The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1897-05-08
DEBATE WON BY PRINCETON
Continued from FIrst PACED


slstency whatever The power of rec
ognltlon was next taken up. 1t was
shown that from such an enormous
number of bills as are presented in the
house Of representatives there must be
very discriminating selection done,
Long experience has shown that the
best place to lodge this power Of selec-
ton was in the speaker. The necessary
compliment of this power is that as
chairman of the committee on rules.
Did the speaker not have this, and the
committee on rules still remained
privileged committee, the speaker would
be utterly helpless. The power of re-
fusing to entertain dilatory motions
and to count visible quorum were also
discussed and justified.
The second Yale speaker was Herbert
w. Fisher: He said in substance that
certain evils are notorious in our house,
among others, over-legislatlon and poor
legislation. These are because the house
has become a legislative machine in
stead of a deliberatiVe body. The
speaker has accomplished the abolition
of debate; not as a moderator or as
party leader, but as a combination of
the two. For IL he is to gain mis- party's
ends by use of his moderator's powers 1t
must be at the expense of debate over
which those powers are exercised.
| AS a result the chief feature of our
present manner of legisating Is haste,
The Dingley bill is an example. This
haste results In work as bad as it is eX-
cessive. partisan measures are
often left in imperfect form, and major
ity measures framed in the secrecy of
committees and subjected to no criti-
cism, are almost never anything but
collections of concessions to private in
terests.
Other evils are low grade of repre-
sentatives resulting from the substitu-
ton Of wire pulling for persuasion; the
| accumulation of sectional feeling by the
undue suppression Of the minority; the
| loss of the educational and informing
effect Of debate.
The last speaker for Princeton and
for the negative side was Mr.. F. NJ
Sterling of Blairstown, Pa. He took
up the speakership from a historical
point of view, showing that it was q
SLOW growth from a simple into it's
present complex form The various
powers have been granted to the speak
er as the necessity for them was seen
to exist The debater asked, what does
the country owe to the speaker? There
have been numerous bills brought be-
fore congress which were manifestly for
the public interest and which could
never have been carried through but
for the power Of the speaker Taking
the silver purchase repeal act, for ex-
ample. 1t was argued that the speak
ers power was essential at every stage
of the progress Of that bill in it's course
through the various formalities of the
house Whatever unity we have in our
legislation we also owe to the speaker
The speaker chooses the more import
ant bills for the majority because he
knows them to desire action upon them
Taken as unit the speakers power
instead of being detrimental to the pub
JIG interest, is absolutely essential to the
nation, and not onlyathat but it is posi-
lively beneficial to our people.
Yale's last speaker was Edward L.
Smith, secretary of the Yale Union
After meeting some of the points made
by the opponents, he says: THE use OF
|
purposes abolishes the minority, eIimi-
mates debate and makes the work Of the
house simply the registra ton Of the
maJority's decision. The effect Of al
this, and particularly of the failure OF
the house to do it's deliberative work
has been to throw this work into the
senate. That is why the Dingley bill
has been railroaded through the house
without criticism and is now receivine
some slight criticism in the senate
1T is not hard to see why the senate
is untitled for deliberation. Tt has E
cipher for a. moderator, and it's mem.
berS always have been Jealous of any
attempt to introduce leadership anlone
them. So, while the senate is unfit fo1
del1beration, we find it's chief work /.
elaboration. No wonder it is subject
, ed to criticism. But every criticism O
the senate is doubly a criticism of Thu
, house and it's speaker.
But bad as things are, the negative
are here to contend that we can hopt
for nothing better, because this speak
, ers power is a natural growth It is {
natural growth, for the majority early
found out that to have it's party leaders
| IA I" iiiNtSAe"coi . NilcllI Woull Ic1IGNe /
Of much unkind criticism. 1t is a nat
? ural growth, but only as an instrun1en
f of party tyranny. But there has bec1
another natural growth along this sam
Hne-tlie development of party leader
ship upon the floor Of the house, al
: shown in the formation of junta o
the leading committees chairmen ant
the speaker. But the speakers part
leadership checked this.
ITO bring back this better system
: which the speakership has crowded out
the house must be brought to recogniz
a the evils due to the speakership. TIL
combination of functions in the speak
er's hand IS the source of the evils
Then the remedy must be the separa
o ton. Throw the party leadership int
: the house and leave the speaker
strong moderator. Leadership will de
volve upon that man in each party VIII
has proven himself leader by his abil
s ity. Let him or the majority caucu
appoint the chairmen of the commit
tees. Let the majority members of tn
committees be appointed by the leade
or the majority chairmen in conference
The minority caucus will manage it
, leadership and appointments in tn
same way.
THUS the evils of the sDeakerShi