The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1913-10-09
CAUCUS RULE AND CONSISTENCY

OiS6ohie"h. IGOple pTONSi Uldli.
have short memories, but democratic
memories appear to be the shortest c
all. The democrats gained control o
the government largely on the issue
OF Cannonism-a system by which {
committee of the majority party die
tates to the caucus and the caucus
binds every member of the party tt
support measures which it approves
but none which it disapproves. Blu,
congress no sooner met in extra SEES
sion than President Wilson and Rep
resentative Underwood framed in sec
ret the skeleton of tariff bill, the
democratic members of the ways and
means committee completed it, also in
secret, and the democratic caucus,
also meeting in secret, approved 1t.
AS the majority of the caucus voted,
every democratic member of the house
was pledged to vote. No amendment
which the caucus had not approved
had chance of adoption, no matter
how meritorious it might be. The de-
bate in the house had no greater ef-
feet on the fate of the bill or on Its
details than a debating contest be-
tween couple of college teams would
have had.
Republicans are estopped by their
own adoption Of these methods from
criticising them, but democrats are
estopped from adopting them by the
fact of having condemned them. They
will doubtless plead that the caucus
is the only practicable means Of Sc
curing legislation and making the ma
5ority party responsible. That was
Speaker Cannon's defense. He said
repeatedly to the democrats and their
insurgent allies, "the majority must
rule" and they denounced him as a
Gar, tyrant and various other kind
of a monster.
President Wilson joined in this de-
nunciation of Cannonism Just before
his inauguration and by SO doing he
condemned the methods pursued by
himself and Mr.. Underwood. In his
New Freedom" he said:
Congress has become an institution
which does its work in the privacy of
committee rooms and not on the floor
of the chamber; body that makes
laws-legislature; not a body that de-
bates-not a parliament.
And again:
l don't want a SNUG lot of experts
to sit down behind closed doors in
Washington and play Providence to
me.
And again.
/ am not even now suggesting cor
rupt influence. That is not my point.
Inc prosperity of this country de-
ponds upon the interests of all of us
and cannot be brought about by ar
rangement between any groups of per
sons.
And finally:
The light must be let in upon the
processes of lawmaking.
Those representatives who were
elected strictly as democrats may be
able to excuse their conduct at the
expense of their consistency by say
Ing that they found caucus rule the
only practicable means of securing
party unity of action and of accom-
pushing the purpose of the voters in
electing them, but there are some men
In the senate, where the same methods
were pursued, who cannot even make
this excuse. Senator Chamberlain
was elected not as a democrat, but
as nonpartisan and was pledged to
Set the interests of his state above
his democratic predictions. Senator
Lane, while elected as a democrat
also pledged himself to put the inter
ests of his state above loyalty to his
party Yet they both went into the
democratic caucus, threw the interest
OF their state into the pot TO be dis
posed of as the majority decided and
pledged themselves to vote as the
caucus ruled. By remaining independ
emit of the caucus and refusing to sup
port the bill unless changes We're
made safeguarding the interests of
Oregon, they could have lived up to
their promises to their constituents
and probably have forced the conces-
sions they demanded. But in violatio
of their pledge to their state, they
took pledge to the democratic party
which bound them to sacrifice Ore
gon interests to partisanship.