gov tem of ernment. than the House; in it angry debate and violent behavior are of rare occurrence. In its methods of procedure the Senate is more deliberative and less business-like than the House. In State legislatures throughout the Union the method of procedure is substantially the same as that which we have seen at work Cabinet sys- in Congress. But this system, sometimes called the "Committee system," is found nowhere else. Every national legislative body in the world except our Congress works under the "Cabinet system" of government. This may be best seen in the English Government, where it was first developed. The English Cabinet system. The supreme legislature of England is Parliament, composed of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Although England is nominally a kingdom, the monarch has little real authority. The actual executive is the Cabinet; at its head is the Prime Minister, who corresponds in many ways to our President. In England the legislative and executive departments are united; for the members of the Cabinet must be members of Parliament, and the Prime Minister is always the leader of the political party that has a majority in the House of Commons. Nominally the monarch chooses the Prime Minister, but in reality he has no choice. The members of the Cabinet, numbering fifteen or twenty, are executive officers. Each presides over a department and controls the administration of its affairs as Cabinet officers do in the United States. At the same time, it is the duty of Cabinet ministers to participate in the legislation of Parliament: (1) by framing and introducing all important bills, and (2) by pushing these bills through Parliament by debate and otherwise. The Prime Minister "leads" the majority party in the House of Commons; or, if he is a member of the Lords, another Cabinet member is leader of the Commons. The opposition party likewise has its leader in each house. The "Opposition" tries to hamper or defeat the measures of the Government. The length of a Congress in the United States is fixed at two years. A term of Parliament may last seven years, but Parliament may be dissolved and a term ended at any time. The way in which this comes about is the most essential feature of Cabinet government. The Cabinet, we have seen, is put into office by the majority in the House of Commons, and it will retain its position as long as it is sustained by that majority. If, however, its policy proves to be unpopular, or its administration weak, some of its "Gov of Parlia ment. Certain advantages are claimed for this system over the Congressional or Committee system. 1. It is said that the party in power is more directly responsible to the people because its tenure Responsiof office is not fixed, but liable to termination at any time. bility. ernment," as the governing officials are called, will therefore watch public opinion very closely and try to avoid all unpopular measures. Moreover, the people watch the ministry closely because they may be called upon at any time to approve or condemn its policy by electing a new House of Commons. For the Congressional system it is claimed that these same advantages are secured by the frequency of our elections. The hope of re-election creates respon sibility. 2. Under the Cabinet system the harmony of the legislative and executive departments is certain. The House of Lords may not agree with the Commons, but its power is very much less than the power of the Senate in the United States. The Lords may delay, but they will never defeat an important bill which the Commons, backed by the people, are determined shall pass. In the United States the President may not be of the same party as the majority of Congress; or, being of the same party, he may have very different views. There will consequently be friction and a failure to Harmony. harmonize the action of these two departments. On the other hand, it is urged that a Cabinet is undertaking too much when it assumes both legislative and executive functions. Attention is also called to the fact that our legislative and executive are not completely separated. Certain functions are shared between them. Moreover, it is quite customary for Congressmen and committees to consult heads of departments and other officials while framing bills. 3. In Parliament, the leadership of certain men is more clearly recognized and more consistently followed than in Congress. Consequently, the measures by which a party carries out its policy have a certain unity of purpose and harmony among themselves. The Leadership. Committee system, English writers say, discourages leadership, by the division of responsibility for legislation; it makes possible poorly constructed and inconsistent laws which do not pretend to be parts of a deliberate governmental policy. Defenders of the Committee system point to the unifying influence of the party caucus and to the work of conference committees in harmonizing differences between the houses. Moreover, it is claimed that the Speakership furnishes a sufficient element of leadership and that more is not desirable. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS AND REFERENCES. 1. From the Congressional Record one may learn the forms used by members of Congress in addressing the chair and each other; also the forms of response used by the Speaker and the President of the Senate. 2. In the Congressional Directory will be found lists of the standing committees of each house, as well as select and joint committees; diagrams of the city of Washington, the Capitol building, and the floors of the houses showing the seats occupied by the members; also biographical sketches of Senators and Representatives. 3. What difference is there in the granting of recognition to members in the Senate and House? Harrison, This Country of Ours, 45-48. 4. One way of accounting for the large number of bills introduced into Congress is discussed in Bryce, I, 133–134 (136-138). 5. What appearance does the House of Representatives make when at work? Bryce, I, 138-144 (142–148). 6. What are the relations of the two houses of Congress? Bryce, I, chapter 18. 7. The veto power. Bryce, I, 53-56 (58-61); Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, 49, 166–169. 8. What is the importance of the Speakership of Mr. Reed (1889-91)? Follett, The Speaker, 116-117, 120-121. 9. What is meant by the "Speaker's list?" Follett, 251-253. 10. How are obstructive tactics carried on? Alton, Among the Law Makers, chapter 20. 11. Why is there little debate in the House of Representatives? Wilson, Congressional Government, 72–73, 86–102. 12. Compare the Speaker of the House of Representatives with the Speaker of the House of Commons. Bryce, I, 134-137 (138-141). 13. The best descriptions of Congressional procedure are found in Bryce, I, chapters 10-16; Wilson, Congressional Government, chapters 1, 2, 4; Follett, The Speaker; McConachie, Congressional Committees. See also Reed, Obstruction in the National House of Representatives, N. Am. Rev., 149: 421-428; Reed, Reforms Needed in the House, N. Am. Rev., 150 : 537-546; Mitchell, How a Law is Made, N. Am. Rev., 159: 537-544. 14. On the powers of the Speaker, see Forum, 23:343–350; Atl. Mo., 64: 64-73; N. Am. Rev., 151: 385-398; Arena, 22: 653-666; Reed, Limitations of the Speakership, N. Am. Rev., 150 : 382–389; Carlisle, N. Am. Rev., 150: 390– 399; Hart, Essays on American Government, chapter 1, The Speaker as Premier. 15. The English Cabinet system is best treated in Bagehot, The English Constitution; Wilson, The State. See also Scribner's Mag., 14: 593-600; Arena, 2: 581-587; Harper's Mag., 95: 110-128; 205-224; 88: 34-51; 686–692; Outlook, 61: 519-529; N. Am. Rev., 157: 215-224. 16. For comparisons of the Cabinet and Committee systems consult Bagehot, 84-100; Bryce, I, 144-149, 150-152, 165-170, 280-290 (147-153, 154-156, 168-173, 286–297); Wilson, Congressional Government, 72-73, 86-102, 115-124, 318-324; Fiske, the Critical Period of American History, 289-300; N. Am. Rev., 158: 257-269; 159: 225-234; 161: 740-752; 162: 14-20; 164: 625-633; 170:78-86; Atl. Mo., 57: 542-553; 65: 766-773. Finances of the Confederation. Article I, section 8, clause 1. Section 9, clause 5. CHAPTER XVII NATIONAL FINANCES NOTHING revealed more completely the fatal weakness of the government under the Articles of Confederation than its failure to exercise effectively the power of taxation. While the Articles provided that the expenses of the general government should be paid out of a common treasury "which shall be supplied by the several States," the taxes were to be "laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States." In practice, each State contributed as much or as little as it pleased. The general government made "requisitions" upon the States for certain amounts, but it had no means of compelling the legislatures to raise their quotas. The failure of the efforts that were made to amend the Articles so as to give Congress power to levy import duties, marks the complete break-down of the government's finances. There was needed a system under which the National authority might be exerted directly upon the individual citizens, without the intervention of State authority. This was secured by the following clause of the Constitution. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Coupled with this grant of power was a prohibition : No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. |