The English system. The proper method to be followed. cations or to volunteer communications directly to the Senate o to the House. I do not think it can be controverted that strictly those communications can only come through the transmission by the President and I think it is always well to be a little strict in the observance of the law and not to allow such irregular customs, even if apparently harmless, to grow up. But certainly, Mr. President, the practice of submitting bills from the Departments without request to the two houses is something quite recent, unless my memory is all astray, and that is a very much more important matter. . . . I think, Mr. President, it is well to put a stop to this submission of drafts of bills to Congress by subordinate executive officers or by heads of Departments unless they are thereto requested by one of the two Houses. I do not think that volunteering bills from the Executive Department is the proper method. Of course under the English system the bills are prepared by the executive government, which is a committee in fact of the two Houses, and they prepare their own measures and introduce them. But here the Executive Department is distinct and unless we ask for drafts of bills for our own convenience and for the promotion of good legislation, it seems to me that it is irregular and unwisely irregular to fall into the practice of having officers of the Executive Department present bills to Congress in this way. They were referred to Half a dozen came in the other day. committees without taking any readings. committees for consideration. Those bills had no Calendar number. They do not take the ordinary course of any other bills. I think it is irregular both under the rules and under the statute. I do not want to cut off the advantage that we have in getting officers of the Departments to draw proper bills for us. That is a duty which I hope they will always perform on the request of the Houses. But I do not think that they ought to submit bills unasked for, which shall go in this irregular way to committees for consideration. If the head of a Department has legislation in which he is interested and presents it to the chairman of the com. mittee or some other Senator and he sees fit to introduce it, that of course is perfectly proper. The bill takes the usual course. But this is irregular, just as is this method of submitting reports. I do not care how long the custom has lasted, it is an irregularity which has grown up. If we are to have information volunteered from the Departments, let it come through the President of the United States and any other information we want from the Departments we can ask for. 109. Log-rolling in Congress This passage from a speech by Mr. Lilley in the House of Representatives illustrates the way in which members attempt to secure the expenditure of government money in their respective states: On December 2, Mr. Taylor introduced a bill calling for a A short list of approprianaval station at or near Fort Morgan, Ala. On the next day Mr. Cooper of Texas called for the establishment of a dry dock on or near Sabine Pass. On the 9th of December, Mr. Lamar of Florida came after "not more than two million dollars for a dry dock at Pensacola." On the same day, Mr. Sulloway of New Hampshire was after a million and a half for Portsmouth, although a battleship cannot get to this port in safety. On the 12th of December, Mr. Smith of California came into the field with a proposition for a dry dock on the bay of San Diego, California, for which he called for a million. On the 19th, Mr. Granger of Rhode Island put in his proposition for a dry dock and repairing station" at a suitable strategic point on the Atlantic." On January 6th, Mr. Gregg presented the demands of Texas for a dry dock at or near Galveston, Tex. And then on January 20, came the proposition to buy the defunct Jamestown Exposition, fathered by Mr. Maynard of Virginia, which if adopted would add $2,500,000 to the grand total of waste on navy yards. tions. The power of the single member in the Senate. Unlimited debate. Each one I imagine, like Senator Tillman wants a "slice for his constituents." A member of a recent congress complained to me that although he had secured six millions out of the Treasury for his district, an ungrateful constituency were supporting six competitors against him for renomination. I believe, and I am certain the American people will believe that he should have given more attention to the country at large rather than have kept an eye single to his particular district. IIO. The Senate at Work* The freedom of debate in the Senate as contrasted with the party discipline imposed in the House is thus described by Mr. H. L. West in a recent article in the Forum. In the Senate the individual is supreme. Any Senator may address the presiding officer and secure recognition at any time when the floor is not occupied by a colleague. He can offer a resolution upon any subject, and, through admirable rules, can place the Senate upon record as to its disposition. If the majority of the Senate desires to send the resolution to some committee crypt, where it shall remain buried until the campaign, for instance, is safely over, the reference is secured only after a yeaand-nay vote. If the resolution goes upon the calendar, any Senator can at any time move that the Senate proceed to its consideration a question which must be determined without debate. This again places the Senate upon record, and is a proceeding almost unknown in the House. Almost every day the record is made up in the Senate upon some test question, because the right of the individual is not abridged or restricted. As long as any Senator desires to speak upon any bill under consideration, just so long must a hearing be accorded and a vote postponed. This is what is popularly known as unlimited debate. It is the one thing which makes the Senate absolutely unique in legislative bodies. Only recently the River and Harbor Appropriation Bill failed to reach a final vote, because a Senator occupied the floor during the last thirteen hours of the session, ostensibly criticising the measure, but, in reality, talking against time, with the knowledge that when the hands of the clock reached the hour of noon, Congress would expire by limitation, and the bill would die. In its own way, the Senate accomplishes more work that is it enacts more bills than the House of Representatives. No Senator objects for the mere sake of objecting; because he is aware that if he is captious, he will himself encounter innumerable stumbling-blocks when he seeks the passage of measures in which he is interested. He is only one of ninety Senators, any one of whom has every privilege which he enjoys. ence of It is the fact that each Senator is a power unto himself that Independgives the Senate its peculiar place in our system of government. Senators. When a vote upon a treaty or an important measure is to be canvassed, it is necessary to know the individual view of each Senator, a task frequently surrounded with some difficulty. There is more independence of thought and action in the Senate than in the House. Instances where two Senators of the same political party from the same State vote upon opposite sides of the same question are by no means rare, and, of late years, have become quite common. Party leaders, therefore, take occasion, during the days occupied in a prolonged debate, to investigate the condition of their own ranks, and strengthen, by such pressure as may be most effective, any weakness they may discover. The right of any Senator to speak at any time, upon any subject, and at any length, develops orators and debaters. No man who possesses a talent in this direction need lack of opportunity to prove his capacity. If he is really a great orator, if he actually demonstrates his logical and thoughtful mind, he forges to the front, and must be reckoned with by those who assume leadership. If, on the other hand, he is dull and slow-witted, lacking both strength of thought and forcefulness of expression, he will sink by his own weight. The recognition of talent. Senate approval of House amendments. The joint conference committee. III. Communications between the Houses These extracts from the Congressional Record illustrate the way in which agreements and disagreements between the two bodies are registered, and arrangements made for conferences. A message from the Senate, by Mr. Parkinson, its reading clerk, announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 640) to extend the provisions, limitations, and benefits of an act entitled "An act granting pensions to the survivors of the Indian wars of 1832 to 1842, inclusive, known as the Black Hawk war, Creek war, Cherokee disturbances, and the Seminole war," approved July 27, 1892. This message also announced that the Senate had disagreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 5269) to provide a commission to secure plans and designs for a monument or memorial to the memory of Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States, had asked for a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and had appointed Mr. Wetmore, Mr. Hansbrough, and Mr. Vest as the conferees on the part of the Senate. |