HISTORY AND PROCEDURE OF 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
HISTORY AND PROCEDURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 BY 
 
 DE ALVA STANWOOD ALEXANDER, A.M., LL.D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 The Political History of the State of New York 
 
 BOSTON AND NEW YORK 
 HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY 
 ttibetfibe JDrcjtf Cambrib0e 
 1916 
 

 COPYRIGHT, 1916, BY DE ALVA STANWOOD ALEXANDER 
 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
 
 Published April iqrt 
 
PREFACE 
 
 WHEN the writer entered Congress, Speaker Reed, 
 whom he had known for several years, advised him to 
 prepare a series of lectures upon the history and pro- 
 cedure of the House for use when invited to address 
 clubs and other social organizations in the writer's dis- 
 trict. In proof of his sincerity he offered his assistance, 
 and the notes made at that time and afterward fre- 
 quently used in unwritten addresses form the basis of 
 this volume. 
 
 Speaker Reed's articles in the North American Review 
 and other publications, including the little treatise on 
 Parliamentary Rules, advertised the thoroughness of 
 his study of the House procedure from its earliest be- 
 ginnings; but long before he began to publish, his ready 
 explanations of apparently conflicting precedents, dis- 
 closing the history of their origin and the difference 
 in their parliamentary status, proclaimed his familiarity 
 with the various rulings of a long line of Speakers. In- 
 deed, he gained his authority in the House as much by 
 his knowledge of things hidden in a mass of parliamen- 
 tary proceedings, which others rarely disturbed, as by 
 his ability felicitously to express and apply them when 
 brought to the surface. His remarkable memory may 
 be called the prototype of Hinds's Precedents, for he 
 knew and could cite them offhand as readily as the aver- 
 age student of parliamentary proceedings now refers to 
 the Precedents. 
 
 342917 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 In his friendly talks on the evolution of the House 
 procedure, Mr. Reed delighted to dwell upon the idio- 
 syncrasies of the past. The indisposition of early legis- 
 lators to aid in the expedition of business amused him. 
 Members loved to exploit their opinions then as much 
 as now, he said, and the only reason why we are not 
 as overloaded with their speeches is because Congress 
 wisely refused to pay for their publication. Even when 
 business and membership increased, they preferred to 
 jog along in the old stage-coach fashion. Few knew any- 
 thing of the Code. When things got into a tangle it was 
 easier to suspend the rules than to untie the knots. It 
 provoked his criticism that the House, rather than give 
 up the selfish habit of making long speeches, reversed 
 the Speakers ruling cutting off all debate after the pre- 
 vious question had been ordered. Even after the prin- 
 ciple was fully established in 1811, the speech-loving 
 members invoked its relief only four times in the next 
 twenty years. In fact, the House had existed over half 
 a century before it limited the length of speeches to one 
 hour. 
 
 The disposition of the House to conserve the minor- 
 ity's alleged right to delay and even to stop business 
 greatly diverted him. The majority seemed to be afraid 
 of itself, he declared, with his usual. sarcastic drawl. It 
 acted as if it needed a guardian^ otherwise why did it 
 insist upon having two thirds, a quorum voting, before 
 it dared to suspend the rules to limit dilatory motions, or 
 to adopt a special order for any purpose, or to take a 
 Senate bill from the Speaker's table and send it to con- 
 ference?/ Even more ridiculous was its insistence that 
 
 ~ 
 
PREFACE vii 
 
 pass a bill a quorum must answer to a roll-call, even 
 though every member entitled to vote was in his seat. 
 In fact, the unwritten law of the House, he said, in- 
 trenched the minority's power to check the majority, 
 and rather than depart from such alleged legislative 
 safeguards a partisan majority, although trembling with 
 anger, preferred accepting a humiliating compromise 
 or a stinging defeat. As late as 1880, he recalled, the 
 Committee on Rules, charged with a revision of the 
 Code, boasted that it had not " invaded the powers of a 
 minority to check temporarily, if not permanently, the 
 action of a majority believed to be improper or un- 
 constitutional." When a conservative and well-inten- 
 tioned party, reduced to desperate straits and backed 
 by the ruling of a bold Speaker, fearlessly adopted a 
 special order by a majority vote, it caused such a 
 tempest of dismay that forty-one years elapsed before 
 such a thing occurred again. And yet, he mused, within 
 less than a generation this view has become so obsolete 
 as to make the sober maintenance of it seem incredible. 
 So with the "disappearing quorum," once debated 
 with extreme bitterness as affecting the very existence 
 of parliamentary government, now abandoned if not 
 entirely forgotten. The yea and nay vote, he added, 
 was based upon the assumption that no other count 
 could be as accurate, and thus the roll-call continued 
 to be the test of the presence of a quorum until the 
 silence of members became so intolerable that it could 
 no longer be endured without dishonor. The trouble 
 was we identified safety with numbers rather than with 
 adherence to the principle that true progress is sure to 
 
viii t PREFACE 
 
 make for good./ The conservative, in every department 
 of life, is always open to the attack of the progressive, 
 and is always eventually defeated, p 
 
 Mr. Reed might have added, if not prevented by the 
 modesty that made his intellectual power the more 
 marked, that back of every movement for the expedition 
 of business in the House stood an able, courageous 
 leader, who dared to think new thoughts and find new 
 ways. The history of those progress-making innovations 
 is as interesting to-day to every lover of the forensic duel 
 as the events themselves were exciting at the time of 
 their occurrence. Mr. Reed enjoyed telling of John W. 
 Eppes, of Virginia, who established the practice that 
 ordering the previous question ended all debate. It 
 occurred at two o'clock in the morning, while John 
 Randolph, whom Eppes had challenged, was hunting for 
 a second, and when only four days remained in which 
 to pass a bill that deeply interested President Madison 
 and the backers of his Administration. No less sensa- 
 tional was the adoption for the first time of a special 
 order by a majority vote, which released a bill from the 
 Committee of the Whole after a minority had held it in 
 captivity all winter. Speaker White, of Kentucky, who 
 engineered the coup d'etat, came in for as much condem- 
 nation as if he had been concerned in a Gunpowder Plot. 
 Indeed, so violent was the scene that the staid old clerk 
 turned newsmonger, entering in the Journal the fact that 
 the great uproar within made members unmindful of a 
 terrific thunder storm without. A scene equally bois- 
 terous, if not as threateningly vehement, occurred when 
 Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, played a cunning 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 trick "a parliamentary fraud," Speaker Elaine pro- 
 nounced it that passed the bill repealing the Mis- 
 souri Compromise, which Free Soilers had held up for five 
 months. But the tumult which attended the counting of 
 a quorum exceeded all former scenes of disorder. The 
 House became a perfect bedlam. At the mention of each 
 member's name, to be counted as present and not voting, 
 an explosion occurred more violent than its predecessor. 
 Even when the deafening noise attending a roll-call 
 would subside, the older weapons, dragged from the 
 arsenal of obstruction, filled the great chamber with hot 
 denunciations of a revolutionary and anarchistic type. 
 Thus for three days business was halted and the vocabu- 
 lary of passionate remonstrance exhausted. 
 
 Some of these new ways did not change the thought 
 or the parliamentary practice of the House. For the 
 moment Speaker White's device seemed like the begin- 
 ning of a new order of things; but the leaders, although 
 claiming to believe in majority rule, would give not so 
 much as a hearing to the idea of allowing the Speaker 
 to suppress dilatory motions, or of permitting a ma- 
 jority to clear the way for a special order. In fact, the 
 situation in the Forty-seventh Congress (1881-83) 
 seemed to imply the final failure of a majority to accom- 
 plish anything opposed by a minority of more than one 
 third. The rules seemed wholly out of accord, not only 
 with the age, but with the spirit of parliamentary prog- 
 ress. 
 
 It was at this crisis that Thomas B. Reed, declaring 
 that the protection of the minority did not mean the 
 destruction of the majority, began to inflict the blows 
 
x PREFACE 
 
 that destroyed dilatory motions, limited the passage of 
 special orders to a majority vote, exterminated the "dis- 
 appearing quorum," and then crystallized the results 
 into rules which have become the accepted law of the 
 House. As, in his time, Henry Clay freed the House 
 from the control of the President, so Reed, for all time, 
 freed it from the restraints of a minority. Clay governed 
 by enforcing the old rules; Reed dominated by creating 
 new rules. Clay made the House a power by managing 
 men; Reed made it a power by establishing the major- 
 ity's right to rule. 
 
 The story of subsequent changes in the House pro- 
 cedure, no less drastic if not yet vindicated by results, 
 is equally interesting. Mr. Reed had a profound regard 
 for the dignity and importance of the Speakership. To 
 him it spoke the aspirations of the Fathers to give 
 initiative and force to policies demanded by a majority 
 of the people at each biennial election. In his opinion 
 the Speaker was chosen not simply to preside over the 
 deliberations of his fellow members, but to carry out 
 party pledges and round up a successful legislative ses- 
 sion. This involved committee appointments, for legis- 
 lation derives its character in large part from the com- 
 plexion of committees, and the fairer, more experienced, 
 and better fitted is their membership, the more satis- 
 factory must be their work. Properly to select appoin- 
 tees in a House membership running up into the 
 hundreds requires an intimate personal knowledge of in- 
 dividual ambitions, characteristics, achievements, and 
 peculiar fitness for service, and in Mr. Reed's judgment 
 no one would so patiently and certainly acquire such 
 
PREFACE xi 
 
 information as the Speaker, not because the right 
 of appointment belonged to the office, but because upon 
 him rested the whole responsibility of choosing men who 
 would loyally write party pledges into legislation and 
 give conscientious study, guided by an open mind, to all 
 other measures. Moreover, he thought the responsibility 
 attendant on the exercise of such a delicate and sig- 
 nificant power should be absolutely known. In other 
 words, that some one beyond question should be answer- 
 able to the House and to the country. Thus, when it was 
 proposed in the Forty-seventh Congress (1881) to sub- 
 stitute for this purpose a board or committee of eleven 
 members, to be selected by log-rolling processes insep- 
 arable from caucus action, he failed to find the man upon 
 whom responsibility for weak, sinister appointments 
 could be fixed. "The Speaker," he said, "is not only un- 
 der the constant supervision of public opinion, but under 
 the supervision of this House, and an appointment out 
 of accord with the proprieties makes him an object of 
 suspicion. But for the wrongful acts of eleven men 
 public displeasure could rarely find a victim." 
 
 In Mr. Reed's judgment the Speaker's relation to com- 
 mittees did not end with their appointment. It was his 
 duty to remain in touch with their deliberations and to 
 keep advised of the progress of their work, for to bring 
 about a successful legislative session, wherein due re- 
 gard is given to the relative importance of matters, 
 some impartial coordinating power must somewhere 
 exist, and he thought the Speaker, whose eye is continu- 
 ally over the whole field of possible legislation, the best 
 qualified to exercise this power. To assist him in the 
 
xii PREFACE 
 
 work of coordination Mr. Reed relied upon a Committee 
 on Rules, the chief function of which was to open ways 
 for emergency matters that must have immediate at- 
 tention, and to bring up promptly for consideration pub- 
 lic bills that have necessarily been delayed in committee. 
 For this purpose he preferred a small committee, in har- 
 mony with the Speaker's purposes and capable of being 
 called into action at once. Such a committee, he said, 
 could not be autocratic, since its recommendations were 
 without validity until adopted by the House, and their 
 adoption was possible only so long as the committee 
 represented the majority's wishes. 
 
 But later-day statesmen, regarding this power too 
 great to be concentrated in one individual, have modi- 
 fied and divided it until an entirely different conception 
 of the Speakership and its duties exists at present. The 
 Speaker has been disarmed. He neither appoints the 
 committees nor is a member of a committee. His in- 
 fluence over legislation is limited to personality and 
 membership. What business shall be done hi the House, 
 when it shall be done, and how it shall be done, are mat- 
 ters with which he has no concern other than that it shall 
 proceed in order under the rules. In a word, he is simply 
 a moderator, who keeps order and decides points of or- 
 der, and whose recognition of members, except in one 
 instance, is wholly beyond his discretion. 
 
 The appointment of committees by a caucus-selected 
 board likewise reversed Reed's idea of efficiency and 
 fixed responsibility, recalling his prophetic exclamations: 
 "Think of the Speakership of this House going into com- 
 mission! Think of the log-rolling in order to secure a 
 
PREFACE xiii 
 
 board that will favor various measures!" Nor in his 
 opinion would it commend the present method if the 
 chairman of the appointing board or committee controls 
 the appointments, since that would simply transfer the 
 prestige of the Speaker to the floor leader, thus destroy- 
 ing the alleged reason for emasculating the Speakership. 
 
 Equally destructive of the Reed idea is the enlarged 
 and elective Committee on Rules, often hampered by 
 the absence of a quorum. Representing several and 
 sometimes conflicting legislative interests, it is as likely 
 to be divisive as advisory. Nor is it longer an emer- 
 gency committee, but a full-fledged, independent entity, 
 with a room and a clerk, and engaged in matters of its 
 own, which are entirely divorced from questions per- 
 taining to the leadership of the House. 
 
 These drastic changes, still in an experimental stage, 
 have not been gradual. They came abruptly, one after 
 another, preceded by forensic battles as picturesque and 
 sudden as those which aroused the country in the last 
 century, and it has been the aim of the writer to make 
 plain each step in the evolution. 
 
 To the Honorable John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, the 
 writer is deeply indebted for his patient, thorough re- 
 vision of the pages treating of this evolution. As a mem- 
 ber of the House Mr. Dalzell was recognized as a pro- 
 foundly learned and skillful parliamentarian. For sixteen 
 consecutive years, during the administrations of Speak- 
 ers Reed, Henderson, and Cannon, he was a potent 
 influence on the Committee on Rules, whose judgment 
 upon questions of parliamentary procedure had the 
 quality of finality. Indeed, the confidence of the House 
 
xiv PREFACE 
 
 in the accuracy of his knowledge was so deeply rooted 
 that when a majority in the Sixty-first Congress forced 
 a reorganization of that committee, increasing its mem- 
 bership from five to ten without the Speaker and making 
 its members elective, Mr. Dalzell was not only retained 
 on the new committee, but was elected its chairman. It 
 is proper to add that he is in no wise responsible for any 
 of the views expressed in this book. 
 
 The eight volumes of the Honorable Asher C. Hinds, 
 of Maine, entitled Precedents of the House of Representa- 
 tives, have also been an invaluable aid. His great work 
 happily combines minuteness of research with wideness 
 of vision. Nothing seems to have escaped his eye, or 
 to have blurred his appreciation of the historic value 
 of the slightest incident. Detached from all partisan 
 prejudices, he has disclosed a long list of obscure prec- 
 edents, obsolete rules, and antiquated forms, as well as 
 the latest rulings and up-to-date changes in parliamen- 
 tary procedure. Congress should ever be proud that 
 it possessed a teacher whose constructive work must 
 always remain its richest heritage. 
 
 The character studies of the more prominent public 
 men mentioned in this history, especially those who 
 figured during the ten years preceding the Civil War, 
 are based upon the personal knowledge of various mem- 
 bers, notably former Speaker Grow, with whom the 
 writer served during the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and 
 Fifty-seventh Congresses. Of those who gained prom- 
 inence in the ten years prior to 1850, information came 
 largely, through the Honorable William P. Frye, of 
 Maine, from the Honorable Alexander H. Stephens. 
 
PREFACE xv 
 
 After the latter reentered the House in the Forty-third 
 Congress (1873), Mr. Frye enjoyed his confidence to an 
 unlimited degree. They served upon the Committee on 
 Rules, spending the summer of 1879 at Atlantic City 
 while preparing the historic revision of the Code adopted 
 in 1880. 
 
 An attempt to delineate the character of the earliest 
 floor leaders, whose names are fading from men's memo- 
 ries, is most difficult. We have a few pages of their de- 
 bates, but little of the familiar knowledge of contempo- 
 raries and less of tradition. Indeed, were it not for the 
 Diary of John Quincy Adams we should be practically 
 ignorant of the personality of some of those who lived 
 only three quarters of a century ago. Even with the aid 
 of this distinguished archivist, who wrote for publica- 
 tion, we are without impartial materials, for there is 
 nothing of restraint in his style or of caution in his words. 
 So strong, in fact, was his individualism and so capri- 
 cious his humor that it would be rash oftentimes to 
 accept his notes as documentary evidence. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 BUFFALO, NEW YORK. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. APPORTIONMENT AND QUALIFICATION OP MEMBERS 3 
 H. THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT . . . .12 
 
 HI. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE . 26 
 
 IV. THE SPEAKER 41 
 
 V. THE SPEAKER AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS . 66 
 VI. OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP . . . .91 
 
 VII. FLOOR LEADERS 107 
 
 VTII. PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES OF MEMBERS . 137 
 
 IX. CREATING AND COUNTING A QUORUM . . . 155 
 
 X. THE RULES AND THE COMMITTEE ON RULES . . 180 
 
 XI. THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 213 
 
 XH. COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK . . . .226 
 
 XIII. THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE .... 256 
 
 XIV. THE MAKING OF A LAW . . . . . 273 
 XV. DEBATE AND DEBATERS 288 
 
 XVI. CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 313 
 
 XVII. IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 331 
 
 XVIII. THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE .... 353 
 APPENDIX 389 
 
 A. PRESIDENTS AND VICE-PRESIDENTS AND THE 
 
 CONGRESSES COINCIDENT WITH THEIR TERMS 391 
 
 B. SPEAKERS, CLERKS, AND SERGEANTS-AT-ARMS 393 
 
 C. DOORKEEPERS AND POSTMASTERS . . .396 
 
 D. FATHERS OF THE HOUSE . . . .398 
 
 E. CHAIRMEN OF MOST IMPORTANT STANDING_ 
 
 COMMITTEES FROM DATE OF FORMATION . 399 
 
 F. POLITICAL DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE OF RE- 
 
 PRESENTATIVES FROM 1789 TO 1915 . . 411 
 
 G. APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS BY STATES . 413 
 INDEX 415 
 
HISTORY AND PROCEDURE OF 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
HISTORY AND PROCEDURE OP 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 APPORTIONMENT AND QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS 
 
 IN providing representation for a National House OUT 
 Constitution-makers borrowed nothing from the system 
 which obtained in the British Commons. That system 
 could scarcely have been worse. "The notorious bor- 
 ough of Old Sarum," writes Lord Rosebery, "was an 
 area of about sixty acres of ploughed land, on which had 
 once stood the old city of Salisbury, but which no longer 
 contained a single house or a single resident. The elec- 
 torate consisted of seven votes, which returned two 
 members. When an election took place, the returning 
 officer brought with him a tent, under which the neces- 
 sary business was transacted." 1 No less an authority 
 than Sir Courtenay Ilbert, present Clerk of the Com- 
 mons, says that "a small number of powerful and 
 wealthy men controlled all the elections, while it has 
 been estimated that from 1760 to 1832 nearly one half 
 the members owed their seats to patrons whose interests 
 they studied and whom they obeyed." 2 
 
 Edmund Burke, who profited by this system, resisted 
 all changes. "Our representation," he said, "has been 
 found perfectly adequate to all the purposes for which 
 
 1 Lord Chatham, p. 119. 
 1 2 Parliament, Its History, Constitution, and Practice, pp. 42, 43. 
 
4 THE ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 a representation of the people can be desired or devised." 
 He thought the variety of franchises in the boroughs, 
 and the mode in which constituencies were controlled, 
 represented the various interests of the nation and its 
 ruling forces. If a candidate, not so fortunate as Burke, 
 failed to find a patron, or refused to be dependent on 
 one, he bought a seat, as Hume, Romilly, and other re- 
 formers did. Seats were advertised like livings in the 
 Church, and sold during Burke 's tune for four hundred 
 to two thousand pounds each. From 1812 to the passage 
 of the Reform Act of 1832 the price advanced to five 
 and six thousand pounds. 
 
 It is not surprising that the fathers of the new repub- 
 lic avoided this sordid system. To prevent the nesting 
 of "rotten" or "pocket" boroughs, they wisely provided 
 that districts be reapportioned every ten years; 1 that 
 representatives be chosen every two years; that their 
 number should not exceed one for every thirty thousand 
 inhabitants, provided each State have at least one repre- 
 sentative; and that every representative must, when 
 chosen, be an inhabitant of the State whence he was 
 elected. 2 The method of choosing representatives was 
 left to legislation by the States and at first was not the 
 same hi all of them. Massachusetts, New York, Vir- 
 ginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were divided 
 into districts, each of which chose one representative. 
 New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jer- 
 sey, and Georgia elected their representatives on a gen- 
 eral ticket. 
 
 In 1901 the law making an apportionment of repre- 
 1 The Constitution, art. i, sec. 2. 2 Ibid., art. xiv, sec. 2. 
 
APPORTIONMENT AND QUALIFICATION 5 
 
 sentatives in Congress among the several States required \ 
 that "representatives should be elected by districts 
 composed of contiguous and compact territory, and 
 containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of J 
 inhabitants." 1 So, too, State law and custom have 
 practically established that a representative must be a 
 resident of the district from which he is elected. Prob- 
 ably the Federal Supreme Court would not so hold, for 
 a State cannot narrow the qualification of a Federal 
 legislator; but thus far, districts have very rarely chosen 
 non-residents, on the theory that members should be 
 completely identified with local interests. 
 
 In fixing the membership of each State, the House, 
 when preparing its first apportionment bill, divided the 
 population of the State by thirty thousand, allowing an 
 additional representative for a fraction over one half 
 of the divisor or ratio. President Washington vetoed 
 the measure, because the use of major fractions allotted 
 to the State more than one member for every thirty 
 thousand inhabitants. A second bill, fixing the ratio at 
 thirty-three thousand and ignoring fractions, promptly 
 received executive approval. This disregard of frac- 
 tions necessarily deprived many States of full represen- 
 tation, and to avoid injustice, apportionment bills pre- 
 sented under the Census of 1800, 1810, 1820, and 1830, 
 very cleverly fixed a small ratio, which retained the 
 existing memberships in States having the least growth. 
 Although these ratios doubled the membership of the 
 House, little injustice was done except to New England, 
 which had good reason to protest. Daniel Webster, in 
 1 31 Stat. L., pp. 733-34. 
 
6 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 1832, when a member of the Senate's Census Committee, 
 complained that the disuse of fractions left one hundred 
 and thirty thousand of its people unrepresented, while 
 it gave New York, with forty thousand less population, 
 two members more. Other States, including Pennsyl- 
 vania, similarly benefited. President Washington, con- 
 tinued the distinguished senator, did not object to re- 
 mainders. His veto applied to their abuse, which could 
 be avoided by first fixing a definite number of representa- 
 tives for the whole country as a divisor of its aggregate 
 population, the quotient thus becoming the ratio to 
 determine the membership from each State, one repre- 
 sentative being added for each major fraction. On this 
 principle Webster drafted a measure which the Senate 
 accepted as a substitute for the^gouse^bUL 1 
 
 This met with ugly opposition in the House. James 
 K. Polk, of Tennessee, chairman of the House Commit- 
 tee, cloaking his opposition under the unconstitutional- 
 ly of fractions, insisted upon a ratio of forty-seven 
 thousand seven hundred. This accentuated the injus- 
 tice to New England. "I passed an entirely sleepless 
 night," wrote John Quincy Adams. "The iniquity of 
 the bill and the disreputable means by which so partial 
 and unjust a distribution of the representation had been 
 effected, agitated me so that I could not close my eyes. 
 I was all night meditating in search of some device, if 
 it were possible, to avert the heavy blow from Massa- 
 chusetts and from New England." But the die was cast. 
 New York, Pennsylvania, and the South benefited, and 
 when the House finally adopted the Committee report, 
 Cong., 1st Sess., Gales and Seaton's Register, pp. 487-90. 
 
APPORTIONMENT AND QUALIFICATION 7 
 
 Adams "hung his harp upon the willow." 1 In the end 
 the Senate also yielded. This gave Webster the oppor- 
 tunity of charging, in his incomparably impressive man- 
 ner, that the Senate had lost the chance of securing the 
 relative rights of the States, for the preservation of 
 which it was solely responsible. 2 When the House, in 
 1840, again adopted a low ratio without fractions, swell- 
 ing its membership to three hundred and six, the prin- 
 ciple discriminated against other sections, and in the 
 heat of a ten days' debate, Folk's artificial and uncandid 
 arguments quickly turned to ashes. Fractions suddenly 
 became constitutional, and Webster's method, dropping 
 the House membership to two hundred and twenty- 
 three, met hearty approval. 
 
 The feeling generally obtained that the House mem- 
 bership had increased too rapidly. In the debate of 1832 
 Webster predicted that by the natural operation of 
 events the old States must part with a considerable por- 
 tion of their representation, and although the Webster 
 bill reduced the aggregate twenty-seven per cent, many 
 thought the number still too large for a population of 
 less than seventeen millions. It overcrowded the old 
 hall, already rearranged and reseated, and added greatly 
 to the confusion. Accordingly in 1850 the House man- 
 aged to keep the membership down to two hundred and 
 thirty-four. In 1860 it was increased to two hundred 
 and forty-one. 
 
 Then came the present period of selfish combination. 
 Older Commonwealths of slow growth, for the purpose 
 
 1 Diary, vol. vm, pp. 471-72. 
 
 8 22d Cong., 1st Sess., Register, p. 935. 
 
8 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 of retaining their existing numbers, joined younger 
 States ambitious for an increase. In twenty years this 
 arrangement swelled the membership forty-eight per 
 cent, a greater increase than had occurred in the preced- 
 ing seventy years. The champions of reform in 1902 
 demonstrated that a smaller number would result in 
 economy, in freedom from confusion, in decreased power 
 of committees, larger opportunity for the individual, 
 and less rigid rules. To these reasons were added the 
 admonition of James Bryce, the distinguished English 
 writer, that "when the number of the assembly rises to 
 one hundred and fifty or two hundred, a new element 
 of trouble is introduced in the excitement produced by 
 the sympathy of a multitude, under whose influence 
 men will say and do things which the judgment of a sin- 
 gle man, or a small group, would at once condemn." 1 
 The admitted benefits of a small body, however, could 
 not compete in parliamentary authority with the com- 
 bination of decadent and ambitious States, and it added 
 thirty-four members. In 1911 similar methods increased 
 the number to four hundred and thirty-three. 2 The re- 
 tirement of desks and the use of benches tend to lessen 
 confusion and to give working members better oppor- 
 tunity for transacting business; but the reforms so force- 
 fully voiced in the instructive debate of 1902 are not 
 likely to be realized until thinly populated States learn 
 
 1 North American Review, vol. 151, p. 386. 
 
 2 Apportionments resulted as follows: 
 
 Apportion- 
 ment 
 
 Number of 
 members 
 
 1787 
 63 
 
 1790 
 105 
 
 1800 
 141 
 
 1810 
 181 
 
 1820 
 212 
 
 1830 
 240 
 
 1840 
 223 
 
 1850 
 234 
 
 1860 
 241 
 
 1870 
 293 
 
 1880 
 325 
 
 1890 
 857 
 
 1900 
 391 
 
 1910 
 433 
 
APPORTIONMENT AND QUALIFICATION 9 
 
 that increased representation magnifies rather than 
 minimizes their disproportion with populous States. 
 
 Upon the passage of an apportionment bill a State 
 Legislature may reform the congressional districts, but 
 after their redivision Congress may preclude other 
 changes during the continuance of such apportionment. 1 
 If a State fail or refuse to provide for congressional 
 representation Congress may do so, and for the purpose 
 may determine the extent of each district. But members 
 elected on a general ticket will be seated, although Con- 
 gress require their election by districts. A State, how- 
 ever, cannot disregard the law of apportionment. When 
 a Commonwealth elected on a general ticket one mem- 
 ber more than the apportionment allowed, the House 
 refused to give prima-facie effect to the additional cre- 
 dential. 2 In 1879 the clerk declined to enroll a represen- 
 tative-at-large to which the State was not entitled. 3 On 
 one occasion when a State, entitled to two members, 
 elected three on a general ticket, the House excluded 
 the one receiving the fewest votes. 4 But the House 
 rarely refuses to accept regular credentials when chal- 
 lenged simply for the reason that a district exceeds 
 statutory limitations, and in one instance it refused to 
 examine whether or not a county was technically en- 
 titled to be included within a district. 6 Such action, 
 however, like decisions in contested election cases, is 
 too often prompted by partisan reasons. 
 
 1 31st Cong., 2d Sess., House Report no. 3. 
 
 2 40th Cong., 3d Sess., Globe, pp. 8-9. 
 
 3 46th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 4. 
 
 4 37th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 2. 
 
 5 44th Cong., 1st Sess., House Report no. 39. 
 
10 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Respecting the qualifications of a representative, the 
 Constitution provides that he shall be twenty-five years 
 old, a citizen of the United States for seven years, and 
 an inhabitant, when elected, of the State in which he is 
 chosen. 1 To these qualifications a State may not add, 2 
 but the House will refuse to permit a member elect to 
 be sworn, if insane, disloyal, a polygamist, or a criminal. 
 It can also do whatever else may seem wise to the major- 
 ity, regardless of objections technical or meritorious. 
 Nevertheless, in carrying out the expressed will of the 
 people, the House, except in contested election cases, 
 usually endeavors to act justly. Without refusing ad- 
 mission to a member elect under age, it deferred his 
 enrollment until he could qualify. It held a foreign-born 
 citizen eligible, whom a State court, not expressly au- 
 thorized by the Federal statutes, had naturalized. In 
 like manner it permitted a member, long a resident of 
 the country, but without naturalization papers, to hold 
 his seat. Actual residence in a State at the time of a 
 member's election is not essential, 3 nor does residence 
 abroad while obtaining an education or serving the Gov- 
 ernment, constitute disqualification. Credentials need 
 not conform to law if no doubt exists as to an election. 
 For this reason the House overruled a State official, 
 who rejected a county return because of a writing on the 
 seal of the clerk's certificate, and it admitted members 
 elected on a day other than the legal day. Equity rules 
 likewise govern the rights of a Territorial delegate, an 
 
 1 Art. i, sec. 2. 
 
 2 34th Cong., 1st Sess., House Report no. 194; 48th Cong., 1st 
 Sess., House Report no. 794. 
 
 8 10th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, pp. 2, 6. 
 
APPORTIONMENT AND QUALIFICATION 11 
 
 office created by the Continental Congress. It is held \ 
 broadly that a person elected before a Territory has com- 
 pleted its statehood may become a member of the House 
 whenever the new State is admitted, but any part of the 
 Territory not included in the new State must be reorgan- 
 ized before it is again entitled to representation. The 
 qualifications of a delegate in no wise differ from those * 
 of a member, and although the former cannot vote he 
 enjoys all other privileges. 
 
 No person holding an office under the United States 
 can become a member of Congress, the term "office" 
 being limited to the power to legislate, to execute law, 
 or to hear and determine judicially. In other words, an 
 officer is one having power to bind the Government. 
 This limitation does not exclude regents and other repre- 
 sentatives of public institutions, or Government agents 
 or commissioners authorized simply to investigate and 
 report. Neither is a Government contractor an officer of 
 the United States. A postmaster or other Federal office- 
 holder, if elected to Congress, need not resign before 
 taking his seat, and, if he be a contestant, not until the 
 House declares him entitled to the place. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 
 
 AN important step in the organization of a new 
 House, and one fraught, perhaps, with the most serious 
 consequences, is the compilation of a temporary roll of 
 members elect. This roll is made up by the clerk of the 
 preceding House from certificates of election filed with 
 him, which, on their face, must be regular in form, issued 
 within the time required by law, and specific as to the 
 persons elected. It is used during the election of a 
 Speaker, and members whose names do not appear upon 
 it cannot participate in the proceedings except by the 
 vote of a majority of those enrolled. The maker of this 
 roll, therefore, possesses a power like to that of a na- 
 tional committee at a national political convention, and, 
 if opportunity offers to pad the list, he may, if so dis- 
 posed, exercise his prerogative by enrolling a sufficient 
 number of his own party to constitute a majority, who 
 can immediately proceed to elect a Speaker and organ- 
 ize the House. Such power is the more drastic since an 
 appeal is limited to the members so enrolled. 
 
 By an ordinance passed in 1785 the Continental Con- 
 gress imposed this responsible duty upon the secretary 
 of the preceding Congress. It also made him the pre- 
 siding officer until the election of a president. In 1791 
 the House of Representatives continued this arrange- 
 ment, but to control the preparation of the roll it pro- 
 vided for the appointment of a committee to examine 
 
THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 13 
 
 and report upon all credentials. After a time this admi- 
 rable procedure fell into disuse. Indeed, so little atten- 
 tion was given to credentials that members took their 
 seats without presenting any evidence of their right to 
 do so, while the clerk, in making up his roll, depended 
 largely upon newspaper reports. Adams says that the 
 names enrolled by the clerk at the opening of the Twen- 
 ty-fifth Congress were thus gathered, "not one member 
 in ten having a certificate." l To avoid " such an exceed- 
 ingly irregular practice," Adams presented a resolution 
 requiring credentials to be filed with the clerk and lim- 
 iting the roll to those complying with the rule. Although 
 the House failed to adopt this proposition, its consider- 
 ation seems to have revived the custom of filing creden- 
 tials; but it left the clerk of a House which had ceased 
 to be the sole arbiter in determining the membership of 
 a House that is to be. 
 
 Distrust of such a procedure very soon manifested 
 itself. Scattered through the record are entertaining 
 examples of oratorical sarcasm, minimizing the old 
 clerk's authority and questioning his honesty. As 
 early as 1820, John Randolph, of Virginia, charged 
 him with an offensive assumption of power because he 
 refused to put a motion. 2 John S. Millson, of the 
 same State, was no less severe. "The clerk," he said, 
 "is not the presiding officer of this House in any sense 
 of the word. He has no more control and exercises no 
 other function than the reading clerk. He is simply a 
 mouthpiece." 3 In 1837, Caleb Cushing, of Massachu- 
 
 1 J. Q. Adams, Diary, vol. ix, p. 366 (1837). 
 
 2 16th Cong., 2d Sess., Annals, pp. 437-38. 
 
 3 36th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 66. 
 
14 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 setts, charging deliberately, with much feeling, that the 
 clerk had padded the roll with members of whose elec- 
 tion there was no authentic information, insisted that 
 one of their own number should preside. 1 Henry A. 
 Wise, of Virginia, who, according to Adams, possessed 
 "the tartness, the bitterness, the malignity, and the in- 
 consistencies of John Randolph," 2 was aware, he said, 
 that usage had authorized the clerk of the preceding 
 House to prepare a roll and to officiate at the organiza- 
 tion of a new House, but the precedent had no force. 
 "There is no clerk of this House. Neither do the orders 
 of a preceding House have any validity. Nothing can 
 supersede the constitutional right of the House to adopt 
 its own method of organization." 3 Wise was correct 
 in his view, but the majority, preferring a tool to an im- 
 partial presiding officer, tabled a resolution that Lewis 
 Williams, of North Carolina, the oldest member in point 
 of service, be appointed chairman to serve until the 
 election of a Speaker. 
 
 It might be supposed that such power, vested in a 
 partisan clerk, would sooner or later be used in a close 
 election to determine arbitrarily the political complexion 
 of the House, and in the historic crisis of 1839 this con- 
 dition appeared in a highly developed form. The old 
 clerk, Hugh A. Garland, whom Gushing had denounced 
 in the preceding Congress, discovered that by omitting 
 the names of all contestants from New Jersey the roll 
 would stand one hundred and eighteen in favor of his 
 
 1 25th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 1-3. 
 8 J. Q. Adams, Diary, vol. ix, p. 88. 
 25th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 1-3. 
 
THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 15 
 
 own party, a sufficient number to elect a Speaker. 
 Accordingly, when New Jersey was reached in the roll 
 call, Garland cunningly explained that as he had no 
 authority to settle contests he would complete the call 
 and then submit the New Jersey matter to the House 
 for its decision. It was a canny maneuver. The comple- 
 tion of the roll would constitute a quorum and put the 
 control absolutely into the hands of his friends, who 
 could immediately organize the House. John Quincy 
 Adams saw the trick. "This movement," he wrote, "has 
 evidently been prepared to exclude the five rightful New 
 Jersey members from voting for Speaker, and the clerk 
 has his lesson prepared for him. His own election de- 
 pends upon their exclusion." 1 
 
 An acrimonious debate followed. To add to the ex- 
 citement the clerk, in the absence of a declared quorum 
 and without unanimous consent, refused to put any 
 question except a motion to adjourn. In other words, 
 says Adams, "he stops calling the roll before a quorum 
 is established and refuses to put any question until a 
 quorum is formed." 2 To solve the difficulty members 
 voiced various expedients side-tracking the election of 
 a Speaker until the settlement of the New Jersey con- 
 tests. One proposed establishing a quorum by calling 
 the uncontested names; another suggested choosing a 
 temporary chairman and a committee on elections; a 
 third insisted upon calling the names of claimants who 
 bore the Governor's certificates with the broad seal of 
 the State and allowing only the uncontested members 
 to vote upon their admission. The clerk refused to put 
 1 Diary, vol. x, p. 143. * Ibid. 
 
16 THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 any of these propositions. His evident effort to estab- 
 lish a quorum without the admission of the New Jersey 
 members finally became so intolerable that Adams, in 
 an eloquent appeal, deeply stirred the House, urging 
 it to seat the "broad seal" delegation. "But who will 
 put the question? " inquired a colleague. " I will put the 
 question myself," thundered Adams. 1 
 
 The preeminence of Adams was acknowledged. He 
 abounded in wit at once genial and penetrating. His 
 scorn of all pettiness made him disdain jobbery. Even 
 the subtler arts of parliamentary manipulation, except 
 the breaking of a quorum, did not appeal to him. There 
 was much in him also that was sublime. He was a puis- 
 sant orator. His comprehensive grasp of European 
 statecraft and his capacity for taking broad, high views 
 made his achievements world-wide. To distinguished 
 service and exalted station he united superb qualities of 
 intellect developed by ardent study, which splendidly 
 equipped him for the highest public usefulness, and at 
 this supreme moment in a parliamentary crisis his in- 
 trepid spirit marked him out among the feebler men 
 about him. It also inspired them. Even R. Barnwell 
 Rhett,of South Carolina, whom Adams subsequently de- 
 scribed as " a painted Administration butterfly," fired by 
 the firmness and patriotism of the appeal, asked the clerk 
 if he would now put the questions. Garland hesitated. 
 He had seen the House aroused in the preceding Con- 
 gress. He had heard Cushing's ugly charge, the penetrat- 
 ing opinion of Wise, and the spectacular speech of Rhett, 
 whose "enunciation was so rapid, inarticulate, and vo- 
 1 26th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 19. 
 
THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 17 
 
 ciferous that his head hung back as he spoke, with his 
 face turned upward like that of a howling dog." 1 In 
 the midst of such strange, exciting scenes Garland had 
 also observed his friends pull the strings that tabled 
 the resolution superseding him. Could they do so again, 
 he wondered? He scented a political catastrophe, but 
 he could scarcely bring himself to bend. He was unwill- 
 ing, he said, to put any question except a motion to ad- 
 journ, but, if so instructed, he would act as the chair- 
 man of a meeting of gentlemen and put questions. 
 To this William Cost Johnson, of Maryland, wittily 
 objected. "We are gentlemen," said he, "but this is 
 evidently not a meeting of gentlemen." Then Rhett 
 moved that John Quincy Adams be made chairman, and, 
 putting the motion himself, declared it carried, while 
 two members rushed the "old man eloquent" to the 
 chair. The adoption of the rules of the last House fol- 
 lowed. 
 
 The affair greatly exasperated the Administration 
 party. Indeed, the noisy scene excited grave apprehen- 
 sion that Garland, encouraged by the support of his 
 backers, would again attempt to preside. To prevent 
 such a coup d'Stat, Adams took the chair promptly at 
 twelve o'clock each day, and by his firmness and great 
 fairness finally conquered opposition. He did not con- 
 ceal his desire to admit the New Jersey members, whose 
 exclusion he accepted as a political trick to defeat the 
 election of John Bell, of Tennessee, but after members 
 had voted he compelled obedience to the mandate. 
 Finally, at the end of six days of stormy debate and 
 1 J. Q. Adams, Diary, vol. ix, p. 386. 
 
18 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 bluster the House elected Robert M. T. Hunter, of Vir- 
 ginia, "an amiable, good-hearted, weak-headed young 
 man, prematurely hoisted into a place for which he is 
 not fit." l Thus, "in consequence of the adroitness of 
 one party (itself the minority in fact) five duly returned 
 members from one of the States were excluded from 
 their seats, and the power of the House thrown into the 
 hands of the minority for the whole of that Congress. 
 It was a great usurpation, a palpable violation of the 
 Constitution only acquiesced in because there was 
 no remedy short of revolution." 2 In reward for his 
 partisan roll-making Garland again became clerk. 
 "Had the five New Jersey men voted," says Adams, "a 
 tie vote would have prevented his choice. He stands 
 self-elected by the baseness of his treachery to his 
 trust." 3 
 
 Nevertheless, fair dealing would have cost Garland the 
 confidence of his party as obedience to principle subse- 
 quently did John W. Forney. Forney was a gentleman 
 of the world. His open and engaging demeanor made 
 him a charming companion, while his signal excellence as 
 a journalist added to his prestige. He delighted in epi- 
 gram, was without the slightest taint of snobbery, and 
 led the most congenial souls in Washington. These quali- 
 ties made him serviceable to his party, and in 1851 and 
 again in 1853 it elected him clerk of the House. Thus, 
 at the historic opening of the Thirty-fourth Congress 
 (1855), Forney inherited the difficult task of organizing 
 
 1 Diary, vol. x, p. 379. 
 
 * National Intelligencer (Washington), December 17, 1849. 
 
 Diary, vol. x, p. 172. 
 
THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 19 
 
 a body in which no party had a majority and no mem- 
 ber was without a vote, for in preparing the prelim- 
 inary roll of members elect his conscience could not be 
 silenced by office or honors. 
 
 During those exciting sixty days, he wrote years 
 afterward, " My position was most peculiar. I was one 
 of the editors of the Washington Union, the organ of 
 President Pierce, and the active advocate of James 
 Buchanan for the Presidential succession, and I was also 
 the personal friend of Andrew H. Reeder, who had just 
 been removed from the governorship of Kansas for re- 
 fusing to join the conspiracy to force slavery into that 
 Territory. Our relations had not changed, and I had 
 earnestly, but vainly, protested against his sacrifice. He 
 was on the floor contesting the seat of J. W. Whitfield, 
 who had secured the certificate as a delegate from Kan- 
 sas. The struggle for the Presidency was at fever heat. 
 The South was wrought to the highest pitch of excite- 
 ment. The bold attitude of the Free-State men in Con* 
 gress and the country, the extraordinary proceedings in 
 Kansas, and the closeness of parties in the House, added 
 to the other perplexities of my position. The opposi- 
 tion looked upon me with a very natural distrust, and 
 the Democrats relied upon me to exert every influence to 
 forward their designs. Their hatred of my friend Reeder 
 was terrible, and I soon found that my unconcealed 
 confidence in him made me an object of general distrust 
 among the Southern leaders. Cobb and Stephens, of 
 Georgia; Garnett and Faulkner, of Virginia; Rust, of 
 Arkansas; Jones, of Tennessee; Alexander K. Marshall 
 and Burnett, of Kentucky; Barksdale, of Mississippi; 
 
20 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 George S. Houston, of Alabama; Keitt and Brooks and 
 Orr, of South Carolina, backed in the Senate by Slidell, 
 Toombs, Iverson, J. M. Mason, Hammond, Butler, Wig- 
 fall, Benjamin, Yulee, and C. C. Clay, and in the Cabinet 
 by Jefferson Davis, believed if they lost the House all 
 was imperiled. Every day the same scene was enacted. 
 . . . But members soon saw that I was resolved to act 
 honestly at every hazard." 1 
 
 The dominating politicians, piqued by Forney's even- 
 handed justice, seriously thought of making James L. 
 Orr, of South Carolina, the presiding officer. In fact, 
 the previous question had been demanded on such a 
 motion when some one moved a recess. Johsua R. Gid- 
 dings, of Ohio, thought the motion incompetent pending 
 a demand for the previous question, but Forney thought 
 otherwise, and the tired members, worn out with inter- 
 minable ballotings, points of order, debates, and threats 
 of violence, sustained his ruling. 2 This gave time for 
 sleep, and the motion to promote Orr was not again 
 offered. Forney continued to guide the proceedings 
 until February 3 (1856), when the House, on the one 
 hundred and thirty-third ballot, elected Nathaniel P. 
 Banks, of Massachusetts, for Speaker. 3 
 
 Forney got out of his "thankless" job very well 
 financially, for the House doubled his salary; 4 but the 
 fierce asaults upon his rulings filled him with resent- 
 
 1 J. W. Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, p. 110. 
 
 2 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 87. 
 
 8 Banks received 103 votes to 100 for William Aiken, of South 
 Carolina. 
 
 4 Forney was reflected clerk of the House in 1860, and the Senate, 
 at President Lincoln's solicitation, made him its secretary in 1861. 
 
THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 21 
 
 ment, and he seemed never to tire of exploiting the 
 frailties of his persecutors. Of those named in the above 
 list he thought Davis the sternest in his convictions; 
 Jones the most acrid; Houston the noisiest; Keitt the 
 most quarrelsome; Hammond of the least account; 
 Mason, "with his Dombey diction and pompous pre- 
 tense," the most dictatorial; Slidell, supercilious and 
 satirical, "a scheming politician of undoubted courage, 
 yet never a statesman," the most implacable in his hos- 
 tility to all who did not agree with him; Wigfall, thun- 
 dering his anathemas, the boldest and coarsest; Toombs, 
 a stormy petrel, often grand as a declaimer, always 
 intolerant, dogmatic, extreme, and threatening. Of 
 Orr and Benjamin and Soule and Howell Cobb he 
 had few words of censure. To him Orr was the best-tem- 
 pered of the able ultras of the South, and Benjamin the 
 possessor of those rare qualities which characterized 
 Henry Winter Davis, of Maryland, whose incisive sen- 
 tences and ready wit were admirably reinforced by acute 
 reasoning powers and legal training. "Benjamin's hand- 
 some Jewish face, his liquid tones, and easy enunciation 
 contrasted well with his skill as a debater and his ac- 
 curacy as a student." The one man whom Benjamin 
 most disliked, continues Forney, was "poor Pierre 
 Soule, the brilliant and superficial Frenchman, whose 
 swarthy complexion, black, flashing eyes, and Frenchi- 
 fied dress and speech made him the chief attraction of 
 the Senate. He was an artificial man brilliant in 
 repartee, yet subject to fits of melancholy; impetuous, 
 yet reserved; proud, but polite, with a vast fund of 
 knowledge and a deposit of vanity which was never 
 
22 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 exhausted." Although Forney included Howell Cobb in 
 his list of tormentors, he seemed to remember him with- 
 out bitterness. He thought of him as a different type 
 from the others. "Like John C. Breckinridge," said this 
 delightful and gossipy writer, "Cobb never persecuted 
 the men of his party who refused to endorse extreme 
 measures; yet he was most resolute in behalf of his State 
 and section." * 
 
 Forney's successors, profiting by his experience, have 
 found it easier and less precarious to submit all questions 
 to the House. They have even declined to call members 
 to order when not confining their remarks to the subject, 
 thus creating scenes of great confusion and contributing 
 to prolong the period of organization. The speakership 
 contest of 1860, rivaling in threats and bitterness all 
 previous exhibitions of partisan and sectional anger, 
 forced the House to adopt the rule that "pending the 
 election of a Speaker, the clerk shall preserve order and 
 decorum, and decide all questions of order that may 
 arise, subject to an appeal to the House." 2 To add to 
 the clerk's power and prestige an act, passed on the last 
 legislative day of the Thirty-seventh Congress, declared 
 that "before the meeting of each Congress the clerk of 
 the next preceding House shall make a roll of the repre- 
 sentatives elect, and place thereon the names of those 
 persons only whose credentials show that they were 
 regularly elected in accordance with the laws of their 
 States respectively, or the laws of the United States." 3 
 
 1 Anecdotes of Public Men, p. 41. 
 
 1 Adopted March 9, 1860. Rule ra, sec. 1. 
 
 14 Stat. L., p. 396. 
 
THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 23 
 
 Under this law the clerk may decline to enroll a member \ 
 elect if his credentials are informal, or in excess of the I 
 apportionment, or indefinite as to returns; or if they / 
 challenge the legality of an election, the citizenship of a/ 
 claimant, or the sufficiency of his age. During the or-^ 
 ganization of the House the clerk may also refuse to 
 recognize members whose names are not upon his roll; 1 
 or to allow interruption while calling the roll; 2 or to 
 permit an amendment of the roll until after the elec- 
 tion of a Speaker. 3 In theory the House may on 
 appeal correct clerical usurpations, but since such mis- 
 takes are committed for the purpose of putting the 
 clerk's party in power, "he would be a sanguine man, 
 indeed," writes Speaker Reed, "who hoped to see a 
 wrong repudiated which was thus premeditated and 
 profitable." 4 
 
 For this reason the clerk of the preceding House is 
 often an object of suspicion. Forney's case was not an 
 exceptional one. Whenever parties are closely divided 
 his roll tends to discredit his fairness, while his rulings, 
 even if he strictly follows precedent, usually arouse 
 resentment. This was more evident after the statute 
 fixed his status, since it occasionally contributes to an 
 undue assumption of superiority. In 1863, when un- 
 seemly haste seemed to characterize the organization of 
 the House, William S. Holman felt the sting of such ar- 
 rogance. The majority, without waiting to hear the 
 clerk's reasons for omitting certain members from his 
 
 1 39th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 2. 2 Ibid. 
 
 8 45th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 53. 
 
 4 North American Review, vol. 151, p. 113. 
 
24 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 roll, moved their admission. As the Indianian raised the 
 point that it was not in order to instruct the clerk as to 
 his duties, that official quickly overruled him and put 
 the motion, the House remaining ignorant of the reason 
 for his original action. 1 Having made up the roll in 1867, 
 McPherson, clerk of the last House, declined to enter- 
 tain any proposition for modifying it. 2 James Brooks, 
 of New York, rising to a question of order, spoke of 
 the clerk's omission to call the names of members elect 
 from Louisiana and Georgia. Thereupon McPherson 
 declared him out of order, declined to entertain an 
 appeal, and directed him to take his seat. 3 Prior to the 
 election of Speaker Randall in 1877, Eugene Hale, of 
 Maine, rising to a question of the highest privilege, pro- 
 posed substituting one name for another on the clerk's 
 roll. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, made the point of 
 order that " the clerk had absolute control over the roll 
 of the House," whereupon George M. Adams, of Ken- 
 tucky, the clerk, sustained the point and declined to 
 entertain an appeal, declaring it "not competent for 
 representatives elect, in their unorganized capacity, 
 either to instruct the clerk how he shall perform a 
 duty which the law has imposed upon him, or to take 
 it out of the hands of the clerk and themselves per- 
 form the duty which the law has said the clerk shall 
 perform." 4 
 
 It is clear that the inherent right of the House under 
 the Constitution to make its rules and elect its officers 
 
 1 38th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 4-6. 
 * 40th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 3-4. 
 8 41st Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 4. 
 4 45th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 53. 
 
THE ROLL OF MEMBERS ELECT 25 
 
 cannot be limited by the Act of 1863, 1 but "the law has 
 thus far been acquiesced in," says Speaker Reed, "be- 
 cause of the fear that any other course might lead to 
 chaos." 2 However this may be, it is most fortunate, 
 perhaps, that for many years decisive elections have 
 settled the political status of each new House long in 
 advance of its organization, since it is not pleasant to 
 contemplate what might occur in a House of greatly in- 
 creased membership should a bold hold-over clerk like 
 Garland, regardless of fair dealing, prepare a roll of 
 members which gave his own party the requisite number 
 to elect a Speaker and thus organize the House. 
 
 1 42d Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 11, 117; but see, also, 44th Cong., 
 2d Sess., Record, p. 1156. 
 
 2 North American Review, vol. 151, p. 113. 
 
CHAPTER m 
 
 ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 
 
 To the visitor who cares for history no place in the 
 country inspires deeper interest than the Capitol at 
 Washington, surmounted by its famous dome, and no 
 occasion, perhaps, unless it be the inauguration of a 
 President, contributes more pleasure than the organi- 
 zation of the House. Richly dressed ladies garland the 
 galleries; foreign diplomats, glittering with emblems 
 of their order, occupy boxes set apart for their use; and 
 long rows of spectators from all parts of the country, 
 packed and orderly, add a holiday character to the scene. 
 In the House of Commons lady visitors sit behind an 
 iron grille as if the wives of Mohammedans, but in the 
 American House they are openly welcomed. On excep- 
 tional days they appear in the press gallery, and on 
 rarest occasions have even dared to view the brilliant 
 scene from the rail that guards the hall itself. 
 
 On the floor of the great chamber are gathered several 
 hundred eager politicians, not more intelligent than 
 any equal number of selected professional and business 
 men, or better speakers than are found in any large 
 assembly of clerical or legal representatives; but as "the 
 House" they constitute a body more interesting than 
 any other in the country. The individual is nothing. 
 The presence of a few highly distinguished ones of whom 
 every one knows lends an interest, but they are not the 
 loadstone. It is "the House" that attracts. What is 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 27 
 
 "the House"? An aggregation of vigorous elements, 
 having different objects, antagonistic notions, and 
 selfish interests, centered about indefinite party policies 
 and moved by personal, political, and sometimes patri- 
 otic purposes. In appearance it is constantly changing. 
 Often half a dozen members are "the House" not 
 infrequently nearly half a thousand. From a trifling 
 expense for printing it may pass to the consideration of 
 a policy that divides the nation into halves. At one 
 moment it is calm like a mill-pond in the next as 
 boisterous as the Niagara rapids. Frequently it can do 
 nothing but adjourn, and often, although helpless, it 
 refuses to adjourn. There is a "feeling of the House" 
 and a "sense of the House." It is a common saying that 
 "the House has more sense than any one in it." It is 
 likewise full of whims. It gets out of sorts and sulks. 
 But it is never unhitched. However dull it may become, 
 some one is on guard, and hidden from sight and from 
 the knowledge of spectators, like the delicate wheels of 
 a watch, are restraining rules and restrictive precedents ' 
 which safeguard it from the petulance of its moods and 
 the violence of its passion. Moreover, it is always think- 
 ing and planning and talking. For days the contending 
 elements may be as wide apart as ice cakes in a swollen 
 river, when suddenly, as if swept by a cold wave, the 
 "mind of the House" is made up, and the country is 
 quieted or disturbed. 
 
 To witness the organization of such a body, though 
 simple and void of the spectacular, captivates all classes 
 their imagination dwelling upon its history, its im- 
 portant functions, its tremendous responsibilities, its 
 
28 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 incessant activities, and the picturesque scenes, dra- 
 matic, pathetic, and comic, which are constantly enter- 
 ing into its life. To many it is a pleasure simply to sit in 
 a place which has echoed the voices of the starry spirits 
 whose brilliant discussions, scintillations of wit, and so- 
 ber wisdom have made it a center of historic memories. 
 One lives with the great dead, whose names imparted 
 inspiration to one's childhood, or pointed the way to 
 one's future. Within those massive walls men have 
 assembled who led the nation during the years when it 
 slowly raised itself from conscious independence to 
 assume its place as a world power. 
 
 More dignity marks an initial session than formerly. 
 The custom of wearing hats was discontinued in 1837. 
 Prior to that, members remained covered, though not 
 always with the highly polished "topper" so familiar 
 in the House of Commons. Until 1871 it was the practice 
 of members to smoke, giving the air a grayish hue. 
 Formerly, too, admiring friends adorned the desks of 
 members with flowers, flooding the hall with a mass of 
 color and incidentally concealing the faces of the benefici- 
 aries. But in 1905, long before the removal of the desks, 
 the custom became obsolete, thus leaving the House 
 ready for business and giving visitors an opportunity of 
 studying the strong and weak features of the men, who, 
 for a brief spell, are to aid in making the country's laws. 
 
 But nothing of this gala-day spectacle is new to the 
 veteran of several terms save the faces of new members, 
 and nothing so sad, perhaps, as the absence of old 
 ones. The House grows accustomed to its losses, proud 
 in its conviction that no man is indispensable to it. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 29 
 
 Nevertheless, those of Jong service know that the place 
 is never quite the same after the loss of an able leader. 
 "Now that Mr. Gladstone is no longer with us," plain- 
 tively writes a veteran Commoner, "who can fill the 
 House and hold the audience in charmed attention?" 
 Members of the House of Representatives have reason 
 occasionally to feel as lonely. The promotion of Schenck, 
 the defeat of McKinley, the withdrawal of William L. 
 Wilson, of West Virginia, the death of Randall, the res- 
 ignation of Reed, and the transfer to the Senate of 
 Blaine and Dawes and Hoar and Frye and Hale and 
 Carlisle and Vice-President Sherman such changes 
 occurring from time to time have made the chamber 
 seem lonesome. These distinguished leaders gave eclat 
 to debate. Most of them were expert talkers, trained in 
 a parliamentary school, and their words, like cooling 
 showers in August, often revived a tired House and put 
 new life into the routine. There was about them in the 
 heat of battle a certain chivalry of manner which makes 
 debate the more effective and tends to disparage cheap, 
 torrent-like declamation. Such speakers become an 
 example to all, and their departure leaves vacancies 
 which only time can fill. This was especially true of 
 Eppes and Lowndes, of Clay and Evans and Bell, of 
 Blaine and Garfield and Randall and Reed. They occu- 
 pied so large a place in the thoughts, the lives, and the 
 affections of so many hundreds of their colleagues that 
 their loss combined with many of the dramatic elements 
 of their lives to convert their memory into a sort of 
 legend, so that members who had known them well grew 
 at last to be envied by later comers. 
 
30 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Nevertheless, when the House sheds a veteran leader 
 the spirit of politics is often changed for the better, 
 since younger members, unprejudiced by the past 
 and eager for a new order of things, come to the front. 
 The transition is gradual, but it usually makes for 
 progress. There is little to be feared, however, from 
 longevity in the House, since each biennial election is 
 the curfew of one fourth of its members. Thus the 
 House, like the heathen goddess, devours its own chil- 
 dren. But the rapidity with which the process goes on 
 is a bit startling. Of the three hundred and ninety-one 
 members who appeared in March, 1911, at the first 
 session of the Sixty-second Congress, only four be- 
 longed to the House in 1891. 1 This represents the havoc 
 usually made every twenty years by death, defeat, and 
 other circumstances. The average length of a mem- 
 ber's service is less than six years. 
 
 A new House is usually organized on the first Monday 
 in December of each odd year, although the ceremony 
 may occur earlier if the President calls a special session. 
 But whatever the day, the clerk of the preceding House 
 raps for order promptly at twelve o'clock meridian, and 
 while the chaplain prays the members, standing in their 
 places, give reverent attention with bowed heads. Then 
 the clerk calls the roll of members elect. In earlier days 
 this sometimes meant parliamentary confusion, and the 
 conditions that characterized the New Jersey wrangle 
 in 1839 may again cause trouble. During the past 
 half -century, however, decisive results at the polls and 
 
 1 Joseph G. Cannon, Illinois; Sereno E. Payne, New York; Henry 
 H. Bingham, Pennsylvania; John Dalzell, Pennsylvania. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 31 
 
 early caucus action have turned the call into a mere 
 formality and the election of a Speaker into a public 
 ceremony. If the roll-call discloses a quorum, 1 candi- 
 dates for Speaker are immediately placed in nomina- 
 tion. In presenting them the chairmen of the respective 
 party caucuses rise in their places, and, without re- 
 marks, announce the names selected. This done, the 
 clerk appoints tellers, representing each party, and pro- 
 ceeds a second time to call the roll, arranged not by 
 States as before, but alphabetically. 2 Each member, 
 without rising, declares his choice viva voce. Prior to 
 1839 the House used the ballot, and subsequent efforts 
 to restore it occasionally found a few supporters. But 
 after the long, fierce contest of 1849 members resented 
 the suggestion, holding that open voting prevented 
 secret bolting. In 1855 a motion to restore it was de- 
 feated by two hundred and fourteen to seven. 
 
 The number of votes required to elect a Speaker de- 
 pends upon the will of the House. For many years the 
 rule, accepted without objection, fixed a majority of 
 all the members as the minimum. But in 1809, when 
 Speaker Varnum received a less number, the House, 
 heedless of John Randolph's declaration that " a Speaker 
 should be elected more majorum," 3 held a plurality 
 sufficient, a quorum having voted. 4 This precedent, 
 
 1 In the earlier years a quorum rarely responded on the opening 
 day. At the first session of the First Congress, called to meet on 
 March 4, 1789, a majority of the House did not appear until April 1. 
 But railroads long ago eliminated excuse for such delays. 
 
 2 If two members have the same surname, the State of each is 
 added. If two from the same State have like surnames, the first 
 names are called. 
 
 8 llth Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, pp. 54-56. 4 Ibid. 
 
32 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 based upon party expediency, found no favor with suc- 
 ceeding Houses until a desire to end the protracted 
 struggle of 1849 encouraged the adoption of a special 
 rule providing that if no choice be made in the next three 
 ballots a plurality should elect. It was argued that a 
 plurality would be equivalent to a majority since it 
 required a majority to give effect to a plurality, but 
 after the selection of Howell Cobb under the resolution 
 anxiety to preserve the Randolph rule led to the con- 
 firmation of his title by a majority vote. 1 In the famous 
 contest between Banks and Aiken in 1855, a similar 
 special rule was adopted, and when the third ballot 
 disclosed a plurality for Banks, a teller, in announcing 
 the result, said: "According to the resolution adopted 
 this day Nathaniel P. Banks is declared Speaker of the 
 House of Representatives for the Thirty-fourth Con- 
 gress." Immediately a member from Kentucky pro- 
 tested that, the precedent of 1849 not having been fol- 
 lowed, Banks had not been chosen Speaker. Upon this 
 the pent-up emotion of many weeks broke forth in wild 
 tumult, but when order was partially restored, Aiken, 
 with a chivalry that did him honor, rebuked the cavil- 
 lers, declaring Banks fairly and legally chosen. Never- 
 theless, it was deemed expedient to confirm his title 
 by a majority vote. 2 An exception to this rule has 
 occurred only once. In the Forty-sixth Congress, out 
 of a total membership of 293, Samuel J. Randall re- 
 ceived 144 votes, a plurality of 21 over James A. Gar- 
 field, but 3 less than a majority. After the announce- 
 
 1 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, pp. 157-63. 
 
 2 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 343. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 33 
 
 ment of the choice of Randall, a member, swelling with 
 indignation, asked if it did not require a majority of all 
 to elect, to which the instructed and obedient clerk 
 promptly replied : " It requires a majority of those voting 
 to elect a Speaker as it does to pass a bill, a quorum 
 voting." 1 A similar ruling, had it been permitted in 
 1839, 1849, 1855, and 1860, would have made other 
 men Speaker than those finally chosen. In the presence 
 of such a continued and chivalric observance of the 
 Randolph rule, its violation in 1879 seemed unpatriotic. 
 Nor would the House have acquiesced had the votes 
 in opposition aggregated a majority. Nevertheless, it 
 served the Pennsylvanian's purpose! 
 
 After announcing the election of a Speaker, the clerk 
 appoints a committee to conduct the honored one to the 
 chair. In early Congresses it consisted of one member 
 distinguished for long or other service; but in 1849, 
 after the historic contest between Cobb and Winthrop, 
 during which the rival candidates had observed toward 
 each other conspicuous courtesy, the House increased 
 the committee to three, the appointment of Winthrop 
 as its chairman being received with wild applause. 
 "Mr. Winthrop," says the Globe, "approached Mr. 
 Cobb with much good humor, both shaking hands cor- 
 dially." 2 This gracious custom became hallowed when 
 Aiken, after the savagely partisan contest of 1855, 
 smilingly offered his arm to Banks, and presented him 
 to the House as the "gentlest of gentlemen." 3 In later 
 
 1 46th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 5. 
 
 2 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 20. 
 
 8 The vote stood: Banks, 103; Aiken, 100. 
 
34 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 years the absence of hotly contested elections may 
 have robbed this pretty ceremony of much of its senti- 
 ment, but men yet living can recall Kerr conducting 
 Blaine to the chair, and Blaine conducting Kerr; Gar- 
 field arm in arm with Randall, and Randall arm in arm 
 with Keifer; Reed supporting Carlisle, and Carlisle 
 supporting Reed; Reed escorting Crisp, and Crisp es- 
 corting Reed. Such are the vicissitudes of politics. 
 After Crisp's death and Reed's resignation, James D. 
 Richardson, of Tennessee, accompanied Henderson, 
 John Sharp Williams walked by the side of Cannon, 
 and eight years later James R. Mann, of Illinois, es- 
 corted Champ Clark. 
 
 Thus escorted, the Speaker elect mounts at once to 
 the dais. In the English Parliament the ceremony is less 
 abrupt. Standing with one foot on the topmost step, the 
 Speaker elect of the Commons bows three times to the 
 chair, and, looking back, recites a brief formula of thanks. 
 Then, taking the last step, he seats himself upon the 
 people's throne, while the sergeant-at-arms lifts the 
 mace to the table in token that the House is in session. 
 The Speaker elect of the American House escapes less 
 easily. He must listen to the words of an introduction, 
 and recite or read an original address. The enthusiastic 
 audience, eager to end the monotony of roll-calls, ex- 
 pects a rousing speech, but as words of self-deprecia- 
 tion, of commonplace appeal, and hackneyed platitudes 
 multiply, it begins to wonder how a brilliant talker, 
 effective in attack and ready in repartee, can be so tame. 
 The Record presents no exception to the rule. Clay 
 declared himself so sensible of imperfections "that re- 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 35 
 
 liance upon your generous support alone encourages me 
 to attempt a discharge of the duties of the Chair. " l 
 Even Elaine, bold and dominating as Clay, expressed 
 great diffidence. 2 After laboriously trying to work out 
 something new, Reed complained that "the language of 
 thanks has long ago been exhausted." 3 One wonders 
 if the English stereotyped formula is not better. Yet 
 the remarks of Speakers elect are rarely tedious. As 
 printed in the official proceedings Clay's six speeches 
 average only twenty-five lines, and Stevenson's and 
 Cannon's, each four times elected, average seventy 
 and twenty-seven lines respectively. Of the three-term 
 Speakers, Macon's average six lines, Colfax's forty, 
 Elaine's thirty, Randall's twenty, Carlisle's seventy, and 
 Reed's seventeen. Other Speakers are not more prolix. 
 Indeed, Crisp's two speeches average only six lines. 
 
 When taking the oath the Speaker formerly de- 
 scended to the floor. It placed him once more on a level 
 with his associates, and magnified the fact that much 
 of his power springs from his membership; but for many 
 years he has remained in his desk. Importance also at- 
 taches to the official administering the oath. Very early 
 in its history the House adopted the English custom of 
 designating for this duty the member of longest contin- 
 uous service, known as the "Father of the House." 4 
 For four Congresses John Quincy Adams bore this title; 
 Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, held it for six terms; 
 and William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, sustained it 
 
 1 12th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 2. 
 
 2 41st Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 3. 
 8 55th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 4. 
 
 4 For list of "fathers," see Appendix D. 
 
36 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 with great credit for sixteen years out of a service of 
 fifteen terms. With questionable taste Speakers Ran- 
 dall and Crisp interrupted the custom by designating 
 William S. Holman, of Indiana, to officiate. Holman 
 had served as many terms as the then "father," but not 
 consecutively. 1 Had later speakers followed this prece- 
 dent, Joseph G. Cannon must have officiated after the 
 Fifty-fif th Congress, since he represented longer service 
 than Bingham. Indeed, in a parliamentary sense Can- 
 non may be said to have been born before his father. 2 
 Having taken the oath of office the Speaker elect 
 becomes the Speaker, and is always and everywhere 
 addressed as "Mr. Speaker." Yet never in his dress 
 and rarely in his manner is there visible change. It is 
 otherwise with the Speaker of the House of Commons. 
 On his reappearance after taking the oath he is attired 
 in Court dress, with knee-breeches, silver-buckled shoes, 
 and a bob-wig. After receiving "His Majesty's Royal 
 allowance and confirmation of the choice made by his 
 faithful Commons," a ceremony performed in the 
 House of Lords, he drops the "bob," puts on a full- 
 bottomed wig, dons a flowing robe, and makes his way 
 back to the chamber of the House, accompanied by the 
 chaplain in full canonicals and the sergeant-at-arms 
 bearing the mace. The cry, "Mr. Speaker," passed 
 along from policeman to messenger, announces his prog- 
 ress. A similar ceremony is daily observed whenever 
 
 1 Holman served from the 36th to and including the 55th Congress, 
 except the 39th, 45th, 46th, and 54th. 
 
 2 Cannon who is still in the House, served continuously from the 
 43d to and including the 62d Congress, except the 52d, being the 
 longest service in the history of the House. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 37 
 
 he enters the House. The Speaker of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, unaccompanied and unannounced, enters 
 the great chamber promptly at twelve o'clock, quickly 
 ascends to the desk, gives one sharp rap with the gavel, 
 proclaims "the House will be in order," and in a softer, 
 lower tone asks the chaplain, already waiting at the 
 clerk's desk, to offer prayer. The Englishman believes 
 that business would proceed much less smoothly with- 
 out the wig, the robe, and the ceremony, while the 
 American rejoices in the Speaker's ordinary dress and 
 the absence of the spectacular. 
 
 The first duty of the Speaker is to administer the oath 
 to members elect, who, as their names are called by 
 States, take position in front of the desk. If one member 
 objects to another being sworn, the Chair may direct 
 him to stand aside until the House decides. In such 
 instances members are usually sworn at once and their 
 cases subsequently referred to a committee for exami- 
 nation. Absent members qualify whenever they ap- 
 pear. Indeed, during their absence the oath may be 
 administered to them by another than the Speaker. 1 
 
 The election of clerk, sergeant-at-arms, doorkeeper, 
 postmaster, and chaplain follows the qualification of 
 members. To save time a resolution containing the 
 five names selected by the majority caucus is adopted. 
 After their election the Speaker administers the oath. 
 Then the sergeant-at-arms, without ceremony and of- 
 ten without being observed by the casual visitor, lifts 
 the historic mace, with its silver globe and massive 
 eagle flashing in the light, to its place on the marble 
 1 49th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 1156-58. 
 
38 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 pedestal at the right of the Chair. This symbol of the 
 power of the House as represented by the Speaker, when 
 thus located, indicates that the House is in session and 
 ready for business. 1 
 
 But on this opening day there is little business to 
 transact. Two resolutions are adopted, one instructing 
 the clerk to notify the President and the Senate that the 
 House is ready to proceed to business; the other direct- 
 ing the Speaker to appoint a committee to join one from 
 the Senate to inform the President that Congress is pre- 
 pared to receive any communication he may be pleased 
 to make. The hour for daily meeting is also fixed, usually 
 at twelve o'clock meridian. 
 
 The adoption of the rules of the last House, like the 
 preceding business, is wholly perfunctory. Whatever 
 changes the majority desire are prepared in private, ap- 
 proved in caucus, and presented to the House under a 
 demand for the previous question. This limits debate to 
 twenty minutes on a side, and three or four old mem- 
 bers, whose speeches are seldom new and never con- 
 vincing, exhaust the time. For many years the real 
 interest of the opening day centered in the remarks of 
 William P. Hepburn, of Iowa, a caustic and dangerous 
 adversary in debate, who, while exploiting his objections 
 to the rules, delighted the House with his ready retort 
 and sarcasm. Nevertheless, the code is usually adopted 
 without amendment. 2 
 
 1 The mace represents the Roman fasces, the rods, tipped with 
 silver spearheads, being bound transversely with a silver band, from 
 the center of which a silver stem supports a globe of silver, on which 
 perches a massive silver eagle. The height is about three feet. 
 
 1 See chap, ix, p. 170. 
 
ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE 39 
 
 The drawing of seats formerly completed the busi- 
 ness of the day. The old chamber, now Statuary Hall, 
 afforded fairly good accommodations until the appor- 
 tionment under the Sixth Census crowded two hundred 
 and forty members into its limited area. After that the 
 desirable seats fell to those who arrived first. This 
 raised the cry that members residing near Washington 
 benefited at the expense of those living at a distance, 
 and several unsuccessful attempts to put all on an 
 equality exaggerated the unfairness of the free-seat sys- 
 tem as much as they exploited the benefits of a lottery 
 scheme. Finally the issue became sufficiently acute to 
 attract the attention of Howell Cobb, of Georgia, whose 
 ambition to be Speaker found support in his skill as a 
 parliamentarian, and with arguments that told most 
 readily on the House he engineered the adoption of a 
 plan, which, in spite of its nerve-racking and temper- 
 ruifling results, seemed ever after to defy improvement. 1 
 Its operation required a box of marbles, each bearing a 
 number corresponding to the number of a member's 
 name on a**list alphabetically arranged. When all seats 
 were vacated, except those specially exempted for 
 former Speakers and others of conspicuous or long ser- 
 vice, a blindfolded page withdrew a marble, the clerk 
 announced its number, and the member hurried to the 
 most desirable seat unoccupied. This was fair. But 
 as the coveted places rapidly filled, the suspense be- 
 came more and more intolerable until the unlucky 
 members gladly dropped into any vacant chair, de- 
 voutly thankful if they escaped a far-off corner, known 
 1 29th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 4. 
 
40 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 as "Cherokee Strip," where seeing was difficult and 
 hearing impossible. Nevertheless, the lottery continued 
 as the fairest plan that could be devised until the re- 
 moval of desks and the substitution of benches in 1913 
 did away with the necessity for permanent seats. A 
 member entering the chamber may now locate in any 
 unoccupied chair. Although this was practically so 
 under the old arrangement, one who took the seat of 
 another usually vacated it on the appearance of its 
 rightful occupant not from the feeling of being a 
 trespasser, but because the desk contained books and 
 papers which the latter might wish to consult. Until 
 the erection in 1908 of a building providing rooms for 
 others than chairmen of committees, a member's desk 
 was his office. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE SPEAKER 
 
 THE Speaker is the organ of the House. As its execu- 
 tive head he receives its invitations, represents it at 
 public functions, appoints and removes official reporters, 
 names visitors and trustees of public institutions, 
 issues warrants, executes orders, authenticates pro- 
 ceedings, approves bonds, certifies salary accounts of 
 members, controls committee rooms, corridors, galleries, 
 and the House grounds, regulates admission to the 
 floor and to the press gallery, signs all bills that pass, and 
 notifies the proper state official whenever a vacancy in 
 the House occurs. 
 
 As its presiding officer he calls the assembly to order, 
 recognizes members, ascertains the presence of a quorum, 
 presents business as indicated by the rules, preserves 
 order, administers censure by direction of the House, 
 answers parliamentary inquiries, decides questions of 
 order, and, in general, carries out the will of the House. 
 He selects the chairman of the Committee of the 
 Whole, appoints a Speaker pro tempore for a day, or, 
 with the approval of the House, for a term not to ex- 
 ceed ten days, and refers or directs the reference of 
 all bills to their respective committees. Until the 
 Sixty-second Congress (1911) he appointed all commit- 
 tees unless otherwise ordered, and for over hah* a cen- 
 tury (1857-1911) was chairman of the Committee on 
 Rules. By the Act of 1816 his salary was fixed at $8 
 
42 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 per day. It became $6000 per year in 1856, $8000 in 
 1866, and $12,000 in 1906. 
 
 By custom the Speaker ranks next to the President 
 and Vice-President. Until 1887 the law designated him 
 to succeed to the Presidency in the event of the death 
 or incapacity of the President and Vice-President. Na- 
 thaniel Macon regarded the Speaker "as the elect of 
 the elect of all the people," and disregarding his assign- 
 ment at a public ceremony, took his place by the side 
 of the President and Vice-President. 1 At a state dinner 
 given by the Chief Executive to members of Congress, 
 the Vice-President sits at the right and the Speaker at 
 the left of the President. If given to the Supreme Court, 
 the Chief Justice, as the guest of honor, sits at the 
 President's right, the Vice-President at his left, and the 
 Speaker at the right of the Chief Justice. On one 
 occasion Speaker Cannon declined to attend such a 
 function unless so seated. " Be as modest as you please," 
 said Thomas H. Ben ton to Speaker Winthrop, who hesi- 
 tated a moment before taking his seat at a dinner given 
 by the City of Washington to Congress, "but don't 
 compromise the House of Representatives." 2 Former 
 President Adams thought the Speaker should call upon 
 no one save the President and Vice-President. Several 
 reasons are presented for this precedent. Speaker 
 Winthrop based it upon his duty, coequal with that of 
 the President and Vice-President, to sign all bills. John 
 Quincy Adams attributed it to the fact that he is "the 
 representative of the people's representatives." 3 Until 
 
 1 Thomas H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, vol. i, p. 118. 
 
 * M. P. Follett, The Speaker of the House of Representatives, p. 297. 
 
 8 Ibid. 
 
THE SPEAKER 43 
 
 divested of authority to appoint committees and to 
 head the Committee on Rules, Thomas B. Reed thought 
 the office "had but one superior and no peer," and 
 people generally associated this prestige with its "enor- 
 mous power," which was surpassed only by that of the 
 President. 
 
 The Speaker of the House of Commons is not its pro- 
 totype. The former declares and interprets the law in 
 a strictly judicial spirit, and his rulings are final. 
 Though he cannot make or alter the law of the House, 
 he may, when precedents and orders are insufficient, 
 adopt such a course as is most consistent with the usages 
 and traditions of the House and the rights and interests 
 of its members. When elected Speaker he renounces 
 party, and merges the lesser office of member into the 
 greater one of Speaker. He is not permitted to advise 
 either party and must not deliver political addresses 
 even to his own constituents. He cannot vote except 
 in case of a tie, a privilege, which, if exercised, is so 
 used that, if possible, it may not involve final action. 
 Indeed, not to maintain strict political neutrality 
 without the House as well as within it is deemed a 
 sufficient breach of the proprieties to deny him a reelec- 
 tion. When his impartiality is established, however, 
 his tenure of office is not affected by a change of min- 
 istry, and, so long as he desires to continue in office, 
 the practice of reelecting him, whatever party may 
 be in power, has been departed from but once in a 
 century. 
 
 The American Speaker, on the other hand, was un- 
 til recently a political leader. As a presiding officer he 
 
44 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 interpreted the rules and decided questions of order, 
 subject to appeal, while as head of his party in the House 
 he controlled political legislation along lines representing 
 its established policies. In other words, the office com- 
 bined imperfectly the duties of a British Speaker, who 
 is the parliamentary spokesman of the House in its 
 collective capacity, and the legislative functions of a 
 British Prime Minister, who represents a majority of 
 the Commons and endeavors to control legislation by 
 all the adventitious aids known to party machinery. 
 This combination put the American Speaker at a great 
 disadvantage. To shape legislation in the interest of a 
 party and to act impartially as a presiding officer is a 
 difficult role, and even when infinite tact and rare skill 
 are exercised, a lurking suspicion exists that political 
 motives influence and govern him. Nevertheless, it has 
 always been held that a Speaker while presiding is in 
 nowise emancipated from the obligation to act impar- 
 tially, and fairness at such times has largely determined 
 his character as an official worthy of the great trust im- 
 posed in him. It may be added that in matters purely 
 political an earnest effort to observe the British ideal 
 has at times marked the conduct of several Speakers, 
 notably of Samuel J. Randall, who, by firm fairness 
 during the passage and enforcement of the Electoral 
 Commission Act in 1877, rose to exalted heights. 
 
 In choosing a Speaker the House, unless prevented by 
 a party caucus or outside interference, usually picks its 
 most masterful member. The selection of John White, 
 John W. Jones, and John W. Davis, called "the three 
 Johns" and known as "the three tools," represents the 
 
THE SPEAKER 45 
 
 blighting control of party bosses, while the choice of 
 Stevenson and Polk was due wholly to the influence 
 of President Jackson. The chief factor in the election of 
 Hunter and Pennington was availability, neither being 
 the first choice of his party. Galusha A. Grow became 
 Speaker, says Elaine," because of his activity in the anti- 
 slavery struggles." 1 After knocking down Lawrence 
 M. Keitt, of South Carolina, in a fisticuff encounter on 
 the floor of the House, Grow became a hero, 2 and with- 
 out a caucus or party nomination he polled a plurality 
 of votes on the first roll-call. Subsequent changes before 
 the announcement of the result gave him a majority 
 over all. As a rule long service, conspicuous ability, and 
 aptitude for the duties of the chair have governed in 
 the selection of Speakers, bringing to the high office such 
 members as Taylor, Clay, Bell, Winthrop, Cobb, Banks, 
 Colfax, Blaine, Kerr, Randall, Carlisle, Reed, and Can- 
 non. 
 
 The selection of a Speaker pro tempore who will sus- 
 tain the elevated character of the high office becomes 
 important. If the Speaker leaves the chair temporarily, 
 he may hand the gavel to any member accessible at the 
 moment. But in selecting a colleague to preside in his 
 absence, or when custom denies him the privilege, the 
 Speaker aims to appoint an able parliamentarian, pos- 
 sessing the supreme confidence and respect of the House. 
 Although the excellent practice long ago became ob- 
 solete of choosing eminent members like John Quincy 
 
 1 Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i, p. 324. 
 
 2 John T. Morse, Jr., Life of Lincoln, vol. I, p. 297. See, also, chap, 
 vii, p. 125. 
 
46 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Adams and Robert C. Winthrop regardless of their po- 
 litical affiliations, the list of appointees includes many 
 names familiar to the country. A speaker pro tempore, 
 if his appointment is approved by the House, may au- 
 thenticate papers, 1 sign bills, and appoint committees. 2 
 His most important duty, however, is to preside during 
 the consideration of matters personal to the Speaker, such 
 as censure, charges of misconduct, a contested seat, or 
 *-<% resolution of thanks. At such times the House is likely 
 to be testy. Excitement and often resentment are in 
 evidence, and while free scope must be given to investi- 
 gation and declamation, exhibitions of malice should 
 be tactfully restrained. As a rule Speakers court the 
 fullest inquiry and quickly step aside while the House 
 probes for the truth. It showed the nobility of Howell 
 Cobb's character, when charged with mutilating the 
 House Journal, that he called his distinguished oppo- 
 nent, Robert C. Winthrop, to the chair. 3 In like manner, 
 Speaker Randall, during an investigation in 1879 which 
 involved his personal honesty, turned the gavel over to 
 John G. Carlisle, his great rival. 4 When Carlisle became 
 Speaker in the Fiftieth Congress, he faced a painful 
 contest for his seat. A feeling existed that the methods 
 of his friends would scarcely bear exposure to the gaze 
 of a fastidious public, and to escape the charge of com- 
 plicity he absented himself from the Capitol on a plea 
 of illness during the consideration and settlement of the 
 case, leaving to the House the selection of a Speaker 
 
 1 48th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 1743. 
 
 2 28th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 13. 
 
 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 1713. 
 
 4 45th Cong., 3d Sess., Journal, pp. 541, 671-74. 
 
THE SPEAKER 47 
 
 pro tempore. 1 Speaker Coif ax, after relinquishing the 
 chair to move the expulsion of Alexander Long, of Ohio, 
 adopted a similar course. His action had made an un- 
 pleasant impression upon the House. The minority 
 thought it inexcusably rash until his refusal to preside 
 whenever the matter subsequently came up showed that 
 no personal feeling or interest promoted his patriotic 
 action. Speaker Elaine failed to exhibit such tact during 
 the investigation of the Credit Mobilier scandal. Of 
 those implicated by public rumor Elaine's name stood 
 at the top of the list. He had, in fact, absolutely re- 
 fused to have anything to do with the disreputable 
 transaction, and when Congress met in December, 
 1872, he promptly introduced a resolution providing 
 for the investigation of the affairs of the Union Pacific 
 Railroad. The special committee's report came in March, 
 and, although it acquitted the Speaker of any wrong- 
 doing, his colleagues regarded his retention of the chair 
 during its consideration as indelicate. The press like- 
 wise censured him. 2 
 
 The early custom of nominating and electing a chair- 
 man of the Committee of the Whole proved so unsatisfac- 
 tory that the House, in the Third Congress, authorized 
 the Speaker to appoint. In selecting members for this 
 very responsible position, he aims to pick skilled par- 
 liamentarians whose views accord with his own, unless 
 he wishes to disarm an active opponent by taking him 
 from the floor. "The Speaker called me to the chair," 
 
 1 See chap, xiv, p. 328; 50th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 645-61. 
 1 New York World, March 5, 1873; 42d Cong., 3d Sess., Record, 
 pp. 1867-87. 
 
48 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 wrote John Quincy Adams, "so that I could not enter 
 into the debate." This proved a handicap to the dis- 
 tinguished fighter, since "Boon, of Indiana, whose fac- 
 ulty of speech is a yelp, charged me with having slighted 
 the manufacturing interests of the country when I was 
 in power, and Hardin, of Kentucky, let out some of his 
 venom upon New England." 1 In more recent years 
 other members have had reason to complain. Elaine 
 enjoyed calling Samuel S. Cox to the chair, and in 
 moments of f acetiousness other Speakers smoothed the 
 way by handing the gavel to flippant talkers. But Cox 
 was never muzzled. Whether in the chair or out of it, 
 his activities and banter did not cease. Reed called him 
 "a whole skirmish line." In one of his funny moments 
 he declared that the Republicans of Maine, in spite 
 of its prohibitory law, drank "a great deal of whiskey 
 clandestinely." To which Reed quickly replied: "When 
 my friend from New York takes it, it does not remain 
 clandestine very long." 
 
 Whenever the House is engaged in business other 
 than roll-calls and regular debate, the Speaker is alert 
 and usually on his feet, answering inquiries, putting 
 motions, and announcing results. If deciding points of 
 order, he may stand or sit at his pleasure. At such 
 times controversy with the Chair is never allowed. In 
 enforcing this rule against Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, 
 Speaker Reed, with sharp emphasis, declined to hear 
 him. 2 Even if the Chair refuses an appeal, a member 
 must keep silent. "The Chair desires to state," said 
 
 1 Diary, vol. ix, pp. 322, 324. 
 
 2 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 3976. 
 
THE SPEAKER 49 
 
 Speaker Crisp, "that no member has a right, after the 
 Chair has decided a point of order, to ask upon what 
 ground he bases his decision." l During Reed's historic 
 contest to compel Speaker Crisp to count a quorum, the 
 latter declined to entertain an appeal. 
 
 "On what ground?" asked Reed. 
 
 SPEAKER: "The Chair declines to make any further 
 statement." 
 
 REED: "I think I can satisfy the Chair " 
 
 SPEAKER: "The Chair declines to hear the gentleman 
 further." 
 
 REED: "The Chair will permit me to explain." 
 
 SPEAKER: "The Chair will not." 
 
 REED: "The Chair will permit me " 
 
 SPEAKER: "The gentleman from Maine will be seated. 
 The sergeant-at-arms will see that the gentleman takes 
 his seat." 2 
 
 And the former Speaker sat down. 
 
 On the other hand, the Chair, under the rule, is re- 
 strained from addressing the House either from the 
 desk or floor without its leave. This unwritten rule, 
 derived from the English Commons, does not apply 
 when the House is in Committee of the Whole. Nor 
 does the Chair always respect it at other times. Speaker 
 Clay had a habit of cleverly insinuating his opinions 
 with a captivating smile and a graceful bow, and the 
 House accepted it in the Clay spirit. 3 The tradition, 
 however, has been approved even by others no less dis- 
 tinguished. Speaker Elaine, having left the chair to 
 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4044. Ibid., p. 4060. 
 
 8 12th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 1546. 
 
50 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 reply to a vicious attack by Benjamin F. Butler, of 
 Massachusetts, declared that " the Speaker should, with 
 consistent fidelity to his own party, be the impartial 
 administrator of the rules of the House, and a constant 
 participation in debate would take from him that ap- 
 pearance of impartiality which it is so important to 
 maintain in the rulings of the Chair." l Having thus 
 apologized for the impropriety of his act, he proceeded 
 to punish the offending member. "He came down like 
 a sledgehammer," his wife wrote her son. "Butler was 
 really cowed. Mr. Peters, who sat in front of him, told 
 Mr. Hale that Butler shook so that he (Peters) could 
 feel it where he sat. Butler has brow-beaten witnesses 
 till all the world feared him; but this time he was faced 
 down and pounded and battered and very much sur- 
 prised. I was surprised, too, to see how little he had to 
 say in reply. He left nearly every point untouched, 
 throwing out a few wild shots. But yesterday he went 
 up to the desk and chatted with Mr. Blaine as if nothing 
 had happened. The whole gallery of reporters were 
 frightfully disgusted, thinking, no doubt, that it was all 
 talk and no tussle." 2 To this presumption Butler's 
 subsequent appointment as chairman of the Judiciary 
 Committee certainly contributed some supporting evi- 
 dence. Mrs. Blaine's description of the Speaker's effort, 
 however, was not over-colored. Reed once said of him : 
 "His rush was very hard to withstand; he never paused 
 to defend and never ceased to attack." 
 
 Samuel J. Randall, like Blaine, left the chair several 
 
 1 42d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 125. 
 
 * Gail Hamilton, Life of James G. Blaine, p. 249. 
 
THE SPEAKER 51 
 
 times to address the House without its permission, but 
 his breach of the proprieties in no wise involved him- 
 self. He spoke for the adoption of better rules, helpful 
 to legislation and for the common good. 1 Of the more 
 recent Speakers, Crisp and Cannon and Clark addressed 
 the House, each at least once, without its leave. Can- 
 non's speech simply vindicated him from charges made 
 by a delegate from Arizona that the Speaker had unduly 
 prejudiced legislation looking to the admission of that 
 Territory as a State. 2 But the Crisp episode, growing 
 out of Reed's effort to compel the counting of a quorum, 
 climaxed a highly dramatic scene. It was a daring 
 maneuver. No sooner did Crisp take the floor than the 
 House was on its feet, and in the midst of an excitement 
 which filled the air with motions, appeals, and satirical 
 sallies, the Speaker endeavored to be heard. Very 
 naturally he received no better treatment than was 
 accorded other members. Laughter greeted his words, 
 witticisms interrupted his sentences, and an occasional 
 sarcasm from Reed intensified the confusion. It demon- 
 strated the wisdom of the tradition that a Speaker 
 should not participate in debate, and incidentally re- 
 called the fact that Reed, in his famous fight to count 
 a quorum, never sought the floor. 3 
 
 Speakers, however, are privileged to debate when- 
 ever the House is in Committee of the Whole. Henry 
 Clay reveled in the opportunity, speaking on nine meas- 
 ures in one session. He often arranged that important 
 
 1 45th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 2665; 46th Cong., 1st Sess., Re- 
 cord, pp. 336, 1018; 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 1079. 
 
 2 59th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 8528. 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4056. 
 
52 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 matters be taken up in Committee, 1 and once, at least, 
 ventured to resent a motion to close debate before he 
 had spoken. 2 Other Speakers than Clay have frequently 
 asserted their privilege, notably Dayton and Randall, 
 but for a third of a century, if Speaker Cannon's occa- 
 sional remarks be excepted, the custom has been obso- 
 lete. Cannon rarely presumed to debate. It was his 
 custom to give a history of the legislation before the 
 Committee, often dropping into a reminiscent vein to 
 the delight of his hearers. With the possible exception 
 of John Quincy Adams, no one ever entertained the 
 House better. His remarkable memory seemed never 
 to forget an incident in the forty years of his congres- 
 sional life, while the charm of his manner added im- 
 measurably to his offhand yet finished speeches. 
 
 In exercising the privilege of voting Speakers have 
 rarely misused it. The original form of the rule did not 
 allow the Chair to vote "unless the House be equally 
 divided, or unless his vote, if given to the minority, 
 will make the division equal, and in case of such equal 
 division the question shall be lost." 3 Speaker Macon, 
 holding this language to mean whenever a vote would 
 affect the decision of the House, voted to complete a 
 two-thirds majority. 4 Henry Clay went a step further. 
 He held that the Chair, unlike the English Speaker, 
 who renounces the privileges of membership, retained 
 the right as a member to vote upon any pending ques- 
 tion, and in 1817 he not only voted to pass the Internal 
 
 1 12th Cong., 2d Sess., Annals, p. 677. ! Ibid., p. 596. 
 
 8 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 103. 
 4 8th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 775. 
 
THE SPEAKER 53 
 
 Improvement Bill over the President's veto, but, wish- 
 ing to influence others, demanded that his name be 
 called first. 1 Although no one save Clay ever had the 
 audacity to make such a demand, many members agreed 
 with his view. Nevertheless, the House twice refused 
 to amend the rule, 2 and in 1847 Speaker Winthrop held 
 the Clay precedent "not within the intention of the 
 rule." 3 It is likely Clay himself doubted its propriety, 
 for in 1824, after the House, by a large majority, had 
 voted Lafayette one hundred thousand dollars, the 
 Speaker courteously requested the privilege of having 
 his vote recorded among the "ayes." However, several 
 Speakers, without provoking objection or criticism, fol- 
 lowed the Clay precedent, and in 1850 the House 
 amended the rule to read: "He shall not be required to 
 vote except when his vote will be decisive." 4 This 
 gave him the right to vote at any time, a privilege 
 rarely exercised except in Committee of the Whole. 
 Speakers are not more anxious than members to express 
 an opinion on every contested measure, although, when 
 questions of the highest importance to the country 
 are pending, the Chair naturally desires to go upon 
 record. The Speaker's name, however, is not upon 
 the voting-roll, and is not called unless required 
 under the rule or upon his request. It is then called 
 last. He usually responds at once, although a cast- 
 ing vote may be given after the announcement of the 
 result, or when other business has intervened, or even 
 
 1 14th Cong., 2d Sess., Annals, p. 1062. 
 
 2 23d Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 77; 25th Cong., 1st Sess., Jour- 
 nal, p. 63. 
 
 3 30th Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, p. 211. 4 Rule i, sec. 6. 
 
54 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 on another day if a correction of the roll makes it 
 necessary. 
 
 An important duty of the Speaker is the preservation 
 of order. Authority is given him to suspend all business, 
 to call members by name, to clear the galleries, or even 
 to summon the Capitol police. During the reading of 
 the Mulligan letters in 1876 threats to call the police 
 emphasized the riotous character of the disorder, but 
 threats sufficed. Ordinarily the gavel, or the mace, or 
 a show of good-natured patience is sufficient. In sup- 
 pressing personalities in debate or preventing expres- 
 sions offensive to Senators and to the President, the 
 Chair sometimes names a member. This compels the 
 House to excuse or punish. 
 
 The Speaker may exclude from the Congressional 
 Record words spoken by a member after being called to 
 order, but he has no authority over that publication, or 
 over the House Journal after it is read. Nor is it a part 
 of his duty to rule upon the effect of a proposition or 
 proposed amendment, or to construe the Constitution 
 as affecting legislation, or as relating to the constitu- 
 tional prerogatives or powers of the House. He may 
 exercise his discretion as to submitting motions offered 
 as privileged questions other than those relating to the 
 privileges of the House and its members, but parlia- 
 mentary inquiries, which are in the nature of privileged 
 motions, are always heard at once, since answers make 
 clear to the House the effect of its proposed action. 
 
 Questions of order that arise in the course of busi- 
 ness are likewise decided at the time. In making such 
 decisions the Speaker's power is autocratic. He may 
 
THE SPEAKER 55 
 
 decide with or without debate, and announce his ruling 
 with or without reasons. Speaker Clay never gave 
 reasons. "The House will sustain your decisions," he 
 said to Speaker Winthrop, "but there will always be 
 men to cavil and quarrel over your reasons." 1 Never- 
 theless, Speakers have very generally and properly 
 ignored this advice, for a clear, terse statement not only 
 adds dignity to the Chair and strengthens his position 
 as an impartial judge, but it instructs the House in the 
 parliamentary code governing legislation. Decisions 
 usually follow precedent. In one instance Speaker Cobb 
 did so, though it violated his individual judgment. 2 
 Other Speakers have made similar admissions. 3 Oppor- 
 tunity to be heard is first given the one raising the 
 point of order, and afterward to those whom the Chair 
 desires to hear. Though a dozen seek recognition he 
 may refuse all, declaring that the Chair is ready to rule. 
 From his decision, however, any member may appeal. 
 "Consequently," said Speaker Reed, "there is not and 
 cannot be any arbitrary control of this body against its 
 will. The Speaker, for the time being and as a matter 
 of convenience arising from the nature of his office, 
 makes a ruling upon the subject which is before the 
 House; but that ruling is always subject to revision by 
 the House itself, and no one can take away that right 
 on the part of the House." 4 
 Theoretically this is true. But in practice few mem- 
 
 ^ l Robert C. Winthrop, Life of Henry Clay, p. 5. 
 
 * 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 1280. 
 
 8 26th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 246; 32d Cong./2d Sess., Journal, 
 p. 234. 
 
 4 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 741-49. 
 
56 'THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 bers, especially of a Speaker's party, ever care to offend 
 by voting to overrule one whose good-will is desired. 
 All wish to catch his eye, to receive recognition, to 
 avoid a slight, and to be known as friendly, for, if so 
 disposed, he can in many ways help or hinder. This 
 makes members hesitate to displease or irritate him. 
 Anxiety to succeed inspires every action, and often to 
 suffer in silence is preferable to insisting upon fair play. 
 An appeal from the Chair's decision, therefore, although 
 the boasted parliamentary right of every member, is 
 seldom indulged by one of his own party or sustained 
 if taken by the Opposition. Indeed, his party support- 
 ers, often at the expense of then* better judgment, ac- 
 quire the habit of falling into line. This subtle power of 
 the Chair interprets a further remark of Speaker Reed, 
 that "the conduct of an assembly depends much more 
 upon the conduct of the chairman than upon all other 
 conditions combined." l In other words, a Speaker who 
 creates a sentiment that, whatever others may do, he 
 will treat all with absolute fairness, must incite a similar 
 spirit on the part of members and thus avoid the con- 
 fusion that often impedes legislation. 
 
 If the duty of deciding questions of order is the most 
 difficult, administering the Speaker's right of recognition 
 has been the most embarrassing. Like committee ap- 
 pointments the right of recognition formerly dealt with 
 the personal ambition of members. In its very nature 
 recognition is peremptory, absolute in authority, sub- 
 ject to the closest scrutiny, instantaneous in effect, and 
 to a legislator as necessary to achievement as food is to 
 1 Thomas B. Reed, Parliamentary Rules, p. 36. 
 
THE SPEAKER 57 
 
 life. Furthermore, to be of service it must be granted 
 at the opportune moment. Thus it becomes a step- 
 ladder to a member's success, and the Chair's disposi- 
 tion to ignore him, or to limit his activities, encourages 
 the taunt of partiality. 
 
 The rule adopted in 1789 implied that the Chair, 
 when two or more members happen to rise at once, 
 should exercise its judgment. 1 When a member excepted 
 to this interpretation, complaining that the Chair rec- 
 ognized another than the one who first arose, Speaker 
 Boyd replied that "the rules confer authority upon the 
 Chair to name the member entitled to the floor." 2 
 This did not mean a haphazard recognition, for early 
 in the history of the House unwritten laws governing 
 recognition began to accumulate. Thus, members were 
 entitled to the floor to present questions of privilege, 
 or privileged motions and reports. As a rule chairmen 
 of committees or those authorized to speak for them 
 were preferred to individuals. As early as 1843 Speaker 
 White declared this to be the invariable practice, al- 
 though another had previously risen and addressed the 
 Chair; 3 and Speaker Randall, in 1880, held that when 
 a member, under instructions from a committee, sought 
 the floor for a motion to suspend the rules, he always 
 recognized him in preference to an individual member. 4 
 The enforcement of these rules, intended to expedite 
 
 1 " When two or more members happen to rise at once, the Speaker 
 shall name the member who is first to speak." (Rule xiv, sec. 2, 
 adopted April, 1789.) 
 
 8 S2d Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, p. 405. 
 
 8 27th Cong., 3d Sess., Journal, p. 211. 
 
 4 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 925. 
 
58 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 important business, has never created complaint. Mem- 
 bers recognize the priority of business as quickly as the 
 Chair and gracefully yield. But whenever a Speaker 
 began recognizing members for political or personal 
 reasons, it aroused bitter resentment. 
 
 While most Speakers, perhaps, have sought to be 
 fair, many of them adopted methods well calculated to 
 cause irritation. Speaker Cobb, though one of the most 
 amiable of men, arbitrarily refused the floor to advo- 
 cates of a Homestead Bill, 1 while Linn Boyd, his suc- 
 cessor, sought to deprive Thomas H. Benton of time to 
 finish his speech on the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
 promise. "I wanted the country to understand," said 
 John Wentworth, of Illinois, "that the oldest man in 
 Congress, who was here when the Missouri Compro- 
 mise was adopted, was refused a courtesy which had 
 been refused to no other man, and when there was no 
 hope from courtesy, I moved an amendment upon which 
 Benton was recognized. As he concluded in triumph 
 Douglas came to my seat and said, tauntingly: 'The 
 Abolitionists are quite successful under you as their 
 new leader/ " 2 After the Civil War, Speakers used the 
 right of recognition no less arbitrarily. Randall refused 
 the floor to a new member lest something rash might 
 be said. 3 He held that "the right of recognition is with 
 the Chair under the rules and under the practice." 4 It 
 is notorious that Blaine withheld recognition until 
 allowed to censor the proposed measure. The Nation 
 
 1 George W. Julian, Political Recollections, p. 104. 
 1 John Wentworth, Congressional Experiences, p. 54. 
 8 46th Cong., 3d Sess., Record, p. 2236. 
 4 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 925., 
 
THE SPEAKER 59 
 
 called it "bargaining with members for recognition." l 
 Carlisle made no secret of refusing recognition to propo- 
 sitions unacceptable to him. For this reason Randall's 
 pet measure to repeal the tax on tobacco never obtained 
 a hearing. In like manner Carlisle allowed public build- 
 ings, bridges, and other important bills to die for want 
 of recognition. On one occasion Camion refused recog- 
 nition for the consideration of what he thought an ex- 
 travagant public building bill, although a majority 
 petitioned for it. 
 
 The custom of inquiring, "For what purpose does 
 the gentleman rise?" before deciding the question of 
 recognition, belongs to the Reed period. Prior to its 
 adoption Speakers sometimes inadvertently recognized 
 members seeking the introduction of undesirable resolu- 
 tions, but this inquiry disclosed their purpose in ad- 
 vance. In the Fifty-sixth Congress William Sulzer, of 
 New York, afterward governor of his State, in answer 
 to the irritating question, explained that he rose to 
 move the adoption of a resolution expressing sympathy 
 for the Boers. Speaker Henderson replied that "the 
 Chair must recognize members upon matters which the 
 Chair thinks should be considered." 2 This inconsider- 
 ate remark strengthened the belief of the country that 
 the Speaker absolutely controlled legislation. In the 
 preceding Congress Speaker Reed had exhibited more 
 tact when Benton McMillin, of Tennessee, a member of 
 high courage and dogged perseverance, sought the floor. 
 On being asked the purpose of his rising, McMillin 
 explained his desire to present for immediate considera- 
 
 1 Vol. xxvi, p. 226. * 56th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 5227. 
 
60 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 tion a resolution favoring Cuban independence. There- 
 upon the Chair, while fumbling the gavel, looked sharply 
 at Nelson Dingley, the floor leader, who presently rose 
 and moved to adjourn. As this motion took precedence 
 of McMillin's request, the House quickly dissolved, 
 leaving the Tennessean on his feet indulging in a free 
 trade of ironical blandishments. 1 
 
 In earlier years when refused recognition a member 
 had the right of appeal. Speaker Taylor frankly ad- 
 mitted this right. Speaker White did likewise. 2 Hunter 
 even invited it, 3 and Pennington yielded to the ruling of 
 his predecessors. 4 Indeed, this was the settled practice 
 for nearly a century. But in February, 1881, Speaker 
 Randall, refusing to adopt the precedent, held "the 
 right of recognition just as absolutely in the Chair as 
 the judgment of the Supreme Court is absolute in its 
 interpretation of the law." 6 Two years later Speaker 
 Keifer made a similar ruling, startling the House with 
 inexcusable ignorance by declaring that "no appeal of 
 the kind had ever been entertained." 6 These decisions 
 put members desiring recognition for measures not priv- 
 ileged wholly at the mercy of the Chair. Although the 
 Speaker based his power upon the ground of his party 
 leadership and his right as an individual member to 
 object to unanimous consent, he did not disarm the 
 critic who claimed that he should trust to the vigilance 
 
 55th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 2449. 
 19th Cong., 2d Sess., Debates, p. 493. 
 26th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 433. 
 S6th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 496. 
 46th Cong., 3d Sess., Record, p. 2236. 
 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 4554-55. 
 
THE SPEAKER 61 
 
 of his floor leader and thus preserve the appearance, at 
 least, of an unprejudiced presiding officer. 
 
 For the disposition of resolutions of the Boer and 
 Cuban type, offered largely for political purposes only, 
 the House cared little, while matters of public impor- 
 tance could be reached through privileged motions or 
 on fixed days of the week. But a class of unprivileged 
 public bills, benefiting various districts, deeply con- 
 cerned the personal welfare of members, and as their 
 consideration depended upon obtaining recognition for 
 unanimous consent or to move a suspension of the rules, 
 scenes of great confusion occurred during the time set 
 apart for such purposes. "We crowd in front of the 
 clerk's desk with bills of which the House knows 
 nothing," wrote a member in Speaker Randall's time, 
 "each seeking for preference and recognition." l To 
 avoid these riotous demonstrations the custom of sub- 
 mitting such bills privately to the Speaker gradually 
 became the only avenue to recognition, since he listed 
 and recognized only those measures he approved. This 
 plan worked very well for those whom he favored, but 
 it provoked bitter criticism among the independent 
 spirits of courage whose errands of mendicancy too 
 often proved futile, while it absolutely barred non grata 
 members. "Because of this practice," says McCall, 
 "Speakers have probably been denounced more bitterly 
 and have won a larger measure of unpopularity than 
 upon any other single ground." 2 
 
 To these assumptions of power can easily be traced 
 
 1 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 1053. 
 
 8 Samuel W. McCall, The Business of Congress, p. 128. 
 
62 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 an increased use of dilatory motions. Inspired by per- 
 sonal resentment, members, invoking all the obstruc- 
 tive methods known to skilled parliamentarians, made 
 the Record a valuable publication for disclosing the pop- 
 ularity of such spite work during the administrations of 
 Speaker Randall and his immediate successors. By the 
 time Carlisle reached his third term as Speaker it became 
 so easy to muster a sufficient number of disgruntled 
 members to delay or prevent legislation that the House, 
 in the Fiftieth Congress, although in continuous session 
 longer than any of its predecessors, passed only one 
 measure except such as received unanimous consent. 1 
 
 It is easy to understand how such conditions would 
 not improve the temper of members, and although 
 strong Speakers and large party majorities delayed the 
 adoption of better methods, the House, in the Sixty- 
 first Congress, established, as elsewhere stated, 2 a calen- 
 dar for unanimous consents, 3 and fixed each Wednesday 
 for a call of committees. 4 These rules at once dispensed 
 with journeys to the Speaker's room. The use of privi- 
 leged motions, privileged measures, privileged reports, 
 and privileged business on fixed days of the week has 
 also materially limited the Speaker's discretionary rec- 
 ognition, so that when the Chair now asks a member 
 the purpose of his rising, it is to ascertain whether, 
 under the rules, his business entitles him to the floor. 
 
 Although the rules specify the subjects of which each 
 committee has jurisdiction, much is left in the reference 
 
 1 Henry Cabot Lodge, North American Review, vol. 149, p. 293. 
 
 See chap, x, p. 211. 
 
 8 61st Cong., 2d Sess., Rule xiii, sec. 3. 
 
 4 Ibid., Rule xxiv, sec. 7. 
 
THE SPEAKER 63 
 
 of bills to the Speaker's judgment. Nevertheless, it is 
 in the power of the House to refer bills to any commit- 
 tee. When the Speaker has sent a bill to a particular 
 committee, it is in order under the rules for the chairman 
 of such committee to move a change of reference to 
 some other; and it is likewise in order for the chairman 
 of a committee claiming jursidiction of a bill referred 
 to some other committee to move a change of reference 
 to his committee. Such motions must be put by the 
 Speaker and decided by vote of the House without de- 
 bate. So it has happened that this control of reference 
 by the House has resulted in securing legislation by the 
 report of a committee that under the rules in the first 
 instance had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of 
 the bill. This was plainly illustrated on February 26, 
 1894, when the Oleomargarine Bill, which had been re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Ways and Means, was, on 
 motion of the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, 
 transferred to the latter committee. As the bill was on 
 its face a tax bill, it belonged to the Committee on Ways 
 and Means, but as it was in point of fact a measure 
 proposing the exercise of the police power under the 
 guise of the taxing power, the House decided to send it 
 to the committee friendly to its enactment. 
 
 The alleged inability of members to secure the dis- 
 charge of a committee from the further consideration of 
 bills which it refused to report caused much complaint. 
 Such measures were usually opposed for party reasons, 
 and the procedure as revised in 1880 made it necessary, 
 in order to carry a motion to discharge, to suspend the 
 rules by a two-thirds vote. This confined the discussion 
 
64 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 to forty minutes and greatly increased the difficulty of 
 securing favorable action. Under the Reed rules, adopted 
 in 1890, such motions were referred without debate to 
 the Committee on Rules, which brought them directly 
 to the attention of men selected to determine among 
 other things what measures the party in power should 
 support. Although it rarely if ever occurred that any 
 committee declined to report a bill that a majority of 
 the House really desired to consider, the spirit of change 
 which eliminated the Speaker from the Committee on 
 Rules * included a rule, adopted in June, 1910, pro- 
 viding that if a bill be not reported by the committee 
 to which it is referred, its author may file a motion of 
 discharge, to be called up in order of its entry on any 
 Monday devoted to the suspension of the rules, and, if 
 seconded by a majority, a debate of twenty minutes 
 shall follow, after which, if the motion again be sus- 
 tained, the bill shall pass to the "discharge calendar" 
 as if regularly reported. 2 This rule encountered opposi- 
 tion. It was plainly impracticable and as plainly lim- 
 ited the power of the House over its committees; but 
 the fact that the ingenious device, although a doubtful 
 experiment, seemed to give all bills a fair hearing, satis- 
 fied the clamor for reform. Thus the Speaker, at the 
 close of the Sixty-first Congress (1911), was practically 
 shorn of his power save the appointment of committees, 
 and the right of recognition for motions to suspend 
 the rules, which latter power he still retains. As antici- 
 pated, however, the rule to discharge a committee, even 
 
 1 See chap, x, p. 212. 
 
 2 51st Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 8439-45. Rule xxvii, sec. 4. 
 
THE SPEAKER 65 
 
 after its amendment, 1 has proved impracticable. Within 
 twenty-four hours after its adoption members loaded it 
 with so many motions some of them being purposely 
 filed to prevent the consideration of a genuine motion 
 that the House, had it given all its time to their 
 consideration, could not have disposed of them. 
 
 1 The next House amended the rule, allowing a committee to retain 
 a bill fifteen days and limiting each member to two motions at a time. 
 It also limited the chances of reaching the "discharge calendar" by 
 fixing its place below motions to suspend the rules. 
 
CHAPTER V v 
 
 THE SPEAKER AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 
 
 THE Speaker's greatest power has its source in his 
 authority to appoint commiUees. At the outset (1789) 
 they were selected by ballot, but this plan having 
 proved unsatisfactory, the House, in January, 1790, 
 adopted a rule that "all committees shall be ap- 
 pointed by the Speaker unless otherwise specially di- 
 rected by the House." l Thus the House, relinquishing 
 even its right of review, gave the Speaker a preroga- 
 tive which he continued to possess for nearly a cen- 
 tury and a quarter. 
 
 This power soon made the Speakership a citadel about 
 which factional strife and party warfare continually 
 / raged. Instead of being impartial boards as originally 
 intended, committees became actively partisan, being 
 framed to safeguard party policies. As early as 1791 
 Speaker Trumbull, in appointing a committee to study 
 the slave trade with a view to its limitation and amelio- 
 ration, selected members either opposed or indifferent 
 to the object of the investigation. 2 For years the elec- 
 tion of a Speaker turned on his attitude toward slavery. 
 In 1820, after Speaker Clay's resignation, it required 
 twenty-two ballots to elect John W. Taylor, then known 
 as the anti-slavery candidate. John Quincy Adams, 
 
 1 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 140. 
 * 2d Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 241. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 67 
 
 thundering against the "iniquity" of Speaker-appointed 
 committees, charged that the turbulent and prolonged 
 Speakership struggle in 1839 hinged on saving slavery 
 in the District of Columbia. 1 After the more violent 
 contest in 1849 Joshua R. Giddings expressed the belief 
 that the Speaker, exercising his right to frame com- 
 mittees, exerted more influence over the destinies of the 
 nation than any member of the Government except the 
 President. 2 
 
 If subsequent contests were less violent, they were 
 no less effective. Speakers continued to safeguard party 
 policies by the appointment of partisan committees. 
 Indeed, Speaker Hunter's statement, that "the party 
 upon which it naturally devolved to propose a question 
 ought to have the power to present its proposition 
 in the shape for which it is willing to be responsible," 
 was never disputed. 3 But when personality enters, 
 capriciousness begins, thus creating the impression 
 that Speaker-made committees open a way to reward 
 friends, to cripple the competent, to humiliate the inde- 
 pendent, to favor special interests, and to attract wide- 
 reaching support. 
 
 It is doubtful if Speakers have, as a rule, been unduly 
 partial in their appointments. Custom based on un- 
 written law has obliged them to recognize long service, 
 peculiar fitness, party standing, and a fair division 
 among States and important groups of men. Neverthe- 
 less, if the sporadic testimony of members be accepted, 
 
 1 Diary, vol. x, p. 379. 
 
 2 George W. Julian, Life of Giddings, p. 215. 
 8 26th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 239. 
 
68 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 grounds for complaint have existed ever since Speaker 
 Macon, to gratify President Jefferson, placed John 
 Randolph, then a young man in his second term, at the 
 head of Ways and Means. "Macon," says Adams, the 
 historian, "was a typical, homespun planter, honest 
 and simple, but knowing little of the world beyond the 
 borders of Carolina." l This may excuse him for set- 
 ting a very bad precedent, but with larger knowledge 
 his successors not infrequently followed his example. 
 Diaries, memoirs, and volumes of reminiscences afford 
 abundant evidence of such partiality. John Quincy 
 Adams, the most distinguished complainant, resented 
 the action of one Speaker who put him at the head of 
 a committee which had nothing to do, complained that 
 another desired to injure him because his committee 
 work, if he did his duty, would make him enemies, and 
 charged that a third, offensively subservient to Daniel 
 Webster, refused to give him the chairmanship of For- 
 eign Relations. 2 Giddings had his grievances also. 
 Smarting under Speaker Winthrop's appointments the 
 distinguished Abolitionist refused to support, and prob- 
 ably defeated, him for reelection in 1849. A few years 
 later Orr's action in dropping him from the Committee 
 on Territories created a storm of indignation, although 
 every one understood it to be for political, not personal, 
 reasons. The Speaker desired to smooth the way for the 
 hotly contested Kansas Bill, and very naturally omitted 
 the ablest opponent of the measure. For the same 
 reason, when framing a special committee of fifteen to 
 
 1 Henry Adams, History of the United States, vol. i, p. 267. 
 8 Diary, vol. x, pp. 214, 541. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 69 
 
 investigate the Lecompton Constitution, Orr appointed 
 eight members hostile to the inquiry. 1 In like manner 
 Blaine put Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, at 
 the head of a committee to investigate the Ku-Klux 
 outrages and selected other members who opposed his 
 radical views. This nettled the bold politician, who 
 charged that the Speaker picked them for their plia- 
 bility rather than for their ability. 2 The Maine 
 statesman could hobble Butler, but he could not 
 muzzle him. 
 
 Blaine's experience throws a flood of light on the 
 difficulties encountered in framing committees. "Your 
 father," wrote a member of the Speaker's family, "left 
 for New York on Wednesday. He had cotton and wool 
 manufacturers to meet in Boston, and, over and above 
 all, pressure to resist or permit. As fast as he gets his 
 committees arranged, just so fast some after considera- 
 tion comes up which overtopples the whole list like a 
 row of bricks." 3 The construction of committees, hav- 
 ing regard for harmony and the effect upon legislation 
 as a whole, requires much patience, rare skill, and a 
 thorough knowledge of the views and fitness of mem- 
 bers. There must also be more or less bargaining. It 
 is well known that Speaker Carlisle, before appointing 
 A. H. Buckner, of Missouri, chairman of the Committee 
 on Banking and Currency and Richard P. Bland, of 
 Missouri, chairman of the Committee on Coinage, re- 
 quired personal assurances that the former would not 
 
 1 35th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 679. 
 
 2 42d Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 124. 
 
 3 Gail Hamilton, Life of James G. Elaine, p. 263. 
 
70 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 attack the national banking system and the latter 
 would stifle his scheme for the unlimited coinage of 
 silver. 1 In order to secure members of known stability 
 on important committees, subject at times to great 
 pressure, Speaker Cannon, not infrequently preceding 
 appointment with careful inquiry, demoted some and 
 promoted others. The necessity for such vigilance is 
 obvious, since a committee, charged with the passage 
 of desirable legislation at an acute crisis in a party's 
 policy, may need a new head, possessing greater wisdom 
 and rarer tact. But why a Speaker should call on 
 "cotton and wool manufacturers" when arranging his 
 committee lists is not so clear. Possibly these visits 
 were among the occult things creating the oft-reiterated 
 accusation that Elaine, like Randall, had too intimate 
 an acquaintance with "gentlemen of the lobby." 
 
 For sins of omission and commission Speakers rarely 
 escape censure. It never comes at the time of offend- 
 ing. Members are too tactful to display pique so long 
 as future favors are needed. But opportunity to express 
 one's displeasure is presented on the closing day of a 
 Congress, when a veteran member, rising in the presence 
 of a full and orderly House, offers the customary resolu- 
 tion of thanks to the Chair. This tribute derives its 
 chief grace from the manner of its bestowal. If the 
 resolution be presented by a member of the Opposition 
 and is adopted unanimously by a rising vote, the com- 
 pliment is complete; otherwise it becomes a mere 
 formality and is not unlikely to disclose resentment 
 or ill-will. To avoid unpleasant speeches the previ- 
 1 New York Tribune. December 29, 1883. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 71 
 
 ous question is sometimes moved, but this does not cut 
 off a demand for the yeas and nays, which, whether 
 called or not, represents a blight that mars the oc- 
 casion. 
 
 The House has never failed to thank its Speaker, 
 although in 1801 it came perilously near humiliating 
 Speaker Sedgwick. To the end Sedgwick was an im- 
 placable Federalist as well as an autocratic Speaker, and 
 on the day of thanks the Opposition not only refused 
 to present or support the resolution, but several of his 
 own party voted against it. In dropping John Randolph 
 from Ways and Means, Speaker Varnum provoked the 
 penalty of a divided vote. Even Henry Clay, the most 
 courteous of colleagues and the most considerate of 
 Speakers, did not please everybody a success rare in 
 human achievement. But not until Stevenson's day 
 did the word "impartial" become a red rag. When the 
 clerk, reading the stereotyped resolution, reached this 
 expression of fair dealing, wrote John Quincy Adams, 
 "a burst of laughter filled the House." 1 Stevenson 
 acted as a sort of patronage secretary to President 
 Jackson, and when he announced his committees aston- 
 ishment often deepened into consternation. One mem- 
 ber of dauntless courage moved a vote of censure. 2 It 
 was not easy to thank such a Speaker, and after elimi- 
 nating the irritating word his friends wisely deferred 
 action until the evening session, and then begged its 
 adoption in the absence of a quorum. 3 
 
 1 Diary, vol. vin, p. 532. 
 
 2 22d Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, p. 2580. 
 8 22d Cong., 2d Sess., Register, p. 193. 
 
72 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 James K. Polk belonged in Stevenson's class. He 
 used the committees to support the President and the 
 right of recognition to weaken his opponents. His ap- 
 pointments aroused the hostility of his party until it 
 finally denied him the privilege of naming a most im- 
 portant committee, charged with the investigation of a 
 sensational defalcation in the New York custom-house. 
 It was said of him that he had followers and enemies, 
 but no friends. To thank him at the close of his last 
 term became serious business. A coterie of distinguished 
 Whigs, the ablest debaters in the House, were ready for 
 a lark, and when the resolution came, Sergeant S. 
 Prentiss, of Mississippi, whose oratory has been com- 
 pared to Patrick Henry's, precipitated a long parlia- 
 mentary battle. Of this famous speech little is pre- 
 served, but it lingered in the memories of those who 
 heard it as Prentiss's most remarkable outburst. He 
 called the Speaker "the tool of the Executive" and 
 " the despair of his party." As if that were not enough, 
 he recalled oblique recognitions and obsequious ap- 
 pointments, insisting that to speak of such an one as 
 "impartial" was "to declare a lie." These impassioned 
 utterances, so dazzlingly bitter, threw Administration 
 leaders into consternation. Rhett and Mason and 
 Dixon H. Lewis, of Alabama, sat confounded. They 
 were unprepared for such a demonstration, and when, 
 later in the debate, some one moved the previous ques- 
 tion, Prentiss threw the House into great laughter by 
 suggesting that the demand was as humiliating as to 
 move it on a resolution of respect to a deceased mem- 
 ber. A roll-call showed that the number thanking 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 73 
 
 Polk fell far short of those who had voted for him, 1 
 "an extraordinary opposition,*' says a careful student 
 of parliamentary precedents, "to a resolution usually 
 considered a mere formal courtesy." 2 
 
 As sincere regard seldom grows in a soil exacerbated 
 by personal slights, it is not surprising, perhaps, that 
 members express their resentment upon these occasions 
 when the Speaker desires a certificate for fair dealing. 
 "I voted against the thanks to Jones," wrote John 
 Quincy Adams. " The testimony to his impartiality was 
 too broad a lie for me to swallow." 3 Thomas B. Reed, 
 unlike Adams, left no written reason for refusing to 
 thank Speaker Crisp at the close of the Fifty-third 
 Congress, but when this great master of parliamentary 
 law kept his seat after all others had risen, the feeling 
 obtained that his action seriously impaired, if it did not 
 actually destroy, the homage of his colleagues. 4 After 
 the Polk episode the word "impartial" proved to be 
 such a handy peg upon which to hang objections that of 
 the eleven Speakers immediately succeeding him seven 
 failed to be honored by its use. 5 Even the grace and 
 
 1 25th Cong., 3d Sess., Journal, p. 696. 
 
 * M. P. Follett, The Speaker, p. 87. 
 
 * Diary, vol. xn, p. 179. 
 
 4 Speaker Crisp's remarks on August 29, 1893, gave rise to Reed's 
 action. See 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, vol. 25, p. 1034. 
 
 6 John White, Kentucky; 27th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 397-99. 
 Robert C. Winthrop, Massachusetts; 30th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, 
 p. 695. Linn Boyd, Kentucky; 33d Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 1175. 
 Nathaniel P. Banks, Massachusetts; 34th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, 
 p. 998. James L. Or, South Carolina; 35th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, 
 p. 1671. William Pennington, New Jersey; 36th Cong., 2d Sess., 
 Globe, p. 1424. Galusha A. Grow, Pennsylvania; 37th Cong., 2d 
 Sess., Globe, p. 1544. 
 
74 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 fairness which characterized the conduct of Speakers 
 Winthrop and Banks did not receive the appreciation 
 conveyed by this term. Howell Cobb profited by it in 
 1851, but thereafter it remained in eclipse until the 
 unfailing tact and extraordinary courtesy of Speaker 
 Colfax, rivaling that of Henry Clay, had mellowed the 
 House into perennial good nature. Since its revival in 
 the Thirty-ninth Congress it has lost its place but once, 1 
 although to avoid the irritating scenes that embarrassed 
 the friends of Polk, the passage of the resolution has 
 occasionally needed the gag of the previous question. 
 This occurred at the close of James G. Elaine's first 
 term as Speaker. His appointments, too often repre- 
 senting sinister ends which illuminated if they did not 
 open the avenue to the White House, had left mixed 
 sensations on too many minds for his friends to hazard 
 a discussion of the resolution. 2 Similar tactics to avoid 
 threatened debate disturbed the close of the Forty-fifth 
 and Fifty-seventh Congresses. Randall had kept the 
 unflinching eye of a hawk upon "the timid warblers of 
 the grove," as he called those who resented the views 
 of his Committee on Ways and Means, and their readi- 
 ness to object to the courtesies of the closing day did 
 not escape the vigilance of his friends. 3 What caused 
 the trouble with Speaker Henderson is more obscure. 
 His parliamentary powers remained hi the egg, and his 
 enemies watched and waited. But by ordering the pre- 
 vious question the House lost its opportunity of hearing 
 
 1 It was omitted from the resolution thanking Speaker Keifer. 
 47th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 3769. 
 * 41st Cong., 3d Sess., Record, p. 1911. 
 45th Cong., 3d Sess., Record, p. 2403. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 75 
 
 their story. Bourke Cochran, of New York, like Pren- 
 tiss, would have told it well. 1 
 
 At the close of the Fifty-first Congress, the Opposition 
 secured a roll-call on the resolution thanking Speaker 
 Reed. This new gladiator had slain every kind of dila- 
 tory tactics, until broken precedents, like fragments of 
 marble on the Acropolis, indicated the destruction of 
 old and revered forms. But the work of legislation had 
 received an uplift. Nevertheless, one hundred and 
 eighteen members refused to thank him. The result re- 
 called the lines of the poet: 
 
 "When the judgment's weak, the prejudice is strong." 
 
 Yet six and eight years later, after Speaker Crisp had 
 approved counting a quorum, many of these members 
 cheerfully and enthusiastically thanked the author of 
 the "Reed Rules." So quickly does prejudice vanish 
 from the House. 
 
 But prejudice against the Speaker's authority to 
 appoint committees never wholly disappeared. Per- 
 sonal resentments kept it smouldering, and sometimes 
 
 1 "Mr. Payne, of New York (having finished his remarks). Mr. 
 Speaker, I demand the previous question. 
 
 "Mr. Cochran, of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and 
 nays. 
 
 [The question of ordering them was taken.] 
 
 "The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Cannon). Twenty-one members 
 have arisen. Necessary to call the ayes and noes, forty-two. The yeas 
 and nays are refused. The question now is on agreeing to the resolu- 
 tion. 
 
 "Mr. Cochran. I demand the yeas and nays. 
 
 [The question was taken.] 
 
 "The Speaker pro tempore. Seventeen gentlemen have arisen. The 
 ayes and noes are refused. The ayes have it and the resolution is 
 passed." (57th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 3071.) 
 
76 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 fanned it into a blaze when an ambitious or subservient 
 Speaker became offensive. John Randolph's domination 
 of Speaker Macon provoked a motion in 1806 to restore 
 the ballot system. The House was out of patience with 
 the mischief-maker and it came within two votes of 
 depriving the Speaker of his high prerogative. 1 The 
 next year, after Speaker Varnum had dropped Ran- 
 dolph, a similar motion met with overwhelming defeat, 
 showing that it was the Virginian and not the method 
 that the House desired to abolish. 2 The resolution to 
 choose by lot a select committee to investigate the Na- 
 tional Bank betrayed a similar condition in 1832. By 
 his conspicuous partiality and subserviency Speaker 
 Stevenson had become obnoxious, and the vote to de- 
 prive him of the right of framing the committee stood, 
 ayes, 100; noes, 100. Modesty did not afflict Stevenson, 
 whose casting vote saved his privilege. 3 This ended the 
 hope of limiting the Speaker's authority until the pro- 
 longed and violent struggle of 1849 encouraged the be- 
 lief that a change in the method of appointments would 
 prevent such passionate contests, and with this in view 
 William A. Sackett, of New York, presented a resolution 
 restoring the ballot system. 4 But the debate, dropping 
 into personalities, developed such an astonishing indif- 
 ference that the controversy slumbered until the open- 
 ing of the Forty-seventh Congress (1881). 
 
 The sudden transfer of William P. Frye, of Maine, 
 from the House to the Senate advertised a free-for-all 
 
 1 The vote stood 42 to 44. 2 Ayes, 24; noes, 87. 
 
 8 22d Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, p. 2128. 
 31st Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 79-35. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 77 
 
 race for Speaker, and on the sixteenth ballot, by the 
 grace of a Republican faction then known as the " Stal- 
 warts," J. Warren Keifer won the nomination at a 
 party caucus. 1 Of his six competitors all received desir- 
 able chairmanships except Godlove S. Orth, a well- 
 known member from Indiana, who, with two exceptions, 
 was the senior in service of all his party colleagues. 
 Orth did not possess those parliamentary talents which 
 cause jealousy or excite rivalry, but he gave strict at- 
 tention to business and at his best spoke well. He natur- 
 ally felt that long experience entitled him to better 
 recognition than he received, and although he had pre- 
 viously approved the Speaker's prerogative of appoint- 
 ing committees, he now voiced his resentment by boldly 
 attacking the system as " a one-man power of far-reach- 
 ing influence." Then came his specifications. "Not only 
 is the congressional career of every member in the con- 
 trol of the Speaker, but he can so organize a committee 
 as to imperil the country itself." 2 This ringing chal- 
 lenge preceded his presentation of a substitute for a 
 report from the Committee on Rules, the resolution 
 providing for the selection by a viva-voce vote of eleven 
 members who should constitute a board to appoint 
 committees. This did not prevent party control, he 
 said. Caucus action could select eleven persons, not 
 necessarily excluding the Speaker, who could be openly 
 
 1 On the final ballot the votes were distributed as follows : J. Warren 
 Keifer, Ohio, 93; Frank Hiscock, New York, 18; Thomas B. Reed, 
 Maine, 11; F. A. Kasson, Iowa, 10; Godlove S. Orth, Ind., 8; M. H. 
 Dunnell, Minn., 3; Julius C. Burrows, Mich., 1. Total, 144. Necessary 
 to a choice, 73. 
 
 2 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 463-64. 
 
78 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 elected in the House and to whom party interests might 
 safely be confided. He preferred, however, as his plan 
 indicated, that each party select five, and the majority 
 choose the eleventh, who should act as chairman. Such 
 a commission, he thought, could easily constitute the 
 committees, without exceeding the time usually taken 
 by the Speaker. 
 
 Orth knew that many members of both parties re- 
 garded with suspicion the tremendous power of such 
 a piece of patronage as committee appointments. For 
 five years Speaker Randall had ignored Democrats 
 who stood for a tariff for revenue only, while the gossip 
 of the cloak-room and of the press indicated that sev- 
 eral Republicans, resenting Keifer's method of securing 
 votes in exchange for desirable appointments, were ripe 
 for a change. It encouraged sedition, too, that an old 
 member headed the reform movement. Moreover, the 
 proposed plan was new and simple. Other schemes had 
 required separate elections by ballot, which opened the 
 way for secret combinations; but Orth's proposition 
 enabled each party, by caucus or otherwise, to select 
 its members, and approve or "elect" them by a viva- 
 voce vote in the House. Such an arrangement, it was 
 said, could provoke little criticism. 
 
 But a topic so sure to excite the spleen of the Speaker 
 and his beneficiaries did not escape the skill of the par- 
 liamentarians, who, quickly raising the question of the 
 substitute's germaneness, centered discussion on its par- 
 liamentary status. The plan proposed, they said, might 
 be wholly unobjectionable, but it could not be considered 
 under the rules at that time. Nevertheless, Thomas B. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 79 
 
 Reed, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, con- 
 sidered the matter on its merits. He was disposed to 
 treat a grumbler with severity, and in disclosing Orth's 
 motive he declared that "personal grievances exist in 
 all Houses and in all legislative bodies." In ridicule of 
 the plan he suggested that each of the favored eleven 
 would command the chairmanship of a great commit- 
 tee and encounter double the pressure applied to the 
 Speaker. "Think of the log-rolling to secure a board 
 favorable to the measures of selfish men!" he ex- 
 claimed. Replying to the intimation that the personnel 
 of a committee could imperil the country, he said: "The 
 Speaker whose committees represent the wishes of the 
 country upon matters of public policy is not only under 
 the constant supervision of public opinion, but under 
 the supervision of this House, and no committee is 
 likely to be constituted or endured which would im- 
 peril the country's interests. But for the wrongful acts 
 of eleven men public displeasure could rarely find a 
 victim." 1 
 
 Orth was ignorant even of the language of real con- 
 troversy, and under Reed's sarcasm he wilted into 
 silence. Nor did others respond. Distinguished Demo- 
 crats like Abram S. Hewitt, of New York, Roger Q. 
 Mills and David B. Culberson, of Texas, William S. 
 Holman, of Indiana, and William R. Morrison, of Illi- 
 nois, were ready to vote for a change, but not to speak 
 for it, and so the discussion, which promised much, 
 ended as if its supporters had from the beginning little 
 faith in the issue. The vote was equally disappointing. 
 1 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 465. 
 
80 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Although it occurred on the point of order, it expressed 
 the sentiment of the House on the Orth proposition, 
 74 favoring it out of a total of 236. In the long list of 
 those opposed clustered the names of the real leaders 
 in both parties, including John G. Carlisle, Thomas B. 
 Reed, Hilary A. Herbert, Joseph G. Cannon, Samuel J. 
 Randall, and William D. Kelley. 1 
 
 But even this Waterloo did not stifle all protest. 
 Keifer's appointments had stirred up the mud, and 
 William M. Springer, of Illinois, resenting their partisan 
 composition, moved that a minority caucus be author- 
 ized to select minority members. 2 Then came the sug- 
 gestion that the Senate's method of appointments be 
 adopted. 3 These efforts proved futile. Orth offered a 
 resolution that the Committee on Civil Service Reform 
 be instructed to report on the expediency of providing 
 a different system. This the Committee on Rules 
 quickly pigeon-holed. 4 Similar ineffectual attempts, 
 initiated during the administrations of Speakers Car- 
 lisle and Crisp, 5 made it plain that so drastic a change 
 needed something more substantial than opposition 
 based on personal grievances, and so the system con- 
 tinued many years longer. 
 
 Meantime the country grew more and more into a 
 great industrial nation with "big business" and "soul- 
 less corporations," which tended to eliminate the per- 
 
 1 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 463-67 (January 17, 1882). 
 The vote stood, 74 to 162; not voting, 56. 
 
 2 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 338. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 320. 4 Ibid., Record, p. 358. 
 
 5 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 81; 52d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, 
 p. 22. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 81 
 
 sonal element between employer and wage-earner. Then 
 began what has been called "government by legisla- 
 tion." Needed reforms in railroad administration and 
 equipment found expression in House bills and reports, 
 until the car-coupler, the locomotive ash-pan, and a 
 score of ingenious devices for minimizing accidents and 
 safeguarding life became prominent in the legislative 
 work of Congress under the broad interpretation of 
 interstate commerce. Hundreds of measures crowded 
 committee files, each proposing a new panacea for every 
 alleged ill or wrong. 
 
 Although the opinion obtained in well-informed leg- 
 islative circles that all measures relating to changing 
 economic conditions were receiving intelligent consider- 
 ation as rapidly, perhaps, as wisdom justified action, 
 the impression spread that committees should become 
 more responsive to public sentiment. This not only 
 revived the old controversy favorable to some plan of 
 committee selection other than by the Speaker, but 
 turned the appeal into a popular issue. It was not a cry 
 of individual distress. Personal grievances of members 
 were merged in the deeper demand, and the old argu- 
 ments that had done service for a century found many 
 sympathetic hearers when proclaimed as in the interest 
 of the people. Then came a new House, organized 
 by the Democrats in 1911, which adopted a caucus- 
 approved rule that all standing committees should be 
 elected. 1 
 
 The procedure under this rule differed little from the 
 Orth plan. A caucus of Democrats selected the majority 
 1 62d Cong., 1st Sess., Rule x, sec. 1. 
 
82 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 members of the Committee on Ways and Means, who 
 acted as a Board or Committee of Committees in- 
 choosing the majority members of other committees. 
 To eliminate Reed's objection that each member of such 
 a body would appoint himself chairman of a great com- 
 mittee, this Board adopted a rule confining its mem- 
 bership to the Ways and Means Committee and limit- 
 ing the assignment of other members to one important 
 committee. Moreover, in making its assignments the 
 Board in no wise departed from the rules which formerly 
 guided the Speaker. Fitness, experience, and geographi- 
 cal location were recognized as well as the long-estab- 
 lished custom of promoting older members and placing 
 at the head of each committee the person entitled by 
 long service to the chairmanship. In like manner it 
 authorized the accepted minority leader to assign places 
 to minority members. Indeed, the administration of the 
 new rule made no perceptible change in the manner of 
 making up committees, which, when finally constructed, 
 were "elected" by receiving the formal approval of a 
 caucus and then of the House. Nevertheless, the work 
 developed grave difficulties. Satisfying several old 
 members and some new ones led to many conferences 
 which disclosed much forboding that did not reach the 
 public; but it is well known that serious embarrassment, 
 if not open revolt, was avoided by materially enlarging 
 the more important committees. It was known, too, 
 that in committee appointments as well as in other 
 matters the chairman of the Board, although exhibiting 
 rare tact, exercised the control usually exerted by the 
 dominating head of a great committee. This tendency 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 83 
 
 to hold the reins became especially marked at the open- 
 ing session of the Sixty-third Congress, indicating that 
 the Speaker's mantle had fallen upon the shoulders of 
 the masterful chairman of Ways and Means. Indeed, 
 it was as apparent to the country as to the House 
 itself that Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, and not 
 Speaker Champ Clark, of Missouri, held the baton of 
 command. 
 
 Little doubt exists in the minds of experienced mem- 
 bers that several of the recent changes curtailing the 
 Speaker's power are advisable. The pressure of business 
 justifies the elimination of the Chair's discretionary 
 recognition, and no serious harm, if little good, can 
 come from the new and ingenious device which allows 
 members an opportunity to seek the discharge of a 
 committee from the further consideration of a bill. But 
 the withdrawal of the Speaker's right to appoint com- 
 mittees may well be regarded as tentative. Such sub- 
 traction of power reduces the Speaker simply to a pre- 
 siding officer, charged with the preservation of order, 
 the prevention of obstruction, the decision of points 
 of order subject to appeal, and with certain perfunc- 
 tory administrative duties heretofore enumerated. 
 Nothing of his former authority is left him except his 
 personality. 
 
 A great Speaker must have great qualities of mind. 
 He must be just, honest, sympathetic, courageous, and 
 quickly responsive. In other words, his mind must have 
 the quality of being noble. Henry Clay lives unequalled 
 among Speakers because a broad nobility of mind was 
 permeated and controlled by great common sense. 
 
84 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Members felt themselves in contact with a glorious 
 personality and they followed him with enthusiasm. 
 Other Speakers preceding him, notably Sedgwick and 
 Macon, had endeavored to lead, but the former toiled 
 in vain and the latter failed because of his subserviency 
 to John Randolph and the President. On the other 
 hand, Clay, with infinite tact, a fearless nature, and 
 abundant self-confidence, silenced Randolph, opposed 
 Madison, and made the Speakership second only to 
 the Presidency. Whatever the rules did for him, his 
 parliamentary power continued secondary to his per- 
 sonal influence. 
 
 What Clay did as Speaker in the first half of the last 
 century, Thomas B. Reed did in its last half. He had 
 the courage to suggest parliamentary remedies and the 
 personal force to apply and establish them. Men recog- 
 nized him as a preeminently able leader, with Disraeli's 
 gift for the pungent epigram, the vivid repartee, and 
 the rattling attack, and while he lacked the tact and 
 perhaps the wisdom of Clay, evidenced by the disclosure 
 of prejudices and provincial narrowness, he left the 
 Chair a legacy of power which bunglers could easily 
 misuse and make unpopular. 
 
 Rules alone never made a desirable Speaker. This is 
 abundantly illustrated by James K. Polk, who preceded 
 Hunter; by "the three Johns," who preceded Robert C. 
 Winthrop; by Linn Boyd, who preceded Banks; by 
 William Pennington, who preceded Grow; and by sev- 
 eral others who succeeded in missing the career even of 
 average statesmen. But personality alone cannot carry 
 a Speaker safely through the vicissitudes of a stormy 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 85 
 
 administration. The ablest occupants of the chair, 
 apart from character, experience, and reputation, needed 
 a real authority, derived directly from the rules, to 
 enable them to assimilate different shades of feeling in 
 the party and to keep their forces intact throughout a 
 Congress. The scope of this power resembles that of an 
 English Premier, whose authority to appoint the min- 
 istry and to bestow the Crown's ecclesiastical offices 
 tends to increase the number of his followers and to 
 give him a stronger hold upon the House of Commons. 
 Although a Speaker's power has never been so visible 
 as that of an English Premier, it has occasionally con- 
 tributed surprising strength to national policies and 
 parliamentary reforms. Clay used it with conspicuous 
 advantage during the War of 1812. In 1876 it gave 
 vigor to the administration of Randall, who deemed it 
 politically inadvisable to adopt at that time a tariff 
 policy in harmony with the traditions of his party. 
 Carlisle believed in a tariff for revenue only, and for six 
 years maintained the principle as masterfully as Sir 
 Robert Peel engineered the abolition of the corn duties. 
 Had the organization of the House in the Fifty-first 
 Congress depended upon a Committee of Committees, 
 Speaker Reed could never have marshaled sufficient 
 strength to establish the needed reforms that distin- 
 guished his administration. 
 
 But the need of a virile Speaker is often even more 
 far-reaching. A congressional election in an "off-year" 
 ordinarily turns upon issues growing out of the Adminis- 
 tration's policy, and it is the people's opportunity to 
 approve or disapprove. If they approve, the majority 
 
86 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 of the House usually continues in harmony with it; if 
 they disapprove, the political status changes and the 
 new Speaker represents the dominating sentiment of 
 the country. This was the intention of the Fathers. 
 Under their political system a new Ministry could not 
 be substituted as in England, but the activities of a 
 repudiated President could be halted. As in the Brit- 
 ish House, however, it sometimes occurs that a deci- 
 sive or united majority is not returned, in which event 
 it is necessary, before a Speaker can be elected, to fuse 
 the different factions. This happened in 1854 when the 
 congressional elections exhibited a bitter hostility to the 
 repeal of the Missouri Compromise; but upon the as- 
 sembling of a new Congress neither party possessed a 
 majority. Anti-Nebraska members, made up of Whigs, 
 Know-nothings, Americans, and Republicans, found it 
 difficult to assimilate, while pro-slavery Americans did 
 not easily unite with the disciples of Calhoun. 
 
 It was no secret that the formation of committees 
 prevented a fusion. Giddings demanded a majority of 
 the friends of freedom. Other factions, no less insistent 
 upon their peculiar views, found no common ground, 
 while members of each group pressed their individual 
 claims. It was impossible to select a Committee of 
 Committees, which suggested combinations of cunning 
 leaders. Suspicion likewise tainted the personnel of 
 every tentative committee submitted. Thus, for eight 
 weeks the conflict seemed likely never to end until the 
 fitness of William Aiken, of South Carolina, and Na- 
 thaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, seemed to measure 
 up to the Clay standard: "Promptitude and impartial- 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 87 
 
 ity in deciding questions of order; firmness and dignity 
 in his deportment toward the House; patience, good 
 temper, and courtesy toward individual members; the 
 best distribution of the talent of the House in its num- 
 erous subdivisions for the despatch of public business; 
 and the fair exhibition of every subject presented for 
 consideration." 1 In other words, Clay lifted duty above 
 party, and the more members studied the character of 
 Aiken and Banks the more suspicion became disarmed. 
 Meantime discussion concentrated the public mind on 
 the slavery question, forcing members into the open 
 and compelling candidates to define their position. 
 Finally, when each member had settled the problem for 
 himself, the House, on the one hundred and twenty- 
 third ballot, elected Banks by 100 to 103. 2 
 
 It was a stupendous victory. Banks stood for the 
 triumph of a great moral issue, and under the preroga- 
 tives of a full-armed Speaker he could defeat obnoxious 
 legislation of the Pierce-Douglas type. The country 
 then for the first time fully appreciated the wisdom of 
 the Fathers in clothing the office with power. 
 
 In December, 1859, at the opening of the Thirty- 
 sixth Congress, a still greater crisis faced the American 
 people. The conflict was as long and the vote as close 
 as in 1855, but in violence it far exceeded that contest, 
 for in four years disagreements between the North and 
 the South had grown into strong antagonism. Threats 
 of disunion which formerly excited laughter now became 
 too serious to be treated as bravado, while tlie courtesy 
 
 1 18th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 8. 
 1 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 67. 
 
88 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 that characterized the preceding struggle gave way to 
 passionate bitterness. According to Senator Grimes, of 
 Iowa, and Senator Hammond, of South Carolina, mem- 
 bers on both sides were armed with deadly weapons. 1 
 Moreover, the tense feeling in the House extended to 
 the country. Even the candidacy of John Sherman for 
 Speaker put his brother, afterward the famous General, 
 then at the head of a military school in Louisiana, under 
 suspicion of being an Abolitionist. 2 
 
 The presence of four parties complicated the situation 
 as it did in 1855. Sherman, the choice of the Republi- 
 cans, could not secure the support of all the anti- 
 Lecompton members, nor were the Democrats able to 
 unite all the Southern Americans. On the twenty-fifth 
 ballot Sherman came within three votes of election, and 
 three weeks later William N. H. Smith, an American 
 from North Carolina, encountered a similar experience. 
 But neither side was encouraged by the recurrence 
 of such flattering support, and on February 1, eight 
 weeks after the contest began, the Republicans pre- 
 sented William Pennington, of New Jersey, then serving 
 his first and only term in the House. Pennington was 
 colorless. He had said nothing and done nothing which 
 could in any wise involve him in the controversy. Al- 
 though a man of dignity and poise, who possessed 
 Christian meekness and political integrity, with a de- 
 sire to be fair and just, his ignorance of parliamentary 
 practice and lack of political management emphasized 
 
 1 William Salter, Life of James W. Grimes, p. 121; Lewis Harley, 
 Life of Francis Lieber, p. 310. 
 * W. T. Sherman, Memoirs, vol. I, p. 148. 
 
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 89 
 
 his unfitness to direct the House at a time of such ex- 
 citement. But his ability to organize the House in oppo- 
 sition to President Buchanan, who evinced the servility 
 of Pierce, satisfied his party, while the absence of a 
 public record commended him to anti-Lecompton Dem- 
 ocrats and anti-Slavery Americans, who recognized the 
 gravity of the situation. Indeed, all were anxious to 
 get a Speaker without a bloody affray on the floor of 
 the House, and on the fourth ballot of the day and 
 the forty-fourth of the session, Pennington secured the 
 three votes withheld from Sherman, making one hun- 
 dred and seventeen, the number necessary to elect. 1 Of 
 the three votes thus added, one was that of Henry Win- 
 ter Davis, the brilliant and caustic orator from Mary- 
 land, who aided in the organization of the American 
 party and had declined to vote for Banks in 1855. No 
 one in the North, at least, then thought the Speaker 
 represented too much power save Clement L. Vallan- 
 digham, of Ohio, whose sympathies were not hidden 
 under a bushel. "Your Speaker, whatever his natural 
 disposition may be," he declared, "is, by the neces- 
 sities of his office, a despot." Yet it did not occur to 
 Vallandigham that Speaker Orr, of South Carolina, who 
 enforced rules similar to those used by Pennington, was 
 a "despot." 
 
 When the power of appointing committees is vested 
 in the Speaker, responsibility is concentrated and lo- 
 cated not scattered and made impossible of loca- 
 tion. Besides, no one is so much interested in the 
 success of his party and of his administration as is 
 1 36th Cong., 1st Sess.. Journal, pp. 163-64. 
 
90 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 the Speaker. To use Reed's expression, "What he does, 
 he does in the open." After four years of testing out 
 a Committee of Committees, the opinion of the most 
 prominent members on both sides of the House, al- 
 though perhaps not publicly expressed, is, that it is a 
 failure. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 
 
 AT the beginning of each Congress the House, in ad- 
 dition to a Speaker, chooses a clerk, a sergeant-at-arms, 
 a doorkeeper, a postmaster, and a chaplain, who re- 
 main in office until the qualification of their successors. 
 These officers were elected by ballot until the substitu- 
 tion of a viva-voce vote in 1839. Since 1865 the custom 
 has obtained of adopting a single resolution containing 
 their names. Although this time-saving method is sub- 
 ject to objection, unanimous consent is rarely if ever 
 withheld. 
 
 In 1789, after choosing a Speaker, the House, with- 
 out preliminary authority, elected a clerk, a title con- 
 forming to that in the House of Commons. Beyond 
 certain routine duties, however, the two officers bear 
 slight resemblance. The British clerk is a non-partisan. 
 He is appointed by the Crown on the nomination of the 
 Prime Minister, and holds office for life. He attends 
 sittings only when the Speaker is in the chair, but he 
 certifies all legislation and signifies the Crown's assent. 
 The clerk of the American House, on the other hand, is 
 a partisan, representing the dominant party, and serves 
 only for two years unless reflected. Moreover, his duties 
 continue in the Speaker's absence. Nevertheless, the 
 office is one of great dignity and responsibility, and 
 has often been held for long periods by men of recog- 
 
92 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 nized ability. In 1822 no less a person than John W. 
 Taylor, of New York, who had served one term as 
 Speaker, thought seriously of resigning to accept it. 
 Its permanency probably incited his desire, since New 
 York was then and for many years afterward the most 
 fickle State in the distribution of its popular suffrage. 
 Upon the advice of John Quincy Adams, then Secretary 
 of State, Taylor remained in Congress, serving ten 
 years longer and a second term as Speaker. The inci- 
 dent, however, shows that from the first the high char- 
 acter of the office made it attractive to the ablest men 
 in public life. 
 
 The clerk, in the performance of his routine duties, 
 keeps the Journal, refers private bills, assigns bills and 
 committee reports to the various calendars, affixes the 
 seal of the House to writs, warrants, and subpoenas, 
 adjusts the stationery accounts of members, certifies to 
 the Senate the passage of bills and resolutions, contracts 
 for labor and supplies, pays officers and employees of 
 the House, and in the absence of the Speaker certifies 
 the compensation of members. After the final adjourn- 
 ment of a Congress he collects from the several com- 
 mittees all bills, resolutions, and other papers not re- 
 ported to the House. He must also take certified copies 
 of papers withdrawn from the files by order of the 
 House, and deposit with the Librarian of Congress such 
 bound volumes of original papers as are not needed in 
 his files. At present (1915) he appoints about fifty em- 
 ployees, with salaries aggregating $100,000, and dis- 
 burses a contingent fund of double or triple that 
 amount. He receives a salary of $6500 and ten cents 
 
\ 
 
 OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 93 
 
 per hundred words for certified extracts from the 
 Journal. 
 
 The clerk's prestige, however, comes from his au- 
 thority, preceding the assembling of a new Congress, to 
 prepare a roll of members elect. This high prerogative 
 adds a judicial function to his duties. It requires him 
 to examine the credentials of members, and in ascertain- 
 ing their correctness he may study election returns, in- 
 vestigate contested cases, and institute an inquiry into 
 complaints and alleged irregularities. This opens the 
 door to great temptation, for, as elsewhere stated, he may 
 omit from the list the name of any member, the regu- 
 larity of whose election he questions. In other words, 
 he can, if so disposed, refuse to recognize a sufficient 
 number of credentials because of technical errors or 
 spurious contests to give his party a majority of those 
 privileged to participate in the election of a Speaker. 
 Although such a betrayal of trust has occurred but 
 once, it is possible whenever a small margin exists be- 
 tween opposing parties. For this reason, if for no other, 
 the life tenure of the British clerk is preferable, since it 
 tends to eliminate partisanship. 
 
 The clerk also presides at the election of a Speaker. 
 The British clerk never presumes to do this. Indeed, he 
 may not officially address a member either by his own 
 name or by that of his constituency. At the selection 
 of a Speaker at the beginning of a new Parliament he 
 simply directs the proceeding in a pantomimic manner, 
 dumbly pointing his forefinger at the member who is to 
 submit the resolution indicating the majority's choice. 
 Thereupon the member so signaled announces the name 
 
94 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 with an appropriate speech, after which the resolution, 
 being seconded with further remarks, is adopted. The 
 Speaker elect, having acknowledged the honor, then 
 takes the arm of his proposer and seconder, and makes 
 his way to the chair. The American clerk, on the other 
 hand, promptly at the noon hour brings the House to 
 order and begins calling the roll. Meantime, he may 
 refuse to answer questions or put a motion except one 
 to adjourn, and since no appeal lies from his decisions 
 while the House is thus unorganized, only those whose 
 names are upon his list can vote for Speaker. Thus for 
 the moment he possesses, perhaps, the most exceptional 
 power of any public official. 1 
 
 The sergeant^al^arms maintains order. He acts under 
 the direction of the Speaker, the chairman of the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, and, pending the election of a 
 Speaker, under the orders of the clerk. At such times 
 he must bear the mace, the symbol of his office. On a 
 call of the House he is required to detain members pres- 
 ent and to return absentees. In conjunction with the 
 sergeant-at-arms of the Senate he appoints the Capitol 
 police, a body of thirty-six men, who possess the power 
 of arrest and may be summoned to the floor of the 
 House. He also appoints an auxiliary force of eleven 
 policemen to care for the House office building. Addi- 
 tional to these duties he executes all processes author- 
 ized by the House, prepares the roll of members elect 
 in the absence of the clerk, and pays members their 
 mileage and salaries. In the performance of this latter 
 service he may, under the Act of 1856, deduct a day's 
 1 See chap, n, p. 12. 
 
OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 95 
 
 salary for each day's unexcused absence, although with 
 one exception no record exists that he ever did so. 1 
 For the purpose of maintaining a quorum he once cir- 
 cularized the House, requesting members to certify such 
 absence, and Speaker Crisp ruled that, being a disburs- 
 ing officer under bond, the sergeant-at-arms could en- 
 force all reasonable regulations before making pay- 
 ments, adding, "and the Chair will not certify the pay 
 of any member unless he first furnishes the information 
 required." 2 Following this announcement Speaker 
 Crisp refused to certify the pay of any member who 
 failed to file a certificate showing the days of his at- 
 tendance and absence during the preceding month; or 
 to certify pay for absent days unless the result of the 
 member's sickness or of sickness in his family. Many 
 conscientious members at this time suffered abatement 
 of pay, although it was facetiously remarked that an 
 epidemic of sickness existed in the House. Toward the 
 end of the session a resolution authorizing a refund to 
 members who had been docked failed of passage. In 
 \the Sixty-third Congress the House instructed the ser- 
 geant-at-arms to deduct the pay of members for each 
 nay of absence, but prior to adjournment it recon- 
 sidered the resolution and ordered a return of the sal- 
 ary. The sergeant-at-arms gives a bond for $50,000, 
 employs eight assistants with salaries aggregating 
 $16,000, and submits a statement of his receipts and 
 disbursements at the close of each regular session. He 
 receives a salary of $6500. 
 
 1 Sec. 40, Act of August 18, 1856. 1 
 
 2 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, pp. 358-59. 
 
96 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 The duties of the doorkeeper^ are not less varied and 
 exacting. Besides guarding the chamber and keeping 
 unprivileged persons from the floor, he controls the docu- 
 ment room containing printed bills, resolutions, and re- 
 ports for the immediate use of members, and supervises 
 the folding-room where public documents are wrapped 
 and mailed. Janitors, page boys, and messengers, in- 
 cluding those on the soldiers' roll, also come under his 
 direction. To his charge is likewise committed the 
 care of rooms and the custody of all property, books, 
 and papers belonging to the House. Admission to the 
 floor, delivery of calling cards to members, and the 
 responsibility of handling thousands of visitors who 
 daily throng the galleries and corridors, also belong 
 among the more serious duties of the doorkeeper. Their 
 acceptable performance, without mistakes and without 
 friction, is evidence of a well-disciplined force of assist- 
 ants. Quick and courteous recognition of persons en- 
 titled to the floor requires tact and vigilance. Among 
 the privileged ones are the President, Vice-President, 
 justices of the Supreme Court, cabinet officers, foreign 
 ministers, governors of States, senators, former mem- 
 bers of the House, and those who have received the 
 thanks of Congress. Each is expected upon his appear- 
 ance at the door to present the Speaker's card, but an 
 experienced officer would blush to stop a privileged 
 stranger the second time. It is the duty of the door- 
 keeper, also, to introduce messengers from the President 
 and the Senate, and, in the absence of the clerk and 
 sergeant-at-arms, to make up the roll of members elect 
 and preside at the organization of a new House. Upon 
 
OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 97 
 
 his pay-roll are carried (1915) 140 employees, whose pay 
 aggregates $160,000. His own salary is $5000. 
 
 Originally the doorkeeper had charge of the post- 
 office, established in 1802. So rapidly did the mail in- 
 crease, however, that in 1814 the House authorized the 
 appointment of a postmaster, who became an elective 
 officer in 1838. At present (1915) he employs twenty- 
 two assistants, with salaries aggregating $30,000. His 
 own salary is $4000. 
 
 The four officers named above are required to certify 
 each month to their respective pay-rolls, stating who 
 have performed duty and the reason for the absence of 
 those also paid. The enforcement of this act falls upon 
 the Committee on Accounts, whose approval of the 
 expenses legally chargeable to the contingent fund of 
 the House is conclusive upon all departments of the 
 Government. This committee, subject to the approval 
 of the House, also determines the number of employees 
 and fixes their compensation. 
 
 In round numbers the House employs 350 clerks and 
 other employees, exclusive of clerks to members, but 
 instead of selecting them by a civil-service examination 
 and retaining them during good behavior, as with other 
 government appointees, the House, with the exception 
 of its librarians, reporters, and veterans on the soldiers' 
 roll, 1 continues the discredited spoils system. Thus, at 
 every party change ignorance displaces efficiency and 
 experts give way to blunderers. The error of such a 
 
 1 Fourteen messengers on the soldiers' roll, under the control of 
 the doorkeeper, at a salary of $1200 each, are not removable except 
 for cause, with the approval of the House. 23 Stat. L. pp. 164, 393. 
 
98 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 system is daily disclosed by comparing the shiftless 
 manner in which the business of the House is often 
 transacted with the intelligent work of James C. Courts, 
 who has fortunately remained clerk of the Committee 
 on Appropriations for upward of thirty-five years. He 
 is an ideal illustration of the great helpfulness of one 
 permitted to survive party changes. 
 
 The House librarian and his assistants are appointed 
 by the clerK, with the approval of the Speaker, and can- 
 not be removed except "for cause" approved by the 
 Committee on Rules. The House library, consisting 
 chiefly of volumes of statutes, court and committee re- 
 ports, journals of the two Houses, and the debates of 
 Congress, is a subdivision of the Library of Congress, the 
 librarian of which is appointed by the President, with 
 the approval of the Senate. The Library of Congress, 
 however, is under the exclusive supervision of the Joint 
 Committee on the Library. 
 
 T^he chaplain opens each day's session with prayer, 
 for which he receives a salary of $1200. It is not stipu- 
 lated that prayers be short, or that members stand 
 during the service, but brevity and reverence are usually 
 observed. Originally the chaplain was not an official of 
 the House. A concurrent resolution named two clergy- 
 men of different denominations, who, interchanging 
 weekly, supplied the Senate and House. The prolonged 
 Speakership contest in 1855 interrupted this custom, 
 the House meantime employing local ministers. Their 
 prayers, it seems, too often evinced something of the 
 partisan spirit that characterized the pending contro- 
 versy, and in the following Congress (1857) certain 
 
OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 99 
 
 members who claimed that the employment of chap- 
 lains conflicted with the spirit of the Constitution and 
 tended to promote a union of Church and State, made 
 a determined effort to discontinue their use. This 
 aroused the churches of the country, and at the end of 
 an acrimonious debate the House, by an overwhelming 
 majority, adopted the following resolution: "Whereas 
 the people of the United States, from their earliest 
 history to the present time, have been led by the hand 
 of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless 
 blessings of the past and the present and dependent for 
 continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; 
 and whereas the great vital and conservative element 
 in our system is the belief of our people in the pure 
 doctrines and divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a 
 people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most 
 public manner their reverence for God: Therefore, be 
 it resolved, that the daily sessions of this body be opened 
 with prayer, and that the ministers of the Gospel in this 
 city are hereby requested to attend and alternately 
 perform this solemn duty." 1 The adoption of this 
 creed forever crushed objection to the presence of a 
 chaplain. Nevertheless, his status remained unfixed. It 
 was objected that neither the Constitution nor the law 
 recognized such an officer, and not until the payment 
 of his salary depended upon his taking the ironclad 
 oath, adopted in 1862, did his official character become 
 established. 
 
 It is creditable to the House that it has always ob- 
 1 35th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 25, 26. 
 
100 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 served Sunday. An adjournment on Saturday carries 
 until Monday, and a recess for three days, authorized 
 by the Constitution, excludes Sunday. A Sunday's ses- 
 sion is held only by special order, and although the 
 House may at such times, if it so decides, transact 
 general business, it is usually confined to eulogies of 
 deceased members. 
 
 Respect for public opinion has also been shown in a 
 continuous effort to prohibit the sale of liquor within the 
 limits of the Capitol. Until 1837 liquor was sold without 
 question, but under the influence of the Washingtonian 
 movement it was prohibited. The rule, however, proved 
 imperfect, and the traffic, under severe restrictions, con- 
 tinued until 1867, when it was again prohibited. There- 
 upon the restauranteur surrendered his contract and the 
 restaurant passed under the control of the Committee 
 on Public Buildings and Grounds. Nevertheless, the 
 determination to extirpate the sale of liquor under any 
 conditions, however restrictive, strengthened with the 
 growing temperance sentiment, and in 1903, without 
 debate or a division, the Act of March 3 was passed 
 absolutely prohibiting it. 1 
 
 Reporters of the official proceedings, now six in num- 
 ber, are also officers of the House. They are appointed 
 by the Speaker, receive a salary of $5000 per annum, 
 and may be removed only for cause. The present system 
 of reporting debates was of slow growth. Originally the 
 House made no provision for such work. As the Journal 
 contained all the official proceedings, including the yeas 
 and nays, members did not then see any necessity for 
 1 32d Stat. L., p. 1221. 
 
OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 101 
 
 printing what was said, and accordingly such brief ab- 
 stracts of the early debates as now exist in the Annals of 
 Congress and the Congressional Debates were supplied 
 largely by newspaper reporters, who published only 
 what seemed to them important. 1 These reports oc- 
 casioned much complaint. They were characterized as 
 incorrect and often offensively partisan, with argu- 
 ments favorable to the newspaper side fully set out, 
 and those adverse maimed, misstated, and confused. 
 Moreover, the dull or inconspicuous member rarely got 
 a line. To secure accuracy and impartiality, therefore, 
 propositions were submitted to place reporters under 
 oath, to make admittance to the floor dependent upon 
 their "decorum and respect to members," and to pay 
 for the publication of correct reports. The House 
 thought it inadvisable to assist financially unofficial 
 publications, but in order to check rnisreports by fixing 
 responsibility, it authorized (1811) the Speaker to assign 
 press reporters to places on the floor. This led to charges 
 of political favoritism, some being admitted and others 
 excluded. It was noted, however, that the assumption 
 of some authority improved the character of the re- 
 ports. 
 
 A further improvement followed the custom, which 
 began some time before the establishment of the Con- 
 gressional Globe (1833), of paying the publisher for a 
 
 1 The Annals of Congress, in 42 volumes, extend from the First 
 Congress through the first session of the Eighteenth, 1789-1824; the 
 Congressional Debates, in 29 volumes, from the second session of the 
 Eighteenth Congress to the Twenty-fifth, 1824-39; the Congressional 
 Globe, in 108 volumes, from the Twenty-third to the Forty-second 
 Congress, 1833-73; the Congressional Record, in 335 volumes, from the 
 Forty-third to the Sixty-third Congress, 1873-1915. 
 
102; TEE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 certain amount of space. This arrangement not only 
 increased the number of volumes per session, 1 but 
 whetted the desire to employ a corps of paid stenog- 
 raphers to report everything done and said. Although 
 this ambitious plan to exploit the speech of members 
 was successfully opposed for many years, three Globe 
 reporters finally obtained fixed seats in front of the 
 clerk's desk (1851), and four years later were paid by 
 the House. Then came the Government Printing-Office 
 (1860), and the system, begun in 1863, of making annual 
 appropriations to cover the publication of debates. This 
 quickly turned the Globe into a daily, freighted with 
 forty columns of proceedings, which doubled the number 
 of volumes formerly published each year. About this 
 time, too (1865), appeared a proposition authorizing the 
 Government Printing-Office to publish the reports and 
 the Speaker to appoint the reporters, making them 
 officers of the House. But it did not become a law until 
 1872, the statute then recognizing five official reporters, 
 for whose use a room was set apart. 
 
 The next year (1873) the Congressional Record had its 
 birth. To have every spoken word recorded by their 
 own reporters had long been the dream of parliamentary 
 leaders. It would give the House, they said, absolute 
 control of its proceedings, crystallize its procedure, keep 
 business from drifting, prevent members from dupli- 
 cating arguments, and hold them responsible for their 
 language. Reporters, too, would more loyally serve the 
 House, their notes would become its property, and their 
 
 1 Twenty-nine volumes of Debates were issued in twelve years, 
 against twenty volumes of Annals in the preceding twelve years. 
 
OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 103 
 
 hours of work subject to its convenience. To some 
 extent these benefits have been realized. In other re- 
 spects, however, the Record is an imperfect mirror. It 
 was intended to contain a full stenographic report of 
 each day's doings, but bills, even if read in full, are 
 seldom published, and often only the substance of reso- 
 lutions and other propositions offered by members. So, 
 in revising remarks, language may be added, modified, 
 or left out, although not to affect the import of words 
 spoken by another without his consent. Nor do words 
 appear if spoken by a member after being called to 
 order. On the other hand, "leave to print," first re- 
 stricted to individual requests and subsequently ex- 
 tended to a "general leave" to continue for several 
 days after debate on a bill is closed, lets in hundreds of 
 speeches never delivered. By unanimous consent leave 
 to extend one's remarks may even be secured in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole. This explains why speeches of 
 half a dozen pages are often interjected into a five- 
 minute debate. Similar surprises often appear when the 
 forty minutes allowed after adopting the previous ques- 
 tion is divided among twenty speakers, each given two 
 minutes "with leave to extend their remarks." Thus 
 the Record presents not what is really said and done on 
 the floor, but what members and the House please to 
 have printed. Sharp, personal controversies which spice 
 debate and furnish racy reading too often disappear, 
 while thousands of pages are devoted to wearisome re- 
 marks never spoken. The custom of granting " leave to 
 print" has contributed to the publication of three times 
 as many volumes of the Record in the past forty years 
 
104 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 as were issued of the Globe during the preceding forty 
 years. In other words, the Record has become " a cave 
 of the winds," or a mausoleum of oratory, poetry, 
 useful and useless information, and a medley of opinions, 
 good, bad, and quixotic, upon every conceivable sub- 
 ject. Until a topical index is prepared it must practically 
 remain a closed book except to the most intrepid ex- 
 plorers. 
 
 The office of "whip" has no official recognition in the 
 House. In the British Commons it is deemed so im- 
 portant to successful party management that the Min- 
 istry assigns its duties to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 with a salary of $10,000, and three junior lords of the 
 Treasury, each with a salary of $5000. As the Treasury 
 Board never meets, its members confine their activities 
 to the passage of government measures. Though the 
 whip is not recognized in the American House, his work 
 has always been performed. Frequently the chairman 
 of a committee, charged with the passage of an im- 
 portant and stoutly contested measure, acts as a whip- 
 per-in. John W. Eppes, who headed Foreign Affairs 
 in 1811, rounded up the Administration forces when 
 the House first adopted the previous question. John 
 W. Taylor was a vigorous whip. He knew the sentiment 
 of members, carried a list of absent ones, and kept 
 adherents informed of an approaching vote. In the 
 Twenty-fifth Congress (1837-39) John Bell's vigor in 
 forming combinations and securing their presence at 
 roll-calls angered Cambreleng more than his arguments. 
 For long periods the numerical superiority of the ma- 
 jority party did not demand the services of a whip. 
 
OTHER OFFICERS AND THE WHIP 105 
 
 This was especially true in the Jackson regime and 
 during and immediately after the Civil War. But 
 whenever the division of parties approaches equality, 
 volunteers quickly appear to rally and line up opposing 
 forces. When suppressing dilatory motions and secur- 
 ing the adoption of a special order by a majority vote 
 in the Forty-seventh Congress (1881-83), Thomas B. 
 Reed became an ideal whip. In 1875 James Wilson, of 
 Iowa, afterward the distinguished Secretary of Agri- 
 culture, became the whip for his party and continued as 
 such for several years. The first whip to be chosen by 
 a party caucus (1899) was James E. Watson, of Indiana. 
 Though a man of dauntless courage, presenting the rare 
 combination of a debater and platform speaker of high 
 order, he won his way more by a gracious manner, 
 easily making friends with everybody. More than this, 
 he was gifted with administrative skill, and though he 
 never seemed to lead or direct, members of his party 
 involuntarily concurred in his suggestions. After him 
 came James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, also the choice 
 of a party caucus. Like Watson, Tawney relied upon 
 brains more than blood, and in rounding up his forces 
 without show or fuss he evinced the poise and calmness 
 that indicated a majority behind him. 
 
 But the work never became completely organized 
 until insurgency began to develop in the Sixtieth Con- 
 gress (1907-09). It was then that Speaker Cannon 
 designated John W. Dwight, of New York, as the 
 whip, assigning him the room formerly occupied by 
 the Speaker and easily accessible to the floor. With the 
 assistance of House employees Dwight organized the 
 
106 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 V work into a system as effective as that of a British whip. 
 Helnight be seen daily, with whip's book in hand, taking 
 note of the whereabouts of every member, and was able 
 at any moment to report pairs, to give the majority 
 within immediate call, and to indicate the number 
 summonable in twelve or twenty-four hours. If the 
 debate showed signs of closing before the time fixed for 
 members to appear, he not infrequently cautioned dis- 
 putants to talk until his folks arrived. It became his 
 business, also, to learn the disposition of members 
 toward party measures and to report signs of disaf- 
 fection. If serious discontent threatened, the interces- 
 sion of the President was not infrequently invoked. 
 Thus the labor of the whip mobilized the majority 
 party, kept it within call, minimized defeat, and in- 
 formed leaders of the strength of the Opposition. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 FLOOR LEADERS 
 
 NEXT to the Speaker in activity, if not in influence, 
 is the floor leader. The head of Ways and Means is 
 the titular leader, and before the division of that com- 
 mittee the multitude of his duties made him the actual 
 leader. But in 1865 the burden of legislation shifted to 
 the chairman of Appropriations, who often becomes the 
 real leader. 
 
 The long official list of these leaders presents several 
 names obscure even to the students of history. As 
 elsewhere stated, a few pages of their debates and brief 
 sketches in the Biographical Congressional Directory are 
 seldom supplemented in book or newspaper with the 
 familiar knowledge of contemporaries. But their con- 
 spicuous place in the House distinguishes them as men 
 of more than ordinary capacity, for in interesting per- 
 sonality and real ability the floor leader is not infre- 
 quently the strongest and at the time the best-known 
 man in the House. This was preeminently true of 
 Robert Goodloe Harper, of South Carolina, whom 
 Speaker Dayton appointed in 1797. Intrepid, quick, 
 well-informed, Harper set a high standard. He displayed 
 genius and positive statesmanship, charming the House 
 with the grace and adroitness of his arguments. In the 
 selection of George W. Campbell, of Tennessee, and John 
 W. Eppes, of Virginia, Speaker Varnum enjoyed his 
 
108 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 greatest triumph. Earnestness of temper gave Eppes 
 an impatient spirit. He was not always understood, 
 sometimes a little envied, but widely beloved. The same 
 may be said of Speaker Winthrop's floor leader, whose 
 name is not readily recalled. Yet in his day the House 
 held Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, in higher personal 
 esteem than the Speaker himself. The trying task of 
 leadership under circumstances of peculiar difficulty 
 made "Vinton" a household word throughout the 
 country. 
 
 With the possible exception of Henry Clay, no 
 Speaker ever won the confidence or enjoyed the friend- 
 ship of the House more than William Lowndes, of South 
 Carolina. His genius pointed him out as the triumphant 
 champion of sound legislation, whose achievements, 
 passing into the history of his time, keeps his name 
 familiar, at least to students of parliamentary annals. 
 With a personality far less winning than Lowndes, 
 Thaddeus Stevens, an autocratic floor leader of the most 
 pronounced type, rivaled Speakers in influence and in 
 fame. The eye of the visitor as he entered the House 
 gallery during and immediately after the Civil War 
 first sought a glimpse of this great radical, whom abo- 
 litionists admired as much as men of conservative in- 
 stincts dreaded. At the height of Speaker Elaine's 
 power Schenck and Dawes and Garfield, who dominated 
 the floor, were equally famous. While Randall and Reed 
 were floor leaders no faces were more familiar and no 
 names better known. Cannon's leadership under Reed 
 and Henderson stamped him as a man of preeminent 
 ability and singular energy. He never trusted to his 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 109 
 
 star, or to luck, or to anything save care and prepara- 
 tion; and to this day it remains an unsolved mystery 
 why his party preferred Henderson for Speaker in 1899. 
 
 It is said that tact rather than genius is the quality 
 most needed for the work of a floor leader. A distin- 
 guished member of Parliament avers that "the essential 
 qualities of a leader are not great powers of intellect. A 
 man of cool head, good temper, firm will, and capacity 
 for appreciating the serviceable qualities of other men, 
 may always make a very successful leader, even though 
 he be wanting altogether in the higher attributes of elo- 
 quence and statesmanship." l It certainly does not 
 follow that a floor leader is the most effective debater, 
 or the prof oundest thinker, or the accepted leader of his 
 party, although he may be and sometimes is all of these. 
 It should imply, however, that in the art of clear, force- 
 ful statement, of readily spotting weak points in an 
 opponent's argument, and in dominating power to safe- 
 guard the interests of the party temporarily responsible 
 for the legislative record of the House, he is the best 
 equipped for his trade. It is neither necessary nor ad- 
 visable for him to lead or even to take part in every 
 debate.Jhejwisdom of silence is a great assei^Besides, 
 chairmen and members of other committees are usually 
 quite capable and sufficiently enthusiastic to protect 
 their own measures. But the floor leader must aid the 
 Speaker in straightening out parliamentary tangles, in 
 progressing business, and in exhibiting an irresistible 
 desire to club any captious interference with the plans 
 and purposes of the majority. 
 
 1 Justin McCarthy, A History of Our Own Times, vol. I, p. 310. 
 
110 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Their speeches, especially those of the most famous, 
 have rarely exceeded half an hour. Stevens and Randall 
 and Reed, like Disraeli in the Commons, usually pre- 
 sented their stock of good things in fifteen or twenty 
 minutes. It could not be said of them that they " thought 
 of convincing when then* hearers thought of dining." 
 Often they lamed an opponent with a single sentence. 
 "The use of cutting sarcasm," confesses Adams, a 
 master of the art, "is seldom politic." Yet a floor leader 
 or the chairman of a great committee, while he must not 
 be venomous, ought to possess the gift of sarcasm or 
 ridicule sufficiently to protect him from pompous me- 
 diocrity. It is always well to inspire members with 
 something of the fear that prevents the small boy from 
 pinching a cat's tail. 
 
 In selecting a floor leader the Speaker often names 
 his leading party opponent. Thus Winthrop appointed 
 Samuel F. Vinton (1847); Banks designated Lewis D. 
 Campbell (1856); Pennington named John Sherman 
 (1859) ; and Reed selected McKinley (1889). More often 
 it has seemed wise to promote the ranking member of 
 Ways and Means. This accounted, in part at least, for 
 Clay's appointment of Ezekiel Bacon in 1811; Steven- 
 son's designation of Gulian C. Verplanck in 1822; Polk's 
 selection of Churchill C. Cambreleng in 1835; Orr's 
 advancement of James S. Phelps in 1858; Randall's 
 promotion of Fernando Wood in 1879; Keifer's appoint- 
 ment of William D. Kelley in 1881; Carlisle's disposition 
 of Roger Q. Mills in 1887; and Henderson's selection of 
 Sereno E. Payne in 1899. Nor is it uncommon for 
 Speakers to reward faithful lieutenants. For this reason 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 111 
 
 Jones selected James J. McKay in 1843; Cobb picked 
 Thomas S. Bayly in 1849; Boyd named George S. 
 Houston in 1851; Kerr and Carlisle selected William H. 
 Morrison in Ij875 and in 1883; and Crisp appointed 
 William M. Springer in 1891. 
 
 It is noticeable that a floor leader often influences the 
 tone of debate. If one is insolent and overbearing like 
 John Randolph, or moderate and courteous like William 
 Lowndes, his colleagues to a greater or less degree will 
 sympathize with and exhibit such an expression of 
 temper. In other words, the House soon gets accus- 
 tomed to a condition, and members who engage much in 
 discussion are inclined to evince the spirit of an accepted 
 chief. " When Lord Palmerston was first made leader of 
 the House," writes Bagehot, "his jaunty manner was 
 not at all popular, and some predicted failure. 'No,' 
 said an old member, 'he will soon educate us down to 
 his level; the House will soon prefer this Ha! Ha! style 
 to the wit of Canning or the gravity of Peel.' We must 
 own that the prophecy was accomplished, for he de- 
 graded us by diminishing a love for principle." l 
 
 Prior to the floor leadership of Randolph, leaders 
 rarely failed to observe the amenities of debate. Robert 
 Goodloe Harper, of South Carolina (1797), and Roger 
 Griswold, of Connecticut (1800), then in their thirties, 
 set a high tone. In political knowledge, forceful elo- 
 quence, and profound legal ability, Griswold ranked 
 among the first men in the nation. And he had spirit. 
 When Matthew Lyon, of Kentucky, spat in his face, 
 Griswold stiffened his arm to strike, but remembering 
 1 The English Constitution, p. 237. 
 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 where he was, he coolly wiped his cheek. But after the 
 House by its vote failed to expel Lyon, he "beat him 
 with great violence," says a contemporary chronicle, 
 " using a strong walking-stick." Of equal mettle, Harper 
 was scarcely inferior in intellectual force. The distinc- 
 tion of his manner matched the accuracy of his scholar- 
 ship. In the Chase impeachment his argument for the 
 defense is conspicuous for its logic and fine rhetoric. 
 
 Following Griswold as floor leader John Randolph 
 leaped into fame. {Gifted with ready wit, destructive 
 sarcasm, fluent speech, and a strong, well-modulated 
 voice, he exerted for six years a most remarkable power 
 over the House. Very few members have left so high a 
 reputation for eloquence, and, it may be said with equal 
 truth, so small a basis of statesmanship to support it. 
 He rushed into controversy without fear and without 
 discretion, never betraying a moment's doubt on any 
 conceivable question, andnever admitting that two 
 sides existed to any matter of discjission. , His natural 
 vanity, inflated by success, became at lasr irritatingly 
 offensive, while opposition aroused in him a personal 
 malignity which turned debate into such exhibitions of 
 brutality that critics declared him "the image of a great 
 man stamped upon base metal." Many feared him; not 
 a few avoided him; and no one liked him. Yet his influ- 
 ence left its impress upon the manner and the quality of 
 debate. It justified audacity, inspired reckless state- 
 ments, and encouraged savage personal attacks. 
 
 The courtesy of Henry Clay rebuked such conduct. 
 Although the first Speaker to comprehend the influence 
 of a strict application of the rules, and the first to con- 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 113 
 
 trol legislation through committee apppointments, his 
 urbanity, the key to his great power, enabled him to 
 attach and to retain the loyalty of men of startlingly 
 different habits of mind from his own. The occasional 
 encounters of this master of grace and affability with 
 John C. Calhoun, or John W. Taylor, of New York, or 
 Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, delighted the House and 
 fixed the standard of good manners and good temper. 
 The complaisance of his floor leaders Cheves, Eppes, 
 Lowndes, Smith, and McLane was scarcely less 
 marked than his own. Indeed, it is doubtful if one not 
 a Speaker ever acquired a greater personal influence 
 than William Lowndes. He was a Saul in stature, and 
 supplemented commanding ability with an amiable 
 disposition and an irreproachable character. Benton's 
 tribute, though often quoted, will bear to be quoted 
 again: "He was one of those members," said the great 
 Missourian, "rare in all assemblies, who, when he spoke, 
 had a cluster around him, not of friends, but of the 
 House, members quitting their distant seats and 
 gathering up close about him, and showing by their 
 attention that one would feel it a personal loss to have 
 missed a word he said. It was the attention of affection- 
 ate confidence. He imparted to others the harmony of 
 his own feelings, and was the moderator as well as the 
 leader of the House, and was followed by its sentiment 
 in all cases in which inexorable party feeling or some 
 powerful interest did not rule the action of the members, 
 and even then he was courteously and deferentially 
 treated." l 
 
 1 Thirty Years' View, vol. I, p. 18. 
 
114 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 The House always gets on better when the Golden 
 Rule governs. Speaker Cannon's friendship for John S. 
 Williams, of Mississippi, during the latter's long leader- 
 ship of the minority had a mellowing influence on the 
 whole membership, whereas the disturbed relations be- 
 tween Speaker Crisp and Thomas B. Reed, and later 
 between Speaker Reed and Joseph W. Bailey, of Texas, 
 inclined the friends of each to be somewhat resentful. 
 But for real turbulence, when the House became a bed- 
 lam and the center aisle seemed to separate enemies 
 rather than opponents, one must go back to the time of 
 Speakers Stevenson and Polk, when George McDuffie, 
 of South Carolina, Churchill C. Cambreleng, of New 
 York, and John W. Jones, of Virginia, headed Ways and 
 Means. Indeed, to quell riotous disorder provoked by 
 coarse and brutal language, Polk was the first Speaker 
 to snatch the gavel from the hand of a chairman before 
 the Committee of the Whole had formally risen. At 
 this period a degree of personal irritation, rarely if ever 
 equaled in our legislative history, seemed to character- 
 ize debate. The moral courage of John Quincy Adams, 
 who fought for the right of petition, undoubtedly con- 
 tributed to it. It is also true, as Mr. Blaine states, that 
 with very few exceptions the really eminent debaters 
 during those years were in the Senate; l otherwise 
 McDuffie, chief of the Hotspurs, could scarcely have 
 justified his title to floor leader. He was a talker; he was 
 the talker; he was the genius of talk. More than that he 
 was a magnificent and an unmitigated egotist. Able, 
 bold, impatient, and quick to take offense, he poured 
 1 Twenty Years of Congress, vol. I, p. 70. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 115 
 
 out his noisy denunciations and passionate invectives, 
 often mercilessly personal, until he had exhausted every 
 rhetorical weapon. If an opponent flashed a word in 
 resentment, he promptly indicated a willingness to an- 
 swer at another place, and although he once balked at a 
 rifle in the hands of Thomas Metcalfe, of Kentucky, he 
 did not lose prestige as a disciple of the code duello. It 
 may be said in extenuation that McDuffie had much to 
 provoke him. His views were resented and his bills 
 rejected, while the tariff acts of 1828, 1830, and 1832, 
 reported by the rival Committee on Manufactures, 
 passed without the acceptance of an amendment pro- 
 posed by Ways and Means. Yet McDuffie kept the 
 rivalry hot and eager until elected governor of his State, 
 where he was as popular as a later-day music-hall artist. 
 Cambreleng belonged to a lower type. Although of 
 great authority on financial subjects, he was an ultra of 
 the ranting, declamatory style, without wit or humor, 
 and seemingly fond of being offensive. If interrupted, 
 he bullied and became brutal, sometimes flaming out 
 with a flourish of emphatic malice. If any one doubts 
 the superiority of modern manners, he has only to read 
 the controversies of Cambreleng's day, when "liar, 
 scoundrel, and puppy" was a common combination 
 epithet. 1 Upon resuming his seat, after having replied 
 to a severe personal arraignment of Henry Clay, former 
 Speaker White, without the slightest warning, received 
 a blow in the face. In the fight that followed a pistol was 
 discharged, wounding an officer of the police. 2 John 
 
 1 26th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 145. 
 
 2 Adams, Diary, vol. xn, p. 16. 
 
116 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Bell, the distinguished Speaker and statesman, had a 
 similar experience in Committee of the Whole (1838). 
 The fisticuff became so violent that even the Chair could 
 not quell it. Later in the day both parties apologized 
 and "made their submissions.'* On February 6, 1845, 
 Edward J. Black, of Georgia, "crossed over from his 
 seat, and, coming within the bar behind Joshua R. Gid- 
 dings as he was speaking, made a pass at the back of his 
 head with a cane. William H. Hammett, of Mississippi, 
 threw his arms round Black and bore him off as he would 
 a woman from a fire. Black sneaked to his seat and in a 
 tone so low he could not be heard whispered an apology 
 for having trespassed on the order of the House." 1 
 
 "These were not pleasant days,*' writes Thomas B. 
 Reed. "Men were not nice in their treatment of each 
 other. When Reuben M. Whitney was before a commit- 
 tee of investigation in 1837, Bailie Peyton, of Tennessee, 
 taking offense at one of his answers, threatened him 
 fiercely, and when he rose to claim the committee's pro- 
 tection, Mr. Peyton, with due and appropriate profan- 
 ity, shouted : * You shan't say one word while you are in 
 this room; if you do I will put you to death.' The chair- 
 man, Henry A. Wise, added: 'Yes; this insolence is 
 insufferable.' As both these gentlemen were armed with 
 deadly weapons, the witness could hardly be blamed for 
 not wanting to testify before the committee again." 2 
 
 It shows how callous the House had become that 
 George Evans, of Maine, could serve for twelve years 
 during the leadership of McDuffie, Cambreleng, and 
 
 1 Adams, Diary, vol. xn, p. 162. 
 
 2 Saturday Evening Post, December 9, 1899. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 117 
 
 Polk without influencing their manners. To find one 
 so brilliant and highly cultivated in such company is 
 like discovering, nested amidst floating weeds, a freshly 
 opened water-lily, sparkling in the sunshine. Probably 
 no one in his time or in any time had in combination 
 more oratorical gifts than Evans. His powers of reason- 
 ing and of pathos, his elocution and language, his stirring 
 arguments animated and inspired by deep feeling, his 
 playful and cutting severity, his mellow voice and gen- 
 tle manners, made him the most distinguished man in 
 the House. Blaine says of him: "Of all who have repre- 
 sented New England in Congress, Mr. Evans, as a de- 
 bater, is entitled to rank next to Mr. Webster." * ^ 
 
 As the successor of Cambreleng, John W. Jones kept 
 well up to the level of his time in swaggering. He was 
 lame and not prepossessing in appearance, but he pos- 
 sessed elements of leadership unknown to the New 
 Yorker. Of fluent and convincing eloquence, he loved 
 the platform and delighted in intimate intercourse with 
 the crowd. He also had the power of saying much in a 
 few words and appreciated the relative value of speech 
 and silence. He was indisposed to pluck the peach 
 before it was ripe. Indeed, instead of forcing issues on 
 the public or on the House, he preferred to make his 
 appearance when the air had been warmed, and then 
 with clever arguments, gracefully expressed in a strong, 
 well-modulated voice, he held the attention of the House 
 as if he were its master. Yet his tolerance and the 
 warmth of his human sympathies were negligible. He 
 shared his party's general distrust of the liberalists of 
 1 Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i, p. 72. 
 
118 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 his day and never disguised his impatience with the 
 growing new thought. To him it was a red rag which 
 made him bellow and paw the dust. At such times he 
 could outdo Cambreleng. 
 
 It was fortunate that the minority in these swagger- 
 ing days was led by John Bell, of Tennessee, memorable 
 as the candidate of the Union party for President in 
 1860. Although incapable of the stirring, brilliant argu- 
 ments of George Evans, or the quick, piquant replies of 
 Henry R. Storrs, of New York, Bell was ready for any 
 fray. He had a way of expressing unmitigated contempt 
 in a tone that exasperated. With the lance of a picador 
 he kept Cambreleng in a rage. He fought his way by 
 sheer talent into the front rank of the Opposition. As 
 a lawyer whose knowledge might fairly be called pro- 
 found, he rose to celebrity and influence in the prime 
 of life, entering the House at the age of thirty. His 
 resources seemed inexhaustible, enabling him on the 
 shortest notice to marshal facts and arguments, and to 
 sustain the brunt of debate with the ablest foes. On 
 occasion he could also pour out an animated, even a 
 passionate invective, and although once betrayed into 
 resenting a coarse interruption with a blow of his fist, 
 he had moderation and discretion. But it never inter- 
 fered with his physical courage. 
 
 The manners of James J. McKay, of North Carolina, 
 appointed floor leader by his predecessor, Speaker John 
 W. Jones (1843), were an improvement over those of his 
 immediate predecessors. McKay was a plain-looking 
 man, and as careless of dress as John Quincy Adams, of 
 whom it was derisively said, when President, that he sat 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 119 
 
 in his shirt-sleeves and wore no slippers; but as a de- 
 bater of power, of which he was conscious, though with 
 little personal vanity, McKay spoke with astonishing 
 mildness. Even the satirical bitterness of Wise did not 
 disturb him. To strike sparks of light on every sub- 
 ject with no trace of rudeness contrasted so strangely 
 with the dashing, impulsive attacks of McDuffie and the 
 overbearing insolence of Cambreleng, that some thought 
 his moderation covered an insidious spirit under a mask 
 of candor. Perhaps his words were sometimes stealthy, 
 but it remained to his credit that he conducted sharp, 
 forceful debate in a courteous manner. 
 
 The civility of McKay's successor, Samuel F. Vinton, 
 of Ohio (1847), made a deeper impression. Backed by 
 twenty years of service, he was in the full flower of his 
 strength and of his fame. Although of slight frame and 
 weak voice, his handsome face, slightly austere, with its 
 prominent forehead and blazing blue eyes, gave as- 
 surance of abundant force and will power. After Evans 
 had passed to the Senate, Adams spoke of him as the 
 best and ablest man in the House. Even his veracity 
 was mentioned as a distinguishing merit. Whether this 
 implied that members generally and floor leaders in 
 particular failed to show a preference for the truth, one 
 can only guess. But Vinton had the oratory of convic- 
 tion. He cared for the substance rather than the graces 
 of speech, and with a well-disciplined temper he rounded 
 out long, heated discussions without the slightest acer- 
 bity. With gratifying sympathy he represented a very 
 substantial body of Whigs, and hi 1847 the party re- 
 warded his fidelity with a nomination for Speaker. It 
 
120 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 was practically unanimous. But in opposing the Wilmot 
 Proviso he had disturbed the irreconcilable anti-slavery 
 element, and in the interest of harmony he withdrew 
 in favor of Winthrop, who had sustained the Proviso. 
 It was one of those happenings which occasionally make 
 the game of politics so bewildering. In a day sentiment 
 seemed to change. What had been politically unpopular 
 suddenly became morally popular, and the Whig states- 
 men who opposed the Proviso quickly felt a loss of 
 power. Winthrop, failing to profit by Vinton's experi- 
 ence, realized the change in 1849 when Howell Cobb 
 defeated his reelection by two votes. Thus the quick 
 turn of the tide stranded them both Vinton at the 
 age of fifty-nine and Winthrop at forty-two. Seldom 
 has a political career been so abruptly cut short as that 
 of Mr. Winthrop. Never afterward did he seem to have 
 any particular business in public life. Yet he lived on 
 for over forty years, his intellectual powers unshattered, 
 the foremost citizen of his native Commonwealth. 
 
 Speaker Cobb appointed Thomas H. Bayly, of Vir- 
 ginia, floor leader. It was a case of gratitude. Bayly 
 had never served upon Ways and Means, nor disclosed 
 the restless intelligence that pierces a delicately woven 
 web which often conceals an unnecessarily large appro- 
 priation; but throughout the long, tedious, fickle con- 
 test for Speaker, he watched Cobb's interests, and with 
 good temper and forceful speech gave striking proof of 
 his preference for factional advantage. He was not a 
 far-seeing man. He did not trouble himself about future 
 problems, and in the end he achieved results which a 
 bare majority rather than the country at large welcomed 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 121 
 
 and applauded. These characteristics, dominating his, 
 floor leadership, aroused suspicions of inconsiderate con- 
 duct, and often left him in a minority. Thus he became 
 a titular, not a real leader, and although he remained 
 in the House until his death in 1856, he dropped out of 
 parliamentary activity at the close of Cobb's two years 
 in the chair. 
 
 Speaker Boyd selected George S. Houston, of Ala- 
 bama. Houston had been a Whig. He supported 
 Winthrop against Cobb, following Toombs and Stephens 
 and Stanly; but in 1851, acting independently of his 
 associates, he shifted his party and took his reward. 
 Although a man of undoubted ability and of a brave, 
 commanding spirit, who had served four years on Ways 
 and Means, ranking next to Vinton, he lacked all the 
 essential qualities of leadership. He had audacity and 
 aggressiveness, but little parliamentary skill and neither 
 patience nor political tact. Besides, his eloquence was 
 massive. He shouted and thundered. John W. Forney, 
 the amiable clerk, called him the noisiest man in the 
 House. One marvels at the boldness of his assertions 
 during the violent controversy over the repeal of the 
 Missouri Compromise. He seemed to talk with a 
 grandiose and oracular vagueness, sometimes baffling 
 and frequently bewildering men of greater knowledge. 
 He left the impression upon many, who watched his 
 restless figure as he stormed and gesticulated, that he 
 discussed subjects of which he evidently knew noth- 
 ing. Happily for him the clever parliamentary trick 
 of Stephens, 1 releasing the Kansas-Nebraska Bill from 
 1 See chap, xin, p. 268. 
 
122 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Committee of the Whole, saved his leadership from be- 
 coming a burlesque. But his influence seriously lowered 
 the tone of debate. Undoubtedly the sudden revival of 
 the slavery issue, fanned into fierce flame by the repeal 
 of a sacred compact, had its influence. It turned good- 
 tempered men into ill-natured ones. Yet Houston's 
 personality itself provoked a rudeness that had largely 
 disappeared after Cambreleng's day. He simply knew 
 nothing of the social temper which in this day insists 
 that the first duty of a gentleman is to apologize for an 
 unjust or offensive expression in debate. 
 
 Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, succeeded Houston. 
 For a man of marked ability, Campbell proved, perhaps, 
 the most disappointing of floor leaders (1855). His 
 speeches, admirable for freshness and vigor, had given 
 him great prestige. He possessed the happy knack of 
 saying bitter things in an epigrammatic way. In the 
 debate on the repeal of the Missouri Compromise he 
 became the Achilles of the Opposition. He sounded an 
 alarm. He hit the tone and temper of Northern people, 
 voicing their fears and expressing their sentiments. He 
 seemed especially to delight in attacking Houston, 
 whose noisy loquacity presented a shining mark for 
 sarcasm. His colleagues applauded him, talked of him 
 for Speaker, gave him a flattering vote, and after his 
 withdrawal in favor of Banks, the latter made him 
 chairman of Ways and Means. But like Bayly he had 
 neither served on the committee nor studied the art of 
 adjusting duties or paring appropriations, while his 
 erratic views, backed with cynical frankness, soon dis- 
 closed weakness as a leader. His bill pleased no one. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 123 
 
 Even the Ohio wool-raisers in no wise benefited. He 
 seemed to realize its failure, otherwise his speech in its 
 favor must have found a place in the Globe. Indeed, he 
 had a way of talking and not publishing. One looks in 
 vain for his remarks favoring the expulsion of Preston 
 S. Brooks because of his brutal assault upon Senator 
 Sumner (1856). As floor leader he presented the resolu- 
 tion and closed the debate, but he withheld his words 
 from the Globe, although he had taken Sumner's hand 
 immediately after the assault, as the blood-stained 
 statesman lay in the cloak-room of the Senate. 1 How- 
 ever, Campbell might have survived these shortcom- 
 ings, as others have before and since, could he have 
 worked in harmony with his party. But he followed no 
 better than he led, and, although a very able man, his 
 public career ended just as some of his Northern col- 
 leagues, destined to become famous, seized the situation 
 with the imaginative courage of creative minds. Only 
 once afterward did he go back to Congress, and then 
 as a supporter of President Johnson. 
 
 John Sherman, of Ohio, who became floor leader when 
 Henry Winter Davis refused to make him Speaker (1860), 
 was at once recognized as the steadying power of the 
 combination that finally took control of the House. By 
 temperament he was the least adventurous of states- 
 men, indifferent to dreams, insensible to idealism, but 
 deeply interested in practical things. He had reverence 
 for a bond, for constitutional precedent, and for biter- 
 national law, with the promptness of a tax collector. 
 
 1 Edward L. Pierce, Life of Charles Sumner, vol. m, pp. 478, 490, 
 notes. 
 
124 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 He seems, also, to have agreed with the younger Pitt, 
 that the highest virtue of statesmanship is patience, and 
 no man ever exhibited a more abundant supply of it 
 than he during the prolonged and savage Speakership 
 contest at the opening of the Thirty-sixth Congress 
 (1859-61). He was slow to anger, and a cold indifference 
 sometimes made him appear a little flaccid. But once 
 engaged his mind worked with unrivaled power. It 
 may be said that throughout his long, notable career 
 an emergency always found him greater than the need. 
 It brought quickly into play all the resources of a power- 
 ful intellect, methodical, clear, masterful, with a pas- 
 sionless detachment of spirit that made him supreme. 
 Yet it was well known to his friends and often revealed 
 to the public that behind a rather frigid exterior he 
 cultivated the sensibilities. While he mobilized the 
 forces of wealth and privilege in the interest of the 
 Union, he exhibited a true instinct for the welfare of all 
 the people, and especially for the amelioration of the 
 down-trodden. It was this sympathy that deprived him 
 of the Speakership. 
 
 Only occasionally has an official floor leader repre- 
 sented what Disraeli called "sublime mediocrity." 
 Ezekiel Bacon, of Massachusetts (1811), belonged in 
 this class. Although he could address the House with 
 a fluency not unworthy of Clay himself, he proved 
 neither skillful as a debater nor useful in progressing 
 business. Adams likened him to Joseph Vance, of 
 Ohio, who "rose by his eloquence to Congress and then 
 dropped into his primitive obscurity." l With him 
 1 Diary, vol. n, p. 388. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 125 
 
 be classed Joseph Clay, of Pennsylvania. Gulian C. 
 Verplanck, of New York (1832), and J. Glancy Jones, 
 of Pennsylvania (1857), whom Speaker Orr appointed 
 at the instance of President Buchanan. Like Bacon 
 these men simply filled a gap, each for a session. It was 
 during the floor leadership of J. Glancy Jones that the 
 remarkable scene occurred between Galusha A. Grow, 
 of Pennsylvania, and Lawrence M. Keitt, of South Car- 
 olina. 1 The former had passed to the Democratic side 
 of the chamber, and while there John A. Quitman, of 
 Mississippi, asked leave to speak. Grow objected. 
 Keitt, who stood near, said roughly: "If you are going 
 to object, return to your own side of the House." Grow 
 answered: "This is a free hall. Every man has a right 
 to be where he pleases." Keitt, coming nearer, said: 
 "I want to know what you mean by such an answer as 
 that." Grow replied: "I mean just what I said. This 
 is a free hall and every man has a right to be just where 
 he pleases." Thereupon Keitt seized Grow by the 
 throat, exclaiming: "I will let you know that you are 
 
 a black Republican puppy." Grow knocked 
 
 up his hand, saying, "No negro driver shall crack his 
 whip over me." Keitt again grasped him by the throat, 
 and Grow knocked him down. 
 
 "Keitt's fall," says Reed, in writing of this historic 
 incident, "was the signal for a mad rush to the space 
 in front of the Speaker, members striking each other, 
 and a general mele ensued, with Washburne, of Illinois, 
 and Potter, of Wisconsin, most conspicuous. Barksdale, 
 of Mississippi, rushed at Mr. Covode, who uplifted a 
 1 February. 1858. 
 
126 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 spittoon; but Barksdale's wig came off and Covode 
 had not the heart to smite his unprotected skull. The 
 Speaker called on the sergeant-at-arms, and the ser- 
 geant-at-arms, with his assistants, came with the mace, 
 the insignia of his office, and after several minutes the 
 uproar was quelled. Afterward Mr. Keitt made a most 
 handsome apology, taking the blame on himself." 1 
 
 In the class with J. Glancy Jones belongs William M. 
 Springer, of Illinois, who became floor leader during 
 Speaker Crisp's first term (1891-93). Springer was 
 neither sincere nor intellectually honest. Loquacious, 
 often frivolous, and never impressive, he seemed to be 
 always on his feet and apparently indifferent to the 
 position he assumed. It was in defense of some vagary 
 that he remarked, "I'd rather be right than President." 
 To which Reed flashed the retort, "The gentleman from 
 Illinois will never be either." Reed delighted in pricking 
 him. On one occasion Springer asked unanimous con- 
 sent to correct a statement. "No correction needed," 
 piped up Reed. " We did n't think it was so when you 
 made it." When Springer accused the Maine statesman 
 of making light of his remarks, Reed replied, "If I 
 'make light* of his remarks, it is more than he ever 
 makes of them himself." Springer's leadership became 
 so intolerable that Crisp soon transferred its duties to 
 Benton McMillin, of the Committee on Rules. Even 
 the Tennesseean, although exhibiting marked ability 
 and considerable parliamentary aptitude, advocated 
 partisan special orders with proverbial Scottish caution. 
 What his party demanded was a dashing, violent oppo- 
 1 Saturday Evening Post, December 9, 1899. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 127 
 
 sition to Thomas B. Reed, then the minority leader, 
 and in the next Congress (1893) Crisp again shifted the 
 leadership to Joseph H. Outhwaite, of Ohio, with 
 William L. Wilson, of West Virginia, as chairman of 
 Ways and Means. This was a more formidable team, 
 but Reed's rapid-firing gun finally drove Crisp to the 
 shelter of a counted quorum. 
 
 William L. Wilson was a scholar, dignified, tolerantly 
 placid, of keen perceptions, and a good speaker, who 
 confined his efforts to shaping a revenue measure (1894). 
 Of his class Millard Fillmore (1841) may be called the 
 prototype. Fillmore was not a ready debater. Though 
 possessing a clear, strong voice, he neither stirred the 
 feelings nor aroused the emotions. Critics said his 
 figures belonged to arithmetic, not to rhetoric. But he 
 had ability, good judgment, and great industry, and 
 although Adams gave McKennan, of Pennsylvania, 
 credit for passing the tariff bill of 1842, it made Fill- 
 more's name familiar in seats of industry and opened 
 his way to the Vice-Presidency. 
 
 Other official floor leaders whose names are wedded 
 to the tariff policy of their country are Justin Morrill, of 
 Vermont (1861); Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio (1867); 
 Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts (1871); William 
 D. Kelley of Pennsylvania (1881); WiUiam McKinley, 
 of Ohio (1889); William L. Wilson, of West Virginia 
 (1894); Nelson Dingley, of Maine (1897); Sereno E. 
 Payne, of New York (1909) ; and Oscar W. Underwood, 
 of Alabama (1913). Several of these men were noted 
 Speakers, their persuasive arguments, strong and vig- 
 orous, often rising into the domain of eloquence. On 
 
128 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 their feet, as the phrase is, Schenck and Dawes were 
 ideal controversialists; McKinley never fell to the level 
 of rhetorical commonplace; and Payne, like Underwood, 
 though not an orator in the true sense, possessed a 
 clear, thoughtful, and sometimes a stately style of 
 speaking. Nelson Dingley, although slight of figure, 
 with rather a weak voice, whose over-supply of informa- 
 tion sometimes made him tedious, was an accomplished 
 parliamentarian and never failed to command close at- 
 tention. He was such a marvel of industry that Reed 
 declared "he'd rather have a pad and pencil on his 
 knee than a pretty girl." 
 
 After the division of Ways and Means in 1865 the 
 actual floor leader, as already stated, was often the 
 chairman of Appropriations. When Schenck and Dawes 
 headed the~se respective committees (186&-71) it was 
 difficult to indicate the real leader, though Elaine de- 
 clared Schenck "the unquestioned chief." Like Wil- 
 liam Lowndes he was admirably fitted for the arduous 
 and difficult duty. Years before, when serving as a Whig 
 (1843-51), Adams said of him: "His manner is cool, 
 firm, unhesitating, with conscious mastery of his subject; 
 his voice clear and strong; his elocution neat and elegant, 
 with a swelling vein of sarcastic humor which makes the 
 hall ring with laughter." 1 Elaine adds that " as a debater 
 he had no equal in the House." 2 It was not so difficult 
 to pick the floor leader when Dawes succeeded Schenck, 
 and Garfield became the head of Appropriations (1871- 
 75). Although both were masters of parliamentary de- 
 
 1 Diary, vol. xi, p. 479. 
 
 2 Twenty Years of Congress, voL I, p. 499. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 129 
 
 bate, Garfield had little of the real fighter in his nature. 
 His forceful speeches, full of the passion and poetry 
 essential to genuine eloquence, deeply stirred the House, 
 but he preferred to leave the rough work of the floor to 
 others. 
 
 Under the Speakership of Kerr and Carlisle, William 
 H. Morrison, of Illinois, and Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, 
 headed Ways and Means. Mills talked oftener than 
 Morrison, but in personal fQrce__ailisubtlety of mind he 
 may be paired with Morrison. Then* achievements, how- 
 ever, were incommensurate with then* efforts, which 
 kept their party expectant and the House distrustful. 
 During these years Samuel J. Randall, chairman of 
 Appropriations, was the acknowledged leader. In fact, 
 it made little difference who topped Ways and Means, 
 the Pennsylvanian was always chief. From the time he 
 entered Congress in 1863 until his death in 1890, his 
 political career was a triumph of character and of intel- 
 lectual mastery. In many respects his equipment was 
 undistinguished. Unknown in society, indifferent to the 
 currents of modern life, and with limited education, his 
 young manhood reveled in political caucuses and Phila- 
 delphia polling-places, with a tendency to govern with 
 his fists as well as his head. But even then the serenity 
 of his manner, the honesty of his aims, and his freedom 
 from artifice combined to give him a unique authority. 
 Reed said of him: "Perhaps there may have been better 
 parliamentarians, men of broader intellect and more 
 learning, but there have been few men with a will more 
 like iron or a courage more unfaltering." 1 Randall 
 1 Saturday Evening Post, December 9, 1899. 
 
130 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 picked lieutenants with great shrewdness. When 
 Speaker (1876-81) he put John D. C. Atkins, of Tennes- 
 see, at the head of Appropriations and made Fernando 
 Wood, of New York, chairman of Ways and Means. It 
 was a forceful team. Bold, ready, independent, and 
 sometimes impudent, Atkins threw himself with energy 
 into the task of paring appropriations; but in all the 
 political controversies that gnawed at the vitals of a 
 recently resurrected party, Wood did the heavy work. 
 
 Wood was a strenuous, self -asserting character. He 
 had great skill in debate and played a striking part in 
 the politics of his time. But his bitter partisanship 
 gained him a reputation even more unsavory than that 
 of Cambreleng. His personal assaults upon President 
 Lincoln, often revoltingly vulgar, became conspicuous 
 and most offensive. He had a cold, sardonic intellect, 
 and his destructive arguments, imperiously and auda- 
 ciously mischievous, often drove him into outbursts of 
 denunciation which startled even his party colleagues. 
 He cared nothing for a formally inflicted censure. 1 He 
 accepted it as a matter of course, insisting that his lan- 
 guage exactly conveyed what he meant to express. 
 Nobody ever praised his judgment and nothing ever 
 jarred his nerves. His colleagues hinted at " the demonic 
 element," shown by the glare of his eye, which disposed 
 him to attack everything and to blame everybody. 
 Members wondered at Randall's appointment of such 
 an indefatigable and reckless champion; yet those who, 
 like Blaine, had served with him from the beginning, 
 spoke of him as belonging to a manly type, who never 
 1 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 542. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 131 
 
 allowed political antagonisms to destroy friendly rela- 
 tions. 
 
 After Randall retired as Speaker he faced Thomas B. 
 Reed, just then winning his spurs as a fighting leader. 
 Reed never headed Appropriations or Ways and Means, 
 but in his third term, during Keifer's Speakership (1881- 
 83), he began doing the rough-and-tumble work of 
 the floor as the bellicose member of the Committee on 
 Rules, and so quickly did his startlingly revolutionary 
 tactics succeed that in the next Congress, although 
 Keifer was the minority's candidate for Speaker, Reed 
 became its acknowledged leader, and ever after, so long 
 as he served in the House, remained the most conspicu- 
 ous member of his party. His power as a floor leader 
 was in his directness, his contentiousness, his ability to 
 help men make up their minds, and to justify them in 
 following him. He never scattered. His arguments bore 
 directly on the issue before the House at the moment, 
 and, though he indulged sufficiently in generalities to 
 give force and side-light to his views, he never fell into 
 vagueness. No one yawned while he was on his feet. 
 Perhaps few of his speeches will ever get into school 
 readers or volumes of eloquence, but when spoken with 
 his sonorous, forceful tones and unfeigned earnestness 
 infusing new life into every debate, each one became a 
 masterpiece. 
 
 Reed's successor as floor leader was Joseph G. Can- 
 non, of Illinois. For ten years he headed Appropria- 
 tions, and for many years before had fought in the fierc- 
 est of dialectical battles. There were some resemblances 
 between him and Reed. Each was indifferent to studied 
 
132 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 rhetoric, contemptuous of demagogic appeals to popular 
 emotion, distrustful of theorists, and cautious not to 
 overstate. Both were also slow to anger. But once 
 aroused, then: indignation gave an extraordinary im- 
 petus to their volition. Reed's intellectual mastery 
 controlled the House. His acknowledged superiority 
 destroyed opposition. Cannon was not so completely 
 trusted. His influence came from his power to absorb 
 the atmosphere of a situation and exhale it with an 
 assured grasp of underlying principles. He never brow- 
 beat or intimidated. Sarcasm was not among his wea- 
 pons. He reasoned and smiled, unbuttoned his vest, 
 unloosed the band of his trousers, and then, with his left 
 arm flying over his head, recalling David and the sling, 
 he let fly a well-aimed stone in the shape of a flashing 
 fact that swiftly pierced the argument of an opponent. 
 Whatever the wave that rolled in, he always rode on its 
 crest. There was something debonair about this West- 
 ern "Uncle Joe," who, with nothing but his own native 
 wit and dauntless courage, boldly faced any proposition 
 and all comers. As elsewhere stated, Reed usually fin- 
 ished in ten minutes. Cannon talked longer, but his 
 speeches had the quality of finality. 
 
 After Mr. Cannon became Speaker (1903-11), James 
 A. Tawney, of Minnesota, followed as chairman of 
 Appropriations and Sereno E. Payne continued at the 
 head of Ways and Means. Meantime, James R. Mann, 
 of Illinois, by the closest and most persistent attention 
 to floor work, gradually won his way to leadership. At 
 first his party sympathies seemed negligible and his 
 activities were resented. His amazing energy and 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 133 
 
 impetus seemed to make him a personal, zealous, and 
 autocratic instrument of the Speaker for killing or re- 
 tarding certain classes of bills that tapped the Treasury, 
 compelling members benefiting by such legislation to 
 supplement the Chair's recognition with a promise of 
 forbearance on the floor. This was an entirely new de- 
 parture in parliamentary procedure. Previously resent- 
 ment or dyspepsia had incited objection. But Mann 
 stationed himself in a front seat, displayed copies of all 
 bills reported, remained throughout each session, and 
 halted every comer. He was not ill-natured or capri- 
 cious. His adventurous action seemed to be guided by 
 a judicial rather than a whimsical spirit, and when con- 
 vinced of the propriety of a measure he ceased to inter- 
 vene. But what won the House was the swiftness of 
 his vision, the accuracy of his knowledge, and the 
 ruthlessness with which his quick questions and ready 
 replies disclosed weakness or mischief. Indeed, so wel- 
 come and invaluable did his activities become that upon 
 Cannon's retirement Mann's party selected him as its 
 candidate for Speaker. According to precedent this 
 made him the titular as well as the real leader of the 
 minority, and the thoroughness and far-seeing scope 
 of his preparation to thwart the policy of an overwhelm- 
 ing majority disclosed an initiative and intellectual 
 energy which events did nothing to weaken. 
 
 Opposed to Mann appeared Oscar W. Underwood, of 
 Alabama, as floor leader (1911). Perhaps no one ever 
 came into great power with less individual assertiveness. 
 The choice of Champ Clark as Speaker, who had headed 
 the minority on Ways and Means in the preceding 
 
134 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 House, left Underwood the ranking member and without 
 a rival of sufficient strength to contest with him for the 
 majority leadership. He brought to the place an attrac- 
 tive personality. His gentle simplicity, easy-going man- 
 ners, and freedom from egotism or personal ambition 
 seemed to deny the sense of high purpose and firmness 
 of mind which his presence conveyed. But when he 
 spoke, whether in the committee room or in the House, 
 he disclosed a masculine authority. There was nothing 
 vivid or swift or hot with passionate sympathy. His 
 quality was intellectual rather than imaginative. Yet, 
 like other products of modern political study, his sym- 
 pathies were more popular than his slow, measured 
 speech, free from artifice or appeal, would indicate. 
 Before being installed as floor leader he had won envied 
 prestige as a successful legislator. Although never serv- 
 ing with the majority, or acting as official leader of the 
 minority, he had had a more than usually valuable ex- 
 perience through service on a variety of committees. 
 His prominence on Ways and Means opened a path to 
 distinction, and he traveled it conscientiously, speaking 
 without anger or sarcasm, and apparently without the 
 slightest inclination to play the r6le of an idealist, or to 
 present the visions of a dreamer. He saw real things as 
 a practical business man with a spacious understanding 
 and a sound judgment. Of course, his party believed in 
 him, and his opponents respected him. When he sud- 
 denly became floor leader, therefore, the House recog- 
 nized him as the possessor of intellectual strength, hav- 
 ing the tolerance and patience of a statesman, and the 
 steadying power of high character. 
 
FLOOR LEADERS 135 
 
 He had, too, an adventitious aid not shared by his 
 predecessors; for, as elsewhere stated, the House, under 
 the rules adopted in the Sixty-second Congress (1911- 
 13), elected the members of the Committee on Ways 
 and Means and endowed them with power to appoint 
 other committees. 1 This prerogative was the Speaker's 
 greatest asset, and when transferred to Ways and 
 Means it gave Underwood, the dominating head of that 
 Committee, a power to control legislation not possessed 
 by former floor leaders. 
 
 This power he undoubtedly exercised in making up 
 committees as it had theretofore been exercised by 
 Speakers. Having in mind the recognition due to long 
 service, he also kept in view the triumph of party poli- 
 cies as well as his own success, and so long as harmony 
 existed within his party he was conspicuously its leader. 
 But when, in the preparation of his tariff bill, the Presi- 
 dent differed with him as to duties on sugar and on wool, 
 the former had his way. So, too, on the non-payment of 
 tolls by coastwise vessels using the Panama Canal, to 
 the support of which he felt himself bound by the ex- 
 plicit declaration of his party platform, the President 
 easily bowled him and the platform over together. In 
 other words, at crucial moments the overshadowing 
 figure of the President obscured that of the floor leader. 
 It is doubtful if a Speaker, possessing the power that 
 formerly belonged to that office, could, under similar 
 conditions, have accomplished more. His failure was 
 not due to the unpopularity of his views, or to the ill-will 
 of his colleagues, for no disaffection existed over com- 
 1 See chap, v, p. 81. 
 
136 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 mittee appointments or the management of the business 
 of the House, while it was an open secret that at least a 
 majority of his party endorsed its platform both as to 
 revenue and to tolls. It was simply the inability of a 
 floor leader, however strong his personality or potent 
 the influence secured by the rules and practice of the 
 House, to resist successfully a dominating President 
 buttressed by the power of patronage. l But it is due to 
 Mr. Underwood to add that his last overthrow occurred 
 after his election to the Senate precluded the possibility 
 of his succeeding himself as chairman of Ways and 
 Means, thus leaving to members the game of securing 
 post-offices unfettered by the chance of losing highly 
 prized committee places in the next House. 
 % J For further discussion of this power see chap, xvm, pp. 381, 382. 
 
CHAPTER VIH 
 
 PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES OF MEMBERS 
 
 IF a member be indicted for a felony or other crime, 
 prosecution is left to the local tribunal, and in case of 
 conviction he may be expelled from the House; but if 
 the conviction occur before his election, precedents uni- 
 formly deny the House jurisdiction of the offense. Thus, 
 when one member resigned to escape expulsion and was 
 subsequently reflected, the House declined to act, for 
 the reason that his constituents had reelected him with 
 full knowledge of his sin. "This has been so frequently 
 decided," said Speaker Carlisle, "that it is no longer a 
 matter of dispute." l When reelected at a special elec- 
 tion to the same Congress, however, the House declined 
 to admit him. 2 
 
 A member's freedom from arrest applies to writs or 
 other processes in civil suits, and continues only when 
 Congress is in session and while he is traveling to and 
 from his home. The period for such travel is interpreted 
 as a "convenient time," including sufficient opportun- 
 ity to settle one's private affairs and to deviate from the 
 usual route for rest, convenience, or because of family 
 sickness. 3 Although conceded that a member who re- 
 mained at home during a portion of the session was 
 
 1 48th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 5750-51. 
 
 2 41st Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 4669-74. 
 
 3 24 Fed. Law Reporter, p. 387. 
 
138 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 neither in actual attendance on the House, nor going to 
 or returning from his home, it was held that he could not 
 be imprisoned under a mesne process in a civil suit, and 
 when the House had knowledge of his confinement the 
 Speaker issued a warrant to the sergeant-at-arms com- 
 manding him forthwith to take such member from the 
 custody of sheriff, jailer, or any other person presuming 
 to detain him. This promptly opened the prison door. 1 
 In like manner a member arrested and imprisoned dur- 
 ing vacation obtained his freedom upon the assembling 
 of Congress. 
 
 An assault upon a member is usually resented as a 
 breach of privilege. In 1809 the House ignored the fact 
 that the member assaulted was not in attendance, and 
 that the cause of it in no wise related to his official du- 
 ties. 2 A controversy over an appropriation bill between 
 two members while on their way to the Capitol in an 
 omnibus, which resulted in an assault, was regarded as 
 a breach of privilege. A celebrated case occurred in 
 1866, when Josiah B. Grinnell, of Iowa, imputed coward- 
 ice to Lovell H. Rousseau, of Kentucky, a Federal 
 general in the Civil War. After adjournment Rousseau 
 assaulted Grinnell with a cane in the presence of three 
 members, who admitted their intention to intervene had 
 any one interfered. The House disapproved Grinnell's 
 course as unjustified, but reprimanded Rousseau and 
 censured his friends. Rousseau immediately resigned 
 and was reflected. The next year President Johnson 
 appointed him a brigadier-general in the army. This 
 
 1 39th Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, pp. 103, 105. 
 
 2 llth Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, pp. Ill, 123, 147-48. 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 139 
 
 smacks of the tension existing between Congress and the 
 Executive in the days of Reconstruction. 1 
 
 A challenge given outside the House was held to be a 
 menace, and therefore a breach of privilege. Speaker 
 Winthrop declared it well understood that if the life or 
 person or liberty of a member was menaced in any way 
 the House could properly act. 2 Indeed, the demand for 
 an explanation of words spoken in debate, if made in 
 a hostile manner, was in theory regarded the highest 
 offense that could be committed against the House. For 
 this privilege the Commons of England made their mem- 
 orable resistance to the tyranny of Charles I. But hi 
 practice the challenge of one member by another pro- 
 voked little attention. In 1838, when Jonathan Cilley, 
 of Maine, and William J. Graves, of Kentucky, fought 
 with rifles near the boundary line of Maryland and the 
 District of Columbia, resulting in the death of the 
 former, the report of the committee of investigation, 
 recommending the expulsion of Graves, and the censure 
 of Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, and George W. Jones, of 
 Tennessee, who acted as seconds, was laid upon the 
 table by a vote of 103 to 78. This closed the lamentable 
 incident. The evidence showed that James Watson 
 Webb, editor of the New York Courier and Inquirer, 
 had stood sponsor for an article charging a member with 
 corruption, and that Cilley, in his remarks moving a 
 committee of inquiry, had reflected upon the character 
 of Webb, who sent him a note by the hand of Graves. 
 Cilley refused either to receive it or to assign any reason 
 
 1 39th Cong., 1st Sess., Gkbe, pp. 3194, 3544, 3818, 4009-17. 
 
 2 30th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 649. 
 
140 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 for declining it other than that he chose to be drawn 
 into no difficulty. This led to Graves's challenge, which 
 Cilley unwisely accepted. 
 
 In the debate one member declared the gravamen of 
 the charge rested in the sending of the challenge, and 
 not in the fatal result. Another opposed the severity of 
 the sentence, claiming that dueling had been frequent 
 among members, and generally unnoticed and unpun- 
 ished by the House. Doubt was even expressed as to its 
 being a breach of privilege, since a rule, proposing to 
 make it so, failed of adoption in 1809. The great major- 
 ity thought any punishment too severe. "Graves may 
 have been negligent of the privileges of the House," 
 said a member of the committee, " but he did not inten- 
 tionally offer any indignity to it." l 
 
 The historic assault of Preston S. Brooks, of South 
 Carolina, upon Senator Sumner, of Massachusetts, 
 three days after the latter 's speech (1856), excited an 
 ingenious argument that the attack, being inspired by 
 the publication rather than by the delivery of his re- 
 marks, did not come within the Constitution, which 
 limited protection to the delivery of a speech. Nor did 
 the House have jurisdiction of the case, since the assault 
 was not made either upon a member of the House or 
 within it. There was a tendency, too, to plead extenua- 
 tion on the ground of an excessive "chivalrous" spirit, 
 although Clingman, of North Carolina, defended "the 
 liberty of the cudgel" and justified the act. John H. 
 Savage, of Tennessee, claimed that Brooks "merited 
 the highest commendation," and that Sumner "did not 
 1 25th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 200-01, 320, 329. 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 141 
 
 get a lick more than he deserved." Members of the ma- 
 jority, denouncing the assault fearlessly, maintained the 
 power of the House to punish Brooks, but the vote to 
 expel did not reach the required two thirds. 
 
 The privilege as to "speech" is not limited to words 
 spoken in debate. It applies to written reports, to reso- 
 lutions offered, and to the act of voting, if done vocally 
 or by passing between tellers. In other words, a member 
 cannot be questioned or impeached in any court or 
 place outside of the House for whatever he may do or 
 say in relation to the business before it. Speeches may 
 be calumnious to the last degree, or hazardous to the 
 public peace; yet their authors enjoy complete immu- 
 nity. Even a letter of criticism written to a member, or 
 addressed to the House, constitutes a breach of the priv- 
 ilege, although the Speaker held that a communication 
 from a person assailed in debate, properly asking if the 
 speech was correctly reported, did not come within the 
 rule. But it is otherwise with disrespectful communica- 
 tions, impugning or questioning the motives of members, 
 unless it be an absurd anonymous letter. 1 
 
 These privileges are common to all constitutional gov- 
 ernments, and are expected to give lawmakers a sense of 
 entire freedom in denouncing wrongdoing, and in pro- 
 tecting them from arrests instigated by persons masking 
 an unworthy design behind a pretended grievance; but 
 they are not intended to license accusations founded on 
 guesswork, or on the mere vagaries of a morbid imagina- 
 tion, or without any honest effort to get at the facts, and 
 such malicious or reckless talkers may be called to order. 
 1 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 2501. 
 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 It is then for the House to determine whether "the lan- 
 guage is justifiable in view of the facts and evidence 
 within the knowledge of the House." l 
 
 If a member attack through the press another mem- 
 ber in his individual and not his representative charac- 
 ter, no breach of privilege is involved. So, if a member 
 outside the House charge another member with disrepu- 
 table conduct before he became a member. It is other- 
 wise if the attack occurs in debate, for words used upon 
 the floor become disorderly and the member could prop- 
 erly be punished therefor. This is upon the ground that 
 the use of any language upon the floor, derogatory to the 
 personal character of a member, is calculated to provoke 
 disturbance and disorder in the proceedings, and bring 
 the body itself into contempt and disgrace. These rea- 
 sons do not apply to the publication of the same words 
 in a newspaper. 2 
 
 A newspaper charge against a member, to involve a 
 breach of privilege, must present a specific and serious 
 attack, such as being influenced in his action as a repre- 
 sentative, or making an unauthorized committee report, 
 or receiving a sum of money for securing a government 
 contract, or an office for a constituent, or abusing the 
 franking privilege, or receiving an excess of mileage, or 
 for entering into a conspiracy to defraud the Govern- 
 ment; but not for a mere criticism of his relations with 
 other members, or for being influenced by executive 
 patronage, or for misreporting a speech, or printing re- 
 marks that the member denied using, or vaguely charg- 
 
 1 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 2945. 
 
 2 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, pp. 650-53. 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 143 
 
 ing members generally with corruption. Nevertheless, 
 general charges against members are frequently held to 
 involve a breach of privilege. Although no names are 
 given, newspaper allegations that certain members had 
 entered into a corrupt speculation, or had abused the 
 franking privilege, or had violated the law, without 
 specifying the date of the offense, or had been paid 
 money by an agent of a foreign government, involve a 
 breach of privilege. 
 
 On the evidence of members who testified as to acts 
 of bribery, the House held the person so charged guilty 
 of contempt, and, after administering a reprimand, com- 
 mitted him until further orders. To what extent the 
 House may punish for contempt other than its own 
 members, however, depends upon the inquiry. Thus, the 
 Supreme Court held it could punish a contumacious 
 witness who refused to answer questions in an investiga- 
 tion relating to the integrity of its members, although 
 such questions disclosed the affairs of a private citizen; l 
 but when it committed one for refusing (1876) to testify 
 to the history and character of a "real-estate pool" in 
 which debtors of the United States had an interest, the 
 court held that if the United States was a creditor of 
 the defendant firm, the only legal redress was in a resort 
 to the courts. "The Constitution," said the court, "ex- 
 pressly empowers the House to punish its own members 
 for disorderly behavior, to compel their attendance upon 
 its sessions, to judge of their election and qualifications, 
 and to impeach officers of the Government, and in per- 
 forming these functions it has the right to compel the 
 1 In re John Anderson, 6 Wheaton, p. 204. 
 
144 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 attendance of witnesses and their answers to proper 
 questions the same as courts of justice; but no person 
 can be punished for contumacy as a witness unless his 
 testimony is required in matters over which it has juris- 
 diction." * 
 
 Questions of privilege affect the safety and dignity of 
 the House collectively as well as the integrity of its 
 proceedings, and the rights, reputation, and conduct of 
 members individually in their representative character 
 only. 2 They relate among other things to the organiza- 
 tion of the House; to its power to punish witnesses, mem- 
 bers, and other persons for contempt; to the protection 
 of its records and files; the accuracy of its documents; 
 the seats of its members; and the right to declare vacant 
 the office of Speaker. Thus, a charge touching the com- 
 fort, convenience, health, censure, or the assault of mem- 
 bers, or the conduct of an official or employee, or the 
 violation of the rule relating to admission to the floor, is 
 presented as a question of privilege, and has precedence 
 of all other questions except motions to adjourn. 3 But a 
 question of privilege must not be confused with a priv- 
 ileged question. The latter, which relates merely to the 
 order of business, gains its precedence by rule, while the 
 former springs from constitutional prerogatives which 
 give the House power to protect itself as an organ for 
 action, and to extend to members freedom to perform 
 their duties unmenaced and unmolested. 
 
 Nevertheless, the powers of the House enumerated in 
 the Constitution must not be confused with the priv- 
 ileges of the House. The right to legislate for the general 
 
 1 103 U.S., pp. 170-205. 2 Rule ix. 8 Ibid. t 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 145 
 
 welfare is among these powers, but the proposals of laws 
 do not become questions of privilege; otherwise, said 
 Speaker Reed, "everything would become a question of 
 privilege and end by making nothing a question of priv- 
 ilege." l For this reason subjects relating to the rela- 
 tions of the United States with other nations or peoples 
 do not constitute questions of privilege unless the inva- 
 sion of some prerogative of the House is alleged. Hence, 
 Speaker Crisp held that a resolution simply recommend- 
 ing the recall of the United States Minister to Hawaii did 
 not involve a question of privilege. "Although the rela- 
 tions of the United States to the Hawaiian Islands have 
 been submitted to Congress the same as a great many 
 other matters of moment," he said, " they do not con- 
 stitute questions of privilege, but go to a committee, 
 under our rules, to be considered and reported; and even 
 then, unless expressly provided for, they are not what 
 we know as * privileged questions.'" 2 
 
 An early custom left to the House the decision whether 
 a proposition involved a question of privilege. Subse- 
 quently the Speaker determined it. But for many years 
 an appeal from his decision has put the responsibility 
 upon the House. Sometimes a Speaker in giving a pre- 
 liminary determination goes wrong, but more often 
 veteran members stumble, although guiding precedents 
 are numerous. So distinguished a floor leader as Thad- 
 deus Stevens objected to Henry J. Raymond presenting 
 as a question of privilege the credentials of several claim- 
 ants from Tennessee. Speaker Colfax declared that all 
 
 1 55th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 3381. 
 8 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 2425. 
 
146 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 decisions held the other way. 1 Quite likely Stevens's 
 dislike of Raymond rather than parliamentary igno- 
 rance inspired his objection, for he desired to crush the 
 eminent journalist who had become the defender and 
 patronage dispenser of President Johnson. Thus, on 
 another occasion, Stevens objected to Raymond being 
 furnished a pair, since the gentleman from New York, 
 he said, found no difficulty in pairing with himself. 
 Thereupon an excited supporter of Raymond exclaimed 
 that a member, to escape the shafts of Stevens's bitter 
 sarcasm, must "go it blind." This stirred Robert S. 
 Hale, of New York, who, with an innocent expression, 
 inquired the meaning of the phrase. Instantly Stevens 
 flashed the retort: "It means following Raymond." 
 This double shot was the more felicitous as Hale him- 
 self had followed Raymond in his support of Johnson. 
 A member whose private interests are concerned in 
 any bill may not vote. Whether such an interest be per- 
 sonal is usually left to the decision of the member him- 
 self, and, although others may challenge his judgment, it 
 is interesting to note that members have never shown a 
 disposition to confuse direct and remote interests. Thus, 
 when the renewal of the charter of the United States 
 Bank came up in 1830 members who were stockholders 
 promptly refused to vote. For the same reason several 
 avoided voting for the bill extending the time for com- 
 pleting the Northern Pacific Railroad. Others who held 
 stock in the Union and Central Pacific companies were 
 not less modest when Congress legislated upon their 
 payment of interest. Some of these cases affected a class 
 1 39th Cong., 1st Sess.. Globe, p. 81. 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 147 
 
 as distinct from individuals, but members raised no 
 opposition. 
 
 When the principle was applied to stockholders in 
 national banks, however, the House thought it time to 
 fix a limit governing private interests. Their interest, 
 it was argued, is not distinct from the general interest, 
 and in legislating on the whole question they do not act 
 for themselves any more than do a few pensioned sol- 
 diers who vote for a general pension bill. Henry L. 
 Dawes carried the matter a step further. "Shall the 
 right of a member to vote upon a duty on cotton goods 
 be challenged because he happens to be a cotton manu- 
 facturer? If so, the cotton-raiser, the sugar-maker, the 
 farmer, and every gentleman in this House may have 
 such a personal interest in a tariff bill that no one can 
 vote for it." "One can go through the whole round of 
 business," added Speaker Elaine, "and find on this floor 
 gentlemen who, in common with many citizens outside 
 of this House, have an interest in questions before the 
 House. But they do not have that interest separate and 
 distinct from a class, and, within the meaning of the rule, 
 distinct from the public interest. The Chair, therefore, 
 has no hesitation in overriding the point of order." 1 
 
 Nor is it difficult to draw the line between proper and 
 improper lobbying. " To lobby," as defined by Webster, 
 "is to address or solicit members of a legislative body in 
 the lobby or elsewhere away from the House, with a 
 view to influence their vote. This is practiced by per- 
 sons not belonging to the legislature." It is plain that 
 so long as the means employed " to influence " are simply 
 1 43d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. S019, 3020, 
 
148 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 to enlighten members respecting legislation before them 
 without suggesting or raising hope of reward, it is not 
 only proper, but often desirable. Indeed, the solicita- 
 tion of constituents personally or by letter sometimes 
 leads to information of the importance of certain legis- 
 lation to one's district. Nor is it necessarily improper 
 for associations to raise funds for defraying the expense 
 of publishing literature and of sending men to Washing- 
 ton to present reasons for the enactment of legislation 
 beneficial to them. For many years salaried representa- 
 tives of labor, remaining at the Capital throughout each 
 session of Congress, have endeavored to help or to hinder 
 bills favorable or unfavorable to its interest. Attorneys 
 of other special interests frequently seek the attention 
 of members, and no well-informed person regards their 
 presentation of arguments as improper. They may add 
 to a member's information if they do not influence his 
 action, and so long as interviews are limited to argu- 
 ments no wrong is done. Pending the passage of a tariff 
 bill lobby visitors are especially numerous and often de- 
 cidedly annoying. To seek members again and again, 
 after an argument has been fully presented, although 
 neither unmoral nor illegal, becomes most wearisome, 
 and often harmful to the interest represented. In fact, 
 the giving of dinners had its origin in the desire of 
 constituents to find a suitable opportunity for present- 
 ing their views at times when members have leisure and 
 inclination to hear. Although such social occasions are 
 without the zone of impropriety, it is nevertheless true 
 that the later-day practice of flattering members and 
 their families by invitations to dinners, to theaters and 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 149 
 
 late luncheons, and on automobile rides, like the gift of 
 railroad passes in the olden day, is obviously a sinister 
 one. As a rule these attentions go to persons holding 
 prominent committee positions, and it is to their credit 
 that they are disinclined to accept them. 
 
 President Wilson's statement of May 27, 1913, pro- 
 voked by the opposition to the tariff bill of that year, 
 describes a lobby as "insidious" when "newspapers are 
 filled with paid advertisements calculated to mislead 
 the judgment of men"; when "money without limit is 
 being paid to sustain such a lobby"; and when "great 
 bodies of astute men seek to create an artificial opinion 
 and to overcome the interests of the public for their 
 private profit." Very naturally an investigation fol- 
 lowed his announcement of the existence of such a 
 lobby. It was admitted that sugar and other interests 
 had raised money to defray the expense of printing 
 literature and to send their representatives to present 
 arguments to Congress explaining why the pending bill 
 would injure them. But no corruption or attempts at 
 corruption appeared. Indeed, the opinion obtained in 
 some circles that the President himself had been the 
 chief influence in seeking to persuade members from 
 the exercise of their conscientious judgment. 1 
 
 The abuse of parliamentary privilege, as well as the 
 unpardonable conduct of some members, has not infre- 
 quently" been the occasion of bitter and sweeping con- 
 demnation. In several instances which can readily be 
 brought to mind the misdeeds of a few have caused the 
 
 1 For further discussion of the President's influence, see chap, 
 xvni, pp. 381, 382. 
 
150 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 whole membership to suffer in the public mind; and yet 
 it is common experience, at least as old as Henry Clay's 
 observation, that the longer one serves in the House 
 the more confidence he gains in the integrity of his 
 associates. Compared to the great number whose lives 
 attest their probity, the faithless ones numerically have 
 been unimportant. In the Forty-first Congress (1870) 
 a member from North Carolina resigned to escape ex- 
 pulsion for selling a cadetship. A few years later (1876) 
 George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, declared that he 
 had heard the chairman of the Committee on Military 
 Affairs demand the expulsion of four others for similar 
 conduct. Yet for forty years the repetition of such an 
 offense has not been disclosed. This is the more remark- 
 able, since such appointments are highly prized and 
 often sought with indiscreet persistency. 
 
 In 1872 the Credit Mobilier scandal, which involved 
 a dozen prominent members as conspicuous for integ- 
 rity as for ability, filled the press and the public mind 
 with most distressing suspicions, until it seemed as if 
 wrongdoing, growing out of the Civil War, of inflated 
 values, and of the sudden enfranchisement of millions 
 of slaves, had corrupted the whole House. But after 
 hearing the evidence the committee, composed of men 
 of irreproachable character, reported that with three 
 exceptions 1 the accused members, in becoming pur- 
 chasers of Credit Mobilier stock, had indicated no in- 
 tention of even breaching the proprieties. Of those 
 acquitted one afterwards became President, another 
 
 1 Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts, James Brooks, of New York, and 
 Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana. 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 151 
 
 Secretary of the Treasury, and several passed to the 
 Senate, while all were returned to puh^c life. 
 
 The Act of 1873, known as the "Salary Grab Act," 
 very properly created great popular indignation. Its 
 baseness was in the retroactive clause, giving five thou- 
 sand dollars bonus to each member of a dead Con- 
 gress. Although the next House immediately repealed 
 the act, and a majority of the members refused to take 
 the money, or, having taken it, promptly returned it, the 
 public classified its authors and beneficiaries with the 
 Credit Mobilier corruptionists, whose avarice had out- 
 weighed their sworn duty to safeguard the Govern- 
 ment's treasury. Nevertheless, in justice to those who 
 preceded and succeeded them, it should be noted that 
 with this exception members have hesitated to meet 
 with additional compensation the ever-increasing ex- 
 penses in a growing capital city. From 1789 to 1818 
 their pay amounted to six dollars per day for each day's 
 attendance. In the latter year it was increased to eight. 
 In 1856 it became $3000 per year. Ten years later, 
 when gold held a war premium, it was raised to $5000, 
 and forty years afterwards (1906) to $7500. There are 
 also perquisites. Travel between Washington and a 
 member's home each year by the usual route is twenty 
 cents a mile; stationery to the amount of $120 per year 
 is granted; an office is furnished; and $1500 a year al- 
 lowed for a clerk. Still more important is the franking 
 privilege, which extends to all letters on congressional 
 business and to all documents prepared by the Govern- 
 ment or published in the Congressional Record. 
 
 So long as this privilege was confined to its original 
 
152 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 purpose of correspondence and the dissemination of 
 speeches, it provoked little criticism. But in more recent 
 years, especially since nominations by primary elections 
 have converted it into a vehicle of purely political 
 service, the belief very generally obtains that it ought 
 to be abridged or abolished. By means of it a member, 
 with little or no expense to himself, may circularize his 
 district, asking all voters to indicate such bulletins, 
 documents, and seeds as they may desire. To facilitate 
 answers, franked and addressed envelopes may be en- 
 closed. The supplies are then forwarded under frank. 
 In other words, a member's clerk becomes the head of 
 a campaign bureau, with the hope that franked favors 
 may induce grateful constituents to remember the 
 sender on primary and election days. Moreover, politi- 
 cal documents and party appeals, once published in the 
 Record, immediately become frankable, and whether 
 printed at government or private expense may be sent 
 out by the ton from any political headquarters. In this 
 way Henry George's work, entitled " Progress and Pov- 
 erty," a book of several hundred pages, became a 
 public document which admiring friends of the great 
 single-taxer freely circulated at the expense of the 
 Government. The burden upon the postal department 
 thus becomes unlimited. 
 
 The funeral expenses of members are defrayed from 
 the contingent fund of the House. Originally the mile- 
 age allowance limited such payments, but in 1802 it 
 became the custom to pay the entire expense if the 
 funeral was held in Washington. Later, such charges, 
 including those of an attending committee, were paid 
 
PRIVILEGES, PAY, AND OBSEQUIES 153 
 
 wherever the death and funeral occurred. At one time 
 these sad rites assumed the nature of scandalous junkets, 
 and although drastic reforms have of late years regu- 
 lated the expense and moderated their character, the 
 wants of attending committees are not overlooked. 
 
 The decease of a member was formerly announced as 
 soon as the House convened, followed by several im- 
 promptu eulogies, the adoption of suitable resolutions, 
 and the selection of an attending committee. The House 
 then adjourned for the day and occasionally until after 
 the funeral. As a further mark of respect the mem- 
 ber's desk was draped and for thirty days members wore 
 a band of crape on the left arm. Gradually this ceremony 
 became more perfunctory, the announcement, resolu- 
 tions, and adjournment being purposely delayed until 
 the close of the day's business. Some weeks afterward, 
 usually on Sunday, a dozen or more eulogies are read 
 to a few members, and to the family and friends who 
 occupy seats in the gallery. The custom of wearing 
 crape entirely disappeared in the Forty-eighth Congress 
 (1884), but the draping of seats continued until the 
 removal of the desks in 1913. Upon the death of 
 Michael C. Kerr, the only Speaker who died in office, 
 the chair remained draped until his term would have 
 expired. After the decease of John Quincy Adams the 
 entire hall remained draped for thirty days. 
 
 Occasionally the funeral of a member, dying in Wash- 
 ington, is held in the hall of the House. Among those 
 so honored were Jonathan Cilley, of Maine, who fell in 
 a duel (1838) ; Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, long 
 the " Father of the House " (1842) ; John Quincy Adams, 
 
154 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 of Massachusetts, who died in the Speaker's room 
 (1848); William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania (1890); 
 Nelson Dingley, of Maine (1899); and Sereno E. Payne, 
 of New York (1915). Upon invitation the highest offi- 
 cials at the seat of Government often attend these 
 services, the order of their entrance and the manner of 
 their reception being fixed by rules governing all public 
 functions held hi the House. As the Senate and other 
 bodies approach, the Speaker taps with his gavel and 
 members rise. Thereupon the doorkeeper, without ad- 
 dressing the Speaker, announces, "the Vice-President 
 and the Senate of the United States"; "the Chief Jus- 
 tice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of 
 the United States"; "the Ambassadors and the mem- 
 bers of the Diplomatic Corps to the United States"; 
 "the President and the members of his Cabinet." Each 
 body occupies the seats assigned it, the House sitting 
 on the left of the Speaker, the Senate on the right, the 
 Supreme Court in front of the Senate, the Diplomatic 
 Corps in front of the House, and the President and 
 Cabinet in front of the Supreme Court. The General of 
 the Army and the Admiral of the Navy, when present, 
 sit at the right of the Diplomatic Corps. At the fu- 
 neral of John Quincy Adams, the President sat with the 
 Speaker on his right and the Vice-President on his left. 
 Only in four instances has the House taken action 
 upon the decease of former members except when pro- 
 moted to the office of President. In 1883 it adopted 
 resolutions of respect upon the death of Alexander H. 
 Stephens. Similar respect was also shown former Speak- 
 ers Elaine (1893), Reed (1902) and Henderson (1906). 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 CREATING AND COUNTING A QUORUM 
 
 THE Constitution provides that "a majority of the 
 House shall constitute a quorum to do business." 1 The 
 important question is, therefore, what constitutes a 
 majority? Speaker Clay held that it was one more 
 than one half of all possible members. Thus, if an 
 apportionment provided for a total of 400 members, 
 201 constituted a quorum. This ruling remained un- 
 questioned until the Civil War deprived the House of 
 many members. Thereupon Speaker Grow declared a 
 quorum to be a majority of those chosen. Upon the 
 point that the Chair could have no knowledge of the 
 members chosen except as they appeared and qualified, 
 the Speaker expressly withheld an opinion. The Senate 
 treated Grow's decision as meaning "chosen and liv- 
 ing," adding in 1868 the words, "and sworn." This ex- 
 cluded the count of Senators elect from ten Southern 
 States, the existence of whose governments Congress 
 had declared illegal. 2 
 
 In the House Grow's decision seemed inadequate 
 when vacancies interfered with party action, and 
 Speaker Randall, in holding a quorum present, ven- 
 
 1 Art. i, sec. 5. 
 
 8 By the Act of July 19, 1867, Congress declared illegal the recon- 
 structed State Governments in Virginia, North and South Carolina, 
 Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and 
 Arkansas. (15 Stat. L., p. 4.) 
 
156 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 tured the opinion, without deciding the point, that 
 vacancies necessarily lessened the number required to 
 make a quorum. 1 Speaker Carlisle treated this question 
 as an open one. 2 But Speaker Reed, disinclined to walk 
 a trembling plank, sustained Randall's suggestion. 
 "Prior to 1861," he said, "it had always been held that 
 a quorum consisted of a majority of all the possible 
 members. After the rebellion had caused a large num- 
 ber of constituencies to refuse to elect, it was held (July 
 19, 1861) that a quorum consisted of a majority of * those 
 chosen.' This language was susceptible of two mean- 
 ings; first, of members originally chosen, and second, of 
 members chosen then alive. The precedents make it 
 evident that the latter meaning was intended. Such was 
 the decision made by the Senate in 1861, Reverdy John- 
 son voting in the affirmative; and as late as March 24, 
 1886, that body, on the death of Senator Miller, of Cali- 
 fornia, had its quorum reduced to thirty-eight. Mr. 
 Randall, in the Record of February 25, 1879, intimated 
 that he held the same view." 3 
 
 Several years later the question arose whether mem- 
 bers chosen but not sworn should be counted. After 
 reviewing the action of the Senate, which excluded those 
 not sworn, Speaker Cannon held that when "the House 
 is once organized a quorum consists of a majority of 
 those members chosen, sworn, and living, whose mem- 
 bership has not been terminated by resignation or by the 
 action of the House." 4 This decision seemed to cover 
 
 1 45th Cong., 3d Sess., Record, p. 1908. 
 
 2 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 4338. 
 
 3 51st Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, p. 370. 
 * 59th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 5354. 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 157 
 
 every possible condition, and although the House, unlike 
 the Senate, has failed to embody it in a rule, it is now 
 the accepted practice, and will undoubtedly be upheld 
 by the United States Supreme Court if the question is 
 ever submitted to it. 
 
 When the House elects a President of the United 
 States a quorum consists of one or more members from 
 two thirds of the States. If the House be in Committee 
 of the Whole one hundred make a quorum. This num- 
 ber dates from 1891. Prior to that time the quorum of 
 the Committee was the same as that of the House. 
 
 The presence of a quorum is always presumed unless 
 a member declares to the contrary. After such a declar- 
 ation the Speaker may count the House if, immedi- 
 ately preceding the announcement, a yea and nay vote 
 showed a quorum present. This custom, which began 
 with Speaker Macon, 1 continued without question until 
 Carlisle held that the Chair could count only when the 
 previous question had been ordered. Even if the declar- 
 ation of "No quorum" came before the reading of the 
 Journal, he held it to be the Chair's duty to cause a roll- 
 call. 2 In 1890 Speaker Reed counted a quorum, whether 
 preceded by a roll-call or not, including in his count all 
 members in sight within or without the bar. 
 
 But if a count or roll-call discloses "No quorum," a 
 yea and nay quorum must appear before the House can 
 proceed to business. To secure it the doors are closed 
 and the names of members called. Absentees for whom 
 no excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those 
 
 1 9th Cong., 2d Sess., Annals, p. 655. 
 
 2 50th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 9607. 
 
158 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 present, be sent for and arrested wherever found. Dur- 
 ing the absence of a quorum neither business nor debate 
 may proceed even by unanimous consent. Nor can the 
 point of "No quorum" be withdrawn, or the vote be 
 reconsidered, or a motion for a recess be entertained, 
 although the Speaker may declare the House in recess 
 when an hour arrives previously fixed for such an inter- 
 mission. In fact, nothing is admissible in the absence 
 of a quorum except motions to adjourn, for a call of the 
 House, and to excuse absentees. 
 
 The absence of a quorum began making trouble after 
 John Quincy Adams refused to vote (1832) when within 
 the House. The rules required every member present, 
 unless excused, to give his vote one way or the other. 
 This followed the practice of the House of Commons, 
 and members of the American House cheerfully com- 
 plied with it. But when the House refused to excuse 
 Adams from voting on a motion to censure William Stan- 
 berry, of Ohio, the former declined to answer to his 
 name. In the acrimonious debate the dangerous conse- 
 quences sure to follow the establishment of such a prece- 
 dent received full consideration. Nevertheless, Adams, 
 in spite of remonstrances and threats, stood firm, claim- 
 ing that he acted from conscientious motives. 1 A few 
 years later the disastrous effects so clearly prophesied 
 began to accumulate, Adams himself being an early 
 sinner. "If only five of the thirty-four Whigs had had 
 the firmness to abstain from voting," he wrote, "the 
 majority would have been compelled to adjourn for 
 want of a quorum." 2 
 1 22d Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, p. 3895. * Diary, vol. x, p. 243. 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 159 
 
 This practice of blocking public business by sitting 
 silently in one's seat deeply and quickly rooted itself, 
 because the House procedure, then and afterward, re- 
 quired that a final vote must show a quorum present 
 and voting. The House of Commons deemed the pres- 
 ence of a quorum sufficient to establish the validity of 
 any action, and American writers on parliamentary law 
 held likewise. Crocker, one of the ablest, said: "If a 
 quorum does not vote, but is in fact present, the secretary 
 should make entry in the records that on a count of the 
 assembly it was found a quorum was present." 1 It was 
 argued, too, that the framers of the Constitution, by 
 authorizing a smaller number than a quorum to compel 
 the attendance of absent members, evidently considered 
 attendance sufficient; otherwise, if more was needed, 
 they would have provided it. Moreover, the Constitu- 
 tion declares that a majority of the House, not a majority 
 voting, shall constitute a quorum to do business. 
 
 But these reasons availed nothing. Under the prac- 
 tice of the House, the absence of a quorum frequently 
 occurred with two thirds of the members present. The 
 absurdity of such a condition appealed to everybody, 
 for why order the arrest of absentees, if, after their 
 return, their silence destroyed their presence? Yet 
 Speakers found reasons for declining to count a quorum. 
 Colfax thought such a procedure would be revolution- 
 ary. When members in the Thirty-eighth Congress 
 resented the lack of such a rule, Speaker Blame begged 
 "to remind the House that the principle has been the 
 foundation probably for the greatest legislative frauds 
 1 Principles ef Procedure, sec. 114. 
 
160 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ever committed. Where a quorum, in the judgment of 
 the Chair, has been declared present against the result 
 of a roll-call, these proceedings in the different legisla- 
 tures have brought scandal on their names. There can 
 be no record like the call of the yeas and nays; and from 
 that there is no appeal. The moment you clothe your 
 Speaker with power to go behind your roll-call and 
 assume that there is a quorum in the hall, why, gentle- 
 men, you stand on the very brink of a volcano." * 
 
 These positive declarations, if they chilled the advo- 
 cates of reform, did not destroy belief that some way 
 existed to secure a record quorum other than by a roll- 
 call. In 1880 John Randolph Tucker, of Virginia, hav- 
 ing the courage of his great namesake, moved an amend- 
 ment to the rules providing that when a quorum fails 
 to respond, a call of the House should immediately fol- 
 low, and if those present, voting and not voting, make a 
 majority, the Speaker should declare a quorum present. 2 
 This suggestion provoked ironical laughter and a speech 
 from James A. Garfield. "Who shall control the Speak- 
 er's seeing?" he asked. "How do we know that he may 
 not, for his own purposes, see forty members more than 
 are here? What protection have gentlemen when he 
 says he sees a quorum, if he cannot convert that see- 
 ing into a list of names on the call of a yea and nay 
 vote? This would let hi the one-man power in a far more 
 dangerous way than has ever occurred before. It would 
 enable him to bring a dying man from his sick bed into 
 this hall, and make his presence, against his will, and, per- 
 
 1 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 1734. 
 * 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 575-76. 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 161 
 
 haps, in his delirium, constitute a quorum so that some 
 partisan measure might be carried out over his body." l 
 Garfield did not always speak the last word. He usu- 
 ally led his party in an attack, and afterward left the 
 discussion to others more persistent if not more positive. 
 But in this instance his rhetorical broadside so quickly 
 shattered Tucker's proposition that when Eppa Hunton, 
 of Virginia, whose ability had won him a place on the 
 Electoral ^Commission in 1877, supported Garfield's 
 view of the matter, Democrats and Republicans, exhib- 
 iting their agreement by loud applause, indicated that 
 no reason existed for further argument. But Thomas B. 
 Reed, of Maine, then a young member, just beginning 
 his second term, thought otherwise. At least he secured 
 the floor and added a few crisp sentences that lifted him 
 at once out of the ordinary. "The Constitution idea of a 
 quorum is not the presence of a majority of the mem- 
 bers," he said, "but a majority of the members present 
 and participating in the business of the House. It is not 
 the visible presence of members, but their judgments 
 and their votes that the Constitution calls for. This is a 
 privilege [to refuse to vote] of which every minority has 
 availed itself. ... It is a valuable privilege for the coun- 
 try that the minority shall have the right by this extra- 
 ordinary mode of proceeding to call the attention of the 
 country to measures which a party, in a moment of mad- 
 ness and of party feeling, is endeavoring to force upon 
 the citizens of the land." 2 This speech had the ring of a 
 new coin. Garfield had reiterated in a wonderful rhetor- 
 ical picture the old familiar argument of over-counting, 
 1 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 576. > Ibid., p. 578. 
 
162 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 a danger to which Elaine had impressively referred in his 
 nervous, excitable manner. But Reed found a deeper 
 reason. Even if a Speaker counted honestly the princi- 
 ple was wrong. The mere presence of a member was 
 nothing. The Constitution demanded his "judgment 
 and vote." Moreover, he characterized the refusal to 
 vote as highly patriotic, since it tended to alarm the 
 country whenever a party, in a moment of madness, 
 sought to harm the people. Thus did Reed become the 
 determined defender of a "disappearing quorum." 
 
 In the mean time this favorite form of obstruction 
 spread over the country, invading state legislatures, 
 municipalities, school boards, and even church assem- 
 blies. The silent member thought himself a destruction- 
 ist as well as an obstructionist. Finally the courts spoke. 
 In New Hampshire it was held that "the exercise of the 
 lawmaking power is not to be stopped by the mere silence 
 and inaction of some of the lawmakers who are present." 
 The court in Indiana, expressing the same view, de- 
 clared "the rule we have asserted is a very old one." 
 Courts in Maine, Illinois, Tennessee, Ohio, and Ken- 
 tucky gave similar decisions. The rules of judicatories 
 adopted by the Presbyterian General Assembly de- 
 clared that "silent members" must be considered as 
 acquiescing with the majority. 
 
 Other parliamentary bodies rebelled against such 
 obstruction. In 1883 the Democrats, controlling the 
 New York Senate, wished to remove the commissioner 
 of the capitol, and when Republican senators main- 
 tained silence, David B. Hill, then lieutenant-governor 
 and president of the Senate, made a quorum by counting 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 163 
 
 those present who refused to vote. It is peculiarly the 
 duty of the president, he said in substance, to see if a 
 quorum is present. His certificate must evidence that 
 fact. No precise method is prescribed as to how he shall 
 ascertain it, and no law makes the roll-call its only evi- 
 dence. The presence of senators is a physical fact, known 
 to the president and to the clerk. If they vote, he is 
 bound to make a record of it, and if they are present and 
 refuse to vote, he should make a record of that fact also. 
 If a stranger occupies a senator's seat and responds to 
 his name, it is the duty of the clerk not to record the vote 
 and of the president not to allow it to be recorded. The 
 presence or absence of a response, therefore, is not abso- 
 lutely conclusive. Whether a senator is present and re- 
 sponds is a question for the observation of the officers of 
 the Senate. If they refuse to vote, they are not absen- 
 tees, because they are in fact present. No proceeding 
 can be instituted to compel their attendance, because 
 they are not absent, and if really absent, why compel 
 their presence if silence makes them in effect still ab- 
 sent? l 
 
 This able ruling attracted little attention at the time. 
 Opposition senators called it "a Democratic trick." 
 Several journals thought it a "partisan ruling," one 
 paper suggesting that "at least one of the reform may- 
 ors advanced to high office last fall has already proved 
 a failure." 2 But it provoked no discussion of the prin- 
 ciple involved. Indeed, it would probably have passed 
 
 1 Delivered March 13, 1883, and read to the House of Represent- 
 atives on January 30, 1890. See 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 
 952-53. 
 
 2 New York Times, March 14, 1883. 
 
164 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 unnoticed had not the measure legislated a Republican 
 out of office. 
 
 Two years later the Tennessee Assembly, in which 
 two thirds of the members constituted a quorum, fol- 
 lowed this precedent. A Republican minority of more 
 than one third refused to vote for a new registration law, 
 and the Speaker, directing the clerk to count those 
 present not voting, declared the bill duly passed. 
 
 These precedents had no influence in the National 
 House. In fact, Carlisle's administration tended to en- 
 courage the "disappearing quorum." On one occasion, 
 when a few members reduced the proceedings to roll- 
 calls for eight consecutive days, he refused to count the 
 House unless the previous question had been ordered, 
 holding that a yea and nay vote must answer every 
 shout of "No quorum." At times conditions became 
 pitiable. Never was man, in mind and spirit, more heart- 
 ily and vividly and incessantly alive than Carlisle. Al- 
 though holding himself under stoical self-control, he 
 liked fighting. Discussion and argument were his de- 
 light, and being a confirmed intellectualist he stood 
 rocklike by his intellectual conclusions. This explains 
 his apparent helplessness in the absence of a quorum. 
 He sincerely believed a visible presence insufficient until 
 it became an answering one, and rather than surrender 
 this conclusion, he preferred roll-calls and humiliating 
 delays. 
 
 Thomas B. Reed probably reached the intellectual 
 conclusion, which he announced in 1880 and reaffirmed 
 in 1882, as carefully as Carlisle arrived at his; but when 
 he became Speaker, with a majority of less than a dozen 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 165 
 
 votes, he knew that a quorum could rarely if ever be 
 marshaled to overcome a filibuster. Under these cir- 
 cumstances it is not strange, perhaps, that he evidenced 
 the disposition that controlled him in the Forty-seventh 
 Congress. 1 It is not known just when he made up his 
 mind to count a quorum. The need of reform during 
 Carlisle's Speakership affected him deeply, and although 
 he gave no sign of having modified his views until John 
 Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, on January 30, 1890, called up 
 the contested election case of Smith vs. Jackson, 2 he had 
 grown slowly into the conviction that the traditional 
 procedure had broken under the strain of increased busi- 
 ness. Only the fear that his own party might not sustain 
 him brought embarrassment, and in that event he had 
 determined to resign, retire from the House, and prac- 
 tice law in New York, entering the office of Elihu Root. 3 
 Dalzell's service began in the preceding Congress. 
 He had already won high distinction at the Pittsburg 
 bar, and his whole career in the House during twenty- 
 six years was destined to become one long parliamentary 
 success. Even at this early date he could hold his own 
 against any antagonist, and when he made his motion 
 to take up the Smith-Jackson case, he opened the storm- 
 iest and most violent scenes in the history of Congress. 
 Crisp raised the question of consideration, and the roll- 
 call showed 162 voting, three less than a quorum. 4 Im- 
 
 1 See chap, x, p. 197. 
 
 8 See chap, xvi, p. 326. 
 
 8 Samuel W. McCall, Life of Thomas B. Reed, p. 167. 
 
 4 The House consisted, after the death of William D. Kelley, of 
 Pennsylvania, of 329 members, a quorum being 165. 51st Cong., 1st 
 Sess., "Record, p. 922. 
 
166 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 mediately came the cry of "No quorum!" Thereupon 
 Speaker Reed directed the clerk to note upon the Journal 
 the names of 41 members whom he reported present and 
 refusing to vote. Upon that record he declared a quorum 
 present and the consideration of the election case in 
 order. In his ruling the Speaker referred to the New 
 York and Tennessee precedents, to the Speaker's prac- 
 tice in the House of Commons, and especially to the real 
 scope of the Constitution compelling the attendance of 
 members. "It is a question," he declared, "simply of 
 the actual presence of a quorum, and the determination 
 of that is entrusted to the presiding officer in almost all 
 instances. There is a provision in the Constitution which 
 declares that the House may establish rules for compel- 
 ling the attendance of members. If members can be pres- 
 ent and refuse to exercise their functions and cannot be 
 counted as a quorum, that provision would seem to be 
 entirely nugatory. Inasmuch as the Constitution pro- 
 vides for their attendance only, that attendance is 
 enough. If more was needed, the Constitution would 
 have provided for more." 
 
 To excuse his speech made in 1880, he referred to the 
 Tucker amendment, adding that " the evils which have 
 resulted from the other course were not then as apparent 
 as now, and no such careful study had been given the 
 subject as has been given to it since." Then, as a sort 
 of appendix to his decision, he caused to be read the full 
 text of Lieutenant-Go vernor Hill's opinion. 1 An appeal 
 from this ruling again showed the absence of a quorum. 
 Thereupon the Speaker, without hurry or hesitation, 
 1 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 949-60. 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 167 
 
 repeated his former action of counting those present 
 who failed to vote. He also declined to entertain further 
 appeal on the ground of its being dilatory, suggesting 
 that the precedent had been fully established. 
 
 After this, pandemonium reigned in the House for 
 several hours. Excited members rushed through the 
 aisles, filled the area in front of the clerk's desk, and 
 threateningly ascended the steps toward the Speaker, 
 denouncing him as "tyrant" and "czar." In Elaine's 
 phrase it seemed as if the House "stood on the very brink 
 of a volcano." To those who witnessed the commotion 
 it recalled Macaulay's description of a disturbance in 
 the House of Commons. "I have never seen such un- 
 seemly demeanor or heard such scurrilous language in 
 Parliament," wrote the distinguished historian. "Lord 
 Norreys was making all sorts of noises. Lord Maid- 
 stone was so ill-mannered that I hope he was drunk. At 
 last, after much grossly indecent conduct, a furious out- 
 break took place. O'Connell was so rudely interrupted 
 that he used the expression * beastly bellowings.' Then 
 rose such an uproar as no mob at Covent Garden The- 
 ater no crowd of Chartists in front of a hustings 
 ever equaled. Men on both sides stood up, shook then* 
 fists, and bawled at the top of their voices. O'Connell 
 raged like a mad bull. ... At last the tumult ended 
 from a physical weariness. It was past one, and the 
 steady bellowers had been howling since six o'clock." l 
 
 Reed had led the minority for eight years. His know- 
 ledge of the House procedure, his acquaintance with 
 Opposition leaders, and his experience in playing the 
 1 Diary, Thursday, June 11, 1840. 
 
168 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 parliamentary game to the limit, thoroughly equipped 
 him for such a contest, and although excitement 
 changed to exasperation and language dropped at times 
 to the level of a brothel, he gave no evidence of disturb- 
 ance, much less of fear. In one of his impressive appear- 
 ance, giant-like stature, and deep, penetrating gaze, it 
 was impossible to imagine the existence of such a quality 
 even had a gun been leveled at his head. Nor could one 
 discern in gesture or in accent the slightest sign of re- 
 sentment. He counted coolly, he listened patiently, and 
 he spoke pleasantly, using the lower tones of his voice, 
 which were of great sweetness. "I deny your right, Mr. 
 Speaker, to count me as present, and I desire to read from 
 the parliamentary law on that subject," shouted a mem- 
 ber as he held up the book in his hand. With his custom- 
 ary coolness and drawl, Reed replied: "The Chair is 
 making a statement of fact that the gentleman from 
 Kentucky is here. Does he deny it? " This simple ques- 
 tion and the laughter that followed indicated the 
 strength of his position. In fact, he acted as one inspired 
 by the consciousness not only of being right, but of feel- 
 ing sure that his loudest and most riotous opponent 
 would in time approve and follow the new departure. 
 Nevertheless, when resting for brief intervals in the se- 
 clusion of his private room, he relieved himself of a 
 pent-up fury that struck terror to the heart of Amos L. 
 Allen, his amiable college classmate and devoted clerk. 
 After such an exhibition of feeling it seemed unhuman 
 that he could again preside with gentle, calm firmness. 
 But as he began, so he continued to the end, betraying 
 no sign of the unquenchable fire within, except that 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 169 
 
 occasionally, with a powerful, strident voice, reaching 
 the farthest corner of the great chamber, he dropped a 
 sentence of destructive ridicule, which, for the moment 
 at least, stilled the uproar and threw his party support- 
 ers into cheers. 
 
 Nevertheless, Reed's procedure opened the door to 
 honest criticism. His speech, in 1880, stoutly reaffirmed 
 in 1882, made his present action a parliamentary somer- 
 sault. Indeed, the House had never witnessed a more 
 picturesque exhibition of such mental gymnastics. The 
 suddenness of his conversion, too, impressed members 
 who had long abhorred the disappearing quorum as an 
 insincere performance, otherwise he must have previ- 
 ously said a word, at least, in discouragement of the 
 practice. If it had reached the dignity of a national 
 scandal in 1890, as he intimated, it certainly merited 
 rebuke in 1889, when it paralyzed business under Speaker 
 Carlisle. Thus his former silence, contrasted with his 
 present activity, credited him with simply playing a 
 necessary partisan game, inspired neither by principle 
 nor patriotism. His adversaries, measuring the effect of 
 this advantage, made merry at his expense, quoting his 
 own words in defense of their noisy demonstrations. 
 Once, when too jubilant, his demand for order brought 
 out loud shouts of derisive laughter. 
 
 The scope of his ruling did not relieve his embarrass- 
 ment. It answered neither the objection of Garfield nor 
 his own potent suggestion that "it is not the visible 
 presence of members, but their judgments and their 
 votes that the Constitution calls for." If this was true 
 in 1880, why did it not apply in 1890? Nor did his deci- 
 
170 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 sion disclose a thorough study of the subject. He made 
 no reference to the numerous court decisions touching 
 the silence or inaction of members, or to the decrees of 
 church assemblies. His declaration, too, that the minor- 
 ity denied the right of the majority to rule was evasive, 
 since the only quorum in evidence was created by count 
 and not by votes. It was evident, also, that reliance on 
 the New York precedent had not materially strength- 
 ened his position, for Governor Hill's tortuous political 
 course did not commend his methods to the discriminat- 
 ing student. 
 
 But the severest strictures clustered about his failure 
 to adopt a code of rules upon the organization of the 
 House. This was the traditional course observed for 
 fifty Congresses, and his procedure under general par- 
 liamentary law, without deigning to assign a reason, 
 gave rise to much speculation. It also emphasized the 
 charge of exercising doubtful powers. With a code once 
 adopted, it was said, obedience would become a plain 
 duty and filibusters would be put in the wrong. But the 
 absence of specific rules authorizing his parliamentary 
 changes strengthened the position of the minority, which 
 claimed that the House, being without a constitutional 
 quorum, was doing business simply on the Speaker's 
 declaration, based upon what he thought he saw. Gar- 
 field's telling sentences, delivered in 1880, became the 
 minority's keynote. The accidental counting of one or 
 two absent members by a temporary occupant of the 
 chair emphasized the great orator's question, "How do 
 we know that he may not see forty members more than 
 are here? " Against such procedure a portion of the inde- 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 171 
 
 pendent press arrayed itself. "To such methods," said 
 the Nation, "we advise every kind of opposition short 
 of violence. Members are bound to obstruct by all 
 peaceable means the transaction of business until rules 
 are adopted, and to protest against the Speaker's con- 
 duct, persistently and vociferously, whenever the occa- 
 sion arises." l 
 
 Nevertheless, throughout the long and exciting daily 
 sessions the Speaker displayed a consciousness that the 
 Constitution contemplated such a procedure, and that 
 the country's business required it. Besides, the open 
 avowal, voiced in his decision, that he had learned by 
 experience to disdain the consistency which conceals 
 conscientious changes in judgment, recalled a former 
 declaration made under similar conditions. "I do not 
 promise members to give them wisdom of adamant," he 
 said. " I do not promise them I shall not change my opin- 
 ion when I see good reason for doing it. I only promise 
 that I will give them honestly what my opinion is at the 
 time. They must take their chances of its being for 
 eternity." 2 This equaled the high display of judicial 
 equipoise exhibited by Lord Chancellor Hardwicke 
 when he said: "These are the reasons which incline me 
 to alter my opinion, and I am not ashamed of doing it, 
 for I always thought it a much greater reproach to a 
 judge to continue in his error than to retract it." It 
 added to Reed's prestige, moreover, that no one could 
 compete with him in parliamentary authority. Randall 
 died in April, 1890, and Carlisle passed to the Senate in 
 the following month. Although Reed himself had been 
 
 1 February 6, 1890. 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 210. 
 
172 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 in the House but twelve years, so rapidly do changes 
 occur that only twelve of the three hundred and twenty- 
 nine members had preceded his entrance. 
 
 Of these twelve veterans none regarded the new pro- 
 cedure when finally established as extremely offensive. 
 It curbed an impulsive minority quick to resent fancied 
 snubs, but by eliminating delay it increased the time for 
 discussion and made the work easier. With a flush of 
 energy, however, opponents of the drastic innovation 
 noisily resisted its withering influence. Charles F. Crisp, 
 of Georgia, with a keen intuition of popular impulses, 
 seized the opportunity to lead his party as the apologist 
 if not the champion of a disappearing quorum. Indeed, 
 he evinced such a bold and steady hostility to the Reed 
 Rules that in the next Congress it opened his way to 
 the Speakership. His election restored the old proce- 
 dure and his large majority enabled him to avoid the 
 long, dreary interruptions occasioned by a disappearing 
 quorum, which saddened the closing years of Carlisle's 
 service. Even in the Fifty-third Congress the Speaker's 
 party had thirty-eight more than a quorum. But sick- 
 ness, repair of political fences, and other causes for ab- 
 sence had dissipated this advantage by March, 1894, 
 and when Reed discovered it, he determined to force 
 Crisp to count a quorum. For three years he had sought 
 such an opportunity. Moreover, he was just the man to 
 lead in a contest of that character. It inspired if it did 
 not justify audacity, gave him a chance to use his re- 
 markable power of sarcasm and rhetoric, and made the 
 goal, if he reached it, a monument to his parliamentary 
 skill and courage. 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 173 
 
 The struggle centered in an effort to stop the approval 
 of the Journal. Until its approval no business could be 
 transacted. Another advantage consisted in the right of 
 one fifth of the members to demand a yea and nay roll- 
 call. By refusing to vote for approval, therefore, the mi- 
 nority could break a quorum, while by creating one on 
 a call of the House the question immediately recurred 
 on the approval of the Journal. This proved an endless 
 chain. The absence of a quorum compelled a call of the 
 House, and as often as this established a quorum, it was 
 broken on a vote to approve. Thus, day after day Reed 
 kept the House in continual roll-calls unless it preferred 
 to adjourn, and adjournment did not avoid approving 
 the Journal. 
 
 This condition sorely vexed the Speaker. He had 
 staked everything to avoid a count. Motions were de- 
 clared dilatory, points of order were decided without 
 giving reasons, and appeals were denied. Threats of 
 arrest, the employment of additional deputy sergeants- 
 at-arms, and appeals to absentees, testified to his efforts 
 to collect a quorum. But nothing availed him. Indeed, 
 Crisp was as helpless as Sir Robert Peel on the night that 
 Disraeli divided his party. No rule could save him, 
 since Reed acted under a provision of the Constitution, 
 and no special, order could be secured until a quorum 
 could be marshaled. According to William M. Springer, 
 of Illinois, one of the Speaker's busiest lieutenants, "two 
 days of actual work were not accomplished in a month." l 
 In fact, Charles Stewart Parnell never had the House 
 of Commons more at his mercy than Thomas B. Reed 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess.. Record, p. 4666. 
 
174 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 had the House of Representatives. Yet, if so disposed, 
 Speaker Crisp, like Speaker Brand of the British House, 
 had power to end the tie-up. But he still hesitated. He 
 sought to find a way of his own invention, and one morn- 
 ing his Committee on Rules proposed the plan of fining 
 all unexcused members ten dollars each whenever they 
 failed to vote on the question of approving the Journal. 1 
 This was parliamentary if not manly, and it quickly 
 drew a shattering shot from Reed. Fixing his eyes on 
 the Speaker, he declared that "gentlemen ought to be 
 able to do their work without turning this House into a 
 justice of the peace shop, with ten dollars jurisdiction, 
 less than one half we have in the little State of Maine." 2 
 The prolonged laughter, which ran into shouts of ap- 
 plause, made the silence that followed oppressive, for no 
 one could muster a reply. The next evening the major- 
 ity held a caucus. All admitted that business could not 
 longer go on under such conditions, and in the absence 
 of some new device it was agreed that the Speaker, be- 
 fore every roll-call, should appoint two tellers, one from 
 each side, who should note those present refusing or fail- 
 ing to vote, and upon their report the Chair should de- 
 clare a quorum present. 3 
 
 This wastheReed Rule.Jt differed slightly in method, 
 but it counted a quorum. Reed noted the members 
 present who did not vote and announced a quorum. 
 Crisp appointed two tellers for the purpose and upon 
 their report announced a quorum. In other words, the 
 caucus had surrendered to the minority, and the decision 
 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4501. * Ibid., p. 4510. 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 4660 (April 16, 1894). 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 175 
 
 that followed proved a threnody. Benjamin E. Rus- 
 sell, of Georgia, a new member, declared it ridiculous 
 for his party, with thirty-eight members more than a 
 quorum, to invoke such an exceptional and revolution- 
 ary measure. 1 Others expressed similar views. William 
 Jennings Bryan, then serving his second and last term 
 in the House, opposed it because, contrary to the law in 
 many States, it permitted the fraction of a majority to 
 coin a bill into law. This objection appeared in the Con- 
 stitutional Convention, some preferring that more than 
 a majority ought to be required for a quorum, and in 
 particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of 
 a quorum for a decision. But the Constitution simply 
 requires that a majority shall constitute a quorum, thus 
 leaving the decision of a question to the majority of that 
 quorum. It sometimes happens that "a minority of a 
 quorum" decides a question. This occurs, of course, 
 only when the majority of a quorum, by its silence, 
 allows it. 
 
 The speech of Constantine B. Kilgore, of Texas, also 
 attracted attention. Although not in any sense an elo- 
 quent speaker, Kilgore was fluent, positive, and rather 
 droll. It did not occur to him that there could be two 
 sides to any matter of discussion. In opposing the Reed 
 Rule he had been ably active, and the vigorous applause 
 which now greeted his recognition, advised the House 
 that his views, if singular even to the verge of being 
 Quixotic, |ound favor in the galleries as well as on the 
 floor. Rules, he said, should be made not to expedite 
 business, but to hinder hasty and inconsiderate legisla- 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4666. 
 
176 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 tion. Important and necessary measures need no aid 
 from rules. It is the pernicious bill in the interest of jobs 
 and schemes of plunder that need despotic methods like 
 the proposed rule, which enables a Speaker and the tel- 
 lers, if only ninety members vote for a measure, to pass 
 it by counting eighty-nine indifferent men who happen 
 to be walking through the hall or sitting silently in their 
 seats. He believed in bridling the majority and conserv- 
 ing the rights of the minority. 1 
 
 While it is improbable that a majority of the Speak- 
 er's supporters held the views expressed by Kilgore, only 
 a few of his party gave the resolution hearty support. 
 The question is, said Springer, of Illinois, whether this 
 House shall have rules that will enable it to do business, 
 and "I shall hail the adoption of the resolution as the 
 dawn of a new and better era in American legislation." 2 
 Outhwaite, of Ohio, spoke in a similar vein, "rejoicing 
 that the rule will deprive a dozen or two members from 
 obstructing business." 3 The Republicans, massed and 
 silent, watched the surrender with evident enjoyment. 
 Even Reed declined to speak on the general subject, 
 simply remarking that "this scene to-day is a more effec- 
 tive address than I could make. The House is about to 
 adopt the principle for which we contended under cir- 
 cumstances which show its value to the country. I con- 
 gratulate it upon the wise decision it is about to make." 4 
 
 It remained for Thomas C. Catchings, of Mississippi, 
 who presented the report of the Committee on Rules, to 
 close the debate. Catchings was a man of great courage 
 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4666. 2 Ibid., p. 4667. 
 
 Ibid. * Ibid., p. 4666. 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 177 
 
 and of singularly calm and earnest nature. For nearly 
 ten years he had served with distinction, and, although 
 standing aggressively with his party in every parlia- 
 mentary contest, he had made no enemies. He formed 
 his opinions deliberately, spoke slowly and well, and in 
 the heat of intense excitement was never inconsiderate 
 or impulsive. Moreover, he recognized that the reforms 
 of one day inspired a mental condition that saw the occa- 
 sion for further reforms at some future day. But in 
 treating the subject then before the House he did not 
 take the view of the reformer. Nor did he assume the 
 attitude of a pungent critic, or speculate upon the dan- 
 ger of abandoning the old procedure that existed under 
 Carlisle and Randall. He did not even find fault with the 
 absentees who had made possible the crisis so humiliat- 
 ing to their party. With him the adoption of the resolu- 
 tion was simply a parliamentary necessity, and with 
 admirable temper he sketched the situation as every one 
 understood it. For the first time in the history of the 
 House, he said in conclusion, a minority, acting as a unit, 
 had stopped all legislation of whatever kind and nature, 
 and the majority, which has long indulged the courage 
 of despair, must now say whether it will go out of busi- 
 ness, or meet such unprecedented opposition with a rule 
 that will silence resentment and defeat conspiracy. 1 
 
 Such a speech at such a time well suited Catchings's 
 temperament, and if it did not greatly please any one 
 except Republicans, it had not exasperated any mem- 
 ber of his party. More than that, he had left the impres- 
 sion distinctly that the situation from which there 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4669. 
 
178 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 seemed no escape alone induced him to make the con- 
 cession. The same motive undoubtedly inspired what- 
 ever Democratic support the resolution received, the 
 roll-call showing 213 yeas to 47 nays, with 93 not vot- 
 ing. 1 It was a real triumph for Catchings, who expected 
 more "noes." To him and to his supporters, however, 
 the result seemed a Pyrrhic victory, and it was left to 
 the Republicans alone to applaud the announcement 
 of the vote. Their derisive laughter and cynical jeers 
 ruffled the tempers of men who preferred neither to give 
 nor take quarter, but the first day's rivalry to secure ac- 
 tion on delayed legislation quickly allayed resentment. 
 Indeed, so readily did all parties accept the Reed prece- 
 dent that the appointment of tellers soon became a for- 
 mality which the Speaker ignored, and from that day to 
 this the mere knowledge that a count can be made has 
 sufficed to enshrine the disappearing quorum among the 
 memorabilia of Congress. 
 
 Meantime, the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 reviewing the validity of the so-called McKinley Tariff 
 Act, passed in 1890 with the aid of a counted quorum, 
 held that as the House Journal showed a quorum pres- 
 ent, the bill had received votes enough. 2 In other words, 
 it matters not how a quorum is obtained so long as the 
 Journal records one as present and a majority voting 
 for the bill. 
 
 Since the establishment of the Reed rule the House 
 is rarely without a quorum, unless a session continues 
 
 1 53d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4671. 
 
 2 United States vs. Ballin, 144 U.S., p. 1; opinion by Mr. Justice 
 Brewer. 
 
COUNTING A QUORUM 179 
 
 beyond the dinner hour or far into the night. At such 
 times, if the business be highly important or the term 
 near its close, the sergeant-at-arms, under instructions 
 to bring in the absentees, carefully searches homes, 
 hotels, boarding-houses, and theaters, and as the shame- 
 faced delinquents appear in evening dress or undress 
 their tired colleagues jeer and deride them. But formal 
 censure is rarely inflicted, although laughable excuses 
 are frequently given. At one time Luke P. Poland, of 
 Vermont, happened to be caught. The Chair addressed 
 him with due solemnity. "Mr. Poland, you have been 
 absent from the session of the House without its leave. 
 What excuse have you to offer?" The distinguished 
 member, in a tone of great gravity and emotion, replied : 
 "I went with my wife to call on the minister, and I 
 stayed a little too long." The Chair thought it a safe 
 answer "for constituents," but "a bit shady" for col- 
 leagues. However, the House, rejoicing to get a quorum, 
 gladly excused him. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE RULES AND THE COMMITTEE ON RULES 
 
 ON the day the House elected its first Speaker it ap- 
 pointed James Madison, of Virginia, Elias Boudinot, of 
 New Jersey, Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, and several 
 other distinguished parliamentarians to draft a code of 
 rules. Boudinot had been president of the Continental 
 Congress. He was a far-seeing, benevolent dictator, 
 whose patriotic words acted as a tonic, and his courageous 
 colleagues made him chairman of the committee. His 
 report governed decorum and debate, provided for the 
 introduction and disposition of bills, and outlined the 
 conduct of business in Committee of the Whole. Al- 
 though it occupied less than a page of the printed pro- 
 ceedings, it included all the principles then used for 
 the government of parliamentary bodies. Decorum was 
 especially emphasized. The Speaker must rise when 
 putting a question or speaking to points of order, and 
 vote whenever a ballot was taken. If he or a member 
 addressed the House, conversation, reading, and "mov- 
 ing about" must cease. Nor could members leave the 
 hall, or pass between a speaker and the Chair; and 
 upon an adjournment all must remain seated until the 
 Speaker had withdrawn. No one could speak twice on 
 the same question without leave, and not then until 
 others who desired had spoken. Only motions for the 
 previous question, or to amend, to commit, or to ad- 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 181 
 
 journ, could be received, while no substitute under color 
 of an amendment could be accepted. 
 
 The previous question was not materially modified. 
 As used in the House of Commons and in Congress under 
 the Confederation, it ascertained the disposition to en- 
 tertain the proposition presented. It took the form of a 
 negative "Shall the main question be not now put?" 
 If decided affirmatively, the debate continued; if nega- 
 tively, the subject went over. 1 Boudinot recommended 
 the omission of "not," so that if decided in the affirma- 
 tive, it stopped discussion on the merits of the main 
 question; if in the negative, the matter went over to 
 the next day. He also increased the demand for it 
 from two members to five. 
 
 Boudinot's rules hedging the introduction and treat- 
 ment of bills eliminated at once all undesirable propo- 
 sitions. To him a bill was an inchoate law, and his 
 scrutiny of it resembled the suspicion with which a vi- 
 dette regards the advance of an unrecognized troop. It 
 could be introduced only by order of the House on the 
 report of a committee, or by giving a day's notice of a 
 motion for leave, which motion could itself be commit- 
 ted. When introduced a committee was appointed to 
 prepare it. Moreover, each bill must be read three times, 
 first for information, and, if then opposed, the question 
 was, " Shall it be rejected?" If not rejected, it was read 
 a second time and committed or engrossed. If commit- 
 ted, it went to a select committee or to the Committee 
 of the Whole. If engrossed, which meant "written in a 
 
 1 Journal, Continental Congress, May 26, 1778, and July 8, 
 1784. 
 
182 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 fair round hand," the House appointed a day for its third 
 reading and passage. To avoid favoritism all bills were 
 considered in the order of their introduction unless 
 otherwise specially directed. No bill amended by the 
 Senate could be committed. 
 
 The rules governing the Committee of the Whole pro- 
 vided for the election of a chairman, for the considera- 
 tion of bills by classes, and for the application of the 
 rules so far as applicable. In practice the Committee 
 determined the order of taking up bills, permitted unlim- 
 ited debate upon each clause, including amendments, 
 left the preamble to be considered last, and rose on find- 
 ing itself without a quorum, which was the same as in 
 the House. The absence of later-day practices indicates 
 that the need of time-saving regulations had not yet 
 appeared. 
 
 The custom of readopting the Boudinot Rules, sup- 
 plemented by Jefferson's Parliamentary Practice, left 
 little to a Committee on Rules. For many years it never 
 made a report. Indeed, so slightingly was it regarded 
 that Speakers, during five Congresses, neglected to ap- 
 point such a committee. 1 Whenever it became neces- 
 sary to expedite business the House, under the persua- 
 sive influence of a few members interested, usually 
 adopted a rule intended to fit the case in band. Thus 
 the rules, accumulating year after year, became intri- 
 cate, often contradictory, and generally misunderstood. 
 John Randolph, whose caustic censure made the re- 
 flections of others seem spiritless, said he knew the rules 
 when he entered the House, but the longer he served 
 1 The 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th and 21st Congresses. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 183 
 
 the less he understood them. He denounced them (1828) 
 as complicated and "extremely unparliamentary." l 
 
 Several reasons provoked such criticism. The previ- 
 ous question did not close debate. A motion to lay on 
 the table simply held the matter in reserve for a more 
 convenient season. A motion to reconsider could be 
 made at any time. A majority might change a rule with- 
 out notice and rescind it on a day's notice. A motion to 
 proceed to the orders of the day, if carried, set aside a 
 pending proposition, " although the rule governing the 
 order of business did not justify such a motion." 2 More- 
 over, the precedence of motions frequently changed, 
 while the practice of adopting new rules without 
 revising old ones that conflicted increased the tangle. 
 Fortunately, a spirit of courtesy which obtained in the 
 earlier Congresses tended to make the practice less arbi- 
 trary and capricious. " Meihbers acted with the utmost 
 deference to the wishes of the House," says Speaker 
 Reed, writing of that period. "They refrained from 
 making speeches, and withdrew motions if the sense of 
 the House seemed manifestly against them. With such 
 deference on the part of each member to the wishes of 
 all, the House was slow to abridge the right of debate 
 and the use of the cloture." 3 
 
 Nevertheless, obstruction very early took its rise in 
 unlimited debate. The purpose of obstruction is to de- 
 feat a measure, or to postpone it until certain specified 
 demands are complied with. It is invoked for party 
 
 1 20th Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, p. 1002. 
 
 2 24th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 885. 
 
 8 North American Review, vol. 150, p. 389. 
 
184 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 advantage or by individuals for selfish purposes. It 
 proceeds on the theory that the effort of a minority to 
 defeat the majority is as legitimate and patriotic as the 
 majority's use of its greater number. Hence, whatever 
 rules the majority construct for the orderly dispatch of 
 business are, if possible, avoided, and when one avenue 
 is closed, the minority seeks another. This constant war- 
 fare, waged for a century, resulted in limiting the rights 
 of the minority and intrenching the power of the major- 
 j ity. It developed the previous question, limited the time 
 for debate, made the Speaker a judge of dilatory mo- 
 tions, forced the adoption of a special order by a major- 
 ity vote, and compelled the establishment of a quo- 
 rum by counting non- voting members who are present. 
 Indeed, the rules, adopted from time to time, have har- 
 nessed the minority until its protests are disregarded 
 and its threats unheeded. 
 
 As already stated, obstruction first took the form of 
 long speeches. The previous question under the Bou- 
 dinot rule did not relieve the embarrassment. Although 
 it cut off debate on the main question, it permitted each 
 member to speak at least once on the expediency of or- 
 dering it. This soon became intolerable, and in 1805 the 
 privilege was eliminated. Such a radical change smote 
 the sacred right of debate too severely to be borne with 
 submission, and without leave, or even without asking for 
 permission, William Ely, of Massachusetts, then a new 
 member, continued the debate after the previous ques- 
 tion had been demanded. Speaker Varnum promptly 
 called him to order. Scarcely had he announced his de- 
 cision before Randolph shouted an appeal. In his argu- 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 185 
 
 ment the distinguished Virginian admitted that the word 
 "now" in the formula meant "at this time," but so long 
 as "the present time" continued, he said, it was compe- 
 tent for members to debate it. This quibble, sustained 
 on appeal by the surprising vote of 113 to 14, showed 
 that the House resented the action of the preceding Con- 
 gress. 1 Thereafter the chamber again resounded with 
 the voices of those who believed that perpetual talking 
 was the best evidence of their fidelity. One year later 
 the question came up again. The Speaker restated his 
 personal opinion as before, but declined to overrule the 
 vote of the preceding session. 
 
 It added to the unhappiness that the service of Barent 
 Gardenier, of New York, spanned this period. Garden- 
 ier, a robust, dark-featured man, with heavy jaw and 
 closely compressed lips, attained notoriety because of 
 his remarkable capacity to talk indefinitely. John C. 
 Calhoun declared him able to keep the floor for days, 2 
 and Clay adds that he could talk for twenty-four hours 
 without stopping. 3 Unlike Randolph's long speeches, 
 relieved by caustic wit, vehement outbursts, and ring- 
 ing invective, Gardenier's monotonous loquacity, often 
 steeped in innuendo, was unbroken by a sparkling sen- 
 tence. But no way existed of stopping him. George 
 W. Campbell, of Tennessee, the brilliant floor leader, 
 tried it and found Gardenier's courage equal to his ver- 
 bosity, and although Campbell wounded him, he estab- 
 lished a reputation for being as ready with his pistol as 
 
 1 10th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 1183. 
 
 2 Benton's Thirty Years' View, vol. n, p. 258. 
 14th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 699. 
 
186 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 with his tongue. 1 After his recovery Gardenier again 
 took the floor. It was usually midnight and sometimes 
 daylight before he ceased speaking. 
 
 These obstructive tactics suddenly came to an end 
 during a controversy growing out of strained relations 
 with England and France. Regardless of the rights of 
 neutrals, the British Government had declared all 
 French ports in a state of blockade, and Napoleon, retal- 
 iating by his famous Berlin Decree, interdicted all inter- 
 course with the British Islands. Deeply stirred by the 
 seizure of American ships, President Madison had pro- 
 hibited all commercial intercourse with England; but 
 the action of France made it expedient to provide a way 
 out of the muddle, and for this purpose John W. Eppes, 
 of Virginia, chairman of Foreign Affairs, hastily reported 
 a bill. Eppes, like Campbell, was distinguished as one 
 of the most effective debaters of his day, having rare 
 skill and discretion, with inexhaustible telling argument. 
 He possessed, too, a sunny disposition, high principles, 
 and pleasing manners, making him a popular as well as 
 an intellectual leader. It added to his prestige that he 
 had married Jefferson's daughter. 
 
 When debate began on his bill, only seven days of the 
 session remained, and Gardenier held the floor. The 
 purpose to strangle the measure became more apparent 
 when Randolph, in the evening of February 27 (1811), 
 came to Gardenier's relief with a motion to postpone. 
 Eppes successfully resisted this maneuver and Gar- 
 denier continued. At two o'clock in the morning Ran- 
 
 1 The duel was fought at Bladensburg on March 2, 1808, Gardenier 
 being severely wounded. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 187 
 
 dolph again moved a postponement, to which Eppes 
 quickly objected. This brought a retort from Randolph, 
 so sharp and disturbing, that Eppes immediately sent 
 him a challenge, and during Randolph's absence to find 
 a second, Matthew Lyon, of Kentucky, to consume the 
 remainder of the night, called for a reading of the bill as 
 amended. To this Willis Alston, of North Carolina, 
 objected. The Speaker having stated the question, 
 Gardenier promptly took the floor. 
 
 Nothing remained but to move the previous question. 
 Eppes hesitated to cut off debate, since a cloture rule 
 departed widely from accepted parliamentary codes. 
 The House of Commons avoided it and the Senate 
 refused such drastic methods. It vested combinations 
 with power to forbid expressions of adverse sentiments, 
 and tended to affect the character of the House, making 
 it a registrative rather than a deliberative body. But 
 Madison's supporters thought it time for action. Henry 
 Clay, although then in the Senate, could not stifle his zeal 
 for the Eppes bill, and his advice stiffened the House. 1 
 He justified the previous question as a constitutional 
 right of the majority as well as on the ground of expedi- 
 ency. "It is nothing more," he said, "than a declara- 
 tion of the House that it had heard enough and would 
 proceed to decide." 2 
 
 When Gardenier rose to speak, therefore, Thomas 
 Gholson, of Virginia, a bold, bluff, ardent supporter of 
 the Administration, demanded the previous question on 
 Lyon's motion. This was promptly ordered. Then Gar- 
 
 1 Benton's Thirty Years' View, vol. n, p. 257. 
 s 14th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 699. 
 
188 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 denier, heedless of the result, began talking. Gholson 
 challenged his right. The Speaker recalled the precedent 
 established two years before, and although contrary to 
 his own opinion, he still acquiesced in that action. 
 Gholson appealed and Gardenier again took the floor. 
 Peter B. Porter, of New York, questioned his right to 
 debate an appeal, and when Varnum overruled the point 
 of order, the House reversed the Chair. The question 
 then recurred on Gholson's appeal, and the House by a 
 vote of 66 to 13 again reversed the Speaker, thus estab- 
 lishing the practice that ordering the previous question 
 ended debate. 1 Subsequently Gardenier, having pro- 
 posed an amendment, offered to debate it, but the House 
 promptly ordered the previous question. Three days 
 later, after members had regained their composure, 
 Gardenier again ignored the precedent, expressing the 
 hope that the spirit of justice would now prevail. The 
 Speaker, however, called him sharply to order, and on 
 appeal the House sustained the Chair. 2 
 
 Other decisive votes exhibited similar vigilance. 3 But 
 very soon the House dropped back into the vice of 
 unlimited debate. Although Gardenier was gone, Ran- 
 dolph remained, often holding the floor for five or six 
 hours. 4 Of Randolph in the last days of his service, 
 Adams says: "His mind is a jumble of sense, wit, and 
 absurdity; his heart a compound of egotism, inflated 
 vanity, and envy; and his speeches are a farrago of 
 commonplace political declamation, mingled with his- 
 
 1 llth Cong., 3d Sess., Annals, p. 1092. 2 Ibid., p. 1106. 
 14th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, pp. 696-718. 
 4 16th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 1641. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 189 
 
 torical allusions, scraps of Latin, and a continual stream 
 of personal malignity and inflated egotism, mixed in 
 proportion like those of the liquor which he now tip- 
 ples, about one third brandy and two thirds water." l 
 But Randolph was not the only sinner. William Haile, 
 of Mississippi, declared that it took an average orator 
 two or three days to make a speech. 2 To relieve them- 
 selves of such eloquence members not infrequently in- 
 voked disorderly noises, such as coughing, scraping the 
 feet, and banging desk-covers, often compelling talkers 
 to resume their seats. 3 
 
 During this period the previous question fell into 
 disuse. Calhoun declared that it was ordered only four 
 times in twenty years. 4 Moreover, it had developed 
 into an unwieldy and dangerous weapon. Speaker Clay 
 held that if ordered, pending a motion to postpone a 
 bill with Senate amendments, it brought a vote not on 
 postponement, but on concurring in the amendments. 5 
 Subsequently he ruled that it cut off pending amend- 
 ments, bringing a vote on the engrossing of the bill. 6 
 Speaker Stevenson held in 1830 that if ordered after 
 the Committee of the Whole had reported a bill with 
 an amendment striking out the enacting clause, it cut 
 off the amendment. 7 Its two-edged feature especially 
 startled the House when ordered on a motion to recom- 
 
 1 Diary, vol. vn, p. 473; vol. vin, p. 64. 
 20th Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, p. 1754. 
 
 16th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals p. 2093; 17th Cong., 1st Sess., 
 Annals, p. 1301; 22d Cong., 2d Sess., Debates, p. 1919. 
 Benton's Thirty Years' View, vol. n, p. 257. 
 12th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 533. 
 13th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 398. 
 21st Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 987. 
 
190 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 mit the famous tariff bill of 1833 with instructions, the 
 Chair holding that it brought the House to a vote on 
 the bill itself. 1 To those who sought logical ways of ad- 
 vancing legislation such decisions seemed the embodi- 
 ment of partisan puerility, and in 1840 the House 
 amended the rule, declaring that the previous question 
 "shall put an end to debate and bring the House to a 
 direct vote upon amendments reported by the commit- 
 tee, upon pending amendments, and then upon the main 
 question." 2 This did not lock the partisan door, how- 
 ever, for in 1845, when the previous question was 
 ordered on a motion to recommit a joint resolution 
 admitting Texas, with instructions to report it with a 
 proviso prohibiting slavery, the House overruled the 
 Speaker, holding that it removed the motion to recom- 
 mit. Nor could the House under the rule, as amended 
 in 1840, control debate on an amendment to an amend- 
 ment, since the previous question, if ordered, precluded 
 further amendment on whatever sections remained un- 
 considered. So, if ordered on a motion to postpone a 
 bill, it brought the House to a direct vote both on 
 amendments and the bill. In other words, a motion to 
 postpone a bill when first presented compelled the 
 House either to hear a protracted debate on the subject 
 of postponement, or to order a vote on the bill before 
 it had been debated. 3 
 
 During these years little of the parliamentary bur- 
 den fell upon the Committee on Rules. It remained a 
 
 1 22d Cong., 2d Sess., Debates, p. 1701. 
 8 26th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 121. 
 36th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 1209. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 191 
 
 select committee, varying from three to five members, 
 whose jurisdiction extended to revising a code that had 
 already been adopted. It was without privilege, and its 
 report found quick burial beneath the propositions of 
 members eager to expedite their own business. Indeed, 
 the first gleam of its power occurred in 1841, when 
 the House authorized it to report "at all times." A 
 month later, after the minority, by means of obstructive 
 tactics, had held an important measure in Committee 
 of the Whole, the Rules Committee made a report per- 
 mitting a majority to suspend the rules for the purpose 
 of discharging the Committee of the Whole after it had 
 acted without debate upon all amendments. It was a 
 startlingly clever play. To suspend the rules required 
 a two thirds vote, which the Whigs lacked; but a ma- 
 jority could adopt the report. Immediately the Demo- 
 crats rose in protest. The Rules Committee, they 
 claimed, could not report "in part" except by unani- 
 mous consent or by suspending the rules, and its privi- 
 lege to report "at all times " confined it to the legitimate 
 object for which it was created. The indisposition of 
 Speaker White to recognize fine distinctions, however, 
 found abundant precedent. "I have learned," he said 
 in substance, "that the rules conform to the will of the 
 majority," and he held that "at all times" meant in 
 part or in whole "at any time." On appeal a majority 
 sustained the Chair 119 to 103. 1 
 
 The result was cataclysmal. It not only gave a 
 majority power to control debate in Committee of the 
 Whole, but made it master of the House. The bewilder- 
 1 27th Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, pp. 9, 153; Journal, p. 144. 
 
192 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ing excitement which followed opened the way for the 
 adoption of the still more important resolution of limit- 
 ing speeches to one hour. 1 
 
 Although subsequent Houses curbed the power of the 
 Rules Committee, the Thirty-third Congress permitted 
 it to report at any time with right of present consider- 
 ation. This high privilege, however, was soon with- 
 drawn. Meantime, the rules were declared to be "cum- 
 bersome and useless." In 1853 the cry began that the 
 Speaker, although not then a member of the Committee 
 on Rules, obstructed business. Five years later Israel 
 Washburn, of Maine, a distinguished parliamentarian, 
 admitted his ignorance of the meaning and purpose of 
 some of the rules. "They need to be amended," he de- 
 clared. "But their observance is most needed. The 
 good nature of members in granting unanimous consent 
 breeds ignorance, and when applied they provoke criti- 
 cism because a different practice obtains." 2 
 
 In 1860 Washburn reported his famous revision, 
 which included twenty-eight amendments. Although 
 most of these changes corrected contradictory pro- 
 visions, combined several rules into one, and made 
 others conform to the established practice, drastic mod- 
 ifications were introduced. One destroyed the trick of 
 striking out the enacting clause in Committee of the 
 Whole and then disagreeing to the report in the House. 3 
 Another provided that the previous question, when 
 negatived, should leave the pending business undis- 
 
 1 27th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 145. 
 
 2 36th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 1178, 1209. 
 
 3 See chap, xm, p. 268. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 193 
 
 turbed, and when ordered on a motion to postpone, 
 should act only on such motion; or, if on an amendment 
 or an amendment thereto, that it should not preclude 
 debate on the bill. This gave the House the facility for 
 amendment enjoyed in Committee of the Whole. To 
 avoid a repetition of the riotous scenes preceding the 
 election of Speaker Pennington, the rules of one House 
 were made binding upon its successor unless otherwise 
 ordered. Although parliamentarians generally held this 
 rule invalid whenever seriously questioned, it survived 
 for thirty years. 1 
 
 Washburn did nothing to strengthen the Committee 
 on Rules. The House followed the precedent, estab- 
 lished in 1859, of making the Speaker ex-officio its chair- 
 man; but this conferred no new privilege. When it had 
 once reported, its functions ceased. Indeed its limited 
 privileges compelled Speaker Randall in 1876 to ask that 
 authority be given it during the closing days of the 
 session to report "at any time" upon questions relating 
 to the currency. 2 As late as 1879 the Speaker declared 
 that never, to his recollection, had it divided politically 
 upon any subject. 3 
 
 In the meantime criticism of the rules again became 
 common. Washburn's revision had served its purpose 
 well, but no one, in 1860, could anticipate that business 
 would increase fivefold in twenty years, congesting legis- 
 lation and limiting the liberty of the individual. More- 
 over, the House had added forty-four unclassified rules 
 
 1 For the discussion and adoption of these changes see 36th Cong., 
 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 1177-1237. 
 
 2 44th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 1051. 
 
 3 46th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 2329 (June 25, 1879). 
 
194 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 and established many new precedents. To remedy this 
 condition it directed the Committee on Rules, consist- 
 ing of Speaker Randall, Joseph C. S. Blackburn, of 
 Kentucky, Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, James A. 
 Garfield, of Ohio, and William P. Frye, of Maine, to 
 "simplify, revise, and codify." Their report became the 
 historic revision of 1880. It "neither surrenders the 
 right of a majority to control business for which it is 
 held responsible," said the committee, "nor invades the 
 powers of a minority to check temporarily, if not per- 
 manently, the action of a majority believed to be im- 
 proper or unconstitutional." 1 What it did was to retain 
 twelve rules entire, drop thirty-two because obsolete or 
 unnecessary, and condense one hundred and twenty- 
 five into thirty-two, making a total of forty-four, each 
 subdivided into clauses, and arranged with logical rela- 
 tion to its subject, thus enabling members to glance at 
 a rule and find its correlative. 
 
 This revision centered in an effort to economize time 
 as well as to simplify the practice. It stopped voting 
 after the second call of the roll; it dropped the penalty 
 system of absenteeism without leave; and it authorized 
 the clerk to announce "pairs" instead of members. It 
 abolished the practice of changing a few words in a 
 pending bill to make it germane as an amendment; it 
 caused a motion to reconsider, made during the last six 
 days of a session, to be disposed of at the time; it sent 
 a bill, to which objection was made to its present con- 
 sideration, to the Committee of the Whole or to the 
 House calendar; it gave preference to revenue and ap- 
 1 46th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 198. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 195 
 
 propriation bills in Committee of the Whole; it required 
 bills on the private calendar to be taken up and disposed 
 of in order; and it provided that the previous question 
 should bring the House to a direct vote upon a single 
 motion, a series of allowable motions, or upon an amend- 
 ment or amendments, the effect being to carry the bill 
 to its engrossment and third reading, and then, on a 
 renewal of the motion, to its passage or rejection. To 
 afford "the amplest opportunity to test the sense of 
 the House as to whether or not the bill is in the exact 
 form it desires," it authorized a motion, pending the 
 passage of a bill, to recommit it with or without in- 
 structions. Other changes of less note modified the 
 duties of minor officers, extended former members' 
 admission to the floor, safeguarded the filing, disposi- 
 tion, and withdrawal of papers, made the Committee 
 on Rules a standing committee of five members, gave 
 a conference report precedence over all other business, 
 created the House calendar, to which were referred all 
 public bills not carrying an appropriation, and added 
 an hour to the time of the member closing a debate 
 whenever it extended over a day. 1 
 
 The revisers of 1880 were not reformers. They tact- 
 fully avoided the abolition of disreputable practices, 
 such as "riders" on appropriation bills and the "disap- 
 pearing quorum." They simply sought, as their report 
 stated, to foster "order, accuracy, uniformity, and 
 economy of time," and experience has justified their 
 
 1 For report and discussion see 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 
 108-208; 478-91; 551-58; 575-79; 603-14; 658-65; 708-13; 727-35; 
 954-59; 1195-1208; 1255-67. 
 
196 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 recommendations; but by shunning "riders" and the 
 "disappearing quorum" they left the real red-light dis- 
 ^rict undisturbed. 
 
 Although the Committee on Rules profited little by 
 becoming a standing committee, Speaker Randall added 
 greatly to its prestige, holding that all propositions to 
 change the rules, in order to be agreed to by a majority 
 vote, must be referred to it, 1 and that it might report 
 at any time on matters relating to the rules. 2 This 
 enabled it to intervene and secure immediate consid- 
 eration of its reports. But it did not prevent a strong, 
 well-disciplined minority, directed by competent leaders, 
 from annoying and often defeating the majority by the 
 use of dilatory motions, such as to adjourn or to ad- 
 journ to a day fixed. Indeed, these motions became so 
 obstructive in 1875 that a despairing member asked how 
 they could be avoided. To which Speaker Elaine re- 
 plied: "The Chair has repeatedly ruled that pending a 
 proposition to change a rule dilatory motions could not 
 be entertained. The right of each House to determine 
 what shall be its rules is an organic right expressly 
 given by the Constitution. The House is incapable by 
 any formal rule of divesting itself of its inherent con- 
 stitutional power to exercise the functions of determin- 
 ing its own rules. Therefore, the Chair has always an- 
 nounced that upon a proposition to change the rules of 
 the House he would never entertain a dilatory motion." 8 
 
 If Speaker Elaine ever made such a ruling it is not of 
 
 1 44th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 5262-63. 
 
 2 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 768. 
 8 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 806. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 197 
 
 record. Nor did he show the courage of his conviction 
 during the passage of the Civil Rights Bill (1875), since 
 the House, to enable it to do business, suspended the 
 rules and adopted a resolution providing that "when- 
 ever a question is pending the Speaker shall not enter- 
 tain any motion of a dilatory character except one to 
 adjourn and one to fix the time to adjourn." To avoid 
 all question respecting the adoption of this report 
 Speaker Elaine took pains to announce that it had 
 received a two thirds vote. 1 Samuel J. Randall asked 
 if it required a two thirds vote. To which the Speaker 
 artfully replied: "The Chair does not so state." 2 
 
 This was the parliamentary situation on May 29, 
 1882, when the House sought to consider a contested 
 election case in which Joseph Wheeler, of Alabama, the 
 famous Confederate cavalry chieftain, appeared as con- 
 testee. Wheeler had secured a certificate of election 
 based on a majority of 47, while the contestant, also 
 a former Confederate officer, presented alleged proof of 
 having received 600 majority. The minority showed a 
 waspish partiality for Wheeler. Local prejudices seemed 
 to be transferred to Washington, and to prevent con- 
 sideration of the case, Wheeler's friends muzzled the 
 House with roll-calls. Thereupon Thomas B. Reed, 
 from the Committee on Rules, presented a report allow- 
 ing the Speaker to entertain only one motion to adjourn 
 or to take a recess pending "the consideration of any 
 question which may arise on a case involving the con- 
 stitutional right to a seat." 3 This touched the mooted 
 
 1 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 891-92. * Ibid., p. 892. 
 
 8 An amendment to par. 8, Rule xvi. 
 
198 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 question, and Samuel J. Randall began to filibuster. 
 After raising the question of consideration, he moved 
 to adjourn. Again defeated, he moved to adjourn to a 
 day certain. Then Reed made the point of order that 
 dilatory motions could not be entertained pending a 
 proposition to change the rules. This peremptory chal- 
 lenge startled the House. It meant a fight, and members 
 quickly gathered to witness the forensic duel. 
 
 Randall had led the minority in the time of Thad- 
 deus Stevens. He did not possess the latter's uncurbed 
 acerbity, or the scintillating badinage of Elaine, but he- 
 could be pitiless. He had dealt many trenchant blows. 
 His famous retort that the Republican party was an 
 "organized hypocrisy" made Garfield wince. Demo- 
 crats had coined into familiar quotations his hard hits 
 at Elaine. More fierce and cutting was his accusation 
 that Robert C. Schenck borrowed his tactics from the 
 Whigs. For nearly twenty years his genius had lent 
 great interest to the proceedings, and the House knew 
 that a bout with the rising young member from Maine 
 would add another dramatic film to the Record. 
 
 Reed had just entered his third term. He was cold 
 and brusque in manner, and seemed in general to have 
 hardly a gleam of the emotional in him. In fact, his 
 friendships and affections were most enduring. Yet in 
 his ordinary bearing there was little to suggest genuine 
 warmth. He had been the solicitor of his city, the at- 
 torney-general of his State, and a dominating force in 
 the legislature of Maine. There was peculiar courage, 
 too, in the part he took in the House. He had shown 
 that he could hold his own in retort and in sarcasm 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 199 
 
 against any antagonist. But he had not met Randall. 
 He came into the House during the latter's second term 
 as Speaker, and opportunity to justify an attack had 
 not before been presented. From the chair Randall had 
 studied him. He had heard his sarcastic replies sweep 
 the chamber like grapeshot, and he had learned, from 
 his cross-examination of Samuel J. Tilden, of his habit 
 of going ungloved after results. But Randall probably 
 had little suspicion that the member whom he then 
 faced was a man of as cool judgment, as long a head, and 
 as complete a capacity for the control of a great party 
 as any statesman who had appeared in the House for 
 generations. 
 
 Nevertheless, it was a crucial moment for the new 
 leader. Pitted for the first time against the veteran 
 sense-carrier of his party, it put to proof the real stuff 
 in him. He was venturing on new ice. Blaine had 
 pointed the way, but he was to try it. The twinkle in 
 Randall's eye and the quick appearance of his well- 
 worn Manual, which opened at the desired section, did 
 not escape Reed's observation as he made his point of 
 order. Nor did he forget that the distinguished Speaker, 
 often to his party's disadvantage, had safeguarded the 
 rights of the minority. But Reed was exactly the man 
 to be audacious, and at the opening of the debate he 
 declared that "whenever it is imposed upon Congress 
 to accomplish a certain work, it is the duty of the 
 Speaker, who represents the House, and who, in his 
 official capacity, is the embodiment of the House, to 
 carry out that rule of law or of the Constitution. It 
 then becomes his duty to see that no factious opposition 
 
200 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 prevents the House from doing its duty. He must brush 
 away all unlawful combinations to misuse the rules and 
 must hold the House strictly to its work." l 
 
 To most members Reed's proposition was novel. 
 Cannon had heard Elaine's dictum. So had Holman, of 
 Indiana, Kelley, of Pennsylvania, Kasson, of Iowa, Mills, 
 of Texas, Cox, of New York, and some others. But to 
 the great majority Reed's terse, vigorous sentences, 
 with an occasional metallic note of sarcasm, proclaimed 
 a new doctrine. Their right to suspend the rules was 
 clear. So, too, was their power to adopt a report which 
 changed a rule. But it seemed a great stretch of power 
 for the Speaker, preceding the adoption of such a report, 
 arbitrarily to eliminate motions to adjourn and the like, 
 because the Constitution authorized the House to make 
 its own rules. Indeed, Randall had overruled a similar 
 resolution proposed by Mills, 2 and in replying to Reed, 
 the former Speaker calmly but with great earnestness 
 enlarged upon the reasons then given. During the count 
 of the electoral vote in 1877, he said, he had ruled out 
 such motions because the law creating the Electoral 
 Commission specifically required it. But no law sup- 
 ported the proposed action. Blaine had suggested it, 
 but he wisely refrained from enforcing it. Until now 
 no one had seriously thought of it. The House, having 
 already acted in pursuance of its constitutional power, 
 had adopted certain limitations as to changing its rules. 
 It was estopped, therefore, from enlarging these limita- 
 tions. To permit it would deprive the minority of its 
 
 1 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 4306. 
 
 2 45th Cong., 3d Sess., Record, p. 175. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 201 
 
 only weapon to stop the wickedness of a lawless ma- 
 jority. On this point he submitted the remarks of 
 Speaker Onslow, of the British House: "As it is always 
 in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop 
 any improper measures proposed on the part of their 
 opponents," said the distinguished parliamentarian, 
 "the only weapons by which the minority can defend 
 themselves against similar attempts from those in 
 power are the forms and rules of proceeding which have 
 been accepted as they were found necessary from time 
 to time and are become the law of the House, by a strict 
 adherence to which the weaker party can only be pro- 
 tected from those irregularities and abuses which these 
 forms were intended to check, and which the wanton- 
 ness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large 
 and successful majorities." l 
 
 Onslow's statement undoubtedly crystallizes into the 
 fewest words the argument upon which rests the hope 
 of every minority. But the hope of the minority, Reed 
 replied, must not become the despair of the majority. 
 Protection of the minority did not mean the destruc- 
 tion of the majority. The Speaker must protect the 
 rights of each, but first of all he must see that the House 
 performs the duty for which it exists under the Con- 
 stitution. This was a pat answer, and his party backers 
 roundly applauded. But Blackburn came back double- 
 shotted. If the Speaker can arbitrarily brush away all 
 factious opposition which prevents the House from 
 doing what the Chair regards it to be its duty, he asked, 
 why may he not on the same principle destroy a far 
 1 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 4308. 
 
202 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 worse form of obstruction by counting a quorum? This 
 was a body blow. To make it more incisive, the Ken- 
 tuckian had Reed's speech in opposition to such action 
 read from the desk. Reed must have known that he 
 was open to this savage thrust, for his argument 
 covered the "disappearing quorum" as well as "dilatory 
 motions"; but he felt little daunted on that score. He 
 was more eager just then to destroy dilatory motions 
 than to be consistent, and without hesitation, but to the 
 discouragement of the friends of orderly procedure, he 
 reaffirmed his former position. 1 However, he fared very 
 well, since the Speaker ruled in his favor and the House 
 sustained it on appeal. His report was then adopted; 
 yeas, 150; nays, 2; not voting, 139; constituting a quo- 
 rum, 147. It was a great victory, since it enabled the 
 Committee on Rules to have its reports promptly 
 adopted, and from that hour Reed became the real 
 leader of his party. Ever after, so long as he remained 
 in Congress, his voice gave the word of command. 
 
 In the next session Reed undertook a more perilous 
 adventure. A House bill with Senate amendments re- 
 ducing the internal revenue tax had rested upon the 
 Speaker's table for several weeks, since the Republicans, 
 lacking a two thirds majority, could not suspend the 
 rules and send it to conference. It was a party measure. 
 Although several Republicans opposed it, a desire for 
 its passage found generous expression, and the delay 
 created much anxiety. As the closing week of Congress 
 appeared, it turned anxiety into exasperation. Sud- 
 denly, without notice, Reed startled the House by pre- 
 
 1 47th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 4313. See also chap, ix, p. 162. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 203 
 
 senting a report from the Committee on Rules providing 
 that it be in order at any time during the remainder of 
 the session to suspend the rules by a majority vote, 
 take the bill from the Speaker's table, declare a disa- 
 greement, and ask a conference thereon, the committee 
 on the part of the House to be composed of five mem- 
 bers. 1 
 
 Instantly the House was on its feet. It recalled the 
 clever play of the Whigs in 1841 and provoked a scene 
 not less riotous. Cox, of New York, declared that "it 
 outrages every principle of parliamentary procedure. 
 It is a fraud on all that is just and fair in our politics. 
 It is revolutionary." The fiery Blackburn paced the 
 floor, charging coercion. "If common rumor be cred- 
 ited," he said, pointing his finger at Reed, "you dared 
 not trust a count, but have obligated your forces by a 
 written and signed agreement." Even Carlisle, the 
 gentle logician, pronounced it "a monstrous proposi- 
 tion," while Randall, who exercised a control over his 
 long obedient followers somewhat like that of the heart 
 of Bruce in the old Scottish story, declared that, al- 
 though partisan opposition had sorely tried his patience, 
 he had refused during his service as Speaker to imperil 
 the rights of the minority and perhaps the life of the 
 Republic by violating a practice which all his predeces- 
 sors save one had observed. 
 
 Reed recognized the bizarre character of his innova- 
 tion^ "Unless there was a great emergency," he said, 
 "I snould not be in favor of its passage." Men of 
 dominating minds often see " a great emergency " when 
 1 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 892. 
 
204 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 opposition confronts them. His success in the preceding 
 session probably aided his vision. But he was no 
 dreamer. As a master debater he might carelessly pre- 
 cipitate a hot discussion, but he was too shrewd to stake 
 his growing prestige on this latest adventure without 
 due warrant, and so he spent several days in overcoming 
 scruples and obtaining pledges. His precaution, how- 
 ever, scarcely justified his final action, for the disap- 
 pearance of thirty-two members of his own party left 
 him without a quorum. Even the next morning when 
 he appeared with a file of recruits, failure stared him in 
 the face until several Nationalists, suddenly seized with 
 a desire to go upon record in opposition, swelled the to- 
 tal vote to a quorum. 1 After such a harassing experi- 
 ence it is not surprising, perhaps, that Reed concluded, 
 whenever opportunity offered, to strike the " disappear- 
 ing quorum" a shattering blow. 
 
 The Committee on Rules, after the adoption of this 
 procedure, began to fill the public eye. Like Pan- 
 dora's box it seemed to conceal surprising possibilities. 
 Speaker Carlisle stimulated the country's curiosity by 
 appointing to its membership (1883) the chairmen of 
 Ways and Means and of Appropriations. This com- 
 bine gave him watchful floor managers, who held the 
 purse-strings and distributed favors. Nevertheless, Car- 
 lisle did not yield readily to the elimination of dilatory 
 motions or the adoption of special orders by a majority 
 vote. Like Randall he believed the minority possessed 
 
 1 The House numbered 293 members, divided as follows: Republi- 
 cans, 152; Democrats, 130; Nationalists, 9; Readjusters, 2; necessary 
 for a quorum, 147. First vote, yeas, 120; nays, 20; not voting, 151. 
 Second vote, yeas, 129; nays, 22; not voting, 142. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 205 
 
 rights which, if destroyed, might imperil free govern- 
 ment, and although the Rules Committee reported dur- 
 ing the Forty-eighth Congress three special orders 
 which a majority adopted, the procedure grew slowly 
 in favor. In the Forty-ninth Congress, however, Car- 
 lisle not only used it more freely, but added greatly to 
 the Rules Committee's prestige by extending its jur- 
 isdiction to the order of business. After the gift of 
 this high privilege, the House, accustomed to parlia- 
 mentary surprises, stood aghast when the Committee, 
 in a single special order, adopted by a majority, fixed 
 the order of business for sixteen legislative days. 1 Had 
 Reed prophesied in 1883 that Carlisle, within five years, 
 would make such a wholesale use of this "monstrous 
 proposition," members would have regarded him a 
 senile sorcerer. 
 
 Yet Carlisle's administration during the Fiftieth 
 Congress came perilously near being a failure. His 
 name belongs in the short list of great Speakers. His 
 opinions read like the decisions of an eminent judge. 
 His impartiality and the sweetness of his manner 
 prompted the minority members to present him a 
 loving-cup as an evidence of their affection. But dila- 
 tory motions, the disappearing quorum, and his refusal 
 to ascertain the presence of a quorum by counting the 
 House made him the slave of filibusters. As elsewhere 
 stated, their subtle arts prostituted every legitimate 
 motion and kept the assembly in continuous roll-calls. 
 
 When Reed succeeded Carlisle (1889), he determined 
 to destroy this evil. Others had revised; he proposed to 
 1 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 8349. 
 
206 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 reform. The code-makers of 1880 boasted that they did 
 not disturb the rights of the minority; Reed declared 
 that a minority should not disturb the rights of the 
 majority. The former minimized the result without 
 abolishing the cause; the latter laid the axe to the root. 
 To enable him the better to succeed, the House, for the 
 first time in its history, refused to adopt rules at its 
 organization, thus substituting the general parliamen- 
 tary law. During this period the Speaker counted a 
 quorum. 1 Afterward came the Reed Rules. Of the ten 
 modifications, most of them excited little or no opposi- 
 tion. Indeed, members generally approved the read- 
 justment of the order of business, the reduction of the 
 quorum in Committee of the Whole to one hundred, 
 and the relief of the morning hour by filing bills and 
 reports with the clerk. 2 What made these rules famous 
 were additions, not modifications. Having heretofore 
 suppressed dilatory motions, adopted special orders by 
 a majority vote, and counted a quorum, Reed now 
 reduced the practice to written rules. 3 
 
 Charles F. Crisp, of Georgia, led the opposition to 
 their adoption. He appreciated the difficulty of chang- 
 ing fixed habits. He knew that members, attached to 
 old forms and parliamentary ways, would protest 
 against the Reed innovations, and in drawing the rays 
 of prejudice into one focus and kindling them into a 
 flame of resentment, he exhibited such real 1'eadership 
 that his party picked him to succeed Reed (1891). 
 Once in the Chair he naturally dropped the rules he 
 
 1 See chap, ix, p. 166. * See chap, xi, p. 220. 
 
 8 Rule xi, sec. 56; xv, sees. 2 and 3; xvi, sec. 10. 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON .RULES 207 
 
 had condemned. But to avoid the unfortunate experi- 
 ence of Carlisle he crushed the filibuster by authorizing 
 the Committee on Rules to meet at any time, to report 
 without notice, and to dispose of its report without the 
 intervention of any motion except one to adjourn. 1 In 
 other words, what Reed left to the Speaker, Crisp gave 
 to his committee. One magnified the Chair, the other 
 exalted Rules. Reed met the filibuster face to face; 
 Crisp waited the action of his lieutenants. In refusing 
 at the outset to count a quorum, Crisp relied upon an 
 excessive majority. But his helplessness in the Fifty- 
 third Congress forced the adoption of a rule authorizing 
 the Speaker, before a roll-call, to appoint one teller from 
 each party, upon whose report the Chair announced a 
 quorum. 2 This, also, was Reed's method. Under him, 
 the clerk kept tally; under Crisp, the tellers. In other 
 words, Crisp laid aside Reed's garments and got into 
 others of like pattern. Subsequent Houses, however, 
 have preferred Reed's clothes. Nevertheless, the fear, 
 so often and fiercely expressed, that the gift of such 
 power might sacrifice safety to dispatch, has never 
 wholly vanished. By removing restraints which emas- 
 culated the minority, the Reed Rules dropped the bars 
 to all sorts of theoretical panaceas, until the cry is 
 heard of too much legislation and that the House 
 has ceased to be a deliberative body. 
 
 How thoroughly the Reed Rules cripple the fili- 
 buster was demonstrated when John Sharp Williams, of 
 Mississippi, boldly proposed (1908) blocking all legisla- 
 
 1 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 91. 
 
 2 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 4660. See also chap, ix, p. 174. 
 
208 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 tion until the House should pass certain specified bills. 
 Other minority leaders had tried their hand. James D. 
 Richardson, of Tennessee, sat patiently through two 
 Congresses, but failed to score. Joseph W. Bailey, of 
 Texas, did no better. No one questioned Bailey's pre- 
 eminent ability. In the higher qualifications of a de- 
 bater, as in those gifts of lucid exposition, of which he 
 was a master, he had few equals in the House. Even in 
 his errors there was something dashing and captivating; 
 and although his language occasionally betrayed dis- 
 trust, he left the impression that his strength was suf- 
 ficient. Perhaps his chief fault was that he was too 
 strong for those around him. Yet whenever he tried to 
 buck the Reed Rules, he discovered the House was 
 harnessed. 
 
 Williams did not expect to breach them. He sought 
 to create a campaign issue, and he hoped, by maintain- 
 ing an all-summer's deadlock, to arouse national atten- 
 tion and interest. Conditions seemed propitious. He 
 had a minority of more than one third, a body of sym- 
 pathetic lieutenants, and a troop of followers who kept 
 their places with a quiet determination to forego sleep 
 and society. Besides, he had at his side John J. Fitz- 
 gerald, of New York, a most skilled parliamentarian. 
 Although sometimes unamiable and unconciliatory, the 
 House liked Williams. He was quite incapable of bluster 
 or violence. His broad sense of humor carried with it 
 a sense of proportion; his mellow voice, tinged with 
 a peculiarly pleasing Southern accent, filled the large 
 chamber; his language seldom gave offense; and when 
 off duty his good nature bubbled over. The circle of his 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 209 
 
 warmest friends included the Speaker. It was "Joe" 
 and "John." Observers noted, too, that in partisan 
 encounters, when the eye sparkled, retorts rankled, and 
 the firm mouth-muscles moved slowly, an occasional 
 smile dissipated the thought that superheated zeal had 
 buried friendship. 
 
 Williams relied upon roll-calls. The Chair might de- 
 clare motions dilatory, but under the Constitution one 
 fifth of the members could demand the yeas and nays 
 upon every division. Reed invoked this constitutional 
 privilege when he forced Speaker Crisp to count a 
 quorum, and in order to obtain the greatest number of 
 divisions, Williams waylaid general appropriation bills 
 on their return from the Senate freighted with amend- 
 ments. Under the usual procedure of the House these 
 offered unlimited demands for roll-calls, ten or twelve 
 of which exhaust an ordinary legislative day. More- 
 over, they make a most tedious day. After voting a 
 member may retire to the cloak-room, but not to other 
 work. He simply exists until another roll-call. Before 
 the adoption of the Reed Rules from two to eight days 
 were often thus employed. When Williams disclosed his 
 purpose, however, the Committee on Rules exploited 
 its resourcefulness. It enabled the question to be put: 
 " Will the House disagree with the Senate amendments 
 en bloc and request a conference?" This required only 
 one division or roll-call. It declared the motion for a 
 recess privileged. This made the legislative day contin- 
 uous, thus obviating the daily approval of the Journal. 
 It conferred authority upon the Speaker to declare 
 the House in Committee of the Whole, and upon the 
 
210 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 chairman of the Committee of the Whole the right to 
 declare it in recess. It also made every day a "suspen- 
 sion day," and provided for the suspension of the rules 
 by a majority vote. In other words, the House tempo- 
 rarily substituted a new procedure of clever parliamen- 
 tary devices, which gave the Speaker the initiative and 
 left little opportunity for roll-calls. Indeed, instead of 
 delaying business Williams practically expedited it. 
 
 Although the House approved the dispatch of busi- 
 ness under the Reed Rules, the increasing domination 
 of the Committee on Rules made trouble. In presenting 
 special orders it not infrequently, when it seemed quite 
 unnecessary, moved the previous question, thus limit- 
 ing debate to forty minutes. Members complained of 
 being neither consulted nor informed. An apparent ten- 
 dency to avoid the consideration of unprivileged bills on 
 the House and Union calendars, by interposing special 
 orders, also occasioned complaint. It necessitated bar- 
 tering with the Speaker for recognition to secure unani- 
 mous consent, a proceeding always embarrassing and 
 often humiliating. More subtle, yet no less disturbing, 
 was the feeling, created by the tyranny of alleged party 
 necessity, that one must support whatever the Rules 
 Committee brought forward or become irregular. In 
 fact, nothing better illustrates the extraordinary power 
 that the desire to be regular wields in the House than 
 the dumb fidelity with which the great majority of 
 members yield to this shibboleth. Yet members who 
 voluntarily fall into line often resent it. It seems to 
 reduce them to pawns, while knights play the game. 
 
 Before Speaker Carlisle retired, propositions appeared 
 
RULES AND COMMITTEE ON RULES 211 
 
 to enlarge the Rules Committee and make it more rep- 
 resentative. 1 Other resolutions during Crisp's adminis- 
 tration suggested seven, nine, and fifteen members, 
 while the more radical proposed that its membership 
 include all the chairmen of other standing committees. 
 One member thought each State should be represented 
 upon it, 2 But these propositions fell by the wayside. 
 Finally, in the Sixty-first Congress, several members of 
 the majority party, known as "Insurgents," charged 
 that the House had degenerated into an assembly serv- 
 ing no other purpose than to register the arbitrary 
 edicts of a too powerful Committee on Rules. They 
 were profoundly in earnest. Indeed, it seemed certain 
 that their union with the minority would result in an 
 enlargement of the Committee with the Speaker left 
 out, and to avoid the trap, Republicans made allies of 
 several Democrats by adopting amendments providing 
 (1) that on Wednesdays the call of committees should 
 not be interrupted unless by a two thirds vote of those 
 present; (2) that on the passage of a bill, after the pre- 
 vious question is ordered and a motion to recommit 
 is in order, the Speaker shall recognize for such motion 
 a member who is in good faith opposed to the bill; and 
 (3) that a calendar for unanimous consents be created. 3 
 These provisions ended trafficking with the Speaker, 
 satisfied the minority, and opened a way for unprivileged 
 bills. In fact, the reforms proved so beneficial that all 
 parties exhibited a disposition to be satisfied, and the 
 
 1 50th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 124. 
 
 2 53d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 73, 1042, 1077, 1084. 
 8 61st Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 23-32. 
 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Republican division might possibly have been healed 
 had legislative leaders acknowledged that diversity of 
 opinion within a party must be quickly recognized, and 
 that unity of action depends largely upon conciliatory 
 tactics. 
 
 In this instance, however, apparent if not studied in- 
 attention fanned the smouldering embers, until, at last, 
 after weeks of watching, the Insurgents caught the 
 Republicans without a majority. Quickly combining 
 with the Democrats they forced the election of a new 
 Committee on Rules composed of ten members without 
 the Speaker. 1 A parliamentary genius never planned a 
 more successful coup d '6tat. It rivaled Reed's discovery 
 of Speaker Crisp's helplessness. 2 In the language of 
 Disraeli, descriptive of Sir Robert Peel's master-stroke, 
 the Insurgents caught the Republicans bathing and 
 walked away with their clothes. It was a savage re- 
 venge. It not only deeply humiliated a proud party 
 that had controlled the House continuously for fourteen 
 consecutive years, but it implied a censure of all who 
 had hitherto failed to voice such a change. Yet, in 
 reorganizing the new Committee on Rules under the 
 elective system, all the old members except the Speaker 
 were not only retained, but John Dalzell, of Pennsyl- 
 vania, who had served continuously as a potent influ- 
 ence on the committee under Speakers Reed, Hender- 
 son, and Cannon, was elected chairman. It added to 
 the compliment that the Insurgents themselves voted 
 for him. 
 
 1 61st Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 3305. 
 Chap, ix, p. 172. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 
 
 IT frequently happens that a new member, seeking 
 unanimous consent, is suddenly stopped by a loud, 
 sharp cry of "Regular order!'* If he insists that recog- 
 nition entitles him to the floor, the Speaker blandly 
 replies that the demand for the regular order, being 
 equivalent to an objection, deprives him of that right. 
 Thereupon he scowls at the discourteous objector, in- 
 wardly resolves to be avenged, and helplessly sits down, 
 inquiring of his seat mate what the "regular order" is. 
 "Anything that is in order," he is told. "But what is 
 in order?" he insists. His informant does not know. 
 Only the Speaker and a few watchful parliamentarians 
 keep run of it. It may be a question of privilege, or a 
 conference report, or a bill on which the previous ques- 
 tion was ordered the day before, or a special order, or 
 a privileged bill, or any one of half a dozen other mat- 
 ters. If it be none of these, it is the regular "order of 
 business," which changes from Congress to Congress as 
 new conditions make new rules necessary. 
 
 The House always opens the proceedings with prayer, 
 followed by the reading and approval of the Journal. 
 Originally no further need existed for an "order of 
 business." Members presented petitions, made long 
 speeches, and submitted committee reports whenever 
 the Speaker granted recognition. But precedent gradu- 
 
214 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ally established an order. Thus the custom of present- 
 ing petitions in the first or "morning hour" became so 
 deeply rooted that in 1809 Speaker Varnum ruled a 
 resolution out of order when offered in that time. As 
 early as 1794 the business left unfinished at the preced- 
 ing adjournment had preference. In 1810 the consid- 
 eration of private bills, which personally concern the 
 political welfare of members, became the regular order 
 for each Friday. 
 
 In 1811 the rules provided this order of business: 
 (1) Prayer; (2) reading and approval of the Journal; 
 (3) presentation of petitions; (4) reports from commit- 
 tees; (5) unfinished business; and (6) consideration of 
 reports assigned to a future day, known as "orders of 
 the day." The rapid increase of routine legislation, 
 however, kept parliamentarians busy inventing new 
 devices for the advancement of important measures. 
 The practice of mortgaging the future with "orders of 
 the day" became so unwieldy that the House cut off 
 debate respecting the priority of such business and gave 
 precedence to "special orders of the day." Subsequently 
 it limited (1822) petitions and reports to a "morning 
 hour" of sixty minutes, required a two thirds vote to 
 suspend the rules, gave up Saturdays as well as Fridays 
 to the consideration of private bills, and fixed a definite 
 time for disposing of business "on the Speaker's table" 
 a parliamentary term indicating the temporary 
 abode of certain messages from the President, commun- 
 ications from heads of departments, bills with Senate 
 amendments, conference reports, and other matters 
 which await the Speaker's presentation to the House. 
 
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 215 
 
 Meantime petitions became a real menace to the dis- 
 patch of business. As the country prospered the de- 
 mands of the Revolutionary soldier multiplied. "Thirty 
 years ago," wrote Adams, "Uriah Tracy used to say 
 that the old soldiers never died. Had Uriah lived to 
 this time [1834] he would have seen them multiply. As 
 petitioners they are more numerous at every session of 
 Congress, and of late, as some of them have died, their 
 widows have begun to petition; and this day there 
 came a petition from the son of a deceased pensioner 
 praying that the pension may be continued to him." 1 
 In its early practice the House read all petitions pre- 
 sented, and whenever it failed to act tradition and senti- 
 ment raised the cry that the constitutional right of 
 petition was impaired. To add to the confusion the 
 postponement of "orders of the day" became so com- 
 mon that Henry R. Storrs, of New York, facetiously 
 complained that "we continue to make orders of the 
 day for to-morrow while to-morrow never comes." 2 To 
 relieve the embarrassment the House restricted peti- 
 tions to each Monday, and gave "the morning hour" 
 to reports, resolutions, and motions; but the advent of 
 John Quincy Adams and his numerous petitions pray- 
 ing for the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum- 
 bia fomented increasing trouble and much bitterness. 
 Adams declared it a "fundamental principle that the 
 House had no right to take away or abridge the con- 
 stitutional right of petition." Nevertheless, the House, 
 under the famous order known as "Rule 21, " continued 
 to consign such petitions to the table without reading. 
 1 Diary, vol. ix, p. 1584. 8 21st Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, p. 720. 
 
216 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Finally, at the suggestion of Adams himself, it provided 
 (1844) that every petition be handed to the clerk to 
 list and file, if not excluded under the rule. 
 
 This arrangement was supplemented from time to 
 time by other parliamentary devices for saving time 
 and expediting business. The simplest of these took the 
 form of unanimous consents. A higher privilege, first 
 conferred on the Committee on Enrolled Bills, granted 
 the right to report at any time, a royal gift jealously 
 guarded, but which is now the prerogative of seventeen 
 committees. The special order appeared in 1832. It 
 was superior to the privilege of reporting at any time 
 because it modified rules governing adjournments, the 
 previous question, and other motions, but its adoption 
 by a two thirds vote, if objection be made, limited its 
 usefulness until Reed forced its passage (1883) by a 
 majority vote. About the time the special order ap- 
 peared, the question of privilege, especially when in- 
 volving the rights of members, assumed importance, and 
 although not then so fully developed as in later years, 
 it took precedence over other business. Revenue and 
 appropriation bills became intermittently privileged 
 after 1837, and in 1850 the Speaker held conference re- 
 ports in order at any time. Setting apart certain days of 
 the week for the consideration of specified legislation also 
 rooted itself early in the House procedure. As already 
 stated, the practice of confining private business to Fri- 
 days began in 1810. In 1847 the House limited motions 
 to suspend the rules to each Monday, and in 1870 as- 
 signed District of Columbia matters to the third Friday 
 of each month. Subsequent changes confined suspen- 
 
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 217 
 
 sion of the rules to the first and third Mondays (1880) 
 and District legislation to the second (1885) and fourth 
 (1890) Mondays. In 1909 Wednesday of each week was 
 given up to bills on the House and Union calendars. 
 
 But the flood of routine work kept rising. No sooner 
 had petitions been relegated to the files without action 
 by the House (1844) than members clamored for more 
 time for the introduction of bills. At first bills were not 
 numerous. The modern habit of using them to advertise 
 a member's activity did not then obsess the legislative 
 mind. To the House a bill was an inchoate law, to be 
 treated with much deliberation, and its reference to the 
 Committee of the Whole generally proved fatal. "It 
 is to-morrow and to-morrow and to-morrow," wrote 
 Adams, "for bills thus referred must be taken up in 
 the order of their commitment and many are never 
 reached." l This complaint sounded the sentiment of a 
 House bound to its ideals. But when the fact developed 
 that a bill introduced, though not passed, benefited the 
 member, since it evidenced a disposition to serve his 
 constituents, the House (1860) set apart each alternate 
 Monday for their introduction and ordered them re- 
 ferred without debate. This radical change, encourag- 
 ing members to present bills on all possible subjects, 
 created such a Monday rush that it increased their 
 number nearly twenty-fold in twenty years, and nul- 
 lified all notices of intention and requests for leave. 2 
 
 1 Diary, vol. ix, p. 113. 
 
 2 Bills introduced in each Congress between 1860 and 1870 increased 
 from 400 to 4000; 1870 to 1880, from 4000 to 7000; 1880 to 1890, from 
 7000 to 10,000; 1890 to 1900, from 10,000 to 17,000. During the sec- 
 ond session of the 62d Congress over 26,000 were introduced. 
 
218 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Indeed, so quickly did the House, in its desire to save 
 time, forget its own rules that in 1879, when a member 
 insisted upon one day's notice, Speaker Randall over- 
 ruled the point of order, declaring that in many years 
 of service he had never before heard the question 
 raised. 1 
 
 A more aggravating clog to the dispatch of business 
 grew out of the practice of referring all committee re- 
 ports involving private or public money bills to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole House or to the Committee of the 
 Whole House on the State of the Union, and of consider- 
 big public bills not carrying appropriations whenever 
 reported. This unfortunate arrangement, which often 
 delayed important measures, led to the creation of a pri- 
 vate calendar (1839) for reports on private bills, and of 
 a Union calendar (1845) for reports on public bills carry- 
 ing appropriations. The relief proved more apparent 
 than real, however, since other public bills which con- 
 tinued to be considered when reported, often blocked 
 the way by provoking prolonged debate, not infre- 
 quently for obstructive purposes, and to abate the abuse 
 the House (1880) created a House calendar to which 
 such reports were referred without debate. Ten years 
 later Speaker Reed forced the rule providing that all 
 bills and reports be filed with the clerk and referred to 
 their proper calendars. To avoid mistakes members 
 were privileged to move the correction of improper refer- 
 ences immediately after the approval of the Journal. 
 Thus, during the first century of its existence the House 
 gradually eliminated from its floor work the presentation 
 1 46th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 425. 
 
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 219 
 
 of petitions, the introduction of bills, and the submission 
 of reports a burden which had taxed its patience, con- 
 sumed its time, and impeded its business. 
 
 Meantime, the pressure of legislation compelled other 
 and frequent changes in the order of business. To reach 
 "unfinished business" and "the Speaker's table "earlier 
 in the day, the "morning hour" for the consideration of 
 bills was dropped below them. This made it impossible 
 to move bills on the House calendar, which became 
 known as a "legislative graveyard," and to make it ac- 
 cessible Speaker Carlisle (1885) established a second 
 "morning hour" to follow the first, with the provision 
 that a bill should be displaced if not disposed of in 
 two successive hours. It resulted, of course, in disaster, 
 since the opponents of a bill had only to prolong debate to 
 displace it. To remedy this clever parliamentary trick, 
 business on "the Speaker's table" was again dropped 
 below the "morning hour." Immediately requests mul- 
 tiplied for unanimous consents to secure the reference of 
 Senate bills on "the Speaker's table," so that the addi- 
 tional time intended for consideration of bills was prac- 
 tically lost by these time-wasting motions. Thus, in 
 getting out of one trouble, the Speaker plunged the 
 House into another. Carlisle had a velvet glove; he 
 needed an iron hand. 
 
 It is interesting to note the course of "unfinished 
 business" in the patchwork changes of half a century. 
 Originally it preceded "orders of the day," and to save 
 its high privilege the House consolidated it with "the 
 Speaker's table." But a future adjustment (1852) 
 dropped it below "the morning hour," so that its busi- 
 
220 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ness was rarely reached except by unanimous consent. 
 Israel Washburn, of Maine, the most enlightened parlia- 
 mentarian of his day, pronounced this arrangement " in- 
 tolerable," and in the revision of 1860 he separated it 
 from "the Speaker's table," placing it immediately after 
 the approval of the Journal. This sacrificed "the morn- 
 ing hour," and to quiet the growing discontent Speaker 
 Randall (1880) restored the latter to its original place. 
 When Carlisle created (1885) a second "morning hour," 
 as stated above, he preferred it to "unfinished business," 
 which again made the latter inaccessible. 
 
 In 1890 Speaker Reed made an end of such tinkering. 
 He had observed the futility of trying to put four pints 
 into a quart by rearranging the mixture, and in formulat- 
 ing the Reed Rules the great reformer of parliamentary 
 methods applied his genius to a solution of this difficult 
 problem. It could not be done in a week or a month, and 
 while he worked the House waited somewhat impa- 
 tiently. But during this interval of suspense, cross-pur- 
 poses, and innuendoes, a better system was perfected, 
 original in its conception, satisfactory in its practice, 
 and destined to survive new conditions arising from in- 
 creased business and a larger membership. As elsewhere 
 stated, he first provided that all bills, resolutions, and 
 committee reports be filed with the clerk; that the 
 Speaker refer all public bills to their respective com- 
 mittees; and that members be allowed to correct such 
 references immediately after the approval of the Jour- 
 nal a privilege which rarely engages the attention of 
 the House. With a full understanding of its impor* 
 tance he also authorized the Speaker to dispose of busi* 
 
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 221 
 
 ness "on the Speaker's table" without action by the 
 House, except on House bills with Senate amendments, 
 which usually go to conference without debate. This 
 wiped out that trouble-breeder. In like manner he min- 
 imized "unfinished business" by limiting its jurisdiction 
 to business transacted by the House in its general leg- 
 islative time as distinguished from business transacted 
 in special periods. That is to say, if a bill, taken up under 
 the "order of business" by a motion to go into Com- 
 mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
 is left unfinished at an adjournment, it comes up again 
 only when "unfinished business" in the "order of busi- 
 ness" is again reached, while business left unfinished in 
 the "morning hour" or on a fixed day of the week goes 
 over until the succeeding morning hour or fixed day. 
 This ingenious device needed no pedestal to advertise 
 it as a master-stroke. 
 
 Reed was not less happy in his "morning hour for the 
 call of committees," which followed "unfinished busi- 
 ness," for by making the length of the hour indefinite he 
 enabled the House to consider all measures called up, or, 
 if so disposed at the end of sixty minutes, to pass from 
 bills on the House calendar into Committee of the Whole 
 House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
 bills on the Union calendar. The elasticity of this ar- 
 rangement, making it responsive to the mood of the 
 House, gave a majority perfect freedom to keep at work 
 as long as it desired, undisturbed by obstructive tactics. 
 Indeed, the right to pass from one calendar to another 
 and from the House to the Committee of the Whole 
 became the brightest star in Reed's "order of busi- 
 
222 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ness," which has operated with entire satisfaction and 
 without material change for the past quarter of a 
 century. 1 
 
 To one unskilled in parliamentary procedure based on 
 the House rules, the application of these expedients is 
 confusing, for the "order of business" may be inter- 
 rupted by questions of privilege, privileged bills, con- 
 ference reports, special orders, measures vetoed by the 
 President, and bills coming from a prior day with the 
 previous question. Hence, when the cry of "Regular 
 order" is heard, it is not easy to determine quickly what 
 is in order. But the Chair, like a train-dispatcher, is 
 presumed to know what has the right of way. Indeed, 
 the running of trains on a single-track railroad may be 
 likened to the passage of measures through the House. 
 The freight gives way to a local passenger train, which 
 sidetracks for an express, which in turn sidetracks for the 
 limited, while all usually keep out of the way of a relief 
 train. Meantime, when a train having the right of way 
 passes, the delayed ones begin to move until again 
 obliged to sidetrack. In like manner the "order of busi- 
 ness " gives way to business fixed for Mondays, Wed- 
 nesdays, and Fridays, which in turn may be sidetracked 
 for privileged bills, conference reports, and special or- 
 
 1 The following is Speaker Reed's "order of business" adopted in 
 1890: (1) Prayer by the chaplain; (2) reading and approval of the 
 Journal; (3) correction of reference of public bills; (4) disposal of busi- 
 ness on the Speaker's table; (5) unfinished business; (6) the morning 
 hour for the consideration of bills called up by committees; (7) motions 
 to go into Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union; 
 (8) orders of the day. (Rule xxrv, sec. 1.) Although mentioned in 
 the order of business, "orders of the day" became obsolete many 
 years before. 
 
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 223 
 
 ders, while a question of privilege generally takes pre- 
 cedence of all other business. 
 
 Nevertheless, the House is not a slave to its own 
 orders. Although certain committees have the right to 
 report at any time, which carries the privilege of imme- 
 diate consideration, any member may demand, before 
 debate begins, that the question of consideration be first 
 put. This cannot be required upon a bill brought up by 
 unanimous consent or by a special order providing for its 
 immediate consideration, for the House has already con- 
 sented. But it may be raised against any other business, 
 although it possesses the high privilege of a conference 
 report or the right of a member to his seat. A refusal 
 to consider, however, simply postpones the measure to 
 another day. Hence, when conference reports or privi- 
 leged bills or special orders to be carried out on a future 
 day are presented, the House, if it prefers to proceed 
 with other business, declines their consideration. This 
 was the practice as early as 1808, Speaker Varnum 
 declaring the question not debatable. John Randolph 
 spoke of it tartly as "an engine of oppression in the 
 hands of a majority," but Henry Clay thought the right 
 of one or two members to compel a deliberative body to 
 consider a proposition which it is disinclined to take up 
 "can be maintained only by reversing the rule that a 
 plurality is to govern, and would, as to that particular 
 subject, make the mover and his second superior to 
 the whole body." l After twice refusing to abandon the 
 practice, the House denied its use unless demanded by 
 some member or deemed necessary by the Speaker. 2 
 
 1 12th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 1472 (footnote). 
 
 2 15th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 445. 
 
224 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 The revision of the rules in 1880 limited it to the demand 
 of a member only. 1 
 
 Under the present (1915) rules of the House two 
 Mondays of each month are assigned to the considera- 
 tion of business relating to the District of Columbia and 
 alternately two other Mondays to the consideration of 
 motions for unanimous consent, for suspension of the 
 rules, and for motions to discharge committees. On 
 Wednesday of each week (known as "Calendar Wed- 
 nesday") no business is in order except bills already 
 reported and on the House or Union calendar, unless 
 such business be dispensed with by a two thirds vote. 
 The necessity for such vote cannot be avoided even in 
 favor of an appropriation bill; nor can it be avoided by 
 a report from the Committee on Rules. So zealously 
 have the prerogatives of this day been observed that it 
 has come to be spoken of as "Holy Wednesday." On 
 Friday of each week business on the private calendar 
 has the preference. On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and 
 Saturdays the regular order is the consideration of bills 
 reported by committees and of bills on the House and 
 Union calendars. This order of business is liable to be 
 interfered with by the interjection of privileged matters, 
 such as revenue or appropriation bills, conference re- 
 ports, and the like, or by a report from the Committee 
 on Rules. Prior to the adoption of the unanimous con- 
 sent rule, recognitions were in order at the will of the 
 Speaker. Consideration of business by unanimous con- 
 sent can now be had only when the unanimous consent 
 calendar is in order. 
 
 1 Rule xvi, sec. 3. 
 
THE ORDER OF BUSINESS 225 
 
 Business in which the House is engaged in its general 
 legislative time as distinguished from the special periods 
 set aside for classes of business, remaining unfinished at 
 adjournment, is in order the next day; while unfinished 
 classified business is in order to be resumed whenever 
 the class of business to which it belongs is in order under 
 the rules. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 
 
 COMMITTEES report or reject whatever is properly re- ' 
 ferred to them under the rules of the House. Originally 
 the select committee was the only organ for collecting 
 information, for sifting evidence, or for considering bills 
 and other legislative matters. At present, however, it 
 is used for purposes of ceremony, or to consider special 
 matters about which the House wishes to institute in- 
 quiries. It consists of three or more members, is often^ 
 endowed with power to send for persons and papers, and 
 upon making a final report it ceases to exist, unless new 
 matter is referred to it in open House. 
 
 A joint select committee, composed of senators and 
 House members, is usually created by a simple resolu- 
 tion, has a fixed or limited jurisdiction, and expires with 
 the session, although it may be continued by a vote of 
 the two bodies. The Speaker appoints the House mem- 
 bers, but the first-named senator acts as chairman. 
 Unlike a conference committee it votes per capita, and 
 a quorum is a majority of the whole number. It may be 
 instructed by both Houses acting concurrently, or by 
 either House acting independently, and it may report 
 to both or either according to its instructions. Thus the 
 historic Joint Select Committee on the Conduct of the 
 Civil War, being directed by the Senate in 1862 to in- 
 vestigate the treatment of dead soldiers at Manassas, 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 227 
 
 reported only to the Senate. The advantages of this com- 
 mittee were especially disclosed during the Civil War, 
 in the evolution of the Reconstruction policy, and in the 
 settlement of the electoral count of 1857, growing out of 
 Wisconsin's failure to cast its vote on the day prescribed 
 by law. 
 
 A joint standing committee is ordinarily created by 
 statute. Its procedure resembles that of the joint select 
 committee and its use is confined to regulating inter- 
 course between the two bodies. This committee is con- 
 tinuous, although its powers, during the recess after the 
 expiration of a Congress, reside with the Senate portion. 
 At present there are four such committees, namely, 
 Printing, Enrolled Bills, the Congressional Library, and 
 the Disposition of Useless Executive Papers. 
 
 A conference committee is practically two distinct 
 committees. The number of senators may exceed the 
 House members, or vice versa, but the difference is im- 
 material, since each acts by its own majority. It is 
 created whenever the two Houses disagree upon any 
 pending legislation, and expires upon the accomplish- 
 ment or failure of its purpose. In the earlier practice 
 the Speaker, ignoring majority and minority divisions, 
 appointed members specially fitted to exploit the atti- 
 tude of the House, and if one set failed another was 
 named. But under the modern practice members are 
 selected from the committee or subcommittee which re- 
 ports the bill, usually the chairman and next mem- 
 ber in rank, with the ranking minority member, who 
 continue to act to the end. Indeed, so uniform is this 
 custom that it created much comment and some feeling 
 
228 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 when Speaker Cannon, in appointing managers for the 
 tariff bill of 1909, preferred a member of the committee 
 over one of his colleagues who outranked him. 
 
 In the early history of the House the select committee, 
 as already stated, was used exclusively for the considera- 
 tion of bills, resolutions, and other legislative matters. 
 As business increased and kindred subjects became 
 scattered, however, a tendency to concentrate inau- 
 gurated a system of standing committees. It rooted it- 
 self slowly. There was an evident distrust of the cen- 
 tralizing influence of permanent bodies. Besides, it took 
 important business from the many and gave it to a few, 
 one standing committee of three or five members often 
 taking the place of half a dozen select committees. But 
 long before the middle of the last century, the standing 
 committee, supplanting its rival, had become the most 
 important organ of the House. It is "the eye, the ear, 
 the hand, and very often the brain of the House," says 
 Thomas B. Reed. "Freed from the very great incon- 
 venience of numbers, it can study a question, obtain full 
 information, and put the proposed legislation into shape 
 for final action." l 
 
 The membership of a standing committee is fixed by 
 rule, varying from five to twenty-two, depending largely 
 upon the membership of the House. For a century the 
 average did not exceed eight. In the present Congress 
 (1915) it is fourteen. Majority and minority representa- 
 tion often varies with each Congress. The proportion is 
 not infrequently nine to seven, or ten to eight, or eleven 
 to nine. If the minority party be numerically small it is 
 1 Parliamentary Rules, p. 59. 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 229 
 
 sometimes fixed at two thirds to one third. Such dis- 
 proportion, even if technically justified, is unfortunate, 
 for it is likely to minimize, if it does not absolutely de- 
 stroy, the wholesome influence of a vigilant opposition. 
 
 In selecting a standing committee custom favors the 
 retention of its oldest members, thus creating a corps of 
 legislative experts, who quickly detect the weak spots 
 in a bill or the duplication of some provision previously 
 reported or rejected. The member first named formerly 
 became chairman. If he resigned the committee elected 
 a successor, but if he died the Speaker appointed. Under 
 the present rule (1915) a committee elects its chairman, 
 and if a vacancy occurs by death or resignation the 
 House elects. Whatever the form of selection, however, 
 seniority usually governs. Thus, it requires many years 
 of faithful service before one becomes the chairman of a 
 great committee, while the chances are that when the 
 goal is reached the home district changes its representa- 
 tive or the majority passes to the opposite party. For 
 this reason less than seventy-five chairmen out of four- 
 teen hundred have served to exceed two terms each, the 
 great majority being limited to one term. Nevertheless, 
 the record shows notable service, fourteen chairmen 
 having served four terms each, six for five terms, two for 
 six terms, and one for ten terms. 1 
 
 In collecting information a committee usually hears 
 cabinet officials and other experts. Although its hear- 
 ings are not town meetings " where anybody is at liberty 
 to attend and express his views," 2 it listens to any one 
 
 1 Thomas Newton, of Virginia. 
 
 2 A. Lawrence Lowell, The Government of England, vol. I, p. 268. 
 
230 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 who possesses the knowledge it seeks. Such hearings are 
 open. Other sessions are executive and closed, the rules 
 forbidding a disclosure of the proceedings upon the floor 
 of the House except as to matters formally reported. 
 Yet information is never stifled. The press usually 
 obtains it whenever the committee door opens. As 
 elsewhere stated, only a majority of a quorum can au- 
 thorize a report. Strictly speaking, a minority report is 
 unknown to the House procedure, but the minority at- 
 tains the same object by submitting its views, which are 
 printed with the report. If a bill is unreported for fifteen 
 days any member of the House may file with the clerk a 
 motion in writing to discharge the committee from its 
 further consideration. This motion is then placed on a 
 calendar of such motions and must await a time for its 
 consideration under the rules. 
 
 The right to report at any time distinguishes the more 
 important standing committees. This very high privi- 
 lege, which carries with it the right of present considera- 
 tion, is sparingly bestowed. It was early extended to the 
 Committees on Enrolled Bills and Elections, because 
 their reports involved bills already passed and seats of 
 members still in doubt. Afterward the Committee on 
 Printing was similarly favored. But the House, seeming 
 to distrust the gift of such an extraordinary right, with- 
 held it for three quarters of a century from the great 
 Committee on Ways and Means, except for brief periods 
 in 1850 and 1851. Subsequently the several appropria- 
 tion committees received the privilege, and in 1885 the 
 House extended it to Public Lands. Five years later 
 Territories, Invalid Pensions, and Rules were likewise 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 231 
 
 favored, although usage had long accorded it to the last. 
 But the right is still jealously guarded. Even the Ju- 
 diciary Committee, which Daniel Webster headed and 
 upon which every lawyer deems it a great honor to serve, 
 remains unprivileged. In exercising this high preroga- 
 tive committees may not include matters not specified 
 in the rule or construe it too broadly. Thus, the words 
 "raising revenue," for illustration, do not cover bills 
 providing for a tariff commission, or the phrase "print- 
 ing for Congress" include work done for executive 
 departments. It is likewise held that the insertion of 
 unprivileged matter, unless essential to the accom- 
 plishment of what is privileged, destroys all privilege. 
 *~ The creation of standing committees may be said to 
 mark with historic accuracy the growth of the Republic. 
 In the first decade the House established only four of 
 this class. 1 But the new century, with its important 
 innovations, wrought a great change in the legislative 
 mind. Ways and Means demanded men of experience 
 as well as of capacity, and in 1802 the House promoted 
 it from a select to a standing committee. The Louisiana 
 Purchase in 1803 made necessary a Committee on Public 
 Lands, while a growing capital and a more rapidly grow- 
 ing mail service required (1808) Committees on the 
 District of Columbia and on Post-Offices and Post- 
 Roads. 
 
 Very soon the need of additional courts and legisla- 
 tion "touching judicial proceedings" demanded a Com- 
 mittee on the Judiciary (1813). The War of 1812 made 
 
 1 The Committees on Elections, Claims, Enrolled Bills, and Com- 
 merce and Manufactures. 
 
232 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Pensions and War Claims permament and a Committee 
 on Public Expenditure necessary. Near the close of 
 Madison's Administration (1816), the House, in response 
 to the clamor for "a house-cleaning," established six 
 committees to supervise the expenditures of the exec- 
 utive departments. On motion of Lewis Williams, of 
 North Carolina, the veteran farmer-member, a Com- 
 mittee on Agriculture had its birth in 1820. Two years 
 later the affairs of the army and navy, which had en- 
 grossed the attention of numerous select committees, 
 were committed to standing committees on Military 
 Affairs and Naval Affairs. In the same year a Com- 
 mittee on Foreign Affairs took charge of the relations 
 of the United States with foreign nations. The rush of 
 settlers into the great West necessitated the creation of 
 Committees on Indian Affairs and on Territories (1825). 
 An elaborate system of internal improvements justified 
 the establishment in 1831 of a Committee on Roads 
 and Canals. Then came Committees on Public Build- 
 ings and Grounds (1837), Patents (1837), Printing 
 (1846), and Coinage, Weights, and Measures (1864). 
 
 The close of the Civil War marked a new era in their 
 creation. A Committee on Education, which had for- 
 merly provoked angry opposition, found admittance in 
 1867 to the sisterhood of standing committees, while in- 
 dustries, internal improvements, and social affairs re- 
 ceived recognition. From 1865 to 1893 the creation of 
 eleven committees exploited rivers and harbors, labor, 
 mining, irrigation, ventilation, immigration, reform in 
 the civil service, and the liquor traffic. After the 
 Spanish- American War came the establishment of Com- 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 233 
 
 mittees on Insular Affairs and Industrial Arts. Several 
 of these committees seemed to exist for no other purpose 
 than to furnish rooms for their chairmen a highly 
 prized perquisite in the absence of an office building. 
 But after its erection (1909) the House dropped the 
 Committees on Ventilation and Acoustics, Militia, Man- 
 ufactures, Private Land Claims, Pacific Railroads, and 
 Levee Improvements, leaving a total of fifty-five. 
 
 But if making and dropping committees caused lit- 
 tle complaint their division encountered great opposi- 
 tion. The separation of Manufactures and Commerce 
 precipitated a contest between free trade and protec- 
 tion. The purpose of the former was to foster infant 
 industries, but none of the twenty-two revenue bills 
 reported by Ways and Means between 1794 and 1816 
 benefited the manufacturer. For this reason the ad- 
 vocates of protection began an active propaganda to 
 separate Commerce from Manufactures for the purpose 
 of having all tariff matters referred to the latter, and to 
 the surprise of free-traders the House, in 1819, made the 
 division. Thereupon Speaker Clay packed the Com- 
 mittee on Manufactures with the friends of protection. 
 Thus it became the great rival of Ways and Means, re- 
 porting the historic revenue bill of 1824, the famous 
 Woolens Bill of 1827, the so-called "Tariff of Abomina- 
 tions" in 1828, the Mallory Bill of 1830, and the Adams 
 Bill of 1832. But after Clay's compromise measure of 
 1833 its influence began to wane, and although it reported 
 on wool duties as late as 1864, it had years before lost its 
 place among forceful committees. 
 
 The division of Ways and Means also revealed the in- 
 
234 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 disposition of committees to surrender any of their pre- 
 rogatives. This great Committee inherited its absolute 
 control of receipts and expenses from its prototype in 
 the British Commons, and no one possessed the temer- 
 ity to suggest divorcing such closely related subjects 
 until increasing and varied needs multiplied supply bills. 
 At the outset a single annual appropriation bill met all 
 wants. But in 1823 a separate bill for fortifications ap- 
 peared. Then came bills for pensions (1826), rivers and 
 harbors (1828), post-offices and post-roads (1844), de- 
 ficiencies (1844), consular and diplomatic service (1856), 
 and finally, in 1857, for legislative, executive, and judi- 
 cial expenses. Moreover, the habit of burdening Ways 
 and Means with whatever pertained to the finances 
 swelled its jurisdiction until it not only included revenue 
 measures and appropriation bills, but the control of the 
 war debt, the supervision of banking and currency, and 
 the direction of coinage, weights, and measures. It 
 seemed like an Atlas bearing upon its shoulders all the 
 business of the House. Other committees might author- 
 ize, but Ways and Means alone could appropriate. 
 Experienced members of Military and Naval Affairs 
 recommended in vain, if Ways and Means thought their 
 recommendations extravagant or unnecessary. So con- 
 tinuously did revenue and appropriation bills occupy 
 the floor that the chairman became in fact as well as 
 officially the "floor leader," ranking in influence next to 
 the Speaker. He arranged the order of business, indicated 
 hours for adjournment, and fixed the time for closing the 
 long sessions. 
 
 Members marveled that one committee of seven or nine 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 235 
 
 men should desire to do so much of the real work of the 
 House. It seemed possible to divide it, since raising and 
 spending revenue were quite distinct; but whenever the 
 suggestion of separating such kindred subjects became 
 serious, it was pronounced destructive of intelligent 
 legislation. Even after the Civil War had increased ex- 
 penses tenfold, and revenue-raising harassed the most 
 astute financiers, the plea that one committee should con- 
 trol both receipts and expenditures continued to domi- 
 nate the House. Finally, in 1865, when the inability of 
 members longer to endure the physical and mental strain 
 became apparent, the jurisdiction of Ways and Means 
 over appropriations, banking and currency, and Pacific 
 Railroads was transferred to three committees having 
 corresponding names. In submitting the resolution, 
 Samuel S. Cox, then of Ohio, declared that "powerfully 
 as the Ways and Means Committee is constituted, even 
 their powers of endurance, physical and mental, are not 
 adequate to the great duty imposed by the emergencies 
 of this historic time.'* Thaddeus Stevens, the distin- 
 guished chairman, expressed indifference. He had an 
 innate passion to dominate and a capacity almost equal 
 to his passion, but to head the new committee satisfied 
 his ambition. Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, one of the 
 kindliest of men, represented the revenue side. If Ste- 
 vens was more powerful in debate, no one rivalled-Morrill 
 in practical wisdom or prudence. He had drawn the great 
 tariff bill of 1861, bearing his name, on which every pro- 
 tective tariff has since been modeled, and although he 
 rarely replied to those who differed from him, he never 
 yielded his conclusions. So, while admitting that the 
 
236 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means might be "over- 
 worked," since "it labored day and night, week days 
 and Sundays," he thought it "indispensable" that one 
 committee "should raise and spend the revenue" in 
 order "to make both ends meet." But the House had 
 settled the question in advance, and the adoption of the 
 resolution without division made Morrill chairman of 
 Ways and Means and Stevens chairman of Appropria- 
 tions. 
 
 Twelve years later the great contest began for a divi- 
 sion of the Committee on Appropriations. At the time 
 of the Committee's creation Robert C. Schenck, of 
 Ohio, touched a popular chord when he observed that 
 committees having jurisdiction of kindred subjects 
 should control the several appropriation bills. This 
 sentiment sourced in jealousy. The Committee on Com- 
 merce, which had for years at irregular intervals formu- 
 lated river and harbor items, never ceased to resent their 
 revision by the Committee on Ways and Means and later 
 by the new Committee on Appropriations. It seemed 
 inexcusable that one committee, without additional in- 
 formation, should possess power to modify the carefully 
 studied work of another. Nevertheless, the restraint of 
 precedent proved sufficient until the control of the 
 House, for the first time in sixteen years, passed to the 
 Democrats. This brought John H. Reagan, of Texas, 
 to the front. 
 
 Reagan had left the House in 1861 to become Post- 
 master-General of the Southern Confederacy, and upon 
 his reappearance in the Forty-fourth Congress (1875) 
 Speaker Kerr assigned him to the Commiteee on Com- 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 237 
 
 merce. He was a likable man. Although obstinate, with 
 a disposition to dominate, he was not unamiable. More- 
 over, he was energetic, astute, and a forceful debater 
 clear in statement and terse in expression. His speeches 
 had no brilliant passages, no hint of elevated thought, 
 no single sentence which any one would care to repeat 
 or remember after the emergency had passed. But what 
 he said exactly served his purpose. He knew his time, 
 his opportunity, and his men. He knew, too, what was 
 necessary besides debate to get a bill through, and when 
 he reported the river and harbor allowances in 1877, in- 
 stead of referring them under the rule to the Committee 
 on Appropriations, he moved to suspend the rules and 
 pass the bill. This would avoid the dreaded pruning- 
 knife of a disinterested arbiter, and more than two 
 thirds of the House came to the support of his coup 
 d'etat. 1 A year later he successfully invoked similar 
 methods. 2 
 
 The revisers of the rules hi 1880 did not approve 
 Reagan's tactics. They invaded the system of control, 
 opened the door to extravagance, and made other com- 
 mittees envious. Accordingly the revisers recommended 
 restoring the authority of the Committee on Appropria- 
 tions to revise river and harbor allowances. A sharp 
 discussion followed. Joseph C. S. Blackburn, of Ken- 
 tucky, a fluent speaker and ready debater, argued that 
 the maintenance of a just relation between receipts and 
 expenses, and a fair division of the former among the 
 various departments, required that all appropriations 
 
 1 45th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 2359-60. 
 8 45th Cong., 2d Sess.. Record, p. 2713. 
 
238 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 be reported by one committee. James A. Garfield, a co- 
 reviser, came promptly to Blackburn's aid. Perhaps, at 
 times, when the great orator had not reached the bottom 
 of a subject himself, his statesmanship was of the willow 
 and not of the oak. But he had gone to the root of this 
 question through observation and experience, and his 
 remarks pierced the core of the matter. There never 
 was a time, he said, when a committee, having a special 
 subject in charge, did not resist a cut in its appropria- 
 tions. For this reason committees entrusted with legis- 
 lation should not report appropriations. On the other 
 hand, he added, the Committee on Appropriations be- 
 comes a fair, impartial arbiter, because it bears no 
 special relation to any department, but having a survey 
 of the whole field it reduces all appropriations to an 
 economical basis and within the limits of the public 
 revenue. 
 
 To this Reagan vigorously dissented. He insisted 
 that the Committee on Commerce, to which the river 
 and harbor bill rightfully belonged, could appropriate 
 as economically as the Committee on Appropriations, 
 and he moved that it be privileged to report directly to 
 the House for its consideration and disposition. It was 
 a bold move. It defied Speaker Randall, challenged the 
 floor leader, and attacked the most powerful committee 
 of the House. But the selfish influences that supported 
 him in the preceding Congress again rallied to his assist- 
 ance. 1 Indeed, so determined was the House to un- 
 fetter itself that it granted similar privileges to the 
 Committee on Agriculture. 2 
 
 1 46th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 1260-62. s Ibid., p. 684. 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK* 239 
 
 Tkis action fanned the flame of jealousy. If Com- 
 merce and Agriculture can report appropriations, asked 
 the then "Progressive," why not distribute other ap- 
 propriation bills to the Committees on Foreign, Mili- 
 tary, Naval, and Indian Affairs? Coupled with this 
 feeling was one of increasing discontent growing out of 
 the so-called "Holman amendment," adopted in 1875, 
 which permitted an appropriation bill to change existing 
 law, "provided it be germane to the subject-matter and 
 retrenches expenses." 1 Prior to its adoption such a 
 proposed change would be ruled out on a point of order; 
 but under the rule as amended the Committee on Appro- 
 priations had authority to decrease a salary, abolish an 
 office, or recast all legislation concerning the public 
 service not only as to the amount to be appropriated, 
 but as to the size and condition of that service. Thus it 
 invaded, if it did not practically absorb, the jurisdiction 
 of other committees controlling kindred subjects. More- 
 over, in its desire to economize the Committee occasion- 
 ally manifested a disposition to use the amendment 
 arbitrarily. As both parties had refused to repeal it, 
 however, the resentment aroused against the Com- 
 mittee proved insufficient to provoke a rebellion until 
 William R. Morrison, of Illinois, took advantage of it 
 with the hope of weakening the power of Samuel J. 
 Randall, its chairman. 
 
 Morrison was a radical tariff reforiner. More than 
 
 that, he was a bold, forceful organizer. He had served 
 
 as speaker in the Illinois legislature, had led a regiment 
 
 against Fort Donelson where he was severely wounded, 
 
 1 44th Cong., 1st Sess., Rule cxx, now Rule xxi. 
 
240 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 and after the war had entered the Forty-third Congress 
 (1873). Alert, cool-headed, and resourceful, he believed 
 every means lawful to a patriot, and when the Demo- 
 crats carried the House in 1874 he played a conspicu- 
 ous part in the selection of Speaker Kerr, who made him 
 fJTg.jrmfl.ffl of W fl y s fl^ld Mftana. Then he discovered that 
 Samuel J. Randall measured Democratic interests and 
 policies by the Pennsylvania standard, and with the 
 temerity of a dashing soldier he struck with his lance's 
 point the shield of the formidable Templar. Older 
 members heard with astonishment, and after encounter- 
 ing Randall's terse, withering sentences, which he could 
 summon to his aid with all the force of scornful invective, 
 Morrison knew he had been soundly whipped. More- 
 over, at the opening of the Forty-fifth Congress (1877) 
 Randall, then Speaker, transferred him from the head 
 of Way^jand^jMeans to the chairmanship of Public 
 Lands. Although this savage blow left a deep wound, 
 Morrison discreetly nursed his resentment. He recog- 
 nized that Randall, a born leader of men, without a peer 
 in his party, was the master, about whom clustered 
 strong, dominating men. Fernando Wood, of New York, 
 topped Ways and Means; John D. C. Atkins, of Tennes- 
 see, succeeded William S. Holman on Appropriations; 
 A. H. Buckner, of Missouri, relieved Samuel S. Cox on 
 Banking and Currency; John H. Reagan headed Inter- 
 state Commerce; and Alexander H.Stephens, of Georgia, 
 and Milton Sayler, of Ohio, sat with the Speaker on 
 Rules, while with rare tact Randall minimized discon- 
 tent by the retention of a score of Kerr's original 
 chairmen. 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 241 
 
 But Morrison's courage was not broken. He went on 
 just as if nothing had happened, and when the Demo- 
 crats, after an interregnum of two years, returned to 
 power in the Forty-eighth Congress (1883), he boldly 
 took advantage of the reaction against the "Pennsyl- 
 vania standard," picked^ Carlisle for Speaker, organ- 
 izejLa^tariff-for-Tevejaufijcanipaign, and carried the cau- 
 cus by a majority ^_twjenly4our_oxex_ihe combined 
 vote^of Randall and Samuel S. Cox, jc 
 
 This again^made Inm chairman of Ways and Means, 
 and, by ..courtesy. Randall headed Appropriations. Sub- 
 sequently, Morrison reported a bill making a horizontal 
 tariff reduction of twenty per cent, which gave him the 
 euphonious title of "Horizontal Bill." For the moment 
 it looked as if thelllinoisan had more than self-confidence 
 behind him. But after getting into Committee of the 
 Whole he found Randall, McGregor-like, at the head of 
 the table, with forty Democrats beside him. These 
 held the balance of power, and when they joined the 
 Republicans in striking out the enacting clause, "Hori- 
 zontal Bill" stigmatized them as "Randall and his forty 
 thieves." 2 This humiliating defeat became historic. 
 Members shook their heads, said they knew how it 
 would be, and prophesied that it ended the career of the 
 audacious leader. But they were quite mistaken. Al- 
 though he knew absolutely nothing about the tariff, he 
 kept a cool head, and, with his one hundred and fifty 
 low-tariff followers, made a brilliantly successful attack 
 on Randall. 
 
 1 The vote stood: Carlisle, 106; Randall, 52; Cox, 30. 
 8 The vote stood 156 to 151 in Committee of the Whole and 159 to 
 155 in the House. 
 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Ordinarily a chairman who gets in the way is promptly 
 put out of the way. Morrison had personal knowledge 
 of Randall's method, and at the opening of the Forty- 
 ninth Congress (1885) he urged Carlisle to administer a 
 dose of the same medicine. This would break the Penn- 
 sylvanian at once, since Morrison believed his success 
 lay in his ability as chairman of Appropriations to com- 
 pel members desiring legislation to go to him. But 
 Carlisle refused. He knew that the Speaker who trans- 
 ferred or demoted Randall would probably destroy him- 
 self, and so the resourceful Morrison, almost brutally 
 implacable in his pursuit, determined to take advantage 
 of the sentiment favorable to the creation of five addi- 
 tional appropriation committees. To make success cer- 
 tain he first fixed the Committee on Rules. Randall 
 had long been on the committee, and to resist that 
 masterful mind he had Reed, of Maine, appointed with 
 himself. Hiscock, of New York, became the other mi- 
 nority member. Within a week Morrison, Reed, and 
 Hiscock presented a majority report providing among 
 other things that each of the five Committees on Foreign, 
 Military, Naval, and Indian Affairs, and on Post- 
 Offices and Post-Roads, should report a general appropri- 
 ation bill with privileges similar to those allowed Ap- 
 propriations. This would leave Randall with only six 
 bills. 1 
 
 The veteran member on Rules, quickly scenting a 
 combination of Reed Republicans and Morrison Demo- 
 
 1 Legislative, Executive and Judicial; the Sundry Civil; the Pen- 
 sion; Fortifications and Coast Defenses; the District of Columbia; 
 and General Deficiency. 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 243 
 
 crats, presented a formidable and an exhaustive minor- 
 ity statement, insisting that the maintenance of a sane, 
 systematic economy was possible only so long as one 
 committee, no more interested in one department or 
 branch of the Government than another, had authority 
 to make or supervise all appropriations. To strengthen 
 his position Randall reprinted the arguments made in 
 1865 and 1880, declaring that the enormous increase in 
 river and harbor appropriations since 1878 justified those 
 prophetic utterances. This increase had attracted wide 
 attention. It threatened to embarrass the Treasury, and 
 gave conservative legislators deep concern. Finally, in 
 1884, it provoked a Presidential yeio^and many mem- 
 bers who voted to override it fell by the wayside in the 
 succeeding campaign. Thus, it became a vital illus- 
 tration of the extravagance that might occur in the 
 five committees named in the report if the House de- 
 prived the Committee on Appropriations of its existing 
 authority. 
 
 In the debate Morrison and his supporters claimed that 
 six committees, each one possessing perfect knowledge 
 of a single department, could appropriate more wisely 
 and economically than one committee, laden with the 
 detail of six departments, since for want of time, if for 
 no other reason, it could neither study nor know their 
 real needs. There was some acrimony. Garfield had ad- 
 mitted in 1879 that the Holman amendment "has so 
 overloaded the Committee as to render it quite impossi- 
 ble for its members to devote sufficient attention to the 
 details of legislation proper." l This confession of so 
 1 North American Review, 1879. 
 
244 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 distinguished an advocate of the Committee's sole right 
 to appropriate furnished abundant authority to its 
 critics, who opened a battery of argument upon the 
 character of its investigations, pronouncing them super- 
 ficial, often perfunctory, and never thorough. A patriotic 
 note also implied that too strict attention to economy, 
 based on parsimonious mathematical calculations, had 
 sacrificed the Republic's best interests, since its honor 
 could not always be measured in dollars and cents. 
 Indeed, it was broadly intimated that the Committee, 
 in obedience to a penurious habit, had not interpreted 
 its duty by a high regard for the country. Thus, a senti- 
 ment pervaded the debate that rigid economy never in- 
 spired a patriotic view of the public welfare. Con- 
 versely, freedom from restraint and an open treasury 
 led to national glory. 
 
 In his replies Randall did not indulge in repartee or 
 sarcasm. When such devices would serve his purpose 
 he could fling them almost with the ease of Thaddeus 
 Stevens, his distinguished predecessor on Appropri- 
 ations. But the temper of the House and the condi- 
 tion of the debate induced discretion, and he answered 
 with good nature. The Committee on Appropriations, 
 he said, was divided into half a dozen subcommittees, 
 each of which had as much time to study the real needs 
 of a department as an independent committee of twelve 
 or fifteen members, while the systematic revision of its 
 work absolutely assured to each department just treat- 
 ment and to the Government's revenue adequate pro* 
 tection. To remove such restraint meant entrance " upon 
 a path of extravagance you cannot foresee the length of 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 245 
 
 or the depth of until we find the Treasury of the country 
 bankrupt." 
 
 Among Randall's able supporters in his own party, 
 Hilary A. Herbert, of Alabama, destined to sit in Pres- 
 ident Cleveland's Cabinet, ranked with the foremost. 
 He had a graceful and gracious bearing. He never 
 declaimed or ranted, but with a singularly expressive 
 combination of force and ease he used no word that did 
 not bear upon the point he would enforce. He thought a 
 continued and intimate interest in the affairs of one 
 department would become too personal and tend to un- 
 due liberality. James H. Blount, of Georgia, a man of 
 gifts, skillful and forceful hi debate, boldly charged that 
 a desire for greater influence on the floor and in the social 
 life of Washington, which came to those who held the 
 purse-strings, inspired much of the activity for the pro- 
 posed change. But Herbert's opposition, though he 
 agreed with Blount, was broader than a rebuke to its 
 selfish advocates. He believed the proposition as wrong 
 in principle as it would be destructive in practice, and in 
 a single prophetic sentence, pronounced slowly and most 
 impressively, he declared: "Scatter appropriations and 
 you will scatter the people's money." William S. 
 Holman, known as the "watch-dog of the Treasury," 
 estimated the cost of such a "scatter" at $29,000,000 
 annually. Five years before (1880) Garfield had fixed it 
 at $20,000,000. At such a rate of increase the veteran 
 watch-dog saw a bankrupt Treasury as plainly as 
 Randall did. 
 
 Of the few Republicans who opposed the Morrison 
 scheme two .or three became illustrious. William Me- 
 
246 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Kinley, of Ohio, spoke with great freedom in opposition 
 to the views of Thomas B. Reed. The latter 's distrust of 
 the future President, destined to grow into bitter dis- 
 like, had not yet appeared, for McKinley rarely got in 
 his way. He was not a debater. Even when officially the 
 floor leader in the Fifty-first Congress (1889), he left the 
 unpremeditated rough-and-tumble work of floor man- 
 agement to Joseph G. Cannon. He preferred preparation, 
 and when ready, with the priceless advantage of a musi- 
 cal voice aided by the orator's gift, he gave importance 
 to any subject. His persuasive, well-matured arguments, 
 dexterously interposed to break the effect of some telling 
 speech, or delivered with the distinct purpose of con- 
 vincing the House, quickly created enthusiasm on one 
 side without arousing resentment or anger on the other. 
 This was the result in the pending controversy. He 
 understood the animus of Morrison as well as the cause 
 of the Committee's unpopularity, and his purpose to 
 prevent the one and cure the other was not ambiguous. 
 While admitting that the Committee exercised tyranni- 
 cal power, he declared the repeal of the Holman amend- 
 ment sufficient, since it and not the Committee's posses- 
 sion of the appropriation bills created the trouble. "I 
 do not sympathize with the sentiment so prevalent 
 among my party friends," he said slowly, bringing a 
 silence which made a whisper audible, "that it is a good 
 policy to enact rules which everybody admits will lead to 
 extravagance." This declaration fell with shattering ef- 
 fect. "Oh, no. Nobody admits it!" exclaimed Morri- 
 son. "It is admitted all over the House. The distin- 
 guished leader from Pennsylvania admits it," retorted 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 247 
 
 the speaker. "Oh, he would admit it, of course," inter- 
 rupted Reed. To this McKinley calmly replied : " When 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who for twenty years 
 has occupied a conspicuous place on this floor, says the 
 proposed change means extravagance, I must believe 
 him; and if this proposition is to punish him for helping 
 us defeat the Morrison tariff bill let us defeat it. If the 
 Committee in the past has acted as a check upon jobbery 
 and waste and extravagance, we need it now, especially 
 since the President's message threatens a deficit of 
 twenty-four millions." l 
 
 Joseph G. Cannon also backed Randall. He was a 
 man of singular ability and energy, destined to longer 
 service than any member living or dead, and to long 
 service as Speaker. His parliamentary training had been 
 perfected before its success was generally acknowledged, 
 but long before the Forty-ninth Congress opened his 
 faculties had become so well drilled that he could use 
 them at any given moment to their fullest stretch. 
 Moreover, his conspicuous work for twelve years upon 
 Post-Offices and Appropriations gave him great pres- 
 tige. It enabled him to speak from experience, and in 
 accents of subdued, mellifluous benignity, with a face 
 that suggested soft, bland benevolence, he presented ar- 
 guments logically cogent and expressive of his own deep 
 convictions. He declared that each of the five com- 
 mittees involved, under the distribution plan, would 
 magnify its work, regarding it of more importance than 
 that of all others combined, and thus, by confusing 
 possible future needs with present demands, would sub- 
 1 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 319-20. 
 
248 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 stitute a jingo extravagance for a patriotic economy. It 
 meant experiments, the adoption of fads, the vagaries 
 of theorists, and a wide-open Treasury with no one 
 authorized to close the door. "I would rather bunch 
 appropriations again in Ways and Means," he declared, 
 with startling emphasis, "than pass them around." 
 
 This rattling speech, made by one whose service al- 
 ready covered more years than any other member pres- 
 ent save Randall, Holman, Cox, and William D. Kelley, 
 brought Reed to his feet. In 1880 he had declared that 
 "the effect of distribution will be to add to the expenses 
 of the Government more than the Holman rule ever 
 saved." This was Randall's argument now. But Reed 
 like Morrison had a grievance. For several years he had 
 chafed under the Committee's control of the House and 
 had resented its abandonment of what to him seemed 
 vital to the Republic's welfare, until he was ready to 
 sacrifice consistency, declaring his former attitude a 
 "youthful effort," taken when "I actually believed" 
 that the Committee, under the rules then adopted, 
 would transact business in a sensible way. " But for 
 three Congresses," he continued, "members have been 
 in irons. It has left us without a fortification, without a 
 navy, and without the transaction of any business 
 except that of the Committee itself." This savage at- 
 tack, including the period covered by the chairmanship 
 of Atkins, Hiscock, and Randall, added life to the debate, 
 and, if judged by applause, expressed the sentiment of 
 the House. Like all sweeping statements, however, 
 this caustic condemnation was not wholly just. The 
 building of a modern navy, which had long engaged 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 249 
 
 England in expensive and unsatisfactory experiments, 
 had already begun, four armored cruisers being then 
 under construction. 1 Nor had coast defenses been over- 
 looked. Although nothing had happened to arouse the 
 country's attention to their immediate need, the 
 Endicott Board had selected twenty-six places to be 
 fortified at an estimated cost of $122,000,000. 2 Strange 
 that one accustomed to accuracy of statement should 
 overlook these facts at such a time. It increased the 
 surprise, too, that his argument ignored Cannon's warn- 
 ing; avoided Holman's estimated cost to the Govern- 
 ment; and failed to consider Randall's comparison of 
 river and harbor appropriations before and after the 
 removal of the Committee's check upon such expendi- 
 tures. In fact, aside from his pungent criticism, he added 
 nothing except that more members needed the knowl- 
 edge gained in committee activities, and that "dis- 
 tribution" would raise the average of intelligence. In 
 illustration of enlightenment thus teaching economy, he 
 cited the merchant who could fix a price to meet compe- 
 tition the better he knew his business. At all events, he 
 said, with a penetrating glance at Herbert, "it is better 
 to give liberally with knowledge than niggardly in 
 ignorance." 3 
 
 The indication that the tide ran strongly against the 
 Committee on Appropriations was verified by the vote 
 of 227 to 70 in favor of distribution. Its one-sidedness 
 
 1 These were the Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, and Dolphin, author- 
 ized in 1883 under Hiscock. 
 
 8 The Endicott Board was authorized March 3, 1885, under Randall. 
 
 8 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 210. The entire debate is found 
 on pages 168-76, 197-210, 225-41, 278-98, 310-38. 
 
250 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 surprised even Morrison. He counted upon the opposi- 
 tion of "Randall and his forty thieves," but he did not 
 expect the support of two thirds of the Republicans. An 
 analysis of the arguments and the vote makes it plain 
 that a get-even spirit actuated Morrison and his low- 
 tariff followers, while resentment of the Committee's 
 tyranny, especially under the construction given the 
 Holman amendment, largely governed others. 
 
 Legislation shaped in such temper is not likely to 
 tolerate high principle or to result satisfactorily even to 
 those who framed it. In this instance repentance came 
 early, for the system introduced soon verified Randall's 
 prediction. Under it each of the eight appropriation 
 committees, acting independently, without restraint, 
 and without regard either to its fair proportion or to 
 the amount of available revenue, reported whatever it 
 deemed desirable, apparently indifferent to an ab- 
 normal increase in appropriations or to the creation of 
 a treasury deficit. This has resulted in such an alarming 
 growth of public expenditures that some modification of 
 the present plan seems essential to the future welfare 
 of the Republic. Indeed, so enormous was the increase 
 before the retirement of Speaker Reed in 1901, that he 
 expressed to Joseph G. Cannon deep regret for his 
 action. With equal frankness Joseph D. Sayers, of 
 Texas, one of the least sentimental and the most un- 
 affected of men, who followed the lead of Morrison and 
 later retired to become governor of his State, " indulged 
 the hope that the Committee would be again charged 
 with all the appropriations of whatever character. Until 
 this is done much cannot be accomplished in the direc- 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 251 
 
 tion of economy." l In corroboration of this statement 
 James A. Tawney, of Minnesota, for several years chair- 
 man of the Committee on Appropriations, reported that 
 during the Sixty-first Congress his committee cut sev- 
 enteen millions from the estimates, while other appro- 
 priating committees added twenty-eight millions, thus 
 proving that committees which appropriate for a single 
 department acquire a special bias which begets extrav- 
 agance. 2 In discussing this subject John J. Fitzgerald, 
 of New York, Tawney's successor as chairman of Ap- 
 propriations, startled the country with a comparison of 
 the appropriations made from 1875 to 1885 with those 
 made from 1901 to 1912. This showed a total increase 
 in twelve years of over six billion dollars, or 270.8 per 
 cent. Upon the same basis of comparison the population 
 of the United States increased 70.9 per cent, and its 
 wealth, based upon a "true valuation of real and per- 
 sonal property," 80 per cent. 3 During these later years 
 committees appropriated without restraint. Occasion- 
 ally a party's need of a record for economy, voiced 
 privately by the Speaker or publicly by the chairman of 
 the Committee on Appropriations, whose duty it is to 
 review the disposition of public moneys, 4 effected 
 temporary retrenchment. Not infrequently other and 
 more tortuous methods were invoked. In 1901 Senator 
 Carter, of Montana, defeated a river and harbor bill, 
 carrying fifty million dollars, by continuing debate until 
 
 1 63d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 2460. 
 a 61st Cong., 3d Sess., Record, p. 2630. 
 8 63d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 2458. 
 4 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 7034. 
 
252 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Congress expired. 1 But such savings, made for use in a 
 political campaign or to preserve a treasury balance, do 
 not belong in the realm of legislative economy, since 
 extravagance is only deferred. 
 
 Indeed, so enormous is the waste under the present 
 method of making appropriations that little if any divi- 
 sion of sentiment exists as to the need of a change. In 
 the Sixty-second Congress Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, 
 with a display of pluck indicative of his independence, 
 pronounced the system absolutely unscientific, "be- 
 cause we consider the individual bills separately and 
 apart from their relationship to the whole expenditure." 2 
 With equal spirit John J. Fitzgerald, of New York, a 
 cold economist, basing his convictions on several years' 
 activity as chairman of Appropriations, declared that 
 "while such an illogical, unscientific, and universally 
 condemned system prevails, attempts at reform will be 
 futile and an effective remedy for the resulting evils is 
 impossible." 3 Other members of long experience have 
 spoken as decisively. 
 
 It is probable that any method which the Government 
 might adopt for reducing expenses would prove less 
 effective than if operated by a great corporation con- 
 trolled by a single head. Even the boasted English 
 budget system, originally formulated if not fully devel- 
 oped by William Pitt, needs improvement. 4 But that 
 some plan will soon be devised for avoiding excessive 
 
 1 Soon after President McKinley appointed him to the board of 
 commissioners of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, of which he be- 
 came chairman. 
 
 2 62d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 5132. 
 
 3 63d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 2454. 
 
 4 Sir Courtenay Ilbert, History of Parliament, p. 109. 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 253 
 
 expenditures cannot be doubted. It is suggested that 
 greater scrutiny and further revision of the items placed 
 in the Book of Estimates, submitted to Congress by the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, would be a long step in the 
 right direction. 1 Though prepared with ample details 
 and in strict accordance with law, it is stuffed with ex- 
 cessive amounts reported by ambitious bureau chiefs 
 whose action is final. In transmitting these estimates 
 the Secretary is simply a messenger. He is not only 
 powerless to revise them, but without authority of law 
 to notify the President of their amount unless in excess 
 of the estimated revenue. It is likewise suggested that 
 more modern and economical methods be substituted 
 for the present archaic departmental system. Although 
 big business has long demonstrated the large saving 
 made by central purchasing agencies, no government 
 official, until President Taft appointed a commission on 
 
 1 Estimates of appropriations for the next fiscal year are prepared 
 by the head of each department and bureau of the public service, 
 who must specify their sources and indicate the conjectural from those 
 established. References must also be given to laws or treaties which 
 authorize such expenditures. If such estimates vary materially from 
 those formerly proposed or contain new items, reasons must be set forth. 
 These various estimates are submitted to the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury, who must add statements showing appropriations made in the 
 previous year, the number and class of employees with their pay, and 
 an estimate of all revenues likely to be received during the next fiscal 
 year. This information, forming a Book of Estimates of three hundred 
 or more pages, is printed, indexed, and arranged under the heads of 
 Civil Establishment, Military Establishment, Naval Establishment, 
 etc., and transmitted to the Speaker of the House, who refers it to the 
 several committees making appropriations. If the estimated appro- 
 priations exceed the estimated revenue, the Secretary of the Treasury 
 must notify the President, who may, in his message to Congress, in- 
 dicate how such appropriations may be reduced, or recommend 
 loans or new taxes to cover the deficiency. 
 
254 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 economy and efficiency, ever recommended that one 
 bureau, representing the several departments, be au- 
 thorized to make repairs, to prevent duplication of work, 
 and to purchase all supplies. 
 
 To the end that the House may exercise greater econ- 
 omy, Fitzgerald advocates enlarging the Committee on 
 Appropriations to include the chairmen of other appro- 
 priating committees and restore its control of all 
 supply bills. 1 This desire to return to the procedure of 
 1866 is not surprising, since its abandonment so speedily 
 brought the predicted evils; but it may well be doubted 
 if other committees will ever consent, even in the inter- 
 est of economy, to sacrifice their right to appropriate. 
 Another plan, presented by Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, 
 attracts equal attention. It provides for a Committee on 
 Estimates and Expenditures, to consist of the chairman 
 and one or more members of Rules, Ways and Means, 
 and each of the eight appropriating committees, who 
 shall determine the available revenue and apportion it 
 to each of the several appropriating committees. In 
 ascertaining these amounts it is proposed that the 
 Committee, avoiding details of routine estimates, shall 
 simply determine policies, such as the number and type 
 of battleships, public buildings, and coast defenses, the 
 extent of river and harbor improvements, and important 
 changes respecting the army and navy, thus ascertain- 
 ing in advance how much the House is willing to expend 
 over and above the ordinary upkeep of the Government. 
 After the House adopts the report, no committee may 
 modify it. 2 Although it is objected that this Committee, 
 
 1 63d Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 2459. 
 
 2 62d Cong., 3d Sess., Record, pp. 5132-38. 
 
COMMITTEES AND THEIR WORK 255 
 
 in fixing the amount of each supply bill, must practically 
 absorb the functions of the appropriating committees, 
 it is said in reply that the chairman and several members 
 of each of these committees, with full knowledge of the 
 estimates, will be present to urge the needs of their re- 
 spective departments, while each one can be heard as 
 fully as now whenever the report of the Committee on 
 Estimates and Expenditures is before the House. Other 
 difficulties are presented which may, perhaps, be re- 
 moved, for experience often avoids parliamentary ob- 
 stacles that seem to block the way. It is favorable to its 
 adoption that it not only maintains the integrity of all 
 appropriating committees, but permits members to 
 exercise the highly valued prerogative of increasing 
 estimates, or making appropriations not covered by 
 estimates, so long as apportioned amounts are not ex- 
 ceeded or adopted policies modified. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 
 
 THE Committee of the Whole is not a committee in the 
 sense used in the preceding chapter. In early years the 
 House employed it for the consideration of such impor- 
 tant questions as the tariff, the creation of executive 
 departments, the President's annual messages, proposi- 
 tions relating to land gifts, and proposed amendments 
 to the Constitution. Very often its deliberations resulted 
 in an agreement upon the details of a measure, leaving 
 nothing to a committee of reference except the mere 
 labor of drafting a bill. Because of this practice John 
 W. Taylor, an exceptionally able and acute Speaker, de- 
 cided that the Committee of the Whole belonged to the 
 regular committee system. 1 But the more modern view 
 holds that it is simply the House itself doing business 
 under a special and less formal procedure, by means of 
 which the entire membership is enabled to participate in 
 the consideration of a bill, unhampered by roll-calls or 
 the intervention of motions to adjourn, to refer, to post- 
 pone, for the previous question, and the like. 
 
 To most members the procedure is a favorite one. 
 The absence of roll-calls avoids record votes, while de- 
 bate under the five-minute rule, so called from the time 
 limit of the speeches, becomes intensely interesting and 
 often critically analytical, the freedom and informality 
 1 19th Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, p. 1358. 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 257 
 
 of explaining and opposing amendments adding a zest 
 which is absent in more formal discussions. At such 
 times the House is at its best. It takes nothing for 
 granted. It ridicules an explanation that does not ex- 
 plain and quickly punctures a proposed panacea. "The 
 key to the difficulties of most unsettled questions," says 
 Bagehot, "is commonly in their undiscussed parts"; 1 
 but under the five-minute rule as it now exists there are 
 no undiscussed parts. If ably led on either side such a 
 debate compels men to comprehend, and destroys prej- 
 udice by driving it from shelter. Many floor leaders have 
 shone in these discussions, but "no one during the pres- 
 ent generation," says Mr. Elaine, "has rivaled Robert 
 C. Schenck's singular power in this respect. He was an 
 intellectual marvel. The completeness and clearness of 
 his statement, the facts and arguments which he could 
 marshal hi that brief time, were a constant surprise and 
 delight to his hearers. He was able in every form of dis- 
 cussion, but his peculiar gift was in leading and control- 
 ling the Committee of the Whole." 2 
 
 This Committee has a long history. It originated in 
 the time of the Stuarts, when taxation arrayed the 
 Crown against the Commons, and suspicion made the 
 Speaker a tale-bearer to the King. To avoid the Chair's 
 espionage the Commons met in secret, elected a chair- 
 man in whom it had confidence, and without fear of the 
 King freely exchanged its views respecting supplies. 
 The informality of its procedure survived the occasion 
 for secrecy, but to this day the House of Commons keeps 
 
 1 The English Constitution, p. 207. 
 
 8 Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i, p. 499. 
 
258 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 up the fiction of concealment, the Speaker withdrawing 
 from the hall when the Committee convenes, and the 
 chairman occupying the clerk's desk. 1 
 
 From the outset the American House contemplated 
 a Committee of the Whole House, and a Committee of 
 the Whole House on the State of the Union. The latter 
 got its title from the "Committee of the Whole House 
 on the State of America," used by the Continental 
 Congress, its prototype being the English "Committee 
 of the Whole House on the State of the Nation." When 
 adopting its title the House also appropriated its func- 
 tions, employing it, as stated above, for the informal 
 consideration of ^highly important matters before their 
 reference to select or standing committees. This was the 
 procedure in 1789 when Madison raised the question of 
 tariff duties. Meanwhile bills favorably reported from 
 select or standing committees were referred to a "Com- 
 mittee of the Whole House." Originally this committee 
 also bore the title of the "Committee of the Whole on 
 Ways and Means," 2 the former being used for ordinary 
 bills and the latter for appropriation and revenue meas- 
 ures. A similar practice still obtains in the House of 
 Commons. It has a Committee of the Whole on Supply, 
 or the "Committee of Supply," and the Committee of 
 the Whole on Ways and Means, or, in common parlance, 
 the "Committee of Ways and Means." If engaged in 
 considering Indian revenue accounts, such subject gives 
 the Committee another and different title. In other 
 words, the British Committee of the Whole, although 
 
 1 In early years this was the practice in the House of Representa- 
 tives. 
 
 2 14th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, pp. 298-99. 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 259 
 
 the same body, is really four or more distinct committees, 
 each confined exclusively to its own business, so that 
 before other matters are taken up it must rise and give 
 way to another class of legislation. 
 
 Early in its history the American House sought a 
 similar arrangement. The reference of all reported bills 
 to a Committee of the Whole House gave rise to much 
 wrangling as to which should have precedence, and to 
 relieve the trouble the House, in 1817, provided that 
 not more than three bills, which must be analogous in 
 nature, should be referred to the same Committee of the 
 Whole. While this apparently created several such com- 
 mittees, it really did nothing more than divide reported 
 bills into various classes, each class to be disposed of be- 
 fore another could be taken up. A further rule, adopted 
 in 1820, limited these divisions to (1) private Senate 
 bills reported by a House committee; (2) private House 
 bills reported; (3) public bills reported; (4) Senate bills 
 unfavorably reported; and (5) reports unfavorable to 
 petitions. This arrangement segregated private and 
 public bills, and although the House refused to limit the 
 number of Committees of the Whole to three, as pro- 
 posed in 1822 and again in 1824, the practice soon estab- 
 lished the custom. 
 
 Meanwhile, opposition to exploiting matters in the 
 Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union 
 which belonged primarily to standing committees, be- 
 came more and more pronounced. The open procedure, 
 it was claimed, invited publicity, consumed too much 
 time, embarrassed members by exciting the country, and 
 presented no good reason why all questions should not 
 
260 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 first be considered by standing or select committees. 
 The settlement of this matter proved decidedly virulent. 
 Madison favored the widest publicity, and in the art of 
 political advocacy he had no equal. Never aspiring, but 
 ever adequate to great affairs, he possessed a power of 
 detail and a didactic precision that laid bare all the 
 weak points of an opponent. He thought that in an age 
 of important business, when an unusual number of great 
 topics awaited discussion, the House itself should first 
 digest such subjects, unless prevented by want of time 
 or the necessity of examining documents. On the other 
 hand, the Federalists, led by Theodore Sedgwick, favored 
 legislative initiative only through standing or select com- 
 mittees. This gave members little skilled in diversified 
 argument, but capable of forming an accurate judg- 
 ment, an opportunity of expressing opinions without 
 being compelled to argue, or to persuade, or even to de- 
 fend their position. Such an advantage, peculiar to all 
 small committees, hastens business, and as the affairs of 
 the House rapidly multiplied, the custom of considering 
 matters in Committee of the Whole on the State of the 
 Union, other than bills regularly referred to it from 
 reporting committees, gradually became obsolete. In 
 1833 it was declared "a usage of the past." Meantime, 
 the practice was established of using this Committee for 
 the consideration of bills involving a tax or charge upon 
 the people, while private bills of a like character were 
 considered in Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Although the original rule, adopted in 1794, that every 
 "motion or proposition for a tax or charge upon the 
 people shall first be considered in a Committee of the 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 261 
 
 Whole House," sufficed for more than half a century, it 
 did not always cover the refinements of its spirit. Thus, 
 Speaker Cobb held that a bill directing a claimant to be 
 paid did not go to the Committee of the Whole unless it 
 actually appropriated the money. Other Speakers de- 
 cided that the rule did not include "an appropriation 
 hereafter to be made," or "to be paid out of an ap- 
 propriation already made." To cover these evasive 
 phrases an amendment was adopted in 1874. The revi- 
 sion of 1880 extended it to relief of sureties on a bond, 
 and in 1896 the House added the reference of claims to 
 the Court of Claims. Under the present practice, there- 
 fore, "all motions or propositions involving a tax or 
 charge upon the people, and all appropriations of money, 
 or bills making appropriations of money or property, or 
 requiring such appropriations to be made, or authorizing 
 payments out of appropriations already made, or releas- 
 ing any liability to the United States for money or 
 property, or referring any claim to the Court of Claims, 
 must first be considered in a Committee of the Whole." 1 
 In other words, a bill which sets in motion a train of cir- 
 cumstances destined ultimately to involve certain ex- 
 penditures must run the gantlet of the five-minute rule, 
 unless it comes up by unanimous consent, by special 
 order, or under suspension of the rules, the effect of such 
 motions being to discharge the Committee and bring the 
 bill before the House itself. Nor does the rule apply to 
 a conference report, which must be accepted or rejected 
 as an entirety without amendment; 2 or to Senate 
 
 1 Rule xxm, sec. 3. 
 
 8 41st Cong., 3d Sess., Globe, p. 1916. The early practice allowed it. 
 See 27th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 868. 
 
262 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 amendments that merely change the amount, or to bills 
 in which an appropriation is incidentally but not nec- 
 essarily involved, or is a mere matter of speculation, or 
 is not to be borne by the Government, or is simply 
 changed as to the mode of expenditure. Speaker Reed 
 held that expenses paid from the House contingent fund 
 did not come within the rule, although Carlisle and 
 Crisp decided otherwise. In holding that expenses for 
 printing, paid out of the contingent fund, did not go to the 
 Committee, Speaker Keifer reasoned that the right of 
 the Committee on Printing to report at any time carried 
 with it the right of present consideration in the House. 
 Consideration of other than appropriation bills is 
 
 /permitted in Committee of the Whole. The President's 
 annual messages and articles of impeachment are uni- 
 formly referred to it. Under its unrivaled procedure the 
 general revision of the rules in 1880 received notable 
 care. In general, any subject the House desires to study 
 with searching fidelity may be referred to it. When 
 attending an impeachment trial the House appears as 
 in Committee of the Whole. 
 
 The ceremony of passing from the House to the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole requires but a moment. A member 
 moves that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
 of the Whole House for the consideration of bills on the 
 private calendar, without designating any one; or the 
 Whole House on the State of the Union for the considera- 
 tion of revenue or general appropriation bills, or a par- 
 ticular bill designated by its number and title. This 
 motion is neither debatable nor amendable, and, if car- 
 ried, the mover or another reserves all points of order on 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 263 
 
 paragraphs not germane or within the reporting com- 
 mittee's jurisdiction. The length of general debate is 
 also usually limited at this time. After these prelimi- 
 naries the Speaker designates a chairman, ordinarily 
 selected in advance, to whom he politely extends the 
 gavel. Prior to the Third Congress the House chose 
 him by ballot. In the House of Commons he is nomi- 
 nated by the Ministry, ceases to be a partisan, and rules 
 as impartially as the Speaker himself. In the Ameri- 
 can House, on the contrary, the chairman remains a 
 partisan. He not only represents his party, but his 
 selection is often based upon his known disposition to 
 rule in favor of the bill under consideration. If it is to 
 be stoutly contested, he usually knows in advance the 
 points upon which he must rule, and his decisions not 
 infrequently are prepared before his appointment. 
 
 The chairman's duties begin when he declares the 
 House in Committee of the Whole. With matters im- 
 mediately preceding he has nothing to do. Nor does he 
 control admission to the floor, or leave to print, or mat- 
 ters for the Record, although he may exclude disorderly 
 words. Under the rules he maintains order, recognizes 
 members for debate, decides points of order, and directs 
 the Committee to rise whenever members become un- 
 duly turbulent, since punishment belongs to the House. 
 Indeed, at such times the Speaker may of his own voli- 
 tion resume the chair. When John Bell, of Tennessee, 
 one of the ablest and most distinguished members, was 
 assaulted by a colleague, Speaker Polk rushed to the 
 desk, declaring that he "had taken the chair without an 
 order to bring the House into order," citing Jefferson's 
 
264 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Manual as his authority. 1 Three years later Speaker 
 White reached the chair while Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, 
 and Edward Stanly, of North Carolina, were exchang- 
 ing blows. 2 On one occasion when James S. Sherman, of 
 New York, was presiding as chairman of the Committee, 
 he, of his own motion, sent for Speaker Reed to resume 
 the chair for the purpose of bringing to order an unruly 
 member who had defied the chairman and persisted in 
 his disorder. After a mollifying lecture from the Speaker 
 on the necessity for mutual cooperation to secure or- 
 derly procedure and maintain the dignity of the House, 
 the skies were cleared and the Committee resumed its 
 session. 
 
 The effect of the Speaker's sudden appearance under 
 such conditions is often humorous, sometimes resulting 
 in loud laughter, for angry scenes quickly change to 
 exhibitions of mock harmony. Since such disturbances 
 usually occur in the heat of debate, a manly apology, 
 promptly made, ordinarily satisfies. During the nerv- 
 ous tension immediately preceding the declaration of 
 war with Spain in 1898, an intense excitement, raised 
 by the charge of liar and the drawing of a knife, sub- 
 sided so suddenly on the appearance of the mace, borne 
 by the sergeant-at-arms, that it provoked no official 
 notice. Only once in the history of Congress has a 
 Speaker threatened to call the Capitol police. This 
 record is the more remarkable, perhaps, if one may credit 
 the statement of James H. Hammond, of South Carolina, 
 respecting the Speakership contest in 1859. "I believe," 
 he wrote, "that every man is armed with a revolver 
 
 1 25th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 422. 
 
 2 27th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 445. 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 265 
 
 some with two and a bowie knife." Before the Civil 
 War it was not unusual for members to bear concealed 
 weapons. Speaking of his experiences in the fifties, 
 former Speaker Grow tells of a revolver slipping from a 
 member's hip pocket and falling noisily to the floor in 
 front of the Speaker's desk. In answer to a request from 
 the Chair, its owner explained that he had carried it the 
 night before as a protection against vicious dogs and 
 forgot to remove it from his pocket. This explanation 
 raised a roar of derisive laughter, but the matter re- 
 ceived no further notice. "It is doubtful," added Grow, 
 "if a revolver has been carried in the House for forty 
 years." * 
 
 Although one hundred constitutes a quorum in the 
 Committee of the Whole, it may proceed with a less 
 number until the chairman is notified of the fact. He 
 then directs a roll-call, and if a quorum fails to respond, 
 the Speaker resumes the chair while the chairman re- 
 ports the absentees for entry in the Journal. When a 
 quorum finally appears, the Committee resumes its 
 session. As it cannot adjourn or transact business other 
 than that before it, it frequently rises that the House 
 may receive a message from the Senate or the President. 
 A motion to rise is not debatable. Nor is it in order if a 
 member has the floor in debate, or pending a demand 
 for tellers, or the announcement of a vote; but it has 
 precedence of a motion to amend. The chairman of his 
 own volition may direct the Committee to rise at an 
 hour previously fixed by the House for an adjournment, 
 or to rise informally to receive a message; but a message 
 1 Conversation with the author. 
 
266 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 from the President, received after the Committee rises, 
 may not then be laid before the House without unani- 
 mous consent. 
 
 When in Committee of the Whole House members 
 participating in debate are confined strictly to the topic 
 under consideration, but during general debate in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
 any subject, however irrelevant, may be discussed. Two 
 members of opposing views apportion the time, giving 
 preference to members of the reporting committee. 
 Promptly at the close of general debate, which must be 
 fixed by vote in the House, the clerk begins reading the 
 bill. 1 At the end of any paragraph a member who gets 
 the floor may raise a point of order, move to strike out 
 the enacting clause, or offer an amendment. A motion 
 to strike out precedes one to amend, while the right to 
 explain or oppose precedes a motion to amend an amend- 
 ment. The proponent of an amendment is allowed five 
 minutes to explain and an opponent five minutes to reply. 
 This ends debate on that amendment; but similar privi- 
 leges are permitted on other amendments, on amend- 
 ments to an amendment, and on the pro-forma amend- 
 ment to "strike out the last word." Points of order are 
 decided by the chairman, while debate on an appeal is 
 limited as in the House. One fifth of a quorum is re- 
 quired to order tellers, but yeas and nays are not taken 
 or pau*s announced. 
 
 Although a disposition rarely manifests itself to close 
 the five-minute debate immediately, the Committee 
 
 1 Revenue and appropriation bills are divided into paragraphs; 
 other bills into sections. 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 267 
 
 may, after one speech of five minutes, cut off all debate 
 on the pending section; but this does not preclude offer- 
 ing and disposing of amendments without debate. In- 
 deed, no way exists to take a bill from the Committee 
 until read through by paragraphs or sections except by 
 a special order, or by striking out the enacting clause. 
 The latter course, should the House non-concur, recom- 
 mits the bill to the Committee as unfinished business. 
 
 It took nearly a century to perfect this felicitous 
 system, so responsive to the majority and so tolerant to 
 the minority. Originally speeches were unlimited, and 
 so long as this vicious handicap continued the procedure 
 profited little by other benefits. Finally, in 1841, the 
 Committee on Rules, taking advantage of its privilege 
 to report "at all times," submitted a rule that whenever 
 a bill had been read for amendments without debate, the 
 Committee of the Whole might report to the House. 1 
 During the struggle the House not only adopted the 
 rule, but it limited all speeches to one hour both in the 
 House and in Committee of the Whole. In reviewing 
 this historic conflict one wonders that many very sen- 
 sible persons, including John Quincy Adams, should 
 have opposed such a needed reform as the limitation of 
 speeches. No doubt the manner of bringing it about 
 goaded the minority into violence, but it soon proved a 
 satisfactory compromise. Not as much could be said of 
 the exclusion of debate on amendments. In fact, the 
 rule amounted to burlesque, since it needs discussion to 
 amend wisely, and to obviate the defect privilege was 
 granted in 1847 to explain each amendment in one 
 1 27th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 155. 
 
268 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 speech of five minutes. Contrary to expectation, how- 
 ever, this increased obstruction by inviting scores of 
 amendments which were withdrawn as soon as read 
 and explained. An additional provision, adopted in 
 1850, permitted one speech in reply, but denied the 
 right to withdraw amendments except by unanimous 
 consent. Although this proved a long step toward per- 
 fecting the five-minute rule, anti-slavery advocates 
 demonstrated that it in no wise lessened obstruc- 
 tion. 
 
 This became alarmingly evident pending the consid- 
 eration of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854. One irrev- 
 erent abolitionist declared that the heavens and earth 
 may pass away, but the Missouri Compromise shall not 
 pass away, and to prevent such an inexcusable betrayal 
 of a sacred agreement the Free-Soilers consumed several 
 months with an endless number of amendments. Finally, 
 Alexander H. Stephens moved to strike out the enact ing 
 clause, citing Rule 119 as his authority. In appearance 
 Stephens resembled John Randolph, his attenuated body 
 seeming scarcely able to support his massive head, while 
 his amiable disposition and gentle manners exaggerated 
 his physical frailty. But his vigorous mind and clear 
 voice, as he explained his historic motion, quickly dis- 
 pelled the idea of weakness. Without displaying the 
 slightest feeling he evinced a subtle charm of manner 
 that explained his power as a popular speaker. Should 
 the enacting clause be stricken out and the House refuse 
 to concur, he said, the bill, which will then be in the 
 House, can be voted upon directly. " I make this motion 
 now," he added, "because the measure has been under 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 269 
 
 consideration for five months and in this way we shall 
 get rid of these endless amendments." l 
 
 Israel Washburn, of Maine, quickly took the floor. 
 He was a new member, just entering his second term, 
 and like Stephens belonged to the milder men of the 
 House. But his knowledge of the rules and his readiness 
 to apply them had already attracted attention, and he 
 now made the point of order that under the unbroken 
 practice for many years such a motion must be made 
 in the House. To this the chairman retorted that the 
 practice had been in violation of the rule. Thereupon 
 Washburn denounced the proceeding as "the most 
 flagrant attempt ever made to trample on the constitu- 
 tional rights of a minority of the representatives and of 
 a majority of the people." 2 
 
 Stephens understood the practice as Washburn did. 
 The motion to strike out the enacting clause had long 
 been recognized, and Rule 119, adopted in 1822, gave it 
 preference over one to amend; but it had distinctly been 
 held in 1842 that this motion could not be made in Com- 
 mittee before the bill was read through for amendments, 
 and the practice had conformed to that decision. 3 
 Stephens maintained, however, that Rule 119 did not 
 belong among the rules relating to the Committee of 
 the Whole, but was in fact a part of the rule prescribing 
 the precedence of motions admissible when a question 
 was under debate, whether in the House or in Committee, 
 and that therefore it was not subject to the limitations 
 imposed by the ruling of 1842. 
 
 1 33d Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 1241. ! Ibid. 
 
 3 27th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 244-45. 
 
270 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Years afterward Speaker Elaine pronounced this ex- 
 planation "a parliamentary fraud"; adding, "and I 
 measure my words when so describing it." * It was cer- 
 tainly a fictitious device, and by means of it a ruling of 
 the Chair, sustained on appeal by a majority vote, ac- 
 complished what would otherwise have required a sus- 
 pension of the rules by a two thirds vote. But like all 
 sudden and radical changes in the parliamentary pro- 
 cedure of the House, it was the product of party neces- 
 sity. It belongs in the same category with the action of 
 the Whigs in 1841 ; with the abolition of dilatory motions 
 in 1882; with the adoption of a special order by a major- 
 ity vote in 1883; and with the counting of a quorum in 
 1890; and although it was a counterfeit contrivance, 
 entirely lacking the constitutional basis and broad ap- 
 plication of the extraordinary innovations established 
 by Reed, the curious eye will search through parlia- 
 mentary history in vain for anything more adroit and 
 unexpected. A bomb dropped from the clouds into the 
 midst of the Free-Soilers could not have created greater 
 consternation, and in their unsuccessful efforts to escape 
 the destructive blow they exhausted all the devices 
 known to obstructionists. 
 
 Although the means adopted to repeal the Missouri 
 Compromise were bitterly denounced at the time as 
 subversive of the rights of the minority, the precedent 
 became an accepted practice of the House for several 
 years. It proved too useful to be willingly given up. If 
 it helped one party in 1854, Banks used it to aid his side 
 in 1857; but the cunning play did not belong in a parlia- 
 1 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 899. 
 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 271 
 
 mentary code, and in the revision of 1860 Washburn 
 destroyed its sting by providing that whenever the 
 House refused to concur in a report striking out the 
 enacting clause the bill should automatically return to 
 the Committee. As this deprived the House of the right 
 to refer it for reformation to another committee, an 
 amendment adopted in 1870 restored the privilege, with 
 the reservation that whenever the bill "is again reported 
 to the House it shall be referred to the Committee of the 
 Whole without debate." l Washburn also destroyed the 
 evil of unlimited discussion of amendments by clothing 
 the Committee with power, after the five-minute rule 
 begins, to close debate upon any section, further amend- 
 ments being decided without debate. Thus was per- 
 fected the present admirable procedure under the five- 
 minute rule. 
 
 A bill being read through for amendments the Com- 
 mittee's work concludes with a motion to rise and report 
 with recommendation that the measure be passed, or 
 referred, or laid on the table, or postponed. There- 
 upon the chairman, returning the gavel to the Speaker, 
 resumes his place on the floor and reports in form as 
 follows: "Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole 
 House or the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
 having had under consideration the bill [giving number 
 and title] has directed me to report the same with/ 
 amendments with the recommendation that the amend- 
 ments be agreed to and that the bill do pass," or other- 
 wise as the recommendation directs. This brief report 
 includes all the information the House can possess. If 
 1 Rule xxiu, sees. 6 and 7. 
 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 another than the chairman seeks to add a further state- 
 ment, even though he claims the floor on a question of 
 personal privilege, the Speaker declines to hear him, 
 since no such matter is before the House. 1 This ironclad 
 rule occasionally becomes a cover to wrongdoing, 2 but 
 the House, if so disposed, can correct any high-handed 
 action by non-concurring in the report. 
 
 1 56th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 4730. 
 
 8 29th Cong., 1st Sess.. Globe, August 10. 1846. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 THE MAKING OF A LAW 
 
 WHEN a member introduces a bill he endorses it with 
 his name and the committee to which in his opinion it 
 belongs, and delivers it to the clerk, who enters it by 
 number and title in the Journal and the Record. The 
 Speaker or his secretary then indicates the committee 
 to which it goes. An error in the reference of a private 
 bill must be corrected, otherwise it cannot be reported; 
 but a committee to which a public measure is impro- 
 perly referred acquires jurisdiction if the mistake remain 
 unrectified. If a bill falls within the jurisdiction of two 
 committees, it may be sent to either; if portions belong 
 to several committees, it may be divided among them, or 
 the entire bill referred by the House to any committee. 
 But if a bill be for the payment or adjudication of a 
 private claim, it requires unanimous consent to refer it 
 elsewhere than to the committee of original jurisdiction. 
 Errors of reference not involving contested jurisdiction 
 are usually adjusted without the attention of the House. 
 
 After reference a bill is sent to the printer, who makes 
 six hundred and twenty five copies of a public measure 
 and two hundred and sixty copies of a private bill. 
 These are sent to the committee of reference and to the 
 House and Senate document rooms. If the demand 
 warrants it the secretary of the Senate and clerk of the 
 House may print one thousand additional copies. If 
 
274 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 more are needed the House must order them by reso- 
 lution. 
 
 A committee cannot change the subject or the title of 
 a bill, but it may draft a new measure based upon bills 
 relating to the same subject, or frame a bill of its own. 
 Such bills take a new number and often bear the chair- 
 man's name, as the "McKinley Bill," the "Dingley 
 Bill," or the "Underwood Bill." When a committee re- 
 ports a bill the chairman certifies that a majority favored 
 it, a quorum being present, after which it is filed with 
 the clerk, who enters it by title, number, and date on 
 the Private Calendar if it be a private bill, on the House 
 Calendar if a public bill without an appropriation, or on 
 the Union Calendar if a public bill carrying an appro- 
 priation. A report, accompanied with the views of the 
 minority, is also filed. Both bill and report then go to 
 the printer. A general appropriation or other privileged 
 bill, although reported from the floor, is also filed with 
 the clerk, who lists it on the proper calendar and sends 
 it with the report to the printer. 
 
 A bill, previous to its passage, must be read three 
 tunes, the first and second readings (the first by title 
 and the second in full) occurring when it is taken up in 
 the House. The question, "Will the House now con- 
 sider it?" may then be demanded by any member. 
 This question of consideration, as elsewhere stated, is 
 the means by which the House protects itself from busi- 
 ness it does not at the time wish to consider. It cannot 
 be debated or reconsidered, and after being moved 
 neither the previous question nor a point of order can 
 prevent its being voted upon. But it cannot be raised 
 
THE MAKING OF A LAW 275 
 
 after debate has begun, or after the previous question is 
 ordered, or against a bill to which the President has filed 
 objections, or which goes to the Committee of the Whole, 
 or is taken up by unanimous consent, under a suspen- 
 sion of the rules, or by a special order which provides for 
 immediate consideration. If the question be negatived, 
 the bill remains as unacted upon. If decided in the af- 
 firmative, the bill is open for debate, amendment, and 
 a third reading. 
 
 If a bill involves a tax or charge upon the people it 
 goes to the Committee of the Whole House, or the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. 1 
 If it carries no appropriation it is usually taken up by 
 unanimous consent, under suspension of the rules, by 
 special order, by privilege, on fixed days of the week, or 
 on call of committees; or it may be considered in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole. In each case the procedure varies. 
 Unanimous consent avoids the question of considera- 
 tion, and as the purpose of the bill is ordinarily clearly 
 outlined before consent is given, it soon reaches a vote. 
 Should a disposition be manifested to amend or unduly 
 debate it, a demand for the previous question would 
 quickly pass or reject it. 
 
 A motion "to suspend the rules and pass the bill," 
 when seconded by a majority of a quorum, bars the 
 question of consideration, limits debate to twenty min- 
 utes on a side, excludes amendments other than those 
 authorized by the reporting committee, and avoids in- 
 tervening motions. At the close of the forty minutes' 
 debate a vote is taken, and if two thirds of a quorum 
 1 See chap, xm, p. 260. 
 
276 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 vote in the affirmative the bill is passed. The passage 
 of a bill convoyed by a special order is not less direct, 
 since the Committee on Rules usually specifies the 
 length of general debate, the manner of considering 
 amendments, the time for ordering the previous ques- 
 tion, and the hour for taking the final vote. In other 
 words, the adoption of a special order avoids all moves 
 for compassing the delay of a bill. Indeed, its con- 
 sideration becomes little more than a stage play, since 
 the debate, however strenuous and noisy it may be, 
 cannot modify its course. 
 
 A privileged bill, as well as one taken up on fixed days 
 of the week or on call of committees, if not sent to a 
 Committee of the Whole, is open to the question of con- 
 sideration, and, "when under debate," to motions to 
 adjourn and to lay on the table. Although the motion 
 to adjourn has the highest precedence and nothing may 
 intervene to prevent a vote, it cannot interrupt a mem- 
 ber who has the floor, or stop a vote, or be used for 
 I dilatory purposes^A more drastic motion is to lay on 
 J^S- 1 the table. JUnder tne old practice it put the bill aside 
 ! temporarily, but since 1841 the House has used it to 
 dispose finally of a bill without debate. Moreover, the 
 motion, if it prevails, carries all amendments to the 
 table with it; or, if moved on an amendment, it carries 
 the bill with it. If Senate amendments to a House bill 
 be laid on the table the bill also goes to the table. " This 
 is upon the very sensible ground," said Speaker Reed, 
 "that you cannot go on with an amendment when the 
 main subject is no longer before the House, and cannot 
 go on with the main question when there exist amend- 
 
THE MAKING OF A LAW 277 
 
 ments liable to be called up at the pleasure of the 
 House." l Speaker Randall held that a motion to lay a 
 particular section on the table, if decided affirmatively, 
 carried the whole bill to the table, and Speaker Boyd, 
 as early as 1853, held that it carried to the table all 
 pending motions connected with it. Speaker Reed 
 further extended its power by holding that the motion 
 might be made even though a member entitled to prior 
 recognition held the floor for debate. 2 Thus, it became 
 possible for one who inadvertently failed to raise the 
 question of consideration to repair the mistake by mov- 
 ing to lay the bill on the table. 
 
 If the motions to adjourn and to lay on the table are 
 negatived, the previous question, if ordered, carries the 
 bill through the amendment stage until engrossed and 
 read a third time. The previous question as used in the 
 House is the only motion for closing debate. Under the 
 present rule it may be asked and ordered upon a single 
 motion, a series of motions, or an amendment or amend- 
 ments, or it may be made to embrace all authorized 
 motions or amendments and include the bill to its pas- 
 sage. 3 After it is ordered, a motion to lay on the table, 
 to postpone, or to refer cannot be applied to it or to the 
 main question. In other words, it brings the House to 
 a direct vote upon the immediate question, unless no 
 debate has occurred on it, in which case forty minutes 
 are allowed. But this applies only to the main question 
 and not to incidental motions. Nor does it matter how 
 slight the prior debate may have been. Even the utter- 
 
 1 Parliamentary Rules, p. 83. 
 
 55th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 744. 3 Rule xvn, sec. 1. 
 
278 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ance of an explanatory sentence is held to be "debate." l 
 Thus, in April, 1898, when the celebrated House joint 
 resolution authorizing and directing President McKinley 
 to intervene and stop the war in Cuba came from the 
 . Senate with a substitute as an amendment, Speaker 
 Reed ruled that after the previous question was ordered, 
 although the object of the forty-minute rule was solely 
 to prevent a proposition being rushed through without 
 debate, the pending substitute could not be discussed, 
 since its subject-matter had already received such de- 
 bate as the House saw fit to give it before the resolution 
 went to the Senate. 2 
 
 Until the previous question is ordered, however, de- 
 bate continues, and the intervening motions to postpone 
 to a day certain, to refer, to amend, and to postpone 
 indefinitely, are allowed in the order of their recital. The 
 purpose of these motions is usually to delay or defeat 
 the bill. The motion to postpone to a day certain, for 
 illustration, gives opportunity, without permission to 
 debate the merits of the main question, to plead for time 
 to study the measure. In like manner the motion to 
 refer affords a further chance to sidetrack it by insisting 
 that more time than the House can then give is needed 
 to investigate it. If the motion be to refer with instruc- 
 tions, the scope of the debate is extended to the merits of 
 the bill. But the most insidious motion is to postpone 
 indefinitely, because it avoids a direct vote on the bill, 
 opens the whole question to debate, and, if carried, de- 
 feats the measure. 
 
 1 54th Cong., 1st Sess.. Record, p. 5649. 
 8 55th Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4062. 
 
THE MAKING OF A LAW 279 
 
 In actual practice, however, these intervening motions 
 are rarely used, for when a bill reaches the amendment 
 stage the previous question is usually ordered. In that 
 event the Speaker states the question to be, "Shall the 
 bill be engrossed and read a third time?" If decided in 
 the affirmative, the bill is again read by title, unless its 
 reading in full is demanded. At this stage the Chair 
 recognizes an opponent of the measure for a motion to 
 recommit. Unless precluded by the previous question, 
 this motion may be amended, as by adding "with in- 
 structions," and if recommitted and subsequently re- 
 ported again, another motion to recommit is allowed. 
 If the motion be "to recommit with instructions that 
 the committee report forthwith," the Chair reports at 
 once without awaiting action by the committee and the 
 bill is again before the House for its immediate con- 
 sideration. 
 
 In presenting the reason for this peculiar procedure, 
 which originally excited much adverse criticism, Speaker 
 Reed said: "The rules provide that after a bill is ordered 
 to a third reading that is, after it passes the amend- 
 ment stage the House shall look at it as amended. It 
 might happen that the majority does not favor two 
 apparently conflicting amendments, and to give oppor- 
 tunity to remedy it this motion 'to recommit with in- 
 structions that the committee report forthwith* is per- 
 mitted. It takes the form of a peremptory instruction 
 to the committee, and it seems proper that the chair- 
 man of the committee should promptly obey the orders 
 of the House. It is true the chairman is only the mouth- 
 piece of the committee, but the committee itself is the 
 
280 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 agent of the House and the House has a perfect right to 
 order the committee to do its will in whatever fashion 
 it sees fit. ... When it orders the committee to report 
 'forthwith/ that expression carries with it the right of 
 immediate consideration, thus enabling the House to 
 finish the business upon which it has entered. . . . Nor 
 can the substitute, if it belonged to the Committee of 
 the Whole, be sent there for consideration, for the whole 
 subject has been considered by that Committee and the 
 House has disagreed with its report so pointedly that it 
 has directed the committee originally in charge of the 
 matter to report to the House * forth with' another bill." 1 
 .. If the motion to recommit be defeated, the bill is 
 passed viva voce, or by the yeas and nays, if demanded 
 by one fifth of a quorum. The title of the bill, which 
 becomes important in case of doubt or ambiguity, is 
 then amended, if necessary, without debate. But the 
 bill is not "out of the woods" until a motion to recon- 
 sider is disposed of. Under the rule this motion may be 
 made at any time on the same or succeeding day, after 
 which it cannot be withdrawn except by consent of the 
 House, but may be called up by any member, "provided, 
 that such motion, if made during the last six days of a 
 session, shall be disposed of when made." 2 While this 
 motion is pending, therefore, a bill is not considered 
 passed. Nor will the Speaker knowingly sign it, for if 
 the bill has gone to the Senate or reached the President 
 the motion may still be entertained. It has precedence 
 of all other questions except a motion to adjourn and 
 the consideration of a conference report, and may even 
 1 51st Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 3505. 2 Rule xvm, sec. 1. 
 
THE MAKING OF A LAW 281 
 
 be made after the previous question has been ordered 
 on a bill to its passage. When once entered it remains 
 pending until the end of a Congress unless sooner dis- 
 posed of, and whenever agreed to it reopens the entire 
 proposition. 
 
 This motion, apparently so disturbing to parliamen- 
 tary action, has had a curious and interesting history. 
 Originally it was unlimited. It could be moved at any 
 time regardless of the whereabouts of the bill, which 
 might in the mean time have reached the Senate or the 
 President. But in 1811 the House restricted the motion 
 to "the same or succeeding day," and so it remained 
 until 1828, when Speaker Stevenson, in one of his 
 famous autocratic rulings, restricted it to the hour on 
 those two days devoted to the presentation of motions. 
 The House quickly resented this limitation, and at the 
 instance of Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, whom Presi- 
 dent Jackson subsequently appointed Associate Justice 
 of the Supreme Court, it declared that on either day the 
 motion "shall take precedence of all other questions 
 except a motion to adjourn." l A little later Stevenson 
 crippled it with another shot, holding that a member 
 could withdraw his motion even though the time had 
 elapsed for another to make it. This ruling continued 
 until 1848, when the House adopted the present provision 
 preventing its withdrawal without the consent of the 
 House. Meantime, however, members of the Twenty- 
 third Congress (1839) had stumbled on a way to avoid 
 its sting. A sharp contest over a memorial relating to 
 the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia had 
 1 20th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 1041. 
 
282 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ended in an order directing the clerk to print it. Such 
 respect had rarely if ever been shown petitions of this 
 character, and Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, moved to 
 reconsider the resolution, "which gave rise," says 
 Adams, "to a snarling debate." l After this a motion 
 followed to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 
 Just what this would accomplish nobody seemed to know, 
 but Speaker Bell ventured the opinion that the clerk 
 could not print the memorial, as the motion to lay on 
 the table, if carried, might subsequently be taken from 
 the table, when the question would recur on the motion 
 to reconsider. Of course such a disposition of the matter 
 satisfied the distinguished Virginian, and the motion to 
 reconsider went to the table. At a later day, when a 
 member sought to take the motion from the table, he 
 found his unprivileged effort thwarted by a single ob- 
 jection which could be overcome only by a suspension 
 of the rules. This meant that tabling a motion to re- 
 consider virtually killed it. Thus was established the 
 practice, whenever a motion is carried or lost, of imme- 
 diately moving to reconsider and to lay that motion on 
 the table. 2 The present custom of the same member 
 making the double motion came a little later. 3 
 
 A bill being passed and the question of its reconsidera- 
 tion being disposed of, the clerk certifies the fact at the 
 foot of it and delivers it to the Committee on Enrolled 
 Bills, where it is engrossed; that is, printed on paper. 
 The clerk then sends it by a messenger to the Senate, 
 
 1 Diary, vol. ix, p. 206. 
 
 * 27th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 11; Journal, p. 406. 
 
 32d Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 1560. 
 
THE MAKING OF A LAW 283 
 
 who, at a proper moment, is introduced by the sergeant- 
 at-arms with the words, "Mr. President, a message from 
 the House of Representatives." Thereupon the mes- 
 senger bows and addresses the presiding officer as "Mr. 
 President," who, in turn, addresses the messenger as 
 "Mr. Clerk." The messenger, in a distinct voice that 
 all may hear, responds: "I am directed by the House of 
 Representatives to inform the Senate that the House 
 has passed the following bill [indicating it by number 
 and title], in which the concurrence of the Senate is 
 requested." The bill is handed to the sergeant-at-arms 
 and the messenger retires. If the Senate amends it, it 
 is returned with like formality, the messenger, after 
 presentation by the doorkeeper, addressing the Chan* as 
 follows: "Mr. Speaker, I am directed by the Senate to 
 inform the House of Representatives that the Senate 
 has passed the bill of the House [indicating it] with the 
 accompanying amendments, in which the concurrence 
 of the House is requested." The bill then goes to "the 
 Speaker's table" and is subsequently referred to the 
 proper standing committee. On being reported it fol- 
 lows the course previously taken, except that it need not 
 go to the Committee of the Whole if the amendments do 
 not involve new and distinct appropriations. 1 In such 
 cases the House not infrequently disagrees to all amend- 
 ments and asks at once for a conference. 
 
 The Speaker, under the modern practice, usually ap- 
 points three conferees or managers, the chairman of 
 the committee in charge of the bill, the member next in 
 
 1 An increase or decrease of an amount is insufficient to send it to 
 the Committee of the Whole. 
 
284 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 rank, and the ranking member of the minority, who 
 continue to act to the end. Conferences are held in the 
 room of the Senate committee having jurisdiction of the 
 bill. No reason exists for this and the custom is often 
 resented. "Why should we go over there to listen to 
 their reasons for amending our bill," complainingly in- 
 quired Samuel J. Randall, "when the House asks the 
 conference and holds possession of the papers?" Other 
 famous chairmen have voiced similar protests. But so 
 far as known only one conference in half a century has 
 occurred in the House wing of the Capitol. Though en- 
 tirely informal, conferences are ordinarily conducted 
 behind closed doors. There is no presiding officer, al- 
 though the first-named manager in each body assumes 
 to lead his section. In settling points of difference mem- 
 bers of both Houses frequently appear, often upon in- 
 vitation. The privilege of making statements is a 
 courtesy that sometimes disarms opposition. Nor is it 
 uncommon to invite a representative of the Govern- 
 ment, whose expert knowledge is of value. The Presi- 
 dent, also, is frequently consulted as to his views and 
 wishes. In one case formal hearings, attended by wit- 
 nesses and attorneys, aided in eliminating difficulties. 
 Not infrequently resort is had to the most amusing 
 schemes for securing a unanimous report. Senator 
 Hoar, of Massachusetts, cites an instance of reaching an 
 agreement by striking out, hit or miss, every alternate 
 amendment. 1 Indeed, it has been charged that laws are 
 made in the conference room. "By our practice," said 
 John Sherman, of Ohio, "we have gradually extended 
 1 Autobiography, vol. n, p. 99. 
 
THE MAKING OF A LAW 285 
 
 the powers of conference committees until a proposition 
 to send a bill to conference sometimes startles me. I feel 
 that both Houses ought to make a stand against the 
 attempt to transfer the entire legislative power of Con- 
 gress to such committees." 1 The text to which both 
 Houses have agreed cannot in the slightest particular 
 be changed in conference, but a harmless amendment is 
 sometimes inserted for the purpose of admitting modifi- 
 cations which will emasculate or defeat the bill. The 
 danger of the House being deceived into concurrence 
 is minimized, since the rules require that the report of 
 the managers shall be accompanied by a detailed state- 
 ment sufficiently explicit to inform the House what 
 effect any amendments or propositions will have on 
 the measure to which they relate; nor can any confer- 
 ence report be considered until such report and the ac- 
 companying statement shall have been printed in the 
 Record. But this rule does not apply during the six days 
 preceding the end of a session. 2 
 
 A conference report is highly privileged. It may be 
 presented at any time when the Journal is not being 
 read or a vote taken. It has precedence of a motion to 
 adjourn, and the only business allowed to intervene is 
 a recess previously fixed, or a question of privilege which 
 relates to the integrity of the House as an agency for 
 action. When recession is reported to have reached its 
 limit, the House may pass the bill, but it cannot submit 
 matter to its managers not originally submitted to them, 
 or instruct them to do what they might not have done 
 
 1 48th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 3974, 4098. 
 1 Rule XVHI, sees. 1, 2. 
 
286 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES . 
 
 in the first instance. Nor is it wise to instruct them not 
 to agree to an amendment, otherwise the Senate may 
 decline to confer and ask a "free conference"; that is, 
 one unfettered by instructions. 1 Usually the House ap- 
 proves the work of its managers, who thereafter often 
 meet a more yielding spirit. If each House sincerely 
 desires to pass a bill an agreement seldom fails. 
 
 When a House bill has passed each body, the clerk 
 prints it on parchment and delivers it to the Joint Com- 
 mittee on Enrolled Bills, who compares it with the en- 
 grossed bill and reports it to both Houses. Thereupon it 
 is signed by the Speaker in the presence of a quorum and 
 by the President of the Senate in like manner, after 
 which the chairman of the Committee on Enrolled Bills 
 presents it to the President, the date of such presenta- 
 tion being entered upon the Journal of each House. If 
 the President fails to approve or to return it within ten 
 days, Sundays excepted, it becomes a law unless Con- 
 gress prevents its return by adjourning. When approved 
 the President indicates the calendar day and hotir of 
 signing, 2 notifies the body in which it originated, and 
 sends it to the Secretary of State, who deposits it in his 
 office for publication and preservation. It is usual for 
 the President, when a bill becomes a law without his 
 signature, to inform the House in which it originated. 
 To facilitate the approval of bills on the last day of a 
 Congress, the President ordinarily occupies the room 
 assigned him in the Senate wing of the Capitol, although 
 
 1 51st Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 3745, 3768, 3860. 
 8 Prior to the Fifty-ninth Congress he indicated the legislative day, 
 which does not always correspond with the calendar day. 
 
THE MAKING OF A LAW 287 
 
 enrolled bills pending at the close of a session may be 
 treated at the next session of the same Congress as if 
 no adjournment had occurred. So a bill signed during a 
 recess becomes a law if the President acts within the 
 ten days' limitation. After a bill goes to the President 
 and before its approval, it may be recalled by a con- 
 current resolution, or, if an error exists, corrected by 
 a joint resolution. 1 
 
 A bill disapproved by the President must be returned 
 to the body in which it originated and the objections 
 entered on the Journal. Thereupon, if a quorum be 
 present, the House usually, although not invariably, 
 proceeds to consider the matter, the Speaker putting the 
 question, " Will the House, on reconsideration, agree to 
 pass the bill, the objection of the President to the con- 
 trary notwithstanding?" If the previous question be 
 ordered, the issue is at once determined by a call of the 
 yeas and nays, an affirmative vote of two thirds of the 
 members present being sufficient to pass the bill over 
 the veto. If so passed, it is sent, together with the Presi- 
 dent's objections, to the Senate. On the other hand, if 
 it appears that two thirds of the members are indisposed 
 to overrule the veto, a motion is made in the first in- 
 stance to refer the bill, with or without the message, 
 or to lay it on the table. This procedure is held al- 
 lowable within the constitutional mandate that the 
 House shall enter the President's objections on its 
 Journal, "and proceed to reconsider it." 2 In practice 
 such action, when taken, is seldom disturbed. 
 
 1 39th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 3241, 3357. 
 
 2 Constitution, art. i, sec. 7. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 DEBATE AND DEBATEES 
 
 WHEN not voting the House is talking. Points of 
 order, appeals, motions, methods of procedure, ques- 
 tions of privilege, considerations of reports and bills and 
 resolutions all create differences and provoke debate. 
 But under the present rules it is easily controlled. Adams 
 complained that every member is so hemmed in by rigid 
 rules that he cannot open his lips without leave. 1 He 
 meant, of course, that one could neither take the floor 
 without recognition, nor keep it unless in order. The 
 Speaker controls debate on points of order, and when- 
 ever ready to rule he may decline to hear further argu- 
 ment. The House controls debate on appeals, on privi- 
 lege, on procedure, and the like, and whenever it has 
 heard enough the cry of "Vote! vote!" is usually effec- 
 tive. Debate on resolutions and bills considered under 
 suspension of the rules is limited to forty minutes, 
 divided equally between the mover and the one demand- 
 ing a second, who apportion the time. If one asks unani- 
 mous consent for the immediate consideration of a bill 
 a long dialogue may continue pending objection, but if 
 none be made the debate can be limited by the previous 
 question, which is the only motion used for closing de- 
 bate in the House as distinguished from Committee of 
 the Whole. Thus debate, whenever or however it occurs, 
 1 Diary, vol. ix, p. 135 (1834). 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 289 
 
 is dominated by clearly defined and well-understood 
 rules, and although members may not obtain recogni- 
 tion whenever they seek it, opportunity to speak, de- 
 pendent upon the condition of business and the age of the 
 session, is usually given when the House goes into Com- 
 mittee of the Whole for the consideration of general ap- 
 propriation bills. Several hours are then set apart for 
 "general debate," and members may discuss any matter 
 however foreign to the measure before the Committee. 
 This custom is borrowed from the House of Commons. 
 "The second reading of an appropriation bill," says 
 Lucy, "plays the part of the seven baskets in the parable, 
 all the elocutionary or disputatious fragments which re- 
 main after the feast being picked up and crammed within 
 its ample fold." 1 
 
 "General debate" is often a dreary performance. The 
 contentiousness is not close enough or rapid enough to 
 hold the interest. One set speech follows another, and 
 although recognition alternates from one side to the 
 other, the answering speech seldom bears directly on the 
 points of the preceding speaker. Besides, busy men who 
 care for nothing except the vital question involved weary 
 of generalities or the repetition of familiar principles. 
 Whatever interest attaches to these speeches, therefore, 
 grows out of the manner of delivery, or the sharp, strik- 
 ing presentation of the subject-matter. Too often at 
 such times speeches are recited from memory or read 
 from manuscript in a monotonous tone, not infrequently 
 to less than a dozen persons who remain out of compli- 
 ment to the participants. Nevertheless, the House is the 
 1 H. W. Lucy, Peeps at Parliament, p. 217. 
 
290 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 most indulgent of audiences. It smiles at feeble jokes, 
 encourages with occasional applause, and conceals an 
 inclination to laugh if an impassioned orator upsets an 
 inkstand or sends a glass of water flying over his neigh- 
 bor. Even the bore is held sacred lest in the struggle for 
 relief from tiresome talk the right of free speech be lost. 
 
 In early years members occasionally attempted to 
 silence tedious speakers by noisy interruptions, 1 but in 
 its wildest moments the House never adopted the intol- 
 erant treatment which the British Commons accorded 
 Mr. Gladstone in 1885 upon his introduction of the first 
 Home Rule Bill. He pathetically complained that "it 
 struck a fatal blow at the liberties of debate and at the 
 dignity of Parliament." 2 When objection was taken to 
 the Colonial Secretary answering questions on Chinese 
 labor, addressed directly to the Premier, the Opposition 
 prevented his speech by yelling continuously for one 
 hour. 3 Such demonstrations are wholly unknown in the 
 American House. 
 
 The custom of printing undelivered speeches in the 
 Record affords additional opportunity for presenting 
 one's views. Indeed, readers of the Record can no longer 
 know what is really said on the floor, since many un- 
 delivered speeches indicate applause never given and 
 questions never asked, while the right to revise delivered 
 speeches permits omissions and additions. "The petty 
 practice/* says McCall, "of editing the report of 
 speeches by inserting 'applause* and 'laughter* in the 
 
 1 John Quincy Adams, Diary, vol. ix, pp. 118, 152. 
 
 2 Hansard, May 15, 1885. 
 
 8 Lucy, Memories of Eight Parliaments, p. 372. 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 291 
 
 printed version has made the House appear to be a very 
 stupid sort of body, going wild with enthusiasm over 
 eloquence the cheapest and most fustian, and con- 
 vulsed with 'laughter' over jokes the point of which 
 years of subsequent study have failed to disclose " 1 
 Hansard, the official publication of the British Commons, 
 designates revised remarks by a star. A similar use of 
 the asterisk would improve the integrity of the Record, 
 for much that is spoken is never printed and much that 
 is printed is never spoken. "Gales sent me the manu- 
 script of his reporter," wrote Adams, "and I wrote 
 almost the whole of it over again." 2 It is not surprising, 
 perhaps, that the sarcastic "old man eloquent," in his 
 cooler moments, deemed revision wise, but a star should 
 have noted the change. 
 
 The five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole, 
 as stated elsewhere, is at times highly enjoyable. Too 
 often, however, it becomes mere routine work a trans- 
 ference to the floor of differences developed in the com- 
 mittee room, which the House hears and then decides. 
 This sort of teamwork has led a distinguished critic to 
 charge that "in form, committees only digest the various 
 matter introduced by members and prepare it for the 
 House; but, in reality, they dictate the course to be 
 taken. The House sits not for serious discussion, but to 
 sanction the conclusions of its committees, so that it is 
 not far from the truth to say that Congress in session 
 is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its 
 committee rooms is Congress at work." 3 To an ob- 
 
 1 Life of Thomas B. Reed, p. vii. 2 Diary, vol. vin, p. 437. 
 8 Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 79 (published in 
 1885). 
 
292 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES <- 
 
 server in the gallery this would often appear to be true. 
 With manifold interests and limited time legislators 
 must specialize as well as members of other professions. 
 Thus each committee becomes a specialist in legislation, 
 and the House, in disposing of private and minor public 
 bills which constitute two thirds of its business, relies 
 upon information presented by its committees. It sits 
 as a court, so to speak, and approves or disapproves. In 
 the case of private pension bills it often acts perfunc- 
 torily, passing one or two hundred measures in as many 
 minutes. The House of Commons conserves its time by 
 similar methods. It appoints four standing committees, 
 each composed of sixty to eighty members representing 
 parties in proportion to their number, to which are re- 
 ferred all measures except money bills and those con- 
 ferring provisional orders. In these committees, whose 
 work supersedes action in Committee of the Whole, 
 twenty is a quorum and forty an average attendance. 
 Their sessions are public or private as each committee 
 directs, and their reports go directly to the House, which 
 perfunctorily approves. But in the American House, as 
 in the Commons, measures of public interest, especially 
 those involving revenue and appropriations, ordinarily 
 receive thorough consideration. In the House of Repre- 
 sentatives members often range themselves in concentric 
 circles about the debaters, who are frequently en- 
 couraged by loud applause. 
 
 Possessors of correct and complete knowledge are no- 
 where more willingly heard than in the House, and if 
 one has a good voice it deepens the interest. "Genius is 
 not important," said Thomas B. Reed. "On the con- 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 293 
 
 trary it is a disqualification. Men are wanted who have 
 knowledge, the ability to sift estimates, to ascertain 
 the law, and to present recommendations for the con- 
 sideration of the House." l The truth of this statement 
 is happily illustrated by the manner in which William 
 B. Washburn, of Massachusetts, a clear-headed, sound 
 business man, eager to do justice and determined to 
 do right, disposed of the cloud of war claims that so 
 heavily burdened Congress after the close of the Civil 
 War. His thorough investigation, lucid reports, and 
 sane recommendations quickly gained the confidence 
 of the House. "Beneath his plain courtesy," says Sena- 
 tor Hoar, "was a firmness and fairness which Cato 
 never surpassed." 
 
 It frequently happens that the chairman of a great 
 committee submits to the House a complicated bill of 
 one hundred or more printed pages, divided into sec- 
 tions, each paragraph presenting a different state of 
 facts. To retain control of its form and substance 
 through all the vicissitudes of its consideration, espe- 
 cially if it be of a controversial character, he must not 
 only know the history, purpose, and need of every item, 
 and with tact and good temper answer questions without 
 wobbling, but quickly distinguish amendments harmful 
 if not fatal in their tendency, and indicate by timely and 
 conciliatory suggestions the way out of tangles created 
 in the heat of discussion. Mr. McKinley's ability to do 
 this rested upon perfect knowledge gained in committee 
 or by midnight study, and it made him an ideal chair- 
 man of Ways and Means. 
 
 1 49th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 208. 
 
294 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 The House usually possesses a corps of able debaters, 
 noticeably limited to members upon whom fall the bur- 
 den of much talking. It is practice that makes an ac- 
 ceptable parliamentary speaker. "A parliamentary 
 orator," says Justin McCarthy, "is one who can employ 
 the kind of eloquence and argument which tell most 
 readily on Parliament. But it must not be supposed that 
 the parliamentary orator is necessarily a great orator in 
 the wider sense. Some of the men who made the greatest 
 successes as parliamentary debaters have failed to win 
 any genuine reputation as orators of the broader and 
 higher school. Disraeli first rose to fame as a great de- 
 bater during the debate on the abolition of the Corn 
 Laws, but he never succeeded in being more than a par- 
 liamentary orator." 1 Burke says that by slow degrees 
 Charles James Fox became the most brilliant and power- 
 ful debater ever heard in Parliament, and Fox himself 
 attributed his success to the habit of speaking, well or 
 ill, at least once every night. Macaulay thinks it would 
 be difficult to name any great debater whose knowledge 
 of the science of parliamentary defense resembles an in- 
 stinct. It is often observed that a new member, though 
 he has gained high reputation as a speaker in other fields, 
 struggles piteously with parched tongue in his early at- 
 tempts to address the House. Morley tells of Gladstone, 
 at the beginning of his parliamentary career, offering up 
 a silent prayer before rising to speak. "I made a few re- 
 marks to-day," wrote John Quincy Adams, soon after 
 entering the House in 1831. "I am so little qualified by 
 nature for an extemporaneous orator that I was not a 
 1 A History of our Own Times, vol. i, pp. 303-04. 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 295 
 
 little agitated by the sound of my own voice." l Yet, 
 eleven years later, when bent with age and trembling 
 with palsy, he stood in his place for an entire week, pend- 
 ing Wise's resolution to expel him, and cowed an angry 
 majority into a body of deeply interested listeners, whose 
 verdict was nearly three to one in his favor. With sar- 
 casm always on tap, he seemed to spare no one. Al- 
 though he never attained first rank as a parliamentary 
 debater, he not only possessed marked dramatic power, 
 but his habit of seizing upon and repeating slowly, with 
 a rising and falling inflection, a single word used by an 
 opponent, created a "raw" as horsemen say. 
 
 Members are rare who, with lightness of touch and in- 
 bred courtesy, wield a polished blade, smiiing gently and 
 filling the great hall with ripples of laughter as they drive 
 home arguments which are the despair of their oppo- 
 nents. A distinguished preacher once attempted it and 
 failed. A lecturer, with rounded periods well memorized, 
 failed to attract after the second effort. A noted after- 
 dinner speaker who captivated well-fed audiences seemed 
 out of place in serious debate. An orator, well groomed, 
 with raucous voice and stage stride, held attention like 
 an actor on the opening night, but repetitions drew small 
 houses. Indeed, it is difficult to tell just what the House 
 will like. Macaulay's description of the Commons ap- 
 plies to it. "The House of Commons," he says, "is a 
 place to which I would not promise success to any man. 
 I have great doubt about Jeffrey. It is the most peculiar 
 audience in the world. I should say that a man's being a 
 good writer, a good orator at the bar, a good mob orator, 
 1 Diary, vol. vin, p. 424. 
 
296 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 or a good orator in debating clubs, was rather a reason 
 for expecting him to fail than for expecting him to suc- 
 ceed in the House of Commons. A place where Walpole 
 succeeded and Addison failed; where Peel now succeeds 
 and where Mackintosh fails; where Erskine and Scarlett 
 were dinner bells; where Lawrence and Jekyll, the two 
 wittiest men, or nearly so, of their time, were thought 
 bores, is surely a very strange place." l Mr. Elaine, in 
 his eulogy of President Garfield, says: "There is no test 
 of a man's ability in any department of public life more 
 severe than service in the House of Representatives; 
 there is no place where so little deference is paid to repu- 
 tation previously acquired or to eminence won outside; 
 no place where so little consideration is shown for the 
 feelings or failures of beginners. What a man gains in 
 the House he gains by sheer force of his own character, 
 and if he loses and falls back he must expect no mercy, 
 and will receive no sympathy. It is a field in which the 
 survival of the strongest is the recognized rule, and 
 where no pretense can survive, and no glamour can 
 mislead. The real man is discovered, his worth is im- 
 partially weighed, his rank is irrevocably decided." 2 
 
 The House often tires of talk. Yet floor leaders, like 
 faithful sentinels, fearful that something may occur to 
 demand their presence, sit day after day listening to 
 "the dreary drip of pointless twaddle." Often between 
 seven and eight o'clock, says Lucy, "when the House 
 was almost empty and some unimportant, unattractive 
 member found his chance, Mr. Gladstone sat with hand 
 
 1 Trevelyan, Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, p. 57. 
 t 2 Delivered in the House of Representatives, February 27, 1882. 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 297 
 
 to ear. During the interminable Home Rule debates he 
 formed a habit of moving to the gangway end of the 
 Treasury Bench, sitting there by the hour listening to 
 members whose measure of attraction was indicated by 
 the emptiness of the benches." l A similar sight may 
 often be witnessed in the American House. It relieved 
 the disappointment of strangers, when visiting an empty 
 House in the seventies, to find Randall and Garfield pa- 
 tiently attentive. Their names had become household 
 words and their presence gave warmth to the great 
 chamber. For years with boldness and matchless force 
 they convinced the country that its deliberative assem- 
 bly was under worthy guidance, and their constant 
 attendance suggested the importance of the questions 
 arising in the years immediately succeeding the Civil 
 War. At a later period Thomas B. Reed, tireless, un- 
 faltering, ruthless, held the weary watch. It meant 
 that no point was too minute for his criticism or too 
 large for his virile grasp, while his presence encouraged 
 the hope that at any moment his clear, penetrating 
 voice might change the House from a dull, half -weary 
 body to an expectant public meeting. When he rose, a 
 hundred members, catching the words "Mr. Speaker," 
 hastened from their seclusion and settled into an atti- 
 tude of attention. Without notes and perhaps without 
 scruples he restated the point at issue, rubbed off the 
 paint, picked an apt illustration, forgot and forgave 
 nothing, and in a few minutes, with well-phrased sen- 
 tences, sometimes steeped in sarcasm or flashing with 
 wit, disclosed the weakness of an opponent. Such a 
 1 H. W. Lucy, Peeps at Parliament, p. 178. 
 
298 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 speech banishes fatigue like a night's refreshing sleep. 
 That is what the House likes. 
 
 The high-principled orator, dignified in manner and 
 unfailing in courtesy, who gives rhetorical finish to his 
 sentences, is deeply appreciated by the House; but the 
 real leader is the original, daring debater, who seizes the 
 opportune moment, and, without apparent preparation, 
 hurls his forceful, compact sentences, loaded with de- 
 structive arguments, into the midst of his adversaries. 
 Many historic speeches have come thus unannounced. 
 In a few minutes Henry L. Dawes, by advocating a free 
 breakfast table and tactfully moving the previous ques- 
 tion, completely wrecked a revenue reform measure 
 which sacrificed the protective interests of New Eng- 
 land. 1 Perhaps the most notable instance of such readi- 
 ness occurred in 1879, when a majority of the House, 
 chafing under federal laws governing elections, at- 
 tempted to force their repeal by refusing to make 
 appropriations. Day after day the debate dragged 
 tediously, until James A. Garfield, prodded by im- 
 pudent questions and angered by satirical laughter, 
 launched into a thirty-minute speech, charging that 
 the former enemies of the Government, having failed 
 to shoot it to death, now proposed to starve it to 
 death! The effect was electrical. It gave purpose to 
 the debate, threw the House into wild excitement, and 
 so deeply stirred the country that the appropriations 
 were passed and the session hurriedly closed. 2 
 
 Years after as sudden a change occurred when the 
 
 1 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, p. 4480. 
 
 2 46th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 115-18. 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 299 
 
 House levied a duty on products coming from Porto 
 Rico, the sum so collected to be returned to the Island. 
 In his message President McKinley had advocated free 
 trade, the press of the country supported the policy, and 
 the majority party approved it. But in the discussion 
 Sereno E. Payne, of New York, chairman of Ways and 
 Means, spoke with such fullness of knowledge, illustrat- 
 ing the effect of recent storms upon the Island and 
 showing the need of immediate funds for roads and 
 schools, that he persuaded his party in a single speech to 
 adopt the policy so beneficial to the impoverished people. 
 With equal thoroughness James R. Mann, of Illinois, 
 turned the chamber into a great chemical laboratory, 
 and without mystery or magic opened a way for the pas- 
 sage of the Pure Food Bill by demonstrating with simple 
 experiments the various processes of adulterating food 
 products with enormous profit. There was nothing sen- 
 sational. His readiness in blending and mixing amazed 
 his hearers, while peals of laughter greeted his versatility 
 in manufacturing whiskey out of water and drugs. It 
 was the triumph of preparedness. 
 
 The House is rarely if ever without a few effective 
 debaters. As stated above, veteran members who talk 
 much usually learn to talk well. But as one studies the 
 great debates of the past century, the fact appears that 
 speakers who have commanded the country's attention 
 come in groups. Indeed, it may be said that the congres- 
 sional firmament reveals constellations of genius as 
 clearly as the heavens disclose brilliant star clusters. 
 The jewels in Orion's belt never shone more brightly 
 than did Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts, the transcend- 
 
300 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ent orator and profound lawyer; Elias Boudinot, of New 
 Jersey, the accomplished and benevolent statesman; and 
 James Madison, the Constitution-maker, who served in 
 the first two Congresses under President Washington; 
 while about them, like the three collinear stars, clustered 
 Elbridge Gerry, Roger Sherman, and George Clymer, 
 the trio of distinguished "signers." These men repre- 
 sented a country staggering under a mountain of debt 
 inherited from the Revolutionary struggle, and without 
 waiting for the inauguration of a President or the crea- 
 tion of a Treasury Department, they prepared and 
 passed a revenue bill before the organization of the 
 Government was announced to foreign nations. "It is 
 a circumstance of curious interest," writes Mr. Elaine, 
 " that nearly, if not quite, all the arguments used by the 
 supporters and opponents of a protective system were 
 presented at that time with a directness and an ability 
 which have not been surpassed in any subsequent dis- 
 cussion. The 'ad valorem' system of levying duties was 
 maintained against * specific' rates in almost the same 
 language employed in recent years. The * infant manu- 
 factures,' the need of the 'fostering care of the Gov- 
 ernment* for the promotion of 'home industries,' the 
 advantages derived from 'diversified pursuits,' the com- 
 petition of 'cheap labor in Europe,' were all rehearsed 
 with a familiarity and ease which implied their previous 
 and constant use in the legislative halls of the different 
 States before the power to levy imposts was remitted to 
 the jurisdiction of Congress." l 
 
 The light of these patriots had scarcely disappeared 
 1 Twenty Years of Congress, vol. I, p. 183. 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 301 
 
 when Robert Goodloe Harper, of South Carolina, John 
 Randolph and John W. Eppes, of Virginia, and George 
 W. Campbell, of Tennessee, dwarfed the fame of col- 
 leagues by their supremacy in debate. Under their 
 management, and especially that of Randolph, was es- 
 tablished a national judiciary which proved so wise that 
 the execution of law within the jurisdiction of federal 
 courts, although enlarged from time to time, remains to 
 this day substantially the same as in the beginning. 
 After them came the famous quintet of bold, aggressive 
 young men Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, William 
 Lowndes, Langdon Cheves, and Richard M. Johnson, 
 whose militant patriotism forced the War of 1812. In 
 this brilliant constellation also shone Daniel Webster, 
 John W. Taylor, and Henry R. Storrs, of New York, 
 Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, and James Buchanan, of 
 Pennsylvania. It was a period of strong wills and com- 
 manding intellects, when the Missouri question sud- 
 denly arrayed the North and the South in a violent and 
 absorbing conflict, which as quickly subsided upon the 
 adoption of the Missouri Compromise. 
 
 The organization of the Democratic and Whig parties, 
 constructed on the ruins of the old Republican party 
 that Jefferson created and dominated for a quarter of a 
 century, brought into the congressional heavens an 
 entirely new star cluster, which attracted the country's 
 attention during the Speakership of Stevenson and 
 Polk (1827-39). Rufus Choate and Edward Everett 
 adorned the earlier part of it. For a single term Sergeant 
 S. Prentiss, of Mississippi, Thomas F. Marshall, of Ken- 
 tucky, and Richard H. Menifee, a young man of great 
 
302 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 promise, flashed their meteoric light. William Pitt 
 Fessenden, caustic and stern, also tarried for a term be- 
 fore passing to the Senate, while Franklin Pierce, with 
 fine rhetoric, handsome features, and charming manners, 
 impressed John Y. Mason and Dixon H. Lewis with his 
 steadfastness and future availability for President. But 
 the stars whose light shone the most steadily during the 
 struggles over the right of petition, the principle of a pro- 
 tective tariff, and the nullification movement, were John 
 Quincy Adams of daring courage; Samuel F. Vinton, of 
 Ohio, whose rare endowments identified him with all 
 the vital issues; George Evans, of Maine, incomparable 
 for masterful argument and graceful thrust of rapier; 
 Thomas Corwin, of keenest wit and oratorical power; 
 John Bell, of Tennessee, a Titan in offensive and de- 
 fensive debate; and Henry A. Wise, before whose ma- 
 licious sarcasm even the Speaker quailed. 
 
 A small star cluster of the first magnitude appeared 
 in the forties, when the Walker Tariff Bill, the annexa- 
 tion of Texas, the Mexican War, and the Clay com- 
 promises divided Congress and the country. From the 
 South came Alexander H. Stephens, with frail body and 
 massive head; Howell Cobb, of Georgia, faintly indicat- 
 ing leadership proportions; and Robert Toombs, the 
 fiery apostle of an unhappy policy. From the North, 
 Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, massive and muscular in 
 physique, who continued the fight that John Quincy 
 Adams had provoked and stubbornly maintained; 
 Robert C. Schenck, of the same State, an ideal parlia- 
 mentary talker; Robert C. Winthrop, a graceful, highly 
 cultivated orator, though never an effective debater; 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 303 
 
 Edward Dickinson Baker, then of Illinois, a man of 
 extraordinary gifts of eloquence ; and Stephen A. Doug- 
 las and Thaddeus Stevens, destined to be without liv- 
 ing rivals as dominating political leaders. Although a 
 native of New England, Douglas in action was of a 
 Western type. Schouler, the historian, thus describes 
 him: "He had a small, compact frame, whence issued 
 a surprisingly stentorian voice, and his type of eloquence 
 at once startled the House by its novelty. As he warmed 
 up in speech his grave face became convulsed, his gesticu- 
 lation frantic, and while roaring and lashing about with 
 energy, he would strip off his cravat and unbutton his 
 waistcoat to save himself from choking, until his whole 
 air and aspect, as he stood at the desk, was that of a half- 
 naked pugilist hurling defiance at the presiding officer. 
 But all this gave at once to his person that picturesque- 
 ness which goes halfway toward making one a figure in 
 public life." 
 
 Early in the next decade the vital issue suddenly 
 changed. Although the Whig party, weakened by per- 
 sonal strife and hopelessly divided on questions of princi- 
 ple, suffered a crushing defeat in 1852, the South was 
 dissatisfied. The Mexican War had added Texas as 
 slave territory, but it had also given to the Union the 
 great free Commonwealth of California, while the grow- 
 ing West and Northwest threatened to present other 
 States with like sentiments. Unless this rich territory 
 could be opened to slave labor the far-seeing Southern 
 leaders saw but one result to the battle between freedom 
 and slavery, and to gain such an advantage they forced 
 the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Leading this 
 
304 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 tragedy were Stephens, of Georgia, George S. Houston, 
 of Alabama, Linn Boyd and John C. Breckinridge, of 
 Kentucky, William Barksdale, of Mississippi, John S. 
 Phelps, of Missouri, Thomas L. Clingman, of North 
 Carolina, William Aiken, James L. Orr, and Lawrence 
 M. Keitt, of South Carolina, and Thomas S. Bocock, of 
 Virginia. Of the Southern stars in the House only John 
 S. Millson, of Virginia, and Thomas H. Benton, of 
 Missouri, opposed the proposition. Simultaneously there 
 appeared, rising slowly above the horizon, a Northern 
 constellation that blazed the brighter the nearer it 
 approached the zenith. Galusha A. Grow and Schuyler 
 Coif ax; the two Washburns, Israel and Elihu B. 1 ; Henry 
 Winter Davis, of Maryland; Anson Burlingame, Na- 
 thaniel P. Banks, and Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts; 
 John Sherman and John A. Bingham, of Ohio; Justin A. 
 Morrill, of Vermont, and Reuben E. Fenton, of New 
 York. All were not orators or even effective debaters. 
 Nor did any, perhaps, possess the imagination that lifts 
 speeches into an atmosphere above the level of the 
 Record. But proud of soul and weighted with patriotic 
 responsibility, they championed their cause with buoy- 
 ant readiness. Thomas B. Reed, who heard Banks in the 
 campaign of 1856, presents a vivid picture of him: 
 "Banks that day was in the prime of vigor and personal 
 comeliness. Dressed in blue, with closely buttoned coat, 
 his well-chosen language, his graceful figure and 
 gesture, and his aggressive way carried with him the 
 whole audience." 2 
 
 1 Although brothers, Elihu spelled his name with a final " e " and 
 Israel without it. 
 
 2 S. W. McCall, Life of Thomas B. Reed, p. 13. 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 305 
 
 The opening of the Thirty-eighth Congress (1863) 
 presented another remarkable cluster. Notable, indeed, 
 would it have been if limited to William B. Washburn 
 and George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts; William B. 
 Allison and John A. Kasson, of Iowa; Francis Kernan 
 and John A. Griswold, of New York; and John A. J. 
 Creswell, of Maryland, and William R. Morrison, of 
 Illinois; but the addition of James G. Blaine, James A. 
 Garfield, and Samuel J. Randall gave it a character that 
 surpassed in brilliancy and commanding intellect even 
 the famous galaxy headed by Clay and Lowndes in the 
 Twelfth Congress. Nor did it lose its luster during the 
 entire decade, for as one after another disappeared 
 Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, Benjamin F. Butler, of 
 Massachusetts, Eugene Hale and William P. Frye, of 
 Maine, and Joseph G. Cannon, of Illinois, filled the gaps. 
 Others also gave it idat. Proctor Knott, of Kentucky, 
 made dullness feel ashamed; Henry J. Raymond, of 
 New York, although too confident of his splendid gifts, 
 evoked high compliment by ready and effective speech; 
 while Roscoe Conkling, whose "affluent and exuberant 
 diction was never surpassed in either branch of Con- 
 gress, unless, perhaps, by Rufus Choate," l seemed 
 supreme in everything he chose to do. 
 
 The laws of the Reconstruction period, trampling too 
 heedlessly, perhaps, upon men's prejudices, for a time 
 suppressed the brightest minds of the South; but when 
 statutes ceased to oppress, a brilliant star group again 
 appeared from the Southland, including Stephens and 
 Benjamin H. Hill, of Georgia; Roger Q. Mills and John 
 1 Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress, vol. i, p. 328. 
 
306 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 H. Reagan, of Texas; Eppa Hunton and John Randolph 
 Tucker, of Virginia; John G. Carlisle and John C. S. 
 Blackburn, of Kentucky; and John D. C. Atkins, of 
 Tennessee. It was a notable coincidence that just at 
 this time no less remarkable an assemblage appeared 
 from the North, headed by Thomas B. Reed, William 
 McKinley, Frank Hiscock, of New York, George D. 
 Robinson, of Massachusetts, and Benjamin Butterworth, 
 of Ohio. Though the Record is evidence that some of 
 these newcomers did little more than "rattle a defiant 
 drum," several showed the power and genuine inspira- 
 tion in debate which mark the highest forensic success. 
 The period of Cannon's Speakership (1903-11) was 
 especially distinguished for its members of long continu- 
 ous service. Never in the history of the House did so 
 many men of large parliamentary experience appear. 
 The so-called Clay Congresses (1811-25) mustered at no 
 time more than twenty members who had served five 
 terms each, while from 1789 to 1860 only forty exceeded 
 six terms. After the Civil War the average term of serv- 
 ice gradually lengthened, although during the adminis- 
 trations of Speakers Blaine and Kerr and Randall and 
 Carlisle the longest consecutive service rarely exceeded 
 twelve years. Constituents did not seem to appreciate 
 the value of experienced legislators. But of those who 
 assembled in December, 1905, thirty-eight had served 
 fourteen years or better, and seventy-eight from ten to 
 twelve years each. In that experienced body one could 
 count many excellent talkers and several most effective 
 debaters. Of this type were Jonathan P. Dolliver, of 
 Iowa, eloquent and aggressive; Champ Clark, of Mis- 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 307 
 
 souri, always delightfully interesting and decidedly 
 human; Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, a master of clear 
 statement and a dispenser of unchallenged information; 
 Samuel W. McCall, of Massachusetts, scholarly and 
 scrupulously fair; and John Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, 
 proud of soul, but of good temper, who was preeminently 
 fitted by nature to hold high place in the councils of his 
 party. In this group belonged Oscar W. Underwood, of 
 Alabama, James R. Mann, of Illinois, and John S. 
 Williams, of Mississippi. 
 
 Among other members who engaged the interest of 
 the public were Charles H. Grosvenor, of Ohio, and 
 William P. Hepburn, of Iowa. Side by side they sat, 
 two veterans of the Civil War, gray with age, but ever 
 adequate, listening with a chip on the shoulder, and ever 
 and anon, with silver-trumpet voice, a perfect articula- 
 tion, and a splendid diction, delighting the House with 
 the vigor and freshness of their speeches, bristling with 
 sarcasm and political raillery. 
 
 Of equal interest were Robert R. Hitt, of Illinois, and 
 Marlin E. Olmsted, of Pennsylvania. Hitt was cradled 
 among statesmen. He reported in shorthand the Lin- 
 coln-Douglas debates in 1858 something of a feat in 
 that day; as secretary to Oliver P. Morton, the War 
 Governor of Indiana, he met the master-spirits of the 
 war; and as a member of the American Legation at Paris, 
 after the downfall of Napoleon III, he came into more or 
 less intimate associations with the men worth knowing 
 in Europe. On his return he joined Mr. Blaine in the 
 Department of State, served as Commissioner to the 
 Hawaiian Islands, and for twelve years headed the Com- 
 
308 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 mittee on Foreign Affairs. All parties greatly esteemed 
 him. He was a man of high principle and amiable char- 
 acter, whose calm earnestness, avoiding extravagance 
 and yielding nothing to fiery nonsense or provincial prej- 
 udice, impressed the House as a champion of the dignity 
 and honor of his country. Like Hitt, Olmsted had a 
 calm, meditative intellect, often coldly analytical, but 
 never artificial or ineffective. He was not eloquent. He 
 lacked the imagination if not the enthusiasm of an or- 
 ator. As an effective reasoner, however, he was without 
 a rival. In revising the laws governing the Philippine Is- 
 lands, a labor covering most of one session, he patiently 
 and cleverly met opposition with a gentle, unprejudiced 
 intelligence that won respect and rarely failed to secure 
 assent. 
 
 Among these various groups were men whose genius 
 especially fitted them for the work of the House. Their 
 leadership seemed indigenous to the soil. It required the 
 tumult and excitement of large membership rather than 
 the frigid silence of a smaller body clearly to exhibit their 
 poise as they calmly rose to every occasion, phrasing 
 sentences and selecting words that conveyed without 
 anger and without offense their aggressive, belligerent 
 attitude. One can hardly imagine John Quincy Adams 
 or Joshua R. Giddings serving in another legislature. 
 Their places in parliamentary history could have become 
 distinguished only in the House. In a crisis, when col- 
 leagues wavered and agitation threatened the support 
 of a violent change in administrative policies, Thaddeus 
 Stevens was exactly the man to seize boldly and adroitly 
 on the critical moment. His radicalism represented the 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 309 
 
 views of multitudes of people whose representatives 
 promptly answered to his trumpet call, and with auda- 
 ciously powerful sarcasm he maintained the lofty tradi- 
 tion founded by Adams in the House as much as did 
 Disraeli that founded by Pitt and Fox in the Commons. 
 It is not easy to think of Samuel J. Randall and 
 Thomas B. Reed serving elsewhere than in the House. 
 They were leaders of men. They could brighten ^;he 
 driest details, inspire implicit confidence in their views, 
 and arouse the admiration of the indifferent until their 
 appeals divided members into two hostile camps; but 
 they could also hold their alignment without the loss of a 
 vote and crush a less confident man who dared to offend. 
 Morrison, of Illinois, used to say in jest that no man 
 "can be quite so wise as 'Sam' Randall looks." Al- 
 though Reed voluntarily withdrew from the splendid 
 arena in which he had so long played a brilliant part, 
 and Randall died a member of the House, neither left 
 any intimation that a seat in the Senate attracted him. 
 Probably no member of the House ever refused an elec- 
 tion to that exalted body. Relief from the biennial cam- 
 paign, with its many harassing features, would of itself 
 commend the change. When increasing age begins to 
 shy at the more strenuous life, the desire for a shift be- 
 comes even more potent. This was Disraeli's reason for 
 not resisting the glittering lure of a coronet. He was no 
 longer as young, he said, in his farewell speech at Ayles- 
 bury, as when forty-three years before he had addressed 
 the electors of Buckinghamshire in that same place. 
 But he lives in history only as the great leader of the 
 Commons. Men have likewise passed to the Senate 
 
310 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 whose brilliant parliamentary careers are remembered 
 solely because of their service in the House. Whoever 
 thinks of John Randolph, or John Quincy Adams, or 
 Elaine, or Carlisle as senators? It is interesting to note, 
 also, the long list of notable members of the House who 
 never served in the Senate. Among them are Presidents 
 Madison, Polk, Fillmore, Lincoln, Hayes, Garfield, and 
 MdKinley, and all the Speakers for the past century save 
 Clay, Bell, Hunter, Elaine, and Carlisle. Indeed, of the 
 array of brilliant members mentioned in this chapter, 
 two thirds never served in the Senate. 
 
 It is difficult to get away from the men composing 
 these various groups, for whenever subjects of national 
 interest have engaged the attention of the House their 
 speeches adorn the pages of the parliamentary annals. 
 Ranged on either side, they have alternately carried their 
 points, and, although the legislation of one decade has 
 been modified in the next, a glance through a century 
 of lawmaking history clearly shows that policies which 
 made for the speedy transaction of business, for better 
 government, for larger liberty, and for the greatest good 
 to the greatest number, have slowly progressed. In fact, 
 the tariff is the only question of nation-wide interest 
 which has not in some measure yielded to argument, and 
 although the theory of protection has dominated the 
 country most of the time in the last half-century, the 
 differences of opinion as to the best mode of levying 
 duties on imports are as wide to-day as in the beginning. 
 
 It is doubtful if even the best speeches upon questions 
 of vital interest are much read except as presented 
 through the press. When delivered, the country care- 
 
DEBATE AND DEBATERS 311 
 
 fully watches the progress of a debate, as it did when 
 Congress repealed the Missouri Compromise and ham- 
 mered into shape the fourteen tariff acts which have 
 followed at too frequent intervals the Act of 1816; but 
 after their passage few persons other than the historian 
 re-read the debates. Details are tedious, banter is un- 
 gainly, sarcasm seems blunt, denunciation loses its 
 attractiveness, and arguments condensed into a single 
 article are more accessible. Indeed, little is remembered 
 of a law in the making except choice bits of rhetoric 
 the literature of debate which find their way into 
 books of eloquence and form material for declamation 
 in school and college work. Nevertheless, parliamentary 
 debate will ever continue to attract. The clash of mind 
 against mind reveals not only personality, but the roots 
 of the division which are traced discriminatingly from 
 cause to effect. It is a field contest. In modern phrase 
 it is "team play," in which the art of finesse becomes a 
 necessary part of the debater's equipment, and every 
 maneuver to gain a superior position belongs to the 
 struggle. 
 
 Moreover, touches of genius in the shape of calm, 
 didactic exposition, or the more elaborate sentences of 
 the rhetorician, half conversational and half oratorical, 
 are certain to get into the fusing pot, out of which the 
 law is finally drawn. Apropos of this, many still living 
 will recall the close of the debate on the Wilson Tariff 
 Bill in 1894. Thomas B. Reed broke his record of thirty 
 minutes by speaking two hours, while William L. Wilson, 
 an accomplished orator, took account of time no more 
 than did the audience which filled the great hall. In 
 
312 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 this debate there was nothing volcanic no trace of 
 gushing, or overpowering, spontaneous eloquence. The 
 thoughts, too, were calm. But there was vigor of lan- 
 guage, extreme readiness, a versatility that amazed men 
 at its extent, a blending of details into concrete proposi- 
 tions that dazzled and battered, and now and then a 
 sentence of scintillating wit or impinging sarcasm that 
 touched off peals of applause. "To achieve this with 
 contested facts in a combative life," says Bagehot, "is 
 among the rarest operations of a rare power." No one 
 changed his mind, however. Lines were then strictly 
 drawn and the result known in advance; but the interest 
 was not less intense than in the days when Lowndes 
 argued for the Act of 1816, or Henry Clay gave reasons 
 for presenting the Bill of 1833. 
 
 Interest is added to these spectacular occasions by 
 the presence of a full House, sitting in martial array. 
 If it happens to be evening the illuminated ceiling of 
 the chamber throws a soft, rich light upon the scene, the 
 crowded galleries catch the spirit that reigns upon the 
 floor, and for the moment the salvation of the country 
 seems to hang upon the voting down or up of the 
 measure. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 
 
 THE constitutional provision that "each House shall 
 be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications 
 of its own members" gives a majority the right to dis- 
 pose of contested election cases as party interest deter- 
 mines. 1 There is neither appeal nor review. Although 
 precedents be ignored, statutes neglected, and the rules 
 of evidence disregarded, there is no redress. Conscious 
 of this power the House, for a century and a quarter, has 
 been rendering partisan judgments. 
 
 Early in its history it evinced a desire to treat such 
 cases impartially. Its first Committee on Elections, 
 headed by George Clymer, of Pennsylvania, recog- 
 nized the sacredness of titles to seats, and in present- 
 ing the facts, uncolored by partisan influences, it enabled 
 the House to act fairly and justly. The disposition of 
 the famous case of Anthony Wayne, the Revolutionary 
 hero, is a notable illustration of this loyalty to principle. 
 It is easy to imagine the influence of Wayne's patriotic 
 services. The memory of his conduct at the battles of 
 Brandywine and Germantown and Monmouth, and his 
 brilliant achievement in carrying Stony Point with the 
 bayonet at midnight, deeply affected his colleagues. To 
 members from the South his courage in saving Lafayette 
 in Virginia and his superb skill in aiding at the siege of 
 1 Constitution, art. i, sec. 5. 
 
314 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Yorktown, especially commended him. But the testi- 
 mony in his case revealed gross errors, if not criminal 
 suppression of the returns. Thereupon the House, by a 
 unanimous vote, declared the seat vacant, although it 
 seemed to hold Wayne guiltless of any wrongdoing, since 
 it soon after supported President Washington's recom- 
 mendation that he be appointed general-in-chief of the 
 army. 
 
 To guide it in the settlement of contests the House, 
 in 1791, appointed Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts, 
 chairman of a committee to prepare a uniform mode of 
 procedure. His admirable report, which fixed the time 
 for taking depositions and prescribed rules for governing 
 the procedure, formed the basis of the Statute of 1798. 
 This gave the settlement of disputed titles the character 
 of a judicial proceeding. But a violent antagonism be- 
 tween the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, revealed in 
 the case of Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts (1795), 
 early established the rule that might makes right. In his 
 first campaign for Congress, Varnum, who was destined 
 to become Speaker, left a trail of questionable doings 
 behind him. It appeared from a memorial submitted by 
 Theodore Sedgwick, the Federalist leader, that the 
 board of selectmen in Varnum's home town, of which 
 Varnum himself was a member, had returned sixty votes 
 more than the town was entitled to, thus giving him 
 eleven majority. In the debate Sedgwick asked that 
 testimony be taken under the procedure established by 
 the Ames report, since the House alone could compel 
 the contumacious town clerk to produce the record con- 
 taming the names of the illegal voters. To this Varnum 
 
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 315 
 
 strenuously objected. Such a procedure, he insisted, 
 would make the House a party to the investigation, a 
 precedent which, if once established, must greatly harass 
 sitting members. He thought the complainants should 
 first present the names of the voters alleged to be illegal, 
 and when told that his co-conspirator, the town clerk, 
 refused to produce the records, without which the 
 spurious names could not be discovered, he introduced 
 evidence that the methods practiced by the other side 
 disclosed the only reprehensible conduct. Nevertheless, 
 the Anti-Federalists, who happened to be in control, 
 sustained Varnum's objection to summoning the town 
 clerk, and later adopted a resolution declaring "that the 
 charges against him are wholly unfounded, and that his 
 conduct appears to have been fair and unexceptional 
 throughout the whole transaction." l Thus, amidst an 
 outburst of derisive laughter, the incident closed like a 
 harlequinade. 
 
 This case, so unblushingly violative of all principles 
 of equity, tended to make decisions in election contests 
 more and more indefensible. The failure to reenact the 
 Statute of 1798, which expired by limitation in 1804, 
 indicated a growing disposition to treat such contests 
 entirely from a party standpoint. The Kentucky case 
 of Letcher vs. Moore (1833) illustrated the length to 
 which well-meaning members often allowed their per- 
 sonal prejudices or party fealty to govern in such mat- 
 ters. By willfully withholding a poll-book a sheriff of 
 one of the five counties composing the district prevented 
 the issue of a certificate to Letcher, who had received a 
 1 4th Cong., 2d Sess., Journal, p. 659. 
 
316 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 majority of all the votes. No one believed Moore en- 
 titled to the seat, but the absence of a certificate pre- 
 sented a chance to challenge Letcher's title, and by the 
 very close vote of 112 to 114 the House refused to seat 
 him, declaring the place vacant. 1 "The House stultified 
 itself," wrote Adams, "by shrinking from the decision 
 which had been forced upon it." 2 
 
 This astonishing result, obtained by setting aside 
 valid returns without the slightest excuse, encouraged 
 members in the next Congress to dispose of the North 
 Carolina case of Newlands vs. Graham with even less 
 regard for the proprieties. 3 Graham's certificate showed 
 seven majority, but the House, without the slightest 
 examination, "excluded the rightful member and came 
 within one vote of admitting the intruder." 4 
 
 If a majority, without need of recruits, wantonly un- 
 seats opponents simply to gratify partisan prejudices, 
 it is certain to disregard all semblance of fairness when 
 control of the House hinges on its action. This truism 
 was illustrated in the Mississippi case of Prentiss and 
 Word vs. Claiborne and Gholson (1837). In response to 
 President Van Buren's call for an extra session, the 
 governor, under the general authority of the Constitu- 
 tion to fill vacancies, issued writs for a special election 
 to choose Representatives to serve "until superseded by 
 the members chosen at the regular election on the first 
 Monday and Tuesday in November." Under this proc- 
 lamation Claiborne and Gholson were duly elected and 
 
 1 23d Cong., 1st Sess., Debates, pp. 2130-60. 
 
 2 Diary, vol. rx, p. 445. 
 
 8 24th Cong., 1st Sess., House Rep. no. 378. 
 4 John Quincy Adams, Diary, vol. ix, p. 445. 
 
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 317 
 
 took their seats in September. The evidence of a political 
 reaction throughout the country, induced by the " hard 
 times" of that year, suggested the advisability of re- 
 taining the sitting members throughout the entire Con- 
 gress, and early in October, on the plea that the governor 
 had exceeded his power in limiting their service, the 
 House declared them elected for the full term. There- 
 upon Claiborne and Gholson to escape defeat at the 
 polls, cunningly renounced their candidacy for reelection 
 in November. This left the field open to Sergeant S. 
 Prentiss and Thomas J. Word. 
 
 Prentiss had already won a nation-wide fame as an 
 orator, and his contest crowded the floor and galleries 
 with Washington's intellectual life, eager to hear the 
 extraordinary Mississippian with "the big towering 
 head" and a voice resembling "the sweet, strong tones 
 of a great organ." In the argument Claiborne denied the 
 governor's authority to limit his term, held the action 
 of the House in October res adjudicata, and declared the 
 voters of Mississippi knew nothing of the limitation, 
 their intention being to elect for two years instead of two 
 months. Prentiss, claiming that the voters understood 
 the limitation, pronounced it infamous to charge the 
 people of a great State with ignorance. He also stigma- 
 tized the October action of the House as a gross legisla- 
 tive usurpation. If the governor had no right to limit 
 the term, he said, the House had no power to extend it. 
 Congress may seat or exclude, but it cannot elect, a 
 member. Prentiss spoke two hours a day for three con- 
 secutive days, and at its conclusion took his place among 
 the greatest orators of his time. Mr. Webster declared 
 
318 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 that "no one can equal him." John C. Calhoun pro- 
 nounced it "splendid, splendid, splendid!" with addi- 
 tional emphasis on each repetition of the word. John 
 Quincy Adams, who rarely commended and never flat- 
 tered, thought it "full of spirit and of argument, and 
 seldom surpassed as a specimen of eloquence." Sixteen 
 years afterward President Fillmore wrote: "It was the 
 most brilliant speech I ever heard." 
 
 It proved more than brilliant, however. The argu- 
 ment that the House may seat or exclude, but cannot 
 elect, captured the legislative mind, and the October 
 edict was rescinded and the would-be usurpers un- 
 seated. 1 
 
 This should have opened the door to Prentiss and 
 Word, whose credentials, regular hi form, sufficient in 
 law, and representing an unimpeached majority, were 
 based upon the November election. But the loss of con- 
 trol loomed big in the eyes of Administration supporters, 
 and the vote refusing them admittance resulted in a tie, 
 117 to 117. 2 This gave Speaker Polk the casting vote. 
 As elsewhere related, Polk was an able, bold, ambitious 
 politician, who measured men and means according to 
 their value in advancing his personal interests, which 
 just then centered on the governorship of Tennessee, and 
 although his hesitation, and finally his whispered "Aye," 
 faintly heard in a House profoundly silent, indicated that 
 the famous orator had captured his reason, he preferred 
 to obey the voice of selfishness. No applause followed 
 the announcement. Men recognized it as a Pyrrhic 
 victory. "This has been one of the most remarkable 
 1 25th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 158. 2 Ibid. 
 
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 319 
 
 conflicts between honest principle and party knavery 
 that I ever witnessed," wrote Adams. "The result is a 
 parti-colored composition between right and wrong 
 half honest and hah 5 knavish. The retribution upon 
 Claiborne and Gholson is signal." * But Prentiss and his 
 colleague were not defeated. The voters of Mississippi 
 shared the indignation of the country, and at a special 
 election, called immediately thereafter, both received an 
 overwhelming majority. 2 On presenting himself before 
 the Speaker to be sworn, Prentiss claimed his seat by 
 virtue of the November election, holding the more re- 
 cent one to be unconstitutional. To this Polk made no 
 answer. But at the close of the Congress, when the 
 Speaker's friends sought to pass the usual vote of 
 thanks, Prentiss's brilliant and caustic summary of 
 Polk's uninviting character as a presiding officer forced 
 a speech of glorification and pique. 3 
 
 The stinging reproof administered by the people of 
 Mississippi in no wise modified the House procedure. 
 Partisan influences not only dictated decisions, but con- 
 tests without merit found encouragement for the pur- 
 pose of controlling the organization of the House. To 
 such an extent was this practiced that hi the next Con- 
 gress (1840) a hold-over clerk became the chief con- 
 spirator in the famous New Jersey contest known as the 
 "Broad Seal case." 4 Attempts to reform such practices 
 finally resulted in the Act of 1851, which governs the 
 
 1 Diary, vol. ix, p. 488. 
 
 2 25th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 95; Ibid., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 104, 
 150, 158, and Appendix pp. 68, 93, 124, 127. 
 
 3 See chap, v, p. 72. 
 
 4 See chap, n, p. 14. 
 
320 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 present procedure. 1 It provides that a contestant must 
 serve within thirty days an "intelligible" notice, specific 
 in its allegations, which the contestee must answer 
 within thirty days; that testimony must be taken during 
 the next ninety days, the contestant being entitled to 
 the first forty and the last ten; that either party may 
 apply for subpoenas to any state or federal judge, or to 
 any mayor, recorder, notary public, or register in bank- 
 ruptcy, and in their absence to any two justices of the 
 peace within the district; that if consent be given in 
 writing the parties may, without further notice, take 
 depositions before any authorized officer, but witnesses 
 must be subpoenaed five days in advance and are not 
 required to leave their county. The testimony, including 
 papers and ballots, after being duly attested by wit- 
 nesses, must be transmitted by the officer taking it to 
 the clerk of the House, who, within twenty days there- 
 after, must notify the parties to appear and select such 
 portions as they desire printed, the pleadings and an 
 index being a part of the record. Within sixty days after 
 printing the parties must exchange briefs, which, with 
 the record and all unprinted testimony, are filed with 
 the Committee on Elections. 
 
 In its investigation the Committee may examine bal- 
 lots, and in case of doubt or ambiguity as to votes, it may 
 take testimony, especially where wrongly written bal- 
 lots or the mistakes of returning officers appear, pro- 
 vided such errors contribute to change the result. The 
 House never presumes fraud, however glaring and wide- 
 spread, so that a contestant must invalidate the con- 
 1 29 Stat. L., p. 568. 
 
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 321 
 
 testee's title by proving his own. The mere showing of 
 enough illegal votes to change the result will not suffice. 
 The fact must affirmatively appear that the contestee 
 benefited by them. But the burden of proof shifts to the 
 sitting member whenever the Committee ascertains that 
 the credentials originally belonged by right to the con- 
 testant. Where notices of election fail to reach a town 
 and no votes are cast, proof is required of the number 
 of voters thus disfranchised in order to show that title 
 would continue in the returned member if all such votes 
 had been cast against him. It is of no consequence that 
 a contestant receives fewer votes than the head of his 
 party ticket. Nor does the candidate receiving the next 
 highest number take the seat if the one having a major- 
 ity dies or is excluded. 
 
 In the House, during the consideration of an election 
 case, both parties are heard, the contestant opening and 
 closing the debate. Counsel was occasionally allowed in 
 earlier years, but since 1856 the practice has been dis- 
 continued. When a delegate who could neither speak 
 nor understand English appeared from the Territory of 
 New Mexico, the Committee represented him on the 
 floor. 
 
 The provisions of the Act of 1851, however, have never 
 governed the House. Israel Washburn, of Maine, de- 
 clared it directory, not binding. "By the Constitution," 
 he said, "each House is made the sole judge of the re- 
 turns, qualifications, and election of its own members, 
 and each body must and can judge for itself. The law of 
 1851 is simply the advice or suggestion of reasonable 
 and just men as to the proper course to be taken and 
 
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 nothing more." 1 Unfortunately, a disposition to ignore 
 the act has long controlled the House. It often waives 
 specifications when a notice is vague, or unrelated to 
 vital questions, or defective as to the number of illegal 
 votes. In one case it heard a contest upon the merits, 
 although the notice was too imperfect to support a deci- 
 sion. At another time it ignored the fact that the first 
 notice was irregular and that the supplemental notice 
 was filed after the time required by law. One House 
 insisted upon considering a question not raised in the 
 notice, and another, after ruling a notice insufficient, 
 permitted the contestant to amend orally. On the other 
 hand, because a contestant did not demand it in his 
 notice, the House refused to count the votes of one pre- 
 cinct, although the testimony justified it. 
 
 Discretion is likewise exercised in taking testimony. 
 The House sometimes specifies the character and often 
 fixes the time and place of taking it, especially if the 
 provisions of the law exclude or prevent its being taken in 
 time to secure a decision. The evidence being imperfect 
 or insufficient, the House has frequently authorized the 
 Committee to take additional testimony. In one in- 
 stance it prescribed a course of procedure for serving a 
 notice and taking testimony. On the other hand, it has 
 as often ignored testimony on mere technicalities. One 
 House rejected important testimony-in-chief because 
 taken in the time allowed for rebuttal; another refused 
 to allow additional newly discovered testimony, al- 
 though the supporting affidavits disclosed a deliberate 
 and carefully planned conspiracy to seat the contestee. 
 1 35th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 452. 
 
r 
 
 CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 323 
 
 Indeed, so many contrary precedents have been estab- 
 lished that whatever the majority desires to accomplish, 
 whether honest or dishonest, can be supported by pre- 
 cedent. Or, to state it in another form, it may be said 
 that adherence to or departure from precedents and 
 statutory procedure occurs whenever it will subserve 
 the interest of the majority. "The decision of election 
 cases," says Thomas B. Reed, "invariably increases the 
 party which organizes the House and appoints the Com- 
 mittee on Elections. Probably there is not an instance 
 on record where the minority benefited." * Reed him- 
 self had had a contest. The charge, based upon the in- 
 timidation of voters, was supported by such indifferent 
 proof that it invited ridicule rather than serious con- 
 sideration. "I can only say," he wrote, in concluding a 
 brief of less than three pages, " that my experience with 
 the Democracy of my district does not lead me to regard 
 them as cowards. If I could scare them as easily as the 
 contestant seems to think and by means as inadequate 
 as he has proved, I have certainly been recreant in a plain 
 duty. I ought to have scared more of them." Neverthe- 
 less, inconsequential as the case was, he recognized that 
 he retained his seat simply because his party happened to 
 control the House. 
 
 When asked what were party questions, George D. 
 Robinson, of Massachusetts, afterwards governor, face- 
 tiously replied, "I know of none except election cases." 
 Upon entering the room of the Committee on Elections 
 of which he was a member, Thaddeus Stevens inquired 
 the point in the case under investigation. "There is not 
 1 North American Review, vol. 151, p. 114. 
 
324 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 much point to it," replied his colleague; "they are both 
 damned scoundrels." "Well," said Stevens, "which is 
 the Republican damned scoundrel? I want to go for 
 him." l When privilege was sought to prepare and 
 publish a digest of contested cases adjudicated in the 
 Fifty-first Congress, John H. Rogers, of Arkansas, face- 
 tiously moved an amendment that "any member who 
 referred to them hereafter as an authority should be sen- 
 tenced to penitentiary for life." 2 George F. Hoar, of 
 Massachusetts, who served on the Committee on Elec- 
 tions during the Forty-second Congress, confesses that 
 "whenever there is a plausible reason for making a con- 
 test the dominant party in the House almost always 
 awards the seat to the man of its own side." 3 He might 
 with pardonable propriety have omitted "almost," for 
 of three hundred and eighty-two cases of contest sub- 
 mitted up to and including the Fifty-ninth Congress 
 (1907), only three persons not of the dominant party 
 obtained seats. 
 
 These partisan settlements have enormously mul- 
 tiplied contests. Their number in early Congresses, 
 when the membership was comparatively small, often 
 occasioned surprise, but since the Civil War the number 
 not infrequently aggregates twelve to fifteen in a single 
 Congress. In the Forty-seventh Congress (1881) it 
 reached twenty-one, and in the Fifty-fourth (1895), 
 thirty-one, of which twenty-six came from the Southern 
 States. From 1865 to 1905 two hundred and ninety-two 
 
 1 George F. Hoar, Autobiography, vol. I, p. 268. 
 
 2 51st Cong., 2d Sess. Record, p. 2334. 
 8 Autobiography, vol. I, p. 268. 
 
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 325 
 
 cases were filed, of which one hundred and eighty-seven 
 came from the South. 
 
 The increasing number of contests has correspond- 
 ingly augumented the cost. The law allows each party 
 in interest $2000 for expenses, based upon a sworn de- 
 tailed statement, with a voucher for each item. 1 But 
 double this amount is often voted. In the celebrated 
 Pennsylvania case of Curtin vs. Yocum, which arose in 
 the Forty-sixth Congress (1879), the House allowed 
 each party $8000, which defrayed only a fraction of the 
 expense. Ten cases hi the Forty-sixth Congress mulcted 
 the Government $59,567, and the twenty-one cases filed 
 in the Forty-seventh, of which all were not prosecuted, 
 cost $71,285. During the eight Congresses succeeding 
 the Forty-second, eighty-four cases cost $318,000, or an 
 average of nearly $40,000 for each Congress or $4000 
 per case filed. In 1903 a contestant from Missouri got 
 his seat the last week of the Congress, drawing $10,000 
 salary, while the contestee had drawn as much. In ad- 
 dition each received $2000 for expenses. 
 
 The swelling of testimony, which often fills hundreds 
 of pages, adds enormously to the labor of examination 
 and decision. Nothing can be excluded which either 
 party desires inserted in the record. Objection may be 
 noted, but the testimony is taken. Only those who incur 
 the expense can really appreciate this burden. Besides, 
 a fiercely contested election at the polls is not unlikely 
 to be continued for another year with equal fierceness 
 
 1 Witnesses fees are limited to seventy-five cents per day and five 
 cents a mile for travel. Fees of officials employed in taking testimony 
 are governed by the laws of the State wherein the service is rendered. 
 
326 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 at Washington. Indeed, comparatively few contestants 
 appear except those belonging to the party which organ- 
 izes the House. This accounts for the absence of con- 
 tests from the South during the administration of 
 Speakers Kerr, Randall, Carlisle, and Crisp, and the 
 phenomenally large number presented during the Speak- 
 ership of Keifer and Reed. 
 
 Although three Committees on Elections are now 
 appointed instead of one as formerly, members often 
 find it physically impossible, with their other duties, to 
 give to the many cases the study necessary to their 
 proper disposition. In the House their consideration is 
 no less burdensome. Six cases in the Forty-eighth Con- 
 gress consumed thirteen days, four cases in the Fiftieth 
 took nine days, and nine cases in the Fifty-first occupied 
 sixteen days, or one ninth of the entire session. Yet 
 after the toil, the expenditure of money, and the con- 
 sumption of so much time, the decision, whatever it may 
 be, is discredited as partisan. No better illustration of 
 this practice need be cited than the West Virginia case 
 of Smith vs. Jackson, arising in the Fifty-first Congress 
 (1889), and made famous by the action of Speaker Reed, 
 who, to secure its consideration, initiated the counting 
 of a quorum. The governor gave Jackson, the sitting 
 member, a certificate based on a plurality of three votes. 
 Smith, the contestant, claimed a plurality of twelve 
 votes. The law of West Virginia made it the duty of the 
 commissioners of county courts in each congressional 
 district to transmit to the governor a certificate of the 
 result of elections within their respective counties, in 
 which the number of votes received should be set forth 
 
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 327 
 
 in words. The commissioners of Pleasant County certi- 
 fied that Jackson "received eight hundred and twe 
 votes." Of course, "t-w-e" was intended for "two," the 
 clerk having omitted to close the "o." But the governor 
 treated it as an abbreviation of "twelve," although no 
 one ever before recognized such an abbreviation, which 
 might stand for "twenty" as well as "twelve." More- 
 over, "twe," under the law, stood for a written number, 
 and no number of three letters beginning with "tw" 
 is or ever was known to the English language except 
 "two." Besides, the records of the Pleasant County 
 clerk showed Jackson's vote to be 802. This correction 
 gave Smith seven majority. Nevertheless, the decision 
 was denounced as grossly partisan. 1 
 
 Although Committees on Elections are usually made 
 up of able and conscientious members, their work has 
 neither lessened the number of cases nor decreased ex- 
 penses. In the presence of such a record it is so obvious 
 that something essentially vicious exists in this settle- 
 ment that one naturally turns to the procedure in the 
 House of Commons. Originally it disposed of contests hi 
 the American fashion. When the system became intoler- 
 able, it adopted in 1770 what it was pleased to call a 
 "reform measure," under which thirty-three members 
 were chosen by lot. Subsequently each party struck 
 off eleven names, leaving a committee of eleven to whom 
 were referred all contests. In 1839 Adams spoke of this 
 arrangement as "complicated," adding: "The ultimate 
 result is chance which is a more impartial arbiter than 
 
 1 51st Cong., 1st Sess., House Rep., no. 19; Rowell, p. 13; Record, 
 pp. 1025-43; Journal, pp. 187-90. 
 
328 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 will." * In 1848 the English substituted a Committee on 
 Elections, appointed by the Speaker and approved by 
 the House. This proved so unsatisfactory that in 1868 
 the Commons turned the whole matter over to the 
 judges of the Queen's Bench, the Common Pleas, and 
 the Exchequer, with power to establish a procedure for 
 determining the facts and principles of law. Under this 
 system each case is assigned to a judge, who visits the 
 election district at once, examines witnesses, and deter- 
 mines the facts on the spot, with the result that com- 
 paratively few contests now arise, while expenses are 
 greatly reduced. Indeed, so satisfactory is the English 
 plan that Thomas B. Reed advised Congress to estab- 
 lish a similar tribunal, expressing the belief that its de- 
 cisions, if acquiesced in for a few years, would create a 
 dominating sentiment sufficient to compel then* accept- 
 ance. Acting on his advice, the Committee on Elections 
 in 1895 reported a bill giving United States District 
 Courts jurisdiction. But nothing came of it. To the 
 objection that such assignments impair the usefulness 
 of judges, it is urged that English courts have not so 
 suffered, while publicity safeguards impartiality. 
 
 The existence of such a tribunal in 1887 must have 
 greatly benefited Speaker Carlisle, who suddenly be- 
 came a contestee. After serving notice of contest and 
 examining ten witnesses, the contestant moved the 
 Committee on Elections to appoint a subcommittee to 
 take further testimony, supporting his motion by affi- 
 davits affirming the contestee's admission of defeat; a 
 midnight conference of the contestee and his friends for 
 
 1 Diary, vol. x, p. 170. 
 
CONTESTED ELECTION CASES 329 
 
 the purpose of securing the election by fraud; the ab- 
 sence in most counties of tickets bearing the contestee's 
 name; the presence of poll-books in which the names of 
 scores of voters appeared in the same handwriting; and 
 the existence of many certificates bearing the name of 
 the same official signed in different handwriting. In 
 excuse for his failure to cover these points in the original 
 notice, the contestant pleaded betrayal by his attorney 
 and the contestee's admission of enough illegal votes 
 to more than offset his alleged majority. The majority 
 report, presented by Charles F. Crisp, refused the motion 
 because it did not appear by satisfactory evidence that 
 the contestant could prove title to the seat even if 
 allowed to reopen the case. On the other hand, the 
 minority, although admitting that the contestee's affi- 
 davits completely refuted the specifications, thought 
 that grave charges of fraud should not be hastily dis- 
 missed on the mere presentation of ex-parte affidavits. 
 "It believes that a reasonable showing having been 
 made by the contestant, he should, in all justice and 
 fair dealing, be allowed to establish by legal and com- 
 petent evidence, if he can, these allegations of fraud." 
 Accordingly it presented a resolution referring all papers 
 in the case to a subcommittee, with instructions to in- 
 vestigate carefully. At the conclusion of the debate the 
 resolution was defeated yeas, 125; nays, 132. 1 
 
 It is not surprising, perhaps, that Speaker Carlisle's 
 party, in view of the long-established custom of deciding 
 such questions wholly from a partisan standpoint, de- 
 clined to go into a long, expensive, and possibly doubtful 
 1 50th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, pp. 590-606, 629. 
 
330 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 trial. Yet Carlisle's alleged admission of defeat and of 
 hundreds of illegal votes, coupled with a mass of alleged 
 forgeries and the questionable conduct of the contest- 
 ant's attorney, provoked criticism and aroused a dis- 
 trust that pained the Speaker's admirers. Had a federal 
 judge entered the district as soon as notice of contest 
 was filed, an indelible stain on an otherwise creditable 
 record must have been avoided. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 
 IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 
 
 IN seeking to remove public officials by impeachment 
 Congress in the main has confined its efforts to members 
 of the judiciary. The attempt to impeach President 
 Johnson advertised its great prerogative and engrossed 
 its whole attention; but of the thirty-four cases which 
 have come within its scrutiny twenty-nine were judges 
 of United States courts. This is not surprising, perhaps, 
 since other appointive officers are subject to dismissal 
 and members of Congress to expulsion. Only the Presi- 
 dent, Vice-President, and judges are inaccessible except 
 by impeachment. 
 
 The Constitution alone governs cases of impeach- 
 ment. It provides that "the President, Vice-President, 
 and all civil officers of the United States shall be re- 
 moved from office on impeachment for, and conviction 
 of, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and mis- 
 demeanors." * It further provides that "the House shall 
 have the sole power of impeachment," and "the Senate 
 shall have the sole power to try all impeachments." * 
 In other words, the House indicts as a grand jury and 
 prosecutes as a district attorney; the Senate hears and 
 pronounces judgment as a court. "No person shall be 
 convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the 
 members present. Judgment shall not extend further 
 than to removal from office and disqualification to hold 
 1 Art. n, sec. 4. * Art. i, sees. 2 and 8. 
 
332 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the 
 United States; but the party convicted shall neverthe- 
 less be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, 
 and punishment according to law." l If the President 
 be tried, the Chief Justice presides. At other trials the 
 Vice-President, the president pro tern, or some senator 
 chosen for the purpose, may officiate. 2 
 
 In the House impeachment proceedings are set in 
 motion by petition, memorial, a letter of complaint, or 
 upon an oral or written statement of a member. The 
 first impeachment, charging William Blount, a senator 
 from Tennessee, with conspiracy to invade the territory 
 of a friendly power, was based upon a letter transmitted 
 to the House by President Jefferson. In the case of 
 Samuel Chase, an Associate Justice of the Supreme 
 Court, John Randolph, of Virginia, rose in his seat, and, 
 without resolution or specific charges, moved the ap- 
 pointment of a committee to consider the propriety of 
 impeachment. Although a general investigation as to 
 the execution of the laws preceded the impeachment of 
 President Johnson, the House finally voted to investi- 
 gate his conduct on charges made by a single member 
 on his own responsibility. To become privileged a 
 proposition to impeach, as distinguished from one to 
 inquire, must be presented; but the House, having once 
 consented to hear the matter, disposes of it as it sees fit. 
 If one House refuses to impeach, another may act. In 
 the case of Judge John C. Watrous, of Texas (1852), 
 three consecutive Houses passed upon the same petitions 
 without result. 
 
 1 Art. i, sec. 3. , * Ibid. 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 333 
 
 Under the approved practice the House refers com- 
 plaints to the Judiciary Committee, which, if the matter 
 seem sufficiently serious, appoints a subcommittee to 
 investigate, with authority to send for persons and 
 papers. Although respondents in the earlier days did not 
 always appear at such inquests, the later practice in- 
 vites them to be present in person or by counsel, with 
 the privilege of presenting and examining witnesses and 
 submitting oral or written statements. When heard 
 in his own behalf, however, a respondent is not obliged 
 to answer or produce proof. Rules of evidence are 
 ordinarily observed, unless the respondent, as in the 
 case of Judge Blodgett, of Illinois (1879), demands the 
 most liberal latitude. Of the thirty-four cases examined 
 by the House, twenty-five did not reach the Senate. Of 
 these, fifteen disclosed no cause of action, two were re- 
 ferred to other tribunals for prosecution, and eight re- 
 spondents resigned pending the investigation. Of the 
 nine officials tried by the Senate, Judges Pickering, of 
 New Hampshire (1803), Humphrey, of Tennessee 
 (1862), and Archbold, of Pennsylvania (1913), were 
 convicted. 
 
 Whenever the House indicts it appoints a committee, 
 usually of two members, to notify the Senate of its 
 action. A committee is also appointed to prepare articles 
 of impeachment. After their adoption five or more mem- 
 bers are selected by ballot or designated by the Speaker 
 to act as managers, upon whom rests the entire responsi- 
 bility of conducting the prosecution. The House, if it 
 attends the trial, appears as in Committee of the Whole. 
 During the trial of Justice Chase, of the Supreme Court 
 
334 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 (1804), and of President Johnson (1868), it appeared 
 daily in the Senate. It also accompanied its managers 
 when articles of impeachment were filed against Judges 
 Peck, of Missouri (1826), and Humphrey, of Tennessee 
 (1862). But with these exceptions it disclosed no special 
 interest in such trials. Nor do respondents always appear 
 in person. At the time of their trial Judge Humphrey 
 served the Confederacy; Judge Pickering was insane; 
 Senator Blount remained at his home in Louisiana; and 
 President Johnson deemed an array of five distinguished 
 attorneys sufficient representation. Justice Chase, 
 Judge Swayne, of Florida (1904), Judge Archbold, of 
 Pennsylvania (1913), and Secretary of War Belknap 
 (1876) appeared, although Belknap absented himself on 
 the day the Senate voted. 
 
 The Senate is a tribunal of first instance and of last 
 resort. No appeal lies from its decisions and no prece- 
 dent may govern its action. In preparation for the event 
 senators take the oath, 1 prescribe ceremonies, originate 
 forms, adopt rules, and, at an appointed day and hour, 
 receive the House managers, who read and file the arti- 
 cles of impeachment, duly signed by the Speaker and 
 attested by the clerk. The Senate also issues a writ of 
 summons to the respondent and fixes the time for filing 
 his answer. In conjunction with the House managers a 
 day is agreed upon for beginning the proceedings, when, 
 if the respondent fails to appear in person or by counsel, 
 the trial proceeds as on a plea of not guilty. 
 
 1 The oath is ordinarily administered to the secretary of the Senate 
 by some qualified official, who administers it to the presiding officer, 
 who in turn administers it to the senators. 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 335 
 
 At the suggestion of Vice-President Burr the Senate 
 made elaborate preparations for the trial of Samuel 
 Chase, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 
 Senators sat on crimson benches arranged on either side 
 and in line with the Vice-President; boxes were assigned 
 to managers and respondent's counsel on the right and 
 left of the Chair; the floor of the Senate, reserved for 
 members of the House, was flanked with boxes, set apart 
 for foreign representatives and officers of the army and 
 navy; while above a temporary platform, handsomely fur- 
 nished, provided room for ladies, those of distinguished 
 families finding accommodations in boxes at either end. 
 Only doors of the permanent gallery opened to all com- 
 ers. Over this brilliant array stood the marshal of the 
 District of Columbia as the preserver of order. This 
 arrangement, affecting the scene in the great hall of 
 Rufus at the impeachment of Warren Hastings, created 
 a mad rush for seats, which seriously disturbed the pro- 
 ceedings, and early in the trial the spectacular became 
 impracticable. Finally, when the respondent, then an 
 old man, a father of the Republic, and second in ability 
 to none in the chamber, received a triumphant acquittal, 
 the crimson benches disappeared with the violent party 
 spirit that initiated the proceedings. Nevertheless, the 
 House retained its pompous title of " the great inquest of 
 the nation," while the Senate remained a "high court of 
 impeachment." 
 
 Preliminary to the trial of President Johnson, the 
 Senate, perhaps fearing the influence of Chief Justice 
 Chase, manifested a disposition to rid itself of the char- 
 acter of a judicial body. The claim that the ordinary re- 
 
336 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 strictions of judicial process had no more application 
 than the guarantees accorded to the accused in jury 
 trials was strengthened by the fact that no right existed 
 to challenge a member of the Senate for any cause, or to 
 appeal to any court, or to any law save the Constitution. 
 Others argued that the presence of the Chief Justice 
 fixed its status as a court. Moreover, the Constitution, 
 by empowering the Senate to "try" impeachments, con- 
 templated the form of a judicial action. The peculiar 
 character of the oath administered to senators, as well 
 as an adherence to the technical terminology of the law 
 in the use of the words "conviction" and "judgment," 
 contributed to this conclusion. Precedent, too, had es- 
 tablished its judicial character. The Senate, however, 
 decided that it sat as a "constitutional tribunal," con- 
 vened "to inquire into and determine whether Andrew 
 Johnson, because of malversation in office, is longer fit 
 to retain the office of President, or hereafter to hold any 
 office of honor or profit." l 
 
 Having settled its status the Senate declined to require 
 the Chief Justice to be sworn. It also questioned his 
 right to decide on the admissibility of evidence. Some 
 maintained that he acted not as a presiding judge, but 
 simply as the mouthpiece of the Senate. He could decide 
 nothing. No one not a senator could take any part in 
 the trial save as a ministerial agent. This view did not 
 satisfy the more conservative, and by a vote of 31 to 19 
 the Chief Justice received permission not only to decide 
 all questions of law and evidence, subject to appeal if 
 any senator demanded a roll-call, but to give the casting 
 
 1 Report of Trial, p. 30. 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 337 
 
 vote in case of a tie. It emphasized the judicial character 
 of the body, too, when the Chief Justice, arrayed in his 
 robe, appeared at the door of the Senate, attended by an 
 Associate Justice, who subsequently administered the 
 oath to him. 
 
 In the trial of impeachment cases it was very early 
 contended that the rigid rules of evidence which gov- 
 erned the practice of courts of law did not apply. Wil- 
 liam Wirt, in the Peck case, quoting the Federalist in 
 support of the proposition, argued that proceedings in 
 the Senate should at least be conducted as liberally as 
 in courts conversant with the civil law. In general, how- 
 ever, the rules of evidence governing inferior or nisi 
 prius courts have been recognized. Thus, witnesses 
 are required to state facts instead of opinions, and to 
 present the best evidence procurable. Conversations 
 with third parties, not in the presence of the respondent, 
 are ordinarily excluded as well as cumulative testimony 
 as to the respondent's intent, although the respondent's 
 declarations of intent, made at the time of the act, are 
 admissible. 
 
 Questions of jurisdiction have also perplexed Con- 
 gress. Pending the preparation of articles of impeach- 
 ment in the case of William Blount the Senate expelled 
 him. Thereupon counsel raised the inquiry whether he 
 could be punished a second time by impeachment. He 
 did not contend, counsel said, that an officer could avoid 
 impeachment by resigning, but denied that the respon- 
 dent could be tried and disqualified for the same offense 
 for which he was expelled. Thereupon the Senate, by a 
 vote of 14 to 11, declared that "the court is of opinion 
 
338 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 that the matter alleged in the plea of defendant is suffi- 
 cient in law to show that this court ought not to hold 
 jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that it is dis- 
 missed." l The case of Schuyler Colfax, growing out of 
 the Credit Mobilier scandal in 1873, presented the ques- 
 tion whether a Vice-President could be impeached for a 
 wrongful act committed while Speaker of the House. 
 The Judiciary Committee held it material to allege that 
 the accused still exercised the duties of the office in 
 which the wrong occurred. 2 Benjamin F. Butler, of 
 Massachusetts, John A. Bingham, of Ohio, John A. 
 Peters, of Maine, and other admittedly able lawyers con- 
 curred in this report. Clarkson N. Potter, of New York, 
 dissented. The House took no further action presum- 
 ably for the reason that Colfax in a day or two would 
 retire. When Edward H. Durrell, District Judge of 
 Louisiana, resigned pending investigation (1874), Butler 
 thought the proceeding might go on for the purpose of 
 disqualification, but he doubted its propriety because of 
 Durrell's advanced age. Thereupon the House, by a 
 strict party vote, laid the resolution of impeachment on 
 the table yeas, 129; nays, 69. 3 Similar disposition was 
 made of the case of Richard Busteed, District Judge of 
 Alabama, who resigned pending impeachment proceed- 
 ings. 4 
 
 The case of Secretary Belknap presented the same 
 question. Belknap resigned as soon as an investigation 
 exposed his crime, and when the cause reached the Senate 
 
 1 Annals, pp. 2318-19. 
 
 8 42d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 324-26. 
 
 43d Cong., 2d Sess., Record, pp. 319-24. Ibid. 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 339 
 
 his counsel held that the Constitution contemplated 
 impeachment and removal of a civil "officer" only while 
 he held the office, the sole purpose being promptly to 
 arrest his power to do wrong. " When an officer resigns 
 and becomes a private citizen, is he still an officer?" 
 counsel asked facetiously. "Who is the President? An 
 ex-President? When we speak of the President do we 
 refer to anybody except the incumbent of that office? 
 The Constitution declares that when a President is im- 
 peached, the Chief Justice shall preside. Who would 
 preside if an ex-President was impeached? An ex-Chief 
 Justice? This puzzle arises out of the absurdity of im- 
 peaching an ex-President! The Constitution says, also, 
 that upon conviction the President and all other civil 
 officers shall be removed. How can a man be removed 
 who holds no office? And if removed, how can the sen- 
 tence be made effectual except by disqualification? 
 Although the President cannot pardon the convicted 
 offender, he may reinstate him the next morning. To 
 prevent this was the object of the disqualification clause. 
 Removal and disqualification cannot be separated. You 
 cannot remove without disqualifying and you cannot dis- 
 qualify without removal, because the Constitution re- 
 quires the Senate to pronounce a judgment of removal 
 and disqualification not removal or disqualification." l 
 George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, a House manager, 
 declared that English precedents and the history of the 
 Constitution pointed irresistibly to the conclusion that 
 the power of the Senate over official wrongdoers to in- 
 terpose by its judgment a perpetual barrier against their 
 1 44th Cong., 1st Seas., Record of Trial, pp. 70-74. 
 
340 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 return to office does not depend upon the consent of the 
 culprit, or the accidental discovery of the crime before 
 his term of office has expired. It is a perpetual power, 
 hanging over the guilty officer during his life. The 
 history of the formation of the Constitution, he con- 
 tinued, shows that the clause making civil officers re- 
 movable on conviction is there as an exception to clauses 
 which had previously determined the tenure of those 
 offices. The power of impeachment is not defined in the 
 grant in the Constitution. It is conferred as a general 
 common-law power. No limit of its application to per- 
 sons is inserted in the grant. But removal by impeach- 
 ment is inserted as a subsequent limitation on the tenure 
 of office to guard against the argument that officers, 
 whose term is fixed in the Constitution, cannot be 
 removed under the power of impeachment, just as im- 
 peachment is excepted in the clause securing the right 
 of trial by jury and in the clause conferring the power of 
 pardon. But suppose the phrase "all civil officers " was 
 inserted as a definition of the persons who may be 
 reached by this process, does it apply to them at the 
 time the offense is committed or at the time of the 
 punishment? If a statute enact that all wrongdoers 
 may be punished, it is clear that liability to punish- 
 ment attaches when the act is committed. The whole 
 constitutional provision can be summed up in two sen- 
 tences which precisely state the contention. The man- 
 agers claim that the Constitution in substance says that 
 "the Senate shall have the sole power to try impeach- 
 ments, and civil officers shall be removed on conviction." 
 Counsel for defendant put it that "judgment in case of 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 341 
 
 conviction shall be removal from office and disqualifica- 
 tion, if the defendant is willing. If unwilling, he re- 
 signs. " l 
 
 Over this question the Senate deliberated in secret 
 session for two weeks and finally, by a vote of 37 to 29, 
 held the respondent amenable to trial. Among those 
 voting "yea" were George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, 
 Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, Joseph E. McDonald, of 
 Indiana, James A. Bayard, of Delaware, John Sherman, 
 of Ohio, Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, Henry L. Dawes, 
 of Massachusetts, and Francis Kernan, of New York; 
 while Oliver P. Morton, of Indiana, Richard J. Oglesby, 
 of Illinois, William B. Allison, of Iowa, John J. Ingalls, of 
 Kansas, Lot M. Morrill, of Maine, George S. Boutwell, 
 of Massachusetts, William Windom, of Minnesota, and 
 Roscoe Conkling, of New York, voted "no." It was a 
 division of notable men of acknowledged gifts, whose 
 sincerity was voiced by the final roll-call, those holding 
 "want of jurisdiction" generally voting "not guilty." 
 This reduced the affirmative vote below the required 
 two thirds, thus practically amounting to an acquittal, 
 although Belknap's guilt was admitted. In reporting 
 the result, the House managers /declared that the trial 
 had at least settled the question " that persons who have 
 held office are impeachable." 2 
 
 At the trial of Robert W. Archbold in 1913 the ques- 
 tion again arose. Archbold served as judge of the 
 Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1901 to 1911, 
 after which he became a circuit judge and a member of 
 
 1 44th Cong., 1st Sess., Record of Trial, p. 57. 
 
 2 Record of Trial, p. 357. 
 
342 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 the Court of Commerce. Impeachment articles 1 to 6 
 related to offenses committed as circuit judge and 
 article 7 to 12 as district judge, while article 13 in- 
 cluded acts of misconduct while district as well as cir- 
 cuit judge. In its decision the Senate convicted for 
 crimes committed as circuit judge and acquitted for 
 alleged misconduct as district judge, several senators 
 holding that the Senate was without jurisdiction of such 
 misconduct. On the thirteenth article nearly one third 
 answered "not guilty," notwithstanding "the charge 
 contained was sustained by wrongful acts committed 
 while holding the office of circuit judge." 1 In view of 
 this vote it cannot yet be affirmed with certainty that 
 persons who are not in office can be impeached for 
 misconduct committed while in office, although the 
 Archbold case settled the practice that in pronouncing 
 sentence after conviction the Senate may remove and 
 disqualify, or remove without disqualifying. 
 
 What constitute "other high crimes and misdemean- 
 ors" has been a more perplexing question. These words 
 were copied into the Constitution from British constitu- 
 tional and parliamentary law, and for more than a cen- 
 tury eminent authorities have differed as to what offenses 
 are subject to impeachment. One theory is that the Con- 
 stitution adopted the English system of impeachment 
 only as a mode of procedure, and that no offense is im- 
 peachable which is not subject to indictment under a 
 statute of the United States or the common law. Thus, 
 counsel in the Chase case (1804) held that "other high 
 crimes and misdemeanors" meant offenses which are 
 2 Record of Trial, p. 1675. 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 343 
 
 violations of law, exposing the violaters to punishment, 
 these terms being synonymous, except that "crimes" 
 \ refer to felonies, while "misdemeanors" include lesser 
 offenses; but that in order to prevent impeachment for 
 petty crimes, the Constitution limits them to "high mis- 
 demeanors." Moreover, misdemeanor is a legal and 
 technical term, well understood and defined in law as 
 an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law, 
 and when interpreted in connection with "treason, brib- 
 ery, and other high crimes," to be tried in the same 
 manner and subject to the same penalties, it becomes 
 something vastly more than an alleged breach of legal 
 ethics. The House, counsel continued, cannot make an 
 act impeachable at its will or pleasure; otherwise public 
 officials must be the tools or the victims of the victorious 
 party. Nor is the Senate to become a court of honor to 
 punish breaches of politeness or to mark the precincts of 
 judicial decorum. A respondent must be judged by some 
 known law of the country, and the only offense described 
 by the Constitution is the violation of some statute of 
 the United States, or of a State, or of a provision of 
 the common law. In the exercise of its power, therefore, 
 Congress must be governed by the rules that limit the 
 action of courts or grand juries, and if no law is violated, 
 the House cannot impeach or the Senate convict. 
 
 In the first attempt of the House to impeach President 
 Johnson (1867), the chairman of the Judiciary Com- 
 mittee, James F. Wilson, of Iowa, declared that it could 
 not be presumed that the framers of the Constitution, 
 after indicating such offenses as treason and bribery, in- 
 tended to remove all further restraint by using the words 
 
344 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 "other high crimes and misdemeanors," thus allowing 
 the House to impeach for any conduct which the whims, 
 caprices, and passions of a majority might magnify into 
 crimes. Wilson not only adopted the argument pre- 
 sented in the Chase case, holding these words to mean 
 indictable offenses, but he contended that impeachment 
 must follow the doctrine of the Supreme Court, that the 
 Federal Government, having no jurisdiction of offenses at 
 common law, can exercise no criminal jurisdiction which 
 is not given by statute, since courts which are created by 
 written law and whose jurisdiction is defined by written 
 law, cannot transcend that jurisdiction. 1 In other words, 
 no offense is impeachable which Congress has not made 
 so by statute. To the suggestion that this was narrower 
 than the limitation contended for in the Chase case, 
 Wilson replied that the doctrine cited had not then been 
 laid down by the Supreme Court. 2 
 
 In the trial of President Johnson the able counsel for 
 respondent adopted this argument, holding that im- 
 peachable offenses are "only high criminal offenses 
 against the United States, made so by some law of the 
 United States existing when the acts complained of were 
 done." 3 In the Swayne case (1904), Marlin E. Olmsted, 
 of Pennsylvania, a House manager, declared that such 
 limitation renders the constitutional provision practi- 
 cally a nullity, since Congress has defined by statute 
 comparatively few offenses. Even murder, he said, is not 
 
 1 United States vs. Hudson and Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 32; United 
 States vs. Coolidge et al., 1 Wheaton, 415; Ex parte Ballman and 
 Swartwout, 4 Cranch, 95; United States vs. Lancaster, 2 McLeans R., 
 433. 
 
 2 40th Cong., 1st Sess., House Rep. no. 7. * Ibid. 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 345 
 
 defined by any act of Congress. To which reply was 
 made that every difficulty may be easily surmounted by 
 appropriate legislation. "What right has the House and 
 Senate to sleep on their undisputed legislative powers," 
 asked James F. Wilson in the Johnson case, "and then 
 resort to the common law of England for the punishment 
 of civil officers, when no civil court of the United States 
 can punish a citizen or foreigner for any crime except it 
 be first prescribed by an act of Congress?" l 
 
 Another theory represents impeachment as not a mere 
 procedure for the punishment of indictable crime, but 
 that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is to be 
 taken in a much broader sense and interpreted in the 
 light of parliamentary usage, so as to include grave 
 political offenses, maladministration, arbitrary and op- 
 pressive conduct, and even gross improprieties. Thus, 
 in the trial of Justice Chase (1804) the House managers 
 asserted that as "good behavior" limits a judge's term of 
 service, he is liable to removal for "misbehavior," such 
 as delivering an opinion on the law before counsel is 
 heard, or making political harangues from the bench, or 
 impeding important business by unnecessarily adjourn- 
 ing court, or ordering a defendant to trial when good 
 grounds are presented for postponement, or making a 
 decree not sanctioned by law, or delivering opinions un- 
 warranted by precedent, principle, or legislative act, 
 even though he do not violate positive law, provided 
 senators are convinced, from a concurrence of circum- 
 stances, that he erred through design even if not cor- 
 rupted by a bribe. The managers admitted that "mis- 
 l 40th Cong., 1st Sess., House Rep. no. 7. 
 
346 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 demeanor" in a court of law meant an offense against a 
 statute, but before the Senate, charged with the sole 
 power of removal, it refers to official misconduct whether 
 against a positive law or unwarranted by law. 
 
 In the case of James H. Peck (1830), the managers 
 maintained that any official act committed or omitted 
 by a judge which violated "good behavior" became an 
 impeachable offense. So, preceding the formal impeach- 
 ment of President Johnson, George S. Boutwell, of 
 Massachusetts, representing the majority of the Judici- 
 ary Committee, argued that "high crimes and mis- 
 demeanors" include all cases of misbehavior whether 
 known to statute law or not, the object of impeachment 
 being to remove an official whose moral delinquency an 
 ordinary tribunal is inadequate to reach. A President, 
 he said, may ignore the law or impeach the power of 
 Congress by nullifying its acts or denying their author- 
 ity, thus being guilty of offenses calculated to subvert 
 the Government without being liable to indictment. 
 
 The House, in formulating articles of impeachment, 
 has included indictable and non-indictable offenses. 
 Even in the Johnson case, after it had charged specific 
 violations of the Tenure-of -Office Act, the Reconstruc- 
 tion and Conspiracy Acts, the Appropriation Act of 
 March 2, 1867, and the Constitution, it interjected 
 article 10, charging the President with bringing the 
 office into contempt by his speeches at Cleveland and 
 St. Louis during the "swing around the circle" in 1866. 
 While the practice of the House, therefore, is unsettled, 
 the judgments of the Senate have established the rule 
 that convictions must be limited at least to acts having 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 347 
 
 the character of a crime. The Chase and Peck and 
 Swayne cases enunciate this principle. In the Johnson 
 impeachment it happened that the Senate did not vote 
 upon article 10, but of the twenty-two senators who sub- 
 sequently filed statements, seventeen declared that the 
 charge did not amount to official misconduct. Senator 
 Ferry, of Michigan, who voted "guilty" on other arti- 
 cles, thought the speeches vain, foolish, vulgar, and un- 
 becoming, "but the Constitution does not provide that 
 a President may be impeached for these qualities." 1 
 
 While senators have generally agreed that the viola- 
 tion of a statute constitutes ample ground for convic- 
 tion, the seven recusant Republicans in the Johnson case 
 denied that the President had violated any statute. 
 Senator Trumbull, of Illinois, declared that the Tenure- 
 of -Office Act did not forbid the removal of Secretary 
 Stanton or the ad-interim appointment of General 
 Thomas. Nor did the record contain, he said, "a parti- 
 cle of evidence" of the violation of the other acts cited. 
 " If the question was, Is Andrew Johnson a fit person for 
 President? I should answer, no! His speeches and the 
 general course of his administration have been as dis- 
 tasteful to me as to any one. But to convict or to depose 
 a Chief Magistrate when guilt is not made palpable by 
 the record would be fraught with far greater harm to the 
 future of the country than can arise from having him in 
 office." 2 
 
 Cases considered with a view to impeachment have 
 too often disclosed partisan or personal bias. Hildreth, 
 
 1 40th Cong., 1st Sess., Report of Trial, p. 451. 
 
 2 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, Supplement, p. 420. 
 
348 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 the historian, declared the Chase case "without sufficient 
 foundation in fact or in law." l Adams pronounced it 
 "a party prosecution." The Pickering impeachment be- 
 longs in the same category. Pickering's habits unfitted 
 him to perform his duties, but the disregard of testimony 
 proving insanity illuminated the animus of the proceed- 
 ing. Fearful of its influence the majority wickedly sub- 
 stituted the question, "Is the respondent guilty as 
 charged?" for the constitutional form," Is the respond- 
 ent guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors as charged? " 
 An insane man's acts could not amount to " high crimes 
 and misdemeanors," and to avoid the scruples of sena- 
 tors the incriminating words were omitted. Under the 
 modern practice Congress retires such a sufferer without 
 reproach by creating an additional judge, with the 
 proviso that no successor to the existing incumbent be 
 appointed. 
 
 Having convicted Pickering, Randolph immediately 
 preferred charges against Samuel Chase, of Maryland. 
 Of ardent passions, strong mind, and dominating temper, 
 Chase's life had been turbulent and boisterous. He had 
 signed the Declaration of Independence, and for his dis- 
 tinguished service in Congress, especially during the 
 early period of the Revolution, President Washington 
 appointed him to the Supreme Court. On his circuit, 
 which included Maryland and Virginia, he did not cease 
 his patriotic activities. Randolph and William B. Giles, 
 of Virginia, had long desired his removal, and when the 
 latter occupied a seat in the Senate, the twain conspired. 
 While the former, as prosecutor, prepared articles of im- 
 1 History of the United States, vol. v, p. 254. j 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 349 
 
 peachment, the latter, as a judge, formulated rules for 
 the government of the Senate. They declared it the duty 
 of the House to impeach, and the right of the Senate to 
 remove, any judge who held an act of Congress unconsti- 
 tutional, or sent a mandamus to the Secretary of State. 1 
 To carry his point, Giles endeavored to frame rules of 
 procedure absolving the Senate from recognizing princi- 
 ples that restrain and bind courts of justice. But several 
 influences, notably the President's fear of Randolph's 
 increasing power, compelled the majority to present the 
 judgment question in its constitutional form, so that 
 of the twenty-five Republican senators who voted, six 
 answered, "Not guilty," a sufficient number to acquit. 
 Adams, who happened at the time to be a member of 
 the Senate, affirms that the six followed Jefferson's 
 directions. 2 
 
 Judge Peck's impeachment was practically a party 
 proceeding. Peck disbarred and committed a St. Louis 
 barrister for contempt for publishing an article criticising 
 the court's decree touching certain land titles. Although 
 this action seemed high-handed, the House refused to 
 prosecute until James Buchanan became chairman of 
 the Judiciary Committee. Buchanan was an impressive 
 advocate, acquainted with all the arts that contribute to 
 popularity, and he used the case as a stepping-stone to 
 party preferment. He needed rehabilitation. Within 
 ten years he had left the Federalists, joined the Demo- 
 crats, and quarreled with President Jackson. It added 
 to the interest of the trial that he was opposed by 
 
 1 John Quincy Adams, Diary, vol. i, pp. 321, 323. 
 8 Diary, vol. I, p. 372; vol. vin, p. 306. 
 
350 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 William Wirt, then at the height of his fame, who ap- 
 peared as the respondent's counsel. 
 
 The case turned on the point whether guilty intention 
 must be established by proof. Buchanan claimed that if 
 the commission of an unlawful act be proved, guilty in- 
 tention followed as a necessary implication of law. Wirt 
 declared that whatever it is material to charge it is 
 material to prove. If the respondent knew the attorney's 
 act was not a contempt and still punished it as one, it 
 would be an intentional violation of law and an im- 
 peachable offense; but the intent must be proved, other- 
 wise every mistake of law or error of judgment on the 
 part of a judge would become a crime or civil injury for 
 which he would be personally responsible. "I have ex- 
 amined the various cases of impeachment of judges both 
 in England and in the United States," said the distin- 
 guished counsel, "and I have not heretofore observed 
 that any counsel, even under the severest stress of evi- 
 dence, has taken refuge in so bold a proposition as that 
 error of judgment is an impeachable offense." 1 
 
 It is not unlikely that Buchanan relied more upon the 
 partisanship of thirty-eight Democratic senators than 
 upon the strength of his proof, but when the vote of 
 twenty-one to twenty-two for acquittal was announced, 
 Adams inferred that Buchanan miscalculated the influ- 
 ence of the President. "Jackson's aversion to him," 
 wrote Adams, "arises from a dirty intrigue to sacrifice 
 me by purchasing Clay, which Buchanan disclosed, 
 seemingly unconscious of moral turpitude in the 
 avowal, and with a dullness of intellect equally un- 
 1 21st Cong., 2d Sess., Report of Trial, pp. 485-97. 
 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 351 
 
 conscious of the javelin he was thrusting into Jackson's 
 side." 1 
 
 The display of party feeling in the impeachment of 
 President Johnson surpassed, if possible, the rancor ex- 
 hibited in the trial of Justice Chase. At times the 
 Senate Chamber disclosed the deep, earnest activity of 
 a national party convention. Butler and Boutwell, to 
 whom the President was a "monstrous malefactor," 
 played the part of John Randolph, while Sumner, who 
 spoke of Johnson as the "enormous criminal of his age," 
 displayed the hostility of William B. Giles. Sumner 
 thought impeachment a political and not a judicial pro- 
 ceeding, since the Constitution gave the Senate sole 
 power to try. In his opinion the Senate was not con- 
 fined to the "rigid rules of common law," because "its 
 rules, unknown to ordinary courts," reverse the rule giv- 
 ing the accused the benefit of the doubt. " If on any point 
 you entertain doubts," he said, "the benefit of those 
 doubts must be given to your country. This is the su- 
 preme law." 2 He argued, also, that in order to avoid 
 delay all testimony not trivial should be received, yet he 
 refused to vote when the respondent offered to prove 
 that several cabinet members advised him of the uncon- 
 stitutionality of the Tenure-of-Office Act, although the 
 Chief Justice held such an offer admissible on the ques- 
 tion of intent. Other Republican leaders were not more 
 punctilious. 
 
 After submission of the case a system of coercion 
 existed to bring doubtful senators into line. Letters 
 
 1 Diary, vol. vm, p. 307. 
 
 3 40th Cong., 1st Sess., Report of Trial, pp. 473-80. 
 
352 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 threatened, the press criticized, and colleagues censured. 
 Nevertheless, the resistance of the seven recusant Re- 
 publicans set an admirable example to their successors. 
 "The glory of the trial," says Rhodes, "was the action 
 of these seven senators. Only after great inward trouble 
 could they come to then* determination. It was so easy 
 to go the other way, to agree with the thirty-five, most 
 of whom were honest men and some of whom were able 
 lawyers, who interpreted the evidence and the law in 
 favor of conviction. The average senator who hesitated 
 finally gave his voice with the majority, but these seven 
 in conscientiousness and delicacy of moral fiber were 
 above any average, and hi refusing to sacrifice their ideas 
 of justice to a popular demand, which in this case was 
 neither insincere nor unenlightened, they showed a de- 
 gree of courage than which we know no higher. Hard 
 as was their immediate future they have received their 
 meed from posterity, their monument in the admiring 
 tribute of all who know how firm they stood in an 
 hour of supreme trial." l 
 
 1 History of the Untied States, vol. vi, p. 156. 
 
CHAPTER XVHI 
 
 THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 
 
 THE Senate and the House, for the purpose of count- . 
 ing the electoral vote for President, meet in joint session 
 on the second Wednesday hi February succeeding the 
 election hi November. The presiding officer of the 
 Senate, who receives the returns from the governors of 
 the several States, opens and hands them to the tellers 
 to be read and tabulated, after which he announces the 
 result. During this joint session no debate is allowed, 
 but if the two Houses disagree as to the counting of any 
 vote, they separate, each body being allowed two hours 
 for debate. No recess can continue after ten o'clock of 
 the next calendar day, Sunday excepted, and if the 
 count be not concluded before the fifth calendar day 
 further recessing is disallowed. 
 
 The person having the greatest number of votes, if it 
 be a majority of the electors appointed, becomes the 
 President; otherwise the House withdraws and imme- 
 diately proceeds to choose by ballot from the three 
 persons having the highest number, each State being 
 allowed one vote. A quorum consists of two thirds of 
 all the States, a majority being necessary to a choice. In 
 1801, when the electoral count disclosed no choice for 
 President, the House, after returning to its own chamber 
 and excluding every one except its officers, adopted rules 
 to continue in session without adjournment or inter- 
 
354 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ruption by other business until a choice was made, all 
 questions to be decided by States without debate. When 
 each State had ascertained its choice by ballot, the name 
 of its candidate, or, if equally divided, the word "di- 
 vided," was written on duplicate ballots and deposited 
 in different boxes, the ballots in each being counted by 
 different tellers appointed from each State. When the 
 balloting, which lasted with postponements for several 
 days, finally gave Thomas Jefferson a majority, the 
 Speaker announced his election and immediately noti- 
 fied the President and the Senate. The proceeding in 
 1825, resulting in the election of John Quincy Adams, in 
 no wise materially differed except that the rules ad- 
 mitted members of the Senate. If the House makes no 
 choice before the 4th of March, the Vice-President be- 
 comes President. 1 
 
 On March 4, or, if it falls on Sunday, on March 5, 
 the President is inaugurated. Originally the ceremony 
 occurred in the hall of the Senate or House as the 
 President elect indicated; but in 1817, because Speaker 
 Clay objected to the red morocco chairs of the Senate 
 being substituted for the plain democratic seats of the 
 House, the committee "retired somewhat huffed," as 
 Clay expressed it, and held the function on the east 
 portico of the Capitol. 2 This eligible place, affording all 
 the people an opportunity to witness the spectacle, at 
 once became the favorite locality, and except in 1821 
 and 1825, when the ceremony occurred in the hall of the 
 House, and again in 1909, when inclement weather pre- 
 
 1 24th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, p. 212. 
 
 8 Constitution, Amendment xii. See, also, Act of January 19, 1886, 
 24 Stat. L., p. 1. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 355 
 
 vented, and the ceremony occurred in the Senate 
 Chamber, the oath has been administered and the 
 address delivered on the spot immortalized by the two 
 inaugurals of President Lincoln. 
 
 For a time the House, because it ceases to exist as an 
 organized body before the event, had no official connec- 
 tion with the inauguration of the President; but for 
 many years a joint committee has perfected the ar- 
 rangements, members of the House, during the inaugura- 
 tion of the Vice-President, occupying seats on the floor 
 of the Senate, with the Speaker at the right of the pre- 
 siding officer. On the march to the portico of the Capitol 
 they are preceded by the Supreme Court, ambassadors 
 and ministers of foreign countries, and members of the 
 Senate. Following them are members of the Cabinet, 
 the Admiral of the Navy, the General of the Army, 
 governors of States, and other officials invited to the 
 floor of the Senate. 
 
 Although the Constitution fixes the time for the as- 
 sembling of Congress on the first Monday in December, 
 the President may convene it or either House at an 
 earlier day and at a place other than the seat of govern- 
 ment. Such special session ends, however, on the day 
 the regular session begins. After its organization the 
 House informs the President of the presence of a quorum 
 and its readiness to receive his message. The election of 
 a Speaker amounts to an organization, and in 1860 noti- 
 fication preceded the selection of a clerk; but usually it 
 follows the choice of all its officers. It is customary, also, 
 though not an invariable rule, for the House to notify 
 the President of the election of a Speaker pro tern. When 
 
356 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 near the close of a session it likewise notifies him of its 
 approaching adjournment, and if the two bodies disagree 
 as to the time he may adjourn them. 
 
 The President presents a message at the opening of 
 each annual or special session, and at such other times as 
 he may desire to make a communication. Besides a dis- 
 cussion of the routine affairs of the Government, such 
 messages may include reports from heads of depart- 
 ments, the promulgation of the ratification of constitu- 
 tional amendments, communications or petitions from 
 foreigners, and letters impeaching the conduct of federal 
 civil officials. Presidents Washington and John Adams, 
 flanked by the Vice-President and Speaker, presented 
 their annual messages in person. Subsequently the Vice- 
 President, attended by the Speaker and members of the 
 two Houses, proceeded to the President's audience 
 chamber and presented a joint address in reply. Presi- 
 dent Jefferson preferred to communicate in writing, a 
 custom which continued until President Wilson (1913) 
 revived the earlier practice. Although one way is as 
 proper as the other, the applause which greets the 
 Chief Executive, especially after he has appeared sev- 
 eral times in person, is likely to be confined to one 
 side of the chamber, giving the ceremony something 
 of a partisan character, which occasions a subtle em- 
 barrassment. If a message be transmitted in writing, 
 it is promptly received by the House, the Committee of 
 the Whole, if it be in session at the time, informally ris- 
 ing for the purpose. If presented before the organization 
 of the House, it remains in the custody of the clerk. If 
 of a confidential character, a rule of the House, though 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 357 
 
 not invoked since 1843, provides for a secret session. An 
 annual message is formally laid before the House at a 
 time prescribed by the order of business. It is then read 
 in full, entered in the Journal, printed in the Congres- 
 sional Record, and referred to the Committee of the 
 Whole House on the State of the Union, which, on 
 motion of the chairman of Ways and Means, distributes 
 the various topics to appropriate standing or select com- 
 mittees with or without instructions. Special messages, 
 however, even when relating to matters of great im- 
 portance, are ordinarily referred to committees by the 
 Speaker without reading or debate. To lay a communi- 
 cation from the President on the table, other than a veto 
 message, is considered a mark of disapprobation. 
 
 All enrolled bills and such resolutions as are legisla- 
 tive in effect, except those proposing amendments to the 
 Constitution, go to the President for his approval, and, 
 if signed, are deposited with the Secretary of State for 
 preservation and publication. If not signed or returned 
 within ten days, they become laws, unless in the mean 
 time Congress expires. It is doubtful, however, if ad- 
 journment for a recess invalidates. A bill returned with 
 the President's objections is privileged, and if a quorum 
 be present it is usually considered at once. It cannot be 
 postponed indefinitely, but if returned too late in the 
 session for consideration because of the absence of a 
 quorum, it may be acted upon at the next session of the 
 same Congress. To lay it on the table, or to refer it, is 
 equivalent to agreeing to the President's objections. If 
 passed in both Houses by two thirds of those present it 
 goes directly to the Secretary of State. ? 
 
358 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 As a rule Presidents have used the veto sparingly. 
 In a measure this has been due to the watchfulness of 
 Congress and the frankness of the Chief Executive, for 
 members not infrequently obtain the President's views 
 in advance. On more than one occasion President 
 Roosevelt publicly announced a veto if a pending meas- 
 ure passed. The original purpose of the veto was to safe- 
 guard the Executive against the encroachments of Con- 
 gress, but for many years it has been exercised to defeat 
 measures objectionable in principle or in probable results. 
 President Lincoln, speaking of executive influence, said : 
 "By the Constitution, the Executive may recommend 
 measures which he may think proper, and he may veto 
 those he thinks improper, and it is supposed he may add 
 to these certain indirect influences to affect the actions of 
 Congress. My political education strongly inclines me 
 against a very free use of any of these means by the 
 Executive to control the legislation of the country. As 
 a rule I think that Congress should originate as well as 
 perfect its measures without external bias." 1 
 
 President Cleveland regarded the right of veto as in- 
 tended "to invoke the exercise of executive judgment 
 and invite executive action." Of two hundred and sixty- 
 five private pension bills heretofore vetoed by all the 
 Presidents, he disapproved two hundred and sixty. 
 Washington used the veto but twice, and Adams, Jef- 
 ferson, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, William Henry 
 Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, and Garfield, not at all. 
 Lincoln vetoed three. Johnson was not so modest. He 
 thought ten bills unconstitutional and many others in- 
 1 Speech at Pittsburg, February 15, 1861. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 359 
 
 advisable. McKinley disapproved fourteen bills; Roose- 
 velt, forty; Taft, twenty-five; and Wilson (thus far, 
 1915), four. Up to the end of Roosevelt's Administra- 
 tion two hundred and seventy-six measures other than 
 private pension bills had suffered veto, of which sixty- 
 eight were deemed unconstitutional. That Congress did 
 not ordinarily differ widely from the views set forth in 
 veto messages is evidenced by the fact that only twenty- 
 nine of the five hundred and forty-one were re-passed, 
 and of these fifteen were bills vetoed by Johnson. 1 
 
 Among the "certain indirect influences" to which 
 Lincoln referred is the questionable practice, severely 
 criticized of late by many members of both Houses, of 
 letting it be known that certain bills originated in the 
 White House. The President has no express power to 
 submit the text of a measure and ask Congress to enact 
 it, and the cases are probably few in which he has done 
 so. But the heads of departments have often drawn 
 bills of the highest importance and have caused their in- 
 troduction by some member friendly to the object 
 sought. The second Bank Act of 1816 and the Walker 
 Tariff Act of 1846 are early and conspicuous instances of 
 this practice. That President Grant suggested the draft- 
 ing and passage of the Electoral Commission Act in 
 1877 is common knowledge. It is equally well known 
 that President Roosevelt was largely instrumental hi the 
 enactment of the Transportation Act of 1907. Nor is it 
 a secret that President Taft insisted upon significant 
 changes hi the Tariff Act of 1909. Indeed, since the 
 
 1 Of the bills passed over a veto, one was disapproved by Tyler; five 
 by Pierce; fifteen by Johnson; four by Grant; one by Hayes; one by 
 Arthur; and two by Cleveland. 
 
360 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 time of President Cleveland the Chief Executive has not 
 hesitated to influence legislation by special messages, 
 through the public press, and by direct appeal to indi- 
 vidual members. 
 
 The House has always exercised its right to make re- 
 quests of, and to express its opinion to, the President. 
 In the early days the joint address adopted by the two 
 bodies and presented by the Vice-President became the 
 medium of such communications. Since the abandon- 
 ment of that practice it has spoken through resolutions. 
 In 1807 it asked him to inquire into charges against the 
 chief of the army. So, in 1856, it requested that military 
 protection, if necessary, be afforded to a committee 
 charged with the investigation of affairs in the Territory 
 of Kansas. Indeed, it has not hesitated to ask him to 
 reduce executive estimates, to transmit proposed amend- 
 ments to the Constitution, to investigate river and 
 harbor improvements, to inquire into the culpability of 
 executive officers, and to negotiate treaties. With ques- 
 tionable propriety it has ventured to bestow praise and 
 censure. 
 
 Resolutions of inquiry are the usual method of obtain- 
 ing information of the Executive. When addressed to 
 the President the word "request" is inserted; if to a 
 cabinet officer, the less conciliatory term "direct." Such 
 resolutions, especially when relating to foreign affairs, 
 usually, though not invariably, contain the clause, "if 
 not incompatible with the public interest." Ordinarily 
 such resolutions are fully answered, but the difficulty 
 and delay in securing their adoption by the House raised 
 the question as early as 1792 of allowing cabinet minis- 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 361 
 
 ters permission to occupy seats in the House and to par- 
 ticipate in the proceedings. Mr. Jefferson as Secretary of 
 State had already appeared before the House at its re- 
 quest (1789), and President Washington and Secretary 
 of War Knox had visited the Senate (1789). l Fisher 
 Ames and Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, argued that 
 such an arrangement would facilitate public business 
 and give the public a clearer idea of the inside workings 
 of the departments. But James Madison, whose potent 
 influence largely governed in such matters, pronounced 
 it contrary to the spirit of the government scheme, 
 which sought to keep the legislative and executive 
 branches absolutely distinct. The House supported his 
 objection, and there the matter rested until 1864, when a 
 committee favorably reported a bill providing that cab- 
 inet members participate in debate upon questions relat- 
 ing to their departments and appear at stated times to 
 answer questions. The discussion stressed the point that 
 executive expression would be open instead of secret, 
 thus avoiding misunderstandings and misrepresentations. 
 On the other hand, it was suggested that the head of a 
 department, speaking for the Administration, would be- 
 come a target of an active Opposition to cross-examine, 
 to assail with charges, to pick to pieces, and in effect to 
 hide what he had to say in controversial detritus. More- 
 over, that he would be at a disadvantage in a great 
 popular assembly, with its own privileges, prejudices, 
 and notions, and among members of whose standing and 
 qualities he was ignorant; that although he might be an 
 able speaker in a courtroom or on the platform, he would 
 1 1st Congress, 1st Sess., Annals, pp. 51, 66. 
 
362 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 rarely, without previous legislative experience, be able 
 to stand the hurly-burly of a House, where only legisla- 
 tive leaders of long training can always be relied upon to 
 hold their patience or keep their heads, and not say too 
 little or too much. 
 
 It was agreed that Congress had authority to pass 
 such a law, yet the pros and cons, a cluster of surmises, 
 light and vague, seemed to inspire a fear that the ar- 
 rangement might do more harm than good, and so the 
 subject was again dropped without action. 1 Eight years 
 later (1872) Walter Bagehot, the distinguished English 
 writer, declared that "tried by their own aims, the 
 founders of the United States were wise in excluding the 
 ministers from Congress." 2 
 
 Meantime, resolutions of inquiry often occasioned 
 strained relations between the House and the Executive. 
 Although no legislation existed requiring the latter to 
 respond, the House maintained its inherent right to all 
 information relating to subjects within the sphere of its 
 legitimate powers, and while it recognized that the de- 
 mand for papers and documents should be carefully 
 limited to those already on file and relating to cases 
 imperatively required by the public interest, it inti- 
 mated that an official who should exclude from the files 
 a paper of a public character because he considered it 
 private would be liable to an accusation with a view to 
 impeachment. 3 
 
 A more vigorous assertion of this right was promul- 
 gated in 1842, when President Tyler held that, pending 
 
 1 38th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 419-24, 437-48. 
 
 * The English Constitution, p. 95. 
 
 24th Cong., 2d Sess., House Rep. no. 194. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 363 
 
 an investigation respecting frauds practiced upon the 
 Cherokee Indians, the Executive, as a coordinate and in- 
 dependent branch of the Government, possessed a dis- 
 cretionary right to furnish or withhold the information 
 sought. To this the House replied that while the Consti- 
 tution makes each coordinate branch independent of 
 the other, and assigns to the President alone certain 
 functions, such as pardons, appointments to office, and 
 negotiation of treaties, it authorizes the House to in- 
 vestigate all abuses for the prevention of their recur- 
 rence by proper legislation, and in the exercise of this 
 function it has a right to all information wherever it 
 exists. This right belongs to its character, is one of its 
 attributes, derived not alone from its power to impeach, 
 but from its character of "grand inquest of the nation," 
 which is a permanent right inherent in it ; and in demand- 
 ing information from the departments for the purpose of 
 performing this legislative function, it neither invades, 
 impairs, nor suspends any right, power, or function of 
 the Executive. Nor does it follow, continued the report, 
 that information communicated to the House must be 
 made public, since nothing prevents it from observing 
 secrecy. For this reason court rules, which exclude par- 
 ticular evidence on the ground of public policy, do not 
 apply to parliamentary tribunals. Nor can the rule 
 which relieves a witness from producing private papers 
 that would criminate himself apply to the President, 
 for official information spread upon the records or con- 
 tained in the files of departments is neither private nor 
 privileged. 1 
 
 1 27th Cong., 3d Sess., House Rep no. 271. 
 
364 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 " Nevertheless, the President has resisted the right of the 
 House to inquire into alleged corrupt or illegal violations 
 of duty by the Executive except as an impeaching body, 
 and has even then refused to furnish evidence which 
 might be used for impeachment purposes against him- 
 self or the heads of departments. Thus, in 1837, Presi- 
 dent Jackson vigorously resisted an attempt to secure 
 his assistance to investigate his Administration. "In 
 open violation of the Constitution and that well-estab- 
 lished maxim that * all men are presumed to be innocent 
 until proven guilty,'" he said, "you request myself and 
 heads of departments to become our own accusers and 
 to furnish the evidence to convict ourselves." l In 1860 
 President Buchanan insisted that a resolution, authoriz- 
 ing the House to inquire whether the Executive or any 
 officer of the Government has sought to influence the 
 action of Congress by money, patronage, or other im- 
 proper means, amounted to a charge of high crimes and 
 misdemeanors, and declared that, since it possessed no 
 power to investigate except as an impeaching body, its 
 accusations should be definitely set forth and first con- 
 sidered by the Judiciary Committee. 2 Again, when the 
 House, in 1876, sought information respecting the per- 
 formance of executive acts at a distance from the seat of 
 government, President Grant replied that the inquiry 
 did not necessarily belong to the province of legislation. 
 " If it be requested in view or in aid of the power of im- 
 peachment, it is asked in derogation of an inherent, 
 natural right, recognized in this country by a constitu- 
 
 1 24th Cong., 2d Sess., House Rep. no. 194. 
 
 2 36th Cong., 1st Sess., House Rep. no. 394. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 365 
 
 tional guarantee which protects every citizen, the Presi- 
 dent as well as the humblest in the land, from being 
 made a witness against himself." l 
 
 The House yielded to the contention of President 
 Jackson that it could investigate only with impeach- 
 ment in view, 2 and upon receiving President Grant's 
 reply, it concluded to drop the matter. But in 1860 it 
 maintained at great length that the practice of investi- 
 gating the acts of the Executive was coextensive with 
 the existence of the Government, and that the House 
 could proceed as it saw fit, its power to investigate acts 
 of the President not being limited to impeachment. 
 Under the Constitution, it said, the President possesses 
 neither privilege nor immunity beyond that of the 
 humblest citizen, and under the law he is left without 
 shield or protection except such as is borne by all. He is 
 amenable for all his acts, can make no plea denied to any 
 other citizen, and is subject to the same scrutiny, trial, 
 and punishment, with the hazards and penalties of im- 
 peachment superadded. The President and the citizen 
 stand upon an equality of rights, the distinction between 
 them simply arising from an inequality of duties. 3 
 
 Requests of the House for information and papers 
 relating to treaties with foreign nations have often been 
 denied by the Chief Executive. In 1796 President 
 Washington declared that to admit the right of the 
 House to demand and receive as a matter of course all 
 papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power 
 
 1 44th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 2158. 
 
 2 24th Cong., 2d Sess., House Rep. no. 194. 1 
 
 36th Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, pp. 997-98, 1434-40; House Rep. 
 no. 394. 
 
366 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 would establish a dangerous precedent. " It is essential 
 to the due administration of Government," he said, 
 " that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between 
 the different departments should be preserved, and a 
 just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my 
 office, under all the circumstances of the case, forbid a 
 compliance with your request." 1 Thereupon the House 
 adopted a resolution declaring that it claimed no agency 
 hi making treaties; but it insisted that "when a treaty 
 stipulates regulations on any of the subjects submitted 
 by the Constitution to the power of Congress, it must 
 depend for its execution, as to such stipulations, on a 
 law or laws to be passed by Congress; and it is the con- 
 stitutional right of the House in all such cases to de- 
 liberate on the expediency of carrying such treaty into 
 effect, and to determine and act thereon as in their 
 judgment may be most conducive to the public good." 2 
 Alexander Hamilton, whom Mr. Jefferson regarded as 
 the author of the President's message, afterward ex- 
 pressed his regret that a qualified answer had not been 
 returned. 3 Nevertheless, in declining to comply with the 
 request of the House for a copy of the instructions to the 
 minister who negotiated a treaty with Mexico, President 
 Polk relied (1848) upon the Washington precedent, al- 
 though John Quincy Adams stubbornly supported the 
 position of the House in 1796. No further action was 
 then taken, but it illustrates the abiding faith in the 
 principle, that the House, during the administration of 
 President Grant, again asserted its right by readopting 
 
 1 4th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, pp. 426-782. * Ibid., p. 782. 
 8 40th Cong., 2d Sess., House Rep. no. 37. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 367 
 
 without debate or division the resolution of the Fourth 
 Congress. 1 
 
 Closely associated with this question is the view that 
 a treaty often depends upon a law of Congress for the 
 execution of stipulations which relate to subjects con- 
 stitutionally intrusted to Congress. Thus, when a bill 
 came up to conform American law to the provisions of 
 the treaty " to regulate commerce between England and 
 the United States according to the convention concluded 
 on July 3, 1815," the House maintained its contention 
 that while certain treaties could be executed without 
 legislative consent, the rule did not apply to treaties 
 which contain stipulations requiring appropriations, or 
 which might bind the nation to lay taxes, to raise armies, 
 to support navies, or to cede or acquire territory. 2 In the 
 consideration of the bill to appropriate $7,200,000 for 
 the purchase of Alaska in accordance with the treaty of 
 March 30, 1867, it was conceded that the House would 
 be justified not merely in withholding its aid, but in 
 giving notice to foreign nations interested that a treaty 
 would not be regarded as binding if it brought into the 
 Union and conferred political powers upon large popu- 
 lations incapable of self-government; or alienated terri- 
 tory; or surrendered political power to any other Gov- 
 ernment; or reestablished slavery; or annulled the in- 
 stitution of marriage; or changed the character of the 
 Government. 3 
 
 With equal assurance the House declared that the 
 
 1 42d Cong., 1st Sess., Globe, p. 835. 
 
 14th Cong., 1st Sess., Annals, p. 454, 473, 478, 482, 526. 
 
 1 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 3620, 3658; House Rep. no. 37. 
 
368 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 validity of a commercial treaty fixing rates of duty 
 imposed on foreign commodities entering the United 
 States for consumption must depend upon the law- 
 making power; otherwise it would be an infraction of 
 the Constitution l and an invasion of one of the highest 
 prerogatives of the House. This principle was recog- 
 nized in the reciprocity treaty with Mexico in 1886, and 
 subsequently in those with Canada and Hawaii, the 
 terms of which made their validity dependent upon the 
 passage of appropriate legislation reducing the duties 
 and making provision for carrying into effect their 
 terms. 2 In its report upon a bill making effective a con- 
 vention with the Republic of Cuba (1903), the Commit- 
 tee on Ways and Means declared that "foreign countries 
 in making treaties with us are bound to take notice of 
 this requirement of our Constitution, and, whether it is 
 expressed in the treaty or not, the whole matter is sub- 
 ject to the necessary legislation by Congress." 3 
 
 Whatever policy the President may have advocated, 
 the House has been quick to voice its sympathy with 
 people struggling to establish their liberty. As early as 
 1792 it expressed "sincere interest" in the adoption of 
 a constitution by France, and in 1848 tendered through 
 a joint resolution the congratulations of the American to 
 the French people. Under the leadership of Henry Clay 
 (1821) it voiced the "deep interest" of the American 
 people for the success of the Spanish provinces of South 
 America, and appropriated $100,000 to enable the Presi- 
 dent to give due effect to the recognition of their in- 
 
 1 Art. i, sees. 7 and 8. 
 
 2 24 Stat. L., p. 988; 25 Stat. L., p. 1370. 
 8 58th Cong., 1st Sess., Record, p. 260. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 369 
 
 dependence. The House also suggested acknowledging 
 the independence of Texas (1846), recognized the inde- 
 pendence of Haiti by a clause in an appropriation bill 
 (1862), congratulated the people of Brazil on their 
 adoption of a republican form of government (1890), and 
 felicitated the people of Cuba on the appearance of a 
 Cuban Republic (1902). Only when the House expressed 
 its sympathy for the people of Mexico, struggling against 
 the French invasion of 1864, did the Executive deny 
 its authority to act. The House was unwilling that its 
 silence on the subject should be accepted by the nations 
 of the world as a manifestation of indifference to a vio- 
 lation of the Monroe Doctrine, and accordingly, on 
 April 4, 1864, it passed by a unanimous vote a joint 
 resolution declaring that the Congress of the United 
 States "are not indifferent spectators of the deplorable 
 events now transpiring in the Republic of Mexico; and 
 they therefore think fit to declare that it does not accord 
 with the policy of the United States to acknowledge a 
 monarchical government erected on the ruins of any 
 republican government in America under the auspices 
 of any European power." 2 
 
 Napoleon III did not relish the defiant tone of this 
 pronunciamento, and a few weeks later the Moniteur, 
 the official journal of the French Government, announced 
 that "the Emperor's Government has received from that 
 of the United States satisfactory explanations as to the 
 sense and bearing of the resolution come to by the House 
 relative to Mexico. It is known, besides, that the Senate 
 has indefinitely postponed the examination of that ques- 
 1 38th Cong.. 1st Sess., Globe, p. 1408. 
 
370 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 tion, to which, in any case, the executive power would 
 not have given its sanction." When this publication 
 came to the knowledge of the House, it requested Presi- 
 dent Lincoln, "if not inconsistent with public interest," 
 to communicate any explanations given the Govern- 
 ment of France respecting the action of the House. In 
 response he forwarded a copy of Secretary of State 
 Seward's letter to William L. Dayton, American Minister 
 to France, explaining that the subject of the House reso- 
 lution " is a practical and purely executive question, and 
 the decision of its constitutionality belongs not to the 
 House nor even to Congress, but to the President. . . . 
 While the President receives the declaration of the 
 House with the profound respect to which it is entitled, 
 as an exposition of its sentiments upon a grave and im- 
 portant question, he directs that you inform the Govern- 
 ment of France that he does not at present contemplate 
 any departure from the policy which this Government 
 has hitherto pursued in regard to the war which exists 
 between France and Mexico." 1 
 
 Thereupon Henry Winter Davis, the powerful chair- 
 man of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, pre- 
 sented an elaborate report, in which, after citing prec- 
 edents and the attitude of former Presidents, he asserted 
 that "no President has ever claimed such an exclusive 
 authority. Nor can Congress ever permit its expression 
 to pass without dissent. It is certain the Constitution 
 nowhere confers such authority on the President. The 
 precedents of recognition, sufficiently numerous in this 
 revolutionary era, do not countenance this view. . . . 
 1 38th Cong., 1st Sess., House Ex. Doc. no. 92. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 371 
 
 The declaration and establishment of the Spanish- 
 American colonies first brought the question of the recog- 
 nition of new governments or nations before the Govern- 
 ment of the United States; and the precedents then set 
 have been followed ever since, even by the present Ad- 
 ministration. The correspondence now before us is the 
 first attempt to depart from that usage, and to deny 
 the nation a controlling, deliberative voice in regulating 
 its foreign policy." J In conclusion he recommended a 
 resolution declaring that " Congress has a constitutional 
 right to an authoritative voice in declaring and pre- 
 scribing the foreign policy of the United States as well 
 in the recognition of new powers as in other matters; and 
 it is the constitutional duty of the President to respect 
 that policy, not less in diplomatic negotiations than in 
 the use of the national force when authorized by law; 
 and the propriety of any declaration of foreign policy by 
 Congress is sufficiently proved by the vote which pro- 
 nounces it; and such proposition, while pending and 
 undetermined, is not a fit topic of diplomatic explana- 
 tion with any foreign power." 2 
 
 When the House, by a vote of 69 to 63, laid this reso- 
 lution on the table, Davis promptly asked to be relieved 
 of his chairmanship. It was a profound shock. Davis 
 ranked in ability with Charles Sumner, head of the 
 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the House 
 could ill afford to lose his services. But it recognized 
 that one war at a time was sufficient, and that the Sec- 
 retary of State was evidently playing a waiting game. 
 
 1 38th Cong., 1st Sess., House Rep. no. 129. 
 8 38th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 48, 65. 
 
372 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Nevertheless, the President, with his usual disposition 
 to avoid needless quarrels, saw no reason why the reso- 
 lution might not pass. It could do no harm, since France 
 was satisfied. Four days afterward, therefore, when 
 Davis again presented it, the House, substituting "Ex- 
 ecutive Departments" for "President," adopted it 
 yeas, 119; nays, 8. In this connection it is interesting to 
 recall that at the close of the Civil War, when General 
 Sheridan occupied the Mexican border with an army of 
 veterans, presumably to establish the Monroe Doctrine, 
 the French hastened their departure, leaving Emperor 
 Maximilian to be executed by the Republic of Mexico. l 
 When the President and the House are in political 
 accord, the latter is slow to criticize or investigate the 
 Executive. Between them is a common interest. The 
 success of one makes for the good of the other. Besides, 
 House leaders freely confer with heads of departments, 
 and on important measures the President not infre- 
 quently presses his views upon chairmen and other in- 
 fluential members for whom he sends. Often intimate 
 social relations strengthen the confidence and freedom 
 of official intercourse. These influences account for the 
 flaccid action of the House in 1837 and in 1848, when 
 President Jackson protested against the investigation 
 of his executive acts and President Polk refused to reveal 
 the instructions used in negotiating a treaty with Mexico. 
 For a similar reason it laid the Davis resolution on the 
 table until President Lincoln sub silentio approved its 
 adoption. On the other hand, when the Chief Executive 
 and the House are of different parties, the latter, largely 
 1 Philip H. Sheridan, Personal Memoirs, vol. n, pp. 227-28. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 373 
 
 for political purposes, boldly and sometimes impudently 
 presses its demands for information, and resents a denial 
 of its authority in language indicating a high degree of 
 feeling. It may well be doubted if the House, whatever 
 its constitutional rights, would have made its savage 
 reports in 1842 and in 1860 had it been in political accord 
 with Presidents Tyler and Buchanan. Equally plain is it 
 that the demand for information respecting President 
 Grant's official acts when absent from Washington 
 originated in the Opposition party. 
 
 When a disagreement between a friendly House and 
 the President involves a principle which affects the in- 
 tegrity of the legislative branch, the attitude of the 
 latter depends upon the spirit of its leaders. The respect 
 and high esteem in which the House held President 
 Washington did not restrain it from respectfully asserting 
 its right to deliberate on and determine the expediency 
 of a treaty which depended for its execution on a law to 
 be passed by Congress; but when President Jackson ex- 
 tended the Washington precedent to a treaty with the 
 Chickasaw tribe of Indians, it entered no protest. In 
 one case, the House acted with spirit, conscious of its 
 fidelity to principle; in the other, it showed a craven 
 obsequiousness. Similar instances in its history might 
 be multiplied, for types of leaders varied in different 
 periods. 
 
 The choice of Speaker Macon, facilitated by the coali- 
 tion between the South and the New York Democracy, 
 which resulted in President Jefferson's election, rendered 
 the House completely subservient to the Chief Executive. 
 Even the appointment of chairmen of important com- 
 
374 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 mittees, especially those which act as organs of com- 
 munication with the President, were consented to, if not, 
 as in the case of John Randolph, suggested by, the Ad- 
 ministration. Nor did Speaker Varnum modify these 
 conditions. He rid Ways and Means of Randolph over 
 the wishes of Albert Gallatin, then Secretary of the 
 Treasury, but not until the loquacious Virginian had 
 become an object of dislike to the House and of distrust 
 to the President. Indeed, during Jefferson's Adminis- 
 tration the theory that the legislative and executive 
 branches are independent of each other became a fiction, 
 the supremacy of the latter being practically acknowl- 
 edged. "Between you and myself," Jefferson wrote to 
 Speaker Macon, "nothing but opportunities for expla- 
 nation can be necessary to defeat the endeavors of an 
 enemy who is sowing tares between us. At least, on my 
 part, my confidence in you is so unqualified that nothing 
 further is necessary for my satisfaction." 1 It should be 
 added in defense of the House that at this time it had 
 few if any men of sufficient prominence, except Randolph, 
 to break the Jeffersonian spell under which Macon had 
 fallen. 
 
 Henry Clay reversed this order of things. With a fear- 
 less nature and unrivaled powers he became a legislative 
 leader, dominating President Madison during the War 
 of 1812 and successfully opposing President Monroe. 
 He stood for internal improvements, for a protective 
 tariff, for recognition of the South American Govern- 
 ments, and for the Missouri Compromise, and carried 
 them all through. But with the passing of Clay and 
 1 Jefferson's MSS., March 22, 1806. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 375 
 
 other leaders who gave character to the House, conditions 
 dropped to the level of those existing under Jefferson; and 
 although the strong will of Jackson roused antagonisms 
 within as well as without his party, he absolutely dom- 
 inated Speaker Stevenson and his committees. The 
 margin was often meager, once being reduced to the 
 Chair's casting vote, but it sufficed to control the in- 
 vestigation of the National Bank, and to secure a favor- 
 able report from the committee charged with an investi- 
 gation of the Executive's acts. Though other Presidents 
 prior to the Civil War lacked Jackson's dominating will 
 power, it became the habit of a Speaker, if of the same 
 faith, to subserve the interests of the Administration. 
 His election meant subserviency. In fact, the slightest 
 show of independence, either by President, Speaker, or ; 
 Administration member, was deemed a breach of faith 
 to the one supreme issue around which for twenty years 
 the contentious waves broke angrily. As the contest over 
 slavery grew in bitterness, the House passed more often 
 into opposition, making the Speaker the rival of the 
 President and his committees a check upon executive 
 policies. Thus the House in opposition developed a 
 power of initiative unequaled since the time of Clay, and 
 which it never again entirely surrendered even under 
 a President of its own political faith. 
 
 This independence was observable early in 1861, when 
 the House, by a concurrent resolution, assumed the right 
 to investigate the conduct of the war, authorizing a, 
 joint committee to send for persons and papers, and to 
 sit during the session of either body. A more energetic 
 manifestation of it appeared shortly after the death of 
 
376 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 President Lincoln. Its excuse was the incredible and 
 pertinacious folly of President Johnson, which first 
 irritated and then exasperated his party. Finally, the 
 House, led as fearlessly by Thaddeus Stevens as Henry 
 Clay had marshaled its opposition to Madison and Mon- 
 roe, took a position of open hostility, its resistance re- 
 sembling somewhat that of the Commons in the days of 
 the Long Parliament. Of course nothing so extreme had 
 occurred before, or, let it be hoped, is likely to happen 
 again; but even with the coming of harmonious rela- 
 tions under other Presidents, an unwillingness to part 
 with the prerogatives and independence wrenched from 
 the feeble hand of President Johnson occasionally ex- 
 hibited itself in bold assertions that surprised its own 
 leaders, mindful of the unceasing attrition of an Execu- 
 tive laden with a patronage that invites like the flesh- 
 pots of Egypt. Thus, in reaffirming, during the Admin- 
 istration of President Grant (1871), the attitude of its 
 predecessor in 1796 respecting its constitutional right to 
 determine the expediency of carrying a treaty into effect, 
 it displayed a spirit of rare firmness. Courage as well as 
 wisdom was likewise manifested in 1875, when, by a vote 
 of 223 to 18, it resolved that any departure from the 
 time-honored custom of limiting the Presidency to two 
 terms would be unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with 
 peril to our free institutions. 1 
 
 It was thought at the time an unusual display of self- 
 reliance for a House of moderate, careful members, on 
 the eve of an election in 1890, to ignore a proposition 
 submitted by Mr. Elaine, then Secretary of State, re- 
 
 1 44th Cong., 1st Sess., Journal, p. 66. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 377 
 
 leasing sugar duties in the interest of reciprocity. He 
 had long considered the subject, had definite ideas and 
 organized plans, and felt an eager interest in the smallest 
 minutiae of the mode of dealing with it. Indeed, many 
 thought it a pity that McKinley himself did not propose 
 it to help balance the elastic properties of other and 
 newer schemes that appealed to his imagination, espe- 
 cially since any reciprocal advantages coming from Elaine 
 to a House controlled by Speaker Reed, whose hostility 
 to the Administration was outspoken, were certain to 
 be pronounced incommensurate. President Cleveland's 
 specific and urgent recommendations for the Wilson 
 Tariff Bill (1894) met as cool a reception. He had won 
 his election on the principle of a tariff for revenue only, 
 and although disposed, apparently, to allow a very mod- 
 erate measure of protection, the legislative leaders pre- 
 ferred an open break rather than yield to his demands. 
 An exhibition of independence quite as intrepid occurred 
 during the Buchanan Administration, when the House 
 not only refused to comply with the President's request 
 to impeach rather than investigate, but pointedly re- 
 sented statements made in his message. 
 
 Nevertheless, the influence of the President in the 
 House, whether controlled by his own party or another, 
 is very far from negligible. The Constitution, as else- 
 where stated, limits his duties to recommendations and 
 the approval or disapproval of measures. To protect 
 members from executive influence, the fear of which 
 seems to have been constantly before its framers, it also 
 provided that "No senator or representative shall, dur- 
 ing the time for which he was elected, be appointed to 
 
378 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 any civil office under the authority of the United States, 
 which shall have been created, or the emoluments 
 whereof shall have been increased, during such time; 
 and no person holding any office under the United States 
 shall be a member of either House during his continuance 
 in office." l In other words, a legislator was not to be in- 
 duced to create an office, or to increase the emoluments 
 of one, in the hope of an appointment; nor was the Ex- 
 ecutive able to appoint him while he continued in Con- 
 gress. But in practice these constitutional limitations 
 neither preserved the legislator's independence nor re- 
 strained executive influence. In fact, the President's 
 possession of an ever-increasing patronage has enabled 
 him at times to absorb the legislative branch of the Gov- 
 ernment. President Jefferson's manipulation to secure 
 an appointment for Joseph H. Nicholson, of Maryland, 
 for the purpose of crushing Randolph's opposition, fur- 
 nished an early exhibition of such influence. But not 
 until Jackson adopted Marcy's adage, "To the victor 
 belong the spoils," did the President become a patron- 
 age broker, rewarding the obedient and punishing the 
 contumacious. Although militant reformers, after years 
 of patient struggle, have gradually exempted depart- 
 mental clerks and other subordinates from the spoils 
 system, an army of appointees still remains subject to 
 the bargaining propensities of the Chief Executive. 2 
 Some have dispensed this patronage less conspicuously 
 than others, but all have used it when conditions de- 
 manded. 
 
 1 Art. i, sec. 6. 
 
 * The list prepared by a recent statistician includes over sixty 
 thousand offices. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 379 
 
 In the spring of 1864, after deciding upon an amend- 
 ment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, President 
 Lincoln, in order to secure its approval by three fourths 
 of the States, found it necessary to create an additional 
 Commonwealth, to be called Nevada. Strong opposition 
 to its formation developed in the House, and to over- 
 come it the President authorized Assistant Secretary of 
 War Dana to secure three members who were reported 
 as doubtful. "What do they want?" asked Dana. "I 
 don't know. It makes no difference," replied Lincoln. 
 "We must carry this vote or be compelled to raise 
 another million of men and fight, no one knows how 
 long. It is a question of three votes or new armies." 
 "What shall I say to these gentlemen?" continued the 
 Assistant Secretary. " I don't know," said the President; 
 "but whatever promises you make I will perform." 
 After learning that two wanted internal revenue appoint- 
 ments and the third a position in the New York custom- 
 house worth twenty thousand dollars a year, Dana 
 promised them "on the authority of the President." 
 The next October, concludes the Secretary , the President 
 signed the proclamation admitting Nevada as a State, 
 and in the February following (1865) it ratified the 
 Thirteenth Amendment. 1 
 
 It is seldom that the application of such executive in- 
 fluence reaches the public even in the form of a reminis- 
 
 1 The two received their places in the internal revenue service, but 
 before the custom-house appointment was due to be made, President 
 Lincoln was assassinated, and President Johnson refused to redeem 
 the promise. "I have observed in the course of my experience," 
 said Johnson, "that such bargains tend to immorality." (Charles A. 
 Dana, Recollections of the Civil War, pp. 175-78.) 
 
380 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 cence, but the results of such bargaining have from time 
 to time clearly appeared, as, for example, when Stephen 
 A. Douglas, assisted by President Pierce, forced the 
 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and President 
 Cleveland constrained an unwilling House to repeal the 
 Sherman Silver Purchase Act. With consummate tact, 
 due as much to his delightful personality as to long 
 legislative experience, President McKinley not only 
 used the patronage at hand to sweeten the way of his 
 Philippines policy which Speaker Reed opposed, but in- 
 creased the vast power of his office by appointing mem- 
 bers of Congress to distinguished and lucrative places 
 on various commissions, authorized to negotiate treaties, 
 to locate boundaries, and to confer with foreign repre- 
 sentatives respecting other matters. 1 It is not strange, 
 perhaps, that he should desire to select men whom he 
 personally knew to be qualified for such important diplo- 
 matic service. It was something of a shock, however, 
 that this gentlest of Presidents should presume to breach 
 the Constitution, for the line of demarcation was vague 
 and impalpable between the duties of such appointees 
 and those of regular diplomatic "officers" clothed with 
 dignity and authority. McKinley himself evidently 
 recognized the danger-line; otherwise he would scarcely 
 have submitted the names of the Hawaiian commission- 
 ers to the Senate, which wisely declined to take action. 
 "If these gentlemen are to be officers," asked one senator, 
 
 1 These included arranging a standard of value by international 
 agreement; negotiating peace with Spain; settling the Behring Sea 
 controversy; establishing the boundary-line between Alaska and 
 Canada; arranging a treaty of commerce with Great Britain; and se- 
 curing information upon which to base needed legislation for Hawaii. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 381 
 
 "how can the President appoint them under the Con- 
 stitution, the office being created during their term? 
 Or, how can they hold office and still keep their seats in 
 this body? If, on the other hand, they are not officers, 
 under what constitutional provision does the President 
 ask the advice and consent of the Senate to their 
 appointment?" 1 
 
 President Wilson did not tolerate McKinley's in- 
 defensible practice, but as an expert in securing legisla- 
 tion he in no wise suffers by comparison with the most 
 dominating of all his predecessors. Soon after inaugura- 
 tion he became the legislative leader, dictating bills, 
 demanding amendments, and forcing his views into 
 statutes by the use of patronage, which filled with won- 
 der and amazement veteran legislators who had served 
 under eight different Presidents. The Speaker and floor 
 leader could not baffle him, nor a union of disaffected 
 leaders and a solid minority thwart him. "This was 
 never better illustrated," said the New York Sun, "than 
 last Saturday, when at four o'clock it became apparent 
 that the senators from the cotton-growing States of the 
 South had effected a coalition with the Republican side 
 to kill the War-Revenue Bill or suspend it until legisla- 
 tion was put into the measure for the relief of the cotton 
 planters. Immediately a strong arm was extended from 
 the White House which promptly throttled the move- 
 ment within thirty minutes after the fact of the revolt 
 became known to Postmaster-General Burleson, with 
 the immense post-office patronage of the country at his 
 disposal. . . . When the test came, four hours later, three 
 * Hoar, Autobiography, vol. n, p. 47. 
 
382 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 of the eight revolters faltered and the scheme col- 
 lapsed." 1 
 
 Although the press of the country has occasionally 
 denounced such exhibitions of executive pressure as re- 
 prehensible, the President has always treated patronage 
 as a legitimate instrument for influencing Congress. 
 Indeed, not since the establishment of a departmental 
 classified service has a Chief Executive suggested the 
 elimination of this adventitious influence, until President 
 Taft surprised the country and dismayed the average 
 politician by recommending that almost the entire 
 Federal establishment be taken out of personal and 
 partisan politics and covered into the classified service. 
 The language of this extraordinarily wise message is 
 worthy of repetition : 
 
 "I wish to renew my recommendation that all the local 
 offices throughout the country, including collectors of 
 internal revenue, collectors of customs, postmasters of 
 all four classes, immigration commissioners, and mar- 
 shals, should be by law covered into the classified 
 
 i October 18, 1914. Of the use of patronsfge President Wilson says: 
 "There are illegitimate means by which the President may influence 
 the action of Congress. He may bargain with members, not only 
 with regard to appointments, but also with regard to legislative 
 measures. He may use his local patronage to assist members to get 
 or retain their seats. He may interpose his powerful influence, in one 
 covert way or another, in contests for places in the Senate. . . . Such 
 things are not only deeply immoral, but they are destructive of the 
 fundamental understandings of constitutional government and, there- 
 fore, of constitutional government itself. . . . No honorable man 
 includes such agencies in a sober exposition of the Constitution. . . . 
 Nothing in a system like ours can be constitutional which is im- 
 moral or which touches the good faith of those who have sworn to 
 obey the fundamental law. The reprobation of all good men will al- 
 ways overwhelm such influences with shame and failure." Woodrow 
 Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States (1908), p. 71. 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 383 
 
 service, the necessity for confirmation by the Senate 
 removed, and the President and the others, whose time 
 is now taken up in distributing this patronage, under the 
 custom that has prevailed since the beginning of the 
 Government, in accordance with the recommendation 
 of the senators and congressmen of the majority party, 
 should be relieved from this burden. 
 
 "I am confident that such a change would greatly 
 reduce the cost of administering the Government, and 
 that it would add greatly to its efficiency. It would take 
 away the power to use the patronage of the Government 
 for political purposes. When officers are recommended 
 by senators and congressmen from political motives and 
 for political services rendered, it is impossible to expect 
 that while in office the appointees will not regard their 
 tenure as more or less dependent upon continued politi- 
 cal service for their patrons, and no regulations, however 
 stiff or rigid, will prevent this, for such regulations, in 
 view of the method and motive for selection, are plainly 
 inconsistent and deemed hardly worthy of respect." * 
 
 Of course the House desired nothing of this kind ; other- 
 wise it would promptly have passed a constitutional 
 amendment carrying it into effect. It never graciously 
 approved the merit system, and although the President's 
 use of patronage has become increasingly arrogant, often 
 subjecting its leaders to humiliating defeat, it has never 
 raised its voice in resentment. The reason lies on the sur- 
 face. Under a custom as old as the Government, members 
 
 1 62d Cong., 3d Sess., Record, pp. 896, 947. The list affected by 
 this recommendation included 59,237 postmasters, 122 collectors of 
 customs, 67 collectors of internal revenue, 86 United States marshals, 
 and 6 immigration commissioners. 
 
384 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 of the majority party claim the right to name federal 
 officers in their respective districts, and obedience to 
 party and executive dictation insures them the privilege. 
 Indeed, if a district is likely to resent a prescribed policy, 
 a member, unless his vote is absolutely needed, is suf- 
 fered to assume an attitude of "independence" and thus 
 avoid trouble at home. 
 
 It is not surprising, therefore, that such a prerogative, 
 held under such tolerant conditions, is highly appre- 
 ciated, and although the distribution of patronage has 
 its disadvantages, since the gratitude of appointees is 
 not always as steady or influential as the hostility of the 
 disappointed, a sacrifice of the means of building up a 
 political machine does not commend itself to the average 
 congressman any more than to most Presidents. 
 
 Upon the death of a President, Congress pays its 
 tribute of respect. The decease of President William 
 Henry Harrison, the first to die in office, occurred when 
 the Congress was not in session (April 4, 1841), but when 
 it assembled in the following December, John Quincy 
 Adams, then a member of the House, presented a resolu- 
 tion that a committee of one member from each State be 
 appointed, to join a committee on the part of the Senate, 
 "to report by what token of respect and affection it may 
 be proper for Congress to express the deep sensibility of 
 the Nation to the event of the decease of their late 
 President." In obedience to this mandate a joint resolu- 
 tion was adopted providing that the chairs of the Presi- 
 dent of the Senate and the Speaker of the House be 
 "shrouded" in black during the residue of the session; 
 that members wear the usual badge of mourning for 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 385 
 
 thirty days, and that the President of the United States 
 be requested, when transmitting a copy of the resolu- 
 tion to Mrs. Harrison, "to assure her of the profound 
 respect of Congress for her person and character, and of 
 its sincere condolence on the late afflicting dispensation 
 of Providence." 
 
 Of the five Presidents who died in office the decease of 
 Zachary Taylor (July 9, 1850) alone occurred when 
 Congress was in session. On its announcement to the 
 House several eulogies were immediately pronounced, 
 the halls of the Senate and House were draped, appro- 
 priate resolutions were passed, members wore the usual 
 badge of mourning, and on the day of burial the two 
 Houses attended the funeral in a body. When the 
 Thirty-ninth Congress convened on December 4, 1865, 
 after the death of President Lincoln in the preceding 
 April, 1 it desired "to express the deep sensibility of the 
 Nation" by some "token of respect and affection" more 
 elaborate than that shown upon the death of President 
 Harrison, and accordingly a joint committee, additional 
 to resolutions and emblems of mourning, arranged for a 
 meeting of the two Houses to be held in the chamber of 
 the House on February 12, the anniversary of the late 
 President's birthday, to be addressed by George Ban- 
 croft, the distinguished historian. To this assemblage 
 invitations were extended to the President and his 
 Cabinet, the Justices of the Supreme Court, the repre- 
 sentatives of foreign governments, to such officers of the 
 army and navy as had received the thanks of Congress, 
 to the Judges of the Court of Claims and of the Supreme 
 1 April 15, 1865. 
 
386 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 Court of the District of Columbia, to assistant heads of 
 departments, heads of bureaus, the mayors of Washing- 
 ton and Georgetown, and to such eminent citizens as 
 were then at the seat of government. 
 
 On the day set apart, promptly at twelve o'clock 
 meridian, members of the Senate, preceded by their 
 officers, entered the hall of the House and occupied the 
 first four rows on either side of the main aisle, in front of 
 members of the House, the President pro tern sitting at 
 the Speaker's right. Thereafter the guests entered and 
 occupied seats as follows: The President of the United 
 States, in front of the Speaker's table; the Supreme 
 Court Justices next to and on the right of the President; 
 the Diplomatic Corps next to and on the left of the 
 President; heads of departments on the left of the Diplo- 
 matic Corps; army and navy officers on the right of the 
 Supreme Court Justices; Judges of the Court of Claims 
 and of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia 
 in the rear of the Justices of the Supreme Court; govern- 
 ors of States and mayors in the rear of the Diplomatic 
 Corps; and assistant heads of departments and heads of 
 bureaus in the rear of the army and navy officers. The 
 orator of the day occupied the clerk's desk. The audi- 
 ence being seated, the Marine Band, stationed in the 
 vestibule, played appropriate dirges, after which the 
 chaplain of the Senate offered prayer. The orator was 
 then presented by the presiding officer of the Senate. 
 The audience left the hall as it entered, except that 
 special guests preceded the senators. 
 
 On February 27, 1882, a memorial service of similar 
 character was held after the death of President Garfield 
 
THE PRESIDENT AND THE HOUSE 387 
 
 on September 19, 1881, former Speaker Elaine being the 
 eulogist. On February 27, 1902, a similar service was 
 held after the death of President McKinley on Septem- 
 ber 14, 1901, the orator of the occasion being Secretary 
 of State John Hay. 
 
 In paying tributes of respect to former Presidents at 
 the time of their death, Congress has observed the early 
 precedent of ignoring the event unless it occurred when 
 the Senate and House were in session. Curiously enough 
 only eight have died when the Congress was in session, 
 and the record shows action taken only in the cases of 
 six; namely, General Washington (1799), Mr. Madison 
 (1826), Mr. John Quincy Adams (1848), Mr. Buchanan 
 (1868), Mr. Fillmore (1874), and Mr. Hayes (1893). 
 Mr. Tyler died on January 18, 1862, and Mr. Van Buren 
 on July 24 of the same year, when Congress was in 
 session, but Mr. Tyler was then within, and in sympathy 
 with, the Confederate States. Although the eve of Mr. 
 Van Buren's life was as peaceful as its noon and day 
 had been stormy, Congress likewise, upon the report of 
 his death, took no action. Six years afterward, upon the 
 decease of Mr. Buchanan, the House tabled a resolution 
 of commendation. Later in the day, however, it resolved 
 "that as a mark of respect to one who has held such 
 eminent public station, the Speaker is requested to 
 appoint a committee of seven members to attend his 
 funeral." 1 A wag said that the House approved the 
 funeral ! 
 
 1 40th Cong., 2d Sess., Globe, pp. 2810, 2817. 
 
 THE END 
 
APPENDIX 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 391 
 
 H 
 
 p 
 
 4 
 w 
 
 . 
 
 . . . O i-< ft I-H 5* CM <M 
 <X CO CO i t 
 
 l>rHOO5GOJ>W5O5 COi>i-H-i 
 Oi O O O rH ^ o <X <W CO * ^ 
 !> 00 CO GO GO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 
 
 GO 
 
 CO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO ^9* GC GO 
 
 lili 
 
 
 t rH i-H 
 
 22 
 
 :8J 
 
 I fl 
 
 G C 
 53 
 
 :1 
 
 11 
 
392 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 <N yp CD 
 U5 5 5 
 
 CO t~ I-l I-H 
 
 00 
 
 00 > 
 r-< i-H 
 
 O5 O> 
 
 ^J^^ScC^^^i^ 
 
 *o *o ^o ^o ^ co i>- i>* QO oo oo oo o^ o^ o o o o ^^ 
 
 
 oo 
 
 V i';f.v* u 
 
 : : : : :^ :::=!.:: : 
 
 H3 a) 
 
 . 5o 
 
 ffl^O 
 
 
 ^a w a 
 ^181 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 393 
 
 : ,, 
 
 i 
 
 o 
 
 : : : = Q 
 
 555555 
 
 555: 
 
 o 
 
 - - :* 
 *'Yg i^'s 6" 
 
 >j 
 
 **J 
 
 l iil M 
 
 n 
 
 I. 
 
 I' I 
 
 ! ! 
 
 si, 
 
 H 
 
 l-3fe*-S 
 
 1-1 CO 5 t OS I-H 00 
 i i i 1 I-H i i i i 9) Ot 
 CO 00 00 GO 00 00 CO 
 
 1-1 O OO * O QO t- 00 O6 O >-i CO 
 
394 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 
 i!*M 
 
 ^f^l^As 
 
 ^ iM 5 *f J5: 
 
 I- - , tf I' s H 1 I: 1 
 
 Q~ ^ 2 ^^^ ^ 
 
 d a.g || ^ 
 I 3 - 2 S w^ & <T 
 
 1 1 
 
 fe? s 
 
 w^O 
 
 ill 
 
 &$& 
 
 a. . - 
 
 &--- 
 
 i,l 
 
 tt W5 = 
 
 . ,.J .52 
 
 ^3 3 2 ^s. 'M 33*3" Rpfl 9 i= a P 2 ^2 
 
 Q 
 
 ^/ :| s :^^& : : : * 
 
 H ^ . . w ^ 
 
 I S^ Si .^3|i *!<3" ' 
 
 t*Oii- OO OtOS'-"COM5l>O5>-iWCl*O5i-iG<5Ol>O5 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 N.H. 
 
 G 
 
 mpson, O 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 j^vis s ^ 
 
 +j ja- - B^Ss s >&9 ll? 
 
 ~ " o~ " <c/!Ka P 
 
 ^ : = : ^V^ j'[Uj i5' v = v ' v ' 
 
 o : /.';;i 
 i l' l l'*||J4'T 
 
 i * is 'ij,; 1= 
 
 g T2M '27 "a E' 
 
 Ivl.Jj,.W.J 1 :' *<>>>'* 
 
 O W^ W^ ^ cc 
 
 i-HCO 5 b-O5rHOOOl>O5T-iCOOr>O> 
 b* b* t> b* GO GO GO GO GO OS OS OS OS OS 
 
 GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 
 
 l> 
 
 GO 
 
 J> GO OS O I-H <N SO 
 
 5 O 50 tO O O 
 
396 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 DOORKEEPERS AND POSTMASTERS 
 
 Con- 
 gress 
 
 Year 
 
 Doorkeepers 
 
 Postmasters 
 
 1 
 
 1789 
 
 Gifford Dalley. 
 
 
 2 
 
 1791 
 
 it 
 
 
 3 
 
 1793 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1795 
 
 Thomas Claxton. 
 
 
 5 
 
 1797 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 6 
 
 1799 
 
 t 41 
 
 
 7 
 
 1801 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 8 
 
 1803 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 9 
 
 1805 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 10 
 
 1807 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 11 
 
 1809 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 12 
 
 1811 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 13 
 
 1813 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 14 
 
 1815 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 15 
 
 1817 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 16 
 
 1819 
 
 44 tf 
 
 
 17 
 
 1821 
 
 Benjamin Birch, Md. 
 
 
 18 
 
 1823 
 
 44 t4 
 
 
 19 
 
 1825 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 
 20 
 
 1827 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 
 21 
 
 1829 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 
 22 
 
 1831 
 
 Overton Carr, Md. 
 
 
 23 
 
 1833 
 
 44 44 
 
 
 24 
 
 1835 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 
 25 
 
 1837 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 William J. McConnick, D.C. 
 
 26 
 
 1839 
 
 Joseph Follansbee, 
 
 
 
 
 Mass 
 
 14 44 44 
 
 27 
 
 1841 
 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 28 
 
 1843 
 
 Jesse E. Dow, Conn. 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 29 
 
 1845 
 
 Cornelius S. Whitney, 
 
 
 
 
 D.C 
 
 John M. Johnson, Va. 
 
 30 
 
 1847 
 
 Robert E Horner,N. J. 
 
 44 44 
 
 31 
 
 1849 
 
 44 44 
 
 44 44 f4 
 
 32 
 
 1851 
 
 Z. W. McKnew, Md. 
 
 44 44 
 
 33 
 
 1853 
 
 ** ' 
 
 44 44 44 
 
 34 
 
 1855 
 
 Nathan Darling, N. Y. 
 
 Robert Morris, Pa. 
 
 35 
 
 1857 
 
 Robert B. Hackney, 
 
 
 
 
 Va 
 
 Michael W. Cluskey, Ga. 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 397 
 
 DOORKEEPERS AND POSTMASTERS (continued) 
 
 Con- 
 gress 
 
 Year 
 
 Doorkeepers 
 
 Pos<7na5ter 
 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 40 
 
 1859 
 1861 
 1863 
 1865 
 1867 
 
 George Marston, N.H 
 
 Ira Goodnow, Vt. . . . 
 44 
 
 
 
 Charles E. Lippincott, 
 
 Josiah M. Lucus, 111. 
 
 William S. King, N.Y. 
 44 44 < 
 
 Josiah Given, O. 
 WilliamS King NY 
 
 41 
 
 42 
 43 
 44 
 
 1869 
 1871 
 1873 
 1875 
 
 Otis S. Buxton, N.Y 
 
 
 44 44 
 
 John H. Patterson, 
 N.J . 
 
 < 
 < 
 
 Henry Sherwood, Mich. 
 < 
 
 45 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 1877 
 1879 
 1881 
 
 Charles W. Field, Ga. 
 
 Walter P. Brownlow, 
 Tenn 
 
 < 
 
 4 
 4 44 
 
 48 
 49 
 
 1883 
 1885 
 
 James W. Winter- 
 smith, Tex 
 Samuel Donaldson, 
 Tenn . . 
 
 Lycurgus Dalton, Ind 
 
 44 ( 44 
 
 50 
 51 
 
 1887 
 1889 
 
 A. B. Kurd, Miss.... 
 Charles E. Adams, 
 Md 
 
 <4 44 44 
 
 James L. Wheat, Wis 
 
 52 
 
 1891 
 
 Charles H. Turner. 
 N.Y 
 
 Lycurgus Dalton, Ind. 
 
 53 
 54 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 59 
 60 
 61 
 62 
 
 1893 
 1895 
 1897 
 1899 
 1901 
 1903 
 1905 
 1907 
 1909 
 1911 
 
 A. B.Hurd, Miss.... 
 
 William J.Glenn,N.Y. 
 44 44 
 
 44 44 
 
 Frank B. Lyon, N.Y. 
 << <4 
 
 <4 4 44 
 44 <i 
 44 4t 
 
 Benjamin Vail. . . 
 
 << 44 
 
 Joseph C. McElroy, O. 
 
 4< 44 44 
 44 44 44 
 44 44 44 
 44 44 44 
 44 44 4 
 
 Samuel A. Langum. 
 William M. Dunbar. 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 r-iOJO* GO CO CO -*Jt rfi O Q 5 CO 
 
 : 3 
 
 OO 
 rH r-i Ot 
 
 i-i'*< 
 CO CO 
 
 ll^l&^s 
 
 pill- 3 " 3 
 
 |> 
 
 
 
 !>35 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 : : : 
 
 : : 
 
400 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 ;.' 
 
 *llfJllJ*l: = : 
 
 ' 
 
 5 
 
 
 H an o 
 
 ir ? 8 3 a 2 
 
 > r| J : : : : 
 
 8 "" 
 
 O SjJ-r 6Sa*.~SSuiB'2 J 
 
 g i|> = ^.3.11 S.i. 
 
 S I'll 
 
 g 
 
 &. : : :> 
 
 
 
 1 j oS1 ^i^ ^j SS1 1 -jo 
 
 g & 
 
 5 ? : 
 
 I 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 401 
 
 SIS 
 
 fj*. s!.3= 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 in 
 
 
 lj,lj,,i 
 
 g 
 
402 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 i>H. 
 
 0= = 5 
 
 I'll* 
 
 ,, 
 
 I 
 
 8 
 I 
 
 ; : 
 
 :fc : S 
 
 JiS W . ft 
 S.Srfl CO 
 
 
 ^ffl^tfij^ e ^^^. 
 | S |- I35&^ -5 -2j 
 
 (3 2 C3 *> 
 
 I 
 
 id: : ^ ^ 
 
 ;Y J : : : . 
 
 5.5 3 f4x i * 
 ^ H H- " - ' 
 
 t o> 
 
 O5 O5 
 00 CO 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 403 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 'i. 
 
 05 I-H CO 
 
 I-H rH 
 
 01 C5 C^ 
 
404 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 s 
 
 11-a 
 
 I J 
 
 d a 
 
 
 
 -^ fe 
 * 1 
 
 -S 
 
 8 
 
 o 
 
 Jz; 
 
 > to a 
 
 .2 3 
 
 H!r 
 
 :a, 
 
 r 8.2 8 - O -TS g :, 
 
 il!^ = 5 i! 
 
 ii 
 
 
 :g : 
 
 ^dfd 
 
 
 3' 
 
 
 
 3 5*?.2: S- fl'SS : 
 
 2*3 I *** 
 
 " 34P I 5 l 
 
 e 
 
 O O O >O 5 CD 
 
 I! 
 
 O 
 rfl 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 405 
 
 5 5 = 5 
 
 S' 
 1= 
 
 a 
 
406 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 2 . o 
 
 Eq 3 j .55 
 
 |j- s : .^g;<2 : g^= Srf . 
 
 l:^t" ^lljH J5? -|OM 
 
 ^^ II ^1-^J 1<1 "ill 
 
 CO feiS* fl'^C'S 
 
 ||' II " lr- S? 
 
 1 
 
 
 -^'*CtQOW5f5O 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 407 
 
 is : : 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 51 
 
 5 
 
 * -ii^SlK 
 
 **0HBW 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 I, . f 
 
 Q 
 
 
 1> t^ l> t^ 
 
 oo oo oo GO oo oo 
 
408 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 ills 
 
 >JQ ds d 
 
 (11:8 
 
 III 1 
 
 a 
 
 8Mb 
 
 al 
 
 1 
 
 D CO 
 
 (2 
 
 J5 > 
 ! #~ S 
 
 !,- CL," ^ g 
 
 ;I 3 f I" f 
 
 g !: 
 
 
 r.d-.-H 
 
 Q 
 | || 
 
 I : 31= 
 
 <fe 
 
 00 GO 00 00 00 00 GO 00 00 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 409 
 
 <2 
 
 La 
 
 lUl^liiei* 
 
 'H as o o3M~'5>5 S Jj^ p^ cfi fd S o > 
 
 fl a 
 
 -fl -a 
 
 JJIIIJJ4JIJJJI 
 
 5 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 i rH CO 5 b- O5 -l 
 
 ^ * * ^ T} 
 
 O t> O5 I-H 
 O Q 5 CO 
 
 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 
 
410 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 pq 
 
 9 
 
 ' 
 
 " ^q" w 
 
 i-is 5 H-i5 QWQ: Q; 
 
 W 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 253 
 
 *!*, ag I, . 
 
 ^ ^ t; > * >s o * s o " 
 
 81HJta fl' j 
 
 CD ffi 
 
 5 : = : ^ : 
 -s? 
 
 M 1 
 
 --< 
 
 -ei : s : 
 
 ,> 
 
 * I 
 II 
 
 $ M 
 
 00 3 t- OS rH 
 l> l> t- I> 00 
 
 00 00 00 00 CO 
 
 I 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 411 
 
 69(113 
 -S3J.6 
 
 -PAT 
 
 suvotj 
 
412 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 -S9j,5 
 
 1-1 ^< >-i c* co N 
 
 joqv? 
 
 2 
 
 -9pd\ 
 
 -V1U9S 
 
 99940 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 413 
 
 O 
 
 APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS BY STATES 
 
 OT6T 'W 
 
 S ^r. a ^.-* g K9a ao a co^co Sas o a c, 
 
 0061 
 
 'ST18U90 IllfldfflJ, 
 
 . : .^ a - aga . aM Sg .co a - 
 
 0681 'sns 
 
 OS . CD C- <N Tf H N jH -H <M CO rH CO T* CO Oj t^ t- JO ri 
 
 088T 
 
 00 lOCD^THrHCSOr-IOCO^JC-r.JCOnnoeSrHIOt-^TH 
 
 0181 
 
 00 Tf >* r-l Tj< rH (N O 
 
 SCOOCOOCOOCOr-jOCOOCO ; 
 
 0981 
 
 CO COCO 
 
 
 
 
 : 
 
 0981 
 
 f ;<NC 
 
 ^rHrHCO 
 
 S s* S '*- : 
 
 0?8I 
 'snsudo yfxis 
 
 t -THIN 
 
 <* rH rH CO 
 
 t.0 O^t.OOCO * ; 
 
 0281 
 'snsuav w&g 
 
 ftO ^< 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 eot eo eo oo oo e* -i CMCX 
 
 OZ81 
 
 CO . 
 
 tS rH 
 
 N 
 
 1-ICO C4COt>OCQ . rHrH 
 
 0181 
 'snsudo pMiijj 
 
 ** : : 
 
 t-c, 
 
 co 
 
 rH rH O rH t- 35 CO rH . . 
 
 0081 
 'snsudo puoaos 
 
 
 
 
 
 06 il 
 'snsudo ISAM 
 
 
 
 
 
 *%ss^ss$> 
 
 IO.H 
 
 CO COOO 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 iln ji i I 
 
 r 1 : >es :^ ^fl P : : 
 
 illpl|illjlll s |llll?l 
 
 roS^iaog45Cgda'Sflc'3-S& > K' :3 a2 *fl 
 
414 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 0161 'sna 
 
 0061, COf-iCNO t-Oe;-HlO<N<N<Nt-INOOrH<NOCOOi-lH r-l 
 
 H CO-t CM CO iH i-l T-( 1-H C5 
 
 0681 
 
 < CM <N * rH 
 
 0881 
 
 <N 1-1 Tl< OJ T-t 
 
 I 
 
 OL8T 
 'snsudo itfUW 
 
 098T 
 
 098T 
 'snsuao itfuwas 
 
 0?8T 
 'snsuao wxis 
 
 OS8T 
 'msuzo t/?A>T 
 
 OZ8T 
 'snsuso yyinotf 
 
 OCD 
 
 coos eooo 
 
 0181 
 
 .t- 
 
 0081 
 'snsuso puowg 
 
 06 LI 
 'snsuso IS-IM 
 
 i-( . OOCNQO 
 
 ^IO OO 
 
 
 
INDEX 
 
INDEX 
 
 Adams, George M., action as 
 clerk, 24. 
 
 Adams, John, President, use of 
 veto, 358. 
 
 Adams, John Quincy, opposes ap- 
 portionment, 6; his lament, 7; 
 as to members elect, 13; con- 
 cerning Wise, 14; Rhett, 16; 
 chairman of unorganized House, 
 17; father of the House, 35, Ap- 
 pendix D; chairman of Commit- 
 tee of the Whole, 48; opposes 
 partisan committees, 67; re- 
 sents an appointment, 68; on 
 thanking Stevenson, 71; and 
 Jones, 73; on use of sarcasm, 
 110; contributes to disorder, 
 114; funeral of, 153-54; refuses 
 to vote, 158; encourages a dis- 
 appearing quorum, 158; esti- 
 mate of Randolph, 188-89; on 
 Revolutionary soldiers, 215; 
 fights for the right of petition, 
 215; revision of speeches, 291; 
 power as a debater, 295; tribute 
 to Prentiss, 318; condemns set- 
 tlement of contested election 
 cases, 319; reasons for Chase's 
 acquittal, 349; on quarrel with 
 Jackson, 350; blow at Buchanan, 
 350; his use of the veto, when 
 President, 358. 
 
 Aiken, William, character of, 86; 
 defeated for Speaker, 87. 
 
 Allison, William B.. 305. 
 
 Alston, Willis, favors previous 
 question, 187. 
 
 Ames, Fisher, orator and profound 
 lawyer, 299; prepares rules for 
 contested election cases, 314; 
 basis of Statute of 1798, 314. 
 
 Ames, Oakes, connection with 
 Credit Mobilier, 150, and note. 
 
 Annals of Congress, number of 
 volumes, 101; contents of, 
 101. 
 
 Apportionment, first law, 5; 
 changes in ratio, 5; Webster's 
 plan, 6; unfairness to New Eng- 
 land, 6; Adams's denunciation 
 of it, 6; Webster's system 
 adopted, 7; large reduction, 7; 
 rapid increase in numbers, 8; 
 table of, 8. 
 
 Appropriations, alarming growth 
 of, 250-52; plans to check waste, 
 254-55. 
 
 Archbold, Robert W., 341; im- 
 peachment of, 342; question of 
 jurisdiction, 341-42. 
 
 Assaults in House, Grow and 
 Keitt, 45, 125; Harper and 
 Lyon, 111; John White, 115; 
 John Bell, 116; Black and Gid- 
 dings, 116; Rousseau and Grin- 
 nell, 138. 
 
 Atkins, John D. C., character of, 
 130. 
 
 Bacon, Ezekiel, character as floor 
 leader, 124. 
 
 Bailey, Joseph W., relations with 
 Reed, 114. 
 
 Baker, Edward D., his gifts as an 
 orator, 303. 
 
 Bancroft, George, eulogy before 
 Congress upon death of Presi- 
 dent Lincoln, 385. 
 
 Banks, Nathaniel P., Speaker, 32; 
 character of, 86-87; election as 
 Speaker, 87; appoints Campbell 
 floor leader, 110; vivid picture 
 of, 304. 
 
 Barbour, Philip P., made an Asso- 
 ciate Justice of U.S. Supreme 
 Court, 281; character of, 301. 
 
418 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Barksdale, William, estimate of, 
 
 19, 304. 
 
 Bayly, Thomas H., character as 
 floor leader, 120; fidelity to 
 Cobb, 120. 
 
 Belknap, Secretary of War, re- 
 signs pending impeachment 
 proceedings, 338; question of 
 Senate's jurisdiction, 338-40; 
 sustained, 341 ; acquitted though 
 guilt admitted, 341. 
 
 Bell, John, defeated for Speaker, 
 17; absence of, regretted, 29; 
 activity as a Whip, 104; fisticuff 
 in House, 116; character as 
 minority leader, 118. 
 
 Benjamin, Judah P., estimate of, 
 
 20, 21. 
 
 Benton, Thomas H., tribute to 
 Lowndes, 113; opposed repeal 
 of Missouri Compromise, 304. 
 
 Bingham, Henry H., a father of 
 the House, Appendix D. 
 
 Bingham, John A., on impeach- 
 ment of Colfax, 338. 
 
 Black, Edward J., assaults Gid- 
 dings, 116. 
 
 Blackburn, Joseph C. S., aids in 
 revision of rules, 194; denounces 
 adoption of special order by 
 majority vote, 203; opposes di- 
 vision of Committee on Appro- 
 priations, 237-38. 
 
 Blaine, James G., absence of, re- 
 gretted, 29; Credit Mobilier, 47; 
 attacks Benjamin F. Butler, 50; 
 withheld recognition, 58; net- 
 tles Butler, 69; making up com- 
 mittees, 69; familiarity with the 
 lobby, 70; thanks of House 
 passed under previous question, 
 74; when members may not 
 vote, 147; action of House on 
 death of, 154; reasons for refus- 
 ing to count a quorum, 159-60; 
 on dilatory motions, 196-97; 
 dodges the issue, 197; stigma- 
 tized tactics used in repealing 
 the Missouri Compromise, 270; 
 test of ability in House severe, 
 
 296; on early arguments con- 
 cerning the tariff, 300; tribute 
 to Conkling, 305; eulogy before 
 Congress upon death of Presi- 
 dent Garfield, 386. 
 
 Bland, Richard P., appointed as 
 chairman of Committee on 
 Coinage under a bargain, 69. 
 
 Blount, William, expelled from 
 Senate, 337; impeachment pro- 
 ceedings against, stopped by his 
 expulsion, 337, 338. 
 
 Blunt, James H., opposes division 
 of Committee on Appropria- 
 tions, 245. 
 
 Bocock, Thomas S., 304. 
 
 Book of Estimates, 253, and note. 
 
 Boudinot, Elias, chairman of first 
 Committee on Rules, 180; his 
 character, 180; accomplished 
 statesman, 300. 
 
 Boutwell, George S., holds that 
 impeachable offenses include 
 cases of misbehavior, 346. 
 
 Boyd, Linn, arbitrary ruling, 58; a 
 father of the House, Appendix 
 D. 
 
 Breckinridge, John C., estimate 
 of, 22. 
 
 Brooks, James, suppressed, 24; 
 connection with Credit Mobil- 
 ier, 150, and note. 
 
 Brooks, Preston S., assault upon 
 Simmer, 140. 
 
 Bryan, William Jennings, opposed 
 counting silent members to 
 make a quorum, 175. 
 
 Bryce, James, opposes large legis- 
 latures. 8. 
 
 Buchanan, James, servility, 89; 
 manager in Peck impeachment, 
 349; his character, 349; in Peck 
 case relies upon party bias, 350; 
 Jackson's influence in Peck case, 
 350, 351; as President, resents 
 a resolution of inquiry, 364; 
 House makes exhaustive reply, 
 365. 
 
 Buckner, Aylett H., appointed 
 chairman of Committee on 
 
INDEX 
 
 419 
 
 Banking and Currency under a 
 bargain, 69. 
 
 Burke, Edmund, resisted changes 
 in representation, 3. 
 
 Burleson, Albert S., Postmaster- 
 General, 381; dispenser of pa- 
 tronage, 381. 
 
 Burlingame, Anson, 304. 
 
 Burrows, Julius C., candidate for 
 Speaker, 77, note. 
 
 Burton, Theodore E., a master of 
 clear statement, 307; chairman 
 of Committee on Rivers and 
 Harbors for eleven years. Ap- 
 pendix D. 
 
 Busteed, Richard, U.S. District 
 Judge, 338; resigns pending im- 
 peachment proceedings, 338. 
 
 Butler, Andrew P., estimate of, 20. 
 
 Butler, Benjamin F., on impeach- 
 ment of Colfax, 338. 
 
 Calhoun, John C., on previous 
 question, 189; one of the famous 
 quintet, 301; tribute to elo- 
 quence of Prentiss, 318. 
 
 Cambreling, Churchill C., charac- 
 ter as floor leader, 115. 
 
 Campbell, George W., duel with 
 Gardenier, 185; supremacy in 
 debate, 301. 
 
 Campbell, Lewis D., character as 
 floor leader, 122; failure to pub- 
 lish his speeches, 123. 
 
 Cannon, Joseph G. t father of the 
 House, 36, Appendix D; in- 
 dulges in reminiscences, 52; 
 committee appointments, 70; 
 opposes appointment of com- 
 mittees by a board, 80; friend- 
 ship for Williams, 114; charac- 
 ter as floor leader, 131; resem- 
 blances to Reed, 132; known as 
 "Uncle Joe," 132; as to a quo- 
 rum, 156; opposes dividing Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, 247. 
 
 Carlisle, John G., conduct as a 
 contestee, 46; arbitrary ruling 
 of, 59; victim of obstructionists, 
 62; bargains with Buckner and 
 
 Bland, 69; opposes appoint- 
 ment of committees by a board, 
 80; use of power, 85; as to a 
 quorum, 156; when he counted 
 House to find presence of quo- 
 rum, 157; his practice encour- 
 ages a disappearing quorum, 
 164; his sincerity, 164; de- 
 nounces adoption of special or- 
 der by majority vote, 203, 205; 
 his able decisions, 205; the slave 
 of filibusters, 205; given loving- 
 cup by minority members, 205; 
 rearranges "order of business," 
 219-20; refuses to demote 
 Randall, 242; his contested 
 election case, 328-30. 
 
 Catchings, Thomas C., character 
 of, 176-77; presents rule for 
 counting silent members to 
 make a quorum, 177; his tact- 
 ful speech, 177. 
 
 Chairman of Committee of the 
 Whole, selected by ballot, 47; 
 later by Speaker, 47. 
 
 Chaplain of House, election of, 
 37; duty and pay of, 98; how 
 employed, 98; effort to abolish 
 the office, 99. 
 
 Chase, Chief Justice, presides at 
 impeachment trial of President 
 Johnson, 335; Senate fears in- 
 fluence of, 335; declines to re- 
 quire oath, 336; questions right 
 to decide on admissibility of 
 proof, 336; appears at trial in 
 robe, 337; sworn by an Associ- 
 ate Justice, 337. 
 
 Chase, Samuel, Associate Justice 
 of U.S. Supreme Court, 332; 
 his impeachment moved, 332; 
 elaborate preparations for trial, 
 335; he attends, 335; claim of 
 House managers, 345; his char- 
 acter, 348; Randolph's partisan 
 prejudice, 348; Jefferson's influ- 
 ence, 349; acquitted, 349. 
 
 Cherokee Strip, location of, 40. 
 
 Cheves, Langdon, of the famous 
 quintet, 301. 
 
420 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Choate, Rufus, some of his col- 
 leagues, 301. 
 
 Cilley, Jonathan, duel with Graves, 
 139; funeral of, 153-54. 
 
 Clark, Champ, head of minority 
 on Ways and Means, 134; less 
 authority as Speaker, 83, 135; 
 a veteran member, 306; an able 
 debater, 307. 
 
 Clay, Clement C., estimate of, 20. 
 
 Clay, Henry, absence of, regret- 
 ted, 29; speaks in Committee 
 of Whole, 51 ; peculiarity in vot- 
 ing, 52; gives no reasons for 
 decisions as Speaker, 54-55; 
 character of, 71; qualities as 
 Speaker, 83-84; power hi War 
 of 1812, 85; his standard, 86- 
 87; courtesy of, 112; a rebuke to 
 Randolph, 112; on integrity of 
 members, 150; as to a quorum, 
 155; favors previous question, 
 187; renders it an unwieldy mo- 
 tion, 189; on the question of 
 consideration, 223; packs the 
 Committee on Manufactures, 
 233; of the famous quintet, 301 ; 
 causes selection of Capitol's east 
 portico for place of President's 
 inauguration, 354; leads House 
 in its sympathy for South 
 American republics, 368; makes 
 House independent of the Pres- 
 ident, 374-75. 
 
 Clay, Joseph, floor leader, 125. 
 
 Clerk of the House, makes up roll 
 of members elect, 12; power of, 
 12; distrust of, 13; action in 
 contested election case, 14, 15; 
 power increased, 22; why power 
 acquiesced in, 25; calls House 
 to order at its organization, 30; 
 election of, 37; holds office until 
 successor qualifies, 91; how 
 elected, 91; compared with 
 clerk of House of Commons, 91, 
 93; routine duties, 92; appoint- 
 ees and salary, 92; his peculiar 
 prestige, 93. 
 
 Cleveland, President, views re- 
 
 specting right of veto, 358; his 
 use of the veto, 358; use of pa- 
 tronage, 380. 
 
 Clingman, Thomas L., on Brooks's 
 assault on Sumner, 140. 
 
 Clymer, George, signer of Consti- 
 tution, 300. 
 
 Cobb, Howell, estimate of, 22; 
 elected Speaker, 33; author of 
 plan for drawing seats, 39; con- 
 duct under charges, 46; arbi- 
 trary ruling, 58. 
 
 Cochran, Bourke, opposes thanks 
 to Henderson, 75. 
 
 Colfax, Schuyler, conduct as 
 Speaker, 47 ; courtesy of, 74 ; con- 
 nection with Credit Mobilier, 
 150, and note; reasons for refus- 
 ing to count a quorum, 159; 
 question of impeachment, 338; 
 reason for dropping matter, 338. 
 
 Committee on Appropriations, 
 when created, 235; efforts to 
 divide it, 236; loses river and 
 harbor items, 236-|-38; also agri- 
 cultural appropriations, 238; 
 jealousy of other committees, 
 239; dislike of Holman amend- 
 ment, 239; resentment against 
 Randall, 239; five bills taken 
 from it, 242-49; six bills remain 
 under its jurisdiction, 242, and 
 note. 
 
 Committee of Committees, cre- 
 ated, 81; its purpose, 82; its 
 procedure, 82; pronounced a 
 failure, 90. 
 
 Committee of Conference, 227, 
 283; how formed, 284; meetings 
 of, 284; may hold hearings, 284; 
 powers of, 285; report of man- 
 agers, 285; highly privileged, 
 285; unwise to instruct, 286. 
 
 Committee of Interstate Com- 
 merce, separated from manu- 
 factures, 233. 
 
 Committee of Manufactures, sep- 
 arated from Interstate Com- 
 merce, 233; rival of Ways and 
 Means, 233. 
 
INDEX 
 
 421 
 
 Committee on Rules, report of, in 
 1789, 180; often not appointed, 
 182; great power given to, 191; 
 its reports adopted by majority 
 vote, 191; its power withdrawn, 
 192; Speaker made its chair- 
 man, 193; limitation of its au- 
 thority, 193; is non-partisan, 
 193; made a standing commit- 
 tee, 195; its authority increased, 
 196; reports adopted by ma- 
 jority vote, 197; its special re- 
 ports make it partisan, 197; its 
 dominating power, 204, 209; 
 Reed's and Crisp's methods 
 compared, 207; increasing pow- 
 er of, 210; plans to increase its 
 membership, 211; enlarged and 
 made elective, 212; Speaker 
 eliminated, 212; reports in 
 favor of dividing Ways and 
 Means, 235; also of dividing 
 Committee on Appropriations, 
 242. 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means, 
 privileged to report at any tune, 
 230-31; made a standing com- 
 mittee, 231; its rival, 233; its 
 prototype, 234; its control, 234; 
 its chairman the titular floor 
 leader, 234; its wide jurisdic- 
 tion, 235; its division into four 
 committees, 235. 
 
 Committee of the Whole, early 
 practice hi, 182, 256; its char- 
 acter, 256; absence of roll calls 
 and motions, 256; debate in, 
 256-57; history of, 257; its pro- 
 totype, 258; its jurisdiction, 260- 
 62; method of House passing 
 into, 262-63; selection of chair- 
 man, 263; duties of, 263-64; 
 quorum in, 265; general debate 
 in, 266; rules governing five- 
 minute debate, 266; evolution 
 of present procedure, 267; tac- 
 tics used to repeal Missouri 
 Compromise, 268-70; stigma- 
 tized by Blaine, 270; practice 
 destroyed, 271; procedure in 
 
 passing from Committee to 
 House, 271. 
 
 Congressional Debates, number 
 and contents of volumes, 101, 
 note. 
 
 Congressional Globe, its establish- 
 ment, 101; number of volumes, 
 101, note. 
 
 Congressional Record, Speaker's 
 control of, 54; number of vol- 
 umes, 101, note; its establish- 
 ment, 102; its purpose, 103; 
 what it is, 104. 
 
 Conkling, Roscoe, Elaine's trib- 
 ute to, 305. 
 
 Constitution makers, avoid Brit- 
 ish system of representation, 3. 
 
 Contested elections, Broad Seal 
 case, 15; provision of Constitu- 
 tion, 313; early impartiality, 
 813; case of Anthony Wayne, 
 313; uniform mode of proce- 
 dure, 314; basis of Statute of 
 1798, 314; early partisanship, 
 315; continued violation of 
 equity principles, 316; case of 
 Prentiss, 316-19; action of a 
 hold-over clerk, 319; efforts to 
 reform practice, 319; present 
 procedure based on Act of 
 1851, 320-21; not binding on 
 House, 321; practice violates 
 act, 322; Reed's comments up- 
 on, 323; spirit governing deci- 
 sions, 324; only three instances 
 of minority benefiting, 324; 
 partisanship multiplies con- 
 tests, 324; augments expense, 
 325; famous case of Smith vs. 
 Jackson, 326-27; practice in 
 House of Commons, 327-28; 
 Reed's plan to conform to it, 
 328; case of Speaker Carlisle, 
 328-29. 
 
 Corwin, Thomas, oratorical power 
 of, 302. 
 
 Counting a quorum, 165-79. 
 
 Courts, James C., clerk of Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, 98; 
 high character of, 98. 
 
422 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Cox, Samuel S., on power of 
 clerk, 24; never muzzled, 48; 
 denounces adoption of a special 
 order by majority vote, 203; 
 moves the division of Commit- 
 tee on Ways and Means, 235. 
 
 Creswell, John A. J., 305. 
 
 Crisp, Charles F., rebukes Reed, 
 49; bantered by Reed, 51; at- 
 tempt to address House, 51; 
 Reed refuses thanks, 73; influ- 
 ence of their disturbed relations, 
 114; opposes counting silent 
 members to make a quorum, 172; 
 opens the way to make him 
 Speaker, 172; refuses to follow 
 the precedent, 172; proposes 
 fining unexcused members, 174; 
 Reed's retort, 174; forced to 
 count, 174-75; his method com- 
 pared with Reed's, 174-75; 
 opposes Reed rules, 206; meth- 
 ods compared with Reed's, 207; 
 conducts Carlisle's election case, 
 329. 
 
 Gushing, Caleb, criticism of clerk, 
 13. 
 
 Dalzell, John, calls up contested 
 election case, 165; ability of, 
 165; elected chairman of Com- 
 mittee on Rules, 212; character 
 of, 307; a father of the House, 
 Appendix D. 
 
 Dana, Charles A., Assistant Sec- 
 retary of War, 379; how he se- 
 cured three votes in House, 
 379. 
 
 Davis, Henry Winter, estimate 
 of, 21; ability of, 89; refuses to 
 support Banks, 89; advocates 
 Monroe Doctrine, 369-72; re- 
 signs chairmanship of Commit- 
 tee on Foreign Affairs, 371; 
 Lincoln quiets him, 372. 
 
 Davis, Jefferson, estimate of, 21. 
 
 Dawes, Henry L., a floor leader, 
 108; head of Ways and Means, 
 127; his leadership, 128; when 
 members may not vote, 147; re- 
 
 markable evidence of skill, 298; 
 a father of the House, Appen- 
 dix D. 
 
 Debate and debaters, 288-312; 
 five-minute debate, 256, 291; 
 rules limiting debate, 288; gen- 
 eral debate, 289; little attempt 
 to silence members, 290; unde- 
 livered speeches, 290; revised 
 remarks, 291 ; reason for routine 
 discussion, 291; vigorous discus- 
 sion, 292; qualities needed, 293; 
 task of a chairman, 293; a par- 
 liamentary orator, 294; great 
 debaters made by practice, 294; 
 illustrations of, 294; great de- 
 baters rare, 295; success uncer- 
 tain in House of Commons, 
 295-96; severe test in House, 
 296; watchful floor leaders, 297; 
 dignified orators, 298; the real 
 debater, 298; illustrations, 298- 
 99; great debaters come in 
 groups, 299-309; fitted espe- 
 cially for service in House, 308. 
 
 Dingley, Nelson, head of Ways 
 and Means, 127; his tariff bill, 
 127; comment of Reed, 128; 
 funeral of, 154. 
 
 Dolliver, Jonathan P., 306. 
 
 Doorkeeper of House, election of, 
 37; holds office until successor 
 qualifies, 91; how elected, 91; 
 duties of, 96; appointees and 
 salary, 97. 
 
 Douglas, Stephen A., his dominat- 
 ing leadership, 303; sketch of, 
 303. 
 
 Duels and challenges, McDuffie 
 and Metcalfe, 115; Graves and 
 Cilley, 139-40; Campbell and 
 Gardenier, 185; Eppes chal- 
 lenges Randolph, 187. 
 
 Dunnell, Mark H., candidate for 
 Speaker, 77, note. 
 
 Durrell, Edward H. f U.S. District 
 Judge, 338; resigns pending im- 
 peachment proceedings, 338. 
 
 Dwight, John W., activity of, as 
 the Whip, 105. 
 
INDEX 
 
 423 
 
 Ely, William, ignores limitation of 
 previous question, 184. 
 
 Eppes, John W., absence of, re- 
 gretted, 29; activity of, as Whip, 
 104; effective debater, 186; 
 marries Jefferson's daughter, 
 186; challenges Randolph, 187; 
 hesitates to move previous 
 question, 187. 
 
 Evans, George, absence of, re- 
 gretted, 29; character as a de- 
 bater, 116-17. 
 
 Everett, Edward, 301. 
 
 Father of the House, 35; Appen- 
 dix D. 
 
 Fenton, Reuben E., 304. 
 
 Fessenden, William Pitt, brief 
 service in House, 302. 
 
 Fillmore, Millard, head of Ways 
 and Means, 127; character of, 
 127; tribute to eloquence of 
 Prentiss, 318; his use of the 
 veto when President, 358. 
 
 Findlay, William, a father of the 
 House, Appendix D. 
 
 Fitzgerald, John J., aids minority 
 leader, 208; startling statement 
 as to increase in appropriations, 
 251; condemns method of ap- 
 propriating money, 252; plan 
 for encouraging economy, 254. 
 
 Floor leader, who is the, 107; next 
 to Speaker in influence, 107; 
 qualities needed, 109; often in- 
 fluences tone of debate, 111. 
 
 Former members of House, action 
 on death of, 154; admitted to 
 floor of House, 195. 
 
 Forney, John W., character of, 18; 
 clerk of House, 19; firm ruling 
 of, 19; opinion of Southern 
 members, 21-22. 
 
 Franking privilege, its abuse, 151- 
 52. 
 
 Frye, William P., transfer to Sen- 
 ate, 76; aids in revision of rules 
 of House, 194. 
 
 Gardenier, Barent, capacity to 
 
 talk, 185; his duel with Camp- 
 bell, 185; opposes previous 
 question, 187. 
 
 Garfield, James A., absence of, 
 regretted, 29; candidate for 
 Speaker, 32; a floor leader, 108; 
 opposes counting a quorum, 
 160; aids in revision of rules, 
 194; watchful as a floor leader, 
 297; rouses the House and 
 country in brief speech, 298; his 
 use of the veto when President, 
 358; upon his death, House pays 
 worthy tribute, 386. 
 
 Garland, Hugh A., record as 
 clerk, 14. 
 
 George, Henry, his book as a pub- 
 lic document, 152; sent under 
 frank, 152. 
 
 Gerry, Elbridge, signer of Consti- 
 tution, 300. 
 
 Gholson, Thomas, favored previ- 
 ous question, 187. 
 
 Giddings, Joshua R., opposes par- 
 tisan committees, 67; defeats 
 Winthrop, 68; is dropped from 
 Committee on Territories, 68; 
 muscular physique, 302; a fa- 
 ther of the House, Appendix D. 
 
 Gladstone, William E., power as a 
 speaker, 29. 
 
 Grant, President, suggests Elec- 
 toral Commission Act, 359; re- 
 sents a resolution of inquiry, 364. 
 
 Graves, William J., duel with 
 Cilley, 139. 
 
 Grinnell, Josiah G., imputes cow- 
 ardice to Rousseau, 138; as- 
 saulted, 138; his course disap- 
 proved, 138. 
 
 Griswold, John A., 305. 
 
 Griswold, Roger, as a floor leader, 
 111; encounter with Lyon, 111. 
 
 Grosvenor, Charles H., an effec- 
 tive debater, 307; a veteran 
 member, 307. 
 
 Grow, Galusha A., why elected 
 Speaker, 45; encounter with 
 Keitt, 45, 125; as to a quorum, 
 155. 
 
424 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Haile, William, length of the 
 average speech, 189. 
 
 Hale, Eugene, suppressed by clerk, 
 24; absence of, regretted, 290. 
 
 Hale, Robert S. f Stevens's retort, 
 146. 
 
 Hamilton, Alexander, regrets 
 making positive reply, 366. 
 
 Hammett, William EL, saves 
 Giddings from assault, 116. 
 
 Hardwicke, Lord Chancellor, his 
 reasons for changing his mind, 
 171. 
 
 Hanner, Alfred C., a father of the 
 House, Appendix D. 
 
 Harper, Robert Goodloe, as floor 
 leader, 111; ability of, 112; de- 
 fends Justice Chase, 112; su- 
 premacy in debate, 301. 
 
 Harrison, William Henry, Presi- 
 dent, use of the veto, 358; re- 
 spect paid upon his death, 384. 
 
 Hay, John, eulogy before Con- 
 gress upon death of President 
 McKinley, 386. 
 
 Henderson, David B., inconsider- 
 ate remark of, 59; thanks of 
 House passed under previous 
 question, 74; action of House on 
 death of, 154-55. 
 
 Hepburn, William P., opponent of 
 rules, 38; character as a debater, 
 307; a veteran member, 307. 
 
 Herbert, Hilary A., opposes ap- 
 pointment of committees by a 
 board, 80; opposes division of 
 Committee on Appropriations, 
 245. 
 
 Hewitt, Abram S., favors ap- 
 pointment of committees by a 
 board, 79. 
 
 Hill, Benjamin H., 305. 
 
 Hill, David B., in N.Y. Senate 
 counts silent members to make 
 a quorum, 162; opinion of, 163. 
 
 Hiscock, Frank, candidate for 
 Speaker, 77, note; with Carlisle 
 on Committee Rules, 242; joins 
 in report to divide Committee 
 on Appropriations, 243. 
 
 Hitt, Robert R., character of. 
 307; cradled among statesmen, 
 308. 
 
 Hoar, George P., on sale of cadet- 
 ships, 150; comment on election 
 cases, 324 ; argument in Belknap 
 impeachment case, 339-40. 
 
 Holman, William S., suppressed, 
 23; favors appointment of com- 
 mittees by a board, 79; known 
 as "watchdog of the Treasury," 
 245; opposes division of Com- 
 mittee on Appropriations, 245. 
 
 Holman amendment, the, 239. 
 
 "Holy Wednesday," 224. 
 
 "Horizontal Bill," 241. 
 
 House bills, when House controls 
 reference, 63; early scrutiny of, 
 181; how introduced, 181; dis- 
 position of, 182; present method 
 of introduction, 273; how re- 
 ferred, 273; printing of, 273; 
 distributed, 273; in committee, 
 274; when reported, 274; taken 
 up in House, 274; must be read 
 three times, 274; question of 
 consideration, 274-75; disposi- 
 tion of appropriation bills, 275; 
 procedure in other cases, 275; 
 under suspension of rules, 275- 
 76; by special order, 276; privi- 
 leged bills, 276; motions that 
 may intervene, 276-79; engross- 
 ment of, 279; motion to recom- 
 mit, 279; vote on, 280; title of 
 bill, 280; motion to reconsider, 
 280; its curious history, 281-82; 
 disposition of bills after pas- 
 sage, 282-83; conference com- 
 mittee, 283-86; procedure after 
 passing both Houses, 286; pre- 
 sented to President, 286; result 
 of his non-approval, 286; his 
 veto, how treated, 287. 
 
 House calendar, adopted, 195; 
 bills referred to, 195; when 
 created, 218; its purpose, 218; 
 called "legislative graveyard," 
 219. 
 
 House employees, 95; number of, 
 
INDEX 
 
 425 
 
 95; how determined, 95; com- 
 pensation, 95; not in classified 
 service, 97. 
 
 House, floor of, those entitled to 
 admission to, 96. 
 
 House Journal, its contents, 100. 
 
 House library, subdivision of 
 Library of Congress, 98; ap- 
 pointment of librarian and as- 
 sistants, 98; contents of, 98. 
 
 House members. See Representa- 
 tives. 
 
 House of Commons, controlled by 
 powerful and wealthy men, 3; 
 system of representation, 3; 
 election of Speaker in, 34; 
 Speaker's dress, 36; formal en- 
 trance of Speaker, 36; powers 
 of Speaker, 43. 
 
 House official reporters, how ap- 
 pointed, 100; number of, 100. 
 
 House of Representatives, organ- 
 ization of, 26; what is the 
 House, 27; obsolete customs, 
 28; when organized, 30; "Fa- 
 ther" of, 35; observance of Sun- 
 day, 100; sale of liquors, 100; 
 breach of privilege, 139; offens- 
 es against, 139; challenges, 139; 
 may punish for contempt, 143; 
 privileged questions, what con- 
 stitute, 144-45; lobbying, 147- 
 49; action on decease of mem- 
 bers, 153; funerals in, 154; ac- 
 tion on decease of former mem- 
 bers, 154; quorum of, 155-58; 
 absence of a quorum, 157-58; 
 silence breaks a quorum, 159; 
 favorite form of obstruction, 
 162, 164; sustains the count of 
 silent members to make a quo- 
 rum, 165-66; pandemonium in, 
 167; refuses to follow precedent, 
 172; readopts it, 174; rarely 
 without a quorum, 176; opposes 
 limitation of previous question, 
 185; destroys dilatory motions, 
 198-202; passes special order by 
 majority vote, 203; refuses to 
 adopt' rules, 206; a temporary 
 
 procedure, 209-10; test of abil- 
 ity in, 296; attends impeach- 
 ment trials, 332; counting elec- 
 toral vote, 353; rules govern- 
 ing when House elects a Presi- 
 dent, 353-54; its participation 
 in President's inauguration, 
 354-55; selection of Capitol's 
 east portico for ceremony, 354; 
 President may convene House, 
 355; procedure after its organ- 
 ization, 355; at close of session, 
 356; delivery of President's 
 message, 356; reception and 
 disposal of, 356; secret sessions, 
 356-57; bills sent to President, 
 357; his disposition of them, 
 357; veto messages, 358-59; 
 resolutions of inquiry, 360; pro- 
 priety of cabinet officers occu- 
 pying seats in House, 261- 
 62; strained relations between 
 House and President, 362-65; 
 requests for information relat- 
 ing to treaties, 365-66; House 
 stubbornly maintains its right, 
 366; subjects entrusted to Con- 
 gress, 367; to fix rates of duty, 
 368; sympathy of House with 
 nations seeking independence, 
 368-69; French invasion of 
 Mexico, 369-72; when House 
 and President are in political 
 accord, 372-73: independence 
 of House depends upon spirit of 
 leaders, 373; when subservient 
 to President, 373, 375; Clay 
 made it dominate President, 
 374; courage of House in 1875, 
 376; at other times, 377; House 
 pays proper tribute upon death 
 of President, 384; on decease of 
 a former President, 386-87. 
 
 House police, 94; duties of, 94; ap- 
 pointment of, 94. 
 
 Houston, George S., estimate of, 
 21; character as floor leader, 
 121. 
 
 Hunter, Robert M. T., character- 
 ized by Adams, 18; elected 
 
426 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Speaker, 18; defends partisan 
 committees, 67. 
 
 Hunton, Eppa, opposes counting 
 a quorum, 161. 
 
 Impeachment proceedings, con- 
 fined largely to judges, 331; 
 Constitution alone governs, 
 331; how set in motion, 332; 
 complaints referred to Judiciary 
 Committee, 333; respondents 
 invited to hearings, 333; rules of 
 evidence, 333, 337; disposition 
 of cases examined, 333; proce- 
 dure after indictment, 333; how 
 House attends trials, 333; prac- 
 tice as to attendance of respond- 
 ents, 334; the Senate's prepara- 
 tion for, 334; its character as a 
 trial body, 335-36; mooted 
 jurisdiction if respondent re- 
 signs, 338-42; decision in Bel- 
 knap and Archbold cases, 341- 
 42; what constitute high crimes 
 and misdemeanors, 342-46; 
 judgment of the Senate, 346- 
 47; in President Johnson's case, 
 347; opinion of the seven recu- 
 sant Republicans, 347; partisan 
 bias disclosed in impeachment 
 cases, 347-48; in Chase case, 
 348; in Pickering case, 348; in 
 Johnson case, 351-52; opinion 
 of Rhodes, 352. 
 
 Intoxicating liquors, sale of, pro- 
 hibited in Capitol, 100. 
 
 Jackson, President, resents a reso- 
 lution of inquiry, 364. 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, adoption of 
 his Parliamentary Practice, 182; 
 his use of the veto when Presi- 
 dent, 358; as Secretary of State 
 appears before the House, 361; 
 his use of patronage, 378. 
 
 Johnson, President, impeachment 
 of, moved, 332; articles of, 346; 
 House wrests control from, 376. 
 
 Johnson, Richard M., of the fa- 
 mous quintet, 301. 
 
 Johnson, William Cost, witty re- 
 mark, 17. 
 
 Joint select committee, 226. 
 
 Joint standing committee, 227. 
 
 Jones, George W., estimate of, 21; 
 acts as second in Graves-Cilley 
 duel, 139. 
 
 Jones, John W., Adams opposes 
 thanks to, 73; character as floor 
 leader, 117. 
 
 Jones, William A., a father of the 
 House, Appendix D. 
 
 Kasson, John A., 305; candidate 
 for Speaker, 77. 
 
 Keifer, J. Warren, startling ruling 
 of, 60; nominated for Speaker, 
 77; election of, 77. 
 
 Keitt, Lawrence M ., estimate of, 
 21; encounter with Grow, 45, 
 125. 
 
 Kelley, William D., a father of the 
 House, 35, Appendix D; op- 
 poses appointment of commit- 
 tees by a board, 80; head of 
 Ways and Means, 127; funeral 
 of, 154. 
 
 Kernan, Francis, 305. 
 
 Kerr, Michael C., dies in office, 
 153; marks of respect to, 
 153. 
 
 Kilgore, Constantine B., opposes 
 counting silent members to 
 make a quorum, 175; Quixotic 
 character of speech, 175, 176. 
 
 Knott, Proctor, 305. 
 
 "Legislative graveyard," 219. 
 
 Lewis, Dixon H., early friend of 
 Franklin Pierce, 302; a father of 
 the House, Appendix D. 
 
 Library of Congress, supervision 
 of, 98. 
 
 Lincoln, President, use of the veto, 
 358; views respecting execu- 
 tive influence, 358; display of 
 tact, 372; use of patronage, 
 379; upon his death, House pays 
 worthy tribute, 385. 
 
 Lobbying, when proper and im- 
 
INDEX 
 
 427 
 
 proper, 147-49; President Wil- 
 son's view, 149. 
 
 Lowndes, William, absence of, 
 regretted, 29; floor leader, 108, 
 111; Benton's tribute to, 113; 
 of the famous quintet, 301. 
 
 Lyon, Matthew, encounter with 
 Griswold, 111; opposes previ- 
 ous question, 187. 
 
 McCall, Samuel W., 307. 
 
 McDuffie, George, character as 
 floor leader, 114-15; declines to 
 fight with rifles, 115. 
 
 McKay, James J., character as 
 floor leader, 118. 
 
 McKinley, William, absence of, 
 from House regretted, 29; head 
 of Ways and Means, 127; his 
 tariff bill, 127; manner of speak- 
 ing, 128; Reed's dislike of, 246; 
 character as a speaker, 246; op- 
 poses division of Committee on 
 Appropriations, 246; not a floor 
 leader, 246; an ideal chairman 
 of Ways and Means, 293; use of 
 the veto when President, 359: 
 use of patronage, 381; upon his 
 death, House pays worthy trib- 
 ute, 386. 
 
 McMillin, Benton, characteristics 
 of, 59; floor leader, 126. 
 
 McPherson, Edward, action as 
 clerk, 24. 
 
 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 
 his description of a noisy scene 
 in House of Commons, 167. 
 
 Mace, description of, 37; position 
 indicates House in session, 38; 
 symbol of authority, 94. 
 
 Macon, Nathaniel, votes to make 
 two- thirds majority, 52; char- 
 acteristics of, 68; dominated by 
 Randolph, 76; failure to lead, 
 84; counts House to find pres- 
 ence of quorum, 157; makes 
 House subservient to President, 
 873-74. 
 
 Madison, James, member of first 
 Committee on Rules, 180; use 
 
 of Committee of Whole, 260; 
 the Constitution-maker, 300. 
 
 Mann, James R., progress to floor 
 leadership, 132; character of his 
 work, 133; minority's candidate 
 for Speaker, 133; triumph of 
 preparedness, 299; among those 
 of long service, 307. 
 
 Marshall, Thomas F., oratorical 
 ability, 301. 
 
 Mason, James M., estimate of, 21. 
 
 Mason, John Y., early friend of 
 Franklin Pierce, 302. 
 
 Members of House. See Repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 Menifee, Richard H., great prom- 
 ise of, 301. 
 
 Metcalfe, Thomas, challenges Mc- 
 Duffie, 115. 
 
 Mills, Roger Q., Speaker declines 
 to hear him, 48; favors appoint- 
 ment of committees by a board, 
 79; floor leader, 129. 
 
 Millson, John S., criticism of 
 clerk, 13; opposes repeal of 
 Missouri Compromise, 304. 
 
 Morning hour. See Order of busi- 
 
 Morrill, Justin S., floor leader, 
 127; becomes chairman of Ways 
 and Means, 235; author of the 
 tariff bill of 1861, 235; his se- 
 vere labors, 236. 
 
 Morrison, William H., favors ap- 
 pointment of committees by a 
 board, 79; floor leader, 129; 
 character of, 240; aids to make 
 Kerr Speaker, 240; chairman of 
 Ways and Means, 240; deposed 
 by Randall, 240; again heads 
 Ways and Means, 241; called 
 "Horizontal Bill," 241; beaten 
 by Randall, 241; fails to demote 
 Randall, 242; forces a division 
 of Committee on Appropria- 
 tions, 242. 
 
 Motion on consideration, 274-75; 
 when not in order, 275. 
 
 Motion to adjourn, 276; its pre- 
 cedence, 276. 
 
 
428 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Motion to amend, 278; its pur- 
 pose, 278. 
 
 Motion to lay on the table, 276; 
 its drastic character, 276-77. 
 
 Motion to postpone indefinitely, 
 278; its insidious character, 278. 
 
 Motion to postpone to a day cer- 
 tain, 278; its purpose, 278. 
 
 Motion to recommit, 279; with 
 instructions, 279; that commit- 
 tee report forthwith, 279; rea- 
 son for this peculiar procedure, 
 279-80. 
 
 Motion to reconsider, 280; its dis- 
 turbing character, 280; curious 
 history of, 281-82. 
 
 Motion to refer, 278; its purpose, 
 278; if with instructions, 278. 
 
 Nation (New York), encourages 
 obstruction until rules are 
 adopted, 171. 
 
 New Jersey, its exclusion from 
 House, 15. 
 
 Newspapers, charges in, 142; 
 when involve breach of priv- 
 ilege, 142; lobbying by, 149. 
 
 Newton, Thomas, longest service 
 as chairman, 229, note; a father 
 of the House, Appendix D. 
 
 Obstruction, purpose of, 183-84; 
 results of, 184; its earliest form, 
 184; destructive of business, 
 196. 
 
 Office, term defined, 11. 
 
 Office building, erection of, 40. 
 
 Officer of the U.S. defined, 11. 
 
 Olmstead, Marlin E., most effec- 
 tive reasoner, 308; manager of 
 impeachment of Swayne, 344; 
 opposed theory that offense 
 must be indictable, 344. 
 
 O'Neil, Charles, a father of the 
 House, Appendix D. 
 
 Onslow, Speaker of House of Com- 
 mons, 201; upholds minority's 
 rights, 201. 
 
 Order of business, the, evolution 
 of. 213-14; disposition of peti- 
 
 tions, 215-16; privileged bills, 
 216; special order, 216; ques- 
 tion of privilege, 216; days set 
 apart for specified business, 
 216-17; introduction of bills, 
 217; disposition of bills and re- 
 ports, 218; changes of "morning 
 hour," "unfinished business," 
 "the Speaker's table," 219-21; 
 Reed's rearrangement of, 220- 
 22; what may interrupt, 222; 
 question of consideration, 223; 
 what is in order under present 
 rules, 224-25. 
 
 Orr, James L., estimate of, 21; 
 drops Giddings from Commit- 
 tee on Territories, 68; appoints 
 committee hostile to Lecompton 
 constitution, 69. 
 
 Orth, Godlove S., candidate for 
 Speaker, 77; estimate of, 77; 
 proposes appointment of com- 
 mittees by a board, 77. 
 
 Outhwaite, Joseph H., floor leader, 
 127; favors counting silent 
 members to make a quorum, 
 176. 
 
 Payne, Sereno E., head of Ways 
 and Means, 127; character of, 
 128; funeral of, 154; remarkable 
 influence of a single speech, 299; 
 a father of the House, Appen- 
 dix D. 
 
 Peck, James H., U.S. District 
 Judge, 346; why impeached, 
 349; Wai defended, 350; point 
 case turned on, 350; President 
 Jackson's influence, 350; ac- 
 quitted, 350. 
 
 Pennington, William, candidate 
 for Speaker, 88; character of, 
 88; elected, 89; appoints Sher- 
 man floor leader, 110. 
 
 Peters, John A., on impeachment 
 of Colfax, 338. 
 
 Petitions to the House, absorb the 
 time, 215; cause of their multi- 
 plying, 215; restricted to Mon- 
 days, 215; final disposition, 216. 
 
INDEX 
 
 429 
 
 Peyton, Bailie, threatens to kill a 
 witness, 116. 
 
 Phelps, John S., a father of the 
 House, Appendix D. 
 
 Pierce, Franklin, his servility, 89; 
 as a young man, 302; use of 
 patronage when President, 880. 
 
 Poland, Luke P., accounts for his 
 absence, 179. 
 
 Polk, James K., opposition to ap- 
 portionment, 6; changes front, 
 7; appointments of, 72; efforts 
 to thank, 72; suddenly takes the 
 chair, 114; character of, 318; his 
 partisanship, 318; stung by 
 Prentiss, 319; when President, 
 relies upon Washington's re- 
 fusal to respond to request of 
 House, 366; Adams stubbornly 
 stands for House's right, 366. 
 
 Porter, Peter B., favors previous 
 question, 188. 
 
 Postmaster of House, election of, 
 37. 
 
 Potter, Clarkson N., on impeach- 
 ment of Colfax, 338. 
 
 Prentiss, Sergeant S., oratory of, 
 72; opposes thanks to Polk, 72; 
 his sparkling colleagues, 301; 
 contested election case, 316; his 
 eloquence, 317; stinging criti- 
 cism of Polk, 319. 
 
 President, relations of House with, 
 counting electoral vote, 353; 
 rules governing when House 
 elects, 353-54; inauguration of 
 President, 354-55; selection of 
 east portico of Capitol for in- 
 auguration ceremony, 354; par- 
 ticipation of House in inaug- 
 uration, 355; President may 
 convene House, 355; proce- 
 dure after its organization, 355; 
 at the close of a session, 356; 
 delivery of President's mes- 
 sage, reception and disposal of, 
 356; bills sent to President, 
 his disposition of them, 357; 
 veto messages, 357; President's 
 use of the veto, 358-59; Presi- 
 
 dent's influence upon legisla- 
 tion, 359-60; House makes re- 
 quests of President, to obtain 
 information, 360; propriety of 
 cabinet officers occupying seats 
 in House, 361-62; resolutions of 
 inquiry occasion strained rela- 
 tions, 362-65; requests for in- 
 formation relating to treaties, 
 House stubbornly maintains its 
 right, especially if related to 
 subjects constitutionally en- 
 trusted to Congress, or to rates 
 of duty, 365-68; sympathy of 
 House with people struggling 
 for liberty, 368-69; clashes with 
 President over French invasion 
 of Mexico, 369-72; when Presi- 
 dent and House are in political 
 accord, 372-73; relations de- 
 pend upon spirit of House lead- 
 ers, 373; House completely sub- 
 servient to President, 373, 375; 
 Clay made it independent, 374; 
 relations during Johnson's Ad- 
 ministration, 376; courage of 
 House in 1875, 376; at other 
 times, 377; great influence of 
 President by use of patronage, 
 378-82; Taft recommended 
 covering offices into classified 
 service, 382: Wilson's theory 
 and practice of using patronage, 
 382, note; House never resented 
 President's use of patronage, 
 383; upon death of the Presi- 
 dent, 384; of a former President, 
 386-87. 
 
 Previous question, evolution of, 
 181; did not close debate, 183- 
 84; Speaker rules otherwise, 
 184; House reverses him, 185; 
 finally established, 187; infre- 
 quent use of, 189; an unwieldy 
 motion, 189-90; amendments 
 to, 190, 192, 195; its use under 
 the present procedure, 277- 
 79. 
 
 Private calendar, when created, 
 218; purpose of, 218. 
 
430 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Quorum of House, 155-58; broken 
 by refusal to vote, 159; a favor- 
 ite form of obstruction, 162, 
 164; decision of courts, 162; 
 legislative bodies follow court 
 decisions, 162, 164; Speaker 
 counts silent members to make 
 a quorum, 165-76; Crisp re- 
 fuses to follow the precedent, 
 172; Crisp forced to adopt pre- 
 cedent, 174. 
 
 Randall, Samuel J., absence of, 
 from House regretted, 29; 
 elected Speaker by plurality, 
 32; firmness during passage of 
 Electoral Commission Bill, 44; 
 conduct under charges, 46; arbi- 
 trary ruling, 58; familiarity 
 with lobby, 70; thanks of House 
 to, passed under previous ques- 
 tion, 74; partiality in appoint- 
 ment of committees, 78; op- 
 poses appointment of commit- 
 tees by a board, 80; use of pow- 
 er, 85; a floor leader, 108; length 
 of speeches, 110; acknowledged 
 floor leader, 129; character of, 
 129; selection of strong leaders, 
 130; as to a quorum, 155; aids 
 in revision of rules, 194; first 
 clash with Reed, 198; estimate 
 of, 198; denounces adoption of 
 special order by majority vote, 
 203; rearranges "order of busi- 
 ness," 220; defeats and deposes 
 Morrison, 240-42; opposes divi- 
 sion of Committee on Appro- 
 priations, 243-45; watchful as a 
 floor leader, 297. 
 
 "Randall and his forty thieves," 
 241. 
 
 Randolph, John, criticism of 
 clerk, 13; appointment on Ways 
 and Means, 68; as a floor leader, 
 111; character and ability of, 
 112; caustic censure of rules, 
 182-83; opposes limitation of 
 previous question, 184; opposes 
 previous question, 186; chal- 
 
 lenged by Eppes, 187; his long 
 speeches, 188; Adams's esti- 
 mate of, 188-89; on the ques- 
 tion of consideration, 223; use- 
 ful service in establishing fed- 
 eral judiciary, 301; moves im- 
 peachment of Justice Chase, 
 332. 
 
 Raymond, Henry J., relations to 
 President Johnson, 146; Ste- 
 vens's dislike of, 146; effective 
 debater, 305. 
 
 Reagan, John H., chairman of 
 Interstate Commerce, 236; char- 
 acter of, 237; brilliant coup 
 d'ttat, 237; takes river and har- 
 bor items from Appropriations, 
 238. 
 
 Reed, Thomas B., on power of the 
 clerk, 23; why acquiesced in, 23; 
 absence regretted, 29; opinion 
 of the oflfice of Speaker, 43; re- 
 tort to Cox, 48; rebuked by 
 Crisp, 49; comment on Blaine, 
 50; bantering Crisp, 51; scouts 
 at control of Speaker, 55; asks 
 "For what purpose," 59; refus- 
 es to thank Crisp, 73; minority 
 refuses to thank him, 75; candi- 
 date for Speaker, 77, note; op- 
 poses appointment of commit- 
 tees by a board, 78-79; quali- 
 ties as a leader, 84; activity as 
 a Whip, 105; floor leader, 108; 
 length of speeches, 110; selects 
 McKinley as floor leader, 110; 
 relations with Crisp and Bailey, 
 114; replies to Springer, 126; 
 comment on Dingley, 128; esti- 
 mate of Randall, 129; acknowl- 
 edged leader of his party, 131; 
 forcefulness, 131; action of 
 House on death of, 154; as to a 
 quorum, 156; counts House to 
 ascertain presence of a quorum, 
 157; opposes counting silent 
 members to make a quorum, 161 ; 
 reaffirms his opposition, 202; 
 reasons for changing his mind, 
 165-66; counts silent members 
 
INDEX 
 
 431 
 
 to make a quorum, 165-66; 
 plans to resign, 165; opinion 
 sustaining count, 166-67; called 
 a "czar," 167; controls riotous 
 opponents, 167-68; criticism of, 
 169-70; conscious of being right, 
 171; his prestige, 171-72; forces 
 Crisp to count silent members, 
 173-74; his method compared 
 with Crisp's, 174-75; suppresses 
 dilatory motions, 197; opposes 
 Randall, 198; the two com- 
 pared, 198-99; passes a special 
 order by majority vote, 202-03; 
 his famous rules, 206; rear- 
 ranges "order of business," 
 220-22; defines a standing com- 
 mittee, 228; on Committee on 
 Rules with Carlisle, 242; favors 
 division of Committee on Ap- 
 propriations, 242; his grievance, 
 248; argument of, 249; deeply 
 regretted his action, 250; watch- 
 ful as a floor leader, 297; quick- 
 ly aroused the House, 297; his 
 longest speech, 311; on contest- 
 ed election cases, 323; his plan 
 to reform practice, 328; hostil- 
 ity to President Harrison, 377. 
 
 Reed Rules, the, 206. 
 
 Reeder, Andrew H., friend of 
 
 u Forney, 19; contest as Kansas 
 delegate, 19. 
 
 "Regular order." See Order of 
 business. 
 
 Representatives, when chosen, 4; 
 minimum age, 4; resident of 
 district, 5; qualification of, 10; 
 cannot hold a U.S. office, 11; 
 temporary roll of, 12; wearing 
 hats in House, 28; smoking in 
 House, 28; flowers on desks of, 
 28; one fourth disappear at each 
 biennial election, 30; length of 
 average service, 30; sworn in by 
 Speaker, 37; drawing seats, 39; 
 rooms of, 40; desire for recogni- 
 tion, 56; hesitate to appeal, 56; 
 recognition of, 57; right to ap- 
 peal, 60; denied, 60; tactful- 
 
 ness of, 70; loss of pay for ab- 
 sence, 95; bitter feeling between, 
 114, 116; armed with deadly 
 weapons, 116, 264-65; if in- 
 dicted for crime, 137; freedom 
 from arrest, 137; assault upon, 
 138; challenge of, 139; speech 
 of, 141; called to order for, 141; 
 attacked through the press, 
 142; bribery, 143; questions of 
 privilege, 144; privileged ques- 
 tions, 144-45; private interests 
 of, 146; when may not vote, 
 146-47; proper and improper 
 lobbying, 147-49; misdeeds of, 
 149; integrity of, 150; salary of, 
 151; perquisites of, 151; mile- 
 age, clerk, and stationery, 151; 
 franking privilege, 151-52, fun- 
 eral expenses, 152-53; marks of 
 respect, 153-54; funerals in 
 House, 154; spirit of courtesy 
 among, 183; length of speeches, 
 185, 188; interrupted by dis- 
 order, 189; speeches limited to 
 one hour, 192; complaints of, 
 210; notable members without 
 service in Senate, 310. 
 
 Revolutionary soldiers, 215. 
 
 Rhett, R. Barnwell, character- 
 ized by Adams, 16; action in 
 New Jersey case, 16-17. 
 
 Robinson, George D., witty com- 
 ment on election cases, 323. 
 
 Roosevelt, President, aids enact- 
 ment of Transportation Act, 359. 
 
 Root, Elihu, Reed intended to 
 enter office of, 165. 
 
 Rosebery, Lord, description by, of 
 a rotten borough, 3. 
 
 Rousseau, Lovell H., assaults 
 Grinnell, 138; House repri- 
 mands, 138; resigns and is re- 
 elected, 138. 
 
 Rules of the House, adoption of, 
 38; as originally reported, 180; 
 included all then in use, 180; re- 
 adopted each session, 182; sin- 
 gle rules adopted as needed, 182; 
 often contradictory, 182; cen- 
 
432 
 
 INDEX 
 
 sured by Randolph, 182; cause 
 of criticism, 183; aided by cour- 
 tesy of members, 183; evolution 
 of previous question, 183-87, 
 189-90, 192, 195; suspension of, 
 191, 199, 216-17; did not con- 
 form to practice, 192; revision 
 in I860, 192-93; binding until 
 otherwise ordered, 193; renewed 
 criticism of, 193; revision in 
 1880, 194-95; none adopted at 
 organization of House, 206; the 
 Reed Rules, 206; the Crisp 
 Rules, 207; slight difference of, 
 207; criticism of, 207; a tem- 
 porary procedure under, 209; 
 amendments to, 211. 
 Russell, Benjamin E., opposes 
 counting silent members to 
 make quorum, 175. 
 
 Salary Grab Act, 151. 
 
 Savage, John H., on Brooks's as- 
 sault on Sumner, 140. 
 
 Sayers, John D., favored dividing 
 Committee on Appropriations, 
 250; regretted his action, 250. 
 
 Sayles, Milton, with Randall on 
 Committee on Rules, 240. 
 
 Schenck, Robert C., a floor leader, 
 108; head of Ways and Means, 
 127; his leadership, 128; ora- 
 tory, 128; advocated division of 
 Committee on Appropriations, 
 236; Elaine's tribute to, 257. 
 
 Seats in House, drawing of, 39. 
 
 Sedgwick, Theodore, character of, 
 71; tries to lead, 84; opposes 
 jurisdiction of Committee of 
 Whole, 260; opposes Varnum, 
 314. 
 
 Select committee, 226. 
 
 Sergeant-at-arms of House, elec- 
 tion of, 37; holds office until 
 successor qualifies, 91; how 
 elected, 91 ; bearer of the mace, 
 94; maintains order, 94; pays 
 salary of members, 94; deducts 
 pay for absence, 95; appointees 
 and salary, 95. 
 
 Sheridan, General, ready to drive 
 French out of Mexico, 372. 
 
 Sherley, Swagar, condemns 
 method of making appropria- 
 tions, 252: plan for exercising 
 economy, 254. 
 
 Sherman, James S., absence of, 
 from House regretted, 29. 
 
 Sherman, John, candidate for 
 Speaker, 88; withdrawal of, 89; 
 floor leader, 123; character of, 
 124. 
 
 Sherman, Roger, member of first 
 Committee on Rules, 180; sign- 
 er of Constitution, 300. 
 
 Slidell, John, estimate of, 21. 
 
 Smith, William N. H., candidate 
 for Speaker, 88. 
 
 Soule", Pierre, estimate of, 21. 
 
 Speaker, the, contest over the 
 election of, in 1839, 15-18; in 
 1855, 19-22; election of, 31; 
 votes required, 31; when elected 
 by plurality, 31-33; conducted 
 to chair, 33-34; character of in- 
 augural remarks, 34; adminis- 
 tration of oath by Father of the 
 House, 35; interruption of cus- 
 tom, 36; first duty of, 37; execu- 
 tive duties, 41; duties as pre- 
 siding officer, 41; appointment 
 of committees, 41; chairman of 
 Committee on Rules, 41; salary 
 of, 41-42; rank of, 42; location 
 at public functions, 42; com- 
 pared with Speaker of House of 
 Commons, 43; a political lead- 
 er, 44; compared with British 
 Prime Minister, 44, 85; how 
 selected, 44; most prominent, 
 45; under investigation, 46; se- 
 lects chairman of Committee of 
 the Whole, 47; conduct in chair, 
 48; addresses House by leave, 
 49; not always regarded, 49-51; 
 rule as to voting, 52-53; au- 
 thority to preserve order, 54; 
 no control over Record, 54; pow- 
 er to decide, 54-55; appeals 
 from, 55; right of recognition by, 
 
INDEX 
 
 433 
 
 56-57; arbitrary ruling, results 
 of, 58, 61-62; limited power, 62, 
 64; right to appoint commit- 
 tees, 66; thanked by House, 70- 
 74; loses right to appoint stand- 
 ing committees, 81 ; powers left 
 to, 83; needed qualities, 83, 85; 
 intention of the Fathers, 86; 
 election of, in 1854, 86; the Clay 
 standard, 86-87; election of, in 
 1859, 87-88; Reed's comment, 
 90; selects floor leader, 110; 
 determines question of privi- 
 lege, 145; appeal from, 145; 
 counts House to ascertain pres- 
 ence of a quorum, 157; formerly 
 refused to count silent members 
 to make a quorum, 159; Reed 
 counts them, 165-66; Crisp re- 
 fuses, 172; afterward adopts 
 the precedent, 174; charged 
 with obstructing business, 192; 
 is made chairman of Committee 
 on Rules, 193; decides against 
 dilatory motions, 202; slow to 
 use special orders, 205; abuse of, 
 205; is left off Committee on 
 Rules, 212. 
 
 Speaker pro tempore, how selected, 
 45; duties and character of, 45. 
 
 Speaker's table, the, 214. 
 
 Special Order, when first adopted 
 by a majority vote, 191; prece- 
 dent established, 204; practice 
 grew slowly, 205; first appear- 
 ance of, 216. 
 
 Speeches in House, length of, 185, 
 188-89; interrupted by disorder, 
 189; limited to one hour, 192. 
 
 Springer, William M., desires 
 minority members of commit- 
 tees selected by minority caucus, 
 80; character as floor leader, 
 126; Reed's retorts, 126; de- 
 clares business practically sus- 
 pended, 173; supports rule to 
 count silent members to make a 
 quorum, 176. 
 
 Stanberry, William, Adams re- 
 fuses to vote on censure of, 158. 
 
 Standing committee, how selected, 
 66, 229; becomes partisan, 66; 
 mode of appointment criticized, 
 67-70; efforts to change man- 
 ner of, 76-77; appointments 
 taken from Speaker, 82; Reed 
 defines a standing committee, 
 228; the number of, increases 
 slowly, 228; majority and mi- 
 nority division, 228-29; chair- 
 man of, 229; notable service, 
 229; hearings of, 229-30; closed 
 sessions, 230; majority of a quo- 
 rum reports, 230; unreported 
 bills, 230; minority submits 
 views, 230; committee's high 
 privilege to report at any time, 
 230; a committee created as 
 needed, 231-33; dropped when 
 unnecessary, 233; existing num- 
 bers, 233; separation of Manu- 
 factures and Commerce, 233; di- 
 vision of Ways and Means, 233- 
 36; division of Committee on 
 Appropriations, results in alarm- 
 ing growth of expenses, 236-50. 
 
 State legislature, may change con- 
 gressional districts, 9; cannot 
 disregard apportionment, 9. 
 
 Stephens, Alexander H., action of 
 House on death of, 154; aids 
 in revision of rules, 194; with 
 Randall on Rules, 240; resem- 
 bled Randolph, 268; tactics 
 used by, in repealing Missouri 
 Compromise, 268-70. 
 
 Stevens, Thaddeus, a floor leader, 
 108; length of speeches, 110; dis- 
 like of Raymond, 146; sharp re- 
 torts, 146; spirit governing elec- 
 tion cases, 323; wrests control 
 from Johnson, 376; first chair- 
 man of Committee on Appro- 
 priations, Appendix E. 
 
 Stevenson, Andrew, character of, 
 71; effort to thank, 71; unpop- 
 ularity of, 76; makes previous 
 question unwieldy, 189; makes 
 House subservient to Jackson, 
 375. 
 
434 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Storrs, Henry R., piquant replies, 
 118; character of, 301. 
 
 Sumner, Charles, on President 
 Johnson's impeachment, 351. 
 
 Sunday, observance of, 100. 
 
 Swayne, U.S. District Judge, 334; 
 failure of impeachment proceed- 
 ings, 331. 
 
 Taft, President, appoints commis- 
 sion on economy, 253; use of the 
 veto, 359; proposes changes in 
 tariff act, 359; recommends 
 that patronage be covered into 
 the classified service, 382. 
 
 Tawney, James A., activity as 
 Whip, 105; head of Committee 
 on Appropriations, 132; regard- 
 ing wasteful appropriations, 251. 
 
 Taylor, John W., election as 
 Speaker, 66; anti-slavery candi- 
 date, 66; ambitious to be clerk of 
 House, 92; activity asWhip, 104; 
 held Committee of Whole be- 
 longed to committee system, 
 256; a leader in contest over 
 Missouri Compromise, 301. 
 
 Taylor, President, his use of the 
 veto, 358; respect paid by 
 House upon his death, 384-85. 
 
 Temperance, sale of liquors in 
 Capitol prohibited by House, 
 100. 
 
 Territorial delegates, office cre- 
 ated, 10; when admitted to 
 House, 11; qualification of, 11; 
 privileges of, 11. 
 
 Toombs, Robert, estimate of, 21, 
 302. 
 
 Tucker, John Randolph, advo- 
 cates counting a quorum, 160, 
 306. 
 
 Tyler, President, resents a resolu- 
 tion of inquiry, 362-63; hot re- 
 ply of House, 363. 
 
 Unanimous consent calendar, 
 
 when created, 211. 
 Underwood, Oscar W., elected 
 
 head of Ways and Means, 81, 
 
 135; his tariff bill, 127; manner 
 of speaking, 128; character of, 
 134; appoints committees, 135; 
 overcome by President's use of 
 patronage, 135; transferred to 
 Senate,136; his long service, 307. 
 
 Union calendar, when created, 
 218; its purpose, 218. 
 
 United States Supreme Court, 
 power of House to punish con- 
 tumacious witness defined, 143; 
 holds McKinley tariff bill valid, 
 178. 
 
 Vallandigham, Clement L., calls 
 Speaker a despot, 89. 
 
 Van Buren, President, his use of 
 the veto, 358. 
 
 Vance, Joseph, Adams's estimate 
 of, 124. 
 
 Varnum, Joseph B., drops Ran- 
 dolph, 71 ; sustains previous ques- 
 tion, 184; House reverses him, 
 185; contested election case, 314. 
 
 Verplanck, Gulian C., floor leader, 
 125. 
 
 Vinton, Samuel F., floor leader, 
 108; power as a debater, 119; 
 declines nomination as Speaker, 
 119; cause of his retirement, 
 120. 
 
 Washburn, Israel, revises the rules, 
 192; denounces tactics used in 
 repealing Missouri Compromise, 
 269; on law governing election 
 cases, 321. 
 
 Washburn, William B., remark- 
 able influence of, 293. 
 
 Washburne, Elihu B., a father of 
 the House, Appendix D. 
 
 Washington, President, use of the 
 veto, 358; visits Senate, 361; 
 denies right of House to ask in- 
 formation respecting treaties, 
 365-66. 
 
 "Watchdog of the Treasury." 
 See Holman, William S. 
 
 Watrous, John C., House refuses 
 to impeach, 332. 
 
INDEX 
 
 435 
 
 Watson, James E., character of, 
 105; activity as Whip, 105. 
 
 Wayne, Anthony, contested elec- 
 tion case, 313; his Revolution- 
 ary record, 314; appointed 
 commander-in-chief of army, 
 314. 
 
 Webb, James Watson, connection 
 with Graves-Cilley duel, 139. 
 
 Webster, Daniel, on apportion- 
 ment, 5; explains Washington's 
 veto, 6; his system adopted, 7; 
 one of a brilliant star-cluster, 
 301; tribute to Prentiss's elo- 
 quence, 317-18. 
 
 Wentworth, John, accusation of 
 Douglas, 58. 
 
 Wheeler, Joseph, contested elec- 
 tion case, 197. 
 
 Whip, the, no official recognition, 
 104; importance in House of 
 Commons, 104; duties of office, 
 105; activity of, 106. 
 
 White, John, struck in the face, 
 115; rules that Committee on 
 Rules can report at any time, 
 191. 
 
 Wigfall, Louis T., estimate of, 21. 
 
 Williams, John S., minority lead- 
 er, 114; friendship for Cannon, 
 114; proposes to block legisla- 
 tion, 207; estimate of, 208; rela- 
 tions with Cannon, 209; a leader 
 during Cannon's speakership, 
 307. 
 
 Williams, Lewis, oldest member, 
 14; father of the House, 35, Ap- 
 pendix D; funeral of, 153-54. 
 
 Wilson, James, activity as Whip, 
 
 105; Secretary of Agriculture, 
 105. 
 
 Wilson, James F., chairman of 
 Judiciary Committee, 343; prin- 
 ciples governing impeachment, 
 343-44. 
 
 Wilson, William L., absence of, 
 from House regretted, 29; head 
 of Ways and Means, 127; char- 
 acter of, 127; his tariff bill, 127; 
 speech closing a tariff debate, 
 311-12. 
 
 Wilson, Woodrow, President, in- 
 fluence of, 135; on lobbying, 
 149; use of patronage, 381 ; views 
 of as a college president, 382, 
 note. 
 
 Winthrop, Robert C., conducts 
 Speaker to chair, 33; Benton's 
 advice to, 42; rules as to voting, 
 53; Clay's advice to, 55; ap- 
 points Vinton floor leader, 110; 
 cause ,of his retirement, 120; 
 ruling respecting a challenge, 
 139; an ideal orator, 302. 
 
 Wirt, William, 337; on rules of 
 evidence, 337; defends Peck in 
 impeachment case, 351; point 
 case turned on, 351; rebukes 
 Buchanan, 351. 
 
 Wise, Henry A., character of, 14; 
 criticism of clerk, 14; armed 
 with deadly weapon, 116; acts 
 as second in Graves-Cilley duel, 
 139. 
 
 Wood, Fernando, character as 
 floor leader, 130. 
 
 Yulee, David L., estimate of, 20. 
 
CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS 
 U . S . A 
 
RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 TO ^ 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 1 -month loans may be renewed by calling 642-3405 
 
 6-month loans may be recharged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days prior to due date 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 ^a 
 
 o o 
 
 198T 
 
 
 t 
 
 AUG05 
 
 
 ib 3 1 faUl 
 
 HU 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 
 
 FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 3/80 BERKELEY, CA 94720 
 
 s 
 

 YC liliil 5 
 
 I CObl3133SD 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY