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. Bills when reported go upon certain calendars of the House, according to the character of the bills.

1. Revenue and appropriation bills. These are few in number, not to exceed perhaps twenty. They come from the Committee on Ways and Means, whose office it is to provide revenue for the Government, and from the Committee on Appropriations, and from the several committees having to do with the maintenance of the Government in its various arms, such as the Naval Committee, the Military Committee and others. These bills when reported go to a calendar known as the Union Calendar, but they are highly privileged, as they ought to be, for without their passage the Government wheels would stop. They can be called for consideration at any time. They take precedence of all other bills, and the Speaker has no alternative but to recognize the member calling them up. These bills are considered, not in the House, but in Committee of the Whole; the Speaker leaves the chair and another member takes his place.

2. Another class of bills are such as relate to some public purpose, but carry no appropriation, such, for instance, as bridge bills and the like. To a large extent bills from the important committees on the Judiciary and on Interstate and Foreign Commerce are of this class. These bills go on the House calendar and are entitled to consideration in the morning hour. There being no privileged bills for consideration, the morning hour is the regular order. The Speaker must call the committees in their alphabetical order, and then the chairman of the committee which has the call is entitled to recognition by the Speaker as of right. The House then proceeds to the consideration of such bill reported by the commit

tee in question and then on the House calendar as the chairman calls up, and continues its consideration until a vote is had, subject only to a possible interruption at the end of sixty minutes, to which I will refer hereafter. But even if interrupted its consideration is continued thereafter, when business of that character is in order, until it is finally disposed of. 3. In addition to public bills such as I have enumerated, some carrying an appropriation and others not, there is another class of bills, the most numerous of all-private bills providing for the relief of private individuals or corporations. These have a calendar of their own called the private calendar, and are in order on every Friday of each week. They are, generally speaking, bills from the Committee on Claims, from the Committee on War Claims and from the Committee on Pensions. As to these bills the Speaker has no independent right of recognition. When addressed by the chairman of the appropriate committee on a Friday he must recognize him, and unless the House declines to consider these bills the Speaker must leave the chair and nominate a member to preside in his place. In the last Congress there were reported 6,834 private bills, 6,624 were passed, leaving 210 undisposed of.

There is another class of bills that, like private bills, have a day of their own under the rules, viz., District of Columbia bills. As is well known, there is no right of suffrage in the District of Columbia, and the Senate and House act as its Select and Common Councils. District of Columbia bills are in order on two Mondays of every month. As to these bills, again the Speaker has no alternative but to recognize the Chairman of the District Committee when, on his allotted day, he calls up his business.

4. A fourth class of bills provide for various matters of public concern and are such as involve a charge upon the Treasury. These go to the Union Calendar and when considered must be considered in Committee of the Whole. At the end of the morning hour (sixty minutes) a motion may be made to go into Committee of the Whole for the consideration

of bills on the Union Calendar or for the consideration of some particular bill thereon. This motion the Speaker is bound to entertain.

Then a large part of the business of the House is done wholly outside of the rules by unanimous consent. Some gentleman, for instance, arises in the House and, being recognized by the Speaker, asks "unanimous consent for the present consideration of the following bill." Unless objection is made the bill is considered and voted on. It is in connection with this practice and because of it that autocratic power is without any reason ascribed to the Speaker. But the rules have nothing at all to do with this. The applicant for recognition asks that all rules be set aside. To this any member of the House may object. Why should complaint be made if the Speaker exercises his right of objection by refusing to recognize an applicant for recognition in any particular case? Because he is Speaker he is no less a member of the House; no less a Representative of his Congressional District. If he were on the floor he could interpose an objection to any request for unanimous consent. Should he be less able to interpose that objection because he is in the chair? Certainly not. That the Speaker's power in this regard is only in the last analysis, that of a member may easily be illustrated. During the latter part of the Fifty-fourth Congress, when Mr. Reed was Speaker, there was a member from Nebraska named Kem who announced that he would object to any consideration of bills by unanimous consent. After the announcement, on the first day, the Speaker's room was crowded, as usual, with applicants for recognition. Mr. Reed promised to do the best he could, but recalled to his applicants Kem's threat to object. Still members persisted, one of them was recognized, and Kem objected. The next day the throng at the Speaker's room was not so great, but still of large proportions. Members had faith that Kem would not persist. Again Mr. Reed promised to do his best; again recognition was had and again Kem objected. On the third day the Speaker's room was deserted, while an anxious throng surrounded the

desk of Mr. Kem, and from that time on, Kem being persistent, the Speaker had peace; Mr. Kem was the autocrat, and the business of the House proceeded under the regular order.

There is no doubt that a great many measures of questionable character are passed by unanimous consent. Members cannot keep the run of all bills reported and are loth to object, both because ignorant of the merits of the particular measure proposed and because they may have measures of their own to be considered and they fear a reciprocity of objection. In a majority of cases the only real intelligent objection made to measure proposed for unanimous consent is that made by the Speaker, who has had opportunity to examine, as was his duty, the bill. On two Mondays in every month and during the last six days of a session a motion is in order to suspend the rules and pass bills, which requires for its adoption a two-thirds vote of a quorum. The object of this rule, of course, is to expedite business by getting rid of bills to which two-thirds of the House are agreed. But the demands for recognition to move to suspend the rules are so far in excess of any possible power of grant upon the Speaker's part that he is confronted by the embarrassing necessity of making a choice. There is no doubt that he performs his unpleasant duty with due regard to his obligation to the public service.

It is manifest that even under the methods provided by the rules for the consideration of all classes of business there must necessarily be measures of great public importance that, for one reason or another, cannot be reached in the regular order of business. These are provided for by special orders reported by the Committee on Rules, which consists of the Speaker, two members from the majority and two from the minority. Like the rules themselves, the Committee on Rules is made the subject of much unjust criticism. Autocratic power is ascribed to it. But it must be recognized first that the existence of such a body is a necessity, and second, that the only power it exercises is the power of the House. The Committee on Rules does not dictate, it simply suggests. Its

report is of no consequence until it has been adopted by a majority. The fact that the committee's reports are uniformly adopted, so far from being any evidence of undue authority or power on the part of the committee, is evidence of the discretion of the committee in recognizing and making possible what the House wants to do. The real temper of the House upon any question at any given time, it may be assumed, is better known by the Committee on Rules than by any one else. The committee, so far from being the master, is the servant of the House. Of the 7,423 bills considered last year, only 24 were brought forward by the Committee on Rules.

Early in our history unlimited debate was resorted to to prevent legislative action, and the result was the adoption of the previous question in the House. According to Mr. Calhoun it was adopted "in consequence of the abuse of the right of debate by Mr. Gardenier, of New York, remarkable for his capacity for making long speeches. He could keep the floor for days." But Mr. Gardenier was only a type, and the adoption of the previous question marks the first step in our Congressional history taken by the majority toward securing its right to rule. The next step was the adoption of the hour rule, pursuant to which a member of the House is confined to the use of one hour in debate.

With each decennial apportionment the House of Representatives increases in numbers. As the numbers increase the importance of the individual member decreases and the influence of a few increases. What the remedy for this growing evil is I do not undertake to predict or what new or modified rules may become necessary. But under present conditions the rules of the House of Representatives are as efficient as present wisdom and past experience have been able to devise, "to subserve the will of the Assembly rather than to restrain it, to facilitate and not to obstruct the expression of its deliberate sense.'

« ForrigeFortsett »