than was previously practised in both branches of the
national legislature. It appeared that on the most im-
portant subjects the course adopted by the majority
was the effect of caucus arrangement, or in other words
was previously agreed upon at meetings of the Demo-
cratic members held in private. Thus the legislation
has been constantly swayed by party feelings and pledges
rather than according to sound reason or personal
conviction."

The Congressional caucus soon assumed, as we are
aware, the nomination of candidates for the Presidency
and the Vice-Presidency, and performed that function till
democratic feeling, which burst all over the country, forced
the caucus to give it up. The popular tempest did not,
however, sweep away the institution of the caucus, and it
continued to determine behind closed doors the public
action of Congress when a party measure was hanging
in the balance. When the slavery question became so
acute as to tear the parties asunder, the caucus could no
longer assert itself; for the dissentients, too, there was
then a "higher law." After the Civil War, with the advent
of a strong and masterful party, the Republican party,
the caucus returned to power. In the absence in Congress
of a regular leadership, such as provided by English par-
liamentary conditions, the caucus, aiming at harmoniz-
ing the several elements of the party and securing con-
certed action, answered a real political need. But that
secret conclave, working not in the daylight of publicity
and responsibility, was too inclined to assume dictatorial
powers. No less prominent a member of the party than
Senator Charles Sumner was made to feel its rod of
iron. Smarting under the restrictions imposed by the

-283-