New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-05-12

cedure in the House. Il is an uncom-
monty interesting analysis of the pow
ers Of the popular branch of Congress
and OF the methods by which that body
does its work, illustrated by reference
70 many picturesque episodes in its his
tory. Mr.. Alexander is a historian
with wide knowledge and pungent
critical faculty. There is ylvldness
in his characterzatlons Of the great
leaders of the House which lifts TINS
work far above the ,evel of mere
study of the machinery of law-maklng
In this respect it is most admiraDle
contribution to American history.
We're il A mere treatise IN parlia-
mentary procedure in the House, IL
would be hopeless for the general read
or. Popular interest has been excited
in the revolution just accomplished IN
the Senate's parliamentary code. by
which a modified form OF closure mas
been put into operation. The Senate
rules are still more or less fantastic:
But they are simplicity itself compared
with the House rules. The latter are
a mystery to all but a few members or
the House and very unnecessary ana
stupid mystery. They were devised Tor
tho uses of those whose interest 1t IS TO
tie the business OF the House INTO
knots. For a century and quarter
they have served the purpose OF Cd
struction, and il is only since Speaker
Reeds time that the House began 10
show enough courage to try TO cut the
coils little and TO regain some free
dom OF action by outwitting and SUP
yerting the stranglIng code to when
practice and precedent had tied It. Inc
history of procedure in the House, As
Mr.. Alexander brilliantly demonstrates,
has been one long struggle to emanel-
pate the majority-to destroy the OBJ
structive privileges granted so lsvishly
to the minority.
Mr.. Alexander's book shows clearly
the necessity of this emancipation.
Thomas B. Reed is the authors hero.
But in paying deserved tribute to what
Reed did in the way of suppresslng
senseless obstruction, he is misled into
clarifying what Reed also did IN the
way Of expanding the powers OF the
Speakership. Reeds theory OF House
government was one-man government.
He sincerely believed that the House
needed an autocrat in the Speakers
chair-a dictator. who should assume
personal responsibility to the ruling
party and to the country for whatever
the House might do. He therefore
gathered all authority into the SPEAK
er's hands. He made himself a Car.
Mr.. Alexander defends this despotsm
as necessary and benevolent. But the
country has a different opinion. such
a system makes puppets Of the legiS-
lators who submit to IT. Speaker
elected to represent a small consttu-
encv i'm Maine or Missouri has no war
rant for assuming individual responsi-
bility TO his party or to the Wholc
country for whatever the lower house OF
Congress may do. He does not repre-
sent the country, and cannot repre-
sent il. He is answerable only 10 MS
own little constituency. The Reed sys-
tenn of Czarism lowered in Cannonism;:
Then the House rebelled against 1t and
cast it out.
The author condemns that reyOlu-
ton. and is unrecOnciled to the llo-
eralization of the rules after Cannons
downfall, which restored power to the
majority organization that the speaker
had usurped. In that is manifested ms
loyalty to Reed big man who natu-
rally inspired loyalty. But his ludg-
ment does not accord with the judg-
ment of the time 1t is not based on
logic: for once the majority had been
freed from the tyranny of the minor
ity by the adoption of the Reed rules,
il was inevitable that it should soon
free itself also from the tyranny of
Sneaker who arrogated to himself com
piete control of the action of mis- party
colleagues, and sought. by giving and
Withholding recognition. committee
places, fayors and opportunity, 20 make
his party associates the blind lnstru-
ments Of his own will.