the cleveland era-第14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！


nused　appropriations　to　be　paid　into　the　Treasury。　The　amounts　thus　turned　into　the　Treasury　aggregated　174；000；000　and　in　a　single　bureau　there　was　an　unexpended　balance　of　36；000；000；　which　had　accumulated　for　a　quarter　of　a　century　because　Congress　had　not　been　advised　that　no　appropriation　was　needed。　Mr。　Springer　remarked　that；　during　the　ten　years　in　which　he　had　been　a　member　of　Congress；　he　had　observed　with　regard　to　these　committees　〃that　in　nearly　all　cases；　after　their　appointment；　organization；　and　the　election　of　a　clerk；　the　committee　practically　ceased　to　exist；　and　nothing　further　is　done。〃　William　R。　Morrison　at　once　came　to　the　rescue　of　the　endangered　sinecures　and　argued　that　even　although　these　committees　had　been　inactive　in　the　past　they　〃constituted　the　eyes；　the　ears；　and　the　hands　of　the　House。〃　In　consequence；　after　a　short　debate　Mr。　Springer's　motion　was　rejected　without　a　division。

The　arrangements　subsequently　made　to　provide　time　and　opportunity　for　general　legislation；　turned　out　in　practice　to　be　quite　futile　and　indeed　they　were　never　more　than　a　mere　formal　pretense。　It　was　quite　obvious；　therefore；　that　the　new　rules　tended　only　to　make　the　situation　worse　than　before。　Thomas　Ryan　of　Kansas　told　the　plain　truth　when　he　said：　〃You　do　not　propose　to　remedy　any　of　those　things　of　which　you　complain　by　any　of　the　rules　you　have　brought　forward。　You　propose　to　clothe　eight　committees　with　the　same　power；　with　the　same　temptation　and　capacity　to　abuse　it。　You　multiply　eightfold　the　very　evils　of　which　you　complain。〃　James　H。　Blount　of　Georgia　sought　to　mitigate　the　evils　of　the　situation　by　giving　a　number　of　other　committees　the　same　privilege　as　the　appropriation　committees；　but　this　proposal　at　once　raised　a　storm；　for　appropriation　committees　had　leave　to　report　at　any　time；　and　to　extend　the　privilege　would　prevent　expeditious　handling　of　appropriation　bills。　Mr。　Blount's　motion　was；　therefore；　voted　down　without　a　division。

While　in　the　debate；　the　pretense　of　facilitating　routine　business　was　ordinarily　kept　up；　occasional　intimations　of　actual　ulterior　purpose　leaked　out；　as　when　John　B。　Storm　of　Pennsylvania　remarked　that　it　was　a　valuable　feature　of　the　rules　that　they　did　hamper　action　and　〃that　the　country　which　is　least　governed　is　the　best　governed；　is　a　maxim　in　strict　accord　with　the　idea　of　true　civil　liberty。〃　William　McKinley　was　also　of　the　opinion　that　barriers　were　needed　〃against　the　wild　projects　and　visionary　schemes　which　will　find　advocates　in　this　House。〃　Some　years　later；　when　the　subject　was　again　up　for　discussion；　Thomas　B。　Reed　went　to　the　heart　of　the　situation　when　he　declared　that　the　rules　had　been　devised　not　to　facilitate　action　but　to　obstruct　it；　for　〃the　whole　system　of　business　here　for　years　has　been　to　seek　methods　of　shirking；　not　of　meeting；　the　questions　which　the　people　present　for　the　consideration　of　their　representatives。　Peculiar　circumstances　have　caused　this。　For　a　long　time；　one　section　of　the　country　largely　dominated　the　other。　　That　section　of　the　country　was　constantly　apprehensive　of　danger　which　might　happen　at　any　time　by　reason　of　an　institution　it　was　maintaining。　Very　naturally；　all　the　rules　of　the　House　were　bent　for　the　obstruction　of　action　on　the　part　of　Congress。〃　It　may　be　added　that　these　observations　apply　even　more　forcibly；　to　the　rules　of　the　Senate。　The　privilege　of　unrestricted　debate　was　not　originally　granted　by　those　rules　but　was　introduced　as　a　means　of　strengthening　the　power　of　sectional　resistance　to　obnoxious　legislation。

The　revision　of　the　rules　in　1885；　then；　was　not　designed　really　to　facilitate　action　by　the　House；　but　rather　to　effect　a　transfer　of　the　power　to　rule　the　House。　It　was　at　least　clear　that　under　the　proposed　changes　the　chairman　of　the　committee　on　appropriations　would　no　longer　retain　such　complete　mastery　as　Randall　had　wielded；　and　this　was　enough　to　insure　the　adoption　of　the　majority　report。　The　minority　report　opposed　this　weakening　of　control　on　the　ground　that　it　would　be　destructive　of　orderly　and　responsible　management　of　the　public　funds。　Everything　which　Randall　said　on　that　point　has　since　been　amply　confirmed　by　much　sad　experience。　Although　some　leading　Republicans；　among　whom　was　Joseph　G。　Cannon　of　Illinois；　argued　strongly　in　support　of　Randall's　views；　the　temper　of　the　House　was　such　that　the　majority　in　favor　of　the　change　was　overwhelming；　and　on　December　18；　1885；　the　Morrison　plan　was　finally　adopted　without　a　roll　call。

The　hope　that　the　change　in　organization　would　expedite　action　on　appropriation　bills；　was　promptly　disappointed。　Only　one　of　the　fourteen　regular　appropriation　bills　became　law　before　the　last　day　of　the　fiscal　year。　The　duress　to　which　the　House　was　subject　became　tighter　and　harder　than　before；　and　the　Speakership　entered　upon　a　development　unparalleled　in　constitutional　history。　The　Speaker　was　practically　in　a　position　to　determine　what　business　the　House　might　consider　and　what　it　might　not；　and　the　circumstances　were　such　as　to　breed　a　belief　that　it　was　his　duty　to　use　his　discretion　where　a　choice　presented　itself。　It　is　obvious　that；　when　on　the　floor　of　the　House　there　are　a　number　of　applicants　for　recognition；　the　Speaker　must　choose　between　them。　All　cannot　be　allowed　to　speak　at　once。　There　is　no　chance　to　apply　the　shop　rule；　〃first　come　first　served；〃　for　numerous　applications　for　the　floor　come　at　the　same　time。　Shall　the　Speaker　choose　at　random　or　according　to　some　definite　principle　of　selection？　In　view　of　the　Speaker's　interest　in　the　welfare　of　the　party　which　raised　him　to　the　office；　he　would　naturally　inquire　in　advance　the　purpose　for　which　the　recognition　of　the　chair　was　desired。　It　was　a　manifest　step　towards　orderly　procedure　in　session；　however；　when　instead　of　crowding　around　the　clerk's　desk　bawling　for　recognition；　members　applied　to　the　Speaker　in　advance。　In　Speaker　Blaine's　time；　this　had　become　a　regular　practice　and　ever　since　then；　a　throng　of　members　at　the　Speaker's　office　trying　to　arrange　with　him　for　recognition　has　been　a　daily　occurrence　during　a　legislative　session。　Samuel　W。　McCall；　in　his　work　on　〃The　Business　of　Congress；〃　says　that　the　Speaker　〃usually　scrutinizes　the　bill　and　the　committee's　report　upon　it；　and　in　case　of　doubt　he　sometimes　refers　them　to　a　member　in　whom　he　has　confidence；　for　a　more　careful　examination　than　he　himself　has　time　to　give。〃

Under　Speaker　Carlisle；　this　power　to　censor　proposals　was　made　conspicuous　through　the　factional　war　in　the　Democratic　party。　For　several　sessions　of　Congress；　a　bill　had　been　pending　to　repeal　the　internal　revenue　taxes　upon　tobacco；　and　it　had　such　support　that　it　might　have　passed　if　it　could　have　been　reached　for　consideration。　On　February　5；　1887；　a　letter　was　addressed　to　Speaker　Carlisle　by　three　prominent　Democrats：　Samuel　J。　Randall　of　Pennsylvania；　George　D。　Wise　of　Virginia；　and　John　S。　Henderson　of　North　Carolina；　saying：　〃At　the　instance　of　many　Democratic　members　of　the　House；　we　appeal　to　you　earnestly　to　recognize　on　Monday　next；　some　Democrat　who　will　move　to　suspend　the　rules　for　the　purpose　of　giving　the　House　an　opportunity　of　considering　the　question　of　the　total　repeal　of　the　internal　revenue　taxes　on　tobacco。〃　The　letter　went　on　to　argue　that　it　would　be　bad　policy　to　let　a　Republican　have　credit　for　a　proposal；　which　it　was　declared　〃will　command　more　votes　than　any　other　measure　pending　before　the　House　looking　towards　a　reduction　in　taxation；　and　favorable　action　on　this　proposition　will　not　interfere　with　other　efforts　that　are　being　made　to　reduce　the　burden　of　the　people。〃

Speaker　Carlisle；　however；　refused　to　allow　the　House　to　consider　the　matter　on　the　ground　that　negotiations　with　Randall　and　his　friends　for　concerted　party　action　had　so　far　been　fruitless。　〃Among　other　things；〃　he　wrote；　〃we　proposed　to　submit　the　entire　subject　to　a　caucus　of　our　political　friends；　with　the　understanding　that　all　parties　would　abide　by　the　result　of　its　action。。。。　We　have　received　no　response　to　that　communication；　and　I　consider　that　it　would　not　be　proper　under　the　circumstances　for　me　to　agree　to　a　course　of　action　which　would　present　to　the　House　a　simple　proposition　for　the　repeal　of　the　internal　revenue　tax　on　tobacco；　snuff　and　cigars；　to　the　exclusion　of　all　other　measures　for　the　reduction　of　taxation。〃　The　letter　closed　by　〃sincerely　hoping　that　some　plan　may　yet　be　devised　which　will　enable　the　House　to　consider　the　whole　subject　of　revenue　reduction。〃

No　one　was　less　of　an　autocrat　in　temper　and　habit　of　thought　than　Speaker　Carlisle；　and　he　assumed　this　position　in　deference　to　a　recognized　function　of　his　office；　supported　by　a　long　line　of　precedents。　The　case　was；　therefore；　a　signal　illustration　of　the　way　in　which　the　House　has　impaired　its　ability　to　consider　legislation　by　claiming　the　exclusive　privilege　of　proposing　legislation。　If　the　rules　had　allowed　the　President　to　propose　his　measures　directly　to　the　House；　then　the　way　would　have　been　opened　for　a　substitute　or　an　amendment。　As　it　was；　the　House　was　able　to　act　only　upon　matters　within　the　control　of　a　few　persons　advantageously　posted