The duress under which the House labored was pungently described by Thomas B.Reed, who was just about that time revealing the ability that gained for him the Republican leadership.In a speech, delivered on December 16, 1885, he declared: "For the last three Congresses the representatives of the people of the United States have been in irons.They have been allowed to transact no public 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 action--namely, 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.
