Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:19:19.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Morse Committee Assignment Controversy: A Study in Senate Norms1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Ralph K. Huitt
Ralph K. Huitt
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Senate of the United States, like other institutionalized groups, operates in accordance with a complex of norms for members' behavior which are understood by few outsiders and perhaps not completely by all senators. Formal written rules governing the behavior of members take into account the division of functions between the two major parties and the operation of the Senate's institutionalized sub-groups, the committees. These are supplemented by unwritten rules that are often more consequential. Members have generally accepted notions of the way the Senate as a body ought to perform its public business and regulate its internal affairs, and the way members ought to behave toward the Senate and toward each other.

Senatorial behavior would be difficult enough to study if this were all, but it is not. For one thing, the norms are by no means undifferentiated for the entire membership. Within the Senate a number of identifiable official and unofficial “statuses” (or “positions”) besides that of United States Senator can be distinguished, each carrying with it a “role” in the form of the behavior expected by the Senate and the public of the person occupying that status. The leadership positions in the two parties and the committee chairmanships come immediately to mind as examples of official statuses.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1957 , pp. 313 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1957

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

2 “A possible objection to the word norm itself is that we may easily confuse two different things: norm A, a statement of what people ought to do in a particular situation, and norm B, a statistical, or quasi-statistical, average of what they actually do in that situation. Sometimes the two coincide, but more often they do not.” Homans, George, The Human Group (New York, 1950), p. 124Google Scholar. The term is used here, as Professor Homans uses it, in the first sense, as the behavior expected of members of a group by the members themselves, a departure from which in practice is followed by some punishment, such as a decline in the member's social standing in the group.

3 See Eugene, L. and Hartley, Ruth E., Fundamentals of Social Psychology (New York, 1952), pp. 456–81Google Scholar.

4 See White, William S., “The ‘Club’ that is the U. S. Senate,” New York Times Magazine, November 7, 1954Google Scholar, and Citadel: The Story of the U. S. Senate (New York, 1957)Google Scholar; and Rovere, Richard, Affairs of State: The Eisenhower Years (New York, 1956), pp. 217–29Google Scholar.

5 See, e.g., Grasemuck, George L., Sectional Biases in Congress on Foreign Policy (Baltimore, 1950)Google Scholar, and Turner, Julius, Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress (Baltimore, 1951)Google Scholar. See also Truman, David B., “The State Delegations and the Structure of Party Voting in the United States House of Representatives,” this Review, Vol. 50, pp. 1023–45 (December 1956)Google Scholar.

6 The New York Times, October 19, 1952, p. 1Google Scholar, col. 7; October 25, 1952, p. 1, col. 4. For Morse's account of his break with the party, see Congressional Record, Vol. 99, pp. 3752–60 (April 24, 1953)Google Scholar; and U. S. News & World Report, Nov. 19, 1954.

7 Congressional Record, Vol. 99, pp. 327–52 (January 13, 1953)Google Scholar. The vote is at pp. 346–49. All page references herein are to the bound volumes, not the daily edition.

8 Ibid., p. 3053 (April 14, 1953); p. 5224 (May 20, 1953); pp. 5421–44 (May 25, 1953). The vote is at p. 5444. See also Sen. Repts. No. 142 and No. 304, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess.

9 Deaths in the Senate had changed the party ratio to 48–47–1 in favor of the Democrats, but the votes of Morse and the Vice President kept the Republicans in organizational control. The resolution was S. Res. 180, sponsored by the leadership of both parties and reported favorably by the Rules Committee. It provided for the enlargement of two committees (Post Office and Civil Service, and Public Works) from 11 to 13 members. It also established a sliding-scale ratio of majority members who were to be allowed assignment to three (instead of two) committee seats, to minority members accorded the same privilege, a move designed to preserve a one-member margin for the majority party on each committee. The Morse amendment, introduced by Anderson, was sponsored by 12 Democrats and Langer. Congressional Record, Vol. 100, pp. 97, 120–21 (January 11, 1954)Google Scholar; pp. 218–28 (January 13, 1954). The vote is at p. 228.

10 Quoted from Haynes, George H., The Senate of the United States, 2 vols. (Boston, 1938), Vol. 1, p. 294Google Scholar.

11 MacKay, Kenneth C., The Progressive Movement of 1924 (New York, 1947), p. 195Google Scholar; Lief, Alfred, Democracy's Norris: The Biography of a Lonely Crusade (New York, 1939), pp. 268–70Google Scholar; Norris, George W., Fighting Liberal (New York, 1945), pp. 286–87Google Scholar.

12 The debate is found in Congressional Record, Vol. 67, pp. 15–16, 41–67 (March 9, 1925)Google Scholar. The vote is at p. 63. Harrison missed a nice point: if the Republican conference was correct, the bolters were not Republicans and the question of their chairmanships and committee assignments was not a “family row” but the business of the Senate—as Morse made it in 1953 by staying out of the party and away from the conference.

13 The New York Times, October 25, 1928, p. 1Google Scholar, col. 7 (Norris); October 16, 1928, p. 15, col. 1; and October 21, 1928, p. 21, col. 3 (Blaine).

14 Ibid., October 9, 1928, p. 2, col. 3; October 10, 1928, p. 2, col. 4; July 8, 1928, p. 2, col. 5; October 27, 1928, p. 9, col. 1.

15 Ibid., July 5, 1928, p. 21, col. 4; July 3, 1928, p. 6, col. 2.

16 Ibid., October 13, 1928, p. 5, col. 3; October 22, 1928, p. 1, col. 4; October 26, 1928, p. 2, col. 2.

17 Ibid., October 15, 1932, p. 9, col. 1; October 29, 1932, p. 1, col. 7.

18 Ibid., October 20, 1932, p. 15, col. 2.

19 Ibid., September 26, 1932, p. 1, col. 7; September 29, 1932, p. 1, col. 6.

20 Ibid., October 27, 1932, p. 12, col. 5.

21 Ibid., September 29, 1936, p. 23, col. 3; October 4, 1936, p. 1, col. 6.

22 Ibid., October 19, 1936, p. 2, col. 4.

23 Ibid., September 18, 1936, p. 9, col. 1.

24 Ibid., October 2, 1936, p. 9, col. 6.

25 Ibid., October 4, 1936, p. 1, col. 6.

26 Ibid., August 11, 1936, p. 8, col. 2; August 15, 1936, p. 1, col. 4; September 17, 1936, p. 9, col. 1.

27 Ibid., October 1, 1940, p. 15, cols. 7–8.

28 Ibid., October 21, 1940, p. 8, col. 5.

29 Ibid., October 23, 1944, p. 1, col. 1; October 24, 1944, p. 15, col. 1.

30 Ibid., October 22, 1944, p. 38, col. 3; November 3, 1944, p. 18, col. 8.

31 Ibid., November 19, 1948, p. 21, col. 1; November 25, 1948, p. 30, col. 5.

32 Ibid., October 16, 1952, p. 14, col. 3.

33 Ibid., October 18, 1952, p. 1, col. 5.

34 Ibid., October 25, 1952, p. 11, col. 4; October 28, 1952, p. 1, col. 8; October 29, 1952, p. 33, col. 5.

35 “Purging the Republican Ranks,” Literary Digest, Vol. 84, pp. 7–8 (March 21, 1925)Google Scholar. See also Creel, George, “What Do These Senators Want?”, Collier's, Vol. 71, pp. 9–10 (March 10, 1923)Google Scholar, and “Non-existent Republican Majority,” Outlook, Vol. 142, p. 350 (March 10, 1926)Google Scholar.

36 Congressional Record, Vol. 67, p. 67 (March 9, 1925)Google Scholar.

37 Ibid., Vol. 99, pp. 342–43 (January 13, 1953).

38 Galloway, George B., Congressional Reorganization Revisited (College Park, Md., 1956), p. 6Google Scholar. Morse, Douglas, and Humphrey, in arguing for Morse's resolution in May, all admitted there was a “philosophical division” on the committee, which would not be affected if a conservative Republican were added along with Morse.

39 Sixty-nine votes selected by The CIO News are found in the issues of August 11, 1947; July 19, 1948; January 2, 1950; August 14, 1950; December 17, 1951; and August 18, 1952. Duplications were eliminated. Thirty votes selected by Labor's League for Political Education may be found in their booklet, Voting Records of Senators and Representatives, 1947 Through 1952. Sixty votes selected by The New Republic are shown in the issues of September 27, 1948, pp. 28–30Google Scholar; November 14, 1949, pp. 24–25; October 9, 1950, pp. 14–15; and September 22, 1952, pp. 16–17.

40 In a similar selection of votes in the House of Representatives, Kennedy voted “right” 93 per cent of the time on 30 votes in The CIO News, and 100 per cent “right” on 20 votes in the AFL's tabulation and 12 votes in The New Republic.

41 Congressional Record, Vol. 99, pp. 343–44 (January 13, 1953)Google Scholar. A note of caution, however, should be added. The Committee on Rules and Administration recommended in January of 1953 (S. Res. 1) that nine committees, including Labor and Public Welfare, be increased by two members, and six others be reduced by two; as amended and passed (S. Res. 18), Labor and Public Welfare remained the same size. (Congressional Record, Vol. 99, p. 233, 279–81, January 7 and 9, 1953)Google Scholar. In May 1954 two lesser committees were increased by two members each (see n. 9, above), but the motion to enlarge Labor and Public Welfare again was defeated. Failure to increase the committee's size, which would have strengthened Morse's claim to a seat, strongly supports the argument that there was indeed an element of punishment in the majority's attitude.

42 Jackson (D. Wash.) also voted for Morse in May 1953 and January 1954; he was a freshman senator. A similar selection of votes cast in the House of Representatives showed that in his six years in the Houie Jackson's percentage on a total of 61 votes selected by The CIO News was 92, on a total of 26 votes selected by the AFL's LLPE was 100, and on a total of 59 selected by The New Republic was 97.

43 The authority of the leadership in January 1953 was strengthened by two other actions in regard to committees. First, Lyndon Johnson went against ancient usage in the Senate by insisting that each freshman Democratic senator be given one good committee place. It is significant that Jackson was the only freshman Democrat ever to vote for Morse and that he did not do so the first time. Second, the enlargement of the more important committees made possible some attractive transfers. Eight Democrats who did not vote for Morse in January 1953 but ultimately did so, were beneficiaries of transfers to better committees.

44 Quoted in Haynes, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 290.

45 See, e.g., the colloquy on March 6, 1953, Congressional Record, Vol. 99, pp. 1679–86Google Scholar. Morse said he had refused the apologies of the liberal Democrats and he threatened to campaign against them in 1954.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.