was purely a political ploy by the Republican Party to undercut the argument that manufacturers were protected from foreign competition at the expense of 

farmers. As Democratic opponents of the bill pointed out, it was 

absurd to levy duties to protect American agriculture from nonexistent foreign competition. 

Affabk but uninspiring, Democrat William M. Springer of 

Illinois gained the chairmanship of Ways and Means in 

1891 as a prize for helping 

House member Charles F. Crisp 

win the election for Speaker. 

Springer pushed through several minor tariff revisions 

during the Fzfty-seventh Congress, but overall, his preoccupation with parliamentary 

rules and procedures of debate 

rather than with the issues irritated many of his colkaps on 

both sides of the aisle. 

232 
Campaign poster touts William 

Jennings Bryan and his pqhlist views during the 1900 

presidential campaign. A 

commanding orator from Nebraska who spoke for the 

common people against the 

power of wealth, he ran unsuccessfully for President three 

times on the Democratic ticket 

(1896, 1900, 1908). The 

postm recalls his famous words 

from the 1896 race. Favoring 

the unlanaited coinage of silver, 

Bryan exhorted the proponents 

of gold: “You shall not press 

down upon the brow of labor 

th2J crown of thorn, you shall 

not crucifi mankind upon a 

cross of gold. ” As a Ways and 

Means member, Bryan drafted 

an income tax provision for a 

rt$onn tan$ The proposed tax 

would have replaced the revenue lost by lowering duties and 

shzfied the burden of hies 

from the working people to the 

wealthy. A Republican Senah 

altered most of Bryan’s tariff 

refom but kept his income tax 

provisions. The amended bill 

became law as the WihonGorman Taniffof 1894. 

LThe repeal of the duty on sugar was also a bid for popular support for the tariff. Under the existing sugar duty, some 55 million dollars had been collected in the fiscal year 1888-1889, nearly one-quarter of total customs receipts. By repealing the sugar duty, the committee removed what was in effect a tax upon a commodity that formed a 

considerable part of the household budget. Curiously, McKinley did 

not capitalize upon this as a tax-relief measure, perhaps because the 

committee had added to it a provision €or a bounty to be paid to domestic sugar producers. As the chairman tried to explain, “the Com233 
mittee on Ways and Means . . . wishing on the one hand to give the 

people free and cheap sugar, and desiring on the other hand to do no 

harm to this great industry in our midst, have recommended an entire 

abolition of all duties upon sugar, and then . . . turn about and give 

to this industry two cents upon every pound of sugar produced in the 

United States.” 26 Not surprisingly, the stock of the American Sugar 

Refining Company tripled in the next three years. 

The Senate inserted a reciprocity provision at the suggestion of 

Secretary of State James G. Blaine. This provision permitted the executive to negotiate reciprocal tariff reductions, primarily with Latin 

American countries. The main feature of the tariff, initiated by the 

Committee on Ways and Means and confirmed and extended by the 

Senate, was its endorsement of protectionism. The tariff raised the average rate to 50 percent, and increased duties on items including 

wool and woolen goods. Opponents of the tariff argued that it would 

raise prices to consumers for everything from pearl buttons to cigars. 

Popular indignation over the increased rates was reflected at the polls. 

McKinley was defeated for reelection and less than 90 of the 332 congressmen elected to the Fifty-second Congress were republican^.^' 

The Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894 

Scholarly foe of high tan& 

William Wilson of West Virgnia became chairman of Ways 

and Means in 1893. Leading 

the battle for tanflreform, 

Wilson &livered an inspired 

free-&a& speech on the House 

floor in 1894. His logzc held a 

ja&d audience enthralled and 

won riotous applause. William 

Jennings Bryan and other 

supporters hoisted Wilson to 

their shoulhs in triumph. The 

protectionist Senate, however, 

mutilated the so-called Wilson 

bill and passed its amended 

version, the Wilson-Gorman 

Tans Broken in spirit, Wilson 

kft Congress afler one tam ar 

chairman. (He smed in the 

House from 1883 to 1895.) 

Democratic hopes for tariff reform in the Fifty-second Congress were 

frustrated. Although they possessed an overwhelming 235-88 advan234 
tage in the House, the Senate remained in Republican control, 47-39. 

Moreover, the new Democratic Speaker, Charles F. Crisp of Georgia, 

only gave lip service to tariff reform. He bypassed his runner-up in 

the party caucus and the former chairman of the Committee on Ways 

and Means Roger Q. Mills to name the affable but uninspiring William M. Springer of Illinois to chair the committee. Springer had 

thrown his support to Crisp in the speakership contest in return for 

the chairmanship of the committee and the appointment to the committee of his protkge, freshman member William Jennings Bryan of 

Nebraska.28 

Two weeks before he was appointed chairman in December of 

1891, Springer outlined his tariff strategy in an interview. Rather than 

draft a comprehensive reform bill such as the Mills bill, Democrats 

should concentrate upon separate bills framed to address specific 

weaknesses in the McKinley Tariff. A general bill, Springer believed, 

would be rejected by the Senate. Separate bills would probe the defenses of the protectionists without causing a general alarm. Springer 

argued that his strategy offered Democrats the best hopes of success 

in the 1892 elections. Springer and Crisp, historians have suggested, 

advocated this approach to tariff reform to block the hopes of reform 

Democrats who favored Grover Cleveland for the party’s presidential 

nomination. 

Springer’s method, ridiculed by his opponents as a “pop-gun’’ 

approach, produced no substantive changes in the tariff. The Springer 

wool bill to reduce duties on wool and woolen goods, derisively 

known as the “Cheap Clothes Bill,” and other measures including a 

duty-free iron ore bill were debated and passed by the House only to 

meet their expected demise in the Senate. The Springer committee 

discussed, but failed to report, a bill introduced by John Andrew (DMA) to place coal as well as iron ore on the duty-free list and to 

reduce duties on scrap iron, scrap steel, and pig iron. 

The 1892 elections were a smashing Democratic success. Cleveland was elected President, the House remained safely Democratic 

with a 218-127 majority, and the Senate was now in the party’s hands, 

44-38. For the first time since Lincoln’s inauguration in 1861, the 

Democrats had control of both the executive and the legislature. 

President Cleveland called for a lowering of the tariff in his inaugural 

address, but with the onset of the panic and depression of 1893, he 

called Congress into special session to repeal what he believed was a 

greater evil, the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890. Crisp, reelected Speaker, appointed William L. Wilson of West Virginia to chair the 

Committee on Ways and Means on August 21, 1893.30 

Wilson, according to his biographer, “symbolized better than any 

other prominent political figure of the Cleveland era the unification of 

the North and the South through the agency of the Democratic 

party.” Born in Virginia, Wilson represented a border district that 

235 
was half-agricultural and half-industrial, with sizeable coal interests. 

He had been a college professor and a university president, and he 

was committed to dismantling the protectionist system. Just after the 

1892 elections, for example, Wilson had recommended that a special 

session of Congress should be called to provide immediate tariff 

relief. He was, as the press observed, ‘‘a man who has ideas and who 

puts behind them intellectual and moral force.” Wilson’s selection, 

bypassing former Chairman Springer, was due to Springer’s weakness 

as majority leader. The Democrats needed someone to match Reed, 

the forceful and effective minority leader. The New York World reported that the choice was the result of an agreement between Crisp and 

John G. Carlisle that the latter would not contest the speakership in 

return for Wilson’s appointment to chair the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 32 

The committee, enlarged from 15 to 17 members, contained 11 

Democrats including Benton McMillin (D-TN) and Bryan. Only two 

Brickbats of public disapproval 

rain down on the income tax 

requirement set forth by the 

Wilson-Gonnan Tant of 

1894. The law hied a flat 2 

percent tax on personal and 

corporate income above 

$4.000. This editorial cartoon 

labeh the tax a mongrel because 

fm wanted it. The public 

scorned it, and the U.S. Treasury shut it out after the U.S. 

Supreme Court, dgbicted as a 

tin can tied to the mongrel 5 

tail, deckwed it unconstitutional 

in 1895. The Court’s ruling 

that tax on personal income 

was a direct tax overturned 

legal precedent in place since 

the Civil War. The Court’s 

mu interpretation rendered the 

income tax invalid since Congress lacked the power to hy 

direct taxes without the conrent 

of the states. 

236 
manufacturing states, New York and Massachusetts, were represented, 

and 11 of the appointments went to the South, the border states, and 

the West. Wilson set to work on August 29, 1893, organizing the majority members into a subcommittee on customs with himself as chair. 

The committee held hearings in its own room just off the House corridor, now one of the rooms of the Speaker’s Office, H-209. The 

hearings ran from September 4 to September 20 only, which the Republicans criticized as inadequate. Hundreds of witnesses, mostly protectionists, were heard. One of Wilson’s confidants referred to the 

hearings as the “customary rubbish.” Wilson himself was so unimpressed with them that he declared he wanted no part in the publication of the hearings beyond the minimum official requirement.33 

The public hearings were merely pro forma-the real work occurred behind closed doors. The Wilson bill was as much a “dark lantern’’ measure as the Mills bill of 1888. After the formal hearings, the 

committee moved to the virtually inaccessible Census Committee 

room in the labyrinthine Capitol basement. The subcommittee met 

with Treasury Department officials and businessmen, some of whom 

came only on the condition that they could remain anonymous. The 

committee continued to draft the bill in its subterranean chamber. 

After Congress adjourned on November 1, it was forced to surface 

due to the parsimony of Congress in not having funded operation of 

the Capitol electrical plant during the recess. 

As the Democratic members grappled with lowering tariffs, they 

were compelled to find offsetting sources of income. They rejected a 

legacy tax, but early in the discussions considered a controversial personal income tax, which the chairman opposed. The provisions of the 

bill remained secret, even though a prowler broke into the committee 

room and two copies of the bill were reported missing. The chairman 

released details of the bill to the press on November 27 and reported 

it to the House on December 19. The bill was based on the principle 

of a tariff for revenue only. Duties on manufactured articles were reduced, but the main feature of the bill was an enlarged list of dutyfree raw materials, including wool, coal, iron ore, and lumber, as well 

as hides and sugar. The bill as introduced did not contain an income 

tax provision. Secretary of the Treasury James G. Carlisle proposed a 

variety of taxes to offset the anticipated loss of 60-75 million dollars 

in revenue, including a legacy tax and a corporation income tax suggested by President Cleveland. Wilson supported the latter, arguing 

that a tax on corporate incomes “would not be a tax upon individual 

thrift, energy, or enterprise, but in the main upon the earnings of invested capital.” 34 Nonetheless, he accepted the political expediency 

of a personal income tax and agreed to report such a bill. 

William Jennings Bryan had drafted the committee’s initial 

income tax provision. The Nebraska Democrat preferred to levy a 

graduated tax that began with incomes over $2,500, but the com237 
mittee instructed Bryan to set a flat rate of 2 percent on personal and 

corporate incomes over $4,000. The committee chose not to link the 

income tax provision to the Wilson bill, but rather authorized that it 

be reported as part of an internal revenue bill drafted by Benton 

McMillin’s subcommittee. The McMillin measure was subsequently incorporated as an amendment, and McMillin, not Bryan, reaped the 

honors.35 

Wilson led off the debate on the tariff bill with a vigorous defense 

of his committee and his party, concluding that tariff reform was an 

issue for the Democrats “to win or lose with.” 36 The bill met with an 

avalanche of opposition. Petitions protesting the lowered tariffs overflowed the committee room. The residents of Troy, New York, for example, delivered an 800-pound leather-bound book containing the 

names of every resident, all of whom purportedly opposed the bill. 

The Democrats ignored the opposition and pushed the bill through 

the House. The party caucus at this time decided to link the income 

tax recommended by McMillin as an amendment to the tariff bill, 

sparking the climactic floor debate. 

It was Chairman Wilson’s privilege to close the debate. On February 1, 1894, he followed Speaker Crisp’s meek extemporaneous reponse to Reed’s scathing satire of the bill with one of the most memorable closing speeches in congressional history. “If great reforms 

could be pierced and destroyed by shafts of ridicule, if great causes 

could be laughed off the field,” Wilson observed in direct reference 

to Reed, “we today would be slaves of England instead of being free, 

self-governing citizens.” The scholar in the chairman shone through 

when he ended in a paraphrase of the speech Shakespeare’s Henry V 

made to his troops-in this case Wilson’s Democratic colleagueschallenging them to maintain solidarity. “This is not a battle over percentages, over this or that tariff schedule,” the chairman concluded 

with honest conviction; “it is a battle for human freedom.” 37 According to news accounts, the speech met with a chaotic, enthusiastic response. Several Democratic colleagues, including Bryan, hoisted the 

startled chairman on their shoulders and carried him from the chamber amid wild cheering. The bill passed by an unexpectedly high 204- 

140 margin.38 

The Senate once again gutted the reform aspects of the Wilson 

bill. Nothing of the duty-free raw materials concept was retained 

except for free wool and lumber. Sugar, iron ore, and coal were returned to the duty list, and protective rates for manufactured goods 

were reinstated in the 634 Senate amendments to the bill by a coalition of Republicans and protectionist Democrats led by Arthur Pue 

Gorman. Wilson led his committee to the conference determined to 

regain duty-free coal, iron ore, and sugar. He was hampered by a bout 

with neuralgia, the defection of Speaker Crisp, and finally by a caucus 

resolution instructing him to accept the Senate amendments and then 

238 
Destitute of humm but soundly 

versed in finance, Nekon 

Dinghy, Jr., of Maine accepted 

the post of Ways and Means 

chairman in 1895 and again 

in 1897. He studiously put his 

Republican high-tanffphilosophy to work by framing a tan3 

bill to counter the lower rates 

set forth in the Democratic 

Wilson-Gorman legislation. 

The Dinghy Tan# of I89 7 

granted the President the 

authority to invoke reciprocity 

whm negotiating trade treaties. 

The highest tariff rates in the 

nation’s histoy up to that time 

resulted from this act and were 

maintained for more than a 

decade. 

to draft separate bills on those three materials. Wilson did as he was 

told, but his spirit was broken. The House bills to provide for dutyfree raw materials predictably were buried in the Senate Finance 

Committee. Cleveland, displeased at the failure of the Wilson-Gorman 

Tariff to achieve any reduction, reluctantly allowed the bill to become 

law without his signature on August 2’7, 1894. Wilson left Congress in 

1895 to spend the last two years of his public service as Postmaster 

General. A rambling, disjointed letter he wrote to the New York World 

in the aftermath of the conference committee defeat formed an unwitting epitaph to his chairmanship: 

Having done my duty to the best of my capacity, I am content to rest upon that consciousness. . . . When a man’s 

army breaks away from him, unless he can assure them of victory he cannot continue to battle. . . .39 

The Wilson-Gorman Tariff retained the House provision for a 

personal income tax drafted by Bryan and reported by McMillin’s subcommittee. Midwesterners such as Bryan and Southerners such as 

McMillin favored the income tax as a justifiable tax upon the wealthy 

since the great burden of the tariff fell upon the working class. The 

votes in both the House and the Senate followed geographical rather 

than party lines. The act levied a flat 2 percent tax on income from all 

sources above $4,000, exempting only interest on federal bonds. The 

239 
income tax affected few because of the high ceiling, but the Supreme 

Court in the 1895 Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan. and Tmt Co. decision declared the provision unconstitutional as a direct tax, which according 

to the Constitution had to be apportioned among the states on the 

basis of pop~lation.~~ 

The Dingley Tariff of 1897 

Just as the McKinley Tariff had presaged a crushing defeat for the Republican Party in the 1890 congressional elections, so too did the 

Wilson-Gorman Act precede a Democratic debacle in 1894. The new 

Congress returned to Republican control, 246-104 in the House and 

42-39 in the Senate. Thomas Brackett Reed, once again Speaker of 

the House, appointed his colleague from Maine, Nelson Dingley, Jr., 

to chair the Committee on Ways and Means. McKinley, the former 

Republican chairman, was now governor of Ohio, and Dingley had 

demonstrated both party loyalty and technical expertise in his prior 

240 
Pnvate proprieta?y stamps 

illustrate the we of revenue 

stamps authorized through 

legislation drafted by Ways and 

Means. To help meet the costs 

of the Spanish-Amm‘can War 

in 1898, Congress instituted 

stamp taxes for bank checks, 

stocks, bonds, insurance policies, legal documents, chewing 

gum, and wine. In times past, 

the government had turned to 

stamps for money. Those shown 

here stem from the Civil War 

Revenue Act of 1862, which 

gave a discount to manufacturers who paid to have exchive 

die trademarks cast. 

service on the committee. Joseph Cannon, the wily Illinois Republican, once observed that Dingley “had a better knowledge of the details of the tariff than any other man.” 41 

Dingley and Reed were unlikely comrades. The witty, loquacious 

Speaker was at home amid parties and high living, while the serious 

and reserved chairman was given to plain living, frugality, and abstention from liquor. Joseph Cannon recalled one dinner attended by 

both men. It was customary to serve a Roman punch-ice flavored 

with whiskey, rum, or a cordial-halfway through dinner. Reed, according to Cannon, devoured his with obvious enjoyment, while Dingley after the minutest taste turned to his friend and said, “Tom, 

there’s rum in that.” After Reed had consumed the last of the punch, 

he remarked to all of the guests, “That’s the difference between 

Nelson and me. He knows rum the moment he tastes it; I had to 

finish mine before I discovered it.” 42 

Dingley’s committee reported a bill reinstating a duty on wool 

and increasing the 1894 rates on many manufactured goods by 15 

percent, with the provision that no duty would exceed the McKinley 

Tariff rates. Although the bill passed the House by a wide margin, the 

Senate Finance Committee sidetracked it in favor of a measure for the 

free coinage of silver. With McKinley’s election to the Presidency in 

1896, the Republicans decided to make tariff reform a top priority. 

The President called a special session to convene on March 15, 1897. 

In his message to Congress, President McKinley, citing the 186-million-dollar deficit he had inherited, recommended a tariff that would 

provide an adequate revenue and still protect American ind~stries.~~ 

Dingley immediately reported a similar bill prepared by the Committee on Ways and Means after extended hearings during the Fiftyfourth Congress. The House under Reed’s strict discipline passed the 

measure on March 31 by a 205-122 vote along party lines. The Dingley bill, the chairman argued, was a moderate measure, neither a tariff 

for revenue only nor strictly protectionist. The rates, which he believed would provide an increase in revenue of 113 million dollars, 

were midway between those of the 1890 and 1894 tariffs. 

The Senate once again altered the House bill. Republican leaders 

Aldrich and William 3. Allison of Iowa were able to maintain party 

unity without allowing the party caucus to determine the rate schedules. The result was that log-rolling and pressure politics took over as 

Republican senators were subjected to the direct influence of lobbyists. Eight hundred and seventy-two amendments were made to the 

House bill, four-fifths of which were agreed to in conference. The 

Dingley Tariff restored the scale of duties lowered by the WilsonGorman Tariff and in some instances exceeded the McKinley Act. The 

average rate of duties even surpassed those of the Civil War tariffs. 

The Dingley Tariff was also significant because it adjusted the method 

by which rate schedules were determined. Congress delegated author24 1 
ity to the President to negotiate trade treaties according to the reciprocity principle. Twelve years later, the Republican Party opted to 

replace the treaty-making process with what they referred to as “flexible tariffs,” which meant that rates would be adjusted to equalize the 

costs of prod~ction.~~ 

The Dingley Tariff was destined to remain in effect for 12 years. 

The return of prosperity in 1897 deflected further talk of tariff reduction. The Republican Party, even those embarrassed by the high rates, 

moved on to a defense of the gold standard and the expansion of foreign trade. President McKinley avoided the subject in public, at one 

point stating, “We have quit discussing the tariff and have turned our 

attention to getting trade wherever it can be found.” 45 

The Committee on Ways and Means and the SpanishAmerican War 

Firs1 of the long-silling chawmen of Ways and Means, 

Republzcan Sereno Payne of 

New lbrk look the helm of fhe 

commzttee zn I899 and held It 

for 12 years, a record at that 

time One of the first bills 

zntioduced under Payne 2 

leadership resulted an the repeal 

of all Spanzsh-.4merzcan War 

taxes The clamorfor tan# 

refom grew louder ajier the 

war, and Payie conducted 

extensive heanngs on the assue. 

The Payne-Aldnch TanJ 

passpd zn 1909, fublled 

Payne k dream to haire has 

name attached to some law oj 

laslzng amporfnnce. 

In seeking the overseas trade of which President McKinley spoke, the 

United States became entangled in late- 19th-century imperialism. 

Trade in the Pacific meant the acquisition of refueling bases and naval 

facilities in Hawaii and the Philippines. Closer to home, American 

tariff policies impacted most immediately upon Cuba. Under the reci242 
Barnng free iniportation of forezgn beef; the Payne-Aldnch 

Tarflsuffers critzcism an an 

editoizal cartoori The tanJ 

placed high duties on imported 

goods to protect domestic 

prodiictaon. But in the case 

ilhishated here. critics argued, 

dutzes only etrcouraged domestzc 

producers to bnng thew pnces 

up to the level of those for 

foreign beef Ironically, at a 

trine when Arnenca was barnng 

frev zmportataoii of beef; it was 

zmportzng cowhides duty free to 

meet !he demand for leathe? 

.\faneuvenng in the Home kept 

hides on lhe jee-trade last. The 

high-tan# tone of the PayneAldnch measure came maznly 

from the Senatv, which made 

84 7 amendments to Payne ‘s 

onganal bzll 

procity clauses of the McKinley Tariff, Spain had liberalized trade between her Caribbean possession and the United States. Consequent 

Cuban prosperity ended when the Wilson-Gorman Tariff reinstated 

the duty on raw sugar. The Cuban economy faltered, giving rise to an 

indigenous revolution that particularly targeted sugar plantations. 

Spanish brutality in suppressing the rebels evoked strong sentiment in 

the United States for intervention, which came following the unexplained sinking of the American battleship Maine in Havana harbor on 

February 15, 1 898.46 

The responsibility for initiating war revenue legislation once 

again fell upon the Committee on Ways and Means. Chairman Dingley, opposed to the income tax and fearful that the tariff could not be 

altered without causing political problems for his party, introduced a 

war revenue measure on April 25, 1898, that he estimated would 

produce an additional 100 million dollars. The measure repeated the 

earlier congressional formula of meeting war expenses with increased 

excise taxes and the sale of war bonds. The committee supplemented 

existing internal revenue taxes with new taxes of the same nature. 

The act as ultimately passed, however, shifted the burden of war finance from the business and professional classes to the working class. 

Special taxes were imposed on bankers and brokers, but also on theaters, circuses, bowling alleys, and billiard parlors; rates were doubled 

243 
PPZ 

I 
Protectionism wears two faces in 

this antibusiness cartoon from a 

I91 2 issue of Puck magazine. 

On the one hand, big busmess 

calls for high tanffs to protect 

thejobs and living standards of 

Amencan workers; on the other, 

big bimness recruits cheap foreign labor. The zenith of tanff 

reforni came in 1912 with the 

prmdenttnl election of Woodrow 

CZilson, who set the stage for a 

dramatic return to low duties by 

signing the Underwood Tanff a/ 

1913. 

As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, he joined a select 

group of House Republican leaders that included Speaker Joseph 

Cannon and John Dalzell. Payne’s chairmanship of the Committee on 

Ways and Means from 1899 to 1911 was the lengthiest until that of 

Robert Doughton in the 1930s and 1940~.~~ 

Payne’s first substantial task was the repeal of the Spanish-American War taxes, which had been almost trivial compared to the magnitude of Civil War taxes. The series of Treasury deficits from 1894 to 

1900 were eliminated in 1901 by a surplus of over 46 million dollars 

from customs and war revenues. Payne introduced a committee measure in December 1900 to reduce the war excises by some 40 million 

dollars. House and Senate versions were compromised in conference 

with the resulting act of March 2, 1901, retaining legacy taxes, the excises on oil and sugar refining, and the taxes on bankers and brokers, 

but reducing the excises on liquor and tobacco and repealing some of 

the stamp duties.49 

On the heels of this measure, Secretary of the Treasury Lyman J. 

Gage recommended the repeal of all war taxes in order to reduce federal revenue by 50 million dollars. Gage argued that the Treasury surplus justified terminating taxes that he found to be both a nuisance 

and an insignificant source of revenue. Payne’s committee acted immediately upon Gage’s recommendation, introducing a bill to repeal 

all Spanish-American War taxes. The well-organized Republican leadership of Speaker Cannon pushed the bill through in early 1902 with 

what Democrats protested were steamroller tactics.50 

The Payne-Aldrich Tariff of 1909 

Defenders of the protective tariff cited the revenue needs of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent prosperity after 1897 to answer 

agitation for tariff reform. President Theodore Roosevelt, though he 

had endorsed the concept of a tariff commission to set rates on a 

more objective basis, handled the issue with adroit ambivalence, seeming to indicate that it was best to let sleeping dogs lie. The development of an insurgent movement within the Republican Party aimed at 

the dictatorial control of Cannon in the House and Aldrich in the 

Senate revived the tariff issue. Governor, later Senator, Albert Baird 

Cummins of Iowa popularized a program of trust regulation, railroad 

control, and downward tariff revision that came to be known as the 

“Iowa Idea.” The clamor for tariff reform had reached such a peak 

that the Republican platform of 1908 called “unequivocally for the revision of the tariff by a special session of Congress immediately following the inauguration of the next President.” 51 Yet, with masterful 

political equivocation, the plank neglected to specify which direction 

the revision should take. 

245 
William Howard Taft, both as the Republican presidential candidate and as President-elect, made it known that he favored a downward revision of the tariff and an income tax in times of national 

emergency. In March 1909, tariff reform was immediately referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, which had held extended hearings under Payne since December. The 19 members of the committee 

(12 Republicans, seven Democrats) included John Dalzell, Samuel 

McCall, Joseph W. Fordney, and Nicholas Longworth in the majority, 

and Champ Clark and Oscar W. Underwood in the minority. Clark, in 

fact, left a revealing account of the committee’s proceedings, arguing 

that no committee “ever did harder, more tedious, or more fatiguing 

work”: 

Think of it! We began at half-past 9 in the morning and 

worked until 1 o’clock, took an hour for lunch, then worked 

until 7 o’clock, taking an hour for dinner . . . and worked 

until 11 and 12 o’clock at night; keyed up, on edge, tussling 

with intellectual men who had facts in their possession about 

the tariff which they were determined not to give up, while 

we were determined that they should stand and deliver.52 

Cordell Hull of Tennessee 

headed the Ways and Means 

subcommittee that wrote the 

income tax provision for the 

Underwood Tanyof 1913. 

The provision was the farst tax 

measure drafted under the 16th 

Amendment. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosmelt appointed 

Hull Secretary of State. World 

War II made his tenure one of 

the most m’tical in the nation’s 

history. Hull was the principal 

architect of the Reciprocal 

Trade Agreements Act of 1934. 

Enacted by his former colhaps on Ways and Means, 

this act authorized the executive 

branch to negotiate lower tanys 

with trading nations. In 1945, 

at age 75, Hull was awarded 

the Nobel Peace Prize. 

Even though Clark opposed the bill that the majority drafted, he respected Payne’s knowledge of the tariff. Clark also recorded an inci246 
dent that explained much of Payne’s, as of any chairman’s, personal 

influence. Before his appointment to the committee, Clark had tangled with Payne in floor debate and had found him to be irritable and 

brusque. After Clark’s appointment, the two men shared a railroad car 

from New York to Washington. The chairman welcomed Clark to his 

committee and in five hours of pleasant conversation completely won 

his confidence. 

The bill that Chairman Payne reported on behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means on March 17, 1909, reflected a real desire to 

reduce tariffs while retaining the principle of protection. Increased 

protection was given to mercerized fabrics, women’s gloves, hosiery, 

and plate glass. Wood pulp, hides, petroleum and its byproducts, and 

iron ore were put on the duty-free list. The duties on lumber, iron, 

and steel were decreased. All existing reciprocal trade agreements 

were to be ended with the exception of those with Cuba. In their 

place, the Payne bill called for minimum-maximum provisions. The 

minimum rates stipulated in the tariff schedules were to apply to all 

countries not discriminating against imports from the United States. 

Maximum rates 20 percent higher were to be applied, at the discretion of the President, on those countries practicing such discrimination. 

The Payne bill also included a provision reinstating the federal 

inheritance tax that the committee had helped to repeal in 1902. 

Modeled on New York State’s inheritance law, the bill provided for 

duties ranging from 1 to 5 percent according to the size of the bequest and the relationship of heir to decedent. In recommending an 

inheritance tax, Payne rejected the corporation income tax favored by 

President Taft and suggested to the committee by Attorney General 

George W. Wickersham. Taft was reportedly pleased nonetheless, 

writing to his brother that the bill was “a genuine effort in the right 

direction.” 54 

Insurgent Republicans and Democrats alike were unsuccessful 

both in their efforts to unseat Cannon and to attach an income tax 

provision to the Payne bill. The Republican leadership was able to 

push the bill through on April 9 by a 217-161 vote. The Senate, 

meanwhile, had been conducting tariff hearings preparatory to drafting its own measure. Aldrich’s Finance Committee precipitously raised 

duties on some 600 items and deleted the inheritance tax feature. The 

Senate bill contained 847 amendments to the Payne bill. The conference committee was dominated by protectionists handpicked by 

Cannon and Aldrich. Payne, by virtue of his position, led the House 

conferees. President Taft’s pressure forced the committee to lower 

duties on key commodities, but the Payne-Aldrich Act signed July 31, 

1909, signalled no significant change in the implementation of protectionist tariff policy. Yet, the bill did seem to indicate that protectionists were on the defensive from the persistent agitation by Insurgents 

247 
and Democrats for reform. Taft, unilaterally proclaiming that no discrimination existed against the United States in foreign trade, declared that the minimum rates would be applied. With the adoption of 

the Payne-Aldrich Tariff, Congress replaced the presidential treatymaking provision with the flexible tariff favored by the Republican 

Party. The act also recommended that the President appoint a group 

of tariff experts to advise the government. Taft then organized a 

Tariff Board to advise on minimum and maximum rates.55 

House Republicans suffered a crushing defeat in the 1910 midterm elections. From a 219-192 majority, they fell to a 161-228 minority. Staggered by the magnitude of the defeat, Chairman Payne announced in December that he favored a schedule-by-schedule revision 

of the tariff and the creation of a permanent Tariff Commission, a 

step that only Progressives had previously supported. Such statements 

proved to be only window dressing. Real tariff reform would await 

Democratic control of the Senate and the Pre~idency.~~ 

The Underwood Tariff of 19 13 

The election of Woodrow Wilson to the Presidency in 1912 marked 

the zenith of tariff reform. Wilson was a student of American politics, 

the author of the classic 1885 study Congressional Government, and an 

ardent admirer of the British parliamentary system. He was determined as President to personally lead his party in Congress. Working 

with a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, Wilson 

believed that only he could articulate the needs of the party and the 

nation. He gave top priority to demolishing the protective tariff that 

had been the hallmark of the Republican Party since 1861 when he 

called a special session of Congress on Inauguration Day in 1913. 

Breaking with precedent, he appeared in person before a Joint Session of Congress-the first President since John Adams to do so-to 

indicate his leadership in the upcoming struggle to revise the tariff.57 

Democratic efforts at tariff reform had already begun in the hearings Oscar W. Underwood's Committee on Ways and Means had conducted since the previous December. The bill that Underwood originally introduced on the House floor on April 12 was similar to a 

series of tariff bills that President Taft had vetoed two years earlier. 

The 1913 bill, as presented, had been drafted by the majority members of the committee divided into 17 subcommittees of from one to 

four (usually three) members. According to Burton L. French (R-ID), 

at the conclusion of the hearings held in December and January, the 

chairman divided the committee into select subcommittees, each of 

which was given charge of a particular schedule of the tariff. During 

the deliberations, French reported that the subcommittees utilized 

the expert advice of Treasury Department officials as well as the comIncome tax forms for 1913 

appear simple when compared 

wzfh today k booklet-length 

forms and instrirctions This 

early Form 1040 ran only 

three pages; the arcompanvzng 

aiistructzons filled just one page 

The tax rate was a flat one 

peicent on incomes ouer ail 

exemptzon of ezther $3,000 or 

$4,000, dependtug on [he 

filing status Ftom 1913 to 

1915, lesr than 2 percent of 

the laborfoice filed tax )eturns. 

By the end of IVorld m'ar I, 

zncome taxes supplied nearly 

60 percent of the total 

federal revenue 

248 
RENRN OF ANNUAL Na INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS. 

wm.mwn*c---,#-%m 

Lo.pl- (.*RLllrIs) .......... ........................ ....................... 

2 '0 . m,0m I' .. n,m. ... 

8 '' .. &mQ. .... 4u '4 lmpoo " .. mom. ... 

8 'I * XQ,m .... W.... 

6" roqooo ---.. - .......... 

..... 

............................ ............. 

249 
I” 

mittee clerk. The subcommittees prepared drafts of the various schedules between January and April, with most of the work completed in 

an intensive two-week period. The complete draft was then considered by all 14 members of the majority acting as a subcommittee, according to French “carrying out the idea that the friends of a measure 

of political character should prepare it.” 58 

Chairman Underwood, who was also majority leader from 191 1 to 

1915, was the leading tariff authority on the committee. Other notable 

Democratic members included Claude Kitchin of North Carolina, 

Henry T. Rainey of Illinois, Cordell Hull of‘ Tennessee, and John 

Nance Garner of Texas. President Wilson conferred frequently with 

Underwood while the committee was working on the bill. According 

to one of Wilson’s biographers, the President was responsible for persuading the chairman to eliminate the duty on wool and to lower the 

rate on sugar. The committee had decided to impose a 15 percent 

duty on raw wool. Wilson summoned Underwood to the White House 

and instructed him to fight for duty-free wool, agreeing to retain a 

one-cent-per-pound duty on sugar for three years. The chairman and 

the committee did as the President requested.59 

The Underwood bill, reported out of committee on April 22, 

1913, provided for lowering the average ad valorem tariff rates from 

the 40 percent level of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff to approximately 29 

percent. The purpose of the bill was to remove the special privileges 

protectionism had accorded certain American manufacturers. The 

tariff would remain moderately protectionist, but it was projected to 

decrease customs receipts by 100 million dollars. To offset the lost 

Impassioned Ways and Means 

chairman during World War I, 

Claude Kitchin of North Carolina voted against the declaration of war. But once America 

joined the fight he threw himself fully behind the cause. On 

hb shoulders fell the heavy task 

of funding U.S. troops. He 

worked around the clock to increme taxes upon excessive corporate profits. He suflered a 

stroke in 1920 after delivering 

a powerful speech. His exhawting devotion to duty led a colleap to say. “He fell as truly 

a casualty of the war as if he 

had died leading the charge 

upon the m‘monfie1d.s of 

France. ” 

250 
Kitchin ’s illustrious committee 

in I91 6, meeting here in its dfices in the Cannon Building, 

included future Speakers of the 

House Nicholas Longworth, 

Henry T. Rainey, and John 

Nance Garner; future chairmen 

James Collier, Joseph W. 

Fordney, and William R. 

Green; and future Secretary of 

State Cordell Hull. Revenw 

from income tax acts originated 

by this panel in I916 and 

I91 7 mainly went to increased 

Army and Navy appropriations 

and to “the fortzjication of the 

country. ” In this pm.od, 

income tax doubled and excess 

profits taxes escalated. For the 

first time, federal receipts exceeakd one billion dollars. 

revenue, the bill included an income tax provision, the first to be written under the recently ratified Sixteenth Amendment, which authorized the federal government to levy a tax upon incomes.60 

For such a momentous change in federal tax policy, the income 

tax provision of the Underwood bill elicited surprisingly little opposition in the House. The income tax section occupied only eight pages 

of an 814-page report on the tariff bill. Underwood assigned Cordell 

Hull (D-TN) to chair the income tax subcommittee. Hull wanted a flat 

rate income tax, but he yielded to the arguments of John Nance 

Garner for graduated rates. An exemption of $4,000 was granted, 

with rates of one percent on incomes up to $20,000 and with additional surtaxes of one percent on income between $20,000 and 

$50,000, 2 percent on income between $50,000 and $100,000, and 3 

percent on income above $100,000. Hull defended the tax as an equitable measure based upon ability to pay, not a tax on consumption 

such as the tariff and excise taxes. He pointed out that 52 countries 

and states had already taken this action. He even cited Lloyd George’s 

speech of 1909 in Parliament praising the income tax as “the sheet 

anchor of our financial system.” 61 After the Underwood bill was reported it was debated briefly by the House. No attempt was made to 

divorce the income tax provision from the measure and it was passed 

on May 8, 1913, with the income tax intact. 

The Senate did not substantially alter the House bill. In fact, due 

to President Wilson’s intervention in the Senate, the Underwood 

Tariff emerged a stronger reform measure. The Senate version reduced rates an additional 4 percent overall and increased the maxi25 1 
mum surtax from 3 to 6 percent. The House accepted most of the 

Senate revisions, and President Wilson signed the bill on October 3, 

1913. The tariff-making process in 1913 was a striking departure from 

prior experience. Business interests had not monopolized the process, 

and the Senate had not engaged in an orgy of special-interest amendments. As the editor of the New YorR World observed: “This is no tariff 

by log-rolling, by manipulation, by intrigue, by bribery. It was bought 

by no campaign contributions. It was dictated by no conspiracy between corrupt business and corrupt politics.” 62 

World War I Revenue Acts 

Prior to World War I, the tariff and excise taxes supplied over 90 percent of federal revenue. World War I ended the dominance of the 

tariff as a source of revenue. The income tax initiated so inauspiciously by the Underwood Tariff provided over 58 percent of federal revenues by the end of the war.63 Expenditures mushroomed from 742 

million dollars in 1916 to over 18.9 billion dollars in 1919, an increase of 2,454 percent, exceeding the rate of increase for the Civil 

War as well as the later rate of increase during World War II.64 The 

pressures to find sources of revenue for these increased expenditures 

252 
Mounting war expenses bring 

Ways and Means members together in I91 8 to discuss additional revenue bills. That year, 

the committee reported the War 

Revenue Act, estimated to net 

an additional six million dollars. The largest share of this 

money would come from increased taxes on personal and 

corporate incomes and excess 

profits. Chairman Kitchin and 

President Wilson ofien disagreed on tax issues. Kitchin 

infuriated Wilson when he extended the income tax provision 

to include the salary of the 

President of the United States. 

wrecked the close relationship that Wilson had cultivated with the 

Committee on Ways and Means. 

When Underwood moved over to the Senate in 1915, the ranking 

majority member, Claude Kitchin of North Carolina, was appointed 

chairman. Kitchin was a large, kind, affable man with a remarkable 

memory for statistics, which he used to his advantage on the committee. He was a consistent advocate of a tariff-for-revenue only, and he 

rose to prominence through his opposition to the Payne-Aldrich 

Tariff. Although he supported the Underwood Tariff and greatly admired Wilson, Kitchin did not always agree with the President’s policies, and he was not welcomed with open arms at the White House. 

Some consideration may have been given to bypassing Kitchin, but 

the seniority system took precedence and the North Carolinian 

became chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and majority 

leader of the House.65 

The responsibility for financing military preparedness and subsequent American involvement in World War I fell to Kitchin’s committee. The chairman’s consistent philosophy was that the United States 

should adopt a “pay-as-you-go” system, relying more upon taxation 

than the sale of war bonds. Specifically, Kitchin worked to increase 

graduated taxes upon incomes, inheritances, and especially upon the 

excess profits of corporations due to the war. His at times demagogic 

denunciations of war profiteers, though genuine, were exploited by 

the opposition and the press to portray Kitchin as incompetent and 

irrational. The press in particular played up the story that Kitchin had 

said that the war profits taxes were designed to make the Northern 

states pay for the war. Perhaps motivated by the increased rates for 

second-class postage for newspapers and magazines that Kitchin’s 

committee had recommended, the press gave wide coverage to this 

phony story. The chairman was lampooned as a “babe-in-the-woods,’’ 

“a political imbecile,” “a small bigot from an ill-favored district in 

North Carolina.” 66 Like Wilson, the war experience broke Kitchin’s 

health, and he suffered a stroke in 1920, recovering for a short time 

before he died in 1923. 

Early in 19 16, Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury, William Gibbs 

McAdoo, recommended raising the rates of taxation on individual and 

corporate incomes to meet the needs of war preparation. The Revenue Act of 1916 that resulted originated in the Committee on Ways 

and Means because of the “necessity growing out of the extraordinary 

increase in the appropriations for the Army and the Navy, and the fortification of the country.” 67 The act doubled the normal tax on 

income, levied an estate tax and a tax on munitions manufacturers, 

and devised a special excise tax on corporations. The 1916 Revenue 

Act was also important because it created the U. S. Tariff Commission 

as an independent agency to advise the President and Congress on 

trade matters. The rapid increase in expenditures that occurred after 

253 
A f 

r- b 3 

THE SIFEST INVESTMENT ~ 

-IN THE WORLD - I 

the enactment of this measure necessitated a new revenue bill in early 

1917. Estate taxes were raised 50 percent and the excess profits tax 

was also increased. This act never went into operation, since one 

month after it was adopted in March, the United States entered the 

war and was confronted with the need to raise revenues even further. 

Secretary McAdoo reviewed the history of Civil War finance for 

assistance in meeting the needs of World War I. Only two things impressed him: 1) the methods Jay Cooke used in selling war bonds, and 

2) Secretary Chase’s failure to appeal to the people. With the optimistic faith of Progressives in both the people and in planning, McAdoo 

proposed to appeal to patriotism, using war bonds to finance the war 

on an equal basis with taxes. “Any great war must necessarily be a 

popular movement,” McAdoo wrote. “It is a kind of crusade; and, like 

all crusades, it sweeps along on a powerful stream of romanticism.” 68 

McAdoo’s recommendations reflected the administration’s belief 

that half the cost of the war could be postponed by utilizing loans 

Victoty loan poster calls on citizens to buy World War I 

bondr. The sale of bonk and 

securities provides a way for the 

government to borrow money 

from individuals, banks, and 

corporations. Setting an example for the nation, members of 

Congress (right) queue up outside the Capitol to buy Liberty 

Bondr in I91 8. Denominations 

of$50 to $10,000 appealed to 

many bond buyers. Citizens 

with limited means could purchase war-savings certajicates. 

These held 20 war-savings 

stamps, each with a maturity 

value of $5. Thrift stamps were 

also sold for 25 cents each. The 

jive bond driues of World War 

I raised 2 I. 4 billion dollars, 

some two-thirdr of all the 

money the gouernment used to 

finance America’s war role. 

2 54 
rather than through reliance on taxes. The increased income tax, 

excess profits taxes, and excises would provide only half of the 

needed 3.5 billion dollars. Kitchin and the Committee on Ways and 

Means began consideration of the administration’s plan in April by 

naming a subcommittee to draft a revenue bill. Significantly, no hearings were held, ostensibly because of time constraints, yet the Senate 

Finance Committee later held hearings on the same measure. The 

Ways and Means subcommittee was the scene of heated disagreements. Joseph W. Fordney (R-MI) argued against increases in excess 

profits and corporation taxes, while Henry T. Rainey (D-IL) pushed 

for confiscatory taxes on incomes over $100,000. In presenting the 

bill to the House on May 10, Chairman Kitchin admitted that it was a 

compromise measure, substantially the same as what McAdoo recommended. The chairman eloquently defended raising taxes to finance 

the war rather than relying upon loans. “Your children and mine had 

nothing to do with bringing on this war,” he observed. “It would be 

unjust and cruel and cowardly to shift upon them the burden.” 69 

The committee bill incorporated the increased rates requested by 

McAdoo on incomes and the excises on tobacco, liquor, motor vehicles, soft drinks, cigarettes, and musical instruments. The bill also 

doubled the excess profits tax on corporations, from 8 to 16 percent 

on the net profits above 8 percent of invested capital. Kitchin said 

that he favored a rate as high as 80 percent, perhaps only somewhat 

inflating the figure for effect since he justified the tax on the basis of 

Great Britain’s tax of 60 percent and on France’s tax of 50 percent. 

255 
The House bill was designed to provide 1.8 billion dollars, half of 

McAdoo’s estimate of the first year of war expenditures. Actual costs 

quickly proved the original estimate low. While the bill was under 

consideration in the Senate, McAdoo revised his estimate to 15 billion 

dollars. The Senate bill-drafted by the Senate Finance Committee 

chaired by Kitchin’s North Carolina rival Furnifold Simmons-although instituting some increases, would only provide 2.4 billion dollars. The inheritance tax, postal rate changes, and several excise taxes 

deleted by the Senate were restored in conference committee. ‘The bill 

as passed on October 3, 1917, imposed a 2 percent tax on incomes 

above $1,000 for single persons and $2,000 for married persons, with 

graduated surtaxes up to 63 percent. A normal tax of 4 percent was 

added to the existing tax on corporations. The excess profits tax rates 

were graduated from 20 to 60 percent. The act greatly expanded federal revenues. For the first time receipts exceeded one billion dollars, 

totaling 3.7 billion dollars for 1917-1918. Income taxes and excess 

profits taxes contributed by far the largest increase, forming 2.8 billion dollars of the total.70 

The need for even more revenue had become evident by April 

19 18, when monthly expenditures surpassed the one-billion-dollar 

mark. McAdoo sent letters to both Kitchin and Simmons requesting 

an increase in the income and war profits taxes. Both chairmen postponed any action until after the November elections. McAdoo appealed to President Wilson to intervene. “As I understand it, Congress is anxious to avoid new revenue legislation at this time,” he 

wrote, “but it is unescapable. Unless this matter is dealt with now 

firmly and satisfactorily, we shall invite disaster in 1919.” 71 The 

President appeared before a joint session on May 27 in his famous 

“politics is adjourned” speech to urge higher income taxes, excess 

profits taxes, and excises. The Secretary of the Treasury appeared 

before the Committee on Ways and Means on June 5 to recommend 

an increase in the normal income tax to make his pet tax-exempt war 

bonds more attractive to investors. 

The committee heard, according to Chairman Kitchin, “every 

class of people,” and “every class of business” in drafting the Revenue Act of 1918. Treasury Department experts and economists testified. The committee studied the Civil War revenue acts as well as the 

war finance measures of Great Britain, France, and Canada. Most of 

the witnesses were businessmen or their representatives, who complained about the excess profits tax. Special interests pled for relief, 

such as the American Newspaper Publishers Association, which opposed higher postal rates, and representatives of the motion picture 

industry, who argued against the excise on amusements. Kitchin, unmoved by such testimony, again crusaded for higher taxes to prevent 

mounting deficits. He had come to the realization that the higher 

levels of expenditure and of taxation were not simply temporary aber256 
Reblicans hit the road to tax 

reduction following World War 

I. In this editorial cartoon of 

1925, President Calvin 

Cooltdge and his Secretary of 

Treasury, Andrew Mellon, whiz 

past Democratic and business 

representatives who urge the 

Reblicans to speed up tax 

reform. Mellon 5 shrewd grasp 

offinance made him the dominantfigure in the administrations of Warren Harding and 

Calvin Coolidge. From I921 

to 1929, Mellon appeared 

ofien before Ways and Means. 

He guided fiscal policies that 

eliminated wartime controls, 

slashed personal and corporate 

income taxes, reduced the national akbt, and restoTed the 

high protective tan$ 

WTLL THE BRAKES HOLD? 

rations caused by the war. Even after the war, he argued, federal expenditures would remain high. Taxes would have to be raised now to 

meet the government’s expanded revenue needs. Chairman Kitchin 

reasoned that the present time, when profits were high, was the most 

expedient moment to raise 

President Wilson and Secretary McAdoo in the meantime impressed upon Kitchin the urgency of differentiating between taxes on 

war profits and those on excess profits. A tax on war profits, the 

President wrote to the chairman, was “manifestly equitable” and 

would be welcomed by business. By implication, an excess profits tax 

was less “defensible in principle” and more likely to be seen as “a 

capitalistic tax bill” as Secretary McAdoo termed it.73 

The bill presented by the committee in September represented a 

compromise between ‘Treasury’s recommendations and Kitchin’s 

wishes. Normal income tax rates were increased to 6 percent on incomes below $4,000 and 12 percent on incomes above $4,000, with a 

maximum surtax rate of 65 percent. As an alternative to the existing 

excess profits tax, an 80 percent tax was instituted on war profits. The 

starting rate of the existing excess profits tax was set at 35 percent, 

higher than McAdoo wanted, but less than Kitchin sought. The Senate 

lowered the excess profits tax and increased the income tax on lower 

incomes by levying a 12 percent normal tax for 1918 (8 percent there257 
after) on incomes over $1,000 for single taxpayers and $2,000 for 

married couples. These changes were reflected in the War Revenue 

Act of 1918, passed by the House on February 3, 1919, and by the 

Senate on February 13. Seventy-eight percent of the estimated revenues (4.7 billion dollars of 6.1 billion dollars) were due to personal 

and corporate income taxes and the excess profits tax. 

As enacted, the 1918 Revenue Act also provided for the creation 

of a Legislative Drafting Service to assist Congress in drafting public 

bills and resolutions requested by any House or Senate committee. 

The establishment of the service stemmed from an experimental program by which the Committee on Ways and Means had employed a 

skilled draftsman named Middleton Beaman to draft portions of its 

revenue bills between 1916 and 1919. Having determined that other 

congressional committees would benefit from similar assistance, the 

Committee on Ways and Means inserted the section pertaining to the 

creation of the Legislative Drafting Service into the Revenue Act of 

1918. Several years later, the Revenue Act of 1924 changed the name 

of the service to the Ofice of the Legislative Counsel, whose two 

draftsmen were now designated as Legislative Counsel.74 

In addition to the major war revenue acts, the Committee on 

Ways and Means originated bills for the Liberty and Victory loan 

issues, Treasury certificates of indebtedness, and war savings certificates. In September 1917, Congress passed a committee measure authorizing the Second Liberty Loan of four billion dollars to the Allies, 

to be financed by the sale of war bonds. In April of 1917, the commitWith a mind for math, Joseph 

W. Fordnqr of Michigan built 

a fortune for himself in the 

timber buriness and then made 

a name for himself as a Republican tarif expert in Congress. 

He smed six tenw as a 

member of Ways and Means 

before msuming the chainnanship of the committee in 1919. 

As chairman, he brought forth 

the Fordney Emergency Taniff 

Act of 1921, which temporarily 

restored high duties on wool 

and other agricultural products. 

To insure the continuation of 

its protectionist provisions, he 

introduced a permanent bill. 

Passed as the FordneyMcCumber Tanffof 1922, it 

set up the highest agricultural 

duties in history. 

258 
Moderate Republican William 

R. Green of Iowa accepted the 

chairmanship of Ways and 

Means in 1923 and led the 

committee for five years. He 

worked in harmony with Treasury Secretary Mellon, who 

twice appeared before Ways and 

Means to recommend leplation 

for deep tax cuts. Following 

Mellon ’s lead, the committee reported the bills that respectiuely 

became the Revenue Acts of 

I924 and 1926. Green’s leplatiue career spanned nine 

successive Congresses. He resigned in 1928 and took an 

appointment as a judge on the 

U. S. Court of Claim. 

tee approved the issuance of two billion dollars in Treasury certificates of indebtedness “to the end that the Treasury may at all times 

have ample means of securing funds to meet the immediate needs of 

government.” 75 

Chairman Kitchin’s relationship with the Wilson Administration 

continued to be a stormy one up until the end of the war. The President, in an August 1918 Cabinet meeting, referred to the chairman as 

“that distinguished stubborn North Carolinian who when he made up 

his mind would never open it.” Wilson was upset when Kitchin’s committee extended the provisions of the income tax to include the salaries of state officials, federal judges, and the President of the United 

States. Reasoning that an income tax upon his own salary was unconstitutional, Wilson considered contesting the provision, but his aide, 

Col. Edward House, persuaded him that such an action would appear 

selfish and hypocritical. Following Democratic losses in the 1918 congressional election, some of the President’s aides even suggested an 

attempt to dump Kitchin from the majority leader~hip.~~ 

Republican Retrenchment in the 1920s 

The Republican Party returned to power with the end of the war and 

the Senate’s rejection of Wilson’s League of Nations. Republicans 

controlled the Presidency and both Houses of Congress throughout 

the decade of the 1920s. Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover 

259 
were matched with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate 

from the Sixty-sixth through Seventy-first Congresses (1919-1931). It 

was a period best summed up in Harding’s phrase, “return to normalcy.” Wearied and bloodied by the war, the United States turned 

inward, rejected international entanglements in favor of isolationism 

and the self-indulgence represented by the Jazz Age and the Roaring 

Twenties. Republican fiscal policy stressed a similar concern to return 

to the high protective tariff, to repeal the excess profits taxes, and to 

lower the surtax on higher income tax brackets. These three objectives were realized in the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, the 

Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, and the Revenue Acts of 1921 and 

1924, all of which originated in the Committee on Ways and Means. 

President Warren G. Harding took a major step toward the realization of Republican goals with the appointment of Andrew Mellon 

as Secretary of the Treasury in 1921. A wealthy banker, financier, and 

philanthropist, the 65-year-old Mellon had never held public office 

and knew little about the Treasury Department or its history. He nevertheless dominated fiscal policy during the twenties under three Republican Presidents. Deeply committed to cutting taxes, Mellon 

argued that high taxes actually led to lower revenue. Taxpayers would 

resort to evasion, trickery, or would invest in tax-free bonds. Moreover, high taxes would undermine the work ethic: 

. . . when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax 

system which denies [the taxpayer] the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert 

himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on 

which its continued greatness depends.77 

Mellon, however, Cavored retaining the corporation income tax. He 

also argued for the differentiation between earned and unearned 

income. Wages and salaries, he maintained, should be taxed at lower 

rates than unearned income from investment^.^^ 

Three days after his inauguration, President Harding met with a 

group of congressional leaders, including Committee on Ways and 

Means Chairman Joseph W. Fordney and Senate Finance Committee 

Chairman Boies Penrose (R-PA). Fordney advocated tariff reform, but 

Penrose argued that tax reform should take precedence. The conference ended with an understanding that both the tax and the tariff 

should be addressed in the upcoming session. The two committees 

then came to an informal agreement that the House would take up 

the tariff while the Senate would consider tax reform. 

Joseph W. Fordney of Michigan, a wealthy, self-made man, had 

served for six terms on the Committee on Ways and Means before 

Speaker Frederick Gillett named him chairman in 1919. A protkgk of 

Cannon and Payne, Fordney had become an authority on protective 

260 
Ways and Means Chairman 

Willis Hawley, ldt, of Oregon 

and Senate Finance Chairman 

Reed Smoot of Utah, took the 

lead in tariff revision as the 

prosperous 1920s faded into 

the Great Depression. They put 

their names to one of the most 

controversial measures ever enacted, the Smoot-Hawley Tany 

of 1930. The bill raised duties 

to the highest levels in American histo?. Other nations 

retaliated by shutting out U. S. 

good. Without overseas buyers, 

farmers were forced to sell their 

surplus crops at a loss. Economic woes grew worse. Money 

sorely needed from war reparations and debt payments fell 

ofl The tanJ blocked Germany 

and allied nations from trading 

good for dollars to be used to 

pay America. Smoot-Hawley 

was the last bill in which Congress set the actual tariff rates. 

tariffs. He was also, according to his biographer, “a natural-born 

mathematician . . . [with] a prodigious memory for facts.” 79 Chairman Fordney set to work on tariff’ revision in June 1919 when he 

called committee hearings on chemical dyestuffs and other wartime 

manufactures. The resulting Fordney Emergency Tariff Act (May 

1921) reinstated protective tariffs on wool and a large variety of agricultural products. Due to a sharp decline in farm prices in 1920, there 

was widespread support for the bill. President Wilson had vetoed it 

on the last day of his tenure with the warning, “This is no time for 

the erection of high tariff barriers.” 8o President Harding signed the 

bill as soon as it was repassed by the following Congress. 

The Emergency Tariff was intended to be a temporary measure. 

The Committee on Ways and Means began hearings in January of 

1921 on a permanent tariff. The bill, which became the FordneyMcCumber Tariff 20 months later, was introduced in the House in 

June. In drafting the bill, the committee took the advice of Commissioner Thomas 0. Marvin of the Federal Trade Commission to base 

26 1 
ad valorem duties on the American value of foreign goods. Specific 

duties were also reinstituted to protect against cheap classes of imports. The bill raised rates above the existing Underwood Tariff rates. 

Fordney contended that the bill represented the “Constitution of a 

uniform and universal prosperity.” 81 

The bill stalled in the Senate after passing the House on July 21. 

The Senate Finance Committee hearings on the measure lasted from 

June to January of the following year. In the interim, President Harding was persuaded to support the principle of a flexible tariff. William S. Culbertson, a Wilson-appointee to the Tariff Commission, 

argued that fixed rates could not cope with the fluidity of international trade. Rates needed to be constantly adjusted on the basis of expert 

advice provided by the commission. Moreover, he argued, fixed rates 

would prolong the tariff as a controversial political issue. Harding, 

who once admitted to being “very much at sea” in trying to understand the tariff, was impressed by Culbertson’s reasoning. In his December 6, 1921, State of the Union Message, he informed Congress: 

“I hope a way will be found to make for flexibility and elasticity so 

that rates may be adjusted to meet unusual and changing conditions.” 82 To accomplish flexibility the President recommended expanding the powers of the Tariff Commission. 

The Senate version of the tariff bill prepared by Chairman Porter 

J. McCumber’s Finance Committee reinstated the flexible tariff provision. The conference committee, composed of ten members, including Fordney and McCumber, worked for a month to compromise differences between the two versions. The final bill contained the highest agricultural duties in history. Although the rates on manufactured 

goods were higher than the Underwood Tariff, they were on average 

lower than those of the previous Republican Payne-Aldrich Tariff. As 

one tariff scholar concluded, “the Fordney-McCumber Tariff was a 

patchwork of compromise, political expediency, and economic 

greed.” 83 As enacted, the measure vested the U.S. Tariff Commission 

with the authority to determine costs of production associated with 

tariff rates and also empowered the President to raise or lower tariff 

rates when the commission decided that existing duties did not equalize with the costs of production. President Harding was both pleased 

and relieved when he signed the bill into law on September 21, 1922. 

Before handing to Fordney the gold-mounted pen he used to sign the 

bill, the President remarked; “This law has been long in the making. 

. . . if we succeed in making effective the elastic provisions of this 

measure it will mark the greatest contribution to tariff making in the 

nation’s history.” 84 

The Revenue Act of 1921 had intervened to cause the delay in 

the consideration of the tariff. Secretary of the Treasury Mellon appeared before the Committee on Ways and Means on August 4, 1921, 

to recommend: 1) repeal of the excess profits tax, 2) reduction of the 

Standiiig before his former 

Wayr and Means colleagues in 

1932, Secretaiy of the Treasuq Ogden Mills voices the 

Hoover Admanistration ’s support of a manufacturers ’ excise 

tux to increase revenues Acting 

Ways and Means Chairnron 

Chailes R. Crzsp znitzated lhe 

bill, which coincided zuth 

Mills’ strategy. “The Commattee on Ways and Means and 

the T,easury Department, ’’ 

Mills hod noted a year Parlzer, 

“are 111 complete accord as to 

/fie necessity of balaiicing the 

budget dunng the nevl jiscul 

year. ” 

262 

¶ 

Bureau of Internal Revenue to hear tax cases. In a game of “can you 

top this,” Democrats tried to outdo the Republicans in tax reduction 

when a Democratic member of the committee, John Nance Garner, introduced on the House floor an amendment that served as a substitute tax package. The House adopted Garner’s plan by a vote of 221- 

196, only to have it replaced by another alternative plan devised by 

Nicholas Longworth (R-OH). The Senate increased the surtax provisions of the Revenue Act of 1924 from 25 to 40 percent.86 

On October 19, 1925, Secretary Mellon once again appeared 

before the Committee on Ways and Means to recommend further tax 

reductions. The surtax on upper incomes, he argued, ought to be reduced to 20 percent, and the federal estate and gift taxes ought to be 

repealed. Green and Garner were able to persuade the House to 

retain the estate tax by conceding on the reduction of the surtax and 

by an increase in the tax credit for the payment of state inheritance 

taxes. The Senate only added a new and controversial provision for 

the oil and gas depletion allowance to what became the Revenue Act 

of 1926. The act was also notable for establishing the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, which was to be composed of five 

representatives and five senators with a staff to gather data on the administration of tax laws and to assist Congress in the preparation of 

revenue legislation. This measure was followed by another tax act in 

Collier had served on the 

committee for I8 years. During 

his tenure as chairman, he was 

often absent due to illness. At 

these times Charles R. Crisp of 

Georpa stepped in as acting 

chairman. Collier declined to 

run for reelection in 1932. The 

next year, Franklin Rooseuelt 

appointed him a member of the 

United States Tarlff Commission. Collier served seven 

months bejbre his death tn 

September 1933. 

2 64 
Congress restrains Uncle Sam 

from takang the general sales 

tax path. This I933 cartoon 

focuses on the controversy 

starred up by a proposed manufacturers’ excise tax, a euphemzsm for a natzonal sales tax. 

Many congressmen objected to 

the plan because at would 

burden consumers, the people 

who could least afford higher 

taxes. The proposal also zmtated party loyalists who remanded colleagues that Democrats stood for a graduated 

zncome tax. Robert Doughton, 

a Ways and Means member, 

rallzed a bipartisan rebellion 

agaanst the tax on the House 

jloor When all the votes had 

been counted, Uncle Sam 

changed paths and followed 

Congress down the income tax 

road. 

1928 that most significantly reduced the corporate tax rate from 13.5 

to 12 percent. On the eve of the Great Depression, Mellon confidently 

asserted that as a result of the Harding and Coolidge Administrations’ 

revenue policies, “business has been taken out of a strait-jacket and 

permitted to expand in an orderly manner, unhampered by artificial 

restrictions of the tax laws.” 87 

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 

The prosperity of the 1920s concealed a troubled world economy. An 

international balance of payments problem resulted from a combination of allied war debts, German reparations, and nationalistic trade 

barriers. Most nations responded to these problems with “beggar-myneighbor” policies such as the imposition of higher import quotas. 

The economic position of the United States, which had emerged from 

World War I as the world’s greatest creditor nation, was somewhat 

stronger than that of other countries. However, some sectors of the 

American economy, particularly agriculture, experienced depressed 

conditions for much of the decade, reflecting continued surplus production in the face of dwindling overseas markets. 

Herbert Hoover, elected President in 1928, was particularly anx265 
ious to help the nation’s farmers through the enactment of relief legislation and through an upward revision of agricultural tariff rates. 

Shortly after his inauguration on March 4, 1929, Hoover called a specia1 session of Congress to consider these subjects. The legislature reActing Ways and Means chairman Umrles R. crisp OccuPies 

the center seat in this formal 

portrait ofth committee on 

March 25. 1932. The mremsponded to the President’s plea for farm relief by passing the Agricul- bers had convened to consider .- - - 

tural Marketing Act, which created a Federal Farm Board to provide 

price supports for agricultural products. The second prong of Hoo- the on this later 

new revenue strateflesfor 

ancing the budget. Several of 

ver’s plan, tariff revision, took a course far different from that envisioned by the President. The resulting tariff legislation, the SrnootHawley Tariff of 1930, became one of the most controversial and 

widely criticized measures ever enacted by Congress. 

The Committee on Ways and Means, chaired by Willis C. Hawley 

(R-OR), had begun its hearings on rate schedules several months 

before the opening of the special session. In the winter and early 

spring of 1929, the committee labored over 15 tariff schedules incorporating some 20,000 items. Its bill, reported by the chairman on May 

7, 1929, was far more comprehensive than the tariff revision limited 

to agricultural rates requested by President Hoover. Although the 

committee bill did, in fact, contain higher duties on agricultural products, it also proposed rate hikes on many other goods. The bill also 

included a provision that empowered the President to change rates as 

much as 50 percent on the recommendation of the Tariff Commission. This provision was opposed by the committee’s ranking minority 

member, Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, who objected to 

transferring congressional rate-making authority to the President. Another of the minority members who objected to the bill was Cordell 

Hull (D-TN), a free trade advocate who wrote the committee’s minority report on the measure. Hull criticized the panel’s lack of vision 

concerning the current state of international trade “which clearly 

demand [the opening of] foreign markets rather than excessive trade 

protection.” Hull viewed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff as a personal 

defeat, and would later call the passage of this legislation, “perhaps 

the nadir of my Congressional career.” 88 

After three weeks of consideration in which the bill was heavily 

amended, the House passed the tariff measure on May 29, 1929, by a 

vote of 264-147. By the time of its passage by the House of Representatives, the new tariff bill had raised existing rates to the highest 

levels in American history. 

The House bill then moved to the Senate, where under the guidance of Senator Reed Smoot (R-UT), it passed through the Senate Finance Committee without much controversy. The bill encountered a 

serious challenge on tne floor when a group of senators from the 

Northwest and Mountain states succeeded in amending it to incorporate two controversial new provisions: 1) an export debenture on farm 

products, and 2) a flexible tariff provision to be administered by Congress rather than the President. In all, the Senate amended the House 

advanced to higherpositions: 

Robert Doughton of North 

Carolina, chairman of Ways 

and Means in the 1930s and 

1940s; Henry T. Rainey of 

Illinois, Speaker ofthe House, 

1933-1935; John McCormack 

of Massachusetts, Speaker of 

the House, 1962-1971,, Fred 

Vinson of Kentucky, ChiefJustice ofthe Supreme Court, 

1946-1953. 

266 
bill 1,253 times-l,112 of which were introduced on the floor. These 

amendments reflected no consistent policy, prompting Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette to remark that the Smoot-Hawley measure was 

“the worst tariff bill in the nation’s history.” 89 On January 6, 1930, 

the Senate passed the bill, but the differences between the House and 

the Senate were so great that a conference committee was unable to 

resolve them before the special session adjourned in late November. 

The worsening economy then intervened to alter the rationale 

behind the passage of a protective tariff. When the Seventy-first Congress convened in regular session in December 1929, the nation was 

experiencing the initial stages of the Great Depression. Higher tariff 

rates were now seen by Republican leaders as a means to stimulate 

business and industrial recovery in the wake of the stock market 

crash of October. In the spring of 1930, President Hoover persuaded 

the Senate to withdraw the bill from conference and to vote again on 

the controversial debenture and flexibility provisions. The Senate defeated both provisions by narrow margins, with Vice President Charles 

Curtis casting the deciding vote on the flexibility provision. The 

Senate passed the bill on June 13, as did the House on the following 

day. Meanwhile, many European and American economists had protested the bill’s potentially adverse impact on international trade. 

President Hoover nevertheless signed the bill on June 17, 1930, not 

because he approved the rate structure, but because “I am convinced 

that the disposal of the whole question is urgent.” 

267 
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff raised rates on agricultural raw materials from 38 to 49 percent, and rates on other commodities from 

31 to 34 percent, with special protection afforded to the mineral, 

chemical, and textile industries. The act also reinstated the House version of the flexible tariff principle by authorizing the President to reorganize the U.S. Tariff Commission, which could then institute a formula for the reduction of tariff rates. 

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was the final bill in which Congress set 

the actual tariff rates. As economists had predicted, it had disastrous 

consequences. Within several months of the bill’s signing, a number 

of nations, including Canada and Mexico, had raised their tariff rates. 

By 1933, 26 nations had instituted some form of trade retaliation 

against the United States. From 1929 to 1933, American exports 

dropped from 488 million dollars to 120 million dollars, while imports fell from 368 million dollars to 96 million dollars. The higher 

rates imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff also compounded the 

international economic crisis. World trade declined from 35 billion 

dollars to 12 billion dollars from 1929 to 1933, and nations with huge 

war debts found that they could not repay them without access to the 

American market. 

The stock market crash in October 1929 and the ensuing depression ended the prosperity of the twenties. They also brought an end 

to a decade of tax reduction and Treasury surpluses. The deficit for 

1931 was 461 million dollars, and the Treasury predicted a deficit of 

three billion dollars for 1932. As Mellon’s replacement at Treasury, 

Hoover chose Ogden Mills, a former member of the Committee on 

Ways and Means. Mills had close ties to Southern Democrats, including Chairman James W. “Billy” Collier (D-MS) and Charles Crisp (DGA), who became acting chairman and floor manager of the Revenue 

Act of 1932 due to Collier’s illness. There seemed to be bipartisan 

agreement on the need to balance the budget and to raise taxes. Mills 

recorded late in 1931, “The committee on Ways and Means and the 

Treasury Department are in complete accord as to the necessity of 

balancing the budget during the next fiscal year.” 

The bill drafted by Crisp’s committee included provisions to raise 

income tax rates and surtaxes to the levels of the 1924 law, but the 

most controversial provision was for a national sales tax, euphemistically referred to as a manufacturers’ excise tax. Though the sales tax 

was introduced on the initiative of the Committee on Ways and 

Means, it clearly coincided with Mills’ strategy. Both Democratic 

House Speaker John Nance Garner and Majority Leader Henry T. 

Rainey approved of the sales tax plan, even though it contradicted the 

party’s commitment to the principle of a graduated income tax. 

One of the first Democrats to oppose the sales tax provision was 

Robert Doughton, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

Doughton was a party loyalist who had worked his way up the com- 
1909 

191 1 

3 

1914 

1917 

1918 

1921 

1922 

1924 

1930 

1932 

Fordney-McCumber Tariff 

Revenue Act of 1924 

Smout-Hawley Tariff 

mittee seniority list over a six-year period. With bipartisan support, 

Doughton led a rebellion on the House floor against the sales tax. 

Garner reconsidered and changed his position, and the House decisively defeated the measure 236-160 on April 1, 1932. As finally 

adopted, the law increased income tax rates to the levels of 1922, including a maximum surtax of 55 percent, and increased corporate 

rates to 14,perc~nt.~~ 

Conclusion 

The legislative history of the tariff of 1930 in effect summarized the 

Committee on Ways and Means’ procedural development in this 

period. Although the minority made the usual protests, controversial 

political bills, such as the tariff, were normally drafted by the majority. 

The committee in 1930, for example, was composed of 25 members15 Republicans and ten Democrats-but the tariff bill was completely 

the work of the majority. Each of the 15 Republicans chaired a select 

subcommittee of three majority members to draft one particular 

schedule of the tariff. Subcommittee chairs were chosen according to 

their interest and expertise in each schedule. The majority met to 

269 
combine the respective schedules, normally deferring to each other’s 

interests. The bill went through three drafts. The original, prepared 

by the Republican majority on the committee, was altered to conform 

to the wishes of the party caucus. This second draft was presented to 

the House, where amendments were made to conciliate the opposition. The only amendments considered were those of the committee, 

which had priority over all other amendments. After passing the 

House, the bill went through the usual alterations in the Senate and 

in conference ~omrnittee.~~ 

Just as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 incorporated some of 

the suggestions made by President Hoover, and rejected other executive initiatives, so too had the Committee on Ways and Means been 

more open to executive direction than it had been in the post-Civil 

War period of congressional government. But, just as the Payne committee had not blindly followed President Taft’s leadership in tariff 

reform, nor had the Kitchin committee adhered to the letter of Wilson’s wishes on war finance, the Committee on Ways and Means had 

retained its independent judgment even when the President was the 

leader of the majority party in Congress. 

The Committee on Ways and Means became involved in issues of 

wide-ranging social implications in this period, such as antidrug and 

birth control legislation. By far the most significant development was 

the institution of personal and corporate income taxes. Tariff and 

excise taxes had always affected broad segments of the population, 

but the income tax potentially affected every wage earner. 

All of these developments would be magnified in the following 

period of the committee’s history as the Great Depression and World 

War I1 placed greater strains upon the nation’s revenue, and as President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to direct congressional consideration of the New Deal. The majority party in Congress would face 

greater opposition from the minority, especially since many New Deal 

bills were controversial political issues, and there would be even 

greater pressure for the majority to cooperate with executive leadership. Moreover, the committee would expand its involvement in social 

legislation with the Social Security Acts of 1935 and 1939. 

2 70 
“Our taxes must follow the 

intricacies of business and 

not attempt to bend 

business to the pattern of 

simplicity we should all 

like to see in laxation. ’’ 

(Robert L. Doughton, 

1940) 

1933 *I959 

From the New Deal to the 

Cold War 

I’he New Deal brought major changes to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. Legislative tarif€ rate-making was rep1 

ments negotiated by the executive branch 

Agreements Act of 1934. The 

rity Act of 1935, creating the 

programs and greatly expanding government assistance to the needy. 

The income tax was extended through New Deal and World War I1 

revenue legislation, becoming, along with Social Security, 

of life for most American citizens. For most 

tive coalition of Republicans and Southern 

committee, often frustrating the revenue 

Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. Even during the Republican administration of Eisenhower, Cold War defense spending, the need to balmce the budget, and fears of inflation prevented any maj 

revenue reduction. 

he New Deal marked the beginning of the modern federal gov- T ernment, and it refocused attention upon the Presidency due to 

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s charisma and energy. The executive branch 

increased in size and complexity as the President centralized decisionmaking. For example, the Bureau of the Budget was placed more 

firmly under presidential control by its transfer from the Treasury Department to the Executive Offce of the President. The entire federal 

bureaucracy expanded as Roosevelt’s Democratic administrations created program after program in an attempt to stimulate the economy. 

New agencies were created whose initials, such as the WPA, NRA, and 

CCC, were likened to alphabet soup, and the number of civilian government employees in the capital doubled between 1929 and 1940. 

As the role of the government in promoting economic recovery, 

growth, and the welfare of its citizens expanded, the federal bureaucracy also grew. Government efforts to regulate corporations, financial 

institutions, and the stock market intensified. The modern welfare 

system also had its origins in several programs, especially the Social 

Security Act of 1935. Although the New Deal was not governed by 

any consistent philosophy other than pragmatic experimentation, the 

27 1 
Roosevelt Administration expanded federal expenditures in an effort 

to promote economic growth. The Republican administration of Herbert Hoover spent 3.1 billion dollars in 1930; by 1939, the federal 

budget was triple that amount. World War I1 magnified the growth of 

federal spending to levels approaching 100 billion dollars a year. Expenditures declined in the postwar period, but the federal budget 

never returned to prewar levels. 

The growth of the federal budget and the acceptance of the government’s responsibility to manage the economy and to promote 

social welfare had important implications for the history of the Committee on Ways and Means. As Chairman Doughton’s observation on 

the complexity of tax bills indicated, on one level the committee’s 

duties became much more technical. They also remained as political 

as ever before. The controversial issue of tariffs was largely resolved 

by embracing the concept of reciprocity, but taxes and Social Security 

became even more politically contentious in this period because they 

came to affect ever larger percentages of the population. 

The Committee and the House, 1933-1958 

Following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election to the Presidency in 1932, 

the Democratic Party maintained an almost unbroken control of Congress and the White House. Between 1933 and the election of Dwight 

D. Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party controlled Congress 

only in the Eightieth Congress (1947-1949). During Eisenhower’s two 

terms as President (1953-1961) his party controlled Congress only in 

the Eighty-third Congress (1953-1955). 

This prolonged period of one-party rule imparted a sense of continuity and stability to the Committee on Ways and Means. The seniority system was firmly entrenched, and one chairman, Robert L. 

Doughton of North Carolina, led the committee from 1933 to 1953, 

with the exception of the Republican Eightieth Congress, making his 

the lengthiest chairmanship in the history of the committee. During 

the Seventy-fourth and Seventy-fifth Congresses, at the height of 

Democratic control, the 25-member committee had a majority-minority ratio of 18 Democrats to 7 Republicans. In all other Congresses the 

ratio was 15-10. 

The existence of one-party control of Congress, the committee, 

and the executive branch did not mean automatic harmony. During 

the early years of the New Deal, the Committee on Ways and Means 

cooperated closely with FDR in crafting recovery revenue legislation; 

however, over the years the committee came to hold independent and 

more conservative views than those represented by either Roosevelt’s 

or Truman’s domestic spending programs. Beginning in 1937, a Rules 

Committee coalition of conservative Democrats and minority Republi272 
In 1933, at age 69, Robert 

Doughton of North Carolina 

began his tenure as Ways and 

Means chairman. When he 

ended his 42-year congressional 

career in 1953, he had chaired 

Ways and Means longer than 

any other member, I8 years. He 

disliked budget deficits and espoused pay-as-you-go financing. When President Roosmelt 

vetoed a I944 tax increase, 

stating it was insufficient, 

Doughton, who urged greatp 

economy in spending, joined 

lawmakers in overriding the 

President 5 veto. As chairman, 

he participated in a fucal 

revolution that entaikd the 

financing of New Deal relief 

programs, Social Security, U. S. 

mobilization in World War II 

and the Korean War, and foreign aid programs of the early 

Cold War years. 

E’ 

cans began to block New Deal legislation. By the following year, a 

similar conservative alignment was evident in the Committee on Ways 

and Means. This conservative coalition had distinct historical origins. 

During the years of Republican ascendancy in the 1920s, Southerners 

had made up a large proportion of congressional Democrats. When 

their party regained the majority in the 1930s, these Southern Democrats, because of their seniority, came to hold the key leadership positions, especially the Speakership and major committee chairmanships. 

The Democratic Speakers of the House between 1935 and 1961 were 

all conservative Southerners: Joseph W. Byrns (TN), William B. Bankhead (AL), and Sam Rayburn (TX). Conservative chairmen, such as 

Robert Doughton, often opposed the administration. Doughton’s independence on tax measures, in fact, prompted the first presidential 

veto of a revenue bill in American history, when Roosevelt vetoed the 

Revenue Act of 1943, subsequentl?, enacted when the veto was overridden by both the House and the Senate.2 

The convergence of the seniority system, strong committee chairmen, and the conservative coalition motivated a movement for legislative reform, one compounded by the vastly enlarged powers and organizational complexity of the executive branch during World War 11. In 

1945, the American Political Science Association urged: “Congress 

must modernize its machinery if it is to keep pace with a greatly enlarged and active Executive Branch.” The House and Senate created 

273 
a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress in 1945, whose 

report formed the basis for the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

1946. The number of standing committees was reduced from 33 to 15 

in the Senate and from 48 to 19 in the House. The number of standing committee assignments were limited to one for most House members and to two for most Senators. Standing committees were required to maintain records of all committee votes and to open all 

meetings to the public “except executive sessions for marking up bills 

or for voting, or where the committee by a majority vote orders an 

executive session.” 

The two provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act that 

most affected the Committee on Ways and Means concerned preparation of the annual legislative budget and the area of committee staffing. The Committee on Ways and Means, the Senate Committee on 

Finance, and both Appropriations Committees were instructed to act 

as a Joint Budget Committee to prepare an annual legislative budget. 

Each standing committee was also authorized to hire four professional 

and six clerical staff members, except that no limitations were placed 

on the number of staff for the Appropriations Committees. The act 

also strengthened the Legislative Reference Service, making it a separate department within the Library of Congress. 

Although legislative reorganization was not designed to enhance 

the powers of committee chairmen, the enlarged committee staffs, 

which were under the control of the chairmen, provided them with an 

added tool. The staff of the Committee on Ways and Means grew 

from the 10 authorized in 1946 to 21 by 1957. In the years of 1951, 

1952, and 1953, the staff reached highs of 24, 36, and 30-when the 

Washington news reporters take 

notes (left) as Ways and Means 

Chairman James Collier announces that the committee will 

consider a tax on beer. The 

Great Depression necessitated 

immediate government revenues. 

When the repeal of Prohibition 

legalized beer, Ways and 

Means members put aside party 

diffences and backed a tax. 

Arguing against a beer tax, 

Bishop James Cannon, Jr., 

(right) tries to sway members of 

Ways and Means. He failed, 

and the Beer and Wine Revenue bill became law in 1933. 

2 74 
L 

committee participated in the first thorough revision of the Internal 

Revenue Code since 1913.5 The committee needed an enlarged staff 

in the post-World War I1 era because of the increased technical complexity of the revenue, trade, and Social Security issues within its jurisdiction. 

The Committee on Ways and Means and the New Deal, 

1933-1939 

The United States was experiencing the darkest days of the Great Depression when Franklin D. Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, 

promising “a new deal for the American people.” Unemployment had 

reached 14 million, and banks were failing throughout the nation. The 

new President requested broad executive powers to cope with the economic crisis. On the day after his inauguration, Roosevelt called a 

special session of Congress. For the next three-and-a-half months, 

known as the Hundred Days, the House and the Senate cooperated 

with the President to produce an extraordinary legislative record. 

Although the early spirit of legislative-executive cooperation was 

later dissipated by Supreme Court decisions striking down some key 

275 
acts, and by fierce public criticism of certain New Deal measures, 

there was a revival of legislative activity in the Second New Deal in the 

Seventy-fourth Congress (1935-1937). The Committee on Ways and 

Means tended to cooperate with the Roosevelt Administration to pass 

early key revenue and Social Security legislation. Yet under the leadership of Robert L. Doughton (D-NC), the committee modified most 

executive proposals after 1938 in order to achieve compromises acceptable to a growing conservative coalition. 

The Seventy-third Congress that convened on March 9, 1933, was 

composed of a 3 10-1 17 Democratic majority. Henry T. Rainey of Illinois was elected Speaker, and Joseph W. Byrns was elected House 

majority leader by the Democratic caucus. Robert Doughton, the 

chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, had served on the 

committee since 1927, and he remained chairman, with one two-year 

interruption, until 1952. The North Carolinian affected a homespun 

country philosophy, often reminding colleagues that “the science of 

levying and collecting taxes is the science of getting the most feathers 

with the least squawking of the geese.” As chairman, he earned a reputation as the New Deal’s man on taxes in the House, yet Doughton 

was more conservalive and less willing LO experirnent than was the 

President. His nickname, “Muley,” reflected an image of backwoods 

stubbornness that conveniently cloaked a shrewd ability to compromise without alienating either New Deal liberals or their conservative 

critics. ti 

Soon after the first session of the Seventy-third Congress began 

in 1933, the Democrats created a Steering Committee to set party 

276 
LLZ 
CIPRO(SBL TRADE 

the prevailing bipartisanship when he stated: “We have tried various 

expediencies without success. Here is a new notion. Try it. Try anything.” * 

The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 

The previous year’s harmony disintegrated in 1934 as partisan differences on the committee began to surface. The first partisan clash occurred during deliberations on the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act 

of 1934. The Roosevelt Administration’s trade policy evolved slowly. 

The President’s choice for Secretary of State was Cordell Hull, a 

former member of the Committee on Ways and Means who had consistently advocated free trade and tariff reduction. In the winter of 

1933-1934, the President asked Hull to prepare a trade bill for subThe historic squabbling in Congress over writing tanflschedules changed course with the 

proposal for reciprocal trade 

agreements, the subject of this 

1934 Ways and Means report. 

As Secretary of State, former 

Ways and Means member 

Cordell Hull suggested that 

Congress entmt the responsibility for setting tangs to the 

President, who would reduce 

tartts on imports from those 

countries reducing tangs on 

their imports of U.S. goodr. 

The idea set off intense partisan 

debate. The Republican minority argued that reciprocity was 

unconstitutional. Critics also 

said the plan set no time limit 

upon the President’s authority. 

A series of compromises addressed these concerns, and the 

amended bill was passed into 

law as the Reciprocal Trade 

Agreements Act of 1934. It 

provided the means to lower the 

ruinous Smoot-Hawhy TanJ 

Act of I930 and marked a 

turning point in tan# history. 

After 150 years of presiding 

over tanff legzslation, Congress 

had granted responsibility for 

rate-setting to the executive 

branch. 

278 
mission to Congress. The Secretary of State was guided by foreign 

policy considerations as well as by economic concerns. “To me it 

seemed virtually impossible to develop friendly relations with other 

nations in the political sphere so long as we provoked their animosity 

in the economic sphere,” he recalled. “How could we promote peace 

with them while waging war on them commercially?” 

The most effective remedy for international trade barriers would 

have been for the United States to unilaterally lower tariff rates. Hull’s 

congressional experience, however, had convinced him that once tariff 

revision began, special interests would take over and the result would 

be much the same as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Therefore, he 

recommended that Congress entrust the responsibility for tariff reduction to the executive branch. Hull’s bill proposed that Congress authorize the President to negotiate bilateral trade agreements incorporating both reciprocity and the most-favored-nation status, which 

meant that, as Hull put it: “any reduced duties were to apply to all 

foreign countries alike. If any country, however, discriminated against 

our commerce, the lowered duties need not apply.” lo 

The administration unveiled Hull’s draft at the White House on 

February 28, 1934, before a group of congressional leaders that included Chairman Doughton of the Committee on Ways and Means. 

The President, according to Hull, stressed the importance of reviving 

American exports and international trade in order to promote “a full 

and permanent domestic recovery.” A bill was sent to Congress in 

early March. Secretary Hull testified before both House and Senate 

committees. In stark contrast to the protracted hearings on the 

Smoot-Hawley bill, the Committee on Ways and Means heard only 17 

witnesses in just one week. The executive mark-up session included 

both majority and minority party members, unlike the case in 1930 

when the minority had been excluded. The majority report voted out 

of committee on March 19 adopted the administration plan virtually 

unchanged. The Republican members, however, issued a strong minority report criticizing the bill because it set no time limit upon the 

President’s authority to negotiate trade agreements and because in 

their opinion it violated the Constitution. According to the bill’s critics, it delegated to the President the authority of Congress to tax and 

the Senate’s power of treaty ratification. Hull had anticipated the 

latter objection. The administration had decided that trade agreements would not be considered as treaties but rather as executive 

agreements that did not require congressional approval. The administration had similarly rejected any legislative veto of trade agreements 

that would have interfered with the executive’s ability to negotiate. 

The criticism of the trade bill carried over to floor debate, where 

House Democrats accepted a series of compromise amendments. The 

most important amendment limited the President’s negotiating authority to three years. Another amendment provided that any agree279 
ment could be terminated after three years. The bill passed the House 

on March 29 by a 274-1 11 vote. The Senate passed the bill on June 4, 

and President Roosevelt signed it on June 12, 1934. 

The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 was actually an 

amendment to the existing Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The new law authorized the President to negotiate bilateral trade agreements to raise 

or lower the existing tariff rates by as much as 50 percent. However, 

as Hull observed, “it was obvious we would reduce them, since no 

other country would sign an agreement to increase our tariffs.” l1 

The law marked a turning point in tariff history-one tariff scholar referred to it at the time as “a revolution in tariff making.” l2 Congress 

delegated to the executive branch the authority over rate-setting that 

it had jealously guarded for 150 years. The Democratic majority on 

the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as that in Congress, recognized that trade in the interdependent 20th-century economy was a 

foreign policy issue even more than a domestic consideration. 

The Revenue Act of 1934 and the Wealth Tax of 1935 

Great Depression victims: A 

jobbs father holds tight to his 

child as police lead him from 

the scene of a demonrtration in 

Washington, DC. Hundreds of 

out-of-work protestors seeking 

government relief clashed with 

police in a melee known as the 

Unemployment Riot of 1933. 

Earlier, in the December cold of 

1932, hunger marchers (right) 

line up outside the U.S. Capitol. They waited under the 

watchful glare of armed police 

as delegates presented their demands for aid to Speaker John 

N. Garner and Vice President 

Charles Curtk. Provisions of 

the Social Security Act, such as 

unemployment insurance, directly addressed the concerns of 

these workers. 

The trade act, while closely adhering to the proposal drawn up by the 

administration, also revealed the crumbling bipartisan coalition on the 

committee. The revival of partisanship continued during consideration 

of the Revenue Act of 1934, which resulted more from the commit280 
tee’s initiative than that of the administration. A subcommittee of the 

Committee on Ways and Means had undertaken a study of tax evasion 

the previous year. The subcommittee’s recommendations were mainly 

concerned with technical adjustments to revenue administration, designed to plug some loopholes in the existing law. The Secretary of 

the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., objected to most of the committee’s proposals. The House, however, passed the committee bill unamended. LJnder the Revenue Act of 1934, a single rate of 4 percent 

was established for the normal tax, and surtax rates were revised in a 

slightly progressive manner. The most controversial provision was a 

35 percent tax on the undistributed profits of personal holding companies-companies established to accumulate earnings as a means to 

avoid the income tax surtax rates. (The committee called these companies “incorporated pocketbooks.”) 

After the 1934 congressional elections, the Democrats commanded a 319-103 majority, and the committee’s membership shifted to 

18-7 to reflect the larger House majority. During the Seventy-fourth 

Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means reported five major 

bills, drafted by a caucus of the majoritv members, which excluded the 

Republican minority. In fact, for the next four vears the Committee 

on Ways and Means was dominated by the Democratic majority. Committee Democrats ignored the Republican members. “We do not want 

their advice,” one Democrat observed in 1938, “because we know 

they are going to stick a knife in our Democratic backs every time they 

28 1 
can on everything we propose.” l4 Republican members were outraged, charging that the majority developed bills in caucus and then 

simply informed the minority of their actions. Republican members 

were literally locked out of the committee’s proceedings. Ranking minority member Treadway made it a practice to knock every morning 

on the committee door, “only to find it locked and to hear the buzz of 

voices in heated argument within.” l5 Only after the Democratic 

members had reached agreement were the Republicans asked in to be 

notified of the committee’s decisions. 

The most serious controversy engendered by a committee bill 

during this Congress occurred over the Wealth Tax of 1935. In response to criticism that the New Deal was not doing enough to redistribute wealth in the United States, FDR unveiled a comprehensive tax 

reform plan. In a message to Congress in June 1935, the President 

criticized the existing revenue system and proposed reforms to increase taxes on upper income taxpayers. The President surprised 

Congress by charging that the revenue system had “done little to prevent an unjust concentration of wealth and economic power.” l6 His 

solution was the so-called Wealth Tax. As written by the Committee 

on Ways and Means and reported by Chairman Doughton, the bill 

proposed to create a more equitable tax system through progressive 

corporate, inheritance, and income taxes. The final bill, approved by 

Congress on August 30, 1935, increased surtax rates on individual incomes exceeding $50,000 and individual estates of over $40,000. In 

addition, it imposed a 59 percent rate on individual incomes above 

one million dollars, graduated to a maximum rate of 75 percent on 

incomes exceeding five million dollars. The act also raised estate and 

gift taxes, while rates on all corporate incomes were raised to 15 percent. Finally, an excess profits tax was levied on profits exceeding 10 

percent. This tax was graduated to a maximum rate of 12 percent on 

corporate profits in excess of the 15 percent nontaxable profits rate 

allowed by the statute. l7 

The Republicans on the Committee on Ways and Means strenuously opposed the Wealth Tax Act. Treadway called it a “monstrosity.” The statute also alienated many conservative House Democrats, 

who were disturbed by the implications of the bill but who reluctantly 

supported it because of the heavy pressure applied by the White 

House and the House majority leadership. 

The Social Security Act of 1935 

In spite of the growing congressional opposition to the New Deal, 

Chairman Doughton managed to maintain party discipline within the 

Committee on Ways and Means on measures requested by the Roosevelt Administration. The most important committee legislation during 

282 
Minutes of a Ways and Means 

executive session on April 5, 

1935, record the committee’s 

deliberations over a proposed 

Social Security bill. President 

Roosevelt in the summer of 

I934 had called for legwlation 

that would provide “security 

against several of the great 

disturbing factors in lzfe-especially those which relate to unemployment and old age. ” 

Interestingly, this Ways and 

Means document shows that 

seven committee members supported a motion to strike Title 

II of the proposed bill, dealing 

with old-age benefits. A majority, including Chairman 

Doughton, rdected the motion. 

A second motion to favorably 

report H.R. 7260 found members in the same camps, and the 

motion was adopted. 

283 
H. R. 7260 chared the House 

without amendment on April 

19, 1935, and by early August 

the House and Senate reached a 

compromise on the measure. 

With Chairman Doughton at 

his side, President Roosevelt 

(right) signs the Social Security 

Act into law on Augwt 14. At 

rear, directly behind the President, W committee member John 

D. Dingle (D-MI). The measure, originally entitled the Economic Security Act, transfmed 

to the federal government functions that had once been the 

responsibility of families and of 

state and local governments. In 

addition to the retirement program, now known as Social 

Security, the act also created 

unemployment and welfare 

programs to assist workers and 

children in need. 

the Seventy-fourth Congress was the Social Security Act of 1935, even 

though the principal impetus for the legislation came from sources 

outside the committee. 

The Social Security Act developed from several sources. By the 

1930s, every major European nation had adopted the concept of 

social insurance in some form. Private pension plans in the United 

States had proved inadequate in the face of the Depression; some 45 

plans were discontinued between 1929 and 1932. Moreover, several 

utopian social welfare schemes had captured the public’s imagination. 

Socialist Upton Sinclair had campaigned for governor of California on 

a platform of a $50 pension for all state residents. Senator Huey P. 

“Kingfish” Long of Louisiana advocated a radical Share-Our-Wealth 

Plan to redistribute income by confiscatory taxes upon the surplus 

wealth of the richest Americans. Dr. Francis E. Townsend, an elderly 

California physician, became extremely popular with his plan to provide $200 monthly pensions to all persons over 60 provided that the 

money was spent within 30 days.ls 

In 1934, Senator Robert F. Wagner (D-NY) and Representative 

David J. Lewis (D-MD), a member of the committee, introduced a bill 

to provide unemployment insurance financed by a 5 percent payroll 

tax. The bill was endorsed by administration officials in hearings 

284 
before a subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, but the 

subcommittee reported the bill to the full committee with no recommendations for action. Although FDR wrote to Doughton requesting 

that the measure be passed, the Wagner-Lewis bill died in committee. 

Impressed by arguments that a more comprehensive measure incorporating both old age assistance and unemployment insurance was 

needed, the President delivered a Special Message on Reconstruction 

and Recovery onJune 8, 1934, in which he stated: 

Next winter we may well undertake the great task of furthering the security of the citizen and his family through social 

insurance. . . . The various types of social insurance are 

interrelated; and I think it is difficult to attempt to solve 

them piecemeal. Hence, I am looking for a sound means 

which I can recommend to provide at once security against 

several of the great disturbing factors in life-especially those 

which relate to unemployment and old age. l9 

Three weeks later the President appointed a Cabinet-level Committee 

on Economic Security (CES) to report recommendations on social insurance. The committee’s report of January 15, 1935, formed the 

basis for the Social Security Act of 1935. 

Although the Committee on Economic Security’s report was accompanied by a draft bill, the question of who would introduce the 

285 
bill in Congress caused some concern. Senator Wagner was given the 

privilege in the Senate, but the President was advised by Speaker 

Byrns that Chairman Doughton wanted the honor of introducing the 

bill in the House. The bill was introduced in such haste that 

Doughton had to procure a copy of Wagner’s Senate bill to place 

before the House. The Committee on Ways and Means then scheduled hearings to begin on January 21, one day before the Senate Finance Committee’s hearings.20 

The hearings began with testimony from the executive director 

and members of the CES, including Labor Secretary Frances Perkins. 

After the government witnesses had explained and defended the provisions of their draft bill, the committee heard critics of the plan, including Dr. Townsend and his supporters. The Townsendites received 

by far the greatest public attention as they tried to offer their plan as 

an alternative to the administration’s recommendations on old age security. Doughton accorded the witnesses ample courtesy, but the committee subjected them to piercing cross examination to discredit 

Townsend’s fanciful scheme.2 

The committee began consideration of the bill in earnest after the 

hearings ended on February 12. In some 20 executive sessions of the 

entire committee, the bill was considered word-by-word. Part of the 

reason for the committee’s deliberate approach was the need to redraft the bill’s language. The CES had originally written sections into 

the bill that made appropriations for various purposes, rather than authorizing appropriations. Consequently, Chairman Doughton instructed the chief draftsman of the House to rewrite the bill, which he did 

in a typically thorough, diligent, and tedious bureaucratic manner. 

More serious, however, was the fact that many members of the committee were opposed to, or uncertain about, the old age provisions. 

President Roosevelt declined to actively intervene, making it necessary 

for the chairman to slowly build support for the bill. Doughton utilized his popularity and fairness to postpone action, finally making a 

compromise possible. The original draft had provided for both voluntary and compulsory old age annuities. By agreeing to drop the voluntary provision, the bill’s supporters were able to obtain support for 

the passage of the compulsory insurance title. 

The bill that emerged from the committee was significantly rearranged and rewritten. Previously known as the Economic Security Act, 

it was now renamed the Social Security Act. The committee’s favorable report was made on April 5, and House debate began six days 

later under an open rule. The committee had requested the usual 

closed rule to limit debate and amendment, but the Rules Committee 

refused in order to maintain the appearance that members favorable 

to the Townsend plan would be free to amend the bill. Behind the 

scenes, however, the House Democratic leadership had moved to 

insure that the bill would not be amended. Although approximately 

The Ways and Means Commitlee On 

Social Security in March 

1939, Expert witnesses 

before thecommittee on the 

mmds of extending benefits 

bond thoseprovided in the 

origznal act. Ways and Means 

amendment of Title II to inChde Protection for SU771ivOrS 

the death gthe wage 

earner and to certain dependents. president Roosmelt siped 

the new law on August 10, 

l939. 

a bill favoring an 

286 
L8Z 
against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life.” 

Social Security, he believed, was “too precious to be jeopardized now 

by extravagant action.” 22 

The Revenue Acts of 1936-1939 

After passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, the committee focused once more on tax issues. When the Seventy-fifth Congress convened, the Democrats had commanding majorities in the House (331- 

89) and the Senate (76-16). Party representation on the Committee 

on Ways and Means remained at 18-7. FDR was dealt a severe blow 

in January 1936 when the Supreme Court declared the Agricultural 

Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional. One of the provisions of the 

act had been to subsidize farm production through excise taxes levied 

on the processors of specified farm products. The court’s action deprived the government of 500 million dollars in revenue. On March 3, 

1936, Roosevelt called for new taxes to produce over one billion dolIda Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, 

was Social Security ’s first 

retirement beneficiary. She received her first check, numbered 

000-00-001 and payable for 

$22.54, on January 3 I, 

1940. She is shown here at age 

76, in October 1950, with a 

check that rejhcts the first-ever 

increase in monthly benefits, 

which resulted from the Social 

Security Amendments of 1950. 

Her increase was $I 8.75. In 

all, she received benefits for 35 

years, living to age 100. 

288 
lars in additional revenues through the imposition of three new taxes: 

1) a windfall profits tax, 2) a temporary agricultural products processing tax, and 3) a graduated tax upon undistributed corporate income. 

FDR’s proposals were immediately attacked by business leaders, 

by Republicans, and by conservative congressional Democrats. On 

March 26, 1936, the Internal Revenue Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means began public hearings and later submitted a 

report closely patterned on President Roosevelt’s requests. The document contained a proposal for a graduated undistributed corporate 

profits tax at a maximum rate of 42.5 percent for corporations whose 

net incomes exceeded $70,000. On March 30 the full committee 

began hearings on the subcommittee report. After hearing testimony 

from the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, the 

committee majority reported a bill containing the undistrib.uted profits tax and a windfall profits tax. The opinion of the majority was 

countered by a minority report listing its objections, but the House 

accepted the bill with little debate. 

The House revenue bill of 1936 ran into trouble in the Senate. 

After holding its own hearings, the Senate Finance Committee issued 

a majority report opposing the House measure on the grounds that it 

would limit the growth of new corporations, cause unemployment, 

and diminish the confidence of the business community in the federal 

government. The Finance Committee proposed a substitute tax plan 

increasing the standard corporate tax rate while lowering the undistributed profits tax to a maximum rate of 7 percent. After three days 

of discussion, the Senate approved the Finance Committee’s version 

of the House bill by a vote of 38-24. The conference committee’s 

compromise reflected the House’s desire to tax undistributed profits 

and the Senate’s wish to retain a graduated corporate earnings tax. 

The Revenue Act of 1936, approved on June 22, levied the undistributed profits tax and imposed surtaxes ranging from 7 to 27 percent 

on corporate incomes. 23 

After creating the new tax system, the Committee on Ways and 

Means considered how best to enforce it. On June 1, 1937, the President sent a message to Congress citing the imperative problem of tax 

evasion and requesting legislation to make “the present tax structure 

evasion-proof.” 24 Shortly thereafter Congress created a Joint Committee on Tax Evasion and Avoidance, which held hearings until July 

28, and submitted a report explaining the loopholes that wealthy 

Americans used to avoid paying taxes. On August 26, the President 

signed the Revenue Act of 1937. Written as an amendment to the 

1936 law, the new measure closed several loopholes that had permitted corporate and individual evasion. Meanwhile, the Committee on 

Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Internal Revenue Taxation, 

chaired by Fred M. Vinson (D-KY), was considering additional substantive changes in the internal revenue system. 

289 
Vinson’s subcommittee submitted its report to the full committee 

on January 14, 1938. This document contained a wide variety of recommendations on corporate taxes, holding companies, capital gains 

and losses, excises, and estate and gift taxes, as well as suggestions for 

the administration of the tax system. In addition, the subcommittee 

proposed a substantial modification of the undistributed profits tax, 

the most controversial feature of the 1936 Revenue Act. In subsequent full committee hearings, the bulk of testimony delivered principally by lobbyists and by members of the business community was unfavorable to the continuation of the undistributed profits tax. The 

committee was unimpressed with such testimony and retained the tax 

in its version of the new revenue bill. 

The Senate Finance Committee urged the abandonment of the 

tax altogether, and adopted flat corporate taxes as a substitute measure. The final conference committee bill curtailed the undistributed 

profits tax and also reduced capital gains taxes. The President disapproved of this tax break for large corporations, but he did not veto 

the conference measure. At midnight on May 28, the Revenue Act of 

1938 became law without the President’s signature. One year later, 

Congress repealed the undistributed profits tax. 

The Democratic majority on the Committee on Ways and Means 

had been able to write revenue legislation with little regard for the 

Republican minority prior to 1939. But the Democrats suffered severe 

losses in the midterm congressional elections in 1938. One factor that 

hurt Democratic candidates was Roosevelt’s unpopular attempt to 

pack the Supreme Court by adding as many as six new justices in 

order to alter its conservative anti-New Deal philosophy; another negative factor was a sharp economic recession that began in 1937. Republicans gained a total of 76 seats in the House and the Senate, 

bringing the House totals to 261 Democrats and 164 Republicans. 

Membership on the Committee on Ways and Means was restored to 

the usual 15-10 ratio. The relationship between Republicans and 

Democrats on the committee was relatively free from partisanship 

during the Seventy-sixth Congress as the conservative coalition of 

Southern Democrats and Republicans emerged. The committee reported three important pieces of legislation: 1) the Revenue Act of 

1939, which abolished the undistributed profits tax, 2) the Public 

Salary Tax Act, and 3) a bill to amend the Social Security Act of 1935. 

These bills were hammered out in executive sessions now attended by 

members of both parties, and were passed by the House and the 

Senate without significant controversy. The Public Salary Tax Act extended the income tax to federal, state, and local judges, and to federal judges who had taken the oath of office before 1932. However, the 

impact of both it and the Revenue Act of 1939 were relatively minor 

compared to the major expansion of the Social Security system enacted in 1939.25 

290 
Ways and Means Chairman 

Doughton, right, Speaker 

Joseph Byms, bji, and Senate 

Finance Chairman Pat Harrison leave a White Home 

meeting concerning fea!eral rmenues in February 1936. A 

month earlier, the Supreme 

Court had struck down a farm 

tar law, severely crippling federal revenues. In March, the 

President called for a controversial tax program to raise more 

than a billion dollars in additional revenues. The unity 

welded by the hard times of the 

early 1930s began to break 

apart at mid-decade. The $it 

between Nm Deal liberals and 

fwcal commatives made the 

passage of the Revenue Act of 

I936 dijjjcult. 

The Social Security Amendments of 1939 

President Roosevelt believed that once the Social Security system of 

payroll taxes and old-age assistance had gone into operation, “no 

damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.” 26 Public 

acceptance of the system seemed to reinforce the President’s conclusion. In 1937, for example, a Gallup poll determined that 73 percent 

of those questioned supported the payroll tax. Yet Social Security was 

not without its critics on both the left and the right. Dr. Townsend’s 

scheme continued to attract millions of supporters. In California, 

some 80 different old age welfare plans were developed between 1936 

and 1938. During the 1936 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Alfred Landon attacked Social Security as a “cruel hoax.” To Republican critics, Roosevelt’s New Deal programs not only aggrandized 

federal power, but they also mortgaged the nation’s economic future. 

Social Security was particularly unsound, “unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed.” Landon warned: “If the present 

compulsory insurance program remains in force, our old people are 

only too apt to find the cupboard bare.” 27 

At the suggestion of Arthur J. Altmeyer, the chairman of the 

Social Security Board, President Roosevelt named an advisory council 

to recommend changes in the system as a means to defuse mounting 

criticism. “I think it not only possible to offset these attacks,” Altmeyer wrote, “. . . but really to use them to advance a socially desira29 I 
Z62 
“Sucker-list ” salesmen (left) 

pour over a repster on a tabb 

in the Ways and Means 

committee room in 1936. The 

book contained the names of 

every corporate employee in the 

nation whose salary was 

$15,000 or more. Ways and 

Means prohibited anyone from 

removing the book from the 

room. The sensitive volume, 

however, was public record and 

was the most eagerly read book 

in the Capitol. Such a listing 

indicates Congress’focus on 

corporate incomes and profits 

during the late 1930s. Concerned about invasion of privacy, a Ways and Means 

report (right) recommenak 

repeal of the section in the 

I934 Revenue Act that allowed public disclosure of tmpayers’ names, addresses, and 

annual salaries. 

agreed to by both Houses early in the following month, and the President signed the bill on August 10, 1939.31 

In House debate, John W. McCormack (D-MA), a member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means, defended the Social Security Amendments of 1939 on the grounds of family stability. “Safeguarding the 

family against economic hazards is one of the major purposes of 

modern social legislation,” he argued. The amendments stressed the 

insurance aspects of Social Security because so many conservative critics feared the advent of a welfare state. The payroll tax was rechristened “insurance contributions” under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) as part of the Internal Revenue Code. The OldAge Reserve Account became the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 

(OASI) Trust Fund. The act increased benefits to be paid in the early 

years of the program by changing the benefit formula to average 

rather than total earnings. (The total earnings of workers since 1935 

who were eligible for the first benefits in 1940 would, of course, have 

been much less than that of workers who retired in later years.) But 

293 
the most notable change was the addition of monthly benefit payments for a whole set of survivors and dependents: wives, widows, 

widows with children, dependent children, and surviving children.32 

The 1939 amendments accomplished the purpose of strengthening public acceptance of the Social Security system. As benefits expanded, the level of public support grew as the President had predicted. “We shall make the most orderly progress,” Roosevelt believed, 

“if we look upon social security as a development toward a goal rather 

than a finished product.” 33 Eleven years later, the Social Security 

Amendments of 1950 greatly increased the number of workers who 

were insured for benefits, and provided the first benefit increase in 

the program’s history. The Disability Amendments of 1956 expanded 

the system by authorizing a permanent disability insurance program.34 

Social Security was a major innovation within the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on Ways and Means during the New Deal. An emerging conservative coalition, however, had frustrated the administration’s attempts to make major structural changes in the tax code. Both 

a federal inheritance tax and the undistributed profits tax failed to 

become permanent, leaving excise taxes and corporate and individual 

income taxes as the chief sources of federal revenue. Excise taxes on 

items such as alcoholic beverages and tobacco amounted to more total 

receipts between 1933-1937 than did income taxes. Only in 1938 did 

income taxes (2.6 billion dollars) exceed excise receipts (2.3 billion 

dollars). 

World War I1 Revenue Legislation 

New Deal recovery and revenue measures failed to lift the nation out 

of the Depression. But the vastly increased government spending and 

economic growth during World War I1 not only restored prosperity, 

they also stimulated a major expansion of the federal income tax 

system. Corporate and personal income taxes emerged from the war 

as the dominant form of federal revenue. In 1941, personal income 

taxes had amounted to 1.4 billion dollars, corporate income taxes 2 

billion dollars, and internal revenue (excise) taxes nearly 3 billion dollars. Receipts from customs duties were understandably low throughout the war, never rising above 431 million dollars. By 1945, as a 

result of increased wartime revenue acts, personal income taxes had 

skyrocketed to over 19 billion dollars and corporate taxes to over 16 

billion dollars, far overshadowing the 6.9 billion dollars derived from 

increased excises.36 

In spite of increased taxes, revenue growth failed to keep pace 

with the accelerated expansion of wartime spending. Total governmental expenditures rose dramatically, from 12.7 billion dollars in 

294 
1941 to over 100 billion dollars by 1945. Revenue receipts during the 

war financed only 46 percent of expenditures, less than the 55 percent figure of World War I. As the case had been in earlier wars, the 

nation financed World War I1 through a combination of increased taxation and borrowing. Between November 1942 and December 1945, 

Congress authorized seven war-loan drives and the final Victory loan. 

However, the most important revenue measures were the four major 

tax bills reported from the Committee on Ways and Means. These 

revenue bills increased personal and corporate income taxes, reinstat295 
ed an excess profits tax modeled on that of World War I, and authorized the withholding of income taxes through payroll deductions. 

Most tax bills reported from the committee during World War I1 

were considered on the House floor under closed rules that limited 

debate and amendment. This type of rule was bitterly opposed at 

times, but its proponents justified closed rules on the grounds of the 

technical nature of the bills, and on the urgency to provide revenue 

for the war effort. Leland M. Ford (R-CA), for example, complained 

of bills “conceived in speed.” Committee member Wesley E. Disney 

(D-OK) admitted that the bills were reported from the Committee on 

Ways and Means “somewhat in the attitude of the sign which was 

placed over the piano in a dance hall in Dodge City in the roaring 

days, that stated, ‘Don’t shoot the piano player, he is doing the best 

he can.’ ” 37 

However, under Chairman Doughton’s resolute leadership, the 

“best the committee could do” did not include blind acceptance of 

presidential tax proposals. Even the need for prompt action did not, 

in most cases, persuade the chairman to accept simple solutions for 

complicated tax questions. Doughton’s philosophy was that, “Our 

taxes must follow the intricacies of business and not attempt to bend 

business to the pattern of simplicity we should all like to see in taxation.” 38 Thus the committee did not hesitate to modify or even to 

reject administration proposals. The committee’s independence was 

partially responsible for creating the first revenue bill ever to be 

vetoed by the President-the Revenue Act of 1943-which afterwards 

became the first revenue bill ever passed over a presidential veto. 

The committee and the administration began their consideration 

of war finance policy in a spirit of cooperation. The first wartime revenue measure was adopted in 1940 as a temporary expedient to meet 

increased defense expenditures in the wake of Nazi Germany’s alarming victories in Europe. Even though the United States would not 

enter the war until December 1941, the need for military preparedness led President Roosevelt to request 1.2 billion dollars for defense 

spending. Chairman Doughton and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Pat Harrison (D-MS) met with Secretary Morgenthau in late May 

and agreed to levy additional taxes and to increase the national debt 

authorization in order to issue war bonds. The committee bill was 

considered under a closed rule and passed on June 11 by an overwhelming 396-6 margin. The only opposition expressed in debate 

concerned increasing the public debt limit. Daniel Reed (R-NY), 

fourth-ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and 

Means, criticized the administration’s proposal as an example of the 

deficit financing, pump-priming scheme advocated by British economist John Maynard Keynes.39 

Although the Senate adopted a floor amendment by Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin that provided for an excess profits tax, the con296 
Members of a Ways and Means 

tax subcommittee gather on 

August 7, 1940. That year, 

alarming news of Nazi Germany > victones in Europe spurred 

Congress to increase defense expenditures. AJer this meeting, 

manufacturers got word to move 

ahead on federal contracts with 

the assurance that Congress 

would approve a plan to wnte 

ofl the cost of plant expansion 

over Jive years. Four months 

later, the U.S. entered World 

War II. 

ference committee rejected the amendment in favor of a resolution 

stating that an excess profits tax “should be enacted as soon as possible.” 40 Doughton’s committee had previously concluded that preparation of an excess profits tax would have unnecessarily delayed passage of the revenue bill. The committee majority had instructed its 

staff and the Treasury Department to prepare plans for such a tax as 

quickly as possible for subsequent consideration. 

Signed by the President on June 25, this first Revenue Act of 

1940 raised the federal debt limit to four billion dollars in order to 

authorize the issuance of defense bonds. The act provided revenue to 

pay off these bonds over a five-year period by increasing federal surtaxes on most individual income tax brackets and by imposing a defense supertax of 10 percent on most existing internal revenue taxes. 

Personal exemptions for married and single persons were reduced by 

60 percent. Corporate tax rates were only slightly increased, pending 

the consideration of an excess profits tax. The act also raised excise 

taxes on distilled spirits, wines, cigarettes, and playing cards-a timehonored means of raising war revenue. 

In the fall of 1940, the Committee on Ways and Means reported 

a second revenue bill that incorporated the excess profits tax postponed from the spring. The bill followed joint hearings in August between the House committee and the Senate Finance Committee. The 

bill lessened the impact of excess profits taxation on defense industries by including a complex amortization provision. The committee 

had been advised that private capital would not be invested in defense 

unless corporations were allowed to amortize new facilities over a 

shorter period than that permitted under existing regulations. The bill 

permitted defense industries to write off the cost of new land, buildings, equipment, and machinery over a five-year period. 

297 
1 

1 

The costs of World War 11 hit 

taxpayers hard, the point of 

these editorial cartoons. Congress spent ten times more than 

it had during World War I. 

Forty percent of the money 

came from four major reuenue 

bills passed between I940 and 

1944. The measures added 

more citizens to the tax rolls 

and increased the rates at 

which they had to pay. A national sab tax, depicted in the 

far-right cartoon, never passed. 

But a 5 percent “Victory Tax” 

on gross incomes over $624 

did. FDR and Congress graduallj grew at oddr over tax 

measures. The Revenue Act of 

I943 brought the conflict to a 

head, implied by the center 

drawing. FDR vetoed the bill, 

but Congress overrode the veto, 

thefirst such action on a revenue measure in U.S. history. 

The second revenue bill of 1940 was also considered under a 

closed rule. Several members objected to the haste with which the bill 

had been prepared, but most criticism centered on the complexity of 

the excess profits and amortization provisions. Allen T. Treadway, 

ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means, said 

that the bill was “a monumental specimen of statutory incomprehensibility.” Chairman Doughton defended the bill’s complexity: “A simple 

statute which would be adequate to tax equitably the corner grocery 

store simply will not work when applied to the United States Steel 

Corporation.” 

Much of the complexity and much of the disagreement over the 

bill concerned the manner in which excess profits were to be determined. Two methods were considered: 1) the average-earnings 

method, which considered earnings in a given tax year above the average earnings during the period 1936-1939 to be taxable excess profits 

due to defense spending, and 2) the invested capital method, which 

defined excess profits in relation either to an arbitrary profit-to-investment ratio or to returns on capital in a base period such as 1936- 

1939. The House bill gave taxpayers a choice between the two methods. The conference committee version imposed an excess profits tax 

with graduated rates up to 50 percent. Corporations could determine 

298 
their tax credit through a complex formula of earnings, capital addition or reduction, and invested capital. Senator Arthur Vandenberg 

(R-MI) predicted that it would take “a Philadelphia lawyer, a certified 

public accountant, and an extraordinarily clever crystal gazer” to understand the Moreover, the bill failed to achieve its objective. 

According to testimony presented to the committee in 1941, one company with 1940 profits of over 3,000 percent above those of 1939 was 

subject to no excess profits tax. 

Defense expenditures continued to mount in early 1941 when 

FDR signed the Lend-Lease Act to provide arms for Great Britain. In 

testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means in May, Secretary Morgenthau projected a deficit of 14 billion dollars. He also 

stated that it was the administration’s goal to finance two-thirds of expenditures through taxes and only one-third through borrowing. The 

committee reported a bill in July that proposed to raise taxes by 3.5 

billion dollars in order to bring total revenues to 13 billion dollars, or 

60 percent of anticipated expenditures. The bill recommended raising 

all major taxes, from personal income surtaxes to excess profits taxes. 

The most controversial provision of the committee bill was a requirement that husbands and wives file joint returns, which was projected 

to raise 300 million dollars.43 The press and the opposition had a 

field day with the so-called marriage tax, which seemingly made it 

more economical to stay single or to get divorced. 

The Republican members of the committee used negative public 

opinion to their advantage by issuing what Time magazine called “a 

noseholding minority report.” 44 The minority broadened their criticism of the marriage tax to include the entire record of New Deal revenue legislation. Democratic “wastrels,” they charged, had spent in 

eight years as much as the government had spent during its first 130 

299 
years. The minority concluded its report by congratulating themselves 

on the nonpartisan manner in which the minority had cooperated with 

the majority to make the bill the best it could be under the circumstances. 

The 1941 revenue bill was considered on the House floor under 

a modified closed rule that permitted an amendment to strike out the 

mandatory joint return provision (Section 11 1). The amendment to 

strike Section 11 1, proposed by Frank H. Buck (D-CA), was defended 

on the grounds of the sanctity of marriage and of the rights of 

women. Supporters of mandatory joint returns, on the other hand, 

argued that the provision was designed to equalize the tax differences 

between married couples in the 40 common law states and those in 

the eight community property states. Chairman Doughton grew eloquent in his defense of the marriage tax, predicting that if the Buck 

amendment succeeded, the problem would, “like Banquo’s ghost 

haunt us until the righteous wrath and indignation of the intelligent 

people of this nation impelled the removal of this injustice.” 45 The 

Buck amendment passed 242- 160, and the mandatory joint return 

provision was removed from the House bill. 

The Senate lowered income tax exemptions for joint returns from 

$2,000 to $1,500 and for individual returns from $800 to $750, which 

increased the number of tax returns by 30 percent. Along with the 

new and increased excise taxes and higher estate and gift taxes, these 

changes made the Revenue Act of 1941 the largest single revenue bill 

in the nation’s history up to that time, bringing total government revenues to 13 billion dollars, or 60 percent of the 22 billion dollars in 

government spending.46 

Vastly expanded government expenditures contributed to the 

problem of wartime inflation. The booming defense industry and the 

massive flow of money in the United States had brought about recovery from the Depression, but abrupt prosperity also created serious 

problems. From 1939 to 1942, the nation’s cost of living had risen by 

15 percent. Leon Henderson, the administrator of the Office of Price 

Administration, predicted an “inflationary gap,” and estimated that 

the cost of living would rise by 23 percent in one year unless immediate action was taken.47 On April 27, 1942, President Roosevelt outlined a seven-point program to curb inflation through wage and price 

controls. To fight inflation, he recommended the establishment of 

wage stabilization and rent and price ceilings. To limit purchasing 

power, he urged higher taxes and increased savings. The President’s 

advisors were divided over whether savings should be encouraged or 

coerced. Treasury Secretary Morgenthau advocated a policy of voluntary savings, but other officials such as Henderson and Marriner 

Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, argued that some sort 

of compulsory savings program should be adopted. Still another 

option, the imposition of a spending tax, was submitted by the Treas300 
OE I 

I 
r-- 1 

II; - .- 

* ‘1 

i ; 1 I I ,‘ I I 

The threat of the enemy looms 

behind thk poster’s emotional 

appeal in World War II. More 

than a year before the U.S. declared war on Japan and Germany, Ways and Means Chairman Doughton sought an increme in the national debt ceiling to underwrite the sale of defense bonds. In all, Congress 

approued seven war-loan drives 

and a final Victory Loan. 

Businessmen fell in step with 

the promotion. In the picture at 

right, General Motors vice 

presiht H. W. Anderson, 

right, shows what his company 

did to bersuade workers to buy 

bonds. The officials on hand io 

commend GM employees are, 

from left, William George, 

Senale Finance chairman; 

Henry Morgenthau, Treasury 

Secretary; and Robert 

Doughton. Between December 

I942 and December 1945, 

Americans bought I56 billion 

dollars in war bonds. 

winning this war, I am profoundly disturbed by talk of a Federal Sales 

Tax. Such a tax would take milk and bread out of the mouths of 

American children; it would injure the health and morale of American 

families.” 50 Although some Republican members of the committee 

favored the sales tax, it was not included in the committee bill. 

The committee bill, providing only for six billion of the requested 

8.7 billion dollars, was, at 320 pages, “the largest tax bill ever undertaken in the history of our Government,” in Chairman Doughton’s 

words.51 The bill increased the normal tax from 4 to 6 percent, raised 

the range of surtax rates from 6-77 percent to 13-82 percent, and increased the excess profits tax rates from 60 to 90 percent. The Senate 

added an additional 5 percent “Victory Tax” to be collected from 

anyone with a gross income over $624. This tax was designed to 

reduce spending, with a provision that at least part of it would be refunded at the end of the war. 

The final revenue bill of 1942, completed in conference committee, was even more complex than the previous war revenue acts. Roosevelt joked about the bill at a Cabinet meeting prior to signing it. 

Morgenthau recorded that FDR said, “The bill might as well have 

302 
been written in a foreign language.” The President signed the bill 

without reading it when told that a one-day delay would cost 60 million dollars in lost revenue. The Revenue Act of 1942 broadened the 

U.S. tax base by over 100 percent. It increased the number of taxpayers from about 13 million to 28 million in regular taxes and to a total 

of 50 million including those who paid the Victory Tax. Prior to the 

passage of this act, Congress had also passed an anti-inflation law. On 

October 3, 1942, FDR issued an executive order to implement the 

new measure. This order directed the National War Labor Board to 

limit salaries, and empowered the Department of Agriculture and the 

Office of Price Administration to hold down prices for farm and consumer goods. The order also created the Office of Economic Stabilization to control the nation’s living costs. 

In the 1942 elections the Democrats maintained slim majorities in 

both Houses of Congress. The Democratic majority in the House of 

Representatives, so commanding during the mid- 1930s, was reduced 

to ten (2 18-208). During the Seventy-seventh Congress the coalition 

of conservative Democrats and Republicans asserted vigorous control 

over legislation. In 1943, Congress abolished many New Deal agencies 

303 
A House victory to slash taxes 

in I947 phases newly appointed Ways and Means 

Chairman Harold Knutson, 

who led the tax-reduction fight. 

In the late 1940s, Republicans 

held a majority in Congress for 

thefirst time in 20 years. 

Three oftheir goals in the 

Eightieth Congress were to cut 

the high kvels of New Deal 

taxes, spending, and national 

debt. Democratic President 

Harry Truman responded by 

vetoing the proposed tax cuts. 

Sparks Jew between Truman 

and the leplature, which he 

called the “Do-Nothing Congress. ” I 

and quarreled with the President over tax collection and enforcement. 

Nearly 50 million new taxpayers had been added, and the new tax 

burden had prompted widespread evasion. The administration favored a strict policy of tax enforcement, yet during the winter and 

spring of 1943, Congress discussed the possibility of forgiving past liabilities. It also considered putting future payments on the “pay-asyou-go” basis first recommended by Beardsley Ruml, treasurer of R. 

H. Macy and Company and chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 

New York. In February and March of 1943, the Committee on Ways 

arid Means submitted two reports on the subject and presented a plan 

establishing a withholding system that credited amounts withheld in 

the current year against prior-year liabilities. The final act approved 

by Congress was even more lenient. The Current Tax Payment Act of 

1943 provided a permanent system of withholding in exchange for 

forgiveness of 75 percent of the lesser of 1942 or 1943 tax liabilitie~.~~ 

The House engaged in open conflict with the President over tax 

reform. In October, Roosevelt had asked Congress for yet another tax 

increase of 10.4 billion dollars to help control inflation and to finance 

the war effort. Congress delayed action on the President’s request. 

Even Chairman Doughton thought that FDR had gone too far. Calling 

the administration’s proposal “utterly indefensible,” the chairman had 

neither the votes nor the desire to significantly increase the public’s 

tax burden. The committee’s own report on its revenue bill in November concluded that inflation could be more properly controlled by 

greater economy in government expenditures, more effective price 

controls, rationing, and wage controls. The bill, which passed the 

House 200-27, did not change existing individual tax rates or exemp304 
tions. Over half of the projected two billion dollars in increased revenues was attributable to increased excise taxes. This far from satisfied 

the administration’s request.53 

After the Senate passed the revenue bill in January 1944, President Roosevelt vetoed it on February 22. In the first veto message of 

a revenue bill in American history, Roosevelt referred to the bill as 

“not a tax bill but a tax relief bill, providing relief not for the needy 

but for the greedy.” 54 Congress reacted to the President’s veto message with outrage. Chairman Doughton said that his self-respect dictated that he vote to override the veto. The committee’s second-ranking Republican, Harold Knutson of Minnesota, argued that Congress 

had been correct in rejecting the administration’s tax program, “because it would have wiped out the middle class and jeopardized the 

solvency of all business.” 55 The most impassioned opposition came 

from Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley of Kentucky, who resigned his leadership post in protest. The President’s veto of a revenue bill, he believed, was an “assault upon the legislative integrity of 

every member of Congress.” 56 Roosevelt sent Barkley a telegram expressing both his regret and his hope that Senate Democrats would 

reelect him as majority leader, which they did. Both Houses overrode 

the veto, the House by 299-95 and the Senate by 72-14, on February 

24 and 25, respectively. The Revenue Act of 1943 thus became the 

first revenue bill to become law over a presidential veto. 

Although Congress enacted a simplification of the tax code in 

1944, the Revenue Act of 1943 was the last substantive wartime tax 

legislation. World War I1 revenue laws created two major permanent 

changes in federal tax policy. First, these statutes greatly expanded 

the number and percentage of taxpayers. During World War I as 

much as 13 percent of the labor force had paid income taxes. By the 

time World War I1 began, the percentage of taxpayers had fallen to 

7.1 percent, but it mushroomed to 64.1 percent by the end of the war, 

and the figure has continued to stay above 60 percent with but one 

minor variation in the immediate postwar period. Thus, with such a 

large percentage of the population affected, the income tax became a 

major political issue. Second, the progressivity of the income tax was 

also greatly increased during the war by expanding the number of tax 

brackets. 

Postwar Revenue and Trade Legislation, 1945- 1952 

The post-World War I1 period in public finance was unlike the aftermath of any of the nation’s previous wars. After the Civil War and 

World War I, for example, Congress and the administration moved to 

repeal or reduce heavy wartime tax burdens. Although Congress enacted some tax relief in 1945, subsequent acts reversed the historic 

305 
trend of postwar tax reduction. Moreover, the wartime expansion of 

the federal income tax remained a permanent part of the federal revenue system. 

With the end of World War I1 in sight in late 1944, Roosevelt 

was reelected on November 7 to an unprecedented fourth term. Although the Democrats gained a few seats in the election, the Seventyninth Congress faced a rocky start. During the campaign, Roosevelt 

had committed his administration to the enactment of more progressive social and economic legislation. However, the President died 

shortly after Congress convened. The new President, Harry S. 

Truman of Missouri, was a former senator and a close friend of 

Speaker Sam Rayburn and other powerful congressional leaders. For 

the first two years of his administration, Truman maintained a cordial 

relationship with Congress and garnered the support necessary to 

conclude the war and to begin conversion to a peacetime economy.58 

In October 1945, shortly after V-J Day brought the war to an 

end, the administration presented a proposed tax reduction plan to 

the Committee on Ways and Means. The principle of reduction met 

with widespread approval, but Congress slightly altered the specifics 

of the administration’s proposal. The excess profits tax was repealed 

effective January 1, 1946, as the administration had requested, but 

Congress increased the reduction in individual income taxes from the 

recommended levels. Congress also refused to repeal most of the wartime excise taxes.59 

Proponents justified the reductions proposed in the Revenue Act 

of 1945 by citing the need to promote economic expansion. The fears 

of postwar unemployment, recession, and inflation accelerated between 1945 and 1947, and Truman’s relations with Congress steadily 

Renovation of the House Wing 

of the Capitol in 1940, 1949, 

and I950 caused the House to 

meet in the Ways and Means 

main committee room, the first 

period in over 100 years that 

the House had not met in the 

Capitol. At hft, Speaker Sam 

Rayburn, flanked by Parliamentarian Lewis Deschler, 

gavels the House to order in the 

Ways and Means committee 

room. At right, the full House 

is shown in the committee room. 

306 
deteriorated. In September 1945, the President had submitted an ambitious 21-point program that formed the basis for his “Fair Deal.” 

Among the points included in the plan were a national health insurance program, higher minimum wages, federal aid to education, expansion of federal employment projects, and the establishment of a 

permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC). Truman 

lobbied hard for his program, but the mood of the country and of the 

Congress had turned away from the liberalism of the New Deal and 

the Fair Deal. A Republican majority was elected to Congress for the 

first time in 20 years in 1946 (245-188 in the House, 51-45 in the 

Senate). 

In 1947, the Republican Eightieth Congress had three goals: 1) to 

cut taxes, 2) to cut spending, and 3) to cut the national debt. Many 

Democrats, including President Truman, agreed with these policies in 

principle, but favored balancing the budget and paying off the federal 

debt before instituting an inflationary tax cut.6o The first measure of 

this Congress was a bill reported by the Committee on Ways and 

Means, now chaired by Harold Knutson of Minnesota. The bill 

(H.R. 1) reduced taxes by 30 percent in the lowest income brackets, 

by 20 percent for citizens with incomes between $1,000 and $302,000, 

and by 10 percent for those with incomes over $302,000. 

In a partisan role-reversal from the 1930s, the committee’s ranking Democratic minority member, former Chairman Robert 

Doughton, complained to the House that the minority had been unfairly excluded from committee deliberations on the bill. Representa307 
tive Walter Lynch (D-NY) agreed with Doughton, stating: “The tax reduction plan embodied in this bill was conceived in political expediency, nurtured by political demagoguery, and is delivered to you today 

in political desperation.” ti After Doughton’s motion to recommit 

failed, H.R. 1 passed the House. 

The Republican rationale for another tax cut was that it would 

both stimulate the economy and compel ’l’ruman to reduce spending 

on Fair Deal domestic programs. Chairman Knutson argued that a 

policy of retrenchment was necessary to reverse what he believed was 

the ominous trend of New Deal Democratic policies. “For years we 

Republicans have been warning that the short-haired women and 

long-haired men of alien minds in the administrative branch of government were trying to wreck the American way of life and install a 

hybrid oligarchy at Washington through confiscatory taxation,” Knutson explained.62 

After the bill had made its way through the House, Senate, and 

conference committee with only minor modifications, President 

Truman vetoed it on June 6, 1947. Arguing that this bill was “the 

wrong tax reduction at the wrong time,” the President stated that, 

“the time for tax reduction will come when inflationary pressures have 

Daniel Reed of New York, who 

became chairman of Ways and 

Means after the Republicans 

won control of the House in 

1952, liked to boast that he 

had voted against more New 

Deal measures during the Roosevelt years than any other congressman. In the I950s, Reed 

led a Push for fiscal refrm that 

bucked Eisenhower on tax and 

trade policies. The chairman’s 

adamant views on fical matten came directly from the theories of the 1920s, when tax 

cuts had helped generate a balanced budget. Reed could work 

himself up into a rage when 

defending his conservative position on the House floor. His 

detractors, claiming his views 

were 25 years behind the times, 

referred to the likeable 

curmudgeon as the “Neanderthal man. ” 

308 
ceased.” 63 Truman not only believed that the income tax acted as a 

brake on inflation, but he also thought that the Republican tax reduction was inequitable. Under the original Ways and Means bill, for example, 38.3 percent of the total proposed reduction would have affected the wealthiest 3.5 percent of taxpayers. 

A House motion to override the veto failed by only two votes. A 

new bill was then passed that simply delayed the tax cuts from July 1, 

1947, to January 1, 1948. Truman vetoed this bill as well. The House 

overrode the veto by two votes, but the Senate sustained the veto by 

the same slim margin. 

Congress and the President again clashed in 1948 over fiscal matters when the Republicans engineered the passage of another tax cut. 

Through Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI), Truman proposed 

an alternative measure that would take over ten million citizens off the 

tax rolls and would allot a tax credit to each taxpayer and his dependent~.~~ The Dingell plan proposed to offset this loss in revenues by 

raising corporate taxes. Congress ignored the Dingell plan in favor of 

a bill reported by Chairman Knutson, one that was designed to create 

an irresistible momentum for tax reduction by providing added benefits for a broader base of the taxpaying public. The bill provided tax 

cuts for all income brackets and added exemptions for the elderly and 

the blind, as well as allowing income splitting on joint returns. Ranking minority member Doughton supported the bill, which easily 

passed the House 297-120. The Senate lowered the percentage of reductions and passed the bill 78-1 1. Truman for the third time vetoed 

a revenue bill, but this time the House and the Senate both overrode 

the veto. The Revenue Act of 1948 became law on April 2, the second 

revenue bill in history to be enacted over a presidential veto.65 

The Republican majority on the Committee on Ways and Means 

also crafted a major trade bill that differed substantially from the administration’s program. In 1946, the United States invited representatives of 22 other nations to begin multilateral trade negotiations in 

Geneva. The resulting General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

(GATT) contained a code of trade practices and tariff reductions on 

over 45,000 items accounting for one-half of world trade.66 In 1948, 

in what was by now a routine request, President Truman asked Congress for a three-year extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements 

Act. The Committee on Ways and Means, however, drafted a new 

trade bill that overhauled the system of tariff administration in existence since 1934. The Gearhart bill, named after committee member 

Bertrand W. Gearhart (R-CA), renewed the Trade Agreements Act, 

but only for one year. It also added a controversial “peril-point” provision, which required the Tariff Commission to determine rates that 

would not harm domestic industries in advance of negotiations. Although the President’s supporters attacked the bill by raising the protectionist specter of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a measure to recommit 

309 
submitted by Doughton failed. After the Democrats regained the majority in the Eighty-first Congress (1949-1951), they immediately reversed the changes in tariff administration initiated by the Republicans by repealing the peril-point provision and by extending the 

Trade Agreements Act for three years, retroactive to 1948.67 

Even though President Truman now had a Democratic Congress, 

his request for tax increases in 1949 fell on deaf ears. The administration proposed four billion dollars in higher corporate and estate 

taxes, and increased rates for upper and middle income tax brackets 

in order to finance defense spending as well as domestic housing, 

public works, and health care programs. Congress only made minor 

technical revisions in the tax code. When the Cold War turned hot in 

Korea the following year, Congress was forced to comply with higher 

taxes. 

The Committee on Ways and Means had just completed work on 

a revenue bill in 1950 when South Korea was invaded. The need for 

greater revenue to finance what developed into a costly and bloody 

military conflict revived the idea of an excess profits tax. Because this 

tax remained controversial, Congress initially raised corporate and individual tax rates, postponing the excess profits tax until after the November elections. Truman requested that the Committee on Ways and 

Means raise an additional four billion dollars principally through an 

excess profits tax. Business leaders testified before the committee that 

an excess profits tax was unnecessary given the rise in corporate tax 

rates. Ranking minority member Daniel Reed (R-NY) recommended 

that business be given a choice of either an excess profits tax or a 10 

percent rate increase in corporate taxation. The committee rejected 

Reed’s proposal by a straight 15-10 party vote. The committee bill 

passed the House by a wide 378-20 margin, as was usual with wartime 

revenue measures. The conference committee version was approved 

on December 22 by the Senate and on January 1 by the House. President Truman signed the Excess Profits Tax Act on January 3, 1951, 

although he warned that even more taxes would be needed.68 

Truman’s Economic Report of January 195 1 recommended ten 

billion dollars in additional taxes to combat both inflation and an anticipated deficit, as well as increased defense spending. The administration specifically requested four billion dollars in higher personal 

income taxes, three billion dollars from corporate taxes, and another 

three billion dollars from excises. 

Although Chairman Doughton expressed support for the need to 

raise revenues and to prevent inflation, his Committee on Ways and 

Means moved slowly on the administration’s request. The committee 

held full hearings on the proposed increases, allowing all interested 

groups the opportunity to testify. Labor groups approved of higher 

corporate taxes, but opposed increased excises. Business, on the other 

hand, again recommended some form of a sales tax as an alternative 

310 
IkeS feisty foe, Chairman Reed 

irritates the President in this 

1953 editorial cartoon. When 

Republicans took control of 

Congress under Eisenhower, 

Reed envisioned a dismantling 

of the Democrats’ post-Koreanconflict tax increases. He quickly 

introduced a tax reform bill. 

Ike, however, effectively killed 

the measure when he announced that he intended to 

maintain tax hels in ordm to 

balance the budget. 

to increased corporate taxes. Doughton, who strongly opposed a sales 

tax, found the testimony of all groups to be self-serving and useless to 

the committee. The chairman observed with veiled sarcasm: 

Witnesses . . . while all for preparedness, would preface 

their statements by saying that while those who they represented or spoke for wanted to do their full part in producing 

the revenue necessary to finance emergency expenditures, 

they usually, with few exceptions, claimed that any additional 

revenue should be raised from some other source. We were 

not given much help as far as the other sources were concerned, except a few I believe did recommend a general sales 

tax.69 

The committee bill lowered the increases requested by the administration from ten billion dollars to 7.2 billion dollars. Doughton 

argued that the bill provided “as large an amount as can be safely collected from the economy under present conditions.” Ranking minority 

member Reed and other Republicans once again attacked the spending programs of “Socialist planners within the Truman Administration.” 70 Minority Leader Joseph Martin of Massachusetts argued that 

Truman’s contention that tax increases would curb inflation amounted 

to “economic voodoo talk.” ’ 

31 1 
The Senate reduced the tax yield of the revenue bill of 1951 even 

further, to 6.7 billion dollars. The final bill raised individual tax liabilities between 11 and 11.75 percent. Corporate rates were raised to 

30-52 percent, but less than one-third of the increased excises requested were passed. The bill also contained numerous special tax 

benefits, including deductions for medical expenses for the elderly, 

mine exploration expenses, unharvested crops, and depletion allowances for clam and oyster shells.72 The House first rejected the conference committee report, then accepted an only slightly different version two days later. Truman signed the Revenue Act on October 20, 

1951, because of the urgent need for revenue, even though he considered the bill inadequate and unfair. 

The Revenue Act of 1951 was the last major tax bill of Truman’s 

Presidency. Although Congress had insisted upon tax reduction after 

World War 11, the need for revenue to finance Cold War and Korean 

conflict military spending, along with the fears of inflation, recession, 

and unbalanced budgets, prevented the repudiation of the World War 

I1 expansion of the income tax system. Tax increases were politically 

unpopular among Republicans, who disagreed with the Truman Administration’s domestic spending programs on ideological grounds. 

Moreover, the public’s resistance to tax increases influenced both congressional Republicans and Democrats to reduce the degree of revenue increases. 

Revenue Legislation During the Eisenhower Administration 

Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower campaigned for the Presidency in 

1952 by promising to end the Korean conflict and by attacking New 

Deal tax and spending policies. Eisenhower’s election brought in a 

Republican Congress (22 1-2 1 1 House, 48-47 Senate) for only the 

second time since 1933. Although Republican leaders of the Eightythird Congress favored tax reduction, the President attached a higher 

priority to balancing the budget. “Reduction of taxes,” according to 

Eisenhower’s first State of the Union Message, “will be justified only 

as we show we can succeed in bringing the budget under control. . . . 

Until we can determine the extent to which expenditures can be reduced, it would not be wise to reduce our revenues.” 73 

The administration’s budget-balancing priorities encountered immediate opposition from Republican Chairman Daniel Reed of the 

Committee on Ways and Means. At 78 years of age, Reed was a feisty 

old-guard Republican who had served in Congress since 1919 and on 

the committee since 1933. Reed liked to boast that he had voted 

against more New Deal measures than any other member of Congress. 

His zeal for tax reduction and his nostalgic reminiscences about the 

policies of Andrew Mellon earned him the nickname “Neanderthal 

312 
Dan Reed’s log of opposition in 

this editorial cartoon tries to 

thwart Ike and Speaker Joe 

Martin from landing an extension of the excess proJts tax. 

The chairman tried to block the 

bill in committee by refusing to 

report it tn 1953. But /Re and 

Martin &?ly maneuvered the 

bill out of committee and won 

its approual an the Home and 

Senate. 

Man.” Reed caused the Eisenhower Administration so much trouble 

in trade and tax matters that some officials referred to him as “Syngman” Reed (a pun on the name of the troublesome and unpopular 

president of South Korea, Syngman Rhee).74 

The income tax increases of the Revenue Act of 1951 were scheduled to expire at the end of 1953. Reed proposed moving the expiration date up to midyear. Although the chairman claimed to have 

broad backing for his bill, H.R. 1, Speaker Joseph Martin and Majority Leader Charles Halleck (R-IN) withheld judgment pending the administration’s response. Reed stubbornly insisted that he would get 

the bill passed, “no matter what Eisenhower, or Humphrey [Treasury 

Secretary George M. Humphrey], or anyone else had to say about 

it.” 75 The committee voted the bill out 21-4 without holding hearings. The committee report argued that tax reduction would provide 

an inducement for the administration to cut unnecessary spending. 

Speaker Martin asked Chairman Leo Allen (R-IL) of the Rules 

Committee to keep the bill from reaching the floor. After Allen announced his intention to hold H.R. I in the Rules Committee for two 

months, Reed asked that it be given prompt consideration. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means even asked for assistance 

313 
from a New York colleague on the Rules Committee, Henry J. 

Latham. Reed sent Latham an angry telegram when he refused to 

help: “It is most embarrassing to me to have you refuse to provide a 

hearing for a rule on H.R. No. 1. . . . Is there no reciprocity between 

us?” 76 Reed also failed in his attempt to obtain the 218 signatures 

necessary for a discharge petition to order the Rules Committee to 

report the bill to the floor. 

Thwarted in his effort to speed up tax reduction, Reed was determined to fight Eisenhower’s request for a six-month extension of the 

excess profits tax of 1950, which was scheduled to expire in mid-1953. 

When asked by reporters for his reaction to the President’s proposal, 

Chairman Reed said, “When I fight, I fight.” 77 Speaker Martin persuaded the Republican members of Reed’s committee to hold hearings on the extension in spite of their recalcitrant chairman. After less 

that two weeks of hearings, Reed announced that the administration 

had failed to make its case, and he showed little eagerness to report 

the bill. Martin and Majority Leader Halleck therefore planned to 

bypass the Committee on Ways and Means by utilizing a little-known 

House procedure that allowed the Rules Committee to report a rule 

on a bill that was still in committee. After Eisenhower’s personal appeals to Reed failed, the plan to bypass Keed’s committee was invoked. The Rules Committee voted to grant a rule, but Martin and 

Democratic troubleshooter for 

Sam Rayburn, Jere Cooper of 

Tennessee took over as Ways 

and Means chairman after the 

Democrats regained control of 

the House in 1954. Cooper 

fought for a three-year extension of the reciprocal trade program and reported leplation to 

increase presidential power in 

tariff regulation. He served 28 

years in the House, the last 

three at the head of Ways and 

Means, before his death in 

195 7. 

3 14 
Halleck, fearing a showdown with such a powerful committee chairman, withheld the rule from floor action hoping that the threat alone 

would force Reed to report the bill. The plan worked, and the extension of the excess profits tax was voted out of committee, 16-9, on 

July 8, 1953. The bill passed the House and Senate as expected. 

Trade policy also raised tensions between the administration and 

the committee. In 1953, Eisenhower requested a three-year extension 

of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act without alterations, but the 

Committee on Ways and Means reported a bill with a one-year extension that made significant changes in the U.S. Tariff Commission. 

This bill was passed by the House as an interim measure, and in July 

1953, the committee’s majority reported a highly protectionist measure calling for raised tariffs and new import quotas, and for restrictions on the President’s power to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with other nations. Eisenhower compromised by agreeing to a 

one-year extension of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act and the 

creation of a commission to conduct an intensive study of the foreign 

trade issue.78 In 1955, when Democrats had regained the majority, 

Congress passed a three-year extension of the reciprocal trade agreements program. 

Reed proved to be more cooperative when the President recommended changes in Social Security. On January 14, 1954, Eisenhower 

proposed providing larger Social Security benefits and expanding coverage to more wage earners. He requested an expansion of coverage 

to 10.5 million more workers, increased monthly benefits, a liberalized 

retirement earnings provision, and an increase in the annual taxableearnings base from $3,600 to $4,200. Three weeks later, Chairman 

Reed appointed a subcommittee chaired by Carl T. Curtis (R-NE) to 

conduct a thorough study of the issue. The committee reported a bill 

in May generally along the lines of the President’s recommendations. 

The bill raised little controversy in Congress, and Eisenhower signed 

the Social Security Amendments of 1954 on September 1.79 

President Eisenhower’s popularity and skills in personal diplomacy soothed whatever bitterness Reed may have felt as a result of the 

fight over tax reduction in the first session of the Eighty-third Congress. As the second session commenced in January 1954, the Committee on Ways and Means began work on excise tax reduction. Reed 

was assisted by third-ranking Republican Richard Simpson of Pennsylvania, who was reputed to be the Speaker’s man on taxes. The excise 

reductions, while retaining the surtaxes on automobiles, liquor, and 

tobacco, reduced the rates by half on most other items. The House 

and Senate both agreed to the reductions, which became law when 

President Eisenhower signed the Excise Tax Reduction Act on March 

31, 1954.*O 

The last major tax bill of the 1950s was an overall revision of the 

tax code in 1954. During the tax battles of the previous year, the ad315 
ministration had argued that the entire Internal Revenue Code, which 

had not been thoroughly revised since 1913, needed revision and rewriting, The code was broken down among 50 study groups composed of three to 16 staff members of the Treasury Department, the 

Internal Revenue Service, the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue 

Taxation, and the House Legislative Counsel. The study groups remained in contact with both the Senate Finance Committee and the 

Committee on Ways and Means. The latter committee held public 

hearings on 40 specific topics of tax reform. As a result of these studies, 25 major proposals were reported to President Eisenhower, who 

incorporated them in his Budget Message ofJanuary 21, 1954. 

The Committee on Ways and Means prepared a bill (H.R. 8300) 

in closed sessions that closely adhered to the administration’s proposals. Chairman Reed, now reconciled with Eisenhower, argued that the 

bill removed inequities in the tax code. Moreover, he urged his colleagues to vote for the bill as a vote of support for the President. The 

bill retained the existing corporate tax rate, but provided several tax 

benefits for business in the form of increased depreciation allowances 

and reduced tax rates on unearned dividend income. Liberalized benefits for individual taxpayers included deductions for medical expenses, child care, charitable contributions, and a tax credit for fixed 

retirement income. 

316 
The bill passed the House and the Senate when congressional 

Republicans closed ranks behind their leadership. Democrats opposed 

the tax breaks on depreciation allowances and dividend income, and 

they recommended increasing the personal exemption from $600 to 

$700 to assist those in lower income tax brackets. The Senate deleted 

the dividend credit, but it was restored at a reduced level in the conference committee version that on August 16 became the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1954.s1 

The Democratic Party regained control of both the House and 

the Senate in the Eighty-fourth Congress (1955-1957). Doughton died 

on October 1, 1954, at the age of 90. The new chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means was Jere Cooper (D-TN), who had served 

in Congress since 1929 and on the committee since 1932. The Democrats made two unsuccessful attempts to lower taxes, one in 1955 and 

the other in 1957. In both instances the administration resisted cutting taxes. “Under conditions of peacetime prosperity that now exist,” 

Eisenhower observed in his 1956 State of the Union Message, “we can 

never justify going further into debt to give ourselves a tax cut at the 

expense of our children.” 82 Chairman Cooper died on December 18, 

1957, shortly after the beginning of the Eighty-fifth Congress. The 

second-ranking majority member, Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, 

became chairman and ushered in a new era in the committee’s history. 

Conclusion 

From the New Deal through the 1950s, the Committee on Ways and 

Means had seen: 1) its involvement in the tariff considerably reduced, 

2) its revenue responsibilities made ever more complicated, and 3) its 

jurisdiction expanded to include Social Security. The committee had 

resolved one historically troublesome area within its jurisdiction-the 

tariff-by relegating responsibility to the executive branch. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 authorized the President to negotiate import duties through reciprocity agreements with foreign nations. Subsequently extended on several occasions, this act removed 

the committee from the laborious task of writing tariff schedules, but 

it did not relieve the committee from the politically charged responsibility to protect the interests of American business. The problem for 

the committee shifted from one of determining the rates for various 

industries to the protection of domestic industries from harmful trade 

agreements. 

Most congressmen who voted on the final major revenue bill of 

this period, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, were aware of its 

technical intricacies, but few probably understood them all. Only a 

handful of the changes were discussed in debate, and most decisions 

were made before the bill reached the floor or after it had been sent 

317 
to conference. There were several reasons for the growing technical 

complexity of post-World War I1 revenue legislation. One was the increased complexity of the United States economy. The corporations 

and trusts of the late 19th century had been replaced by a variety of 

business organizations, including corporations with overseas earnings, 

holding companies, closely held corporations, and tax-exempt or partially tax-exempt organizations. Chairman Doughton’s observation 

that the tax laws reflected the complexities of business was even truer 

by the late 1950s than it had been in the prewar period. 

Another reason for the complexity of revenue laws was the vastly 

expanded economic role of the federal government. Since the New 

Deal, the Democratic Party had embraced the responsibility of the federal government not only to regulate the economy through taxation 

and spending, but also to redress social and economic inequities. Although the Republican Party had opposed most New Deal and Fair 

Deal domestic spending programs, it had accepted the federal government’s role to manage the business cycle through taxation. The miiitary budget had also grown enormously from pre-World War I1 levels, 

and it remained high during the Cold War in the 1950s. For all of 

these reasons, neither the administrations of Truman or Eisenhower 

advocated significant tax reductions. The important policy questions 

now became not simply whether to raise or lower taxes, but how best 

to distribute the tax burden. 

Taxation, especially in the form of the income tax, had become 

an ever present reality in the lives of most Americans. The enactment 

of Social Security in 1935 and its subsequent expansion in 1939 and 

1954 added another dimension to the committee’s history. Because 

the system was financed through payroll taxes, the committee now exercised jurisdiction over a social program of national retirement insurance. The pragmatic problems of financing such a vast program, the 

political issue of extending coverage and benefits, and the suggestion 

that the system should also incorporate national health insurance, 

would continue to provide grist for the committee’s legislative mill. 

318 
“I think a book on the 

IVays and Means 

Cornmillee would have to 

be a book on Wilbur 

Milk ” (Anonymous 

member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means, 

1970) 

1959 *I975 

The Mills Committee 

The House Committee on Ways and Means maintainea a position 01 

power and prestige during the 16 years of Wilbur Mills’ chairmanship 

(1958-1974). The Arkansas Democrat was one of the most influential 

leaders in congressional history. His committee’s bills, most often considered under closed rules, had an enviable record of success in the 

House. Mills also had great success in dealing with the Senate in conference committee. A congressional reform movement in the early 

1970s altered, if not weakened, the committee by 1) enlarging it from 

25 to 37 members, 2) creating permanent subcommittees, and 3) removing its Democratic members’ function as their party’s Committee 

on Committees. Personal problems led to Mills’ resignation from the 

chairmanship in 1974. 

he congressional committee system developed its greatest struc- T tural stability in the period from the end of World War I1 

through the 1960s. Only one standing committee was added in both 

the House and the Senate. With the exceptions of but two Congresses 

(the Eightieth, 1947-1949, and the Eighty-third, 1953-1955), the 

Democratic Party maintained control of both Houses. Moreover, 

membership was extremely stable, with more than 80 percent of members reelected from one Congress to the next. In the context of this 

overall structural stability, strong committee chairmen reemerged, including over 20 who served for more than a decade. 

The Committee on Ways and Means from 1958 to 1974 was often 

described, with good reason, as Wilbur Mills’ committee. From the 

time he assumed the chairmanship following the death of Jere 

Cooper, until he resigned near the end of the Ninety-third Congress, 

the Arkansas Democrat chaired the committee for the longest consecutive period in its history. (Robert L. Doughton served nearly a year 

longer than Mills, but his tenure was interrupted by the chairmanship 

of Harold Knutson in the Eightieth Congress.) During the final Congress in which he chaired the committee, Mills had been chairman 

longer than any other current member had served on the committee. 

Mills compiled an admirable, almost legendary record of accomplishment. His chairmanship was the subject of intense scrutiny by political scientists as well as journalists. Most of what is known about the 

inner dynamics of the Mills committee and its relationship with the 

319 
I 

Senate and the executive is largely based upon the penetrating analysis and insightful detail provided by political scientist John Manley in 

The Politics of Finance ( 1970). 

The Committee and the House, 1958-1975 

The standing committee system in both the House and the Senate increasingly reflected two behavioral norms: specialization and apprenticeship. Members were expected to specialize on the matters that directly concerned their committees. In some instances, this specialization was even more narrowly defined in terms of subcommittees. 

Moreover, new members were expected to develop expertise by serving an apprenticeship period of watchful waiting as they listened and 

learned from more experienced senior members. Both specialization 

and apprenticeship were predicated upon the belief that a system 

based upon experience and deference produced better legislation. 

The members of the Committee on Ways and Means during the 

Mills era tended to reinforce the dominant characteristics of specialization and apprenticeship. Assignment to the committee was highly 

desired. As one member said, “I wanted Ways and Means simply beLongest consecutive sitting 

chairman in the history of 

Ways and Means, Wilbur 

Mills of Arkansas compiled a 

legendary record of accomplishment between 1958 and 1974. 

He gave the committee structural stability by limiting membership to 25 cartfully selected 

lawmakers. With this solid base 

of varying viewpoints, which 

reflected the leanings of the 

House, Mills developed leplation with a broad consensus. 

His bills cleared the House 

intact at an enviable rate. 

“Like all leaders, he also follows, ” a scholar noted in 

explaining the success of this 

chairman who emerged as one 

of the most influential personalities in congressional history. 

320 
cause it is the most important.” Both House parties continued to 

distinguish the panel (along with the Rules and the Appropriations 

committees) as an exclusive committee whose members were generally 

prohibited from serving on any other standing committee. Not one 

member transferred from the committee between 1949 and 1968-the 

only House standing committee with such an unblemished recordand 47 members transferred to the committee. Only one freshman 

member, George Herbert Walker Bush (R-TX), was appointed to the 

committee between 1959 and 1973, as were only six second-term 

members. 

Both Democrats and Republicans tended to assign members to 

the Committee on Ways and Means on the basis of party loyalty and 

demonstrated ability, part of which was the ability to get reelected. 

Barber Conable (R-NY) put it succinctly: “There is a tradition in the 

Republican Party that someone doesn’t get on Ways and Means unless 

he is from a safe district. I wouldn’t have gone on unless I had moved 

my plurality from 53 percent to 68 percent.” Of the 23 members 

who ran for reelection in 1972, for example, seven ran unopposed, 

and the other 16 won by an average margin of over 65 percent. Membership on the committee was relatively stable as a result. The 25 

members at the end of the Ninety-second Congress in 1973 had 

served an average of nearly eight terms, slightly over half of those 

terms on the Committee on Ways and Means. Democratic appointments were additionally governed by a commitment to balanced geographical representation. One-third of the 15 Democratic majority 

seats were reserved for Southern Democrats. The remaining ten seats 

were distributed among the border states zone (one or two seats), the 

West (two), the Midwest (three or four), and the Northeast (three).5 

Democratic appointees were truly among the chosen few, since 

the Democratic members of the Committee on Ways and Means, as 

their party’s Committee on Committees, made all of the party’s committee assignments. Republican assignments were made by their Committee on Committees, chaired by the Republican floor leader and 

composed of one representative from each state with Republican congressmen (who possessed a vote proportionate to the strength of their 

state delegation). Members who sought appointment to the Committee on Ways and Means had to win acceptance at several levels. The 

appointment of Republican Barber Conable in 1967 provided a representative case study. Conable had wished to transfer from the Science 

and Astronautics Committee to the Appropriations Committee at the 

start of his second term, but both the senior member of the New York 

Republican delegation and Minority Leader Gerald Ford (R-MI) advised him to seek the Committee on Ways and Means. With the support of the party leadership secured, the New York delegation backed 

Conable’s candidacy. Even then, he was questioned by committee 

members about his views on key issues such as tax-exempt bonds and 

32 1 
the oil depletion allowance before his name was submitted by the Republican Committee on Committees.s 

The importance of specialization and apprenticeship not only influenced the appointment process, but also stimulated the creation of 

new subcommittees, especially in the context of the reduction in the 

number of standing committees that resulted from the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. The number of House subcommittees initially dropped from 97 to just over 60 for the Eighty-first Congress 

(1949-1951), but then rose to over 100 by 1965. This growth took 

place in spite of the fact that the Committee on Ways and Means did 

not utilize subcommittees from the Eighty-seventh through the 

Ninety-second Congresses (1 96 1- 1973). When Wilbur Mills had 

become chairman in the Eighty-fifth Congress, the committee had 

three subcommittees-Internal Revenue Taxation, Excise Taxes, and 

Foreign Trade Policy. Three subcommittees were also appointed in 

the following Congress, though with slightly different titles-Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws, Administration of Foreign 

Trade Laws and Policy, and Administration of the Social Security 

Laws-but thereafter, Mills dispensed with the use of subcommittees.’ 

This resulted in control being centralized in the hands of the chairman, or as one member put it, “in his back pockets.” * Although a 

few members believed that subcommittees would have expedited the 

committee’s business-not to mention that they would have diffused 

power among the membership-most other members agreed (at least 

in public) with the chairman’s practice of dealing with all matters at 

the full committee level. 

The staff of the Committee on Ways and Means did not keep 

pace with the growth of other standing committee staffs. Congressional committee staffs more than doubled between 1947 and 1964, from 

167 to 539 in the House. By 1974, the combined standing committee 

staffs of the House exceeded 1,000 members. Yet, the staff of the 

Committee on Ways and Means only increased modestly, from 12 in 

1947 to 21 in 1959 and to 32 in 1974. During Mills’ chairmanship, the 

staff normally numbered in the low 20s, below the average of all 

standing committee staffs and well below the staffs of comparable 

committees such as Appropriations and Public Works. However, as 

discussed below, the committee could also call for assistance from the 

staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Ta~ation.~ 

House committee staffs are divided in two categories-statutory 

staff hired without regard to political affiliation to perform required 

duties in conjunction with the committee’s functions, and investigative 

staff hired in accordance with annual “studies and investigations” resolutions. The Committee on Ways and Means did not employ any investigative staff between 1961 and 1972, years that corresponded to 

the absence of subcommittees. Committee staff worked under the control of the chairman, and this was the case with Mills’ committee. 

322 
Freshman Congressman George 

Bush, center, of Texas enjoys a 

warm welcome from Chaiman 

Mills and ranking Republican 

committeeman John Byrnes of 

Wiscomin. Bush joined Ways 

and Meam in January 1967. 

An appointment of a first-term 

lawmaker to Ways and Means 

during this period was extremely rare. The committee’s 

prestige flourished under Mills, 

and a position on the panel 

was coveted by most House 

members. Any member seeking 

an appointment had to win 

acceptance on several levels. 

For the 14 years preceding 

1973, Bush was the only freshman legtslator named to Ways 

and Means. With his election 

in 1988 as the 41st President, 

Bush became the eighth Ways 

and Means member in history 

to accede to the nation’s top 

office. 

Some members complained that the staff was too small to serve 

all interests, even though the chairman had instructed the majority 

staff to be nonpartisan. Mills and his supporters argued that the assistance provided by the Legislative Research Service (LRS) of the Library of Congress compensated for the disadvantages of a small staff. 

Yet, all committees could call upon the LRS, and that fact alone could 

not explain why the Appropriations Committee in 1969 had a staff of 

75 compared to the 22 for the Committee on Ways and Means. The 

professional staff in 1972 numbered only 11, with eight serving the 

majority and three the minority. The committee staff tended to be 

policy experts who had experience with the programs within the committee’s jurisdiction. For example, 8 of the 11 professional staff members had previously been employed in the executive branch, either in 

the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health, Education, 

and Welfare, the Social Security Administration, or even on a White 

House task force. O 

With the chairman’s control over a small centralized staff, and in 

the absence of decentralizing subcommittees, Mills’ influence over the 

Committee on Ways and Means was substantial. Indeed, the powers of 

all standing committee chairs were great in this period, though those 

of Mills were even more so. Chairmen determined if bills were to be 

considered, arranged the committee’s agenda, appointed subcommittees if there were any, called committee meetings, and decided if and 

323 
A glimpse inside the Ways and 

Means committee room in 

1971 reveals Wilbur Mills 

hard at work as he calls for 

votes to support a bill. Always 

striving for a consensus, Mills 

bargained, compromised, 

coaxed, and cajoled as many 

members as he could to win 

backing for committee decisions. 

His renowned quest to achieve 

the greatest bipartisan unity 

possible came to be known as 

“the norm of restrained partisanship. ” Hzr mastery of 

managing people fairly and 

remembering details perfectly 

(supposedly he had memorized 

most ofthe tax code) made him 

a powerfulfigure. Early in his 

tenure he shrugged off interest 

in a presidential bid, reportedly 

saying, “YOU don ’t need the title 

to run things in Washington. ’’ 

when to hold hearings. They also directed the staff, presided at committee meetings, reported committee bills to the floor, testified at 

Rules Committee hearings, managed bills on the floor, and headed 

the House delegation to conference committee on their bills.ll Because they had served an apprenticeship, and because they had 

worked their way up the seniority ladder, chairmen tended to be the 

most knowledgeable and involved members of their committee. Chairmen developed expertise through years of service; Mills had served on 

the Committee on Ways and Means from 1942 to 1958 before he 

324 
became chairman. Although their power intimidated younger members, most chairmen were not rigid authoritarians, but rather led by 

creating effective coalitions. Personal skill and a pattern of consensusbuilding, for example, were the keys to Wilbur Mills’ success for much 

of his 16-year tenure as chairman. 

The Leadership of Wilbur Mills 

The leadership of Wilbur Mills was not based on a simple exercise of 

power. While he centralized control over the committee, even to the 

point of abolishing the use of subcommittees shortly after he became 

chairman, he did not dictate policy. Mills strove to build a consensus 

within the committee-a consensus that would survive intact through 

floor debate in the House. Mills was able to lead, as John Manley put 

it, because “like all leaders, he also follows.” l2 Although he was personally an inscrutable figure to his colleagues, Mills nonetheless understood his committee and its members, and he accommodated their 

views in the decision-making process. 

In building a consensus within the committee, the chairman bargained, compromised, coaxed, and cajoled as many members as he 

could to support committee decisions. Mills particularly sought to 

achieve the most bipartisan support possible, what Manley referred to 

as “the norm of restrained partisanship.” His relationship with ranking minority member John W. Byrnes (R-WI) was so close that many 

members felt that the two jointly led the committee. As one Republican member observed, “If we had a partisan chairman the Committee 

would become partisan overnight.” Another Republican added: 

“[Mills] never pushes things to votes, we reach a compromise. Nothing bothers me more than to read as you do in the newspapers, that 

he’s an authoritarian-‘the little authoritarian from Kensett, Arkansas.’ 

That’s not it, he’s no authoritarian.” l3 

Chairman Mills maintained an open atmosphere by remaining 

flexible. He closely guarded his own opinion on most issues, prefer325 
1959-1975 

283 I 

295 -140 R 

( 1965- 1967) 

247 

243 

15 D-1 

15 D-1 

R-Republitan ILDemocrat 

ring to allow other members to articulate positions in closed sessions. 

Once a position had attained acceptance, usually as a result of Mills’ 

guided questioning, the chairman would step in to legitimize the decision. Manley quoted one firsthand observer of committee discussions: 

“Mills is an eminently successful opportunist. He does not announce 

his position and force it through. He sits and listens to the members 

and knows what will go. I’d say 80 percent of it is consensus, 20 percent Mills, but certainly not 50 percent Mills.” l4 An added advantage 

to the chairman’s policy of consensus-building was that it allowed the 

committee to subject its decisions to a thorough analysis before submitting them to the House. 

Mills regarded technically correct bills that could pass the House 

as the best means for maintaining his own personal reputation and 

the prestige of the committee. The chairman believed that his reputation and that of his committee were on the line with every House vote 

on a Committee on Ways and Means bill. To Mills, building a consensus within the committee was tantamount to House passage: “I think 

if I can get a vast majority of the membership of the Ways and Means 

Committee to agree on something, that I’ve got a vast majority of the 

House agreed upon the same thing. Because our committee is a cross 

section of the membership of the House.” l5 The passage of most 

326 
Chairman Mills confis with 

Senator Russell Long, lgt, 

chairman of the Senate Finance 

Committee, and Dr. Laurence 

Woodworth, staff director of the 

Joint Committee on Taxation 

IJCT), pnor to a conference 

committee meeting involving 

Ways and Means and Finance 

Committee members. The tenure 

of these two chainnen coincided 

for nine years. The chairmen of 

the Ways and Means and 

Senate Finance Committees 

alternate Congresses as the head 

ofJCi? Created in 1926 to 

provide objective, bipartisan, 

and expert information and 

advice on tax issues to the taxwriting committees, JCT speea3 

the flow of information between 

the committee and the Senate 

and the executive branch. 

Ways and Means bills also benefited from consideration under a 

closed rule. The technical nature of revenue and Social Security bills, 

as well as the chairman’s reputation for reporting sound legislation, 

contributed to the grant of closed rules for most committee bills 

during this period. 

The presentation of a Ways and Means bill to the Rules Committee served as a test run for subsequent House action. Mills used the 

Rules Committee as one last sounding board to judge the acceptability of the committee’s consensus. Most often, Manley found, the Rules 

Committee granted Mills his closed rule, though occasionally a final 

compromise was needed. A closed rule prohibited a bill from being 

amended on the floor without committee approval. Of 96 committee 

bills debated between 1947 and 1966, 72 were considered under 

closed rules. 

The chairman’s thorough mastery of the details of the subjects 

the committee considered-Mills reputedly had memorized most of 

the tax code-was a key component of his influence. Members were 

impressed by the chairman’s knowledge and diligence. As one remarked, Mills was more like a tax scholar: “He knows the tax code 

inside and out,” to which another colleague added, “He’s so single 

minded, never goes out, no social life or cocktail parties. He’s thoroughly absorbed, goes home and thinks about the legislation.” l7 All 

of the members of the committee shared in the prestige of the committee’s success under Mills. Furthermore, because the chairman and 

a few key colleagues performed most of the laborious detail work, 

most members were spared the effort, anxiety, and time spent in mas327 
tering complex and esoteric issues. In other words, they shared in the 

rewards without bearing much of the costs. Most members, until the 

late 1960s, apparently appreciated Mills’ leadership. 

Mills’ influence was further enhanced by his fairness in distributing rewards. One of the major rewards, as noted, was that Mills 

worked to maintain the committee’s reputation. Other rewards included doing favors for members, including such things as making trips 

and speaking engagements in members’ home districts. The chairman 

never explicitly asked for anything in return for such favors, but members implicitly understood that reciprocal obligations had been incurred. Mills’ leadership, in sum, relied upon rewards, favors, expertise, persuasion, negotiation, and bargaining, not upon coercion. 

Mills’ accommodationist, consensus-building leadership style was 

made possible, perhaps even made necessary, by the process by which 

members of the committee were selected. Both Democrats and Republicans assigned members of the Committee on Ways and Means in 

a fashion that both fostered party conflict and paradoxically restrained 

partisanship. Leaders of both parties took an active interest in assign- 
President.John F. Kennedy ing members to the committee because of its importance. Speaker - 

Sip the Trade Expansion Act 

of1962’ 

dent acknowledged the 

outstandine 1eadershiD that 

Sam Rayburn (D-TX), for example, reportedly would veto the appointment of any member who did not suppport the oil depletion 

allowance. For Democrats, the role of its members on the Committee 

Ihe 

Chairman -Mills had’executed 

in pulling together the trade 

agreement. Considered a key 

uictoty for 

the act provided the Presidat 

on Ways and Means as the party’s Committee on Committees further 

enhanced the significance of the assignment procedure, since these 15 

members would determine the appointment of Democratic members 

to all House standing committees. 

with ajive-year authority to 

negotiate tariff reductions of up 

to 50 percent, especially with 

the European Common Market. 

Kennedy signed the bill on 

October 11, 1962, rejhing to 

the act as “the most important 

international piece of legislation 

. . . affecting economics since 

the passage of the Marshall 

plan. ” Standing at Chairman 

Mills’ right shoulder is Ways 

and Means member Hale Boggs 

(D-LA), who, while Majority 

Leader in 1972, was lost in a 

plane crash in Alaska. Directly 

behind the President W John 

Byrnes. Committee member Cecil 

King (D- CA), Howard Baker 

(R- TN), and Eugene Keogh 

(D-NY) stand at nghl. 

Leaders of each party tended to select party regulars for the 

Committee on Ways and Means. This meant that Republicans seIected 

conservatives and that Democrats appointed a disproportionate share 

of conservative Southern Democrats. These factors created the possibility-in effect the reality-of a bipartisan conservative coalition 

within the committee. 

These partisan appointment considerations had the potential to 

stimulate overt partisanship on the committee. Several factors, on the 

other hand, hindered the development of partisanship: 1) the generally moderate, pragmatic style of members, 2) the apprenticeship period 

in which members had to prove themselves “good” party men with 

the requisite attributes for membership on the committee, 3) the safeness of most members’ seats that allowed time to develop expertise in 

the committee’s subject areas as well as informal techniques of conflict resolution, and 4) the veto power over appointments held by 

Chairman Mills and ranking minority member Byrnes that ensured obstructionist or difficult members were not appointed to the committee. The attractiveness of the committee-its importance, power, and 

prestige-also helped to restrain partisan conflict, because a committee that operated with accommodation and consensus enjoyed the respect of the House and maintained its standing. Political scientist John 

Manley has concluded that the recruitment process created a committee of members bound to disagree, but equally bound to manifest that 

disagreement within the confines of a pragmatic, compromising, consensus-seeking framework. l9 

The hard-won consensus achieved by the committee was undermined, many members believed, when the Senate bowed to pressures 

from interest groups and executive departments to alter House bills. 

Many members thought that the Senate acted irresponsibly in amending House bills. One member put it this way: “With all due respect to 

the Senate, they don’t know what the hell they’re doing over there. 

They’re so damn irresponsible you can get unanimous consent to an 

amendment that costs a billion dollars. And the Senate is supposed to 

be a safety check on the House. We really act as the stabling influence, the balance.” 2o For their part, senators obviously felt no reluctance to amend Ways and Means bills. Congressman Charles M. 

Teague (R-CA) satirically recounted the legislative history of H.R. 

1839 in 1964, which had left the House as a bill for the free importa329 
tion of wild birds and animals for exhibition, only to return after 

major Senate surgery as import quotas on meat and meat products: 

The operation was a great success by the standards which 

prevail in the Senate hospital. My little fellow was completely 

gutted. All that remained of him was the identification 

number on his poor little wrist. He no longer even bore my 

name. His little shell, however, had been stuffed with all sorts 

of things entirely foreign to [H.R.] 1839, his heritage and ancestry.21 

Although few committee bills were so “gutted,” once amended by 

the Senate, these bills then went to a conference committee. The conservative coalition controlled the conference committee because its 

members were among the most senior on both the Committee on 

Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance during this 

period. Based on Manley’s analysis of 17 major tax bills between 1947 

and 1966, the Senate most often lowered the tax rates of House bills. 

Senate versions were closer to the final conference committee reports 

than the House bills, which was also the case with appropriations bills. 

The Senate succeeded, political scientists have suggested, because its 

decisions were more responsive to the wishes of interest groups, lobbyists, and constituents, and were therefore easier for the House and 

the Senate to accept. The House, on the other hand, was dominant in 

Social Security legislation. Trade legislation exhibited greater diversity, with the Senate being more protectionist-as it had historically 

been-but with no clear pattern of dominance.22 

The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation 

Both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee 

on Finance could call upon the resources of the professional staff of 

the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCIRT), founded 

in 1926. The committee was authorized to appoint, on the basis of 

merit, a Chief of Staff and a staff of tax experts. The committee was 

composed of five members each from the House and the Senatethree majority and two minority members each from, and chosen by, 

the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee 

on Finance, usually the chairmen and ranking members. In 1976, the 

committee’s title was changed to the Joint Committee on Taxation. 

Currently, the Ways and Means chairman chairs the committee every 

other Congress. 

Created to provide objective, bipartisan, and neutral expert information and advice, the staff of the JCIRT provided linkage and continuity between the House and the Senate. The members of the Com330 
As a pivotal force behind Kennedy’s effort to reduce taxes 

across the board, Chairman 

Mills makes the cover of Time 

magazine on January 1 I, 

1963. Kennedy had proposed a 

quick-fur investment tax credit 

to stimulate business and a 

series of reforms &signed to 

close tax loopholes. Chairman 

Mills opened committee &bate 

on the tax issue by saying, 

“The purpose of this tax reduction and revision bill is to 

loosen the constraints which the 

present federal taxation imposes 

on the American economy. ” 

With this direction, Ways and 

Means drafied a bill that paid 

more attention to tax cuts than 

it did to the revenue-raising reforms that Kennedy had envisioned. With Mills’ stamp of 

approval, the committee’s bill 

easily passed the House and 

formed the core of the resulting 

Revenue Act of 1964. rf 

I ME 

N E WSMACAZINE 

F 

CONGRESSMAN 

WILBUR MILLS 

4 

i 

mittee on Ways and Means valued the advice of the staff above that of 

the executive branch. One member observed, “Between the Joint 

Committee staff and the House Legislative Counsel, Congress has developed a more competent staff for drafting tax legislation than has 

the Treasury.” 23 The Chief of Staff of the JCIRT from 1938 to 1964, 

Colin P. Stam, was considered as important a player in tax legislation 

as the committee chairmen. Liberals thought that Stam biased the 

33 1 
staffs input in a conservative direction. His successor, Laurence N. 

Woodworth, responded to these criticisms by making the staff more 

available to all members of the Senate Finance Committee and the 

House Committee on Ways and Means.24 

In addition to providing expert advice, the JCIRT staff served as 

an important link between the committee, the Treasury Department, 

and key interest groups. The staff met informally with their counterparts from the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service 

in what were called staff subcommittees to discuss Treasury’s tax proposals. “We get together in our subcommittees and discuss these 

ideas as to feasibility and technical possibility,” one JCIRT staffer recalled. “We represent the Ways and Means Committee and let them 

know what the committee may or may not accept.” 25 The JCIRT was 

also a focal point for interest-group lobbying. Stam, the staff director, 

held meetings in which groups of lobbyists could present their views. 

According to an unsubstantiated story, one lobbyist bought a dog to 

walk around Chevy Chase Circle in hopes of meeting Stam on one of 

his nocturnal canine excursions. 

The JCIRT was but one of a set of complex, informal ties linking 

the Committee on Ways and Means with the Senate and with the executive branch. The committee not only relied upon its own tax experts and those of JCIRT for guidance but also upon the officials and 

staff of the Treasury Department, who sat in on executive mark-up 

Congress hanh tax reductions 

to Kennedy but yanks back tax 

reforms, which would have 

raised money to help offset the 

7.3 billion tax dollars lost in 

the first year of the Rmenue 

Act of 1964. While the Kennedy Administration had 

wanted the act to cut individual income taxes, it had also 

wanted the act to increase levies 

in other areas. However, of 19 

tax-raising proposals, Ways 

and Means dropped all but 

four. Thw the intended tax-cut 

and reform bill ended up 

mainly as a memure for tax 

reduction. At right, a string 

tied to the 1964 tax act by 

Ways and Means was bad 

news for Kennedy. The new 

law meant that the White 

House would have to consider a 

curb on spending in order to 

live within the means of lower 

&deral revenues. 

332 
sessions. The President, through the Treasury Department and the 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), took the initiative in proposing legislation, but the executive branch had to anticipate the response of the Committee on Ways and Means. Executive 

initiative did not mean automatic acceptance. The Committee on 

Ways and Means yielded to executive direction only in the area of 

trade legislation, where a broad bipartisan coalition existed since 1934 

that viewed trade as a foreign policy matter primarily the business of 

the executive. In the area of taxation the Committee on Ways and 

Means tended to demonstrate its independence and was far less susceptible to executive persuasion. Less conflict was evident in Social 

Security, with the notable exception of Medicare. 26 

Mills Committee Trade Legislation 

Two significant trade revisions were passed during Mills’ chairmanship. The first, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, was considered by 

many political observers to have been President John F. Kennedy’s 

most important legislative victory of the Eighty-seventh Congress 

(1961-1963). The act provided the President with a five-year authority 

to negotiate tariff reductions of up to 50 percent, especially with the 

European Common Market. When he signed the bill on October 11, 

333 
Former President Hany 

Truman and Vice President 

Hubert Humphrey help President Lyndon Johnson note the 

hour as he signs the Medicare 

Act on July 30, 1965. The 

signing took place in Indtpendace, Missouri, the hometown 

of Truman, who was the first 

Chief Executiue to endorse a 

health insurance plan to be jinanced by raising the Social 

Security tax. Loud objections to 

such a notion in I949 softened 

over the years as medical costs 

soared. By 1965, the time was 

right and Johnson recommended 

Medicare. Preuiowly opposed, 

Mills honored his committee’s 

views and crafted the bill. It 

marked a major addition to the 

social insurance programs 

begun in the New Deal. 

1962, President Kennedy referred to it as “the most important international piece of legislation . . . affecting economics since the passage 

of the Marshall plan [ 19481.” 27 It was appropriate that Kennedy conspicuously included Chairman Wilbur Mills among those responsible 

for passage of the law. The role of the committee in the consideration 

of the Trade Expansion Act represented a case study in the operation 

of the Committee on Ways and Means under Wilbur Mills. 

The first step in the procedure was the formulation of an executive proposal on trade. On December 6, 1961, President Kennedy 

called for greater cooperation with the European Common Market in 

lowering tariffs in order to stimulate trade. The 1934 Reciprocal 

Trade Agreements Act, Kennedy argued, “must not simply be renewed, it must be replaced.” The administration submitted a draft bill 

to Congress on January 25, 1962, along with a message supporting 

the measure. The two key elements the administration sought were: 1) 

“a general authority to reduce existing tariffs by 50 percent in reciprocal negotiations,” and 2) a special authority “to reduce or eliminate 

all tariffs on those groups of products where the United States and 

the EEC (European Economic Community, also known as the Common 

Market) together account for 80 percent or more of world trade in a 

representative period.” Wilbur Mills introduced the bill (H.R. 9900) 

on the same day, and it was promptly referred to his committee for 

consideration.28 

The Committee on Ways and Means held four weeks of hearings 

on the bill and a series of closed executive mark-up sessions over a 

six-week period. Over 245 witnesses testified, and the printed record 

334 
A favorable report from Ways 

and Means on the proposed 

Medicare bill enumerates the 

scope and philosophy of the 

measure, which was written to 

amend the Social Security Act. 

The struggle to draji a Medicare bill involved several factions. The Johnson Administration insisted on compulsory national health care, a plan opposed by the Amm’can Medical 

Association. Also against it 

were Republicans and consmatiue Democrats; they wanted a 

voluntary health care system. 

Ways and Means accommodated both views with a compromise. Medicare Part A prouided for insurance coverage of 

hospital expenses for persons 

age 65 and over, but excluded 

the services of physicians. Reuenue for this plan would come 

from an increase in payroll 

taxes. Medicare Part B, a 

supplementary uoluntary plan 

for those ouer 65, allowed for 

additional coverage that included the services of physicians. Money for this purpose 

would come from monthly premiums deducted from participants’ benefits, matched by 

government payments from general revenues. An amendment 

also extended the Medical 

Assistance for the Aged to the 

medically needy under a 

disabilaty program, known as 

Medicaid. The Medicare Act of 

I965 brought some 36 million 

Americans under the protection 

of national health insurance. 

[r. MILLS, from the Committee on w8yB and Means, submitted 

following 

REPORT 

pro aa0omp.n~ H.B. 61l761 

The Committee on Ways and Mesns, to whom wm refexred the bill 

(E.R. 6676 tp provide a hrmpi$ inaarsnCe propam for the 

undm the $4 Seuurity Act mth a sup !ementprJr health bm* 

grogmu and an expanded proepom of m&d mmstance, to mmase dta undw the old survivors and disability insurance @an, 

to improve the F$w%tate pub& nstkbanca programs, and for 0th~ purpo8ea h8vmg conmdd the same report favorably thereon 

3thout ameadmmt and recommend that de bill do plrsa. 

of the hearings filled six volumes, totaling 4,233 pages and weighing 

ten pounds. Nearly every major Kennedy Cabinet member testified on 

behalf of the bill, led by Commerce Secretary Luther H. Hodges and 

Under Secretary of State George W. Ball. Most of the testimony was 

of a general nature, such as Treasury Department Secretary Douglas 

Dillon’s assertion that “trade legislation of this scope is essential if we 

are to achieve and maintain a reliable balance between our foreign 

payments and receipts in the years ahead.” Most representatives of 

335 
In 1973, Mills pledges support 

for a Ira& measure requested 

by President Richard Nixon. “I 

would eve the President whatever it takes . . . to promote 

the exportation of good from 

this country into other countries. . . . That means, more 

or Less, the reduction or elimination of nontanfl barriers. ” 

The Trade Act of 1974 became 

a landmark legdative achievement unah Mills. The authority that it gave the President to 

negotiate trade agreemenh influenced U. s. policy for the 

next 15 years. President Gerald 

Ford signed the bill after the 

Watergate scandal forced Nixon 

industry, trade, or labor organizations supported the bill, although 

one witness argued against an “extreme concentration of power in the 

President,” which would leave the control of Congress over tariffs 

“completely atrophied.” 29 The last two days of questioning were devoted to a cross-examination of Hodges and Ball by committee Republicans. 

The committee went into closed executive session on the trade 

bill on April 12, 1962. By May 23, the committee had given approval 

to an amended form of the administration’s draft bill. An entirely new 

bill (H.R. 11970) was drafted to incorporate these changes, which 

Mills introduced on June 4. The new bill retained the basic purpose 

of the administration measure virtually intact, but it also considerably 

revised the procedures and safeguards that were either omitted or 

only vaguely stated in the original bill. The most conspicuous committee additions were: 1) the escape clause, a previous feature of trade 

acts that would permit the United States to withdraw from any commitment to reduce tariffs when required to do so by domestic considerations, 2) a provision that Congress could override the President if 

he rejected a Tariff Commission recommendation to invoke the 

escape clause, and 3) a suspension of the most-favored-nation status 

of Poland and Yugoslavia. 

On June 4, the committee voted 20-5 to report H.R. 11970 to the 

House. Five Republicans joined all 15 Democrats to support the bill. 

The House Rules Committee voted 8-7 to grant a closed rule to the 

trade bill. Under closed rules, only amendments approved by the reporting committee could be considered during floor debate. The only 

336 
opportunity to change the bill was a motion to recommit to the committee with instructions to make certain changes. Recommittal motions are the prerogative of the reporting committee’s ranking minority member. In this case, Noah M. Mason (R-IL), then ranking Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means, moved to recommit 

H.R. 11970 with instructions to prepare a substitute bill extending existing trade agreements legislation for one year. Mason’s motion was 

defeated by a vote of 171-253. Subsequently, H.R. 11970 was passed 

by the House on June 27 by a roll call vote of 298-125. 

The trade bill passed the Senate in September by a wide margin. 

The conference committee easily compromised differences between 

the House and Senate versions in one meeting. The House’s suspension of most-favored-nation status for Poland and Yugoslavia was retained, as were some of the Senate’s provisions to authorize the President to retaliate against foreign import restrictions. The conference 

report was agreed to by the House and the Senate on October 4. The 

House expressed its gratitude to Mills for his committee’s work on the 

bill when several members suggested that it should be known as the 

Mills Act. 

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 provided the legislative authorization for the Kennedy Round of tariff reduction negotiations 

under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947. 

As a result of this round of negotiations, the United States agreed to 

lower import duties an average of 35 percent on nearly 6,000 items 

over a five-year period (1968-1973) in return for reduced tariffs on 

American goods. O 

The second significant item of trade legislation during the Mills 

era was the Trade Act of 1974. On April 10, 1973, President Richard 

M. Nixon requested congressional authority for the upcoming Tokyo 

Round of GATT multilateral trade negotiations. The administration’s 

request reflected both the increasingly complex nature of modern 

international trade relationships and the importance of trade issues to 

the American economy. The two key provisions of Nixon’s request 

were authority to address the proliferation of nontariff trade barriers 

to U.S. access to overseas markets, and a special procedure for swift 

congressional consideration of legislation to implement nontariff trade 

agreements. The administration’s plan also proposed: 1) measures to 

grant temporary relief to domestic industries and workers harmed by 

increased import competition, 2) the normalization of trade relations 

with Communist nations, and 3) a new program of preferential tariff 

treatment for imports from developing nations. 

The committee held 24 days of public hearings, receiving testimony from 369 witnesses and hundreds of written communications, recorded in 14 volumes of 5,169 pages. The committee conducted 60 

closed executive sessions during 39 days before reporting a revised 

bill on October 10, 1973. Among the major developments adopted by 

337 
Big business and consumers 

stand under the money tree 

awaiting a rich harvest Jrom a 

cut in excise taxes during the 

administration of President 

Lyndon Johnson. The Excise 

Tax Reduction Act of 1965 

eliminated the 10 percent 

luxu~y tax on such items as 

jewel?, furs, and cosmetics. It 

also rolled back manufacturers’ 

taxes on appliances, sporting 

goods, business machines, auto 

parts, and similar products. By 

1969, the repeal of excise taxes 

had sawed businesses and 

consumers 4.7 billion dollars. 

”HOTHOUSE HARVEST” 

the committee was an amendment proposed by Congressman Charles 

A. Vanik (D-OH) to condition the extension of nondiscriminatory 

trade relations with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries 

on their emigration policies. 

The House passed the bill after two days of debate, but it was 

another year before the Senate acted on the renewed request by President Gerald R. Ford to pass the legislation. The Committee on Ways 

and Means, under new Chairman A1 Ullman, and the Senate Committee on Finance reached agreement on the conference report on December 19, 1974. The report passed both Houses the following day, 

the last day of the Ninety-third Congress. The bill was signed into law 

by President Ford on January 3, 1975. The Trade Act of 1974 established a new procedure for the negotiation and implementation of 

trade agreements that provided the statutory basis for U.S. trade 

policy over the next 15 years. 

Social Security Legislation in the 1960s 

Several increases in Social Security benefits were enacted in the 

1960s, especially in the Social Security Amendments of 1960, 1961, 

and 1967. The major innovation in this field of legislation was the 

passage of the Medicare Act in 1965 to provide medical assistance to 

senior citizens. The principal congressional roadblock to this program 

for nearly a decade had been Mills’ Committee on Ways and Means. 

The chairman reversed his opposition only after a set of circumstances had transformed the committee into a majority in favor of 

Medicare. 

338 
An attentive Chairman Wilbur 

Mills listens as President 

Johmon announces that he will 

ask Congress for cuts in federal 

excise !axes. Standing behind the 

President are Senate Finance 

Committee Chairman Russell B. 

Long, Mills, and Treasuq 

Secretaq Henq H. Fowler. 

Passage of the bill continued the 

trend toward lessening reliance 

on excise taxes to fund the cost of 

government. 

The origins of Medicare dated back to the development of the 

Social Security Act in 1935. The Committee on Economic Security, 

appointed by President Roosevelt, endorsed the principle of compulsory national health insurance in its report, although the President declined to recommend it to Congress. No congressional action was 

taken until 1943 when Senators Robert F. Wagner (D-NY) and James 

E. Murray (D-MT) and Ways and Means member John D. Dingell (DMI) proposed that the Social Security Act of 1935 be amended to include a compulsory national health insurance plan financed by a payroll tax. Although the bill failed, the phrase Wagner-Murray-Dingell 

was synonymous with what has become known as Medicare. President 

Truman endorsed the plan as early as 1945, and in his 1949 State of 

the Union Message, he proposed that prepaid health insurance for 

persons of all ages could be financed by raising the Social Security 

tax. No action was taken on Truman’s proposal by Congress, but the 

controversy surrounding national health insurance focused public attention on the problem.31 

The Eisenhower Administration (1953-1961) was opposed to 

compulsory national health insurance, but some Democrats in Congress continued to press the issue. Aime J. Forand (D-RI), a member 

of the Committee on Ways and Means, introduced a bill in 1957 to 

provide hospitalization, surgical, and other benefits to all retired persons covered by Social Security. The benefits were to be financed by 

an increase in payroll taxes. The Committee on Ways and Means held 

hearings on the Forand bill from July 13 to 17, 1959. HEW Secretary 

Arthur S. Flemming stated that although the administration was opposed to compulsory health insurance, “we are reviewing our position 

on the basic principles embodied in such legislation.” 32 

339 
REPORT 

The committee held executive sessions to consider the Forand 

bill between March 14 and June 13, 1960. Flemming once more stated 

the administration’s firm opposition, noting that they were considering a program of federal assistance to the states to promote health 

care for the aged. The American Medical Association also opposed 

what President Eisenhower had called “a very definite step in [the direction of] socialized medicine.” 33 The bill (H.R. 12580) the committee reported to the House on June 13 replaced Forand’s proposals 

with a plan authored by Chairman Mills that was closer to the administration’s program. The chairman’s bill authorized federal grants to 

the states for the purpose of medical care to persons over 65 whose 

incomes were deemed inadequate to meet their medical needs. The 

states were allowed to determine eligibility standards as well as levels 

of benefits. The plan was to be financed from Treasury funds rather 

than an increase in payroll taxes. 

340 
“The Committee on Ways and 

Means. . . recommend[s] that 

the bill do pass. . . ’’ read the 

panel i report submitted on the 

Excise Tax Reduction Act of 

1965. The proposed cut that 

caused the most controuersy inuolued the federal excise on 

automobiles. Martha Grfjths 

of Michigan, the first woman 

to sme on Ways and Means, 

pressed for the elimination of 

the tax. Treasury Department 

ofjcials balked, saying that 

such action would slice federal 

revenws by another billion dollars. Chairman Mills enganeered a compromise that gave 

the automobile industry and 

Treasury part of what each 

wanted. In this report the 

committee jwtzjies its overhaul 

of the present excise taxes because they “. . . were initially 

hied as emergency. . . measures at the time of the Korean 

war, or World War II, or the 

depression of the 1930’s. As a 

result, they were not deueloped 

on any systematic basis and are 

ofien dismiminatory. . . . ” 

H.R. 12580 passed the House on June 23, 1960, by a vote of 

381-23 under a closed rule. The Senate version of the bill with a 

slightly modified federal-state assistance plan authored by Senator 

Robert S. Kerr (D-OK) passed on August 23, and the conference committee report was adopted three days later in the House and six days 

later in the Senate. Now known as Kerr-Mills, the act was signed by 

President Eisenhower on September 13. Although Forand called it “a 

sham and a mirage . . . a watered-down version of a no-good bill that 

came from the White House,” the size of the vote indicated that the 

majority agreed with Republican Victor A. Knox of Michigan that the 

act was “a step in the right direction.” 34 

John F. Kennedy had sponsored a version of the Forand bill while 

serving in the Senate in 1960. As President in 1961, he recommended 

a similar program, arguing that it was “not a system of socialized 

medicine.” 35 Congress took no action on health care in the Eightyseventh Congress (1961-1963), but it did pass an increased Social Security benefits package in 1961. 

Kennedy asked Congress to increase the minimum monthly benefit from $33 to $43 to keep up with the rising cost of living. He also 

requested broadening the disability provisions, increasing widows’ 

benefits, and assigning 62 as the age at which workers could retire 

and receive benefits on a reduced basis. The package was to be financed by an increased payroll tax of .25 percent on employers and 

employees. The Committee on Ways and Means held only five days of 

executive sessions on the bill in March 1961. HEW Secretary Abraham A. Ribicoff testified on behalf of the administration. There was 

little evident opposition to the bill, which was approved by the committee 22-2 on March 29. The committee did make several alterations 

to the administration’s proposals: 1 ) increasing the monthly minimum 

only to $40, 2) increasing the payroll tax only .125 percent, 3) rejecting the broadened disability protection, and 4) lowering the increase 

for widows’ benefits. The House passed the bill on April 20 by an 

overwhelming 400-14 margin. The bill passed the Senate in late June, 

and President Kennedy signed the Social Security Amendments of 

1961 on June 30.36 

By the mid-l960s, the paradox of poverty amid plenty as well as 

the rising costs of medical care had focused public attention upon 

medical assistance for the aged. President Lyndon B. Johnson instructed Democratic congressional leaders to give top priority to passage of Medicare in 1965; accordingly, the bill was assigned H.R. 1 in 

the House and S. 1 in the Senate. The congressional elections in 1964 

had much to do with the success of the bill in the Committee on Ways 

and Means. 

The committee had rejected a similar health care program in 

1960 by a vote of 17-8, with all ten Republicans and seven Democrats, including Chairman Mills and all six Southern Democrats, in the 

34 1 
opposition. Within five years the Democratic House leadership replaced every Democrat who left the committee, including three who 

were opposed to Medicare, with a Medicare supporter. With the 

Democratic landslide in the 1964 elections, in which two Republican 

members of the committee were defeated, the ratio of the committee 

was changed for the Eighty-ninth Congress from 15 Democrats and 

10 Republicans to 17 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The ratio reverted to 15-10 in the succeeding Congresses until the committee was enlarged in 1974. What had been a 17-8 majority against Medicare was 

transformed by the election and the enlargement of the committee 

into a tenuous 13-12 majority in favor of the ~rogram.~’ 

Confronted with a committee majority favorable to the administration’s bill, Chairman Mills reversed his position on Medicare. No 

hearings were held on the bill because the majority considered them 

unnecessary. The Medicare Act passed in 1965 owed much to the 

Heavy spending burden of the 

Vietnam conflict, space program, urban renewal, Medicare, and other federal programs bendc the back of the 

Johnson Administration, which 

grasps an empty tax cup in this 

1967 cover of Newsweek. 

The strain of the President 5 

“gum and butter” programs in 

the wake of lost revenues led 

Johnson to reqwst an extension 

of excises due to expire under 

the reduction act of 1965. The 

President also asked for a I0 

percent income tax surcharge. 

Mills tried to bottle up the bill 

in committee, but when forced 

to report it, he attached a big 

condition to the measure. The 

Revenue and Expenditures 

Control Act of I968 granted 

th I0 percent surcharge on 

personal and corporate income 

for 1969, but only iffidma1 

spending was cut by six billion 

dollars. 

342 
consensus-building process within the Mills committee. H.R. 1, the 

administration bill, was replaced by a compromise bill, H.R. 6675, 

whose provisions reflected suggestions made by ranking minority 

member John W. Byrnes. The Wisconsin Republican proposed an optional rather than a mandatory program for those over 65 that included an expanded benefits package financed by federal contributions 

taken from general revenues and by small monthly payments from 

beneficiaries. Mills was impressed by his colleague’s recommendations, although he was dubious about the wisdom of financing Medicare through general revenues rather than payroll taxes. The chairman designed a bill that incorporated aspects of the administration’s 

proposals, Byrnes’ alternative, and a plan submitted by the American 

Medical Association. Under the terms of the Mills bill, hospital insurance would be financed through payroll taxes, but added medical care 

benefits would be financed through general revenues and participant 

contributions. 

H.R. 6675 provided two health insurance plans that became Title 

XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act. The basic health insurance plan for persons over 65 (Medicare Part A) provided hospitalization coverage, except for the services of physicians. This plan was to 

be financed by an increase in payroll taxes. A supplementary voluntary plan for those over 65 (Medicare Part B) provided additional coverage that encompassed the services of physicians, including specialists such as radiologists, anesthesiologists, pathologists, and psychiatrists. This plan was to be financed through monthly premiums deducted from participants’ benefits, matched by government payments 

from general revenues. The bill also amended the Kerr-Mills program 

of federal-state assistance by extending the Medical Assistance for the 

Aged program to the medically needy under the dependent children, blind, and permanently and totally disabled programs. This extension of Kerr-Mills became Title XIX (better known as Medicaid) of 

the Social Security Act. 

The House considered H.R. 6675 under a closed rule on April 8, 

1965, when it passed the bill by a 313-115 vote. “After all these 

years,” Chairman Mills observed, the committee and the administration had been able to develop a bill “that I could wholeheartedly and 

conscientiously . . . support. . . . I believe we have finally worked out 

a satisfactory and reasonable solution of an entire problem, not just a 

partial solution.” 38 President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into 

law on July 30, 1965, at Independence, Missouri, in the presence of 

the first President to propose a national health insurance program, 

Harry Truman. The law provided health care coverage to some 36 

million persons. The estimated cost of the program for the first full 

year’s operation was 6.5 billion dollars. Both in scope and philosophy, 

Medicare marked a major addition to the social welfare legislation 

begun in the New Deal. 

343 
“BETWEEN THE DEVIL 

AND THE DEEP RED SEA“ 

‘Feeling a little sluggish, eh? What 

you need is a good shot in the arm.’ 

In 1967, the President requested the Ninetieth Congress to enact 

a 15 percent across-the-board increase in monthly Social Security benefits, as well as the expansion of Medicare to cover 1.5 million disabled Americans under the age of 65. The Committee on Ways and 

Means under Mills’ leadership refused to extend Medicare, arguing 

that the additional cost would have threatened the financial soundness 

of the program. The committee did agree to a 12 percent increase in 

Social Security benefits, which was later raised to 13 percent in the 

final conference committee report. 

The most controversial committee action concerning the Social 

Security Amendments of 1967 was the provision relating to Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The committee recommended mandatory work-training programs for all able-bodied AFDC 

recipients. Mothers with preschool children would have to place them 

in federally supported day-care centers while receiving job training in 

order to remain eligible for AFDC payments. This was the only provision to elicit debate during the four hours in which the House considered the committee bill under a closed rule on August 17. Chairman 

Mills argued that the provision was designed to make “taxpayers out 

of taxeaters.” He strongly defended the work-training program: 

“What in the world is wrong with requiring these people to submit 

themselves, if they are to draw public funds, to a test of their ability to 

learn a job? Is it not the way we should go? Is that not the thing we 

should do?” Ranking minority member Byrnes likewise thought that 

the AFDC provision was the “right road.” But several Democrats, re344 
Caught between the devil of 

higher taxes and the deep red 

sea of the biggest feohal dejicit 

since World War II, a befuddled Congress in I967 wonders 

how to &a1 with these unpopular issues. A companion cartoon 

from that year suggests the pain 

ofgiving the economy a shot in 

the am with a big tax boost. 

The Tax Reform Act of 1969 

tackled the dilemma. Ways and 

Means proposed the most extensive changes in the tax code’s 

history up to that time. Important provisions included an increase in captial gains tares, an 

about-face repeal of the 7 percent investment tax credit, and a 

surprising reduction in the previously untouchable oil depletion 

allowance. 

flecting the administration’s position, criticized the bill’s welfare provision. According to Charles Vanik of Ohio for example, “we can endeavor to hold down the cost, we can endeavor to train adults capable 

of work and rehabilitate families, but we must not deny help to those 

who remain needy after our best thought-out plans.” 39 When President Johnson signed the bill on January 2, 1968, he also appointed a 

commission to make recommendations for changes in the “outmoded” welfare system. In 1972, amendments to the Social Security 

Act introduced the concept of indexing, that is, linking benefit increases to rises in the cost of living. 

Although each of the four major Social Security bills in the 1960s 

originated from administration proposals, the Mills committee revised 

them all in a conservative direction. The committee refused to act on 

a compulsory national health insurance proposal in 1960, substituting 

the Kerr-Mills plan for federal-state assistance. President Kennedy’s 

request for increased benefits in 196 1 were also substantially reduced 

by the committee. Even when political changes created a committee 

favorable to Medicare, Mills was able to tack on a supplementary voluntary insurance plan favored by the AMA. The committee had displayed its independence in Social Security legislation; in the area of 

revenue, the Mills committee played an even more important role. 

Mills Committee Tax Legislation 

Because administrations usually presented tax proposals in the form 

of general messages, and because the committee placed so great a reliance upon the technical tax-writing expertise of the JCIRT staff and 

the House Legislative Counsel, the Committee on Ways and Means 

played a creative role in drafting tax legislation. There were four 

major tax reforms during Mills’ tenure: two during the Kennedy-Johnson years-the Revenue Act of 1964 and the Excise Tax Reduction 

Act of 1965-and two during Richard Nixon’s Presidency-the Tax 

Reform Act of 1969 and the Tax Reduction Act of 1971. During the 

Eisenhower years, the tax code had been stabilized, and it had gone 

virtually unchanged since 1954. The tax reform acts of 1964 and 

1969, however, consisted of dozens of major alterations, and as tax 

experts have pointed out, hundreds if not thousands of minor technical changes. The tax bills of the 1960s, and those of the 1970s as well, 

with one exception, all called for tax cuts, and all were touted as tax 

reforms; and yet, with each bill the tax code became increasingly more 

complex and difficult to administer.*O 

The Revenue Act of 1964 resulted from discussions held early in 

the Kennedy Administration involving Treasury Secretary Douglas 

Dillon. Because of the nation’s faltering economy, the administration 

devised a two-stage approach: a quick-fix investment tax credit to 

345 
The cover of Dun’s magazine 

directs the attention of the business community to tax-cut &liberations underway in Ways and 

Means in 1971. Runaway 

inflation had spurred President 

Nkon to come up with a plan 

for economic recovey. Supplyside economics, he reasoned, 

would had to bwiness expansion which in turn would 

revitalize the economy. Thus he 

transmitted to Ways and 

Means tax-reform requests that 

included reductions weighted in 

favor of business. Leaders of 

industty, as well as the nation’s 

business press, watched closely 

as the committee pondered the 

last major tax revision of the 

Mills era. 

I 

stimulate business, and a thorough reform effort to close tax loopholes. The investment tax credit recommended by Kennedy on April 

21, 1961, ran into opposition in the Committee on Ways and Means. 

In the committee’s hearings, business was divided over the way the 

credit was formulated, and organized labor was adamantly opposed. 

Chairman Mills utilized all of his consensus-building skill in order to 

fashion legislation in 1962 that increased the investment tax credit, in 

effect broadening tax reduction in order to increase support for the 

Believing that “tax reductions set off a process that can bring 

gains for everyone,” and that “tax deterrents to private initiatives 

have too long held economic activity in check,” President Kennedy 

recommended across-the-board tax reductions in January 1963. The 

administration’s proposals called for cutting individual tax rates from 

the then current range of 20-91 percent to 14-65 percent and for 

lowering corporate rates from 52 to 49 percent. Tax reductions were 

also proposed in provisions on child care, moving expenses, charitable contributions, income averaging, and research and development. 

To somewhat offset losses in revenue, several revenue-raising changes 

were suggested concerning capital gains. 

Secretary Dillon emphasized the coordinated nature of the tax 

reform package in his testimony before the Committee on Ways and 

bi11.41 

346 
Means. Generally, the committee took the view that tax reduction was 

tied to economic growth. The committee chose to increase the provisions reducing taxes and to reduce the provisions increasing taxes. 

The committee’s bill was considered under a closed rule, with Mills 

commencing debate by arguing that, “The purpose of this tax reduction and revision bill is to loosen the constraints which the present 

federal taxation imposes on the American economy.” The bill passed 

the House and formed the basis for the version favored by the conference committee. The resulting Revenue Act of 1964 enacted acrossthe-board reductions of from 20 to 30 percent, slightly more favorable 

for lower income groups and more proportional for middle income 

groups. As estimated by the JCIRT, the total revenue impact of the 

act was a revenue loss of 7.3 billion dollars for 1964 and 11.3 billion 

dollars for 1965. What began as tax reform had ended as tax reduction. 

The political appeal of tax cuts proved irresistible. In 1965 the 

administration and Congress agreed to a large cut in excise taxes. 

These taxes had produced nearly one-eighth of federal revenue in the 

postwar period, as much as ten billion dollars a year. Excises on 

liquor and tobacco accounted for two-fifths of the total, with automobiles and fuels accounting for one-third. The Excise Tax Reduction 

Act of 1965 reduced excises by 4.7 billion dollars between June 22, 

1965 and January 1, 1969. The 10 percent luxury tax on items such as 

jewelry and furs was eliminated, but the most controversial reduction, 

and the one that the Committee on Ways and Means most altered, 

was the phasing out of the federal excise on automobiles. The administration recommended reducing the 10 percent tax by stages to 5 

percent in 1967. Representative Martha Griffiths (D-MI), the first 

woman to serve on the committee, urged that the entire tax should be 

eliminated, arguing that the savings would be passed on to consumers 

in lower car prices that would stimulate the economy. The Treasury 

projected that outright elimination of the tax would cost another one 

billion dollars in lost revenues. Ranking minority member John 

Byrnes suggested phasing out the tax over a three-year period to 

lessen the impact on federal revenues. Chairman Mills supported the 

principle of a phase-out, changing only the first year’s rate from 

Byrnes’ proposed 8 percent to 7 percent. Like most compromises, it 

did not satisfy everyone, but it succeeded in giving both the Treasury 

and the automobile industry part of what they wanted.43 

The next major tax revisions did not come until the late 1960s. 

Although the conflict in Vietnam placed added strains on the budget, 

President Johnson had little evident interest in tax policy. In 1968, the 

size of the deficit led the President to request an extension of excises 

due to expire and a temporary 10 percent income tax surcharge. Mills 

kept the bill in committee until he was forced to release it when the 

Senate attached a tax increase to another House bill. The Committee 

347 
on Ways and Means bill tied the tax increase to a six billion dollar 

spending cut. The resulting Revenue and Expenditures Control Act of 

1968 imposed a 10 percent surcharge on personal and corporate 

income for 1969, provided spending was cut six billion dollars below 

projected levels.44 

The Johnson Administration held its proposals for major tax 

reform until after the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. Before 

Nixon’s inauguration in January 1969, the Treasury released its proposals. The Committee on Ways and Means held extensive hearings 

on these proposals beginning in February. The bill drafted by the 

committee provided the most extensive changes in the tax code’s history up to that time. The bill called for a six-month extension of the 

10 percent tax surcharge to partially offset general reductions in the 

rate schedules. Personal tax exemptions were also increased. New tax 

benefits were written for pollution control equipment, railroad improvements, and renovations on rental properties. But in the most 

striking departure from current tax policy, the committee greatly increased revenue-raising provisions by increasing taxes on capital gains 

and by repealing the 7 percent investment tax credit, a complete 

about-face from the committee’s position in 1964. For the first time, 

the committee lowered the sacrosanct oil depletion allowance previously protected zealously by Chairman Mills and Speaker Rayburn. 

The committee also eliminated the tax-exempt status of interest on 

state and municipal bonds, but this reform was not included in the 

Senate and conference committee versions.45 

The committee bill was hurriedly drawn in order that it might 

pass before the August recess. During the House Rules Committee’s 

consideration of a rule for the bill, the Democratic Study Group 

(DSG) found that one lower income group benefited less from the reforms. Mills called his committee together and wrote additional tax 

breaks of 2.5 billion dollars during a lunch break in the Rules Committee’s proceedings. After the bill was granted a closed rule, the 

House passed it by an overwhelming 395-30 vote. The Senate made 

major changes to the bill in the direction of even greater tax reductions. President Nixon threatened to veto the bill, but the conference 

committee compromised the House and Senate versions to create an 

act that the JCIRT estimated would result in overall revenue gains of 

5.7 billion dollars in fiscal year 1970. The added expenses of the military conflict in Vietnam provided part of the reason for tax reform 

rather than tax reduction, but tax scholars have argued that a more 

likely reason was the liberal ideology of Johnson’s Great Society. The 

Tax Reform Act of 1969 instituted highly progressive tax changes, 

lowering the comparable tax liabilities more for lower income groups 

than for higher income groups, and in fact increasing by 7.2 percent 

the liabilities on incomes above $ 100,000.46 

The committee engaged in the last major tax revision of the Mills 

348 
Reuenue issues under consideration by Ways and Means in 

I971 turn a picture of the 

committee into front-page news 

for Business Week magazine 

In addition to paring business 

taxes as a counter-inflation 

move, President Niton had 

asked Ways and Means for reinstatement of the investment 

tax credit and added depreciation benefits. The final bill reported by the committee followed the spirit of the President’s request but altered most 

of the details. In general, Ways 

and Means more than doubled 

tax reductions for individuals, 

while providing one of the largest business tax cuts in history. 

The committee’s work cleared 

the Senate virtually unchanged. 

The Tax Reduction Act of 

1971 reduced revenues some 

26 billion dollars over a threeyear pm‘od. 

? 

.- : * 

’*.:.$ ....... 

Tackling three hot issues: 

taxes, trade, welfare Page 72 

era in 1971. With inflation seemingly out of control, President Nixon 

asked Congress for wage and price controls, a 10 percent import surcharge, and a 10 percent cut in foreign aid. Following supply-side 

economic reasoning, the President also requested a tax cut weighted 

in favor of business in order to stimulate economic recovery. The administration specifically requested the reinstatement of an investment 

tax credit, added depreciation benefits (known as Asset Depreciation 

Range, or ADR), and the creation of a new kind of tax-exempt overseas sales organization (known as a Domestic International Sales Corporation, or DISC). Chairman Mills opposed this “trickle down” economics and suggested raising the low-income allowance from $300 to 

$1,300. The Committee on Ways and Means bill, drafted in only three 

days of executive sessions, scaled down the administration’s requested 

10 percent investment tax credit to 7 percent, approved the ADR, but 

revised the DISC proposal. The committee’s bill more than doubled 

reductions for individuals, while also providing one of the largest 

business tax cuts in history. The Senate once again made major 

changes, only to abandon them in conference. The final bill, almost 

identical to the Committee on Ways and Means bill, reduced revenue 

549 
an estimated 25.9 billion dollars over a three-year period. After the 

1969 aberration, congressional tax policy had returned to the normal 

political expediency of tax red~ction.~’ 

Two changes in the Internal Revenue Code recommended by the 

Mills committee sought to provide tax incentives for the establishment 

of private pension plans. From the late 1950s until its passage in 

1962, committee member Eugene J. Keogh (D-NY) introduced in each 

Congress a plan to allow self-employed individuals to take a deduction from gross income for contributions to a retirement account. 

Such plans became commonly known as Keogh accounts. Further development of pension legislation peaked with the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In addition 

to protecting the pension rights of employees, the act allowed workers 

not covered by an employer-provided plan to establish tax deductible 

individual retirement accounts to supplement their future retirement 

income. Unlike other social insurance legislation, ERISA depended 

almost exclusively on the private sector. In addition, the protections it 

afforded were established and enforced through the tax code rather 

than through direct federal spending. The code was clearly a more 

comfortable arena for the efforts of the Mills committee. 

Congressional Reform, 1970- 1975 

By 1970, Wilbur Mills had chaired the committee for over a decade. 

His committee had drafted all of the major as well as routine trade, 

revenue, and Social Security legislation of the 1960s. Almost all committee bills had been considered by the House under closed rules that 

prevented amendments from the floor. The Mills committee in effect 

had dominated House policy within its jurisdiction. Some members of 

the House resented the committee’s power, such as Morris Udall (DAZ) who said, “I represent a half-million people, and I’m forbidden to 

have any say in the tax code.” 48 

A study of the House Committee on Ways and Means in the early 

1970s sponsored by a consumer rights group concluded that the committee was “secluded and secretive . . . indifferent to the public and 

uncooperative with the rest of Congress. This negligent privacy does 

not make for good government nor good laws,” the authors insisted, 

“but it does make for powerful men.” 49 The presumption, shared by 

some members of Congress as well, was that closed committee meetings and closed rules constituted a perversion of the democratic process. Open up congressional procedure to public scrutiny and input, 

the critics suggested, and the result would be legislation better attuned to the needs of the people. By implication, an important step in 

opening up the process was to remove perceived obstructions such as 

Chairman Mills. 

350 
Social insecurity: The elderly in 

the 1960s jnd themselves in a 

precarious seat as spiraling 

inflation undercuts their slowrising federal benefits. Ways 

and Means under Mills generally maintained a leading role 

in Social Security legidation. 

Mills abhorred unbndled welfare. In 1967, he ar-d in 

vain for a mandatoly worktraining program that would 

make “taxpayers out of 

taxeaters. ” He did respond, 

however, lo the plight of the 

elderly by overseeing a bill that 

became the Social Security 

Amendments Act of 1972. Its 

most notable contribution was 

the indexing of government 

benefits to the rise in the cost of 

living. 

“SOCIAL INSECURITY” 

Such criticism was not solely reserved for the Committee on Ways 

and Means; Congress as a whole received extremely low performance 

ratings in public opinion polls in the early 1970s. Several factors contributed to the negative public image of Congress and the Mills committee. The quagmire of the undeclared war in Vietnam and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther 

King turned sour much of the idealism of the Kennedy-Johnson years. 

The “Imperial Presidency” seemingly indicated the powerlessness and 

ineptitude of Congress. A series of political scandals culminating with 

Watergate seemed to confirm the public’s distrust of politicians. Finally, in spite of all the technical modifications to Social Security and the 

tax code, the plight of the elderly and the taxpayer seemed no better, 

only more complicated by layers of bureaucracy and red tape. 

Younger and more liberal Democratic members of Congress in 

the early 1970s began to respond to both internal and external criticisms by launching a movement for major congressional reform, much 

of which was aimed at the Committee on Ways and Means under 

Wilbur Mills. Reformers chafed under what they perceived to be a repressive seniority system that thwarted liberal legislation. Conservative-minded Southern Democratic chairs, such as Mills, W. R. Poage 

(D-TX) of Agriculture, Wright Patman (D-TX) of Banking, and F. 

Edward Hkbert (D-LA) of Armed Services, were considered autocrats 

who exercised a disproportionate share of power. Reformers sought 

to make the legislative process more responsive-at least more responsive to the changing majority within the Democratic Caucus. The 

decade’s first effort at reform, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 

35 I 
1970, reflected this desire to open committee actions to public 

scrutiny. 

The result of several years of study by two joint committees, the 

Legislative Reorganization Act did not contain any of the provisions 

the committees had recommended concerning seniority or lobbying. 

The act did require committees to make public all recorded committee votes. It also allowed a majority to call meetings, rather than just 

the chairman. Although the act encouraged but did not require committees to hold open meetings and hearings, it did represent a first 

step toward congressional committee reform.50 

The major reform group in the House in the early 1970s was the 

Democratic Study Group, an informal organization of liberal reformminded Democrats. The DSG in 1970 persuaded the party caucus to 

appoint an 1 1-member Committee on Organization, Study, and 

Review to examine the seniority system. Chaired by Julia Butler 

Hansen (D-WA), the committee reported two sets of recommendations, one in 1971, and another in 1973. The first set, adopted by the 

caucus on January 21, 1971, was designed to limit the power of committee chairs. Democratic chairmen were restricted to one legislative 

subcommittee chair. Subcommittee chairs were allowed to select one 

professional staff member for their subcommittee. Also, the caucus 

procedure for electing committee chairs and members was amended 

to allow the consideration of one committee at a time rather than the 

entire slate of committees. 

In 1973, the Democratic Caucus ratified changes recommended 

by the Hansen committee that were designed to increase the power of 

the caucus, including the creation of a 23-member party Steering and 

Policy Committee, and the requirement of automatic votes on committee chairs to make them more responsive to the rank-and-file. Most 

importantly for the Committee on Ways and Means, the 1973 reforms 

expanded the Democratic Committee on Committees, previously composed solely of Ways and Means Democrats, to include the caucus 

chair, the majority leader, and the Speaker, who would now chair the 

committee. The purpose of this reform was to diminish the control of 

Ways and Means Democrats over committee assignments. The caucus 

also approved a procedure allowing the caucus to demand more open 

rules for floor consideration, especially of Ways and Means bills.51 

To resolve a decade of debate and dispute among the various 

congressional panels and executive departments involved in the preparation of the annual budget, Congress created the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control in 1972. The committee’s 32 members were 

drawn principally from the Committee on Ways and Means, the 

Senate Finance Committee, and the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 that resulted from the study created separate House and 

Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Ofice for inde352 
Major tax anglers, Mills and 

Uncle Sam examine the catch 

in 1969. Throughout his 16 

years as chairman of Ways and 

Means, Mills could outJsh 

almost any legslator in the 

legal waters of taxation, welfare, trade, and Social Security. 

Envious critics called his 

powerful skill ‘3urisdictional 

impm‘alism. ” By 1970, Mills 

was out of step with reform liberals. The chairman’s publicized personal problems 

handed hk detractors the final 

victory. Acknowledgzng his 

flaws, the workaholic Mills 

admitted himself to a hospital 

and in 1975 resigned the 

chairmanship. 

” ‘YEAH-BUT WHAT ABOUT 

THE ONES THAT GET AWAY?”’ 

pendent analysis, and a timetable for the preparation of the budget. 

The party caucus elected the Democratic members of the House 

Budget Committee, who were specified by rule to include three members of the Appropriations Committee, three members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and at least one member from the Rules 

Committee. The first chairman of the committee was A1 Ullman of 

Oregon, the second-ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways 

and Means. The Budget Committees were responsible for the preparation of two annual budget resolutions-one in May to provide 

guidelines, and a second binding resolution in September-with a reconciliation process to enforce these binding decisions.52 

The congressional reform effort intensified with the creation of 

the House Select Committee on Committees in early 1973. Chaired by 

Richard Bolling (D-MO), an eloquent and erudite reform advocate, 

the committee held extensive hearings and recommended sweeping 

changes not only in procedure, but also in committee jurisdiction. 

The Mills committee was Bolling’s principal target. The Missouri 

Democrat believed that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 

and Means was “so vast that it can’t possibly be handled by a committee that doesn’t even have subcommittees.” The Bolling committee 

therefore recommended shifting the responsibility for trade and most 

nontaxation aspects of health and welfare legislation to other standing 

commit tees: 

353 
MILES 

1960 Social S 

1961 Social Security Amendments of 196 

1962 Trade Expansion Act 

Revenue Act of 1962 

1964 Revenue Act of 

1965 Medicare Act 

1967 Social Security 

1969 Tax Reform Ac 

197 1 Tax Reduction Act 

1972 Social Security Amendments 

1974 Democratic Caucus 

Trade Act of 1974 

Excise Tax Reduction 

The present jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee 

is entirely too broad to permit ongoing and thorough legislative and oversight review. The select committee therefore 

recommends that the Ways and Means Committee retain its 

historic jurisdiction over taxes, tariffs and Social Security and 

relinquish direct control of other jurisdiction not directly related to those matters.53 

Specifically, the recommendations included transferring: I) nontax aspects of health care to a proposed Committee on Commerce and 

Health, 2) nontax aspects of unemployment compensation to the 

Committee on Labor, 3) renegotiation of government contracts to the 

proposed Committee on Banking, Currency, and Housing, 4) general 

revenue sharing to the Committee on Government Operations, 5) 

work incentive (WIN) programs to the Committee on Labor, and 6) 

trade to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. In terms of the Committee 

on Ways and Means’ historic jurisdiction, the last item-the transfer 

of trade to Foreign Affairs-marked the most significant recommended reduction. 

The Bolling plan enountered strong opposition in the House 

when it was reported on March 19, 1974. The Democratic Caucus referred the plan to the Hansen committee, which drafted a substitute 

proposal. Under the terms of the resulting House Resolution 988 (the 

Committee Reform Amendments of 1974), the House Rules were 

amended to mandate that committees with more than 15 members, 

354 
specifically the Committee on Ways and Means, establish at least four 

subcommittees. Committee staff members were also increased, and at 

least one-third of the staff was guaranteed to the minority. House 

Resolution 988 (more commonly known as the Bolling/Hansen reforms) lessened the impact of the jurisdictional changes proposed by 

the Select Committee on Committees. The Committee on Ways and 

Means retained its jurisdiction over trade, but ceded authority over 

export controls and international commodity agreements to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Jurisdiction was also transferred on: 1) general revenue sharing to Government Operations, 2) health care and 

health facilities not supported by payroll taxes to Commerce, 3) renegotiation of government contracts to Banking, and 4) work incentive programs to Education and Labor. 

The rules changes also authorized the procedure known as multiple referrals. The Speaker of the House was authorized to refer the 

same piece of legislation to more than one committee, in instances in 

which jurisdiction was shared by more than one committee. In subsequent years, this practice has had its greatest impact upon the Committee on Ways and Means in the area of health care policy, which is 

shared with the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Democratic Caucus subsequently instituted even more thorough reforms. In the fall elections of 1974, House Democrats gained 

52 seats and added 75 new members. Most of this newer generation 

of members were anxious to exert influence in Congress. Most were 

also responsive to the movement for liberal congressional reform. At 

the party caucus’ organizational meeting in December 1974, Ways and 

Means Democrats were shorn of their role as the party’s Committee 

on Committees, and that function was transferred to the party’s Steering and Policy Committee. Furthermore, the Committee on Ways and 

Means was expanded from 25 to 37 members, and the ratio of majority to minority was altered from 15-10 to 25-12, allowing for the appointment of more junior and liberal members.54 These reforms, it 

was hoped, would liberalize the committee’s actions. In a further assault upon seniority, three senior chairmen, Poage, Patman, and 

HCbert were deposed in January 1975. However, it was not necessary 

for the caucus to remove Mills. He had already done that himself. 

The origin of Mills’ ouster may well have begun in 1972, when he 

launched an unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, during which he unexpectedly and uncharacteristically pledged 

to support a huge increase in Social Security benefits. The chairman’s 

actions raised doubts about his judgment and fears that he had abandoned a bipartisan consensus-seeking approach. As one member 

stated in 1974, “Since his run for the Presidency, Mills has acted more 

and more like a politician.” 55 

Mills had been ill for over a year prior to the caucus meeting in 

early December of 1974. Drinking and medication for a chronic back 

355 
problem weakened his previous workaholic constitution. With the 

chairman often absent from meetings due to back surgery, ranking 

majority member Al Ullman had conducted much of the committee’s 

business. Mills’ illness-which he later admitted included alcoholismmanifested itself in erratic behavior. Two well-publicized incidents 

were not only personally embarrassing, they also provided reformers 

with added ammunition. To his credit, Mills recognized his problems. 

He hospitalized himself, resigned from the committee chairmanship, 

and left Congress to overcome his illness and to establish a successful 

Washington legal practice.56 

Conclusion 

There was more than an element of irony-as well as more than a 

hint of tragedy-in Wilbur Mills’ fall from power. Far more was involved than a bout with alcoholism and personal indiscretions-actions that violated the chairman’s own stoic character. Other men in 

even higher positions have survived worse scandals. It was ironic-and 

inaccurate-for many observers to attribute his ouster to this single 

misstep. 

It was also ironic that reformers would target Mills for removal as 

an authoritarian, obstructionist chairman. Throughout his chairmanship, Mills had led by accommodating differences and by building a 

consensus within the committee. He may have acquired the trappings 

of what some critics referred to as “jurisdictional imperialism,” but 

Mills was no dictator. He wanted what all committee chairmen and 

most committee members wanted-success for his committee’s bills 

and prestige for his committee. 

Mills did not change, but the times, Congress, and his committee 

did. In the final analysis, the chairman found himself in a position that 

forced his resignation less because of his personal problems, but 

much more because he was out of step with the reform consensus 

emerging within his party. His methods were neither heavy-handed 

nor unrealistic, but the consensus he sought to build was both repressive and outmoded to the newer generation of Democratic congressmen anxious for access to power and confident in their ability to 

reform tax policy and welfare programs. 

The reforms of the early 1970s did not fundamentally diminish 

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, but they did 

change its ground rules. Enlarging the size of the committee, changing the committee assignment procedure, and mandating the use of 

subcommittees collectively have made it more difficult to develop a 

Mills-like consensus. For a time, after 1975, the committee would have 

to confront the nation’s revenue, trade, Social Security, and Medicare 

problems with lowered prestige and more fragmented resources. 

356 
“He likes a team player. 

This doesn’t mean you 

have to march in lockstep. 

But once you’ve tried your 

best-and you lose or you 

win-ou don ’t embarrass 

the committee, you don ’t 

undermine the committee S 

work. ’’ (Anonymous 

Ways and Means 

member describing 

Chairman 

Rostenkowski). 

1975 *I989 

The Post-Reform Committee 

The congressional reforms of the 1970s resulted in an enlarged com. 

mittee, one in which partisanship replaced the bipartisan consensus oi 

the previous period. These developments made the committee more 

difficult to lead, a situation that was compounded by the open anc 

permissive leadership style of Chairman Al Ullman (19’75-1981). Thc 

chairman since 1981, Dan Rostenkowski, has adopted a more assertivc 

leadership role. In the 1980s, the c mittee has continued to confronl 

difficult and challenging tax, trade, Social Security, Medicare, and wel. 

fare issues, and it has been centrally involved in legislation to reducc 

the federal budget deficit. 

he House reforms of the 1970s opened legislative procedure to T greater participation by the rank-and-file. The autonomy and 

importance of standing committees were diminished somewhat as the 

Democratic Caucus exercised a greater role over the content and flow 

of legislation. The Committee on Ways and Means was particularly affected by these reforms. Wilbur Mills, its effective longtime chairman, 

had stepped aside, and limitations were placed upon his successor’s 

exercise of leadership. Permanent autonomous subcommittees were 

mandated, the staff was enlarged and decentralized, and perhaps most 

importantly, the majority party caucus became the ultimate arbiter of 

the chairman’s leadership. In addition, the committee lost its control 

over Democratic committee assignments, and its size was enlarged to 

accommodate more liberal freshman Democratic members. 

Democrat Albert C. Ullman of Oregon assumed the chairmanship 

in 1975, at a time when the nation and the Congress were both in an 

antileadership mood. Committee member James R. Jones (D-OK), 

surveying the wreckage of Watergate and the Mills scandal, observed, 

“In the nation as well as the Congress the times are such that I’m 

afraid strong leadership is suspect.” The desire for openness, participation, and decentralization diminished as the 1970s progressed, 

and by the 1980s the majority of House members wanted stronger 

committee leadership. Since 198 1, Chairman Dan Rostenkowski has 

adopted a more forceful leadership style, yet he has also encouraged 

participation in a manner and to a degree that Ullman could not 

achieve. The committee’s prestige has correspondingly risen, to judge 

357 
simply upon the basis of the respect accorded to it by the membership 

of the House of Representatives. 

The Committee and the House Since 1975 

The Committee on Ways and Means remained one of the most important congressional committees in the aftermath of the Committee 

Reform Amendments and the Democratic Caucus reforms of 1974, 

but its standing in the eyes of House members declined in the late 

1970s. A political scientist who has computed statistical measures of 

the attractiveness of committee assignments has found that for the 

period 1963-1971, the Committee on Ways and Means was by far the 

most prestigious of House standing committees. By the period of 

1973-1981, however, it had fallen measurably to a close second 

behind the Appropriations C~mmittee.~ (More recent figures have not 

been computed.) 

The reasons for the committee’s diminished status were intimately related to the impact of congressional reform. The loss of the 

Democratic committee assignment function removed what was a principal attraction to many members of that party. The enlargement of 

the membership from 25 to 37 (since reduced to 36) likewise lessened 

the distinction of serving on the committee, as did the fact that freshmen members were now being appointed, in stark contrast (with one 

exception) to the Mills era. 

Committee membership nevertheless continued to be characterized by continuity and stability. All 44 members who left the committee between 1973 and 1986 were members who had either left the 

House or died in office. Additionally, there were few changes in the 

criteria for assignment to the committee even though the procedure 

for selecting members from the majority party had changed. Indeed, 

the only discernible difference from the Mills era was the increased 

numbers of freshman Democrats assigned to the committee. 

The advent of Democratic freshman appointments was heralded 

two days before the end of the Ninety-third Congress when Richard F. 

Vander Veen, a first-term member from Michigan, was named to fill 

the vacancy created when Martha W. Griffiths (D-MI) retired from the 

House. To accommodate the freshman caucus’ demand that at least 

two first-term members be appointed to Ways and Means, the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee named three freshmen to the 

committee for the Ninety-fourth Congress in 1975-Joseph L. Fisher 

(VA), Harold E. Ford (TN), and Martha Keys (KS). Four freshmen followed in 1977-Richard A. Gephardt (MO), Ed Jenkins (GA), Raymond F. Lederer (PA), and Jim Guy Tucker (AR)-and, in 1979 Frank 

J. Guarini (NJ) and James M. Shannon (MA). No first-term members 

have been assigned to the committee since the Ninety-sixth Congress, 

358 
“I don ’t believe in running a 

closed shop or too tight a ship, ” 

stated A1 Ullman of Oregon. 

His permissive leadership style 

as Ways and Means chairman 

from 1975 to 1981 took its 

direction from a nation suspicious of powerful leaders. 

Encouraging openness and 

participation in committee dealings, he delegated authority to 

the chairmen of six permanent 

subcommittees. Such actions, 

and an expansion of the 

committee, intens$ed partisanship. During Ullman ’s tenure, 

Ways and Means passed 

Ammka ’s most extensive tax 

reform measure up to that time. 

The Tax Reform Act of 1976 

broadened the income tax base, 

simplified the tax code, and revised estate and g$ tax laws 

for the first time in 35 years. 

suggesting that the assignment procedure has become more restrictive 

in the 1980~.~ 

The criteria for committee assignment of the previous era have 

continued to influence the composition of Ways and Means in the 

post-reform period. For both Democrats and Republicans, the support 

of the candidate’s state delegation, the party leadership, and the ranking party member on the committee have been necessary for appointment. The support of Chairman Rostenkowski has been especially important to Democrats because of his membership on the party’s Steering and Policy Committee since 1979. Beginning in 1981 the chairs of 

Ways and Means, Rules, Budget, and Appropriations have been ex officio members as well. Both parties have also followed a state or regional assignment procedure whereby vacancies have been filled by a 

member from the same state, or more rarely, the same region. Members have continued to be selected who have proven their ability to 

win reelection, and whose seats have been considered safe. Seniority 

was less a factor for Democratic assignments between 1975 and 1981, 

as indicated by the numbers of freshman appointments, but it has 

again become a consideration since 198 1. 

Although Democrats opened up the assignment process in the 

last half of the 1970s, committee members still tended to be responsible party regulars with safe seats. During the Mills era, these characteristics contributed to both partisanship and the need to restrain 

party conflict. Some of the members appointed in the early postreform era, however, did not share the goals of the consensus-seeking 

359 
Mills committee. A number of the younger, more liberal, Democrats 

were attracted to the committee’s impact on policy. The purpose of 

enlarging the committee and altering its party ratio from 3-2 to 2-1 

was to increase liberal representation, but the reform also enhanced 

the possibility of partisan conflict. 

Some of the new members of the committee rejected the traditional consensus politics of the previous period. Some members even 

opposed their own committee’s bills on the floor. One member observed in 1975 that if the committee bill did not reflect his philosophy, “the hell with it.” Even Chairman Ullman admitted in 1976, “I 

don’t worry about being defeated on the floor,” a statement Mills and 

members who sought to maintain the committee’s winning reputation 

would have found heretical.6 The result of the increased partisanship 

was a committee that found it both more difficult and less important 

to agree. 

The difficulty in reaching a consensus was due in part to the diffusion of power within the committee resulting from the creation of 

permanent subcommittees and the greater access subcommittee chairmen were accorded to an increased committee staff. Near the end of 

the Ninety-third Congress, the committee established the six permanent subcommittees mandated by the Committee Reform Amendments: Social Security, Health and Medicare, Trade, Oversight, Welfare, and Unemployment Compensation. The Subcommittee on Welfare was renamed Public Assistance when the subcommittees were 

reappointed for the Ninety-fourth Congress. Public Assistance and 

Unemployment Compensation were merged into a single subcommittee for the Ninety-fifth Congress (1977-1979), and it was renamed the 

Subcommittee on Human Resources in the One Hundred First Congress. The committee also created a new Subcommittee on Miscellaneous Revenue Measures in the Ninety-fifth Congress, which has been 

titled Select Revenue Measures since 1979. 

The existence of subcommittees decentralized decision-making 

and provided greater access to interest and pressure groups. The 

committee encountered serious scheduling problems in 1975 as the 

six subcommittees competed for members’ time with the full commit360 
tee’s deliberations on tax matter^.^ More serious was the opportunity 

that these panels provided to members to pursue their own policy interests. Subcommittee chairmen additionally acquired power within 

their spheres of influence. For instance, subcommittee chairmen frequently served as floor managers of bills from their subcommittees, 

rather than the chairman of the committee. They also tended to take 

the lead in conference committees on those bills. During the Ullman 

years subcommittee chairmen also acquired access to the committee’s 

vastly enlarged staff. 

Chairman Mills had kept the staff small in order to place it under 

his control. After 1974, the staff increased three-fold from 32 in 1974 

to 103 in 1987. The addition of more tax expertise diminished the 

committee’s reliance upon the Treasury Department and the professional staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Moreover, the creation of the Congressional Budget Offce (with a staff of over 200 in 

the 1970s) and the House Budget Committee (with a staff of over 80) 

fiirther diffused information on revenue-related issues throughout the 

House membership.s 

Autonomous subcommittees, the diffusion of tax expertise, and 

the increased partisan and ideological conflict within the committee 

due to changes in the appointment process all reflected the House’sor at least the Democratic Caucus’-desire to circumscribe the power 

and influence of the Committee on Ways and Means. The decline in 

the committee’s status from 1973 to 1981 was no accident; it was the 

inevitable result of the 1974 reforms. The Democratic Caucus wanted 

a more open, liberal, and responsive committee, whose decisions, 

unlike those of the Mills committee, would not be sacrosanct but 

would be subject to change on the House floor. The first post-reform 

chairman, A1 Ullman, shared these goals and assumptions. By relying 

upon openness, participation, and a decentralized committee structure, his leadership encouraged rancorous partisan confrontations and 

contributed to charges that he was a weak and ineffective chairman in 

comparison to Wilbur Mills. 

Leadership in the Post-Reform Committee: A1 Ullman 

Openness and participation were the words that Chairman A1 Ullman 

used to describe his leadership style. In a 1978 interview, he stated, “I 

don’t believe in running a closed shop or too tight a ship.” The specter of Wilbur Mills hung heavily over the new chairman as he tried to 

explain his own leadership role: 

I see my role as altogether different than chairmen used to 

see theirs. They were worried about image and not losing 

any bills and not bringing a bill to the floor unless they had 

36 1 
all the votes in their pockets. You can’t operate that way anymore. I see my role as one of leadership and trying to 

expand the thinking of Congress in new directions in order 

to meet the long-term needs of the c~untry.~ 

The new chairman had served as the first chairman of the Budget 

Committee, resigning to become Ways and Means chairman when 

Mills stepped down. But Ullman could not lead the way Mills had because the Ways and Means Committee and the environment in which 

it operated had changed. 

The open hearings and mark-up sessions encouraged by the 

reform movement were one example of the changed environment. In 

1973, some 30 percent of committee meetings were closed to the 

public, but in 1975 only 2 percent were closed. Lobbyists and special 

interest representatives took advantage of open meetings to press 

their cases. As one member of the committee observed, “Open meetings put special interests into the process and gave them an active 

input.” Another member commented disapprovingly that at one markup session, several members of the committee “went down and sat in 

the audience and talked with a specific interest and wrote an amendment, came back up and offered it.” lo 

By 1978, 26 of the 37 members of the Committee on Ways and 

Means had not served on the Mills committee. By then, it was a new 

committee in both composition as well as tone, which Ullman had to 

lead under a new set of guidelines. The reforms in essence demanded 

a permissive chairman. Ullman allowed subcommittee chairmen to 

hire staff and to operate with little interference. The larger numbers 

of liberal Democrats meant that the chairman had to rely more heavily 

on caucuses of the majority members to formulate coalitions. Perhaps 

most important, the chairman had to constantly look over his shoulder 

to see if his actions and decisions would be overruled by the Democratic Caucus. 

As Republican Barber Conable of New York put it, “[Ullman’s] 

position depends on his party, not on us.” l1 Consequently, the chairman pursued a more partisan role than his predecessor. Committee 

bills were much less likely to be considered by the House under 

closed rules, which meant that the majority party would be able to 

amend, alter, or rescind Ways and Means legislation. Ullman abandoned the previous practice of completing one section of a bill before 

moving on to the next in mark-up sessions. Rather, he allowed the 

entire bill to be subject to continuous refinement. This approach 

lengthened the mark-up process, increased the number of recorded 

roll call votes, and intensified partisanship. 

There had been only 32 and 75 roll call votes in the last two 

Congresses of the Mills committee, but there were 235, 161, and 112 

in the three Congresses of Ullman’s tenure. Two political scientists 

362 
Agreeing on the need for tax 

reform but failing to see eye-toeye on the fine print, Chairman 

L’llman and President Jimmy 

Carter discuss their dflerences 

in August 1977. That year, a 

new jobs tax credit backed by 

Ullmcin becuwie law as part of 

the Tax Reduclion and Simplafication Act. Carter had 

called the income tax “un 

insult ’’ because of its complexity, and Ullman came to believe 

the nation needed a volueadded tax to make the revenue 

collection system fairer. 

who have examined these votes have found a pattern of partisan and 

ideological conflict. The chairman followed a “middleman” leadership 

style to consolidate his heavy Democratic majority during the Ninetyfourth and Ninety-fifth Congresses, but subsequently he moved to an 

even more partisan stance, identifying with the liberal bloc in the 

party. Ullman’s strategy proved to be successful in the committee-he 

was on the winning side on most committee roll call votes-but less 

successful on the House floor, where the success rate of committee 

bills fell from over 90 percent to 80 percent. A committee, which 

during the Mills era had been bipartisan and consensus-seeking, had 

become more partisan and less effective; or as member James Jones 

put it, “We have more democracy and less of a good work product.” l2 

Committee Legislation, 1975-1980 

The impact of congressional reform upon the substance of Ways and 

Means legislation was not precisely what reformers had hoped for. 

Committee member William J. Green (D-PA) observed after the first 

year of the Ullman committee that liberal expectations had proven to 

be “a lot of journalistic excess,” even though the composition of the 

committee had been altered in a liberal direction.13 While the ratings 

of both the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and the conservative Americans for Constitutional Action indicated that the Ways and 

Means membership was more liberal by 1981 than it had been ten 

years earlier, the nature of the legislation which it reported did not 

change dramatically. Opening up the committee procedure, paradox363 
ically perhaps, opened tax legislation to demands for even greater tax 

reductions and benefits that were not always in the public intere~t.’~ 

In the areas of legislation within the committee’s jurisdiction, 

Chairman Ullman encountered serious problems with both Presidents 

Gerald Ford (in the Ninety-fourth Congress) and Jimmy Carter (in the 

Ninety-fifth and Ninety-sixth Congresses). He also differed with 

Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill on procedural matters. Ullman preferred to draft his own committee version of tax bills, rather than 

accept presidential initiatives. Although Ford had extensive congressional experience, Carter’s inexperience was painfully obvious. “My 

impression is that the President [Carter] pays little attention to 

anyone in Congress, including A1 Ullman,” ranking Republican 

Barber Conable observed in 1978.15 The chairman differed with the 

President on substantive issues. For example, the committee rejected 

the President’s recommendations to include provisions in the 1977 

Social Security Amendments Act removing the ceiling on earnings 

subject to payroll taxation and providing for the “countercyclical” use 

of general revenues to finance the system. Because Speaker O’Neill 

tried to expedite passage of Carter’s legislative proposals, he and 

Ullman did not always agree. The Speaker wanted to create ad hoc 

committees to consider Carter’s energy and welfare reform recommendations, but the chairman favored the traditional committee procedure. Ullman also encountered trouble in conference committee, 

where Senate forces were led by Finance Committee Chairman Russell 

Long (D-LA), who was similar in style and temperament to Wilbur 

Mills, and who was an acknowledged master of the conference committee process. 

On July 26, President Carter 

sips the Trade Agreements Act 

of 1979, which liberalized 

trade. The bill culminated six 

years of trade talks, known as 

the Tokyo Round. These negotiations among ministers of 

more than I00 nations represented the most ambitious and 

far-reaching international trade 

talks ever held to that time. 

The bill, which was unanimously approved by Ways and 

Means, provided for improved 

discipline over unfair trade 

practices, sought to dismantle 

some existing trade barriers and 

stop the spread of others, and 

instituted a better system for 

settling trade disputes. 

364 
Following the Tax Reduction Act of 1971, no major tax legislation was enacted until the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 and the more 

significant Tax Reform Act of 1976. To a certain extent, the personal 

difficulties of Chairman Mills after 1972 stymied tax reform, but in 

1974 he was able to thwart members of his own committee who 

sought to phase out the oil depletion allowance. The following year, 

Ways and Means began another round of tax reduction with a new 

chairman, an enlarged committee, and a Congress eager to reassert 

itself in the wake of Watergate. President Ford suggested a tax rebate 

of 12 percent for all taxpayers and an increase in the investment tax 

credit from 7 to 12 percent. The Committee on Ways and Means significantly altered Ford’s proposals by scaling the rebate down to 10 

percent on incomes up to $20,000, with a decreasing sliding scale for 

higher incomes, and by recommending only a 10 percent investment 

credit. The committee also created a major tax innovation with a 5 

percent earned income credit for the working poor. Chairman Ullman 

bowed to pressures within the committee to eliminate the oil depletion allowance. The Senate dropped the bill’s oil provisions (which 

were restored in conference), but it also doubled the tax cuts. The 

conference committee produced a compromise closer to the House 

bill. The Tax Reduction Act of 1975 applied only to that fiscal year, 

for Congress was already at work on more substantive tax reform.16 

The Tax Reform Act of 1976 was one of the most extensive tax 

reform measures in history. It broadened the income tax base by reducing tax expenditures by eight billion dollars and maintained a 

mildly progressive personal income tax. The new law mounted a concerted attack on tax shelters, tightened the minimum tax, revised certain foreign income provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, made 

substantial simplifications in some of the most widely used provisions 

of the tax law, repealed many obsolete provisions, and provided the 

first comprehensive revision of the estate and gift tax law in nearly 35 

years. 

The two additional pieces of major tax legislation of Ullman’s 

chairmanship were enacted during Carter’s Presidency, but, as scholars have pointed out, the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 

1977 and the Revenue Act of 1978 bore little resemblance to the 

President’s proposals. In 1977, the Committee on Ways and Means 

dropped Carter’s recommendations for corporate tax reduction in 

favor of a new jobs tax credit favored by Ullman. The bill also contained provisions on the standard deduction and a tax rebate. The bill 

was debated under a modified closed rule permitting votes on these 

provisions. The committee bill survived all votes. The key provision 

for a new jobs tax credit was defended by the chairman as “a new and 

simple kind of exciting, dynamic tax concept.” l7 

The only significant trade legislation considered by Ways and 

Means during this period was the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. 

365 
Debate concerning international trade in the mid- and late 1970s was 

dominated by the Tokyo Round (1973-1979), the most ambitious and 

far-reaching international trade negotiations ever held to that time. 

The Tokyo Round and the passage of the Trade Agreements Act of 

1979 also represented the first major legislative test of the consultative procedure established under the 1974 Trade Agreements Act. 

Committee members were appointed as official advisers to the negotiations, attended negotiating sessions, met frequently with foreign delegations, and provided advice to the negotiators in periodic briefings. 

The President notified Congress on January 4, 1979, of his intention to enter into the agreements. The “fast track” procedure mandated by the 1974 law expedited committee and floor consideration of 

the implementing bill, which could not be amended following its 

formal submission by the President. The Subcommittee on Trade held 

closed executive sessions with administration officials from March to 

May of 1979 in order to review the agreements and to develop recommendations for the content of the implementing bill. On May 21-23, 

the Subcommittee on Trade met in closed meetings with the Senate 

Committee on Finance, together with other committees of House and 

Senate jurisdiction, to resolve differences in the implementing recommendations. On May 24, Subcommittee Chairman Charles Vanik and 

Senate Finance Chairman Long announced the resolution of differences and completion of the consultation process. The implementing 

bill involved extensive changes in U.S. laws, including revisions of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty statutes. The bill extended the 

negotiating authority under the special procedures for an additional 

eight years. The legislation was formally submitted on July 3, 1979, 

and passed both Houses with only 11 opposing votes. The Trade 

Agreements Act of 1979 was signed into law by President Carter on 

July 26. 

Although consideration of the trade bill had been characterized 

by harmony between the two branches, Congress almost completely 

ignored the Carter Administration’s proposals for tax reform in 1978. 

Chairman Ullman told the President that reform was not possible, but 

ranking Republican Conable perhaps put it better, “The [administration’s] proposals have a lot of appeal . . . provided we don’t stick it in 

the ear of the middle class.” In the context of a populist tax revolt, an 

agreement between Ullman and Conable led to a Ways and Means bill 

providing for 16.3 billion dollars in tax cuts, which the Senate raised 

to 29.1 billion dollars. The bill extended or increased tax benefits for 

broad categories-primarily middle and upper income groups-and 

for numerous special groups as diverse as the states of Maryland and 

North Carolina, New York City, the Gallo winery, and two Arkansas 

chicken farmers. l8 

The defeat of tax reform in 1978 indicated the waning influence 

of the reform effort that had swept through Congress earlier in the 

366 
Forceful and efftave leader, 

Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois 

accepted the chaw of Ways and 

Means in 1981 rather than 

seek appozntment as party whzp 

for the Democratac majority. He 

sought to reverse the committee's dlrfused structure of the 

1970s and reznstated the chairman 's hzstoncal functzon as 

power broker. By budding 

consenslls through consultation 

and negotzataon, he has steered 

IVays and Means to viable 

solutions zn the problem-laden 

fiela3 oftax, trade, Soczal Secunty, Medicare, and welfare. 

, 

L ..i 

decade. Early in 1979, both Ullman and Senate Finance Chairman 

Long admitted that any further tax legislation was unlikely until after 

the 1980 presidential election. The political appeal of supply-side economics, evident in 1978 when Representative Bill Steiger (R-WI) successfully moved in committee to reduce the capital gains tax rate, was 

confirmed by the 1980 elections. President-elect Ronald Reagan advocated the theory that major tax reductions in individual and corporate 

tax rates would stimulate economic incentives and increase the revenue base in the long run. For the first time since 1954, the Republicans also won control of the Senate in 1980 (53-46). Although the 

Democrats retained control of the House 243-192, they lost 34 seats 

(27 incumbents were defeated), including that of Al Ullman who was 

defeated by a conservative Republican in Oregon. 

'The Leadership of Chairman Rostenkowski 

The new chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in the 

Ninety-seventh Congress (1981-1983) was Dan Rostenkowski (IL). 

The similarities between Rostenkowski's leadership style and that of 

Wilbur Mills are striking. When he assumed the chairmanship, Ros367 
89F 
Charting the realities of the 

1981 tax cuts, Chairman Rostenkowski shows reporters that 

people in the upper income 

brackets would profit the most 

under Reagan ’s tax-reduction 

plan. In contrast, the Democratic plan for 1982, which 

was drafted by Ways and 

Means members, would distnbUte the greatest amount of tax 

savings among middle-class 

workers. 

party’s Steering and Policy Committee. As a party loyalist himself, the 

chairman has favored the traditional prerequisites for committee 

membership of experience, safe seats, and party loyalty. In contrast to 

the nine freshmen Democrats appointed during the three Congresses 

of Ullman’s chairmanship, none has been assigned during Rostenkowski’s five-term tenure as chairman. 

Committee resources had been decentralized under the previous 

chairman, but Rostenkowski has centralized control over staff and 

substantially diminished the autonomy of subcommittee chairs. Rather 

than allowing subcommittee chairmen to hire staff as Ullman did, the 

current chairman has permitted them only the one professional staff 

member and one clerical appointment required by the House rules. 

Subcommittee chairs typically coordinate with the chairman when 

planning hearings and other meetings. Although Rostenkowski rarely 

intervenes or interferes on the subcommittee level, he monitors their 

deliberations, fully expecting that they will report measures to the full 

committee that he can support. 

In order to encourage consensus, since 1983 the chairman has 

held more closed committee meetings than his predecessor. Although 

open meetings during the “sunshine” era of the 1970s were meant to 

improve the committee’s proceedings by exposing them to public 

scrutiny, the public that attended committee meetings was composed 

mainly of lobbyists. Committee members appreciate the opportunity 

closed meetings provide for candid discussion, and they believe that 

their legislative product is improved because of closed sessions. Bill 

Frenzel (R-MN), for instance, has reversed his opposition to closed 

meetings: “Since our meetings have been closed, our work has been 

369 
OI9H -K 

“YOU FIRST, SON” 

less flawed . . . and our consensuses much stronger. I think it’s the 

only way to fly.” 2o 

Although the chairman prefers to build a consensus through the 

extensive consultation and negotiation that closed meetings afford, he 

also knows how to exercise sanctions that were unthinkable in the individualistic and permissive Ullman era-and that are still unusual in 

the 1980s. Committee members understand and respect the chairman’s selective use of power. As is often the case, the mere threat of 

retaliation has often been just as effective as its actual use, which is 

most likely what Rostenkowski meant when he once observed, “If 

you’re against me, I might as well screw you up real good.” 21 One 

incident has approached legendary proportions. When Democrat Kent 

Hance of Texas, a new member of the committee, defected from the 

committee’s position to cosponsor the Reagan Administration’s tax 

proposals in 1981, the chairman reportedly blocked Hance from accompanying a committee group on a trip to China and even had the 

wheels removed from his chair in the committee’s hearing room.22 

The committee’s cohesiveness has increased noticeably during 

Rostenkowski’s chairmanship. Although partisanship remains an active 

Taxpayers feel the bite of interest spawned by a monstrotu 

federal deficit in this Herblock 

cartoon. President Reagan’s 

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 

1981 prouided the largest tax 

cut in histoly for individuals 

and corporations. LOSS of tax 

reuenue as a result contributed 

to the nation’s frightening 

indebtedness. 

“This bill demonstrates for all 

our Nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security, ” President Reagan says as he signs 

the Social Security Amendments 

Act of 1983. Witnesses at the 

ceremony on March 24 include 

J.J. Pickle of Texas, second 

from left. He chaired the Ways 

and Means Social Security subcommittee that first proposed 

remedies to the program ’s 

financing problems. Ranking 

Ways and Means minority 

member Barber Conable stands 

at right rear. The bill restored 

the system to solvency, insuring 

the continued payment of benefits. Among its financing provisions, the bill laid out a time 

frame for the gradual increase 

in retirement age. 

370 
ingredient in the committee's composition, the chairman has encouraged a feeling of group solidarity. He continually reminds members of 

their committee's traditions and history. A fraternity-like atmosphere-in the best sense of the term-pervades the committee. 

Indeed, the analogy to a university setting is doubly apt. Not only 

does the spirit of camaraderie in the pursuit of a shared interest characterize the committee, but the chairman has also instituted new procedures along lines similar to graduate school seminars. 

During the committee's tax reform deliberations in 1985, the 

chairman implemented two new procedures that continue to facilitate 

the committee's The first was the initiation of a series of 

weekend issue-oriented seminars that have become an annual event 

for the Committee on Ways and Means. (The first was actually held in 

1985 on Medicare issues.) At the direction of the chairman, the majority and minority staffs plan the subject of the seminar and select 

policy experts to serve as the seminar faculty. Faculty are drawn from 

"think tanks" and academia and are chosen to represent the widest 

range of views on the given subject of the seminar. The committee 

travels to a secluded retreat site where, isolated from family and other 

37 1 
distractions, the members are able to interact with one another and 

the seminar faculty. The chairman encourages informality and frankness in discussions that are off-the-record and nonpartisan. The committee’s staff believes that these weekend seminars have improved the 

personal relationships within the committee, and that they have familiarized members with issues and experts that they will encounter in 

committee hearings. Ways and Means is the only committee to have 

adopted this innovative technique on a regular basis. 

The second new procedure also seeks to improve the information-gathering process. By their nature, public hearings have certain 

limitations. Witnesses have little time to present testimony, and members have only five minutes to question each witness. Because of these 

deficiencies, the committee instituted a series of informal, off-therecord, early morning discussions. Selected witnesses representing differing points of view scheduled to testify that day are invited to discuss the issue in an informal give-and-take session. Away from the 

public spotlight, members’ questions are often more candid, and the 

information exchanged more useful. 

These procedural innovations perhaps best illustrate Rostenkowski’s mixture of old and new techniques of political leadership. His 

use of sanctions, the centralization of resources in the chairmanship, 

and the emphasis upon bargaining, consultation, and cooperation to 

achieve consensus are clearly derived from traditional congressional 

politics. Although such techniques might seem out of place in the 

In front of telmkion cameras 

in May 1985, Chairman Rostenkowski follows President 

Reagan ‘s television address to 

the nation and states that he 

welcomes the President’s 

commitment to tax reform. 

Reagan earlier had laid out his 

plan for tax overhaul. Rostenkowski pledged to accept the 

President S initiative to reform 

the tax code and urged the 

public to let their congressmen 

know that it was time for a tax 

change. “Write Rosty, ” he 

said. In the following weeks, 

more than 70,000 letters 

poured in from taxpayers. The 

Home postmaster said that he 

had nmer seen so many handwritten letters (right) on a 

single topic. 

372 
post-reform congress, they work for Rostenkowski, perhaps because 

he has also encouraged an atmosphere of open and cordial participation. The complicated and technical tax, trade, and Social Security 

problems that the committee has faced in the 1980s have tested both 

the committee’s capacity to achieve viable solutions and the chairman’s ability to lead. 

Committee Legislation in the 1980s 

After an initial defeat on its 1981 tax bill, the Committee on Ways 

and Means has rebounded to play a key role in some of the most significant congressional accomplishments of the decade-the 1983 

effort to ensure the fiscal stability of Social Security, the 1986 Tax 

373 
Reform Act, the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 

the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, the Family Support 

Act of 1988, and several deficit reduction measures. 

The committee has operated in the 1980s within the context of 

divided government and a federal deficit that has grown so large that 

it dominates public policy debates. Both of these phenomena have 

had an important impact on the legislative efforts of the committee. 

Divided government has made cooperation and compromise between 

the legislative and executive branches much more critical to the successful enactment of legislation. The deficit, in turn, has restricted the 

legislative options available to policy-makers, even when there is widespread bipartisan support to achieve a particular goal. 

The Democratic Party has maintained its control over the House 

of Representatives, but since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 

1981, the Republican Party has controlled the Presidency. During the 

Ninety-seventh through Ninety-ninth Congresses, moreover, the Republican Party also attained majorities in the Senate for the first time 

since the mid- 1950s. During the Reagan years, therefore, the committee had to operate within the context of a potentially obstructionist 

executive and Senate. 

In the case of the 1981 tax bill, the combined weight of the new 

administration, the Republican Senate, and the defection of conserva3 74 
‘4 two-month markup session 

on the tax reform bill begzns 

a)er Labor Day 1985 in the 

Il‘ays and Means Committee. 

Shown here are committee members Jake Pickle, Sam Gibbons, 

and Chairman Rostenkowski, 

seated left to right, and Bob 

Matsui, standing at right. An 

initial setback and slow deliberations raised fears that the 

bill was doomed. But deft 

leadership from Rostenkowski. 

compromises, and a personal 

visit to Capitol Hill by President Reagan pushed the bill 

past Republican opposition and 

through the Howe. The 1,379- 

page bill drafted by Ways and 

Means contained only four 

rates for individuals, rangzng 

from 15 to 38 percent. In contrast, the old law had I4 such 

tax brackets, rangng from I1 

to 50 percent. The committee’s 

new proposal also lowered the 

top corporate tax rate from 46 

to 36 percent. 

Ways and Means Enters the Tax Mine Field 

Working Against the Odds? 118711 

a 

Volume 43, No. 33 Pages 1853.1904 September 21, 1985 

tive Democrats defeated the committee’s bill. The dramatic fight over 

the 1981 tax bill proved to be the exception to the rule, however, as 

the committee, in subsequent legislation, was more successful in 

reaching consensus among its members and with the White House. 

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 provided the largest tax 

cut in history for individuals and corporations. With tax cuts spread 

out over a multiyear period, the law resulted from the Reagan Administration’s commitment to supply-side economics. Arguing that the 

government’s taxing power “must not be used to regulate the economy to bring about social change,” President Reagan proposed a 30 

percent proportionate tax cut in personal rates, increased depreciation 

allowances, and phase-out of the distinction between earned and unearned income. David Stockman, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, later revealed that the primary motivation for 

the cut was to lower the top income tax bracket from 70 to 50 percent. “In order to make this palatable as a political matter,” Stockman 

recalled, “you had to bring down all the brackets.” 24 

The Committee on Ways and Means drafted an alternate singlevear tax reform package that targeted cuts at the middle class (wage 

earners between $20,000 and $50,000). The committee’s plan included a 10 percent deduction for two earner married couples to offset 

the “marriage penalty,” and an increase in IRA limits. In announcing 

the committee’s proposal, Chairman Rostenkowski declared: “This is 

375 
not my package, this is not a Democratic package. This is a consensus 

package. Components came from all the Ways and Means Committee.” 25 

The committee’s consensus broke down before the bill came to a 

vote in the House. Because the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by 

Republican Robert Dole of Kansas, had been working independently 

on a tax bill, the bipartisan leadership of both committees met in May 

to reach agreement on the tax package. Differences between the two 

groups centered on the timing of the cuts and the targeted income 

groups. Agreement was reached on a two-year tax cut, but left unresolved was the question of which income group would benefit most. 

President Reagan rejected the two-year cut and announced that he 

would support a substitute bill to be introduced by the ranking Republican on Ways and Means, Barber Conable, and a newly appointed 

Democrat, Kent Hance of Texas, who was also a leader of the Conservative Democratic Forum. 

The Conable-Hance substitute package led to a climactic confrontation between the administration’s supporters and Democratic forces 

led by Speaker O’Neill and Chairman Rostenkowski. The President 

delivered a personal appeal for public support for his version of the 

tax reduction during a prime time televised speech. The House was 

deluged with calls supporting the Conable-Hance substitute, which 

was adopted 238-195, with 48 Democrats in the afirmative. The final 

margin of victory of the bill was even greater, 323-107. The conferWith the difficult task of arbitrating the tax reform bill 

successfully completed in 

committee, Rostenkowski celebrates with Ways and Means 

members Bill Gradison, 

left, and Marty RUSSO. Later, 

toasting the passage of lhe bill 

by the House on December 17, 

Rostenkowski realized that the 

tax package faced “a bumpy 

ride in the Senate. ” 

376 
Opposition and indifference 

greets the House tax reform bill 

as it rolls up to the Senate in 

thzi illustration. Through the 

spring and into the summer of 

1986, the Senate considered its 

own tax re/orm bill. By 

autumn, hard bargaining between Rostenkowski and Senate 

Finance Chairman Robert 

Packwood had hammered out a 

compromlse. Key provisions 

were ihe reduction of tax rates 

and the removal of six million 

taxpayers from the rolls, 5- 

nanced by broadening the 

income tax base. On October 

22, President Reagan signed 

the unprecedented Tax Reform 

Act oJ I986 inlo law, 

ence committee’s deliberations were relatively uneventful because of 

the similarity between the House and Senate bills. 

Refinancing the Social Security trust funds became the focus of 

the committee by 1983. Life spans had lengthened, the postwar baby 

boom had collapsed, and wage levels had not kept pace with inflation. 

All of these factors spelled both short-term and long-term trouble for 

the system. When President Reagan entered office in 1981, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, J.J. ‘tJake” Pickle (DTX), pledged bipartisan support to reach a formula to provide longterm solutions. In February 1981, the Social Security Subcommittee of 

the Committee on Ways and Means began hearings on the system’s 

financing problems. At the close of these hearings, the subcommittee 

commenced consideration of short-term and long-term financing legislation that would have provided for the partial financing of the 

system from general revenues, gradually increased the retirement age, 

and reduced benefits for persons with pensions from employment not 

covered by the Social Security system. 

The Reagan Administration had formulated its policies on Social 

Security and announced its financing recommendations on May 12, 

198 1. The administration’s recommendations, Secretary of Health and 

Human Services Richard Schweiker stated, would “keep the system 

from going broke, protect the basic benefit structure and reduce the 

tax burden of American workers.” The administration’s package included proposals to reduce benefits for early retirement and for workers who retire with a pension based on work that was not covered by 

Social Security. Benefit levels in general were to be reduced by restraining their growth for five years, and by delaying the automatic 

cost-of-livinp adiustment for three months for c~rrent retirees. 

377 
The President’s proposals were seen by some critics as being motivated more by a desire to cut federal spending than to solve the 

Social Security financing crisis. As a result of the opposition to the administration’s proposed reform, President Reagan withdrew the proposals on September 24, 1981, and requested that Congress refrain 

from further consideration of financing legislation during the remainder of the Ninety-seventh Congress. In addition, the President created 

a National Commission on Social Security Reform (NCSSR) in order 

to formulate a solution to the system’s financing problems. The 15- 

member commission included two Ways and Means Republicans appointed by Speaker O’Neill-Conable and Bill Archer of Texas-but it 

did not include either Pickle or Chairman Rostenkowski. The latter 

two Ways and Means leaders preferred to wait and deal with the commission’s report in committee. 

On January 15, 1983, the NCSSR announced that it had reached 

an agreement concerning its recommendations to the President and 

the Congress. Its report contained a number of general policy stateSignatures of Ways and Means 

members mark thejinal step of 

committee deliberations on tax 

reform bill H.R. 3838. During 

consideration of the conference 

report on tax reform, Ways and 

Means member Guy Vander Jagt 

commented on the bipartisan cooperation which made the bill 

possible: “Rosty would not have 

a bill without Dutch [President 

Reagan], but Dutch would not 

have had his bill without Rosty. 

When historians look back 

through the prism of decades, 

they will view the distinguished 

gentleman from the State of Illinois, Mr. Rostenkowski, as the 

legdative pant this bill proclaims him to be.” 

378 
The exciting news of tax rejonn 

hits the front pages of national 

publications. This issue of 

Newsweek addressed many of 

the qwstions of taxpayers about 

a rejormed tax code, one with 

lower rates and fewer deductions and loopholes. 

I 

i Who Pays More, 

Who Pays less 

New Ways to Invest t! 

Your Money 

Ten Hot Tax Shelters 

ments that were endorsed unanimously by the commission members 

and a series of 11 recommendations dealing with the short-term financing situation that was characterized as a “bipartisan agreement” 

approved by 12 of the 15 commission members. However, the NCSSR 

could reach no decision as to how the long-term financing problem 

should be solved. Instead, they proposed a series of options for congressional determination. The commission’s report was endorsed by 

President Reagan in his State of the Union speech on January 25, 

1983. 

A bill embodying these recommendations (H.R. 1900), and containing a provision to gradually increase the retirement age, was approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 282-140 on 

March 9, 1983, and by the Senate on March 23, 1983, by a vote of 

88-9. The conference committee appointed to resolve differences between the two versions completed its work on March 24. President 

Reagan signed the act into law on April 20, 1983, stating: “This bill 

demonstrates for all our Nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Secu379 
rity. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises 

made in troubled times a half a century ago.” 26 Congressional leaders echoed President Reagan’s statement. 

Tax Reform in 1985-1986 

The largest project undertaken by the Committee on Ways and Means 

during this period was the complete revision of the federal income tax 

laws, which commenced in 1985.27 For decades, politicians and citizens had been criticizing the growing complexity of the tax laws. But, 

paradoxically, each effort to make the laws fairer resulted in new complications. In the early 1980s, Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) and Representative Richard Gephardt, a Ways and Means Committee member, 

came up with a plan that would simplify the tax code by reducing the 

number of tax rates, then more than a dozen, to a handful, and by 

paying for the lower rates by eliminating many special tax provisions. 

In their opinion, rates could be reduced by broadening the tax base. 

The tax reform effort became bipartisan when it was endorsed by 

the Reagan White House. The President set the process in motion 

with a televised speech in late May 1985. Chairman Rostenkowski, in 

the televised response, welcomed the administration’s commitment to 

tax reform and promised a bipartisan effort. He concluded by asking 

the public to “Write Rosty” to voice their support for tax reform. 

More than 70,000 letters were received in the following weeks. 

The committee spent the summer of 1985 taking testimony on 

the President’s plan. In marathon hearings more than 500 witnesses 

were heard in 28 days. Many hearings were preceded by informal 

breakfast sessions with witnesses, where there were frank discussions 

of the tradeoffs that change would require. After Labor Day, the comA builder of consensual bridges, 

Chairman Rostenkowski con fers 

with ranking minority leader on 

Ways and Means, Republican 

William Archer. Like Wilbur 

Mills, Rostenkowski belimes 

that the drafting of sound legzslation requires gzve-and-take 

between majority and minority 

members. To encourage a 

candid exchange among his 

committee members, the chairman reinstituted closed sessions. 

Members praise this tactic, 

saying that it enhances the 

bond of consensus and strengthens the legzslatiue product. 

Collage of legtslation: Major 

issues other than taxes that confronted LVays and Means in the 

One Hundredth Congress included the Family Support Act, 

the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiueness Act, and the 

Medicare Catastrophic Couerage Act. A desire by the 

Reagan Administration to 

review welfare programs, reduce 

the trade deficit, and increase 

medical assistance for the 

elderly led to the passage of 

these bipartisan bills, although 

not always In the form recommended origznally by the 

President. 

380 
38 1 
mittee began to work on a bill of its own, starting with a weekend retreat at Airlie House in nearby Virginia. Chairman Rostenkowski subsequently put before the committee a draft bill representing his understanding of the committee’s consensus. The hearing room was reconfigured so that all members could see one another during the ensuing discussion, most of which was in closed session. Bargaining 

began slowly. Abandoning existing tax preferences did not come 

easily. Ultimately, two issues marked the turning points of the debate. 

The first problem was disagreement over the chairman’s opposition to 

an existing tax provision under which banks set aside funds to protect 

themselves against potential bad debts. Chairman Rostenkowski temporarily halted the proceedings when the committee voted to actually 

expand rather than tighten the provision. The press was critical and 

began writing an obituary on tax reform. By the time the committee 

was recalled a week later, the members were ready to reverse themselves-and quickly did so. 

Meanwhile, a bloc of committee members created a second stumbling point-over whether state and local income and property taxes 

should remain as federal tax deductions. Both President Reagan and 

Chairman Rostenkowski sought to end this deduction. But representatives of high-tax states, particularly New York, found this unpalatable. 

Ultimately, the deduction for state and local income taxes, but not 

382 
A Ways and .tfePanc member in 

the I960s, Presidmkelect 

George Bush discusses /he upcoming One Hundrrd First 

Congress with Chairman Rostenkowski in December 1988. 

Bolh leaders have pledged bipartisan cooperation as the 

pressure of tax and trade laws 

and the federal &&-it impose 

an ever increasing burden 

on the Ways and Means 

Committee. 

sales taxes, was retained. With this compromise, and with the creation 

of ad hoc task forces to make recommendations on specific issues, the 

committee completed a 1,379-page bill that included only four rates 

for individuals, ranging from 15 to 38 percent. The old law had 14 

such brackets, ranging from 11 to 50 percent. The top corporate tax 

rate was reduced from 46 to 36 percent. 

As the committee proceeded with its bill, Chairman Rostenkowski 

scheduled a series of breakfasts and luncheons with groups of Democratic members. At each he presented a progress report, solicited 

questions, and asked members not to make a public decision until 

they had seen the entire bill. He had earlier elicited a similar promise 

from the President. But the chairman’s efforts to expedite a floor vote 

were unable to overcome Republican opposition. The rule to bring 

the bill to the House floor was initially defeated, with most Republicans voting against it. President Reagan then made a quick trip to 

Capitol Hill and defended the committee’s work as a starting point. 

Enough Republicans changed their vote on the rule to allow consideration of the bill. The bill itself was shouted through without a recorded vote. As Chairman Rostenkowski savored his committee’s dificult 

but gratifying victory in the House, he realized that the House bill 

faced “a bumpy ride in the Senate.” 28 

383 
The bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by 

Robert Packwood (R-OR), differed from the House bill on most key 

provisions. The Senate bill included only two individual income tax 

brackets-15 and 27 percent. It also lowered the upper corporate tax 

rate from the 36 percent figure of the House bill to 33 percent. 

Among other changes in the 1,489-page Senate version was a limitation of the deductibility of sales taxes to 60 percent of the amount 

paid in excess of state and local income taxes. Rostenkowski chaired 

the ensuing conference and set the agenda by announcing that he 

would accept the lower Senate rates if the House could prevail on 

many issues of reform. “If [we] have one mission, it’s to guarantee 

fairness for middle-income families,” he said.29 

The conference involved nearly a month of hard bargaining between Rostenkowski and Packwood. The two leaders finally agreed on 

a compromise that raised the top individual rate of the Senate version 

to 28 percent, the top corporate rate to 34 percent, eliminated the 

sales tax deduction, and removed six million taxpayers from the tax 

rolls through increases in the personal exemption and standard deduction. Although it is too soon to render historical judgments on 

the Tax Reform Act of 1986, tax scholars, students of congressional 

procedure, and members of Congress alike were astounded by its 

passage. “Overhaul of the tax code! My God, I didn’t think I’d see 

that in my lifetime,” observed one senior specialist in the Library of 

Congress’ Congressional Research Service. Republican committee 

member Bill Frenzel admitted that even though he did not like 

everything about the bill, “you’ve got to consider it our biggest 

accomplishment.” 30 

Although the committee’s involvement in the tax legislation of 

1981 and 1986 and the Social Security rescue plan of 1983 have been 

its most dramatic and well-publicized actions, the legislative record of 

the One Hundredth Congress provided other examples of the committee’s varied and busy agenda. 

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 was the 

result of a three-year effort to address the nation’s burgeoning trade 

deficit and to avoid protectionist measures. High unemployment and a 

worsening trade deficit created much interest in trade reform but little 

consensus about the proper approach. A trade bill had passed the 

House late in the Ninety-ninth Congress, but even its supporters did 

not expect it to become law. The administration’s decision at the beginning of the One Hundredth Congress to support a trade bill made 

the crucial difference in the bill’s passage. 

Although the issue of Medicare coverage of the costs of catastrophic illness had been discussed for some time, it was not until 

President Reagan’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Otis 

R. Bowen, advocated such coverage that the idea had some realistic 

chance of becoming law. The endorsement of such a plan by a con384 
With a firm grasp of the 

historical role of Ways and 

Means, Chairman Rostenkowski confidently presides over the 

committee as it begins its third 

century. His conviction that the 

role of a leplator is to make 

difficult decisions in the face of 

political pressure led him to 

comment during the debate on 

the Tax Re/orm Act of 1986, 

“Do we want to gave back to 

middle-income taxpayers the 

fairness they don’t believe will 

ever come, or do we want to 

preserve the status quo that 

goes hard on the poor and easy 

on the rich ? What S more 

important, the special interest 

or the public interest?” 

P‘ 

servative Republican President allowed the committee to move forward without being charged with budget busting. The committee, 

under Rostenkowski, expanded the administration’s proposal, but not 

so much that the bill lost the support of the President. The financing 

of the program under the committee bill was made more progressive, 

but it retained an important feature of the President’s proposal: 

The elderly themselves were to bear the cost of catastrophic health 

insurance. 

Similarly, President Reagan’s call for a review of the country’s 

welfare system in his State of the Union address in 1986 provided the 

momentum for the passage of the Family Support Act of 1988. In the 

development of this legislation, liberal concerns about the erosion of 

welfare benefits and the need to improve the health and well-being of 

welfare recipients were balanced against the conservative theme of 

work requirements for welfare recipients. 

The Committee on Ways and Means remains among the most important and active of all House standing committees, performing a 

large share of the legislative business of the House. From the Ninetyfifth through One Hundredth Congresses, for instance, the House referred nearly one-fourth of all public bills to the Committee on Ways 

and Means. The committee was referred 3,922 bills (22 percent of all 

public bills introduced in the House) in the Ninety-fifth Congress, 

2,372 (22.8 percent) in the Ninety-sixth Congress, 2,414 (26.3 percent) in the Ninety-seventh Congress, 1,904 (23.5 percent) in the 

Ninety-eighth Congress, 1,568 (20.8 percent) in the Ninety-ninth Congress, and 1,419 (22.1 percent) in the One Hundredth Congress.31 

385 
The enormous growth of the federal deficit during the 1980s, 

moreover, has significantly increased the committee’s role in determining domestic public policies. In January 1981, the public debt of the 

United States totaled 741 billion dollars. Eight years later, in January 

1989, it stood at 2.1 trillion dollars. Legislative efforts to reduce the 

deficit have dominated much of Congress’ legislative agenda during the 

1980s. Omnibus deficit reduction bills, containing both spending reductions and tax increases, were enacted in 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 

1986, and 1987. Tax and spending provisions within the committee’s 

jurisdiction accounted for 70 percent of the total deficit reduction 

achieved in these acts, totaling approximately 300 billion dollars. 

As the committee begins its third century, the deficit appears to 

be firmly established as the single most important issue facing the 

Congress. Budget deficits and divided government continue to form 

the framework for the committee in the One Hundred First Congress. 

Republican George Bush, a former member of Ways and Means, was 

elected President in 1988 on a platform that pledged declining deficits 

and no new taxes. Chairman Rostenkowski and the Democratic majority, accustomed to dealing with a Republican administration, expressed hope that compromises might be achieved to reduce the deficit. Speaking before a group of university students on February 27, 

1989, the chairman stated: “There’s got to be some compromises. 

Maybe, in the end, we’ll swallow some tax enhancement of revenues. I 

quess I don’t read lips too well. I think the deficit is serious and has 

to be faced.” 32 With jurisdiction over both the tax laws and 40 percent of federal spending programs, it seems certain that the committee will continue to be called upon to bear a great deal of the legislative burden of addressing the deficit. 

Conclusion 

After two centuries, the Committee on Ways and Means continues to 

perform the function for which it was created: to raise revenue to support the federal government. The process has changed and the product has become ever more complex, but the purpose remains the 

same as that expressed in the 1794 resolution instructing the committee to “inquire whether any, or what further or other revenues are 

necessary . . . [and] to report the ways and means.”33 When the 

First Congress convened in 1789, the new nation faced an uncertain 

future with a heavy public debt. The federal deficit and foreign trade 

imbalance confronting the One Hundred First Congress continue to 

test the ability of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Congress to devise viable solutions to pressing national problems. 

386 
Meeting Places of the Committee 

TOP: This drawing depicts the 

easl elevation of the U.S. 

Capitol as it appears today. In 

1800, the House and Senate 

me[ in the Senate (north) wing, 

the first portion of the building to be constructed (inset). 

Committees of both Houses 

shared space until the old House 

(south) wing was first occupied 

in 1807. Latrobe's 1806 

scheme (see page 40), which was 

partially built, suggests that 

It'ays and Means had its own 

room in the old soulh wing. The 

jire of 1814 and subsequent 

repairs required the committee S 

temporary relocation until the 

reconstruction of the old House 

wing in I81 9. The Annals of 

Congress in.dicate that the 

committee was assigned room. 

space in the south wing, first 

floor, until the early 1830s. 

Center: Charles Buljinch 's 

handsome wood and copper 

dome and other additions gave 

the Capitol this general shape 

and appearance from 1825 to 

I856 (inset). Thirty-seven years 

a&- George Washington laid its 

cornerstone, the Capitol was 

jnall? completed in 1826. 

From I832 until 1852, the 

committee occupied space in the 

central part of the Capitol 

directly under the Libraly of 

Congress. 

Bottom: The dome and wings 

added in the 1850s and '60s 

gave the Capitol its present 

form and appearance. Beginning in the post Civil War era, 

Ways and Means was assigned 

permanent spare in the second 

(principal) floor of the new 

ORIGINAL SENATE WING 

EAST ELEVATION OF THE U.S. CAPITOL 

; 

1 

.. . . .. .. . - .. 1 

i 

_. 

- C8 I I I I lil - 

BASEMENT PLAN OF THE CAPITOL BY Ad. DAVIS, 1832 

1908-PRESENT 

SECOND (PRINCIPAL) FLOOR PLAN, 1972 387 
I' 

:> 

EXTERIOR OF THE CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

C STPCET SL. 

B JTDLLT 1 L 

THIRD FLOOR PLAN OF THE HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, 1926 

south wing. It occupied H-210 

from I867 to 1870; then it 

moved to H-209, its assigned 

space for the next 31 years. In 

1901, the committee was alloted 

an extra room (H-210), indicating its growth and prestige. 

The Speaker obtained we of this 

space in 1908, and the panel k 

room was changed to H-208, 

which it retains to the present. 

Top: In 1908, the first House 

Office Building was completed. 

Today this structure is known as 

the Cannon House Office Building, named after Speaker Joseph 

G. Cannon. The buildzng was 

designed by the New Yorkfirm 

of Camire and Hastings and 

was built to accommodate all 

391 Representatives then sewing in Congress, as well as 

various commitlees and other 

support facilities. In February 

1908, the committee was alloted 

four rooms in the southwest 

corner of the thirdJoor. 

Bottom: In addition to its 

space in the Capitol, the rooms 

shaded were utilized by the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

from I908 to 1933. These 

room housed the chairman's 

office, the committee clerks ' 

office, meeting and hearings 

space, and a library. By the end 

of the 1920s, many members 

recognized the need for a new 

office structure to ease 

overcrowded conditions in this 

building. 

Top Right: Completed in 1933 

at a cost of 6.5 million dollars, 

the building known today as the 

Longworth Home Office Building (named for former committee 

member and Speaker Nicholas 

Longworth) was designed by the 

388 
It'ashzngton, DC, firm The 

Allied Archztects, Inc. For a 

penod of five years 

(1933-1938), the commzttee 

occupied Room I301 on the 

thirdfloor of the building, before 

relocatzng on the first floor. 

Bottom In the late 1930s, 

Ways and Means was allotted 

heanng space in the imposing 

Assembly Room (shaded area), 

on thefirstjloor of the Longworth Building In 1938, the 

commitlee's offices moved to 

Room 11 02 This move accommodated a growzng staff; whzch 

by thzs tzme zncluded a rnajonty 

and minonty clerk, two assistant 

clerks, and two messengers. 

Sznce 1938, Room I102 and 

the Assembly Room (1 1001, as 

well as Room H-208 in the 

Capitol. have formed the nuclew 

of the meeting and administrotive ojfice spaces asszgned to the 

conimzttee 

/ 

EXTERIOR OF THE LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

1938-PRESENT 

FIRST FLOOR PLAN OF THE LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, 1969 

389 
Chairmen of the Committee 

Thomas Fitzsimons, PA, 1789 

William Loughton Smith, SC, 

Robert Goodloe Harper, SC, 

Roger Griswold, CT, 1800-1801 

John Randolph, VA, 1801-1805 

Joseph Clay, PA, 1805-1807 

George W. Campbell, TN, 1807- 

John W. Eppes, VA, 1809-181 1 

Ezekiel Bacon, MA, 18 1 1 - I8 12 

Langdon Cheves, SC, 1812-1815 

John W. Eppes, VA, 1813-1815 

William Lowndes, SC, 1815-1818 

Samuel Smith, MD, 1818-1822 

Louis McLane, DE, 1822-1827 

George McDufie, SC, 1827 

John Randolph, VA, 1827 

George McDuffie, SC, 1827- 1832 

Gulian C. Verplanck, NY, 1832- 

James K. Polk, TN, 1833-1835 

Churchill C. Cambreleng, NY, 

John W. Jones, VA, 1839-1841 

Millard Fillmore, NY, 1841-1843 

James I. McKay, NC, 1843-1847 

Samuel F. Vinton, OH, 1847- 

Thomas H. Bayly, VA, 1849-1851 

George S. Houston, AL, 1851- 

Lewis D. Campbell, OH, 1855- 

J. Glancy Jones, PA, 1857-1858 

John S. Phelps, MO, 1858-1859 

John Sherman, OH, 1859-1861 

Thaddeus Stevens, PA, 186 1 - 

1794- 1797 

1797-1800 

1809 

1833 

1835- 1839 

1849 

1855 

1857 

1865 

Justin S. Morrill, VT, 1865-1867 

Robert C. Schenck, OH, 1867- 

Samuel D. Hooper, MA, 1871 

Henry L. Dawes, MA, 1871-1875 

William R. Morrison, IL, 1875- 

Fernando Wood, NY, 1877-1881 

John R. Tucker, VA, 1881 

William D. Kelley, PA, 1881-1883 

William R. Morrison, IL, 1883- 

Roger Q. Mills, TX, 1887-1889 

William McKinley, OH, 1889- 

William M. Springer, IL, 1891- 

William L. Wilson, WV, 1893- 

Nelson Dingley, Jr., ME, 1895- 

Sereno E. Payne, NY, 1899-191 1 

Oscar W. Underwood, AL, 19 I IClaude Kitchin, NC, 1915-1919 

Joseph W. Fordney, MI, 1919- 

William R. Green, IA, 1923-1928 

Willis C. Hawley, OR, 1929-1931 

James W. Collier, MS, 1931-1933 

Robert L. Doughton, NC, 1933- 

Harold Knutson, MN, 1947-1 949 

Robert L. Doughton, NC, 1949- 

Daniel A. Reed, NY, 1953-1 955 

Jere Cooper, TN, 1955-1957 

Wilbur D. Mills, AR, 1957-1975 

Albert C. Ullman, OR, 1975-1981 

Daniel D. Rostenkowski, IL, 1981- 

1871 

1877 

1887 

1891 

1893 

1895 

1899 

1915 

1923 

1947 

1953 

390 
or Attaining Other 

Committee Members Serving in Higher Offices 

Accomplishments 

MEMBERS OF CONTINENTAL 

CONGRESS 

Abraham Baldwin 

Elias Boudinot 

Lambert Cadwalader 

Thomas Fitzsimons 

Abiel Foster 

Elbridge Gerry 

Nicholas Gilman 

William Hindman 

John Laurance 

Samuel Livermore 

James Madison 

John Patten 

Theodore Sedgwick 

William Smith 

John Vining 

Jeremiah Wadsworth 

SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF 

INDEPENDENCE 

Elbridge Gerry 

DELEGATES TO 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 

Abraham Baldwin 

Thomas Fitzsimons 

Elbridge Gerry 

Nicholas Gilman 

James Madison 

SIGNERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

Abraham Baldwin 

Thomas Fitzsimons 

Nicholas Gilman 

James Madison 

SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE 

Nathaniel P. Banks 

Philip P. Barbour 

James G. Blaine 

John G. Carlisle 

Langdon Cheves 

James B. (Champ) Clark 

Howell Cobb 

Charles F. Crisp 

John Nance Garner 

John W. Jones 

Michael C. Kerr 

Nicholas Longworth 

John W. McCormack 

James K. Polk 

Henry T. Rainey 

Samuel J. Randall 

Thomas B. Reed 

Theodore Sedgwick 

Andrew Stevenson 

John W. Taylor 

Robert C. Winthrop 

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES 

Philip P. Barboar 

Joseph McKenna 

John McKinley 

Fred M. Vinson, ChiefJustice 

PRESIDENTS 

George H.W. Bush 

Millard Fillmore 

James A. Garfield 

Andrew Jackson 

James Madison 

William McKinley 

James K. Polk 

John Tyler 

VICE PRESIDENTS 

John C. Breckinridge 

George H.W. Bush 

Charles Curtis 

Millard Fillmore 

John Nance Garner 

Elbridge Gerry 

Richard M. Johnson 

John Tyler 

CABINET MEMBERS 

SECRETARIES OF STATE 

James G. Blaine 

William Jennings Bryan 

Cordell Hull 

Louis McLane 

John Sherman 

SECRETARIES OF THE TREASURY 

George W. Campbell 

John G. Carlisle 

Howell Cobb 

Thomas Corwin 

Charles Foster 

Albert Gallatin 

Samuel D. Ingham 

Louis McLane 

Ogden L. Mills 

John Sherman 

Phillip F. Thomas 

Fred M. Vinson 

ATTORNEYS GENERAL 

James P. McGranery 

Joseph McKenna 

A. Mitchell Palmer 

Caesar A. Rodney 

POSTMASTERS GENERAL 

Samuel D. Hubbard 

Cave Johnson 

Horace Maynard 

William L. Wilson 

SECRETARIES OF THE NAVY 

Thomas W. Gilmer 

Hilary A. Herbert 

Victor H. Metcalf 

Claude A. Swanson 

SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR 

Rogers C.B. Morton 

Jacob Thompson 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 

AND LABOR 

Victor H. Metcalf 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE 

Rogers C.B. Morton 

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

Clinton P. Anderson 

39 1 
COLUMN HEADINGS 

CHS: Chamber seniority based on 

continuous term of service 

SP: Senior party member status 

CMS: Committee seniority 

DOA: Date of Assignment 

DOT: Date of termination 

AE: Status of assignment at end of this 

congress 

MN: Status of member in next congress 

AN: Status of assignment in next congress 

PARTY 

AJ: Anti-Jacksonian 

AM: Anti-Masonic 

AP: American Party 

CU: Constitutional Unionist 

D: Democrat 

F: Federalist 

FS: Free Soil 

I: Independent 

ID: Independent Democrat 

J: Jacksonian 

JR: Jeffersonian Republican 

LR: Liberal Republican 

N: Nullifier 

NAM: National Anti-Monopolist 

OP: Opposition Party 

PAU: Party Affiliation Unknown 

P: Progressive 

R: Republican 

SRD: States Rights Democrat 

U: Unionist 

UU: Unconditional Unionist 

UR: Union Republican 

W: Whig 

RANK 

Org: Original 

Rpl: Replacement 

Maj: Majority 

Min: Minority 

MjR: Majority Replacement 

MnR: Minority Replacement 

MjA: Majority Addition 

SP 

Chr: Only Chairman 

Chl: First Chairman that Congress 

Ch2: Second Chairman that Congress 

RM: Ranking Minority 

RM1: First Ranking Minority that Congress 

RM2: Second Ranking Minority that 

Congress 

RM3: Third Ranking Minority that 

Congress 

- 

- AE 

CA: Left this committee for another 

committee before adjournment. 

CN: Completed Congress in chamber; 

left this committee for no other before 

adjournment. 

LB: Not in chamber; left this committee before departing chamber. 

MD: Not in chamber; Member died. 

RH: Not in chamber; Member resigned 

to hold other office. 

RS: Not in chamber; Member resigned 

before adjournment to seek other office unsuccessfully. 

RN: Not in chamber; Member resigned 

but neither held nor sought other office. 

. . .: Inapplicable; Member not assigned to a committee. 

MN 

DE: Member defeated for election to 

subsequent Congress. 

DN: Member defeated for nomination to 

subsequent Congress. 

EF: Member elected to other fedeml 

post. 

ES: Member elected to state or local 

post. 

AF: Member appointed to federal post. 

AS: Member appointed to state or local 

post. 

RT: Member retired from public life. 

UC: Unsuccessful contest for other office. 

. . .: Inapplicable; Member died or 

left chamber before end of previous 

Congress. 

AN 

NT: Member continues in the subsequent Congress but not on this committee or its successor. 

- 

392 
Committee Membership by Congressional Session 

MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

1st Congress 

Fitzsimons. Thomas 

Vining. John 

Livermore. Samuel 

Cadwalader. Lambert 

Laurance. John 

Wadsworth. Jeremiah 

Jackson. James 

Gerry. Elbridge 

Smith. William L . 

Smith. William 

Madison. James 

Smith. William L . 

Bourn. Benjamin 

Grove. William Barry 

Orr. Alexander D . 

Madison. James 

Baldwin. Abraham 

Christie. Gabriel 

Fitzsimons. Thomas 

Boudinot. Elias 

Watts. John 

Tracy. Uriah 

Smith. Israel 

Ames. Fisher 

Gilman. Nicholas 

Latimer. Henry 

Smith. William L . 

Gilman . Nicholas 

Bourn. Benjamin 

Sedgwick. Theodore 

Buck. Daniel 

Hillhouse. James 

Gilbert. Ezekiel 

Smith. Isaac 

Gallatin. Albert 

Patten. John 

Murray. William Vans 

Madison. James 

Blount. Thomas 

Baldwin. Abraham 

Greenup. Christopher 

Malbone. Francis 

Bradbury. Theophilus 

Smith. Nathaniel 

Smith. Israel 

Hindman . William 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

PAU 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

JR 

PA 

DE 

NH 

NJ 

NY 

CT 

GA 

MA 

sc 

MD 

VA 

sc 

RI 

NC 

KY 

VA 

GA 

MD 

PA 

NJ 

NY 

CT 

VT 

MA 

NH 

DE 

sc 

NH 

RI 

MA 

VT 

CT 

NY 

NJ 

PA 

DE 

MD 

VA 

NC 

GA 

KY 

RI 

MA 

CT 

VT 

MD 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1 St 

1 St 

1 St 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

3rd 

3rd 

1st 

3rd 

3rd 

1st 

1st 

2nd 

3rd 

3rd 

1st 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

1st 

3rd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

2nd 

3 rd 

4th 

2nd 

4th 

3rd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

3rd 

3rd 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 9-0rg .... 

10-0rg .... 1 l-Org .... 

3rd Congress 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

10-0rg .... 1 1 -0rg .... 

12-0rg .... 

13-0rg .... 

14-0rg .... 

15-0rg .... 

4th Congress 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

12-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

10-0rg .... 

1 1-Org .... 

13-0rg .... 

14-0rg .... 

15-0rg .... 

16-0rg .... 1-Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

24 Jul 1789 

24 Jul 1789 

24 Jul 1789 

24 JuI 1789 

24 Jul 1789 

24 Jul 1789 

24 Jul 1789 

24 Jull789 

24 Jul 1789 

24 Ju11789 

24 Ju11789 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

26 Mar 1794 

21 Dec I795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec1795 

21 Dec1795 

21 Dec1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec 1795 

21 Dec1795 

24 Dec 1795 

16 Dec 1796 

16 Dec 1796 

16 Dec 1796 

16 Dec 1796 

16 Dec1796 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1791 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 3 Mar 1795 

to 7 Feb 1795 RH 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 0 1796 RN 

to 0 Jun 1796 RH 

to 16 Dec 1796 CA 

to 0 1796 RH 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 16 Dec 1796 CA 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 16 Jan 1797 CN 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

to 3 Mar 1797 

EF 

RT 

EF 

EF 

393 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Jackson, Andrew 

Potter, Elisha R. 

Smith, William L. 

Gallatin, Albert 

Otis, Harrison Gray 

Giles, William B. 

Williams, Robert 

Coit, Joshua 

Cochran, James 

Harper, Robert Goodloe 

Griswold, Roger 

Blount, Thomas 

Hindman, William 

Craik, William 

Brent, Richard 

Foster, Abiel 

Sewall, Samuel 

Morris, Lewis R. 

Davis, Thomas T. 

Sinnickson, Thomas 

Claiborne. William C. C. 

Bayard, James A. 

Champlin, Christopher G 

Baldwin, Abraham 

Smith, Nathaniel 

Cochran, James 

Jones, Walter 

Parker, Isaac 

Hosmer, Hezekiah L. 

Griswold, Roger 

Harper, Robert Goodloe 

Griswold, Roger 

Otis, Harrison Gray 

Gallatin, Albert 

Powell, Levin 

Brown, John 

Stone, David 

Nott, Abraham 

Platt, Jonas 

Bartlett, Bailey 

Nicholas, John 

Imlay, James H. 

Nicholson, Joseph H. 

Taliaferro, Benjamin 

Woods, Henry 

Smilie, John 

Randolph, John 

Griswold, Roger 

Smith, Israel 

JR 

F 

F 

F 

JR 

JR 

JR 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

F 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

F 

TN 1st 

RI 1st 

SC 5th 

PA 2nd 

MA 1st 

VA 5th 

NC 1st 

CT 3rd 

NY 1st 

SC 3rd 

CT 2nd 

NC 3rd 

MD 4th 

MD 2nd 

VA 2nd 

NH 3rd 

MA 2nd 

VT 1st 

KY 1st 

NJ 2nd 

TN 1st 

DE 1st 

RI 1st 

GA 5th 

CT 2nd 

NY 1st 

VA 1st 

MA 1st 

NY 1st 

CT 2nd 

SC 4th 

CT 3rd 

MA 2nd 

PA 3rd 

VA 1st 

RI 1st 

NC 1st 

sc Is1 

NY 1st 

MA 2nd 

VA 4th 

NJ 2nd 

MD 1st 

GA 1st 

PA 1st 

PA 2nd 

VA 2nd 

CT 4th 

VT 4th 

5-Rpl. .,.. 6-Rpl .... 

5th Congress 

1-Org Chl .... 2-0rg .... 3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

8-0rg Ch2 .... 

16 Dec I796 to 3 Mar 1797 

16 Jan 1797 to 3 Mar 1797 

10 Jun 1797 

10 Jun 1797 

10 Jun 1797 

10 Jun 1797 

10 Jun 1797 

10 Jun 1797 

10 Jun 1797 

4 Dec 1797 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

10 Jul 1797 RH 

3 Mar 1799 

4 Dec 1797 CA 

4 Dec 1797 CA 

4 Dec 1797 CA 

4 Dec 1797 CA 

4 Dec 1797 CA 

3 Mar 1799 

9-0rg 

10-0rg 

1 1 -0rg 

12-0rg 

13-0rg 

14-0rg 

15-0rg 

16-0rg 

.... 4Dec 

.... 4Dec 

.... 14Dec 

.... 4Dec 

.... 4Dec 

.... 4Dec 

.... 4 Dec 

._._ 4 Dec 

1-R& .... 

2-Rpl .... 3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 5-Rpl .... 

6-Rpl .... 

7-Rpl .... 

8-Rpl .... 

9-Rpl .... 10-Rpl .... 

1 1 -Rpl .... 12-Rpl .... 

6th Congress 

1-Org Chl _._. 

2-0rg Ch2 .... 3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

I-Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 4-Rpl .... 

5-Rpl .... 

6-Rpl .... 

7-Rpl .... 

7th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

797 to 14 Dec 1798 CA 

797 to 3 Mar 1799 

798 to 3 Mar 1799 

797 to 14 Dec 1798 CA 

797 to 14 Dec 1798 CA 

797 to 14 Dec 1798 CA 

797 to 14 Dec 1798 CA 

797 to 14 Dec 1798 CA 

4 Dec 1797 

4 Dec 1797 

4 Dec 1797 

4 Dec 1797 

4 Dec 1797 

4 Dec 1797 

14 Dec1798 

14 Dec 1798 

14 Dec 1798 

14 Dec 1798 

4 Dec 1797 

4 Feb 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

9 Dec 1799 

20 Nov 1800 

20 Nov 1800 

20 Nov 1800 

20 Nov 1800 

20 Nov 1800 

20 Nov 1800 

20 Nov 1800 

8 Dec1801 

8 Dec1801 

8 Decl801 

to 14 Dec 1798 

to 3 Mar 1799 

to 14 Dec 1798 

to 14 Dec 1798 

to 14 Dec 1798 

to 14 Dec 1798 

to 4 Feb 1799 

to 3 Mar 1799 

to 3 Mar 1799 

to 3 Mar 1799 

to 14 Dec 1798 

to 3 Mar 1799 

to 19 Dec 1800 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 20 Nov 1800 

to 20 Nov 1800 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 20 Nov 1800 

to 20 Nov 1800 

to 20 Nov 1800 

to 20 Nov 1800 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 3 Mar 1801 

to 3 Mar 1803 

to 3 Mar 1803 

to 14 Dec 1802 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CN 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

AF 

RT 

394 
~ ~ 

MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Bayard. James A . F 

Smilie. John JR 

Read. Nathan F 

Nicholson. Joseph H . JR 

Van Rensselaer. Killian K . F 

Dickson. William 

Milledge. John 

Holland. James 

Dickson. William 

Randolph. John 

Nicholson. Joseph H . Griswold. Roger 

Rodney. Caesar A . Hastings. Seth 

Clay. Joseph 

Sands. Joshua 

Stanton. Joseph Jr . Boyle. John 

Davenport. John 

Moore. Nicholas R . Menwether. David 

Randolph. John 

Nicholson. Joseph H . Clay. Joseph 

Quincy. Josiah 

Meriwether. David 

Dickson. William 

Moseley. Jonathan 0 . Nelson. Roger 

Williams. David R . Meriwether. David 

Garnett. James M . Randolph. John 

Campbell. George W . Alston. Willis 

Eppes. John W . Smilie. John 

Tallmadge. Benjamin 

Fisk. James 

Montgomery. John 

Eppes. John W . Alston. Willis 

Tallmadge. Benjamin 

Montgomery. John 

Bacon. Ezekiel 

Rea. John 

Haven. Nathaniel A . 

DE 3rd 

PA 3rd 

MA 2nd 

MD 2nd 

NY 1st 

TN 1st 

GA 4th 

NC 2nd 

TN 1st 

VA 3rd 

MD 0 

CT 5th 

DE 1st 

MA 2nd 

PA 1st 

NY 1st 

RI 2nd 

KY 1st 

CT 3rd 

MD 1st 

GA 2nd 

VA 4th 

MD 4th 

PA 2nd 

MA 1st 

GA 3rd 

TN 3rd 

CT 1st 

MD 2nd 

sc 1st 

GA 3rd 

VA 1st 

VA 4th 

TN 3rd 

NC 5th 

VA 3rd 

PA 6th 

CT 4th 

VT 2nd 

MD 1st 

VA 4th 

NC 6th 

CT 5th 

MD 2nd 

MA 2nd 

PA 4th 

NH 1st 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 3-Rpl .... 

8th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

l-Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

5-Rpl .... 

9th Congress 

1-Org Chl .... 

3-0rg Ch2 .... 2-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

5-Rpl .... 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

10th Congress 

1 1th Congress 

8 Dec 1801 

8 Dec1801 

8 Dec 1801 

8 Decl801 

8 Dec1801 

8 Decl801 

4 Jan 1802 

14 Dec 1802 

2 Mar 1802 

17 Oct1803 

17 Oct1803 

17 Oct1803 

17 Oct1803 

17 Oct 1803 

17 Oct1803 

17 Oct 1803 

20 Mar 1804 

5 Nov 1804 

5 Nov 1804 

5 Nov 1804 

5 Nov 1804 

2 Dec 1805 

2 Dec 1805 

2 Dec 1805 

2 Dec 1805 

2 Dec 1805 

2 Dec1805 

2 Dec 1805 

1 1 Apr 1806 

1 Dec 1806 

1 Dec 1806 

1 Dec 1806 

5 Dec 1806 

28 Oct1807 

28 Oct 1807 

28 Oct 1807 

28 Oct1807 

28 Oct1808 

28 Oct 1807 

28 Oct1807 

22 May 1809 

22 May 1809 

22 May 1809 

22 May 1809 

22 May 1809 

22 May 1809 

22 May 1809 

to 14 Dec 1802 

to 3 Mar 1803 

to 3 Mar 1803 

to 3 Mar 1803 

to 3 Mar 1803 

to 4 Jan 1802 

to 0 May 1802 

to 2 Mar 1803 

to 3 Mar 1803 

to 4 Mar 1805 

to 5 Nov 1804 

to 4 Mar 1805 

to 5 Nov 1804 

to 5 Nov 1804 

to 4 Mar 1805 

to 20 Mar 1804 

to 5 Nov 1804 

to 4 Mar 1805 

to 4 Mar 1805 

to 4 Mar 1805 

to 4 Mar 1805 

to 2 Dec 1805 

to 1 Mar 1806 

to 3 Mar 1807 

to 3 Mar 1807 

to 1 1 Apr 1806 

to 2 Dec 1805 

to 3 Mar 1807 

to 3 Mar 1807 

to 3 Mar 1807 

to 3 Mar 1807 

to 5 Dec 1806 

to 3 Mar 1807 

to 3 Mar 1809 

to 3 Mar 1809 

to 3 Mar 1809 

to 3 Mar 1809 

to 3 Mar 1809 

to 3 Mar 1809 

to 3 Mar 1809 

to 3 Mar 1811 

to 3 Mar 1811 

to 3 Mar 1811 

to 3 Mar 1811 

to 28 Jan 1811 

to 28 Nov 1809 

to 28 Nov 1809 

CA 

CN 

RH 

CN 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CN 

CA 

CN 

RH 

CN 

CA 

CA 

CN 

CA 

CA 

ES .. 

AS .. 

395 
~ 

MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Smilie, John 

Root, Erastus 

Johnson, Richard M. 

Seaver, Ebenezer 

Bacon, Ezekiel 

Cheves, Langdon 

Smilie, John 

Bibb, William W. 

Burwell, William A. 

Johnson, Richard M. 

Pitkin, Timothy 

Pleasants, James 

Roberts, Jonathan 

Fisk, James 

Eppes, John W. 

Bibb, William W. 

Pleasants, James 

Roberts, Jonathan 

Pitkin, Timothy 

Gourdin, Theodore 

Montgomery, Thomas 

Taylor, John W. 

Creighton, William Jr. 

Alston, Willis 

McKim, Alexander 

Coxe, William Jr. 

Pitkin, Timothy 

Fisk, Jonathan 

Archer, Stevenson 

Oakley, Thomas J. 

Gaston, William 

Ingham, Samuel D. 

Lowndes, William 

Lowndes, William 

Burwell, William A. 

Taylor, John 

Moseley, Jonathan 0. 

Robertson, Thomas B. 

Ingham, Samuel D. 

Gaston, William 

Smith, Samuel 

Wilkin. James W. 

Henderson, Bennett H. 

Lowndes, William 

Smith, Samuel 

Burwell, William A. 

Pitkin, Timothy 

PA 7th 

NY 2nd 

KY 2nd 

MA 4th 

MA 3rd 

SC 2nd 

PA 8th 

GA 4th 

VA 4th 

KY 3rd 

CT 4th 

VA 1st 

PA 1st 

VT 3rd 

VA 5th 

GA 5th 

VA 2nd 

PA 2nd 

CT 5th 

sc 1st 

KY 1st 

NY 1st 

OH 1st 

NC 8th 

MD 3rd 

NJ 1st 

CT 5th 

NY 2nd 

MD 2nd 

NY 1st 

NC 1st 

PA 1st 

SC 2nd 

SC 3rd 

VA 6th 

sc 1st 

CT 6th 

LA 3rd 

PA 2nd 

NC 2nd 

MD 6th 

NY 1st 

TN 1st 

SC 4th 

MD 7th 

VA 7th 

CT 7th 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 4-Rpl .... 

12th Congress 

1-Org Chl .... 

2-0rg Ch2 .... 

3-0rg .... 4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

l-Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

13th Congress 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

5-Rpl .... 

6-Rpl .... 

7-Rpl .... 

8-Rpl .... 

9-Rpl .... 10-Rpl .... 

1 l-Rpl .... 

12-Rpl .... 

14th Congress 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

15th Congress 

l-Org Chl .... 

2-0rg Ch2 .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

28 Nov 1809 to 3 Mar 1811 

28 Nov 1809 to 6 Dec 1810 CA 

6 Dec 1810 to 3 Mar 1811 

28 Jan 1811 to 3 Mar 1811 

8 Novl811 to 5 Nov 1812 CA 

8 Nov 1811 to 3 Mar 1813 

8 Nov1811 to 30 Dec 1812 MD 

8 Nov 1811 to 3 Mar 1813 

8 Nov 1811 to 5 Nov 1812 CA 

8 Nov 1811 to 3 Mar 1813 

8 Nov 1811 to 3 Mar 1813 

5 Nov1812 to 3 Mar 1813 

5 Nov1812 to 3 Mar 1813 

5 Nov 1812 to 3 Mar 1813 

26 May 1813 

26 May 1813 

26 May1813 

26 May 1813 

26 May 1813 

26 May 1813 

26 May 1813 

7 Dec1813 

7 Dec1813 

7 Dec1813 

7 Dec1813 

7 Dec1813 

28 Feb1814 

21 Sepl814 

21 Sep1814 

21 Sep1814 

21 Sep1814 

21 Sep1814 

9 Feb1815 

6 Dec1815 

6 Dec1815 

6 Dec1815 

6 Dec1815 

6 Dec 1815 

6 Dec1815 

6 Dec1815 

3 Dec1816 

3 Dec1816 

3 Dec1816 

to 3 Mar 1815 

to 6 Nov 1813 

to 7 Dec 1813 

to 24 Feb 1814 

to 7 Dec 1813 

to 7 Dec 1813 

to 7 Dec 1813 

to 21 Sep 1814 

to 3 Mar 1815 

to 21 Sep 1814 

to 21 Sep 1814 

to 21 Sep 1814 

to 21 Sep 1814 

to 3 Mar 1815 

to 9 Feb 1815 

to 3 Mar 1815 

to 3 Mar 1815 

to 3 Mar 1815 

to 3 Mar 1815 

RH 

CA 

RH 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CN 

to 3 Mar 1817 

to 3 Mar 1817 

to 3 Dec 1816 CA 

to 3 Mar 1817 

to 3 Dec 1816 CA 

to 3 Dec 1816 CA 

to 3 Mar 1817 

to 3 Mar 1817 

to 3 Mar 1817 

to 3 Mar 1817 

3 Dec 1817 to 17 Nov 1818 CA 

3 Dec 1817 to 3 Mar 1819 

3 Dec 1817 to 3 Mar 1819 

3 Dec1817 to 3 Mar 1819 

EF 

EF 

396 
MEMBER PARTY STATE cns RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Abbot, Joel 

Sergeant, John 

Trimble, David 

Crawford, Joel 

Tallmadge, James Jr. 

JR 

JR 

JR 

JR 

F 

GA 1st 

PA 2nd 

KY 1st 

GA 1st 

NY 1st 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

16th Congress 

1-Org Chr ._.. 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

17th Congress 

1-Org Chl ___. 

2-0rg .... 3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

2-Rpl .... 

1-Rpl Ch2 .... 

18th Congress 

1-Org Chr __._ 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

19th Congress 

I-Org Chl .... 

2-0rg .... 3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl Ch2 .... 

20th Congress 

1-Org Chl .... 

2-0rg Ch2 .... 

3-0rg .... 4-0rg .... 

3 Dec1817 

3 Dec1817 

3 Dec1817 

17 Nov1818 

17 Nov1818 

to 17 Nov 1818 CA 

to 3 Mar 1819 

to 3 Mar 1819 

to 3 Mar 1819 

to 3 Mar 1819 

Smith, Samuel 

Burwell, William A. 

Trimble, David 

Crawford, Joel 

Moseley, Jonathan 0. 

Shaw, Henry 

Tyler, John 

McLane, Louis 

Tracy, Albert H. 

Ross, Thomas R. 

Jones, Francis 

MD 8th 

VA 8th 

KY 2nd 

GA 2nd 

CT 8th 

MA 2nd 

VA 3rd 

1lE 2nd 

NY 1st 

OH 1st 

TN 2nd 

8 Dec1819 

8 Dec1819 

8 Dec1819 

8 Dec1819 

8 Dec1819 

8 Dec1819 

8 Dec1819 

15 Nov1820 

15 Nov 1820 

15 Nov 1820 

15 Nov 1820 

to 3 Mar 1821 

to 16 Feb 1821 MD 

to 15Nov 1820 CA 

to 15 Nov 1820 CA 

to 15 Nov 1820 CA 

to 3 Mar 1821 

to 15 Nov 1820 CA 

to 3 Mar 1821 

to 3 Mar 1821 

to 3 Mar 1821 

to 3 Mar 1821 

Smith, Samuel 

Tod, John 

Pitcher, Nathaniel 

Mitchell, Thomas R. 

Jones, Francis 

Thompson, Wiley 

Stevenson, Andrew 

McLane, Louis 

Cambreleng, Churchill C. 

MD 9th 

PA 1st 

NY 2nd 

sc 1st 

TN 3rd 

GA 1st 

VA 1st 

DE 3rd 

NY 1st 

5 Dec1821 

5 Dec1821 

5 Dec1821 

5 Dec1821 

5 Dec1821 

5 Dec1821 

5 Dec1821 

3 Dec 1822 

3 Dec 1822 

to 17 Dec 1822 RH 

to 3 Dec 1822 CA 

to 3 Dec 1822 CA 

to 3 Mar 1823 

to 3 Mar 1823 

to 3 Mar 1823 

to 3 Mar 1823 

to 3 Mar 1823 

to 3 Mar 1823 

EF .. 

McLane, Louis 

Ingham, Samuel D. 

Thompson, Wiley 

Stevenson, Andrew 

Cambreleng, Churchill C. 

McDuffie, George 

McKim, Isaac 

DE 4th 

PA 5th 

GA 2nd 

VA 2nd 

NY 2nd 

SC 2nd 

MD 2nd 

3 Dec1823 

3 Dec 1823 

3 Dec1823 

3 Dec 1823 

3 Dec1823 

3 Dec1823 

3 Dec1823 

to 3 Mar 1825 

to 3 Mar 1825 

to 3 Mar 1825 

to 3 Mar 1825 

to 3 Mar 1825 

to 3 Mar 1825 

to 3 Mar 1825 

McLane, Louis 

Cook, Daniel P. 

Stevenson, Andrew 

McDufIle, George 

Dwight, Henry W. 

Marvin, Dudley 

Brent, William L. 

Sprague, Peleg 

McDuffie, George 

DE 5th 

IL 4th 

VA 3rd 

SC 3rd 

MA 3rd 

NY 2nd 

LA 2nd 

ME 1st 

SC 3rd 

7 Dec1825 

7 Dec 1825 

7 Dec 1825 

7 Dee 1825 

7 Dec 1825 

7 Dec 1825 

7 Dec 1825 

6 Dec 1826 

19 Jan1827 

to 19 Jan 1827 LB 

to 3 Mar 1827 

to 3 Mar 1827 

to 6 Dec 1826 CA 

to 3 Mar 1827 

to 3 Mar 1827 

to 3 Mar 1827 

to 3 Mar 1827 

to 3 Mar 1827 

EF .. J 

AJ 

J 

J 

AJ 

AJ 

AJ 

AJ 

J 

Randolph, John 

McDuffie, George 

Sprague, Peleg 

Verplanck, Gulian C. 

J 

J 

AJ 

J 

VA 13th 

SC 4th 

ME 2nd 

NY 2nd 

6 Dec 1827 

6 Dec 1827 

6 Dec 1827 

6 Dec 1827 

to 14 Dec 1827 CN 

to 3 Mar 1829 

to 3 Mar 1829 RH 

to 3 Mar 1829 

EF .. 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Dwight. Henry W . Brent. William L . 

Gilmer. George R . 

Smyth. Alexander 

McDuffe. George 

Verplanck. Gulian C . Dwight. Henry W . 

Smyth. Alexander 

Ingersoll. Ralph I . Gilmore. John 

Overton. Walter H . Barbour. Philip P . 

Alexander. Mark 

McDuffie. George 

Verplanck. Gulian C . lngersoll. Ralph I . Gilmore. John 

Alexander. Mark 

Wilde. Richard H . Gaither. Nathan 

Polk. James K . 

Polk. James K . Wilde. Richard H . 

Cambreleng. Churchill C . Gorham. Benjamin 

McKim. Isaac 

Binney. Horace 

Loyall. George 

McKinley. John 

Hubbard. Henry 

Corwin. Thomas 

Cambreleng. Churchill C . McKim. Isaac 

Loyall. George 

Corwin. Thomas 

Johnson. Cave 

Smith. Francis 0 . J . Lawrence. Abbott 

Ingersoll. Joseph R . Owens. George W . 

Cambreleng. Churchill C . McKim. Isaac 

Owens. George W . Sergeant. John 

Hamer . Thomas L . 

AJ 

AJ 

J 

J 

J 

J 

AJ 

J 

AJ 

J 

J 

J 

J 

N 

J 

AJ 

J 

J 

J 

J 

J 

D 

D 

D 

D 

W 

D 

D 

D 

W 

AJ 

D 

D 

D 

W 

D 

D 

W 

W 

D 

D 

D 

D 

W 

D 

MA 4th 

LA 3rd 

GA 2nd 

VA 5th 

SC 5th 

NY 3rd 

MA 5th 

VA 6th 

CT 3rd 

PA 1st 

LA 1st 

VA 8th 

VA 6th 

SC 6th 

NY 4th 

CT 4th 

PA 2nd 

VA 7th 

GA 5th 

KY 2nd 

TN 4th 

TN 5th 

GA 6th 

NY 7th 

MA 5th 

MD 3rd 

PA 1st 

VA 2nd 

AL 1st 

NH 3rd 

OH 2nd 

NY 8th 

MD 4th 

VA 3rd 

OH 3rd 

TN 4th 

ME 2nd 

MA 1st 

PA 1st 

GA 1st 

NY 9th 

MD 5th 

GA 2nd 

PA 6th 

OH 3rd 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2 1 st Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 2-0rg .... 3-0rg .... 4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

1-Org Chl .... 

2-0rg Ch2 .... 

3-0rg .... 4-0rg .... 5-0rg .... 6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 3-0rg .... 4-0rg .... 5-0rg .... 6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 8-0rg .... 9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

l-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 9-0rg .... 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 5-0rg .... 

22nd Congress 

23rd Congress 

24th Congress 

25th Congress 

6 Dec 1827 to 3 Mar 1829 

6 Dec1827 to 3 Mar 1829 

6 Dec 1827 to 3 Mar 1829 

14 Dec 1827 to 3 Mar 1829 

10 Dec 1829 

10 Dec1829 

10 Dec1829 

10 Dec 1829 

10 Dec 1829 

10 Dec 1829 

10 Dec1829 

17 May1830 

9 Dec 1830 

to 3 Mar 1831 

to 3 Mar 1831 

to 3 Mar 1831 .. 1. 

to 17 Apr 1830 MD .. to 3 Mar 1831 

to 3 Mar 1831 

to 3 Mar 1831 

to 15 Oct 1830 RH AF .. to 3 Mar 1831 

8 Dec1831 to 6 Dec 1832 CA .. 8 Dec 1831 to 3 Mar 1833 

8 Dec 1831 to 3 Mar 1833 

8 Dec 1831 to 3 Mar 1833 

8 Dec 1831 to 3 Mar 1833 

8 Dec 1831 to 3 Mar 1833 

8 Dec 1831 to 3 Mar 1833 

6 Dec1832 to 3 Mar 1833 

5 Dec 1833 

5 Dec 1833 

5 Dec 1833 

5 Dec 1833 

5 Dec 1833 

5 Dec 1833 

5 Dec1833 

5 Dec 1833 

5 Dec 1833 

26 Feb 1834 

10 Dec1835 

10 Dec1835 

10 Dec 1835 

10 Dec1835 

10 Dec1835 

10 Dec1835 

10 Dec1835 

10 Dec1835 

10 Dec 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 4 Dec 1834 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

to 3 Mar 1835 

CA .. 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

to 3 Mar 1837 

11 Sep 1837 to 3 Mar 1839 

11 Sep 1837 to 1 Apr 1838 MD .. 11 Sep 1837 to 7 Dec 1837 CA .. 1 1 Sep 1837 to 3 Mar 1839 

11 Sep1837 to 6 Dec 1838 CA .. 

398 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Jones. John W . 

Fletcher. Richard 

Atherton. Charles G . 

Rhett. R . Barnwell 

Haynes. Charles 

Rencher . Abraham 

Briggs. George N . 

Everett. Horace 

Pope. John 

Rhett. R . Barnwell 

Webster. Taylor 

Jones. John W . Biddle. Richard 

Atherton. Charles G . Lawrence. Abbott 

Rhett. R . Barnwell 

Vanderpoel. Aaron 

Evans. George 

Connor. Henry W . 

Cooper. Mark A . Mason. Samson 

Saltonstall. Leverett 

Hubbard. David 

Fillmore. Millard 

Botts. John M . Gilmer. Thomas W . 

Mason. Samson 

Marshall. Thomas F . 

Rencher. Abraham 

Pickens. Francis W . Jones. John W . 

Atherton. Charles G . 

Wallace. David 

Ingersoll. Joseph R . 

Lewis. Dixon H . 

Pickens. Francis W . 

McKay. James 1 . 

Lewis. Dixon H . 

Ingersoll. Joseph R . 

Drorngoole. George C . Barnard. Daniel D . Seymour. David L . 

Weller. John B . 

Chappell. Absalom H . 

Norris. Moses Jr . Bayly. Thomas H . 

Rathbun . George 

Davis. Garrett 

D 

W 

D 

D 

D 

W 

W 

W 

D 

D 

D 

D 

W 

D 

W 

D 

D 

W 

D 

W 

W 

W 

D 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

W 

D 

D 

D 

W 

W 

SRD 

D 

D 

SRD 

W 

D 

W 

D 

D 

W 

D 

D 

D 

W 

VA 2nd 

MA 1st 

NH 1st 

sc 1st 

GA 5th 

NC 5th 

MA 4th 

VT 5th 

KY 1st 

sc 1st 

OH 3rd 

VA 3rd 

PA 2nd 

NH 2nd 

MA 2nd 

SC 2nd 

NY 3rd 

ME 6th 

NC 10th 

GA 1st 

OH 3rd 

MA 2nd 

AL 1st 

NY 4th 

VA 2nd 

VA 1st 

OH 4th 

KY 1st 

NC 6th 

SC 5th 

VA 4th 

NH 3rd 

1N 1st 

PA 2nd 

AL 7th 

SC 5th 

NC 7th 

AL 8th 

PA 3rd 

VA 4th 

NY 4th 

NY 1st 

OH 3rd 

GA 1st 

NH 1st 

VA 1st 

NY 1st 

KY 3rd 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

5-Rpl .... 

6-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

7-Rpl .... 

26th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

27th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

28th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0133 .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

11 Sep 1837 

11 Sep 1837 

11 Sep1837 

11 Sep1837 

7 Dec 1837 

7 Dec1837 

13 Dec1837 

18 Dec1837 

19 Dec1837 

6 Apr 1838 

6 Dec 1838 

27 Dec1839 

27 Dec1839 

27 Dec1839 

27 Dec1839 

27 Dec1839 

27 Dec 1839 

27 Dec1839 

27 Dec1839 

27 Dec1839 

10 Dec 1840 

10 Dec1840 

10 Dec1840 

7 Jun1841 

7 Jun 1841 

7 Jun1841 

7 Jun 1841 

7 Jun1841 

7 Jun 1841 

7 Jun1841 

7 Jun 1841 

7 Jun 1841 

13 Dec1841 

13 Dec1841 

13 Dec1841 

12 Dec1842 

1 1 Dec 1843 

1 1 Dec 1843 

11 Dec1843 

11 Dec 1843 

11 Dec 1843 

1 1 Dec 1843 

11 Dec 1843 

11 Dec 1843 

1 1 Dec 1843 

10 May 1844 

5 Dec 1844 

5 Dec 1844 

to 3 Mar 1839 

to 13 Dec 1837 

to 3 Mar 1839 

to 7 Dec 1837 

to 3 Mar 1839 

to 3 Mar 1839 

to 18 Dec 1837 

to 19 Dec 1837 

to 3 Mar 1839 

to 3 Mar 1839 

to 3 Mar 1839 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 0 1840 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 18 Sep 1840 

to 10 Dec 1840 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 3 Mar 1841 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 13 Dec 1841 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 13 Dec 1841 

to 13 Dec 1841 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 12 Dec 1842 

to 3 Mar 1843 

to 3 Mar 1845 

to 7 May 1844 

to 3 Mar 1845 

to 3 Mar 1845 

to 3 Mar 1845 

to 5 Dec 1844 

to 3 Mar 1845 

to 3 Mar 1845 

to 3 Mar 1845 

to 5 Dec 1844 

to 5 Dec 1844 

to 3 Mar 1845 

CA 

CA 

CN 

CN 

RN 

RH 

CA 

RH 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CA 

RH 

CA 

CA 

CA 

RT .. 

AF .. 

EF .. 

EF .. 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

McKay. James I . 

Dromgoole. George C . Ingersoll. Joseph R . 

Hungerford. Orville 

Houston. George C . 

Winthrop. Robert C . Norris. Moses Jr . 

Vinton. Samuel F . Jones. Seaborn 

Vinton. Samuel F . 

Toombs. Robert 

McKay. James I . Hudson. Charles 

Houston. George S . 

Morehead. Charles S . 

Pollock. James 

Hubbard. Samuel D . 

Nicoll. Henry 

Stephens. Alexander H . 

McDowell. James 

Bayly. Thomas H . 

Thompson. Jacob 

Vinton. Samuel F . 

Green. James S . 

Toombs. Robert 

Hibbard. Harry 

Duer. William 

Jones. George W . 

Hampton. Moses 

Stephens. Alexander H . 

Wellborn. Marshall J . 

Morehead. Charles S . 

Ashmun. George 

Green. James S . Stephens. Alexander H . 

Brooks. James 

Toombs. Robert 

Houston. George S . 

Jones. George W . 

Stanly. Edward 

Hibbard. Harry 

Brooks. James 

Jones. J . Glancy 

Appleton. William 

Dunham. Cyrus L . 

Phelps. John S . 

D 

D 

W 

D 

D 

W 

D 

W 

D 

W 

W 

D 

W 

D 

W 

W 

W 

D 

W 

D 

D 

D 

W 

D 

W 

D 

W 

D 

W 

W 

D 

W 

W 

D 

W 

w 

W 

D 

D 

W 

D 

W 

D 

W 

D 

D 

NC 8th 

VA 4th 

PA 4th 

NY 2nd 

AL 3rd 

MA 4th 

NH 2nd 

OH 9th 

GA 2nd 

OH 10th 

GA 2nd 

NC 9th 

MA 4th 

AL 4th 

KY 1st 

PA 3rd 

CT 2nd 

NY 1st 

GA 3rd 

VA 2nd 

VA 4th 

MS 6th 

OH 11th 

MO 2nd 

GA 3rd 

NH 1st 

NY 2nd 

TN 4th 

PA 2nd 

GA 4th 

GA 1st 

KY 2nd 

MA 3rd 

MO 2nd 

GA 4th 

NY 1st 

GA 3rd 

AL 5th 

TN 5th 

NC 5th 

NH 2nd 

NY 2nd 

PA 1st 

MA 1st 

IN 2nd 

MO 4th 

29th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

30th Congress 

I-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3 1st Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

5-Rpl .... 

6-Rpl .... 

7-Rpl .... 

8-Rpl .... 

32nd Congress 

I-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

4 Dec 1845 

4 Dec1845 

4 Dec 1845 

4 Dec 1845 

4 Dec1845 

4 Dec 1845 

4 Dec 1845 

4 Dec 1845 

4 Dec1845 

9 Dec 1847 

9 Dec 1847 

9 Dec 1847 

9 Dec 1847 

9 Dec 1847 

9 Dec 1847 

9 Dec 1847 

9 Dec1847 

9 Dec 1847 

7 Dec 1848 

7 Dec 1848 

27 Dec1849 

27 Dec1849 

27 Dec 1849 

27 Dec 1849 

27 Dec 1849 

27 Dec1849 

27 Dec 1849 

27 Dec 1849 

27 Dec1849 

16 Sep1850 

26 Sep 1850 

26 Sep1850 

26 Sep 1850 

5 Dec 1850 

5 Dec 1850 

5 Dec 1850 

4 Jan 1851 

9 Dec 1851 

9 Dec1851 

9 Dec1851 

9 Dec1851 

9 Dec 1851 

9 Dec1851 

9 Dec1851 

9 Dec1851 

9 Dec 1851 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1847 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 7 Mar 1848 CN 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 7 Dec 1848 CA 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 3 Mar 1849 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 26 Sep 1850 

to 16 Sep 1850 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 26 Sep 1850 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 26 Sep 1850 

to 5 Dec 1850 

to 5 Dec 1850 

to 5 Dec 1850 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 4 Jan 1851 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 3 Mar 1851 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

to 3 Mar 1853 

CN 

CN 

CA 

CN 

CA 

CA 

CA 

CN 

400 
MEMBER PARTY STATE ens RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Houston. George S . 

Jones. George W . 

Hibbard. Harry 

Stephens. Alexander H . 

Phelps. John S . Appleton. William 

Breckinridge. John C . 

Haven. Solomon G . 

Robbins. John Jr . 

Campbell. Lewis D . Howard. William A . 

Cobb. Howell 

Jones. George W . 

Davis. H . Winter 

Sage. Russell 

Phelps. John S . Campbell. James H . De Witt. Alexander 

Letcher. John 

Billinghurst. Charles 

Howard. William A . 

Jones. J . Glancy 

Phelps. John S . 

Banks. Nathaniel P . 

Letcher. John 

Campbell. Lewis D . 

Davis. H . Winter 

Kelly. John 

Howard. William A . 

Dowdell. James F . 

Crawford. Martin J . 

Morrill. Justin S . MacLay. William B . 

Phillips. Henry M . 

Sherman. John 

Davis. H . Winter 

Phelps. John S . Stevens. Thaddeus 

Washburn. Israel Jr . 

Millson. John S . 

Morrill. Justin S . 

Crawford. Martin J . 

Spaulding. Elbridge G . 

Howard. William A . 

Stevens. Thaddeus 

Morrill. Justin S . 

D AL 6th 

D TN 6th 

D NH 3rd 

D GA 6th 

D MO 5th 

W MA 2nd 

D KY 2nd 

W NY 2nd 

D PA 3rd 

R OH 4th 

R MI 1st 

D GA 5th 

D TN 7th 

AP MD 1st 

W NY 2nd 

D MO 6th 

W PA 1st 

AP MA 2nd 

D VA 3rd 

R WI 1st 

R MI 1st 

D PA 4Lh 

D MO 7th 

R MA 3rd 

D VA 4th 

R OH 5th 

AP MD 2nd 

D NY 2nd 

R MI 2nd 

D AL 3rd 

D GA 2nd 

R VT 2nd 

D NY 4th 

D PA 1st 

R OH 3rd 

AP MD 3rd 

D MO 8th 

UR PA 3rd 

R ME 5th 

D VA 6th 

R VT 3rd 

D GA 3rd 

R NY 2nd 

R MI 3rd 

R PA 4th 

R VT 4th 

33rd Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

34th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-RpI .... 

3-Rpl .... 

35th Congress 

1-Org Chl .... 

2-0rg Ch2 .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 

8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1 -Rpl .... 

2-Rpl .... 

3-Rpl .... 

4-Rpl .... 

36th Congress 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

3-0rg .... 

4-0rg .... 

5-0rg .... 

6-0rg .... 

7-0rg .... 8-0rg .... 

9-0rg .... 

1-Rpl .... 

1-Org Chr .... 

2-0rg .... 

37th Congress 

12 Dec 1853 to 3 Mar 1855 

12 Dec1853 to 3 Mar 1855 

12 Dec 1853 to 3 Mar 1855 

12 Dec1853 to 3 Mar 1855 

12 Dec 

12 Dec 

12 Dec 

12 Dec 

12 Dec 

13 Feb 

853 to 3 Mar 1855 

853 to 3 Mar 1855 

853 to 3 Mar 1855 

853 to 3 Mar 1855 

853 to 3 Mar 1855 

856 to 3 Mar 1857 

13 Feb1856 

13 Feb I856 

13 Feb1856 

13 Feb1856 

13 Feb1856 

13 Feb 1856 

13 Feb 1856 

13 Feb1856 

13 Feb1856 

4 Dec 1856 

4 Dec 1856 

14 Dec1857 

14 Dec1857 

14 Dec I857 

14 Dec1857 

14 Dec 1857 

14 Dec 1857 

14 Dec1857 

14 Dec1857 

14 Dec I857 

7 Jan 1858 

28 May 1858 

9 Dec 1858 

9 Dec 1858 

9 Feb 1860 

9 Feb 1860 

9 Feb1860 

9 Feb 1860 

9 Feb1860 

9 Feb1860 

9 Feb 1860 

9 Feb 1860 

9 Feb 1860 

3 Dec 1860 

to 7 Apr 1856 CN 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 13 Feb 1856 CN 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 3 Mar 1857 

to 30 Oct 1858 RN 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 24 Dec 1857 RH 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 25 May 1858 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 25 Dec 1858 RH 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 3 Mar 1859 

to 3 Mar 1861 

to 3 Mar 1861 

to 3 Mar 1861 

to 3 Mar 1861 

to 3 Dec 1860 LB 

to 3 Mar 1861 

to 3 Mar 1861 

to 23 Jan 1861 CA 

to 3 Mar 1861 

to 3 Mar 1861 

8 Ju1 1861 to 3 Mar 1863 

8 JuI 1861 to 3 Mar 1863 

DE 

ES 

ES 

ES 

ES 

40 1 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Phelps. John S . Spaulding. Elbridge G 

Appleton. William 

Corning. Erastus 

Horton. Valentine B . McClernand. John A . Stratton. John L . N . Maynard. Horace 

Hooper. Samuel 

D MO 9th 

R NY 3rd 

R MA 3rd 

D NY 2nd 

R OH 3rd 

D IL 6th 

R NJ 2nd 

AP TN 3rd 

R MA 1st 

Stevens. Thaddeus 

Morrill. Justin S . Fenton. Reuben E . Hooper. Samuel 

Mallory. Robert 

Blow. Henry T . Kasson. John A . Pendleton. George H . Stebbins. Henry G . Littlejohn. De Witt C . Pruyn. John V . L . 

Morrill. Justin S . Hooper. Samuel 

Garfield. James A . Wentworth. John 

Conkling. Roscoe 

Moorhead. James K . Allison. William B . Brooks. James 

Hogan. John 

Winfield. Charles H . 

Schenck. Robert C . Hooper. Samuel 

Moorhead. James K . Allison. William B . Griswold. John A . Logan. John A . Maynard. Horace 

Brooks. James 

Niblack. William E . 

Schenck. Robert C . Hooper. Samuel 

Allison. William B . Maynard. Horace 

Kelley. William D . Orth. Godlove S . McCarthy. Dennis 

Brooks. James 

R PA 5th 

R VT 5th 

R NY 5th 

R MA 2nd 

U KY 3rd 

UU MO 1st 

R IA 1st 

D OH 4th 

D NY 1st 

R NY 1st 

D NY 1st 

R VT 6th 

R MA 3rd 

R OH 2nd 

R IL 6th 

R NY 3rd 

R PA 4th 

R IA 2nd 

D NY 4th 

D MO 1st 

D NY 2nd 

R OH 7th 

R MA 4th 

R PA 5th 

R IA 3rd 

R NY 3rd 

R IL 3rd 

R TN 5th 

D NY 5th 

D IN 4th 

R OH 8th 

R MA 5th 

R IA 4th 

R TN 6th 

R PA 5th 

R IN 4th 

R NY 2nd 

D NY 6th 

3-0rg .... 8 Ju1 1861 to 3 Mar 1863 

4-0rg .... 8 Ju1 1861 to 3 Mar 1863 

5-0rg .... 8 Ju1 1861 to 27 Sep 1861 RN RT 

6-0rg .... 8 Ju1 1861 to 3 Mar 1863 

7-0rg .... 8 JuI 1861 to 3 Mar 1863 

8-0rg .... 8 Ju1 

9-0rg .... 8 Ju1 

1 -Rpl .... 1 Dec 

2-Rpl .... 5 Dec 

38th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 14 Dec 

2-Maj .... 14Dec 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 7-Maj .... 

1 -MjR .... 

I-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

1 -MnR .... 

39th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

1-Min RMl .... 

2-Min KM2 .... 1 -MnR .... 

40th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 7-Maj .... I-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

4 1 st Congress 

1-Maj Chl .... 2-Maj Ch2 .... 3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 

861 to 28 Oct 1861 RN RT 

861 to 3 Mar 1863 

861 to 3 Mar 1863 

861 to 3 Mar 1863 

863 to 3 Mar 1865 

863 to 3 Mar 1865 

14 Dec 1863 

14 Dec1863 

14 Dec 1863 

14 Dec 1863 

14 Dec 1863 

14 Decl863 

14 Dec1863 

12 Dec 1864 

12 Dec1864 

11 Dec 1865 

11 Dec 1865 

11 Dec 1865 

11 Dec 1865 

11 Dec1865 

11 Dec 1865 

11 Dec 1865 

1 1 Dec 1865 

11 Dec 1865 

9 Apr 1865 

25 Nov 1867 

25 Nov 1867 

25 Nov1867 

25 Nov 1867 

25 Nov 1867 

25 Nov1867 

25 Nov 1867 

25 Nov 1867 

25 Nov 1867 

15 Mar 1869 

15 Mar 1869 

15 Marl869 

15 Mar 1869 

15 Mar 1869 

15 Marl869 

15 Mar 1869 

15 Marl869 

to 20 Dec 1864 

to 3 Mar 1865 

to 3 Mar 1865 

to 3 Mar 1865 

to 3 Mar 1865 

to 3 Mar 1865 

to 24 Oct 1864 

to 3 MjR 1865 

to 3 Mar 1865 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 4 Mar 1867 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 7 Apr 1866 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 3 Mar 1867 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1869 

to 5 Jan 1871 

to 3 Mar 1871 

to 3 Mar 1871 

to 3 Mar 1871 

to 3 Mar 1871 

to 15 Mar 1869 

to 3 Mar 1871 

to 3 Mar 1871 

RH ES 

RN RT 

RH EF 

RH AF 

CA .. 

402 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Marshall. Samuel S . 

Blair. Austin 

Dawes. Henry L . Maynard. Horace 

Kelley. William D . Finkelburg. Gustavus A . Burchard. Horatio C . Roberts. Ellis H . 

Brooks. James 

Kerr. Michael C . 

Beck. James B . 

Dawes. Henry L . Kelley. William D . Burchard. Horatio C . 

Roberts. Ellis H . 

Kasson. John A . 

Waldron. Henry 

Sheldon. Lionel A . Foster. Charles 

Beck. James B . 

Niblack. William E . 

Wood. Fernando 

Morrison. William R . Wood. Fernando 

Hancock. John 

Thomas. Phillip F . 

Hill. Benjamin H . 

Chapin. Chester W . Tucker. John R . 

Blaine. James G . Kelley. William D . 

Garfield. James A . Burchard. Horatio C . 

Watterson. Henry 

Wood. Fernando 

Tucker. John R . 

Sayler. Milton 

Robbins . William M . 

Harris. Henry R . Gibson. Randall L . 

Phelps. James 

Kelley. William D . 

Garfield. James A . 

Burchard. Horatio C . 

Banks. Nathaniel P . 

D IL 5th 

R MI 2nd 

R MA 8th 

R TN 7th 

R PA 6th 

LR MO 2nd 

R IL 2nd 

R NY 1st 

D NY 7th 

D IN 4th 

D KY 3rd 

R MA 9th 

R PA 7th 

R IL 3rd 

R NY 2nd 

R IA 3rd 

R MI 5th 

R LA 3rd 

R OH 2nd 

D KY 4th 

D IN 7th 

D NY 6th 

D IL 3rd 

D NY 7th 

D TX 3rd 

D MD 2nd 

D GA 1st 

D MA 1st 

D VA 1st 

R ME 7th 

R PA 8th 

R OH 7th 

R IL 4th 

D KY 1st 

D NY 8th 

D VA 2nd 

D OH 3rd 

D NC 3rd 

D GA 3rd 

D LA 2nd 

D CT 2nd 

R PA 9th 

R OH 8th 

R IL 5th 

R MA 9th 

2-Min .... 

1-MjR .... 

42nd Congress 

I-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

43rd Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 3-Min .... 

8-Maj .... 

44th Congress 

I-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

I-Min RMl .... 

2-Min RM2 .... 

4-Min .... 

I-MjR .... 

45th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

15 Mar1869 to 3 Mar 1871 

16 Mar1869 to 3 Mar 1871 

4 Dec1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec 1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec 1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec 1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

4 Dec 1871 to 3 Mar 1873 

5 Dec 1873 

5 Dec 1873 

5 Dec1873 

5 Dec1873 

5 Dec 1873 

5 Dec 1873 

5 Dec 1873 

5 Dec1873 

5 Dec1873 

5 Dec 1873 

5 Dec1873 

20 Dec 1875 

20 Dec1875 

20 Dec1875 

20 Dec1875 

20 Dec1875 

20 Dec1875 

20 Dec1875 

20 Dec1875 

20 Dec 1875 

20 Dec 1875 

20 Dec 1875 

13 Dec1876 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct1877 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct1877 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct 1877 

29 Oct 1877 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1875 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 10 JuI 1876 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 3 Mar 1877 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

3 Mar 1879 

RH EF 

RH EF 

403 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

46th Congress 

Wood. Fernando 

Tucker. John R . Gibson. Randall L . Phelps. James 

Morrison. William R . Mills. Roger Q . Carlisle. John G . Felton . William H . Garfield. James A . Kelley. William D . Conger. Omar D . Frye. William P . Dunnell. Mark H . McKinley. William Jr . 

Kelley. William D . Kasson.-fohn A . Dunnell. Mark H . McKinley. William Jr . Hubbell. Jay A . Haskell. Dudley C . Russell. William A . Errett. Russell 

Randall. Samuel J . Tucker. John R . Carlisle. John G . Morrison. William R . Speer. Emory 

Morrison. William R . Mills. Roger Q . Blount. James H . Blackburn. Joseph C . S . Hewitt . Abram S . Herbert. Hilary A . Hurd. Frank H . Jones. James K . Kelley. William D . 

Kasson. John A . McKinley. William Jr . Hiscock. Frank 

Russell. William A . Browne . Thomas M . Reed. Thomas B . 

Morrison. William R . Mills. Roger Q . Hewitt. Abram S . McMillian. Benton 

Harris. Henry R . Breckenridge. Clifton R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

I 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

NY 9th 

VA 3rd 

LA 3rd 

CT 3rd 

IL 5th 

TX 4th 

KY 2nd 

GA 3rd 

OH 9th 

PA 10th 

MI 6th 

ME 5th 

MN 5th 

OH 2nd 

PA 11th 

IA 5th 

MN 6th 

OH 3rd 

MI 5th 

KS 3rd 

MA 2nd 

PA 3rd 

PA 10th 

VA 4th 

KY 3rd 

IL 6th 

GA 2nd 

IL 7th 

TX 6th 

GA 6th 

KY 5th 

NY 4th 

AL 4th 

OH 3rd 

AR 2nd 

PA 12th 

IA 6th 

OH 4th 

NY 4th 

MA 3rd 

IN 4th 

ME 4th 

IL 8th 

TX 7th 

NY 5th 

TN 4th 

GA 4th 

AR 2nd 

1-Maj Chl .... 2-Maj Ch2 .... 

3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

I-Min RMl .... 

2-Min RM2 .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

1-MnR .... 

47th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-MaJ .... 7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

48th Congress 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

1-MnR 

2-MnR 

Chr .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

49th Congress 

I-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

11 Apr 1879 

20 Dec 1880 

21 Dec 1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec 1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

21 Dec1881 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

24 Dec 1883 

5 Jull884 

5 JuI 1884 

7 Jan1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

to 13 Feb 1881 MD 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 8 Nov 1880 RH 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1881 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1883 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 19 Feb 1885 RH 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 5 Jul 1884 LB 

to 27 May 1884 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1885 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 30 Dec 1886 RH 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

EF 

EF 

EF 

AF 

ES 

404 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Maybury. William C . D MI 2nd 

Breckenridge. William C.P. D KY 1st 

Kelley. William D . R PA 13th 

Hiscock. Frank R NY 5th 

Browne. Thomas M . R IN 5th 

Reed. Thomas B . R ME 5th 

McKinley. William Jr . R OH 5th 

Mills. Roger Q . D 

McMillin. Benton D 

Breckenridge. Clifton R . D 

Breckenridge. William C.P D 

Turner. Henry G . D 

Wilson. William L . D 

Scott. William L . D 

Bynum. William D . D 

Kelley. William D . R 

Browne. Thomas M . R 

Reed. Thomas B . R 

McKinley. William Jr . R 

Burrows. Julius C . R 

McKinley. William Jr . R 

Burrows. Julius C . R 

Bayne. Thomas M . R 

Dingley. Nelson Jr . R 

McKenna. Joseph R 

Payne. Sereno E . R 

La Follette. Robert M . 

Gear. John H . R 

Carlisle. John G . D 

Mills. Roger Q . D 

McMillin. Benton D 

Breckenridge. Clifton R . D 

Flower. Roswell P . D 

Turner. Henry G . D 

Breckenridge. Clifton R . D 

R 

Springer. William M . 

McMillin. Benton 

Turner. Henry G . 

Wilson. William L . 

Montgomery. Alexander B . 

Whiting. Justin R . 

Shively. Benjamin F . 

Cockran. W . Bourke 

Stevens. Moses T . 

Bryan. William J . Reed. Thomas B . Burrows. Julius C . McKenna. Joseph 

Payne. Sereno E . 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

TX 

TN 

AR 

KY 

GA 

wv 

PA 

IN 

PA 

IN 

ME 

OH 

MI 

OH 

MI 

PA 

ME 

CA 

NY 

WI 

IA 

KY 

TX 

TN 

AR 

NY 

GA 

AR 

IL 

TN 

GA 

wv 

KY 

MI 

IN 

NY 

MA 

NE 

ME 

MI 

CA 

NY 

8th 

5th 

3rd 

2nd 

4th 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

14th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

7th 

6th 

7th 

5th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

7th 

9th 

6th 

4th 

2nd 

5th 

4th 

9th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

3rd 

3rd 

4th 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

8th 

7th 

4th 

4th 

7-Maj .... 8-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

50th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 8-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

5 1st Congress 

I-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 3-MaJ .... 

4-MaJ .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

1-Min RM1 .... 

2-Min RM2 .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

1 -MnR .... 

2-MnR .... 

2-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

52nd Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 8-Maj .... 9-MaJ .... 10-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

7 Jan 1886 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

5 Jan 1888 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

9 Dec 1889 

11 Jun 1890 

23 Dec 1890 

23 Dec1891 

23 Dec1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec 1891 

23 Dec 1891 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1887 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1889 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 26 May 1890 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 5 Sep 1890 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1891 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 3 Mar 1893 

to 28 Mar 1892 

to 3 Mar 1893 

RH EF .. 

RH EF .. 

RH AF .. 

405 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Dalzell. John R PA 3rd 5-Min .... 23 Dec1891 to 3 Mar 1893 

Hopkins. Albert J . R IL 4th 1-MnR .... 30 Marl892 to 3 Mar 1893 

Wilson. William L . D WV 6th 1-Maj Chr .... 21 Aug1893 to 3 Mar 1895 

McMillin. Benton D TN 8th 2-Maj .... 21 Aug1893 to 3 Mar 1895 

Turner. Henry G . D GA 7th 3-Maj .... 21 Aug1893 to 3 Mar 1895 

Montgomery. Alexander B . D KY 4th 4-Maj .... 21 Aug1893 to 3 Mar 1895 

D MI 4th 5-Ma1 .... 21 Aug1893 to 3 Mar 1895 

53rd Congress 

Whiting. Justin R . 

Cockran. W . Bourke 

Stevens. Moses T . Bryan. William J . 

Breckenridge. Clifton R . Bynum. William D . Tarsney. John C . Reed. Thomas B . Burrows. Julius C . 

Payne. Sereno E . 

Dalzell. John 

Hopkins. Albert J . 

Gear. John H . 

Wheeler. Joseph 

Grosvenor. Charles H . 

Dingley. Nelson Jr . 

Payne. Sereno E . 

Dalzell. John 

Hopkins. Albert J . 

Grosvenor. Charles H . 

Russell. Charles A . Dolliver. Jonathan P . 

Steele. George W . Johnson. Martin N . 

Evans. Walter 

Tawney. James A . Crisp. Charles F . 

McMillin. Benton 

Turner. Henry G . 

Tarsney. John C . 

Wheeler. Joseph 

McLaurin. John L . Cobb. Seth W . 

Boatner. Charles J . 

Dingley. Nelson Jr . 

Payne. Sereno E . 

Dalzell. John 

Hopkins. Albert J . 

Grosvenor. Charles H . Russell. Charles A . 

Dolliver. Jonathan P . 

Steele. George W . 

Johnson. Martin N . 

D NY 

D MA 

D NE 

D AR 

D IN 

D MO 

R ME 

R MI 

R NY 

R PA 

R IL 

R IA 

D AL 

R OH 

R ME 

R NY 

R PA 

R IL 

R OH 

R CT 

R IA 

R IN 

R ND 

R KY 

R MN 

D GA 

D TN 

D GA 

D MO 

D AL 

D SC 

D MO 

D LA 

R ME 

R NY 

R PA 

R IL 

R OH 

R CT 

R IA 

R IN 

R ND 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

6th 

5th 

3rd 

9th 

8th 

5th 

4th 

5th 

4th 

6th 

4th 

8th 

6th 

5th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

5th 

3rd 

1st 

2nd 

7th 

9th 

8th 

4th 

7th 

3rd 

3rd 

4th 

9th 

7th 

6th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

6th 

4th 

6-MaJ .... 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 

1 0-Maj .... 

1 I-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

I-MjR .... 

I-MnR .... 

54th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 8-Maj .... 

10-Maj .... 

1 1-Maj .... 1-Min RMI .... 

2-Min RM2 .... 3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

1 -MnR .... 

2-MnR .... 

55th Congress 

1-Maj Chl .... 

2-Maj Ch2 .... 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 9-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 

21 Aug1893 

21 Aug 1893 

21 Aug 1893 

21 Aug1893 

21 Aug 1893 

21 Aug1893 

21 Aug 1893 

21 Aug1893 

21 Aug1893 

21 Aug1893 

21 Aug 1893 

21 Aug1893 

6 Dec1894 

19 Jan 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec1895 

21 Dec 1895 

21 Dec 1895 

16 Apr 1896 

12 Jan 1897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Mar1897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Marl897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Marl897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 14 Aug 1894 RH 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 19 Jan 1895 LB 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1895 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 23 Oct 1896 MD 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 27 Feb 1896 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 3 Mar 1897 

to 13 Jan 1899 MD 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

AF .. 

EF .. 

406 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Evans. Walter 

Tawney. James A . 

Bailey. Joseph W . McMillin. Benton 

Wheeler. Joseph 

McLaurin. John L . 

Robertson. Samuel M . 

Swanson. Claude A . McClellan. George B . 

Richardson. James D . 

Payne. Sereno E . Dalzell. John 

Hopkins. Albert J . 

Grosvenor. Charles H . Russell. Charles A . 

Dolliver. Jonathan P . Steele. George W . 

Tawney. James A . 

McCall. Samuel W . Long. Chester I . 

Richardson. James D . 

Robertson. Samuel M . 

Swanson. Claude A . McClellan. George B . Newlands. Francis G . Cooper. S . Bronson 

Underwood. Oscar W . 

Babcock. Joseph W . 

Payne. Sereno E . 

Dalzell. John 

Hopkins. Albert J . Grosvenor. Charles H . 

Russell. Charles A . Steele. George W . 

Tawney. James A . 

McCall. Samuel W . 

Long. Chester I . 

Babcock. Joseph W . 

Metcalf. Victor H . Richardson. James D . Robertson. Samuel M . 

Swanson. Claude A . McClellan. George B . 

Newlands. Francis G . 

Cooper. S . Bronson 

Hill. Ebenezer J . 

Payne. Sereno E . Dalzell. John 

Grosvenor. Charles H . 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

KY 2nd 

MN 3rd 

TX 4th 

TN 10th 

AL 8th 

SC 4th 

LA 6th 

VA 3rd 

NY 2nd 

TN 7th 

NY 8th 

PA 7th 

IL 8th 

OH 7th 

CT 7th 

IA 6th 

IN 7th 

MN 4th 

MA 4th 

KS 2nd 

TN 8th 

LA 7th 

VA 4th 

NY 3rd 

NV 4th 

TX 4th 

AL 3rd 

WI 3rd 

NY 9th 

PA 8th 

IL 9th 

OH 8th 

CT 8th 

IN 8th 

MN 5th 

MA 5th 

KS 3rd 

WI 5th 

CA 2nd 

TN 9th 

LA 8th 

VA 5th 

NY 4th 

NV 5th 

TX 5th 

CT 4th 

NY 10th 

PA 9th 

OH 9th 

1 0-Maj .... 

1 1 -Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 4-Min .... 5-Min .... 6-Min .... 

1 -MnR .... 

2-MnR .... 

56th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 

10-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 4-Min .... 5-Min .... 6-Min .... 

1 -MnR .... 

1-MjR .... 

57th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 3-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 10-Maj .... 1 1-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

1-MjR .... 

58th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Marl897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Mar 1897 

15 Marl897 

15 Marl897 

22 Jull897 

20 Jan 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec1899 

18 Dec1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec 1899 

18 Dec1899 

5 Mar 1900 

3 Dec 1900 

6 Dec 1901 

6 Dec 1901 

6 Decl901 

6 Dec 1901 

6 Dec1901 

6 Dec 1901 

6 Decl901 

6 Dec1901 

6 Decl901 

6 Dec 1901 

6 Dec1901 

6 Decl901 

6 Decl901 

6 Dec 1901 

6 Dec 1901 

6 Dec1901 

6 Decl901 

2 Dec 1902 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 16 Jan 1899 RH ES 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 31 May 1897 RH EF 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1899 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 22 Aug 1900 RH EF 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1901 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 23 Oct 1902 MD .. 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 4 Mar 1903 RH EF 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

to 3 Mar 1903 

12 Nov 1903 to 3 Mar 1905 

12 Nov 1903 to 3 Mar 1905 

12 Nov1903 to 3 Mar 1905 

407 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Tawney. James A . McCall. Samuel W . Babcock. Joseph W . Metcalf. Victor H . Hill. Ebenezer J . Boutell. Henry S . Watson. James E . Curtis. Charles 

Williams. John Sharp 

Robertson. Samuel M . Swanson. Claude A . McClellan. George B . Cooper. S . Bronson 

Clark. James B . (Champ) 

Needham. James C . Cockran. W . Bourke 

Payne. Sereno E . Dalzell . John 

Grosvenor. Charles H . McCleary. James T . McCall. Samuel W . Babcock. Joseph W . Hill. Ebenezer J . Boutell. Henry S . Watson. James E . Curtis. Charles 

Needham. James C . Smith. William Alden 

Williams. John Sharp 

Robertson. Samuel M . Clark. James B . (Champ) 

Cockran. W . Bourke 

Underwood. Oscar W . Granger. Daniel L.D. 

Payne. Sereno E . Dalzell. John 

McCall. Samuel W . Hill. Ebenezer J . Boutell. Henry S . Watson. James E . Needham. James C . Calderhead. William A . Fordney. Joseph W . Gaines. Joseph Holt 

Bonynge. Robert W . Longworth. Nicholas 

Clark. James B . (Champ) 

Cockran. W . Bourke 

Underwood. Oscar W . Granger. Daniel L.D. 

Griggs. James M . 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

MN 

MA 

WI 

CA 

CT 

IL 

IN 

KS 

MS 

LA 

VA 

NY 

Tx 

MO 

CA 

NY 

NY 

PA 

OH 

MN 

MA 

WI 

CT 

IL 

IN 

KS 

CA 

MI 

MS 

LA 

MO 

NY 

AL 

RI 

NY 

PA 

MA 

CT 

IL 

IN 

CA 

KS 

MI 

wv 

co 

OH 

MO 

NY 

AL 

RI 

GA 

6th 

6th 

6th 

3rd 

5th 

4th 

4th 

6th 

6th 

9th 

6th 

5th 

6th 

5th 

3rd 

4th 

11th 

10th 

10th 

7th 

7th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

7th 

4th 

6th 

7th 

10th 

6th 

5th 

6th 

2nd 

12th 

11th 

8th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

7th 

6th 

7th 

3rd 

6th 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

1 1 -Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

1 -MjR 

1 -MnR 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

59th Congress 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

1 1 -Maj 

12-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

Chr .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM ____ 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

60th Congress 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

1 1-Maj 

1 2-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

Chr .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

12 Nov1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Novl903 

12 Nov1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Nov 1903 

12 Dec 1904 

10 Mar1904 

11 Dec1905 

11 Dec 1905 

11 Dec 1905 

11 Dec1905 

1 1 Dec 1905 

11 Dec 1905 

11 Dec 1905 

11 Dec1905 

11 Dec1905 

1 1 Dec 1905 

11 Dec 1905 

11 Dec 1905 

11 Dec1905 

11 Dec1905 

11 Dec 1905 

1 1 Dec 1905 

11 Dec 1905 

11 Dec1905 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec 1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec 1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec 1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec1907 

19 Dec 1907 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 1 Ju1 1904 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 21 Dec 1903 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1905 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 28 Jan 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 9 Feb 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1907 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 12 May 1908 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

to 14 Feb 1909 

to 3 Mar 1909 

RH AF .. 

RH ES .. 

RH EF .. 

RH EF .. 

CA 

MD .. 

408 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Pou. Edward W . Randell. Choice B . 

Crumpacker. Edgar D . 

Payne. Sereno E . 

Dalzell. John 

McCall. Samuel W . 

Hill. Ebenezer J . 

Boutell. Henry S . 

Needham. James C . 

Calderhead. William A . 

Fordney. Joseph W . 

Gaines. Joseph Holt 

Longworth. Nicholas 

Crumpacker. Edgar D . Cushman. Francis W . 

Clark. James B . (Champ) 

Underwood. Oscar W . 

Griggs. James M . 

Pou. Edward W . 

Randell. Choice B . 

Broussard. Robert F . 

Harrison. Francis B . Dwight. John W . Ellis. William R . 

Brantley. William G . 

Underwood. Oscar W . 

Randell. Choice B . Harrison. Francis B . 

Brantley. William G . 

Shackleford. Dorsey W . 

Kitchin. Claude 

James. Ollie M . 

Rainey. Henry T . Dixon. Lincoln 

Hughes. William J . Hull. Cordell 

Hammond. Winfield S . 

Peters. Andrew J . Palmer. A . Mitchell 

Payne. Sereno E . Dalzell. John 

McCall. Samuel W . 

Hill. Ebenezer J . 

Needham. James C . 

Fordney. Joseph W . Longworth. Nicholas 

Ansberry. Timothy T . 

Underwood. Oscar W . Harrison. Francis B . 

D NC 4th 

D TX 4th 

R IN 6th 

R NY 13th 

R PA 12th 

R MA 9th 

R CT 8th 

R IL 7th 

R CA 6th 

R KS 7th 

R MI 6th 

R WV 5th 

R OH 4th 

R IN 7th 

R WA 6th 

D MO 8th 

D AL 8th 

D GA 7th 

D NC 5th 

D TX 5th 

D LA 7th 

D NY 3rd 

R NY 5th 

R OR 5th 

D GA 7th 

D AL 9th 

D TX 6th 

D NY 4th 

D GA 8th 

D MO 7th 

D NC 6th 

D KY 5th 

D IL 5th 

D IN 4th 

D NJ 4th 

D TN 3rd 

D MN 3rd 

D MA 3rd 

D PA 2nd 

R NY 14th 

R PA 13th 

R MA 10th 

R CT 9th 

R CA 7th 

R MI 7th 

R OH 5th 

D OH 3rd 

D AL 10th 

D NY 5th 

6-Min .... 19 Dec1907 to 3 Mar 1909 

7-Min .... 19 Dec 1907 to 3 Mar 1909 

1-MjR .... 12 May1908 to 3 Mar 1909 

61st Congress 

1-Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

1 1 -Maj 

12-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

1-MjA 

2-MjA 

I-MnR 

Chr .... 16 Mar 1909 

.... I6 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Marl909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar1909 

RM .... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Marl909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 16 Marl909 

.... 16 Marl909 

.... 16 Mar 1909 

.... 5 Aug 1909 

.... 5 Aug 1909 

.... 18 Jan1910 

62nd Congress 

I-Maj Chr .... 

3-Maj .... 2-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 

12-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

10-Maj .... 

1 1-Maj .... 

13-Maj .... I4-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 

1 -MjR .... 

63rd Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

11 Aprl911 

11 Aprl911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Aprl911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Aprl911 

11 Aprl911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Apr 1911 

I1 Aprl911 

I1 Aprl911 

I1 Aprl911 

11 Apr 1911 

I1 Aprl911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Apr 1911 

11 Apr 1911 

9 Jan 1913 

10 Apr1913 

LO Apr1913 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 5 Aug 1909 CA 

to 6 Ju1 1909 MD 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 5 Jan 1910 MD 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1911 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 27 Sep 1912 RH 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1913 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 1 Sep 1913 RH 

AF 

AF 

409 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Shackleford. Dorsey W . Kitchin. Claude 

Rainey. Henry T . Dixon. Lincoln 

Hull. Cordell 

Hammond. Winfield S . Peters. Andrew J . Palmer. A . Mitchell 

Ansberry. Timothy T . Garner. John N . Collier. James W . Stanley. Augustus 0 . Dickinson. Clement C . Payne. Sereno E . Fordney. Joseph W . Gardner. Augustus P . Moore. J . Hampton 

Anderson. Sydney 

Green. William R . Murdock. Victor 

Mitchell. John J . Sloan. Charles H . 

Kitchin. Claude 

Rainey. Henry T . Dixon. Lincoln 

Hull. Cordell 

Garner. John N . Collier. James W . Dickinson. Clement C . Conry. Michael F . Oldfield. William A . McGillicuddy. Daniel J . Allen. Alfred G . Crisp. Charles R . Casey. John J . Helvering. Guy T . Fordney. Joseph W . Gardner. Augustus P . Moore. J . Hampton 

Green. William R . Sloan. Charles H . Hill. Ebenezer J . Longworth. Nicholas 

Fairchild. George W . 

Kitchin. Claude 

Rainey. Henry T . Dixon. Lincoln 

Hull. Cordell 

Garner. John N . Collier. James W . Dickinson. Clement C . 

D MO 8th 

D NC 7th 

D IL 6th 

D IN 5th 

D TN 4th 

D MN 4th 

D MA 4th 

D PA 3rd 

D OH 4th 

D TX 6th 

D MS 3rd 

D KY 6th 

D MO 3rd 

R NY 15th 

R MI 8th 

R MA 7th 

R PA 5th 

R MN 2nd 

R IA 2nd 

R KS 6th 

D MA 2nd 

R NE 2nd 

D NC 8th 

D IL 7th 

D IN 6th 

D TN 5th 

D TX 7th 

D MS 4th 

D MO 4th 

D NY 4th 

D AR 4th 

D ME 3rd 

D OH 3rd 

D GA 3rd 

D PA 2nd 

D KS 2nd 

R M1 9th 

R MA 8th 

R PA 6th 

R IA 3rd 

R NE 3rd 

R CT 10th 

R OH 6th 

R NY 5th 

D NC 9th 

D IL 8th 

D IN 7th 

D TN 6th 

D TX 8th 

D MS 5th 

D MO 5th 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

1 1-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

1-MjR 

1 -MnR 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Aprl913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Aprl913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 3 Jun 1913 

RM2 .... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 10 Apr1913 

.... 16 Sep1914 

.... 18 Jul 1914 

RM1 .... 10 Apr1913 

64th Congress 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1 -Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

Chr .... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec 1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

RM .... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec 1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec 1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec1915 

.... 14 Dec 1915 

65th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 2 Apr1917 

2-Maj .... 2 Apr 1917 

3-Maj .... 2 Apr 1917 

4-Maj .... 2 Apr 1917 

5-Maj .... 2 Apr 1917 

6-Maj .... 2 Apr 1917 

7-Maj .... 2 Apr1917 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 16 Jan 1915 RH 

to 16 Sep 1914 RH 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 9 Jan 1915 RH 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 10 Dec 1914 MD 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 

to 3 Mar 1915 CA 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 2 Mar 1917 MD 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1917 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

ES 

AF 

AS 

NT 

410 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Oldfield. William A . Crisp. Charles R . Helvering. Guy T . O’Shaunessy. George F . Carew. John F . White. George 

Fordney. Joseph W . Gardner. Augustus P . Moore. J . Hampton 

Green. William R . Sloan. Charles H . Hill. Ebenezer J . Longworth. Nicholas 

Fairchild. George W . Sterling. John A . Martin. Whitmell P . Hawley. Willis C . Treadway. Allen T . 

Fordney. Joseph W . Moore. J . Hampton 

Green. William R . Longworth. Nicholas 

Hawley. Willis C . Treadway. Allen T . Copley. Ira C . Mott. Luther W . Young. George M . Frear. James A . Tilson. John Q . Bacharach. Isaac 

Hadley. Lindley H . Timberlake. Charles B . Bowers. George M . Kitchin. Claude 

Rainey. Henry T . Hull. Cordell 

Garner. John N . Collier. James W . Dickinson. Clement C . Oldfield. William A . Crisp. Charles R . Carew. John F . Martin. Whitmell P . Watson. Henry W . 

Fordney. Joseph W . Green. William R . Longworth. Nicholas 

Hawley. Willis C . Treadway. Allen T . Copley. Ira C . Mott . Luther W . 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

P 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

AR 

GA 

KS 

Rl 

NY 

OH 

MI 

MA 

PA 

IA 

NE 

CT 

OH 

NY 

IL 

LA 

OR 

MA 

MI 

PA 

IA 

OH 

OR 

MA 

IL 

NY 

ND 

WI 

CT 

WA 

co 

wv 

NC 

IL 

TN 

TX 

MS 

MO 

AR 

GA 

NY 

LA 

PA 

NJ 

MI 

1A 

OH 

OR 

MA 

IL 

NY 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

10th 

9th 

7th 

4th 

4th 

11th 

7th 

6th 

7th 

2nd 

6th 

3rd 

11th 

8th 

5th 

8th 

7th 

4th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

5th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

10th 

9th 

7th 

9th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

12th 

6th 

9th 

8th 

5th 

6th 

6th 

8-Maj .... 9-Maj .... 

1 0-Maj .... 

11-Maj .... 1 2-Maj .... 1 3-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 4-Min .... 5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 

8-Min .... 

9-Min .... 10-Min .... 1 -MnR .... 

2-MnR .... 

66th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 9-Maj .... 

10-Maj .... 1 1 -Maj .... 

12-Maj .... 

13-Maj .... 14-Maj .... 15-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 

8-Min .... 

9-Min .... 

1 0-Min .... 

1 -MjR .... 

67th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

2 Apr1917 

2 Apr1917 

2 Apr1917 

2 Apr1917 

2 Apr1917 

2 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Aprl917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

10 Apr1917 

15 Dec1917 

15 Dec1917 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May1919 

19 May1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

19 May 1919 

3 Feb 1920 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 15 May 1917 RN 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 27 Sep 1917 MD 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 17 Oct 1918 MD 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1919 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 4 Jan 1920 RH 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1921 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

RT .. 

ES .. 

41 1 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Young. George M . Frear. James A . Tilson. John Q . Bacharach. Isaac 

Hadley. Lindley H . Timberlake. Charles B . Bowers. George M . Watson. Henry W . Houghton. Alanson B . Chandler. Thomas A . Kitchin. Claude 

Garner. Johil N . Collier. James W . Oldfield. William A . 

Crisp. Charles R . Carew. John F . Martin. Whitmell P . Tague. Peter F . Mills. Ogden L . 

Green. William R . Hawley. Willis C . Treadway. Allen T . Young. George M . Frear. James A . Tilson. John Q . Bacharach. Isaac 

Hadley. Lindley H . Timberlake. Charles B . Watson. Henry W . Mills. Ogden L . McLaughlin. James C . Kearns. Charles C . Chindblom. Carl R . Crowther. Frank 

Garner. John N . Collier. James W . Oldfield. William A . Crisp. Charles R . Carew. John F . Martin. Whitmell P . Tague. Peter F . Rainey. Henry T . Hull. Cordell 

Dickinson. Clement C . Casey. John J . 

Green. William R . Hawley. Willis C . 

Treadway. Allen T . Bacharach. Isaac 

Hadley. Lindley H . 

Timberlake. Charles B . 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

K 

R 

R 

ND 

WI 

CT 

WA 

co 

wv 

PA 

NY 

OK 

NC 

TX 

MS 

AR 

GA 

NY 

LA 

MA 

NY 

NJ 

IA 

OR 

MA 

ND 

WI 

CT 

WA 

co 

PA 

NY 

MI 

OH 

IL 

NY 

Tx 

MS 

AR 

GA 

NY 

LA 

MA 

IL 

TN 

MO 

PA 

NJ 

1A 

OR 

MA 

WA 

co 

NJ 

5th 

5th 

6th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

2nd 

2nd 

11th 

10th 

7th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

1st 

4th 

4th 

7th 

9th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

7th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

2nd 

9th 

5th 

3rd 

3rd 

11th 

8th 

8th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

10th 

8th 

7th 

4th 

8th 

10th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

8-Maj .... 9-Maj .... 10-Maj .... 

1 2-Maj .... 

13-Maj .... 

14-Maj .... 15-Maj .... 

16-Maj .... 

17-Maj .... 

1 1 -Maj .... 

I-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 8-Min .... 1-MjR .... 

68th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 

1 0-Maj .... 1 1 -Maj .... 12-Maj .... 13-Maj .... 

14-Maj .... 

15-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 8-Min .... 

9-Min .... 

10-Min .... 1 1 -Min .... 

69th Congress 

I-Maj Chr .... 2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr1921 

11 Apt 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

11 Apr 1921 

I1 Apr1921 

16 Marl922 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Dec1923 

17 Decl923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec 1923 

17 Dec1923 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 28 Feb 1922 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1923 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 2 Sep 1924 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1925 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

RH AF .. 

RN RT .. 

412 
~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 

MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Watson. Henry W . Mills. Ogden L . McLaughlin. James C . Kearns. Charles C . Chindblom. Carl R . Crowther. Frank 

Bixler. Harris J . Faust. Charles L . Aldrich. Richard S . Gamer. John N . Collier. James W . Oldfield. William A . Crisp. Charles R . Carew. John F . Martin. Whitmell P . Rainey. Henry T . Hull. Cordell 

Dickinson. Clement C . Doughton. Robert L . 

Green. William R . Hawley. Willis C . Treadway. Allen T . Bacharach. Isaac 

Hadley. Lindley H . Timberlake. Charles B . Watson. Henry W . McLaughlin. James C . Kearns. Charles C . Chindblom. Carl R . Crowther. Frank 

Faust. Charles L . Aldrich. Richard S . Sweet. Thaddeus C . Estep. Harry A . Garner. John N . Collier. James W . Oldfield. William A . Crisp. Charles R . Carew. John F . Martin. Whitmell P . Rainey. Henry T . Hull. Cordell 

Dickinson. Clement C . Doughton. Robert L . Ramseyer. C . William 

Davenport. Frederick M . Ragon. Heartsill 

Hawley. Willis C . Treadway. Allen T . Bacharach. Isaac 

Hadley. Lindley H . 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

PA 6th 

NY 3rd 

MI 10th 

OH 6th 

IL 4th 

NY 4th 

PA 3rd 

MO 3rd 

Rl 2nd 

TX 12th 

MS 9th 

AR 9th 

GA 8th 

NY 7th 

LA 6th 

IL 11th 

TN 9th 

MO 8th 

NC 8th 

IA 9th 

OR 11th 

MA 8th 

NJ 7th 

WA 7th 

CO 7th 

PA 7th 

MI 11th 

OH 7th 

IL 5th 

NY 5th 

MO 4th 

RI 3rd 

NY 3rd 

PA 1st 

TX 13th 

MS 10th 

AR 10th 

GA 9th 

NY 8th 

LA 7th 

IL 12th 

TN 10th 

MO 9th 

NC 9th 

IA 7th 

NY 2nd 

AR 3rd 

OR 12th 

MA 9th 

NJ 8th 

WA 8th 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 

1 0-Maj .... 

1 1-Maj .... 

12-Maj .... 

13-Maj .... 

14-Maj .... 

15-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 4-Min .... 5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 

8-Min .... 9-Min .... 

10-Min .... 

70th Congress 

1-Maj Chl .... 

2-Maj Ch2 .... 

3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 

6-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 10-Maj .... 1 1 -Maj .... 

12-Maj .... 

13-Maj .... 14-Maj .... 15-Maj .... 

1-Min RM .... 2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 

8-Min .... 9-Min .... 

10-Min .... 1-MjR .... 

2-MjR .... 1 -MnR .... 

71st Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

7 Dec 1925 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec1927 

6 Dec 1927 

6 Dec1927 

28 May 1928 

28 May 1928 

10 Dec1928 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr 1929 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 3 Mar 1927 

to 31 Mar 1928 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 17 Dec 1928 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 1 May 1928 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 19 Nov 1928 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1929 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

RN RT .. 

MD .. 

MD .. 

MD .. 

413 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Timberlake. Charles B . Watson. Henry W . McLaughlin. James C . Kearns. Charles C . 

Chindblom. Carl R . Crowther. Frank 

Aldrich. Richard S . 

Estep. Harry A . 

Ramseyer. C . William 

Davenport. Frederick M . 

Frear. James A . Garner. John N . Collier. James W . Crisp. Charles R . 

Carew. John F . 

Rainey. Henry T . 

Hull. Cordell 

Doughton. Robert L . 

Ragon. Heartsill 

Hill. Samuel B . 

Canfield. Harry C . 

Cullen. Thomas H . 

Collier. James W . 

Crisp. Charles R . Rainey. Henry T . 

Doughton. Robert L . 

Ragon. Heartsill 

Hill. Samuel B . 

Canfield. Harry C . Cullen. Thomas H . 

Sullivan. Christopher D . 

Sanders. Morgan G . Eslick. Edward E . 

McCormack. John W . Dickinson. Clement C . 

Lewis. David J . 

Vinson. Fred M . 

Hawley. Willis C . 

Treadway. Allen T . Bacharach. Isaac 

Hadley. Lindley H . Timberlake. Charles B . 

Watson. Henry W . 

McLaughlin. James C . 

Chindblom. Carl R . 

Crowther . Frank 

Aldrich. Richard S . 

Cooper. Jere 

Driver. William J . 

Estep. Harry A . 

Doughton . Robert L . 

414 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

R 

D 

CO 8th 5-Maj 

PA 8th 6-Maj 

MI 12th 7-Maj 

OH 8th 8-Maj 

IL 6th 9-Maj 

NY 6th 10-Maj 

RI 4th 11-Maj 

PA 2nd 12-Maj 

IA 8th 13-Maj 

NY 3rd 14-Maj 

WI 9th 15-Maj 

TX 14th 1-Min 

MS 1 lth 2-Min 

GA 10th 3-Min 

NY 9th 4-Min 

IL 13th 5-Min 

TN 1 Ith 6-Min 

NC 10th 7-Min 

AR 4th 8-Min 

WA 4th 9-Min 

IN 4th 10-Min 

NY 6th 1-MnR 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

72nd Congress 

MS 12th 1-Maj 

GA 11th 2-Maj 

IL 14th 3-Maj 

NC 11th 4-Maj 

AR 5th 5-Maj 

WA 5th 6-Maj 

IN 5th 7-Maj 

NY 7th 8-Maj 

NY 8th 9-Maj 

TX 6th 10-Maj 

TN 4th 11-Maj 

MA 3rd 12-Maj 

MO 10th 13-Maj 

MD 4th 14-Maj 

KY 4th 15-Maj 

OR 13th 1-Min 

MA 10th 2-Min 

NJ 9th 3-Min 

WA 9th 4-Min 

CO 9th 5-Min 

PA 9th 6-Min 

MI 13th 7-Min 

IL 7th 8-Min 

NY 7th 9-Min 

RI 5th 10-Min 

TN 2nd 1-MjR 

AR 6th I-MjR 

PA 3rd 1-MnR 

Chr .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

73rd Congress 

NC 12th 1-Maj Chr .... 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr 1929 

16 Apr1929 

16 Apr 1929 

19 Apr1929 

9 Jan 1930 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec 1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

9 Dec1931 

15 Ju11932 

15 Dec 1932 

6 Dec 1932 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 28 Dec 1929 RN 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1931 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 7 Oct 1932 RN 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 14 Jun 1932 MD 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 29 Nov 1932 MD 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

to 3 Mar 1933 

9 Mar 1933 to 3 Jan 1935 

RT 

RT 
~~ 

MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Ragon. Heartsill 

Hill. Samuel B . 

Cullen. Thomas H . 

Sullivan. Christopher D . 

Sanders. Morgan G . 

McCormack. John W . Dickinson. Clement C . Lewis. David J . 

Vinson. Fred M . Cooper. Jere 

Shallenberger. Ashton C . 

West. Charles 

Boehne. John W . Jr . 

McClintic. James V . 

Treadway. Allen T . Bacharach. Isaac 

Watson. Henry W . Crowther. Frank 

Frear. James A . 

Knutson. Harold 

Reed. Daniel A . Woodruff. Roy 0 . 

Jenkins. Thomas A . Evans. William E . Cochran. Thomas 

Fuller. Claude A . 

Doughton. Robert L . 

Hill. Samuel B . Cullen. Thomas H . 

Sullivan. Christopher D . 

Sanders. Morgan G . 

McCormack. John W . Lewis. David J . Vinson. Fred M . 

Cooper. Jere 

Boehne. John W . Jr . 

Fuller. Claude A . Disney. Wesley E . 

Lamneck. Arthur P . 

Buck. Frank H . 

Duncan. Richard M . 

Thompson. Chester C . Brooks. J . Twing 

Dingell . John D . 

Treadway. Allen T . 

Bacharach. Isaac 

Crowther. Frank 

Knutson. Harold 

Reed. Daniel A . Woodruff. Roy 0 . 

Jenkins. Thomas A . 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

AR 6th 

WA 6th 

NY 8th 

NY 9th 

TX 7th 

MA 4th 

MO 11th 

MD 5th 

KY 5th 

TN 3rd 

NE 8th 

OH 2nd 

1N 2nd 

OK 10th 

MA 11th 

NJ 10th 

PA 10th 

NY 8th 

WI 11th 

MN 9th 

NY 8th 

MI 8th 

OH 5th 

CA 4th 

PA 1st 

AR 3rd 

NC 13th 

WA 7th 

NY 9th 

NY 10th 

TX 8th 

MA 5th 

MD 6th 

KY 6th 

TN 4th 

IN 3rd 

AR 4th 

OK 3rd 

OH 3rd 

CA 2nd 

MO 2nd 

IL 2nd 

PA 2nd 

MI 2nd 

MA 12th 

NJ 11th 

NY 9th 

MN 10th 

NY 9th 

MI 9th 

OH 6th 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

1 1 -Min 

1 -MjR 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

74th Congress 

9 Mar 1933 

9 Mar 1933 

9 Mar 1933 

9 Mar 1933 

9 Marl933 

9 Marl933 

9 Marl933 

9 Mar 1933 

9 Mar 1933 

9 Marl933 

9 Mar 1933 

9 Marl933 

9 Marl933 

9 Mar 1933 

14 Marl933 

14 Marl933 

14 Marl933 

14 Marl933 

14 Marl933 

14 Marl933 

14 Mar 1933 

14 Marl933 

14 Marl933 

14 Marl933 

10 Jan 1934 

19 Jan 1934 

1-Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

11-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

1 6-Maj 

17-Maj 

18-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

Chr .... 3 Jan 1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan 1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan 1935 

.... 3 Jan 1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 3 Jan 1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

RM .... 14 Jan 1935 

.... 14 Jan1935 

.... 14 Jan1935 

.... 14 Jan 1935 

.... 14 Jan 1935 

.... 3 Jan1935 

.... 14 Jan 1935 

.... 14 Jan1935 

to 16 Jun 1933 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 27 Aug 1933 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 1 Mar 1934 

to 3 Jan 1935 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 25 Jun 1936 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

to 3 Jan 1937 

RH AF .. 

MD .. 

RH AF .. 

415 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

75th Congress 

Doughton. Robert L . 

Cullen. Thomas H . 

Sullivan. Christopher D . 

Sanders. Morgan G . 

McCormack. John W . Lewis. David J . Vinson. Fred M . Cooper. Jere 

Boehne. John W . Jr . Fuller. Claude A . 

Disney. Wesley E . 

Lamneck. Arthur P . 

Buck. Frank H . 

Duncan. Richard M . 

Thompson. Chester C . 

Dingell. John D . 

Robertson. A . Willis 

Wearin. Otha D . 

Treadway. Allen T . Crowther. Frank 

Knutson. Harold 

Reed. Daniel A . 

Woodruff. Roy 0 . 

Jenkins. Thomas A . 

Thurston. Lloyd 

Doughton. Robert L . 

Cullen. Thomas H . Sullivan. Christopher D . 

McCormack. John W . 

Cooper. Jere 

Boehne. John W . Jr . Disney. Wesley E . 

Buck. Frank H . 

Duncan. Richard M . Dingell. John D . Robertson. A . Willis 

Maloney. Paul H . 

Boland. Patrick J . West. Milton H . McKeough. Raymond S . 

Treadway. Allen T . 

Crowther. Frank 

Knutson. Harold 

Reed. Daniel A . 

Woodruff. Roy 0 . 

Jenkins. Thomas A . McLean. Donald H . 

Gearhart. Bertrand W . 

Carlson. Frank 

Jarrett. Benjamin 

D NC 14th 

D NY 10th 

D NY 11th 

D TX 9th 

D MA 6th 

D MD 7th 

D KY 7th 

D TN 5th 

D IN 4th 

D AR 5th 

D OK 4th 

D OH 4th 

D CA 3rd 

D MO 3rd 

D IL 3rd 

D MI 3rd 

D VA 3rd 

D IA 3rd 

R MA 13th 

R NY 10th 

R MN 11th 

R NY 10th 

R MI 10th 

R OH 7th 

R IA 7th 

D NC 15th 

D NY 11th 

D NY 12th 

D MA 7th 

D TN 6th 

D IN 5th 

D OK 5th 

D CA 4th 

D MO 4th 

D MI 4th 

D VA 4th 

D LA 5th 

D PA 5th 

D TX 4th 

D IL 3rd 

R MA 14th 

R NY 11th 

R MN 12th 

R NY 11th 

R MI 11th 

R OH 8th 

R NJ 4th 

R CA 3rd 

R KS 3rd 

R PA 2nd 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

1 1-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

1 6-Maj 

17-Maj 

18-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

Chr .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

76th Congress 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

11-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

I -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

Chr .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

RM .... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

.... 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

5 Jan 1937 

6 Jan 1937 

6 Jan 1937 

6 Jan 1937 

6 Jan 1937 

6 Jan 1937 

6 Jan 1937 

6 Jan 1937 

14 Jan 1937 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

3 Jan 1939 

9 Jan 1939 

9 Jan 1939 

9 Jan 

9 Jan 

4 Jan 

4 Jan 

4 Jan 

4 Jan 

4 Jan 

4 Jan 

939 

939 

939 

939 

939 

939 

939 

939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 12 May 1938 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan i939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

to 3 Jan 1939 

RH AF 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 15 Dec 1940 RH AF 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

to 3 Jan 1941 

18 Jan1939 to 3 Jan 1941 

18 Jan 1939 to 3 Jan 1941 

18 Jan1939 to 3 Jan 1941 

18 Jan1939 to 3 Jan 1941 

416 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Doughton. Robert L . D 

Cullen. Thomas H . D 

Cooper. Jere D 

Boehne. John W . Jr . D 

Disney. Wesley E . D 

Buck. Frank H . D 

Duncan. Richard M . D 

Dingell. John D . D 

Robertson. A . Willis D 

Boland. Patrick J . D 

West. Milton H . D 

McKeough. Raymond S . D 

Hill. Knute D 

Healey. Arthur D . D 

Ford. Aaron Lane D 

Treadway. Allen T . R 

Crowther. Frank R 

Knutson. Harold R 

Reed. Daniel A . R 

Woodruff. Roy 0 . R 

Jenkins. Thomas A . R 

McLean. Donald H . R 

Gearhart. Bertrand W . R 

Carlson. Frank R 

Jarrett. Benjamin R 

McGranery. James P . D 

Mills. Wilbur D . D 

Doughton. Robert L . D 

Cullen. Thomas H . D 

Cooper. Jere D 

Disney. Wesley E . D 

Dingell. John D . D 

Robertson. A . Willis D 

West. Milton H . D 

McGranery. James P . D 

Mills. Wilbur D . D 

Gregory. Noble J . D 

Camp. A . Sidney D 

Lynch. Walter A . D 

Forand. Aime J . D 

Maloney. Paul H . D 

Treadway. Allen T . R 

Knutson. Harold R 

Reed. Daniel A . R 

Woodruff. Roy 0 . R 

Jenkins. Thomas A . R 

McLean. Donald H . R 

Gearhart. Bertrand W . R 

Carlson. Frank R 

Sirnpson. Richard M . R 

Dewey. Charles S . R 

Wasielewski. Thaddeus F.B. D 

NC 

NY 

TN 

IN 

OK 

CA 

MO 

MI 

VA 

PA 

Tx 

IL 

WA 

MA 

MS 

MA 

NY 

MN 

NY 

MI 

OH 

NJ 

CA 

KS 

PA 

PA 

AR 

NC 

NY 

TN 

OK 

MI 

VA 

TX 

PA 

AR 

KY 

GA 

NY 

RI 

WI 

LA 

MA 

MN 

NY 

MI 

OH 

(:A 

KS 

PA 

IL 

NJ 

16th 

12th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

15th 

12th 

13th 

12th 

12th 

9th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

17th 

13th 

8th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

4th 

3rd 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

6th 

16th 

14th 

13th 

13th 

10th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

2nd 

77th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 

7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 9-Maj .... 

10-Maj .... 

13-Maj .... 

1 1 -Maj .... 

12-Maj .... 

14-Maj .... 15-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 

8-Min .... 

9-Min .... 

10-Min .... 

1-MjR .... 2-MjR .... 

78th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 3-Maj .... 

4-Maj .... 

5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 9-Maj .... 1 0-Maj .... 

1 1-Maj .... 

12-Maj .... 13-Maj .... 

14-Maj .... 15-Maj .... 1-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 8-Min .... 

9-Min .... 

1 0-Min .... 

3 Jan 194 1 

3 Jan 1941 

3 Jan1941 

3 Jan 1941 

3 Jan 194 1 

3 Jan 1941 

3 Jan 1941 

3 Jan 1941 

3 Jan1941 

3 Jan1941 

3 Jan1941 

3 Jan1941 

10 Jan 1941 

10 Jan 1941 

10 Jan 1941 

6 Jan1941 

6 Jan1941 

6 Jan 194 1 

6 Jan 194 1 

6 Jan 1941 

6 Jan 1941 

6 Jan 1941 

6 Jan 1941 

6 Jan 1941 

6 Jan 1941 

24 Jun 1942 

15 Oct1942 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan 1943 

12 Jan1943 

12 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 17 Sep 1942 MD 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 18 May 1942 MD 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Aug 1942 RH 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1943 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 1 Mar 1944 MD 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 17 Nov 1943 RH 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 21 Jun 1944 LB 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

AF .. 

AF .. 

417 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Eberharter. Herman P . D 

King. Cecil R . D 

Kean. Robert W . R 

Doughton. Robert L . D 

Cooper. Jere D 

Dingell. John D . D 

Robertson. A . Willis D 

West. Milton H . D 

Mills. Wilbur D . D 

Gregory. Noble J . D 

Camp. A . Sidney D 

Lynch. Walter A . D 

Forand. Aime J . D 

Wasielewski. Thaddeus F.B. D 

Maloney. Paul H . D 

Eberharter. Herman P . D 

King. Cecil R . D 

Anderson. Clinton P . D 

Knutson. Harold R 

Reed. Daniel A . R 

Woodruff. Roy 0 . R 

Jenkins. Thomas A . R 

Gearhart. Bertrand W . R 

Carlson. Frank R 

Simpson. Richard M . R 

Kean. Robert W . R 

Gifford. Charles L . R 

Curtis. Carl T . R 

O’Brien. Thomas J . D 

Knutson. Harold 

Reed. Daniel A . Woodruff. Roy 0 . 

Jenkins. Thomas A . 

Gearhart. Bertrand W . 

Simpson. Richard M . Kean. Robert W . 

Gifford. Charles L . 

Curtis. Carl T . 

Mason. Noah M . Martin. Thomas E . Grant. Robert A . Holmes. Hal 

Ellis. Hubert S . 

Byrnes. John W . 

Doughton. Robert L . 

Cooper. Jere 

Dingell. John D . 

West. Milton H . 

Mills. Wilbur D . Gregory. Noble J . 

Camp. A . Sidney 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

PA 

CA 

NJ 

NC 

TN 

MI 

VA 

TX 

AR 

KY 

GA 

NY 

RI 

WI 

LA 

PA 

CA 

NM 

MN 

NY 

MI 

OH 

CA 

KS 

PA 

MA 

NE 

IL 

NJ 

MN 

NY 

MI 

OH 

CA 

PA 

MA 

NE 

IL 

IA 

IN 

WA 

wv 

WI 

NC 

TN 

MI 

TX 

AR 

KY 

GA 

NJ 

4th 

2nd 

3rd 

18th 

9th 

7th 

7th 

7th 

4th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

7th 

5th 

3rd 

3rd 

15th 

14th 

14th 

11th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

13th 

4th 

5th 

16th 

15th 

15th 

12th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

14th 

5th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

19th 

10th 

8th 

8th 

5th 

6th 

5th 

1-MjR .... 

2-MjR .... 

1-MnR .... 

79th Congress 

1-Maj Chr .... 

2-Maj .... 

3-Maj .... 4-Maj .... 5-Maj .... 6-Maj .... 7-Maj .... 

8-Maj .... 

9-Maj .... 

10-Maj .... 

1 1-Maj .... 12-Maj .... 13-Maj .... 

14-Maj .... 

15-Maj .... I-Min RM .... 

2-Min .... 

3-Min .... 

4-Min .... 

5-Min .... 

6-Min .... 

7-Min .... 

8-Min .... 9-Min .... 

10-Min .... 

1 -MjR .... 

80th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 8th 

2-Maj 8th 

3-Maj 8th 

4-Maj 8th 

5-Maj 5th 

6-Maj 3rd 

7-Maj 3rd 

8-Maj 2nd 

9-Maj 2nd 

10-Maj 1st 

1 1-Maj 1st 

12-Maj 1st 

13-Maj 1st 

14-Maj 1st 

15-Maj 1st 

l-Min RM 12th 

2-Min 9th 

3-Min 7th 

4-Min 5th 

5-Min 4th 

6-Min 3rd 

7-Min 3rd 

3 Dec1943 

16 Marl944 

21 Jun 1944 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan1945 

3 Jan1945 

3 Jan1945 

3 Jan1945 

3 Jan1945 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan1945 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan 1945 

3 Jan 1945 

6 Jan 1945 

6 Jan 1945 

6 Jan1945 

6 Jan 1945 

6 Jan 1945 

6 Jan 1945 

6 Jan 1945 

6 Jan 1945 

25 Jan 1945 

25 Jan 1945 

26 Marl946 

7 Jan 1947 

7 Jan 1947 

7 Jan 1947 

7 Jan1947 

7 Jan 1947 

7 Jan1947 

7 Jan 1947 

7 Jan 1947 

7 Jan1947 

14 Jan 1947 

14 Jan 1947 

14 Jan 1947 

14 Jan 1947 

14 Jan 1947 

14 Jan 1947 

9 Jan 1947 

9 Jan 1947 

9 Jan 1947 

9 Jan 1947 

9 Jan 1947 

9 Jan 1947 

9 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1945 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 30 Jun 1945 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 3 Jan 1947 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 23 Aug 1947 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 28 Oct 1948 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

to 2 Jan 1949 

RH AF .. 

DE .. 

DE .. 

MD .. 

DE .. 

DE .. 

MD .. 

418 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA Dor AE MN AN 

Lynch, Walter A. 

Forand, Aime J. 

Eberharter, Herman P. 

Goodwin, Angier L. 

Doughton, Robert L. 

Cooper, Jere 

Dingell, John D. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Gregory, Noble J. 

Camp, A. Sidney 

Lynch, Walter A. 

Forand, Aime J. 

Eberharter, Herman P. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Combs, Jesse M. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Carroll, John A. 

Young, Stephen M. 

Reed, Daniel A. 

Woodruff, Roy 0. 

Jenkins, Thomas A. 

Simpson, Richard M. 

Kean, Robert W. 

Curtis, Carl T. 

Mason, Noah M. 

Martin, Thomas E. 

Holmes, Hal 

Byrnes, John W. 

Doughton, Robert L. 

Cooper, Jere 

Dingell. John D. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Gregory, Noble J. 

Camp, A. Sidney 

Forand, Aime J. 

Eberharter, Herman P. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Combs, Jesse M. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Granger, Walter K. 

Harrison, Burr P. 

Reed, Daniel A. 

Woodruff, Roy 0. 

Jenkins, Thomas A. 

Simpson, Richard M. 

Kean, Robert W. 

Curtis, Carl T. 

Mason. Noah M. 

D 

D 

D 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

NY 5th 

RI 5th 

PA 6th 

MA 3rd 

NC 20th 

TN 11th 

MI 9th 

AR 6th 

KY 7th 

GA 6th 

NY 6th 

RI 6th 

PA 7th 

CA 5th 

IL 7th 

TX 3rd 

IA 3rd 

CO 2nd 

OH 4th 

NY 16th 

MI 16th 

OH 13th 

PA 7th 

NJ 6th 

NE 6th 

IL 7th 

IA 6th 

WA 4th 

WI 3rd 

8-Min 3rd 

9-Min 3rd 

1 O-Min 3rd 

1-MjR 1st 

81st Congress 

1-Maj Chr 13th 

2-Maj 10th 

3-Maj 8th 

4-Maj 5th 

5-Maj 4th 

6-Maj 4th 

7-Maj 4th 

8-Maj 4th 

9-Maj 4th 

1 0-Maj 1st 

1 1 -Maj 1st 

12-Maj 1st 

13-Maj 1st 

14-Maj 1st 

15-Maj 1st 

1-Min RM 9th 

2-Min 9th 

3-Min 9th 

4-Min 4th 

5-Min 4th 

6-Min 3rd 

7-Min 2nd 

8-Min 2nd 

9-Min 2nd 

1 O-Min 2nd 

82nd Congress 

NC 21st 1-Maj 

TN 12th 2-Maj 

M1 10th 3-Maj 

AR 7th 4-Maj 

KY 8th 5-Maj 

GA 7th 6-Maj 

RI 7th 7-Maj 

PA 8th 8-Maj 

CA 6th 9-Maj 

IL 8th 10-Maj 

TX 4th 11-Maj 

LA 4th 12-Maj 

NY 8th 13-Maj 

UT 6th 14-Maj 

VA 4th 15-Maj 

NY 17th 1-Min 

MI 17th 2-Min 

OH 14th 3-Min 

PA 8th 4-Min 

NJ 7th 5-Min 

NE 7th 6-Min 

IL 8th 7-Min 

Chr 14th 

11th 

9th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1 St 

1 St 

RM 10th 

10th 

10th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

9 Jan1947 to 2 Jan 1949 

9 Jan 1947 to 2 Jan 1949 

9 Jan 1947 to 2 Jan 1949 

18 Dec1947 to 2 Jan 1949 

5 Jan1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 1949 

5 Jan 

5 Jan 

5 Jan 

5 Jan 

5 Jan 

5 Jan 

5 Jan 

5 ]an 

949 

94 9 

949 

949 

949 

949 

949 

949 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1951 

5 Jan 1949 to 2 Jan 1951 

5 Jan 1949 to 2 Jan 1951 

5 Jan1949 to 2 Jan 1951 

3 Jan1951 

3 Jan1951 

3 Jan 1951 

3 Jan1951 

3 Jan1951 

3 Jan 1951 

3 Jan1951 

3 Jan 1951 

3 Jan 1951 

3 Jan 1951 

3 Jan 1951 

3 Jan 195 1 

3 Jan 1951 

3 Jan1951 

3 Jan1951 

4 Jan 1951 

4 Jan1951 

4 Jan 1951 

4 Jan1951 

4 Jan1951 

4 Jan 1951 

4 Jan 1951 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Ju1 1952 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

uc 

uc 

DE 

RT 

RT 

uc 

CN RT 

NT 

NT 

419 
MEMBER PARTY STATE cns RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Martin, Thomas E. 

Holmes, Hal 

Byrnes, John W. 

Goodwin, Angier L. 

Reed, Daniel A. 

Jenkins, Thomas A. 

Simpson, Richard M. 

Kean, Robert W. 

Curtis, Carl T. 

Mason, Noah M. 

Martin, Thomas E. 

Holmes, Hal 

Byrnes, John W. 

Goodwin, Angier L. 

Sadlak, Antoni N. 

Baker, Howard H. 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Knox, Victor A. 

Utt, James B. 

Cooper, Jere 

Dingell, John D. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Gregory, Noble J. 

Camp, A. Sidney 

Forand, Aime J. 

Eberharter, Herman P. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Cooper, Jere 

Dingell, John D. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Gregory, Noble J. 

Forand, Aime J. 

Eberharter, Herman P. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Harrison, Burr P. 

Karsten, Frank M. 

Herlong, Albert S. Jr. 

McCarthy, Eugene J. 

Ikard, Frank N. 

Reed, Daniel A. 

Jenkins, Thomas A. 

Simpson, Richard M. 

Kean, Robert W. 

Mason, Noah M. 

Holmes, Hal 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

IA 

WA 

WI 

MA 

NY 

OH 

PA 

NE 

IL 

IA 

WA 

WI 

MA 

CT 

TN 

MO 

MI 

CA 

TN 

MI 

AR 

KY 

GA 

RI 

PA 

CA 

IL 

LA 

NY 

NJ 

TN 

MI 

AR 

KY 

RI 

PA 

CA 

IL 

LA 

NY 

VA 

MO 

FL 

MN 

TX 

NY 

OH 

PA 

IL 

WA 

NJ 

7th 

5th 

4th 

5th 

18th 

15th 

9th 

8th 

8th 

9th 

8th 

6th 

5th 

6th 

4th 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

13th 

11th 

8th 

9th 

8th 

8th 

9th 

7th 

9th 

5th 

9th 

14th 

12th 

9th 

10th 

9th 

10th 

8th 

10th 

6th 

10th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

19th 

16th 

10th 

9th 

10th 

7th 

8-Min 3rd 

9-Min 3rd 

10-Min 3rd 

1-MnR 1st 

83rd Congress 

1-Maj Chr 1 lth 

2-Maj 11th 

3-Maj 6th 

4-Maj 6th 

5-Maj 5th 

6-Maj 4th 

7-Maj 4th 

8-Maj 4th 

9-Maj 4th 

1 0-Maj 2nd 

1 1-Maj 1st 

12-Maj 1st 

13-Maj 1st 

14-Maj 1st 

15-Maj 1st 

1-Min RM 12th 

2-Min 10th 

3-Min 7th 

4-Min 6th 

5-Min 6th 

6-Min 6th 

7-Min 6th 

8-Min 3rd 

9-Min 3rd 

10-Min 3rd 

1 -MnR 1st 

84th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 13th 

2-Maj 1 lth 

3-Maj 8th 

4-Maj 7th 

5-Maj 7th 

6-Maj 7th 

7-Maj 4th 

8-Maj 4th 

9-Maj 4th 

10-Maj 2nd 

1 1 -Maj 1st 

12-Maj 1st 

13-Maj 1st 

14-Maj 1st 

15-Maj 1st 

1-Min RM 12th 

2-Min 12th 

3-Min 7th 

4-Min 7th 

5-Min 5th 

6-Min 5th 

4 Jan 1951 

4 Jan 1951 

4 Jan 1951 

2 Ju1 1952 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan 1953 

14 Jan1953 

14 Jan 1953 

27 Ju11954 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan1955 

5 Jan 1955 

5 Jan 1955 

10 Jan 1955 

10 Jan 1955 

10 Jan 1955 

10 Jan 1955 

10 Jan 1955 

10 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1953 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 31 Dec 1954 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 24 Ju1 1954 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1955 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 19 Sep 1955 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

to 2 Jan 1957 

RH EF .. 

EF .. 

DE .. 

.. NT 

.. NT 

MD .. 

MD .. 

420 
~ 

MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Byrnes, John W. 

Sadlak, Antoni N. 

Baker, Howard H. 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Machrowicz, Thaddeus M. 

Cooper, Jere 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Gregory, Noble J. 

Forand, Aime J. 

Eberharter, Herman P. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Harrison, Burr P. 

Karsten, Frank M. 

Herlong, Albert S. Jr. 

McCarthy, Eugene J. 

Ikard. Frank N. 

Machrowicz, Thaddeus M. 

Reed, Daniel A. 

Jenkins, Thomas A. 

Simpson, Richard M. 

Kean, Robert W. 

Mason, Noah M. 

Holmes, Hal 

Byrnes, John W. 

Sadlak, Antoni N. 

Baker, Howard H. 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Frazier, James B. Jr. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Forand, Aime J. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Harrison, Burr P. 

Karsten, Frank M. 

Herlong, Albert S. Jr. 

Ikard, Frank N. 

Machrowicz, Thaddeus M. 

Frazier, James B. Jr. 

Green. William J. Jr. 

Watts, John C. 

Metcalf, Lee 

Reed, Daniel A. 

Simpson, Richard M. 

Mason, Noah M. 

Byrnes, John W. 

Baker, Howard H. 

R WI 6th 7-Min 5th 

R CT 5th 8-Min 2nd 

R TN 3rd 9-Min 2nd 

R MO 3rd 10-Min 2nd 

D MI 3rd 1-MjR 1st 

85th Congress 

D PA 11th 

D CA 9th 

D IL 11th 

D LA 7th 

D NY 11th 

D VA 7th 

D MO 6th 

D FL 5th 

D MN 5th 

D TN 15th 1-Maj 

D AR 10th 2-Maj 

D KY 1 Ith 3-Maj 

D RI 10th 4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

0-Maj 

1-Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

D TX 4th 14-Maj 

D MI 4th 15-Maj 

R NY 20th 1-Min 

R OH 17th 2-Min 

R PA 1 lth 3-Min 

R NJ 10th 4-Min 

R IL 11th 5-Min 

R WA 8th 6-Min 

R WI 7th 7-Min 

R CT 6th 8-Min 

R TN 4th 9-Min 

R MO 4th 10-Min 

D TN 5th 1-MjR 

Chl 14th 

Ch2 9th 

8th 

8th 

8th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

RM 13th 

13th 

8th 

8th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

3rd 

3 rd 

3rd 

1st 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

AR 

RI 

CA 

IL 

LA 

NY 

VA 

MO 

FL 

TX 

MI 

TN 

PA 

KY 

MT 

NY 

PA 

IL 

WI 

TN 

1 lth 

1 lth 

10th 

12th 

8th 

12th 

8th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

6th 

7th 

5th 

4th 

21st 

12th 

12th 

8th 

5th 

86th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 10th 

2-Maj 9th 

3-Maj 6th 

4-Maj 6th 

5-Maj 6th 

6-Maj 4th 

7-Maj 3rd 

8-Maj 3rd 

9-Maj 3 rd 

1 0-Maj 3rd 

1 1-Maj 3rd 

1 2-Maj 2nd 

13-Maj 1st 

14-Maj 1st 

15-Maj 1 st 

1-Min RMl 14th 

2-Min RM2 9th 

3-Min RM3 7th 

4-Min 7th 

5-Min 4th 

10 Jan 1955 to 2 Jan 1957 

10 Jan 1955 to 2 Jan 1957 

LO Jan1955 to 2 Jan 1957 

10 Jan 1955 to 2 Jan 1957 

12 Jan1956 to 2 Jan 1957 

3 Jan1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan1957 

3 Jan1957 

3 Jan 1957 

3 Jan 1957 

7 Jan 1957 

7 Jan 1957 

7 Jan 1957 

7 Jan 1957 

7 Jan1957 

7 Jan 1957 

7 Jan 1957 

7 Jan 1957 

7 Jan1957 

7 Jan 1957 

15 Jan 1958 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan1959 

7 Jan1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan 1959 

7 Jan1959 

15 Jan 1959 

15 Jan 1959 

15 Jan 1959 

15 Jan 1959 

15 Jan 1959 

to 18 Dec 1957 MD 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 9 Sep 1958 MD 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1959 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 19 Feb 1959 MD 

to 7 Jan 1960 MD 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

DN 

EF 

RT 

uc 

RT 

DE 

RT 

EF 

42 1 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Knox, Victor A. 

Utt, James B. 

Betts, Jackson E. 

Alger, Bruce R. 

Bosch, Albert H. 

Lafore, John A. Jr. 

Mumma, Walter M. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Harrison, Burr P. 

Karsten, Frank M. 

Herlong, Albert S. Jr. 

Ikard, Frank N. 

Machrowicz, Thaddeus M. 

Frazier, James B. Jr. 

Green, William J. Jr. 

Watts, John C. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Mason, Noah M. 

Byrnes, John W. 

Baker, Howard H. 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Knox, Victor A. 

Utt, James B. 

Betts, Jackson E. 

Alger, Bruce R. 

Mumma, Walter M. 

Derounian, Steven B. 

Thompson, Clark W. 

Grifiths, Martha W. 

Schneebeli. Herman T. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

King, Cecil R. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Karsten, Frank M. 

Herlong, Albert S. Jr. 

Green, William J. Jr. 

Watts, John C. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Thompson, Clark W. 

Griffiths, Martha W. 

Bass, Ross 

Jennings, William Pat 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

MO 

MI 

CA 

OH 

TX 

NY 

PA 

PA 

AR 

CA 

IL 

LA 

NY 

VA 

MO 

FL 

TX 

MI 

TN 

PA 

KY 

OR 

MA 

IL 

WI 

TN 

MO 

MI 

CA 

OH 

TX 

PA 

NY 

TX 

MI 

PA 

AR 

CA 

IL 

LA 

NY 

MO 

FL 

PA 

KY 

OR 

MA 

TX 

MI 

TN 

VA 

5th 

4th 

4th 

5th 

3rd 

4th 

2nd 

5th 

12th 

1 lth 

13th 

9th 

13th 

9th 

8th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

7th 

8th 

6th 

3rd 

2nd 

13th 

9th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

6th 

4th 

6th 

5th 

9th 

4th 

2nd 

13th 

12th 

14th 

10th 

14th 

9th 

8th 

9th 

7th 

4th 

3rd 

10th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

6-Min 4th 

7-Min 1st 

8-Min 1st 

9-Min 1st 

1 0-Min 1st 

1 -MnR 1st 

2-MnR 1st 

3-MnR 1st 

87th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 11th 

2-Maj 7th 

3-Maj 7th 

4-Maj 7th 

5-Maj 5th 

6-Maj 4th 

7-Maj 4th 

8-Maj 4th 

9-Maj 4th 

10-Maj 4th 

1 1-Maj 3rd 

12-Maj 2nd 

13-Maj 2nd 

14-Maj 1st 

15-Maj 1st 

1-Min RM 8th 

2-Min 8th 

3-Min 5th 

4-Min 5th 

5-Min 2nd 

6-Min 2nd 

7-Min 2nd 

8-Min 2nd 

9-Min 2nd 

10-Min 1st 

1-MjR 1st 

2-MjR 1st 

1 -MnR 1st 

88th Congress 

I-Maj Chr 12th 

2-Maj 8th 

3-Maj 8th 

4-Maj 8th 

5-Maj 6th 

6-Maj 5th 

7-Maj 5th 

8-Maj 3rd 

9-Maj 3rd 

10-Maj 2nd 

1 1 -Maj 2nd 

12-Maj 2nd 

13-Maj 2nd 

14-Maj 1st 

15-Maj 1st 

15 Jan 1959 

19 Jan 1959 

19 Jan 1959 

19 Jan 1959 

19 Jan 1959 

25 Feb1959 

18 Jan 1960 

SO Aug 1960 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan1961 

23 Jan1961 

23 Jan1961 

23 Jan1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

23 Jan 1961 

13 Feb1961 

16 Jan 1962 

16 Jan 1962 

8 Marl961 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan1963 

9 Jan1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan 1963 

9 Jan 1963 

17 Jan I963 

17 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 31 Dec 1960 

to 30 Aug 1960 

to 2 Jan 1961 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 15 Dec 1961 

to 18 Sep 1961 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 25 Feb 1961 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1963 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 14 Apr 1964 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 21 Dec 1963 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 3 Nov 1964 

to 2 Jan 1965 

RH 

CN 

RN 

RH 

MD 

MD 

MD 

RH 

ES .. 

DN .. 

RT .. 

RT .. 

AF .. DN .. 

RT .. 

EF .. 

422 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Byrnes, John W. 

Baker, Howard H. 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Knox, Victor A. 

Utt, James B. 

Betts, Jackson E. 

Alger, Bruce R. 

Derounian, Steven B. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. 

Collier, Harold R. 

Rhodes, George M. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Broyhill, Joel T. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

King, Cecil R. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Keogh, Eugene J. 

Karsten, Frank M. 

Herlong, Albert S. Jr. 

Watts, John C. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Thompson, Clark W. 

Griffths, Martha W. 

Jennings, William Pat 

Rhodes, George M. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Landrum, Phillip M. 

Vanik, Charles A. 

Fulton, Richard H. 

Byrnes, John W. 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Utt, James B. 

Betts, Jackson E. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. 

Collier, Harold R. 

Broyhill, Joel T. 

Battin, James F. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

King, Cecil R. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Karsten, Frank M. 

Herlong, Albert S. Jr. 

Watts, John C. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Grifiths, Martha W. 

Rhodes, George M. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Landrum, Phillip M. 

Vanik, Charles A. 

R WI 10th 

R TN 7th 

R MO 7th 

R MI 6th 

R CA 6th 

R OH 7th 

R TX 5th 

R NY 6th 

R PA 3rd 

R IL 4th 

D PA 8th 

D IL 3rd 

R VA 6th 

D AR 14th 

D CA 13th 

D LA 11th 

D NY 15th 

D MO 10th 

D FL 9th 

D KY 8th 

D OR 5th 

D MA 4th 

D TX 11th 

D MI 6th 

D VA 6th 

D PA 9th 

D IL 4th 

D GA 7th 

D OH 6th 

D TN 2nd 

R WI 11th 

R MO 8th 

R CA 7th 

R OH 8th 

R PA 4th 

R IL 5th 

R VA 7th 

R MT 3rd 

D AR 15th 

D CA 14th 

D LA 12th 

D MO 11th 

D FL 10th 

D KY 9th 

D OR 6th 

D MA 5th 

D MI 7th 

D PA 10th 

D IL 5th 

D GA 8th 

D OH 7th 

1-Min RM 9th 

2-Min 6th 

3-Min 6th 

4-Min 3rd 

5-Min 3rd 

6-Min 3rd 

7-Min 3rd 

8-Min 2nd 

9-Min 2nd 

1 0-Min 1st 

1-MjR 1st 

2-MjR 1st 

1 -MnR 1st 

89th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 13th 

2-Maj 9th 

3-Maj 9th 

4-Maj 7th 

5-Maj 6th 

6-Maj 6th 

7-Maj 4th 

8-Maj 3rd 

9-Maj 3rd 

10-Maj 3rd 

11-Maj 3rd 

12-Maj 2nd 

13-Maj 2nd 

14-Maj 2nd 

15-Maj 1st 

16-Maj 1st 

17-Maj 1st 

1-Min RM 10th 

2-Min 7th 

3-Min 4th 

4-Min 4th 

5-Min 3rd 

6-Min 2nd 

7-Min 2nd 

8-Min 1st 

90th Congress 

1-Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

Chr 14th 

10th 

10th 

7th 

7th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

17 Jan 1963 

17 Jan 1963 

17 Jan1963 

17 Jan 1963 

17 Jan 1963 

17 Jan 1963 

17 Jan 1963 

17 Jan 1963 

17 Jan 1963 

24 Jan 1963 

21 Jan 1964 

5 May 1964 

22 Jan1964 

7 Jan1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan 1965 

7 Jan1965 

21 Jan 1965 

21 Jan 1965 

21 Jan 1965 

21 Jan 1965 

21 Jan 1965 

21 Jan 1965 

21 Jan 1965 

21 Jan 1965 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan1967 

10 Jan1967 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan1967 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan 1967 

10 Jan1967 

10 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 7 Jan 1964 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1965 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 30 Dec 1966 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1967 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 31 Jul 1968 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 23 Jul 1968 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 31 Ju1 1968 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

MD .. 

DE .. 

DE .. DE .. 

RT .. 

RN RT .. 

DE .. 

CN RT .. 

RT .. 

CN AF .. 

CN RT .. 

423 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Fulton, Richard H. 

Gilbert, Jacob H. 

Byrnes, John W. 

Curtis, Thomas B. 

Utt, James B. 

Betts, Jackson E. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. 

Collier, Harold R. 

Broyhill, Joel T. 

Battin, James F. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Bush, George H. W. 

Burleson, Omar T. 

Corman, James C. 

Green, William J. I11 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Watts, John C. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Griffiths, Martha W. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Landrum, Phillip M. 

Vanik, Charles A. 

Fulton, Richard H. 

Gilbert, Jacob H. 

Burleson, Omar T. 

Corman, James C. 

Green, William J. 111 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Byrnes, John W. 

Utt, James B. 

Betts, Jackson E. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. 

Collier, Harold R. 

Broyhill, Joel T. 

Battin, James F. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Bush, George H. W. 

Morton, Rogers C.B. 

Carey, Hugh L. 

Chamberlain, Charles E. 

Pettis, Jerry L. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Boggs, T. Hale 

Watts, John C. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Griffiths, Martha W. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Landrum, Phillip M. 

D TN 3rd 

D NY 5th 

R WI 12th 

R MO 9th 

R CA 8th 

R OH 9th 

R PA 5th 

R IL 6th 

R VA 8th 

R MT 4th 

R NY 2nd 

R TX 1st 

D TX 11th 

D CA 4th 

D PA 3rd 

D AR 16th 

D LA 13th 

D KY 10th 

D OR 7th 

D MA 6th 

D MI 8th 

D IL 6th 

D GA 9th 

D OH 8th 

D TN 4th 

D NY 6th 

D TX 12th 

D CA 5th 

D PA 4th 

D FL 4th 

R WI 13th 

R CA 9th 

R OH 10th 

R PA 6th 

R IL 7th 

R VA 9th 

R MT 5th 

R NY 3rd 

R TX 2nd 

R MD 4th 

D NY 5th 

R MI 7th 

R CA 2nd 

D AR 17th 

D LA 14th 

D KY 11th 

D OR 8th 

D MA 7th 

D MI 9th 

D IL 7th 

D <;A 10th 

14-Maj 2nd 

1-Min RM 11th 

2-Min 8th 

3-Min 5th 

4-Min 5th 

5-Min 4th 

6-Min 3rd 

7-Min 3rd 

8-Min 2nd 

9-Min 1st 

10-Min 1st 

15-Maj 1st 

1 -MjR 1st 

2-MjR 1st 

3-MjR 1st 

91st Congress 

1-Maj Chr 15th 

2-Maj 11th 

3-Maj 6th 

4-Maj 5th 

5-Maj 5th 

6-Maj 5th 

7-Maj 4th 

8-Maj 3rd 

9-Maj 3rd 

10-Maj 3rd 

1 1-Maj 2nd 

12-Maj 2nd 

13-Maj 2nd 

14-Maj 2nd 

1-Min RM 12th 

2-Min 6th 

3-Min 6th 

4-Min 5th 

5-Min 4th 

6-Min 4th 

7-Min 3rd 

8-Min 2nd 

9-Min 2nd 

1 0-Min 1st 

1-MnR 1st 

2-MnR 1st 

92nd Congress 

I-Maj Chr 16th 

2-Maj 12th 

3-Maj 7th 

4-Maj 6th 

5-Maj 6th 

6-Maj 6th 

7-Maj 5th 

8-Maj 4th 

15-Maj 1st 

1-MjR 1st 

10 Jan 1967 

17 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

16 Jan 1967 

26 Jan 1967 

26 Jan 1967 

30 Ju11968 

1 Aug1968 

1 Aug1968 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan1969 

14 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan 1969 

3 Jan1969 

3 Jan1969 

29 Jan 1969 

16 Dec1970 

5 Mar 1969 

30 Apr1970 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 197 1 

22 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1969 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 15 Dec 1970 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 1 Mar 1970 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 27 Feb 1969 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Feb 1971 

to 24 Sep 1971 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

uc .. 

CN DN .. 

MD .. 

RH AF .. 

uc .. 

CN .. 

MD .. 

424 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Vanik, Charles A. 

Fulton, Richard H. 

Burleson, Omar T. 

Corman, James C. 

Green, William J. 111 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Carey, Hugh L. 

Byrnes, John W. 

Betts, Jackson E. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. 

Collier, Harold R. 

Broyhill, Joel T. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Morton, Rogers C.B. 

Chamberlain, Charles E. 

Pettis, Jerry L. 

Duncan, John J. 

Waggonner, Joe D. Jr. 

Karth, Joseph E. 

Brotzman, Donald G. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Grifiths, Martha W. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Landrum, Phillip M. 

Vanik, Charles A. 

Fulton, Richard H. 

Burleson, Omar T. 

Corman, James C. 

Green, William J. 111 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Carey, Hugh L. 

Waggonner, Joe D. Jr. 

Karth, Joseph E. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. 

Collier, Harold R. 

Broyhill, Joel T. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Chamberlain, Charles E. 

Pettis, Jerry L. 

Duncan, John J. 

Brotzman, Donald G. 

Clancy, Donald D. 

Archer, William R. 

Pike, Otis G. 

Vander Veen, Richard F 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

Burke, James A. 

Rostenkowski. Daniel D. 

D OH 9th 

D TN 5th 

D TX 13th 

D CA 6th 

D PA 5th 

D FL 5th 

D NY 6th 

R WI 14th 

R OH 11th 

R PA 7th 

R IL 8th 

R VA 10th 

R NY 4th 

R MD 5th 

R MI 8th 

R CA 3rd 

R TN 4th 

D LA 6th 

D MN 7th 

R CO 4th 

D AR 18th 

D OR 9th 

D MA 8th 

D MI 10th 

D IL 8th 

D GA 11th 

D OH 10th 

D TN 6th 

D TX 14th 

D CA 7th 

D PA 6th 

D FL 6th 

D NY 7th 

D LA 7th 

D MN 8th 

R PA 8th 

R IL 9th 

R VA 11th 

R NY 5th 

R MI 9th 

R CA 4th 

R TN 5th 

R CO 5th 

R OH 7th 

R TX 2nd 

D NY 7th 

D MI 1st 

D OR 10th 

D AR 19th 

D MA 9th 

D IL 9th 

9-Maj 4th 

1 0-Maj 4th 

1 1 -Maj 3rd 

12-Maj 3rd 

13-Maj 3rd 

14-Maj 2nd 

15-Maj 2nd 

1-Min RM 13th 

2-Min 7th 

3-Min 6th 

4-Min 5th 

5-Min 5th 

6-Min 3rd 

7-Min 2nd 

8-Min 2nd 

9-Min 2nd 

10-Min 1st 

1-MjR 1st 

2-MjR 1st 

1 -MnR 1st 

93rd Congress 

1-Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

1 0-Maj 

I 1 -Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

1-MjR 

2-MjR 

Chr 17th 

7th 

7th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

RM 7th 

6th 

6th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1 st 

1 St 

94th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 8th 

2-Maj 18th 

3-Maj 8th 

4-Maj 7th 

22 Jan 197 1 

22 Jan 197 1 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 197 1 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan1971 

22 Jan 197 1 

22 Jan 197 1 

22 Jan 1971 

22 Jan 1971 

4 Feb1971 

6 Oct 1971 

4 Feb1971 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan1973 

24 Jan1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

24 Jan 1973 

18 Dec 1974 

18 Dec 1974 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan1975 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 29 Jan 1971 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1973 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 17 Dec 1974 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 17 Dec 1974 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 31 Dec 1974 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 31 Dec 1974 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1975 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

RT .. 

RT .. 

RH AF .. 

LB RT .. 

LB ES .. 

RT .. 

RN DE .. 

RN RT .. 

DE .. 

RT .. 

425 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Landrum, Phillip M. 

Vanik, Charles A. 

Fulton, Richard H. 

Burleson, Omar T. 

Corman, James C. 

Green, William J. 111 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Waggonner, Joe D. Jr. 

Karth, Joseph E. 

Pike, Otis G. 

Vander Veen, Richard F. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Helstoski, Henry 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Cotter, William R. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jones, James R. 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

Mikva, Abner J. 

Keys, Martha E. 

Fisher, Joseph L. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Pettis, Jerry L. 

Duncan, John J. 

Clancy, Donald D. 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Steiger, William A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Martin, James G. 

Bafalis, Louis A. (Skip) 

Ford, Harold E. 

Ketchum, William M. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Burke, James A. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Vanik, Charles A. 

Burleson, Omar T. 

Corman, James C. 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Waggonner, Joe D. Jr. 

Pike, Otis G. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Cotter, William R. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jones, James R. 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

Mikva, Abner J. 

Keys, Martha E. 

Fisher, Joseph L. 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

GA 12th 5-Maj 

OH 11th 6-Maj 

TN 7th 7-Maj 

TX 15th 8-Maj 

CA 8th 9-Maj 

PA 7th 10-Maj 

FL 7th 11-Maj 

LA 8th 12-Maj 

MN 9th 13-Maj 

NY 8th 14-Maj 

MI 2nd 15-Maj 

TX 7th 16-Maj 

NJ 6th 17-Maj 

NY 3rd 18-Maj 

CT 3rd 19-Maj 

CA 2nd 20-Maj 

OK 2nd 21-Maj 

IN 5th 22-Maj 

IL 3rd 23-Maj 

KS 1st 24-Maj 

VA 1st 25-Maj 

PA 9th 1-Min 

NY 6th 2-Min 

CA 5th 3-Min 

TN 6th 4-Min 

OH 8th 5-Min 

TX 3rd 6-Min 

MI 6th 7-Min 

WI 5th 8-Min 

IL 4th 9-Min 

MN 3rd 10-Min 

NC 2nd 11-Min 

FL 2nd 12-Min 

TN 1st 1-MjR 

CA 2nd 1-MnR 

6th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1 St 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

RM 8th 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan1975 

‘LO Jan 1975 

20 Jan1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan1975 

20 Jan1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan1975 

20 Jan1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

20 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

23 Jan 1975 

30 Sep1975 

21 Marl975 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 14 Aug 1975 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 14 Feb 1975 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

to 2 Jan 1977 

RT .. 

RH ES .. 

uc .. 

RT .. 

DE .. 

DE .. 

RT .. 

MD .. 

DE .. 

OR 

MA 

IL 

OH 

Tx 

CA 

FL 

LA 

NY 

TX 

NY 

CT 

CA 

OK 

IN 

IL 

KS 

VA 

11th 

10th 

10th 

12th 

16th 

9th 

8th 

9th 

9th 

8th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

6th 

4th 

2nd 

2nd 

95th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 9th 

2-Maj 9th 

3-Maj 8th 

4-Maj 7th 

5-Maj 6th 

6-Maj 6th 

7-Maj 5th 

8-Maj 4th 

9-Maj 3rd 

10-Maj 2nd 

11-Maj 2nd 

12-Maj 2nd 

13-Maj 2nd 

14-Maj 2nd 

15-Maj 2nd 

1 6-Maj 2nd 

17-Maj 2nd 

18-Maj 2nd 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan1977 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 31 Dec 1978 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

RT .. 

RN RT .. 

RT .. RT .. 

DE .. 

426 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Ford, Harold E. 

Holland, Kenneth L. 

Brodhead, William M. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. 

Gephardt, Richard A. 

Tucker, James G. Jr. 

Lederer, Raymond F. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Duncan, John J. 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Steiger, William A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Martin, James G. 

Bafalis, Louis A. (Skip) 

Ketchum, William M. 

Schulze, Richard T. 

Gradison, Willis D. Jr. 

Rousselot, John H. 

Ullman, Albert C. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Vanik, Charles A. 

Corman, James C. 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Cotter, William R. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jones, James R. 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

Mikva, Abner J. 

Fisher, Joseph L. 

Ford, Harold E. 

Holland, Kenneth L. 

Brodhead, William M. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. 

Gephardt, Richard A. 

Lederer, Raymond F. 

Downey, Thomas J. 

Heftel, Cecil 

Fowler, Wyche Jr. 

Guarini, Frank J. 

Shannon, James M. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Duncan, John J. 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Martin, James G. 

Bafalis, Louis A. (Skip) 

Schulze, Richard T. 

D TN 

D SC 

D MI 

D GA 

D MO 

D AR 

D PA 

R NY 

R TN 

R TX 

R MI 

R WI 

R IL 

R MN 

R NC 

R FL 

R CA 

R PA 

R OH 

R CA 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

OR 

IL 

OH 

CA 

FL 

NY 

CT 

CA 

OK 

IN 

IL 

VA 

TN 

sc 

MI 

GA 

MO 

PA 

NY 

HI 

GA 

MA 

NY 

TN 

TX 

MI 

IL 

MN 

NC 

FL 

PA 

-rx 

NJ 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

7th 

7th 

4th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

6th 

12th 

11th 

13th 

10th 

9th 

9th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

7th 

5th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

8th 

8th 

5th 

8th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

19-Maj 2nd 

20-Maj 1st 

2 1 -Maj 1st 

22-Maj 1st 

23-Maj 1st 

24-Maj 1st 

25-Maj 1st 

1-Min RM 6th 

2-Min 4th 

3-Min 3rd 

4-Min 2nd 

5-Min 2nd 

6-Min 2nd 

7-Min 2nd 

8-Min 2nd 

9-Min 2nd 

10-Min 2nd 

1 1-Min 1st 

12-Min 1st 

1-MnR 1st 

96th Congress 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

16-Maj 

17-Maj 

18-Maj 

19-Maj 

20-Maj 

2 1 -Maj 

22-Maj 

23-Maj 

24-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

Chr 10th 

9th 

8th 

7th 

6th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3 rd 

3 rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

RM 7th 

5th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

19 Jan 1977 

29 Jun 1978 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan1979 

24 Jan1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

24 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 4 Dec 1978 MD 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 24 Jun 1978 MD 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1979 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 26 Sep 1979 RH 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

to 2 Jan 1981 

uc 

DE 

RT 

DE 

AF 

DE 

427 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Gradison, Willis D. Jr. 

Rousselot, John H. 

Moore, W. Henson 

Russo, Martin A. 

R OH 3rd 10-Min 2nd 

R CA 7th 11-Min 2nd 

R LA 3rd 12-Min 1st 

D IL 3rd 1-MjR 1st 

97th Congress 

24 Jan 1979 to 2 Jan 1981 

24 Jan 1979 to 2 Jan 1981 

24 Jan 1979 to 2 Jan 1981 

23 Oct1979 to 2 Jan 1981 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Cotter, William R. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jones, James R. 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

Ford, Harold E. 

Holland, Kenneth L. 

Brodhead, William M. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. 

Gephardt, Richard A. 

Downey, Thomas J. 

Heftel, Cecil 

Fowler, Wyche Jr. 

Guarini, Frank J. 

Shannon, James M. 

Russo, Martin A. 

Pease, Donald J. 

Hance, Kent 

Matsui, Robert T. 

Bailey, Donald A 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Duncan, John J. 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Martin, James G. 

Bafalis, Louis A. (Skip) 

Schulze, Richard T. 

Gradison, Willis D. Jr. 

Rousselot, John H. 

Moore, W. Henson 

Anthony, Beryl F. Jr. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jones, James R. 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

Ford, Harold E. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. 

Gephardt, Richard A. 

Downey, Thomas J. 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

IL 

FL 

TX 

NY 

CT 

CA 

OK 

IN 

TN 

sc 

MI 

GA 

MO 

NY 

HI 

GA 

MA 

IL 

OH 

TX 

CA 

PA 

NY 

TN 

TX 

MI 

IL 

MN 

NC 

FL 

PA 

OH 

CA 

LA 

AR 

NJ 

IL 

FL 

TX 

NY 

CA 

OK 

IN 

TN 

GA 

MO 

NY 

12th 

10th 

10th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

8th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

4th 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

9th 

9th 

6th 

9th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

8th 

4th 

2nd 

13th 

11th 

1 lth 

7th 

6th 

6th 

9th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

5th 

1 -Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1-Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

1 6-Maj 

17-Maj 

18-Maj 

19-Maj 

20-Maj 

2 1 -Maj 

22-Maj 

23-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

1 1 -Min 

12-Min 

1-MjR 

Chr 10th 

7th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3 rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

RM 8th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

1st 

98th Congress 

1-Maj Chr 1 lth 

2-Maj 8th 

3-Maj 5th 

4-Maj 5th 

5-Maj 5th 

6-Maj 5th 

7-Maj 5th 

8-Maj 5th 

9-Maj 4th 

10-Maj 4th 

1 1-Maj 3rd 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan1981 

28 Jan 198 1 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 198 1 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

25 Feb1981 

28 Jan 198 1 

28 Jan 198 1 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 1981 

28 Jan 198 1 

28 Jan 1981 

7 Oct 1981 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan 1983 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

8 Sep 1981 MD 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 Jan 1983 

2 ]an 1983 

to 2 Jan 

to 2 Jan 

to 2 Jan 

to 2 Jan 

to 2 Jan 

to 2 Jan 

to 2 Jan 

to 2 Tan 

983 

983 

983 

983 

983 

983 

983 

983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 .Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 2 Jan 1983 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

2 Jan 1985 

DE 

RT 

DN 

uc 

DE 

428 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Heftel, Cecil 

Fowler, Wyche Jr. 

Guarini, Frank J. 

Shannon, James M. 

Russo, Martin A. 

Pease, Donald J. 

Hance, Kent 

Matsui, Robert T. 

Anthony, Beryl F. Jr. 

Flippo, Ronnie G. 

Dorgan, Byron L. 

Kennelly, Barbara B. 

Conable, Barber B. Jr. 

Duncan, John J. 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Martin, James G. 

Schulze, Richard T. 

Gradison, Willis D. Jr. 

Moore, W. Henson 

Campbell, Carroll A Jr 

Thomas, William M. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jones, James R. 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

Ford, Harold E. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. 

Gephardt, Richard A. 

Downey, Thomas J. 

Heftel, Cecil 

Fowler, Wyche Jr. 

Guarini, Frank J. 

Russo, Martin A. 

Pease, Donald J. 

Matsui, Robert T. 

Anthony, Beryl F. Jr. 

Flippo, Ronnie G. 

Dorgan, Byron L. 

Kennelly, Barbara B. 

Donnelly, Brian J. 

Coyne, William J. 

Duncan, John J. 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Schulze. Richard T. 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

HI 4th 

GA 4th 

NJ 3rd 

MA 3rd 

IL 5th 

OH 4th 

TX 3rd 

CA 3rd 

AR 3rd 

AL 4th 

ND 2nd 

CT 2nd 

NY 10th 

TN 10th 

TX 7th 

MI 10th 

IL 8th 

NC 6th 

PA 5th 

OH 5th 

LA 5th 

SC 3rd 

CA 3rd 

MN 7th 

IL 14th 

FL 12th 

TX 12th 

NY 8th 

CA 7th 

OK 7th 

IN 10th 

TN 6th 

GA 5th 

MO 5th 

NY 6th 

HI 5th 

GA 5th 

NJ 4th 

IL 6th 

OH 5th 

CA 4th 

AR 4th 

AL 5th 

ND 3rd 

CT 3rd 

MA 4th 

PA 3rd 

TN 11th 

TX 8th 

MI 11th 

IL 9th 

MN 8th 

PA 6th 

1 2-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

16-Maj 

17-Maj 

18-Maj 

19-Maj 

20-Maj 

2 1 -Maj 

22-Maj 

23-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

1 1 -Min 

12-Min 

99th 

l-Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1 -Maj 

12-MaJ 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

16-Maj 

17-Maj 

18-Maj 

19-Maj 

20-Maj 

2 l-Maj 

22-Maj 

23-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

RM 9th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

1st 

1st 

Congress 

Chr 12th 

9th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3 rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

RM 8th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

31 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

6 Jan 1983 

7 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan1985 

30 Jan1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

30 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1985 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 11 Ju1 1986 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

to 2 Jan 1987 

uc 

uc 

RT 

ES 

uc 

RS UC 

EF 

429 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Gradison, Willis D. Jr. 

Moore, W. Henson 

Campbell, Carroll A Jr 

Thomas, William M. 

McGrath, Raymond J. 

Daub, Hal 

Gregg, Judd 

Andrews, Michael A. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

Ford, Harold E. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. 

Gephardt, Richard A. 

Downey, Thomas J. 

Guarini, Frank J. 

Russo, Martin A. 

Pease, Donald J. 

Matsui, Robert T. 

Anthony, Beryl F. Jr. 

Flippo, Ronnie G. 

Dorgan, Byron L. 

Kennelly, Barbara B. 

Donnelly, Brian J. 

Coyne, William J. 

Andrews, Michael A. 

Levin. Sander M. 

Moody, Jim 

Duncan, John J. 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Schulze, Richard T. 

Gradison, Willis D. Jr. 

Thomas, William M. 

McGrath, Raymond J. 

Daub, Hal 

Gregg, Judd 

Brown, Hank 

Chandler, Rodney 

Shaw, E. Clay Jr. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. 

Gibbons, Sam M. 

Pickle, J. J. (Jake) 

Rangel, Charles B. 

Stark, Fortney Pete 

Jacobs, Andrew Jr. 

R OH 

RLA 

R SC 

R CA 

R NY 

R NE 

R NH 

D 1X 

D IL 

D FL 

D TX 

D NY 

D CA 

D IN 

D TN 

D GA 

D MO 

D NY 

D IL 

D OH 

D CA 

D AR 

D AL 

D ND 

D CT 

D MA 

D PA 

D TX 

D MI 

D WI 

R TN 

RTX 

R MI 

R IL 

R MN 

R PA 

R OH 

R CA 

R NY 

R NE 

R NH 

R CO 

R WA 

R FL 

D NJ 

D IL 

D FL 

D TX 

D NY 

D CA 

D IN 

6th 

6th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3 rd 

3rd 

2nd 

15th 

13th 

13th 

9th 

8th 

11th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

7th 

5th 

7th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

6th 

4th 

4th 

5th 

4th 

3 rd 

3rd 

3rd 

12th 

9th 

12th 

10th 

9th 

7th 

7th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

4th 

16th 

14th 

14th 

10th 

9th 

12th 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

1 1 -Min 

12-Min 

13-Min 

1-MjR 

5th 

4th 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

1st 

100th Congress 

1-Maj 

2-Maj 

3-Maj 

4-Maj 

5-Maj 

6-Maj 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1 -Maj 

1 2-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

1 6-Maj 

17-Maj 

1 8-Maj 

19-Maj 

20-Maj 

2 1 -Maj 

22-Maj 

23-Maj 

1-Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

1 1 -Min 

1 2-Min 

13-Min 

1 -MnR 

Chr 13th 

10th 

7th 

7th 

7th 

7th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

3rd 

3rd 

RM1 9th 

RM2 8th 

7th 

7th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

1st 

lOlst Congress 

I-Maj Chr 14th 

2-Maj 11th 

3-Maj 8th 

4-Maj 8th 

5-Maj 8th 

6-Maj 8th 

30 Jan 1985 to 2 Jan 1987 

30 Jan 1985 to 2 Jan 1987 

30 Jan 1985 to 2 Jan 1987 

30 Jan1985 to 2 Jan 1987 

30 Jan1985 to 2 Jan 1987 

30 Jan1985 to 2 Jan 1987 

30 Jan1985 to 2 Jan 1987 

29 Ju11986 to 2 Jan 1987 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

6 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan1987 to 2 Jun 1988 MD 

21 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

21 Jan 1987 to 2 Jan 1989 

7 Jul 1988 to 2 Jan 1989 

3 Jan 1989 to -_- 

3 Jan 1989 to ___ 3 Jan 1989 to --- 

3 Jan 1989 to _-- 

3 Jan 1989 to _-_ 

3 Jan 1989 to -__ 

uc 

uc 

uc 

ES 

430 
MEMBER PARTY STATE CHS RANK SP CMS DOA DOT AE MN AN 

Ford, Harold E. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. 

Gephardt, Richard A. 

Downey, Thomas J. 

Guarini, Frank J. 

Russo, Martin A. 

Pease, Donald J. 

Matsui, Robert T. 

Anthony, Beryl F. Jr. 

Flippo, Ronnie G. 

Dorgan, Byron L. 

Kennelly, Barbara B. 

Donnelly, Brian J. 

Coyne, William J. 

Andrews, Michael A. 

Levin, Sander M. 

Moody, Jim 

Archer, William R. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. 

Crane, Philip M. 

Frenzel, William E. 

Schulze, Richard T. 

Gradison. Willis D. Jr. 

Thomas, William M. 

McCrath, Raymond J. 

Brown, Hank 

Chandler, Rodney 

Shaw, E. Clay Jr. 

Sundquist, Donald K. 

Johnson, Nancy L. 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

R 

TN 

GA 

MO 

NY 

IL 

OH 

CA 

AR 

AL 

ND 

CT 

MA 

PA 

TX 

MI 

WI 

TX 

MI 

IL 

MN 

PA 

OH 

CA 

NY 

co 

WA 

FL 

TN 

CT 

NJ 

8th 

7th 

7th 

8th 

6th 

8th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

7th 

5th 

6th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

10th 

13th 

11th 

10th 

8th 

8th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

5th 

7-Maj 

8-Maj 

9-Maj 

10-Maj 

1 1 -Maj 

12-Maj 

13-Maj 

14-Maj 

15-Maj 

16-Maj 

17-Maj 

18-Maj 

19-Maj 

20-Maj 

2 1 -Maj 

22-Maj 

23-Maj 

1 -Min 

2-Min 

3-Min 

4-Min 

5-Min 

6-Min 

7-Min 

8-Min 

9-Min 

10-Min 

1 1-Min 

12-Min 

13-Min 

8th 

7th 

7th 

6th 

6th 

6th 

5th 

5th 

5th 

4th 

4th 

4th 

3rd 

3rd 

3rd 

4th 

4th 

RM 9th 

8th 

8th 

8th 

7th 

7th 

4th 

3rd 

2nd 

2nd 

2nd 

1st 

1st 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

3 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

4 Jan 1989 to 

43 1 
Biographies of Committee Members 

Abbot, Joel (JR-GA), Ridgefield. CT, Mar. 

17, 1776-Nov. 19, 1826; House 1817-25; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 15. 

Aldrich, Richard S. (R-Rl), Washington, 

DC, Feb. 29, 1884-Dec. 25, 1941; House 

1923-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

69. 70.71, 72. 

Alexander, Mark (J-VA), Boydton. VA, 

Feb. 7, 1792-Oct. 7, 1883; House 1819- 

33; Congresses on Ways and Means 21,22. 

Alger, Bruce R. (R-TX), Dallas, TX, June 

12, 1918- ; House 1955-65; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 86.87.88. 

Allen, Alfred G. (D-OH), Wilmington, 

OH, July 23, 1867-Dec. 9, 1932; House 

1911-17; Congresses on Ways and Means 

64. 

Allison, William B. (R-IA), Perry, OH, 

Mar. 2. 1829-Aug. 4, 1908; House 1863- 

71; Senate 1873-Aug. 4. 1908; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 39,40,4 I. 

Alston, Willis OR-NC), Littleton, NC, 

1769-Apr. 10, 1837; House 1799-1815, 

1825-31; Congresses on Ways and Means 

10, 11, 13. 

Ames, Fisher (PAU-MA), Dedham. MA, 

PARTY AFFILIATIONS 

AJ 

AM 

AP 

cu 

D 

F 

FS 

1 

ID 

J 

JR 

LR 

N 

NAM 

OP 

PAU 

P 

R 

SRD 

U 

uu 

UR 

W 

Anti-Jacksonian 

Anti-Masonic 

American Party 

Constitutional Unionist 

Democrat 

Federalist 

Free Soil 

Independent 

Independent Democrat 

Jacksonian 

Jeffersonian Republican 

Liberal Republican 

Nullifier 

National Anti-Monopolist 

Opposition Party 

Party AfFdiation Unknown 

Progressive 

Republican 

States Rights Democrat 

Unionist 

Unconditional Unionist 

Union Republican 

Whig 

Apr. 9. 1758-July 4. 1808; House 1789- 

1797; Congresses on Ways and Means 3. 

Anderson, Clinton P. (D-NM), Centerville, SD. Oct. 23, 1895-Nov. 11, 1975; 

House 1941-June 30, 1945; Senate 1949- 

73; Congresses on Ways and Means 79. 

Anderson, Sydney (R-MN), Zumbrota, 

MN, Sept. 18, 1881-Oct. 8, 1948; House 

191 1-25; Congresses on Ways and Means 

63. 

Andrews, Michael A. (D-TX), Houston, 

TX, Feb. 7, 1944- ; House 1983- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 99, LOO, 101. 

Ansberry, Timothy T. (D-OH), Defiance, 

OH, Dec. 24, 1871-July 5, 1943; House 

1907-Jan. 9, 1915; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 62,63. 

Anthony, Beryl F., Jr. (D-AR), El Dorado, 

AR, Feb. 21, 1938- ; House 1979- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 97. 98, 99. 

100, 101. 

Appleton, William (W, R-MA), Brookfield, MA, Nov. 16, 1786-Feb. 15, 1862; 

House 1851-55, 1861-Sept. 27, 1861; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 32, 33, 37. 

Archer, Stevenson OR-MD), Churchville, 

MD. Oct. I I, 1786-June 26, 1848; House 

Oct. 26, 1811-17, 1819-21; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 13. 

Archer, William R., Jr. (R-TX), Houston, 

TX. Mar. 22, 1928- : House 1971- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 93, 94, 95.96, 

97, 98.99, 100, 101. 

Ashmun, George (W-MA), Blandford, 

MA, Dec. 25, 1804-July 16, 1870; House 

1845-51; Congresses on Ways and Means 

31. 

Atherton, Charles G. (D-NH), Amherst. 

NH, July 4. 1804-Nov. 15, 1853; House 

1837-43; Senate 1843-49; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 25,26, 27. 

Babcock, Joseph W. (R-WI), Swanton, 

VT, Mar. 6, 1850-Apr. 27. 1909; House 

1893-1907; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 57.58,59. 

Bacharach, Isaac (R-NJ), Philadelphia, 

PA, Jan. 5, 1870-Sept. 5, 1956; House 

1915-37: Congresses on Ways and Means 

66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74. 

Bacon, Ezekiel (JR-MA). Boston, MA, 

Sept. 1, 17760ct. 18. 1870 House Sept. 

16, 1807-13; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 11, 12; Chairman 12th Congress. 

Bafalis, Louis A., “Skip” (R-FL), Boston, 

MA, Sept. 28, 1929- ; House 1973-83; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 94.95,96, 

97. 

Bailey, Donald A. (D-PA), Pittsburgh. PA, 

July 21, 1945- ; House 1979-83; Congresses on Ways and Means 97. 

Bailey, Joseph W. (D-TX), Crystal 

Springs, MS, Oct. 6, 1862-Apr. 13. 1929; 

House 1891-1901; Senate 1901-Jan. 3, 

1913; Congresses on Ways and Means 55. 

Baker, Howard H. (R-TN), Somerset, KY, 

Jan. 12, 1902-Jan. 7. 1964; House 1951- 

Jan. 7, 1964; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 83, 84,85, 86, 87,88. 

Baldwin, Abraham (IR-GA), North Guilford, CT. Nov. 2, 1754-Apr. 4. 1807; 

House 1789-99; Senate 1799-Apr. 4, 

1807; Congresses on Ways and Means 3,4, 

5; Member of Continental Congress 1785 

and 1787-88; Delegate to the United 

States Constitutional Convention and 

signer of the United States Constitution 

1787. 

Banks, Nathaniel P. (R-MA). Waltham. 

MA, Jan. 30, 1816-Sept. 1, 1894: House 

1853-Dec. 24, 1857, Dec. 4, 1865-73, 

1875-79, 1889-91; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 35, 45; Speaker of the House 

34th Congress; Governor of MA 1858-61. 

Barbout, Philip P. (J-VA), Gordonsville, 

VA, May 25, 1783-Feb. 25, 1841; House 

Sept. 19, 1814-25, 1827-Oct. 15, 1830 

Congresses on Ways and Means 2 I: Speaker of the House 17th Congress; Associate 

Justice of the Supreme Court 1836-Feb. 

25, 1841. 

Barnard, Daniel D. (W-NY), Shefield. 

MA, July 16, 1779-Apr. 24, 1861; House 

1827-29, 1839-45; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 28. 

Bartlett, Bailey (F-MA), Haverhill, MA, 

Jan. 29, 1750-Sept. 9, 1830; House Nov. 

27, 1797-1801; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 6. 

Bass, Ross (D-TN), Pulaski, TN, Mar. 17, 

1918- ; House 1955-Nov. 3, 1964; Senate 

Nov. 4, 1964-67; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 88. 

Battin, James F. (R-MT), Wichita. KS. Feb. 

432 
13, 1925- ; House 1961-Feb. 27, 1969; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 89.90,91. 

Bayard, James A., Sr. (F-DE), Philadelphia, PA, July 28, 1767-Aug. 6, 1815; 

House 1797-1803; Senate Nov. 13, 1804- 

13; Congresses on Ways and Means 5, 7. 

Bayly, Thomas H. (D-VA), Drummondtown, VA, Dec. 11, 1810-June 23, 1856; 

House May 6, 1844-June 23, 1856; Congresses on Ways and Means 28, 31; Chairman 3 1st Congress. 

Bayne. Thomas M. (R-PA), Bellevue, PA, 

June 14, 1836-June 16. 1894; House 1877- 

9 1; Congresses on Ways and Means 5 1. 

Beck, James B. (D-KY), Dumfriesshire, 

Scotland, Feb. 13, 1822-May 3, 1890; 

House 1867-75; Senate 1877-May 3, 1890; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 42,43. 

Betts, Jackson E. (R-OH), Findlay, OH, 

May 26, 1904- ; House 1951-73; Congresses on Ways and Means 86, 87, 88, 89, 

90, 91, 92. 

Bibb, William W. (JR-GA), Amelia 

County, VA, Oct. 2. 1781-July 9, 1820; 

House Jan. 26, 1807-Nov. 6, 1813; Senate 

Nov. 6, 1813-Nov. 9, 1816; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 12, 13; Governor of AL 

1817-July 9, 1820. 

Biddle, Richard (W-PA), Philadelphia, PA, 

Mar. 25, 1796-July 6, 1847; House 1837- 

40; Congresses on Ways and Means 26. 

Billinghurst, Charles (R-WI), Brighton, 

NY, July 27, 1818-Aug. 18, 1865; House 

1855-59; Congresses on Ways and Means 

34. 

Binney, Horace (W-PA), Philadelphia, PA, 

Jan. 4, 1780-Aug. 12, 1875; House 1833- 

35; Congresses on Ways and Means 23. 

Bkler, Harris J. (R-PA), New Buffalo, PA, 

Sept. 16, 1870-Mar. 29, 1941; House 

1921-27; Congresses on Ways and Means 

69. 

Blackburn, Joseph C. S. (D-KY), Spring 

Station, KY, Oct. 1, 1838-Sept. 12, 1918; 

House 1875-85; Senate 1885-97, 1901-07; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 48. 

Blaine, James G. (R-ME), West Brownsville, PA, January 31, 1830-Jan. 27, 1893; 

House 1863-July 10, 1876; Senate July 10, 

1876-1881; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 44; Speaker of the House 41st-43d 

Congresses. 

Blair, Austin (R-MI), Caroline, NY, Feb. 8, 

1818-Aug. 6, 1894; House 1867-73; Congresses on Ways and Means 41; Governor 

of MI, 1861-65. 

Blount, James H. (D-GA), Clinton, GA, 

Sept. 12, 1837-Mar. 8, 1903; House 1873- 

93; Congresses on Ways and Means 48. 

Blount, Thomas (JR-NC), Craven (now 

Pitt) County, NC, May 10, 1759-Feb. 7, 

1812; House 1793-99, 1805-09, 1811- 

Feb. 7, 1812; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 4, 5. 

Blow, Henry T. (UU-MO), Southampton 

County, VA, July 15, 1817-Sept. 11, 1875; 

House 1863-67; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 38. 

Boatner, Charles J. (D-LA), Columbia, 

LA, Jan. 23, 1849-Mar. 21, 1903; House 

1889-95, June 10, 1896-97; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 54. 

Boehne, John W., Jr. (D-IN), Evansville, 

IN, Mar. 2, 1895-July 5, 1973; House 

1931-43; Congresses on Ways and Means 

73, 74, 75. 76, 77. 

Boggs, Thomas H., Sr. (D-LA), Long 

Beach, MS, Feb. 15, 1914-Missing and presumed dead Oct. 16, 1972; House 1941- 

43, 1947-Jan. 3, 1973; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 

88. 89,90,91. 

Boland, Patrick J. (D-PA), Scranton, PA, 

Jan. 6, 1880-May 18, 1942; House 1931- 

May 18, 1942; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 76,77. 

Bonynge, Robert W. (R-CO), New York, 

NY, Sept. 8. 1863-Sept. 22, 1939; House 

Feb. 16, 1904-Mar. 3, 1909; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 60. 

Bosch, Albert H. (R-NY), New York, NY, 

Oct. 30, 1908- ; House 1953-Dec. 31, 

1960; Congresses on Ways and Means 86. 

Botts, John M. (W-VA), Dumfries, VA, 

Sept. 16, 1802-Jan. 8, 1869; House 1839- 

43, 1847-49; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 27. 

Boudinot, Elias (PAU-NJ), Philadelphia, 

PA, May 2, 1740-Oct. 24, 1821; House 

1789-95; Congresses on Ways and Means 

3; Member of the Continental Congress 

1778. and 1781-83, President of the Continental Congress I782 and 1783. 

Bourne, Benjamin (F-RI), Bristol, RI, 

Sept. 9, 1755-Sept. 17, 1808; House Aug. 

31, 1790-96; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 3.4. 

BoutelI, Henry S. (R-IL), Boston, MA, 

Mar. 14, 1856-Mar. 1 I, 1926; House Nov. 

23, 1897-1911; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 58, 59,60,6 1. 

Bowers, George M. (R-WV), Gerrardstown, WV, Sept. 13, 1863-Dec. 7, 1925; 

House May 9, 1916-23; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 66,67. 

Boyle, John UR-KY), Botetourt County, 

VA, Oct. 28, 1774-Feb. 28, 1835; House 

1803-09; Congresses on Ways and Means 

8. 

Bradbury, Theophilus (F-MA), Newbury, 

MA, Nov. 13, 1739-Sept. 6, 1803; House 

1795-July 24. 1797; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 4. 

Brantley, William G. (D-GA), Blackshear, 

GA, Sept. 18, 1860-Sept. 11, 1934; House 

1897-1913; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 61.62. 

Breckinridge, Clifton R. (D-AR), Lexington, KY, Nov. 22. 1846-Dec. 3, 1932; 

House 1883-Sept. 5, 1890, Nov. 4, 1890- 

Aug. 14, 1894; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 49, 50, 51, 53; Son of John C. 

Breckinridge. 

Breckinridge, John C. (D-KY), Lexington, 

KY, Jan. 15, 1821-May 17, 1875; House 

1851-55; Senate Mar. 4-Dec. 4, 1861; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 33; Vice 

President of the United States 1857-61; 

Father of Clifton R. Breckinridge, Cousin 

of William C. P. Breckinridge. 

Breckinridge, William C. P. (D-KY), Baltimore, MD, Aug. 28, 1837-Nov. 18, 1904; 

House 1885-95; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 49, 50; Cousin of John C. Breckinridge. 

Brent, Richard (JR-VA). Aquia Creek, VA, 

1757-Dec. 30, 1814; House 1795-99, 

1801-03; Senate 1809-Dec. 30, 1814; Congresses on Ways and Means 5; Uncle of 

William L. Brent. 

Brent, William L. (AJ-LA), Port Tobacco, 

MD, Feb. 20, 1784-July 7. 1848; House 

1823-29; Congresses on Ways and Means 

19, 20; Nephew of Richard Brent. 

Briggs, George N. (W-MA), Adams, MA, 

Apr. 12, 1796-Sept. 11, 1861; House 

1831-43; Congresses on Ways and Means 

25; Governor of MA 1844-5 1. 

Brodhead, William M. (D-MI). Cleveland, 

OH, Sept. 12, 1941- ; House 1975-83; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 95, 96, 97. 

Brooks, James (W, D-NY), Portland, ME, 

Nov. 10, 1810-Apr. 30, 1873; House 1849- 

53, 1863-Apr. 7, 1866, 1867-Apr. 30, 

1873; Congresses on Ways and Means 31, 

32, 39, 40, 41,42. 

Brooks, Joshua T. (D-PA), Edgeworth 

(now Sewickley), PA, Feb. 27, 1884-Feb. 7, 

1956; House 1933-37; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 74. 

Brotzman, Donald G. (R-CO), Logan 

County, CO, June 28, 1922- ; House 

1963-65, 1967-75; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 92,93. 

Broussard, Robert F. (D-LA), New Iberia, 

LA, Aug. 17, 1864-Apr. 12, 1918; House 

1897-1915; Senate 1915-Apr. 12, 1918; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 61. 

433 
Brown, George H. “Hank” (R-CO), 

Denver, CO, Feb 12, 1940- ; House 

1981- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 

100, 101. 

Brown, John (F-RI), Providence, RI, Jan. 

27, 1736-Sept. 20, 1803; House 1799- 

1801; Congresses on Ways and Means 6. 

Browne, Thomas M. (R-IN), New Paris, 

OH, Apr. 19, 1829-July 17, 1891; House 

1877-91; Congresses on Ways and Means 

48, 49, 50. 

Broyhill, Joel T. (R-VA), Hopewell, VA, 

Nov. 4, 1919- ; House 1953-Dec. 31, 

1974; Congresses on Ways and Means 88, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 93. 

Bryan, William J. (D-NE), Salem, IL, Mar. 

19, 1860-July 26, 1925; House 1891-95; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 52, 53. 

Buck, Daniel (F-VT), Hebron, CT, Nov. 9, 

1753-Aug. 16, 1816; House 1795-97; Congresses on Ways and Means 4. 

Buck, Frank H. (D-CA), Vacaville, CA, 

Sept. 23, 1887-Sept. 17, 1942; House 

1933-Sept. 17, 1942; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 74, 75, 76.77. 

Burchard, Horatio C. (R-IL), Marshall, 

NY, Sept. 22, 1825-May 14, 1908; House 

Dec. 6, 1869-79; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 42,43,44,45. 

Burke, James A. (D-MA), Boston, MA, 

Mar. 30, 1910-Oct. 13, 1983; House 1959- 

79; Congresses on Ways and Means 87, 88, 

89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94. 95. 

Burleson, Omar T. (D-TX), Anson. TX, 

Mar. 19, 1906- ; House 1947-Dec. 31, 

1978; Congresses on Ways and Means 90, 

91, 92, 93, 94, 95. 

Burrows, Julius C. (R-MI), North East, 

PA, Jan. 9, 1837-Nov. 16, 1915; House 

1873-75, 1879-83, 1885-Jan. 23, 1895; 

Senate Jan. 24, 1895-1911; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 50, 51,52,53. 

Burwell, William A. OR-VA), Boydton, 

VA, Mar. 15, 1780-Feb. 16. 1821; House 

Dec. 1, 1806-Feb. 16, 1821; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 12, 14, 15, 16. 

Bush, George H. W. (R-TX), Milton, MA, 

June 12, 1924- ; House 1967-71; Congresses on Ways and Means 90, 91; Vice 

President of the United States 1981-89; 

41st President of the United States 1989- . 

Bynum, William D. (D-IN), Newberry. IN, 

June 26, 1846-Oct. 21, 1927; House 1885- 

95; Congresses on Ways and Means 50, 53. 

Byrnes, John W. (R-WI). Green Bay, WI, 

June 12, 1913-Jan. 12, 1985; House 1945- 

73; Congresses on Ways and Means 80, 81, 

82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91. 92. 

Cadwalader, Lambert (PAU-NJ), Trenton, 

NJ, 1742-Sept. 13, 1823; House 1789-91, 

1793-95; Congresses on Ways and Means 

I; Member of Continental Congress 1785- 

87. 

Calderhead, William A. (R-KS), New Lexington, OH, Sept. 26, 1844-Dec. 18, 1928; 

House 1895-97, 1899-191 1; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 60,61. 

Cambreleng, Churchill C. UR, ‘D-NY), 

Washington, NC, Oct. 24, 1786-Apr. 30, 

1862; House 1821-39; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 17, 18, 23, 24, 25; Chairman 24th and 25th Congresses. 

Camp, Albert S. (D-GA), Moreland, GA, 

July 26, 1892-July 24, 1954; House Aug. 1, 

1939-July 24, 1954; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 78,79,80,81,82,83. 

Campbell, Carroll A., Jr. UR-SC), Greenville, SC, July 24, 1940- ; House 1979-87; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 98, 99; 

Governor of SC 1987- . 

Campbell, George W. UR-TN), Sutherlandshire, Scotland, Feb. 9, 1796-Feb. 17, 

1848; House 1803-09; Senate Oct. 8, 

1811-Feb. 17, 1814, Oct. 10, 1815-Apr. 

20, 1818; Congresses on Ways and Means 

10; Chairman 10th Congress. 

Campbell, James H. (W-PA), Williamsport, PA, Feb. 8, 1820-Apr. 12, 1895; 

House 1855-57, 1859-63; Congresses on 

WaysandMeans34. 

Campbell, Lewis D. (R-OH), Franklin, 

OH, Aug. 9, 1811-Nov. 26, 1882; House 

1849-May 25, 1858, 1871-73; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 34, 35; Chairman 34th 

Congress. 

Canfield, Harry C. (D-IN), Moores Hill, 

IN, Nov. 22, 1875-Feb. 9, 1945; House 

1923-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

71, 72. 

Carew, John F. (D-NY), Williamsburg, 

NY, Apr. 16, 1873-Apr. 10, 1951; House 

1913-Dec. 18, 1929; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 65,66,67,68,69, 70,71. 

Carey, Hugh L. (D-NY), Brooklyn, NY, 

Apr. 11, 1919- ; House 1961-Dec. 31, 

1974; Congresses on Ways and Means 91, 

92,93; Governor of NY 1975-83. 

Carlisle, John G. (D-KY), Campbell (now 

Kenton) County, KY, Sept. 5, 1835-July 

31, 1910; House 1877-May 26, 1890; 

Senate May 26, 1890-Feb. 4, 1893; Congresses on Ways and Means 46, 47, 51; 

Speaker of the House 48th-50th Congresses. 

Carlson, Frank (R-KS), Concordia, KS, 

Jan. 23, 1893-May 30. 1987; House 1935- 

47; Senate Nov. 29. 1950-69; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 76, 77, 78, 79; Governor of KS 1947-Nov. 29, 1950. 

Carroll, John A. (D-CO), Denver, CO, 

July 30, 1901-August 31, 1983; House 

1947-51; Senate 1957-63; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 8 1. 

Casey, John J. (D-PA), Wilkes-Barre 

Township, PA, May 26, 1875-May 5, 1929; 

House 1913-17, 1919-21, 1923-25, 1927- 

May 5, 1929; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 64, 68. 

Chamberlain, Charles E. (R-MI), Locke 

Township, MI, July 22, 1917- ; House 

1957-Dec. 31, 1974; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 91,92,93. 

Champlin, Christopher G. (F-RI), Newport, RI, Apr. 12, 1768-Mar. 18. 1840; 

House 1797-1801; Senate June 26, 1809- 

Oct. 2, 1811; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 5. 

Chandler, Rodney D. (R-WA), La Grande, 

OR, July 13, 1942- ; House 1983- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 100, 101. 

Chandler, Thomas A. (R-OK), Eucha, 

Indian Territory (now OK), July 26, 1871- 

June 22, 1953; House 1917-19, 1921-23; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 67. 

Chapin, Chester W. (D-MA), Ludlow, MA, 

Dec. 16, 1798-June 10, 1883; House 1875- 

77; Congresses on Ways and Means 44. 

Chappell, Absalom H. (W-GA), Hancock 

County, GA, Dec. 18, 1801-Dec. 1 I, 1878; 

House Oct. 2, 1843-45; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 28. 

Cheves, Langdon UR-SC), Rocky River, 

SC, Sept. 17, 1776-June 26, 1857; House 

Dec. 31, 1810-15; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 12; Chairman 12th Congress; 

Speaker of the House 13th Congress. 

Chindblom, Carl R. (R-IL), Chicago, IL, 

Dec. 21, 1870-Sept. 12, 1956; House 

1919-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

68, 69, 70, 71, 72. 

Christie, Gabriel (PAU-MD), Perryman, 

MD, 1755-Apr. 1, 1808; House 1793-97, 

1799-1801; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 3. 

Claiborne, William C. C. UR-TN/LA), 

Sussex County, VA, 1775-Nov. 23, 1817; 

House Nov. 23, 1797-1801 (TN); Senate 

Mar. 4-Nov. 23, 1817 (LA); Congresses on 

Ways and Means 5; Governor of LA 1812- 

16. 

Clancy, Donald D. (R-OH). Cincinnati, 

OH, July 24, 1921- ; House 1961-77; Congresses on Ways and Means 93, 94. 

Clark, James B. “Champ” (D-MO), Lawrenceburg, KY, Mar. 7, 1850-Mar. 2, 1921; 

House 1893-95, 1897-Mar. 2, 1921; Congresses on Ways and Means 58, 59, 60, 61 ; 

434 
Speaker of the House 62th-65th Congresses. PA, Apr. 2, 1870-Mar. 2, 1917; House Means 15, 16. 

Conry, Michael F. (D-NY), Shenandoah, House 1817-21; Congresses on Ways and 

1909-Mar. 2, 1917; Congresses on Ways Clay, Joseph OR-PA), Philadelphia, PA. and Means 64. Crawford, Martin J. (D-GA), Jasper 

.]uly 24, 1769-Aug. 27, 1811; House 1803- County, GA, Mar. 17, 1820-July 23, 1883; -. 

08; Congresses on Ways and Means 8, 9; House 1855-Jan. 23, 1861; Congresses on 

Chairman 9th Congress. Ways and Means 35, 36. 

Cobb, Howell (D-GA), Jefferson County, Creighton, William, Jr. OR-OH), Berkeley 

GA, Sept. 7, 1815-Oct. 9, 1868; House Cooper, Jere (D-TN), Dyersburg, TN, July County, VA, Oct. 29, 1778-Oct. 1, 1851; 

1843-51, 1855-57; Congresses on Ways 20, 1893-Dec. 18, 1957; House 1929-Dec. House May 4, 1813-17, 1827-Dec. 11, 

and Means 34; Speaker of the House 31st 18, 1957; Congresses on Ways and Means 1928, 1829-33; Congresses on Ways and 

Congress; Governor of GA 1851-53. 72, 73, 74. 75, 76, 77. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, Means 13. 

Cook, Daniel P. (AJ-IL), Scott County, 

KY, 1794-Oct. 16, 1827; House 1819-27; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 19. 

Cobb, Seth W. (D-MO), Petersburg, VA, 

Dec. 5, 1838-May 22, 1909; House 1891- 

97; Congresses on Ways and Means 54. 

Cochran, James (F-NY), Albany, NY, Feb. 

11, 1796-Nov. 7, 1848; House 1797-99; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 5. 

Cochran, Thomas C. (R-PA), Sandy Creek 

Township, PA, Nov. 30, 1877-Dec. 10, 

1957; House 1927-35; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 73. 

Cockran, William B. (D-NY), County 

Sligo, Ireland, Feb. 28, 1854-Mar. I, 1923; 

House 1887-89, Nov. 3, 1891-95, Feb. 23, 

1904-09, 1921-Mar. 1, 1923; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 52, 53, 58, 59,60. 

Coit, Joshua (F-CT). New London, CT, 

Oct. 7, 1758-Sept. 5, 1798; House 1793- 

Sept. 5, 1798; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 5. 

Collier, Harold R. (R-IL), Lansing, MI. 

Dec. 12, 1915- ; House 1957-75; Congresses on Ways and Means 88, 89, 90, 9 I, 

92, 93. 

Collier, James W. (D-MS), Vicksburg, MS, 

Sept. 28, 1872-Sept. 28, 1933; House 

1909-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72; 

Chairman 72d Congress. 

Combs, Jesse M. (D-TX), Center, TX, July 

7, 1889-Aug. 21, 1953; House 1945-53; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 81, 82. 

83, 84, 85; Chairman 84th and 85th Congress. 

Cooper, Mark A. (W-GA), Powelltown, 

GA. Apr. 20, 1800-Mar. 17, 1885; House 

1839-41, Jan. 3, 1842-June 26, 1843; Congresses on Ways and Means 26. 

Cooper, Samuel B. (D-TX), Eddyville, KY, 

May 30, 1850-Aug. 21, 1918; House 1893- 

1905, 1907-09; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 56, 57,58. 

Copley, Ira C. (R-IL), Galesburg, IL, Oct. 

25, 1864-Nov. 1, 1947; House 1911-23; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 66, 67. 

Corman, James C. (D-CA), Galena, KS, 

Oct. 20, 1920- : House 1961-81; Congresses on Ways and Means 90, 91, 92, 93, 

94, 95, 96. 

Corning, Erastus (D-NY), Norwich, CT, 

Dec. 14, 1794-Apr. 9, 1872; House 1857- 

59, 1861-Oct. 5. 1863; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 37. 

Convin, Thomas (W-OH), Bourbon 

County, KY, July 29, 1794-Dec. 18, 1865; 

House 1831-May 30, 1840, 1859-Mar. 12, 

1861; Senate 1845-July 20, 1850; Congresses on Ways and Means 23, 24; Governor of OH 1840-42. 

Cotter, William R. (D-CT), Hartford, CT, 

July 18. 1926-Sept. 8. 1981; House 1971- 

Sept. 8, 1981; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 94,95,96,97. 

Crisp, Charles F. (D-GA), Shefield, England, Jan. 29, 1845-Oct. 23, 1896; House 

1883-Oct. 23. 1896; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 54; Speaker of the House 52d 

and 53d Congresses; Father of Charles R. 

Crisp. 

Crisp, Charles R. (D-GA), Ellaville, GA, 

Oct. 19, 1870-Feb. 7. 1937: House Dec. 

19, 1896-97, 1913-Oct. 7, 1932; Congresses on Ways and Means 64, 65, 66, 67, 

68, 69, 70, 71, 72; Son of Charles F. Crisp. 

Crowther, Frank (R-NY). Liverpool, England, July 10, 1870-July 20, 1955; House 

1919-43; Congresses on Ways and Means 

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77. 

Crumpacker, Edgar D. (R-IN), Westville, 

IN, May 27, 1851-May 19, 1920; House 

1897-1913; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 60.61. 

Cullen, Thomas H. (D-NY), Brooklyn, NY, 

Mar. 29. 1868-Mar. I. 1944; House 1919- 

Mar. 1, 1944; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 71, 72. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78. 

Curtis, Carl T. (R-NE). Minden, NE, Mar. 

15, 1905- ; House 1939-Dec. 31. 1954; 

Senate Jan. 1, 1955-79; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 79, 80, 81, 82,83. 

Curtis, Charles (R-KS). Topeka, KS, Jan. 

25, 1860-Feb. 8, 1936; House 1893-Jan. 

28, 1907; Senate Jan. 29, 1907-13, 1915- 

29; Congresses on Ways and Means 58, 59; 

Vice President of United States 1929-33. 

Coxe, William, Jr. (F-NJ), Burlington, NJ, 

M~~ 3, 1762-Feb. 25, 1831; H~~~~ 1813- 

15; congresses on ways and M~~~~ 13, 

Conable, Barber B., Jr. (R-NY), Warsaw, 

NY. Nov. 2. 1922- ; House 1965-85; Congresses on Ways and Means 90. 91, 92. 93. 

Curtis, Thomas B. (R-MO), St. Louis, 

MO, May 14, 1911- ; House 1951-69; 

Congresses on Wavs and Means 83. 84, 85, 

94, 95, 96, 97,98. Coyne, William 1. (D-PA). Pittsburgh, PA, 86, s”7.88, 89, 90. ’ 

Aug. 24, 1936- -House 1981- ; CongressConger, Omar D. (R-Mr). Cooperstown, es on Ways and Means 99, 100, 101. Cushman, Francis W. (R-WA), Brighton, 

NY, Apr. I, 1818:luly 11, 1898; House IA, May 8, 1867-luly 6, 1909; House 

1869-81; Senate 1881-87; Congresses on Craik, William (F-MD), Port Tobacco, 1899-July 6, 1909;-Congresses on Ways 

Ways and Means 46. MD, Oct. 31, 1761-orior to 1814: House and Means 61. 

Dec. 5, 1796- 180 1; ‘Congresses on Ways Conkling, Roscoe (R-NY), Albany, NY, and M~~~~ 5, Dalzell, John (R-PA), New York, NY, Apr. 

Oct. 3, 1829-Apr. 18, 1888; House 1859- 19, 1845-Oct. 2, 1927; House 1887-1913; 

63, 1865-186j; Senate 1867-May 16, Crane, Philip M. (R-IL), Chicago, IL, Nov. Congresses on Ways and Means 52, 53, 54, 

1881: Congresses Y on Wavs and Means 39. 3. 1930- : House Nov. 25. 1969- : Con- 55. 56.57. 58.59.60,61.62. 

gresses on Ways and Means 94, 95, 96, 97, Connor, Henry W. 98, gg, 100, 101, (D-NC), Amelia Court Daub, Harold J., Jr. “Hal” (R-NE). Fort 

House, VA, Aug. 5, 1793-Ian. 6, 1866; Bragg, NC. Apr. 23, 1941- ; House 1981- 

House 1821-41;YCongresses-on Ways and Crawford, Joel OR-GA), Columbia 1986; Congresses on Ways and Means 99, 

Means 26. County. GA, June 15, 1783-Apr. 5, 1858; 100. 

435 
Davenport, Frederick M. (R-NY), Salem, 

MA, Aug. 27, 1866-Dec. 26, 1956; House 

1925-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

70, 71. 65. 61. 

Dixon, Lincoln (D-IN), Vernon, IN, Feb. 

9, 1860-Sept. 16, 1932; House 1905-19; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 62,63,64, 

Dwight, John W. (R-NY), Dryden, NY, 

May 24, 1859-Jan. 19, 1928; House Nov. 2, 

1902-13: Congresses on Ways and Means 

Davenport, John (F-CT), Stamford, CT, 

Jan. 16, 1752-Nov. 28, 1830; House 1799- 

1817; Congresses on Ways and Means 8. 

Davis, Garrett (W-KY), Mount Sterling, 

KY, Sept. 10, 1801-Sept. 22, 1982; House 

1839-47; Senate Dec. 10, 1861-Sept. 22, 

1872; Congresses on Ways and Means 28. 

Davis, Henry W. (AP-MD). Annapolis, 

MD, Aug. 16, 1817-Dec. 30, 1865; House 

1855-61, 1863-65; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 34.35, 36. 

Davis, Thomas T. UR-KY), unknown-Nov. 

15, 1807; House 1797-1803; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 5. 

Dawes, Henry L. (R-MA), Cummington, 

MA, Oct. 30, 1816-Feb. 5, 1903; House 

1857-75; Senate 1875-93; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 42, 43; Chairman 42d 

and 43d Congresses. 

De Witt, Alexander (AP-MA), New Braintree, MA, Apr. 2, 1798-Jan. 13, 1879; 

House 1853-57; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 34. 

Derounian, Steven B. (R-NY), Sofia, Bulgaria, Apr. 6, 1918- ; House 1953-65; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 87, 88. 

Dewey, Charles S. (R-IL), Cadiz, OH, 

Nov. 10, 1880-Dec. 27, 1980; House 

1941-45; Congresses on Ways and Means 

78. 

Dickinson, Clement C. (D-MO), Prince 

Edward Court House, VA. Dec. 6, 1849- 

Jan. 14. 1938; House Feb. I. 1910-21. 

1923-29, 1931-35; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 

73. 

Dickson, William UR-TN), Duplin 

County, NC, May 5, 1770-Feb. 1816; 

House 1801-07; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 7.9. 

Dingell, John D. (D-MI), Detroit, MI, Feb. 

2. 1894-Sept. 19, 1955; House 1933-Sept. 

19. 1955; Congresses on Ways and Means 

74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80. 81, 82, 83, 84. 

Dingley. Nelson, Jr. (R-ME). Durham, 

ME, Feb. 15, 1832-Jan. 13. 1899; House 

Sept. 12, 1881-Jan. 13, 1899 Congresses 

on Ways and Means 51, 54, 55; Chairman 

54th and 55th Congresses; Governor of 

ME 1874. 

Disney, Wesley E. (D-OK), Richland, KS, 

Oct. 31, 1883-Mar. 26, 1961; House 1931- 

45; Congresses on Ways and Means 74, 75, 

76. 77, 78. 

Dolliver, Jonathan P. (R-IA), Kingwood, 

VA (now WV), Feb. 6, 1858-Oct. 15, 1910; 

House 1889-Aug. 22, 1900; Senate Aug. 

22, 1900-Oct. 15, 1910; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 54.55.56. 

Donnelly, Brian J. (D-MA), Boston, MA, 

Mar. 2, 1946- ; House 1979- ; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 99. 100, 101. 

Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND). Dickinson, ND, 

May 14, 1942- ; House 1981- ; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 98.99, 100. 10 1. 

Doughton, Robert L. (D-NC), Laurel 

Springs, NC, Nov. 7, 1863-Oct. 1, 1954; 

House 1911-53; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 

78, 79, 80, 81, 82; Chairman 73d-79th, 

81st and 82d Congresses. 

Dowdell, James F. (D-AL), Monticello, 

GA, Nov. 26, 1818-Sept. 6, 1871; House 

1853-59; Congresses on Ways and Means 

35. 

Downey, Thomas J. (D-NY). Ozone Park, 

NY, Jan. 28, 1949- ; House 1975- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 96, 97, 98, 99, 

LOO, 101. 

Driver, William J. (D-AR), Osceola, AR, 

Mar. 2, 1873-Oct. 1, 1948; House 1921- 

39; Congresses on Ways and Means 72. 

Dromgoole, George C. (D-VA), Lawrenceville, VA, May 15, 1797-Apr. 27. 1847; 

House 1835-41, 1843-Apr. 27, 1847; Congresses on Ways and Means 28.29. 

Duer, William (W-NY). New York. NY, 

May 25, 1805-Aug. 25. 1879; House 1847- 

51 ; Congresses on Ways and Means 3 1. 

Duncan, John J. (R-TN), Huntsville, TN, 

Mar. 24, 1919-June 21, 1988; House 

1965-June 21, 1988; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 

100. 

Duncan, Richard M. (D-MO), Edgerton, 

MO, Nov. 10, 1889-Aug. 1. 1974; House 

1933-43; Congresses on Ways and Means 

74, 75, 76, 77. 

Dunham, Cyrus L. (D-IN). Dryden. NY. 

Jan. 16, 1817-Nov. 21, 1877; House 1849- 

55; Congresses on Ways and Means 32. 

Dunnell, Mark H. (R-MN). Buxton, ME, 

July 2, 1823-Aug. 9, 1904; House 1871- 

83, 1889-91; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 46,47. 

Dwight, Henry W. (AJ-MA), Stockbridge, 

MA, Feb. 26, 1788-Feb. 21, 1845; House 

1821-31; Congresses on Ways and Means 

19, 20, 2 1. 

Eberharter, Herman P. (D-PA), Pittsburgh, PA, Apr. 29, 1892-Sept. 9, 1958; 

House 1937-Sept. 9, 1958; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 78, 79,80,81,82,83,84, 

85. 

Ellis, Hubert S. (R-WV), Hurricane, WV, 

July 6, 1887-Dec. 3. 1959; House 1943-49; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 80. 

Ellis, William R. (R-OR), Waveland, IN, 

Apr. 23, 1850-Jan. 18, 1915; House 1893- 

99, 1907-11; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 6 I. 

Eppes, John W. UR-VA), Chesterfield 

County, VA, Apr. 19. 1773-Sept. 13, 1823; 

House 1803-11, 1813-15; Senate 1817- 

Dec. 4, 1819; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 10, 11, 13; Chairman I Ith and 13th 

Congresses. 

Errett, Russell (R-PA), New York, NY, 

Nov. 10, 1817-Apr. 7. 1891; House 1877- 

83; Congresses on Ways and Means 47. 

Eslick, Edward E. (D-TN), Pulaski, TN, 

Apr. 19, 1872-June 14, 1932; House 1925- 

June 14, 1932; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 72. 

Estep, Harry A. (R-PA), Pittsburgh, PA, 

Feb. 1, 1884-Feb. 28, 1968; House 1927- 

33; Congresses on Ways and Means 70, 71, 

72. 

Evans, George (W-ME), Hallowell, ME, 

Jan. 12, 1797-Apr. 6, 1867; House July 20, 

1829-41; Senate 1841-47; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 26. 

Evans, Walter (R-KY). Glasgow, KY, Sept. 

18, 1842-Dec. 30. 1923; House 1895-99; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 54, 55. 

Evans, William E. (R-CA), London, KY, 

Dec. 14, 1877-Nov. 12, 1959; House 

1927-35; Congresses on Ways and Means 

73. 

Everett, Horace (W-VT), Foxboro, MA, 

July 17, 1779-Jan. 30. 1851; House 1829- 

43; Congresses on Ways and Means 25. 

Fairchild, George W. (R-NY), Oneonta, 

NY, May 6, 1854-Dec. 31, 1924; House 

1907-19 Congresses on Ways and Means 

64,65. 

Faust, Charles L. (R-MO), Bellefontaine, 

OH, Apr. 24, 1879-Dec. 17. 1928; House 

1921-Dec. 17, 1928; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 69. 70. 

Felton, William H. (ID-GA), Lexington, 

CA, June 1, 1823-Sept. 24, 1909; House 

1875-81: Congresses on Ways and Means 

46. 

436 
Fenton, Reuben E. (R-NY), Carroll, NY, 

July 4, 1819-Aug. 25, 1885: House 1853- 

55, 1857-Dec. 20, 1864; Senate 1869-75; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 38; Governor of NY 1865-68. 

Fillmore, Millard (W-NY), Locke Township (now Summerhill), NY, Jan. 7, 1800- 

Mar. 8. 1874; House 1833-35, 1837-43; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 27; Chairman 27th Congress; Vice President of the 

United States 1849-July 9, 1850 13th 

President of the United States July 10. 

1850-53. 

Finkelburg, Gustavus A. (LR-MO), Cologne, Germany, Apr. 6, 1837-May 18, 

1908; House 1869-73; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 42. 

Fisher, Joseph L. (D-VA), Pawtucket, RI, 

Jan. 11, 1914- ; House 1975-81; Congresscs on Ways and Means 94.95.96. 

Fisk, James (JR-VT), Greenwich, MA, Occ. 

4. 1763-Nov. 17, 1844; House 1805-09. 

1811-15; Senate Nov. 4, 1817-Jan. 8, 

1818; Congresses on Ways and Means 10, 

12. 

Fisk, Jonathan OR-NY). Amherst, NH, 

Sept. 26, 1778-July 13, 1832; House 1809- 

1 1, I8 I 3-Mar. 18 15; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 13. 

Fitzsimons, Thomas (PAU-PA), Ireland, 

1741-Aug. 26, 1811; House 1789-95; Congresses on Ways and Means 1, 3; Chairman 

1st Congress; Member of the Continental 

Congress 1782-83; Delegate to the United 

States Constitutional Convention and 

signer of United States Constitution 1787. 

Fletcher, Richard (W-MA), Cavendish, 

VT, Jan- 8, 1788-June 21, 1869; Housc 

1837-39; Congresses on Ways and Means 

25. 

Flippo, Ronnie G. (D-AL), Florence, AL, 

Aug. 15, 1937- ; House 1977- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 98, 99, 100, 101. 

Flower, Roswell P. (D-NY), Theresa, NY, 

Aug. 7, 1835-May 12, 1899; House Nov. 8, 

1881-83, 1889-Sept. 16, 1891; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 51; Governor of NY 

189 1-95, 

Forand, Aime J. (D-RI), Fall River, MA, 

May 23, ,1895-Jan. 18. 1972; House 1937- 

39, 1941-61; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 78, 79, 80. 81, 82. 83. 84, 85, 86. 

Ford, Aaron L. (D-MS), Potts Camp, MS, 

Dec. 21. 1903-July 8, 1983; House 1935- 

43; Congresses on Ways and Means 77. 

Ford, Harold E. (D-TN), Memphis, TN, 

May 20, 1945- ; House 1975- ; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 94, 95, 96. 97, 98, 99, 

100, 101. 

Fordney, Joseph W. (R-MI), Hartford 

City, IN, Nov. 5, 1853-Jan. 8, 1932; House 

1899-1923; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 60, 6 I, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67; Chairman 66th and 67th Congresses. 

Foster, Abiel (F-NH). Andover, MA, Aug. 

8, 1735-Feb. 6, 1806; House 1789-91, 

1795-1803; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 5; Member of the Continental Congress 1783-85. 

Foster, Charles (R-OH). Tifin. OH, Apr. 

12. 1828-Jan. 9, 1904; House 1871-79: 

Congresses on Ways and Means 43; Governor of OH 1880-84. 

Fowler, Wyche, Jr. (D-GA), Atlanta, GA, 

Oct. 6, 1940- ; House Apr. 6, 1977-87; 

Senate 1987- ; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 96,97,98,99. 

Frazier, James B., Jr. (D-TN), Chattanooga, TN, June 23, 1890-Oct. 30, 1978; 

House 1949-63; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 85.86.87. 

Frear, James A. (R-WI). Hudson, WI, Oct. 

24, 1861-May 28, 1939; House 1913-35; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 66,67,68, 

71.73. 

Frenzel, William E. (R-MN). St. Paul. MN, 

July 31, 1928- ; House 1971- ; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 

100, 101. 

Frye, William P. (R-ME), Lewiston, ME, 

Sept. 2, 1830-Aug. 8, 1911; House 1871- 

Mar. 17, 1881; Senate Mar. 18, 1881-Aug. 

8, 191 1; Congresses on Ways and Means 

46. 

Fuller, Claude A. (D-AR), Prophetstown. 

IL. Jan. 20, 1876-Jan. 8, 1968; House 

1929-39; Congresses on Ways and Means 

73.74, 75. 

Fulton, Richard H. (D-TN), Nashville, 

TN, Jan. 27, 1927- ; House 1963-Aug. 14, 

1975; Congresses on Ways and Means 89, 

90, 9 I, 92, 93, 94. 

Gaines, Joseph H. (R-WV), Washington, 

DC, Sept. 3, 1864-Apr. 12, 1951; House 

1901-1 1; Congresses on Ways and Means 

60, B1. 

Caither, Nathan (I-KY), Mocksville, NC. 

Sept. 15, 1788-Aug. 12. 1862; House 

1829-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

22. 

Gallatin, Albert (IR-PA). Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 29, 1761-Aug. 12. 1849; House 

1795-1801; Senate Dec. 2, 1793-Feb. 28, 

1794; Congresses on Ways and Means 4, 5. 

6. 

Gardner, Augustus P. (R-MA), Boston, 

MA. Nov. 5, 1865-Jan. 14. 1918; House 

Nov. 3, 1902-May 15. 1917; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 63, 64, 65. 

Garfield, James A. (R-OH), Orange, OH, 

Nov. 19, 1831-Sept. 19, 1881; House 

1863-Nov. 8, 1880; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 39, 44, 45, 46; 20th President 

of the United States Mar. 4-July 2, 1881. 

Garner, John N. (D-TX), Detroit, TX, 

Nov. 22, 1868-Nov. 7, 1967; House 1903- 

33; Congresses on Ways and Means 63.64, 

65, 66, 67, 68. 69, 70, 71; Speaker of the 

House 72d Congress; Vice President of the 

United States 1933-41. 

Garnett, James M. (JR-VA). Loretto, VA, 

June 8, 1770-Apr. 23. 1843; House 1805- 

09; Congresses on Ways and Means 9. 

Caston, William (F-NC), New Bern, NC, 

Sept. 19, 1778-Jan. 23, 1844; House 1813- 

17; Congresses on Ways and Means 13, 14. 

Gear, John H. (R-IA), Ithaca, NY, Apr. 7, 

1825-July 14, 1900; House 1887-91, 

1893-95; Senate 1895-July 14, 1900; Congresses on Ways arid Means 5 I, 53; Governor of IA 1878-81. 

Gearhart, Bertrand W. (R-CA). Fresno, 

CA, May 31, 1890-Oct. 1 1, 1955; House 

1935-49; Congresses on Ways and Means 

76, 77,78. 79, 80. 

Gephardt, Richard A. (D-MO), St. Louis, 

MO, Jan. 31, 1941- ; House 1977- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 95, 96, 97, 98, 

99, 100, 101. 

Gerry, Elbridge (PAU-MA), Marblehead, 

MA, July 17, 1744-Nov. 23, 1814; House 

1789-93; Congresses on Ways and Means 

I; Member of the Continental Congress 

1776-80, 1783-85; Signer of the Declaration of Independence; Delegate to the 

United States Constitutional Convention, 

1787; Governor of MA 1810-11; Vice 

President of the United States, 1813-Nov. 

23, 1814. 

Gibbons, Sam M. (D-FL), Tampa, FL, Jan. 

20, 1920- ; House 1963- ; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 91,92,93,94, 95,96,97, 

98, 99, 100, 101. 

Gibson, Randall Lee (D-LA), Versailles, 

KY, Sept. 10, 1832-Dec. 15, 1892; House 

1875-83; Senate 1883-Dec. 15. 1892; Congresses on Ways and Means 45.46. 

Gifford, Charles L. (R-MA), Cotuit, MA, 

Mar. 15, 1871-Aug. 23, 1947; House Nov. 

7, 1922-Aug. 23, 1947; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 79.80. 

Gilbert, Ezekiel (F-NY), Middletown, CT, 

Mar. 25, 1756-July 17, 1841; House 1793- 

97; Congresses on Ways and Means 4. 

Gilbert, Jacob H. (D-NY). New York, NY, 

June 17, 1920-Feb. 27, 1981; House Mar. 

8, 1960-71; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 90,9 1. 

437 
Gaes, William B. (JR-VA), Amelia Court 

House, VA, Aug. 12, 1762-Dec. 4, 1830; 

House Dec. 7, 1790-Oct. 2, 1798, 1801- 

03; Senate Aug. I I, 1804-15; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 5; Governor of VA 

1827-30. 

Gilman, Nicholas (F-NH), Exeter. NH, 

Aug. 3, 1755-May 2, 1814; House 1789- 

97; Senate 1805-May 2, 1814; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 3, 4; Member of the 

Continental Congress 1787-88; Delegate 

to the United States Constitutional Convention and signer of the United States 

Constitution 1787-89. 

Gilmer, George R. (J-GA), Lexington, 

CA, Apr. 11, 1790-Nov. 16, 1859; House 

1821-23, Oct. 1, 1827-29, 1833-35; Congresses on Ways and Means 20; Governor 

of GA 1829-3 1, 1837-39. 

Gilmer, Thomas W. (W-VA), Cilmerton, 

VA, Apr. 6, 1802-Feb. 28, 1844; House 

1841-Feb. 16, 1844; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 27; Governor of VA 1840-41. 

Gilmore, John (J-PA), Somerset County, 

PA, Feb. 18. 1780-May 11, 1845; House 

1829-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

21.22. 

Goodwin, Angier L. (R-MA), Fairfield, 

ME, Jan. 30, 1881-June 20, 1975; House 

1943-55; Congresses on Ways and Means 

80, 82, 83. 

Gorham, Benjamin (AJ-MA), Charlestown, MA, Feb. 13, 1775-Sept. 27, 1855; 

House Nov. 6, 1820-23, July 23, 1827-31, 

1833-35; Congresses on Ways and Means 

23. 

Gourdin, Theodore (JR-SC), Kingstree, 

SC. Mar. 20, 1764-Jan. 17, 1826; House 

1813-15; Congresses on Ways and Means 

13. 

Gradison, Willis D., Jr. (R-OH), Cincinnati. OH, Dec. 28, 1928- ; House 1975- ; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 95.96, 97, 

98, 99, 100, 101. 

Granger, Daniel L. D. (D-Rl), Providence, 

RI, May 30, 1852-Feb. 14, 1909; House 

1903-Feb. 14, 1909; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 59,60. 

Granger, Walter K. (D-UT), St. George, 

UT. Oct. 11, 1888-Apr. 21, 1978; House 

1941-53; Congresses on Ways and Means 

82. 

Grant, Robert A. (R-IN). Bourbon, IN, 

July 31, 1905- ; House 1939-49; Congresses on Ways and Means 80. 

Green, James S. (D-MO), Rectortown, VA, 

Feb. 28, 1817-Jan. 19, 1870; House 1847- 

51; Senate Jan. 12. 1857-61; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 3 1. 

Green, William J., 111 (D-PA), Philadelphia, PA, June 24, 1938- ; House Apr. 28, 

1964-77; Congresses on Ways and Means 

90, 91, 92, 93, 94; Son of William J. Green, 

Jr. 

Green, William J., Jr. (D-PA), Philadelphia, PA, Mar. 5, 1910-Dec. 21, 1963; 

House 1945-47, 1949-Dec. 21, 1963; Congresses on Ways and Means 86, 87, 88; 

Father of William J. Green 111. 

Green, William R. (R-IA), Colchester, CT, 

Nov. 7. 1856-June 11, 1947; House June 5. 

191 I-Mar. 31, 1928; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70; 

Chairman 68th-70th Congresses. 

Greenup, Christopher (JR-KY), Westmoreland County, VA, 1750-Apr. 27, 

1818; House Nov. 9, 1792-97; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 4; Governor of KY 

1804-08. 

Gregg, Judd A. (R-NH), Nashua, NH, Feb. 

14, 1947- ; House 1981-89; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 99, 100; Governor of NH 

1989-. 

Gregory, Noble J. (D-KY), Mayfield. KY, 

Aug. 30, 1897-Sept. 26, 1971; House 

1937-59; Congresses on Ways and Means 

78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85. 

Grifflths, Martha W. (D-MI). Pierce City, 

MO, Jan. 29, 1912- ; House 1955-Dec. 31, 

1974; Congresses on Ways and Means 87, 

88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93. 

Griggs, James M. (D-GA), Lagrange, GA, 

Mar. 29, 1861-Jan. 5, 1910; House 1897- 

Jan. 5, 1910; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 60,61. 

Griswold, John A. (R-NY), Cairo, NY, 

Nov. 18, 1822-Feb. 22, 1902; House 1869- 

7 1 ; Congresses on Ways and Means 40. 

Griswold, Roger (F-CT), Lyme, CT. May 

21, 1762-Oct. 25, 1812; House 1795- 

1805; Congresses on Ways and Means 5, 6, 

7, 8; Chairman 6th Congress; Governor of 

CT 1811-OCI. 25, 1812. 

Grosvenor, Charles H. (R-OH). Pomfret, 

CT, Sept. 20, 1833-Oct. 30, 1917; House 

1885-91, 1893-1907; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. 

Grove, William B. (PAU-NC), Fayerteville. 

NC, Jan. 15, 1764-Mar. 30, 1818; House 

1791-1803; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 3. 

Guarini, Frank J.. Jr. (D-NJ). Jersey City, 

NJ, Aug. 20, 1924- ; House 1979- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 96. 97, 98, 99, 

100, 101. 

Hadley, Lindley H. (R-WA), Sylvania, IN. 

June 19, 1861-Nov. 1, 1948; House 1915- 

33; Congresses on Ways and Means 66, 67, 

68, 69, 70, 7 I, 72. 

Hamer, Thomas L. (D-OH), Northumberland County, PA, July, 1800-Dec. 2, 1846; 

House 1833-39; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 25. 

Hammond, Winfield S. (D-MN). Southboro, MA, Nov. 17, 1863-Dec. 30, 1915; 

House 1907-Jan. 6, 1915; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 62, 63; Governor of MN 

Jan. 7-Dec. 30, 1915. 

Hampton, Moses (W-PA), Beaver, PA, 

Oct. 28, 1803-June 27, 1878; House 1847- 

5 1; Congresses on Ways and Means 3 1. 

Hance, Kent R. (D, R-TX). Dimmit, TX, 

Nov. 14, 1942- ; House 1979-85; Congresses on Ways and Means 97,98. 

Hancock, John (D-TX), Bellefonte, AL, 

Oct. 24, 1824-July 19, 1893; House 1871- 

77, 1883-85; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 44. 

Harper, Robert G. (F-SC/MD), Fredericksburg, VA, Jan. 1765-Jan. 14, 1825; 

House Feb. 5, 1795-1801 (SC); Senate 

1815-Dec. 6, 1816 (MD); Congresses on 

Ways and Means 5, 6; Chairman 5th and 

6th Congresses. 

Harris, Henry R. (D-GA), Sparta, GA, 

Feb. 2, 1828-Oct. 15, 1909; House 1873- 

79, 1885-87; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 45,49. 

Harrison, Burr P. (D-VA), Winchester, 

VA, July 2, 1904-Dec. 29, 1973; House 

Nov. 6, 1946-63; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 82, 84.85, 86, 87. 

Harrison, Francis B. (D-NY), New York, 

NY, Dec. 18, 1873-Nov. 21, 1957; House 

1903-05, 1907-Sept. I, 1913; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 61,62,63. 

Haskell, Dudley C. (R-KS), Springfield, 

VT, Mar. 23, 1842-Dec. 16. 1883; House 

1877-Dec. 16, 1883; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 47; Grandfather of Otis H. 

Holmes. 

Hastings, Seth (F-MA), Cambridge, MA, 

Apr. 8, 1762-Nov. 19, 1831; House Aug. 

24, 1801-07; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 8. 

Haven, Nathaniel A. (F-NH). Portsmouth, 

NH, July 19. 1762-Mar. 13, 1831; House 

1809-1 1; Congresses on Ways and Means 

11. 

Haven, Solomon G. (W-NY), Chenango 

County, NY, Nov. 27, 1810-Dec. 24, 1861; 

House 1851-57; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 33. 

Hawley, Willis C. (R-OR), Monroe, OR, 

May 5, 1864-July 24, 1941; House 1907- 

33; Congresses on Ways and Means 65, 66, 

67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72; Chairman 70th and 

71st Congresses. 

438 
Haynes, Charles E. (D-GA), Brunswick, 

VA, Apr. 15, 1784-Aug. 29, 1841; House 

1825-31, 1835-39; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 25. 

Healey, Arthur D. (D-MA), Somerville, 

MA, Dec. 29. 1889-Sept. 16. 1948: House 

1933-Aug. 3, 1942: Congresses on Ways 

and Means 77. 

Heftel, Cecil L. (D-HI), Chicago, IL, Sept. 

30, 1924- ; House 1977-JulyI1, 1986; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 96, 97, 98, 

99. 

Helstoski, Henry (D-NJ), Wallington, NJ, 

Mar. 21. 1925- ; House 1965-77; Congresses on Ways and Means 94. 

Helvering, Guy T. (D-KS), Felicity, OH, 

Jan. 10, 1878-July 4, 1946; House 1913- 

19; Congresses on Ways and Means 64, 65. 

Henderson, Bennett H. OR-TN), Bedford. VA, Sept. 5, 1784-unknown; House 

1815-17; Congresses on Ways and Means 

14. 

Herbert, Hilary A. (D-AL), Laurens, SC, 

Mar. 12, 1834-Mar. 6, 1919; House 1877- 

93; Congresses on Ways and Means 48. 

Herlong, Albert S., Jr. (D-FL). Manistee, 

AL, Feb. 14. 1909- ; House 1949-69; Congresses on Ways and Means 84, 85, 86, 87, 

88, 89, 90. 

Hewitt, Abram S. (D-NY), Haverstraw, 

NY, July 31. 1822-Jan. 18, 1903; House 

1875-79, 188 I-Dec. 30, 1886; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 48.49. 

Hibbard, Harry (D-NH), Concord, VT, 

June 1, 1816-July 28, 1872; House 1849- 

55; Congresses on Ways and Means 31, 32, 

33. 

Hill, Benjamin H. (D-GA). Hillsborough, 

GA, Sept. 14, 1823-Aug. 16, 1882; House 

May 5, 1875-77; Senate 1877-Aug. 16, 

1882: Congresses on Ways and Means 44. 

Hill, Ebenezer J. (R-CT), Redding, CT, 

Aug. 4, 1845-Sept. 27, 1917: House 1895- 

1913, 1915-Sept. 27, 1917; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65. 

Hill, Knute (D-WA), Creston, IL, July 31, 

1876-Dec. 3, 1963: House 1933-43; Congresses on Ways and Means 77. 

Hill, Samuel B. (D-WA), Franklin, AR, 

Apr. 2, 1875-Mar. 16, 1958; House Sept. 

25, 1923-June 25, 1936; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 7 1, 72, 73. 74. 

Hillhouse, James (F-CT), Montville, CT, 

Oct. 20, 1754-Dec. 29, 1832; House 1791- 

96; Senate Dec. 6, 1796-June 10, 1810; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 4. 

Hindman, William (F-MD), Dorchester 

County, MD. Apr. 1, 1743-Jan. 19, 1822; 

House Jan. 30, 1793-99; Senate Dec. 12. 

1800-Nov. 19. 1801; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 4, 5; Member of the Continental Congress 1785-86. 

Hiscock, Frank UR-NY), Pompey, NY, 

Sept. 6, 1834-June 18. 1914; House 1877- 

87; Senate 1887-93; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 48,49. 

Hogan, John (D-MO), Mallow, Ireland, 

Jan. 2, 1805-Feb. 5, 1892; House 1865-67; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 39. 

Holland, James OR-NC), Anson County, 

NC. 1754-May 19, 1823; House 1795-97, 

1801-1 1; Congresses on Ways and Means 

7. 

Holland, Kenneth L. (D-SC), Hickory, 

NC, Nov. 24, 1934- ; House 1975-83; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 95, 96,97. 

Holmes, Otis H. (R-WA), Cresco, IA, Feb. 

22, 1902-July 27. 1977; House 1943-59; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 80, 8 1, 82, 

83, 84, 85; Grandson of Dudley C. Haskell. 

Hooper, Samuel (R-MA). Marblehead. 

MA, Feb. 3, 1808-Feb. 14, 1875; House 

Dec. 2, 1861-Feb. 14, 1875; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 37, 38, 39, 40, 4 1; Chairman 41st Congress. 

Hopkins, Albert J. (R-IL), Cortland, IL. 

Aug. 15, 1846-Aug. 23, 1922; House Dec. 

7, 1885-1903: Senate 1903-09; Congresses on Ways and Means 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 

57. 

Horton, Valentine B. (R-OH), Windsor, 

VT. Jan. 29, 1802-Jan. 14, 1888; House 

1855-59, 1861-63; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 37. 

Hosmer, Hezekiah L. (F-NY), June 7, 

1765-June 9, 1814: House 1797-99: Congresses on Ways and Means 5. 

Houghton, Alanson B. (R-NY), Cambridge, MA, Oct. 10. 1863-Sept. 15, 1941; 

House 1919-Feb. 28, 1922; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 67. 

Houston, George S. (D-AL), Franklin, 

TN, Jan. 17, 1811-Dec. 31, 1879; House 

1841-49, 1851-Jan. 21. 1861; Senate Mar. 

4-Dec. 31, 1879; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 29, 30, 32, 33: Chairman 32d and 

33d Congresses; Governor of AL 1874-78. 

Howard, William A. (R-MI), Hinesburg. 

VT, Apr. 8, 1813-Apr. 10, 1880; House 

1855-59, May 15, 1860-61; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 34, 3.5, 36. 

Hubbard, David (D-AL), Old Liberty (now 

Bedford), VA, 1792-Jan. 20, 1874; House 

1839-41, 1849-51; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 26. 

Hubbard, Henry (D-NH), Charlestown. 

NH. May 3, 1784-June 5, 1857; House 

1829-18; Senate 1835-41; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 23; Governor of NH 

184 1-43. 

Hubbard, Samuel D. (W-CT), Middletown, CT, Aug. 10, 1799-Oct. 8, 1855; 

House 1845-49; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 30. 

Hubbell, Jay A. (R-MI), Avon. MI, Sept. 

15, 1829-Oct. 13, 1900; House 1873-83; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 47. 

Hudson, Charles (W-MA), Marlboro, MA, 

Nov. 14, 1795-May 4, 1881; House May 3, 

1841-49; Congresses on Ways and Means 

30. 

Hughes, William (D-NJ), Drogheda. Ireland, Apr. 3, 1872-Jan. 30, 1918; House 

1903-05, 1907-Sept. 27, 1912; Senate 

1913-Jan. 30, 1918; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 62. 

Hull, Cordell (D-TN). Olympus, TN, Oct. 

2, 1871-July 23, 1955; House 1907-21, 

1923-31; Senate 1931-Mar. 3, 1933; Congresses on Ways and Means 62, 63, 64, 65, 

66, 68, 69, 70, 7 1. 

Hungerford, Orville (D-NY), Farmington, 

CT, Oct. 29, 1790-Apr. 6, 1851; House 

1843-47; Congresses on Ways and Means 

29. 

Hurd, Frank H. (D-OH), Mount Vernon, 

OH, Dec. 25, 1840-July 10, 1896; House 

1875-77, 1879-81, 1883-85; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 48. 

Ikard, Frank N. (D-TX), Henrietta, TX, 

Jan. 30, 1913- ; House Sept. 8. 1951-Dec. 

15, 1961; Congresses on Ways and Means 

84, 85, 86, 87. 

Imlay, James H. (F-NJ), Upper Freehold, 

NJ, Nov. 26, 1764-Mar. 6, 1823: House 

1797-1801; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 6. 

Ingersoll, Joseph R. (W-PA), Philadelphia, PA, June 14, 1786-Feb. 20, 1868; 

House 1835-37, Oct. 12, 1841-49; Congresses on Ways and Means 24, 27, 28, 29. 

Ingersoll, Ralph 1. (AJ-CT). New Haven, 

CT, Feb. 8, 1789-Aug. 26, 1872: House 

1825-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

21,22. 

Ingham, Samuel D. OR-PA), New Hope, 

PA, Sept. 16. 1779-June 5, 1860; House 

1813-July 6, 1818, Oct. 8, 1822-29: Congresses on Ways and Means 13, 14, 18. 

Jackson, Andrew UR-TN). Waxhaw Settlement, SC, Mar. 15, 1767-June 8, 1845; 

House Dec. 5, 1796-Sept. 1797; Senate 

Sept. 26, 1797-Apr. 1798, 1823-Oct. 14, 

1825; Congresses on Ways and Means 4; 

7th President of the United States 1829- 

37. 

439 
Jackson, James (PAU-GA), MoretonHampstead, Devonshire, England, Sept. 

21, 1757-Mar. 19, 1806; House 1789-91; 

Senate 1793-95, 1801-Mar. 19, 1806; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 1; Governor ofGA 1798-1801. 

Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. (D-IN), Indianapolis, 

IN, Feb. 24, 1932- ; House 1965-73, 

1975- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 

94,95, 96, 97.98, 99, 100, 101. 

James, Ollie M. (D-KY). Marion, KY, July 

27, 1871-Aug. 28, 1918; House 1903-13; 

Senate 1913-Aug. 28, 1918; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 62. 

Jarrett, Benjamin (R-PA), Sharon, PA, 

July 18, 1881-July 20, 1944; House 1937- 

43; Congresses on Ways and Means 76, 77. 

Jenkins, Edgar L. (D-GA), Young Harris, 

GA, Jan. 4, 1933- ; House 1977- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 95, 96, 97, 98. 

99, 100, 101. 

Jenkins, Thomas A. (R-OH). Oak Hill, 

OH, Oct. 28, 1880-Dec. 21, 1959; House 

1925-59; Congresses on Ways and Means 

73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80. 81, 82, 83, 

84,85. 

Jennings, William P. (D-VA), Camp, VA. 

Aug. 20, 1919- ; House 1955-67; Congresses on Ways and Means 88, 89. 

Johnson, Cave (D-TN), Robertson 

County, TN, Jan. 1 I, 1793-Nov. 23, 1866; 

House 1829-37, 1839-45; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 24. 

Johnson, Martin N. (R-ND), Racine 

County. WI, Mar. 3, 1850-Oct. 21, 1909; 

House 1891-99; Senate Mar. 4, 1909-Oct. 

21, 1909; Congresses on Ways and Means 

54, 55. 

Johnson, Nancy L. (R-CT), Chicago, IL. 

Jan. 5, 1935- ; House 1983- ; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 10 I. 

Johnson, Richard M. OR-KY), Jefferson 

County, KY, Oct. 17, 1780-Nov. 19, 1850; 

House 1807-19, 1829-37; Senate Dec. 10, 

1819-29; Congresses on Ways and Means 

I I, 12; Vice President of United States 

1837-41. 

Jones, Francis OR-TN), unknown-unknown; House 1817-23; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 16, 17. 

Jones, George W. (D-TN), King and 

Queen County, VA, Mar. 15, 1806-Nov. 

14, 1884; House 1843-59; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 31, 32, 33, 34. 

Jones, James K. (D-AR), Marshall County, 

MS, Sept. 29, 1839-June 1, 1908; House 

1881-85; Senate 1885-1903; Congresses 

on U'ays and Means 48. 

Jones, James R. (D-OK), Muskogee. OK, 

May 5, 1939- ; House 1973-87; Congresses on Ways and Means 94, 95. 96, 97, 98, 

99. 

Jones, J. Glancy (D-PA), Caernarvon 

Township, PA, Oct. 7, 1811-Mar. 24, 

1878; House 1851-53, Feb. 4, 1854-Oct. 

30, 1858; Congresses on Ways and Means 

32, 35; Chairman 35th Congress. 

Jones, John W. (D-VA), Amelia Court 

House, VA, Nov. 22, 1791-Jan. 29, 1848; 

House 1835-45; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 25, 26, 27; Chairman 26th Congress; Speaker of the House 28th Congress. 

Jones, Seaborn (D-GA), Augusta, GA, 

Feb. 1, 1788-Mar. 18, 1864; House 1833- 

35, 1845-47; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 29. 

Jones, Walter UR-VA), Williamsburg, VA, 

Dec. 18, 1745-Dec. 31, 1815; House 1797- 

99. 1803-11; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 5. 

Karsten, Frank M. (D-MO), San Antonio, 

TX. Jan. 7, 1913- ; House 1947-69; Congresses on Ways and Means 84, 85, 86, 87. 

88, 89, 90. 

Karth, Joseph E. (D-MN), New Brighton, 

MN, Aug. 26, 1922- ; House 1959-77; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 92, 93, 94. 

Kasson, John A. (R-IA), Charlotte, VT, 

Jan. 11, 1822-May 18, 1910; House 1863- 

67, 1873-77, 1881-July 13, 1881; Congresses on Ways and Means 38, 43, 47, 48. 

Kean, Robert W. (R-NJ), Elberon. NJ. 

Sept. 28, 1893-Sept. 21, 1980: House 

1939-59; Congresses on Ways and Means 

78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84. 85. 

Kearns, Charles C. (R-OH), Tonica, IL, 

Feb. 11, 1869-Dec. 17, 1931; House 1915- 

31; Congresses on Ways and Means 68, 69, 

70, 71. 

Kelley, William D. (R-PA), Philadelphia, 

PA, Apr. 12, 1814-Jan. 9, 1890; House 

1861-Jan. 9, 1890; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 

49, 50; Chairman 47th Congress. 

Kelly, John (D-NY), New York, NY, Apr. 

20, 1822-June 1, 1886; House 1855-Dec. 

25, 1858; Congresses on Ways and Means 

35. 

Kennelly, Barbara B. (D-CT). Hartford, 

CT, July 10, 1936- ; HouseJan. 12, 1982- ; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 98, 99, 

100, 101. 

Keogh, Eugene J. (D-NY), Brooklyn, NY, 

Aug. 30, 1907- ; House 1937-67; Congresses on Ways and Means 82, 83, 84, 85, 

86, 87, 88, 89. 

Kerr, Michael C. (D-IN), Titusville, PA, 

Mar. 15, 1827-Aug. 19, 1876; House 

1865-73, 1875-Aug. 19. 1876; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 42; Speaker of the 

House 44th Congress. 

Ketchum, William M. (R-CA), Los Angeles, CA. Sept. 2, 1921-June 24, 1978; 

House 1973-June 24, 1978; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 94,95. 

Keys, Martha E. (D-KS). Hutchinson, KS, 

Aug. 10. 1930- ; House 1975-79; Congresses on Ways and Means 94, 95. 

King, Cecil R. (D-CA), Fort Niagara, NY, 

Jan. 13, 1898-Mar. 17. 1974; House Aug. 

25, 1942-69; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 78, 79, 81, 82. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 

88, 89, 90. 

Kitchin, Claude (D-NC), Scotland Neck, 

NC, Mar. 24, 1869-May 31, 1923; House 

1901-May 31, 1923; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 62, 63, 64, 65. 66. 67; Chairman 64th and 65th Congresses. 

Knox, Victor A. (R-MI). Chippewa 

County, MI, Jan. 13. 1899-Dec. 13, 1976; 

House 1953-65; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 83,86.87,88. 

Knutson, Harold (R-MN), Skien, Norway, 

Oct. 20, 1880-Aug. 21, 1953; House 1917- 

49; Congresses on Ways and Means 73, 74, 

75, 76, 77, 78, 79, SO; Chairman 80th Congress. 

La Follette, Robert M. (R-WI), Primrose, 

WI, June 14, 1855-June 18, 1925; House 

1885-91; Senate Jan. 2, 1906-June 18, 

1925; Congresses on Ways and Means 51; 

Governor of WS 1901-06. 

Lafore, John A., Jr. (R-PA), Bala, PA, May 

25, 1905- ; House No!. 5, 1957-61; Congresses on Ways and Means 86. 

Lamneck, Arthur P. (D-OH), Port Washington, OH, Mar. 12, 1880-Apr. 23, 1944; 

House 1931-39; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 74, 75. 

Landrum, Phillip M. (D-GA), Martin, GA. 

Sept. 10, 1907- ; House 1953-77; Congresses on Ways and Means 89, 90, 91, 92, 

93,94. 

Latimer, Henry (PAU-DE), Newport. DE, 

Apr. 24. 1752-Dec. 19, 1819; House Feb. 

14, 1794-Feb. 7, 1795; Senate Feb. 7, 

1795-Feb. 28. 1801; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 3. 

Laurance, John (PAL]-NY), Falmouth, 

England in 1750-Nov. I I. 1810; House 

1789-93; Senate Nov. 9. 1796-Aug. 1800; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 1; 

Member of the Continental Congress 

1785-87. 

440 
Lawrence, Abbott (W-MA), Groton, MA, 

Dec. 16, 1792-Aug. 18. 1855; House 

1835-37, 1839-Sept. 18, 1840; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 24, 26. 

Lederer, Raymond F. (D-PA), Philadelphia, PA, May 19, 1938- ; House 1977- 

Apr. 29, 1981; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 95, 96. 

Letcher, John (D-VA), Lexington. VA, 

Mar. 29, 1813-Jan. 26, 1884; House 1851- 

59; Congresses on Ways and Means 34, 35; 

Governor of VA 1860-64. 

Levin, Sander M. (D-MI), Detroit. MI, 

Sept. 6, 1931- ; House 1983- ; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 100, 101. 

Lewis, David J. (D-MD), Nuttals Bank, PA, 

May 1, 1869-Aug. 12, 1952; House 1911- 

17, 1931-39; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 72, 73, 74,75. 

Lewis, Dkon H. (SRD-AL), Dinwiddie 

County. VA, Aug. 10, 1802-Oct. 25, 1848; 

House 1829-Apr. 22, 1844; Senate Apr. 

22. 1844-Oct. 25, 1848; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 27,28. 

Littlejohn, De Witt C. (R-NY). Bridgewater, NY. Feb. 7, 1818-Oct. 27, 1892; 

House 1863-65: Congresses on Ways and 

Means 38. 

Livermore, Samuel (PAU-NH), Waltham, 

MA, May 14, 1732-May 18, 1803; House 

1789-93; Senate 1793-June 12, 1801; Congresses on Ways and Means 1; Member of 

the Continental Congress 1780-82, 1785- 

1786. 

Logan, John A. (R-IL), Murphysboro, IL. 

Feb. 9, 1826-Dec. 26, 1886; House 1859- 

Apr. 2, 1862. 1867-71; Senate 1871-77, 

1879-Dec. 26, 1886; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 40. 

Long, Chester I. (R-KS), Greenwood 

Township, PA, Oct. 12, 1860-July 1, 1934; 

House 1895-97, 1899-1903; Senate 1903- 

09; Congresses on Ways and Means 56, 57. 

Longworth, Nicholas (R-OH), Cincinnari, 

OH, Nov. 5, 1869-Apr. 9, 1931: House 

1903-13, 1915-Apr. 9, 1931; Congresses 

011 M'avs and Means 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 

67: Speaker of the House 69th-71st Congresses. 

Lowndes, William UR-SC). Jacksonborough, SC, Feb. 11, 1782-Oct. 27. 1822; 

House 181 1-May 8, 1822; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 13, 14, 15; Chairman 

14th and 15th Congresses. 

Loyall, George (D-VA), Norfolk, VA. hlay 

29, 1789-Feb. 24, 1868; House Mar. 9, 

1830-31, 1833-37; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 23, 24. 

Lynch, Walter A. (D-NY), New York. NY. 

July 7, 1894-Sept. 10. 1957: House Feb. 

20, 1940-51; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 78, 79.80, 81. 

Machrowicz, Thaddeus M. (D-MI), 

Gostyn, Poland, Aug. 21. 1899-Feb. 17, 

1970; House 1951-Sept. 18, 1961; Congresses on Ways and Means 84, 85, 86, 87. 

Maclay, William B. (D-NY), New York, 

NY, Mar. 20, 1812-Feb. 19, 1882; House 

1843-49, 1857-61; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 35. 

Madison, James (JR-VA), Port Conway, 

VA, Mar. 16, 1751-June 28. 1836; House 

1789-97: Congresses on Ways and Means 

1, 3, 4; Member of the Continental Congress 1780-83, 1787-88; Delegate to the 

United States Constitutional Convention 

and signer of the United States Constitution 1787; 4th President of the United 

States 1809-17. 

Malbone, Francis (F-RI), Newport. RI, 

Mar. 20, 1759-June 4, 1809; House 1793- 

97; Senate Mar. 4, 1809-June 4- 1809: 

Congresses on Ways and Means 4. 

Mallory, Robert (C-KY). Madison Court 

House, VA, Nov. 15, 18 15-Aug. 1 I, 1885; 

House 1859-65; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 38. 

Maloney, Paul H. (D-LA), New Orleans, 

LA, Feb. 14, 1876-Mar. 26, 1967; House 

1931-Dec. 15, 1940, 1943-47; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 76, 78, 79. 

Marshall, Samuel S. (D-IL), Shawneetown, IL, Mar. 12, 1821-July 26, 1890; 

House 1855-59, 1865-75; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 4 I. 

Marshall, Thomas F. (W-KY). Frankfort, 

KY. June 7, 1801-Sept. 22. 1864; House 

1841-43; Congresses on M'ays and Means 

27; Nephew ofJohn Marshall. 

Martin, James G. (R-NC), Savannah. GA, 

Dec. 11, 1935- ; House 1973-85; Congresses on Ways and Means 94, 95, 96, 97, 

98; Governor of NC 1985-. 

Martin, Thomas E. (R-IA), Melrose, IA, 

Jan. 18, 1893-June 27, 1971; House 1939- 

55; Senate 1955-61; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 80,s 1,82,83. 

Martin, Whitmell P. (P, D-LA), Napoleonville, LA, Aug. 12, 1867-Apr. 6. 1929; 

House 1915-Ap1-. 6, 1929; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 65, 66, 67, 68. 69, 70. 

Marvin, Dudley (AJ-NY), Lvme. CT, May 

9, 1786-June 25, 1856: House 1823-29. 

1847-49; Congresses on Ways and Means 

19. 

Mason, Noah M. (R-IL). Glamorganshire, 

Wales, July 19, 1882-Mar. 29, 1965; House 

1937-63; Congresses on Ways and Means 

80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. 

Mason, Samson (W-OH), Fort Ann, NY, 

July 24, 1793-Feb. 1. 1869; House 1835- 

43; Congresses on Ways and Means 26, 27. 

Matsui, Robert T. (D-CA), Sacramento, 

CA, Sept. 17, 1941- ; House 1979- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 97, 98, 99, 

100, 101. 

Maybury, William C. (D-MI), Detroit, MI, 

Nov. 20, 1848-May 6, 1909; House 1883- 

87; Congresses on Ways and Means 19. 

Maynard, Horace (AP. R-TN), Westboro, 

MA, Aug. 30, 1814-May 3, 1882; House 

1857-63, 1866-75; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 37,40,4 I. 42. 

McCall, Samuel W. (R-MA), East Providence, PA, Feb. 28, 1851-Nov. 4, 1923; 

House 1893-1913; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62; Governor of MA 1916-18. 

McCarthy, Dennis (R-NY). Salina, NY, 

Mar. 19, 1814-Feb. 14, 1886; House 1867- 

71; Congresses on Ways and Means 41. 

McCarthy, Eugene J. (D-MN), Walkins, 

MN, Mar. 29. 1916- ; House 1949-59; 

Senate 1959-71; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 84,85. 

McCleary, James T. (R-MN), Ingersoll, 

Ontario, Canada, Feb. 5, 1853-Dec. 17, 

1924; House 1893-1907; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 59. 

McClellan, George B. (D-NY), Dresden, 

Saxony, Nov. 23, 1865-Nov. 30, 1940; 

House 1895-Dec. 21, 1903; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 55,56, 57, 58. 

McClernand, John A. (D-IL). Breckinridge County, KY, Ma) 30, 1812-Sept. 20, 

1900; House 1843-51, Nov. 8, 1859-Oct. 

28, 1861; Congresses on Ways and Means 

37. 

McClintic, James V. (D-OK). Bremond, 

TX, Sept. 8, 1878-Apr. 22, 1948; House 

1915-35: Congresses on Ways and Means 

73. 

McCormack, John W. (D-MA), Boston, 

MA, Dec. 21, 1891-Nov. 22. 1980; House 

Nov. 6, 1928-71; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 72, 73, 74, 75. 76; Speaker of the 

House 87th-9 1st Congresses. 

McDowell, James (D-VA), Rockbridge 

County, VA, Oct. 13, 1795-Aug. 24, 1851; 

House Mar. 6, 1846-51; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 30; Governor of VA 

1843-46. 

McDuffe, George UR, J. N-SC), Columbia County, GA. Aug. 10, 1790-Mar. 1 I. 

1851; House 1821-34; Senate Dec. 23, 

1842-Aug. 17, 1846; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Chairman 

44 1 
19th-22d Congresses; Governor of SC 

1834-36. 

McCillicuddy, Daniel J. (D-ME), Lewiston, ME, Aug. 27, 1859-July 30, 1936; 

House 1911-17; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 64. 

McGranery, James P. (D-PA), Philadelphia, PA, July 8, 1895-Dec. 23, 1962; 

House 1937-43; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 77, 78. 

McGrath, Raymond J. (R-NY), Valley 

Stream, NY. Mar. 27, 1942- ; House 

1981-; Congresses on Ways and Means 

99, 100, 101. 

McKay, James I. (D-NC), Elizabethtown, 

NC, 1793-Sept. 4, 1853; House 1831-49; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 28, 29, 30; 

Chairman 28th and 29th Congresses. 

McKenna, Joseph (R-CA), Philadelphia, 

PA, Aug. 10, 1843-Nov. 21, 1926; House 

1885-Mar. 28, 1892; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 5 1, 52; Associate Justice of the 

Supreme Court 1898-1925. 

McKeough, Raymond S. (D-IL), Chicago, 

IL, Apr. 29, 1888-Dec. 16, 1979; House 

1935-43; Congresses on Ways and Means 

76, 77. 

McKim, Alexander (JR-MD), Rrandywine, 

DE, Jan. 10. 1748-Jan. 18, 1832; House 

1809-15; Congresses on Ways and Means 

13; Uncle of Isaac McKim. 

McKim, Isaac UR, J, D-MD), Baltimore, 

MD, July 21, 1775-Apr. 1, 1838; House 

Jan. 4, 1823-25. 1833-Apr. 1, 1838; Congresses on Ways and Means 18, 23, 24, 25; 

Nephew of Alexander McKim. 

McKinley, John (D-AL), Culpeper 

County, VA, May 1, 1780-luly 19, 1852; 

1892-May 31, 1897; Senate June I, 1897- 

1903; Congresses on Ways and Means 54, 

55. 

McLean, Donald H. (R-NJ), Paterson, NJ, 

Mar. 18, 1884-Aug. 19, 1975; House 

1933-45; Congresses on Ways and Means 

76, 77, 78. 

McMillin, Benton (D-TN), Monroe 

County, KY, Sept. 11, 1845-Jan. 8, 1933; 

House 1879-Jan. 6. 1899; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 49, 50, 5 1, 52, 53, 54, 55; 

Governor of TN 1899- 1903. 

Meriwether, David UR-GA), Charlottesville, VA, Apr. 10, 1755-Nov. 16. 1822; 

House Dec. 6, 1802-07; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 8, 9. 

Metcalf, Lee W. (D-MT), Stevensville, 

MT. Jan. 28, 1911-Jan. 12, 1978; House 

1953-61; Senate 1961-Jan. 12, 1978; Congresses on Ways and Means 86. 

Metcalf, Victor H. (R-CA), Utica, NY, 

Oct. 10, 1853-Feb. 20, 1936; House 1899- 

July 1, 1904; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 57.58. 

Mikva, Abner J. (D-IL), Milwaukee, WI. 

Jan. 21, 1926- ; House 1969-73, 1975- 

Sept. 26, 1979; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 94,95, 96. 

Milledge, John OR-GA), Savannah, GA, 

1757-Feb. 9, 1818; House Nov. 22, 1792- 

93, 1795-99, 1801-May 1802; Senate June 

19, 1806-Nov. 14, 1809; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 7; Governor of GA 1802- 

06. 

Mills, Ogden L. (R-NY), Newport, RI. 

Aug. 23, 1884-Oct. 11, 1937; House 1921- 

27; Congresses on Ways and Means 67, 68, 

69. 

1821-23. 1825-29, 1831-33; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 17. 

Montgomery, Alexander B. (D-KY), Tip 

Top, KY, Dec. 11, 1837-Dec. 27, 1910; 

House 1887-95; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 52, 53. 

Montgomery, John (JR-MD), Carlisle. PA, 

1764-July 17, 1828; House 1807-Apr. 29, 

181 1; Congresses on Ways and Means 10, 

11. 

Montgomery, Thomas UR-KY), Nelson 

County, VA, 1779-Apr. 2, 1828; House 

1813-15, Aug. 1, 1820-23; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 13. 

Moody, Jim (D-WI), Richlands, VA. Sept. 

2, 1935- ; House 1983- ; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 100, 101. 

Moore, Joseph H. UR-PA), Woodbury, 

NJ, Mar. 8, 1864-May 2, 1950; House Nov. 

6, 1906-Jan. 4, 1920; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 63,64,65,66. 

Moore, Nicholas R. UR-MD), Baltimore 

Town, MD, July 21, 1756-Oct. 7, 1816; 

House 1803- 1 1, 18 13- 15; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 8. 

Moore, William H., 111 (R-LA). Lake 

Charles, LA, Oct. 4, 1939- ; House Jan. 7, 

1975-87; Congresses on Ways and Means 

96, 97, 98, 99. 

Moorhead, James K. (R-PA), Halifax, PA, 

Sept. 7, 1806-Mar. 6, 1884; House 1859- 

69; Congresses on Ways and Means 39.40. 

Morehead, Charles S. (W-KY), Bardstown, KY, July 7, 1802-Dec. 21. 1868; 

House 1847-51; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 30, 31; Governor of KY 1855-59. 

House' 1833-35; Senate No;. 27. 1826-31, 

Mar. 4-Apr. 22, 1837; Congresses on Ways Mills, Roger Q. (D-1-X), Todd County, 

and Means 23; Associate Justice of the su- KY. Mar. 30, 1832-Sept. 2. 1911; House 

preme Court 1837-52. 1873-Mar, 28, 1892; Senate Mar, 29, 

1892-99; Congresses on Ways and Means 

McKinley, William, Jr. (R-OH), Niles, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51; Chairman 50th ConOH, Jan. 29, 1843-Sept. 14, 1901; House gress. Moms, Lewis R. (F-VT), Scarsdale, NY, 1877-May 27, 1884, 1885-91; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 46, 47, 49, 50, 51; Mills, Wilbur D. (D-AR), Kensett, AR, *, 1760-Dec. 29, 1825; House 1797- 

Chairman 51st Congress; Governor of OH May 24, 1909- ; House 1939-77; Con- I8O3; Congresses On Ways and 5. 

1892-96; 25th President of the United gresses on Ways and Means 77, 78, 79, 80. Morrison, William (D-IL), Waterloo, States 1897-Sept. 14, 1901. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 

McLane, Louis (F-DE). Smyrna, DE, May es. 1863-65, 1873-87; Congresses on Ways 

28, 1786-Oct. 7, 1857; House 1817-27; and Means 44, 46, 47, 48, 49; Chairman 

Senate 1827-Apr. 16, 1829; Congresses on Millson, John S. (D-VA), Norfolk, VA, 44th, 48th and 49th Congresses. 

Ways and Means 16, 17, 18, 19; Chairman Oct. I, 1808-Mar. 1, 1874; House 1849- Morton, Rogers C. B. (R-MD), Louisville, 17th-19th Congresses. 6 I ; Congresses on Ways and Means 36. 

KY. Sept. 19, 1914-Apr. 19, 1979; House 

McLaughlin, James C. (R-MI), Beards- Mitchell, John J. (D-MA), Marlboro, MA, 1963-Jan. 29, 1971; Congresses on Ways 

town, IL, Jan. 26, 1858-Nov. 29, 1932; May 9, 1873-Sept. 13, 1925; House Nov. 8, and Means 91.92. 

House 1907-Nov. 29, 1932; Congresses on 1910-11, Apr. 15, 1913-15; Congresses on Ways and Means 68,69, 70, 71.72. Ways and Means 63. Moseley, Jonathan 0. (F-CT), East 

Haddam. CT, Apr. 9, 1762-Sept. 9, 1838; 

McLaurin, John L. (D-SC), Red Bluff, SC, Mitchell, Thomas R. OR-SC), George- House 1805-21; Congresses on Ways and 

May 9, 1860-July 29, 1934; House Dec. 5, town, SC, May 1783-Nov. 2, 1837; House Means 9, 14, 16. 

Morrill, Justin S. (R-VT), Strafford. VT, 

Apr' 14' 1810-Dec. 28' lgg8; House 1855- 

67; Senate 1867-Dec. 28. 1898; Congresses On Ways and Means 35, 363 37* 38, 39; 

39th Congress. 

92, 93, 94; Chairman 85th-93d Congress- IL* Sept. 14. 1824-Sepr. 29, House 

442 
Mott, Luther W. (R-NY), Oswego, NY, 

Nov. 30, 1874-July 10. 1923; House 191 1- 

July 10, 1923; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 66.67. 

Mumma, Walter M. (R-PA), Steelton, PA, 

Nov. 20, 1890-Feb. 25, 1961; House 1951- 

Feb. 25, 1961; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 86,87. 

Murdock, Victor (R-KS), Burlingame, KS, 

Mar. 18, 1871-July 8, 1945; House May 26, 

1903-15; Congresses on Ways and Means 

63. 

Murray, William V. (F-MD), Cambridge 

MD, Feb. 9, 1760-Dec. 11, 1803; House 

1791-97; Congresses on Ways and Means 

4. 

Needham, James C. (R-CA), Carson City, 

NV, Sept. 17, 1864-July 11, 1942; House 

1899-1913; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 58, 59.60, 61, 62. 

Nelson, Roger UR-MD), Frederick, MD, 

1759-June 7, 1815; House Nov. 6, 1804- 

May 14, 1810; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 9. 

Newlands, Francis G. (D-NV), Natchez, 

MS, Aug. 28, 1848-Dec. 24, 1917; House 

1893-1903; Senate 1903-Dec. 24, 1917; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 56, 57. 

Niblack, William E. (D-IN), Dubois 

County, IN, May 19, 1822-May 7, 1893; 

House Dec. 7, 1857-61, 1865-75; Congresses on Ways and Means 40,43. 

Nicholas, John UR-VA). Williamsburg, 

VA, about 1757-Dec. 31, 1819; House 

1793-1801; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 6. 

Nicholson, Joseph H. (JR-MD), Chestertown, MD, May 15, 1770-Mar. 4, 1817; 

House 1799-Mar. 1, 1806; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 6, 7,8,9. 

Nicoll, Henry (D-NY), New York, NY, 

Oct. 23, 1812-Nov. 28, 1879; House 1847- 

49; Congresses on Ways and Means 30. 

Norris, Moses, Jr. (D-NH), Pittsfield, NH, 

Nov. 8, 1799-Jan. 11, 1855; House 1843- 

47; Senate 1849-Jan. 11. 1855; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 28, 29. 

Nott, Abraham (F-SC), Saybrook, CT, 

Feb. 5, 1768-June 19. 1830; House 1799- 

1801; Congresses on Ways and Means 6. 

O’Brien, Thomas J. (D-IL), Chicago, IL, 

Apr. 30, 1878-Apr. 14, 1964; House 1933- 

39, 1943-Apr. 14, 1964; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 79, 81.82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 

87, 88. 

O’Shaunessy, George F. (D-RI), Galway, 

Ireland, May I, 1868-Nov. 28, 1934; 

House 191 1-19; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 65. 

Oakley, Thomas J. (F-NY), Poughkeepsie, 

NY, Nov. 10, 1783-May 11, 1857; House 

1813-15, 1827-May 9, 1828; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 13. 

Oldfield, William A. (D-AR), Franklin, 

AR, Feb. 4, 1874-Nov. 19, 1928; House 

1909-Nov. 19, 1928; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 64,65,66,67,68,69,70. 

Orr, Alexander D. (PAU-KY), Alexandria, 

VA, Nov. 6, 1761-June 21, 1835; House 

Nov. 8, 1792-97; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 3. 

Orth, Godlove S. (R-IN), Lebanon, PA, 

Apr. 22, 1817-Dec. 16, 1882; House 1863- 

71, 1873-75, 1879-Dec. 16, 1882; Congresses on Ways and Means 4 1. 

Otis, Harrison G. (F-MA), Boston, MA, 

Oct. 8, 1765-Oct. 28, 1848; House 1797- 

1801; Senate 1817-May 30, 1822; Congresses on Ways and Means 5.6. 

Overton, Walter H. u-LA), Louisa Court 

House, VA, 1788-Dec. 24, 1845; House 

1829-31; Congresses on Ways and Means 

21. 

Owens, George W. (D-GA), Savannah, 

GA, Aug. 29, 1786-Mar. 2, 1856; House 

1835-39; Congresses on Ways and Means 

24, 25. 

Palmer, Alexander M. (D-PA), White 

Haven, PA, May 4, 1872-May 11, 1936; 

House 1909-15; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 62,63. 

Parker, Isaac (F-MA), Boston, MA, June 

17, 1768-July 21, 1830; House 1797-99; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 5. 

Patten, John UR-DE), Kent County, DE, 

Apr. 26, 1746-Dec. 26, 1800; House 1793- 

Feb. 14, 1794, 1795-97; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 4; Member of the Continental Congress 1786. 

Payne, Sereno E. (R-NY), Hamilton, NY, 

June 26, 1843-Dec. 10, 1914; House 1883- 

87, 1889-Dec. 10, 1914; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 

58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63; Chairman 55th-61st 

Congresses. 

Pease, Donald J. (D-OH), Toledo, OH, 

Sept. 26, 1931- ; House 1977- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 97, 98, 99, 100, 

101. 

Pendleton, George H. (D-OH), Cincinnati, OH, July 19, 1825-Nov. 24, 1889; 

House 1857-65; Senate 1879-85; Congresses on Ways and Means 38. 

Peters, Andrew J. (D-MA), West Roxbury, 

MA, Apr. 3, 1872-June 26, 1938; House 

1907-Aug. 15, 1914; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 62,63. 

Pettis, Jerry L. (R-CA), Phoenix, AZ, July 

18, 1916-Feb. 14. 1975; House 1967-Feb. 

14, 1975; Congresses on Ways and Means 

91, 92,93,94. 

Phelps, James (D-CT), Colebrook, CT, 

Jan. 12, 1822-Jan. 15, 1900; House 1875- 

83; Congresses on Ways and Means 45, 46. 

Phelps, John S. (D-MO). Simsbury, CT, 

Dec. 22, 1814-Nov. 20, 1886; House 

1845-63; Congresses on Ways and Means 

32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37; Chairman 35th Congress; Governor of MO 1877-8 1. 

Phillips, Henry M. (D-PA), Philadelphia, 

PA, June 30, 1811-Aug. 28, 1884; House 

1857-59; Congresses on Ways and Means 

35. 

Pickens, Francis W. (D-SC), Colleton, SC, 

Apr. 7, 1805-Jan. 25, 1869; House Dec. 8, 

1834-43; Congresses on Ways and Means 

27; Governor of SC 1860-62. 

Pickle, James J. “Jake” (D-TX), Big 

Spring, TX, Oct. 11, 1913- ; House Dec. 

21. 1963- ; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 94,95,96,97, 98,99, 100, 101. 

Pike, Otis G. (D-NY), Riverhead, NY, Aug. 

31, 1921- ; House 1961-79; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 93,94,95. 

Pitcher, Nathaniel (JR-NY), Litchfield, 

Cl’, 1777-May 25, 1836; House 1819-23, 

1831-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

17. 

Pitkin, Timothy (F-CT). Farmington, CT, 

Jan. 21, 1766-Dec. 18, 1847; House Sept. 

16, 1805-19; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 12, 13, 15. 

Platt, Jonas (F-NY), Poughkeepsie, NY, 

June 30, 1769-Feb. 22. 1834; House 1799- 

1801; Congresses on Ways and Means 6. 

Pleasants, James UR-VA), Powhatan 

County, VA, Oct. 24, 1769-Nov. 9, 1836; 

House 1811-Dec. 14, 1819; Senate Dec. 

14, 1819-Dec. 15, 1822; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 12, 13; Governor of VA 

1822-25. 

Polk, James K. (J, D-TN), Mecklenburg 

County, NC, Nov. 2, 1795-June 15, 1849; 

House 1825-39; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 22, 23; Chairman 23d Congress; 

Speaker of the House 24th and 25th Congresses; Governor of TN 1839-41; I lth 

President of the United States 1845-49. 

Pollock, James (W-PA), Milton, PA, Sept. 

11, 1810-Apr. 19, 1890; House Apr. 5, 

1844-49; Congresses on Ways and Means 

30; Governor of PA 1855-58. 

Pope, John (D-KY), Prince William 

County, VA, 1770-July 12, 1845; House 

1837-43; Senate 1807-13; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 25. 

443 
Potter, Elisha R. (F-RI), Little Rest (now 

Kingston), RI, Nov. 5, 1764-Sept. 26, 

1835; House Nov. 15, 1796-97, 1809-15; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 4. 

Pou, Edward W. (D-NC), Tuskegee, AL, 

Sept. 9, 1863-Apr. 1. 1934; House 1901- 

Apr. 1, 1934; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 60, 61. 

Powell, Leven (F-VA), Manassas, VA, 

1737-Aug. 23, 1810; House 1799-1801; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 6. 

Pruyn, John V. L. (D-NY), Albany, NY, 

June 22, 181 I-Nov. 21, 1877; House Dec. 

7, 1863-65, 1867-69; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 38. 

Quincy, Josiah (F-MA), Boston, MA, Feb. 

4, 1772-July I, 1864; House 1805-13; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 9. 

Ragon, Heartsill (D-AR), Dublin, AR, 

Mar. 20, 1885-Sept. 15, 1940; House 

1923-June 16, 1933; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 70.7 I, 72, 73. 

Rainey, Henry T. (D-IL), Carrollton, IL, 

Aug. 20, 1860-Aug. 19, 1934; House 

1903-2 I. 1923-Aug. 19, 1934; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68. 

69, 70, 71, 72; Speaker of the House 73d 

Congress. 

Ramseyer, Christian W. (R-IA), Collinsville, OH, Mar. 13, 1875-Nov. 1, 1943; 

House 1915-33; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 70, 71. 

Randall, Samuel J. (D-PA). Philadelphia, 

PA, Oct. 10, 1828-Apr. 13, 1890; House 

1863-Apr. 13. 1890; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 47; Speaker of the House 44th46th Congresses. 

Randell, Choice B. (D-TX), Spring Place. 

GA, Jan. 1, 1857-Oct. 19, 1945; House 

1901-13; Congresses on Ways and Means 

60, 61, 62. 

Randolph, John (JR, J-VA), Cawsons, VA, 

June 2, 1773-May 24, 1833; House 1799- 

1813, 1815-17. 1819-Dec. 26, 1825, 1827- 

29, Mar. 4, 1833-May 24, 1833; Senate 

Dec. 26, 1825-27; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 7, 8. 9, 20; Chairman 7th-9th 

and 20th Congresses. 

Rangel, Charles B. (D-NY), New York, 

NY. June 11. 1930- ; House 1971- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 94, 95, 96, 97, 

98,99, 100, 101. 

Rathbun, George 0. (D-NY). Scipioville, 

NY, 1803-Jan. 5, 1870; House 1843-47; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 28. 

Rea, John UR-PA), Charnbersburg, PA, 

Jan. 27. 1755-Feb. 26, 1829; House 1803- 

1 I, May I I, 1813-15; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 11. 

Read, Nathan (F-MA), Warren, MA, July 

2, 1759-Jan. 20, 1849; House Nov. 25, 

1800-03; Congresses on Ways and Means 

7. 

Reed, Daniel A. (R-NY), Sheridan, NY. 

Sept. 15. 1857-Feb. 19. 1959; House 

1919-Feb. 19, 1959; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78. 79, 80, 

81, 82. 83, 84, 85, 86; Chairman 83d Congress. 

Reed, Thomas B. (R-ME), Portland, ME, 

Oct. 18, 1839-Dec. 7, 1902; House 1877- 

Sept. 1. 1899; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 48, 49. 50, 52, 53; Speaker of the 

House 4 1st. 44th-45th, 51st Congresses. 

Rencher, Abraham (W-NC), Raleigh, NC, 

Aug. 12, 1798-July 6, 1883; House 1829- 

39, 1841-43; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 25, 27; Governor of NM 1857-61. 

Rheti, Robert Barnwell [Smith] (D-SC), 

Beaufort, SC, Dec. 21. 1800-Sept. 14, 

1876; House 1837-49; Senate Dec. 18, 

1850-May 7, 1852; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 25,26. 

Rhodes, George M. (D-PA), Reading, PA, 

Feb. 24, 1898-Oct. 23, 1978: House 1949- 

69; Congresses on Ways and Means 88, 89, 

90. 

Richardson, James D. (D-TN), Rutherford County, TN, Mar. 10. 1843-July 24, 

1914; House 1885-1905; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 55, 56, 57. 

Robbins, John (D-PA), Bustleton (now a 

part of Philadelphia), PA, 1808-Apr. 27, 

1880; House 1849-55. 1875-77; Congresses on Ways and Means 33. 

Robbins, William M. (D-NC), Trinity, NC, 

Oct. 26, 1828-May 5, 1905; House 1873- 

79; Congresses on Ways and Means 45. 

Roberts, Ellis H. UR-NY), Utica, NY, 

Sept. 30, 1827-Jan. 8, 1918; House 1871- 

75; Congresses on Ways and Means 42.43. 

Roberts, Jonathan (JR-PA), Norristown, 

PA, Aug. 16, 1771-July 24, 1854; House 

181 I-Feb. 24, 1814; Senate Feb. 24, 1814- 

21; Congresses on Ways and Means 12, 13. 

Robertson, A. Willis (D-VA), Martinsburg, WV. May 27, 1887-Nov. 1, 1971; 

House 1933-Nov. 5, 1946; Senate Nov. 6. 

1946-Dec. 30, 1966; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 75, 76, 77, 78. 79. 

Robertson, Samuel M. (D-LA), Plaquemine, LA, Jan. 1. 1852-Dec. 24, 1911; 

House Dec. 5, 1887-1907; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 55, 56, 57, 58, 59. 

Robertson, Thomas B. (JR-LA), Petersburg, VA, Feb. 27, 1779-Oct. 5, 1828; 

House Apr. 30, 1812-Apr. 20, 1818; Congresses on Ways and Means 14; Governor 

of LA 1820-22. 

Rodney, Caesar A. OR-DE), Dover, DE, 

Jan. 4, 1772-June 10, 1824; House 1803- 

05, 1821-Jan. 24, 1822; Senate Jan. 24, 

1822-Jan. 29, 1823; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 8. 

Root, Erastus (JR-NY). Hebron, CT. Mar. 

16, 1773-Dec. 24, 1846; House 1803-05, 

1809-11, Dec. 26, 1815-17, 1831-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 1 1. 

Ross, Thomas R. (JR-OH), New Garden 

Township, PA, Oct. 26, 1788-June 28, 

1869; House 1819-25; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 16. 

Rostenkowski, Daniel D. (D-IL), Chicago, 

IL, Jan. 2, 1928- ; House 1959- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 88, 89. 90, 9 I, 

92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101; 

Chairman 97th-. 

Rousselot, John H. (R-CA). Los Angeles, 

CA, Nov. 1, 1927- ; House 1961-63, June 

30, 1970-83; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 95,96, 97. 

Russell, Charles A. (R-CT), Worcester, 

MA, Mar. 2, 1852-Oct. 23, 1902; House 

1887-Oct. 23, 1902; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 54,55,56, 57. 

Russell, William A. (R-MA), Wells River, 

VT, Apr. 22, 1831-Jan. 10, 1899; House 

1879-85; Congresses on Ways and Means 

47, 48. 

Russo, Martin A. (D-IL), Chicago, IL, Jan. 

23, 1944- ; House 1975- ; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101. 

Sadlak, Antoni N. (R-CT), Rockville, CT, 

June 13, 1908-Oct. 18. 1969; House 1947- 

59; Congresses on Ways and Means 83, 84, 

85. 

Sage, Russell (W-NY), Shenandoah. NY, 

Aug. 4, 1816-July 22, 1906; House 1853- 

57; Congresses on Ways and Means 34. 

Saltonstall, Leverett (W-M.4). Haverhill, 

MA, June 13, 1783-May 8, 1845; House 

Dec. 5, 1838-43; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 26. 

Sanders, Morgan C. (D-TX), Ben Wheeler, TX, July 14, 1878-Jan. 7, 1956; House 

1921-39; Congresses on Ways and Means 

72. 73, 74, 75. 

Sands, Joshua (F-NY), Long Island, NY, 

Oct. 12, 1757-Sept. 13. 1835; House 

1803-05, 1825-27; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 8. 

Sayler, Milton (D-OH), Lewisburg, OH, 

Nov. 4, 1831-Nov. 17, 1892; House 1873- 

79; Congresses on Ways and Means 45. 

Schenck, Robert C. (R-OH). Franklin. 

OH, Oct. 4, 1809-Mar. 23, 1890; House 

1843-51, 1863-Jan. 5, 1871; Congresses 

444 
on Ways and Means 40, 4 1; Chairman 40th 

and 4 1st Congresses. 

Schneebeli, Herman T. (R-PA), Lancaster, 

PA, July 7, 1907-May 6, 1982; House Apr. 

26, 1960-77; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 87,88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94. 

Schulze, Richard T. (R-PA), Philadelphia, 

PA, Aug. 7, 1929- ; House 1975- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 95, 96, 97, 98, 

99, 100, 101. 

Scott, William L. (D-PA), Washington, 

DC, July 2, 1828-Sept. 19, 1891; House 

1885-89; Congresses on Ways and Means 

50. 

Seaver, Ebenezer (JR-MA), Roxbury, MA, 

July 5, 1763-Mar. 1, 1844; House 1803- 13; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 1 1. 

Sedgwick, Theodore (F-MA), West Hartford, CT, May 9, 1746-Jan. 24, 1813; 

House 1789-June 1796, 1799-1801; 

Senate June 11, 1796-99; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 4; Member of the Continental Congress 1785-86, 1788; Speaker 

of the House 6th Congress. 

Sergeant, John (F. W-PA), Philadelphia, 

PA, Dec. 5, 1779-Nov. 23, 1852; House 

Oct. 10, 1815-23, 1827-29, 1837-Sept. 15, 

1841; Congresses on Ways and Means 15, 

25. 

Sewall, Samuel (F-MA), Boston, MA, Dec. 

11, 1757-June 8, 1814; House Dec. 7, 

1796-Jan. 10, 1800; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 5. 

Seymour, David L. (D-NY), Wethersfield, 

CT, Dec. 2, 1803-Oct. 11, 1867; House 

1843-45. 1851-53; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 28. 

Shackleford, Dorsey W. (D-MO), Sweet 

Springs, MO, Aug. 27, 1853-July 15, 1936; 

House Aug. 29, 1899-1919; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 62, 63. 

Shallenberger, Ashton C. (D-NE), 

Toulon, IL, Dec. 23, 1862-Feb. 22, 1938; 

House 1901-03, 1915-19, 1923-29, 1931- 

35; Congresses on Ways and Means 73; 

Governor of NE 1909- I 1. 

Shannon, James M. (D-MA), Methuen, 

MA, Apr. 4, 1952- ; House 1979-85; Congresses on Ways and Means 96, 97.98. 

Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. (R-FL), Miami, FL, Apr. 

19, 1939- ; House 1981- ; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 100, 101. 

Shaw, Henry OR-MA), Putney, VT, 1788- 

Oct. 17, 1857; House 1817-21; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 16. 

Sheldon, Lionel A. (R-LA), Worcester, 

NY, Aug. 30, 1828-Jan. 17, 1917; Housc 

1869-75; Congresses on Ways and Means 

43. 

Sherman, John (R-OH), Lancaster, OH, 

May 10, 1823-Oct. 22, 1900; House 1855- 

Mar. 21, 1861; Senate Mar. 21, 1861-Mar. 

8, 1877, 1881-Mar. 4, 1897; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 36; Chairman 36th 

Congress. 

Shively, Benjamin F. (NAM, D-IN), Osceola, IN, Mar. 20, 1857-Mar. 14, 1916; 

House Dec. 1, 1884-85, 1887-93; Senate 

1909-Mar. 14, 1916; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 52. 

Simpson, Richard M. (R-PA), Huntingdon, PA, Aug. 30, 1900-Jan. 7, 1960; 

House May 11, 1937-Jan. 7, 1960; Congresses on Ways and Means 78, 79, 80, 81, 

82, 83, 84, 85, 86. 

Sinnickson, Thomas (F-NJ), Salem, NJ, 

Dec. 21, 1744-May 15, 1817; House 1789- 

91, 1797-99; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 5. 

Sloan, Charles H. (R-NE), Monticello, IA, 

May 2, 1863-June 2, 1946; House 1911- 

19, 1929-31; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 63, 64,65. 

Smilie, John (JR-PA), Ireland, 174 1-Dec. 

30, 1812; House 1793-95, 1799-Dec. 30, 

1812; Congresses on Ways and Means 6, 7, 

10, 11, 12. 

Smith, Francis 0. J. (D-ME), Brentwood. 

NH, Nov. 23, 1806-Oct. 14, 1876; House 

1833-39; Congresses on Ways and Means 

24. 

Smith, Isaac (F-NJ), Trenton, NJ. 1740- 

Aug. 29, 1807; House 1795-97; Congresses on Ways and Means 4. 

Smith, Israel UR-VT), Suffield, CT, Apr. 

4, 1759-Dec. 2, 1810; House Oct. 17, 

1791-97, 1801-03; Senate 1803-Oct. 1, 

1807; Congresses on Ways and Means 3, 4, 

7; Governor of VT 1807-08. 

Smith, Nathaniel (F-CT), Woodbury, CT, 

Jan. 6, 1762-Mar. 9, 1822; House 1795-99; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 4, 5. 

Smith, Samuel (JR-MD). Carlisle, PA, July 

27, 1752-Apr. 22, 1839; House 1793- 

1803, Jan. 31, 1816-Dec. 17, 1822; Senate 

1803-15. Dec. 17, 1822-23; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 14, 15, 16, 17; Chairman 

15th-I 7th Congresses. 

Smith, William (PAU-MD), Donegal 

Township, PA, Apr. 12, 1728-Mar. 27, 

1814; House 1789-91; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 1; Member of the Continental Congress 1777. 

Smith, William A. (R-MI), Dowagiac, MI, 

May 12, 1859-Oct. 11, 1932; House 1895- 

Feb. 9, 1907; Senate Feb. 9, 1907-19; Congresses on Ways and Means 59. 

Smith, William L. (F-SC). Charleston, SC, 

1758-Dec. 19, 1812; House 1789-July 10, 

1797; Congresses on Ways and Means 3, 4, 

5; Chairman 3d. 4th. and 5th Congresses. 

Smyth, Alexander u-VA). Island of 

Rathlin, Ireland, 1765-Apr. 17, 1830; 

House 1817-25, 1827-Apr. 17, 1830; Congresses on Ways and Means 20, 21. 

Spaulding, Elbridge G. (R-NY), Summer 

Hill, NY, Feb. 24, 1809-May 5, 1897; 

House 1849-5 1, 1859-63; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 36.37. 

Speer, Emory (I-GA), Culloden, GA, Sept. 

3, 1848-Dec. 13, 1918; House 1879-83; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 47. 

Sprague, Peleg (AJ-ME), Duxbury, MA, 

Apr. 27, 1793-Oct. 13, 1880; House 1825- 

29; Senate 1829-Jan. 1, 1835; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 19.20. 

Springer, William M. (D-IL), New Lebanon, IN, May 30, 1836-Dec. 4, 1903; 

House 1875-95; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 52; Chairman 52d Congress. 

Stanley, Augustus 0. (D-KY), Shelbyville, 

KY, May 21, 1867-Aug. 12, 1958; House 

1903-15; Senate May 19. 1919-25; Congresses on Ways and Means 63; Governor 

of KY 1915-19. 

Stanly, Edward (W-NC), New Bern, NC, 

Jan. 10, 1810-July 12, 1872; House 1837- 

43, 1849-53; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 32. 

Stanton, Joseph, Jr. UR-RI), Charlestown, 

RI, July 19, 1739-1807; House 1801-07; 

Senate June 7, 1790-93; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 8. 

Stark, Fortney Pete (D-CA), Milwaukee, 

WI, Nov. 11, 1931- ; House 1973- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 94, 95, 96, 97, 

98,99, 100, 101. 

Stebbins, Henry G. (D-NY), Ridgefield, 

CT, Sept. 15, 1811-Dec. 9. 1881; House 

1863-Oct. 24, 1864; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 38. 

Steele, George W. (R-IN), Connersville, 

IN, Dec. 13, 1839-July 12, 1922; House 

1881-89, 1895-1903; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 54,55, 56, 57. 

Steiger, William A. (R-WI), Oshkosh, WI, 

May 15, 1938-Dec. 4, 1978; House 1967- 

Dec. 4, 1978; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 94,95. 

Stephens, Alexander H. (W, D-GA), 

Crawfordville. GA, Feb. 1 I. 1812-Mar. 4, 

1881; House Oct. 2, 1843-59, Dec. 1, 

1873-Nov. 4, 1882; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 30, 31, 33; Governor of GA 

1882-83. 

Sterling, John A. (R-IL), Le Roy, IL, Feb. 

1, 1857-Oct. 17, 1918; House 1903-13, 

445 
1915-Oct. 17, 1918; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 65. 

Stevens, Moses T. (D-MA), North Andover, MA, Oct. 10, 1825-Mar. 25, 1907; 

House 1891-95; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 52, 53. 

Stevens, Thaddeus (UR, R-PA), Danville, 

Vr, Apr. 4, 1792-Aug. 11, 1868; House 

1849-53, 1859-Aug. 11, 1868; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 36, 37, 38; Chairman 

37th and 38th Congresses. 

Stevenson, Andrew (JR-VA), Culpeper 

County, VA, Jan. 21, 1784-Jan. 25, 1857; 

House 1821-June 2, 1834; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 17, 18, 19; Speaker of the 

House 20th-23d Congresses. 

Stone, David (JR-NC), Windsor, NC, Feb. 

17. 1770-Oct. 7, 1818; House 1799-1801; 

Senate 1801-Feb. 17, 1807, 1813-Dec. 24, 

18 14; Congresses on Ways and Means 6: 

Governor of NC 1808-10. 

Stratton, John L. N. (R-NJ), Mount Holly, 

NJ. Nov. 27, 1817-May 17, 1899; House 

1859-63; Congresses on Ways and Means 

37. 

Sullivan, Christopher D. (D-NY), New 

York. NY, July 14, 1870-Aug. 3, 1942; 

House 1917-41; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 72, 73, 74, 75, 76. 

Sundquist, Donald K. (R-TN), Moline, IL 

Mar. 15, 1936- ; House 1983- ; Congresses on Ways and Means 101. 

Swanson, Claude A. (D-VA), Swansonville, VA, Mar. 31, 1862-July 7, 1939; 

House 1893-Jan. 30, 1906; Senate Aug. I, 

1910-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

55, 56, 57, 58; Governor of VA 1906-10. 

Sweet, Thaddeus C. (R-NY), Phoenix, NY. 

Nov. 16, 1872-May I, 1928; House Nov. 6, 

1923-May 1, 1928; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 70. 

Tague, Peter F. (D-MA), Boston, MA, 

June 4, 1871-Sept. 17, 1941; House 1915- 

19. Oct. 23, 1919-25; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 67,68. 

Taliaferro, Benjamin (F-GA), VA, 1750- 

Sept. 3, 1821; House 1799-1802; Congresses on Ways and Means 6. 

Tallmadge, Benjamin (F-CT), Long 

Island, NY, Feb. 25, 1754-Mar. 7. 1835; 

House 1801-17; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 10, 11. 

Tallmadge, James, Jr. (R-NY), Stanfordville. NY, Jan. 28, 1778-Sept. 29, 1853; 

House June 6, 1817-19; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 15. 

Tarsney, John C. (D-MO), Medina, MI, 

Nov. 7, 1845-Sept. 4, 1920; House 1889- 

Feb. 27, 1896; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 53.54. 

Tawney, James A. (R-MN), Mount Pleasant Township, PA, Jan. 3, 1855-June 12, 

191 9; House 1893- 19 1 1 ; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 54, 55, 56, 57, 58. 

Taylor, John (JR-SC), unknown-unknown; 

House 1815-17; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 14. 

Taylor, John W. (JR-NY). Charlton, NY, 

Mar. 26, 1784-Sept. 18. 1854; House 

1813-33; Congresses on Ways and Means 

13; Speaker of the House 16th and 19th 

Congresses. 

Thomas, Phillip F. (D-MD), Easton, MD. 

Sept. 12, 1810-Oct. 2, 1890; House 1839- 

41, 1875-77; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 44; Governor of MD 1848-51. 

Thomas, William M. (R-CA). Wallace, ID, 

Dec 6, 1941- ; House 1979- ; Congresses 

on Ways and Means 98,99, 100, 101. 

Thompson, Chester C. (D-IL), Rock 

Island. IL, Sept. 19, 1893-Jan. 30, 1971; 

House 1933-39; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 74, 75. 

Thompson, Clark W. (D-TX), La Crosse, 

WI, Aug. 6, 1896-Dec. 16. 1981; House 

June 24, 1933-35, Aug. 23, 1947-67; Congresses on Ways and Means 87, 88. 89. 

Thompson, Jacob (D-MS), Leasburg, NC, 

May 15, 1810-Mar. 24, 1885; House 1839- 

51; Congresses on Ways and Means 3 1. 

Thompson, Wiley (JR-GA), Amelia 

County, VA, Sept. 23, 1781-Dec. 28, 1835; 

House 1821-33; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 17, 18. 

Thurston, Lloyd (R-IA). Osceola, IA, Mar. 

27. 1880-May 7, 1970; House 1925-39; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 75. 

Tilson, John Q. (R-CT), Clearbranch, TN, 

Apr. 5, 1866-Aug. 14, 1958; House 1909- 

13, 1915-Dec. 3, 1932; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 66, 67, 68. 

Timberlake, Charles B. (R-CO), Wilmington, OH, Sept. 25, 1854-May 31, 1941; 

House 1915-33; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 66, 67.68, 69, 70, 71, 72. 

Tod, John (JR-PA). Hartford, CT, 1779- 

Mar. 27. 1830; House 1821-24; Congresses on Ways and Means 17. 

Toombs, Robert (W-GA). Wilkes County, 

GA, July 2, 1810-Dec. 15, 1885; House 

1845-53; Senate 1853-Feb. 4, 1R61; Congresses on Ways and Means 30, 3 1. 

Tracy, Albert H. (JR-NY), Norwich, CT, 

June 17, 1793-Sept. 19, 1859; House 

1819-25; Congresses on Ways and Means 

16. 

Tracy, Uriah (PAU-CT), Franklin, CT, 

Feb. 2, 1755-July 19, 1807; House 1793- 

Oct. 13, 1796; Senate Oct. 13, 1796-July 

19, 1807; Congresses on Ways and Means 

3. 

Treadway, Allen T. (R-MA), Stockbridge, 

MA, Sept. 16, 1867-Feb. 16, 1947; House 

1913-45; Congresses on Ways and Means 

65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 

76, 77, 78. 

Trimble, David (JR-KY), Frederick 

County, VA, June 1782-Oct. 20. 1842: 

House 1817-27; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 15, 16. 

Tucker, James G., Jr. (D-AR), Oklahoma 

City, OK, June 13, 1943- ; House 1977-79; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 95. 

Tucker, John R. (D-VA), Winchester, VA, 

Dec. 24, 1823-Feb. 13, 1897; House 1875- 

87; Congresses on Ways and Means 44,45, 

46.47; Chairman 46th Congress. 

Turner, Henry G. (D-GA), Henderson, 

NC, Mar. 20, 1839-June 9, 1904; House 

1881-97; Congresses on Ways and Means 

50, 51, 52, 53, 54. 

Tyler, John (JR-VA), Charles City County, 

VA, Mar. 29, 1790-Jan. 18, 1862; House 

Dec. 16, 1817-21; Senate 1827-Feb. 29. 

1836; Congresses on Ways and Means 16; 

Governor of VA 1825-27; Vice President 

of United States Mar. 4, 1841-Apr. 4, 

1841; 10th President of the United States 

Apr. 6, 1841-45. 

Ullman, Albert C. (D-OR), Great Falls, 

MT, Mar. 9, 1914-Oct. 11, 1986; House 

1957-81; Congresses on Ways and Means 

87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95. 96; 

Chairman 94th-96th Congresses. 

Underwood, Oscar W. (D-AL), Louisville, 

KY, May 6, 1862-Jan. 25, 1929; House 

1895-June 9, 1896. 1897-1915; Senate 

1915-27; Congresses on Ways and Means 

56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63; Chairman 62d and 

63d Congresses. 

Utt, James B. (R-CA), Tustin, CA, Mar. 

11, 1899-Mar. 1, 1970; House 1953-Mar. 

1. 1970; Congresses on Ways and Means 

83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91. 

Van Rensselaer, Killian K. (F-NY), 

Greenbush, NY, June 9, 1763-June 18, 

1845; House 1801-1 I; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 7. 

Vander Jagt, Guy A. (R-MI), Cadillac, MI, 

Aug. 26, 1931- ; House Nov. 8, 1966- ; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 94, 95, 96, 

97,98,99, 100, 101. 

Vander Veen, Richard F. (D-MI), Grand 

Rapids, MI, Nov. 26, 1922- ; House Feb. 

18, 1974-77; Congresses on Ways and 

Means 93,94. 

446 
Vanderpoel, Aaron (D-NY), Kinderhook, 

NY, Feb. 5, 1799-July 18. 1870; House 

1833-37, 1839-41; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 26. 

Vanik, Charles A. (D-OH), Cleveland, 

OH, Apr. 7, 1913- ; House 1955-81; Congresses on Ways and Means 89, 90, 91, 92, 

93,94,95,96. 

Verplanck, Gulian C. (J-NY), New York, 

NY, Aug. 6, 1786-Mar. 18, 1870; House 

1825-33: congresses on Wavs and Means 

Watson, James E. (R-IN), Winchester, IN, 

Nov. 2, 1864-July 29, 1948; House 1895- 

97, 1899-1909; Senate Nov. 8, 1916-33; 

Congresses on Ways and Means 58, 59,60. 

Watterson, Henry (D-KY), Washington, 

DC, Feb. 16, 1840-Dec. 22, 1921; House 

Au;. 12, 1876-77; Congresses on Ways 

and Means 44. 

Watts, John (PAU-NY), New York, NY, 

Aug. 27, 1749-Sept. 3, 1836; House 1793- 

95; Congresses on Ways and Means 3. 

1815-17, Feb. 7-Mar. 3, 1825, Nov. 17. 

1827-35; Congresses on Ways and Means 

22, 23. 

Wilkin, James W. (JR-NY), Wallkill, NY, 

1762-Feb. 23, 1845; House June 7, 1815- 

19; Congresses on Ways and Means 14. 

Williams, David R. (JR-SC), Robbins 

Neck, SC, Mar. 8, 1776-Nov. 17, 1830; 

House 1805-09, 181 1-13; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 9; Governor of SC 1814- I6 -". 

20, 21, 22; Chzrman 22d Congress. Watts, John c. (D-KY), Nicholasville, KY, wimams, john s. (D-MS), Memphis, TN, 

Vining, John (PAU-DE), Dover, DE, Dec. July 9, 1902-SePt. 24, lg7I; House APr. JU~Y 30, 1854-Sept. 27, 1932; House 1893- 

23, 1758-Feb. 1802; House 1789-93; 14, 1951-SePt. 24, Congresses On 1909; Senate 1911-23; Congresses on Senate 1793-Jan. 19, 1798; Congresses on Ways and Means 86,873 88,89,90, 91,92. Ways and Means 58,59, 

Wearin, Otha D. (D-IA), Hastings, IA, Jan. Ways and Means I; Member of the ContiWilliams, Robert (JR-NC), Prince Edward 10, 1903- ; House 1933-39; Congresses on nental Congress 1784-85. 

County, VA, July 12, 1773-Jan. 25, 1836; 

Vinson, Frederick M. (D-KY), Louisa, KY, Ways and 75. House 1797-1803; Congresses on Ways Jan. 22, 1890-SePt. 8, 1953; House Jan. 

gresses on Ways and Means 72, 73, 74, 75; gresses on ways and M~~~~ 25, Wilson, William L. (D-WV), Charles 

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 1946- Town, VA (now WV), May 3, 1843-Oct. 

53. Wellborn, Marshall J. (D-GA), Eatonton, 17, 1900; House 1883-95; Congresses on 

GA, May 29, 1808-Oct. 16, 1874; House Ways and Means 50, 52, 53; Chairman 53d "intony F* (W-oH), South 1849-51; Congresses on Ways and Means Congress. 

Hadley, MA, Sept. 25, 1792-May 11, 1862; 31, 

House 1823-37, 1843-51; Congresses on 

Ways and Means 29, 30, 31; Chairman Weller, John B. (D-OH/CA), Hamilton 

30th Congress. County, OH, Feb. 22, 1812-Aug. 17. 1875; 

House 1939-45 (OH); Senate Jan. 30, 39, 

Wadsworth, Jeremiah (PAU-CT), Hart- 1852-57 (CA); Congresses on Ways and 

ford, CT, July 12, 1743-Apr. 30, 1804.; Means 28; Governor of CA 1858-60, Winthrop, Robert C. (W-MA), Boston, 

House 1789-95; Congresses on Ways and MA, May 12, 1809-Nov. 16, 1894; House 

Means 1; Member of the Continental Con- Wentworth, John (R-IL), Sandwich, NH, N~~. 9, 1840-May 25, 1842, NOV. 29, gress 1788. Mar. 5, 1815-0ct. 16, 1888; House 1843- 1842-July 30, 1850; Senate July 30, 1850- 

51, 1853-55, 1865-67; Congresses on Feb, 1, 1851; Congresses on Ways and 

Waggonner, Joseph D., Jr. @-LA), Plain Ways and M~~~~ 39, 

Dealing, LA, Sept. 7, 1918- ; House Dec. Means 29; Speaker of the House 30th Con19, 1961-79; Congresses on Ways and West, Charles F. (D-OH), Mount Vernon, gress. 

Waldron, Henry (R-MI), Albany, NY, Oct. 73. 

11, 1819-Sept. 13, 1880; House 1855-61, 

1871-77; Congresses on Ways and Means West, Milton H. (D-TX), Gonzales, TX, 

22, 1933-Oct. 28, 1948; Congresses on Wallace, David (W-IN). Lewistown, PA, Ways and M~~~~ 76,77, 78, 79.80, 

Apr. 24, 1799-Sept. 4, 1859; House 1841- 

43; Congresses on Ways and Means 27; Wheeler, Joseph (D-AL), Augusta, GA, 

Governor of IN 1837-40. Sept. 10, 1836-Jan. 25, 1906; House 1881- 

June 3, 1882; Jan. 15-Mar. 3, 1883; 1885- 

Washburn, Israel, Jr. (R-ME), Livermore, Apr. 20, 1900; Congresses on Ways and 

ME, June 6, 1813-May 12, 1883; House M~~~~ 53, 54, 55, Woods, Henry (F-PA), Bedford, PA, 

1851-61; Congresses on Ways and Means 1764-1826; House 1799-1803; Congresses 

36; Governor ofME 1861-61. White, George (D-OH), Elmira, NY, Aug. on Ways and Means 6. 

21, 1872-Dec. 15, 1953; House 1911-15, 

Wasielewski, Thaddeus F. B. (D-WI), Mil- 1917-19; congresses on ways and M~~~~ Young, George M. (R-ND), Lakelet, Onwaukee, WI, Dec. 2. 1904-Apr. 25, 1976; 65; Governor ofOH 1931-35, tario, Canada, Dec. 11, 1870-May 27, 

House 1941-47; Congresses on Ways and 1932; House 1913-Sept. 2, 1924; ConMeans 78, 79. Whiting, Justin R. (D-MI), Bath, NY, Feb. gresses on Ways and Means 66,67, 68. 

18. 1847-Jan. 31, 1903; House 1887-95; Watson- (R-PA), Bucks County. Congresses on Ways and Means 52, 53. Young, Stephen M. (D-OH), Norwalk, 

PA, June 24, 1856-Aug. 27, 1933; House OH, May 4, 1889-Dec. 1, 1984; House 

1915-Aug. 27, 1933; Congresses on Ways Wilde, Richard H. 0, D-GA), Dublin, Ire- 1933-37. 1941-43, 1949-51; Senate 1959- 

and Means 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73. land, Sept. 24, 1789-Sept. 10, 1847; House 71; Congresses on Ways and Means 81. 

Webster, Taylor @-OH), PA, Oct. 1, and Means 5. 12, 1924-297 1931-May 12, 'On- 1800-Apr. 27, 1876; House 1833-39; ConWinfield, Charles H. (D-NY), Crawford, 

NY, Apr. 22, 1822-June 10, 1888; House 

1863-67; Congresses on Ways and Means 

Means 92,93,94,95. OH, Jan. 12, 1895-Dec. 27, 1955; House 

1931-35; Congresses On Ways and Means Wood, Fernando (D-NY), Philadelphia, 

PA, June 14, 1812-Feb. 14, 1881; House 

1841-43, 1863-65, 1867-Feb. 14. 1881; 

Congresses On Ways and 437 44, 45, 

43. June 30, 1888-0ct. 28, 1948; House Apr, 46; Chairman 45th and 46th Congresses. 

Woodruff, Roy 0. (P, R-MI), Eaton 

Rapids, MI, Mar. 14, 1876-Feb. 12, 1953; 

House 1913-15, 1921-53; Congresses On 

and Means 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 793 

80, S1, 82. 

44 7 
Jurisdictional History of the Committee 

his appendix presents a narrative jurisdictional history of the T Committee on Ways and Means from its creation in 1789 as a 

select committee to its condition in 1989. House Rule X, Clause 1 (v) 

of the Rules of the House for the One Hundred First Congress, delineates the Ways and Means Committee’s current jurisdiction as follows: 

1. Customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and 

2. Reciprocal trade agreements. 

3. Revenue measures generally. 

4. Revenue measures relating to the insular possessions. 

5. The bonded debt of the United States (subject to the last 

6. The deposit of public moneys. 

7. Transportation of dutiable goods. 

8. Tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts. 

9. National social security, except (A) health care and 

facilities programs that are supported from general 

revenues as opposed to payroll deductions and (B) work 

incentive programs. 

delivery. 

sentence of clause 4(g) of this rule). 

Clause 4(g) of House Rule X relates to procedures for setting the 

national debt limit triggered by House adoption of a congressional 

budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. 

Since its creation as a select committee in 1789, and its formal 

reconstitution as a standing committee in 1802, the Committee on 

Ways and Means has had its formal jurisdiction revised several times, 

typically when the House has adopted changes to, or conducted a recodification of, the Rules of the House. However, the committee’s jurisdictional responsibilities have more often been changed through 

precedent, as determined by referral patterns of measures. In these 

cases the committee has usually gained additional responsibilities.2 

The following chronological history accounts for, and details, the 

development of the Ways and Means Committee’s subject responsibilities and jurisdictional language, both as included in House Rules and 

as accrued through referrals that seemingly set precedent. The history 

explains the circumstances causing each modification, usually by citing 

the specific mcasurc(s) which instigated the m~dification.~ 

Generally, Hinds ’ Precedents of the Home of Representatives ( 1907) and 

449 
Cannon S Precedents of [he Home of Refwesentatiues ( 1936), Deschler 5 Precedents of the House of Representatives (1977), and Procedure in the Home of 

Representatives, including the 1985 and 1987 Supplements to the Procedure Volume, have served as the primary source materials. As well, 

the Congressional Record and its predecessor volumes (i.e. the Congressional Globe, Gales and Seaton’s Regaster of Debales, and the Annals of 

Congress) and the House Journal, have provided a wealth of information. The Rules of the House of Representatives, as adopted each 

Congress, and the Parliamentarian’s explanatory notations regarding 

those rules, were consulted when those documents were available. Numerous periodicals that provide extensive coverage of congressional 

proceedings, such as Congressional Quarterly and National Journal, and 

several secondary sources, including many of the scholarly works cited 

in the text and bibliography of this history, were consulted for confirmation of certain events or, as was more often the case, for an explanation of the political or institutional context of certain occurrences. 

Where appropriate, footnotes indicate sections in the text of this history that more fully discuss the issue or the specific incident; in many 

cases, where necessary for precision, statements of jurisdictional 

topics are drawn directly from formulations in cited primary sources. 

Chronological Jurisdictional History 

1789: When the select Committee on Ways and Means was created 

on July 24, the jurisdiction was detailed in the resolution creating 

the panel as “to consider the report of a committee appointed to 

prepare an estimate of supplies requisite for the services of the 

United States for the current year, and to report thereon.” The 

select committee was disestablished later this year.4 

1794: The select committee was reestablished with jurisdiction to “inquire whether any, or what, further or other revenues are necessary 

for the support of public credit; and if further revenues are necessary, to report the ways and means.” 

1794: The committee first gained jurisdiction over increased import 

and tonnage duties, excise, stamp, and license taxes, and direct 

taxes on land. 

1795: The committee had jurisdiction over “all reports from the 

Treasury Department, all propositions relating to revenue, and they 

are to report on the state of the Public Debt, revenues, and expenditures.’’ 6 

1795-1801: The committee during this period exercised jurisdiction 

450 
over redemption of the federal debt, the modification of existing 

excise taxes, and the feasibility of soliciting foreign loans and of imposing a direct tax on land. 

1796: The committee gained jurisdiction over “additional general 

revenues, expenses of foreign intercourse, and money for the military and naval establishments.” 

1801: By motion, and over the objections of the Ways and Means 

Committee, the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures was 

granted jurisdiction over import duties and tariff laws.7 

1802: The panel was formally appointed as a standing committee in 

the House Rules. From 1795 until this time, the committee was 

consistently reappointed each Congress by resolution rather than by 

a provision in House Rules. When made a standing committee, it 

gained jurisdiction over examination of the public departments, 

their expenditures, and the economy of their management; it also 

included jurisdiction over revenue and appropriations bills generally.8 

1802: The committee’s jurisdiction as listed in House Rules was fully 

defined as “all such reports of the Treasury department, and all 

such propositions relative to the revenue . . . to inquire into the 

state of the public debt, of the revenue, and of the expenditures, 

and to report, from time to time, their opinion thereon; to examine 

into the state of the several public departments, and particularly 

into the laws making appropriations of moneys, and to report 

whether the moneys have been disbursed conformably with such 

laws; and also to report, from time to time, such provisions and arrangements, as may be necessary to add to the economy of the departments and to the accountability of their oficers.” 

1803: The committee reported that portion of the treaty for the Louisiana Purchase which related to the purchase price by authorizing 

and appropriating funds for “expenses incurred in foreign affairs,” 

thereby exercising jurisdiction over that area. lo 

1805: The committee had referred to it the President’s message on 

neutrality. (However, the committee did not have clear and undisputed jurisdiction over foreign affairs; for example, in 1807 the 

maritime rights issue raised by the Chesapeake incident was referred 

to the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures. The Committee 

on Foreign Affairs was created in 1822.) l1 

1814: The committee lost jurisdiction over examination of the public 

45 1 
departments, their expenditures, and the economy of their management to the newly created Committee on Public Expenditures. l2 

1814: The committee was referred the petition requesting a charter 

for a national bank (the charter was rejected; a bill for a charter for 

the Second Bank of the United States was reported by the Committee on Currency).13 

1815: The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on 

Commerce and Manufactures (which in 1819 was divided into two 

separate panels, one on Commerce and one on Manufactures) each 

received referrals of petitions seeking changes in the revenue, or 

urging further protection for manufactures. l4 

1816: The committee shared jurisdiction over tonnage duties with the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs.15 

1819: The committee lost jurisdiction over originating tariff bills to 

the Committee on Manufactures (which earlier this year had been 

split into a separate committee), although tariff measures whose 

purpose was revenue only remained within the jurisdiction of the 

Ways and Means Committee. However, the Ways and Means Committee also continued to exercise jurisdiction over such measures 

whose primary focus was revenue. For example, 1824 and 1828 

tariff bills were reported from the Committee on Manufactures; yet 

a 1828 tariff measure reported in response to the Committee on 

Manufactures’ version was reported from the Committee on Ways 

and Means; it is generally agreed that this 1828 measure reported 

by the Ways and Means Committee signalled its intent to reassert 

its jurisdiction over the area.16 

1824: The committee lost jurisdiction over veterans to a newly created Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. 

1824: The Committee on Manufactures reported the Tariff of 1824. 

A motion to refer the measure to the Committee on Ways and 

Means to review its bearing on revenue was tabled by a vote of 96- 

92. (During the debate, Chairman McLane of the Ways and Means 

Committee indicated his understanding of, and acceptance of the 

Committee on Manufactures’ jurisdiction over protective tariffs.) l7 

183 1: The President’s message on tariff reduction was referred jointly 

to the Committee on Ways and Means, for portions “relieving the 

people from unnecessary taxation” and to the Committee on Manufactures, for portions on “manufactures and a modification of the 

tariff.” l* 

452 
1863: The committee gained jurisdiction over distributing the President’s annual message, 

1865: The House created an Appropriations Committee, with jurisdiction over appropriations bills, and a Banking and Currency Committee with jurisdiction over banking and currency bills; the Ways 

and Means Committee retained jurisdiction over raising revenue 

measures. Representative Samuel Cox stated at the time that his intention in offering the measure to create the two new committees 

was to alleviate the heavy workload burden (in part due to the Civil 

War) on the Ways and Means Committee members without denying 

them attractive jurisdictional areas, and that the Ways and Means 

Committee would preserve the “tariff, the internal revenue, the 

loan bills, legal tender notes, and all other matters connected with 

supporting the credit and raising money.” (Also discussed during 

the debate was the undesirability of separating the revenue from the 

appropriations features of legislation. However, the Committee on 

Ways and Means retains jurisdiction over certain permanent spending authorities, such as Social Security, Medicare, interest on the 

national debt, public assistance grants, and other social services 

benefits. The Appropriations Committee, however, must recommend appropriations of funds to finance the entitlement spending 

programs within the jurisdiction of other committees. Until 1974, 

the Ways and Means Committee also had responsibility for general 

revenue sharing, which in that year was transferred to the Committee on Government Operations.) l9 

1865-1880: House Rule 151 listed the committee’s jurisdiction as, “It 

shall be the duty of the Committee on Ways and Means to take into 

consideration all reports of the Treasury Department, and such 

other propositions relative to raising revenue and providing ways 

and means for the support of the Government as shall be presented 

or shall come in question and be referred to them by the House, 

and to report their opinion thereon by bill or otherwise, as to them 

shall seem expedient; and said Committee shall have leave to report 

for commitment at any time.” 2o 

1880: Pursuant to the rules recodification of this year, Section 2 of 

House Rule XI defined the committee’s jurisdiction so as to include 

“revenue and bonded debt of the United States.” 

1880: By a vote of 140-82, the House referred a bill for revising tariff 

laws from the Committee on the Revision of the Laws (a predecessor of the Judiciary Committee) to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. After a lengthy debate, the House decided that the measure 

had been incorrectly referred.2 

453 
1881: The House referred a measure which “prohibits farmers and 

planters from selling leaf tobacco at retail directly to consumers 

without the payment of a special tax” to the Committee on Ways 

and Means. Previously, the House defeated a motion to refer a bill 

which amends a section of the Revised Statutes of the United States 

to the Committee on Agriculture, by a 97-135 vote, although in 

prior Congresses similar bills had been referred to the Agriculture 

Committee. Thereafter, with the exception of revenue legislation affecting Oleomargarine, the revenue bills affecting tobacco, lard and 

cheese were referred to the Ways and Means Committee. (See, for 

example, in 1892, a bill imposing a tax on compound lard; in 1884, 

a bill to prevent the importation of adulterated and suspicious teas; 

and, in 1896, a bill imposing a tax on filled cheese.) Revenue measures affecting oleomargarine remained within the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Agriculture, although the Ways and Means Committee occasionally reported on the subject of oleomargarine, such as 

in 1882 when the Ways and Means Committee reported a bill imposing a tax and regulating the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine and in 1900 when the committee reported a resolution of inquiry relating to the amount and character of material used by the 

various manufacturers of oleomargarine. 22 

1882: After defeating a motion to refer two joint resolutions regarding reciprocity treaties to the Foreign Affairs Committee by a 51-75 

vote, the measures (one regarding the establishment by treaty of a 

customs union with the Hawaiian Islands, the other the establishment of a customs union with Mexico) were referred to the Ways 

and Means Committee. The precedents to that time had varied, 

with measures going at different times to the Ways and Means, 

Commerce, and Foreign Affairs Committees. Thereafter, however, 

the subjects of customs unions, reciprocity treaties, and conventions 

affecting the revenues were referred to the Ways and Means Committee. (See, for example, in 1884 a measure to carry into operation 

the reciprocity treaty with Mexico; in 1886, the joint resolution 

giving notice to terminate the convention with the Hawaiian Islands 

in reference to commerce; in 1891 a measure again relating to the 

Hawaiian treaty; in 1896 regarding general investigation of reciprocity and commercial treaties; in 1899 a bill to carry into effect a 

convention between the United States and the Republic of Cuba; in 

1904 regarding legislation to carry into effect the reciprocity treaty 

with Cuba; and in 1906 on the subject of tariff relations with Germany. These latter two entries were contained in the President’s 

message and were not freestanding pieces of legislation.) 23 

1884: The committee gained jurisdiction over seal herds and other 

revenue producing animals of Alaska when it reported a measure 

4 54 
for investigation of the relations existing between the Alaska Commercial Company and the United States and whether the contract 

should be abrogated (see, in 1890 and in 1895, a bill to enable the 

Secretary of the Treasury to gather information as to the impending 

extinction of the fur seals and sea otter; in 1895 a bill on fur bearing animals in Alaska; in 1896, bills on Alaska fur seals, and an investigation of the seal fisheries; and in 1902, a bill to amend an act 

to prevent the “extermination of fur bearing animals in Alaska” that 

was transferred from the Committee on Territories to the Committee on Ways and Means).24 

1888: The committee reported a bill for the consolidation of the customs collection districts, and after 1895 the entire jurisdiction over 

customs districts, ports of entry and delivery, and transportation of 

dutiable goods was transferred from the Commerce Committee to 

the Ways and Means Committee. (Measures from 1882, 1884, 1887, 

1888, and 1890 were reported by the Commerce Committee; in 

1896, the Ways and Means Committee reported on Alaska customs 

collection districts and ports of entry and delivery; in 1898 it reported a bill designating Gladstone, Michigan, as a sub-port of 

entry; and in 1900 it reported a bill relating to transportation of dutiable goods in bond between certain places in the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico.) 25 

1890: After defeating a motion to refer a bill “to relieve the Treasurer from the amount charged to him and deposited with several 

States” to the Appropriations Committee by a 9-134 vote, and defeating another motion to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee 

by a 94-134 vote, the House referred the measure to the Ways and 

Means Committee. Thereafter, measures relating to the U.S. Treasury and the deposit of public moneys were referred to the Ways 

and Means Committee. (See, for example, in 1892, a bill to allow 

commissions of oficers in the Treasury Department to be made out 

there rather than the State Department; in 1892, a bill on subtreasuries; in 1893, a bill on the condition of the Treasury; in 1901, a 

bill relating to the deposit of public funds received from certain 

duties in national banks; in 1906, on deposit of public money in 

U.S. depositories and on checks of disbursing officers of the Treasury.) 26 

1895: The committee gained jurisdiction of customs districts, ports of 

entry and delivery, and transportation of dutiable goods from the 

Committee on Commerce (see 1888 entry for more details). 

1896: The committee reported a bill to provide for sub-ports of entry 

and delivery in Florida. (In 1890, a bill which substituted Cheboy455 
gan for Duncan City as a port of delivery was reported from the 

Commerce Committee. Two other bills on ports of delivery were 

also reported from the Commerce Committee in 1890. In 1893, a 

bill to provide for the establishment of a port of delivery at Council 

Bluffs, Iowa, was reported from the Commerce Committee. In 

1896, however, the above noted bill on ports of entry and delivery 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. That same 

year, a bill to constitute Stanford, Connecticut, as a sub-port of 

entry was also reported from Ways and Means Committee. In 1898, 

four bills, one to regulate the salary of officials at the port of Des 

Moines, two on designating sub-ports of entry, and one relating to 

the Mexican Free Zone, were reported by Ways and Means.) 27 

1896: The committee had jurisdiction over those portions of the 

President’s message referring to “national finances, the public debt, 

including bond issues, to the public revenues, to our trade relations 

with foreign countries, and condition of the Treasury.” (The committee in 1896 reported a resolution of inquiry on bond sales 

under the Resumption Act and a bill relating to sale to protect the 

coin redemption fund, and investigated the invasion of American 

markets by products of cheap labor and the effect of exchange between gold and silver standard countries; in 1898, it adversely reported a concurrent resolution relating to payment of the bonded 

obligations of the United States, and reported a bill authorizing the 

redemption and to limit the right of conversion of refunding certificates issued under the authority of an 1879 act.) (Yet see 1897 

entry.) 28 

1897: The committee had its jurisdiction limited to “revenue and 

bonded debt of the United States and to . . . treaties affecting the 

revenue,” after the Banking and Currency Committee successfully 

blocked an attempt to refer to the Ways and Means Committee 

those portions of the President’s message which relate to “the revenue, the national finances, the public debt, the preservation of the 

Government credit, and to treaties affecting the revenue” thereby 

denying the Ways and Means Committee jurisdiction over “national 

finances and the preservation of Government credit” (see 1896 

en try). 29 

1899: The committee reported a bill to provide revenue for Puerto 

Rico (see, in 1899, a bill to extend the customs laws over the Hawaiian Islands; in 1905, the Philippine Tariff Bill, and in 1906, another Philippine Tariff Bill).30 

1908: The committee gained jurisdiction over fixing compensation of 

officials in the customs service (see also, in 1919, a bill to authorize 

456 
the Secretary of the Treasury to fix compensation of certain laborers in the customs service; and in 1920, a bill to amend an act to 

“provide for the lading or unloading of vessels at night and the preliminary entry of vessels”).31 

1909: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation relating to 

the importation of narcotics. (See, in 1909, a bill prohibiting the importation and use of opium for other than medicinal purposes; in 

1914 and 1922, bills amending the Harrison Narcotics Act prohibiting the importation and use of opium for other than medicinal purposes; and, in 1924, a bill prohibiting the importation of crude 

opium for the purpose of manufacturing heroin.) 32 

1910: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation specifying 

methods of packing tobacco on which a tax is levied (see, in 1910, a 

bill to authorize the packing of fine-cut chewing tobacco in wooden 

packages containing 10, 20, 40, and 60 pounds each).33 

1910: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation to license 

customhouse brokers. 34 

1910: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation relating to 

appraisers of merchandise in the customs service. (See, in 1910, a 

bill to limit and fix compensation of the appraiser of merchandise at 

the port of San Francisco; and, in 1912, a bill to make the special 

examiner of drugs, medicines, and chemicals an assistant appraiser 

for the Port of Boston.) 35 

191 1: The House Rules were amended and the committee’s jurisdiction was redefined to include “such measures as purport to raise 

revenue.” 

191 1: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation providing 

for the creation of a tariff board.36 

1912: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation providing 

for refund of duties collected on import^.^' 

1912: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation pertaining 

to entry under bond of exhibits without payment of duty.3s 

1912: The committee gained jurisdiction over legislation to provide 

an allowance for the loss of distilled spirits deposited in internalrevenue warehouse^.^^ 

1912: The committee gained jurisdiction (from the Committee on Ir457 
rigation of Arid Lands) over legislation relating to the issuance of 

certificates of indebtedness to the reclamation fund. (See, in 1912, a 

bill to authorize further advances to the reclamation fund for the 

issuance and disposal of certificates of indebtedness in reimbursement, which therefore was by unanimous consent discharged from 

the Committee on Arid Lands and referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means; and, in 1919, a similar bill that was transferred by 

unanimous consent from the Committee on Arid Lands to the Committee on Ways and Means.) 40 

1912: The committee gained jurisdiction over bills providing methods 

of payment of duties and acceptance of negotiable instruments in 

payment of duties and taxes.41 

1915: The committee lost jurisdiction over “distributing President’s 

annual message” when the practice was dis~ontinued.~~ 

1920: The committee gained jurisdiction over adjusted compensation 

of World War veterans, except legislation relating to disabilities incurred in the service.43 

192 1: The committee gained jurisdiction over the authorization to 

conduct negotiations relating to obligations of foreign governments 

to the United States. (See, in 1921, a bill to create a commission 

authorized under certain conditions to refund or convert obligations of foreign governments owing to the United States; and, in 

1924, a bill to authorize the settlement of the indebtedness of the 

Kingdom of Hungary to the United States.) 44 

1924: The committee lost jurisdiction over “seal herds and other revenue producing animals of Alaska” to the Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries Committee when the Speaker, by consent between the two 

committee chairmen, referred two measures on fur-bearing animals 

in Alaska and the use of the receipts from the sale of the fur seals, 

from the Committee on Ways and Means.4s 

1924: The committee lost jurisdiction over adjusted compensation of 

World War veterans to the newly created Committee on World War 

Veterans’ Legislation. 

1926: The committee gained jurisdiction over bills relating to the 

United States Customs Court (see, in 1926, a bill to provide the 

name by which the Board of General Appraisers and its members 

shall be known).46 

1926: The committee gained jurisdiction over the control and dispo458 
sition of alien property held by the United States, and the adjudication of conflicting claims of American subjects against foreign governments and foreign subjects against the United States. (See, in 

1926, a bill to provide for the settlement of certain claims of American nationals against Germany and of German nationals against the 

United States, for the ultimate return of all property of German nationals held by the Alien Property Custodian, and for the equitable 

apportionment among all claimants of certain available funds.) 47 

1934: The committee gained jurisdiction when it reported the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act which authorized the President to negotiate import duties through reciprocal agreements with foreign 

nations. 

1935: The committee withstood the challenge of the Labor Committee to have the Social Security Act referred to it, 

1935: The committee gained jurisdiction (from the Foreign Affairs 

Committee) over a resolution of inquiry directing the Secretary of 

State to transmit to the House information touching on the failure 

of Brazil and Colombia to ratify certain trade agreement^.^^ 

1939: By unanimous consent, the Committee on Ways and Means was 

granted jurisdiction over a bill to consolidate and codify the internal 

revenue laws of the United States. It was stated that the Committee 

on Revision of the Laws (a predecessor of the present Judiciary 

Committee) had no objection despite their jurisdiction over “the revision and codification of the statutes of the United States.” 49 

1941: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a bill to provide that the United States should aid 

the states in fish restoration and management projects, and the bill 

was referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.50 

1941: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a bill to reduce the interest on loans on U.S. government life insurance and the bill was referred to the Committee 

on World War Veterans’ Legislation (predecessor of the Committee 

on Veterans affair^).^' 

1946: The Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress, created to consider the organization and operations of the legislative 

branch, completed its deliberations and the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 52 was adopted. The measure, which is often credited with creating the modern committee system, disestablished or 

merged many committees, and also for the first time systematically 

459 
included jurisdictional language for each committee in House Rules. 

It stated the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee as follows: 

(a) customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and 

(b) national social security 

(c) reciprocal trade agreements 

(d) revenue measures generally 

(e) revenue measures relating to the insular possessions 

(f) bonded debt of the United States 

(g) deposit of public moneys 

(h) transportation of dutiable goods 

delivery 

-Under the Legislative Reorganization Act, duties of the committee relating to recesses and final adjournments were transferred 

from the committee to the Committee on Rules. 

-Under the Legislative Reorganization Act, the committee was directed to report a legislative budget each year, accompanied by a 

concurrent resolution for its adoption, and to fix the maximum 

amount to be appropriated for expenditures in such year (provision 

now defunct). 

1946-1974: The committee gained jurisdiction by precedential accruals to include customs unions, revenue relations with Puerto Rico, 

revenue bills relating to agricultural products generally (except oleomargarine, which remained within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture), taxes on cotton and grain futures. 

1947: By unanimous consent, the Committee on Agriculture was discharged from consideration of a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act 

of 1933, as amended, and the Federal Farm Loan Act, as amended, 

to provide that after a certain date, employment by production 

credit associations and national farm loan associations would be 

covered by the old-age and survivors insurance benefit provisions of 

the Social Security Act. The bill was then referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means.53 

1947: By unanimous consent, the Committee on Agriculture was discharged from consideration of a bill to extend the period during 

which income from agricultural labor and nursing services may be 

disregarded by the states in making old-age assistance payments 

without prejudicing their rights to grants-in-aid under the Social Security Act. The bill was then referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means.54 

460 
1947: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a bill to change the order of priority for payment 

out of the German special deposit account (amending the Settlement of War Claims Act), and the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee.55 

1948: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a bill to amend the Federal Alcohol Administration 

Act to regulate commerce in distilled spirits, and the bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce.56 

1951: By unanimous consent, a bill to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act so as to exempt annuity payments under such act from 

taxation was discharged from the Committee on Post Office and 

Civil Service and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.57 

1955: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a private bill to provide tax relief to a charitable 

foundation and the contributors thereto, and the bill was referred 

to the Judiciary Committee.58 

1959: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a bill to provide that the States should not impose 

taxes in respect of income derived from certain interstate activities, 

and the bill was referred to the Judiciary C~rnmittee.~~ (In 1974, a 

bill adding a new section to the Internal Revenue Code prohibiting 

states from taxing individual income earned by persons not domiciled in that state or earned from sources outside that state was referred from the Judiciary Committee to the Ways and Means Commit tee.) 

1959: Under rules in effect in the 86th Congress, the Committee on 

Ways and Means (not the Commerce Committee) had jurisdiction 

over bills amending the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.6o 

1959: A bill relating to the interstate highway program and containing a title amending the Internal Revenue Code to provide for a 

temporary increase in the gas tax and a transfer of certain tax receipts to the Highway Trust Fund was referred to the Committee 

on Public Works with the understanding that it was not to constitute a precedent with respect to the surrender of jurisdiction over 

the fund by the Ways and Means Committee.61 

1959: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a private bill specifying that a certain annuity fund 

is exempt from taxation under provisions of the Internal Revenue 

46 1 
Code, and the bill was rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

1959: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a bill to amend title V of the Merchant Marine Act 

of 1936 to promote the maintenance of the American fishing fleet 

under competitive conditions and in the interest of sustained fish 

food supplies in case of emergency, and the bill was rereferred to 

the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.63 

1964: The committee gained jurisdiction over bills providing tax incentives (including deductions from gross income under the Internal Revenue Code) for persons investing in Indian property when 

the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs was discharged, by 

unanimous consent, from consideration of the measure, and the bill 

was rereferred to the Committee on Ways and Means.64 

1969: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a measure establishing a Commission on Population Growth to study population trends and their influences on government and the economy, and the measure was rereferred to the 

Committee on Government operation^.^^ 

1969: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of an executive communication proposing the enactment of the Aviation Facilities Expansion Act and including extensive amendments to the Internal Revenue Code, and the measure 

was rereferred to the Committee on Commerce. The Commerce 

Committee was given jurisdiction over proposals providing for the 

expansion and improvement of airports and related facilities, even 

where such proposals include amendments to the Internal Revenue 

Code and the imposition of user charges on passengers and property transported by air; but the Committee on Ways and Means reserved the right to consider the tax features separately.66 

1969: The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (not Ways 

and Means Committee) has jurisdiction over bills relating to the licensing of personnel on tug boats, towing boats, and freight 

boats. 

1972: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of proposals to assist states and localities to coordinate human services programs administered by the Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare (predecessor of the Department of 

Health and Human Services), and the measure was rereferred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor.68 

462 
1972: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of bills to eliminate racketeering in the interstate sale 

and distribution of cigarettes and to assist state and local governments in the enforcement of cigarette taxes, and the measures were 

rereferred to the Judiciary C~mrnittee.~~ 

1973: In the last Congress before the creation of the committee to 

study the committee system, House Rule X, clause l(v), listed the 

Committee's jurisdiction as: 

(a) customs, collection districts, and ports of entry 

(b) national social security 

(c) reciprocal trade agreements 

(d) revenue measures generally 

(e) revenue measures relating to the insular possessions 

(f) the bonded debt of the United States 

(g) the deposit of public moneys 

(h) transportation of dutiable goods 

1974: Select Committee on Committees (Bolling committee) was created and charged with studying, among other items, the committee 

system and committee jurisdictions, the first such comprehensive reorganization since the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 25 

years earlier. This effort resulted in the adoption of H. Res. 988. 

A) The Bolling committee issued recommendations after listening 

to numerous witnesses at hearings and conducting several academic 

studies. These studies included publication of a monograph describing jurisdictional problems, conflicts, and overlaps among House 

committees, which listed thk Ways and Means Committee as having 

overlaps with almost every standing committee in the House, especially the Committees on Agriculture, Appropriations, Banking, 

Education and Labor, Foreign Affairs, Government Operations, Interior and Insular Affairs, Commerce, Judiciary, Merchant Marine 

and Fisheries, Post Office and Civil Service, and Public Works.'O 

The Bolling committee's recommendations included extensive jurisdictional changes for the Committee on Ways and Means, including 

the following: 

-transferring jurisdiction over nontax aspects of health to a 

new Committee on Commerce and Health 

-transferring jurisdiction over nontax aspects of 

unemployment compensation to the Committee on Labor 

-transferring jurisdiction over renegotiation to the Banking 

Committee 

-transferring jurisdiction over general revenue sharing to 

the Committee on Government Operations 

463 
-transferring jurisdiction over work incentive programs to 

-transferring jurisdiction over trade to the Foreign Affairs 

-transferring jurisdiction over food stamps from the 

the Labor Committee 

Committee 

Agriculture Committee to the Ways and Means Committee 

B) Bolling committee reforms as adopted (after modifications made 

by the Caucus Committee on Organization, Study and Review, 

chaired by Julia Butler Hansen and called the Hansen committee) 

made the following changes in Ways and Means jurisdiction: 

-transfer jurisdiction over export controls to the Foreign 

Affairs Committee (but the Ways and Means Committee 

would retain jurisdiction over reciprocal trade agreements) 

-transfer jurisdiction over general revenue sharing to the 

Government Operations Committee 

-transfer jurisdiction over health and health facilities not 

supported by payroll taxes to the Commerce Committee 

-transfer jurisdiction over international commodity 

agreements to the Foreign Affairs Committee 

-transfer jurisdiction over renegotiation to the Banking 

Commit tee 

-transfer jurisdiction over work incentive programs to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

-jurisdiction over tax exempt foundations and charitable 

trusts was made explicit in Ways and Means jurisdictional 

list in the Rules (although the Banking Committee had 

been assigned this jurisdiction in 1971, the subject was 

usually considered by the Ways and Means Committee) 

C) Ways and Means Committee jurisdictional language in House 

Rules after Bolling/Hansen reforms were adopted: 

1) customs, collection districts, and ports of entry and 

2) reciprocal trade agreements 

3) revenue measures generally 

4) revenue measures relating to the insular possessions 

5) the bonded debt of the United States 

6) the deposit of public moneys 

7) transportation of dutiable goods 

8) tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts 

9) National social security, except (A) health care and 

facilities programs that are supported from general 

revenues as opposed to payroll deductions and (B) work 

incentive programs 

delivery 

4 64 
H. Res. 988 also provided in House Rules that the Speaker could 

refer bills to more than one committee (multiple referral: including 

joint referral, split referral and sequential referral) if more than one 

committee had a jurisdictional interest or claim in the subject 

matter, either as defined in House Rules or accrued through precedent. 

1974: The committee gained jurisdiction (from the Judiciary Committee) over a bill to add a new section to the Internal Revenue Code 

prohibiting States or subdivisions from imposing a tax on individual 

income earned by persons not domiciled in that State or earned 

from sources outside that State.73 (Several bills not directly amending the Internal Revenue Code which sought to regulate State taxation of interstate commerce, or to limit the taxing authority of 

States over out-of-state persons or sources, remain within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. (See entry under 1959 for more 

detail on the opposite situation.) 

1975: The committee gained jurisdiction (from the Education and 

Labor Committee for the 94th Congress) over bills amending the 

Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1975 to provide extended and increased unemployment c~mpensation.~~ 

1975: By unanimous consent, the committee was discharged from 

consideration of a bill amending the Internal Revenue Code to provide for quarterly rather than annual payment to the government of 

the Virgin Islands of amounts equal to internal revenue collections 

made with respect to articles produced there and sent to the United 

States, and the bill was rereferred to the Interior and Insular Affairs 

Committee with the understanding that the action did not affect the 

jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee over the subject 

matter of the 

1976: The committee gained jurisdiction (from the Post Office and 

Civil Service Committee) over bills providing unemployment compensation to individuals with military or federal service residing in 

Guam. 

1976: A bill creating a National Consumer Cooperative Bank and providing that the bank and its assets be exempt from local, state, and 

federal taxation, reported by the Banking Committee, was sequentially referred to the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration of provisions within the committee’s jurisdiction, including 

section 404, which exempted the bank and its assets from taxation 

until the stock of the bank owned by the United States government 

had been fully retired.77 

465 
1978: The committee has joint jurisdiction (with the Judiciary Committee) over resolutions stating congressional disapproval of Treasury Department regulations, promulgated under the Gun Control 

Act of 1968, requiring governmental registration of firearms.’ 

1978: The committee has joint jurisdiction (with the Education and 

Labor Committee) over a bill amending the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to permit assignments or 

alienations of certain rights under pension plans.79 

1978: The committee gained jurisdiction over a bill to offset the loss 

in tax revenues incurred by Guam and the Virgin Islands by reason 

of certain federal tax reductions when the Committee on Interior 

and Insular Affairs was discharged by unanimous consent from consideration of the measure, which was then rereferred to the Committee on Ways and Means.80 

1979: The committee has joint jurisdiction (with the Public Works 

and Transportation Committee) over a bill creating a public transportation trust fund, composed of a percentage of the funds generated by a windfall profits tax on domestic crude oil, to be available 

as provided in appropriations acts for expenditures for public transportation projects.81 

1979: The committee’s jurisdiction over revenue and the bonded debt 

was made subject to the last sentence of clause 4(g) of Rule X by 

P.L. 96-78. This clause allows House adoption of a congressional 

budget resolution, reported by the Budget Committee, to trigger 

procedures altering the national debt limit. The change was originally intended to apply to concurrent resolutions on the subject for 

fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1980. However, upon 

adoption of H.Res. 642 on April 23, 1980, this and other provisions 

of that public law amending the Rules of the House were made applicable to the third concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 

year 1980 as well as to the first concurrent resolution on the budget 

for fiscal year 1981.82 

1980: The committee has joint jurisdiction (with the Energy and 

Commerce Committee and the Public Works and Transportation 

Committee on the basis of sequential referrals) over bills creating 

major oilspill and hazardous waste trust funds in the Treasury 

funded by assessments on all quantities of oil, petrochemical feedstocks, and other hazardous substances “sold for sale,” [sic] where 

the scope and size of the funds and the method of fee assessment 

represented the collection of general revenue to fund particular 

Federal activities (similar to an excise tax, a type of funding mecha466 
nism traditionally within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means 

Committee) .83 

1981: The committee has joint jurisdiction (with the Energy and 

Commerce Committee) over a bill amending the Public Health 

Service Act with respect to health professionals personnel and 

amending the Internal Revenue Code to require disclosure by the 

Internal Revenue Service to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services of the location of borrowers who have defaulted on student 

loans made under the act.84 

1982: The committee gained jurisdiction over private bills waiving 

provisions of the Tariff Act to require reliquidation of certain imported materials as duty free.85 

1982: The committee has joint jurisdiction (with the Energy and 

Commerce Committee) over executive communications reporting 

on inpatient hospital services under title XVIII (Medicare) and 

under title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act.86 

1983: A new clause 5(b) of House Rule XXI prohibits the reporting 

of a tax or tariff measure from a committee not having that jurisdiction (i.e., from a committee other than the Ways and Means Committee) and prohibits a tax measure from being offered as an 

amendment to a bill reported from a committee not having jurisdiction over tax measures (i.e., from a committee other than the Ways 

and Means Committee). (See, for example, in 1985, a provision in a 

reconciliation bill reported from the Budget Committee containing 

a recommendation from the Committee on Education and Labor 

excluding certain interest on obligations of the Student Loan Marketing Association from the application of the Internal Revenue 

Code, affecting interest deductions against income taxes, which was 

stricken on a point of order as not being reported from the Ways 

and Means Committee; in 1985, a fee imposed uniformly at ports of 

entry to be collected by the Customs Service as a condition of importation of a commodity constitutes a tariff, in 1985, a provision in 

a reconciliation bill reported from the Budget Committee containing a recommendation from the Committee on Merchant Marine 

and Fisheries amending a law within that committee’s jurisdiction to 

expand the tax benefits available to shipowners through a “capital 

construction fund” by permitting that repatriation of foreign-source 

income to avoid U.S. tax and expanding the definition of vessels eligible to establish such tax exempt fund, which was ruled to be 

within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee; and in 

1985, in a bill reported from the Committee on Foreign Affairs authorizing foreign assistance programs, an amendment to the tariff 

467 
schedules to deny “most favored nation” trade treatment to a certain nation was ruled out as a tariff measure within the jurisdiction 

of the Ways and Means C~mmittee).~’ 

1986: The committee has joint jurisdiction (with the Public Works 

and Transportation Committee) over executive communications 

proposing draft legislation, and a corresponding bill, reauthorizing 

the Surface Transportation Act but also containing a revenue title 

raising taxes to fund surface transportation programs.as 

NOTES TO JURISDICTIONAL HISTORY 

House Rule numbers cited are of the number at the time of the event. 

Jurisdictional items accrued through precedent set by the referral of specific 

measures are noted both by subject matter and by specific measure. The date cited is 

the first occasion of the referral which created the precedent. The citation, however, 

also includes information about later instances, especially confirming information. 

3This analysis is confined to subject jurisdiction only and does not discuss the 

privileged reporting status the committee has for revenue measures and the changing 

interpretation of what those measures are and/or whether they are privileged. 

Annals ofcongress, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 670-71. 

Annals of Congress, 3rd Cong., 1st Sess., 26 Mar. 1794, pp. 531-32. 

6Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 159; House Journal, 4th Cong., 1st 

Sess., 21 Dec. 1795, p. 385. 

Ralph V. Harlow, The History of Lepslative Methods in the Period Before 1825 (New 

Haven: Yale University Press, 1917), pp. 231-32. 

See second and third chapters of this volume for a discussion of the creation of 

the committee. 

HouseJournal, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 Jan. 1802, p. 40. 

lo Noble Cunningham, The Process of Coun7iinent under Jdfnson (Princeton: Princeton 

University Press, 1978), pp. 224-25. 

l1 Ibid, pp. 224-25. 

l2 House Journal, 27th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 739. 

l3 See third chapter of this volume for a further discussion of the creation of a 

national bank. 

l4 Harlow, p. 232. 

15Annals of Congre~s, 14th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 Dec. 1816, p. 244; 13 Dec. 1816, p. 

275; 11 Jan. 1817, p. 462. 

For a more detailed discussion of the tariff issue during this period, see third 

chapter of this volume; see also entry for 1824. 

l7 Annals ofcongress, 18th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1,587-1,629. 

laJohn Sherman, Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate, and Cabinet (1895; 

reprint ed. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), I:195; see also, fourth chapter of this 

volume. 

468 
l9 Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1,312; A discussion on retrospective 

jurisdiction of both Ways and Means and Banking Committees occurred on 7 Dec. 

1897. Congressional Record, 55th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 26-33. 

2o Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the Home of Representatives, 4: sec. 4020. 

21 Congressional Record, 46th Cong., 2d Sess., 25 Mar. 1880, pp, 1,869-882. 

22 Hinds’ Precedents, 4: sec. 4022. 

23 Ibid., 4: sec. 4021. 

24 Ibid., 4: sec. 4025. 

25 Ibid., 4: sec. 4026. 

26 Ibid., 4: sec. 4028. 

27 Ibid., 4: sec. 4026. 

28 Ibid., 4: sec. 4023. 

29 Ibid., 4: sec. 4023. 

30 Ibid., 4: sec. 4024. 

31 Clarence Cannon, Cannon’s Precedents of the Home of Representatives, 7: sec. 1724. 

32 Ibid., 7: sec. 1733. 

33 Ibid., 7: sec. 1726. 

34 Ibid., 7: sec. 1727. 

35 Ibid., 7: sec. 1728. 

36 Ibid., 7: sec. 1729. 

37 Ibid., 7: sec. 1731. 

38 Ibid., 7: sec. 1732. 

39 Ibid., 7: sec. 1734. 

40 Ibid., 7: sec. 1739. 

41 Ibid., 7: sec. 1730. 

42 Ibid., 8: sec. 3350. 

43 Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., 26 Feb. 1920, p. 3,521. 

44 Caiinon j Precedents. 7: sec. 1736. 

45 Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 25 Mar. 1924, p. 4,954. 

46 Cannon ’s Precedents, 7: sec. 1740. 

47 Ibid., 7: sec. 1737. 

48 Congressional Record, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 June 1935, p. 8,604. 

49 Ibid., 76th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 Jan. 1939, p. 449. 

50 Ibid., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 25 Feb. 1941, p. 1,389. 

51 Ibid., 77th Cong., 1st Sess., 28 Nov. 1941, p. 9,248. 

52 60 Stat. 812. 

53 Ibid., 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 June 1947, p. 7,262-263. 

54 Ibid., 80th Cong.. 1st Sess., 4 June 1947, p. 6,344. 

55 Ibid., 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 16 July 1947, p. 9,049. 

469 
56 Ibid., 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 18 June 1948, p. 8,918. 

57 Ibid., 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 2 Feb. 1951, p. 1,294 

58 Ibid., 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 Aug. 1955, p. 12,655 

59 Ibid., 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 June 1959, p. 11,317. 

6o Ibid., 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 Aug. 1959, p. 15,190. 

61 Ibid., 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 14 Aug. 1959, p. 15,895. 

62 Ibid., 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 Sept. 1959, p. 17,612. 

63 Ibid., 86th Cong. 1st Sess., 2 Feb. 1959, p. 1,606. 

64 Ibid., 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 Feb. 1964, p. 1,582. 

65 Ibid., 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 23 Sept. 1969, p. 26,568. 

66 Ibid., 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 18 June 1969, p. 16,301. 

67 Ibid., 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 7 Oct. 1969, p. 28,798. 

68 Ibid., 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 21 June 1972, p. 21,733. 

69 Ibid., 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 9 Feb. 1972, pp. 3,429-430. 

70 House Select Committee on Committees, Monographs on the Committees of the 

House of Representatives. Washington, DC, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1974. (93d Cong., 2d 

Sess. House Committee Print), pp. 152-54. 

Lewis Deschler, Deschln-i Precedents ./ the House of Represmlatives, 4: Ch. 17, sec. 

51. 

72 For more detail on multiple referrals, and their effect on specific committees, 

see Davidson, Roger, et al., “One Bill, Many Committees: Multiple Referrals in the 

U.S. House of Representatives,” Legzslative Studies Quarterly, 13 Feb. 1988, pp. 3-28. 

73 Congressional Record, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 19 Aug. 1974, p. 29,006. 

74 Ibid., 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 16 Apr. 1975, p. 10,346. 

75 Ibid., 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 Oct. 1975, pp. 31,870-871. 

76 Ibid., 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 28 Apr. 1976, p. 11,590. 

77 Ibid., 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 31 Aug. 1976, p. 28,532; see also Procedure tn the 

House of Represenlalives, ch. 17, sec. 38.6. 

78 Congressional Record, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 15 May 1978, p. 13.560. 

79 Ibid., 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 Aug. 1978, p. 24,217. 

Ibid., 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 8 Aug. 1978, p. 24,926. 

Ibid., 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 Sept. 1979, p. 26,350. 

82 House Rules Manual, Rule X, clause I(v), Parliamentarian’s notes. 

83 Congressional Record, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 20 May 1980, p. 11,862; House Rule 

84 Congressaonal Record, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 11 June 1981, p. 1,216. 

85 Ibid., 97th Cong., 2d Sess., 13 July 1982, p. 16,014. 

86 House Rules Manual, House Rule X, clause l(v), Parliamentarian’s notes. 

X, clause 9(v), Parliamentarian’s notes. 

Procedure in the House of Representatives, 1987 Supplement, Ch. 17, sec. 17.14. 

House Rules Manual, Rule X, clause 1 (v), Parliamentarian’s notes. 
Notes 

NOTES TO INTRODUCTlON 

Cited in Steven S. Smith and Christopher J. Deering, Committees in Congress 

(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1984), p. 1. 

Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government: A Sludy in American Politics (Boston: 

Houghton Mimin, 1885), p. 79. 

Smith and Deering, Committees in Congress, pp. 1-6. 

Lauros G. McConachie, Congressional Committees: A Study of lhe Origzns and Development of Our Nalional and Local Legdative Methods (1898, reprint ed., New York: Burt 

Franklin, 1973), p. vii. 

The term “semi-standing” was coined by Thomas W. Skladony to refer to those 

early committees that were select in name, but standing in practice. See Thomas W. 

Skladony, “The House Goes to Work: Select and Standing Committees in the U.S. 

House of Representatives, 1789-1828,” Congress and the Presidency, 12 (Autumn 1985): 

170. 

NOTES TO 164 1-1 789, ANTECEDENTS: LEGISLATIVE FINANCE COMMITTEES 

IN GREAT BRITAIN AND AMERICA 

Virgmia Home of Burgesses Journal, 9 January 1778, pp. 114-17. 

*The date of the committee’s origin is variously cited as 1640 or 1641. See 

Norman W. Wilding and Philip Laundy, An Encyclopedia of Parliament, 3d. ed. (London: 

Cassell, 1968), pp. 764-67; and Kenneth Bradshaw and David Pring, Parliament and 

Congress (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1972), p. 309. 

Ibid., pp. 306-308; and Sir Courtenay Ilbert, Parliament: Its Histo?, Constitution, 

and Practice, 3rd ed., rev. by Sir Cecil Carr (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), 

p. 11. 

Thomas Erskine May, A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage o/ Parliamenl, 7th ed. (London, 1873), pp. 590-91. 

K. C. Wheare, Government by Commillee: ,472 Essay on the Biitish Constitution (London: 

Oxford University Press, 1955), pp. 8-9; and Bradshaw and Pring, Parliamenl and Congress, pp. 208-209, 307-309. 

Cited in May, Treatise on Parliament, p. 575. See also Ilbert, Parliamenl, p. 76. 

Cited in Bradshaw and Pring, Parliament and Congress, p. 307. The formal title was 

“An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession 

of the Crown.” 

May, Treatise on Parliament, p. 584. See also Bradshaw and Pring, Parliament and 

Congress, p. 306. 

9 Bernard Bailyn and Jack P. Greene have examined the similarities and differences between the two political systems and come to different conclusions. See Bernard Bailyn, The Ongzns of American Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968); Jack P. 

Greene, The Quest for Power: The Lower Homes of Assembly in the Southern Royal Colonies, 

47 1 
1689-1 776 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963); and Greene, “Political Mimesis: A Consideration of the Historical and Cultural Roots of Legislative 

Behavior in the British Colonies in the Eighteenth Century,” American Historical 

Review, 75 (December 1975): 337-60, and the comment by Bailyn and Greene’s reply 

which follow on pages 361-67. See also Richard R. Johnson, “Parliamentary Egotisms: The Clash of Legislatures in the Making of the American Revolution,” Journal 

of Amm’cun History, 74 (September 1987): 338-62. Royal instructions to the governors 

of the Carolinas included this phrase: “It is also our further pleasure that the council 

have the like power of framing money bills as the assembly.” Leonard W. Labaree, 

ed., Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors, 1670-1 776 (New York: D. AppletonCentury, 1935), 1: 112-13; and Greene, Quest for Power, p. 52. 

lo New York House of Representatives Journal, 4 September 1750, p. 277; and 1,’irgrnta 

House of Burgesses Journal, 23 February 1759, pp. 3-5. 

l1 The terminology used to denote legislative committees has changed since the 

18th century. In modern usage, a select committee is one created to perform a special 

function; the committee expires once that function has been completed. A standing 

committee is a permanent group whose size and jurisdiction are determined by the 

standing rules of the House. Eighteenth-century British usage, on the other hand, referred to Committees of the Whole as “grand” committees, which were differentiated 

from ‘‘select’’ committees, so-named not because they were appointed for a specific 

purpose or for a given time period, but because their membership was composed of 

only a select part of the House’s membership. Likewise, “standing” cocimittees referred to those committees appointed to consider certain subject areas for the duration of the legislative session, rather than only those committees included in the rules 

of the legislative body. An 18th-century committee could thus have been both a select 

and a standing committee, something which is today a contradiction in terms. These 

definitions are based upon the usage of Parliament and American colonial legislatures. See Ralph Volney Harlow, The History .f Legdative Methodr in the Period BeJore 

1825 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917), especially pp. 4-5, note 6; and 

George B. Galloway, History of the United States House of Representatives, 2d ed. (New 

York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976), p. 320. 

l2 “An Analysis of Standing Committees in American Legislatures, 1609-1 796,” 

unpublished paper prepared by the staff of the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce History Project (July 1986), p. 3. 

l3 Virgrnia House of Burgesses Journal, 26 September 1758, p. 20; and North Carolztia 

Lower House of Assembly Journal, 26 February 1754, p. 1 1. 

l4 Virgrnia House of Burgesses Journal, 9 January 1778, pp. 114-17. 

l5 Harlow, History of Legtslative Methods, p. 69. 

l6 Ibid., pp. 66-69. 

l7 Ibid., pp. 70-72. 

Ibid., pp. 73-74. 

l9 Ibid., pp. 74-75. 

2o Good accounts of the Confederation period include: Merrill Jensen, The New 

Nation: A History of the United Stales during the Confederation, 1781-1789 (New York: 

Random House, 1950); Jack N. Rakove, The Beginnings of National Politzcs: An Interpretive 

Hrstory of the Continental Congress (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979); Jennings B. Sanders, Evolution of the Executive Departmenb of the Continental Congress, 1774-1 789 (Chapel 

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1935); and Edmund Cody Burnett, The Continental Congress (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1941). 

21 Burnett, Continental Congress, p. 4 1; Sanders, Executive Departments, pp. 4-7; 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Analysis of Standing Committees” p. 

10. 

472 
22 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Analysis of Standing Committees,” p. 10; Sanders, Execulive Deparlmenls, pp. 54-64; Burnett, Continenial Congress, pp. 

221-23. The five members of the committee were James Duane (NY). Thomas Nelson 

(VA), Elbridge Gerry (MA), Richard Smith (NJ), and Thomas Willing (PA). 

23 Cited in Sanders, Executive Departments, p. 56. William Whipple (NH), James 

Wilson (PA), Elbridge Gerry (MA), Thomas Nelson (VA), and Robert Morris (PA) 

were elected to this committee. The British army’s advance upon Philadelphia delayed 

the committee’s deliberations. 

24 Ibid., pp. 69-74. 

25 Ibid., pp. 145-52; Clarence L. Ver Steeg, Robert Morris: Revolutionary Financier 

(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1954). The first three men elected to 

the board were unable to serve; after some delay Arthur Lee (VA), Samuel Osgood 

(MA), and Walter Livingston (NJ) were selected. 

26 Forrest McDonald, Noum Ordo Seclorum: The Inlellectual Oripns of the Constitution 

(Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1985), pp. 266-67. 

27 Max Farrand, ed., The Record of the Federal Convenlion of 1787, rev. ed. (New 

Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), I: 233. 

28 Ibid., 2: 274. 

29 Ibid., 1: 233. 

30 Ibid., 2: 276-77 

NOTES TO 1789-1801, ORIGINS: THE HOUSE COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND 

MEANS 

Cited in Lellers and Olher Wn’lings of James Madison (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 

1865), 2: 75-76. 

Annals OfCongress, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 29 April 1789, p. 39; 8 May 1789, p. 53; 9 

July 1789, p. 108; and Home Journal, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 29 April 1789, p. 23. 

Home Journal, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 24 July, 1789, p. 66; and Annals of Congress, 1st 

Cong., 1st Sess., 24 July 1789, pp. 670-71. 

Martin I. J. Grifh, Thomas Fituimons: Pennsylvania’s Catholic Signer of the Conslitution 

of lhe United Slates (Philadelphia: American Catholic Historical Researches, 1887), pp. 

15-26; Annals of Congress, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 24 July 1789, p. 671. 

The term “discharged” creates some uncertainty as to whether the committee 

was actually dissolved by this action. Presumably, the House signified that there was 

no further need for the committee by discharging it from the responsibilities that had 

led to its appointment. There is no evidence that the committee continued to function, if it ever had. Annals o/ Congress, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 17 September 1789, pp. 

894-95; House Journal, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., 17 September 1789, p. 113. 

Patrick J. Furlong, “The Origins of the House Committee of Ways and Means,” 

William and Mary Quarterly, 25 (October 1968): 587-604. Furlong was the first scholar 

to systematically examine the committee’s origins. All subsequent students of Ways 

and Means are deeply indebted to him. 

7 Ralph Volney Harlow, The History of Legdative Melhoh Before 1825 (New Haven: 

Yale University Press, 1917), pp. 13 1-33; and Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton: 

The National Adventure, 1788-1804 (New York: Macmillan, 1962), pp. 14-2 1, 199-201. 

473 
8 Dall W. Forsythe, Taxation and Political Change in the Young Nation, 1781-1833 

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1977). pp. 23-31; and Mitchell, Hamilton, pp. 

32-56, 57-85,86-108. 

Furlong, “Origins,” p. 588. 

10 Congress, House, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Petitions, Memorials, and 

Other Documents Submitted for the Consideration of Congress: March 4, I789 lo December 14, 

1795, staff study prepared for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Committee Print 99-A. 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 1986. p. 361. 

11 Alexander Hamilton to Edward Carrington, 26 May 1792, in Harold C. Syrett, 

ed., The Papers ofAlexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 11: 

429. 

12 A strong word of caution is in order concerning the meaning of political party 

in this period. Scholars commonly refer to the Federalist Party and the Jeffersonian 

Republican Party, yet parties had not taken on the meaning, organization, or apparatus that they would later in the 19th and 20th centuries. The party affiliations of 

members of Congress, for example, were not officially recorded until 1843. The numerical party breakdown of Congress as well as the individual party affiliation of 

members cannot be known with certainty. Historians and political scientists have only 

begun to examine the biographies and voting records of the early Congresses. James 

Sterling Young. The Washington Community, 1800-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), pp. 110-12; John F. Hoadley, “The Emergence of Political Parties in 

Congress, 1789-1803,” American Political Science Review, 74 (September 1980): 757-79; 

and Hoadley, Origzns of American Political Parties, 1789-1 803 (Lexington: University 

Press of Kentucky, 1986), pp. 192-219. 

l3 Hoadley, “Emergence of Political Parties,” pp. 757-79; see also Rudolph M. 

Bell, Party and Faction in American Politics: The House of Representatives, 1789-1801 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1973). 

l4 Annals ofCongress, 2d Cong., 1st Sess., 30 December 1791, pp. 300-302. 

l5 Leonard D. White, The Federalists: A Skudy in Administrative History (New York: 

Macmillan, 1948), pp. 352-54; and Syrett, ed., Hamilton Papers, 16: 193-97. 

l6 James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 26 March 1794, in Madison Letters, 2: 8-9. 

l7 Annals ofCongress, 3d Cong., 1st Sess., 26 March 1794, pp. 531-32. 

l8 Madison to Jefferson, 31 March 1794, Madison Letters, 2: 9-10. 

l9 David Cobb to William Eustis, 29 March 1794, David Cobb Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. Cobb went on to speculate upon the need for revenue, which 

“must be supplied from sources that have not yet been touch’d,” including a tax on 

land. 

2O George C. Rogers, Jr., Evolution of a Federalisl: William Loughton Smith of Charleston 

(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1962), pp. 236-41; Annah of Congress, 

3d Cong., 1st Sess., 26 March 1794, p. 532. 

21 Theodore Sedgwick to Ephraim Williams, 16 January 1795, Sedgwick Papers, 

Massachusetts Historical Society. Sedgwick credited Elbridge Gerry with the observation that Smith had no policy. 

z2 Madison to Jefferson, 14 April 1794, in Madison Letters, 2: 10-1 1; House Journal, 

3d Cong,, 1st Sess., 2 May 1794, p. 136. On May 5th the sugar bakers presented a 

similarly-worded memorial; Furlong, “Origins,” p. 592. 

23 William Barry Grove to John Steele, 2 April 1794, in H. M. Wagstaff, ed., The 

Papers of John Steele, in Publications of the North Carolina Historical Commission, 

vols. 11-12 (Raleigh: Edwards and Broughton, 1924), 11: 114. 

4 74 
24 Madison to Jefferson, 11 May, 14 April 1794, in Madison Letters, 2: 10-1 1, 14. 

25Theodore Sedgwick to Ephraim Williams, 5 June 1794, Sedgwick Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. Senator James Monroe defended his Virginia colleague, 

arguing that if it was anyone’s duty to propose a system of revenue, “it is particularly 

that of those who have made taxes necessary,” that is, the Federalists. Monroe to Jefferson, 2 April 1794, Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Division. 

26 How Journal, 3d Cong., 1st Sess., 10 May 1794, p. 152; and Furlong, “Origins,” p. 592. 

27 White, The Federalists. pp. 123-25. 

28Annals ofCongress, 4th Cong., 1st Sess.. 7 December 1795, p. 127; 14 December 

1795, p. 140. 

29 Ibid., 10 December 1795, p. 131; 17 December 1795, p. 152. 

30 Ibid., 18 December 1795, p. 159. 

Raymond W. Walters, Jr., Albert Gallatin: Jeffsonian Financier and Diplomat (New 

York: Macmillan, 1957), pp. 88-89. 

32 Annals ofcongress, 4th Cong., 1st Sess.. 21 December 1795, p. 159. 

33 House Journal, 4th Cong., 1st Sesss., 21 December 1795, p. 385. 

34 John Church Hamilton, History of the Republic of the United States of America: As 

Traced in the Writings of Ahander Hamilton and His Contemporaries (New York, 1857-64), 

6: 328-29; Henry Adams. The Lzfe of Alberr Gallatin (Philadelphia, 1897), p. 172; 

Harlow, History of Legdative .2lefhods, pp. 156-58; C. W. Collins, “Notes on the Early 

History of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives,” unpublished paper, Legislative Reference Service (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 

1919), p. 2. Gallatin himself claimed that the committee’s creation was due to partisanship: “The financial department in the House was quite vacant . . . and having 

made myself complete master of the subject . . . it is not astonishing that my views 

should have been adopted by the Republican party and been acted upon when they 

came into power. My first step was to have a standing committee of ways and means 

appointed.” Cited in Henry Adams, The Lye of Albert Gallah (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1879), p. 157. 

35 Furlong, “Origins,” p. 604. 

36 Cited in ibid., p. 601, footnote 47. 

37 Ibid., pp. 600-601. 

38Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 15 January 1796, p. 249; 18 January 

1796, p. 253; 19 January 1796, pp. 256-57. 

39 Furlong, “Origins,” p. 598. 

4014nnals ofCongress, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 18 May 1796, p. 1,392. 

41 Ames to Hamilton, 26 January 1797, in Works ofFisher Ames (Indianapolis: Literary Classics, 1969), 2: 1216. Ames complained that “Our whole system is little removed from simple democracy. . . . The heads of departments are head clerks. Instead of being the ministry the organs of the executive power and imparting a kind of 

momentum to the operation of the laws, they are precluded of late even from communicating with the house by reports.” Ames, ed., Worh of Fisher Arnes, p. 1,215. 

42 Madison to Jefferson, 31 January 1796, in Madison Letten, 2: 75-76. 

43 Cited in Furlong, “Origins,” p. 600. 

44 Madison to James Monroe, 26 February 1796, in illadison Letters, 2: 82-84. 

475 
“Would you have supposed,” Madison wrote, “that a land tax and House tax, as indirect [axes, had also a patronage?” 

45 Madison to Jefferson, 31 January 1796, in ibid., 2: 76. 

46 Walters, Gallatin, pp. 83-84. 

47Annal.5 ofcongress, 4th Cong., 2d Sess., 16 December 1796, p. 1,668. 

48 Rogers, Evolution ofa Federalisl, pp. 300-301. 

49Annal.5 of Congress, 5th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 June 1797, pp. 297-98. Blount had 

served on Ways and Means in the Fourth Congress. 

50 Ibid., 17 June 1797, pp. 331-35; the debate on the stamp tax can be followed 

on pages 393-433 passim. 

51 Ibid., 4 December 1797, p. 672. 

52 Sedgwick to Peter Van Schaack, 4 February 1800, Sedgwick Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. Sedgwick considered Harper “one of the laziest men I have 

ever known except in the business of talking.” The Speaker and the Secretary may 

well have felt blackmailed to appoint the South Carolinian. In a February 4th letter to 

Van Schaack, Sedgwick wrote that “Wolcott thought that if Harper was not appointed, he would embarrass us much as was in his power.” Gallatin thought Harper “very 

good hearted,” but “as great a bungler as I ever knew . . . his vanity destroys him.” 

Joseph Cox, Champion of Soulha Federalism: Robert Goodloe Harper of South Carolina (Port 

Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1972). p. 102, note 21. 

53Annals o/Congress, 5th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 May 1798, pp. 1,563-66. 

54Ibid., 5th Cong., 3d Sess., 14 December 1798, pp. 2,444-45. 

55 Ibid., 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 December 1799, pp. 196-97; Sedgwick to Van 

Schaack, 9 February 1800, Sedgwick Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. 

56Annal.5 of Congress, 6th Cong., 2d Sess., 20 November 1800, p. 783; Dictiona.ry of 

Amm’can Biography, 4 (Part 2): 10. 

57 Furlong, “Origins,” p. 603. 

NOTES TO 1801-1829, THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE 

‘Annals o/Congress, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 January 1802, p. 412. 

James Sterling Young, The Washinglon Community, 1800-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), pp. 13-48; Constance McLaughlin Green, Washington: Village and Capital, 1800-1878 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962), pp. 3-1 18. 

The quote is by William Lowndes, chairman of Ways and Means (1815-1818); Green, 

Washinglon, p. 66. 

Joseph Cooper, ‘yeffersonian Attitudes Toward Executive Leadership and Committee Development in the House of Representatives, 1789-1 829,” IVeJlern Polzlical 

Quarterly (March 1965): 58. 

Ibid., p. 59. 

Ibid., p. 54, note 55, p. 61, note 85. 

Ibid., p. 61-62; Joseph Cooper, “Origins of the Standing Committees and the 

Development of the Modern House,” Rice University Sfudies, 56 (Summer 1970): 56-59, 

154, note 231. 

Annals o/ Congress, 14th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 922-23. Cited in Cooper, “Origins 

of the Standing Committees,” p. 52. 

476 
Marshall Smelser, The Democratic Republic, 1801-1815 (New York: Harper and Row, 

1968), p. 51; Kenneth C. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States 

Congress, 1781-1989 (New York: MacMillan, 1989), p. 76. 

Annals o/ Congress, 7th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 January 1802, p. 412; 8 December 

1801, p. 312; Noble E. Cunningham, Jr.. The Process of Government under Jefferson 

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978). pp. 216-17. 

10 Cooper, “Origins of the Standing Committees,” p. 42. 

Raymond J. Walters, Jr., Albert Gallatin: Jeffersonian Financier and Diplomat (New 

York: Macmillan, 1957). p. 145. 

l2 Ibid.. pp. 94, 147. 

l3 Cited in William Cabell Bruce,John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773-1833 (New York: 

G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1922), 1: 176. 

l4 The first quote is from Smelser, Democratic Republic, p. 51; see also Dumas 

Malone, JeJjersoson and His Time (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970). 4: 443-47. The wording 

of the “rotten mackerel” quotation varies from source to source, as does the identity 

of the object of ridicule. Cited in Gerald W. Johnson, Randolph of Roanoke: A Polttical 

Fantastic (New York: Minton, Balch, 1929), p. 16. 

l5 Randolph quote is cited in Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., The Jef/msonian Republicans 

in Power: Parfy Operations, 1801-1809 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 

1963), p. 74; see also p. 92. See also Bruce, Randolph, 1: 174-75. 

l6 Bruce, Randolph, 1: 199-217. 

l7 Cunningham, Jeffersonian Republicans in Power, p. 77. 

l8 Cited in Bruce, Randolph, 1: 267; see also Henry Adams,John Randolph (Boston: 

Houghton Mimin, 1899), p. 70. 

l9 Jefferson to Randolph, 1 December 1803, in Paul L. Ford, ed., The Writings o/ 

Thomas Jef/erson (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897), 8: 282. 

2o Cited in Walters, Gallatin, p. 186. The issue under consideration was the Yazoo 

land fraud, which Randolph denounced, although he conspicuously omitted Gallatin 

from criticism. C. Peter McGrath, Yazoo; Law and Politics in the New Republic (New York: 

W. W. Norton, 1967), pp. 39-49. 

21 Adams, Randolph, pp. 71, 324; Ralph V. Harlow, The Histo9 ofLegzslatiue Methodc 

in the Period Before 1825 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917), pp. 168-72. 

22 Dall W. Forsythe, Taxation and Political Change in [he Young Nation, 1781-1833 

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), pp. 50, 57-58; Walters, Gallatin, pp. 

143-54. 

23 Cunningham,J@/msonian Republicans in Power, p. 21 7; Forsythe, Taxation and Political Change, pp. 50, 58; Hugh A. Garland, The Llfe of John Randolph o/ Roanoke (New 

York: D. Appleton, 1850), 1: 192; Walters, Gallatin, pp. 147-48. 

24 Bruce, Randolph, 1: 177-78; Garland, Randolph, 1: 195; Walters, Gallatin, pp. 

152-53. 

25 Annals OfCongress, 8th Cong., 1st Sess., 21-22 March 1804, pp. 1,204, 1,210-26; 

see also Walters, Gallatin, pp. 150-5 1. 

26 Cited in Bruce, Randolph, 1 : 22 1. 

27 Malone, Jeffirson, 5: 66-69; Cunningham, Jef/ersonian Republicans zn Power, pp. 88- 

92. 

2s Malone, J@rson, 5: 72-73. 

477 
29Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 1st Sess., 29 January 1806, pp. 409-12; Adams, 

Randolph, pp. 164-67; Bruce, Randolph, 1: 225-30; Cunningham, Jeffersonian Republicans 

in Power, p. 82; Harlow, Legdative Methods, p. 221; Norman K. Risjord, The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson (New York: Columbia University Press, 

1965), pp. 52-53; Walters, Gallatin, pp. 189-91. 

30Annals of Congress, 9th Cong., 1st Sess., 21 April 1806, pp. 1,107-15; Adams, 

Randolph, pp. 83-84; Bruce, Randolph, 1: 286-87; Cunningham, Jeffsonian Republicans 

in Power, p. 87. 

3l Bruce, Randolph, 1: 306-307; Cunningham, Jeffsonian Republicans in Power, p. 

88; Cunningham, Process of Government, pp. 228-29. 

32 Bruce, Randolph, 1 : 308; Harlow, Leplative Methods, p. 17 1. 

33 Annals of Congress, 8th Cong., 1st Sess., 31 January 1804, p. 1,250. 

34 Cited in Cunningham, Process of Government, pp. 217-18. 

35 Ibid., pp. 224-25. 

36 Ibid., p. 227. 

37 Ibid., pp. 230-31. The analysis of committcc appointments is based upon a 

computerized listing of committee assignments compiled by Polimetric Associates of 

Burlington, Vermont, reproduced in 1981 and updated in 1989 by the Government 

Division of the Congressional Research Service. (See appendix.) 

38 Dictionary of American Biography, 2 (Part 1): 452. 

39 Walters, Gallatin, pp. 203-207. 

40 Cunningham, Jeffersonian Republicans in Power, p. 98. 

41 Annals of Congress, 10th Cong., 2d Sess., 23 November 1808, pp. 514-21. 

42 Archie Vernon Huff, Jr., Langdon Cheues of South Carolina (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1977), pp. 61-63. 

43 Ibid., pp. 61-62; Walters, Gallatin, pp. 246-47. 

44 Huff, Cheves, p. 65; Walters, Gallatin, p. 249. 

45 Huff, Cheues, pp. 74, 65-66; Walters, Gallatin, p. 254. 

46 Walters, Gallatin, pp. 255-56. 

47 Annals of Congress, 12th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 December 1812, pp. 275-77, 291-92. 

48 Cited in Walters, Gallatin, pp. 255-56. 

49 Huff, Cheues, pp. 72-73; Annals of Congress, 12th Cong., 2d Sess., 25 February 

1813, p. 1,126. 

50 Ibid., pp. 75-76. 

51 Risjord, Old Republicans, pp. 152-57. 

52 Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 January 1814, p. 873. 

53Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 March 1814, p. 1,861; 19 February 

1814, pp. 1,578-79; 15 April 1814, p. 2,023. 

I81 7 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1943), pp. 182-87. 

54 Raymond J. Walters, Jr., Alexander James Dallas: Lawyer, Politician, Financier, 1759- 

55 Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 3d Sess., 10 October 1814, pp. 378-81; 18 October 1814, pp. 401-410; Risjord, Old Republicans, pp. 154-55; Ralph C. H. Catterall, 

The Second Bank of the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1903), p. 10; 

Walters, Dallas, pp. 190-91. 

478 
56 Walters, Dallas, p. 193. 

57 Annals of Congress, 13th Cong., 3d Sess., 24 October 1814, pp. 457-58; Risjord, 

Old Republicans, p. 156; Catterall, Second Bank, p. 10. 

58 Walters, Dallas, p. 193. 

59Annals o/Congress, 14th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 April 1816, pp. 1,812-25; Catterall, 

Second Bank, p. 10; Ibid., pp. 210-12. 

6o Chase C. Mooney, William H. Crawford, 1772-1834 (Lexington: University Press 

of Kentucky, 1974), pp. 150-51; Risjord, Old Republicans, pp. 192-93; Walters, Dallas, 

p. 202. 

61 Forsythe, Taxation and Politzcol Change, p. 79; Edward Stanwood, American Tan# 

Controversies in the Nineteenth Centuly (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1903), 1: 11 1, 136-37. 

62 Stanwood, TanflControversies, I: 137. 

63 Ibid., 1: 139. 

64 Frank A. Cassell, Merchant Congressman in the Young Republic: Samuel Smith ofMaryland, 1752-1839 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1971), p. 216. 

65 Forsythe, Taxation and Polztical Change, p. 71; Stanwood, Tanfj Controversies, 1: 

159; Ibid., p. 217. 

66 Stanwood, Tanfl Controversies, I: 175-81. 

67 Ibid., 1: 114-15; Cassell, Samuel Smith. pp. 113-14; Harlow, Legulative Methods, 

pp. 231-32. 

68 Cassell, Samuel Smith, p. 1 13; Harlow, Legdative Methods, pp. 23 1-32. 

69 Harlow, Legzslative Methods, pp. 232-34 

70 Ibid., pp. 233-34; Cassell, Samuel Smith, p. 113. 

John A. Munroe, Louk McLane: Federalist and Jacksonian (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1973), pp. 142-43; Forsythe, Taxation and Political Change, pp. 

77, 84-97; Harlow, Legdative Methods, pp. 234-35; Stanwood, Tanfj Controversies, 1: 

201-202, 269-90. 

72 Forsythe, Taxation and Political Change, pp. 88-94. 

l3 Munroe, McLane, p. 113. 

l4 Ibid., p. 210. 

75 Ibid., pp. 254-55; Cassell, Samuel Smith, pp. 219, 228. 

l6 Munroe, McLane, p. 210. 

l7 This analysis is based upon the 1989 updated version of Polimetric Associates, 

Congressional Committee List (Ways and Means). 

I8Annals OfCongress, 14th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 December 1816, p. 244; 13 December 

1816, p. 275; 11 January 1817, p. 462. 

79See Ways and Means Records, “Transcribed Reports of the Committee of 

Ways and Means, 8th Cong., 1st Sess., to 18th Cong., 2d Sess.,” 2: 238, 270, Record 

Group 233 (HR8C-A2). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

Annals of Congress, 14th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 January 1817, pp. 407-408. 

Annals OjCongre~s, 14th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 January 1817, p. 406; 17th Cong., 2d 

Sess., 6 January 1823, p. 487. 

82 DeAlva Stanwood Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Represenlalives 

(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916). p. 234; John S. Pancake, Samuel Smith and the Politics 

479 
of Business, 1752-1839 (University, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1972), pp. 153- 

58; Cassell, Samwl Smith, p. 222. 

83 Harlow, Legdative Methoh, p. 234. 

NOTES TO 1829-1861, APPROPRIATIONS, BANKING, AND THE TARIFF 

1 John Sherman, Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate, and Cabinet (1895, 

reprint ed., New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 1: 180. 

2 Alexis de Tocqueville and Frederick Marryat, quoted in James C. Curtis, The Fox 

at Bay; Martin Van Buren and the Presidency, 1837-1841 (Lexington: University Press of 

Kentucky, 1970), p. 86. 

3 This general overview of structural and procedural changes in congressional 

committees during the pre-Civil War era is based on Steven S. Smith and Christopher 

J. Deering, Committees in Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 

1984), pp. 13-18; Joseph Cooper, “Origins of the Standing Committees and the Development of the Modern House,” Rice University Studies, 56 (Summer 1965), p. 154; 

and also on a computerized listing of committee assignments compiled by Polimetric 

Associates of Burlington, Vermont, reproduced in 1981 and updated in 1989 by the 

Government Division of the Congressional Research Service. 

George McDuffie of South Carolina chaired the Committee of Ways and Means 

for three Congresses (the Twentieth through the Twenty-second). However, his first 

term as chairman preceded the time period covered in this chapter. In addition, 

McDufie only served as chairman for one session of the Twenty-second Congress. 

Polimetric Associates, Congressional Committee Project List (Ways and Means). 

For a brief discussion of the early congressional provisions for permanent clerks 

to standing committees, see Lindsay Rogers’ article, “Staffing of Congress” Political 

Science Quarterly, 56 (March 1941), p. 3. 

James K. Padding, quoted in Leonard D. White, TheJacksonians: A Study in Administrative Histoly, 1829-1861 (New York: MacMillan, 1954), pp. 7-8. For a summary of 

the growth of the federal bureaucracy during this period, see White, pp. 9, 531. 

Edward S. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers, 1787-1957 (New York: New 

York University Press, 1957), p. 128. 

Congress, Senate, History of the ,Committee on Finance, Senate Document 97-5, 97th 

Cong., 1st Sess., 1981, pp. 25-26. 

5 Stat. 523, sec. 14 (August 26, 1842). 

lo House Journal, 23d Cong., 2d Sess., 9 December 1834, pp. 50-51. 

l1 See Ways and Means Records, Record Group 233, Minutebook (1858-1861). 35th 

Cong., 2d Sess. to 37th Cong., 1st Sess. (HR 30), pp. 17, 22-23, 66-67. National 

Archives, Washington, DC. 

l2 House Journal, 23rd Cong., 2d Sess. Appendix (rules listed), pp. 702-703. 

l3 See Ways and Means Records, 27th Cong., Record Group 233. Copy of letterbook kept by Fillmore as chairman contains correspondence to various oficials concerning their estimates and expenditures (HR 27A-D24.5). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

l4 For an overview of the complexities connected with the appropriations process 

l5 See Ways and Means Records, 25th Cong., Record Group 233. Several pieces 

during this period, see WhiteJacksonians, pp. 125-142. 

480 
of correspondence in the committee record files, dated during the summer of 1837, 

relate to the Smithson legacy (HR25A-D26.6). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

16 For a concise but informative discussion of contemporary attitudes toward the 

tariff, see John M. Dobson, Two Centuries of Tar@ The Background and Emergence oJ the 

U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington, DC: U.S. Trade Commission, 1976), 

pp. 49-56. 

17 Sidney Ratner, A Political and Social History of Federal Taxation, 1789-1913 (New 

York: W.W. Norton, 1942), p. 39. 

la Dobson, Two Centuries, pp. 50-51. 

l9 Edwin Luther Green, George McDu/)e (Columbia, SC: The State Company, 

1936). p. 86. 

of the Nineteenth Century (Boston: Houghton Miflin, 1903-1904), 1: 362-65. 

zo Green, George McDufjie, pp. 84-85; Edward Stanwood, American 7hnff Controueries 

21 Stanwood, Tan# Controversies, 1: 360-62. 

22 Ibid., 1: 369-70. 

23 Ibid., 1: 374-75. 

24 F. W. Taussig, The Tan// Hutory of /he United Slates (1892; reprint ed., New York: 

Augustus M. Kelley, 1967), p. 110; Green, George McDuffie, p. 235; Stanwood, Tanff 

Controversies, 1: 375-85. 

25 Charles G. Sellers, Jr., James K. Polk: Jacksonian, 1795-1843 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 158; Robert W. July, The Essenfial ‘Vew Yorker: Gulian 

Crommelzn Verplanck (Durham: University of North Carolina Press, 1951). p. 156. 

26 July, Verplanck, pp. 148-58; Sellers, Polk, 1: 158-59. 

27 Sellers, Polk, 1: 159-61; July, Verplanck, pp. 161-63. 

28 The economic impact of the Tariff of 1833 is discussed in Stanwood, Tan// Controuprsies, 2: 1-10; and Dobson, Two Centuries, pp. 54-55. 

29 July, Verplanck, pp. 170-72; Green, George McDufJie, pp. 126-28; Davis R. Dewey, 

Financial Hulory of the United States, 4th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, 1912), pp. 

200-201. McDufie’s favorable report of April 13, 1830, concerning the Second Bank 

of the United States is reprinted in Regzster o/ Debates in Congress, 21st Cong., 1st Sess., 

Appendix, pp. 104-32, 

30 Green, George McDufJie, pp. 128-29; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 202-203. 

31 July, Verplanck, pp. 170-76; Dewey, Financial History, p. 204. Verplanck’s majority report of March 1, 1833, concerning the Second Bank of the United States is reprinted in Regzsler of Debates in Congress, 22d Cong., 2d Sess., Appendix, pp. 64-66, while 

Polk’s minority report, issued on the same date, is reprinted on pp. 66-82. 

32 Eugene I. McCormac, James K. Polk: A Political Biography (Berkeley: University of 

California Press, 1922), pp. 29-34; Sellers, Polk, 1: 178-95; July, Verplanck, pp. 176- 

79; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 204-205. 

33 Sellers, Polk, 1: 213-14. 

34 Dewey, Financial History, pp. 203-204. 

35 Sellers, Polk, 1: 214-19. 

36 Sellers, Polk, 1: 214-21. Polk’s majority report of March 4, 1834, on removal is 

reprinted in Regzster of Debates in Congress, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, pp. 161-76, 

while the minority report of Binney, Wilde, and Gorham issued on the same date, is 

reprinted on pp. 176-187. 

48 1 
37 The first resolution passed by a vote of 134-82; the second by 118-103; the 

third by an almost identical margin, while only 32 members opposed the fourth resolution. Sellers, Polk, 1: 221-22. 

38 Ibid., 1: 223-25. 

39 Ibid., 1: 225-31 

40 Dictionary of American Biography, 2 (Part 1): 432. 

41 Bray Hammond, Banks and Politics in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War 

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 335; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 

209-22; Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 39-40. 

42 The economic impact of the Bank War is considered in Peter Temin, The Jacksonian Economy (New York: W.W. Norton, 1969), and Hammond, Banks and Politics, 

43 Curtis, Van Buren, pp. 86-88, 96-97; John Niven, Martin Van Buren: The Romantic 

Age ofAmerican Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 420-24. 

44 Curtis, Van Buren, pp. 105-109. 

45 Ibid., pp. 11 1-41. 

46 Ibid., pp. 138-51. 

47 Fletcher’s remarks of December 13, 1837, concerning the Ways and Means 

Committee’s relationship with the Van Buren Administration are reprinted in Congressional Globe, 25th Cong., 1st Sess., 13 December 1837, pp. 21-24. See also Curtis, Van 

Buren. p. 95. 

48 Robert Seager 11, And Tyler too: A Biography of fohn and Julia Gardiner Tyler (New 

York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), pp. 152-62; Robert J. Rayback, Millard Fillmore: Biography of 

a President (East Aurora, NY: Henry Stewart, 1972), p. 118. 

49 Daniel Webster, quoted in Seager, Tyh. p. 164. 

50 Rayback, Fillmore, pp. 116-22; Seager, Tyler, p. 164. 

51 Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 3d Sess., 9 January 1843, pp. 134-35. 

52 Congressional Globe, 27th Cong., 3d Sess., 23 January 1843, pp. 188-92. 

53 Rayback, Fillmore, pp. 124-25; Seager, Tyler, pp. 165-68. 

54 Rayback, Fillmore, pp. 124-36. 

55 Ibid., p. 136. 

56 Millard Fillmore to A.P. Upshur, 15 January 1842, in “Millard Fillmore Papers,” 

vol. 2, Publications ofthe Buffalo Historical Society 11 (1907), p. 226. 

57 See Ways and Means Records, 27th Cong., Record Group 233. Millard Fillmore 

to Abel Upshur, 15 January 184 1 (HR27A-D24.5). The committee’s letterbook located in this file contains several other examples of correspondence concerning appropriations and oversight. National Archives, Washington, DC. 

58 Reprinted in Milo Milton Quaife, ed., The Diary offames K. Polk (Chicago: A.C. 

McClurg, 1910), 4: 321-22. See also Dictionary of American Biography, 6 (Part 2): 75. 

59 Paul H. Bergeron, The Presidency offames K. Polk (Lawrence: University Press of 

Kansas, 1987), pp. 183-89, 191-93; McCormac, Polk, pp. 665-70; Sellers, Polk, 2: 469. 

6o Sellers, Polk, 2: 43-45. 

61 Bergeron, Polk Presidency, pp. 185-88; McCormac, Polk, pp. 672-78; Sellers, Polk, 

62 Sellers, Polk, 2: 453-54; Quaife, ed., Polk Diary, 4: 421-22. 

2: 451-58. 

482 
63 Andrew Johnson, quoted in Sellers, Polk, 2: 455; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 

255-56; Ratner, Federal Taxalion, pp. 42-44; Margaret G. Myers, A Financial History of 

the United Stales (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), p. 136-38. 

64 See Ways and Means Records, 27th Cong., Record Group 233. James Buchanan 

to James I. McKay, 7 August 1846 (HR29.A-D22.8). National Archives, Washington, 

DC.; Bergeron, Polk Presidency, pp. 85-87; Sellers, Polk, 2: 479-84. 

G5 Quaife, ed., Polk Diary, 4: 321-22, 5: 26; Dictionary of American Biography, 10 (Part 

I): 284-85. 

66 For request from the Pennsylvania Colonization Society concerning a colonization site in Liberia, see Ways and Means Records, 32d Cong., Record Group 233. W. 

Parker Foulke to George S. Houston, undated (HR32A-D22.2). National Archives, 

Washington, DC. 

67 Roy F. Nichols, The Disruption of American Democracy (New York: Free Press, 

1948), pp. 186-88; 10 Stat. 61 (August 30, 1852); Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 2d 

Sess., 15 February 1855, pp. 752-61. 

68 Holman Hamilton, Prologue lo Conflict: The Cmis and Compromke of 1850 (New 

York: W. W. Norton, 1964). p. 121. Green was the son of Duff Green, a Jacksonian 

partisan who had edited the United States Telegraph. Benjamin Green may therefore 

have been politically motivated to bring charges against Bayly. The Virginia congressman had also insinuated in some earlier remarks to the House that Green misused the 

funds in question for his own speculation scheme. 

G9 House Report No. 142, 33d Cong., 2d Sess., 3 March 1855, p.1; Congressional 

Globe, 33d Cong., 1st Sess., 21 July 1854, pp. 1,835-37; Congressional Globe, 33d Cong., 

2d Sess., 3 March 1855, p. 1,155. 

70 Campbell’s remarks on the Army Appropriations bill are rcprinted in Congressional Globe, 34th Cong., 2d Sess., 29 July 1856, pp. 1,811-12. 

71 Congressional Globe, 34th Cong., 3d Sess., 22 August 1856, pp. 10-12; Roy F. 

Nichols, Franklin Pierce: Young Hickoly of the Granite Hills (Philadelphia: University of 

Pennsylvania Press, 1958), p. 480. Part of the Senate’s more assertive stance in appropriations can be explained by procedural differences between the two bodies. In the 

1840s, the Senate had no bar against riders to appropriations bills, nor did it have a 

general germaneness rule as did the House. This meant that the Senate could freely 

tack on unrelated riders to House appropriations bills. See Allen Schick, “Legislation, 

Appropriations, and Budgets: The Development of Spending Decision-Making in 

Congress,” unpublished CRS report prepared under contract. 84- lO6GOV (Library 

of Congress, May 1984), p. 17. 

72 White, Jacksonians, p. 135. 

73 Sherman, Recollections, 1: 155. 

74 Sherman, Recollections, 1: 168. In the Thirty-sixth Congress, first session, there 

were 114 Republicans, 92 Democrats and 31 congressmen from the American Party. 

75 Sherman, Recollections, 1: 167-80. 

76 Ibid., 1: 180. 

771bid., 1: 155. See also Ways and Means Records, Record Group 233, Minutebook (1858-1861). 35th Cong., 2d Sess., to 37th Cong., 1st Sess. (HR 30). Entry for 

13 June 1860 mentions 53 Senate amendments to the Army appropriations bill. The 

committee recommended that only two of these amendments be adopted. The 

minutebook contains several other examples of extensive Senate amendments to 

Ways and Means appropriations bills from 1858 to 1861. National Archives, Washington, DC. 

483 
78 See Ways and Means Records, Record Group 233. Minutebook (1858-1861), 

pp. 31-32, 42. National Archives, Washington, DC. 

79 Sherman, Recollections, 1: 186. 

soIbid., 1: 188. 

11 Stat. 107 (3 March 1857). The minutebook indicates that the committee 

elected a clerk for each session. At the end of the Thirty-sixth Congress. first session, 

George Bassett replaced Robert Cochran as clerk by a vote of 4-3, with one of the 

members abstaining. All of the votes in Bassett’s favor were cast by the Northern congressmen on the committee-Sherman (OH), Thaddeus Stevens (PA), Justin Morrill 

(VT), and Elbridge Spaulding (NY), while John Phelps (MO), John Millson (VA), and 

Martin Crawford (GA), representatives from the South and a border state, voted to 

reinstate Cochran. Henry W. Davis (MD), also from a border state, was the member 

who declined to vote. This vote provides an illustration of the extent to which congressional deliberations, even of a routine nature, were complicated by sectional divisions in the House. See Minutebook (1858-1861), pp. 88, 101. Record Group 233, 

National Archives, Washington, DC. 

82 Sherman, Recollections, 1: 155. 

NOTES TO 1861-1865, FINANCING THE CIVIL WAR 

lCongressional Globe. 381h Cong., 2d Sess.. 2 March 1865, p. 1,312. The quote is 

taken from Cox’s speech recommending the division of the committee’s jurisdiction 

among three committees on the ground that it had been overworked during the war. 

Cited in Ralph Korngold, Thaddeus Stevens: A Being Darkly Wise and Rudely Great 

(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1955), p. 131. 

Alphonse B. Miller, Thaddeus Stevens (New York: Harper and Row, 1939), pp. 1- 

13. 

Cited in Miller, Thaddeus Stevens, pp. 133-34. 

Ihid., pp. 14-22; Diclzonaty o/Ame?ican Biography, 9 (Part 1): 622. 

Thomas Frederick Woodley, 7haddeus Stevens (Harrisburg, PA: Telegraph Press, 

1934). p. 303. 

John Sherman, Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate, and Cabanet (1895; 

reprint ed., New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 1: 195; Elbridge Gerry Spaulding, 

Hislo9 of the Legal Tender Paper Money Issued During the Great Rebellion (Buffalo: Express 

Printing Company, 1869), p. 8. Spaulding’s recollections provide the only primary 

source account located concerning the inner dynamics of the committee during the 

war years. 

Miller, Thaddeus Stevens, pp. 144-54; and John Bruce Robertson, “Lincoln and 

Congress,” Ph.D. dissertation (University of Wisconsin, 1966), pp. 1-3. 

Cited in Samuel W. McCall, Thaddm Stevem (Boston: Houghton Mimin, 1899), 

p. 189; see also Robertson, “Lincoln and Congress,” pp. 148. 40. 

lo McCall, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 204; Richard Nelson Current, Old Thad Stevens: A 

Story of Ambition (1942; reprint ed., Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), pp. 195- 

96. 

l1 McCall, Thaddeus Stevens, pp. 143-44. 

l2 Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, Jay Cooke: Financzer o/ the Civil War (1907; reprint ed., 

New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), 1: 121-67, 187. 

484 
l3 McCall, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 142. 

l4 Sidney Ratner, A Polztzcal and Social History of Federal Taxation, 1789-1913. (New 

York: W.W. Norton, 1942), p. 64. 

l5 Edwin R. A. Seligman, The Income Tax: A Study of the History, Theory and Practice of 

Income Taxation at Home and Abroad (3d ed., New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1970), p. 

431. 

l6 Ibid., p. 431. 

l7 Ratner, Federal Taxation, p. 65-66. 

l8 Seligman, Income Tax, p. 434. 

l9 Ratner, Federal Taxation, p. 68. 

20 J. W. Schuckers, The Llfe and Public Seruices of Salmon Portland Chase (New York: 

D. Appleton, 1874), p. 227. 

21 Margaret G. Myers, A Financial HZStOry of the United Stales (New York: Columbia 

University Press, 1970), p. 152. 

22 Sherman, Recollections, 1 : 27 1. 

23 Ibid., pp. 271-72. 

24 Current, Old Thad Stevens, p. 156. 

25 Spaulding, Legal Tender Paper Money, pp. 18-21, 96. 

26 Cited in Current, Old Thad Stevens, p. 155; see also Sherman, Recollections, 1: 274. 

27 Miller, Thaddew Stevens, p. 160. 

28 Ibid., p. 164. 

29 Spaulding, Legal Tender Paper Money, pp. 18-2 1, 96. 

30 Miller, Thaddeus Stevens, p. 160. 

31 Dictionary of American Biography, 9 (Part 1): 436-37. 

32 Cited in Randolph E. Paul, Taxation zn the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 

1954), p. 9. See also a letter addressed to the Hon. Schulyer Colfax from M. S. Black 

of the New York Sun. In this letter Black accused Congress of indecision regarding 

taxes (“You legislators are befogging yourselves and the country with debates about 

ways and means for revenues”), and ordered its members to “Drop the talk” and implement his “practical proposition,” namely a one-half percent sales tax on all property sales. M. s. Black to Schulyer Colfax, 15 January 1864, in Ways and Means 

Records, 38th Cong., Record Group 233 (HR38A-E22.19). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

33 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 74-75; Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 9-10, 

34 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 75-77; F. W. Taussig, The Tan# History of the United 

States (1892; report ed., New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1967), pp. 162-64. 

35 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 82-83; Seligman, The Income Tax, pp. 440-41. 

36 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 85-88; Seligman, The Income Tax, pp. 440-46. 

37 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 88-90; Taussig, TanffHistory, p. 169. 

38 Current, Old Thad Stevens, p. 192. 

39 Miller, Thaddeus Stevens, pp., 140-41; ibid., pp. 192-93. 

40 John M. Blum, et al., The National Experience. Part One: A History of the United States 

to 1877, 5th ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981), p. 364; Myers, Finan485 
cia1 History, p. 164; Fritz Redlich, The Molding of American Banking. Part II: 1840-1860 

(New York: Hafner Publishing, 1951), pp. 100-105. 

41 DeAlva Stanwood Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives 

(Boston: Houghton Mimin, 1916), pp. 235-36. See also Congressional Globe, 38th 

Cong., 2d Sess., 2 March 1865, p. 1,313. 

42 Alexander, History and Procedure, pp. 235-36; Miller, Thaddeus Stevens, pp. 386- 

87; William H. Barnes, History of the Thirty-ninth Congress of the United States. (1868; reprint ed., New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969), p. 29. 

43 See Ways and Means Records, 38th Cong., Record Group 233. Report from G. 

Gumpert to Jos. I. Lewis, 12 November 1864 (HR38A-E22.16); S.P. Chase to Thaddeus Stevens, 9 February 1864 (HR38A-E22.16); letter to the Hon. G. Orth from his 

constituents, 9 February 1864. This letter was accompanied by a petition submitted to 

the House and Senate by J. N. Ray of Indianapolis, Indiana, regarding the imposition 

of a dog tax. (HR38AX24.4). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

44 See Ways and Means Records, 37th and 38th Cong., Record Group 233. Circular petitions of pharmacists and brewers, undated (HR37A-E20.13); G. B. Lewis to 

Thaddeus Stevens, 13 January 1864 (HR38.A-E22.19); B. C. Tilghman to the Hon. 

Henry Wilson, 14 January 1864 (HR38A-E22.16); John G. Nicolay to Thaddeus Stevens, 15 February 1864 (38A-E22.16). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

45 See Ways and Means Records, 37th Cong., Record Group 233. B. B. French to 

Thaddeus Stevens, 5 January 1862 (HR37A-E20.1); B. B. French to Thaddeus Stevens, 12 December 1862 (HR37A-E20.1). See also Dr. Nichols to John Sherman, 27 

December 1860 (HR37A-E20.12). National Archives, Washington DC. 

46 Robertson, “Lincoln and Congress,” pp. 402-405; Current, Old Thad Stevens, 

pp. 220-21. 

47 Congressional Globe, 38th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 March 1865, pp. 1,311-15. 

48 Ibid., pp. 1,315-16. 

49 Ibid., p. 1,316. 

50 Congressional Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 13 December 1865, p. 21. 

51 Barnes, Thirty-ninth Congress, p. 29. 

NOTES TO 1865-1890, THE GILDED AGE COMMITTEE 

James A. McKenzie, quoted in James A. Barnes, John G. Carlisle: Financial Statesman (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1931), p. 66. See also Congressional Record, 46th Cong., 

2d Sess., Appendix, p. 139. 

2Henry Adams, quoted in Samuel Eliot Morison, et al., The Growth of the American 

Republic, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 2: 148. 

Mark Twain, quoted in Alvin W. Josephy, Jr., The American Heritage History of the 

Congress of the United States (New York: American Heritage Publishing Company, 1975), 

p. 260; Charles Edward Russell, Blaine of Maine: His Lzfe and Times (New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, 1931), p. 191. 

4Morison, et al., American Republic, 2: 158; John M. Dobson, Two Centuries of Tar- 

@: The Background and Emergence of lhe U.S. Trade Commission (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Trade Commission, 1976), pp. 18-19. 

Nelson W. Polsby, “The Institutionalization of the U. S. House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review, 62 (March 1968), 144-68; Allan G. Bogue, et 
al., “Members of the House and the Process of Modernization, 1789-1960,”Journal of 

Amm’can History, 63 (September 1976): 300-301; Neil MacNeil, Forge o/ Democracy: The 

House of Representatives (New York: David McKay, 1963), p. 41. 

Hopkins Press, 1929), pp. 9, 58, 11 7-63. 

Marshall Edward Dimock, Congressional Investigating Committees (Baltimore: Johns 

‘I Steven S. Smith and Christopher J. Deering, Committees in Congress (Washington, 

DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984), p. 19. 

John William DeForest, quoted in Margaret S. Thompson, “Corruption-or 

Confusion? Lobbying and Congressional Government in the Early Gilded Age,” Congress and the Presidency, 10 (Autumn 1983): 182. DeForest was the author of several 

novels, including Honest john Lhne (1875). and Phyzng the iWischief (1875). which portrayed lobbyists in an extremely unfavorable manner. 

Frank G. Carpenter, Carp’s Wmhington (New York: McCraw-Hill, 1960), p. 279. 

lo For this interpretation, see Ari Hoogenboom, “Did Gilded Age Scandals Bring 

Reform?” in A. S. Eisenstadt et al., eds., Before Watergate: Problems ofComption in American Society (Brooklyn: Brooklyn College Press, 1978). See also Margaret S. Thompson’s article, “Corruption-or Confusion?” and her recent book The “Spider Web:” 

Congress Lobbying in the Age of Granl (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985). 

l1 Thompson, ‘Corruption-or Confusion?” pp. 185-86. The committee’s recommendations were the result of a hearing it held during the Forty-third Congress concerning the improper management of a federal subsidy granted to the Pacific Mail 

Steamship Company. This hearing is reprinted in its entirety as H.R. Rep. No. 268, 

43d Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 7 (1874). 

Houghton Mimin, 1885), p. 126. 

Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government: A Study in Ammkan Politics (Boston: 

l3 This general overview of the committee’s chambers is based largely upon unpublished information provided to the authors by the Ofice of the Curator, The Architect of the Capitol, Washington, DC. See also William A. Robinson, Thomm B. 

Reed: Parliamentarian (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1931), pp. 383-84. 

l4 Carpenter, Carp’s Washington, pp. 292-94; McNeil, Forge, pp. 199-200. One 

member of the Committee of Ways and Means who died in office was Fernando 

Wood of New York. His elaborate funeral cortege is described by Samuel Augustus 

I’leasants in his biography, Fernando Wood oj New York (New York: Columbia University, 1948), p. 200. 

(Boston: Houghton Mimin, 1916), pp. 110-1 1. 

l5 DeAlva Stanwood Alexander, History and Procedure of the House of Representatives 

l6 Congress, House. Committee on Rules, A History ofthe Committee on Rules: 1st to 

97th Congresses, 1789-1981. Committee print. 97th Cong., 2 Sess., 1983, p. 64. 

l7 Congressional Record, 46th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 January 1880, p. 205. 

This analysis is based on the computerized listing of committee members cited 

in previous chapters. This list was compiled in 1981 by Polimetric Associates of Burlington, Vermont, and an updated copy was provided for the authors’ use by the Government Division of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress in 

Washington, DC. 

l9 Carpenter, Carp’s Washington, pp. 24-25. 

2o Allan Peskin, Garfield: A Biography (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 

1978), p. 321. 

21 U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, History of the Committee on Fznance (Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofice, 1981), pp. 11 1-17. 

487 
22 Carpenter, Carp‘s Washington, pp. 258-59; Dictionaly of American Bzography, 8 (Part 

2): 427-28; Dictionaly of American Biography, 10 (Part 2): 456-57. See also Pleasants, 

Fernando Wood, p. 20 1. 

23 Peskin, Garfield, pp. 281-82, 319. 

24 See Ways and Means Records, 40th Cong., Record Group 233. Undated newspaper clipping (HR 40A-F27.1). National Archives and Records Administration. 

25 Evidence Before the Committee of Ways and Means Relatzue lo Moieties and Customs Revenue Laws, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., Misc. Doc. 264 (1874). 

26 William A. Richardson, quoted in Leonard D. White, The Republican Era, 1869- 

1901: A Study in Administrative Histoly (New York: MacMillan, 1963). pp. 371-72. 

27 H.R. Rep. No. 268, 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 7 (1874); McNeil, Forge, p. 190. 

28 Duty on Steel Rails: Notes of a Hearing be/ore the Ways and Means Committee, 46th 

Cong., 2d Sess. (1880) (statement of Henry A. Poor, representative of the Illinois 

Central Railroad), pp. 1-27; (statement of William H. Grace of New York), pp. 79-83. 

29 H.R. Rep. No. 589, 47th Cong., 1st Sess. Serial Set 2066 (1882), p. 2. 

30 Harry J. Brown and Frederick D. Williams, eds., The Dialy of James A. Garfield, 

Vol. 3: 1875-1877 (Ann Arbor: Michigan State University Press, 1973), pp. 209-210, 

228. See also Asher C. Hinds, comp., Hind’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of 

the Uniled States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1907), 4: Section 

4533, p. 919. 

31 See Ways and Means Records, 41st Cong., Record Group 233. George Bassett 

to E. W. Barber, 18 March 1869 (HR41A-F27.9). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

32 See Ways and Means Records, 4 1st Cong., Record Group 233, Robert C. Schenck 

to Joseph S. Courtney, 24 February 1869 (HR41A-F27.9). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

33 See Ways and Means Records, 39th Cong., Record Group 233. Pamphlet advertizing Jewett’s Patent Artificial Leg Company, Washington, DC (HR 39A-F29.19). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

34 See Ways and Means Records, 40th Cong., Record Group 233. J. K. Morehead 

to Robert C. Schenck, I1 April 1868 (HR40A-F27.1). National Archives, Washington, 

DC. 

35See Ways and Means Records, 40th Cong., Record Group 233. B. F. Tracey to 

Robert C. Schenck, 27 January 1868 (HR40A-F27.1). National Archives, Washington, 

DC . 

36 See Ways and Means Records, 41st Cong., Record Group 233. William Marks 

to Samuel Hooper, 1 1 April 1870 (HR41A-F27.19). National Archives, Washington, 

DC. 

37 See Ways and Means Records, 41 th Cong., Record Group 233. Emor E. Smith 

to Robert C. Schenck, 8 June 1870 (HR41-F27.19). National Archives, Washington, 

DC. 

38See Ways and Means Records, 45th Cong., Record Group 233. Frank A. Adway to 

James A. Garfield, 14 December 1877 (HR45A-F36.23). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

39 Sidney Ratner, A Political and Social Histoly of Federal Taxahon, 1789-1913 (New 

York: W. W. Norton, 1942), p. 113. 

40 Ibid., p. 113. 

Ibid., p. 115. 

488 
42 Davis R. Dewey, Fznanccal Hutory ofthe Unzled States, 4th ed. (London: Longmans, 

Green, 1912), p. 37. 

43 John Sherman, Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet (1895; 

reprint ed., New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 1: 378. 

44 Ibid., p. 435. 

45 Ratner, Federal Taxation, p. 122. 

46 Ibid., pp. 126-27. 

47 Ibid., pp. 130-31. 

48 Edwin R. A. Seligman, The Income Tax A Shdj o/Ih~ Hwrov, Theor) and Praclice o/ 

Income Taxahon at Home and Abroad (1948; reprint ed., New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 

1970). p. 431. 

49 Justin Morrill, quoted in Richard A. Baker, The Senate of the I'n7ted States: A Bzcentennzal History (Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger, 1988), p. 61. 

50 Edward Stanwood, American Tanff Controversies zn the Nineteenth Cenlury (Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin, 1903-1904), 2: 178-83. 

51 Ibid., 2: 197. 

52 Ibid., 2: 197. 

53 Robinson, Reed, p. 295. 

54 Stanwood, Tanff Controversies, 2: 201-203. 

55 Ibid., 2: 207-218; Dewey, Financial Histoly, p. 421. 

56 James A. McKenzie, quoted in Barnes, Carlisle, p. 66. 

57 0. 0. Stealey, Twenty Years in lhe Press Gallery (New York: Publisher's Printing 

Company Printers, 1906), p. 53. 

58 Ibid., p. 239. 

59 Stanwood, Tanff Conlroverszes, 2: 23 1-33. 

6o Ibid., 2: 230-42. 

61 Robinson, Reed, p. 238. See also House Rules Committee, A Hlstoq, pp. 69, 73. 

62 Stealey, Twenty Years, p. 68. See also Robinson, Reed, pp. 195-216. 

63 Stealey, Twenly Years, p. 68; House Rules Committee, A Hzstoq, pp. 70-71. 

NOTES TO 1890-1933, REFORM AND REVENUE 

Festus P. Summers, William L. Mflson and Tanff Rgom (Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 

University Press, 1953), pp. 184-85. 

Evans C. Johnson, Oscar W. Undenuood: A Politzcal Biography (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), pp. 137-42. Underwood is cited on p. 137. 

This overview of the Committee's membership is based on a computerized listing of Ways and Means members compiled by Polimetric Associates of Burlington, 

Vermont, reproduced in 1981 and updated in 1989 by the Government Division of the 

Congressional Research Service. 

The percentages of members carried over from one Congress to the next were 

computed by comparing the numbers of members reappointed with the possible 

number of slots available to the majority or minority party. Figures were computed 

489 
for each Congress and averaged on a decade-by-decade basis. For the 1870s the carryover percentage of committee members was 49.6 percent; the 1880s, 55.5 percent; 

189Os, 65.3 percent; 19OOs, 76.1 percent, 191Os, 71.7 percent; and 1920s, 87.6 percent. The percentages were compiled from the computerized members’ listing cited 

in the previous footnote. 

See Ways and Means Records, 53d Cong., Record Group 233. Minutebook, 53d 

Cong., 1st Sess. (HR53A-F46.4). National Archives, Washington, DC. Entries for 23 

and 29 August 1893 mention the appointment of subcommittees by the Committee 

on Ways and Means. Entries for 29 and 30 August and 27 November 1893 give details on committee hearings and other procedures connected with the tariff in the 53d 

Congress. These procedures were also followed in the preparation of the SmootHawley Tariff in 1929. See also E. E. Schattschneider, Politics, Pressures and the Tanfi A 

Study of Free Priuate Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in lhe 1929-1930 Revision of the 

Tanff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935), p. 34, footnote 24. 

6 Schattschneider, Polilics, Pressures and the Tanz, pp. 13-66. 

Ibid., p. 38. 

Ibid., p. 50. 

Ibid., pp. 14-15. 

lo Dr. Hamilton Wright, cited in H. Wayne Morgan, Drugs in America: A Social 

HistoT, 1800-1980 (Syracuse NY: Syracuse University Press, 1981), pp. 93, 106-107. 

l1 Johnson, Oscar W. Undmnood, pp. 211-12. 

12See Ways and Means Committee Records, 67th Cong., Record Group 233. 

J. V. A. Smith to the Hon. James A. Mead, 3 March 1922 (HR67A-H23.6). National 

Archives, Washington, DC. 

13 See Ways and Means Committee Records, 67th Cong., Record Group 233. Resolutions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, adopted 3 and 8 March 1922 

(HR67A-H23.6). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

l4 Morgan, Drugs in Amm’ca, pp. 18-19. 

l5 David M. Kennedy, Birth Control in Ammia: The Career of Margaret Sanger (New 

Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 231-34. 

l6 See Ways and Means Committee Records, 72d Cong., Record Group 233. Mrs. 

Sara Jones and Mrs. Effe Davis to the Hon. Henry W. Watson, 4 May 1932 (HR72AF29.2). See also Will Durant to Acting Chairman Crisp, 12 May 1932, and Adele A. S. 

Brown to Acting Chairman Crisp, 11 May 1932 (HR72A-F29.2). National Archives, 

Washington, DC. 

l7 Kennedy, Birth Control, pp. 270-71. 

l8 See Ways and Means Committee Records, 53d Cong., Record Group 233. Minutebook, 53d Cong., 1st Sess. (HR53A-F46.4). Entry for 23 August 1893 contains the 

clerk’s report in its entirety. National Archives, Washington, DC. 

l9 Davis R. Dewey, Financial His109 of the United Stales, 4th ed. (London: Longmans, 

Green 1912), p. 495. 

2o Ibid., p. 497. 

21 John M. Dobson, Two Centuries of Tanfls: The Background and Emergence of the U.S. 

lnternalional Trade Commzsszon (Washington, DC: U.S. Trade Commission, 1976), pp. 

49-56. 

22 William Carl Spielman, William McKinley: Stalwart Republican (New York: Exposition Press, 1923), p. 53. 

490 
23 Edward Stanwood, American Tanfl Controversies in lhe Nineteenth Cenlury (Boston: 

Houghton Miflin, 1903-1904), 2: 260. 

24 Ibid., 2: 26i. 

25 Ibid., 2: 263. 

26 Ibid., 2: 268. 

27 Ibid., 2: 295-95. See also Spielman, William McKinley, p. 54; Sidney Ratner, A 

Polilical and Social History of Federal Taxalion, 1789-1913 (New York: W.W. Norton, 

1942), pp. 59-60; Dewey, Financial History, pp. 438-40. 

28 For other accounts of Bryan's controversial appointment, see Paolo E. Colletta, 

William Jennings Bryan I: Political Evangelzrt, 1860-1908 (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1964). See also Stanwood, Tanff Controversies, 2: 305; Champ Clark, My 

Quarler Century in American Polilics (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1920). 1: 273; and 

Summers, William L. Wilson, p. 125. 

29 Summers, William L. Wilson, pp. 125-26; Stanwood, Tan# Controversies, 2: 307. 

30 Summers, William L. Wilson, pp. 130-31, 156-60; Stanwood, Tunff Controversies, 

2: 309-18; Ratner, Federal Taxation, p. 171. 

31 Summers, William L. Wilson, p. 160. 

32 Ibid., pp. 160-61. 

33 Ibid., p. 167. 

34 Ibid., pp. 172-76; Stanwood, Tanfl Conlrouersies, 2: 320-21. 

35 Colletta, Bryan, 1: 56-57. 

36 Summers, William L. Wilson, p. 178; Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 172-78. 

37 Summers, William L. Wilson, pp. 184-85. 

38 Ibid., p. 185; Stanwood, Tan//Conlrouersies, 2: 325-26. 

39 Summers, William L. Wilson, pp. 202-205; Stanwood, Tanfl Controversies, 2: 328- 

29. See also H. Wayne Morgan, From Hayes lo McKinley: Nalional Parly Polilics, 1877- 

I896 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1969), pp. 461-76; Dictionary of Amen'- 

can Biography, 10 (Part 2): 351-52. 

40 Randolph E. Paul, Taxation in the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 1954), pp. 

41 Joseph G. Cannon, Uncle Joe Cannon: The Story of a Pioneer Ammcan, as told 10 L. 

40-64. See also Ratner, Federal Taxalion, pp. 193-214. 

CVhzle Bwbey (New York: Henry Hull, 1927), p. 329. 

42 Ibid., pp. 334-35. 

43 Ratner, American Taxalion, p. 223; Stanwood, Tan# Conlrouersies, 2: 378-79. 

44 Ratner, American Taxalion, pp. 223-25; Stanwood, Tanff Conlrouersies. 2: 380-81; 

Horace Samuel Merrill and Marion Galbraith Merrill, The Republican Command, 189 7- 

I913 (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1971), pp. 44-45. See also Robert 

A. Pastor, Congress and the Polilics of L!S. Foreign Economic Policy, 1929-1976 (Berkeley: 

University of California Press, 1980). 

45 Merrill, Republican Command, p. 48. 

46 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 226-27. 

47 Paul, Taxation in lhe U.S., pp. 65-67; Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 230-39. 

48 Diclionary of American Biography, 7 (Part 2): 330-31. See also Busbey, Uncle Joe 

Cannon, pp. 333-34. 

49 1 
49 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 239-49; Dewey, Financial Histoly. pp. 467-75. 

50 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 249-50. 

51 Ibid., p. 268; Merrill, Republican Command, pp. 122; 194-204. 

52 Champ Clark, cited in Congress, House, Sereno Elisha Payne: hiemorial Addresses, 

H.R. Doc. 7173, 63d Cong., 3d Sess., 1916, p. 29. 

53 Ibid., pp. 30-3 1. See also Clark, My Quarter Centuly, 2: 18. 

54 Merrill, Republican Command, p. 283; Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 270-71. 

55 Ratner, Federal Taxation, pp. 279-80. 

56 Lawrence James Holt, Congressional Insurgents and !he Party Sys~em, 1909-1916 

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 44-45; Ratner, Federal Taxalion, 

pp. 31 1-12. 

57 Arthur S. Link, Woodrow LVzlson and the Progressive Era (New York: Harper and 

58 Burton L. French, “Subcommittees of Congress,” American Political Science Review 

ROW, 1954), pp. 34-36. 

(February 1915): 85. 

59 Link, Woodrow Wilson, pp. 37-38. 

6o Ibid., p. 38; Paul, Taxation in the [I.S., pp. 74-79. See also John F. Witte, The 

Politics and Development of the Federal Income Tax (Madison: University of Wisconsin 

Press, 1985), pp. 101-104. 

61 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 101; Witte, Federal Income Tm-, pp. 76-77. 

62 Link, Woodrow Wilson, p. 43. 

63 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 79; Charles Gilbert, American Financing of World 

War I (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1970), pp. 75-77. 

64 Gilbert, American Financing, p. 65. 

65 Alex Mathews Arnett, Claude Kitchin and the Wilson War Policies (Boston: Little, 

Brown, 1937). pp. 25-27; 41-46. 

66 Ibid., pp. 270-75. 

67 Gilbert, American Financing, pp. 77-82. 

68 Ibid., pp. 82-84. 

69 Arnett, Claude Kitchin, pp. 252-53; Gilbert, American Financing, p. 88. 

70 Gilbert, American Financing, pp. 96-98; Arnett, Claude Kitchin, pp. 259-60. 

71 Gilbert, American Financing, pp. 103-105. 

72 Arnett, Claude Kitchin, pp. 267-69. 

73 Footnote to letter from Joseph Patrick Tumulty to Woodrow Wilson, 2 August 

1918, in Arthur S. Link, ed., The Papers of IVoodrow Wilson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 49: 162-63. See also Woodrow Wilson to Claude Kitchin, 2 

August 1918, in Link, ed., Wilson. Papers, 49: 163-64. 

74 Gilbert, American Financing, pp. 105-1 15; Kenneth Kofmehl, Professional Sluffs of 

75 Gilbert, American Financing, pp. 124-25; 136-38; 145-49; 163. 

76 Diary of Josephus Daniels, 14 August 1818, in Link, ed., Wilson Papers, 49: 258; 

Diary of‘ Colonel House, 24 September 1918, in Link, ed., Wilson Papers, 51: 109. See 

also memorandum by Joseph Patrick Tumulty, 9 November 1818, in Link, ed., Wihon 

Papers, 53: 23. 

Congress (Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1962), p. 183. 

492 
77 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 89. 

Ibid., pp. 88-90. See also Robert K. Murray, The Harding Era: Warren G. Harding 

and His Administration (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969), pp. 180-84; 

Philip H. Love, Andrew W. Mellon: The Man and His Work (Baltimore: F. Heath, Coggins, 1926), pp. 47-49. 

’9 John Andrew Russell, Joseph Warren Fordney: American Legzslator (Boston: Stratford, 1928), pp. 134, 178-80. 

Murray, Harding Era, p. 206. 

Ibid., pp. 271-80. See also Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 130; Russell, Joseph 

Warren Fordney, p. 197. 

82 Murray, Harding Era, pp. 273-74. 

83 Ibid., p. 278. 

s4 President Warren G. Harding, cited in ibid., p. 277. 

85 Ibid., pp. 184-91; Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 90-91. 

86 Love, Andrew W. Mellon, pp. 68-85; Murray, Harding Era, p. 382; Witte, Federal 

Income Tax, pp. 92-93; Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 131-38. 

87 Love, Andrew W. Mellon, pp. 154-55; Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 137-39. 

Hull quoted in Pastor, Congress and Foreign Economic Policy, p. 83. For good general accounts of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, see Pastor, Congress and Foreign Economic 

Policy, pp. 77-84; and Dobson, Two Centuries of Tan&, pp. 33-35. For the roles of 

Hoover and Congress, see Jordan A. Schwartz, The Interregnum of Despair: Hoover, Congress, and the Depression (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970). pp. 6-9; Albert U. 

Romasco, The Poverty of Abundance: Hoover, the Nation, the Depression (New York: Oxford 

University Press, 1965), pp. 213-15; and Joan Hoff Wilson, Herberl Hoover: Forgotten 

Progressive (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), pp. 175-77. 

89 LaFollette quoted in Pastor, Congress and Foreign Economic Policy, p. 78. 

U.S. President, “Statement on the Tariff Bill” (June 16, 1930), Publzc Papers of 

the Presidenls of the United States: Herbert Hoover (1930). U.S. National Achives and 

Records Administration (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1976), p. 235. 

91 Schwartz, Interregnum of Despair, p. 1 13. 

92 Ibid., p. 118-26. 

93 F. W. Taussig, The Tan# History ofthe United States (1892; reprint ed., New York: 

Augustus M. Kelly, 1967), pp. 491-500. 

NOTES TO 1933-1959, FROM THE NEW DEAL TO THE COLD WAR 

Cited in Randolph E. Paul, Taxation in the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, 

1954), p. 265. 

See John F. Manley, The Politics of Finance: The House Committee on Ways and Means 

(Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), pp. 154-62. 

Cited in Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Guide to the Congress ofthe United States: Origzns, History, and Procedure (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 197 l), p. 51. 

Chairmen were also required to report promptly to the House any measure approved by the committee. Ibid., p. 51. 

493 
Judy Schneider and Carol Hardy, “Congressional Committee Staff and Funding,” continuously updated issue brief (1989). 

phy (1977), Supplement 5: 180-81. 

See the biographical sketch by Jordan A. Schwarz in Dictionary of American BiograManley, Politics of Finance, p. 163. 

Ibid., pp. 163-64. 

Cordell Hull, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 1: 355; 

Robert A. Pastor, Congress and the Politics of Foreign Economic Policy, 1929-1976 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), pp. 84-93. 

lo Hull, Memoirs, 1: 359. 

l1 Ibid., 1: 359. 

l2 Sidney Ratner, quoted in Pastor, Congress and Foreign Economic Policy, p. 92, 

13 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 176-80; John F. Witte, The Politics and Development 

of the Federal Income Tax (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp. 98-100. 

l4 Manley, Politics of Finance, p. 166. 

l5 Ibid., p. 169. 

16 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 100; Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 183. 

l7 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 183-88; Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 100-02. 

16 W. Andrew Achenbaum, Social Security: Visions and Revisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). pp. 13-18. 

l9 Cited in ibid., p. 19. 

20 Edwin E. Witte, The Development of the Social Security Act (Madison: University of 

Wisconsin Press, 1962), pp. 79-80. 

21 Ibid., pp. 85-86. 

22 Achenbaum, Social Security, p. 26. 

23 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 190-98. 

24 Ibid., p. 203. 

25 Manley, Politics of Finance, pp. 172-74. 

26 Achenbaum, Social Security, p. 27. 

27 Ibid., p. 29. 

28 Ibid., p. 31. 

29 Bryce Nathaniel Harlow, “The Ways and Means Committee of the House of 

Representatives in the Seventy-sixth Congress,” M.A. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 

1941, p. 75; Manley, Politics of Finance, p. 172. 

30 Harlow, “Ways and Means in the Seventy-sixth Congress,” pp. 69-70. 

31 Ibid., pp. 64-91. 

32Achenbaum, Social Security, pp. 32-37. The quote by McCormack is cited on 

33 Ibid., p. 36. 

34 Ibid., pp. 43-44. 

35 Witte, Federal Income Taw, pp. 107-108; Margaret G. Myers, A Financial History of 

page 33. 

the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), p. 332. 

494 
36 Myers, Financial History, p. 349. 

37 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 257; Wittc, Federal Income Tax, p. 111. 

38 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 265. 

39 Ibid., pp. 258-59. 

40 Ibid., p. 262. 

41 Ibid., p. 264. 

42 Ibid., pp. 265, 271; Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 112. 

43 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 273. 

44 Ibid., p. 273. 

45 Ibid., p. 276. 

46 Ibid., p. 278; Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 114. 

47 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 281. 

48 Ibid., p. 297. 

49 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 11 5; ibid., pp. 298-99. 

50See Ways and Means Records, 78th Cong., Record Group 233. Postcards received by Congress in October 1943, regarding the sales tax. (HR78A-F38.10). National Archives, Washington, DC. 

51 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 306-307; Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 117. 

52 Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 119-20; Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 328-49; 

Manley, Politics of Finance, pp. 179-80. 

53 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., pp. 358-59. 

54 Ibid., p. 371. 

55 Witte. Federal Income Tax, p. 121; ibid., p. 372. 

56 Paul, Taxation in the U.S., p. 373. 

57 Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 123-28. 

58 Congress, House. Committee on Rules, A History of the Committee on Rules: 1st to 

97th Congress, 1789-1981. Committee print. 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 1983, p. 150; Alvin M. 

Josephy, Jr., The Amm'can Heritage History of the Congress of the United States (New York: 

American Heritage, 1975), p. 367. 

59 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 131; A. E. Holmans, United States Fiscal Policy, 1945- 

1959 (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), pp. 43-51. 

6o Manley, Politics oJ Finance, p. 183. 

61 Ibid., p. 186. 

62 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 132 

63 Holmans, U.S. Fiscal Policy, p. 79; ibid., p. 133. 

64 Manley, Politics of Finance, p. 187. 

65 Holmans, U.S. Fiscal Policy, p. 96; Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 134-35. 

66 Pastor, Congress and Foreign Economic Policy, p. 96. 

67 Ibid., p. 100. 

68 Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 135-40; Holmans, U.S. Fiscal Policy, pp. 134-35. 

495 
69 Holmans, U.S. Fiscal Policy. p. 165. 

70 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 141; ibid., pp. 168-69. 

71 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 141. 

72 Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota observed that “if oystershells and clamshells can be included in the bill, then anything can be included. Why 

not include duck feathers. Or canary birdseed, or dried up beetles, or anything?” 

Holmans, U.S. Fiscal Policy, p. 175. 

73 Gary W. Reichard, The Reaffinnalion of Republicanism: Eisenhower and the Eightythird Congress (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1975). p. 98. 

74 Manley, Polztics of Finance, pp. 194-95. 

75 Reichard, Reaffirmation of Republicanism, p. 100. 

76 lbid., pp. 101-102. 

77 Ibid., p. 103. 

Ibid., pp. 78-83; Pastor, Foreign Economic Policy, pp. 101-04. 

79 Reichard, Reaffirmation of Repubhcanzsm, pp. 129-32. 

Holmans,U.S. Fiscal Policy, pp. 219-23; ibid., pp. 108-10. 

Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 146-48; Reichard, Reaffirmation of Republicanism, 

pp. 110-13. 

82 Witte. Federal Income Tx, p. 153. 

83 lbid., pp. 148-54. 

NOTES TO 1959-1975, THE MILLS COMMITTEE 

Cited in John F. Manley, The Poltltcs of Finance: The House Committee on Ways and 

Means (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970). p. 99. 

Steven S. Smith and Christopher J. Deering, Committees in Congress (Washington, 

DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984), p. 26. Donald R. Mathews observed the 

development of the norms of specialization and apprenticeship in the Senate. Donald 

R. Mathews, U.S. Senators and Their World (New York: Vintage Books, 1960). pp. 92- 

95. 

Cited in Ralph Nader Congress Project, Richard Spohn and Charles McCollum, 

directors, The Revenue Committees: A Study of the Home Ways and Means and Senate Finance 

Conmiltees and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1975), p. 3. 

Ibid., p. 7. 

Ibid., pp. 8-9. 

Ibid., p. 10. 

Mills argued that subcommittees would simply double the workload, since their 

work would have to be reviewed by the full committee. He also believed that the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress and the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation provided his committee with ample assistance. 

Thomas B. Curtis, “The House Committee on Ways and Means: Congress Seen 

Through a Key Committee,” Wisconsin Law Review (Winter 1966): 125-28. See also 

H.R. Rep. No. 93-916, Part 11. 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Ofice, 1974), p. 242; Smith and Deering, Congressional Commitlees, pp. 28-29. 

496 
Spohn and McCollum, Revenue Committees, p. 2 1. 

Judy Schneider and Carol Hardy, “Congressional Committee Staff and Funding,” continuously updated issue brief (1989); and John F. Manley, “Congressional 

Staff and Public Policy-Making: The Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation,” 

Journal of Politics, 30 (November 1968): 1,046-67. 

lo Spohn and McCollum, Revenue Committees, pp. 24-27. 

l1 George B. Galloway, The Leplative Process in Congress (New York: Thomas Y. 

Crowell, 1953), p. 289; Smith and Deering, Committees in Congress, pp. 26-27. 

l2 Manley, folitirs of Finance, p. 100. See also John F. Manley, “Wilbur D. Mills: A 

Study in Congressional Influence,” American Political Science Review, 63 (1969): 442-64. 

l3 Manley, Politics of Finance, pp. 106-107. 

l4 Ibid., p. 108. 

l5 Ibid., p. 108. 

l6 Ibid., p. 220. 

l7 Ibid., p. 115. 

Ibid., p. 142. 

l9 Ibid., pp. 21-56. 

2o Ibid., p. 251. 

21 Ibid., pp. 253-54. 

22 Ibid., pp. 217, 269-70. 

23Curtis, “House Committee on Ways and Means,” p. 128; Manley, “Congressional Staff,” pp. 1,050, 1,066; Spohn and McCollum, Revenue Committees, pp. 47-55. 

24 Manley, Politics of Finance, pp. 297-3 14; Manley, “Congressional Staff,” pp. 

1046-67; Michael J. Malbin, Unelected Representatives: Congressional Staff and the Future of 

Representative Government (New York: Basic Books, 1979), pp. 170-87. 

25 Manley, “Congressional Staff,” pp. 1059-62. 

26 Manley, Politics of Finance, pp. 322-79. 

27 Congressional Quarterly Service, Congresszonal Quarterly Almanac, 87th Cong., 2d 

28 Ibid., 18: 263-64. 

29 Ibid., 18: 266-68. 

30 Margaret G. Myers, A Fznancial History of the United States (New York: Columbia 

31 C QAlmanac (1965), 21: 243-44; (1960), 16: 151. 

32 C Q Almanac (1960), 16: 153. 

33 Ibid., 16: 153-54. 

Sess. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1962), 18: 262. 

University Press, 1970), pp. 405-406; Ibid., 18: 278-85. 

34 Ibid., 16: 157. 

35 C QAlmanac (1961), 17: 75. 

36 Ibid., 17: 257-61. 

37 Manley, Politics of Finance, pp. 27-29, 119. 

38C QAlmanac (1965), 21: 252. 

497 
39 C Q Almanac (1967), 23: 903-904. 

40 John F. Witte, The Politics and Development of lhe Federal Income Tax (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), p. 155. 

41 Ibid., pp. 155-58. 

42 Ibid., pp. 159-65. 

43 Manley, Politics of Finance, pp. 115-18; Myers, Financial History, p. 371 

44 Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 165-66. 

45 Ibid., pp. 166-69. 

46 Ibid., pp. 168-72. 

47 Ibid., pp. 176-79. 

48 Spohn and McCollum, Revenue Committees, p. 89. 

49 Ibid., p. 56. 

50 Smith and Deering, committees in Congress, pp. 35-42; Congressional Quarterly, 

Inc., Guide to the Congress of the United States: Origms, History, and Procedure (Washington, 

DC: Congressional Quarterly, 197 1). pp. 120-23. 

51 Smith and Deering, Committees in Congress, pp. 43-45. 

52 Ibid., pp. 42-43. 

53 Congress, House, Select Committee on Committees, Briefing Book; Committee 

Reform Amendments of 1974 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1974), p. 

76; Albert R. Hunt, “Waning Institution? Even If Mills Stays On, Ways and Means 

Panel Faces a Loss of Power,” Wall Street Journal, 10 July 1973, p. 1. 

Smith and Deering, Committees in Congress, pp. 45-48. Two staffers of the Bolling 

committee have written an account of the congressional reform movement. They 

agree that the Committee on Ways and Means was “a major target of reorganization.” Roger H. Davidson and Walter J. Oleszek, Congress Against Itself (Bloomington: 

Indiana University Press, 1977). p. 179. 

55 Daniel J. Balz, “Ways and Means Seeks to Maintain Power and Prestige,” National Journal, 22 June 1974, p. 915. 

56 The two incidents involved exotic dancer Annabella Battistella-whose stage 

name was Fanne Foxe. These incidents occurred in October and late November, one 

in the Washington Tidal Basin and the other on a Boston stage. Mills entered Bethesda Naval Hospital on December 3. He agreed to resign the chairmanship after several 

of his colleagues warned him that he would be removed. See “The Fall of Chairman 

Mills,” Time, 16 December 1974, pp. 22-26; and Washington Post, 4 November 1978, 

B1. 

NOTES TO 1975-1989, THE POST-REFORM COMMITTEE 

Randall W. Strahan, Change in Congress: House Committee on Ways and Means (Chapel 

* Cited in Tom Arrandale, “Ways and Means in 1975: No Longer Pre-eminent,” 

Bruce A. Ray, “Committee Attractiveness in the U.S. House, 1963-1981,” Amm’- 

can Journal of Polilical Science, 26 (1982): 609-10. Ray’s measure of attractiveness for 

Ways and Means in the period from 1963-1971 was ,756, for the period 1973-1981, 

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, forthcoming, 1990), chapter 5. 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 34 uanuary 10, 1976), p. 44. 
it had fallen to .431. Appropriations had become the top-ranked committee for the 

latter period, with a score of ,438. 

Steven S. Smith and Bruce A. Ray, “The Impact of Congressional Reform: 

House Democratic Assignments,” Congress and the Presidency, 10 (1983): 238. 

Sam Gibbons (D-FL), cited in Daniel J. Balz, “Slow Progress on Tax Reform 

Issues,” Natzonal Journal, 30 August 1975, p. 1,237. 

Cited in Juan D. Cameron, “And They Call It the Most Important Committee in 

Congress,” Fortune, 93 (March 1976): 148. 

Arrandale, “Ways and Means in 1975,” p. 41. 

* Michael J. Malbin, Unelected Representatives: Congressional Staff and the Future of Representative Government (New York: Basic Books, 1980), pp. 120-25;. Judy Schneider and 

Carol Hardy, “Congressional Committee Staff and Funding,” continuously updated 

issue brief (1 989). 

Cited in Richard E. Cohen, “A1 Ullman-The Complex, Contradictory Chairman 

of Ways and Means,” National Journal, 4 March 1978, p. 347. 

lo Cited in Catherine E. Rudder, “Committee Reform and the Revenue Process,” 

in Congress Reconszdered, Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds., (New 

York: Praeger, 1977), pp. 124-25. 

Cited in “Republicans: On the Sidelines,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 

32 (March 15, 1975), p. 516. 

l2 Cited in Arrandale, “Ways and Means in 1975,” p. 40. 

l3 Cited in ibid., p. 40. 

l4 John F. Witte, The Politics and Development ofthe Federal Income Tax (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp. 238-42. 

l5 Cited in Cohen, “A1 Ullman,” p. 348. 

l6 Witte, Federal home Tax, pp.182-87; Rudder, “Committee Reform and the Revenue Process,” p. 127 

l1 Witte, Federal Income Tax, pp. 190-98. 

la Ibid., pp. 207-12. 

I9 Cited in Elizabeth Wehr, “Rostenkowski: A Firm Grip on Ways and Means,” 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 43 (July 6, 1985), p. 1,3 17. 

2o Cited in ibid., p. 1,316. See also Catherine E. Rudder, “Fiscal Responsibility 

and the Revenue Committees,” in Congress Reconsidered, Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce 

I. Oppenheimer, eds., 3d ed. (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 

1985), p. 218. 

21 Cited in Wehr, “Rostenkowski: A Firm Grip on Ways and Means,” p. 1,318. 

22 Pamela Fessler, “Rostenkowski Seeks More Influential Role,” Congressional Quar23 The discussion of the technical innovations instituted by Chairman Rostenkowski is based upon M. Kenneth Bowler, “Preparing Members of Congress to Make 

Binary Decisions on Complex Policy Issues: The 1986 Tax Reform Bill,” Journal oJ 

Policy Analysis and Management, 8 (1989): 35-45. 

terly Weekly Report, 41 (January 29, 1983), p. 195. 

24 Witte, Federal Income Tax, p. 222. 

25 Ibid., p. 223. 

26 U.S. President, “Statement on Signing the Social Security Amendments Act of 

1983” (April 20, 1983), Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan 

499 
(1983). U.S. National Achives and Records Administration (Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofice, 1983), p. 560. 

27 For a detailed, insightful, and entertaining account of the Tax Reform Act of 

1986, see Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Alan S. Murray, Showdown al Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform, (New York: Random House, 1987). 

28 Congressional Quarterly Almanac (1986), 42: 507. 

29 Ibid., 42: 518. 

30 Ibid., 42: 10. 

31 Congress, House, Committee on Ways and Means, Legwlatiue Record of the Commitlee 

on Ways and Means. Committee Prints 95-109, 96-78, 98-4, 99-3, 100-13, 95th-99th 

Cong., 1978-87. The committee’s legislative record for the 100th Congress will be 

printed in 1989. 

32 Cited in The Dirksen Congressional Center Report (March 1989), 9. Rostenkowski’s 

observation, “I guess I don’t read lips too well,” referred to Bush’s campaign slogan 

asking voters to read his lips as he promised no new taxes. 

33 Annals of Congress, 3d Cong., 1st Sess., 26 March 1794, pp. 531-32. 

500 
Sources 

GUIDE TO LEGISLATIVE RECORDS 

The following is a general overview of the legislative source materials 

consulted in the preparation of this book. The authors have also listed 

some materials not used but mentioned here to promote further inquiry into the committee’s past and present. 

The legislative resources available to the student of congressional 

history and politics are vast. Before undertaking a study of the Committee on Ways and Means, or any other congressional committee, the 

researcher should become acquainted with the numerous aids and research guides available on the subject of Congress. The reference 

works cited are applicable to all standing committees. With a few exceptions, these works can be located at the Library of Congress in 

Washington, DC, and at various libraries and research institutions located throughout the United States. 

For a general understanding of Congress and the legislative process, see four works published by Congressional Quarterly: Guide to 

Congress (3d ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 198 l), 

Powers of Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1982), 

How Congress Works (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1983), 

and Walter J. Oleszek, Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process (3d 

ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1989). There are also 

several guides to government documents and publications. Three of 

the best are Laurence F. Schmeckbier and Roy B. Easton, Government 

Publications and Their Use (2d rev. ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1969), Robert Goehlert, Congress and Law-Making: Researching 

the Legzslutive Process (Santa Barbara, CA: Clio Books, 1979), and Joe 

Morehead, Introduclion to United Slates Public Documenls (3d ed. Littleton, 

CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1983). These guides can greatly assist an individual in locating, identifying and narrowing the parameters of legislative sources in the preliminary research stage. 

To produce the present study, the authors examined both published and unpublished legislative sources. The principal published 

sources were the records of the colonial and early state legislatures 

(individually cited in the text) and the floor proceedings of the House 

of Representatives. The Journal of the House of Representatives, which is 

required by the Constitution, has been published continuously since 

1789. It chronicles the introduction of and subsequent actions taken 

on bills, the referral of bills and other business to committees, and 

roll call votes, among other proceedings. Two journals are also published for the Senate. The debates on House and Senate legislation 

50 1 
are the subject of another series of publications. For the period 1789- 

1824, see Annals of Congress (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 

1834-1857); 1824-1837, see Regzster of Debates (Washington, DC: Gales 

and Seaton, 1824-1837); 1833-1873, see Congressional Globe (Washington, DC: Francis P. Blair and John C. Rives, 1833-1873); and for the 

period from 1873 to the present, see Congressional Record (Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office, 1874- ). Both the House and Senate 

Journals are indexed, albeit with varying degrees of accuracy and comprehensiveness. These indexes were used to compile the bill histories 

upon which much of the narrative concerning the committee’s legislation was based. For concise histories of Ways and Means Committee 

legislation since 1945, an excellent source is the Congressional Quarterly 

Almanac (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1945- ). The Almanac, published annually, summarizes congressional activities for the 

previous year. The committee’s legislation as approved by Congress 

since 1789 is compiled in United Stales Statutes at Large, 99 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofice, 1845- ), a chronological listing by session of all statutes enacted by the federal legislature. These 

laws are periodically codified in United States Code (Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1926- ). For the evolution of a federal 

law on a given subject, see United States Code Annotated (St. Paul, MN: 

West Publishing, 1973). For committee and conference reports on 

legislation since 194 1, see The U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative 

News (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1941- ). 

Information regarding the jurisdictional history of the Committee 

on Ways and Means was obtained principally from published congressional proceedings and other published sources. The evolution of 

House precedents from 1789 to 1907, including committee jurisdiction, is chronicled in Asher C. Hinds, Hinds’ Precedents of the House of 

Representatives of the United States, 5 vols. (Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office, 1907). Hinds’ work has been updated by Clarence 

Cannon through 1936, in Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives, 6 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1936), 

and by Lewis Deschler, Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of 

Representatives, 8 vols. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 

1977). An understanding of the historical development of House procedures can be enhanced by consulting the House Rules and Manual, 

published biennially by the Government Printing Office as part of the 

Congressional Serials Set. For procedural developments from 1959- 

1980, see Lewis Deschler and William Holmes Brown, Procedure in Ihe 

U.S. House of Represenlatives, a Summary of the Modern Precedents and Practices of the House: 86th-97th Congress, with a 1985 and 1987 supplement 

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982). For the most 

recent precedents see the parliamentarian’s annotations of current 

practice in the latest edition of the House Rules and Manual. 

Published committee documents were also utilized for this 

502 
volume. These are documents such as bills and resolutions, hearings 

and committee prints, and reports. They have been cited individually 

in the notes of the text. Information concerning the availability and 

location of committee documents can be obtained after first consulting the CIS U.S. Serial Set Index, 1789-1969, published by the Congressional Information Service in 1969 and supplemented by individual indexes published each year from 1970 to the present. There are other 

valuable published indexes on committee documents for various time 

periods. For hearings, see U.S. Congress, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Index to Congressional Cummitlee Hearings in the Library uf the 

House of Representatives prior toJanuary 1, 1951 (1 vol. with supplements. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 195 1-1969); and on 

committee prints, Rochelle Field, ed. A Bibliography and Indexes of United 

States Committee Prints, 2 vols. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1977). 

To obtain a general sense of congressional documents available for 

the period prior to 1817, see the series American State Papers, 38 vols. 

(Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1832-1861). This series, which is 

indexed in the CIS U.S. Serial Set Index, also reprints early messages 

and reports from the executive branch, including presidential communications. For presidential communications, also see U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Public Papers of the Presidents of the 

United States, (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1958- ), 

as well as other published series of presidential papers, a few of which 

are cited elsewhere in this bibliography and in the text. 

Biographical information concerning the members of the Committee on Ways and Means has been derived principally from biographies, cited individually below, and from biographical directories. The 

most extensively used was Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone, eds., 

Dictzunar)! of American Biography, 17 vols., including supplements (rev. 

ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958-1981). The first seven 

volumes of this dictionary are subdivided into two parts, the second 

part being a reprint of an earlier edition issued in the 1920s. The entries are arranged alphabetically. Another useful source was the recently published bicentennial edition Biographical Directory of the United 

States Congress, 1774-1 989 (Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office, 1989). For published guides to manuscript collections of committee members, a good place to start is Cynthia Pease Miller, ed., 

Guide to Research Collections of Former Members of the House of Representatives, 1787-1987 (Washington, DC: Office of the Bicentennial of the 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1988); and John J. McDonough, 

comp., Members of Congress: ‘4 Checklist of their Papers in the Manuscnpt Division, Library of Congress (Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1980). 

The unpublished records of the Committee on Ways and Means 

are extensively cited throughout this history. These records are located at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, DC. The National Archives has acted as the depository for the 

503 
historic records of all three branches of the Federal Government since 

1934. The textual records of Congress are administered by the Center 

for Legislative Archives and Records Administration. The Center has 

custody of eight record groups pertaining to Congress. The Record 

Group consulted for this publication was Record Group 233 (Records 

of the U.S. House of Representatives), which contains a wealth of 

items pertaining to the committee’s history and legislation. 

The principal record types reviewed were extant minutebooks, 

petitions, and memorials referred to the committee; draft and printed 

versions of committee bills, reports and papers; papers accompanying 

specific bills and resolutions; and committee correspondence of various types. While these records constitute an invaluable body of information, they are so dense that it behooves the researcher to consult 

finding aids to the records before attempting to review them in any 

systematic fashion. This process has been simplified by the recent 

publication of Charles E. Schamel, et al., Guide to the Records of the 

United States at the National Archives, 1789-1989 (H. Doc. No. 100-245), 

a bicentennial edition that provides the general public with a comprehensive guide to the nearly 26,000 cubic feet of House records under 

the custody and archival care of the National Archives. See especially 

Chapter 21, which discusses the records of the Committee on Ways 

and Means. A companion volume, Robert W. Coren, et al., Guide to the 

Records of the Senate at the National Archives, 1789-1989 (S. Doc. 100-42) 

is also available for Senate records. 

A listing of the published primary and secondary source materials 

consulted by the authors, and arranged by subject, appears below. 

504 
OTHER PRIMARY 

SOURCES 

The following source material 

was used to provide additional biographical and legislative information pertaining to the history, 

legislation and membership of the 

House Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

DIARIES 

Adams, John Quincy. The Diary of John 

Quincy Adams, 1794-1845: z4ma’can 

Diplomacy, and Political, Social, and Intellectual Llf, from Washington to Polk. 

Edited by Allan Nevins. New York: 

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951. 

Chase, Salmon P. “The Diary and Letters of Salmon P. Chase.” In Annual 

Report of the American Historical Associafion for the Year 1902. 2 vols. 

Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Ofice, 1902. 

Garfield, James A. The Diary of James A. 

Garfield, Vol. 3: 1875-1877. Edited 

by Harry L. Brown and Frederick D. 

Williams. Ann Arbor: Michigan 

State University Press, 1973. 

Maclay, William. The Journal of William 

Maclay, United States Senator from 

Pennsylvania, 1789-1 791. New York: 

Albert and Charles Boni, 1927. 

Polk, James K. The Diary of James K. 

Polk during his Preszdency, 1845 to 

1849. Edited by Milo M. Quaife. 4 

vols. Chicago: A.C. McClurg, 1910. 

MEMOIRS 

Adams, John Quincy. Memoirs of John 

Quincy Adams: Comprising Portions of 

His Diary from 1795 to 1848. Edited 

by Charles Francis Adams. 12 vols. 

Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1874- 

1877. 

Cannon, Joseph Gurney. Uncle Joe 

Cannon: The Sloty of a Pioneer AmPncan. As told to L. White Busbey. 

New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1927. 

Carpenter, Frank G. Carp’s Washmgfon. 

Arranged and edited by Frances 

Carpenter. New York: McGraw-Hill, 

1960. 

Clark, James Beauchamp “Champ”. 

My Quarter Century of Ameiican Politics. 

2 vols. New York: Harper and Row, 

1920. 

Hull, Cordell. The Memoirs of Cordell 

Hull. 2 vols. New York: MacMillan, 

1948. 

McAdoo, William G. Crowded Years: 

The Reminiscences of William G. 

AlcAdoo. 1931. Reprint. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1971. 

Sherman, John. Recollecfzons of Forty 

Years in the House, Senafe and Cabinet: 

An Autobiography. 2 vols. 1895. Reprint. New York: Greenwood Press, 

1968. 

Stealey, 0.0. Twenty Years in the Press 

Gallery. New York: Publisher’s Printing Company, 1906. 

PUBLISHED ADDRESSES, 

SPEECHES 

US. Congress. House. Menioiial Addresses on the Lfe and Character of 

Samuel J. Randall, A Representalive 

from Pennsylvania. 51st Cong., 1st 

Sess. Mis Doc. No. 265, 1891. 

. Serreno Elisha Payne: Memorial 

Addresses. 63d Cong., 3d Sess. Doc. 

No. 1713, 1916. 

PUBLISHED PAPERS 

Ames, Fisher. Works of Fisher Ames. 2 

vols. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 

1983. 

Clay, Henry. The Papers of Henry Clay. 

Edited by James F. Hopkins and 

Mary W.M. Hargreaves. Vols 1-3. 

Lexington: University of Kentucky 

Press, 1959-1963. 

Fillmore, Millard. “Millard Fillmore 

Papers.” 2 vols. In Publications of the 

Buffalo Historical Society, 1 1. Buffalo: 

Buffalo Historical Society, 1907. 

Hamilton, Alexander. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold 

C. Syrett. Vols. 5-18. New York: 

Columbia University Press, 1962- 

1972. 

Hoover, Herbert. “Public Messages, 

Speeches, and Statements of the 

President: January 1 to December 

31, 1930.” In Public Papers of the 

Presidents of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Ofice, 1976. 

Jefferson, Thomas. The Writings of 

Thomas Jeffson. Edited by Paul 

Leicester Ford. Vols 6-10. New 

York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1895- 

1899. 

Labaree, Leonard W., ed., Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors, 

1670-1776. New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1935. 

Madison, James. Letters and Other Wntings of James Madison, Vol. 2: 1794- 

1815. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott 

and Company, 1865. 

Steele, John. The Writings of John Sleele. 

Edited by Henry M. Wagstaff. 2 

vols. Raleigh: Edwards and 

Broughton, 1924. 

Tyler, Lyon G. The Letters and Times of 

lhe Tylers. 2 vols. 1885. Reprint. New 

York: DaCapo Press, 1970. 

Wilson, Woodrow. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Edited by Arthur S. Link. 

Princeton: Princeton University 

Press. 1978-1986. 

PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS 

United States. Constitutional Convention, 1787. The Recordc of the Federal 

Convention of 1787. Edited by Max 

Farrand. 4 vols. New Haven: Yale 

University Press, 1917. 

BOOKS, ARTICLES AND 

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES 

GENERAL HISTORIES 

Books 

Blum, John M., et al. The National Experience. 5th ed. New York: Harcourt 

Brace Jovanovich, 1981. 

Current, Richard N., et al. American 

History: A Suruey. 2 vols. 5th ed. New 

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1983. 

Morison, Samuel Eliot, et al. The 

Growth of the American Republic. 7th 

ed. New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1980. 

Neustadt, Richard N., and May, Ernest 

F. Thinking in Time: The Uses of Histoq for Deciszon-Makers. New York: 

Free Press, 1986. 

505 
HOUSE HISTORY 

AND PROCEDURE 

Books 

Alexander, DeAlva Stanwood. History 

and Procedure of the House of Representatives. Boston: Houghton Mifilin, 

1916. 

Baker, Richard A., The Senate of fhe 

LInited Stales: A Bicentennial History. 

Malabar, FL: Krieger, 1988. 

Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Guide to 

Congress of the United States: Onpns, 

History, and Procedure. Washington, 

DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1981. 

. Powers of Congress. Washington, 

DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1982. 

. How Congress Works. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 

1983. 

Dimock, Marshall Edward. Congressional Investigating Committees. Baltimore: 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 

1929. 

Essary, J. Frederick. Cowering Washzngton: Government Rejlected to the Public 

in the Press, 1882-1826. Boston: 

Houghton Mimin, 1927. 

Fenno, Richard F., Jr. Congressmen in 

Committees. Boston: Lhtle, Brown, 

1973 

. The Power of the Purse: Appropriatzom Politics in Congress. Boston: 

Little, Brown, 1966. 

Galloway, George B. The Legdative 

Process in Congress. New York: 

Thomas Y. Crowell, 1953. 

. History of the United States House 

of Representatives. 2d ed. New York: 

Thomas Y. Crowell, 1976. 

Green, Constance McLaughlin. Il’ashinglon: Village and Capital, 1800- 

1878. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962. 

Hinckley, Barbara. The Sentority System 

in Congress. Bloomington: Indiana 

University Press, 197 1. 

Josephy, Alvin W., Jr. The American 

Heritage History of the Congress of the 

United States. New York: American 

Heritage Publishing Company, 

1975. 

Kofmehl, Kenneth. Professional Stafls of 

Congress. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1962. 

Luce, Robert A.M. Legzslative Procedure: 

Parliamentary Practices and [he Course 

of Business in the Framing of Statutes. 

Boston: Houghton Mimin, 1922. 

McConachie, Lauros Grant. Congressional Committees. 1898. Reprint. New 

York: Burt Frankin, 1973. 

MacNeil, Neil. Forge of Democracy: The 

House of Representatives. New York: 

David MacKay, 1963. 

Malbin, Michael J. Unelecled Representatives: Congressional Staff and the Future 

of Representative Govament. New 

York: Basic Books, 1979. 

Morrow, William L. Congressional Commitlees. New York: Charles 

Scribner’s Sons, 1969. 

Riddick, Floyd. The United States Congress: Organization and Procedure. Manassas, VA: National Capitol Publishers, 1941. 

Ripley, Randall B. Party Leaders in the 

House of Representatzves. Washington, 

DC: Brookings Institution, 1966. 

. Majority Party Leadmship in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969. 

Smith, Steven S., and Deering, Christopher J. Committees in Congress. 

Washington, DC: Congressional 

Quarterly Press, 1984. 

Sunquist, James S. The Decline and Resurgence of Congress. Washington, DC: 

Brookings Institution, 1981. 

Unekis, Joseph K., and Rieselbach, 

Leroy N. Congressional Committee Politics: Continuity and Change. New York: 

Praeger, 1984. 

US. Congress. House. Committee on 

Rules. A History of the Committee on 

Ruks: 1st to 97th Congress, 1789- 

1981. Committee print. 97th Congress, 2d Sess., 1983. 

U.S. Congress. Senate. Hislory of the 

Committee on Finance. Senate Document 97-5. 97th Congress, 1st 

Sess., 1981. 

Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional Governmenl: A Study in American Politics. 

Boston: Houghton Mimin, 1885 

and 1913. 

Articles 

Abram, Michael, and Cooper, Joseph. 

“The Rise of Seniority in the House 

of Representatives.” Polity 1 (Fall 

Bogue, Allan G., et al. “Members of 

the House and the Process of Modernization, 1789-1960.” Journal of 

American History 63 (September 

Brady, David W., et al. “The Decline 

of Party in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1887-1968.” Legdative 

Studies Quarterly 4 (August 1979): 

381-406. 

Congressional Quarterly, Inc. “History of the House.” In Guih to Congress. 3d ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1982: 1-76. 

Davidson, Roger H., et al. “One Bill, 

Many Committees: Multiple Referrals in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Legdative Studies Quarterly 13 

(February 1988): 3-28. 

Dodd, Lawrence C. “Congress and 

the Quest for Power.” In Studies of 

Congress. Edited by Glenn R. Parker, 

pp. 489-520. Washington, DC: 

Congressional Quarterly Press, 

1985. 

. and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. 

“The House in Transition.” In Congress Reconsidmed. Edited by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce 1. Oppenheimer, pp. 21-53. New York: 

Praeger, 1977. 

French, Burton L. “Subcommittees of 

Congress.” Amencan Political Science 

Review 9 (February 1915): 68-92. 

Galloway, George B. “Development of 

the Committee System in the House 

of Representatives.” American Htstorical Revim 63 (October 1959): 17- 

30. 

1968): 53-85. 

1976): 275-302. 

Haines, Wilder. “The Congressional 

Caucus of Today.” American Political 

Science Review 9 (November 1915): 

Jones, Charles 0. “Representation in 

Congress: The Case of the House 

Agricultural Committee.” American 

Political Science Review 60 Uune 

1961): 358-67. 

696-707. 

506 
. ‘yoseph G. Cannon and 

Howard W. Smith: An Essay on the 

Limits of Leadership in the House 

of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 30 (August 1968): 617-46. 

Manley, John F. “Congressional Staff 

and Public Policy-Making: The Joint 

Committee on Internal Revenue 

Taxation.” Journal of Politics 30 (November 1968): 1,046-67. 

Masters, Nicholas A. “Committee Assignments in the House of Representatives.” American Political Science 

Review 60 (June 1961): 345-57. 

Parker, Glenn R., and Parker, Suzanne 

L. “Factions in Committees: The 

U.S. House of Representatives.” 

American Political Science Review 73 

(March 1979): 85-102. 

Polsby, Nelson W., et al. “The Growth 

of the Seniority System in the U.S. 

House of Representatives.” American 

Political Science Review 63 (September 

1969): 787-807. 

Rhode, David W., and Shepsle, Kenneth A. “Democratic Committee Assignments in the House of Representatives.” American Political Science 

Review 67 (September 1973): 889- 

905. 

Rogers, Lindsey. “Staffing of Congress.” Political Science Quarterly 56 

(March 1941): 1-22. 

Rudder, Catharine E. “Committee 

Reform and the Revenue Process.” 

In Congress Reconsidered. Edited by 

Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, pp. 117-39. New York: 

Praeger, 1977. 

. “Fiscal Responsibility and the 

Revenue Committees.” In Congress 

Reconsidered, 3d ed. Edited by Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, pp. 2 11-22. Washington, 

DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 

1985. 

Wander, W. Thomas. “Patterns of 

Change in the Congressional 

Budget Process, 1865-1974.” Congress and the Presidency 9 (Autumn 

1982): 23-49. 

Unpublished Works 

Damon, Richard Everett. “The Standing Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives.” Ph.D. dissertation, 

Columbia University, 1971. 

Schneider, Judy. “Congressional 

Staffing, 1947-1978.” Washington, 

DC: Congressional Research Service, 1979. 

. and Hardy, Carol. “Congressional Committee Staff and Funding.” Issue Brief. Continuously updated. Washington, DC: Library of 

Congress, 1989. 

OTHER CONGRESSIONAL 

STUDIES 

Books 

Barnes, William H. History ofthe Thirtyninth Congress of the United States. 

1868. Reprint. New York: Negro 

Universities Press, 1969. 

Benedict, Michael Les. A Compromise of 

Principle: Congressional Republicans and 

Reconstruction, 1863-1869. New 

York: W.W. Norton, 1974. 

Davidson, Roger H., and Oleszek, 

Walter J. Congress Against Itself 

Bloomington: Indiana University 

Press, 1977. 

Dobson, John M. Politics in the Gilded 

Age: A New Perspective on Reform. New 

York: Praeger, 1972. 

Ford, Henry Jones. The Cleveland Era: 

A Chronicle of the New Order in Politics. 

New Haven: Yale University Press, 

1919. 

Gilbert, Charles. American Financing of 

World War I. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1970. 

Hamilton, Holman. Prologue to Conflict: 

The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. 

New York: W.W. Norton, 1964. 

Holt, Lawrence James. Congressional Insurgents and the Party System, 1909- 

I91 6. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press, 1967. 

Link, Arthur S. Woodrow Wilson and the 

Progressive Era. New York: Harper 

and Row, 1954. 

Livermore, Seward W. Politics Is Adjourned: Woodrow Wihon and the War 

Congress, 191 6-1 91 8. Middletown, 

CT: Wesleyan University Press, 

1966. 

Mathews, Donald R. U.S. Senators and 

Their World. New York: Vantage 

Books, 1960. 

Merrill, Horace Samuel, and Merrill, 

Marion Galbraith. The Republican 

Command, 1897-1913. Lexington: 

University Press of Kentucky, 197 1. 

Morgan, H. Wayne. From Hayes to 

McKinley: National Party Politics, 

1877-1896. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1969. 

Mowry, George. Theodore Roosevelt and 

the Progressive Movement. Madison: 

University of Wisconsin Press, 

1946. 

Murray, Robert K. The Harding Era: 

Warren G. Harding and His Administration. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969. 

Nichols, Roy Franklin. The Disruption of 

American Democracy. New York: The 

Free Press, 1948. 

Pastor, Robert A. Congress and the Politics of Foreign Economic Policy, 1929- 

1976. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. 

Patterson, James T. Congressional Consmutism and the New Deal: The Growth 

of the Conservative Coalitton in Congress, 

1933-1939. Lexington: University 

of Kentucky Press, 1967. 

Reichard, Gary. The Reaffirmation of Republicanism. Knoxville: University of 

Tennessee Press, 1975. 

Romasco, Albert U. The Poverty of 

Abundance: Hoover, the Nalion, the Depression. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. 

Schwartz, Jordan A. The Interregnum of 

Despair: Hoover, Congress, and the Depression. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970. 

Silbey, Joel H. A Represenlalive Minority: 

The Democratic Party in the Civzl War 

Era, 1860-1868. New York: W.W. 

Norton, 1977. 

Thompson, Margaret Susan. The 

“Spider Web”: Congress and Lobbying in 

the Age of Grant. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press, 1985. 

507 
White, Leonard D. The Republican Era, 

1869-1901: A Study in Administrative 

Histoly. New York: MacMillan, 1963. 

Articles 

Hoogenboom, Ari. “Did Gilded Age 

Scandals Bring Reform?” In Before 

Watergate: Problems of Corruption in 

American Society. Edited AS. Eisenstadt, et al., pp. 125-42. New York: 

Brooklyn College Press, 1978. 

Linden, Glenn M. “Radicals and Economic Policies: The House of Representatives, 186 1- 1873.” Civzl War 

Histoly 13 (March 1967): 51-67. 

Thompson, Margaret S. “Corruption-or Confusion? Lobbying and 

Congressional Government in the 

Early Gilded Age.” Congress and [he 

Presidency 10 (Autumn 1983): 169- 

93. 

~~ 

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON 

WAYS AND MEANS 

Books 

Birnbaum, Jeffrey H., and Murray, 

Alan S. Showdown at Gucci Gulch: 

Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely 

Triumph of Tax Reform. New York: 

Random House, 1987. 

Manley, John F. The Politics .f Finance: 

The House Commiltee on Ways and 

Means. Boston: Little, Brown, 1970. 

Ralph Nader Congress Project. The 

Revenue Committees, dirs. Richard 

Spohn and Charles McCollum. New 

York: Grossman Publishers, 1975. 

Art icles 

Arrandale, Tom. “Ways and Means in 

1975: No Longer Preeminent.” Congressional Quarlerly Weekly Report 34, 

January 10, 1976, pp. 40-44. 

Balz, Daniel J. “Ways and Means 

Seeks to Maintain Power and Prestige.” Nalional Journal, June 22, 

1974, p. 915. 

. “Slow Progress on Tax 

Reform Issues.’’ National Journal, 

August 30, 1975, p. 1,237. 

Bowler, M. Kenneth. “Preparing 

Members of Congress to Make 

Binary Decisions on Complex Policy 

Issues: The 1986 Tax Reform Bill.” 

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8 (1989): 35-45. 

Cameron, Juan D. “And They Call it 

the Most Important Committee in 

Congress.” Fortune 93 (March 

1976): 140-44. 

Curtis, Thomas B. “The House Committee on Ways and Means: Congress Seen Through a Key Committee.” Wisconsin Law Review (Winter 

1966): 121-47. 

Fessler, Pamela. “Rostenkowski Seeks 

More Influential Role.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Repor1 4 1, January 

29, 1983, pp. 192-95. 

Hunt, Albert R. “Waning Institution? 

Even If Mills Stays On, Ways and 

Means Panel Faces a Loss of 

Power.” Wall Street Journal, July 10, 

1973, p. 1. 

Manley, John F. “The House Committee on Ways and Means: Conflict 

Management in a Congressional 

Committee.” American Polilical Science Reuiew 59 (December 1965): 

927-39. 

. “Wilbur D. Mills: A Study in 

Congressional Influence.” American 

Political Science Reuiew 63 (Spring 

1969): 442-464. 

Ray, Bruce A. “Committee Attractiveness in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1963-198 I .” American 

Journal of Politzcal Science 26 (August 

1982): 609-13. 

“Republicans: On the Sidelines.” Congressional Quarterly Lt’eekly Report 33, 

March 15, 1975, p. 516. 

Rudder, Catharine. “The Policy 

Impact of Reform on the Committee on Ways and Means.” In Legwlative Reform: The Policy Impad. Edited 

By Leroy N. Rieselbach, pp. 73-89. 

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 

1978. 

Smith, Steven S., and Ray, Bruce A. 

“The Impact of Congressional 

Reform: House Democratic Assignments.” Congress and the Presidency 10 

(Autumn 1983): 219-40. 

“The Fall of Chairman Mills.’’ Time, 

December 16, 1974, pp. 22-26. 

Wehr, Elizabeth. “Rostenkowski: A 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 

43, July 6, 1985, pp. 1,316-19. 

Unpublished Works 

Galloway, George B., and Williams, 

Jane. “History and Chairmen of the 

Committee on Ways and Means of 

the House of Representatives, 

1789-1953.” Legislative Reference 

Service. Washington, DC: Library of 

Congress, 1953. 

Harlow, Bryce Nathaniel. “The Ways 

and Means Committee of the House 

of Representatives in the SeventySixth Congress.” M.A. thesis, University of Oklahoma, 1941. 

Kravitz, Walter. “A Brief History of 

the House Ways and Means Committee.” Legislative Reference Service. Washington, DC: Library of 

Congress, 1964. 

Polimetric Associates. Congressional 

Committee Project. “House Ways 

and Means Committee Assignments, 1st-96th Congresses.” 1981. 

Reproduced and updated by Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC (1989). 

Strahan, Randall W. Change in Congress: 

The House Commitlee on Ways and 

Means. (Forthcoming, University of 

North Carolina Press, 1990). 

WAYS AND MEANS: ORIGINS 

AND EARLY HISTORY 

Books 

Adams, Willi Paul. 7Ae First American 

Conslitutions: Republican Ideology and 

the Making of the Stale Constitutzons in 

the Reuolulionaly Era. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 

1980. 

Bailyn, Bernard. The Origins ofAmerican 

Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 

1968. 

Bell, Rudolph. Parfy and Faction in 

American Politics: The House of Representatives, 1789-1 801. Westport, CT: 

Greenwood Press, 1973. 

Bradshaw, Kenneth, and Pring, David. 

Parliament and Congress. Austin: UniFirm Grip on Ways and Means.” versity of Texas Press, 1972. 

508 
Burnett, Edmund Cody. The Continental Congress. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1941. 

Corwin, Edward S. The President: Office 

and Powers, 1787-1957. New York: 

New York University Press, 1957. 

Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. The Process 

of Government Under J4ferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 

1978. 

. The JeJfersonian Republicans: The 

Formation of Party Organization, 1789- 

1801. Chapel Hill: University of 

North Carolina Press, 1957. 

. The JeJersonian Republicans in 

Power: Party Operations, 1801-1 809. 

Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1963. 

Cushing, Luther Stearns. Elements of 

the Law and Practice of Lqislative Assemblies in the United States of Amm‘ca. 

Boston: Little, Brown, 1856. 

Dangerfield. George. The Awakening of 

American Nationalism, 1815-1 828. 

New York: Harper and Row, 1962. 

Ferguson, E. James. The Power of the 

Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776-1 790. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 

1961. 

Forsythe, Dall W. Taxation and Political 

Change in the Young Nation, 1781- 

1833. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. 

Greene, Jack P. The Quest for Power: The 

Lower Houses of Assembly in the Southern Royal Colonies, 1689-1 776. 

Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1963. 

Harlow, Ralph Volney. The History of 

Legislatiue Methods in the Period Before 

1825. New Haven: Yale University 

Press, 1917. 

Hoadley, John F. 0rig-k of American 

Political Parties, 1789-1 803. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 

1986. 

Ilbert, Sir Courtenay. Parliament: Its 

Histoiy. Constitution, and Practice, 3d 

ed., rev. by Sir Cecil Carr. London: 

Oxford University Press, 1948. 

Jensen, Merrill. The New Nalion: A History of the Chited States during the ConJederation, 1781-1 789. New York: 

Random House, 1950. 

Levy, Leonard, ed. Essays on the Making 

of the Constitution. Sew York: Oxford 

University Press, 1969. 

McDonald, Forrest. Nouw Ordo Seclotum: The lntellectrcal 0ng-m~ of the 

Comtitution. Lawrence: University of 

Kansas Press, 1985. 

Main, Jackson Turner. The Upper House 

in Reuolutionay America, 1763-1 788. 

Madison: University of Wisconsin 

Press, 1967. 

May, Thomas Erskine. A Treatise on the 

Law, Pnvileges, Proceedings, and Usage 

of Parliament. 7th ed. London: Butterworth’s, 1873. 

Miller, John C. The Federalist Era, 

1789-1801. New York: Harper and 

Row, 1960. 

Rakove, Jack N. The Be@nnings of National Politics: An interpretive History of 

the Continental Congress. New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. 

Risjord, Norman K. The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age 

of Jefferson. New York: Columbia 

University Press, 1965. 

Sanders, Jennings B. Evolution of the 

Executive Departments of the Continental 

Congress, 1774-1 789. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 

1935. 

Smelser, Marshall. The Democratic Republic, 1801-1815. Sew York: 

Harper and Row, 1968. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. Petilions, 

Memorials and Other Documents Submitted for the Consideration of Congress: 

March 4, 1789 to December 14, 1795. 

Sraff study prepared for the use of 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Committee Print 99-A. 99th 

Cong., 2d Sess., 1986. 

Wheare, K.C. Government by Committee: An Essay on [he British Conslztution. London: Oxford University 

Press, 1955. 

White, Leonard D. The Federalists: A 

Study in Administrative History. New 

York: MacMillan, 1948. 

. TheJacksonians: A Study in Administratiue History. New York: MacMillan, 1954. 

. The JeJJersonians: A Study in Administrative History. New York: Macmillan, 1959. 

Young, James Sterling. The Washington 

Community, 1800-1828. New York: 

Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966. 

Wilding, Norman W., and Laundy, 

Philip. An Encyclopedia of Parliament. 

London: Cassell, 1968. 

Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the 

American Republic, 1776-1 787. 

Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1969. 

Articles 

Ammerman, David. “Annapolis and 

the First Continental Congress: A 

Note on the Committee System in 

Revolutionary America.” Malyland 

Historical Magazine 66 (Summer 

1971): 169-80. 

Cooper, Joseph. “Jeffersonian Attitudes Toward Executive Leadership 

and Committee Development in the 

House of Representatives.” Western 

Political Quarterly 18 (March 1965): 

. “The Origins of the Standing 

Committees and the Development 

of the Modern House.” Rice llniversity Studies 56 (Summer 1970): 1- 

167. 

. and Bornbadier, Gary. “Presidential Leadership and Party Success.” Journal of Politics 30 (November 1968): 1,012-27. 

. and Brady, David W. “Institutional Context and Leadership’ 

Style: the House from Cannon to 

Rayburn.” Amm‘can Politicul Science 

Review 75 (Spring 1981): 41 1-25. 

Furlong, Patrick J. “The Origins of 

the House Committee on Ways and 

Means.’’ William and Mary Quarterly 

25 (October 1968): 587-604. 

Greene, Jack P. “Political Mimesis: A 

Consideration of the Historical and 

Cultural Roots of Legislative Rehavior in the British Colonies in the 

Eighteenth Century.” American His45-63. 

509 
torical Review 75 (December 1975): 

Hoadley, John F. “The Emergence of 

Political Parties in Congress, 1789- 

1803.” American Political Science 

Review 74 (September 1980): 757- 

79. 

Jameson, James Franklin. “The Origin 

of the Standing Committee System 

in American Legislative Bodies.” 

Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 1893. 

Johnson, Richard R. “Parliamentary 

Egotisms: The Clash of Legislatures 

in the Making of the American Revolution.” Journal of American History 

74 (September 1987): 338-62. 

Skladony, Thomas W. “The House 

Goes to Work: Select and Standing 

Committees in the U.S. House of 

Representatives, 1789-1828.” Congress and the Presidency 12 (Autumn 

1985): 165-187. 

337-60. 

Unpublished Works 

Collins, C.W. “Notes on the Early 

History of the Ways and Means 

Committee of the House of Representatives.” Legislative Reference 

Service. Washington, DC: Library of 

Congress, 1919. 

United States Congress. House of 

Representatives. House Committee 

on Energy and Commerce History 

Project. “An Analysis of Standing 

Committees in American Legislatures, 1609-1776.” uuly 1986). 

WAYS AND MEANS 

COMMITTEE JURISDICTION 

Finance 

Books 

Dewey, Davis R. Financial History ofthe 

United States. 4th ed. London: Longmans, Green, 1912. 

Holmans, A.E. United States Fiscal 

Policy, 1945-1959. London: Oxford 

University Press, 1961. 

Myers, Margaret G. A Financial History 

of the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970. 

Nettels, Curtis P. The Emergence of a 

National Economy, 1775-1815. New 

York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 

1962. 

Temin, Peter. The Jacksonian Economy. 

New York: W.W. Norton, 1969. 

Banks, Banking and Currency 

Books 

Catterall, Ralph C.H. The Second Bank 

of the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1903. 

Clarke, M. St. Clair, and Hall, D.A. A 

Legaslative and Documentary History oj 

the Bank of the United States. Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1832. 

Hammond, Bray. Banks and Politics in 

America: From the Revolution to the 

Civil War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. 

Livingston, James. Origzns of the Federal 

Reserve System: Money, Class, and Corporate Capitulum. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press, 1986. 

Redlich, Fritz. The Molding of American 

Banking, Men and Ideas. 2 vols. New 

York: Hafner Publishing Company, 

1951. 

Spaulding, Elbridge Gerry. History of 

the Legal Tender Paper Money Issued 

During the Great Rebellion. Buffalo: 

Express Printing Company, 1869. 

Budget and Appropriations 

Books 

Collins, Charles Wallace. The National 

Budget System. New York: MacMillan, 

1917. 

Ippolito, Dennis S. Congressional Spendzng: A Twentieth Century Fund Report. 

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 

Press, 1981. 

Wildavsky, Aaron B. The Politics of the 

Budgetary Process. 3d ed. Boston: 

Little, Brown, 1979. 

Wilmerding, Lucius. The Spending 

Power: A History o/ the Efforts of Congress lo Control Expenditures. New 

Haven: Yale University Press, 1943. 

Unpublished Works 

Fisher, Louis. “Budget Concepts and 

Terminology: The Appropriations 

Phase.” HJ 2005 U.S. Washington, 

DC: Congressional Research Service (November, 1974). 

Schick, Allan. “Legislation, Appropriations, and Budgets: The Development of Spending DecisionMaking in Congress.” Prepared 

under contract for the Congressional Research Service. Report No. 84- 

106 GOV. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1984. 

Social Security 

Boo& 

Achenbaum, W. Andrew. Social Security: Visions and Revisions. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press, 1986. 

Browning, Robert X. Politics and Social 

Welfare Policy in the United States. 

Knoxville: University of Tennessee 

Press, 1986. 

Tariff and Foreign Trade 

Books 

Bauer, Raymond A,, et al. American 

Business and Public Policy: The Politics 

./Foreign Trade. New York: Atherton 

Press, 1963. 

Dobson, John M. Two Centuries o/ Targs: The Background and Emergence .J 

the U. S. International Trade Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Trade 

Commission, 1976. 

Hutchins, John G.B. The American Maritime Industries and Public Policy, 

I781-1914: An Economic History. 

New York: Russell and Russell, 

1941. 

Jameson, Kenneth, and Skurski, 

Roger, eds. U.S. Trade in the Sutties 

and Seventies: Continuity and Change. 

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 

1974. 

Jones, Joseph M. Tanff Retaliation: Repercussions of the Hawley-Smoot Bill. 

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1934. 

Kennedy, David M. Birth Control in 

America: The Career of Margaret Sanger. 

New Haven: Yale University Press, 

1970. 

Morgan, H. Wayne. Drugs in America: A 

Social History, 1800-1900. Syracuse, 

510 
NY: Syracuse University Press, 

1981. 

Poor, Henry V. Twenty-two Years of Protectionism. New York: H.V. and H.W. 

Poor, 1888. 

Schattschneider, E.E. Politics, Pressures, 

and the Tanff A Study of Free Private 

Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown 

in the 1929-1930 Revision of the 

Tanz New York: Prentice-Hall, 

1935. 

Stanwood, Edward. American Tanff 

Controversies in the Nineteenth Century. 

2 vols. Boston: Houghton, Mimin, 

1903- 1904. 

Taussig, F.W. The Tanff History of the 

United States. 1892. Reprint. New 

York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1982. 

Articles 

Barfield, Claude E. “Our Share of the 

Booty: The Democratic Party, Cannonism, and the Payne-Aldrich 

Tariff.” Journal of American History 57 

(September 1970): 308-23. 

Solvick, Stanley D. “William Howard 

Taft and the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. 

Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 

(December 1963): 424-42. 

Taxation 

Books 

Blough, Roy. The Federal Taxing Process. 

New York: Prentice Hall, 1952. 

Eisenstein, Louis. The Ideologzes of Taxation. New York: Ronald Press, 

1961. 

Paul, Randolph E. Taxation in the 

United States. Boston: Little, Brown, 

1954. 

Ratner, Sidney. A Political and Social 

History of Federal Taxation, 1789- 

1913. New York: W.W. Norton, 

1942. 

Seligman, Edwin R.A. The Income Tax: 

A Study of the History, Theory, and 

Practice of Income Taxation at Home and 

Abroad. 3d ed. New York: Augustus 

M. Kelley, 1970. 

Witte, John F. The Politics and Development of the Federal Income Tax. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 

1985. 

A rlicles 

Blakey, Roy G., and Blakey, Gladys C., 

“Founders and Builders of the 

Income Tax.” Chicago: Commerce 

Clearing House, 1940. 

VII. BIOGRAPHIES 

Books 

Adams, Henry. John Randolph. Boston: 

Houghton, Mimin, 1899. 

Arnett, Alex Mathews. Claude Kitchin 

and the Wilson War Policies. Boston: 

Little, Brown, 1937. 

Balinky, Alexander. Albert Gallatin: 

Fiscal Theories and Policies. New 

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University 

Press, 1958. 

Barnes, James A. John G. Curlisle: Financial Statesman. New York: Dodd, 

Mead, 193 1. 

Bergeron, Paul H. The Presidency of 

James K. Polk. Lawrence: University 

Press of Kansas, 1987. 

Bruce, William Cabell. John Randolph 

of Roanoke, 1773-1833. 2 vols. New 

York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1922. 

Burton, Theodore E. John Sherman. 

Boston: Houghton Mimin, 1908. 

Cassell, Frank A. Merchant Congressman 

in the Young Republic: Samwl Smith of 

Maryland, 1752-1839. Madison: 

University of Wisconsin Press, 

197 1. 

Coletta, Paolo E. William Jennings 

Bryan: Political Evangelist, 1860- 

1908. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964. 

Cox, Joseph. Champion of Southern Federalism: Robert Goodloe Harper of South 

Carolina. Port Washington, NY: 

Kennikat Press, 1972. 

Current, Richard Nelson. Old Thad Stevens: A Story of Ambition. 1942. Reprint. Westport, CT: Greenwood 

Press, 1980. 

Curtis, James C. The Fox at Bay: Martin 

Van Buren and the Presidency. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 

1970. 

Garland, Hugh A. The Llfe ofJohn Randolph of Roanoke. 2 vols. New York: 

D. Appleton, 1850. 

Green, Edwin Luther. George McDuffie. 

Columbia, SC: The State Company, 

1936. 

Griffin, Martin I.J. Thomas Fitrtimons: 

Pennsylvania’s Catholic Signer of the 

Constilution of the United States. Philadelphia: American Historical Catholic Researches, 1887. 

Hamilton, John Church. History of the 

Republic of the United States of America, 

as Traced in the Writings of Alexander 

Hamilton and of His Contemporaries. 6 

vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1857- 

1974. 

Havinghurst, Walter. Men of Old 

Miami, 1809-1873: A Book of Portraits. New York: G.P. Putnam’s 

Sons, 1974. 

Hecht, Marie B. John Quincy Adams: A 

Personal History of an Independent Man. 

New York: MacMillan, 1972. 

Hersh, Burton. The Mellon Family: A 

Fortune in History. New York: William 

Morrow, 1978. 

Huff, Archie V., Jr. Langdon Cheves of 

South Carolina. Columbia: University 

of South Carolina Press, 1977. 

Johnson, Evans S. Oscar W. Undenuood: 

A Political Biography. Baton Rouge: 

Louisiana State University Press, 

1980. 

July, Robert William. The Essential New 

Yorker: Gulian Crommelin Verplanck. 

Durham, NC: Duke University 

Press, 1951. 

Korngold, Ralph. Thaddeus Stevens: A 

Being Darkly Wise and Rudely Great. 

New York: Harcourt. Brace. 1955. 

Leech, Margaret. In the Days of McKinley. Westport, CT: Greenwood 

Press, 1959. 

Love, Philip H. Andrew W. Mellon: The 

Man and His Work. Baltimore: F. 

Heath, Coggins, 1926. 

Mai, Chien Tseng. The Fiscal Policies of 

Albert Gallatin. New York: Columbia 

University Press, 1930. 

Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time. 

5 vols. Boston: Little, Brown, 1948- 

1974. 

McCall, Samuel W. Thaddeus Stevens. 

Boston: Houghton Mimin, 1899. 

51 1 
McCormac, Eugene I. James K. Polk: A 

Political Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1922. 

Miller, Alphonse B. Thaddeus Stevens. 

New York: Harper and Row, 1939. 

Mitchell, Broadus. Alexander Hamilton: 

The National Adventure, 1788-1 804. 

New York: MacMillian, 1962, 

Mooney, Chase C. William H. Crawford, 

1772-1834. Lexington: University 

Press of Kentucky, 1974. 

Morgan, Robert J. A Whig Embattled: 

The Presidency Under John Tyler. 

Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1974. 

Munroe, John A. Louis McLane: Federalist and Jacksonian. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1973. 

Niven, John. Martin Van Buren: The Romantic Age of American Politics. New 

York: Oxford University Press, 

1983. 

Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. Jay Cooke: 

Fznancier of the Civil War. 1907. Reprint. 2 vols. New York: Burt Franklin, 1970. 

Pancake, John S. Samuel Smith and the 

Politics of Business: 1752-1839. University: University of Alabama 

Press, 1972 

Peskin, Allan. Garfield: A Biography. 

Kent, OH: Kent State University 

Press, 1978. 

Pleasants, Samuel Augustus. Fernando 

Wood of New York. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948. 

Rayback, Robert J. Millard Fihore: Biography of a President. East Aurora, 

NY: Henry Stewart, 1972. 

Reeves, Thomas C. Gentleman Boss: The 

Lfe of Chester Alan Arthur. New York: 

Alan A. Knopf, 1975. 

Robinson, William A. Thomas B. Reed: 

Parliamentarian. New York: Dodd, 

Mead, 1930. 

Rogers, George C., Jr. Evolution of a 

Federalist: William Loughton Smith of 

Charleston, 1758-1812. Columbia: 

University of South Carolina Press, 

1962. 

Russell, Charles Edward. Blaine of 

Maine: His Lfe and Times. New York: 

Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, 

1931. 

Russell, John Andrew. Joseph Warren 

Fordney: American Legaslator. Boston: 

Stratford, 1928. 

Schuckers, J.W. The Lfe and Public 

Services of Samuel Portland Chme. New 

York: D. Appleton, 1874. 

Seager, Robert 11. And Tyler Too: A Btography of John and Julia Gardiner 

Tyler. New York: McCraw Hill, 

1963. 

Sellers, Charles G., Jr. James K. Polk: 

Jacksonian, 1795-1843. Princeton: 

Princeton University Press, 1957. 

. James K. Polk: Continentalist, 

1843-1846, Princeton: Princeton 

University Press, 1966. 

Smith, Willard H. Schuyler Golf..: The 

Changang Fortunes of a Political Idol. 

Indianapolis: Indiana Historical 

Bureau, 1952. 

Smith, William Henry. History of the 

Cabinet of the United States ./America, 

From President Washington to President 

Coolidge. Baltimore: Industrial Printing Company, 1925. 

Spielman, William Carl. William 

McKinlqr: Stalwart Republican. New 

York: Exposition Press, 1954. 

Summers, Festus P. Willzam L. Wilson 

and Tariff Reform. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953. 

Walters, Raymond, Jr. Albert Gallatin: 

Jeffersonian Financier and Diplomat. 

New York: MacMillan, 1957. 

White, William Allen. A Puritan in Babylon. Reprint. 1938. Gloucester, MA: 

Peter Smith, 1973. 

Wilson, Charles Morrow. The Commoner William Jennings Bryan. New York: 

Doubleday, 1970. 

Wilson, Joan Hoff. Herberl Hoover: Forgotten Progresswe. Boston: Little, 

Brown, 1975. 

Artzcles 

Al Ullman of Ways and Means. Biography News 2 (January-February, 

1975): 212. 

Cohen, Richard E. “A1 Ullman: The 

Complex, Contradictory Chairman 

of Ways and Means.” Nataonal Journal, March 4, 1978, pp. 345-50. 

O’Donnell, jayne. “Wilbur Mills.” Roll 

Call, March 27, 1988, p. 16. 

Roberts, Stephen V. “A Most Important Man on Capitol Hill.” New York 

Tames Magazine, September 22, 

1985, pp. 44-5 1. 

512 
Index 

Accounts Committee, 70. 186 

Adams. Abigail, 56 

Adams, Frank, 196 

Adams, Henry, 4 I, 174 

Adams, John, 41,47, 248 

Adams, John Quincy, 90, 95, 106, 110- 

Advertisements, fS3, I95 

Agriculture. See also Sugar. duties on 

Jeffersonians identified with, 3 1, 86 

prices, 229. 232, 261, 266, 303 

tariffs favoring, 232, 261 

Agriculture Department, 303 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

Aldrich, Nelson W., 228, 232. 241, 245, 

Allen, Leo. 3 I3 

Allison, William B., 24 I 

Altmeyer, Arthur J., 291-292 

American Medical Association (AMA), 

310, 343, 345 

American Newspaper Publishers 

Association, 256 

American Party, 134 

American Political Science Association, 

American System, 108 

Ames, Fisher, 35. 45 

Anderson, H. W., 303 

Andrew, John, 235 

Andrews, Mary. 91-92 

Antifederalists. 26 

Appropriations. See also At-my, US.: 

111 

(AFDC). 344-345 

247 

273 

Jurisdiction of Ways and Means over 

appropriations; Military 

appropriations; Navy, U.S. 

bills reported, 58, 92-93, 166-167 

calendar of. 195 

delayed. 69. 88 

drafting of bills, 29, 36, 42. 52, 90, 94 

estimates Of, 44-45, 70-72. 90 

for indemnities to Mexico, 135 

for Indian trratics, 92 

initiation of, 23 

itemized, 63 

precedence of bills, I85 

process refined, 93, 102-106, 137 

for public improvements, 118 

for railroads, 149 

requests for, 42-43, 168 

for Social Security, 286 

specific, 45. 61, 71, 93, 102 

Appropriations. Committee on (House) 

appointment to the, 321 

chairman also on Rules, 2 I I, 2 13 

chairman on Democratic steering 

committee, 277, 359 

Chairmen Stevens, Garfield, and 

Randall, 170, 185, 190, 210 

created, 144, 167. 168, 169, 172. 177, 

184, 220 

estimates government expenditures, 170 

exclusive assignment to the, 2 16, 32 1 

importance of the, 358 

within the Joint Budget Committee, 274 

loses some jurisdiction, 2 10 

members on Budget, 353 

members on Joint Study Committee on 

Budget Control, 352 

privileged in reporting bills, 185 

staff of the. 322-323 

Appropriations, Committee on (Senate), 

Archer, William, 378, 381 

Army, Ci.S. Spe also War Department 

274, 352 

appropriation bills amended, 136-137, 

appropriation increases, 127, 253 

Civil War appropriations, 160, 167 

Continental Army supplies, I7 

individual appropriation bills for the. 

mobilization of the Union Army, 174 

137, 139-140 

102 

Arthur, Chester A,, 175, 206, 208 

Assay omces, 105, 166 

Astor, John Jacob, 120 

Atherton, Charles C., 126 

Attorney General, OfFice of the. 106 

Bacon, Ezekiel, 76, 91 

Bailey, Joseph W., 244 

Baker, Howard, 328 

Baldwin. Abraham, 35, 40 

Baldwin, Henry, 88 

Ball, George W., 335-336 

Bankhead. William B.. 273. 177 

Banking and Currency, Committee on 

(House), 144, 167-170, f68, 172. 

177, 184. See also Currency Committee 

Banking, Committee on (House), 355 

Banking regulation, 165-166. See niso 

Bank noies. 80-81, 113-1 14, 118-120, 

Bank of North America, 26 

Bank of the United States, 28, 56, 74, 80- 

Jurisdiction 

127, 154, 157 

82, 96, 108. See also Second Bank of 

the United States 
Barbary States, 66 

Barbe-Marbois, Fransois de. 64 

Barbour. Lucien, 136 

Barkley, Alben, 305 

Bassett, George, 141. 190, 194-195 

Bayard, James A,. 49 

Bayly, Thomas H., 100, 135-136 

Beaman. Middleton, 258 

Beer and Wine Revenue Bill, 277 

Benton, Thomas Hart, I14 

Biddlc. Nicholas, 114-1 18 

Bidwell. Barnabas. 67 

Binney, Horace, 1 17- I 18 

Birth control devices, 224, 226 

Blaine. James G., 143, 180, 187, 190, 231. 

Blount, Thomas, 47-50, 53 

Board of Tax Appeals, 263-264 

Board of Treasury, 6, 18-19 

Boggs. Hale, 328 

Bolling, Richard, 353-355 

Booth, John Wilkes, 194 

Bourn, Benjamin, 35, 40 

Boutwell, George S., 160, 203 

Bowen. Otis R., 384 

Bradley, Bill, 380 

Brown, John, 139 

Browne. Adele A. S., 226 

Brumidi. Constantino, I81 

Bryan, William Jennings, 2 17, 233, 235- 

Buchanan, James, 132-133 

Buck, Frank, 300 

Budget, Bureau of the, 271 

Budget, Committee on (House), 352-353, 

Budget, Committee on (Senate), 352-353 

Budget preparation, 15-16, 70-72. 274, 

352-353 

Budget review, 74, 90, 102, 176. See also 

Joint Budget Committee 

Burchard, Horatio C., 193 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 105 

Bush, George H. W., 321, 323, 383 

Butler. Pierce, 21 

Byrnes, John, 323. 325, 328, 329, 343- 

344,347 

Byrns. Joseph W., 273, 276, 286, 291 

Cadwalader, Lambert, 26 

Calendar of the House, 208-209 

Calhoun. John C. 

234 

239 

359, 361-362 

attitudes toward the National Bank, 82- 

nullification theory of, 109 

opposes protective tariffs. 85, 88. 109, 

supports merchants, 79 

“War Hawk,” 76 

83.91 

131 

Cambreleng, Churchill C., 100, 117, 120- 

Cameron, Simon, 165 

Campbell. George Washington, 70. 74. 

126, 122 

75. 80 

Campbell, Lewis D., 136-137 

Cannon, James, Jr., 275 

Cannon, Joseph G., 211-213, 215, 241, 

245, 247, 260 

Carlisle, John G., 180-181, 185, 197, 208, 

210, 231, 236 

Carter, Jimmy, 363, 364, 364-366 

Catholic Church, 226-227 

Census, Committee on the (House). 237 

Chamber of Commerce, United States, 

Champlin, Christopher G., 49 

Chase, Mrs. Eve, 301-302 

Chase, Salmon P., 147-151, If8, 150, 

153-159. 164, 167. 171, 254 

Chase, Samuel, 66 

Cheves, Langdon, 55, 76-77, 79, 79, 82- 

Choate, Rufus, 113 

Christie, Gabriel, 35 

Claims, Committee on (House), 37, 70, 

Clark, Abraham, 32 

Clark, Champ, 217-219, 246-247 

Clay, Henry 

backs White as Speaker, 126 

defeated in the election of 1832, I16 

elected Speaker, 76, 90 

opposes payment of merchants’ bonds, 

proposes a new National Bank, 114, 

supports protective tariffs, 86, 108, 113, 

30 1 

83, 90 

14 1 

77, 79 

125-126 

128 

Clay, Joseph, 70, 73 

Clayton, Augustine S., 114-1 15 

Clemens, Samuel L. See Twain, Mark 

Clerks of committees 

assistant clerks, 194, 223. 227 

duties of, 100, 190, 193-194, 209, 227 

expert advice of, 249-250 

hiring and appointment of. 100, 129, 

lobbyists register with, 178-179 

number authorized, 274 

permanent, 100, 141 

temporary. 141 

194 

Cleveland, Grover, 210, 227, 229, 235, 

237, 239 

Closed rules 

assist party policy, 277 

criticism of, 350 

granted by the Rules Committee. 327 

Medicare considered under, 344 

modified, 365 

tax bills considered under, 296, 347- 

trade agreement considered under, 336 

348 

Cobb, David, 33-34 

Cobb, Howell, 100 

Cochran, Robert, 1-1 1 

Colfax, Schuyler, 152, 170, 178, 180, 189- 

Collier, James W., 251. 26f, 268, 274 

190 

Collins, Edward K., 135 

Colonial finance committees, 8-12 

Commerce and Manufactures, Committee 

on (House) 

established, 37, 70, 86 

foreign affairs matters referred to, 72 

gains tariff jurisdiction, 58, 83, 86 

membership of the, 88 

size of the, 39 

Commerce, Committee on (House), 104 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs, I29 

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 160. 

Committee on Committees. 2 15-220. 32 1, 

Committees. SP~ Clerks of committees; 

167, 198, 203 

329, 352, 355 

Conference committees; Finance 

committees; House commictees: Joint 

committees; Select committees; 

Standing committees; Subcommittees 

Comstock Law, 226 

Conable, Barber, 321-322, 362, 364, 366, 

371, 376, 378 

Conference committees 

conservative control of, 330 

control of, 364 

on excess profits taxes, 3 10 

House delegations to, led by chairmen, 

on Social Security, 292, 341. 3;9 

on tariffs, 228, 231, 241, 247, 262, 267, 

on tax reform, 348-349, 376-377, 384 

on trade agreements, 337 

324 

270 

Congressional Budget Ofice, 352-353, 

Congressional reform, 350-358, 361, 363 

Conkling. Roscoe, 201-203 

Conservative coalition, 272-273, 276, 290, 

Constitutional Convention. 19-22, 21 

Constitutional Treasury, 96-97, 130-1 3 I 

Continental Congress, 6, 15, 17-19 

Cook, Isaac, 193 

Cooke, Jay, 151, 156-157, 254 

Coolidge, Calvin, 257, 259 

Cooper, Jere, 301, 314, 3 17, 319 

Corning, Erastus, 156 

Corporate income tax. See also Personal 

36 1 

291, 321 

income tax 

depreciation benefits, 349 

dividend income, 316-317 

flat, 290 

graduated, on undistributed income, 

289 

increased, 263, 269. 295, 301. 310 

instituted. 230, 270 

investment tax credit, 345, 348-349, 

jobs tax credit, 365 

progressive, 282 

rates raised, 253, 255-256, 282, 289, 

297, 309-312 

349, 365 

514 
rates reduced, 265, 346, 383-384 

requested by Taft, 227, 247 

retained, 260, 316 

revenue raised by the, 258, 294 

suggested by Cleveland, 237-238 

surcharge on the. 348 

Cox, Samuel S., 169-170 

Crawford, William Henry, 58, 83, 86. 90 

Crisp, Charles F., 218, 235-236, 238 

Crisp, Charles R., 267, 268 

Crowninshield, Jacob, 69 

Culbertson, William S., 262 

Cummins, Albert Baird, 245 

Currency and loans subcommittee of Ways 

and Means, 147 

Currency, Coinniittee on (House), 83, 91. 

94. See also Banking and Currency, 

Committee on; Jurisdiction 

Currency reform, 114, 118-120, 196. 199, 

199-204. See ako Legal Tender Act of 

1862 

Curtis, Carl T., 31 5 

Curtis, Charles, 267 

Customs administration, 22 I, 23 I 

Customs duties. See also Sugar, duties on; 

Tariffs 

ad valorem, 250. 262 

on agricultural products, 229. 232. 261- 

262, 266, 268 

Civil War, 154, 196 

decrease of, 250 

embezzlement of, 123 

hearings on, 190, 193 

increase of, 76 

the principal source of revenue, 165 

protect U.S. producers, 229 

receipts from, 294 

reduction of, 230 

Customs houses, 105. 123 

Daley. Richard J.. 368 

Dallas, AlexanderJ., 58, 81-83. 85, 149 

Dalzell, John, 215. 246 

Dawes, Henry L., 178, 187, 187-188, 190, 

195, 204-205 

Dayton, Jonathan, 43. 46 

Debt. See National debt 

Decatur, Stephen, 71 

Declaration of Rights, 8, 9 

Democratic Party 

campaigns of the, 97, I21 

control of the House, 122- 123, 129, 

131, 138, 186, 206, 367, 374 

defends state banks, 120 

economic policies of [he, 205. 318 

favors less spending, 139 

favors tariff reform, 206, 208-209. 213 

loses control OK the House, 132 

majority in Congress, 204, ‘272, 303, 

majority in Ways and Means, 140, 272 

opposes contraction of the currency, 

315, 317, 319 

203 

organization within Congress, 351-353, 

355-358, 361-363 

origins of the, 106-107 

split into Northern and Southern wings, 

steering and policy committees of the, 

134 

276-277, 352, 355, 358-359, 369 

Department of Finance, 6, 18-19 

Deschler, Lewis, 306 

Dillon, Douglas, 335, 345-346 

Dingell, John D., 285, 309, 339 

Dingley, Nelson, Jr., 220, 23 1, 240-24 1, 

Disney, Wesley, 277, 296 

District of Columbia, 56. 80. 131. 134, 

135, 151, 158. 193, 271 

District of Columbia, Committee on the 

(House), 70 

Dole, Robert, 376 

Doughton. Robert L. 

243-244 

bipartisanship of, 276, 292, 307-308 

career and death of, 273, 317 

chairs Ways and Means. 245, 272. 277, 

independence on tax measures, 273, 

maintains party discipline, 282 

member of Ways and Means, 266, 267 

opposes a national sales tax, 268-269, 

opposes tariff rates set by the President, 

promotes war bond sales, 302-303 

reviews unemployment insurance, 285 

supports Social Security, 286, 292 

works on income tax provisions, 300, 

works on tariff and trade bills, 266, 279, 

works on tax bills, 282. 291, 298, 318 

319 

276, 296, 304-305, 307-308 

31 1 

266, 279 

301, 302, 309 

3 10 

Dromgoole, George C.. 130-131 

Duane, James, 19 

Duane, William, 117 

Durant, Will, 226 

Eccles, Marriner, 300 

Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. 374- 

Education and Labor, Committee on 

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 272. 311, 312- 

Elections, Committee on (House), 37, 39, 

Embargo Act, 74-77. 77, 79 

Energy and Commerce, Committee on 

(House). 355 

Eppes, John W., 79-83 

Estate tax. See also Inheritance tax; Legacy 

377. 384 

(House), 355 

318. 313, 340-341 

70 

tax 

levied, 253 

raised, 254, 282, 300 

raise proposed, 310 

recommendations on the, 290 

repeal proposed, 264 

revision of the, 365 

compared with a war profits tax, 227 

graduated, 256, 282, 298 

levied, 227, 297, 299 

proposed, 296-297 

rates raised, 227, 253-255, 299, 302 

reduced. 263 

repealed, 306 

Republicans favor repeal of, 260, 262 

restored, 277, 295-296, 310, 314-315 

revenue raised by the, 258 

Excess profits tax 

Excise taxes. S~P alm Petitions; Whiskey 

and liquor taxes 

Civil War, 160, 164, 165, 167 

continued, 306 

corporate, 253 

effect of, 270 

imposed, 76. 256, 300 

increased, 81, 149, 164, 243, 255, 300- 

301, 305, 310-312 

manufacturer’s, 263, 265, 268-269 

recommended, 35-36, 46 

reduced, 65. 197, 245, 315, 338-340, 

repealed, 42, 58, 65, 83, 197 

revenue raised by, 76, 8 1, 17 I, 252, 294 

surtaxes on, 315 

Executive Ofice of the President, 2771 

Executive session, 274 

345,347 

Fair Deal programs, 307-308, 318 

Federal deficit. See National debt 

Federal Farm Board, 266 

Federal government growth, 56, 102 

Federal Hall, 25 

Federalist Party, 55, 58, 60, 61 

Federal Reserve Board, 300, 304 

Federal Trade Commission, 261 

Fessenden, William Pitt, 158 

Fillmore, Millard, 100, 105, 121, 125-129, 

Finance committees. See also Senate 

133, 133 

Finance Committee 

British, 6-8. 22 

Colonial, 8-12, 21 

committee proposed for the House, 38- 

Continental Congress, 17-19. 2 1-22 

Pennsylvania, 16, 34-35 

State, 12-17 

39 

Findley, William, 38 

Fisher, Joseph L., 358 

Fisk, James, 82 

Fitzsimons. Thomas, 25-26, 27, 35 

Flemming, Arthur S., 339-340 

Fletcher, Richard, 124-126 

Florida purchase, 68-69 

Forand, Aime J., 339-34 1 

Force Bill, 109, 113 

Ford, Gerald, 52 I, 338, 364-365 

Ford, Harold E.. 358 

515 
Ford, Leland M., 296 

Fordney, Joseph W., 220, 246, 251, 255. 

258. 260-263 

Foreign affairs, 58, 66, 71-72, 91, 106, 

224 

Foreign Affairs, Committee on (House), 

72, 76, 91. 112, 354-355 

Foster, David. 224 

Foulke, W. Parker, 135 

Fowler, Henry H., 339 

Free Soil Party, 134, 136, 137 

French, Burton L., 248-250 

Frenzel, Bill. 369-370, 384 

Fremont, John C., 147 

Fuller, Ida, 288 

Gage. Lyman J.. 245 

Gallatin, Albert 

economic theories and policies of, 39. 

favors recharter of the National Bank, 

member of Ways and Means, 4 I, 46, 47, 

opposes the embargo, 74-75 

opposes the stamp tax, 48 

position on merchants’ claims, 78-79 

proposes a standing Ways and Means, 

related to Joseph Nicholson, 63 

relations with John Randolph. 63-66, 

supports Florida purchase, 68-69 

urges specific appropriations, 60-61, 7 I 

urges taxes and loans to prepare for 

works closely with Ways and Means, 58, 

46, 60, 65-66, 74 

80, 83, 114 

49-51, 53 

37-39, 38, 4 1, 46 

68-70 

war, 75-78 

60, 72 

Gallatin. James, 158 

Garfield, James, 170, 186, 189-190, 196, 

Garner, John Nance, 250-251, 251, 264, 

Garnett, James M., 69 

Gearhart. Bertrand W.. 309 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

(GATT), 309 

George, Lloyd, 251 

George, William, 303 . 

Gephardt, Richard A,. 358, 380 

Gerry, Elbridge, IY. 20, 25, 26, 31-32 

Gibbons, Sam, 375 

Giles, William Branch, 32-33, 35, 48, 75 

Gillett, Frederick H., 226, 260 

Cilman, Nicholas, 40 

Gold and silver. See also Currency reform; 

I99 

268 

Greenbacks; Silver certificates 

coinage. 114. 118, 157 

payment for land sales with. 120 

payment of bank notes with. 80-81, 157 

payment to the Treasur! with, 123 

Gold payment for Treasury notes, 200, 

Gold reserves, 154, 196, 204 

204 

Gold standard, 242 

Gorman, Arthur Pue, 228-229, 238 

Gouge, William M., 118-119 

Government bonds, 200-201 

Government Operations Committee, 355 

Government stock, 83 

Grace, William H., 193 

Gradison, Bill, Jr., 376 

Grant, Ulysses S., 190, 193, 203 

Green, Benjamin, 135 

Green, William J., 363 

Green, William R., 251, 263-264 

Greenbacks, 155, 158, 171, 200-204, 229 

Greenup, Christopher, 40 

Grifliths, Martha, 340, 347, 358 

Griswold. Roger, 50, 51, 53 

Grove. William Barry, 35 

Grow, Galusha, 145 

Guarini, Frank J., 358 

Halleck, Charles, 313-31 5 

Hambleton, James P.. 194 

Hamilton, Alexander 

Sre also Legal Tender Act of 1862 

attends Ways and Means meetings, 31, 

differences with Madison, 36 

estimates and reports prepared by, 27, 

plan for funding the national debt, 28, 

policies of, 20, 24, 27-28, 29, 30, 60 

promotes protective tariffs, 29 

relationship to the House, 24, 26-27, 

reports to the House, 24, 42, 52 

resists committee oversight, 32-34 

supported by William L. Smith, 35 

35, 63 

29-32, 45 

30, 65 

29, 31 

Hamilton, John Church, 41 

Hance. Kent, 370, 376 

Hancock, Franklin H., 226 

Hansen, Julia Butler, 352-355 

Harding, Warren G., 259-263 

Harper, Robert Goodloe. 48, 49-51, 53 

Harrison, Benjamin, 210, 231 

Harrison. Pat, 291. 296 

Harrison, William Henry, 12 I, 125 

Hawlev, Willis C., 222, 261, 266 

Hayes, John L., 207 

Hayes, Rutherford B., 204 

Health, Education, and Welfare, 

Department of. 323, 333. Spe also 

Welfare system 

Health insurance, 307. 318. 339. Spe also 

Medicare 

Hearings. See Legislative hearings; Senate 

Finance Committee; Tariff 

Commission 

Hearings held by Ways and Means 

administrative details of, 193-194, 222, 

on customs duties, 190, 193, 195-196, 

into government corruption, 190-193 

227 

237 

informal, 372, 380 

on merchants’ bonds, 78-79 

to obtain tariff data. 185 

to obtain tax data, 185. 256, 289, 310- 

311, 316, 348, 380 

open to lobbyists, 362 

on reciprocal trade, 279, 334-337 

on Social Security, 286, 292, 377 

on tariff revision, 184. 221-227, 231- 

232, 246, 248 

HCbert, F. Edward, 351. 355 

Henderson, Leon, 300 

Henry, Patrick. 13 

Henry, Robert L., 217 

Hodges, Luther H., 335-336 

Hooper, Samuel, 156, 170, 203 

Hoover, Herbert C.. 259, 265-268. 270, 

Horton, Valentine S., 156 

House, Edward, 259 

House Committees. See also 

272 

Appropriations Committee; Clerks of 

committees; Commerce and 

Manufactures Committee; Committee 

on Committees; Foreign Affairs: 

Jurisdiction; Legislative hearings; 

Rules Committee; Seniority system; 

Standing committees; Ways and 

Means Committee 

Accounts, 70, 186 

ad hoc. 364 

Banking, 355 

Banking and Currency, 144, 167-170, 

Budget, 352-353, 359, 361-362 

Census. 237 

chairmen, increased importance of, 

chairmen, naming of, 62. 72, 99-100. 

Claims. 37, 70, 141 

Commerce, 104, 355 

criteria for appointment to, 72, 76, 90- 

Currency, 83. 91, 94 

District of Columbia, 70 

Education and Labor, 355 

Elections, 37, 39, 70 

Energy and Commerce, 355 

Government Operations, 355 

Manufactures, 88, 94, 107, 110-1 11 

Military Affairs, 104, 189-190 

Post Offices and Post Roads, 70 

Public Expenditures, 105 

Public Lands, 70, 104 

Public Works, 322 

referrals between, 57. 72, 88, 355 

Revisal and Unfinished Business, 37. 39, 

Roads and Canals, I04 

Science and Astronautics, 321 

select committees, 34-36, 57, 59-60, 72, 

168, 172, 177, 184 

179-181, 185. 323-324 

106, 176. 185, 218-220 

91, 99, 186-190, 217. 220 

70 

80. 169. 353-355 

516 
staffs of, 322. 355 

for creation of committees, 144 

for creation of subcommittees, 354-355 

formalize Ways and Means’ revenue 

grant privileges to Ways and Means, 

for the naming of chairmen, 72 

for origination of bills, 142 

for referring bills, 98 

for reporting bills, 57-58. 98 

restricting debate and amendment 

(closed rules), 277, 296, 327 

revision of, 176, 181-182, 185, 210-214 

standing committees recognized by, 52, 

writing of, 24 

House Rules. See also Rules Committee 

jurisdiction, 59, I72 

I46 

57, 59-60 

Houses of Parliament, 6-9, 7, 17, 20-22 

Houston, George S., 100, 135 

Hull, Cordell. 246, 250-251, 251, 266, 

Humphrey, George M., 313 

Humphrey, Hubert H., 334 

Hunter, Robert M. T.. 123, 137, 139 

278-280 

Import duties. See Tariffs 

Income tax. See Corporate income tax; 

Personal income tax 

Income tax subcommittee of Ways and 

Means, 251 

Independent Treasury, 96, 118-125, 130- 

131 

Indians, 1 I, 92, 105, 129, 139 

Inflation, 203, 300-301, 303-304. 306, 

Inheritance tax. See also Estate tax; Legacy 

309-3 12 

tax 

considered, 247 

graduated, 253 

included in the Internal Revenue Act of 

1862, 160 

increased, 163, 213 

opposed by Madison, 46 

progressive, 282 

reinstated, 244, 256 

repealed, 201, 213, 294 

State, 264 

Insurance Company of North America, 26 

Interior Department. 106, 132 

Internal Revenue Act of 1862, 158-160. 

Internal Revenue, Bureau of, 165,264 

Internal Revenue Code 

240 

changes to the, 348, 350 

foreign income provisions of the, 365 

payroll taxes as part of the, 293 

revisions of the, 275, 305. 310, 315- 

stabilized, 345 

Ways and Means jurisdiction over the, 

lnternal rcvcnue collection, 48. 56, 109, 

318, 380-384 

350 

1 I3 

Internal Revenue Service, 289, 316, 323, 

Internal Revenue Taxation, Joint 

332 

Committee on (JClRT). See also 

Taxation, Joint Committee on 

292 

advises on Social Security amendment, 

composition of the, 264, 330 

established and staffed, 264, 330 

estimates tax revenue, 348 

functions of the, 330-333, 345 

staff assists Ways and Means, 322 

staff studies the tax code, 316 

Interstate commerce, 174 

Iron and steel, 187, 197, 228, 235, 237- 

Irving. Washington, 78 

Irwin, Richard, 193 

238, 247 

Jackson, Andrew 

career of, 81, 96 

inauguration of, 89, 95, 97 

member of Ways and Means, 47 

opposes the Second Bank of the US., 

policies of, 106-107, 109-113, 121, 125, 

113-121,115 

130 

Jackson, James, 26 

James, Ollie, 2 I7 

Jay, John, 28 

Jay’s Treaty, 30-31, 47 

Jefferson, Thomas 

abhors national debt, 30 

appoints Gallatin to Treasury, 46 

correspondence with Madison, 33, 35 

differences with John Randolph, 57, 62- 

elected President, 51-52 

influences the naming of chairmen, 106 

leaves office, 55 

neutrality message of 1805, 72 

opposition to Federalists, 61 

proponent of the Embargo Act, 74-75 

proposes abolition of excise taxes, 65 

related to John Eppes, 79-80 

related to John Randolph, 62 

on revenue bill origin, 13, 33 

successes of his tirst term, 65-66 

Jeffersonian Republican (Democratic) 

64, 67-70 

Party 

ascendancy of the, 55, 59 

favors Congress over the Executive, 56, 

financial policies of the, 46. 58, 60 

identified with agriculture, 31, 86 

64.94, 102 

Jenkins, Ed, 358 

Johnson, Andrew, 132, 147, 172 

Johnson, Lyndon B.. 331, 339, 341, 342, 

Joint Budget Committee, 274 

Joint Committees, 146-147, 273, 289, 

352. See also lnternal Revenue 

Taxation, Joint Committee on 

343-345, 347-348 

Joint Sessions of Congress, 248, 256 

Jones, J. Glancy, 99 

Jones, James, 357, 363 

Jones, John Winston, 121, 123-125. 128 

Jurisdiction. See also Revenue jurisdiction 

of Ways and Means; Tariffs 

changes in, 353-355 

contested between committees, 57. 83, 

of Ways and Means over banking, 94, 

of Ways and Means over currency, 91, 

86-89,91,94, 181 shared, 355 

97, 100, 106, 142, 172 

100, 172 

appropriations 

revenue, 55, 59, 70, 92, 96-97 

104, 142, 147 

Jurisdiction of Ways and Means over 

combined with jurisdiction over 

held by the Committee, 35, 62, 94, 102- 

removed from the Committee, 167 

specified by House Rules, 59-60 

Jurisdiction of Ways and Means over 

tariffs. See also Reciprocal trade 

agreements: Senate Finance 

Committee: Tariffs 

complicated by politics, 205 

contested by other committees, 57 

continued. 220 

Keifer, J. Warren, 180, 208 

Kelley, William D., 185, 187, 201, 202, 

207-208 

Kennedy, John F., 328, 332-333, 333-334, 

341, 345-346, 351 

Kennedy, Robert F.. 351 

Keogh, Eugene J., 328, 350 

Kerr, Michael Crawford, 180 

Kerr. Robert S., 341 

Keynes, John Maynard, 296 

Keys, Martha, 358 

King, Cecil, 328 

King, Martin Luther, Jr., 351 

King, William S., 193 

Kitchin, Claude 

chairs Ways and Means, 218-219, 250- 

a member of Ways and Means, 250 

raises excess profits tax, 227, 255-257 

relations with Wilson, 259 

251, 253 

Knox, Victor A,, 341 

Knutson. Harold, 301, 304, 305, 307-309, 

319 

Labor, Secretary of, 286 

LaFollette, Robert, 267, 296 

Landon. Alfred, 291 

Land sales, 108, 120, 127-128 

Land taxes. See Real estate taxes 

Latham, Henry J., 314 

Latrobe, Benjamin, 40 

Laurance, John, 26 

Lederer, Raymond F., 358 

Legacy lax, 237, 245 

517 
Legal Tender Act of 1862, 149, 154-158, 

155, 166, 171, 199-200. See also 

Currency reform 

Legislative autonomy of Congress, 56-58, 

64, 67, 227 

Legislative Counsel, Office of the, 258, 

292, 316, 331, 345 

Legislative Drafting Service. 258 

Legislative hearings, 175-177, 182, 214, 

324, 352. See also Hearings held by 

Ways and Means; Senate Finance 

Committee 

Legislative Reference Service, 274 

Legislative Reorganization Act, 274, 322 

Legislative Research Service (LRS), 323 

Letcher, Robert P., 1 I3 

Lewis. David J., 284 

Lewis, Dixon H., 130-131 

Lewis. G. B., 167 

Liberty Bonds. See War, loan issues 

Liberty Party, 134 

Library of Congress, 169, 274, 323 

Lincoln, Abraham, 147-149, 153, 160, 

Liquor. See Whiskey and liquor taxes 

Livermore, Samuel, 25, 26 

Livingston, Robert R., 64 

Loan certificates, 30 

Lobbying groups 

168, 171, 173 

against excise taxes, 165 

heard by the JCIRT/JCT, 332 

against Legal Tender Act, I58 

for mail subsidies, 178, 193 

at open hearings and meetings, 362, 

post-Civil War, 173, 178-179, 182, 189, 

professionalism of, 175, 177, 213 

registration of, 178-179 

for and against tariffs, 131, 163. 193, 

369 

195 

195, 206, 211 

Long, Huey P., 284 

Long, Russell, 327, 339, 364, 366-367 

Longworth, Nicholas, 246, 251, 264 

Louisiana Purchase, 55-56, 65-66, 67, 72 

Lowell, Francis C.. 85 

Lowndes, William, 55, 79, 82, 83-85, 91- 

Lyon. Matthew. 50, 51 

93 

Macon, Nathaniel, 59-60, 62-63, 67, 69- 

Madison. James 

70 

advocate of Ways and Means, 11 

correspondence with Jefferson, 33, 35 

describes Committee operations, 45-46 

desires Louisiana Purchase, 65 

disliked by Randolph, 69 

favors protective tariffs, 84 

as a Federalist. 20, 28 

member of Ways and Means, 26, 40, 

opposes Hamilton’s fiscal policies, 28, 

45-47, 53 

30. 31, 32-36, 46 

refers to a Ways and Means 

relations with Samuel Smith, 90. 106 

sees Senaie as a restraint on the House. 

signs declaration of war, 76 

vetoes National Bank bill of 1811, 82 

subcommictee, 36, 40 

21 

Mail routes, 135 

Mail subsidies, 178, 193 

Manley. John, 320, 325-326, 329-330 

Marine Corps, US., 71 

Marryat, Frederick, 97 

Martin, Joseph, 31 1, 313. 313-314 

Marvin, Thomas O., 261 

Mason, George, 20 

Mason, Noah M., 337 

Matsui, Bob, 375 

May, John F.. 136 

Maynard, Horace, 156 

McAdoo, William Gibbs. 253-257 

McCall, Samuel, 246 

McClellan, George B., 147 

McCormack, John W., 226, 267, 293, 301 

McCulloch, Hugh, 200 

McCumber, Porter J., 262 

McDuffe, George, 88-89, 107, 109-1 12, 

114-1 15, 117 

McKay, James Iver, 100, 121, 129. 131- 

133, 134 

McKenzie, James A., 173, 208 

McKim. Isaac, I1 7 

McKinley, John, 117 

McKinley, William, 21 1-213, 221. 227, 

McLane. Louis. 88, 89, 90-91, 1 11-1 12, 

McMillin, Benton, 212, 231, 236, 238- 

Medicare, 333, 33-1-335, 338-345, 342, 

Mediterranean Fund, 66 

Mellon. Andrew, 227, 257, 260, 262-265 

Mercer, John Francis, 33 

Merchants’ bond case, 77-79, 91 

Mexican War, 131-132 

Military Affairs Committee, 104, 189-190 

Military appropriations. See also Army, 

230, 23 1-234, 240-242 

116-1 17 

239, 244 

371, 374, 384-385 

US.; Navy, U.S. 

bills reported, 166, 166-167 

detailed estimates demanded by Ways 

and Means, 44-45, 70-72 

revenues needed to support, 47-48, 65, 

76, 92, 151-153 

Mills, Ogden, 263, 268 

Mills, Roger Q. 

chairs Ways and Means, 185, 206, 232 

drafts the Mills bill, 2 10-2 1 1 

favors tariff reform, 202, 206, 208, 229 

member of Ways and Means, 231, 235 

seeks to be Speaker, 218 

attitude toward Medicare. 338, 340-345 

career and personality of, 320, 324, 

Mills, Wilbur D. 

324-325. 353, 355-356 

chairs Ways and Means, 317, 319-320, 

eliminates use of subcommittees, 322- 

leadership of, 325-330 

member of the Joint Committee on 

restricts size of committee staff, 322- 

targeted by Congressional reform, 350- 

on tax policy, 331, 339 

works on tax legislation, 346-350 

works on the Trade Expansion Act, 328, 

322, 323, 325, 350 

323 

Taxation, 327 

323 

356 

333-328 

Mint, US., 43-44, 52, 105 

Monroe, James, 64, 90 

Morgenthau, Henry, Jr.. 277, 281, 296, 

299-302, 303 

Morrill, Justin S. 

attitudes toward paper money. 156-157 

career of, I59 

chairs subcommittee on taxation, 144, 

chairs the new Ways and Means, 169- 

designs an income tax, 152, 198 

reports tariff bills, 140-141. 163 

reports tax bills, 140, 151, 159-160 

reports work done by Ways and Means, 

147 

170, 188 

I67 

Morrill Tariff, 134, 140, 151, 163, 230 

Morris, Robert, 6, 14, 18-19, 151 

Morrison, William R., 279, 185, 194, 202, 

206, 208-210 

Mozart Hall, 188 

Murray, James E., 339 

Narcotics control, 223. 224-226 

Nast, Thomas, 199 

National Bank. See Bank of the United 

States; Second Bank of the United 

States 

National debt. See ako Surpluses in the 

Treasury 

159 

a concern of Ways and Means, 59, 86, 

declining, 201 

extinction of the, 37-38, 52 

funding of the, 28, 30, 65, 201, 206, 

growth of the, 126-127. 151, 296, 299, 

limit. 296-297 

payable by the National Bank, I I4 

payable by Treasury notes, 76 

payment suspended, 8 I 

permanent, 30 

post-Civil War, 196 

post-Spanish-American War, 245 

reduction a Jeffersonian policy, 30, 60, 

reduction a Republican policy. 307 

24 I 

310, 347, 370, 374, 385-386 

65-66, 75 

518 
reported to Congress, 104 

rises during the Great Depression, 268 

National Industrial Recovery Act, 277 

Navy, U.S. 

appropriations for the, 127, 135, 166, 

Barbary War appropriations, 66, 71-72 

individual appropriations bills for the, 

ships of the, 47, 47, 66, 72, 243 

War of 1812 appropriations for the, 76 

Navy Department, 44-45, 72, 106, 129. See 

Neutrality, 47, 68, 72 

New Deal programs. See also Reciprocal 

167, 253 

I02 

also Secretary of the Navy 

trade agreements; Roosevelt, Franklin 

D.; Social Security 

rejection of, 303, 307-308 

Republican opposition to, 270, 272- 

273. 299, 312, 318 

scope of, 271-272. 318 

Ways and Means action on, 275-278 

Nicholas. John, 38, 43, 49-51 

Nicholson, Joseph H., 63, 66, 68, 69, 72, 

Nicolay, John, 168 

Nixon, Richard M., 337, 348-349 

Nullification, 100. 106-113, 108, 125 

Ofice space, committee, 100, 181-182, 

193, 221 

Oil and gas depletion allowance, 264, 322, 

329, 348, 365 

O'Neill, Thomas P.. 364, 368. 376, 378 

Orth, Godlove S.. I86 

73 

Packwood, Robert, 384 

Page, John, 33 

Panic of 1837, 119. 120-121, 229 

Panic of 1873. 192, 203, 205, 229 

Paper money. See Bank notes; Legal 

Tender Act of 1862; Silver 

certificates; Treasury notes 

Parliamentary committees, 6-8, 22 

Paterson, William, 20 

Patrnan, Wright, 351, 355 

Paul, Randolph, 301 

Padding, James K.. 102 

"Pay-as-you-go." 253, 304 

Payne, Sereno E.. 220, 231, 242, 244-248, 

260 

Payne-Aldrich Tariff, 227-230, 243, 245- 

248,250, 253.262 

Pendleton, George H.. 157 

Pennington, William, 139 

Pennsylvania Colonization Society, 135 

Penrose, Boies, 260 

Perkins, Frances, 286 

Personal income tax. See also Corporate 

income tax: Surtaxes on the personal 

income tax 

as an emergency measure, 246 

applied to federal and state omcials' 

salaries, 259 

authorized by Constitutional 

a brake on inflation, 309 

deductions and credits, 301, 309, 312, 

distinguishes between earned and 

unearned income, 260 

exemptions, 263, 300, 309, 317, 348 

extended to judges, 290 

forms, 249 

graduated, 163, 198-199, 237, 250, 253, 

increased, 164, 253, 255, 295, 301, 310- 

institution of the, 149, 152-153, 230, 

minimum, 365 

payers of the, 259, 290, 303, 305-306, 

progressive, 160-161, 198-199, 282, 

proposed, 149, 152, 244, 247 

raises revenue for the Civil War, 149, 

rate increases, 257-258. 269, 295, 310, 

rate reductions, 346 

rate simplification, 383 

rebate, 365 

reduced, 197-199, 306-309 

reinstituted, 237-240 

repealed, 201, 203, 205, 213, 244 

as a replacement for tariff revenue, 229, 

returns, 299-300, 309 

revenue raised by the, 252, 294 

revisions to the. 166, 198 

single rate, 281 

suggested by Dallas, 149 

Supreme Court ruling on the, 240, 244 

withholding of the, 160, 296, 304 

to Congress, IOI 

for National Bank charter, 80 

received by Ways and Means, 35, 195- 

referred to the Secretary of the 

regarding excise taxes, 49, 87, 91-92, 

regarding merchants' bonds, 91 

regarding tariffs, 86, 88, 238 

amendment, 250 

316, 365, 382-384 

268 

312 

270 

309 

305. 365 

161-162. 165. 171 

313 

236 

Petitions 

196 

Treasury, 30, 79 

I67 

Phelps, John S., 99, 139, 156 

Pickens. Francis, 123 

Pickle, J. J., 371, 375, 377-378 

Pierce, Franklin, 133, 137 

Pike, Frederick, 198 

Pleasonton, Alfred, 203 

Plumer, William, 61 

Poage. W. R., 351, 355 

Polk, James K., 100, 106, 112-1 14, 116, 

Pomeroy, Theodore, 170 

Poor, Henry A., 193 

116-123. 125, 129-133 

Poore, Ben Perley, 145 

Postal rates, 84, 92, 253, 256 

Post Office, 56, 93, 105. See also Mail 

Post Ofices and Post Roads Committee, 

Powell, Levin, 51 

Price and wage controls, 300. 303-304. 

Price supports, 266 

Progressives, 215, 229-230, 254 

Protective tariffs. See aLro Lobbying 

routes 

70 

349 

groups; Morrill Tariff; Senate Finance 

Committee; Smoot-Hawley Tariff; 

Sugar, duties on; Tariffs; Whig Party 

affirmed by the Tariff Commission, 207 

Constitutionality of, 113 

denounced by Cleveland and Wilson, 

of the 1890s. 23 1-242 

favor business, 244 

favored by Republicans, 134, 197, 208, 

favored in the Senate, 228 

favoring agriculture, 232, 261 

favoring the iron industry, 187, 197, 

first enactment of, 56. 84-88 

Fordney an authority on, 260-261 

seen as a danger to slavery, 88, 109 

suggested by Hamilton, 29 

supported by Clay, 86, 108, 113, 128 

Public debt, See National debt 

Public Expenditures, Committee on 

Public lands, 28, 108, 127, 158 

Public Lands, Committee on (House), 70, 

Public Works Administration, 277 

Public Works, Committee on (House), 322 

210,248 

210, 229-230, 260 

228, 238 

(House), 105 

104 

Railroads 

associated with Members of Congress, 

dividends taxed, 160 

growth of, 56, 134, 149, 173 

rates charged by, 174 

represented at hearings, 193 

Ways and Means travels on the, 190 

Rainey, Henry T., 250, 251, 255, 267, 

Randall, Samuel J., 179, 180-181, 185, 

Randolph, Edmund, 20 

Randolph, John 

135-136, 178 

268, 276 

202, 208-2 1 I, 229 

on the autonomy of Congress, 56 

career of, 55, 57, 63 

chairs Ways and Means, 56, 57? 60, 62, 

committee operations under, 59-74 

comparison with Thaddeus Steven 144- 

criticism of, 62, 64, 69 

67, 69-70, 73 

145 

519 
differences with Jefferson, 57, 62-63, 

dislike of Madison, 69 

introduces resolutioii for Louisiana 

purchase, 57, 65-66 

opposition to Samuel Smith, 86 

party leader in the House, 58, 61-63, 

personality of, 61-62, 74 

related to Jefferson, 62 

relations with Callatin, 63-66, 68-70 

relations with Macon, 62, 67 

removed from Ways and Means. 63, 70, 

reviews Navy budget, 72 

on the role of Congress in fiscal 

67-70 

69, 74 

74,90 

matters, 60-6 I 

Rayburn, Sam, 273, 306, 306, 329, 348 

Reagan, Ronald, 367, 371, 374-384 

Real estate taxes, 16. 49, 52, 151-152 

Reciprocal trade agreements. See also 

Trade Expansion Act of 1962 

Constitutionality of, 279 

extended, 309-310, 315 

a New Deal program, 231 

of 1934, 278-280, 317, 334 

President authorized to negotiate. 241- 

proposed ending of, 247 

replace tariff reforms, 272, 279 

suggested by Blaine, 231, 234 

242, 278, 279-280 

Reconstruction, 144, 146, 147. 169. 182 

Reed, Daniel A,, 296, 308, 310-316. 311, 

Reed, Thomas Brackett 

313 

death of, 182 

member of Rules Committee, 208, 212 

names chairmen of Ways and Means, 

opposes tariff reform, 238, 240-241 

as party leader, 180. 236 

revises House Rules, 181, 213 

as Speaker. 180. 21 I, 212. 213, 240 

231, 240 

Refunding Acts, 200-201 

Reid, Whitelaw. 204 

Republican Party. See also New Deal 

programs; Protective tariffs 

control of the House, 186 

economic policies, 205 

favors less spending, 138, 3 I2 

liberal wing of the, 174, 206 

loses control of the House, 186, 208 

majority in Congress, 272, 307, 312 

majority in the Senate, 203. 206, 367 

majority in Ways and Means, 140, 186, 

origins of the. 97, 134 

resists tariff revision, 205, 209, 2 13 

strength in the House, 139 

197 

Resumption Act, 203-204 

Revenue Act of 1964, 331-333. 345-347 

Revenue bills 

considered under closed rules, 327 

origination of, 5, 7-10. 9, 20-22, 33, 45, 

precedence, 185 

227. See also Tariffs 

Revenue collection. See Internal revenue 

collection; Tariff revenue; Taxes 

Revenue jurisdiction of Ways and Means. 

See also Jurisdiction of Ways and 

Means over tariffs 

formalized under House Rules, 59, 172 

new committees impinge upon the, 94 

retained, 142, 167. 220. 224, 275 

revenue issues received by referral, 84, 

revenue reform, 173 

review of revenue needs and bills, 58 

strengthened by House legislative 

86, 88, 9 1-92 

procedures, 55 

Revenue repot-ts, 44 

Revenue stamps, 240 

Revisal and Unfinished Business, 

Ribicoff. Abraham A,, 34 1 

Richardson, William A,, 191-193 

Roads and Canals, Gommittee on 

Roberts, Ellis H., 178-179 

Roberts, Jonathan, 78-79 

Rooserelt, Franklin D. 

Cornmittre on (House), 37, 39, 70 

(House), 104 

asks for new taxes, 288-289 

chooses Hull for State Department, 278 

disapproves capital gains tax reduction, 

elected President, 272, 275, 306 

New Deal programs of, 270-271, 275- 

plans wage and price controls, 300, 303 

requests revenues for defense. 296-297, 

signs Lend-Lease Act. 299 

supports Social Security, 285, 287, 291- 

supports unemployment insurance, 285- 

tax reforms of, 282 

trade policy of, 278-280 

vetoes overridden. 273, 305 

Roosevelt, Theodore, 245 

Ross, Lewis, 198 

Rostenkowski. Daniel D. 

290 

276, 339 

301-305 

292, 294 

286 

assumes chairmanship, 367, 368 

consensus building, 367. 380 

federal deficit, 383, 386 

issue seminars, 371-372 

leadership style, 357, 367 

refinancing Social Security, 378, 384 

Steering and Policy Committee 

tax cuc of 1981, 368-369, 375-376, 

tax reform of 1986. 382-384, 385 

”Write Rosty,” 372, 380 

Rules, Committee on (House). See also 

membership, 359, 369 

375-376 

House Rules 

appointments to the, 216-217 

blocks legislation, 27‘1, 3 13-3 14 

chairman of Appropriations Committee, 

chairman of Ways and Means 

a member, 211, 213 

Committee, a member, 185, 21 I, 213, 

23 I 

chairman on the Democratic steering 

committee, 277, 359 

exclusive assignment 10 the. 21 6, 32 1 

hearings held by the, 324 

member on Budget Committee, 353 

permits amendment to Social Security, 

permits use of closed rules, 327 

reporting a rule, 3 14-3 15 

report on Senate tariff amendments, 

Speaker barred from membership in 

special orders of the. 2 12 

used to schedule the legislative agenda, 

286 

208 

the, 215 

218, 277 

Ruml, Beardslev, 304 

Russo, Marty, 376 

Salt tax, 46, 48, 76, 77 

Sanborn, John D.. 191-192 

Sanger, Margaret, 226 

Schenck, Robert C.. 186, 188-190, 195, 

200-20 I, 203 

Schweiker, Richard, 377 

Science and Astronautics Committee. 32 1 

Scott, Winfield, 152 

Second Bank of the IJnited States. See also 

Bank of the United States 

Cheves as President of the, 79, 90 

Constitutionality of the, I I4 

establishment of the, 82-83 

jurisdictional conflict over the, 9 I 

recharter of the, 102, 106, 113-121, 125 

Secretary of State 

Blaine as, 234 

Buchanan as, 132 

Hull as, 278-280 

Madison as, 65, 69 

McLane as, 89, 90 

Seward as, 150 

Webster as, 125 

Secretary of the Navy, 72, 102, 129, 135 

Secretary of the Treasurv. See nlso Chase, 

Salmon P.; Gallatin, Albei-t; 

Morgenthau, Henry, Jr.; M’olcotr. 

Oliver 

agents appointed by the, 190-192 

Board of Inspectors under the, 135 

Boutwell as, 203 

Campbell as, 74, 80 

Carlisle as, 23 I. 236 

Civil War records of the, 167 

commissioners appointed b! the, 160, 

Crawford as, 58, 83 

Dallas as, 58, 81-83. 85, 149 

167, 197 

520 
Dillon as, 335, 345-346 

Duane as, I17 

Gage as, 245 

Hamilton as, 27-36 

Humphrey as, 31 3 

McAdoo as, 253-257 

McCulloch as, 200 

McLaneas, 89, 90, Ill-112, 116-117 

Mellon as, 227, 257, 260, 262-265 

Mills, Ogden, as, 263, 268 

petitions to the, 90. 79 

proposes revenue plans, 25, 27 

removes greenbacks from circulation, 

reports to Congress, 104 

reports to the House, 39, 52 

Richardson as, 190-193 

Sherman as, 204 

submits plans to Ways and Means, 42- 

45, 51, 54, 262, 264 

Taney as, I 17- I20 

Walker as, 121, 131-132 

Woodbury as, 123 

200-20 1 

Sedgwick, Theodore, 46, 49, 51 

Select committees, 11, 16-19. See also 

Select subcommittees, 177, 248, 269 

Senate alteration of House bills, 329-330. 

See also Senate Finance Committee 

Senate Finance Committee 

acts on greenbacks, 203 

advised by the JCIRT/JCT, 330, 332 

chairmen formerly chairing Ways and 

clerk appointed to the, 100 

considers the Legal Tender Act, 157- 

control of conferences, 364 

division of the, 178 

drafts the Banking Act of 1863, 165-166 

established as a standing committee, 

favors free coinage of silver, 24 I 

hearings held by the, 247, 255, 262, 

income tax considered by the, 163, 198 

within the Joint Budget Committee, 274 

members on conference committees. 

mwnbers on Joint Study Committee on 

Refunding Act reported by the, 201 

relative independence of the, 129-130 

revenue bills amended by the, 205, 214 

revenue bills considered by the, 290, 

revenue bill written by the, 256 

reviews the Internal Revenue Code, 316 

role in the appropriations process, 139- 

stability of the, 205 

tariff bill buried by the, 239 

House Committees 

Means, 74, 188 

158 

I04 

286, 289 

330 

Budget Control, 352 

296 

140, 142 

tariff bills altered in conference by the, 

227-228, 231, 241, 247, 260-262, 

266-267, 269-270 

tariff bills amended by the, 205, 207- 

208, 232, 238, 251-252 

tariff bill written by the, 210-21 1, 262 

tariff reform studied by the, 260 

tax bill drafted by the, 383-384 

tax bill endorsed by the, 201 

tax proposals considered by, 30 I, 376 

trade agreements agreed to by the, 338, 

on use of the Army in Kansas, 136 

attacked by congressional reform, 351- 

beginnings of the, 175- I76 

entrenched, 272-273 

used for appointment of chairmen, 188, 

used for committee assignments, 359 

366 

Seniority system 

352, 355 

253, 324 

Seward, William H., 150 

Shackleford, Dorsey, 219 

Shaddin, Robert, 87, 91 

Shannon, James M., 358 

Shays, Daniel, 16 

Sheldon, Lionel A,, 186 

Sherman, John, 138, 139-142, 188, 200, 

Silver certificates, 200 

Silver coinage, 229, 24 1 

Silver Purchase Act, 204, 235 

Simmons, Furnifold. 256 

Simpson, Richard, 3 15 

Sinclair, Upton, 284 

Slavery 

203-204 

abolition of, 145, 147, 173 

barred from former Mexican territory, 

denounced by Stevens and Chase, 145- 

economic growth hindered by, 134 

Independent Treasury seen as a danger 

in Kansas and Nebraska, 136 

in Missouri, 147 

Northern opposition to, 137, 139 

a political issue, 96, 133 

protective tariffs seen as a danger to, 

tax on slaves proposed, 49, 52 

trade prohibited in the District of 

trade suppressed by the Navy, 135 

I32 

147 

to, 123 

123 

Columbia, 134 

Smilie, John, 51 

Smith, Emor E., 196 

Smith. Robert. 72 

Smith, Samuel, 55, 81, 85-86, 88, 90, 92, 

Smith, William, 26 

Smith, William Loughton, 26, 34, 34-35, 

37, 39-49, 53 

Smithsonian Institution, 106 

Smoot, Reed, 261, 266 

106 

Smoot-Hawley Tariff, 226, 228, 230, 260, 

265-270, 279-280, 309 

Social Security. See also Medicare 

Act of 1935, 270-271, 282-288, 283- 

Amendmenls of 1939, 270, 287, 290- 

Amendments of 1954, 315, 318 

Amendments of 1983, 371, 379-380, 

Amendments of 1960, 1961, and 1967, 

Amendments of 1972 and 1977, 351. 

benefit increases proposed, 344, 355 

benefits reduced, 377 

bills considered under a closed rule, 

constitutionality of, 272 

financed by payroll taxes, 287, 291, 293, 

3 18, 339-34 I, 343 

fiscal stability of, 373, 377-380 

issues within Ways and Means’ 

285, 318. 339 

294, 318 

384 

338-345, 351 

3 64 

327, 344 

jurisdiction, 275-276, 317, 322, 333, 

373 

Social Security Administration, 323 

Social Security Board, 291-292 

Spanish-American War, 243-245 

Spaulding, Elbridge Gerry, 141, 144, 146, 

Springer, Kuter W., 227 

Springer, William M., 218, 232, 235-236 

Staff. See Clerks of committees; House 

Committees; Legislative Drafting 

Service; Standing Committees 

155-158, 165 

Staff subcommittees, 332 

Stam. Colin P., 331-332 

Stamp Act, 12 

Stamp tax 

drafted by Ways and Means, 53 

included in the Internal Revenue Act of 

opposed by Madison, 46 

petition againsl the, 196 

repeal, 245 

reported, 36, 48-49 

required for more items, 244 

adoption of, 60 

appointment to, 59, 62, 69, 91 

budget review by, 176 

of the Continental Congress, 17 

criteria for appointment to, 72 

establishment of, 24, 37, 41, 144. 181, 

evolution of, 52, 93-94 

importance of, 357 

number of, 70, 274, 322 

number of assignments to, 216. 274 

originate bills, 142 

preeminence of Ways and Means 

1862, 160, 240 

Standing committees, House 

319 

among, 17 1 

52 1 
recognized by House Rules, 52, 57, 59- 

size of, 39 

staff of, 274-275 

system, 98, 319-325 

60 

Standing committees, Senate, 98, 104, 

274. 319-320, 352-353. See also 

Senate Finance Committee 

State finance committees, 12-17, 34-35 

Steamship subsidies, 135, 178, 193 

Steering Committee. See Democratic Party 

Steiger, Bill, 367 

Stevens, Thaddeus 

career and personality of, Iff, 145-149, 

chairs Appropriations, 167. 168. 169- 

deals with public finances, 146-152, 

declines appointment to Treasury, I64 

his property destroyed by Confederates, 

increases the protective tariff, 163 

majority leader in the House, 143-144, 

policies for Reconstruction, 146, 169 

relations with Chase and Lincoln, 147- 

167 

170, 185 

157, 160, 164-165, 172 

165 

171 

148, 171 

Stevenson, Andrew, 106, 110, 112 

Stockman, David, 375 

Subcommittees, 175-178. 320, 322-323, 

352, 354-355. See also Select 

subcommittees 

Subcommittees of Ways and Means 

absence of, 322-323, 353 

appointment of the chairmen of, 269 

autonomy diminished, 369 

during the Civil War, 146-147, 176-177 

on currency and loans, 147 

on customs, 22 I, 237 

delegation of bill drafting evolves into, 

first referred to, 36, 40, 44, 52 

on income tax, 251 

increased importance of, 360-36 1 

list of, 221, 322 

number mandated by House Rules, 

354-357, 360 

on oversight, 360 

for preparation of tariff bills, 206, 248- 

251, 269-270 

a response to member specialization, 

141, 220 

on revenue, 221, 289-290, 322, 360 

select subcommittees, 248, 269 

on Social Security, 322, 360, 377 

staff used by, 360, 362, 369 

on taxation. 144, 147, 151, 281, 322 

on trade, 322, 360, 366 

on unemployment, 360 

on welfare, 360 

14 1 

Sugar, duties on, 233-234, 237-239, 243, 

Suniner. Charles, 201 

245, 250 

Supreme Court, U.S. 

appointment of Salmon Chase to the, 

attempt to pack the, 290 

curtails congressional hearings, 193 

decision on contraceptives, 227 

decision on income taxes, 240, 244 

decisions against New Deal acts, 275- 

impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, 

147 

276 

66 

National debt 

Surpluses in the Treasury. See also 

end with the Great Depression, 268 

land sales create, 108 

post-Civil War, 194, 201, 206, 210 

post-Spanish-American War, 245 

post-World War 1, 263 

Surtaxes on the personal income tax 

graduated, 256 

lowered, 260, 263 

maximum, 269 

progressive, 281 

raised, 263-264, 282, 297, 299 

rates for, 257, 302 

temporary, 347-348 

Taft, William Howard, 246-248. 270 

Tammany Hall, 188 

Taney, Roger B., 117-1 19 

Tariff Board, 248 

Tariff Commission. See also Reciprocal 

trade agreements 

affirms protective tariffs, 207 

an independent agency, 253 

changes in the, 3 15 

crealed, 206-207, 248 

escape clause use recommended by the, 

expert advice of the, 222-224 

hearings held by the, 207 

powers and duties of the, 207, 245, 253, 

recommends rates to the President, 262, 

reorganization of the, 268 

reports of the, 207 

336 

262 

266, 309 

Tariff (reform). See also Payne-Aldrich 

to be studied by the Senate. 260 

favored by Cleveland, 2 10, 227, 229, 

favored by progressives, 229-230 

post-Civil War, 202, 206-21 I, 215 

dominance as revenue source, 252 

to fund the Civil War, 151-153, 171 

as prime purpose for tariff, 83, 138, 

206. 237, 253 

Tariffs. See also Jurisdiction of Ways and 

Means over tariffs; Nullification; 

Protective tariffs; Reciprocal trade 

agreements 

affect of, 270 

Tariff; Underwood Tariff 

235, 239 

Tariff (revenue) 

constitutionality of, 20. 109 

enactment a goal of Hamilton, 28 

flexible. 242, 248, 262, 266-268 

origination within the House based on 

reductions in, 113, 209, 242, 247, 309 

review of, 174-175, 197. 204, 205-21 1 

subcommittee review of, 190 

Taxation, Joint Committee on UCT), 327, 

330, 361 

Taxation subcommittee of Ways and 

Means, 144, 147, 151. 281, 322 

Tax bills considered under closed rules, 

296, 347 

Tax code. See Internal Revenue Code 

Taxes. See also Corporate income tax; 

purpose, 83-88, 107-109 

Estate tax; Excess profits tax; 

Excise taxes; Inheritance tax; 

Personal income tax; Real estate 

taxes; Social Security; Stamp tax; 

Tariffs: Tax reduction; Tax Reform 

Act of 1986; Whiskey and liquor taxes 

agricultural products processing, 289 

capital gains, 290, 348, 367 

collection of, 304 

colonial and state. 14-17 

controversiality of, 272 

as a curb to inflation, 304, 309-31 1 

on dividends, 277 

evasion of, 190, 260, 281. 289, 304 

expertise on tax issues, 187 

gift, 264. 282, 290, 300, 365 

on munitions, 253 

national sales, 263, 265, 268-269, 299, 

301-302, 310-31 I 

origination of, 45-46 

payable in paper money, 156 

payable in Treasury notes, 76, 83 

policy on, 213, 227, 296, 298, 361 

power to levy, 5-8, 17, 20, 22, 279 

raised, 287, 291, 293, 386 

reform of, 260, 316, 344, 345, 348, 359, 

365-366 

repeal of, 64 

salt, 46, 48, 76-77 

slave, 49, 52 

spending, 300 

tea and coffee, 132, 151 

undistributed profits, 281, 290, 294 

used to manage business cycles, 3 18 

windfall profits, 289 

Tax Act of 1981 

Tax reduction. See also Economic Recovery 

ends with the Great Depression, 268 

initiatives of Ways and Means, 227 

a Jeffersonian policy, 60, 65 

a political issue, 196, 350 

post-World War 11, 305-306, 312, 318 

under Reagan, 367, 368-370, 370 

a Reagan policy, 367, 368, 372 

requested by Kennedy, 346, 347 

Tax Reduction Acts of 1971 and 1975, 

345. 316, 365 

522 
Tax Reform Act of 1986, 371, 373-374, 

Taylor, John W., 80, 90 

Teague, Charles M., 329-330 

Tilghman, B. C., 168 

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 97 

Tonnage duties, 28. 35, 91 

Toombs, Robert, 140 

Townsend. Francis E., 284, 286, 291 

Trade Act of 1974, 336, 337-338, 366 

Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 364. 365- 

Trade deficits, 384, 386 

Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 328, 333- 

Trade legislation by the Executive. See 

375-379, 380-384 

366 

337 

Reciprocal trade agreements; Tariff 

Commission; Trade Act of 1974; 

Trade Expansion Act of 1962 

Treadway, Allen T., 277-278, 282, 298 

Treasury bonds, 78-79, 151. 196, 204 

Treasury certificates of indebtedness, 258- 

Treasury Department. See also Secretary of 

259 

the Treasury 

bank capital deposited with the, 166 

Bureau of the Budget transferred from, 

creation of the, 24-27 

delays income tax implementation, 153 

draft of tax legislation, 331-333 

drug trade regulated by the, 226 

elimination of automobile excise tax 

examined by Congress, 33-34 

expert advice provided by the, 222, 237, 

includes the Post Office, 56 

moiety system of the, 190-193 

operations reviewed by Ways and 

plans for taxes, 297, 300-301, 332, 348 

proposed funding of health insurance 

reports reviewed by Ways and Means, 

reviews the Internal Revenue Code, 

specie payments by the, 200 

suspends debt interest payments, 81 

suspends specie payments, 154 

works rlosely with Ways and Means, 58, 

27 I 

resisted by, 347 

248, 256, 289, 361 

Means, 105 

by the, 340, 343 

39, 59, 80 

3 16-3 17 

60, 72, 133, 268 

Treasury notes 

Civil War issues, 151, 154-156, 196 

6rst issues, 76, 77, 80 

interest bearing, 122 

payment of, 140 

redeemed by government stock, 83 

redeemed with gold, 204 

small denominations as paper money, 

taxes payable with, 76, 83 

81. 124. 149 

Truman, Harry S., 272, 306-312, 334, 

Tucker, Jim Guy, 358 

Twain, Mark, 173, 174 

Tweed Ring, 188 

Tyler, John, 121, 125-128, 130, 133 

339,343 

Udall, Morris, 350 

Ullman, Albert C., 338, 353, 356-357, 

Underwood, Oscar W., 216, 216-218. 

224, 246, 248, 250-251, 253 

Underwood Tariff, 227, 248-253, 262 

Unemployment, 280-281, 289, 306, 384 

Unemployment insurance, 284-286 

Upshur, Abel P., 129 

Vallandigham, Clement L., 157 

Van Buren, Martin, 120-125, 133 

Vandenberg. Arthur, 299 

Vander Jagt, Guy, 378 

Vander Veen, Richard F., 358 

Vanik, Charles A,, 338, 345, 366 

Varnum, Joseph, 70 

Verplanck, Gulian, 100, Ill, 112-116 

Veterans’ pensions, 201 

Victory loans. See War, loan issues 

Victory Tax, 302-303 

Vining, John, 26 

Vinson, Fred, 267, 277, 289 

Vinton, Samuel Finley, 132-133 

359, 360-370 

Wadsworth, Jeremiah, 26 

Wage controls, 300, 303-304, 349 

Wagner, Robert F.. 284, 286, 339 

Walker, Robert J., 121, 131-132 

War Department, 56, 58, 65, 102, 106, 

147. See also Army, U.S. 

“War Hawks,” 76 

Warner, Charles Dudley, 173 

War of 1812, 74-83 

War, loan issues 

defense bonds, 297 

Liberty bonds, 255 

Victory loan, 254, 295 

war bonds, 253-256, 258 

Washington, DC. See District of Columbia 

Washington, George, 18, 23, 33, 63 

Watterson, Henry, 204 

Ways and Means Committee. See also 

Clerks of committees; Hearings held 

by Ways and Means; Jurisdiction; 

Petitions; Revenue jurisdiction of 

Ways and Means; Senate Finance 

Committee; Social Security; Standing 

committees; Subcommittees of Ways 

and Means 

action on New Deal programs, 275-278 

advised by the JCIRT/JCT, 330, 332, 

advised by Treasury, 332-333 

chairman also on Rules, 185, 2 1 1, 21 3, 

345 

23 1 

chairman as party leader, 185, 214, 

chairman on Democratic steering 

criteria for appointment to, 72, 90-91, 

Democratic members caucus, 28 1-282 

division of the committee, 167-170, 

drafts tax bills, 364 

establishment of the. 24-25, 56, 57 

exclusive assignment to the, 216, 321 

geographical balance of the, 50-5 I, 54, 

importance of assignment to the, 320- 

importance of the, 368, 385-386 

independent judgment of the, 270, 272, 

investigations done by the, 45, 105-106, 

involvement in tariff legislation, 96, 

within Joint Budget Committees, 274, 

jurisdictional losses of the, 353-356 

legislative activity of the, 381, 385 

legislative procedure of the, 42-46, 52- 

members on Budget, 353 

members on conference committees, 

national debt a concern of the, 59, 86, 

operations under John Randolph, 59-74 

operations under Wilbur Mills, 320-325 

origins of the, 23-54 

party leader excluded from 

chairmanship of the, 216, 218 

privileges granted to the, 145, 185 

proposed as a standing committee, 37- 

reports of the, 293, 304 

reviews the Internal Revenue Code, 315 

reviews Treasury reports and 

operations, 39, 59, 80, 105 

as a select committee, 34-36 

seminars of the, 37 1-372 

in session, 207 

size of the, 26. 33-35, 39-40, 48. 50-51, 

53-54, 97, 141, 186, 218, 220, 236, 

355-356, 358 

216-217, 219 

committee, 277, 359 

99, 187-190, 220, 329, 358-360 

172, 213 

72-74, 91, 99, 321, 359 

321, 329, 358 

333 

142 

107-1 13, 205-21 1 

352 

53 

330 

159 

39, 38, 41, 46 

staff of the, 322, 357, 360-361 

studies tax reform, 260 

taxation a concern of, 333 

title of the, 35, 185-186 

works closely with Treasury, 58, 60, 72 

Ways and Means Committee, English, 6-7. 

Wealth tax, 282 

Webster, Daniel, 82, 125-126 

Welfare system, 271, 364, 385 

Wells, David A., 197 

See also Finance committees 

523 
Whig Party 

disintegration of the, 134 

opposes currency reform, 120, 126 

origins of the, 97, 117, 121 

protective tariffs of the, 125-128, 131- 

strength in the House, 123, 125 

Whiskey and liquor taxes 

alcoholic beverage tax, 294 

distilled spirits tax, 297 

duties on stills, 49 

liquor tax, 77, 244-245, 315, 347 

petitions for relief from, 57, 91-92, 196 

whiskey tax, 164-165 

wine tax. 193, 240, 244, 277, 297 

132 

White, John, 126 

White House, expenditures 10 maintain 

Wickersham, George W., 247 

Wilmot Proviso, 132 

Wilson, James F., 169 

Wilson. William L., 220-222, 229, 234. 

235-239 

Wilson, Woodrow 

the, 106 

appears before a Joint Session, 248 

author of Congressional Governrnm!. I8 I, 

216, 248 

confers with Underwood, 250 

health of, 253 

influences tariff and revenue acts, 227, 

relations with Kitchin, 259 

vetoes the Fordney tariff, 261 

251-252, 256-257 

Wise, Henry, 126 

Wolcott, Oliver, 36-37. 41-45, 49, 51, 54 

Wolfe. James, I1 

Wood, Fernando, 161-165, 185, 188, 206, 

Woodbury, Levi, 123 

Woods, Henry, 51 

Woodworth, Laurence, 327. 332 

World War I revenue acts. 252, 252-259 

World War 11 revenue acrs, 294-305. 297- 

Wright, Hamilton, 224 

Wright, James C., 36s 

Wright, Silas, 122-123, 131 

210 

298 

Yazoo land fraud, 66 

524 
Credits 

AC 

BA 

DT 

JB 

LC 

NA 

SI 

UP1 

USNWR 

WM 

KEY 

Architect of the Capitol 

Bettmann Archive. lnc. 

Department of the 

Treasury 

Photography by Joseph 

H. Bailey 

Library of Congress 

National Archives 

Smithsonian Institution 

UPVBettmann 

Newsphoto 

1‘. S. hews and Il’orld Report 

Committee on Way, and 

Means 

Front Matter 

Hard Cover Art: Ninon Grim, WM. Dust 

Jacket: Harpei i It’eekly, 1888; Private Collection, Robert J. Leonard. iii: Ninon 

Grim, WM. iv-v: Ed Segal. Capitol Photo. 

ix: Linda Creighton, USNWR. 

1641-1 789 .Antecedents: Legislative 

Finance Committees in Great Britain and 

America 

7: Palace of Westminster. London. 9: 

House of Lords Record Oftice, London. 

10-12: LC. 13: LC. 14: Artist Pine, National Portrait Gallery. 15: LC. 16: BA. 18: 

Artist Crisp. JB, AC. 19: LC. 21: ,Wassachvsetts Cenliurl. August 2, 1788, BA. 

1789- 180 I Origins: The House 

Committee ol Ways and Means 

25: Artist Doolittle, New York Public Library. 27: Ida Idelson, Philadelphia. 29: 

BA. 30: Bureau of the Public Debt, DT. 

31: Artist Sharples. Independence National Historical Park Collection. 34: Artist 

Stuart, Cibbs Gallery of Art. 38: Artist 

Wilson, JB, DT. 40: Drawing Latrobe, AC. 

4243: JB. NA. 44: JB; Private Collection, 

Timothy L. Hanford. 47: Artist Corne, 

U.S. Naval Academy Museum. 48-50: LC. 

1801-1829 The Jeffersonian Republican 

Committee 

57: LC. 61: JB, NA. 64: AC. 67: Artist de 

Thulestrup, Louisiana State Museum. 71: 

Artist Chappel, LC. 75: Artist Thorp, JB, 

DT. 77: BA. 79: Artist Morrison, AC. 81: 

BA. 82: LC. 84: LC. 87: JB, NA. 89: Artist 

Fisher, JB. DT. 

1829-1861 Appropriations, Banking, and 

the Tariff 

96: Artist Sully, National Gallery of Art. 

101: JB, NA. 107-124: LC. 127: National 

Numismatic Collection, S1. 128: Artist 

Sword, AC. 130-134: LC. 137: The Libem 

tor, April 23. 1831, BA. 138: LC. 

1861-1865 Financing the Civil War 

144: LC. 148: BA. 150: LC. 152-153: BA. 

155: LC. 156: National Numismatic Collection, SI. 159: LC. 161-162: JB, Internal 

Revenue Service. 164: JB. NA. 166: BA. 

168: JB, NA. 

1865-1890 The Gilded Age Committee 

177: BA. 179: LC. 183-184: JB, NA. 186 

187: LC. 189: Artist Gillam, BA. 192: 

Fra?ik Leslze k lllvstrat~d Newspaper No. 940, 

LC. 194: Artist Keppler, LC. 197 (left): 

AC; (right): LC. 199: Artist Nast, LC. 200 

National Numismatic Collection, SI. 202 

(top left and right): LC; (center): BA; 

(bottom left and right): LC. 204: Artist 

Keppler, LC. 207: Harper> Weekly, 1888; 

Private Collection, Robert J. Leonard. 

212: LC. 

1890-1933 Reform and Revenue 

216: Artist Jacobs, AC. 221: AC. 223: 

Warshaw Collection, Museum of American 

History, SI. 228: Artist Keppler, Puck. 

March 7, 1888; Private Collection, Timothy L. Hanford. 230: Artist Thorp, AC. 

232-233: LC. 234: Washington and Lee 

University. 236: Artist Pughe, BA. 239: 

AC. 240: National Philatelic Collection, SI. 

242: Artist Beaux, AC. 243: BA. 244: Purk. 

March 13, 1912, LC. 246: LC. 249: Internal Revenue Service. 250: Artist Thorp, 

AC. 251-252: LC. 254: National Park 

Service, Statue of Liberty National Monument. 255-257: LC. 258: AC. 259: AC. 

261-263: UPI. 264: Artist Gordon, AC. 

265: LC. 267: UPI. 

1933-1959 From the New Deal to the 

Cold War 

273: Artist Gordon, AC. 274-277: UP1 

WM. 285-287: UPI. 288: Social Security 

Administration, 291-292: UPI. 293: JB, 

M’M. 297: UPI. 298-299: Artist Berryman. 

Il’ashzngton Star, LC. 301: UPl. 302: NA. 

303-306: UPI. 307: Historical Picture 

Service, Chicago. 308: Artist Spencer, AC. 

278: JB, WM. 280-281: LIPI. 283-284: JB, 

311: Artist Werner, LC. 313: Artist Rosen, 

LC. 3 14: Artist Gordon, AC. 

1959-1975 The Mills Committee 

320: Artist Gordon, AC. 323: Dev O’Neill, 

WM. 324: Bob Daugherty, Wide World 

Photos. 327: UPI. 328: The Kennedy Library. 331: Time, January 11, 1963. 332- 

333: Artist Crockett, Wathington Slur. LC. 

334: UPl. 335: JB, WM. 336: USNWR, 

LC. 338: Artist Alexander, Philadelphia Bulletin. 339: UPI. 340: JB, WM. 342: Newsweek, August 14, 1967. 344 (left): Artist 

Pletcher, Siow City journal; (right): Artist 

Herblock, Washington Post. 346: Dun i, October 1971. 349: Biuiness Week, May 8. 

1971. 351: Artist Hesse, S!. Louis Globe 

Democrat. 353: Artist Crocketr, Ilhshington 

Star. 

1975-1989 The Post-Reform Committee 

359: Artist Rodgers, AC. 363: UPI. 364: 

Jimmy Carter Library. 367: Artist Bentley, 

AC. 368: UPI. 369: Keith Jewell. Washington, DC. 370: Artist Herblock. Il‘ashinglon 

Post. 371: Social Security Administration. 

372: Linda Creighton, USNWR. 373: WM. 

375: Congresszonal Quarterly, September 2 1, 

1985. 376: WM. 377: Artist Oliphant, Universal Press Syndicate. 378: JB; Private 

Collection, Dan Rostenkowski. 379: Newsweek, August 25, 1986. 380: Keith Jewell. 

381: JB. WM. 383: WM. 385: Linda 

Creighton, USNWR. 

Meeting Places of the Committee 

387-389: AC. 

STAFF FOR THIS BOOK 

Donald R. Kennon, Rebecca M. Rogers, 

Authors 

Charles M. Brain, Project Director 

Margaret Hostetler, Assisfant Director 

Paul Martin, Editor 

Cynthia B. Scudder, Desp Director 

Winthrop D. Scudder, Illusfrations Editor 

Richard M. Crum, Caption Wrhr 

Ralph Birch, Prodution Coordinator 

James M. Jaffe, Gage Price. 

Janice K. Martin, Proojreuder 

Joseph H. Bailey, Ninon Grim, 

Staff Assisfanls 

Illustrafions Staff 

525 
ABOUT THE AUTHORS 

DONALD R. KENNON is chief historian at the U.S. Capitol 

Historical Sc.ciety. He holds a doctorate in American History from the University of Maryland, and he has taught at the 

University of New Mexico. He has written and edited The 

Speakers of the House of Represenlalives: A Bibliography, 

1789-1984 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), and 

coauthored lt'mhington Pas1 and Present: A Guide 10 !he Nalion 's 

Capital (1983). 

REBECCA M. ROGERS is a research professional who specializes in congressional history. She holds a master's degree 

from The American University and has contributed to a 

number of projects commemorating the bicentennials of 

Congress and the United States Constitution. 

526