THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES IN IOWA

[The following monograph on The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Iowa presents a phase of legislative history which is closely related to the researches published by The State Historical Society of Iowa as Volume III of the Iowa Applied History Series under the title of Statute Law-making in Iowa. It is hoped that a similar account of the President of the Senate may be prepared for publication in the near future.

A list of the Speakers of the House of Representatives, together with some information relative to the age, previous legislative experience, occupation, and party affiliations of each will be found on pages 47-51 below.— EDITOR.]

I

HISTORICAL TRADITION OF THE SPEAKERSHIP

The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Iowa is a direct descendant of the Speaker of the English House of Commons. Along with the Common Law, America inherited also the English system of parliamentary law. Thus it is to England that one must look for the origin of the speakership.

While the earlier English assemblies must have had a presiding officer of some kind, it was not until 1377 that the term "Speaker" was used. In that year Sir Thomas Hungerford was formally assigned the title and position of Speaker of the House of Commons.1 At first the minion of the crown, the Speaker gradually advanced until in the eighteenth century he attained his present impartial character.

1 The name of Speaker was given to him because his chief duty was to "speak" for the Commons.- Hansard's Parliamentary History of England, Vol. I, p. 351, in Follett's The Speaker of the House of Representatives, pp. 3, 127.

3

In the American colonies, the status of the Speaker was based upon that of the seventeenth century Speaker of the House of Commons; but new conditions so altered and modified the position that there developed in America a very different parliamentary officer. Early colonial struggles between the representative assemblies and the Governors emphasized the importance of the principle that every deliberative assembly should be allowed the utmost freedom in the choice of its own presiding officer.

As a rule it was not because of his knowledge of parliamentary law or because of his ability as a presiding officer that the colonial Speaker was chosen: he was elevated to the office because he was an active leader of his party, with the ability to accomplish party purposes. He did not, by taking the chair, give up his rights as a representative: he spoke, voted, made motions, served on committees and exercised all the other prerogatives of a representative. His chief duties were the preservation of order and the enforcing of the rules. Essentially a political leader, he sometimes led movements in opposition to the government. Indeed, the position of the Speaker in colonial times has been compared to that of the Prime Minister of England, as contradistinguished from the Speaker of the House of Commons.2

Presidents of the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation held the dual position of moderator and political leader. While the inherent powers of their office were not great, their influence as party leaders was far-reaching: they did not hesitate to make the position of parliamentary moderator subservient to that of political leader.

In 1787 the makers of the Constitution of the United

2 Follett's The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ch.

States conferred upon the House of Representatives the power of choosing its own Speaker. It was undoubtedly their idea that he should be a political as well as parliamentary officer.

The original Territory of Wisconsin, established in 1836, was organized with a legislature of two houses. At the first meeting of the Territorial legislature the House of Representatives elected a Speaker to preside over their deliberations as a matter of course, although no provision for such an officer was made in the Organic Act. Two years later the same situation confronted the newly organized government of the Territory of Iowa: here, too, the House of Representatives organized by the election of a Speaker.

II

LEGAL STATUS OF THE SPEAKER IN IOWA

The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Iowa is not, in the strict sense, a constitutional officer, since the position is not definitely created nor election thereto specifically provided for in the Constitution of the State. In this particular the status of the Iowa Speaker is different from that of the Speaker at Washington. The national Constitution provides that "the house of representatives shall choose their speaker"; while the Iowa Constitution merely declares that "each house shall choose its own officers" without making any specific reference to a Speaker.1

3 Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 2.

4 Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Sec. 2; Constitution of Iowa, 1857, Art. III, Sec. 7. The States of the Union are equally divided in this respect. In just twenty-four of the forty-eight States is definite provision made in the organic law for the election of a Speaker of the House of Representatives. In twenty-three of the State constitutions provision is made that

Nor can the Speaker of the Iowa House be said to be a statutory officer. Indeed his statutory status is quite similar to his constitutional standing. He is recognized by the Code, but his office is not specifically created by law. Finally, there is no definite provision for this office in the rules of the House itself. Apparently the Speaker in Iowa owes his position to precedent alone.

When the First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Iowa met in Burlington on the twelfth day of November, 1838, precedent alone governed the method of its organization. The Organic Act empowered the Governor to appoint a day and place for its meeting; but that instrument was silent on the subject of its organization. Indeed, the Organic Act contained no mention whatever of a presiding officer in either house. At the same time it must have been generally understood that the customary principles of deliberative assemblies were to govern, for both the Council and the House of Representatives organized in the usual manner without loss of time.5

The House of the First Legislative Assembly made an

the House of Representatives "shall choose its own officers" in this or similar phrasing. In ten of these twenty-three State constitutions - and in this group Iowa is included the Speaker is, however, recognized. Characteristic provisions of these constitutions which recognize the speakership without making definite provision for it are those making it the duty of the Speaker to sign all bills passed by the legislature; to canvass the official vote for Governor; and to act as Governor in case of the inability of that official and of the Lieutenant Governor.

In Massachusetts and Tennessee the Senate has an elective presiding officer. In Massachusetts he is called President and in Tennessee Speaker. This was true in Iowa until 1857, and in the Iowa upper house as in Massachusetts he was called President instead of Speaker. In Idaho there is a penalty fixed upon the members of the House if they fail to perfect their organization within four days after a quorum is in attendance. Kansas alone makes no mention in any way of a Speaker for the House of Representatives. Thus, in practically every State, the Speaker is either provided or recognized in the organic law; and he is in universal evidence throughout the Union.

5 Organic Act, Sec. 4; see Legislative Journals for 1838-1839.

attempt to provide for a Speaker in the adoption of the following rule: "The House of Representatives shall choose by ballot one of their own number to occupy the Chair. He shall be styled Speaker of the House of Representatives." Obviously this rule had nothing to do with the election of the Speaker in the session by which it was adopted, since its adoption followed the installation of that officer by several days. Nor was it operative at elections in later sessions. The Second Legislative Assembly did not (as is the practice to-day) adopt the rules of the preceding Assembly either before or after the permanent organization. And so the Speaker of this session, as at the previous session, was elected under no rules but those of general parliamentary law.

In the Second Legislative Assembly a committee was appointed "to prepare standing rules for the House"," This committee, it is evident, made rather extensive use of the rules of the national House of Representatives. Thus Rule I, as reported by them and as adopted by the Assembly, is almost identical with Section I of Rule I of the House at Washington a rule which has been in force in that body since 1789, when it was adopted, and the form of which has not been changed since 1824. While this rule does not make provision for the election of a Speaker, it assumes that such an officer is to be elected.8

Rules I to X as adopted by the First Legislative Assembly were grouped under the heading, "TOUCHING THE DUTY OF THE SPEAKER", and Rule I read: "He [the Speaker] shall take the chair every day precisely at the hour to which the House shall have adjourned on the preceding day; shall • House Rules, 1838-1839, Rule 1.

7 House Journal, 1839-1840, p. 6.

8 House Manual and Digest, 3rd Session, 63rd Congress, p. 269-n.