¹ Among some of the better-known studies of the revolt are: Atkinson, Charles R., The Committee on Rules and the Overthrow of Speaker Cannon (New York: Columbia University Press, 1911)Google Scholar; Gwinn, William Rea, Uncle Joe Cannon, Archfoe of Insurgency: A History of the Rise and Fall of Cannonism (New York: Bookman Associates, 1957)Google Scholar; Hechler, Kenneth W., Insurgency: Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940), Chapter IIICrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Holt, James, Congressional Insurgents and the Party System, 1909–1916 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), Chapter 2Google Scholar. An effort to parallel the revolt against Cannon with the 1961 Rules Committee fight may be found in Jones, Charles O., “Joseph G. Cannon and Howard W. Smith: An Essay on the Limits of Leadership in the House of Representatives,” Journal of Politics, 30 (08, 1968), 617–646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Polsby, Nelson W., “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review, 62 (03, 1968), 144–168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Polsby, Nelson W., Gallaher, Miriam, and Rundquist, Barry Spencer, “The Growth of the Seniority System in the U.S. House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review, 63 (09, 1969), 787–807 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Certainly not all of the authors listed here would agree totally with my characterization of the House, but their studies provide sufficient data to enable one to gain this portrait. In addition to the Polsby articles cited above, some of the recent books and articles which have tried to assess the contemporary House within an institutionalized context are: Abram, Michael and Cooper, Joseph, “The Rise of Seniority in the House of Representatives,” Polity, 1 (Fall, 1968), 52–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davidson, Roger H., The Role of the Congressman (New York: Pegasus, 1969), esp. Chap. 2Google Scholar; Huntington, Samuel P., “Congressional Responses to the Twentieth Century,” in The Congress and America's Future, ed. Truman, David B. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965), 5–31 Google Scholar; Jones, Charles O., Every Second Year: Congressional Behavior and the Two-Year Term (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1967)Google Scholar; Jones, Charles O., The Minority Party in Congress (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1970)Google Scholar; Ripley, Randall B., Party Leaders in the House of Representatives (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1967)Google Scholar; Ripley, Randall B., Majority Party Leadership in Congress (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1969)Google Scholar; Hinckley, Barbara, Stability and Change in Congress (New York: Harper & Row, 1971)Google Scholar; Peabody, Robert L., “Party Leadership Change in the United States House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review, 61 (09, 1967), 675–693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wittmer, T. Richard, “The Aging of the House,” Political Science Quarterly, 79 (12, 1964), 526–541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the articles by Price, H. Douglas and Fiorina, Morris P., Rohde, David W., and Wissel, Peter in Congress in Change: Evolution and Reform, ed. Ornstein, Norman J. (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975), 2–57 Google Scholar.

⁴ Hinckley, , Stability and Change in Congress, p. 121 Google Scholar. She also deals with this subject in greater detail in “Congressional Leadership Selection and Support: A Comparative Analysis,” Journal of Politics, 32 (05, 1970), 268–287, esp. pp. 275–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Peabody, , “Party Leadership Change,” pp. 687–688 Google Scholar.

⁶ Peabody, Robert L., Leadership in Congress: Stability, Succession, and Change (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1976), p. 443 Google Scholar. Peabody also indicates that the implication of his earlier research that party differences were less important than status differences has been changed. He now sees the party identity factor in leadership change as “considerable” (p. 291).

⁷ The existence of party-related voting patterns is generally acknowledged. How much of the variations in the patterns is attributable to party factors is the debatable issue. Compare two entries in the debate: Cherryholmes, Cleo H. and Shapiro, Michael J., Representatives and Roll Calls (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), pp. 106–110 Google Scholar, on the importance of party influence; and Clausen, Aage R., How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973), pp. 91–100, for a caveatGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Mayhew, David R., Party Loyalty among Congressmen: The Difference between Democrats and Republicans, 1947–1962 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 148–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Two nonacademic books make a similar argument: Acheson, Dean, A Democrat Looks at His Party (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955)Google Scholar; and Viorst, Milton, Fall from Grace: The Republican Party and the Puritan Ethic, rev. ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971), esp. Chap. 5 on “The Lost Constituencies.”Google Scholar

⁹ Schlesinger, Joseph A., “Political Careers and Party Leadership,” in Political Leadership in Industrialized Societies: Studies in Comparative Analysis, ed. Edinger, Lewis J. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967), 266–293, esp. pp. 280–284Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Bell, Wendell, Hill, Richard J., and Wright, Charles R., Public Leadership (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1961), p. 6 Google Scholar.

¹¹ William Loughton Smith of South Carolina was the initial chairman of Ways and Means as a standing committee. He was replaced in the Third Session of that Congress by Robert Goodloe Harper, also of South Carolina. Harper is the first party floor leader mentioned by Alexander, DeAlva Stanwood in his chapter on “Floor Leaders” in History and Procedure of the House of Representatives (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1916), p. 107 Google Scholar. For an assessment of how and when the various leadership posts came into being in the House, see Nelson, Garrison, “Leadership Position-Holding in the United States House of Representatives,” Capitol Studies, 4 (Fall, 1976), 11–36 Google Scholar.

¹² Ripley indicates the presence of both positional leaders in his description of majority leadership patterns between 1861 and 1911, see his Party Leaders in the House of Representatives, p. 84. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Ways and Means (1861–1865) was the first to chair the Appropriations Committee. Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts chaired both Appropriations (1869–1871) and Ways and Means (1871–1875). In the years from 1880 through 1911 when the House Rules Committee functioned under the chairmanship of the Speaker, twenty-four of the other thirty-eight committee assignments held by the two other majority members were from Ways and Means (17) and Appropriations (7).

¹³ Chiu, Chang-Wei, The Speaker of the House of Representatives Since 1896 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928), pp. 318–320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also The New York Times, 01 19, 1911, p. 1 Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Prior to 1863, there were thirteen multi-ballot speakership floor contests: the 3rd (1793–1795); 6th (1799–1801); 9th (1805–1807); 11th (1809–1811); Second Session of the 16th (1820–1821); 17th (1821–1823); 19th (1825–1827); Second Session of the 23rd (1834–1835); 26th (1839–1841); 30th (1847–1849); 31st (1849–1851); 34th (1855–1857); and the 36th (1859-1861) Congresses. See the House Journals for the relevant years and various issues of Niles' Weekly Register (Baltimore).

¹⁵ The only exception involved Frederick Gillett of Massachusetts who was renominated by the Republican caucus in 1923 to be its candidate for Speaker, but it took nine ballots before he was able to gain the votes of twenty Republican members who cast their earlier ballots for Henry A. Cooper of Wisconsin and Martin B. Madden of Illinois. House Journal, 68th Congress, First Session, pp. 5-11.

¹⁶ Ripley, , Party Leaders in the House of Representatives, p. 28 Google Scholar. Mann, James R. of Illinois was the first to be designated “Chairman of the Minority Conference,” in the Congressional Directory, 62nd Congress, 1st Session (05, 1911), p. 190 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Ripley, Randall B., “The Party Whip Organizations in the United States House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review, 58 (09, 1964), 561–576 Google Scholar. Ripley, using Taylor's, Edward T. A History of the Committee on Appropriations, House Document 299, 77th Congress, First Session (1941), p. 51 Google Scholar, argues the case for Reed's appointment of Tawney in 1897.

¹⁸ Ripley, , Party Leaders in the House of Representatives, p. 33 Google Scholar. See also The New York Times, 03 12, 1919, p. 1 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 36–38.

²⁰ The Democratic Caucus for the 94th Congress voted down a proposal to make the whip post an elective one, 138–32, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 33 (12 7, 1974), p. 3247 Google Scholar. The organizing caucus for the 95th Congress “shouted down” the proposal without a vote, see the Boston Globe (12 9, 1976), p. 20 Google Scholar.

²¹ see “Tawney Republican Leader,” in The New York Times, 12 3, 1905, p. 3 Google Scholar. An early comment on Tawney's aggressive role may be found in “House Chiefs in Panic at Tawney's War Howl,” The New York Times, 12 18, 1905, p. 9 Google Scholar.

²² A list of the leaders selected for this study may be found in Nelson, Garrison, “Appendix: Roster of Leaders of the United States House of Representatives, 1789–1976,” Capitol Studies, 4 (Fall, 1976), 25–36 Google Scholar.

²³ Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg served as Speaker for both the Federalist First Congress (1789-1791) and the Democratic-Republican Third Congress (1793-1795), see Smith, William Henry, Speakers of the House of Representatives of the United States (Baltimore: Simon J. Gaeng, 1928), p. 20 Google Scholar. The other two leaders to serve under differing party majorities were John W. Taylor and Louis McLane who served as Speaker and Ways and Means chairman respectively as National Republicans in the 19th Congress (1825–1827) after holding the same posts during the Democratic-Republican majorities earlier.

²⁴ 0n Albert's election in 1962, see Polsby, Nelson W., “Two Strategies of Influence: Choosing a Majority Leader, 1962,” in New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, ed. Peabody, Robert L. and Polsby, Nelson W., 2nd ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969), pp. 325–358 Google Scholar. Specific references to Albert's service as whip are made on pp. 335 and 342. Hale Boggs's victory is described in King, Larry L., ‘The Road to Power in Congress,” Harper's Magazine, 252 (06, 1971), 39–63 Google Scholar, esp. pp. 48 and 62 on the “leadership ladder.” See also Bibby, John F. and Davidson, Roger H., On Capitol Hill: Studies in the Legislative Process, 2nd ed. (Hinsdale, Ill.: The Dryden Press, 1972), pp. 124–144 Google Scholar. O'Neill's position as whip was mentioned in all of the news accounts Covering his contests for leader and in these accounts, the pattern of ordered succession was often described, see The New York Times, 11 11, 1972, p. 20 Google Scholar, and the editorial, “Potential Speaker,” The New York Times, 11 24, 1972, p. 36 Google Scholar. See also, Peabody, Leadership in Congress, Chapter 8.

²⁵ Following the Democratic defeat in the 1946 congressional elections, Sam Rayburn purportedly intended to leave the House leadership to John McCormack. Opposition to McCormack from a number of southern members was strong enough to dissuade Rayburn and he reluctantly accepted the nomination as minority leader. He then appointed McCormack to be whip, The New York Times, 01 3, 1947, pp. 1 and 4 Google Scholar; and January 8,1947, p. 14.

²⁶ These terms come from Schlesinger, Joseph A., Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1966), p. 90 Google Scholar for “penultimate office,” and p. 46 for “career office.” There have been only three Republican whips since 1933 – Harry Englebright of California, 1933–1943; Leslie Arends of Illinois, 1943–1975; and Robert Michel of Illinois, 1975-present.

²⁷ Hinckley, Barbara, “Congressional Leadership Selection and Support: A Comparative Analysis,” pp. 275–277 Google Scholar.

²⁸ O'Neill was nominated without a contest, but McFall finished fourth in a four-man field and was eliminated on the first ballot, see “House Democrats Elect Leaders, Slow Reforms,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 34 (12 11, 1976), pp. 3291–3295 Google Scholar. The eventual winner, Jim Wright of Texas, defeated Philip Burton on the third ballot, 148 to 147.

²⁹ In both the 1959 Martin-Halleck and 1965 Halleck-Ford contests, commentators noted the presence of style considerations and the absence of philosophical ones. See Jones, Charles O., Party and Policy-Making: The House Republican Policy Committee (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1964), pp. 37–38 Google Scholar; and Peabody, Robert L., The Ford-Halleck Minority Leadership Contest (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), p. 32 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Caucus nominations in the Democratic party were contested in 1871, 1873, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1879, 1883, 1891, 1897, and 1899, see various editions of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

³¹ Caucus nominations in the Republican party were contested in 1881,1883, 1885, and 1889.

³² Peabody, “Party Leadership Change,” op. cit., pp. 676-678.

³³ Polsby, “The Institutionalization of the House,” pp. 145-153.

³⁴ The New York Times, 02 28, 1925, p. 1 Google Scholar. Longworth defeated Martin Madden of Illinois, 140 to 85 on the first ballot. Madden had been one of the two Republican candidates challenging Speaker Gil-let's re-election on the floor during the previous Congress.

³⁵ Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 31 (12 5, 1973), p. 3171 Google Scholar.

³⁶ Ripley asserts that “Chairmen of various party committees (for example, Committee on Committees, Steering Committee, Policy Committee) or of the party caucus or conference have occasionally been prominent figures in the majority party in the House,” in Majority Party Leadership in Congress, pp. 3-4 (emphasis added). Jones states that “Although they have existed on occasion in both parties, until the 1960s policy or steering committees were not heavily relied on by the minority party,” in The Minority Party in Congress, p. 38 Google Scholar.

³⁷ Rainey defeated John McDuffie of Alabama who had served as whip under Garner. The vote was decided on the first ballot: Rainey's 166 to McDuffie's 112, The New York Times, 03 3, 1933, p. 1 Google Scholar. A fuller account of this contest may be found in Waller, Robert A., “The Selection of Henry T. Rainey as Speaker of the House,” Capitol Studies, 2 (Spring, 1973), pp. 37–47 Google Scholar.

³⁸ Albert defeated John Conyers of Michigan 220-20, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 29 (01 22, 1971), p. 176 Google Scholar.

³⁹ The final tally on the second ballot was Boggs, 140; Udall, 88; and Sisk, 17; in Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 29 (01 22, 1971), p. 176 Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ The most serious threat to Byrns came from Sam Rayburn, but Rayburn withdrew after Pennsylvania announced for Byrns, C. Dwight Dorough, Mr. Sam (New York: Random House, 1962), p. 253 Google Scholar. See also The New York Times, 12 13, 1934, p. 17 Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Both cases involved Philip P. Barbour of Virginia. He defeated Speaker John W. Taylor in 1821 and was later defeated for re-election as Speaker by Henry Clay two years later. See Niles' Weekly Register, 21 (12 8, 1821), p. 234 Google Scholar and 25 (December 6, 1823), p. 22, respectively. One unusual case which does not technically qualify for this category occurred in 1834 when John Bell, a Whig, was elected to preside over the 2nd Session of the Democratically-controlled 23rd Congress when the Democrats could not agree on a candidate. In the next Congress, the united Democrats elected James K. Polk over Bell. See Niles' Weekly Register, 46 (06 7, 1834), pp. 248 Google Scholar and 49 Niles' Weekly Register (12 12, 1835), p. 248 for the two contestsGoogle Scholar.

⁴² This contest has been described earlier, see note 15, supra. See also, Hasbrouck, Paul D., Party Government in the House of Representatives (New York: Macmillan, 1927), p. 19 Google Scholar and The New York Times, 12 6, 1923, pp. 1–2 Google Scholar.

⁴³ This may be seen in the decline of multiballot floor contests and the fact that the mean percentage of votes received by the top two speakership candidates since 1865 in fifty-eight regular and two special speakership elections has been 98.86 per cent. The lowest percentage was 93.4 in the 55th Congress (1899). The first ballot percentage in 1923 was 94.4 for Gillett and Garrett combined.

⁴⁴ This information is derived from the accounts of two newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post. The first contest reported by the Post occurred in 1879. A number of caucus nominations were simply reported with no mention of the number of members present or the votes cast. When this happened, I recorded it as “no reported contest” and assumed that the nomination had met with no opposition.

⁴⁵ Randall was defeated by Carlisle, 106-52. Samuel Cox received 30 votes, The New York Times, 12 3, 1883, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Wilson, Woodrow, Congressional Government (New York: Meridian Books, 1956), pp. 82–83 Google Scholar. This book was originally published in Boston by Houghton, Mifflin and Co., in 1885.

⁴⁷ Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 27 (01 3, 1969), p. 2 Google Scholar. Wilbur Mills received four votes.

⁴⁸ Albert defeated Conyers by 202-25 in the 93rd Congress, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 31 (01 6, 1973), p. 5 Google Scholar. Conyers's opposition to Albert in 1971 was due to the Speaker's lack of support for an effort to strip three Mississippi members of their seniority. In 1973 he tried for support beyond the Black Congressional Caucus.

⁴⁹ The New York Times, 02 28, 1919, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Snell's nomination was made unanimous on the eighth ballot. His tally over Tilson on the seventh ballot was 96 to 64, The New York Times, 12 1, 1931, pp. 1 and 4 Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Accounts of the Halleck-Martin contest may be found in Martin's own book, My First Fifty Years in Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), pp. 12–19 Google Scholar; and in Jones, Charles O., Party and Policy-Making, pp. 33–42 Google Scholar. The Ford-Halleck struggle is covered by Robert L. Peabody in The Ford-Halleck Minority Leadership Contest, and in “Political Parties: House Republican Leadership,” in American Political Institutions and Public Policy: Five Contemporary Studies, ed. Sindler, Allan P. (Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1969), pp. 181–229 Google Scholar.

⁵² Cunningham, Noble E. Jr., The Jeffersonian Republicans in Power: Party Operations, 1801–1809 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963), p. 88 Google Scholar. Macon was a candidate for Speaker in the 11 th Congress and lost to Varnum on the second ballot, 45 to 65, Annals of Congress, 11th Congress, First Session, p. 56. Macon's relationship with Randolph is described by Cunningham on pp. 77, 86-88, and 230.

⁵³ Muhlenberg was apparently not a contestant in the Second Congress. According to a letter from Elbridge Gerry to his wife, the two leading candidates were Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut who had lost to Muhlenberg in the previous Congress and John Laurence of New York. The letter was dated October 24, 1791 and may be found in the Russell W. Knight Collection of Elbridge Gerry Papers in the Massachusetts Historical Society. Special thanks are extended to Professor Patrick J. Furlong of the Department of History of Indiana University at South Bend for this reference.

⁵⁴ Wood withdrew a week before the balloting amidst speculation that he was trying to arrange an appointment to the chairmanship of Ways and Means, which was not forthcoming, The New York Times, 12 1, 1875, p. 1 Google Scholar. A fuller account of the 1875 election may be found in House, Albert V., “The Speakership Contest of 1875: Democratic Response to Power,” Journal of American History, 52 (09, 1965), pp. 252–274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ The New York Times, 03 3, 1871, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Knutson was described as a “Cannon pupil” at the time of the 1919 whip contest, The New York Times, 03 12, 1919, p. 1 Google Scholar. Four years later he voted for the leading insurgent candidate in the caucus, Cooper, Henry A. of Wisconsin, The New York Times, 12 2, 1923, p. 1 Google Scholar. The Republican Committee on Committees gave the post to Albert Vestal of Indiana, see The Washington Post, 12 13, 1923, p. 5 Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Welch, Richard E. Jr., Theodore Sedgwick, Federalist: A Political Portrait (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1965), p. 21 InGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁸ John Randolph in 1807, Ezekiel Bacon in 1812, William Lowndes in 1819, George McDuffie in 1831, Thomas Bayly in 1851, and J. Clancy Jones in 1858. Both Bacon and Jones were removed between sessions of a Congress. Serious questions existed about their fitness for floor leadership, Alexander, , History and Procedure of the House of Representatives, pp. 124–125 Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Two chairmen of Ways and Means, William R. Morrison in 1877 and William Springer in 1893; one chairman of Appropriations, William S. Holman in 1893; and one whip, Oscar Underwood in 1901 were removed from their appointive posts.

⁶⁰ Waller, , “The Selection of Henry T. Rainey,” p. 45 Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Ripley reports that Priest “decided not to continue as whip in 1955 because he had become Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,” in “Party Whip Organizations” in Peabody, and Polsby, , 2nd ed., p. 208nGoogle Scholar.

⁶² See Krock's, Arthur article, “Rep. Ford's Defeat,” in The New York Times, 01 17, 1965, IV, 13 Google Scholar. Arends defeated Frelinghuysen 70-59. The New York Times, 01 15, 1965, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁶³ These figures are based upon a recomputation of Table 10, “Violations of Seniority by Speaker, 1881–1910,” in Polsby, Gallaher, and Rundquist, , p. 799 Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Peabody, , “Party Leadership Change,” p. 688 Google Scholar. Joe Martin certainly felt that the size of the 1958 defeat had cost him the minority leadership, see his book, My First Fifty Years in Politics, pp. 4-5.

⁶⁵ The two Republican minority contests occurred in 1883 and 1885.

⁶⁶ The four Democratic minority contests occurred in 1871, 1873, 1897, and 1899. The last contest took six ballots before James D. Richardson of Tennessee defeated David DeArmond of Missouri, 90 to 47, The New York Times, 12 3, 1899, p. 2 Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ James R. Mann was elected majority leader by the caucus after his defeat for the speakership nomination. He refused the post and Frank Mondell of Wyoming was elected. The New York Times, 03 12, 1919, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ The New York Times, 03 5, 1867, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ House Journal, 38th Congress, First Session, p. 11.

⁷⁰ Peabody, , “Party Leadership Change,” p. 687 Google Scholar.

⁷¹ A case in point is that of “Tip” O'Neill whose widespread popularity made his move from appointed whip to elected floor leader without opposition. Peabody reports that Congressman Sam Gibbons of Florida, who had hoped to challenge O'Neill, told him, “‘Tip, I can tell you something that nobody else in this room can. You haven't got an enemy in the place.’” Leadership in Congress, p. 258.

⁷² Truman, David B., The Congressional Party: A Case Study (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), pp. 205–208 Google Scholar. A recent study suggests that the “middleman” role is adopted following the selection as leader rather than being a reason for the selection itself. See Sullivan, William E., “Criteria for Selecting Party Leadership in Congress: An Empirical Test,’ American Politics Quarterly, 3 (01, 1975), 25–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷³ Hinckley, , “Congressional Leadership Selection and Support,” pp. 281–284 Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Peabody, , “Party Leadership Change,” pp. 681–686 Google Scholar. The fullest presentation of this typology may be found in Leadership in Congress, pp. 266-294.

⁷⁵ Randall was renominated in 1877 with 75 per cent of the votes on the first ballot, The New York Tribune, 10 15, 1877, p. 1 Google Scholar; and in 1879 with 53 per cent on the first ballot, Washington Post, 03 18, 1879, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Keifer defeated George D. Robinson of Massachusetts, 44 to 15, The New York Times, 12 2, 1883, p. 1 Google Scholar. Six years later Reed received 85 votes of 166 cast in a second ballot victory, Washington Post, 12 1, 1889, p. 1 Google Scholar. Cannon received 162 votes of 187 cast on the first ballot in 1909, The New York Times, 03 14, 1909, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ During the second period the number of committees increased from 38 in 1863 to 61 by 1905, the highest figure ever recorded for the House. See McConachie, Lauros G., Congressional Committees (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell and Co., 1898), pp. 349–358 Google Scholar and various issues of the Congressional Directory. As a measure of the care with which committees were selected, the Speakers in the twenty-five congresses from 1857-1907 averaged 42.2 days in making their final committee appointments, Hinds Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1907), IV, p. 891 Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ The Democratic caucus in 1975 ended the chairmanship career of Representatives Wright Patman of Banking and Currency, W. R. Poage of Agriculture, and F. Edward Hebert of Armed Services. Two subcommittee chairmanships were also voided. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 33 (01 18, 1975), pp. 114–118 Google Scholar; (January 25, 1975), pp. 210-212; and (February 1, 1975), p. 275. The most recent victim was Robert L. Sikes, who was stripped of his chairmanship of the Military Construction Subcommittee on January 26, 1977, Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 35 (01 29, 1977), p. 159 Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Peabody, , “Party Leadership Change,” pp. 692–693 Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Keifer had become a serious embarrassment to many of his fellow House Republicans because of his intemperate attacks on the press and reports of nepotism in the staffing of his office. ( The New York Times, 03 7, 1883, p. 1 Google Scholar). On the eve of the vote for Speaker of the 48th Congress he rebuffed suggestions that he not run for the Republican nomination. He won the caucus nomination, but only 59 of the Congress's 118 Republicans attended, and 15 of them voted against him. The New York Times, 12 2, 1883, p. 1 Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Congresses in this category include: the 39th (1865–1867), 43rd (1873–1875), 54th (1895–1897), 59th (1905–1907), 66th (1919–1921, 67th (1921–1933), 69th (1925–1927), 71st (1929–1931), 80th (1947–1949), and the 83rd (1953–1955).