Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small][merged small]

have fallen below that of their predecessors. Broadly speaking, it surpasses the best traditions of the august Roman tribunal whose name it proudly bears. Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, well said in a speech in the Senate a few years before his death: "The greatest victories of Constitutional liberty since the world began are those whose battleground has been the American Senate and whose champions have been the Senators, who, for a hundred years, while they have resisted the popular passions of the hour, have led, represented, guided, obeyed and made effective the deliberate will of a free people."

-

Certain changes in the form of procedure in the House of Representatives after 1890 were of particular moment and placed that body in striking contrast with the Senate — indeed with its own historical precedents. The House has always been regarded as particularly the popular legislalative body, the body nearer to the people, and therefore more responsive than the Senate to prevailing popular opinions. Indeed it was constituted with that end in view, and freedom of debate on its floor was always considered one of its most essential and most highly prized privileges. As a matter of actual practice, however, in the Senate there is practically no restraint upon the freedom of debate and for a century the same custom prevailed in the House. But the radical innovations instituted

by Speaker Reed changed all that and revolutionized the parliamentary practice that had prevailed from the institution of our Government. Under the Reed rules the power of the Speaker became autocratic, freedom of debate was restricted, and absolute control of the majority over discussion and final legislation was confirmed. After the days of Speaker Reed the system which he established in the face of the most virulent opposition became the recognized procedure of the House. The control of the business of the House, and to a large extent the freedom of debate, passed thereby from the House as a body to the Speaker and committees appointed by him.

At the close of the Nineteenth century the States clung substantially to the legislative forms with which they had started when the Republic was constituted - forms inherited from their colonial experience. In the early part of the century the tendency was to make the legislature supreme. The people had not forgotten their colonial governors and still feared the arbitrary exercise of executive and judicial powers. This feeling led to an undue trust in democracy. Legislatures were held less and less liable to restraint by public opinion, and the executive branch of the government had less power and was held to stricter accountability. This tendency continued beyond the middle of the century, when popular doubt as to the infallibility of legislators and

legislation gradually arose. In many States more power was given to the governor and less to the legislature. The gubernatorial term of office was lengthened while it was provided that the legislature should sit less frequently than once a year as had been the general practice before, and shorter sessions were demanded. More attention was paid to constitutional revisions and to the enactment of laws by constitutional amendments voted by the people at large, rather than by enactments of the legislature. It was found that much legislation was hasty, local, and prompted by special and political interests; and provisions prohibiting such legislation were placed in many State constitutions. As the Twentieth century opened, the disposition to put more responsibility upon the executive, upon heads of departments, boards of commissioners, and other executive officials who could be held more directly amenable to public opinion, was markedly on the increase. The new political policies of the initiative, the referendum, the recall, and city government by commission, adopted

in many States, was a further indication of a popular distrust of executive and legislator and a popular determination to exercise a closer and firmer control over governmental affairs.*

Congressional Globe (Washington, 1865–73); E. B. Andrews, History of the Last QuarterCentury in the United States (2 vols., New York, 1895); James Bryce, The American Commonwealth (2 vols., New York, 1893); M. P. Follet, The Speaker of the House of Representatives (New York, 1896); L. G. McConachie, Congressional Committees: A Study of the Origin and Development of Our National and Local Legislative Methods (New York, 1898); Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics (Boston, 1885); John Sherman, Recollections of Forty Years in the House, Senate and Cabinet (2 vols., New York, 1895); J. G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress (2 vols., Norwich, Conn., 1884-86); S. S. Cox, Three Decades of Federal Legislation (Providence, 1885); F. N. Thorpe, Constitutional History of the United States (3 vols., Chicago, 1901); Congressional Record (Washington, 1873, to date); The Public Statutes-at-Large (1865, to date); Henry Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in the United States (3 vols., Boston, 1872-77); J. J. Lalor (ed.), Cyclopedia of Political Science, Political Economy and of the Political History of the United States (3 vols., Chicago, 1884); A Biographical Congressional Directory, 1774–1903

(Washington, 1903); Charles Lanman, Biographical Annals of the Civil Government of the United States During Its First Century (New York, 1876); George S. Boutwell, Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs (2 vols., New York, 1902).

[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »