D URING all of the historic centuries each nation had a fixed time for the beginning of the year, but there was no general agreement as to date until a comparatively recent period. With the Chinese and most of the Indian races it began on the first new moon in the month of March; with the Persians in June; while with the Egyptians it began early in autumn, the day of the appearance of the dog-star. The Jews had a sacred and civil year with varying dates for special days, a custom followed by the Romans. The Greeks began their year with the vernal equinox, a selection which met the approval of the early Christians. The Anglo-Saxons regarded Christmas as the appropriate date, making that day a double festival. The Romans offered their sacrifices to Janus on their appointed New Year's Day under instructions that words, deeds, and even thoughts should be pure and worthy, since these were auspicious or ominous for the entire year. Besides the feasts and sacrifices, a beginning had to be made in the prospective duties of the opening year: mechanics would do something at their trades; the writer would add to his book or poem; while the Consul, though chosen long before, delayed entering upon the responsibilities of his office until that day so full of promise for the future. Besides being a day of good omen and general rejoicing, the bestowal of gifts was a universal custom. With many emperors these gifts formed an important part of their income, and though the custom was modified by the Emperor Claudius rulers continued to receive the benefactions of their subjects until the practice was condemned by ecclesiastic authorities on the ground that -"gifts on New Yeare's Day were a relique of paganism and idolatry, and not onely the whole Catholicke church, but four famous Councils, have positively prohibited the solemnization of the day and sending abroad of New Yeare's gifts, under an anathema and excommunication.» In 1564 Charles IX of France issued a decree that henceforth the year should begin with the first of January. Gradually various Christian nations adopted that date as the beginning of the civil year: though for another hundred years England main tained as a legal holiday the twenty-fifth of March, letting the historic date agree with the French one. After the adoption of the New Style, the two were united and the first of January was accepted as the initial day of the year. It is certainly very gratifying to unite in the celebration of a day to which all nations attach a significance. Charles Lamb thus well expressed the common thought: "The birth of a new year is of too wide an interest to be pretermitted by king or cobbler. No one ever regarded the first of January with indifference. It is that from which all date their time and count upon what is left. It is the nativity of our common Adam.» In England the day has been always one of gift-making; tenants made presents to their landlords, loyal subjects to their sovereigns, and friends and relatives exchanged souvenirs as an expression of good will and affection. The presents most frequently given to women were pins and gloves. Pins were not invented until the fourteenth century. Previous to that time sticks, skewers, and various primitive devices had been used. For several hundred years pins were very expensive and were highly prized by women, and dealers were allowed to sell them to the general public upon the first and second days of January only. The rush to the shops was like that of a modern "bargaincounter day, court ladies, patrician dames, and those of low degree making large purchases upon those days. From this practice the allowance of money given to a wife for personal expenditures gained the name of "pin-money." Until the last fifty years it was customary in our own land as well as in Europe for young men and maidens to leave their homes at very early hours on New Year's morning, to go in bands from door to door with their merry greetings to different households. The housewife was not considered worthy of a second visit who failed to be in readiness to serve her guests with refreshments of a superior quality. This custom was evidently an attempt to continue the cheer furnished by the wassal bowl, as used by many nations, particularly the Scotch and Germans. As this vessel figured in oldentime festivities it was a massive bowl more or less elaborate in design, filled with a beverage composed of "ale, sugar, nutmeg, toast, and roasted crab-apples." Various ceremonials attended the drinking of this concoction, such as going in procession to the orchard, selecting the finest fruit tree, and sprinkling it from the wassail bowl, while boys and girls danced around it singing: "Stand fast, root; bear well, top; Pray God send us howling good crop; Full quarter sacks full." The loving cup is possibly the nearest approach to the wassail bowl of the ancients. One practice, not without its danger, was, when toasting a "ladye faire," to drink as many cups as there were letters in her name. The Druids observed New Year's Day by the distribution of boughs of mistletoe and by certain mystical ceremonies: the northern Saxons made it a grand festival with feasting, merry-making, and exchange of gifts. The latter custom became onerous to the English when the sovereigns exacted valuable presents, as did Henry III. "Good Queen Bess" was naturally thrifty, and proved that the virtue lost nothing by practice, as her wardrobe and jewel-case were always well filled by the annual contributions from her loving subjects, as all in her household, from the highest official in the realm to the chief butler, were expected to remember their royal mistress in a substantial manner. These presents may aid us in accounting for the thousand gowns in her wardrobe at the time of her death. An old historian says of Henry VIII: "Honest old Latimer, instead of presenting his king with a purse of gold, as was customary, for a New Year's gift, put into the king's hand a New Testament, with a leaf folded down conspicuously at Hebrew xiii, 4, which, on reference, will be found to have been worthy of all acceptation, though not perhaps well accepted.» Though the superstitious observances of the peasants in all lands have lessened, still in Scotland there are numerous oldentime customs strictly followed. Young men and maidens, boys and girls, all in disguise, go from house to house on the last night of the year, singing ditties in which the word "hogmany" invariably appears; it is thought to be a corruption of "hoghmen," the good genii, in opposition to the "trollmen" or evil ones. songs always call for food and drink: The "For the time will come when ye'll be dead, was When the gay band were satisfactorily served, the new year's number chalked in huge figures upon the door, as the merry-makers hastened away to gather pennies, cakes, and fruit elsewhere. These numbers were allowed to remain through the following day, that others might judge of the popularity of the inmates of each house. The weather indications are closely watched on New Year's Eve, and the signs are implicitly believed. The following records those concerning the wind: "If New Year's night wind blow south, As Twelfth Night, or Epiphany, is regarded by the Romans as the anniversary of the coming of the Three Kings to the manger of Christ, this becomes the favorite gift season. The Christmastide includes the twelve days from Christmas to Epiphany, and New Year's Day has double honor, being in the centre of the grand holiday season. In Rome, "Befana," an old hag, takes the place of the more genial Santa Claus or St. Nicholas of other lands. Her duty is to warn children of the consequences of disobedience, which is done by sending them rods tied up to represent a broom, or bags of ashes in which they find notes reproving them for bad conduct, urging reform, or threatening punishment. There is a tradition about her history, which, briefly stated, is as follows: When the three wise men, "Melchor, Gaspar, and Baltasar," went to Bethlehem with their rich gifts, « was "Three caskets they bore on their saddle bows, Three caskets of gold with golden keys; Their robes were of crimson silk with rows Of bells and pomegranates and furbelows, Their turbans like blossoming almond-trees." Befana was a housewife, who, like Martha of the Scriptural story, cumbered with much serving," and when the gorgeous cavalcade passed her humble home she was engaged in domestic duties, and, not comprehending that a lost opportunity can never be regained, she declined to be interrupted, and, without glancing at the magnificent retinue, brandished her broom, shouting, "I'll see them when they come back." After the offerings of "gold, frankincense, and myrrh" were laid at the feet of the Babe of Bethlehem, in the words of our poet, Longfellow, "Then the kings rode out of the city gate, With a clatter of hoofs in proud array; But they went not back to Herod the Great, For they knew his malice and feared his hate, And returned to their homes another way." So the poor, disappointed Befana is pictured as standing with broom in hand, looking forever for the glories that she may never see. Yearly on New Year's Eve she has a festival on the Piazza of St. Eustachio, which is a curious spectacle. The entire Piazza and the adjacent streets are filled with booths where everything pleasing to children is sold. Rows of candles, lamps, and lanterns are in all possible places, and at intervals a smoking flame tells where pans of grease are placed that sustain the floating wicks of tow. A vast crowd gathers, and each person strives to make as much noise as possible, the most sedate personage, in a short time, losing his individuality and adding in some manner to the deafening din. The mirth is wild and furious; drums, rattles, trumpets, horns, and whistles add their characteristic sounds to the medley, mingled with shrieks of laughter, the hum of voices, and the indescribable roar of an unrestrained crowd. Occasionally a group of revelers, masked and in fantastic attire, charge upon a crowd with all the ear-splitting devices known till one becomes positive that now, if never before, he knows what pandemonium means. Crazy-looking jumpingjacks, a yard high, shoot up into your face and twirl about in wild leaps, frightening children and nervous women; and hundreds of cakes swinging from poles pass before your eyes, as, borne along with the throng, you strive to take in good humor the childish and excessive gaiety. The glistening helmets of Italian soldiers are seen on every side, and while the conspicuous uniforms of the impassive gens d'armes give evidence of their presence in readiness to quell any disturbance nothing of the kind occurs; all is jollity and riotous fun, with an absence of drinking and quarreling, a simple abandonment of self to the merry-making of the night. The hilarity frequently continues until morning, when the New Year is believed to have been ushered in with the most appropriate of ceremonials. The old Knickerbocker custom of making a round of visits on New Year's Day is now little more than a tradition. But a few residents of New York remain who recall with pride the scores of calls they made in their younger days at homes where elaborate collations awaited visitors. Each Dutch home was famous for a particular form of good cheer: it might be pickled fish or boned turkey, with numerous relishes, including marvellous chocolate or perfect Mocha coffee. The narrator will not fail to mention the golden opportunities for a taste- or more-of unrivaled rum punch or egg-nog, each prepared in accordance with the regular Holland recipe. In a more simple way "schnapps and koecken" were served; the latter being cakes in the shape of an oblong panel, bearing a greeting suitable for the occasion. This hearty custom disappeared when a dozen society leaders received at one house the acquaintances who came in scores; it became a farce so far as genuine hospitality and friendly greetings were concerned. When daring youths, unknown and unheralded, dared to invade drawingrooms never voluntarily opened to them, the old-time flavor of New Year's calls was lost for ever. But the real benefits of the day remain to us: the serious thought which comes with this annual reminder of the passing years, the hearty good wishes of friends tried and true, the desire for better living and higher thinking, still belong to our New Year's Day. As the midnight bells peal out from each steeple and tower we may feel the burden of the unknown future, saying sadly with Tennyson, "There's a new foot on the floor, my friend, A new face at the door," —or, dismissing all thoughts of sadness, we may meet the incoming year with the courage and hope expressed in the later words from the same poet,- those words which as a sweet refrain to the New Year's chimes bring peace and comfort: "Ring out the old, ring in the new, SAGINAW, MICH. MERCIA ABBOTT KEITH. T HE retirement of Speaker Reed, or, as some would put it, the abdication of "Czar" Reed, whose term will undoubtedly be considered as a landmark in the evolution of the Speaker's power, will perchance justify a brief retrospect of the powers and duties of the Speaker and particularly on the innovations of the retiring officer. This subject has been much discussed when, unfortunately, personal feeling rendered it very difficult if not impossible for us to consider it from the impartial standpoint of the historian and political philosopher, which the recent retirement has made possible. In the discussion of the question before us certain facts must be borne in mind. First, that we are considering the question with reference to a democratic-republican form of government, the fundamental principle of which is that the majority Second, that in a legislative body. of any considerable size, with a large amount of business to be done, leadership is both necessary and inevitable; for in this way only can legislation be coördi nated and made consistent and efficient. Third, that the question of government is preeminently a practical one, and that theoretical and academic objections must give way to considerations of practical utility and expediency Fourth, that perfection in systems of government cannot reasonably be expected,-the best system is only relatively good. In the light of these principles, then, let us view the position and powers of our Speaker as they exist at present. The Speaker is chosen by the leading party of the House. This party represents the majority of the people of the United States, and its members are elected upon certain issues and represent certain principles and lines of political policy. The problem before them is, "How shall we give expression to these general principles and policies in particular laws?» In the solution of this problem they, in obedience to the Constitution, organize and elect a Speaker, who is responsible to the House and holds his position as presiding officer at their will. According to the rules of the House, which they may change at any time, the Speaker has had, since 1790, when the election of committees by the House was found impracticable, the power to appoint committees, and here is the foundation of the Speaker's power as a political leader. It is but natural and reasonable to expect that in the exercise of this power a majority on the committees will be chosen from among the men of ability in his own party,- men who are in sympathy with the measures favored by their party. This is precisely what he does. And as it is perfectly well known beforehand that he will so act, he is chosen with a view to his fitness for this task. But we would not be understood as claiming that he does this entirely without consultation, for as a matter of fact it is usually well understood in the caucus which chooses the Speaker who shall be chairmen of the principal committees. Furthermore, custom is very strongly in favor of retaining men on a committee who have shown eminent fitness for performing its duties. After the appointments have been made, another important power of the Speaker arises immediately from the necessity of referring the bills, as they are introduced, to one of the various committees, a power which is placed in the hands of the Speaker provided it is doubtful to which committee a bill should go. This judicial power is, however, of much less importance with reference to the great party measures than to private and local bills; for it is very well known to which committee appropriation bills, revenue bills, etc., will go. After bills have been reported to the House by the chairmen of the various committees it becomes a matter of practical importance who shall be recognized to discuss them. This power also is given to the Speaker, except in the case of revenue and appropriation bills, which are discussed in committee of the whole, when the power of recognition is exercised by the chairman of the committee of the whole. The purpose of this is to avoid delay in legislation. This power must be vested somewhere, and as yet we have found no better repository for it than the Speaker. During the progress of legislation several motions and amendments may be made, some of which are in order and some are not. The Speaker, by virtue of his position as moderator, has authority, subject to an appeal to the House, to determine, in accordance with the rules of parliamentary law, the regularity of these. This power becomes of very great importance when it is necessary to deal with obstruction, commonly called filibustering, the two more common forms of which are dilatory motions, and breaking a quorum. The first method is met by the refusal of the Speaker to put a motion which he considers is not made in good faith, but manifestly for the purposes of delay; the second by counting a quorum,- that is, by counting those present, and not voting, to make up a quorum. The exercise of the above powers were innovations introduced in the Fifty-first Congress by Speaker Reed. As they have been very severely criticised we feel justified in treating them at some length. The circumstances which called for their exercise are well known,- legislation had been paralyzed by both the above forms of filibustering until the question was, not what law could be passed, but whether or not any law could be passed unless it was unanimously favored,- in short, whether or not the majority could rule. This was a question which could not long go unanswered. Speaker Reed took the responsibility of answering it and was bitterly attacked upon the ground of invading the "rights of the minority." But the fact was that the minority had carried the protection afforded it beyond all legitimate bounds in an attempt to thwart and block the legislation of a responsible majority. If the practice of obstruction goes so far as to threaten to impede and paralyze the proceedings of the House, and the rules are not efficient to prevent it, common sense and practical business judgment would dictate that it is the right and duty of the presiding officer to use every power bestowed upon him by the rules, by practice, or by reasonable analogy, to put an immediate stop to it. Rules were certainly intended to facilitate, not to clog legislation. In addition to the practical view of the matter as a justification, Mr. Reed's action was not without precedent in other legislative bodies. In 1881, when the House of Commons had sat for forty-eight hours, all business being obstructed by the Home Rule party, Speaker Brand took matters into his own hands, refused to entertain any further motions, refused even the right of debate, and proceeded to put the question on his own authority, stating as his reasons that— -"the dignity, the credit, and the authority of the House are seriously threatened, and it is necessary that they be vindicated. Under the operation of the accustomed rules and methods of procedure the legislative powers of the House are paralyzed. A new and exceptional force is imperatively demanded.» In justification of the Speaker's power to count a quorum the following cases are in point. Henri Brisson, President of the Chamber of Deputies of France, says: "In France the President of the Chamber of Deputies has always held that he had a right to count, in order to obtain a quorum, the deputies present at the moment a ballot was taken, whether they voted or not. I consider it incontestable even when not incorporated in the rules. » M. Grévy, President of the Chamber of Deputies, says: "When it is a question of a quorum the members present on the floor should be counted whether they voted or not. In fact, a fraction of the House should not be permitted, by refusal to answer to roll-call, to paralyze all legislation.» M. Grévy exercised this right, with the approbation of the Bureau of the Chamber, not only once, but several times while he occupied the chair. M. Rouchenot, the President of the Swiss Republic, says: "The recent decision of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives conforms to Swiss procedure.» M. Leutsheere, the President of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, holds that -"every member present on the floor of the House when a ballot is taken is obliged to take part in it. In determining the number of members present all are counted, -those who vote negatively and affirmatively and those who decline to vote. The means adopted in the United States House of Representatives is therefore practised in Belgium. I do not recall that it has given rise to any adverse criticism.» The President of the Danish Lower House, the Folkething, says: "It has long been the custom for members who reply, when the roll is called, 'I do not vote,' to be counted as present and consequently to contribute to the formation of a quorum, notwithstanding their non-participation in the ballot.» |