The arrangements subsequently made to provide time and opportunity for general legislation, turned out in practice to be quite futile and indeed they were never more than a mere formal pretense.It was quite obvious, therefore, that the new rules tended only to make the situation worse than before.Thomas Ryan of Kansas told the plain truth when he said: "You do not propose to remedy any of those things of which you complain by any of the rules you have brought forward.You propose to clothe eight committees with the same power, with the same temptation and capacity to abuse it.You multiply eightfold the very evils of which you complain." James H.Blount of Georgia sought to mitigate the evils of the situation by giving a number of other committees the same privilege as the appropriation committees, but this proposal at once raised a storm, for appropriation committees had leave to report at any time, and to extend the privilege would prevent expeditious handling of appropriation bills.Mr.Blount's motion was, therefore, voted down without a division.
While in the debate, the pretense of facilitating routine business was ordinarily kept up; occasional intimations of actual ulterior purpose leaked out, as when John B.Storm of Pennsylvania remarked that it was a valuable feature of the rules that they did hamper action and "that the country which is least governed is the best governed, is a maxim in strict accord with the idea of true civil liberty." William McKinley was also of the opinion that barriers were needed "against the wild projects and visionary schemes which will find advocates in this House." Some years later, when the subject was again up for discussion, Thomas B.Reed went to the heart of the situation when he declared that the rules had been devised not to facilitate action but to obstruct it, for "the whole system of business here for years has been to seek methods of shirking, not of meeting, the questions which the people present for the consideration of their representatives.Peculiar circumstances have caused this.For a long time, one section of the country largely dominated the other.That section of the country was constantly apprehensive of danger which might happen at any time by reason of an institution it was maintaining.Very naturally, all the rules of the House were bent for the obstruction of action on the part of Congress." It may be added that these observations apply even more forcibly, to the rules of the Senate.The privilege of unrestricted debate was not originally granted by those rules but was introduced as a means of strengthening the power of sectional resistance to obnoxious legislation.
The revision of the rules in 1885, then, was not designed really to facilitate action by the House, but rather to effect a transfer of the power to rule the House.It was at least clear that under the proposed changes the chairman of the committee on appropriations would no longer retain such complete mastery as Randall had wielded, and this was enough to insure the adoption of the majority report.The minority report opposed this weakening of control on the ground that it would be destructive of orderly and responsible management of the public funds.
Everything which Randall said on that point has since been amply confirmed by much sad experience.Although some leading Republicans, among whom was Joseph G.Cannon of Illinois, argued strongly in support of Randall's views, the temper of the House was such that the majority in favor of the change was overwhelming, and on December 18, 1885, the Morrison plan was finally adopted without a roll call.
The hope that the change in organization would expedite action on appropriation bills, was promptly disappointed.Only one of the fourteen regular appropriation bills became law before the last day of the fiscal year.The duress to which the House was subject became tighter and harder than before, and the Speakership entered upon a development unparalleled in constitutional history.The Speaker was practically in a position to determine what business the House might consider and what it might not, and the circumstances were such as to breed a belief that it was his duty to use his discretion where a choice presented itself.It is obvious that, when on the floor of the House there are a number of applicants for recognition, the Speaker must choose between them.All cannot be allowed to speak at once.There is no chance to apply the shop rule, "first come first served," for numerous applications for the floor come at the same time.Shall the Speaker choose at random or according to some definite principle of selection? In view of the Speaker's interest in the welfare of the party which raised him to the office, he would naturally inquire in advance the purpose for which the recognition of the chair was desired.It was a manifest step towards orderly procedure in session, however, when instead of crowding around the clerk's desk bawling for recognition, members applied to the Speaker in advance.In Speaker Blaine's time, this had become a regular practice and ever since then, a throng of members at the Speaker's office trying to arrange with him for recognition has been a daily occurrence during a legislative session.Samuel W.
