The duties of Speaker were arduous, varied, and delicate. Under the law, rules, and practice of the House he had control of the Hall of the House, and of the assignment of committee rooms; signed orders for the monthly pay of each member, and the pay of employees; approved bonds of officers; appointed and removed stenographers; examined and approved the daily journal of the proceedings of the House before being read; received and submitted messages from the President and heads of departments; appointed three regents to the Smithsonian Institution, and three members annually as visitors to the Military Academy, and a like number to the Naval Academy, and performed many other duties cast upon him, besides appointing all the committees of the House. The Speaker is naturally the person to whom members, employees, and others having business with the House flock for advice, assistance, and with their real or imaginary grievances. An extensive correspondence and social duties demand much of the Speaker's time. All this, independent of his real duties as presiding officer of the House, in performing what is expected, without time for deliberation, to decide correctly all parliamentary questions and inquiries. And he is obliged, in addition, to discharge the ordinary duties of a member for his district and constituents. The members from all parts of the Union have diverse and often conflicting interests to press upon the attention of the House, and the jealousy of members in matters of precedence or recognition by the Speaker renders his duties severely trying. It constantly occurred that several members with equal rights, urging matters of equal merit, were dependent on the recognition of the Speaker in a "morning hour," when not more than one or two of them at most could, for want of time, be recognized. The Speaker has to be invidious, relying on the future to even matters up. The recognition of a member by the Speaker is final, and from which there is no appeal. Members and often personal friends not infrequently feel aggrieved at the Speaker, for a time at least. All this regardless of political party lines. It is the Speaker's duty to equally divide recognition on party sides, and this duty, from the member's standpoint, is often a ground of complaint.
The first duty of the Speaker, ordinarily, after the House is organized and before it can proceed regularly to business, is to appoint the standing committees.
Chairmanships of committees and appointments on leading ones are much sought after, and members appeal to the Speaker on all kinds of grounds to give them the coveted places. Personal and party friendship is pressed upon him to induce favorable action. The same place is often sought by a number of members. Experience in congressional service, regardless of the member's prior duties, pursuit, or occupation, is generally urged as a reason for making a desired appointment. Some construct a geographical reason for a particular selection. Out of all this and more, the Speaker, with little or no acquaintance with a large number of the members, does the best he can. A few always are disappointed, and, necessarily under the circumstances, some mistakes are made, but generally those who make the loudest complaint are the weak, vain, and inefficient members who hope to be made great in the eyes of their constituents by being named on one or more important committees by the Speaker.
Some who seek and obtain committee appointments of their own choice soon find they are not what they had expected, and they also join the clamor against the Speaker. There are, however, only a small number out of the whole who are unreasonable or dissatisfied. This small number, by their wailing, give the appearance of a general discontent. Complaint was made by the disappointed that I gave preference on committees to personal and party friends who supported me for Speaker. I always believed in rewarding my friends.
I, however, appointed Hon. Thomas B. Reed (since Speaker), Hon. Frank Hiscock, Hon. J. C. Burrows (all competitors for Speaker), Chairmen, respectively, of the Committees on the Judiciary, Appropriations, and Territories. Hon. William D. Kelley was made Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. He was the acknowledged leading advocate of a high protective tariff to which the Republican party was then pledged, though the party was then honeycombed with free-traders, some of whom edited leading newspapers. Some of the latter in New York, Chicago, and Cincinnati, took occasion to assail me for appointing Mr. Kelley, and to give weight to their unjust attacks made many false statements as to the organization of other committees.(15) In this they were inspired by Mr. Blaine, and a very few others outside of Congress, who imagined their dictations should have been regarded, or who were otherwise disappointed in not being able to say who should be Speaker. The Speaker could not go into the newspapers and contradict these and like malicious stories, and hence some of them are still ignorantly repeated.(16)
After fuller acquaintance with the members, it became obvious that in assigning them to committee work I had overrated some and underrated others, but a better working Congress never met. Its work abundantly proves this, not only in amount of work done, but in the importance and character of the legislation, and its freedom from all that was corrupt or vicious. I cannot recall that even the weak and vicious slanderers or disappointed lobbyists ever risked charging me while I was Speaker or during my eight years in Congress with favoring any corrupt measure pending in Congress. Polygamy, notwithstanding it had maintained itself in the United States for fifty years, and was then more firmly established in Utah than at any time before, was given a blow, under which it has since about disappeared. The first three-per-cent. funding bill was passed by this Congress. Pauper immigration was prohibited, and immigrants were required to be protected on their way across the sea; national bank charters were extended, letter postage was reduced to two cents, and many public acts wisely regulating the Indian and land policy of the government were passed. Liberal pension laws were enacted; internal-revenue taxes were largely reduced, and there was a general revision (March 3, 1883) of the tariff laws. The Civil Service Act was also passed in this Congress.
More bills were introduced for consideration in the Forty-seventh than came before Congress in the first fifty years of its existence.
In discharging the duties of Speaker I had no strong parliamentary leader of my party on the floor to aid me, and I had had but little experience as a presiding officer. Of the opposite party were Mr. Randall, who had been Speaker of the three preceding Congresses; Mr. Cox of New York, the pugnacious, who had acted as Speaker for a time in the Forty-third; Mr. Carlisle (my successor as Speaker), and Mr. Knott of Kentucky, and others who laid just claim to much parliamentary learning. The House was hardly Republican; and in my own party were disappointed aspirants who often thought they saw opportunities to gain a little cheap applause.(17) Notwithstanding this situation, no parliamentary decision of mine was overruled by the House, though many appeals were taken, and more than the usual number of important questions were raised by members and decided by me. The most memorable of the decisions was the one which put an end to dilatory motions to prevent the House from making or amending its rules of procedure. The occasion of this holding arose on the consideration of a report of the Committee on Rules whereby it was proposed to so amend the rules as to prevent filibustering and dilatory motions in the consideration of contested election cases. It may be observed that for the first time in the history of Congress, dilatory methods were resorted to, to prevent the consideration of election cases. I was then ready to hold (and so stated) that dilatory motions were not in order to prevent the consideration of such cases, as their disposition affected the organization of the House for business; and I was also prepared to count a quorum when a quorum of members was present not voting, but these questions did not arise, and it was then understood that leading Republicans (Mr. Reed of Maine among the number (18)) did not agree with my views on these two points. A point of order was made against a dilatory motion, which was debated at much length, and with some heat, by the ablest parliamentarians of all parties in the House. My opinion on the question made is quoted from the Record of May 29, 1882.
"Mr. Reed, as a privileged question, called up the report of the Committee on Rules made on Saturday last; when Mr. Randall raised the question of consideration; pending which, Mr. Kenna moved that the House adjourn; pending which Mr. Blackburn moved that when the House adjourn it be to meet on Wednesday next; and the question being put thereon, it was decided in the negative.
* * * * *