按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
business except at the dictation and by the permission of a small coterie of gentlemen； who； while they possessed individually more wisdom than any of the rest of us； did not possess all the wisdom in the world。〃
The coterie alluded to by Mr。 Reed was that which controlled the committee on appropriations。 Under the system created by the rules of the House； bills pour in by tens of thousands。 A member of the House； of a statistical turn of mind； once submitted figures to the House showing that it would take over sixty…six years to go through the calendars of one session in regular order； allowing an average of one minute for each member to debate each bill。 To get anything done； the House must proceed by special order； and as it is essential to pass the appropriations to keep up the government； a precedence was allowed to business reported by that committee which in effect gave it a position of mastery。 O。 R。 Singleton of Mississippi； in the course of the same debate； declared that there was a 〃grievance which towers above all others as the Alps tower above the surrounding hills。 It is the power resting with said committee； and oftentimes employed by it； to arrest any legislation upon any subject which does not meet its approval。 A motion to go into committee of the whole to consider appropriation bills is always in order； and takes precedence of all other motions as to the order of business。〃 The practical effect of the rules was that； instead of remaining the servant of the House； the committee became its master。 Not only could the committee shut off from any consideration any measure to which it was opposed； but it could also dictate to the House the shape in which its own bills should be enacted。 While the form of full consideration and amendment is preserved； the terms of a bill are really decided by a conference committee appointed to adjust differences between the House and the Senate。 John H。 Reagan of Texas stated that 〃a conference committee； made up of three members of the appropriations committee； acting in conjunction with a similar conference committee on the part of the Senate； does substantially our legislation upon this subject of appropriations。〃 In theory； the House was free to accept or reject the conference committee's report。 Practically the choice lay between the bill as fixed by the conference committee or no bill at all during that session。 Mr。 Reagan stated the case exactly when he said that it meant 〃letting six men settle what the terms are to be； beyond our power of control； unless we consent to a called session of Congress。〃
To deal with this situation； the House had refused to adopt the rules of the preceding Congress； and after electing John G。 Carlisle as Speaker and authorizing the appointment of a committee on rules； it deferred the appointment of the usual legislative committees until after a new set of rules had been adopted。 The action of the Speaker in constituting the Rules Committee was scrupulously fair to the contending interests。 It consisted of himself； Samuel J。 Randall of Pennsylvania； and William R。 Morrison of Illinois from the Democratic side of the House； and of Thomas B。 Reed of Maine and Frank Hiscock of New York from the Republican side。 On the 14th of December； the committee made two reports： a majority report presented by Mr。 Morrison and a minority report presented by Mr。 Randall and signed by him alone。
These reports and the debates which followed are most disappointing。 What was needed was a penetrating discussion of the means by which the House could establish its authority and perform its constitutional functions。 But it is a remarkable circumstance that at no time was any reference made to the only way in which the House can regain freedom of actionnamely； by having the Administration submit its budget demands and its legislative proposals directly to the committee of the whole House。 The preparatory stages could then be completed before the opening of the legislative session。 Congress would thus save the months of time that are now consumed in committee incubation and would almost certainly be assured of opportunity of considering the public business。 Discrimination in legislative privilege among members of the House would then be abolished； for every member would belong to the committee on appropriations。 It is universally true in constitutional governments that power over appropriations involves power over legislation； and the only possibility of a square deal is to open that power to the entire membership of the assembly； which is the regular practice in Switzerland and in all English commonwealths。 The House could not have been ignorant of the existence of this alternative； for the whole subject had been luminously discussed in the Senate Report of February 4；1881。 It was； therein； clearly pointed out that such an arrangement would prevent paralysis or inaction in Congress。 With the Administration proposing its measures directly to Congress； discussion of them and decisions upon them could not be avoided。
But such a public forum could not be established without sweeping away many intrenchments of factional interest and private opportunity； and this was not at all the purpose of the committee on rules。 It took its character and direction from an old feud between Morrison and Randall。 Morrison； as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in 1876； had reported a tariff reform measure which was defeated by Randall's influence。 Then Randall； who had succeeded to the Speakership； transferred Morrison from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee to the chairmanship of the committee on public lands。 But Morrison was a man who would not submit to defeat。 He was a veteran of the Civil War； and had been severely wounded in leading his regiment at Fort Donelson。 After the war； he figured in Illinois politics and served as Speaker of the State Legislature。 He entered Congress in 1873 and devoted himself to the study of the tariff with such intelligence and thoroughness that his speeches are still an indispensable part of the history of tariff legislation。 His habitual manner was so mild and unassuming that it gave little indication of the force of his personality； which was full of energy and perseverance。
Randall was more imperious in his mien。 He was a party leader of established renown which he had gained in the struggles over force bills at the close of the reconstruction period。 His position on the tariff was that of a Pennsylvania protectionist； and upon the tariff reform issue in 1883； he was defeated for the Speakership。 At that time； John G。 Carlisle of Kentucky was raised to that post； while Morrison again became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee。 But Randall； now appointed chairman of the Appropriations Committee； had so great an influence that he was able to turn about forty Democratic votes against the tariff bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee； thus enabling the Republicans to kill the bill by striking out the enacting clause。
Only this practical aim； then； was in view in the reports presented by the committee on rules。 The principal feature of the majority report was a proposal to curtail the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee by transferring to other committees five of the eleven regular appropriation bills。 What； from the constitutional point of view； would appear to be the main questionthe recovery by the House of its freedom of actionwas hardly noticed in the report or in the debates which followed。 Heretofore； the rules had allotted certain periods to general business； now； the majority report somewhat enlarged these periods and stipulated that no committee should bring more than one proposal before the House until all other committees had had their turn。 This provision might have been somewhat more effective had it been accompanied by a revision of the list of committees such as was proposed by William M。 Springer。 He pointed out that there were a number of committees 〃that have no business to transact or business so trifling and unimportant as to make it unnecessary to have standing committees upon such subjects〃； he proposed to abolish twenty…one of these committees and to create four new ones to take their place； he showed that 〃if we allow these twenty useless committees to be again put on our list； to be called regularly in the morning hour。。。 forty…two days will be consumed in calling these committees〃； and； finally； he pointed out that the change would effect a saving since it would 〃do away with sixteen committee clerkships。〃
This saving was； in fact； fatal to the success of Springer's proposal； since it meant the extinction of so many sinecures bestowed through congressional favor。 In the end； Springer reduced his proposed change to the creation of one general committee on public expenditures to take the place of eight committees on departmental expenditures。 It was notorious that such committees did nothing and could do nothing； and their futility； save as dispensers of patronage； had been demonstrated in a startling manner by the effect of the Acts of July 12； 1870； and June 20； 1874； requiring all unused appropriations to be paid into the Treasury。 The amounts thus turned into the Treasury aggrega