On May 18, Rep. Birmingham was appointed to name a committee of 15 from the Democratic Party in both houses of the Massachusetts legislation to draft a new congressional redistricting bill after the previous redistricting bill was criticized by the Democrats and others, the Boston Herald reported (May 19, 1931, pp. 1, 8, via Geneaology Bank).
The move by a caucus of Democratic members of the legislature came in response to a congressional redistricting bill drafted by a special committee of the legislature, which was criticized as unfair and unsatisfactory, the newspaper reported. Birmingham called the special commission’s plan a “Gerrymander” and favored redistricting that would result in seven districts in Republican hands, seven in the Democrats hand, and one in the toss-up category. He said that under the current plan there is too great a population spread in some districts, particularly between districts 9 and 10 and between districts 11 and 12. The 12 district, with a population of 34,000, was too large, and that sever cities, including Cambridge, Salem, Revere, Lawrence, and Chelsea had been divided up too much. He favored a redistricting plan that would keep each city as a unit within the district. The special commission recommended that the eighth district and the 13 district be combined into a single district with two current members of Congress, Dallinger and Luce, two Republicans, fighting it out for the one seat. The Massachusetts delegation to Congress was made up of 12 Republicans and four Democrats. The redistricting plan would change that to nine Republicans, five Democrats, and one a toss-up. Among the prominent Democrats expected to be named to the committee were Senators Walsh and Coolidge, Frank Donahue, chairman of the Democratic state committee, and two state representatives on the national committee.
0 Comments
Rep. Birmingham criticized the legislative committee on municipal finance’s April 2 meeting at the Hotel Statler as a “needless junket,” the Boston Herald reported (April 4, 1931, p. 15, via Geneaology Bank). The committee met to consider Mayor Curley’s budget proposal for $31 million in development projects. At the meeting, the panel recommended slashing the proposed budget to $3.5 million, according to the newspaper. In response, Curley attacked the committee for its ruthless cuts in his development program and asked Senate Chairman Samuel H. Wragg to call a special meeting of the committee to see if they would hear the mayor’s objections to its recommendation. Wragg agreed to call the special meeting but expressed skepticism that the committee would change its recommendations. Birmingham, a member of the committee who did not attend the session at the Hotel Statler, charged the members with excessive spending in booking an “expensive hotel suite” and ordering a “bounteous repast.” He noted that the State House had plenty of space for the committee meeting without additional cost to the taxpayers. While Birmingham objected to the committee holding its meeting at the Hotel Statler on the taxpayer’s dime, he didn’t oppose the cuts to Curley’s projects. In fact, he thought the committee was too liberal in its recommendations toward Curley’s street construction appropriations request. Birmingham also attacked the committee for its “unfriendly gesture” in releasing a statement noting that he was the only member absent from the meeting. He had objected in private to the committee holding the meeting at the hotel and had requested that the committee move the meeting to the State House, the Boston Herald related. Rep. Birmingham faced stiff opposition from 52 Democrats and 9 Republicans over a bill providing for a 10 percent to 15 percent payroll reduction for state employees. The bill was sponsored by the Ways and Means Committee and backed by Gov. Ely, according to an op-ed by W.E. Mullins in the Boston Herald (March 26, 1933, p. 4, via Genealogy Bank).
A number of the Democratic opponents to the bill planned to call a caucus to remove Birmingham as Democratic floor leader, Mullins related. The opposition group, mostly Boston Democrats, also threatened a filibuster of the general appropriations bill in order to extend the House session into midsummer in retaliation for passage of the pay cut. They planned to ask for debate on every one of the more than 100 appropriations items. Only 30 members are required for a roll-call on each item, so this could delay the process for weeks, Mullins noted. In particularly, the opposition group threatened to hold up appropriations items beneficial for farmers because rural district had been supportive of the pay cut for state employees. One appropriations item they plan to oppose was reimbursement for farmers whose cattle had died from disease. Mullins noted that Birmingham had been “unwavering in his loyalty” to Gov. Ely. However, two other representatives, Rep. John P. Higgins and Rep. John V. Mahoney, who had been supportive of the governor’s agenda, joined the opposition to the pay-cut bill. The bill was scheduled to go to the Senate for a vote, where it was expected to pass. Rep. Birmingham led an attack of Gen. Daniel H. Needham, state commissioner of public safety, on the House floor March 1, reported the Boston Herald (March 2, 1934, p. 22, via Genealogy Bank). The attack came during a debate on an amendment that Birmingham offered that would have cut $10,000 from a $30,000 appropriation for the training of 20 additional state troopers. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 146 to 72. Rep. John S. Derham of Uxbridge said that Needham was responsible for the theft of state police firearms from the Mechanics building by the Millen-Faber gang, which committed robbery and murder. Others joining in the attack on Needham were Reps. Paul A. Dever of Cambridge, J. Walton Tuttle of Framingham, and John Aspell of Boston. Coming to Needham’s defense, Rep. Horace T. Cahill of Braintree, Republican floor leader, charged that attacks were motivated by House members not being able to pressure Needham to “fix” police cases. Rep. Harold E. Cole of Taunton also defended Needham: “All this attack on Gen. Needham goes back to the time shortly after his appointment when he refused to fix certain cases, and was informed by some members that they would ‘get’ him when the general appropriation for his department came before them.” |
Archives
October 2019
Categories
All
|