Gov. Joseph Ely signed his first bill as chief executive, his own emergency unemployment bill that providers for $330,700 for immediate expenditures by state agencies (Boston Globe, Jan. 16, 1931, pp. 1, 6). During the Jan. 15 signing ceremony, Ely was flanked by Senate President Gaspar G. Bacon, House Speaker Leverett Saltonstall, House Democratic Floor Leader Leo Birmingham, and Rep. Dexter A. Snow of Westfield. The bill was passed expeditiously by both houses of the state legislature Jan. 15 without division or debate, record time for action on legislation proposed by a new governor, the newspaper reported. The governor had proposed the legislation in his inaugural address the preceding week. He held a Jan. 13 breakfast meeting at the Copley-Plaza hotel to discuss the legislation. In attendance were Bacon, Saltonstall, Birmingham, and Sen. Democratic Floor Leader John Buckley of Charlestown (Boston Globe, Jan. 13, 1931, p. 15). The previous day, Ely met with James J. Phelan, chairman of the Massachusetts Emergency Committee on Unemployment, who presented the governor’s with a report on the committee’s activities The governor had proposed the legislation in his inaugural address the preceding week. The bill was introduced into the legislature accompanied by a message from the governor. It made it through the committees, passed by both branches of the legislature, and signed by Ely in the span of 26 hours, the newspaper related. The money for the works program will come from current revenue. The jobs will involve repairs and minor improvements that could be started immediately under suspension of the civil service rules. Additional public works planned to be undertaken as part of the governor’s annual appropriates bill considered by the legislature in the course of normal legislative business.
0 Comments
Rep. Birmingham’s engagement to Kathleen Keller was announced Dec. 13 with the publication of marriage banns at St. Columbkille’s Church in Brighton (Boston Globe, Dec. 14, 1931, p. 5).
The engagement was kept secret for some time, the newspaper related. The couple was married at a nuptial mass at St. Columbkille’s Church. Rev. Dr. Joseph V. Tracy officiated. The wedding reception was held at the Hotel Kenmore (Boston Globe, Jan. 13, 1932, p. 23). Keller was a graduate of Mt. St. Joseph’s Academy and Teachers’ College. She was employed as assistant office manager of the New England branch of a large automobile company. She was the daughter of Mrs. Elizabeth Keller of Dustin St. in Brighton. Rep. Birmingham filed a bill Jan. 11 that would limit the employment of minors under 18 in jobs that involve an element of danger or could have harmful effects on their health (Boston Globe, Jan. 12, 1933, p. 4). The bill would also prohibit employment of minors under 16 in connection with power-driven machinery, in tunnels, in pool rooms and bowling alleys, and in handling tobacco. Rep. Birmingham criticized the redistricting plans for Massachusetts representation in Congress as being wrong, commenting that the Republicans seemed fearful that they would be buried under a rising tide of Democracy, during a May 25 address to the Pioneers in Lawrence (Boston Globe, May 26, 1931, p. 16).
Birmingham said he opposed splitting up of any city into two districts, such as had been proposed for Lawrence. In addition, Birmingham said that the Old Age Pension bill should be put into effect in 1931. He said he favored a $1 per capita tax on men and women, although he would be willing to exempt women who were not employed. Birmingham estimated that it would cost $1.5 million from the state to carry out the provisions of the bill this year. The $1 per capita tax on men would raise $1.25 million, he added. Rep. Birmingham was reelected Democratic House floor leader on Jan. 7 by a vote of 68 to 26 in the Democratic caucus, defeating Rep. Paul Dever of Cambridge (Boston Globe, Jan. 7, 1931, p. 17).
After the votes were counted Dever moved to make the choice of Birmingham unanimous. Birmingham was nominated by Rep. Charles F. Young of Wakefield and seconded by Rep. John P. Lyons of Brockton. Rep. Dever was nominated by Rep. Edward Kelley of Worcester and seconded by Rep. John P. Connolly of Boston. The caucus was presided over by Rep. William P. Hickey of Boston, and Rep. Frank McFarland of Dorchester served as secretary. Rep. Leverett Salstonstall was reelected House Speaker unanimously. Saltonstall was renominated in the Republican caucus by Rep. Thomas Bateman of Winchester an seconded by Rep. Henry Eastabrook of Fitchburg. On April 4, Rep. Birmingham called a meeting of Democratic legislators from Boston to discuss the legislative program put forward by Boston Mayor Frederick Mansfield, but the lawmakers were unable to reach consensus (Boston Globe, April 5, 1934, pp. 1, 16). As a result each member was left free to decide for himself whether to support or oppose the mayor’s legislative program, which includes authorizing the mayor to consolidate city departments without the approval of the city council. The mayor’s program was contained in legislation before the Committee on Cities. The mayor’s program included putting 1,800 Public Works Department per diem employees on a five-day pay basis, which would result in a pay cut from $27 on to $22.50 per week. The change would cut total salaries by 21 percent. Under former Mayor Curley, the department workers were paid for six days for five and half days of work. In addition, department employees on a yearly salary would be required to take a month’s leave of absence without pay to balance the situation, the paper reported. After announcing the program, Mansfield traveled to New York to address a luncheon club on Wall Street. Acting mayor John Dowd, president of the city council, said he was opposed to Mayor Mansfield’s economy program. Gov. Ely met Jan. 28 with the Democratic steering committee of Senate and House legislators to discuss the governor’s financial policy, particularly a bond issue he proposed to pay for unemployment relief. The committee assured the governor of its support (Boston Globe, Jan. 29, 1931, p. 11). Rep. Birmingham said after the meeting with Ely: “I am sure the rank and file of the citizens of the State believe that the recommendation of the Governor for a bond issue is a meritorious one, and I do not believe that most of the members of the Legislature, regardless of their party, will attempt to obstruct legislation which is to be so beneficial to so many people. “The members of the steering committee, whose views I am now presenting, assured the Governor of their upmost support in bringing about the passage of the legislation. The time for dilly-dallying is past. The time for action designed to improve conditions in our State is at hand, and action should start. The Governor is absolutely right when he says: ‘I am not interested in Constitutional questions when people are crying for bread.’” The steering committee was formed the previous week to hold weekly conferences with Ely and discuss pending legislation (Boston Globe, Jan. 24, 1931, p. 5). The committee was composed of three state senators -- Senate Minority Leader John P. Buckley of Charlestown, Sen. Joseph Finnegan of Dorchester, and Sen. James E. Warren of Lawrence -- and 16 members of the state House -- House Minority Leader Rep. Leo M. Birmingham of Brighton and Reps. John Ford of Fall River, James E. Hagan of Somerville, William P. Hickey of Boston, William H. Hearn of East Boston, John A. Jones of Peabody, Edward J. Kelley of Worcester, John P. Lyons of Boston, Anthony A. McNulty of Boston, James P. Meehan of Lawrence, Daniel F. Moriarty of Lowell, Francis E. Rafter of Salem, Joseph Roach of North Adams, Roland D. Sawyer of Ware, Lewis R. Sullivan of Boston, and Michael Zack of Lynn. Birmingham said that the first meeting of the committee would be a closed session on Monday, Jan. 26. Public Utilities Commission Chairman Henry C. Attwill testified April 23 before the House Ways and Means Committee that a bill filed by Rep. Birmingham to give the commission authority over power holding companies was not necessary (Boston Globe, April 24, 1931, p. 35).
Attwill said that the best way for the commission to safeguard consumer interests was through control of power operating companies, not holding companies. He said Birmingham’s bill if based and enabled would likely result in his commission dissipating its energies “chasing the owners of the stock” rather than ensuring that the power rates were reasonable and the service good. During an April 24 hearing of the same committee on the Birmingham bill, Sheldon E. Wardwell, counsel for the Massachusetts Electric and Gas Association said that the bill was unconstitutional (Boston Globe, April 25, 1931, p. 4). He also asserted that gas and electricity rates would be much higher and service worse if it were not for the power holding companies. Wardwell argued that the commission already has authority to secure the facts needed to regulate the rates charged to consumers. “I can see no way in which the holding of stock of an operating company can affect the rates of the operating company if we have intelligent and fearless regulation,” Wardwell asserted. “If that statement is not correct, then we have got to come to some form of regulation of holding companies, but I have never heard any argument advanced or known of any reason why an efficient Department of Public Utilities, if given proper appropriation, cannot regulate rates and make them fair to the consumer. I believe our Massachusetts department has regulated the rates and make them fair to the consumer,” he added. Wardwell also argued that giving the commission the mandate to regulate holding companies would “take its attention from material facts,” an argument Attwill made the day before. Robert H. Holt, representing the state’s gas companies, argued with Wardwell that the Birmingham bill was unconstitutional and that the commission had enough authority to regulate rates through operating companies. Defending the bill, Wallace H. Walker, secretary of the Public Franchise League, said his organization believes that the bill would make possible the regulation of future mergers of holding companies, would ensure regulation of securities issued by holding companies, and allow regulation of charges for service. “We believe that it would be to the benefit of the consumers and the investors as well to authorize the regulation of holding companies activities,” Walker said. Rep. Birmingham was named alternate delegate to the Democratic slate for the 1932 Democratic National Convention (DNC) by State Committee Chairman Frank J. Donahue (Boston Globe, March 11, 1932, p. 1, 22).
The slate was composed of supporters of Al Smith. Delegates-at-large included U.S. Senator David Walsh, Massachusetts Gov. Joseph Ely, and Ex-Mayor John Fitzgerald. The delegates had given a pledge to vote for Smith, if they are elected. Fitzgerald withdrew as a delegate-at-large, and Sen. John Buckley and Rep. Birmingham were considered to replace Fitzgerald. Mayor Curley, a supporter of Franklin Roosevelt, said he would put together a pro-Roosevelt slate of delegates for voters. Voters were scheduled to go to the polls to April 12 to vote in the presidential primary, where they would have a chance to vote on the slate of delegates to the DNC. Two brokers argued against a bill introduced by Rep. Birmingham to restrict brokers from rehypothecating securities during a March 10 hearing of the Legislative Banks and Banking Committee (Boston Globe, March 10, 1931, p. 29).
The Birmingham bill provided that “no person, who as broker has bought or holds securities for another, shall rehypothecate or pledge any such security without in each instance stating in writing to his principal or customer the purpose, the name of the proposed pledgee, purchaser or borrower, together with a statement in detail of all profit, interest or commission of the broker and then obtaining the express written consent of his principal or customer to such rehypothectation,” according to the newspaper. Rehypothecation “is the practice by banks and brokers of using, for their own purposes, assets that have been posted as collateral by their clients. Clients who permit rehypothecation of their collateral may be compensated either through a lower cost of borrowing or a rebate on fees,” explained Investopedia.com. “In a typical example of rehypothecation, securities that have been posted with a prime brokerage as collateral by a hedge fund are used by the brokerage to back its own transactions and trades,” it added. Charles T. Cronan of Hornblower & Weeks and Ralph Burrell of Pain Webber & Co. testified before the committee in opposition to Birmingham's bill. Cronan argued that if the bill passed, brokerage houses would have "to render service of impossible details." The clearinghouse system would be upset, and the investment banking business would be driven from the state, he argued. Burrell said that it would be impossible to comply with the requirements of the bill. Birmingham was not present during the hearing to argue in favor of his bill. |
Archives
October 2019
Categories
All
|