Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:38:14.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Congressional Caucus of Today

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Wilder H. Haines
Wilder H. Haines
Affiliation:
Cambridge, Mass.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The convening of the 64th congress makes timely a brief discussion of the organization and operation of the Democratic caucus system in the house of representatives during the last two congresses; since the Democratic party remains in control of the present congress, it is to be presumed that the past caucus system will be continued in substantially the same form.

The caucus system used in the 62d and 63d congresses was adopted by the Democrats, upon their accession to control of the house in 1910, to replace Cannonism, which had become of ill repute among the voters, and which had been partly over-thrown at the preceding session. The unwieldy size of the house, as well as the exigencies of party, required some extra-legal machinery to coördinate and direct the action of the members; the substitute chosen by the Democratic leaders was an adaptation of the senate caucus, formerly known as Aldrichism. The essence of Cannonism had been the control of the house by the speaker through his power of appointment of committees and his domination of the rules committee, backed by the power of the majority party caucus; the essence of the new system is direct control of legislative action by the caucus itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , November 1915 , pp. 696 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1915

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lawmaking in America, by Lynn Haines, p. 10.

2 E.g. The resolution offered by Underwood of Alabama, floorleader: “Re solved, That the Democratic members of the various committees of the house are directed not to report to the house during the first session of the 62d congress, unless hereafter directed by this caucus, any legislation except with reference to the following matters.” (Caucus Journal, April 1, 1911.)

N.B. It is interesting to note that the average attendance at the caucus of the 63d congress for consideration of important matters was 65 per cent of the membership of the caucus; that therefore 132 votes (out of 291 members) was the normal two-thirds majority for controlling party policies; and that 16 southern states had exactly 132 representatives.

3 E.g., Resolution by Underwood (amended): “Be it resolved, by the Democratic caucus that we indorse the bill presented by the ways and means committee ‥‥ and pledge ourselves to support said bills in the house ‥‥ with our votes, and to vote against all amendments, except formal committee amendments, to said bills and motions to recommit, changing their text from the language agreed upon in this caucus.” (Cauous Journal, April 11, 1911.)

4 National Voters' League, Bulletin No. 1.

5 Lawmaking in America, pp. 22–26.

6 Lawmaking in America, p. 27.

7 Legislating with a Dark Lantern (article), by Lynn Haines.

8 Congressional Government, by Wilson, Woodrow, p. 326.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., p. 98.

10 National Voters' League, Bulletin No. 5.

11 Democratic Caucus Rules, Nos. 10, 11 (adopted Jan. 6, 1912).