Word: mcgills
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Passed and sent to conference the Pope-McGill Farm Bill...
...Nance Garner looked down from his rostrum, his keen eyes seeing everything taking place on the Senate floor. Deliberately blind to half-a-dozen Senators on their feet clamoring to be heard, he put an end to four weeks of haggling, took a final roll call on the Pope-McGill Farm Bill. It was passed 59-to-29. His act was a defiance of the sacred tradition of free speech in the Senate, and an eminently sensible thing to do because 1) the bill was going to be passed anyhow, 2) its form was immaterial-it and the far different...
Ohio's Vic Donahey has lately boasted that he will vote against the Pope-McGill Farm Bill pending in the Senate on the ground that he cannot understand it. This was practically the only complaint not offered by various rebellious members in the House last week, as Chairman Marvin Jones of the Agriculture Committee maneuvered his 86-page Farm Bill toward the first vote taken in either House on a part of the President's program for the special session...
Since the House bill is destined to be rewritten in Conference after the Senate passes the Pope-McGill Bill, Administration leaders completed the first month of the special session with the hardest part of their No. 1 job still ahead. Both House and Senate bills aim to give Secretary Wallace more power to deal with mounting farm production than he possesses under last year's makeshift Soil Conservation Act. Both authorize him to draw up annual marketing quotas in advance for wheat, corn, cotton, rice and tobacco, to obtain observance of them by means of benefit-paying voluntary contracts...
...Reader McGill is correct. TIME erred in following the reports of the Associated Press and United Press which gave a mistaken impression. The case concerned a gift voted by stockholders of one corporation to employes of an other corporation, part of whose assets the first corporation had acquired but whose stock had been sold to a third party. Since the employes in question did not work for the stockholders who voted them money, the Court held that the money could not be considered a payment for services...