the cleveland era-第13节

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