CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.- HOUSE February 3

It did not get through in the last session. But, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. JONAS] has pointed out, the

conferees went back into session to undertake to work out a bill. Finally this

agreement was reached. It provides for

temporary judgeships in Utah and Nevada. I do not admit that they will become permanent. No one knows about

that. But let me say this to the membership: Do you want to take the responsibility of jeopardizing this whole legislation after our representatives in the

conference did all they could do and

after the matter was passed on? Do you

want to jeopardize the enactment of this

legislation and the creation of these

judgeships in places where they are so

desperately needed, by recommitting this

bill? I do not think so. For that reason I hope the motion to recommit will

be voted down and the conference report

adopted.

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this conference report in its

present form and shall vote to recommit,

with instructions.

My opposition is based mainly on the

fact that there is no need for these additional judges in the States of Utah and

Nevada. However, I have a further objection. I believe that this action on the

part of this Republican-controlled Congress is purely political. This bill, or

one very similar to it, was reported out

and came up for a vote on the floor of

this House In the 82d Congress. Most of

the Members who are now advocating its

passage opposed it at that time for

frankly political reasons. They felt

that in the coming presidential election

there was a possibility that a Republican

President would be elected. In that

event, appointments to the Federal judiciary would be made by the new Republican President.

The need for additional judges was

just as great in 1952 as it is today; yet

the Republican Party was willing to sacrifice necessity for expediency.

One further reason for my opposition

Is the fact that in New York City, particularly in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New

York, the calendar of pending cases is

over 4 years behind. The bill in 1952

called for an additional 5 judges, whereas

this bill gives us only 2 additional judges.

This, in the face of the fact that Utah

and Nevada, which are up to date, receive

an additional judge, is rank unfairness;

and the only way in which this situation can be corrected is to recommit the

bill and have the committee of conference agree to changes in it.

The SPEAKER. All the time has expired.

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,

I move the previous question on the

conference report.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the conference report.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman oplosed to the bill?

Mr. LANE. I am, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report

the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. LANE moves to recommit conference

report No. 1133 on S. 15 concerning the appointment of additional circuit and district

judges to the committee on conference with

the following instructions to the managers on the part of the House: To insist on disagreement to section 2 (a) (I) of S. 15 on page 2, lines 20 and 21, by striking out the

words "One additional district judge in the

district of Nevada", and also lines 4 and 5, on page 3, by striking out the words "One additional district judge for the district of Utah."

Mr. JONAS of Illinois. I move the

previous question on the motion to recommit.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on

the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LANE] to recommit the

conference report.

The question was taken; and, on a division (demanded by Mr. LANE) there

were-ayes 43, noes 118.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I object to

the vote on the ground that a quorum is

not present and make the point of order

that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will count.

[After counting.] Two hundred and

twenty are present, a quorum.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the

yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were refused.

So the motion to recommit was rejected.

The SPEAKER. The question recurs

on the adoption of the conference report.

The conference report was agreed

to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the

table.

MR. METCALF DESIGNATED TO

READ WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL

ADDRESS

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the special order agreed to on February 2, 1954,

the Chair designates the gentleman from

Montana [Mr. METCALF] to read Washington's Farewell Address immediately

following the reading of the Journal on

February 22, 1954.

COINAGE OF 50-CENT PIECES TO

COMMEMORATE THE SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE-VETO MESSAGE FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES (H. DOC. NO. 319)

The SPEAKER laid before the House

the following veto message from the

President of the United States:

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith, without my

approval, H. R. 1917, "to authorize the

coinage of 50-cent pieces to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the LouisiAna Purchase."

The proposed legislation would authorize the coinage of not to exceed 21/2

million silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the 150th anniversary of

the Louisiana Purchase.

The principal objection to commemorative coins is that they detract from

the fundamental function of the coinage

as a medium of exchange. Multiplicity

of designs on United States coins would

tend to create confusion among the public, and to facilitate counterfeiting. The

Congress recognized the necessity for

limiting the designs of coins by section

3510 of the Revised Statutes which provides that "no change in the design or

die of any coin shall be made oftener

than once in 25 years from and including

the year of the first adoption of the design, model, die, or hub for the same

coin."

I am further advised by the Treasury

Department that in the past in many

instances the public interest in these

special coins has been so short-lived that

their sales for the purposes intended

have lagged with the result that large

quantities have remained unsold and

have been returned to the mints for

melting.

I fully recognize the importance to the

country of the event which this coin

would commemorate. I recognize, too,

that the authorization of 1 or 2 or 3 of

such issues of coins would not do major

harm. However, experience has demon-'

strated that the authorization of even a

single commemorative issue brings forth

a flood of other authorizations to com- memorate events or anniversaries of

local or national importance. In the

administration of President .Hoover,

these authorizations multiplied to the

point where he felt compelled to exercise

his veto. The same pattern recurred in

the administrations of Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. In view of this historical pattern, which by now has become

so clear, I think that it is both wiser and

fairer to make known my views on this

subject at the outset. I therefore regretfully withhold my approval of H. R.

1917.

As has been suggested in the past, it

seems to me wholly appropriate that anniversaries like this one, which the Congress deems it desirable to commemorate,

should be recognized by bills authorizing

the Treasury to provide suitable commemorative medals at cost.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 3, 1954.

The SPEAKER. The objections of the

President will be spread at large upon

the Journal.

Mr. WOLCIOTT. Mr. Speaker, I

move that the bill and message be referred to the Committee on Banking and

Currency and ordered to be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

AUTHORIZING HELP TO CONTROL

* THE LEVEL OF LAKE MICHIGAN

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Speaker, I move

that the House resolve itself into the

Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union for the consideration

of the bill (H. R. 3300) to authorize the

State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of

the Secretary of the Army, to help con- trol the lake level of Lake Michigan by

diverting water from Lake Michigan into

the Illinois Waterway.

The motion was agreed to.

1270