Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

refrain from voting in all cases where there was no tie, but also that it was his duty to refrain from expressing an opinion. He was a most annoying chairman, for this reason, and much handicapped the committee.

Chairmen in American assemblies are almost invariably members of the dominant party. Once in a great while a minor chairmanship may be given to an unusually popular member of the minority who can be trusted to make no trouble. Where custom permits escaping the seniority rule of promotion, the most important chairmanships are likely to be assured to men in personal sympathy with the Speaker. His critics, of course, sneer at his giving the plums to his friends, but they would probably do the same thing were they in his place, and in this they would be fully justified. Normally it is the best course for the common advantage. Team-work in a Legislature is just as desirable as in any other joint activity of life. Harmonious coöperation is essential to the best results. With this in mind it is doubtful if praise should be given to the practice, found here and there, of bestowing upon candidates for the Speakership defeated in the majority caucus the chairmanship of the most important committees. Such consolation prizes can hardly be expected to wipe out all traces of resentment and jealousy. Doubtless there are exceptions. A recent Speaker of the New York Assembly gave to a defeated opponent the chairmanship of Ways and Means, not because of his having been a candidate, but in recognition of his fitness for the position, as well as by reason of the fact that he was a warm personal friend. In 1896 E. L. Bogart had said that to this chairmanship, that of by far the most important committee in the House, the defeated candidate for the Speakership was always appointed. He averred it to be by no means unusual for a man to run as a candidate for the Speakership, knowing that he could not be elected, but in the hope that he might secure votes enough to entitle him to this chairmanship, which at that time would have made him the recognized leader of his party on the floor of the House. Since then such compensation of defeat has disappeared as a custom.

Also the leadership in New York has been separated from the chairmanship of Ways and Means. Development in Massachusetts has been along the same lines. Time was when the news

1 Financial Procedure in the State Legislatures, No. 181 of the pubs. of the Am. Acad. of Pol. and Social Science, September 8, 1896.

paper reporters there had some warrant in speaking of the Chairman of Judiciary as the House Leader, even though the actual leading was insignificant. Now matters are better organized with the ranking member of the Rules Committee (the Speaker being its technical chairman) the recognized floor leader, with a seat assigned to him as such. The lower branch of Congress has gone still farther by keeping the majority leader off all committees of the House. It remains to be seen whether this will be permanently wise. The maintenance of an unofficial steering committee of the majority, with which the leader works, alongside an official Committee on Rules, through which he speaks, may some day develop serious friction. It would seem to be more logical to have the Rules Chairman the leader. Anyhow the leader has enough work to do without being on any other committee. Also the work of no other committee makes its chairman naturally the House leader. Indeed it is only accident that makes the man best fitted to be Chairman of Ways and Means, Appropriations, or Judiciary, the man best fitted to lead the House. Leadership is a task by itself, calling for abilities peculiar and exceptional.

CHAPTER VI

COMMITTEE PROCEDURE

In most of the States the whole committee system, or lack of system, gives the critics ground for demanding radical reformation. As an illustration of the complaint, take that elaborated in a resolution of the Nebraska Legislature of 1913: "The legislative committees are too large or too many, preventing full attendance when important measures are considered, and careful committee work; the House and Senate committees do not meet together and days of delay in the legislative business arise from threshing over the same straw in the committees of both Houses; committees meet at night when the members are weary from the day's session, instead of in the forenoon as is the practice in some States; the work of the sifting committee is unsatisfactory and there is no definite program adopted early in the session." And this covers but part of the criticisms that might justly be made in almost every State of the land. Let us begin consideration of them with the first in the Nebraska list, that relating to size and number.

It would be idle to rehearse the variations in the State Legislatures. Suffice it to say there is no standard. Most of the committees are too large. This has been a fault ever since Virginia developed the standing-committee system. In 1769 six Virginia committees had at the start 186 members, an average of thirtyone apiece, the largest having fifty-six. On top of this came the singular practice of extensive additions in the course of the session, so that at its end six committees had 242 members. Luckily in this particular the example of Virginia found no imitators. On the other hand, there was no disposition to accept the Pennsylvania practice. There as soon as a communication from the President had been read, it was submitted for analysis to a committee of three, who presently reported recommending committees of three, in number sometimes as high as a dozen, upon such of the various subjects mentioned by His Excellency as it deemed worthy of the honor. This practice was applied also to 1 Nebraska House Journal, 1913, p. 1348.

[ocr errors]

unfinished business revived from a former session or assembly.' Pennsylvania has kept fairly well to its habit of uniformity in size, but has greatly increased membership. The forty-one standing committees of its House have twenty-five members each, except three of thirty-five members, and one of forty.

In Congress there has been a singular lack of size standards. At the opening of the 66th Congress (1919-21) there were 62 House Committees 1 of 25 members; 3 of 22 each; 13 of 21; 3 of 19; 2 of 18; 3 of 16; 7 of 15; 4 of 14; 4 of 13; 2 of 12; 2 of 11; 3 of 9; 12 of 7; 2 of 5; and 1 of 3. In the course of the session the Committee on Appropriations was increased from 21 to 35. The Senate had 74 committees 1 of 20 members; 2 of 19; 1 of 18; 5 of 17; 5 of 16; 3 of 15; 3 of 14; 4 of 13; 5 of 12; 8 of 11; 1 of 10; 6 of 9; and the rest of smaller numbers. In the course of this Congress the Senators at last awoke to the inconveniences of the situation and decided that beginning with the 67th there should be but 33 committees 10 of 15 members each; 7 of 13; 1 of 12; 8 of 11; 1 of 9; 4 of 7; 1 of 5; and 1 of 3.

[ocr errors]

The growth in the number and size of American standing committees has been one of the remarkable phenomena of our legislative development. It has been partly due to the increase in both the volume and the diversity of business, partly to political reasons pressing for more and more committee places to be distributed as honors or rewards.

If growth in business is a regrettable factor, calling for remedy, nobody would suggest that such remedy be sought in the way of trying to prevent response to the specialization of social activity that is the chief characteristic of our age; in other words, the subdivision of labor that is at the root of our problems social and political. The only other remedy for such pernicious effects as this has produced in the field of legislative labor, speaking of course broadly and not with detail in mind, is to take some part of the business out of the legislating assemblies. This is the English and Continental remedy of entrusting administrative legislation largely to administrative officials or bodies.

The other main cause for the situation is far more simple, can be easily remedied, and ought to receive speedy attention. There is no legitimate reason why committee positions should exist solely for purposes of honor or reward. More than this, their existence adds seriously to the impediments in the way of well1 L. G. McConachie, Congressional Committees, 25.

balanced organization and efficient committee work. It needs no evidence to prove that the more committee positions a man is asked to fill, the less efficiently will he fill each. To scatter human energy not only creates fractions, but also often diminishes totals. Furthermore, the time limitations of a session compel interferences of committee hearings and put insurmountable physical obstacles in the way of proper performance of work.

Nevertheless nearly all our legislating bodies have ignored these palpable facts and have brought themselves into situations more or less distressing, largely for the sake of distributing empty honors not worth the ink used to designate them. To illustrate, take at random the figures from a few States. The Illinois Senate with fifty-one members has 558 places on thirty-three committees, about eleven places for each Senator; the House with 153 members has 654 places on thirty-one committees, more than four places for each Representative. The Pennsylvania Senate with fifty members has 295 places on thirty-three committees, about six places for each Senator, not taking into account the fact that the President pro tem. is an ex officio member of every committee; the House with 207 members has 1070 places on forty-one committees, about five to a Representative. The Georgia Senate with forty-four members has 464 places on fortyfour committees, more than ten for each Senator; the House with 189 members has 1015 places on forty-eight committees, between five and six for each Representative.

In the first General Assembly of Iowa the House had fifteen standing committees and the Senate sixteen. In the Assembly of 1915 the House had sixty-one, the Senate forty-four. In the course of the half-century, the House had standing committees on ninety-one subjects, the Senate on eighty. Many of these lasted but two sessions, others not much longer. At the start the usual membership of a committee was five, but since then it has ranged as high as forty-three. The House Committee on Agriculture and that on Ways and Means have had five, nine, twelve, twenty-five, seventeen, and forty members. In 1915 there were 471 committee places to be filled by Senators, more than nine each, and 861 by Representatives, about eight each.

Not all the Legislatures thus handicap themselves. A few pay attention to reason and system. In Massachusetts, for instance, the forty Senators are at this writing asked to fill but 122 committee places, and there are only 319 places for the 240 Repre

« AnteriorContinuar »