The advocate. [volume], February 10, 1892, Page 3, Image 3

About The advocate. [volume] (Meriden, Kan.) 1889-1892

Image provided by: Kansas State Historical Society; Topeka, KS

                
TH22 ADVOOA.T2a
3
confine ourselves as nearly aa possible to
the substitute that we haTe offered, and
which -was read by the clerk of thin House
on Monday, and will be found printed upon
pages 563 and 5G4 of the Congressional
Record of yesterday. In doing so, sir, we
propose to state plainly and clearly
the propositions involved in it, which are
three:
1. The creation of a new committee upon
the order of business in this House;
2. The election of the standing commit
tees by the House itself; and
3. (What may be considered a corollary
of the second:) The election by the com
mittees themselves of their own chairmen
and the naming of their own clerks.
This is what the substitute proposes, and
this is what we believe is right. We do not
propose to discuss this question in all its
bearings, but simply as it relates to the
principle of popular rights, or the principle
of rule by the many as opposed to domina
tion by the few.
The first proposition takes the place to a
certain extent of the present committee on
rules; in other words, it relegates the com
mittee on rules to its proper place and insti
tutes a committee on order of business, to
attend to its own business. We claim that
it is not and ought not to be the province of
any three, five, or even seven men in this
body to dictate the course of legislation
and to say what this House should deliber
ate upon. If you will refer to the substi
tute you will notice that this committee on
order of business is to be oomposed of one
member from each state and territory of
the Union, to be nominated by that state or
territory; so that under this provision this
committee would embrace a representation
of the entire union. It would not include
merely a few individuals or represent
simply the conceptions of a few men com
ing from only a few portions of this coun
try. In our view, a committee of this kind
would be the most important committee of
this House; and we conceive it to be a very
necessary one.
It seems to us that as yet no good reasons
have been urged by gentlemen who have
spoken on this question why rule ten
should stand in its present form; yet I take
notice that our Democratic friends and our
Republican friends are alike in favor
of that rule. We claim that the rule violates
the fundamental principle of free govern
ment. We claim that the great common
people of this country should rule this
country, that it should not be ruled by one
man or by three men. We favor the uni
versal equality advocated by Thomas Jeffer
son in his inaugural address. We claim to
be in favor of equal rights, not special
privileges, which this rule ten, as we claim,
gives. It is a principle that we are advocat
ing. We are urging no objeotion to the
present officers or the present committees
of this House. Our party claims to be
founded upon equal rights, upon the Jeffer
sonian doctrine of equality, upon the Wash
ington idea of union, and upon the Abra
ham Lincoln idea of protection to labor
and its superiority over capital.
Mr. Speaker, in presenting this substi
tute for rule ten, we do so in no captious
spirit. We disclaim any personal objection
to our present presiding officer, or to the
make-up of the present committees of the
Fifty-second Congress. It is simply the
method, as such, to which we take excep
tion. It violates a principle of popular
government; it confers special privileges
upon a few, and robs the many of their just
rights. From our standpoint, as free, inde
pendent American citizens, rule ten, as re
ported by the committee on rules, is simply
"one man power,'.' or what we choose to
term "rank partisanism, grown to full ma
turity and overshadowing popular rights."
Ours is supposed to be a representative
government, this House a representative
body. Each member upon this floor is sup
posed to represent about 171,000 persona
more or less. Coming up from our respec
tive districts in the interest of our constitu
ents we are clothed with equal authority,
and under the constitution and laws of our
country we are entitled to equal privileges
upon this floor. But under this rule ten we
no sooner reach the national capital than
W8 are called upon to practically surrender
our delegates power into the hands of a
speaker and a committee on rules.
In our national constitution we find the
name of "speaker" mentioned but once
and his duties nowhere referred to. But
under the rules of this House he is exercis
ing powers never contemplated by the con
stitution and never looked for by the
founders of our government. We are not
rinding any fault with the honorable gentle
men who have filled this high office, or mak
ing any criticisms of their record and
character. But as American freemen, we
can not endarse the rule under considera
tion, that transfers the political rights of
over 60,000,000 people into the hands of one
or three. Under the rules, customs and
precedents, now grown venerable by age,
the speaker of the House of Representatives
has become more powerful in molding the
character of legislation than any other offi
cial personage in our government. This
power of the speaker has been so well de
scribed by James Bryce in bis American
Commonwealth that I desire hereto quota
his language:
Not only does he, at the beginning of
each Congress, select all the members of
each of these committees, he even chooses
the chairman of each, and thereby vests the
the direction of its business in hands ap
proved by himself. The chairman is of
course always selected from the party which
commands the House, and the committee is
so oomposed as to give that party a majority.
Since legislation, and so muoh of the con
trol of current administration as the House
has been able to bring within its grasp, be
long to these committees, their composition
practically determines the action of the
House on all questions of moment, and as
the chairmanships of the more important
committees are the posts of most influence,
the disposal of them is a tremendous piece
of patronage by which a speaker can at
tract support to himself and bis own sec
tion of the party, reward his friends, give
politicians the opportunity of rising to dis
tinction or practically extinguish their Con
gressional career.
The speaker is of course fur from free in
disposing of these places. He has members
and their friends, and while redeeming
such promises he must also regard the
wishes of important groups of men or types
of opinion; must compliment particular
states by giving a place on good commit
tees to their prominent Representatives;
must avoid nominations which could alarm
particular interests. These conditions sur
round the exercise of his power with trouble
and anxiety,- Yet, after all, it is power,
power which in the hands of a capable and
ambitious man becomes so far reaching
that it is no exaggeration to call him the
second, if not the first, political figure in
the United States, with an influence upon
the fortunes of men and the oourse of do
mestic events superior in ordinary times to
the president's, although shorter in its dura
tion and less patent to the world.
Mr. Speaker, this rule ten is more be
fitting the despotism of a country like
Russia than the free progressive republic
of America. We can find no good reason
why this deliberative body should be con
verted into a "wild pit" resembling the
inner court of the Chicago board of trade
or the New York chamber of commerce.
Why should the American House of Rep
resentatives become a mere partisan ma
chine, a triumvirate, an engine of power,
if you please, running the people's train,
with the speaker standing at the throttle
valve, the chairman of the committee of
ways and means acting as conduotor, the
little committee on rules performing the
office of brakeman and switchtender, whilst
the balanoe of the members upon the floor
act as traveling passengers, ornamental
figureheads, with our feet fettered, our
hands tied, and our lips sealed? And if
during the two years' journey we desire any
thing we must beg for grace and mercy at
the shrine of this political trinity three in
one.
Is it any wonder that the members occa
sionally grow very restless under this rule,
and especially toward the close of the ses
sion, when all are anxious to push their
measures forward? Is it not possible that
rule ten is responsible for some of the
"wild scenes" that in days gone by have
been enacted upon this floor, scenes that
are no credit to any legislative body, and
much less to the highest legislative body of
our nation? We readily admit that adjust
ing properly the standing committees of
this House is no easy task. But in view of
the immense power these committees have
upon the legislation of the Hons we be
lieve they ought to be elected by the House.
This rule which has prevailed has created
a "parliamentary monopoly." It is a kind
of "political heirloom" of the century,
venerable in age, but absolutely vicious in
principle and unjust in practice. It has
been adopted for years by Democrats and
Republicans alike, and hence, we are in
formed, it is dangerous to assail it. And
for a new member to make an attaok upon
this "grand citadel" of power and central
ization is said to be political suicide. So
be it. We would rather die bravely fight
ing for this principal than to die bombard
ing poor little Chili.
To what extent the alternate domination
of political factions, struggling for power
and patronage, has been instrumental in
perpetuating this rule it is not now neces
sary to consider. But we believe it is time
to call a halt and return to first principles.
Our motto is, "The people rule, the whole
people, and not a privileged few." This is
true American doctrine, and this House of
Representatives should have no rule in its
oode that practically nullifies this funda
mental principle of free government.
The young'man eloquent, lion. Thomas
E. Watson, of Georgia, spoke for thirty
one minutes, and a portion of hia re
marks are here given:
The delegation of power to the president
of the United States has been ratified by
the votes of the people; to the United States
Senate it has likewise been ratified; but at
no time in the history of of this country has
there ever been witnessed the submission
of that issue to the people by which a power
was given to the speaker of the nouse mak
ing him the autocrat of the House. Gentle
men may say that the people have actually
ratified it by silence. I deny that the answer
is good.
The people have not had the information.
The people did not know he had that power.
The people supposed that he was the pre
siding officer the representative of the
body and not its master. Gentlemen may
say again that it is delegated to him by gen
eral parliamentary law. I deny it. It has
never been given to him' by parliamentary
law anywhere; and I say that this substitute
goes baok to that doctrine which I love with
every drop of blood in my body from my
heels to my head that Jeff ersonian Democ
racy, from whioh we have all so far de
parted. Let me give what Jefferaon's Manual
says. It is laughed at here as if it were a
thing unheard of that the House should
choose its oommittees by ballot and that
those committees should choose their chair
man. Mr. Speaker, it has been universal
parliamentary law from the time that these
very 'committees wrested tyrannical power
from the hands of the Stuarts down to this
day. Jefferson says in his manual, rule
twenty-four:
In the appointment of the standing com
mittees, the Senate, unless otherwise or
dered, shall procetd by ballot to appoint
severally the chairman of each committee
and then, by one ballot, the other members
necessary to complete the same.
Now as to the House:
The perton first named is usually per
mitted to act as chairman, but this is a
matter of courtesy.
It has now become a matter of right.
Every committee havimr a risrht to elect
their own chairman.who presides over them,
puts questions and reports their proceed
ings to the House.
We plant ourselves, gentlemen, upon that
Jeffersonian rock, and we ask the Democ
racy whether they will vote with us upon it
or not.
Not only that. In the English House of
Commons we find this to be the fact. In
England oommittees are usually named in
the first instance by the person who pro
poses the resolution for their appointment,
subject, of course, to the control of the
House. On great important questions they
are chosen by ballot, and the most import
ant committees considered merely with
reference to the state of parties naming
them, as we have already seen, in such
manner as leaves very little, if anything, in
the power of the speaker.
Sir, it is a strange truth that under the
forms of monarchy in Great Britain there
is an eternal tendency toward democracy,
while under the form of America's Democ
racy there is aa eternal drift toward the
real spirit of monarchy. This is the literal
truth, and any man who will study the
reoord will bo profoundly impressed by it.
The speaker of the English House of
Commons has no such power aa ours. The
speaker of the French Chamber of Deputies
has no such power a? ours. The speaker of
the German Reichstag has no such power
as ours. Nowhere ;on the face of the earth
has the presiding officer the autocratio
power over the deliberations of the body
and the oourse of its legislation which he
has here.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we say that in the
future we express it as our opinion that the
House should be organized according to
the sense of the House. Decentralize this
power which has crept into the hands of the
speaker. Take baok to the body of the
nouse this enormous control whioh year by
year has grown into the hands of the
speaker without ever having been voted
upon by the people. We have heard it here
time and again with a slight approach to
monotony of repetition, that we are here
as a protest against the ozarism of Mr.
Reed of the last Congress. Let us admit
that that is true.
Mr. Reed. Admit that for yourself. Do
your own admitting. Laughter.
Mr. Watson. I say, Mr. Speaker, let us
admit that; just as they claim it. Then I
make this point upon it, that it is the very'
first time it was ever brought to the atten
tion of the people; and according to your
own statement, they said it was a danger
ous power. Now, if it is a dangerous power,
I do not any more want to give it to a man
whose name begins with a C, and who comes
from Georgia, than one whose name begins
with an R, and who comes from Maine. It
is too dangerous a power. Gentlemen have
said that we might rely upon the character
of the speaker. God forbid that the politi
cal iortunee or tms people snouia ever nave
to reiy upon tne mere accident oz ine char
acter of the speaker. Let the people retain
their own power. Let them take it baok to
themselves; let thorn organize the House on
true Jeffersonian principles.
This concentration, this usurpation and
centralization of power is a curse to com
merce, is a curse to politics, and has well
nigh brought this country to its political
ruin.
Sir, if I had the power to-day, I would
like to draw a picture of just what has been
the result of this centralizing of power, in
politics, in business, and in production. It
has made the large manufacturer absorb
the small one. The large railroad has
swallowed the small one. The great oil
company has swallowed the small one.
Trusts and combines absorb or crush the
individual enterprise. So everywhere cen
tralizing tendencies and usurpative pro
cesses are going on, until the power and
the money is in the hands of the few, and
the people whether they stand at the doors
of cabins in Kansas, or stand at street cor
ners to ask for work in the cities, or stand
at the doors of their huts down in dear old
Georgia, are utterly deprived of a fair dis
tribution of the very wealth which they
create.
Mr. Speaker, out in Kansas the man who
feeds the world warms himself by a fire
built out of his corn, without having been
able to get enough for it to make it cheaper
for him to buy coal; down in Georgia the
men who make 8,000,000 bales of cotton,
have not been able to save enough of the
price to clothe in comfort their wives and
their children; and in every city of this land,
coming now to the working men, there are
artisans of every sort standing with empty
hands, with empty homes, with anxious
hearts, asking for work, asking for bread,
asking for comfort in a land where, God
knows, there is enough for us alL
Mr. Funston. Will the gentleman per
mit me to correct him?
Mr. Watson. If.it is a correction the gen
tleman had better make it in his own
speech.
Mr. Funston. I will say to the gentleman
that corn in Kansas is now worth SO cents a
bushel; that we have several million bushels
of it for sale; we are not burning oorn in
stead of ooal; and there is no calamity party
there now.
(Cortfimud on eleventh peat.)