Executive leadership in England and

Europe

Separation of powers in the

United States prevents the

establishment of the parliamentary

CHAPTER XII

CONGRESS AT WORK

ABSENCE OF EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP IN CONGRESS

In most countries leadership in legislative affairs is given to the executive. In those countries where the parliamentary system is established, the cabinet-heads of executive departments is the directing force. In England and her self-governing dominions and in France the cabinet, indirectly chosen by the legislature, controls, as long as it retains office, the policy and procedure of the legislature. In Switzerland the executive is more independent of and consequently has less control over the legislature, but opportunities are given for the executive to explain proposed measures and to influence and facilitate their passage. The same was true in Germany under the imperial constitution.

In the United States the principle of separation of departments is carried to the extreme limit, and few opportunities are provided by the Constitution for executive leadership. The president, it is true, is dírected to inform Congress concerning system the state of the Union, and may recommend the passage of measures. He may, moreover, summon Congress in special sessions upon extraordinary occasions, but he has not the power of dissolving Congress and, by means of a special election, of appealing for popular approval of his measures. Unlike the chancellor of the former German Empire or the ministers of France and England, he has no seat on the floor of either House, no opportunity to take part in debate, and his public part in legislation is confined to the sending of printed messages or the reading of addresses, together with his constitutional right to veto.

The president, as chief executive, is not only limited in his legislative influence but the possibility of developing a cabinet

on executive leadership

system like that of France or England is precluded by the Con- Limitations stitution. " no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office," 1. a provision based upon the English Act of Settlement still unrepealed, but interpreted in England to mean that every member of the cabinet must be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament.2 Thus the president's cabinet is the direct antithesis of the foreign cabinets in that it is given no legislative power and few avenues of coöperation with Congress. It is true that the Secretary of the Treasury reports directly to Congress, and that the reports of the other officers are transmitted by the president to Congress, but these reports are referred to legislative committees, who may ignore the suggestions or propose measures quite different. The secretaries, like the president, have no seats in either House and, unlike the president, they cannot address Congress.

Actual influ

ence of the

Nevertheless, it would be a serious error to assume that the executive is without influence. A resolute president, as party president leader,3 can usually control the majority of his party in Congress. as leader Some of his power comes from his position and his appeal to popular imagination; much, however, of the compelling force behind his influence over Congress comes from the provisions of the Constitution, which vest the appointing power and the power of veto in the hands of the president. It is true that the veto is seldom used, for affairs are adjusted and a compromise reached before such an open split between the president and his party is disclosed. The patronage, however, is a constant source of presidential influence which even some of the strongest upholders of civil-service reform have resorted to. Even in the use of patronage it may well be doubted whether specific bargains are very frequently made and votes actually bought by promises of appointments, although this is sometimes done.1 Rather in unofficial ways, by interviews at the White House, letters and conferences, communications through a secretary, and, 1 The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Sect. vi, clause 2.

2 One of the innovations introduced by the war has been the appointment of nonmembers as ministers. 8 See pp. 168-174.

4 See C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 208-209, for use of patronage as a means of executive influence.

Leadership in Congress to be found in

finally, -- an innovation introduced by President Wilson, through interviews held in person at the president's room in the Capitol, the president's influence is exerted in such unmistakable ways that few strong party leaders would dare to resist. To sum up, it would be fair to say that executive influence is exerted not in but outside Congress; that, as the president and his cabinet are precluded from working openly on the floor, they must resort to private, unofficial means to attain their ends. So powerful is their influence, however, not always with Congress but throughout the country, that their policies are usually adopted.1

PARTY ORGANIZATIONS

If there is no open executive leadership in Congress, legislative leadership must be exercised, for leadership there must be. organizations This leadership is found in the organization of Congress into

of parties in Congress

The twoparty system has resulted

in the control by the majority

parties. Although the Constitution gives to Congress certain powers, it is not Congress or either House which actually performs these functions, but the party having the majority. Thus contested elections are referred to partisan committees and generally decided by partisan votes. The House nominally elects a Speaker, but actually merely ratifies the choice made by the majority members acting in secret. All legislation is prepared by committees on which the party in majority has the deciding voice, and is generally adopted by the party vote in each House.

Political issues in the United States have favored the creation of the two-party system. While it is true that there have been third parties formed which polled large popular votes, they have seldom secured a large representation in Congress. Moreover, the majority party in Congress has generally obtained such a decisive majority that it could afford to ignore the combinations of minority parties. Only four times in our history have minority parties held the balance of power, but in every case, except

1 President Wilson's smiling assumption in one of his addresses that he was to cooperate with Congress greatly shocked many of the strong congressional leaders.

possibly in 1917, the House has been organized by and the Speaker chosen from the party having the plurality.1

organizations

The parties in Congress are the same as the national parties How party which nominate the candidates for president. In fact, at times exert influmembers of the Senate have dominated at least one of the ence national organizations. The control of the national parties over the members is exercised through both the national and state organizations. The national committee of each party may devote some of its energy and some of its funds but more of its influence to bring about the election of senators and Congressmen in good favor with the party. The congressional committees work primarily to obtain as large a party representation as possible in each House, so that practically every member of both Houses is bound by ties of party loyalty, if not by actual obligation, to the organization of his party. The extent to which this obligation is created by aid and possibly by financial assistance is hard to measure. It is unlikely that open pressure is often exerted, for the organization would hardly aid a man whose party loyalty was open to question. But since the actual aid given by national party organizations is extended at most to only a small proportion of the members elected, appeals to party loyalty and opportunities for activity are more likely to be the means of maintaining the influence of the organization. More aid may be given to the members by their local state organizations and the obligation may be stronger there, but, as has been pointed out, the various state committees are all more or less under the control of the national committee, particularly in the year of a presidential campaign.

ORGANS OF PARTY ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP

tive caucus

Since 1911 the chief organ of party control in Congress has The legislabeen the legislative caucus. The use of a preliminary secret party meeting to determine the attitude of a party upon measures

1 The 65th Congress, 1917, was an exception to this. In the House the Democrats and Republicans were almost equal and the balance of power was held by independent members. The 31st Congress had 112 Democrats, 109 Whigs, 9 Free Soilers; the 35th Congress, 118 Democrats, II Anti-Lecompton Democrats, 15 Americans, 92 Republicans; the 36th Congress, 92 Democrats, 7 AntiLecompton Democrats, 24 Americans, 114 Republicans; the 65th Congress, 215 Democrats, 211 Republicans, 5 Independents.

The modern legislative

caucus

Description and influence of the caucus

is not new. As early as 1794 the Federalist party utilized it, and in 1799 Jefferson, in a letter to Madison, described the action resulting from a caucus upon the Alien and Sedition bills as follows:

Yesterday witnessed a scandalous scene in the H. of R. It was the day for taking up the report of their committee against the Alien and Sedition Laws, etc. They held a caucus and determined that not a word should be spoken on their side, in answer to anything which should be said on the other. Gallatin took up the Alien, and Nicholas the Sedition law; but after a little while of common silence, they began to enter into loud conversations, laugh, cough, etc., so that for the last hour of these gentlemen's speaking, they must have the lungs of a vendue master to have been heard. Livingston, however, attempted to speak. But after. a few sentences the Speaker called him to order, and told him that what he was saying was not to the question. It was impossible to proceed.1

During the Civil War the caucus was at its height, but its influence declined until the special session of the 62d Congress in 1911, which had advocated limiting the power of the Speaker, revived its use. So successfully has it been operated and so pervasive has been its use that Representative Mann, the leader of the Republicans, exclaimed half in fun and half in desperation, "The Democratic caucus runs Congress."2 Since 1848 the committees of the Senate have been chosen by the caucus, and since the Democratic control of the Senate in 1913 the caucus has been regularly used for legislative purposes.

In the House of Representatives the members who have been reëlected assemble sometime before the close of the session to elect a caucus chairman and to choose candidates for Speaker and floor leader. In the Democratic party the floor leader is also chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, which nominates the members of the committees. Thus the caucus is organized, the candidates are picked, and the committee assignments are planned without consulting newly elected members.

1 H. A. McGill, on

་་

Caucus," in Cyclopedia of Government, p. 232.

2 Congressional Record, May 7, 1917, 65th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 200.

3 The Republicans in February, 1919, held a caucus to which the newly elected members were invited, and to which nearly all of them came and participated.