the cleveland era-第13章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　approval　of　that　act。　The　case　is　an　instructive　revelation　of　the　arbitrary　power　conferred　by　the　committee　system。　Members　are　loath　to　antagonize　a　party　chairman　to　whom　their　own　bills　must　go　for　approval。　Finally；　Senator　Hoar　dared　to　take　the　risk；　and　with　such　success　that　on　June　21；　1886；　the　committee　reported　a　bill　for　the　complete　repeal　of　the　Tenure　of　Office　Act；　the　chairmanSenator　Edmundsalone　dissenting。　When　the　bill　was　taken　up　for　consideration；　Senator　Hoar　remarked　that　he　did　not　believe　there　were　five　members　of　the　Senate　who　really　believed　in　the　propriety　of　that　act。　〃It　did　not　seem　to　me　to　be　quite　becoming；〃　he　explained；　〃to　ask　the　Senate　to　deal　with　this　general　question；　while　the　question　which　arose　between　the　President　and　the　Senate　as　to　the　interpretation　and　administration　of　the　existing　law　was　pending。　I　thought；　as　a　party　man；　that　I　had　hardly　the　right　to　interfere　with　the　matter　which　was　under　the　special　charge　of　my　honorable　friend　from　Vermont；　by　challenging　a　debate　upon　the　general　subject　from　a　different　point　of　view。〃

Although　delicately　put；　this　statement　was　in　effect　a　repudiation　of　the　party　leadership　of　Edmunds　and　in　the　debate　which　ensued；　not　a　single　Senator　came　to　his　support。　He　stood　alone　in　upholding　the　propriety　of　the　Tenure　of　Office　Act；　arguing　that　without　its　restraint　〃the　whole　real　power　and　patronage　of　this　government　was　vested　solely　in　the　hands　of　a　President　of　the　United　States　and　his　will　was　the　law。〃　He　held　that　the　consent　of　the　Senate　to　appointments　was　an　insufficient　check　if　the　President　were　allowed　to　remove　at　his　own　will　and　pleasure。　He　was　answered　by　his　own　party　colleagues　and　committee　associates；　Hoar　and　Evarts。　Senator　Hoar　went　so　far　as　to　say　that　in　his　opinion　there　was　not　a　single　person　in　this　country；　in　Congress　or　out　of　Congress；　with　the　exception　of　the　Senator　from　Vermont；　who　did　not　believe　that　a　necessary　step　towards　reform　〃must　be　to　impose　the　responsibility　of　the　Civil　Service　upon　the　Executive。〃　Senator　Evarts　argued　that　the　existing　law　was　incompatible　with　executive　responsibility；　for　〃it　placed　the　Executive　power　in　a　strait…jacket。〃　He　then　pointed　out　that　the　President　had　not　the　legal　right　to　remove　a　member　of　his　own　Cabinet　and　asked；　〃Is　not　the　President　imprisoned　if　his　Cabinet　are　to　be　his　masters　by　the　will　of　the　Senate？〃　The　debate　was　almost　wholly　confined　to　the　Republican　side　of　the　Senate；　for　only　one　Democrat　took　any　part　in　it。　Senator　Edmunds　was　the　sole　spokesman　on　his　side；　but　he　fought　hard　against　defeat　and　delivered　several　elaborate　arguments　of　the　〃check　and　balance〃　type。　When　the　final　vote　took　place；　only　three　Republicans　actually　voted　for　the　repealing　bill；　but　there　were　absentees　whose　votes　would　have　been　cast　the　same　way　had　they　been　needed　to　pass　the　bill。*

*　The　bill　was　passed　by　thirty　yeas　and　twenty…two　nays；　and　among　the　nays　were　several　Senators　who　while　members　of　the　House　had　voted　for　repeal。　The　repeal　bill　passed　the　House　by　a　vote　of　172　to　67；　and　became　law　on　March　3；　1887


President　Cleveland　had　achieved　a　brilliant　victory。　In　the　joust　between　him　and　Edmunds；　in　lists　of　his　adversary's　own　contriving；　he　had　held　victoriously　to　his　course　while　his　opponent　had　been　unhorsed。　The　granite　composure　of　Senator　Edmunds'　habitual　mien　did　not　permit　any　sign　of　disturbance　to　break　through；　but　his　position　in　the　Senate　was　never　again　what　it　had　been；　and　eventually　he　resigned　his　seat　before　the　expiration　of　his　term。　He　retired　from　public　life　in　1891；　at　the　age　of　sixty…three。

From　the　standpoint　of　the　public　welfare；　it　is　to　be　noted　that　the　issue　turned　on　the　maintenance　of　privilege　rather　than　on　the　discharge　of　responsibility。　President　Cleveland　contended　that　he　was　not　responsible　to　the　Senate　but　to　the　people　for　the　way　in　which　he　exercised　his　trusteeship。　But　the　phrase　〃the　people〃　is　an　abstraction　which　has　no　force　save　as　it　receives　concrete　form　in　appropriate　institutions。　It　is　the　essential　characteristic　of　a　sound　constitutional　system　that　it　supplies　such　institutions；　so　as　to　put　executive　authority　on　its　good　behavior　by　steady　pressure　of　responsibility　through　full　publicity　and　detailed　criticism。　This　result；　the　Senate　fails　to　secure　because　it　keeps　trying　to　invade　executive　authority；　and　to　seize　the　appointing　power　instead　of　seeking　to　enforce　executive　responsibility。　This　point　was　forcibly　put　by　〃The　Nation〃　when　it　said：　〃There　is　only　one　way　of　securing　the　presentation　to　the　Senate　of　all　the　papers　and　documents　which　influence　the　President　in　making　either　removals　or　appointments；　and　that　is　a　simple　way；　and　one　wholly　within　the　reach　of　the　Senators。　They　have　only　to　alter　their　rules；　and　make　executive　sessions　as　public　as　legislative　sessions；　in　order　to　drive　the　President　not　only　into　making　no　nominations　for　which　he　cannot　give　creditable　reasons；　but　into　furnishing　every　creditable　reason　for　the　nomination　which　he　may　have　in　his　possession。〃*

*　〃The　Nation；〃　March　11；　1888。


During　the　struggle；　an　effort　was　made　to　bring　about　this　very　reform；　under　the　lead　of　a　Republican　Senator；　Orville　H。　Platt　of　Connecticut。　On　April　13；1886；　he　delivered　a　carefully　prepared　speech；　based　upon　much　research；　in　which　he　showed　that　the　rule　of　secrecy　in　executive　sessions　could　not　claim　the　sanction　of　the　founders　of　the　government。　It　is　true　that　the　Senate　originally　sat　with　closed　doors　for　all　sorts　of　business；　but　it　discontinued　the　practice　after　a　few　years。　It　was　not　until　1800；　six　years　after　the　practice　of　public　sessions　had　been　adopted；　that　any　rule　of　secrecy　was　applied　to　business　transacted　in　executive　sessions。　Senator　Platt's　motion　to　repeal　this　rule　met　with　determined　opposition　on　both　sides　of　the　chamber；　coupled　with　an　indisposition　to　discuss　the　matter。　When　it　came　up　for　consideration　on　the　15th　of　December；　Senator　Hoar　moved　to　lay　it　on　the　table；　which　was　done　by　a　vote　of　thirty…three　to　twenty…one。　Such　prominent　Democratic　leaders　as　Gorman　of　Maryland　and　Vest　of　Missouri　voted　with　Republican　leaders　like　Evarts；　Edmunds；　Allison；　and　Harrison；　in　favor　of　Hoar's　motion；　while　Hoar's　own　colleague；　Senator　Dawes；　together　with　such　eminent　Republicans　as　Frye　of　Maine；　Hawley　of　Connecticut；　and　Sherman　of　Ohio　voted　with　Platt。　Thus；　any　party　responsibility　for　the　result　was　successfully　avoided；　and　an　issue　of　great　constitutional　importance　was　laid　away　without　any　apparent　stir　of　popular　sentiment。



CHAPTER　V。　PARTY　POLICY　IN　CONGRESS

While　President　Cleveland　was　successfully　asserting　his　executive　authority；　the　House　of　Representatives；　too；　was　trying　to　assert　its　authority；　but　its　choice　of　means　was　such　that　it　was　badly　beaten　and　was　reduced　to　a　state　of　humble　subordination　from　which　it　has　never　emerged。　Its　traditional　procedure　was　arranged　on　the　theory　that　Congress　ought　to　propose　as　well　as　to　enact　legislation；　and　to　receive　recommendations　from　all　quarters　without　preference　or　discrimination。　Although　the　Constitution　makes　it　the　right　and　duty　of　the　President　to　〃recommend　to　their　consideration　such　measures　as　he　shall　judge　necessary　and　expedient；〃　measures　proposed　by　the　Administration　stand　on　the　same　footing　under　the　rules　as　those　proposed　by　the　humblest　citizen　of　the　United　States。　In　both　cases；　they　are　allowed　to　reach　Congress　only　in　the　form　of　a　bill　or　resolution　introduced　by　a　member　of　Congress；　and　they　go　on　the　files　without　any　distinction　as　to　rank　and　position　except　such　as　pertains　to　them　from　the　time　and　order　in　which　they　are　introduced。　Under　the　rules；　all　measures　are　distributed　among　numerous　committees；　each　having　charge　of　a　particular　class；　with　power　to　report　favorably　or　adversely。　Each　committee　is　constituted　as　a　section　of　the　whole　House；　with　a　distribution　of　party　representation　corresponding　to　that　which　exists　in　the　House。

Viewed　as　an　ideal　polity；　the　scheme　has　attractive　features。　In　practice；　howeve