The Speaker a sort of prime minister. The majority can change the rules. which party he belongs. But originally the English speaker was a political officer. His name signifies it. He spoke for the Commons with the King, and to a considerable degree was able to direct the deliberations of the House and to select the subjects upon which it should deliberate. In process of time there developed the English ministry, the responsible element in the control of the legislature in the British system. The ministry determines all the initiative in legislation, marks out the program for the Commons, determines what propositions of legislation shall come before that body; and the opposition - I may interpolate at this point has always the right to propose and discuss amendments. That function is ever the great factor in that general system of government to which the English Commons and this body belong, a system that the great commentator Bagehot has called a government by discussion; and if at any time this House shall ever have its ancient dignity and power restored and shall again appeal to the imagination and respect of the people of America, it will be when it shall have vindicated for itself the right to discuss all public measures proposed here. (Loud applause.) But in America we have never evolved anything that answers to the British Cabinet or ministerial system. There must, however, in every majority temporarily controlling the deliberation of this House, be somewhere an initiative, the power of determining the policy according to which the majority shall choose to proceed, and how it shall exercise that power. It is interesting to note how this function has become an asset of our Speakership, an evolution in that office having occurred directly opposite from that which marked the English speakership. Speaker Muhlenberg, the first Speaker of the House of Representatives, nearly one hundred and twenty years ago, was a mere presiding officer, but in the course of time, the officer who commenced as a mere moderator has developed into the most powerful political functionary in our government. There are some things that those who propose to reform the rules of the House can entertain little difference about. One of them was suggested very ably by the gentleman from Tennessee in answer to a question. We can change the rules of the House. We can if we will. We will not if we submit ourselves to the dictation of a few men on grounds of alleged party interest and refuse to stand in favor of the inherent legislative rights of the House. A majority party can, if it will, make a few simple changes in rules that will go a great way to restore the ancient capacities and prestige of the House. Speaker's power of recognition. For instance, now, if a man on the floor of this House desires to The challenge the attention of the Chair, he must arise in his place and address the Speaker; and, as I think the language of the rule is although I have not seen it lately-"upon being recognized, he shall proceed in order." If he is not recognized he cannot proceed and we witness this anomalous and insulting thing - although the Speaker is not in a personal sense to blame for it, let me say, it is inherent in the rules that a man representing a great American constituency with something to speak about and to think about and to propose to this great body on his individual and political responsibility arises in his place here and the Speaker says to him, "For what purpose does the gentleman arise?" And if the purpose does not suit the speaker, the member has not to any effectual purpose, arisen at all, but has to take his seat. Now, Sir, when two or more men are contemporaneously challenging the attention of the Chair, it is a mere necessity that he shall choose which one to recognize. No rule can ever obviate that; but it has happened time and again—it happened in my own case in the Fifty-fourth Congress that but one member is asking recognition from the Chair and that he cannot get the floor. Now, I undertake to say that any Representative of a great constituency of the American people upon this floor has the right, or ought to have the right, to ask the attention of the Chair and of the House to anything he wishes to bring to the attention of this Assembly when nobody else is claiming the floor at the same time. The Rules Committee dominates by "special orders." 105. The Overthrow of the Speaker and Rules Committee* By gradual changes in the rules and in party practices the direction of the business in the House of Representatives became vested in the hands of the Speaker and the Rules Committee of five members. Three of the members of this Committee were of the majority party in the House and the Speaker was one of them. This system was sharply criticized on the floor and in the press for a long time, and at length, in March, 1910, the House, by a change in the rules, removed the Speaker from the Rules Committee, increased that Committee to ten, and made it elective by the House instead of appointive by the Speaker. This was the first step in the revolution in procedure which made all committees elective, reduced the Rules Committee to a subordinate position, and deprived the Speaker of the real leadership of the House. The extracts given here are from the debates in Congress on March 17-18 over the change in the composition and election of the Rules Committee, which marked the overthrow of Mr. Cannon. MR. POINDEXTER. Upon every occasion when an emergency arises, when an important crisis comes up in the legislation of this House, what is the result so far as parliamentary procedure is concerned? There is a special order [from the Rules Committee] brought in, ordering how this House shall proceed, placing limitation upon the membership of this House, abrogating or setting aside the regular rules, the virtue of which has been extolled by the gentleman from New York. Who brings in these special orders? That is a matter to which I want briefly to refer, the relief of which is intended and will be accomplished by the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska. Special orders are brought in not by an impartial, disinterested parliamentary body. They are brought in by a committee of which the Speaker of the House is the controlling factor, that Speaker being at the same time the partisan leader of the majority party in this House. He is not the leader on the floor, but recognized, as I have heard him state, as the responsible leader of the Republican Party so far as the House of Representatives is concerned. So the minority, under the protection which it is said they have by this system of rules, is completely at the mercy of the committee of which the controlling factor is the partisan leader of the majority party, aided by two members of that party, both partisans selected by himself. [Applause.] MR. TAWNEY. Will the gentleman yield for a question? MR. POINDEXTER. I will yield to the gentleman. MR. TAWNEY. Before any rule or special order from the Committee on Rules can become operative it must be adopted by a majority of the House of Representatives, must it not? MR. POINDEXTER. It must be adopted by a majority acting under the whip and spur of the organization of the House, which organization is controlled by the same man, by his power of appointing all committees, who controls the Committee on Rules. [Applause.] MR. TAWNEY. The gentleman stated a moment ago that the Committee on Rules was appointed by the Speaker of the House. The gentleman, if he attended the Republican caucus, knows that the two Republican members of that committee, who serve on that committee together with the Speaker, were elected by the Republican caucus. MR. NORRIS. I would just like to correct the gentleman to say that, while perhaps in one sense that is true, in reality the Republican caucus confirmed appointments already made and selected by the Speaker. [Applause and cheers on the Democratic side.] MR. CLARK. Well, now, suppose that a majority of the members of this House had made up their minds to change these rules. How are you going to do it? If it is not a matter of privilege and you cannot get it up that way, how are you going to accomplish it? Suppose some gentleman here offers an amendment to the rules or a new set of rules or a new rule. He puts it in the basket. It is referred to the Committee on Rules, and it might as well be referred to the sleepers in the catacombs. [Laughter and applause.] I violate no secret when I tell you that the Committee is made up of three very distinguished Republicans and House ap proval of zation." The intro- two ornamental Democrats. [Laughter.] They have a majority of one, but a majority of one in a committee of five is as big a majority as a majority of 47 in this House, and my own opinion is, from both observation and experience, that there never would be a rule reported out of that Committee that the Speaker and his two Republican colleagues do not want reported. It is an impossibility in nature. And I say now. . . that if you want to change the rules, now is the accepted time and this day the day of salvation. [Loud applause on the Democratic side.] 106. How the House Disposes of Its Business Mr. Dalzell has given in an article in the Independent the following brief account of the way in which the mass of business before the House is handled. In the last Congress (59th) there were 386 members (in this Congress there are 391), and there were introduced a total of bills and resolutions numbering 27,114. It goes without saying that not all of these bills could be considered nor could all of these members have a hearing. Theoretically every member of the House is the equal of every other member; every constituency is entitled to equal recognition with every other constituency, but practically there cannot be 391 Speakers; there cannot be 391 chairmen of committees, nor equal recognition for debate given to 391 members. The real purpose, then, to be accomplished by the rules is the selection from the mass of bills introduced those proper to be considered. There is no limitation on the right of a member to introduce bills; as many as he likes and of whatever character he pleases. Every bill introduced goes to an appropriate committee for consideration, and whether or not it gets upon a House calendar for action depends upon its being reported by the committee. It may never be reported, and, of course, if not reported can never be considered in the House. In the last Congress, of the 27,114 bills and resolutions introduced there were 7,839 reported; the others remained in the pigeon-holes of the various committees. Of the bills reported, 7,423 were considered and passed. |