Anomalies in American Politics
[During August and September the American Notes which have previously appeared on this page are being replaced by a series of articles by our American Correspondent, designed to form a back- ground against which future notes may be read. They deal with various broad aspects of American life, and outline the general situation in each.—En. Spectator.] DURING the last Presidential campaign, despite a specific guarantee in the Federal Constitution of absolute freedom
of religion, the religion of a candidate became one of the major issues. The Constitution expressly provides that "no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That is the letter and the spirit of the Constitution : the last Presidential campaign illustrated, however, that there are anomalies in the actual working of American institutions.
Religion, as organized in some of the Protestant Churches, has undoubtedly played its part on the political stage in recent times. Beyond all doubt the purpose of the framers of the Constitution in laying down that "Con- gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" was strictly to keep separate Church and State. In a strict legal sense they do remain separate, but the activities of such leaders as Bishop Cannon Junior, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and of such bodies as the Methodist Board of Tem- perance, Prohibition and Public Morals, and indeed Pro- hibition itself, testify to the efforts of churches as such to exert their influence in shaping party policy.
The most fundamental anomaly in American politics is the very method by which the President himself is elected. The Constitution stipulates that the people in the various States shall vote for electors—equal in number to the com- bined representation of the respective States in the House and Senate—and that then their chosen electors shall elect the President and Vice-President. The original theory was that the electors would exercise their independent judgment. It has worked out, in practice, however, that the electors are pledged in advance to vote for a particular candidate, so that, though this voting for President is still by States— and a President may easily be chosen by a minority of the popular vote—no elector would dare vote contrary to the expectations of the voters who cast their ballots for him.
Another glaring anomaly which goes deep is that whereby the negro, more particularly in the South, is still, in practice, sometimes denied the equal privileges of citizenship which the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to assure him. The strength of feeling in this matter was evidenced anew by the storm which broke—and is still raging—when Mrs. Hoover, in inviting wives of all members of Congress, also invited Mrs. Oscar De Priest, wife of the one coloured member of Congress, to tea at the White House.
The first article of the Constitution provides for reappor- tionment of representation in Congress every ten years, on the basis of population as ascertained by census. For the first time in American history this article has been ignored, no apportionment Act having been passed since August 8, 1911, notwithstanding the census of 1920, until, under the pressure of President Hoover's desire for law enforcement, a reapportionment Act was put through this year.
Representation on the basis of population worked quite smoothly up to 1911, since until that year, as population grew, the number of seats in the House were increased proportionately. But in 1911 it was decided that with 435 members the House was as large as it conveniently could or should be, and that henceforth the number of members should be limited to 485, irrespective of increases in popula- tion. With 435 representatives to be reapportioned among a population which in some States had grown faster than in others, it was clear that the slow-growing States would have to lose representatives while other States gained them. There came the rub.
Since Senators are apportioned, not on the basis of popula- tion, but two to each State, the unrepresentative nature of the Senate is obvious. Here it is not the less populous, slower-growing States which discover an anomaly, but the larger and more rapidly growing industrial States. The argument is that it is anomalous that New York State, for instance, with a population of 11,628,806 and contributing. in 1928, 8753,185,023 to Federal revenue, should have only the same representation in the Senate as, say, Nevada, with a population of 77,407 and a contribution to Federal revenue of only $802,849. Representation in the Senate by States, however, was part of the original bargain whereby the States came into the Federal Union, and it is regarded as an essential safeguard of State rights.
In one respect this anomaly—if it is an anomaly—extends also to representation in the House, for each State, no matter how small its population, must have at least one repre- sentative in addition to two Senators. Nevada in fact has, although its population is less than one per cent. of that of New York City alone. Constitutionally, then, a State might be entirely denuded of population, except that presumably three good men and true must loyally remain to represent it in Congress.
Many anomalies arise in the operation of the Legislative machine. The Speaker, originally intended to be a purely non-partisan president of the House, has to-day immense influence as a party leader, not only in the arrangement of the order of business but through his power of appointing committees in the framing of legislation. To the influence of Speaker Nicholas Longworth, one of the oldest members in point of service in the House, indeed, President Hoover owes much of the skilful piloting of business and party discipline of members which marked the first term of his relations at least with the House of Representatives.
Other factors contributing to despatch of business in the House are the rules limiting speeches to one hour on any one subject. This made it possible for a measure such as the Tariff Bill, for example, to be pushed through as a whole instead of being debated in its several parts. In contra- distinction, the Senate, in debate, is one of the freest Par- liamentary bodies in the world. Barring adjournment o; a two-thirds vote of the whole Senate—in practice difficult to obtain—there is nothing to prevent a Senator from talking on any subject under the sun, no matter what the specific subject of debate, and for as long as his physical endurance lasts. Hence the filibuster by which minorities—sometimes of a single man—have talked many measures out of existence by the simple device of preventing a vote being taken on them in time for Presidential signature before the Senate adjourned at the end of a term. It was this situation against which Mr. Dawes protested so strongly when he was Vice- President.
Another anomaly much discussed at present is the "lame duck" session. Within a week of the General Election, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald became Prime Minister and had formed his Cabinet. Twenty-six days later the new Par- liament was sitting. In the United States a President and Congressmen are elected in November, but neither the new President nor the new House begins to function until the following March. Until then the outgoing President and the House, including members who may have been repudiated at the polls—the "lame ducks "—continue in office. In any event, the short "lame duck" session from December to March is notoriously unsatisfactory. In point of fact, a newly-elected House, unless—as this year—a special session is called, is not normally in session until thirteen months after its election, when it sits from December usually to May or June. As the next November approaches, the thoughts of members turn again to the biennial election, and after that members return again in December, elected or repudiated, to another "lame duck" session of three months. A change by which a newly-elected House and President would come into action in the January following election is advocated, but the proposal so far has been unable to overcome opposition.
A constitutional amendment would be necessary to give effect to this change, and that is always an extremely cum- bersome road toward achievement. Indeed, in spite of these and other anomalies, the machine as a whole seems to work uncommonly well, so much so that the average citizen usually resents suggestions of fundamental change in
Previous page
