Congress aggregated over 34,000. It is a physical impossibility to give them consideration.

An instructive analysis of the situation was made by Mr. Martin E. Olmsted, in a speech delivered in the House on January 7, 1909.1 He remarked :

"We have upon this floor 391 members and enough delegates to make in round numbers 400. Knock off a few thousand bills, and for convenience call it 30,000. If we allow an average of one minute for each of the 400 members to debate each of the 30,000 bills, that would allow for debate alone 12,000,000 minutes, or 200,000 hours, equal to 20,000 days of 10 hours each. Allow 300 working days to the year, and we have 663 years as the requisite time for debate of the pending business. The reading of the bills, roll-calls, etc., would carry us beyond threescore and ten, the alloted life of man. But the life of a Congress is only two years."

It is therefore a physical impossibility for the House to get through its business by proceeding in regular order through the calendars. But a complex system of rules has been evolved by which the mass may be winnowed. Bills for raising revenue, general appropriation bills, and bills for the improvement of rivers and harbors are given precedence. The presentation of a report from a committee of conference is always in order. A report from the Committee on Rules is always in order, and no dilatory motion may be entertained until it is disposed of. By means of such privileged motions, interests controlling the Committee on Rules can always bring up for consideration any measure they deem of sufficient importance. The rules also provide means for privileging the consideration of other bills, provided a sufficient number of members combine for the purpose. On the first and

1 Congressional Record, Vol. 43, No. 17, p. 611 et seq.

third Mondays of the month any bill may be taken up and passed out of its regular order, whether or not it has been considered by a committee, if the rules be suspended by a vote of two thirds of the members voting, in which case debate is limited to 40 minutes. By an amendment to the House rules, adopted in March, 1909, members may have bills that have been favorably reported placed on a special calendar, known as the "Calendar of Unanimous Consent," and on days when it shall be in order to suspend the rules, this calendar is to be taken up immediately after the approval of the Journal. A single objection will not only prevent consideration of the bill, but will also cause it to be stricken from this calendar.

The circumstances are such that the only available method of getting bills through is for members to help one another, or, to use the common term, by log-rolling. The term is a metaphor drawn from pioneer life. It refers to the custom by which all the neighbors lent a hand to roll the logs when a man was putting up a cabin. Log-rolling is a practice characteristic of all American legislative bodies. It is an ancient practice. By means of it Congress and our state legislatures hustle through a vast quantity of business. This practice has been much censured. It undoubtedly produces crude and excessive legislation. The output is not the expression of the knowledge and judgment of members, but of their mutual tolerance and indulgence. Often the mass of the members may not really know what is going on. In state legislatures it is a common practice for recording clerks to enter the names of members as voting for measures, unless ex

pressly notified to the contrary. Nevertheless, under the conditions which exist in American legislative bodies, log-rolling is the only way in which the ordinary member may hope to obtain consideration for any measure he may introduce.

It is easy to see how log-rolling enlarges senatorial opportunity. The members of the Senate, being fewer in number, have more individual time, and under the elastic rules of the Senate they have almost unlimited powers of individual action. Hence they are much stronger in rolling logs than the members of the House, and these habitually turn to them for assistance. In padding appropriation bills senators are operating for members of the House as well as for themselves. They are in a position to punish opponents as well as reward adherents. Hence in a conflict they can count upon strong support in the House. Therefore, while the House always applauds declarations of its constitutional rights, it always surrenders them in practice.1 Immediately after the speech of Mr. Burton, cited in the preceding lecture, he was asked by a member how he proposed to establish budget control by the House. The following colloquy then took place :

"Mr. BURTON of Ohio. I think the more appropriate way is for the House to insist on its prerogatives, and especially that no member of the House, when he is disappointed about an appropriation, shall go over to the Senate and have it tacked on there. That is one of the beginnings of extravagance.

"Mr. CLARK of Missouri. That will be done when human nature has been entirely remodeled." 2

1 The right of the Senate to originate special appropriation bills has been explicitly conceded by the House. See House Reports, No. 147, 46th Congress, 3d Session.

2 Congressional Record, May 25, 1908, p. 7216.

This reveals the secret of House subserviency. It is an outcome of the log-rolling system of legislation, and cannot be cured while that system endures.

With the transfer to the Senate of budget control goes its correlated power, - legislative control. By its ability to manipulate the "pork-barrel" bills, the Senate can put great pressure on the House. This means of controlling the actions of the House was clearly exposed in the struggle over the Emergency Currency bill in May, 1908. The state of sentiment in the House was strongly adverse to the bill, as shaped by the Senate. In this situation Mr. Richard Bartholdt of Missouri, Chairman of the Public Buildings Committee, gave out for publication the following announcement:

"I served notice on the Speaker to-day that I would not call up the conference report on the Public Buildings bill until a satisfactory currency bill has been passed. The conferees on this bill have reached a final agreement, and their report has been adopted by the Senate. I told the Speaker that my constituents, especially Republicans, are urging on me with much vigor the absolute necessity of enacting at this session the emergency currency measure, and that I agreed with them, and I believe, with a majority of the thinking people of the country, that such legislation is necessary to restore confidence and guard against recurrence of panic conditions.

"The situation is this: the country is looking to the Republican party to pass an emergency currency bill. Congress has been in session six months, and has failed to agree on a currency measure. If we adjourn without doing anything more than creating a currency commission, it will be up to the Republican party to make embarrassing excuses if panic conditions recur this fall. Furthermore, a Presidential campaign approaches.

"I have the report of the conference on the Public Buildings bill in my pocket. I am going to keep it there until a satisfactory

currency bill is passed. The House and Senate conferees on currency are at the threshold of a tentative compromise. There is no reason why we should not enact their agreement into law. I, for one, am willing to stay here all summer, if it is necessary, to 'starve out' any recalcitrant group or faction." 1

Subsequently, in debate in the House, Mr. Bartholdt justified his action on the ground that it was necessary in order to keep a quorum of members in attendance. He said: "At least a hundred members of this House have come to me during the last ten days and stated that if it was not for this Public Buildings bill they would have to go home, because other important business was hardly to be expected." Hence he held back the Conference Committee report until the Emergency Currency bill was passed. An agreement between the Senate and House conferees on the Public Buildings bill was reached on May 23. It was not presented to the House until May 30. A schedule of the changes acceded to by the House conferees occupies seven columns of the Congressional Record. In presenting the report, Chairman Bartholdt explained: "The House yielded to the individual demands of senators which were embodied as Senate amendments for building facilities in their respective states." 2 This admission of subserviency provoked no comment. Only four nays were recorded in opposition to the adoption of the report.

It therefore appears that the final outcome of the methods employed by the House is the destruction not only of its budget control, but also of its legislative

1 The transaction is described in Congressional Record, May 30, 1908, pp. 7629, 7690 et seq.

2 Congressional Record, May 30, 1908, p. 7689.