This round table was developed with a view to

examining the legislative process as it functions in

practice rather than as it is charted in constitutional
and political science treatises. For illustrative pur-
poses, the McNary-Haugen bill was chosen. That
measure, by reason of its political and economic
importance, its popular interest, and the fact that its
passage has been bitterly contested both within and
with- out the Congress, was well adapted for
exemplifying those phases of the legislative process
that are of peculiar interest to the student of political
science. Furthermore, speakers before the round table
were choaen for their knowledge of the facts
concerning that piece of legis- lation.
At the first meeting, Dr. Charles J. Brand, executive
secretary of the National Fertilizer Association,
presented the origin of the Mc- Nary-Haugen idea, the
early consideration of it by the Department of
Agriculture, and its first introduction to the Congress.
Dr. Brand’s experience as former head of the bureau
of markets of the Depart- ment of Agriculture, and
later as economic adviser to the Secretary of
Agriculture, led him to the conclusion that the great
measures aBecting agricultural economics, such as the
Meat Inspection Act, the Grain Futures Act, the
Grain Standards Act, the Cotton Futures Act, and the
Packers and Stockyardg Act, resulted from the
consider- ation given by various groups of agricultural
and marketing interests to their own economic
di&cu1ties.
In the case of the McNary-Haugen bill, Dr.
Brand pointed out
that its principles were developed from the
experience of Mr. George
N. Peek as vice-president in charge of salea of Deere
and Company, and as president of the Moline Plow
Company. Loss of relative purchasing power by the
farmer during the war period resulted in his
inability to purchase farm implements. Enhanced
purchasing power was necessary before the sales of
agricultural implements concerns could be increased.
Faced with this problem, Mr. Peek turned his attention
to increasing the purchasing power of the farmer
through marketing devices that would relieve the
domestic market of the depreséon in pricea caused
by unavoidable surplus production

of agricultural commodities. The origin of the

McNary-Haugen bill, therefore, illustrated Dr. Brand’s
conclusion that ideas for legislation are developed
outside the halls of Congress and among those who
are stimulated to economic invention by economic
pressure.
Dr. Brand described how the McNary-Eaugen idea
was presented to himself and the former secretary of
agriculture, Mr. Wallace, by Mr. Peek and those
associated with him. The consultations with business
interests, the economic analyses made by
departmental and other experts, the consideration
given by the President’s first agricultural conference,
and the many preliminary drafts of the theory were set
forth. Finally were explained the presentation of the
matter to Senator McNary and the political
considerations which resulted in his being asked to
sponsor the measure.
Mr. George N. Peek, chairman of the Executive
Committee of Twenty-two of the North Central State8
Agricultural Conference, and president of the
American Council of Agriculture, then took up the
story. He explained the methods by which the farm
organizations of the country, their leaders and their
members, were educated in the McNary-Haugen
idea. Mr. Peek’s position was that in the case of
great economic measures, preliminary education of
that portion of the population that may be expected to
be benefitted is a necessary precedent to support for
congressional action. Mr. Peek showed that. only a
small expenditure of funds was made, and that these
were not used for the hiring of speakers or promotion
work or the other forms of activity which are usually
associated in the public mind with a legislative lobby.
He further set forth how the agricultural coopera- tive
associations of the country were interested in the
McNary- Haugen idea and described the steps by
which their interest grew until they finally gave their
extensive support to the measure, after it had been
modified to permit the coiiperatives to enter the
marketing channels in competition with existing
marketing agencies.
On the second day, Congressman L. J. Dickinson,
of Iowa, leader of the farm bloc in the House of
Representatives, presented for con- sideration the
relation of the member of Congress to legislation. Mr.
Dickinson insisted that the congressman is
responsive to the interests of his constituents, in so
far as he is able to ascertain them, and that the
educational efforts of the farm organisations
throughout the country directly resulted in
corresponding support of the McNary- Haugen bill by
the members of Congress representing agricultural
districts. He described the parliamentary e8orts
whereby, despite.

opposition of the leaders both of the administration

and the anti- administration forces, the bill was
brought to a vote in both houses of Congres.«. He
described how in the House of Representatives the
Iowa delegation divided consideration of the
economic, parliamentary, and constitutional aspects of
the bill among their members in order that the
supporters of the measure would be able more
effectivoly to handle opposition on the 8oor of the
House. Mr. Dickinson further described the “mutual
understandings” with various groups in the
£fouse, other than the farm bloc, resulting in the exchange of support. These understandings, as he explained
them, were not formal agree- ments or binding obligations, but merely a realization by various interests that
they must stand together if their respective measures were to receive majority support within the Congress.
Mr. Peek supplemented this discussion with an explanation of how the agree- ment was reached in the Senate
whereby the Pepper-McFadden branch banking bill and the McNary-Haugen bill were both given the
opportunity of reaching a vote in the Senate without the sup- porters of either measure being obligated to vote
for the other's pro- posal upon passage.
Mr. E. C. Alvord, special assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury, and former assistant counsel in the office
of the Legislative Counsel, described the work of that office in connection with the technical features of
legislation. The reference of the McNary-Haugen bill to the o8ice by Senator McNary and Representative
Haugen, the numer- ous redrafts, in pursuance of the introducers' and the committees’ instructions, made in
order to meet objections as they developed, the analysis of the problems involved in the administrative
machinery necessary to carry out the idea, the presentation of those policies for committee selection, the
development of the constitutional arguments in support of the bill, the actual framing of the language of the
legisla- tion, the work before the committees in executive session, and upon the Boor of the House—these
were matters which Mr. Alvord set forth for the auditors.
From this outline it will be seen that the legislative process was il- lustrated by tracing the progress of one
legislative idea from its birth, through its early consideration with the executive branch of the government
and its 8upport by economic groups, and finally through the legislative machinery in its various
parliamentary phases, constant emphasis being placed
upon the member of Congress as the medium by
which the interested economic groups participate in

the legislative process. Concrete statements, many of

them concern- ing matters unpublished and
confidential, made it possible for auditors to construct
their own theories from facts presented rather than to
be forced to listen merely to the theories of others.
Questions and answers consumed perhaps more time
than did the informal addresses.
On the third day Messrs. Middleton Beaman,
legislative counsel of the House of Representatives,
and Frederic P. Lee, legislative coun- sel of the
Senate, illustrated in other fields of legislation the
applica- tion of many of the deductions that the
auditors had drawn from the discussion of the
McNary-Haugen bill. The pre-congressional activity
with respect to revenue legislation was set forth, with
illustrations of the work, throughout the months
preceding the pres- ent Congress, of the Treasury
Department, the staff of the joint committee on
internal revenue taxation, the Advisory Tax
Council, the office of the Legislative Counsel, and
economic, tax, and legal organizations of the
country. Discussion waa also had on the function of
the lawyer, economist, and political scientist in
arguing their clients’ cases before committees of
Congress and the materials used and the methods of
presentation. The conference committee and its
place in the legislative machinery was developed.
The differences in the consideration of legislative
measures in House and Senate were pointed out, and
attempts were made to explain the factors which
result in the Senate frequently being unable to give
such intensive consideration to the details of
legislation as is the House.
The round table was frankly experimental. The very
informality of the discussion, the confidential nature
of many of its aspects, and the attempt to minimize
doctrines and to accentuate facts make description of
it difficult. The auditors themselves served, in great
measure, as directors of the discussion. While such
treatment may not be as spectacular as the usual
addresses, it was undertaken on the theory that the
student of political science needs to be furnished with
the facts with which he can formulate hia own
deductions, rather than to be infected with the pet
enthusiasms of others.

Adequacy of those which exist. He called attention

particularly to the lack of any comparative study of
the organization and methods employed by the foreign
offices of the states of the world in the con- duct of
their very important business.
Mr. Wilbur J. Carr, assistant secretary of state, read a
paper on “The Work of the State Department and the
Foreign Service,” which waa a clear exposition of the
functions involved and a minute de- scription of the
conduct of negotiations in treaty-making. He com-
mented on the inadequacy of the facilities for the
efficient performance of the duties imposed on the
department and the foreign service.
Rear-Admiral W. L. Rodgers (retired) followed with a
paper on “The Rñle of the Navy in the Foreign
Relations of the United States.” The thesiB Of this
interesting essay was that law and judicial pro- cedure
have generally been futile in the settlement of
international questions, that diplomacy must be relied
on for the reduction of di8erences between nation8,
and that the presence of force aids in reaching a
decision. Law was declared to be static; diplomacy,
supported by force, progressive.
In the discussion which followed this presentation of
what the chairman called “an array of controversial
material,”.