Speaker is now a party leader holding the minority in such control as will enable the majority to carry its principal measures.

...

The Speaker, according to constitutional law, is chosen by the House of Representatives, but in fact he is selected at a caucus of the majority party, and the House merely ratifies the selection. The office always falls to some member of long service who has had not only an opportunity to master the intricate details of parliamentary procedure, but also has learned the fine art of political manipulation of securing support, skillfully distributing favors, and thwarting opposition. . . . Nevertheless, he is in a very real sense a party leader and the success of his party at elections depends in a considerable measure on his policy and conduct in office.

The elements of control in the hands of the Speaker are undoubtedly powerful. He appoints, as we have seen, the committees of the House and names the chairman of each (except the rules committee, which was made elective on March 19, 1910, and authorized to choose its own chairman); until that date he was ex-officio chairman of the committee on rules, which directs a considerable portion of the business of the House, but at that time the House resolved to remove the Speaker from that committee; he may refuse to put dilatory motions; he may recognize whomsoever he pleases on the floor of the House; and he decides questions of parliamentary procedure subject to appeals from his decisions.

336. Committees in the House of Representatives. Probably in no legislative body are committees of so much importance as in the lower chamber in the United States.

The House has so many standing committees that every representative is a member of one or another of them, but many of the committees have little or nothing to do. Some of them, though still regularly appointed, have no duties assigned to them by the rules. One of the most important committees is that on Appropriations, which has charge of the general money-spending bills introduced every year to meet the expenses of the government, and which, by virtue of its power under the rules to bring its reports to the consideration of the House at any time, to the thrusting aside of whatever matter, virtually dominates the House by controlling its use of its time. Special appropriation bills, which propose to provide moneys for the expenses of single departments,

as, for example, the Navy Department or the War Department, — are, by a recent rule of the House, taken out of the hands of the Committee on Appropriations and given to the committees on the special departments concerned. Scarcely less important than the Committee on

Appropriations, though scarcely so busy as it, is the Committee on Ways and Means, which has charge of questions of taxation. It is, of course, to the appointment of such committees that the Speaker pays most attention. Through them his influence is most potent.

Some members of the House are considered to be entitled, because of their long service and experience in Congress, to be put on important committees, and on every committee there must, by imperative custom, be representatives of both parties in the House. But these partial limitations upon the Speaker's choice do not often seriously hamper him in exercising his preferences.

337. Results of the committee system in the House of Representatives. Bryce criticizes the power of committees in the American system as follows: 1

It destroys the unity of the House as a legislative body. Since the practical work of shaping legislation is done in the committees, the interest of members centers there, and they care less about the proceedings of the whole body. . . .

It prevents the capacity of the best members from being brought to bear upon any one piece of legislation, however important.

It cramps debate. . .

...

It lessens the cohesion and harmony of legislation. Each committee goes on its own way with its own bills just as though it were legislating for one planet and the other committees for others.

It gives facilities for the exercise of underhand and even corrupt influence. In a small committee the voice of each member is well worth securing, and may be secured with little danger of a public scandal. . . . It reduces responsibility. . . .

It lowers the interests of the nation in the proceedings of Congress. Except in exciting times, when large questions have to be settled, the bulk of real business is done not in the great hall of the House but in this labyrinth of committee rooms and the lobbies that surround them. . . .

The country of course suffers from the want of the light and leading on public affairs which debates in Congress ought to supply. . . .

It throws power into the hands of the chairmen of committees, especially, of course, of those which deal with finance and with great material interests...

It enables the House to deal with a far greater number of measures and subjects than could otherwise be overtaken; and has the advantage

1 By permission of The Macmillan Company.

of enabling evidence to be taken by those whose duty it is to reshape or amend a bill. . . .

It sets the members of the House to work for which their previous training has fitted them much better than for either legislating or debating "in the grand style." They are shrewd, keen men of business, apt for talk in committee, less apt for wide views of policy and elevated discourse in an assembly.

...

On the whole, it may be said that under this system the House dispatches a vast amount of work and does the negative part of it, the killing off of worthless bills, in a thorough way.

338. The previous question" in the House of Representatives. One of the most effective rules developed for the purpose of controlling debate is described in the following:

The great remedy against prolix or obstructive debate is the so-called previous question, which is moved in the form, "shall the main question be now put?" and when ordered closes forthwith all debate, and brings the House to a direct vote on that main question. On the motion for the putting of the main question no debate is allowed; but it does not destroy the right of the member "reporting the measure under consideration from a committee, to wind up the discussion by his reply. This closure of the debate may be moved by any member without the need of leave from the Speaker, and requires only a bare majority of those present. When directed by the House to be applied in committee, for it cannot be moved after the House has gone into committee, it has the effect of securing five minutes to the mover of any amendment, and five minutes to the member who first "obtains the floor" (gets the chance of speaking) in opposition to it, permitting no one else to speak. A member in proposing a resolution or motion usually asks at the same time for the previous question upon it, so as to prevent it from being talked out.

Closure by previous question is in almost daily use, and is considered so essential to the progress of business that I never found any member or official who thought it could be dispensed with. Even the senators, who object to its introduction into their own much smaller chamber, agree that it must exist in a large body like the House. To the inquiry whether it was abused, most of my informants answered that this rarely happened. This is attributed to the fear entertained of the disapproval of the people, and to the sentiment in the House itself in favor of full discussion, which sometimes induces the majority to refuse the previous question when demanded by one of their own party, or on behalf of a motion which they are as a whole supporting.

IV. FUNCTIONS OF LEGISLATURES

339. Proper functions of lawmaking bodies. The danger of overlegislation and some other functions which lawmaking bodies may perform to advantage are indicated in the following: 1

The political philosopher of these days of self-government has, however, something more than a doubt with which to gainsay the usefulness of a sovereign representative body which confines itself to legislation to the exclusion of all other functions. Buckle declared, indeed, that the chief use and value of legislation nowadays lay in its opportunity and power to remedy the mistakes of the legislation of the past; that it was beneficent only when it carried healing in its wings; that repeal was more blessed than enactment. And it is certainly true that the greater part of the labor of legislation consists in carrying the loads recklessly or bravely shouldered in times gone by, when the animal which is now a bull was only a calf, and in completing, if they may be completed, the tasks once undertaken in the shape of unambitious schemes which at the outset looked innocent enough. Having got his foot into it, the legislator finds it difficult, if not impossible, to get it out again.

Legislation unquestionably generates legislation. Every statute may be said to have a long lineage of statutes behind it; and whether that lineage be honorable or of ill repute is as much a question as to each individual statute as it can be with regard to the ancestry of each individual legislator. Every statute in its turn has a numerous progeny, and only time and opportunity can decide whether its offspring will bring it honor or shame. Once begin the dance of legislation, and you must struggle through its mazes as best you can to its breathless end,—if any end there be. It is not surprising, therefore, that the enacting, revising, tinkering, repealing of laws should engross the attention and engage the entire energy of such a body as Congress. It is, however, easy to see how it might be better employed; or, at least, how it might add others to this overshadowing function, to the infinite advantage of the government. Quite as important as legislation is vigilant oversight of administration; and even more important than legislation is the instruction and guidance in political affairs which the people might receive from the body which kept all national concerns suffused in a broad daylight of discussion.

An effective representative body, gifted with the power to rule, ought, it would seem, not only to speak the will of the nation, but also to lead it to its conclusions, to utter the voice of its opinions, and to serve as its eyes in superintending all matters of government.

1 By permission of Houghton Mifflin Company.

340. Difficulties preventing intelligent legislation. Some of the obstacles preventing wise lawmaking in modern large representative bodies are suggested in the following :

The shortcomings of our present system may be said to be lack of responsibility, lack of expert advice, and lack of principle.

1. Responsibility. We know how much our jurisprudence has gained through the system of written opinions published in reports, through which the work of every judge of an appellate court is subjected to the scrutiny of the legal profession. But how can the responsibility for a bad piece of legislation be brought home to any one?

Any member of the legislature may introduce any bill he pleases, and his doing so does not even necessarily mean that he assumes any responsibility for its form or contents. In the German reichstag it requires the support of fifteen members to introduce a bill that does not come from the government, and practically all privately initiated measures are backed by some political party. It has been suggested that it might be well to limit each member of a State legislature to a small number of bills, to induce him to exercise some care and discrimination. . . . The lobby as a recognized and regulated institution might be made to serve the same end. All this could be accomplished by rules of the legislature. The publication of bills in advance of their introduction would be even more desirable.

2. Expert Advice. There are two distinct kinds of advice that the legislature stands in need of, the first as to the content of legislation, the second as to its legal form.

As to the first, the theory is that the legislature is acquainted with the circumstances and needs of the people, just as the old jury was presumed to know of all open and public occurrences within the county. But as a matter of fact, most of the information necessary for intelligent legislation cannot be acquired without special study or even special training. In the case of subjects generally recognized as technical the legislature naturally relies upon experts. . . . Where the subject to be legislated on is one not supposed to be technical, the legislature commonly acts upon the vaguest impressions, reflecting popular beliefs and prejudices. . . .

As regards the correct legal form of expressing the subject matter of legislative proposals, it is recognized that this is a task requiring technical learning. Giving due recognition to the large amount of painstaking legal work embodied in any volume of our session laws, and without magnifying the blunders that occur too frequently, it is obvious that a systematic plan of dealing with this aspect of legislation would bring a much-needed improvement.