The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-02-16
AS TO RULES.

AS TO RULES.
speaker Reed ran h house of repre-
sentatives nearly two n without
rules. There vas no e for this.
Democrats believe a the motive was
to close up the contested election cases
to the advantage of n republican side
and to leave the speaker free to pursue.
i'm that business any course however
arbitrary. that might commend itself
tn his present purpose. The plan of
running the house without rules for
any number of days never was at
tempted before Mr.. Reeds time.
IL remains to be seer whether the
new code of rules will be helpful to the
honest dispatch of business i'm the
house of representatives. They lOad
the speaker with power, they are de-
vised to check the efficient opposition
of the minority. They are to he con-
sidered, not for what Mr.. Reed may be
able to accomplish under them, but
with reference to their influence here
after. when, in framing a code, the
rules now proposed becom u precedent.
of course. no rules are right if they fail
to give the house control of its own
business. In favor of the Rec idea. il
is asserted that members who refuse to
perform their own duty must not ask
law to aid them i'm preventing other
members from performing theirs.
This broadly states the ground OH
which the defense of Mr.. Reed rests.
1t appears to be n sound proposition.
| yet, if it be given its full meaning and
intent, what of the minority? In any
deliberative body. a minority certainly
has not "a right to make itself tyranni-
cal. at the same time il hi rights with
in limits, and legislation is sure to be
l.-l - H. -.x SO. - ~
it's effective opposition felt. Deprived
| of political parties. this republic would
not have long To live, and the minority
party must have an opportunity to
make itself felt i'm legislation.
Under the Reed idea. which, however,
is not allowed to be fully reflected i'm
the rules as we understand them, II
minority cannot be Obstructive il can
not get "a chance tn he. The majority
has liberty to proceed and the minority
cannot appeal tn the other side for
even so much as fair play, unless the
speaker chooses to permit it. That
officer presides Over n majority. he
manages the minority. The speaker is
properly the mouth piece of the house.
1t may be proper to make him likewise
the houses y and ear: still, that is "a
rather revolutionary proposition.
Yet this apparent novelty i'm legisla-
ton comes as u logical sequence. 1t is
the ripening of tendencies that have
had unchecked growth i'm this country
for nearly thirty years. The tendency
started when both houses of congress
began by stealth to usurp powers which
were presumed to belong To the presi-
dent-when the legislative department
robbed the executive of some of its
functions. The years of the war wit
messed the beginning of this tendency,
which rapidly gathered strength i'm
President Johnson's time. by and by
another movement developed itself.
Power tn control legislation began to
center i'm congressional committees. In
recent year the ability tn control it's
own business has gradually slipped
away from the house and conferred
itself in it's own committees. Thus
chairmanships have become immensely
| potent.
But c~hairmanships are directly linked
| to the speakers desk. and the new rul-
ing will fix the center Of all their inilu-
ence there. In other words, executive
power has gradually beer absorbed by
the Legislative branch, and. i'm turn,
Legislative powers in the house of rep
resentatives are surely grouping them
selves about the immediate person of
the speaker. Already that officer has
remarkable powers. His influence is
second only to that of the president
The tendency of the times is to make
man in the government of the United
States. That may be wise, but, i'm a
broad sense, it is revolutionary.