Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-06-16


and the frst regular session OF q new
Congress is unfair to the new members
of the House, because their first term
is half over before they get an oppor-
tunity to demonstrate their ability as
legislators. Just as the new member
is getting started, the time for renom-
nations has arrived. With the new
is argued, members would have ample
time to make record upon which to
go before their people for denomination.
What Opponents Argue.
Opponents of the proposed change
hold that there is an advantage In the
present system, which has prevailed for
more than century, of allowing
newly-elected President and newly
chosen Members of Congress period
of time following election in which to
prepare themselves for their new duties,
in which to study carefully and de-
hberately the questions they will soon
be called upon to solve. They take the
view that, in the case of the Chief
Executive, the existing interval from
November to March is none too long a
time, after the strenuous requirements
of a campaign, in which to enable the
man elected TO form his cabinet and
otherwise prepare for the important
position he is about to assume. With
regard to the long interval between
election and the first regular session
of a new Congress- those against the
change argue that if the public bust
ness requires an earlier meeting the
President can call special session four
months after the election instead of
waiting IS months.
The chief purpose of the change,
however, Is to avoid having the old
Congress, including q varying number
of defeated members, meeting and
transacting business during that four
months which now elapSe between cleo
ton and the end of their terms.
While the question was before the
Senate Senator Norris summarized the
reasons why the change should be
made, and Senator Bingham. Republic
an of Connecticut, presented the argu-
ments In opposition.
Senator Burton's View.
Senator Burton. Republican, of Ohio,
supporter of the resolution, reminded
his colleagues that the present arrange
ment for the meeting of Congress and
the Inauguration of a President is the
result of conditions prevailing at the
beginning of the Government, such as
the absence of rapid transportation, the
slowness with which news travelled and
the custom of that time of giving to
those elected to public positions ample
time to adjust their private affairs.
Those conditions, it was pointed out,
were entirely different from those which
now prevail.
1t was brought out during the dis
ctlsSi0n in the Senate that the bring
ing of the new Congress into operation
at an earlier date following It's election
would be IN line with the practice of
many other countries
In England the Parliament is con-
vened within few weeks after its cleo
ton. Senator Burton pointed out that
the Parliament recently elected Is ex-
pected to meet before the end of this
month. In France the Chamber of
Deputies is convened within 10 days
following an election.
1t has been provided in the German
constitution adopted since the World
War that the Reichstag shall meet not
later than 30 days after election.
The date of assembly in Hungary is
six weeks after election and in Australia
30 days. In Brazil the time of assembly
ranges from two to three months after
election, and in Argentina two months
elapse -
Those who regard the Norris amend
ment as an unnecessary change in the
Constitution say there is nothing to in
dictate other countries have passed bet
ter laws than the United States by rea-
son of an earlier converting of a new
government Supporters of the change
hold, on the other hand, that it is IN
accord with advanced thought on the
subject.
Necessity Of Amendment.
Another query which arises Is: why
must the Constitution be amended to
bring about an earlier meeting of Q
49, A. 1A -
some that Congress could by law pro-
vide an earlier date for its assembly.
The supporters of the amendment reply
that while this is true, Congress could
not fix q date earlier than March
without shortening the terms of the
members in Office at the time the
change became effective. and that the
length Of service of members cannot be
changed without amending the Consti-
tuition. If Congress should by law fix
o meeting date earlier in the year than
March, 1t is contended, it would be the
old Congress which would have to con-
vene.
Another reason advanced in support Of
the change is that If the choice OF
President should be thrown into the
House for decision following any election
under the present system, 1t would be
the old Congress which would choose q
Chief Executive for four years. 1t is
argued that in such a case many men
who may have been defeated themselves
In November would take part in select
ing the new President.
FiHbusterS Made Possible.
The frequency with which hlibusters
occur near the close of short sessions,
under the present arrangement, due TO
the fact that the session must end at
noon on March 4. also has been one OF
the points of debate.
II the Norris amendment should be-
come q part of the Constitution, the
terms of Senators and Representatives
would begin on January and the terms
Of President and Vice President ON
January IS. The amendment also
would Ak noon on January as the
time for the annual meeting OF Con-
gress. This would bring the newly
elected Congress into actual service two
months after its election.
When the proposal came to . vote In
the Senate it was approved. "a to 9,
more than the required two-thirds.
House In the last Congress it received
400 favorable votes, with 1873 voting
against it. While this was q majority,
it fell short of the two-thirdS require
ment for a constitutional amendment.
There have been number of changes
in the House since the question was
last considered In that body. 1t was
stated during the debate in the Senate
that of the zoe House members who
favored it on the previous occasion SO
are not members now, and OF the 1873
who opposed it "a are not in Congress
now.