Page images
PDF
EPUB

than in the observance" in our country. It therefore established the Court of Claims in 1855, but with very limited powers. Amendments followed. In 1883, the "Bowman Act" was passed, whose first section reads as follows

SEC. 1.

When a claim or matter is pending before any committee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or before either House of Congress,

which involves the investigation and determination

of facts, the committee or House may cause the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs and documents pertaining thereto, to be transmitted to the Court of Claims of the United States, and the same shall be proceeded in under such rules as the Court may adopt. When the facts shall have been found the Court shall not enter judgment thereon, but

shall report the same to the committee or House by which the case was transmitted for ts considera

tion.

This law limited the jurisdiction of the Court to claims which had been first filed with Congress, and these could not reach the Court until that tardy body, or some committee thereof, had seen fit to take up the matter; probably after many years.1 After the report upon the facts by the Court, which had under this act no jurisdiction in law or equity, nor power to render judgment, the committee or House, after another tedious delay, might sometime report a bill, which again might sometime be passed! What a lawyer's contrivance to avoid doing business, while ruining a claimant by delays and expenses!

This "Bowman Act," therefore, afforded little relief to anybody. So in 1887, the "Tucker Act" was enacted, which authorized suits to be commenced, not only in the Court of Claims, but also in the United States District Courts, everywhere, on all claims founded upon the Constitution or any law of Congress, except for pensions; or upon any regulation of the Executive Departments, or upon any contract, 1Thus at the recent session the La Abra Mining Company's case was sent to the Court, after twenty years on the files, and learned speeches enough to occupy several days in the Senate; and the Sibley Tent case was so referred thirty years after it was first filed with Congress.

expressed or implied, with the Federal government, or for damages in cases not sounding in tort; in respect to which claim the party would be entitled to redress against the United States, either in a court of Law, Equity, or Admiralty, if the United States were suable, (except war claims, or claims previously rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department, or commission). All such suits to be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues. No jury allowed in any case. Actions to be brought by petition. United States attorneys to accept service, and defend the United States. Proceedings to be governed by existing law. No judgment by default to be rendered. Appeals allowed as in other cases. Judgment to be reported to Congress, whose sole duty is to pay it.

Yet within five years after the passage of this act, we find no less than 6,931 claim and relief bills on the files of the two Houses! Evidently, the jurisdiction of the courts must be still further enlarged, so as to include war and all other "relief" claims, and thus relieve Congress entirely from the whole private calendar, except the payment of final judgments. How can this be done?

REMEDY.

Ist. Make the six-year limitation extend to all claims against the government, of every name and nature.

2nd. Authorize suits to be brought against the United States in Law, Equity, or Admiralty, in every Federal court, by claimants residing in their several districts, for all money claims, with usual right of appeal, but without right of jury trial. All judgments to be reported to Congress for payment.

3rd. Indefinitely postpone all claims, relief and private pension bills now before either House.

4th. Pass a joint resolution to the effect that no claims for relief or indemnification will thereafter be entertained

by Congress, except in the form of final judgments of the United States courts, and that no petition for a pension will be granted by Congress. Already 64 general pension laws exist; undoubtedly as many more will be passed as may be necessary to cover all cases, at least while pensioners cast votes!

5th. Pass such general laws as may be necessary for the adjudication of "corrections in military record," "removing charges of desertion," restoration of military rank, etc., by a military board in the War office, and by a similar naval board for naval cases, in the office of the Secretary of the Navy.

And after the passage of such joint resolution let every attempt to introduce a private bill in either House be firmly

held to be out of order.

The evil thus sought to be eradicated is of long standing, and has been of slow but sure growth. Like a cancer, it has fastened itself upon every fiber of Congressional life, which it now threatens to destroy. The painless remedies have all failed. The knife must now be used, to cut it out by the roots, how ever severe the shock to that time-honored, horse-in-the-mill routine, which dreads all change, as if it involved a dynamite bomb or a gasoline stove. When Congress once wills it there will easily be found a way to rid itself of the fatal incubus of private legislation. Who will have the courage to inaugurate this

reform?

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The Constitution provides that Congress shall have power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia. Accordingly, Rule XXVI. of the House sets apart the second and fourth Mondays in each month for the consideration of District of Columbia bills. That is, to the affairs of that little 64 square miles, with their 250,000 population, is conceded one thirteenth as much of the

time of Congress as to the 44 States and 6 Territories, with their 63,000,000 of people! The result is that the whole 335 Representatives and 88 Senators, sitting at an expense of $22,238 per day, have during the late session devoted $311,332 of the nation's money (being their expenses for fourteen days) in performing the duties of a Common Council to that district. For this work no member of Congress, except perhaps a few of the older ones, is fitted, owing to lack of residence, and the consequent want of familiarity with local affairs. Yet the work must be done, no matter what national matters may claim attention, or the local administration must stop. No less than 72 House bills and 137 Senate bills were reported during the recent session by their respective committees on the District of Columbia, besides many other bills introduced but not reported. Is it not an edifying spectacle to behold our great Congress, with its 423 Solons and their 544 employees, (nearly a full regiment strong,) intent upon regulating street cars, garbage, sewerage, police, street widening, and all the minutiae of city government, while a thousand national measures must be shelved meanwhile? Is there not some way of relieving that great body of this duty? Would it be deemed an evasion of the Constitution for Congress to create a legislative commission, as it already has an executive one, and itself appoint the members from local residents, making them responsible to the appointing power for all their acts? Would not this be "exercising exclusive legislation," though indirectly? If not, then why not submit to the State legislatures a Constitutional amendment, releasing Congress from this work, and providing ordinary self-government for the district and city? There ought to be no difficulty in securing the adoption of such an amendment, to which there could be no reasonable opposition, but which would in some degree diminish

expenditure, and would promote the efficiency of Congress in great matters by relieving it of a large amount of petty drudgery.

INDIAN LEGISLATION.

It would surprise many voters to learn how disproportionate an amount of Congressional time, labor, and expenditure of public funds, is devoted to our remain. ing 250,000 Indians, comparatively with the great mass of the people. During the recent session the House Committee on Indian Affairs reported 46 bills, and the Senate committee reported 66, while the regular expenditure on Indians for several years past has averaged about $7,500,000 per annum. Besides this, the last session appropriated $478,000 for the payment of Indian depredation claims; and the 51st Congress paid over $8,000,000 for the purchase of Indian lands. It is to be hoped that the recent change of policy, in dividing lands in severalty and educating the Indians to take care of themselves and for citizenship, will gradually eliminate this vexatious and costly department from Congressional duty. Is it not an anomaly, that after all the enormous expenditures of a century, and notwithstanding the wealth of many tribes in lands, or the proceeds of land sales in the Treasury, the white and black industry of the country must still contribute $30 per annum towards the living expenses of each Indian? •

DILATORY METHODS.

Come we now briefly to consider some of the obstacles to the dispatch of bus iness interposed by the hide-bound traditions, rules, and customs, of Congress.

Professor Woodrow Wilson, in his excellent work on Congressional Government, has clearly pointed out the defect of our committee system as compared with the cabinet government of Britain. He has also shown the futility of our methods in giving expression to the will

of the party in power. But as to the first point, it is very doubtful whether the British system could be made conformable to the American Constitution, even if amended so as to admit Cabinet officers to the floor of the House. And if

it could, it is tolerably certain that though our committee system may be improved, it will never be supplanted. As to his second point, the fact is that notwithstanding all our hue and cry about party, the questions that now divide the two great parties are so few, that they do not affect one per cent of the measures that come before Con gress. Were it not for the necessity of party work for party support, party opinions would be hardly recognizable among the motives, or as affecting the usefulness, of any conscientious member. Unfortunately, the short term system interpenetrates all our institutions. It is one of our sacrifices to continued liberty. The only remedy for its inconveniences is the re-election of experienced men ; and this involves much mere party work on the floor of Congress. The House and the Senate must therefore always be the arenas for party discussions; and at least half the time and much more than half the brainwork must be spent in a war of words. which is entirely useless, so far as business is concerned. "'T is true, 't is pity; pity 'tis, 'tis true." The delays and neglects of important measures thus occasioned are remediless. But there are several other matters wherein plain common sense could profitably replace traditional red tape, to the great increase of the efficiency of Congress.

ELECTRIC VOTING MACHINERY.

During the recent session, the roll was called in the House 224 times, and in the Senate 77 times. Each call in the House must occupy half an hour, including the second call for names not answering the first, at a cost of $1,865,

or $417,760 for the session. In the Senate, at ten minutes for each call, the total cost was $23,485 or $441,245 for both Houses. The 112 hours thus lost in the House equal 28 sessions of four hours each, or more than one month's working days out of the 187 days of the session; nearly one seventh of the whole time! In the Senate the time thus lost was three days. How many bills could have been passed, how many labored speeches delivered in that time? Or how much could the session have been shortened, thus evading the sickness among the members caused by the hot and unhealthy summer air of Washington?

Now the Capitol has already an extensive electric lighting apparatus, and a staff of electricians to run it. A few thousand dollars would lay two wires from each member's desk to a dial at the clerk's desk. Two buttons, one for "Aye," one for "No," in a little box of which each member would carry the only key, would be safe in the member's control. Sheets of paper printed with the names, on which the clerk would have to inscribe only the question voted on, would receive the indelible and absolutely correct impression of each man's vote, in parallel columns for ayes and noes, all in a few seconds, -and there would be no corrections to make next morning, as now continually happens.

But this saving is not all. Excepting in unimportant matters on which there is no opposition, it is now almost always necessary to have three divisions on every question.. First by viva voce or rising vote, which generally shows no quorum voting. Second, by tellers, which obliges every member to leave his seat, and march between the tellers to be counted. No quorum again, but plenty of confusion. Third, by yeas and nays. These preliminary votes require at least a quarter of an hour additional, thus increasing by fifty per cent

the above quoted waste of time and money. But all this would be saved by the constant use of the electrical machine. Last, but not least, the filibuster would be deprived of his most effective weapon, and the majority be less embarrassed in expressing its will.

Again, a great source of the continued noise in the House is the clapping of hands as a signal for the pages. A third button at each desk, or one button for each row of desks, could communicate with a bell board in the lobby, such as is used in hotels, placed opposite the pages' benches. By using a small bell, which would be heard by the boys but not in the House, the present noisy signals would be entirely abated.

Moreover, this mode of voting would oblige members to keep their seats, at least during divisions, and would avoid the confusion incident to a count by tellers. By its use business would move on smoothly and rapidly, and being therefore continuously interesting, would command a quieter House. But it is not in human nature to keep one's seat and be quiet, during the frequent and long monotony of roll call.

Representative Oates, of Alabama, early in the recent session, introduced a resolution of inquiry as to this method of voting and its cost, which was, of course, buried in the Committee on Rules. Yet if Father Holman had ever given his economic thought to the subject, slave as he is to precedent, he would long ago have worked for its adoption. The failure to introduce it must be due either to the inability of silurian stupidity to grasp a new idea, or to a corrupt adherence to those filibustering methods which enable designing and tricky politicians to defeat the will of the majority. Or else it must be from the same lack of practical common sense which, session after session, leaves an open cesspool under the Supreme Court room, and allows bad ventilation and defective plumbing to

cause any quantity of sickness and several deaths among the members of every Congress. This is only one of many particulars in which the Congressional atmosphere beclouds the reason of members. Is it not time to inscribe over the door, "Who enters here leaves common sense behind"?

BILLS FROM THE OTHER HOUSE.

It strikes the reader of the Record with astonishment and indignation to perceive the enormous waste of time, money, and committee work resulting from the neglect of each House, especially the lower one, to act promptly upon the bills which have passed the other. Our figures show that at the recent ses sion the Senate passed only 314 out of the 460 bills that passed the House, while the latter passed but 120 out of 709 that passed the Senate. A similar result characterizes every Congress, notwithstanding that if the bills could only reach consideration the chances are that all but a very few would be approved by the other House, perhaps with occasional amendments. This is another great cause of delay. Frequent ly a bill has passed one House or each House alternately, several times, yet never reached consideration in the other during any one Congress. Does it occur to the Congressional mind that more work is accomplished by finishing what is already half done than by attempting something new '

This waste would be largely saved if the rules of each House were to require, first, the immediate consideration, regardless of other business, of all bills from the other; or, if reference to committees were deemed necessary, then such reference to be under standing instructions compelling reports thereon within five days; further time to be granted only by special vote of the House. Second, all such bills when reported to have the right of way at the close of

every morning hour over all other business until disposed of. This simple change in the rules, if enforced, would have doubled the number of laws enacted by the last session, and of the three previous Congresses the business would have increased about 40 per cent.

OBJECTIONS.

What would become of the lawyers in Congress, as in court, if they were to be deprived of their palladium, the right to everlastingly "object," and to have their objections respected, regardless of any reason for making them or of the injury they cause to the business in hand? If other rules act as sand in the machinery, these are the gravel stones which cause almost hourly stoppages. None of the present methods are more arbitrary, tyrannical, destructive of the power of the majority, or fatal to the transaction of business. There should be no "unanimous consent " required in any deliberative body, in which the majority ought always to govern. There would not be in Congress, if the great object of its rules were not to give the control to the minority. Such a rule gives an absolute veto power to each man over the action of the House, and it is almost sure to be used with fatal effect by some enemy of a measure, or of its advocate, or by one or more of those born idiots who are crazy to keep their names before the public, by eternally objecting to the consideration of other men's ideas, when they have none of their own. The yeas and nays cannot be demanded except by one fifth of the members present. The rules cannot be suspended except seconded by a majority vote. Why should the vital question of "consideration" be handed over to the single control of every crank and malignant in the House, instead of requiring objections to be seconded by a majority of the members present ?

As the rules stand now, all reported

« PreviousContinue »