SECOND BIENNIAL STATEMENT 



63 



William S. Bennet (N. Y.) 

 John F. Carew (N. Y.) 

 Peter J. Doolino (N. Y.) 

 John H. Small (N. C.) 

 Arthur W. Overmyer (Ohio) 

 William W. Griest (Pa.) 

 Henry W. Watson (Pa.) 

 Henry W. Temple (Pa.) 

 John V. Lesher (Pa.) 

 Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.) 

 Walter A. Watson (Va.) 

 John J. Esch (Wis.) 

 C. C. Dill (Wash.) 



Edward E. 



Everis A. Hayes (Cal.) 

 M. M. Neely (W. Va.) 

 John A. Elston (Cal.) 

 John E. Raker (Cal.) 

 J. W. Abercrombie (Ala.) 

 Warren W. Bailey (Pa.) 

 John L. Burnett (Ala.) 

 John M. Evans (Mont.) 

 J. Thomas Heflin (Ala.) 

 William B. Oliver (Ala.) 

 Henry B. Steagall (Ala.) 

 Murray Hulbert (N. Y.) 

 James W. Husted (N. Y.) 

 Browne (Wis.) 



THE CHAMBERLAIN BILL IN THE SENATE. 



It is our belief that there never was a time after the 

 Chamberlain bill was placed on the Senate calendar that it 

 could not have passed by a large majority provided a vote 

 could have been obtained. 



The following Senators voluntarily declared in writing 

 their approval of the bill, and their intention to support it ; 

 and many of them exerted themselves to the utmost to bring 

 it to a vote : 



John D. Works (Cal.) 

 Oscar W. Underwood (Ala.) 

 John H. Bankhead (Ala.) 

 George P. McLean (Conn.) 

 James H. Brady (Idaho) 

 Thomas Taggart (Ind.) 

 Moses E. Clapp (Minn.) 

 Knute Nelson (Minn.) 

 Henry L. Myers (Mont.) 

 George W. Norris (Nebr.) 

 Henry F. Hollis (N. H.) 



John W. Weeks (Mass.) 

 Thomas B. Catron (N. M.) 

 Francis G. Newlands (Nev.) 

 Warren G. Harding (Ohio) 

 Geo. E. Chamberlain (Ore.) 

 Harry Lane (Ore.) 

 Boies Penrose (Pa.) 

 Ben j. R. Tillman (S. C.) 

 Miles Poindexter (Wash.) 

 Paul O. Husting (Wis.) 

 John K. Shields (Tenn.) 



March 15, 1916 — The Chamberlain bill was favorably re- 

 ported to the Senate by the Committee on Forest Reserves 

 and the Protection of Game, and placed on the Senate cal- 

 endar as No. 237. Under the unfortunate rules of the Sen- 

 ate, which had prevailed for over 100 years, it was possible 

 for a single senator by a single ' 'objection" to relegate to 

 the background any one of a large number of bills other 

 than the privileged measures. It was through this unfor- 

 tunate condition, now happily ended by the adoption of the 



