election, the same is forwarded to the clerk of the House. It is all subject to review under a motion by the House for which the certificate runs. That is right, is it not, Mr. Lozier?

Mr. LozIER. I think so; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now in case of a contest on account of fraudulent votes cast, or suppression of the ballot, or for any cause affecting the returns, it is always a subject of review. Precedents by the hundred are in existence.

Mr. GIFFORD. My experience has been recently, in 10 long days on an election case, where the laws of that State had been violated, and while the matter of the law of expenditures is not involved in that particular case, it was suggested that it might be brought out. I think while we do review the election, we review it as to its merits, as to the State law, and this was a congressional election.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to introduce questions here that are too involved, but I believe they are proper in the consideration of this measure.

Mr. CABLE. You are right.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask you this question: You are a lawyer of experience. If the National Legislature shall take cognizance of the State law, and if it is established that the party holding the certificates of election, or the contestant has violated the State law, the State law having fixed an amount less than the Federal statute, if the legislature shall take cognizance of that fact and make it the deciding issue, the State has then practically the power to nullify the Federal statute. Is that right, Mr. Gifford?

Mr. GIFFORD. I do not understand it that way. I tried to follow it. I do not think the State can nullify the Federal statute.

The CHAIRMAN. It would have that effect if my statement is

correct.

Mr. GIFFORD. I do not think the Federal statute means to imply that the State can not make a further limitation of decreasing the amount you spend. The State can not increase, but it can decrease. The State does not nullify. It simply says "We will make it a still less amount."

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I will not pursue this further than to make this hypothetical statement: If the State shall fix an amount less for the sake of illustration by $1,000 than is fixed by the Federal statute, and it shall be so ascertained, then your Federal statute is not valid. It carries no force and effect. You have a State law which has fixed the amount at less, and if you do that, if that idea carries out you are leaving the situation maybe, constitutionally-I do not contend that in the place where every State may fix the amount less. and your Federal statute does not run, except that it does not exceed the amount fixed by the State.

Mr. GIFFORD. That is exactly all right, Mr. Chairman, but I think the State should have that privilege.

The CHAIRMAN. If it has that privilege we can not take it away. That is a constitutional question.

It

Mr. CABLE. You raised a good legal point there. In the present law it says, "This Federal act shall not conflict with State law." reads, "This act shall not be construed to annul or vitiate the laws of any State not directly in conflict therewith." I will not read it all. In other words, if we say a man can spend $5,000, and the State of Ohio says $2,000, Congress says $2,000 shall apply.

The CHAIRMAN. That answers it.

Mr. CABLE. But if Congress fails to act and the State fails to act then there is no law, but the State of New York places no limit, and Congress says there shall be a limit; then the limit placed by Congress applies.

The CHAIRMAN. My question is thoroughly answered.

Mr. LOZIER. Just for further observation on that question: I think where the State imposes additional limitations or reduces the amount that may be expended or eliminate some items of expense that are exempted by the Federal statutes, that a violation of those State regulations which are not violations of the Federal statutes would give the State the right of action to prosecute for the violation of the State, but would not preclude Congress from admitting the person elected, provided under the Federal law he has not violated the laws of that State, unless that last clause of the existing law is construed to be a complete limitation on the Federal statute with reference to expenditures. I can conceive of the State law making a requirement, the violation of which would subject the candidate to prosecution by the State authorities, and yet not vitiate his election.

Mr. CLEARY. But you have to have the certificate from the Secretary of the State of New York or various States, to send to Washington.

Mr. LOZIER. Yes; but if the Secretary of State or the State official should arbitrarily refuse to furnish it, it would not preclude the power of Congress to recognize the election and the granting to the person of his office.

Mr. CLEARY. What evidence did he have? He would have to have Some evidence to come here.

Mr. CABLE. Yes; he would.

Mr. LOZIER. That establishes a prima facie case of a candidate to sit, but no administrative officer like the Secretary of State can deprive a Representative or a Senator of his right by the mere arbitrary refusal to issue a certificate of election.

Mr. GIFFORD. He would be seated at once.

Mr. CABLE. There is a question of policy, first. If we report this bill out, shall we make it subject to State laws or attempt to say it prevails over State laws?

Mr. CLEARY. You are the representative of a district within the State. That is the power behind you, and how can you come down here if they deny that you represent them?

Mr. CABLE. Congress may have exclusive jurisdiction, but it is such a ticklish place for a candidate to be in. We had better have this specifically stated, that the State laws will prevail, so far as limitations are concerned, if they are less than the Federal limitations.

Mr. GIFFORD. To bring this down to a simple matter, Mr. Cable's amendment to the general law says to the State, "You must not exceed this amount, but you can change this as you please, as long as you have a lesser amount; but no candidate's seat shall be in jeopardy, so far as we are concerned, if he does not exceed the amount specified here."

Mr. CLEARY. As far as we are concerned, but who gives him authority to come and represent those people if they do not?

Mr. GIFFORD. He has the authority until he comes here and you say he has violated the State law. On the face of the returns, he gets a certificate, then he has the benefit of the law, but I want to say plainly that we by this bill serve notice on the States of the maximum amount they can allow. Is not that correct?

Mr. CABLE. That is correct.

Mr. GIFFORD. I think Mr. Cable has the right idea, and this committee in the light of certain recent happenings ought to report a bill, and Mr. Cable ought to have the benefit of a subcommittee and the best information he can from the experts, the same as we hired last year in framing this, so as to conform with the general law. Mr. CABLE. I think this ought to be redrafted.

The CHAIRMAN. That information is available and can be had. and if the suggestion of Mr. Gifford meets with the approval of Mr. Cable, the Chair will be governed by the suggestion.

Mr. CABLE. I think it is a good one.

Mr. GIFFORD. We, as Members of Congress, are supposed to be able to write the exact language necessary. We have experts for that particular purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a good suggestion. Would you put that in the form of a motion, Mr. Gifford? Before making this statement, I think that Mr. Cable said, probably before you came into this meeting he felt some changes should be made, and I suppose it is in that spirit that he answers your suggestion.

Mr. CABLE. I want to get a bill that we can put through.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you suggest the number that should constitute the committee?

Mr. GIFFORD. I think the usual number of three.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the motion gentlemen. Are there any remarks on this subject, that there be a committee of three appointed to collaborate with Mr. Cable? Mr. Cable, you are a member of this committee.

Mr. CABLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you contemplate a committee of three in addition to Mr. Cable?

Mr. CABLE. Yes: that would be all right, but we might get into a deadlock.

The CHAIRMAN. I will tell you what we might do. Mr. Gifford might enlarge his motion to make a committee of five.

Mr. GIFFORD. I would not accept that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Well; a committee of three is all right, and the Chair will put the motion.

(The motion was unanimously carried.)

(Informal discussion, which the reporter was directed not to incorporate into the record.)

(Whereupon, at 10.45 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned.)

APPENDIX.

STATE REGULATIONS OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES BY CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS. Alabama (Laws 1915, No. 171): "The total amount expended by any candidate for public or party office voted for at an election by the qualified electors of the State, or any political subdivision thereof for any purpose tending in any way directly or indirectly to promote or aid in securing his nomination and election shall not exceed the amount specified herein. By a

*

candidate for United States Senator, the sum of ten thousand dollars * by a candidate for the office of Representative in Congress, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars (Sec. 5.)

* *

Arizona (Rev. Stat., 1913, Civil Code, secs. 3036, 3048-3059, amended laws 1921, c. 305, sec. 43. [See Laws, 1922, c. 35, sec. 59]: Publicity is required as to all expenditures made by candidates for office in election campaigns but no express limitation is made. For primary elections candidates for United States Senator are limited to $1,500, Representatives to $1,000.

Arkansas (Digest, 1921, secs. 3894-3907): "Any person who is a candidate for Congress or for United States Senator, or a candidate for the nomination to become a candidate for any such office at any general election, who shall during the entire time such person is a candidate for such office, or a candidate for the nomination to become a candidate at any general election, expend for campaign purposes a sum in excess of the income of the office for one year shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction be fined in any sum not less than five hundred dollars nor exceeding one thousand dollars: Provided further. That such person shall also forfeit the nomination for any office." (Sec. 3894.)

NOTE-Citation is given to the provisions covering campaign expenditures as a whole but special note is made only of the provisions specifying expenditures by candidates for Congress.

California (Henning's General Laws, 1920, act 1327): Expenditures "whether before, during, or after an election" are limited to 10 per cent of one year's salary.

Colorado (Comp. Laws, 1921, secs. 7559-7561, 7832): No limitation is placed on the amount that may be expended in securing an election but reports are required. The act authorizing contribution by the State to the expense of election campaign is repealed by the 1921 legislature. Expenditures in primary campaigns are limited to $5,000 by candidates for the Senate, and $2,500 by candidates for the House of Representatives in the Federal Congress.

Connecticut (Gen. Stat., 1918, secs. 669-684, as amended, laws, 1921, c. 305, sec. 43): "The payments, expenditures, promises, and liabilities which any candidate for nomination to any public office, except Senator of the United States, may make or incur, directly or indirectly, in aid of such nomination, exclusive of the personal expenditures specifically mentioned in this chapter shall not exceed in the whole ten dollars for each one thousand (or major portion thereof) registered voters who voted at the last preceding election for the candidate of the same political party and for the office for which such candidate seeks nomination. The payments, expenditures, promises, and liabilities which any candidate for election to any public office, except Senator of the United States, may make or incur, directly or indirectly, in aid of such election, exclusive of the personal expenditures specifically mentioned in this chapter, shall not exceed in the whole fifteen dollars for each one thousand (or major portion thereof) registered voters qualified to vote for the office in question at the next preceding election, except that such candidate may expend twenty-five dollars for such purposes. The payments, expenditures, promises. and liabilities which any candidate for Senator of the United States may make or incur, directly or indirectly, in aid of the nomination or election, or both, shall not exceed one-third of the salary of said office for one year." (Sec. 680.) Delaware (Laws, 1917, c. 112): There is no limitation put upon the amount of expenditures.

Florida (Comp. Laws. 1914, secs. 277-a-b, 3841-p-qq): The law applies only to primary elections, and candidates for United States Senator are limited to $4.000, for Representatives to $2,000.

Georgia (Park's Ann. Code, 1914, sec. 92): No limitation is put upon the amount of expenditures, but reports are required.

Idaho (Comp. Stat., 1919, secs. 556-557): There is no regulation of expenditures in election campaigns, but "no candidate for nomination at any primary election or convention shall give, pay, expend, contribute, or promise for personal expenses, or at all. to aid or promote his nomination more than 25 per cent of the yearly salary or compensation of the office if he be a candidate for United States Senator, Representative in Congress.

Indiana (Burn's Ann. Stat., 1914, sec. 7111-a-o; Supp.. 1921, sec. 7111h): "The payments, expenditures, promises, and liabilities, which any candidate for nomination or election, or both, may make or incur directly or indirectly shall not exceed in the whole twenty-five dollars for each thousand (or the major portion thereof) up to fifty thousand, ten dollars for each thou91710-24 -3

sand (or the major portion thereof) in excess of fifty thousand and up to one hundred thousand, and five dollars for each thousand (or the major portion thereof) in excess of one hundred thousand of the voters qualified to vote for the office in question at the next preceding election therefor, except that such candidate may expend twenty-five dollars for said purposes

*

Iowa (Code, 1913 Supp., sec. 1137-aL, as amended, Laws, 1921, c. 197): "It shall be unlawful for any candidate to expend in connection with any primary election campaign more than fifty (50) per centum of the annual salary applicable to the position for which he is a candidate and unlawful for him to expend in connection with his campaign for election to any office more than fifty (50) per centum of the annual salary applicable to the position for which he is a candidate." (Laws, 1921, c. 197.)

*

Kansas' (Gen. Stat., 1915, secs. 4337-4341, amended Laws 1921, c. 184): “It shall be unlawful for any candidate for nomination or for election to any * * State office to expend, or directly or indirectly cause to be expended, upon any primary, general, or special election, or to contract or incur obligations in connection with any such election, in excess of 10 per cent of the salary for the first year of the office to which such candidate is seeking nomination or election * * *." (Sec. 4339.)

Kentucky (Carroll's Stat., 1918 Supp., sec. 1565b-4-21): The act applies to State officers, but in the enumeration of specific expenditures allowed Members of Congress are not included.

Louisiana (Wolff's Stat., 1920, p. 681-693, as amended, Laws 1920, No. 44): A specific limitation of expenditures is made only for primary elections, although expenditures for general elections must be reported, etc., and the law is not applicable to unopposed candidates. Candidates for the United States Senate are limited to $6,000 and for the House to $2,000. Maine (Rev. Stat., 1916, p. 137-139, 179-182): amount of expenditures applies to primaries only. are limited to $1,500 and for the House to $500.

* * *

Specific limitation on the
Candidates for the Senate

Maryland (Bagby's Code, Supp. 1914, p. 556-564, amended Laws 1920, c. 697): "The payments, expenditures, promises, and liabilities which any candidate for nomination or for election may make or incur, directly or indirectly, whether in money or other thing of value shall not exceed in the whole ten dollars for each one thousand (or the major portion thereof) up to fifty thousand, and five dollars for each one thousand (or the major portion thereof) in excess of fifty thousand of the registered voters qualified to vote for the office in question at the next preceding election therefor *." (Sec. 167.)

*

Massachusetts (Laws, 1923, c. 110): "No person, in order to aid or promote his own nomination or election to public office, shall himself or through another person give, pay, expend, or contribute any money or other thing of value, or promise so to do, in excess of the following amounts: United States Senator, primary, $5,000; election, $10.000 Representatives

in Congress, primary, $3,000; election, $6,000

Michigan (Comp. Laws, 1915, secs. 3828-3848): "No sums of money shall be paid and no expense authorized or incurred by or on behalf of any candidate to be paid by him in order to secure or aid in securing his nomination to any public office or position in this State. in excess of twenty-five per cent of one year's compensation or salary of the office for which he is a candidate * *

Minnesota (Gen. Stat., 1913, secs. 567-609): The regulations apply to both primaries and election. In the enumeration of limitations on specific offices Members of Congress are not included. "Other State officers" are limited to $3,500.

* *

**

Missouri (Rev. Stat., 1909, secs. 6046-6049; Laws 1921, p. 379–380): “No candidate for Congress shall by himself or through any agent or agents, committee, or organization, or any person or persons whatsoever, in the aggregate pay out or expend, or promise or agree or offer to pay, contribute, or expend. any money or other valuable thing in order to secure or aid in securing his nomination or election in excess of a sum to be determined upon the following basis, namely: For five thousand voters or less, two hundred dollars; for each one hundred voters over five thousand and under twenty five thousand, four dollars; for each one hundred voters over twentyfive thousand and under fifty thousand dollars, two dollars; for each one hundred voters over fifty thousand dollars, one dollar-the number of voters

Acts applying to candidates for "State offices" have been included, though apparently they are not considered applicable to Members of Congress.