as to permit Congress to lay an export duty on cotton. This proposition was brought to a vote and rejected, 59 voting in favor to 61 against. A similar resolution was proposed in 1884.3 Both groups of amendments had a temporary cause and were dropped when the cause had passed away. The Government in both cases was engaged in war and embarrassed in its finances. The prohibition is so plainly advantageous to a large number of the States that a three-fourths vote to take it away can not be expected.

143. PAYMENT OF THE CONFEDERATE DEBT.

It was hardly to be supposed that any part of the debt incurred in carrying on the war against the United States would ever be assumed by the General Government. There was, however, some danger that the Southern States might assume it. In order to prevent any doubt on the subject, sixteen amendments were proposed. The first were offered by Messrs. Stevens, Bingham, and Farnsworth, December 5 and 6, 1865, in the House. The latter was reported favorably by the Committee on the Judiciary, and on December 19 passed the House by the pronounced vote of 150 yeas to 11 nays. In the Senate four amendments on this subject were introduced previous to the presentation of the resolution which became the fourteenth amendment. Two of these were advocated by Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson. When the Farnsworth amendment was received from the House it was referred to a committee, but meanwhile the fourteenth amendment having been passed by that body," the consideration of this measure on the debt was indefinitely postponed.

When the fourteenth amendment as passed by the House came before the Senate, it was found to contain a stipulation that neither the United States nor any State should assume or pay any debt already incurred or which may hereafter be incurred in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States. Six amendments to this clause were proposed in the Senate, but that presented by Senator Clark of New Hamp

1 App., No. 1189.

2 App., No. 1191.

3 App., No. 1620.

Mr. Robinson of New York, for the encouragement of the home manufacture of our domestic products.

4 App., Nos. 1052, 1055, 1057.

App., Nos. 1066, 1105, 1121, 1130.

App., No. 1139.

7 App., Nos. 1145, 1150, 1162, 1175c, 1181, 1186.

shire was adopted and incorporated as section 4 of the amendment.1 Mr. Davis of Kentucky moved to add the following clause to the fourth section: "But the obligation of the United States to pay for private property taken for public use in all cases shall remain inviolate."2 In 1867, before the success of the fourteenth amendment was assured, Senator Dixon of Connecticut and Congressman Ashley of Ohio alike introduced an amendment on this subject in connection with the series of propositions offered by them.3

The provisions on this subject, as well as those on the pay ment of the national debt, were suggested by the apprehension of some that should the South, by some political overturn, again obtain control of the National Government, it might either impair the credit of the Government by refusing to pay its debts and pensions, or even cripple its finances by assum ing the Confederate debt.

144. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE CIVIL WAR.

Although any attempt to make up the public losses occasioned by participation in the Confederacy was thus precluded, there was serious danger that the Government might be called upon to pay for private property destroyed or taken during military operations. The special machinery provided by the acts of 1855, 1863, and 1872 for the establishment of a court of claims seemed inadequate. Hence the introduction, between the years 1876-1881, of sixteen amendments relative to the payment of claims. The first of these presented by Mr. Baker of Indiana, December 8, 1876, may be taken as typical. It prohibited the payment of any claims for loss or damage growing out of the taking, use, or destruction of property during the late war if the owner ever gave any aid, countenance, or encouragement to the rebellion.5 Some were very comprehensive and forbade the payment of all claims for property taken, used, injured, or destroyed by the United States during the rebellion." Another, submitted by Mr. Keifer of Ohio, made provision for the establishment of a court of claims with competent jurisdiction to render judgment on cases

App., No. 1181.

"App., No. 1186.

3 App., Nos. 1201, 1213e, 1221.

4 App., Nos. 1432, 1435, 1452, 1455, 1468, 1469, 1471, 1477, 1477a, 1481, 1484, 1485, 1487, 1491,

1525.

App., No. 1432.

App., Nos. 1477a, 1525.

June 19, 1878,

involving claims against the Government.' upon a motion of Mr. Conger of Michigan, the House suspended the rules and passed by the vote of 145 to 61 a resolution so to amend the Constitution that the payment of claims to disloyal persons for property taken, used, injured, or destroyed during the war of the rebellion should be prohib ited. This amendment the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate reported in an amended form, but although the Senate devoted some time to its consideration, it failed to be brought to a vote.

The large number of claims lodged against the Government, besides calling forth the amendments referred to in the previous paragraph, suggested also the desirableness of fixing some limitation in the time for the presentation of claims against the United States. Several propositions of this character have been presented in the form of amendments to the Constitution. The first of these was introduced as early as 1874, by Senator Wright of Iowa, even before any amendment in regard to the payment of Southern war claims had been suggested. This resolution stipulated that all claims must be presented within ten years at least next after they accrue. Later amendments reduced the time to six years. The last of these resolutions was presented in 1886. In this connection it may be suitable to mention two other resolutions; one proposed by Mr. Springer of Illinois, in 1881, which provided that all claims against the United States shall be determined by such tribunals as Congress may establish; the other, presented by Mr. Seymour of Connecticut, in 1886, proposed to empower Congress to make provision by a general law for bringing suits against the Government, and forbade all special acts.

145. PAYMENT OF THE NATIONAL DEBT.

Several of the amendments just treated, prohibiting the payment of the Confederate debt, contained also a clause guaranteeing the payment of the national debt. The first of these were suggested by Charles Sumner (January 5, 1866) and Senator Lane of Kansas (March 13). The original resolution, which was the basis of the fourteenth amendment, as reported by the

House had, however, no clause guaranteeing the national debt. Propositions to insert such a clause were made by Messrs. Wade of Ohio, Howard of Michigan, and Clark of New Hamp shire. The last gentleman's amendment was accepted and now appears as a part of section 4 of the amendment.1

In 1873 Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania presented an amendment providing for the payment of the principal and interest of the public debt by the imposition of duties on imports, but that the annual current expenses of the Government of the United States should be assessed upon the several States and Territories. All questions as to the good faith of the nation have long since been set at rest.

146. DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS

An earlier set of amendments had been called out by the fact that there was likely to be no debt to pay. The legisla ture of Georgia, in 1833, suggested in their call for a constitutional convention the advisability of so amending the Constitution that it may prescribe what disposition shall be made. of the surplus revenue, when such revenue is found to be on hand. Two years later, when an actual surplus began to accumulate, Mr. Calhoun made a more definite proposition. Twice during the year 1835 he introduced an amendment for the distribution of the surplus revenue among the States until 1843.* This date was fixed upon as the limit; for by the compromise tariff of 1833 the duties would be reduced to the minimum rate of 20 per cent in that year, and this would cause a corresponding reduction of the revenue. Without waiting for the formality of a constitutional amendment, the acts of 1836 caused the deposit of $27,000,000 with the States, and the bad results of that action have prevented the presentation of any similar propositions."

147. EXPENDITURES-APPROPRIATION BILLS.

Except in the case of the surplus, no amendments have been suggested to change the objects of expenditure. The increas

App., Nos. 1138, 1149, 1161, 1175b, 1180. The two amendments made by Senator Dixon and Mr. Ashley, as referred to in the previous paragraph, also contained the provision guaranteeing the United States debt. App., Nos. 1200, 1213e, 1221.

App., No. 1363. It stipulated that the debt should be consolidated at a uniform rate of interest, or should be extinguished by the payment of $50,000,000 of the principal annually. See ante, par. 140.

App., No. 621.

4 App., Nos. 643, 647.

Bourne's Surplus Revenue. See ante, par. 95.

ing extravagance of the appropriation bills, and the manner in which they are urged through in conference, suggested a reform. In 1876 Mr. Cook proposed an amendment to limit the power of Congress to make appropriations "over and above the estimates sent to Congress by the executive department." In the early eighties Mr. Turner of Kentucky presented to the consideration of three successive Congresses an amendment requiring that the yeas and nays should be recorded on all appropriations exceeding $10,000. The provision requiring the vote of each member to be recorded would tend to cause each member to become better informed and weigh the subject well before giving his vote. Although the principle of the amendment is a good one, in practice it would probably be made a means of fillibustering.

Other amendments have been introduced either suggesting reforms in the method of administering the finances or in the manner of making appropriations. To prevent the growing practice of inserting clauses appropriating money in bills of an entirely foreign nature, and of attaching "riders" upon general appropriation bills and other measures, it has twice been proposed, in recent years, to so amend the Constitution as to require that every act shall embrace but one subjectmatter, and the matter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be embraced in the title."

148. PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.

No one subject except slavery has caused so much debate in Congress as the tariff; yet although there have been frequent discussions over the constitutionality of a protective tariff, especially in the earlier years, only three attempts have been made to settle the controversy by means of a constitutional amendment.

The legislature of Georgia, in 1833, in its application to Congress to call a convention, declared that the experience of the past had clearly proved that the Constitution needed amend

1 App., No. 1422a. "This restriction shall not prevent Congress from diminishing the said estimates if they think proper.

2 App., Nos. 1512, 1540, 1591.

3 A similar provision is found in many of the constitutions of the States, and their experience seems to have demonstrated the wisdom of the provision.

4 App., Nos. 1062, 1481a, 1567. The latter provided that all bills appropriating money should specify the exact amount of each appropriation, and the purpose for which it was made.

App., Nos. 1375a, 1501. Suggested by the contest between President Hayes and Congress. Mason, Veto Power, p. 48; ante, p. 133.