Point of Order

Mr. Gillette: The Chair refused to entertain the point of order raised by the Senator from Maryland?

The Vice President: The Chair overruled the point of order made by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Tydings].

Mr. Gillette: The Chair overruled the point of order made by the Senator from Maryland?

The Vice President: Yes, the Chair overruled the point of order made by the Senator from Maryland, and then the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKellar] appealed from the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Hill: Mr. President, I do not want to delay the vote, but. . . .

Thus the Senate clambered through hours of parliamentary double-talk last week. The problem before it was actually a simple matter of political greed. The Senate’s premier spoilsman, choleric old (75) Kenneth McKellar, was making another assault on TVA, which enrages him because its thousands of jobs are not open to patronage appointments. He had hung 16 legislative amendments on an appropriation bill (which is almost never vetoed), mainly in an effort to throw jobs open to politics. After a dingdong battle, he gave up all but one amendment, but that one was plenty. The Senate, flailing away, was trying to decide anew an ancient question: Can such amendments be germane to an appropriation bill?

The Senate was divided on a point of order. The debate swayed to & fro. But suddenly Vice President Henry Wallace’s parliamentary foot slipped. In trying to rule on the delicate tangle, Mr. Wallace described Senator McKellar’s latest move as “a legislative trick.”

“Damnable!” cried the outraged Tennessean. Mr. Wallace hastily withdrew the remark. But the damage was done. An offended Senate crushed Mr. Wallace’s ruling (46 to 17), then pressed on to pass the bill along McKellar lines. TVA’s hopes rested on the House.