Neither party has, as a party, anything definite to say on these issues; neither party has any clean-cut principles, any distinctive tenets.Both have traditions.Both claim to have tendencies.Both certainly have war cries, organizations, interests, enlisted in their support.But those interests are in the main the interests of getting or keeping the patronage of the government.Tenets and policies, points of political doctrine and points of political practice have all but vanished.They have not been thrown away, but have been stripped away by time and the progress of events, fulfilling some policies, blotting out others.All has been lost, except office or the hope of it."That such a situation could actually exist in the face of public disapproval is a demonstration of the defects of Congress as an organ of national representation.Normally, a representative assembly is a school of statesmanship which is drawn upon for filling the great posts of administration.Not only is this the case under the parliamentary system in vogue in England, but it is equally the case in Switzerland whose constitution agrees with that of the United States in forbidding members of Congress to hold executive office.But somehow the American Congress fails to produce capable statesmen.It attracts politicians who display affability, shrewdness, dexterity, and eloquence, but who are lacking in discernment of public needs and in ability to provide for them, so that power and opportunity are often associated with gross political incompetency.* The solutions of the great political problems of the United States are accomplished by transferring to Washington men like Hayes and Cleveland whose political experience has been gained in other fields.
* Of this regrettable fact the whole history of emancipation is a monument.The contrast between the social consequences of emancipation in the West Indies, as guided by British statesmanship, under conditions of meager industrial opportunity, and the social consequences of emancipation in the United States, affords an instructive example of the complicated evils which a nation may experience through the sheer incapacity of its government.
The system of congressional government was subjected to some scrutiny in 1880-81 through the efforts of Senator George H.
Pendleton of Ohio, an old statesman who had returned to public life after long absence.He had been prominent in the Democratic party before the war and in 1864 he was the party candidate for Vice-President.In 1868 he was the leading candidate for the presidential nomination on a number of ballots, but he was defeated.In 1869 he was a candidate for Governor of Ohio but was defeated; he then retired from public life until 1879 when he was elected to the United States Senate.As a member of that body, he devoted himself to the betterment of political conditions.His efforts in this direction were facilitated not only by his wide political experience but also by the tact and urbanity of his manners, which had gained for him in Ohio politics the nickname of "Gentleman George."In agreement with opinions long previously expressed in Story's "Commentaries," Senator Pendleton attributed the inefficiency of national government to the sharp separation of Congress from the Administration--a separation not required by the Constitution but made by Congress itself and subject to change at its discretion.
He proposed to admit the heads of executive departments to participation in the proceedings of Congress."This system," said he, "will require the selection of the strongest men to be heads of departments, and will require them to be well equipped with the knowledge of their offices.It will also require the strongest men to be the leaders of Congress and participate in the debate.It will bring those strong men in contact, perhaps into conflict, to advance the public weal and thus stimulate their abilities and their efforts, and will thus assuredly result to the good of the country."* The report--signed by such party leaders as Allison, Blaine, and Ingalls among the Republicans, and by Pendleton and Voorhees among the Democrats--reviewed the history of relations between the executive and legislative branches and closed with the expression of the unanimous belief of the committee that the adoption of the measure "will be the first step towards a sound civil service reform, which will secure a larger wisdom in the adoption of policies, and a better system in their execution."* "Senate Report," No.837, 46th Congress, 3d session, February 4, 1881.
No action was taken on this proposal, notwithstanding the favor with which it was regarded by many close students of the political institutions of the country.Public opinion, preoccupied with more specific issues, seemed indifferent to a reform that aimed simply at general improvement in governmental machinery.The legislative calendars are always so heaped with projects that to reach and act upon any particular measure is impossible, except when there is brought to bear such energetic pressure as to produce special arrangements for the purpose, and in this case no such pressure was developed.A companion measure for civil service reform which was proposed by Senator Pendleton long remained in a worse situation, for it was not merely left under the congressional midden heap but was deliberately buried by politicians who were determined that it should never emerge.
That it did emerge is due to a tragedy which aroused public opinion to an extent that intimidated Congress.
