4 
 
 THE SHIP SUBSIDY BILL 
 
 : 
 
 ______ 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. HENRY ST. GEORGE TUCKER 
 
 OF VIRGINIA 
 
 IN THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1922 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 1923 
 
 26856—23421 
 

 
 JF 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 THE SHIP SUBSIDY BIEL. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been so amply and 
 ably discussed by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bank- 
 head], the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Davis], the gentle¬ 
 man from Texas [Mr. Hardy], and my colleague [Mr. Bland] 
 from Virginia that little is left for discussion which has not 
 
 . ' •, k 4 . 
 
 ... 
 
 already been covered by these conclusive arguments. I desire, 
 therefore, to direct the attention of the House for a moment to 
 the pending motion to strike out all of section 410, including 
 (a), (b), (c), and (d). ■> 
 
 Section 410 (a) is as follows: 
 
 Whenever the hoard determines that in order to promote the welfare 
 of the United States the operation of vessels in any particular service 
 or of any particular type and kind is desirable and necessary, and 
 that the rate of compensation authorized under section 404 is insuffi¬ 
 cient to induce the operation of vessels in such service or of such type 
 and kind, the board in making the contract for compensation may pro¬ 
 vide therein for the increase of the rate of compensation authorized 
 In respect to such vessel under said section to such an extent as it 
 deems necessary to procure the establishment and maintenance of such 
 service and the operation of vessels in such service or the operation 
 of vessels of such type and kind; but the rate of compensation as so 
 increased shall not exceed twice the rate authorized by said section. 
 As used in this subdivision and in section 411 the term “service’' 
 includes the route on which the vessel operates, the frequency of sail¬ 
 ings, and the speed which she maintains. 
 
 An examination of the above provision clearly shows an 
 attempt on the part of the framers of the bill to take from Con¬ 
 gress the power of legislation and place such power in the 
 Shipping Board. If this be so, of course it is beyond the power 
 of Congress to accomplish. 
 
 2G85G—23421 3 
 
 598573 
 
4 
 
 Article I. section 1. of the Constitution provides “all legisla¬ 
 tive powers herein granted shall he vested in a Congress of the 
 I hi i ted States which shall consist of a Senate and a House of 
 
 Representatives.” This is an exclusive grant of every legisla¬ 
 tive power to the Congress, and, therefore, the executive, the 
 iudiciarv, and all others arms of the Government are excluded 
 from its use. This principle is so well recognized as to need 
 no further discussion. Does the above paragraph, then, take 
 from Congress the power of legislation and give it to the Ship¬ 
 ping Board? 
 
 Under section -104 of the bill the rate of compensation is de¬ 
 termined by Congress for all vessels; This rate is carefully and 
 speeitieally determined by the committee in six pages of the bill 
 embracing sections 404, 405, and 406. Having determined with 
 precision what that compensation should be, the above para¬ 
 graph (a) says that if the Shipping Board—not the Congress 
 that has the power to legislate—but if the Shipping Board de¬ 
 termines it is “ desirable and necessary ” to have vessels of a 
 particular type in its service and the Shipping Board—not Con¬ 
 gress—determines that the compensation under section 404 is 
 insufficient to induce such vessels to enter such service, the Ship¬ 
 ping Board—not Congress—may provide for a change of the 
 rate in section 404 and increase it “ to such extent as it—not 
 Congress—deems necessary,” and so forth. 
 
 The power to exercise judgment, the power to exercise dis¬ 
 cretion, the power of determination—that is, of fixing a status 
 
 as permanent amidst a nndtifu.de of conflicting facts and of mak- 
 ing that status final—that i$ the power of legislation. But 
 see what a latitude by this paragraph is given to the Shipping 
 Board, “whenever the board determines that in order to pro- 
 
 l «* 
 
 mote the welfare of the United States.” What a vision! What 
 powers of determination and decision ! What unlimited scope 
 
 for the exercise of judgment and discretion! 
 
 The welfare of 
 
 the United States” is at stake. That welfare follows the com¬ 
 merce of the world and goes with every vessel that plows the 
 
 seas. It is closely woven into State, interstate, and intcr- 
 ”0856—25421 
 
 c 
 
 :a 
 
national commerce. It sits at the council table of the Nation 
 directing and controlling our international relations, and 
 reaches as truly the hovel of the poor as the mansion of the 
 rich. A power with no limit but its own vision, with no re¬ 
 straint but its own desires, and this unlimited power is at¬ 
 tempted to be taken from the Congress of the United States 
 to be exercised by the Shipping Board. The power to fix this 
 subsidy or bonus under all the circumstances of the case is a 
 legislative power. This has been done in sections 404, 405, and 
 400, and having been done this bill—section 410—seeks to abol¬ 
 ish sections 404, 405, and 400 and lodge this power in an 
 abortive legislative agency known as the Shipping Board. 
 
 Second, it gives to the Shipping Board the power to legislate 
 for “the welfare of the United States” when Congress itself 
 has no power to legislate for “ the welfare of the United 
 States.” Can Congress, itself incapable of doing a thing, vest 
 in another the power to do what it can not itself do? Some 
 ambitious statesmen have in times past invoked the power of 
 Congress to legislate for “ the general welfare of the United 
 States,” but it remains for this Congress to produce those bold 
 enough to suggest a further extension of that power in its 
 application to “the welfare of the United States” without the 
 semblance of constitutional sanction. The principle involved 
 here is simple. Congress may construct a piece of legislation 
 complete in itself, except, first, as to the time of its going into 
 operation, and that time may be a fixed point, as July 1, 1923, 
 or, second, upon the happening of a certain fact or event, which 
 fact or event is to be determined by a designated party or 
 agency, but such party or agency can not change provisions 
 already fixed and established in the law. The paragraph we 
 are considering (a) violates this principle. Sections 404, 405, 
 ami 400 fix and determine the amount of subsidy to be granted, 
 while this paragraph gives the Shipping Board the power to 
 change these and establish a different rate of subsidy. 
 
 Two cases may be quoted—and there are many others that 
 could be—which I take from the speech of Senator Thomas J. 
 gasr.a—2:1421 
 
G 
 
 Walsh, of Montana, in the Senate of the United States on May 
 S, 1922: 
 
 Tlic legislature can not delegate its power to make a law ; but it can 
 make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things 
 upon which the law makes, or intends to mfike, its own action depend. 
 (Locke’s Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 491, 498.) 
 
 The result of all the cases on this subject is that a law must be com¬ 
 plete, in all its terms and provisions, when it leaves the legislative 
 branch of the Government, and nothing must be left to the judgment 
 of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so 
 that, in form and substance, it is a law, in all its details, in praesenti, 
 but which may be left to take effect in future, if necessary, upon the 
 ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event. (Dowling v. Lanca¬ 
 shire Insurance Co., 92 Wis. G3.) 
 
 This principle is strongly affirmed in Field v. Clark (143 U. S., 
 p. (592 et seq.), wherein it is decided that upon the determina¬ 
 tion by the President of certain facts and the announcement of 
 such facts, that ipso facto duties on certain articles were 
 changed, not to such duties as might he named hy the President 
 hut to those specifically named in the hill. The President’s 
 function then was in no wise legislative, but declaratory. Con¬ 
 gress in the bill prescribed the duty which was to take effect 
 when the President declared a certain fact. 
 
 This section 410 (a) we, therefore, hold is unconstitutional 
 and void, and while the section is viciously bad in principle, in 
 that it gives to any board the right to double the subsidy to be 
 paid (that is bad enough), but when it is noticed that this bill 
 provides for this as a continuing appropriation for 10 years, 
 during which time this board will probably change its personnel 
 in its entirety after we pass this bill, we are actually granting 
 this great legislative power to a body of men that we know 
 nothing of. The present board may command the confidence 
 of some who believe that they would not use this power un¬ 
 justly; but in a year or two the board will begin to change, and 
 during the length of this bill we are safe in saying that not a 
 member of the present board will be on it at the end of 10 years, 
 and we are actually granting these great powers to unknown 
 men. 
 
 I have never known a bill in Congress that contained as many 
 vicious provisions as the pending bill, and if passed in the form 
 26856—23421 
 
7 
 
 in which it came from the committee by the Republican Party, 
 I think will relieve the Democrats of the necessity of a campaign 
 two years hence for the Presidency. It is a fitting complement 
 to the Fordney tariff bill. It is full of special legislation for 
 the great interests of the country at the expense of the great 
 mass of the people. If it passes this House in its present form, 
 it will never pass the Senate, in my judgment. 
 
 2G856—2342i 
 
 O 
 
 i : 
 
 3 
 
 
 t 
 
 

 ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 1 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * •