The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-01-03
TOPEKA STATE JOURNAL
Information Bureau
FREDERIC J. HAsKIN. Director.
Washington, d. C.
DOES CONGRESS NEED RE-
BUILDING.

BUILDING.
Washington. D. c., Dec. 25.-That
congress is an old-model machine in
bad repair, and must be rebuilt and
equipped with a new starter. is an
opinion which is now being heard
from authoritative sources. And the
case against the congressional system
seems to be a good-one.
| One of it's minor flaws is exhibited
right now in the fact that, after elect
| ing a new administration. We must
wait four months or so before il can
go into action against the many diff
cult problems that confront it. The
old administration is naturally going
to mark time, as outgoing administra-
tions always do. Little matters like
taxation, Haiti, and Mexico, it will
| leave to embarrass its successors of
the other party.
| But that is only one of a number
of ways in which congress. as n n,a-
chine, works poorly because of the
way it is designed. 1t seems to have
| been intended to work much as the
British parliamentary system does,
but to have failed. At least, that is
the opinion of Woodrow Wilson,
I
ment in the United States was stand
ard long before he was president, and
still remains so.
THE president of the United States
was intended to be a reformed
and standardized king" he says, land
congress was meant to be a reformed
and properly regulated parliament
But the trainers of the constitution
did their work none too well IN the
first place, and time has changed 1T
good deal. Today the congress of the
| United States is remarkable chiefly
bility.
How They Pass the Buck.
| The chief fault of it, the critics
seem to agree, lies in the fact that the
men who design the laws have little to
do with enforcing them, and those
who have to enforce them have little
to say in framing them. In other
words. the thing works out as an elab-
crate system for the passing of the
buck.
This can best be understood by
comparing or congressional system
with the British parliamentary sys-
tenn of which it seems to be poor
| imitation. In each there is a chief
executive and a legislative body with
two branches. There the similarity
ends. In England the chief executive
is the prime minister who is appointed
| by the crown, in theory at least. he
| forms q cabinet from the members of
| his own party in parliament TheSe
men are the heads of the executive
branches of the government, just as
| our cabinet members are, but they
| also retain their seats in parliament
and are made there to defend their
| measures and motives.
! Furthermore, the cabinet in Eng
| land originates all important legisla-
| commons
fuses to support its legislative pro-
gram, then the cabinet resigns and
new prime minister forms a new cab
| met. If the parliament. on the other
hand, supports and passes the legisla-
| tive program offered by the cabinet.
| then it is up to that same cabinet to
prove that those laws will work.
Cabinet Officers Protected.
In our congress the cabinet members
| not only have no seats in congress,
| but they have no originative power
over legislation-or at least, practf-
| cally none. There are two chief re-
suits of this so far as the cabinet Of
| ficers are concerned. In the first
place, the president and his cabinet
are called upon to execute whatever
| laws congress chooses to pass; there is
| no certainty of harmony between
them. In the second place the cabinet
| officers are not subjected to effective
| of a few cabinet officers who would
have had a hard time holding their
! jobs if they had been forced to defend
| the administrations of their depart
ments on the floor of the house.
The results of the system, so far as
congress is concerned, are essentially
the same in that they also make for
| Responsibility. The real originative
source of our laws is in the commit
| tees of the house. There are a great
many of these committees. Bills in
| troduced are referred to them. They
report only what bills they choose to
report, and usually these are bills
drawn up by the committee itself and
| bearing the name of the chairman.
| These bills are debated and fought
over on the floor of the house, it is
true, but the size of the house, the
number who wish to be heard, and
| the immense amount of business to be
| transacted, make this debate perfume
| tory and inadequate In the senate the
| bills get great deal more real DELHI
| erative consideration. But differences
| between the house and the senate
must be compromised in the confer
ence committee, usually in great haste
| at the end of a session.
The result of all this is that the
! typical American federal law is child
of obscure origin. Many hands have
a share in its upbringing. and it is
| finally turned over for enforcement,
to the cabinet officer who stands often
| in the position of a somewhat reluc-
liant and critical stepfather. If the
child does well, everyone claims credit.
and if 1t seems unpopular and ugly,
everyone blames somebody else.
A System of Petty Barter.
| Furthermore. consider the way in
which our legislative programs are
drawn up. These programs ought to
be unified, and they ought to be the
| work of the best brains in the party.
AS a matter of fact they are not uni
fled at all. being the work of a great
many separate committees working
under no unified control except the