same moment, of the one who is to carry on the discussion Neither the duties nor the position imply political power. It makes little difference to any English party in Parliament whether the occupant of the chair has come from their own or from hostile ranks.

In America the Speaker has immense political power, and is permitted, nay expected, to use it in the interests of his party. In calling upon members to speak he prefers those of his own side. He decides in their favor such points of order as are not distinctly covered by the rules. His authority over the arrangement of business is so large that he can frequently advance or postpone particular bills or motions in a way which determines their fate. Although he seldom figures in party debates in the House (when he does so he leaves the chair, putting some one else in it) he may and does advise the other leaders of his party privately; and when they "go into caucus" (i. e., hold a party meeting to determine their action on some pending question) he is present and gives counsel. He is usually the most eminent member of the party who has a seat in the House, and is really, so far as the confidential direction of its policy goes, almost its leader. His most important privilege is, however, the nomination of the numerous standing committees already referred to. In the first Congress (April, 1789) the House tried the plan of appointing its committees by ballot; but this worked so ill that in January, 1790, the following rule was passed: --" All committees shall be appointed by the Speaker unless otherwise specially directed by the House." This rule has been re-adopted by each successive Congress since then. Not only does he, at the beginning of each Congress, select all the members of each of these committees, he even chooses the chairman of each, and thereby vests the direction of its business in hands approved by himself. The chairman is of course always selected from the party which commands the House, and the committee is so composed as to give that party a majority.

Since legislation, and so much of the control of current. administration as the House has been able to bring within its grasp, belong to these committees, their composition prac

tically determines the action of the House on all questions of moment, and as the chairmanships of the more important committees are the posts of most influence, the disposal of them is a tremendous piece of patronage by which a Speaker can attract support to himself and his own section of the party, reward his friends, give politicians the opportunity of rising to distinction or practically extinguish their congressional career. The Speaker is, of course, far from free in disposing of these places. He has been obliged to secure his own election to the chair by promises to leading members and their friends; and while redeeming such promises, he must also regard the wishes of important groups of men or types of opinion, must compliment particular States by giving a place on good committees to their prominent representatives, must avoid nominations which could alarm particular interests. These conditions surround the exercise of his power with trouble and anxiety. Yet after all it is power, power which in the hands of a capable and ambitious man becomes so far-reaching that it is no exaggeration to call him the second, if not the first political figure in the United States, with an influence upon the fortunes of men and the course of domestic events superior, in ordinary times, to the President's, although shorter in its duration and less patent to the world.

The Speaker's distribution of members among the committees is, next to his own election, the most critical point in the history of a Congress, and that watched with most interest. He devotes himself to it for the fortnight after his installation with an intensity equaling that of a European prime minister constructing a cabinet. The parallel goes further, for as the chairmanships of the chief committees may be compared to the cabinet offices of Europe, so the Speaker is himself a great party leader as well as the president of a deliberative assembly.

Although expected to serve his party in all possible directions, he must not resort to all possible means. Both in the conduct of debate and in the formation of committees a certain measure of fairness to opponents is required from him. He must not palpably wrest the rules of the House to their disadvantage, though he may decide all doubtful points against

them. He must give them a reasonable share of "the floor" (i.e., of debate). He must concede to them proper representation on committees.

The dignity of the Speaker's office is high. He receives a salary of $8,000 a year, which is a large salary for America. In rank he stands next after the Vice-President and on a level with the justices of the Supreme Court.

CHAPTER XI

THE HOUSE AT WORK

The room in which the House meets is in the south wing of the Capitol, the Senate and the Supreme Court being lodged in the north wing. It is more than thrice as large as the English House of Commons, with a floor about equal in area to that of Westminster Hall, one hundred and thirty-nine feet long by ninety-three feet wide, and thirty-six feet high. Light is admitted through the ceiling. There are on all sides deep galleries running backwards over the lobbies, and capable of holding 2,500 persons. The proportions are so good that it is not till you observe how small a man looks at the farther end, and how faint ordinary voices sound, that you realize its vast size. The seats are arranged in curved concentric rows looking toward the Speaker, whose handsome marble chair is placed on a raised marble platform projecting slightly for ward into the room, the clerks and the mace below in front of him, in front of the clerks the official stenographers, to the right the seat of the sergeant-at-arms. Each member

has a revolving arm-chair, with a roomy desk in front of it, where he writes and keeps his papers. Behind these chairs runs a railing, and behind the railing is an open space into which strangers may be brought, where sofas stand against the wall, and where smoking is practiced, even by strangers, though the rules forbid it.

When you enter, your first impression is of noise and turmoil. The raising and dropping of desk lids, the scratching

of pens, the clapping of hands to call the pages, keen little boys who race along the gangways, the pattering of many feet, the hum of talking on the floor, and in the galleries, make up a din over which the speaker with the sharp taps of his hammer, or the orators straining shrill throats, find it hard to make themselves audible. Nor is it only the noise that gives the impression of disorder. Often three or four members are on their feet at once, each shouting to catch the Speaker's attention. Less favorable conditions for oratory cannot be imagined. "Speaking in the House," says an American writer, "is like trying to address the people in the Broadway omnibuses from the curbstone in front of the Astor House. . . . Men of fine intellect and of good ordinary elocution have exclaimed in despair that in the House of Representatives the mere physical effort to be heard uses up all the powers, so that intellectual action becomes impossible. The natural refuge is in written speeches or in habitual silence, which one dreads more and more to break." In the House of Representatives a set speech upon any subject of importance tends to become not an exposition or an argument, but a piece of elaborate and high-flown declamation. Its author is often wise enough to send direct to the reporters what he has written out, having read aloud a small part of it in the House. When it has been printed in extenso in the Congressional Record (leave to get this done being readily obtained), he has copies struck off and distributes them among his constituents. Thus everybody is pleased and time is saved.

Most of the practical work is done in the standing committees, while much of the time of the House is consumed in pointless discussions, where member after member delivers himself upon large questions, not likely to be brought to a definite issue. Many of the speeches thus called forth have a value as repertories of facts, but the debate as a whole is unprofitable and languid. On the other hand, the five-minute debates which take place, when the House imposes that limit of time, in Committee of the Whole on the consideration of a bill reported from a standing committee, are often lively, pointed, and effective.

The topics which excite most interest and are best dis

cussed are those of taxation and the appropriation of money, more particularly to public works, the improvement of rivers and harbors, erection of Federal buildings, and so forth.

That the majority of the House may be and often is opposed to the President and his cabinet, does not strike Americans as odd, because they proceed on the theory that the legislative ought to be distinct from the executive authority. Since no minister sits, there is no official representative of the party which for the time being holds the reins of the executive government. Neither is there any unofficial representative. So far as the majority has a chief, that chief is the Speaker, who has been chosen by them as their ablest and most influential man; but the chairman of the most important committee, that of Ways and Means, enjoys a sort of eminence, and comes nearer than any one else to the position of leader of the House. The minority do not formally choose a leader, nor is there usually any one among them whose career marks him out as practically the first man, but the person whom they have put forward as their party candidate for the Speakership, giving him what is called "the complimentary nomination," has a sort of vague claim to be so regarded. This honor amounts to very little.

There is a fundamental difference between the conception of the respective positions and duties of a representative body and of the nation at large entertained by Americans, and the conception which has hitherto prevailed in Europe. Europeans have thought of a legislature as belonging to the governing class. In America there is no such class. Europeans think that the legislature ought to consist of the best men in the country, Americans that it should be a fair average sample of the country. Europeans think that it ought to lead the nation, Americans that it ought to follow the nation.

I have spoken of the din of the House of Representatives, of its air of restlessness and confusion, contrasting with the staid gravity of the Senate, of the absence of dignity both in its proceedings and in the bearing and aspect of individual members. All these things notwithstanding, there is something impressive about it, something not unworthy of the continent for which it legislates.