James Weaver
A Call to Action
The presiding officer of the British House of Commons is styled the Speaker — so called because he speaks in the name of the House; and hence the title was adopted here by the framers of the Government who had long been familiar with the organization of the English Commons.
In Great Britain, under the Tudors and Stuarts, the Speaker was chosen by the King; and was the main instrument in his equipment of tyranny. For many years, however, this officer has been chosen by the House. At the opening of Parliament the Queen graciously invites the Commons to select a Speaker and they accordingly proceed to carry out the regal request. When the selection is made it is submitted to Her Majesty for approval. The royal assent has never been withheld, but the formality proves that it could be, and hence in the mutation of human affairs, at some time it may be. The Speaker of the House of Commons receives a salary of 5,000 per annum, is ex-officio a Privy Councilor, and resides in a palace provided by the Government. When he retires from office he is supplied with an annuity of 4,000 during two lives. The Speaker has, of course, very great power, but his authority is circumscribed by the overshadowing influence of the Premier, who represents the Ministry and hence the policy of the Government for the time being. The Speaker of the Commons cannot declare the House adjourned. This can only be done by a Member. In the matter of recognition when several Members rise at once and it becomes difficult to determine who shall proceed, the House decides who shall be recognized. The sequence in debate is usually determined by the "Whips" rather than by the Speaker. This will strike the American reader as being peculiar. But the Whip has grown to be a very important adjunct of Parliamentary authority. He is a Member who has been empowered by his political friends to assemble or warn them at critical moments in legislative procedure. The Ministry have three Whips and the Opposition two.
From the organization of the First Congress of the United States, April 1, 1789 to the close of the Fifty-first Congress March 4, 1891, thirty-one different persons filled the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives. The first incumbent was Frederick A. Muhlenburg, of Pennsylvania, and the last, Thomas B. Reed, of Maine. From the year 1789 to 1859, or from the First to the Thirty-fifth Congress, inclusive, twenty-two individuals, occupied this important office. From 1860 to March 4, 1891, inclusive, nine different Speakers presided over the House.
During the first period, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, was six times chosen Speaker, which is the greatest honor ever accorded to any member of the American Congress. Next to this enviable record stands the name of Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, who was four times chosen between 1827 and 1833. Since 1859 no one has held the Chair more than six years, or for three terms. Schuyler Colfax was Speaker from 1863 to 1869; James G. Blaine, from 1869 to 1875, and was succeeded by Michael C. Kerr, of Indiana, who died in August following his election, and was succeeded by Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, for the unexpired term. Mr. Randall was also chosen Speaker for the two succeeding Congresses, the Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth. He was succeeded by J. Warren Keiffer, of Ohio, who served during the Forty-seventh Congress. John G. Carlisle, of Kentucky, next succeeded to the Chair and served during the Forty-eighth, Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Congresses, and was succeeded by Thomas B. Reed, of Maine.
The Constitution provides for the election of Speaker by the House of Representatives. By the Act of Congress approved March 1, 1792, it was provided that in case of the death, resignation or inability of both President and Vice President, and in case there shall be no President pro tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House for the time being shall act as President until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.
The power and influence of this great office have been but imperfectly understood by the American people; and even the great majority of men in public life have failed to comprehend its transcendent influence in governmental affairs. Through the force of tradition and precedent, in the course of the century it has been allowed to absorb about all the power of the House of Representatives as well as the independence of the individual members. Experience has shown that when a majority of the members unite in elevating one of their number to preside over the House, they are likely to be largely controlled by his opinions if not by his will in matters of legislation. This majority is always reinforced by a large number of members who belong to the minority, but who desire to secure the favor of the Speaker. The cause of this subserviency will appear as we proceed.
Paragraph I, of Rule X, of the House of Representatives provides that unless otherwise specially ordered by the House, the Speaker shall appoint, at the commencement of each Congress, the standing committees. Paragraph II of the same Rule authorizes him to appoint all select committees which may be ordered by the House from time to time.
While this rule contemplates that the House may, if it so desire, provide other methods of selecting the committees, yet in point of fact it never does otherwise order, and the power to appoint remains unquestioned and is invariably exercised by the Speaker.
We have said that Rule X authorized the Speaker to appoint the committees, but in fact the House, at the commencement of Congress, has no Rules. True, the Rules of the old Congress are in print, but they are not vital, for they perish with the House which adopted them. The new Congress enters upon its duties untrammeled, and can, in fact does, adopt its own Rules. Until a motion is made and adopted to make the Rules of the preceding House the Rules of the House then in session, the old Rules are without force, and the body is simply under the restraint of general parliamentary law. Hence, in its last analysis, we find that the power accorded to the Speaker to appoint the committees is the result of custom rather than of law. But, however derived, it is a fearful power to lodge in the hands of any one man. The Speaker must be chosen from among the Members. He comes from a district of prescribed limits, and a thousand considerations, both trivial and important, some of public and others of a private character, contributed to his election. The range of his mental vision may be circumscribed, or his judgment blurred and marred by the local surroundings peculiar to his district, or he may be entirely free from all bias whatever. The thought we wish to bring out is this: Why, beyond the point of absolute necessity, should one Member be clothed with the power which clearly belongs to the whole body collectively ? It cannot be said that the wisdom of the one is superior to the judgment of the whole body united; nor can it be claimed that anything can be gained in the line of purity of purpose. You have not fortified the House against corrupt influences and the seductive power of wealth; on the contrary, you have concentrated all the vicious forces of public life against a single individual and exposed the Republic to extreme peril.
All who are acquainted with legislative history know that the danger of the abuse of power is very great, even when the authority of the speaker is reduced to the lowest point compatible with the orderly dispatch of business, and the peril is increased as more power is conferred. The power to appoint the committees now conceded to the Speaker practically confides all legislation to his hands. It makes him an autocrat and enables him to mould legislation, stifle public sentiment, thwart the will of the majority and defy the wishes of the people. It is a matter of common occurrence for the most important committees to be made up in opposition to the sentiments of a majority of the House, and even in opposition to the known views of a majority of the Members who belong to the Speaker's own party. This has been notably true during the past twenty years. A Majority of the members of the House have at various times during this period, been, in favor of the unrestricted coinage of silver, and during the time that the House has been under the control of the Democratic party, a majority of the Members who belonged to that party have clearly been in favor of unrestricted coinage, and yet the committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures has through all these years, except in the Forty-fifth Congress, been packed solidly against the measure. Take as an example three important committees, Banking and Currency, Coinage, Weights and Measures, and the committee on the Pacific railroads. It is entirely safe to say that during this whole period, with the one exception named, these committees have never fairly represented public sentiment upon the important questions over which they have jurisdiction. They have been in most instances constructed out of harmony with the wishes of a majority of the House, and many times in opposition to the known wishes of a majority of the Members who placed the Speaker in the chair. And yet the House has uniformly submitted to the humiliation. From Congress to Congress, and from decade to decade, this farce is perpetrated before the eyes of the people; and even now this method by which a few circumvent the will of the majority is but little understood. Public sentiment is not observed. It is uniformly defied. The object among our so-called statesmen seems to be to explore and ascertain the utmost limits and boundaries of public forbearance. Distrust of the people is apparent throughout all the stages of legislation. The wealthy and powerful gain a ready hearing; but the plodding, suffering, un-organized complaining multitude are spurned and derided. No respect whatever is paid to public opinion which sends the member to the National Congress. If he is not in accord with the Speaker's ideas of public policy, although he may be burning with desire to make known the wishes of his constituents and to take the advice of the House upon them; yet he is purposely placed at the tail end of the most unimportant committees known to the body, committees which have nothing whatever to do with the great questions upon which he was elected. The people of his district may have given him a hearing, past upon his theories, approved of them and sent him to Congress to proclaim them to the Nation; yet one man from another District who happens to have been chosen Speaker, claims the right to declare that the Member shall be muzzled, that he shall be placed under ban and his theories, without a hearing, declared to be forbidden fruit. Perhaps the ideas of public policy entertained by the Speaker are the identical views which were rejected by the people of the district in question. No matter, the petty tyrant must be permitted to practice his black art, the fetish must not be profaned. Nor is this proscription exercised exclusively against Members of opposing parties. In every Congress it is applied with the same relentlessness to Members of the Speaker's own party who may differ with him concerning questions of public policy.
In the year 1878, twelve Independents were elected to the Forty-sixth Congress upon certain economic questions. The leading contentions presented by these gentlemen were the Abolition of the National banks, Free coinage of silver, Increase of the currency by the issue of Legal Tender Treasury notes, and the strict Control of transportation monopolies. They had presented these important issues squarely to the people in their respective districts and had been triumphantly elected against great odds. The following are their names: George W. Jones, of Texas, William M. Lowe, of Alabama, Gilbert De LaMatyr, of Indiana, Thompson H. Murch and Geo. W. Ladd, of Maine, Seth H. Yocum and Hendrick B. Wright, of Pennsylvania, Nicholas Ford, of Missouri, Daniel L. Russell, of North Carolina, Albert P. Forsythe, of Illinois, Edward H. Gillette and James B. Weaver, of Iowa.
A.E. Stevenson, of Illinois, and William D. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, were closely allied with the twelve, were mainly in sympathy with their views of public policy and voted for their nominee for Speaker, but did not claim to be members of the new party. This was largely true, also, of Hendrick B. Wright, although he remained out of the Democratic caucus and permitted his name to be used as the candidate of the third party.
The gentlemen above named represented the protest of producers of wealth against the abominable economic policy of the old parties, which had just convulsed the country with panic, and plunged the industrial portion of the people headlong into poverty and disaster.
The Democrats had control of the House and organized by the election of Samuel J. Randall, of Pennsylvania, as Speaker. He received 144 votes against 125 for James A. Garfield, of Ohio, the Republican candidate, 13 for Hendrick B. Wright, of Pennsylvania, the candidate of the National Greenback party, and 1 vote for William D. Kelley. The whole number of Members elected to this Congress was 303. Hence it will be seen that although Mr. Randall received a majority of all the votes cast, he fell eight votes short of having a majority of the members elect. The point that a majority of all the Members elect was necessary to a choice was raised by Mr. Conger, of Michigan, but the Clerk of the House, Mr. Geo. W. Adams, ruled that a majority of a Quorum voting could lawfully elect the Speaker. This now seems to be the settled construction of the law.
The Speaker was elected and the Members sworn in on the 18th day of March, 1878, but the committees were not announced until April 11th — a lapse of twenty-five days.
Soon after the third party contingent made its appearance in Washington, it became apparent that the Representatives of that party were to meet with but little consideration from those who controlled the proceedings of the House. Important questions affecting the financial policy of the Government and the disposition to be made of nearly $800,000,000 of public debt, and in fact the whole range of fiscal matters, would be up for consideration during the session; but the managers of the two old parties had settled lines of policy which were essentially alike concerning these measures, and differing only in the degree of their devotion to the interests of the capitalistic classes. No serious interference was to be permitted from any quarter.
The Democrats had control of both branches of Congress for the first time since the close of the war. Fernando Wood, of New York, who was made chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, had prepared a bill which provided for the funding of the above named portion of the public debt for forty years. Mr. Garfield had a substitute making the period fifty years. A Presidential campaign was just ahead and the desire to secure the support of the money power, had evoked a spirit of rivalry between the leaders of the old parties which was as instructive to the whole country as it was disgusting to patriotic people. The leaders of both would scheme in the committee rooms in favor of the monopolies and the money kings, and then daily emerge into the arena of the House and quarrel and rave like maniacs over sectional matters. Almost every day witnessed the war-dance in which the chiefs would exhibit the ghastly scalps they had taken and lay bare the wounds inflicted during the war. You could never tell when the paroxisms were to come on. They would burst forth at the most inopportune periods. Pandemonium reigned throughout the extra session and was resumed with renewed fury when the House convened regularly the following December.
The Greenback contingent determined to make a bold stand for the people, and to place their banner above the angry storm of sectionalism which was everywhere howling about them. To this end they resolved first, to oppose with all the power at their command all attempts to fund the debt, and second, to force the House upon record upon the following questions: The abolition of the National banks, the issue of an adequate supply of Legal Tender treasury notes, and the policy of the unrestricted Coinage of silver. Under the rule then in force it was proper for any member on Monday, after the Journal had been read and approved, if he could secure the recognition of the Chair, to move to suspend the Rules and place upon its passage any bill or resolution which he might desire to offer. Accordingly, on the first Monday in January, 1880, the writer drafted the following resolutions, and asked to be recognized to move a suspension of the Rules in order to place them immediately upon their passage:
Resolved,That it is the sense of this House that all currency, whether metallic or paper, necessary for the use and convenience of the people, should be issued and its volume controlled by the Government, and not by or through the banking corporations of the country; and when so issued should be a full legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private.
Resolved,That, in the judgment of this House, that portion of the interest-bearing debt of the United States which shall become redeemable in the year 1881, or prior thereto, being in amount $782,000,000, should not be refunded beyond the power of the Government to call in said obligations and pay them at any time, but should be paid as rapidly as possible, and according to contract. To enable the Government to meet these obligations, the mints of the United States should be operated to their full capacity in the coinage of Standard Silver Dollars, and such other coinage as the business interests of the country may require.
Recognition was refused and the House adjourned in hot haste. On the following Monday the attempt to secure recognition from the Speaker was followed with like results. For thirteen weeks (three months) the struggle went on. After a few weeks of fruitless effort, the resolutions got into the papers and began to attract very wide attention. Crowds began to throng the galleries on Mondays, and the metropolitan newspapers were full of criticisms upon the aggravating perseverance of the author of the resolutions. The Speaker was overwhelmed with correspondence touching the matter, many praising him for his firmness and others denouncing him as a tyrant worthy of death. Prominent caricaturists were employed by the monopoly organs to fill the illustrated weeklies with gross and uncomplimentary exaggerations of the author and the scope of his resolutions. The imaginative genius of Nast was called upon to swell the volume of misrepresentation and ridicule. The resolutions had by this time attracted universal notice. Everybody read them and wondered why they should meet with such fierce denunciation. Finally on March 6, 1880, Harper's Weekly, came out with a full page scurrilous travesty, representing the writer as a donkey, braying to the utter consternation of the House. The Speaker was represented as standing with his back to the author of the resolutions, members as holding their hands over their ears, others as endeavoring to crawl under the desks, and the Mace as having been blown violently from the hands of the Sergeant-at-Arms while he was vainly attempting to hide from the storm. A fac simile of this caricature will be found at the close of this chapter.
When my attention was called to the publication I resolved to make the best possible use of it. A copy was procured and safely deposited in my desk. When Monday came I again addressed the Chair for recognition and was refused. I then rose to a question of privilege, which, under the Rules, the Speaker was not at liberty to ignore. The Chair bade me state it. Holding up a copy of Harper's, containing the caricature, I called attention to the fact that a leading journal of the country had grossly slandered the Speaker. That it represented him as standing with his back to me, when in fact the most that he had ever done was to shut his eyes. At this juncture the following colloquy occurred:
The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa will address himself to the question of privilege, and not to the picture.
Mr. Garfield, (addressing Mr. Weaver): Which figure represents yourself and which the Speaker ?
Mr. Weaver: I am represented by the one with long ears. Does not the gentleman know that Balaam's ass saw the angel in the way before his rider did ? All Bible readers understand it perfectly.
The Speaker demanded order, which was, after awhile, restored, and the struggle was passed for another week.
Notwithstanding the protracted struggle over these resolutions the personal relations between their author and the Speaker were always cordial and friendly. Mr. Randall stated privately that his party did not, in the face of a Presidential election, wish to be placed upon record on what they regarded as mere abstractions, and for that reason recognition had been withheld.
Finally about the first of April, it became apparent that the long contest would soon close. Rumors that recognition would be conceded on the following Monday obtained among the Members and it was evident that the intimation had been given out by the Speaker himself. Then another dilemma presented itself. Under the rules a yea and nay vote could not be secured unless demanded by at least thirty members. As there were but thirteen of the National party in the House, the outlook for a record of the vote was exceedingly dark. In this emergency we went to Mr. Garfield and called attention to the fact that on the following Monday a vote would be taken. We stated that the Republican party was already on record against every proposition contained in the resolutions. That the Democratic Members, when at home, generally favored the propositions but always fought shy of them after reaching Washington. We asked him if he could not, in view of these facts, assist in securing a yea and nay vote ? He replied that he would consult with his colleagues and give us an answer that afternoon. In the course of an hour he reported that his side of the House would join in the demand for a record of the vote. On the following Monday April 5, I was recognized, made the necessary motion to suspend the rules and demanded that the vote be taken by yeas and nays. Upon statement of the demand by the Chair the Greenback members, General Ewing, of Ohio, and Mr. Tillman, of South Carolina, rose to their feet followed by the entire Republican side of the House. The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered. With the exception of General Ewing, Mr. Tillman, and possibly one or two others, every Democrat left the hall and repaired to the cloak rooms for consultation. On the first call of the roll but three or four Democrats responded, while the Republicans, with the exception of Belford, of Colorado, voted solidly in the negative. On the second call of the roll there were eighty-four ayes, and one hundred and seventeen noes. Not voting, 91. The yeas consisted of 11 Greenbackers, including Stevenson and Kelly, one Republican, Mr. Belford, and seventy-two Democrats, mostly from the South and West. The nays were composed of a solid Republican vote, with the exceptions stated, reinforced by eastern and middle states Democrats. Messrs. Wright and Yocum were unavoidably absent, but paired in favor of the resolutions.
We have given this memorable battle somewhat in detail for the reason that we regard it as the great initial struggle of the mighty movement now in progress throughout the Republic. The resolutions over which the protracted contest arose embodied the very essence and marrow of the vigorous contention presented by organized labor at the present time.
The Speaker should always be selected with reference to his views of public policy, but it is never any part of his duty to play the tyrant. It is not his province to originate political creeds, but to represent and to assist the law-making body to faithfully reflect the will of the great constituency. If nominated by a caucus, that caucus should have some test of membership besides that of mere party name. Every sensible person knows that a man may be an eminent and devoted Democrat or Republican, be entirely loyal to his party, and yet the world be profoundly ignorant concerning his views upon the most important questions of public concern. He may be the most pliant tool of monopoly and still be an acceptable and an unusually influential member of either of said parties. It is well known that one of these parties has had no test of membership since the days of Jackson, and that the other has had none since the death of Lincoln. All that is necessary to become a member of either is to take upon yourself the party name. If you will but do that, you may retain your own notions of public affairs. Under this state of facts men holding to antagonistic creeds and policies unite in electing a Speaker, and in every such instance the people are crucified. The party is served but the country is betrayed. The organization is triumphant but human rights are placed at the mercy of the time-server and the tyrant.
The writer served in Congress under the Speakership of Mr. Randall and Mr. Carlisle. These eminent gentlemen, ranking equal in ability to any who have ever filled the Chair, were as wide apart as the poles upon what they regarded as the supreme question of the period, Mr. Randall was an ultra-protectionist, while Mr. Carlisle favored a tariff for revenue, with strong leanings toward free trade as soon as that policy can be safely reached. Both were Democrats and met in caucus upon terms of perfect equality. The monometalists and the bi-metalists, the bank men and the anti-bank men, monopolists and anti-monopolists, those who favored trusts and those who abhorred and would uproot them, the sharper from Wall street and the inexperienced Member from the rural district -- all met in the same caucus, all were Democrats, and they united in selecting the man of their choice for Speaker taking especial care not to provoke a disclosure on his part of anything that he believed concerning public matters.
Parties which have no test of membership and caucuses which have no test of admission to their councils, are an abomination and they exist only for evil.
It would more nearly comport with the dignity and character of our chief law-making body if the assignment of Members to committees were made by a well-guarded special committee, selected by the House itself-a committee in which all parties and shades of opinion could be fairly represented. It is time the Speaker of the American House of Representatives should be shorn of his autocratic and unwarranted power.
Article I, Section Y, of the Constitution contains the following provision:
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do business: but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."
Clause I, of Rule VIII, is as follows:
"Every member shall be present within the hall of the House during its sittings unless excused or necessarily prevented; and shall vote on each question put, unless, on motion made before division or the commencement of the roll call and decided without debate, he shall be excused, or unless he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question."
It has been uniformly held that a Quorum of the House consists of a majority of the Members chosen. And until the Fifty-first Congress it was further held that in order to constitute a Quorum a majority of the Members chosen must not only be present, but must participate in the vote, either for or against a proposition.
In the Fifty-first Congress it was held by Speaker Reed that a majority of the Members chosen, if present in the hall when the vote was being taken, constituted a Quorum, whether a majority of them voted or not. That if, under such circumstances, a minority only voted, it was sufficient to pass a measure; and he accordingly instructed the Clerk to enter upon the Journal the names of the Members present but not voting, and declared the bills passed. The House, by a strict party vote, afterwards formally adopted the Speaker's construction and made it one of the rules for that Congress. Much bitterness was evoked by this construction of the law. Public opinion, and even experienced Parliamentarians were greatly at sea concerning the matter.
It seems to the writer that careful reflection will show both the danger and the fallacy of Speaker Reed's construction. It is not required by the Constitution that a measure shall receive the affirmative vote of a majority of all the Members chosen in order that it shall pass. This rule generally obtains in State Assemblies under the peculiar provisions of their local Constitutions. But under the Constitution of the United States, a majority of a Quorum can pass a bill; and a Quorum is made up of both yeas and nays. Hence, under Speaker Reed's construction, if a bare Quorum be present, and but a minority vote in the affirmative, the others sitting mute, the bill is passed, even when the point that no Quorum has voted has been expressly raised, If, under the Constitution, the affirmative vote of a majority of the Members chosen were necessary to the passage of a bill, then those who are opposed to the measure could always vote with safety. But such is not the law; and the only way the opposition can, in critical junctures, supply this defect is to refuse to vote. Those who desire to pass a measure which others regard as of doubtful propriety, should see to it that it has the affirmative support of a majority of all the Members chosen. If Mr. Reed's position be correct, one-fourth of the 333 members chosen to the present Congress (Fifty-second), can lawfully legislate. One hundred and sixty-seven of this number constitute a Quorum to do business. Hence, 84 votes being the majority of a Quorum, although, but a fraction over one-fourth of the Members chosen can, if 167 Members all told are at the time simply present in the hall, pass a bill, however vicious or important. And if 84 can lawfully legislate when the record shows that less than a Quorum have voted, why may not any number, however small, do so under like circumstances ? The contention of Speaker Reed is clearly unconstitutional and subversive of the independence of the Members. It is equivalent to clothing the Speaker with the power of casting the vote of the delinquent Representative.
It is conceded to be the plain duty of each Member to be present in the hall during the sittings of the House, and Rule 8, provides that each shall vote unless excused for the reasons stated. The rule was always a dead letter, for the reason that it could not, and in the opinion of the House ought not, to be inforced. In the course of business it often becomes the duty of a conscientious Member not to vote, the rule to the contrary notwithstanding. Indeed, he cannot do so without aiding the passage of bills which his sense of duty tells him should be defeated. Let us illustrate: A pernicious measure is put upon its passage. The Member and his constituents regard it as positively vicious. A bare Quorum is present, a majority of which favors the bill. If a Quorum vote, a majority yea and the minority nay, the bill is passed. In such instances a nay vote operates to pass the bill. That is to say, the negative vote helps to make the Quorum, a majority of which secures the passage of the measure. To all intents and purposes the Member had as well voted yea. This is the old subterfuge that has been resorted to from time immemorial when a cunning Member really desired a bad measure to pass, and wished at the same time to keep his record straight before his constituents. Under such circumstances it will be readily seen that it becomes the duty of the Member to refrain from voting. His responsibility is to his constituents and not to the House or the Speaker. Under Mr. Reed's rule, the simple discharge of his duty to be always present may aid in the passage of any measure, whether good or bad.
It is not probable that this innovation upon the settled practice of the Century will ever again be adopted by the House of Representatives. It is easy enough to prescribe Rules which will restrain and limit the use of dilatory motions, without infracting the Constitution or destroying the independence of the Representative.