those to whom Congress chooses to delegate its functions. No discredit attaches to the dominant party, because they could not control the acts of the eleven men in the committee room. Thus public displeasure rarely finds a victim, and everybody concerned is relieved from the wholesome dread of damaging himself and his party by negligence, perversity, or dishonesty. Only when a scandal has arisen so serious as to demand investigation is the responsibility of the member to his constituents and the country brought duly home.

It lowers the interests of the nation in the proceedings of Congress.1 Except in exciting times, when large questions have to be settled, the bulk of real business is done not in the great hall of the House but in this labyrinth of committee rooms and the lobbies that surround them. What takes place in view of the audience is little more than a sanction, formal indeed but hurried and often heedless, of decisions procured behind the scenes, whose mode and motives remain undisclosed. Hence people cease to watch Congress with that sharp eye which every principal ought to keep fixed on his agent. agent. Acts Acts pass unnoticed, whose results

1 "The doubt and confusion of thought which must necessarily exist in the minds of the vast majority of voters as to the best way of exerting their will in influencing the action of an assembly whose organization is so complex, whose acts are apparently so haphazard, and in which responsibility is spread so thin, throws constituencies into the hands of local politicians who are more visible and tangible than are the leaders of Congress, and generates the while a profound distrust of Congress as a body whose actions cannot be reckoned beforehand by any standard of promises made at elections or any programmes announced by conventions. Constituencies can watch and understand a few banded leaders who display plain purposes and act upon them with promptness; but they cannot watch or understand forty odd standing committees, each of which goes its own way in doing what it can without any special regard to the pledges of either of the parties from which its membership is drawn."-Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, a lucid and interesting book from which I have derived much help in this and the two following chapters.

are in a few months discovered to be so grave that the newspapers ask how it happened that they were allowed to pass.

The country of course suffers from the want of the light and leading on public affairs which debates in Congress ought to supply. But this is perhaps more fairly chargeable to defects of the House which the committees are designed to mitigate than to the committees themselves. The time which the committee work leaves for the sittings of the House is long enough to permit due discussion did better arrangements exist for conducting it.

It throws power into the hands of the chairmen of committees, especially, of course, of those which deal with finance and with great material interests. They become practically a second set of ministers, before whom the departments tremble, and who, though they can neither appoint nor dismiss a post-master or a tidewaiter, can by legislation determine the policy of the branch of administration which they oversee. This power is not necessarily accompanied by responsibility, because like everything else about the committees, it is largely exercised in secret. Besides, as an able writer remarks, "the more power is divided, the more irresponsible it becomes. The petty character of the leadership of each committee contributes towards making its despotism sure by making its duties uninteresting.

It enables the House to deal with a far greater number of measures and subjects than could otherwise be overtaken; and has the advantage of enabling evidence to be taken by those whose duty it is to re-shape or amend a bill. It replaces the system of interrogating ministers in the House which prevails in most European

1 Congressional Government, p. 94.

chambers; and enables the working of the administrative departments to be minutely scrutinized.

It sets the members of the House to work for which their previous training has fitted them much better than for either legislating or debating "in the grand style." They are shrewd keen men of business, apt for talk in committee, less apt for wide views of policy and elevated discourse in an assembly. The committees are therefore good working bodies, but bodies which confirm congressmen in the intellectual habits they bring with them instead of raising them to the higher platform of national questions and interests.

On the whole, it may be said that under this system the House despatches a vast amount of work and does the negative part of it, the killing off of worthless bills, in a thorough way. Were the committees abolished and no other organization substituted, the work could not be done. But much of it, including most of the private bills, ought not to come before Congress at all; and the more important part of what remains, viz. public legislation, is dealt with by methods securing neither the pressing forward of the measures most needed, nor the due debate of those that are pressed forward.

Why, if these mischiefs exist, is the system of committee legislation maintained?

It is maintained because none better has been, or, as most people think, can be devised. "We have," say the Americans, "three hundred and twenty-five members in the House, most of them eager to speak, nearly all of them giving constant attendance. The bills brought in are so numerous that in our two sessions, one of seven or eight months, the other of three months, not onetwentieth could be fairly discussed on second reading or in committee of the Whole. If even this twentieth

were discussed, no time would remain for supervision of the departments of State. That supervision itself must, since it involves the taking of evidence, be conducted by committees and not by the whole House. In England you have one large and strong committee, viz. the ministry of the day, which undertakes all the more important business, and watches even the bills of private members. Your House of Commons could not work for a single sitting without such a committee, as is proved by the fact than when you are left for a little without a ministry, the House adjourns. We cannot have such a committee, because no office - holder sits in Congress. Neither can we organize the House under leaders, because prominent men have among us little authority, since they are unconnected with the executive, and derive title from the people.1 Neither can we create a ruling committee of the majority, because this would be disliked as an undemocratic and tyrannical institution. Hence our only course is to divide the unwieldy multitude into small bodies capable of dealing with particular subjects. Each of them is no doubt powerful in its own sphere, but that sphere is so small that no grave harm can result. The Acts passed may not be the best possible; the legislation of the year may resemble a patchwork quilt, where each piece is different in colour and texture from the rest.

no

1 In England the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition (often an ex-prime minister) have been recognized as leaders not only by the candidates who at the last preceding general election have declared their willingness to support one or other, but also by the rank and file of their respective parties. These leaders have thus a sort of right to the allegiance of their followers, though a right which they may forfeit. In America no candidate pledges himself to support a particular congressional leader. It would be thought unbecoming in him to do so. His allegiance is to the party, and his constituents do not expect him to support any given person, however eminent.

But as we do not need much legislation, and as nearly the whole field of ordinary private law lies outside the province of Congress, the mischief is slighter than you Europeans expect. If we made legislation easier, we might have too much of it; and in trying to give it the more definite character you suggest, we might make it too bold and sweeping. Be our present system bad or good, it is the only system possible under our Constitution, and the fact that it was not directly created by that instrument, but has been evolved by the experience of a hundred years, shows how strong must be the tendencies whose natural working has produced it.'

NOTE TO CHAPTER XV.

LIST of STANDING COMMITTEES of the House in the Fiftieth Congress, First Session. (Corrected to Jan. 15, 1888.)

On Elections; Ways and Means; Appropriations; Judiciary; Banking and Currency; Coinage, Weights and Measures; Commerce; Rivers and Harbours; Merchant Marine and Fisheries; Agriculture; Foreign Affairs; Military Affairs; Naval Affairs; Post Office and Post Roads; Public Lands; Indian Affairs; Territories; Railways and Canals; Manufactures; Mines and Mining; Public Buildings and Grounds; Pacific Railroads; Levees and Improvements of the Mississippi River; Education; Labour; Militia; Patents; Invalid Pensions; Pensions; Claims; War Claims; Private Land Claims; District of Columbia; Revision of the Laws; Expenditures in the State Department; Do., Treasury Department; Do., War Department; Do., Navy Department; Do., Post Office Department; Do., Interior Department; Do., Department of Justice; Do., Public Buildings; Rules; Accounts; Mileage ; Library; Printing; Enrolled Bills; Reform in the Civil Service; Election of President, Vice-President, and Representatives; Eleventh Census; Indian Depredation Claims; Ventilation and Acoustics; Alcoholic Liquor Traffic.

There were also in Jan. 1888 seven Select Committees.