New-York tribune., 1891-12-26


to get it even understood by the sterile minded
persons who are unable to imagine any improve
ments in modes of government in this country
except by the adoption of English methods
Take. for example. the development of the
Speakersbip. The Speakers of the American House
of Representatives constantly being criticised
for their exercise of arbitrary power, and nine
tenths of this tcsm from the fact that the
minds Of those who discuss the question are filled
with the conception of the Speaker of the British
House Of Commons an officer who differs widely
from his prototype this side Of the Atlantic.
They do not know what their own SpeakershiD
is or has come to be, and they judge it by
standard to which it has no relation. The Eng
lish Speaker is simply moderator or presiuins
officer who lays aside all party ties wheh he
enters on his Office and who has only to perform
certain judicial functions in preserving order ana
carrying forward the business OF Parliament
The Speaker of the American House is all that
the English Speaker is and is the party chlei
besides. His duties as moderator are but small
part Of the work he is chosen to do. lie is en-
pected, of course, TO preserve order ana decide
parliamentary questions, but he is also the leadcr
of his party, chosen to make up committees who
shall carry out the policy of the party III confol
lie is TO take q principal part in directing inc
policy of his party and in seeing that the measures
agreed upon by the party are brought 10 dS-
cussion and decision In the matter of ordinary
recognitions, of preserving order, and of ruling
on technical points, he is expected to act
judicially, and Speakers of all parties have
done So But the American Speaker
is also expected, and nghtfully expected, to lead
his party in the conduct of great political meas
urcs upon which parties are divided, and, 80 far
as the conduct of the House business is concerned,
he combines the power and the functions of both
the English Speaker and the English Prime Min
ister as we'll The development Of the Speaker
ship in this way has brought a personal response
bility, which, in body where Ministry does
not and cannot Sit is Of great Importance Yet the
advantage of a clear responsibility when thus mas
been gained is generally overlooked, and the minds
of many persons and of the chief friends OF ofn-
cial responsibility in particular are absorbed by
a gloomy hostility to the Speakers great power
THE DEsPoTsM" OF THE SPEAKER.
OF all the criticism I'd discussion upon this
subject nothing has been more inept than the talk
about the despotism Of The Speaker. The Speaker
in the first place. is the representative the voice
and the leader of the majority. They can create
and they can destroy He must carry out the
will of the House, rs expressed by ats majority,
or he will cease to exist This state of things Is
successful despotism. Then again the Speakers
mowers were not exercised, nor even arbitrarily ex-
ercised for the first time in the winter OF SSo9o
They have existed before; they have been grow
inc for long time and they have been vigorously
exercised by Speakers of all parties. One ex-
annie will show better than anything else tne
quality and character Of the modern Speakershlp
and dispose of uninformed criticism more quickly
than can be done in any other way. The great
est power of the Speaker is the power OF recognl-
t;on He can bar q member from the floor
throughout Congress simply by never seeing him.
He can give another member the floor every day
by always seeing him. This vast power Is III
beIcnt IN the Office. No rules created 1T ana no
rules can limit it, Its exercise must remain wholly
within tn discretion of the Speaker himself
Mr.. Carlisle once used this power in manner
which, In arbitrary decision, went far beyond any
act of his successor. In the ALlAth Congress- near
the close of the session, Mr.. Randall, of Pennsyl-
vana, desired TO get the floor to offer bill relating
70 revenue which he believed would pass by COM
bination of Republicans and small minority OF
Democrats. The bill was hostile to the declared
polcv of the majority Of the Democrats IN the
Uouse The condition Of business and the par
liamentarv situation were such that the bill could
only be brought up at particular time, ana
everything depended on the Speakers recognition
Mr. Carlisle refused 10 recognize Mr.. Randall lot
the purpose of calling up that bill. lie took the
ground that it was contrary TO the poilcy OF the
marty he represented, and that as the heao OF
that portv he would not allow it to come up by
rocoon,tion which he was not bound TO give by
the rules. In all the ordinary business OF Con-
eress. both public and private, and ON all par
liamentary questions, such position wouid nave
been an outrage, and no Speaker would have taken
IT, But this was one of the great measures OF
public policy which are few in number and on
which parties divide. On this Mt carlisle
toolr the position openly of the party
obios AMI shut ont the bill as o
pritisb Minister would have DONE The power
and the responsibility went together, and if he
had NOT done so his own and his partys RESPONSE
h,litv would have been at an end. He took the
resnonsibility and exercised the power and the
mcaI responsibility was thereby concentrated, In
staad of being lost in a mist of factional COM
| binations Mr. Carlisle, in his conception OF his
uosition and it's power, was correct. lie none
the less openly took stronger ground and exercised
his mower more arbitrarily than Mr. Reed, yet
he was respectfully treated by his opponents,
while Mr. Reed was made the target OF herce per-
sonal abuse for adhering TO the same policy. Inc
| difference was typical Of the difference between
the parties The important point however, Is
that the central and governing principle is the
same always That principle is this Without
responsibility popular approval cannot be had,
there is no redress for wrong or support for
| the right With responsibility we have both.
| If Mr.. Carlisle was acting wrongly the remedy
was simple The people would take control from
him and his party and give it to Mr. Randall, and
| then Mr. Randall's bill would come up. With a
biennial return TO the people, the danger OF
Speakers despotism is not serious, except, per-
| haps, in the minds of those who edit partisan
comic journals
THE HOUSE COMMITTED on RULES.
| Side by side with this development of the
/ Speakership has come that Of the Committee on