and one member of the legislative committee having jurisdiction of the legislation affected by the bill.”

Evidence of the fact that this was not a question of principle but one of power is found in the approval of Mr. Fitzgerald's proposal by Mr. Cannon of Illinois, who, perhaps more fully than any other man now living, stands for the autocracy exercised through the committee system. In urging a return to a single appropriation committee, such as we had from 1865 down to the time of the Cleveland administration when, in a fight between Mr. Randall and Mr. Morrison, its powers were dissipated among a number of departmental committees-in urging this as a means of preventing extravagance and waste, both Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Cannon seem to overlook the fact that this was the outstanding period of our history during which patronage, spoils, and pork-barrel politics ran rampant; and that the history of congressional appropriations during this period is one which caused every disinterested patriotic American to blush for shame. If there are good reasons for a return to the methods and practices under which the public treasury was made the football of "party" politics they must be found in the operation of principles of representative government not then invoked, for there can be no doubt of the shamelessness with which the treasury was legally looted, and patronage and special privileges were distributed to the faithful.

Mr. Sherley, ranking majority member of Mr. Fitzgerald's committee, who later succeeded him as chairman, supported the proposal which had such worthy parentage and sponsorship, but broadened it to include the preparation and advocacy of revenue bills as well so that Congress might have brought before it a well-considered financial plan in the form of a "legislative budget." His proposal was a modification of the legislative practice carry

ing it still farther back, before 1865

-the avowed purpose of the modification being to adapt it to the much more highly elaborated standing-committee system. He introduced the following:

"Resolved, That the following rule be added to the rules of the House, and to be known as section 6 of Rule X:

"6. There shall be a committee on estimates and expenditures, whose personnel shall consist of the following members: the chairmen and three ranking majority members, and the ranking minority member of the Committees on Ways and Means and Appropriations, and the chairmen and ranking minority member of the committees on Rules, Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, Military Affairs, Naval Affairs, Post Offices and Post Roads, Rivers and Harbors, and Indian Affairs. The chairman of said committee shall be selected by the members thereof. Said committee shall, as soon after the convening of each regular session of Congress as may be, report to the House the amount of revenue probably available for appropriation for the next fiscal year, and apportion the amount to the several appropriation bills within the jurisdiction of the committees empowered by the rules and practice of the House to report appropriations from the Treasury. This report, or supplementary reports to meet the exigencies of the public service, may be made on any legislative day after the reading of the Journal, and when agreed to by the House shall limit the totals of the appropriations reported by the several committees."

Mr. Sherley's Proposal

While the change in rules proposed by Mr. Sherley is better designed to bring order out of the chaos that has existed in American financial legislation for a century, and better adapted for a businesslike handling of finance

than is the proposal of Mr. Fitzgerald, it would not reach any of the fundamental defects which have been so frequently described: it would not bring before Congress at the beginning of the session, as the chief business to be transacted, a plan or program of service to be financed; but in the nature of things it would delay finance bills till near the close of the session; it would not leave Congress free to exercise its most important function of inquest and criticism; it still assumes that leaders of Congress, with the aid of their respective committees, should prepare and submit proposals for administration and finance, thereby putting responsibility where it stands in the way of open, free discussion. It did not provide for having the estimates prepared and submitted by responsible executive heads - but made them simply ministerial agents to collect information for the committees; it did not provide for giving adequate information to members and to the electorate to guide them in their voting; it did not adequately provide for accountability by requiring the heads of departments to stand up like men before Congress and the country, openly and publicly to explain and defend their acts and proposals and to meet criticism when offered. It was not a device to determine and enforce executive responsibility, but was a device to secure and enforce secret committee domination of both branches of the government. It was frankly a measure to preserve the standing-committee system. In his remarks supporting his proposal it was admitted that all inquiries would still be made and all conclusions would still be reached in secret. Speaking on the size of the committee, he said:

"This committee would consist of sixteen majority members and ten minority members. It is urged that that is too large a number, but I desire to suggest to the House that it is really two committees, because the majority members would necessarily come to their conclusions

in private, just as the majority members of the Committee on Ways and Means now do."

Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Sherley both give us the very "practical reason for urging a legislative budget as against the executive budget proposed by Mr. Taft, viz.: that members of Congress will not consent to giving up the powers which under the old system of standing-committee leadership they have come to enjoy. This was before sides had been taken in the states and opinion had come to register itself when opportunity was given to choose between irresponsible and responsible leadership. But whatever may be the effect of six years of discussion outside of Congress on the minds of individual members, it seems that they still hold to the opinions then expressed. And this view is shared by Mr. Cannon of Illinois.

Support Given by Mr. Cannon

66

Mr. Cannon not only supported Mr. Fitzgerald in his opposition to Mr. Taft. but he still continues to hold his views even in opposition to the platform policy of his "party " which declared for the executive budget in their platform on which candidates went before the people for election to Congress. In a recent article on "The National Budget " he has more fully elaborated his views:

"When we [i.e. members of Congress] create a budget commission we will keep it in Congress, and as far as possible in the House of Representatives. . . . I believe that the House of Representatives should have one committee with jurisdiction over appropriations."

In this last assertion, Mr. Cannon evidently has in mind the proposal of Mr. Fitzgerald — to return to the practice from 1865 to the first Cleveland administration, notwithstanding the fact that the public scandals of that period came near landing Mr. Tilden in the presidential chair. Mr. Cannon also seems to think well of Mr. Sherley's proposal. Discussing the desirability of keeping the lead

ership in matters of administrative policy in the hands of committee chairmen, he says:

"For the first seventy-five years of its existence the House had a budget committee - the Committee on Ways and Means. That committee reported both revenue bills and appropriation bills."

The implication is that such an organization and procedure for leadership and accountability would solve our difficulties. But he makes no mention of the fact that during all this seventy-five years when "the House had a budget committee," the nation never had a budget; nor is mention made of the fact that it was during this period that the whole "American" system of government-bychairmen-of-irresponsible-standing-committees, and the "American" system of patronage and spoils became firmly rooted in a soil made fertile by democratic ideals — a soil in which the Constitution had been planted in the hope that it would give to the people a fruitage in the form of responsible government.

Constitutional Objections Urged to Executive Budget

In the controversy over a national budget the defenders of the system of "government by standing-committees" are for some form of "legislative budget " or by second choice for a "commission budget "; they have never been for an "executive budget " procedure which squarely recognizes the right and the need of the executive (as the one responsible to the people for the manner in which the public business is done) to stand up before the representatives of the people who control the purse, and give an account of executive stewardship. They are squarely against giving to the executive a chance to stand up before the appropriating body to explain and defend requests; and they are just as squarely against giving to the people a chance to take sides with leaders for and