108. Departmental Preparation of Bills

In this extract from a debate in the Senate is discussed the problem of how far executive departments ought to go in pressing legislation in Congress:

cation from

MR. CARTER. Under date of December 4, 1905, the Attorney A communiGeneral communicates as follows—this is addressed to the Speaker the Attorney of the House of Representatives and was laid before the House in General. regular order of business as a communication. It was likewise sent to the Senate. I am informed that the practice is for all communications to be printed as addressed to the first House in which they happen to be presented, and each communication is presented in both Houses. This letter reads:

etc.

Herewith enclosed is the draft of a proposed bill to repeal section II,

It goes into a lengthy statement of the reasons why the bill should become a law.

MR. ALDRICH. Has the Senator any precedent prior to the present Administration of any communication of that character from any Department except the Department of the Interior?

general

MR. CARTER. I assume that the Department of the Interior The has not recently indulged in an innovation by communicating practice in haphazard to Congress in a manner entirely dissimilar from the such matters methods heretofore employed. I do know that the Department of Commerce and Labor, the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, the Interior Department, the War Department, and other Departments have been in the habit of communicating here precisely as the Secretary of the Interior communicated yesterday, and such communications have always been ordered printed and referred just as the communication received yesterday from the Secretary of the Interior was printed and referred.

MR. LODGE. Mr. President, I think I was correct in saying that The the habit has insensibly grown up and that it also is spreading practice is on the part of heads of Departments to make voluntary communi

irregular.

The

English system.

The proper method to be followed.

cations or to volunteer communications directly to the Senate or to the House. I do not think it can be controverted that strictly those communications can only come through the transmission by the President and I think it is always well to be a little strict in the observance of the law and not to allow such irregular customs, even if apparently harmless, to grow up. But certainly, Mr. President, the practice of submitting bills from the Departments without request to the two houses is something quite recent, unless my memory is all astray, and that is a very much more important matter. . . . I think, Mr. President, it is well to put a stop to this submission of drafts of bills to Congress by subordinate executive officers or by heads of Departments unless they are thereto requested by one of the two Houses. I do not think that volunteering bills from the Executive Department is the proper method.

Of course under the English system the bills are prepared by the executive government, which is a committee in fact of the two Houses, and they prepare their own measures and introduce them. But here the Executive Department is distinct and unless we ask for drafts of bills for our own convenience and for the promotion of good legislation, it seems to me that it is irregular and unwisely irregular to fall into the practice of having officers of the Executive Department present bills to Congress in this way.

They were referred to
They were referred to

Half a dozen came in the other day. committees without taking any readings. committees for consideration. Those bills had no Calendar number. They do not take the ordinary course of any other bills. I think it is irregular both under the rules and under the statute. I do not want to cut off the advantage that we have in getting officers of the Departments to draw proper bills for us. That is a duty which I hope they will always perform on the request of the Houses. But I do not think that they ought to submit bills unasked for, which shall go in this irregular way to committees for consideration. If the head of a Department has legislation in which he is interested and presents it to the chairman of the com

mittee or some other Senator and he sees fit to introduce it, that of
course is perfectly proper. The bill takes the usual course. But
this is irregular, just as is this method of submitting reports. I
do not care how long the custom has lasted, it is an irregularity
which has grown up.
If we are to have information volunteered
from the Departments, let it come through the President of the
United States and any other information we want from the De-
partments we can ask for.

109. Log-rolling in Congress

This passage from a speech by Mr. Lilley in the House of Representatives illustrates the way in which members attempt to secure the expenditure of government money in their respective

states:

On December 2, Mr. Taylor introduced a bill calling for a A short lis of appropria naval station at or near Fort Morgan, Ala. tions.

On the next day Mr. Cooper of Texas called for the establishment of a dry dock on or near Sabine Pass.

On the 9th of December, Mr. Lamar of Florida came after "not more than two million dollars for a dry dock at Pensacola."

On the same day, Mr. Sulloway of New Hampshire was after a million and a half for Portsmouth, although a battleship cannot get to this port in safety.

On the 12th of December, Mr. Smith of California came into the field with a proposition for a dry dock on the bay of San Diego, California, for which he called for a million.

On the 19th, Mr. Granger of Rhode Island put in his proposition for a dry dock and repairing station "at a suitable strategic point on the Atlantic."

On January 6th, Mr. Gregg presented the demands of Texas for a dry dock at or near Galveston, Tex.

And then on January 20, came the proposition to buy the defunct Jamestown Exposition, fathered by Mr. Maynard of Virginia, which if adopted would add $2,500,000 to the grand total of waste on navy yards.

The power

member in the Senate.

Each one I imagine, like Senator Tillman wants a "slice for his constituents." A member of a recent congress complained to me that although he had secured six millions out of the Treasury for his district, an ungrateful constituency were supporting six competitors against him for renomination. I believe, and I am certain the American people will believe that he should have given more attention to the country at large rather than have kept an eye single to his particular district.

IIO. The Senate at Work*

The freedom of debate in the Senate as contrasted with the party discipline imposed in the House is thus described by Mr. H. L. West in a recent article in the Forum.

In the Senate the individual is supreme. Any Senator may of the single address the presiding officer and secure recognition at any time when the floor is not occupied by a colleague. He can offer a resolution upon any subject, and, through admirable rules, can place the Senate upon record as to its disposition. If the majority of the Senate desires to send the resolution to some committee crypt, where it shall remain buried until the campaign, for instance, is safely over, the reference is secured only after a yeaand-nay vote. If the resolution goes upon the calendar, any Senator can at any time move that the Senate proceed to its consideration a question which must be determined without debate. This again places the Senate upon record, and is a proceeding almost unknown in the House. Almost every day the record is made up in the Senate upon some test question, because the right of the individual is not abridged or restricted.

Unlimited debate.

As long as any Senator desires to speak upon any bill under consideration, just so long must a hearing be accorded and a vote postponed. This is what is popularly known as unlimited debate. It is the one thing which makes the Senate absolutely unique in legislative bodies. Only recently the River and Harbor Appropriation Bill failed to reach a final vote, because a Senator occupied

the floor during the last thirteen hours of the session, ostensibly criticising the measure, but, in reality, talking against time, with the knowledge that when the hands of the clock reached the hour of noon, Congress would expire by limitation, and the bill would die. In its own way, the Senate accomplishes more work — that is it enacts more bills — than the House of Representatives. No Senator objects for the mere sake of objecting; because he is aware that if he is captious, he will himself encounter innumerable stumbling-blocks when he seeks the passage of measures in which he is interested. He is only one of ninety Senators, any one of whom has every privilege which he enjoys.

ence of

It is the fact that each Senator is a power unto himself that Independgives the Senate its peculiar place in our system of government. Senators. When a vote upon a treaty or an important measure is to be canvassed, it is necessary to know the individual view of each Senator, a task frequently surrounded with some difficulty. There is more independence of thought and action in the Senate than in the House. Instances where two Senators of the same political party from the same State vote upon opposite sides of the same question are by no means rare, and, of late years, have become quite common. Party leaders, therefore, take occasion, during the days occupied in a prolonged debate, to investigate the condition of their own ranks, and strengthen, by such pressure as may be most effective, any weakness they may discover.

of talent.

The right of any Senator to speak at any time, upon any subject, The and at any length, develops orators and debaters. No man who recognition possesses a talent in this direction need lack of opportunity to prove his capacity. If he is really a great orator, if he actually demonstrates his logical and thoughtful mind, he forges to the front, and must be reckoned with by those who assume leadership. If, on the other hand, he is dull and slow-witted, lacking both strength of thought and forcefulness of expression, he will sink by his own weight.