Postal Riders and Raiders

by W. H. Gantz

We will now revert to the bold attempt made in presenting that rider amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill to breach the federal constitution, following which we will take up some of Mr. Hitchcock’s efforts to show how much or how little he knows about the business of publishing and distributing magazines and other periodical literature.

First let us inquire if Mr. Hitchcock and the coterie backing that Senate “rider” knew that, under the Constitution, all measures for raising federal revenue must originate in the Lower House of Congress? One scarcely dares conclude they were so densely ignorant as that. Then, was theirs a deliberate, calculated attempt to breach the constitutional prerogatives and rights of the Lower House? Did they figure upon putting through that vicious rider in the congested closing hours of Congress? I call them the crooked hours of Congress. Did those backers of that rider hope that Senators and Congressmen would overlook or fail to read that rider, hope that so many would be so fully occupied by the swan-song chorus being sung during those closing hours that they would not notice that “rider” jumping the constitutional hurdles?

Now, if either one of the last assigned reasons is valid, a word stronger than “ignorance” should apply to such tricky, treacherous action, whether it is practiced by Senators, Congressmen, cabinet chiefs or chiefs higher up. One greatly dislikes to apply a fitting term to such ulterior motives as lead high and respected public officials to breach the constitution by trickery about on a level with that of the sneak thief or with that of a “con” man who thinks he has done his full duty by the people when he has sold Reuben the painted brick. But how could Mr. Hitchcock and those Senators co-operating with him be ignorant of the plain letter of the law and supported by a long line of precedents in both the Senate and the House?

As to the Senate precedents for the House’s right to originate all measures for the raising of revenues, Mr. Henry H. Gilfry, Chief Clerk of the Senate, compiled in 1871 a work entitled “Decisions on Points of Order with Phraseology in the United States Senate.” Mr. Gilfry cites the attempt of the Senate to repeal the income tax. The House returned the bill to the Senate with a reminder that the Constitution “vests in the House of Representatives the sole power to originate such measures.” Mr. Gilfry cites many other precedents.

In 1905 the Senate tried to originate revenues by amendment to the postoffice appropriation bill. That amendment was very similar to the “rider” of Mr. Hitchcock. I will here reprint it:

“That hereafter the rate of postage on packages of books or merchandise mailed at the distributing postoffice of any rural free delivery to a patron on said route shall be three cents for each pound or any fraction thereof. This rate shall apply only to packages deposited at the local postoffice for delivery to patrons on routes emanating from that office, or collected by rural carriers for delivery to the office from which the route emanates, and not to mail transmitted from one office to another, and shall not apply to packages exceeding 5 pounds in weight.”

The House brought that measure to conference and flatly refused to recognize the power of the Senate in the premises. The Senate receded and the amendment was killed.

“Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives” is a recognized authority. In Chapter XLII, Vol. 2, under the caption, “Prerogatives of the House as to Revenue Legislation,” Mr. Hinds cites many instances in which the House had invariably insisted upon the exclusive exercise of its rights as defined in Section 7, Article 1, of the Constitution.

Mr. Hinds cites in all one hundred and twenty-five precedents, each of which raises the same point of order as was raised in debating Mr. Hitchcock’s late “rider” and on each of which the House maintained its right to originate all bills for raising revenues.

In view of the fact that some of Mr. Hitchcock’s supporters were men of experience, skilled parliamentarians, in view of the fact that some of them were trained lawyers, and in view of the further fact that the works both of Mr. Hinds and of Mr. Gilfry are on file in the reference libraries of the Senate and House and probably in most of the departments, how, I ask, in view of the above facts, can either Mr. Hitchcock or any of his supporters enter a valid plea of ignorance of the fact that their attempt to put over that rider was contravening the constitutional rights and prerogatives of the House?