Various amendments were presented limiting the President to one, or at most two terms. An amendment making the President ineligible for a third term received the sanction of the Senate in 1824, and again in 1826. During this period there were fourteen amendments proposed diminishing the veto power and two dispensing with it.

Amendments dealing with the relations of the Federal Government to individuals were few in number; so completely had the first ten amendments covered the field that nearly all dis satisfaction had been allayed. One of the few introduced, providing that anyone who should accept a title of nobility, or without the consent of Congress, a present, office, or emolument from any foreign sovereign or State, should cease to be a citizen of the United States and incapable of holding office therein, passed both Houses of Congress in 1810 and received the sanction of twelve States, failing of ratification by one vote only."

The majority of the remaining propositions of this class aimed at the protection or abolition of slavery. As early as 1818, Mr. Livermore of New Hampshire introduced a resolution prohibiting slavery, which failed to receive the consideration of the House. Again, in 1839, John Quincy Adams tried to introduce a series of amendments abolishing hereditary slavery after 1842, forbidding the admission of slave States after 1845, and prohibiting slavery and the slave trade at the seat of government. Shortly after the compromise of 1850 an unsuccessful attempt was made to still further protect the interest of the slavocracy by the introduction of an amendment providing that no amendment shall be made abolishing or affecting slavery in any State without the concurrence of the slave States.1

The most remarkable fact of the period is that not one of the four hundred amendments proposed during these fifty-eight years became a part of the Constitution. Six passed the Senate; in addition, one only received the sanction of both branches of Congress."

5. THE THIRD PERIOD: 1860-1870.

Toward the close of the second period there was a lull; during two sessions of Congress no amendments were introduced,

App., Nos. 535, 545.

2 App., No. 399.

3 App., No. 474.

4 App., Nos. 697-699.

App.. Nos. 409, 485, 489, 505, 535, 545. & App., No. 399.

but at last an avalanche of propositions fell upon the second session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress (1860-61), nearly all dealing with some phase of the slavery question, prompted by the hope of preserving the Union. Some of these suggested very radical changes in the form of government, notably one proposing that the Presidency be abolished, and an executive council of three be established, each armed with the veto;1 and another that either a dual executive should be created, or a division of the Senate into two bodies should be effected.2

Several States had already passed the ordinance of secession before anything had been done; finally upon the 2d of March, 1861, the so-called Corwin amendment prohibiting any amendment abolishing or interfering within any State with the institution of slavery passed Congress.3 There was no chance for its ratification. The time for compromise had passed, and the question was transferred from legislative halls to the field of battle. For some months after this Congress was so occupied with the consideration of war measures that the amending power was scarcely invoked, but from 1864 on, the question of amendment became of the first importance. The political and social changes brought about by the war presented a new set of questions, so that the amendments relating to the legal status of individuals, which previously had been of the least, now became of the greatest importance.

From the large number of resolutions proposed during the reconstruction period, nearly all dealing with questions arising out of the rebellion, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were ratified, registering the results of the war.1 In this period the question of amendment received the most serious attention of Congress; hence it was the most productive in results. Besides the three now a part of the Constitution and the Corwin amendment, four amendments passed one House, but not the other.5

5. THE FOURTH PERIOD, 1870-1889.

The last of the reconstruction amendments was ratified in 1870. The last twenty years of the first century of the life of the Constitution form a period characterized by attempts to alter the Constitution in almost every particular. While in

App., No. 804.

2 App., No. 795.

3 App., No. 931.

App., Nos. 985, 1135, 1284.

5 App., Nos. 1055, 1079, 1250, 1308.

this respect, not unlike the tentative efforts of the second period, the amendments considered in the fourth more generally contemplated substantial alterations than confirmatory enactment. About four hundred propositions have been introduced during this time;1 two classes command attention, the one and the larger involving changes in the form of government, the other in its powers. Under the former the choice, term, composition, and duties of the legislative, executive, and judicial are considered; there being some one hundred propositions on the term and election of President alone. One of theseproposed by Mr. Maish of Pennsylvania, in 1877, and again in 1888-is worthy of mention. It provided for a direct vote by States, but the electoral vote should be distributed among the candidates in the proportion the electoral ratio should bear to the popular vote of each candidate."

One noticeable feature is the increase in the number of amendments calling for the popular election of the President, Senators, and even such executive officers as postmasters and revenue collectors. The desire to reduce the number of members in the House of Representatives has led to the introduction, since 1880, of five amendments to accomplish this result, the last of these placed the number at two hundred and fifty.3

Two amendments have passed the Senate, the first in 1886. the second in 1887, changing the date of Inauguration Day to April 30, but both failed in the House.*

The second class, comprising amendments to the powers of the Government, covers a large variety of subjects. Many of these indicate a strong drift toward paternalism. Some are attempts to limit the powers of Congress as the State legislatures have been limited; others are intended to still further protect the civil and political rights of the individual; while others aim at the correction of abuses both of a social and political nature. A good example of this last group is the amendment introduced by Mr. Blaine, prohibiting the distribution of money to religious sects, which passed the House August 4, 1876, but received no further indorsement.5

During this period but few amendments received even brief consideration, and only four out of the entire number received the approval of one House.

App., Nos. 1368-1736.

2 App., Nos. 1438, 1705.

3 App., Nos. 1507, 1530, 1553, 1585, 1716.

4 App., Nos. 1676,1691.

5 App., No. 1401.

The prospect of almost certain failure does not seem to have diminished the number of amendments offered.' In recent years there has been a gradual increase in the number presented. During the fourth period there were over four hundred distinct propositions introduced, and in the Fiftieth Congress forty-eight resolutions, proposing amendments on twenty dif ferent subjects, were presented.

The detailed examination of the proposed amendments which follows shows that the importance of these propositions does not lie in their influence in effecting actual changes within the Constitution merely, but that they are indices of the movements to effect a change, and to a large degree show the waves of popular feeling and reflect the political theories of the time. It is believed that a study of the efforts to amend the Constitution will contribute to a fuller and clearer understanding of our history, both constitutional and political.

"An examination of these reveals both the ingenuity and variety of the minds conceiving them, and the present futility of any ill-considered attempt to follow in their footsteps. Report of the committee of the New York State Bar Association, 1890. Reports of the Association, Vol. Xш, p. 142.

CHAPTER II.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AFFECTING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT: LEGISLATIVE.

7. DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS AMONG THE THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT.

There seemed to be some apprehension among the members of the First Congress that the powers delegated respectively to each of the three branches of the Government might be usurped by one of the other departments; one department thus trenching upon the rights of another might disarrange the harmonious working of a system the success of which was supposed to be dependent upon the complete separation of the three branches of the Government. Accordingly an attempt was persistently made in the first session of Congress to reaffirm the doctrine in a formal manner. Mr. Madison included in the series of amendments presented by him early in this session a proposition,' which, as reported in a slightly different form and passed by the House, read: "The powers delegated by the Constitution to the Government of the United States shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial the powers vested in the legislative or executive." The Senate, however, either did not share in the apprehensions of the House or failed to see how this amendment could further insure the integrity of each department, and struck out the resolution. The next day, however, a motion was made in the Senate to add the following to the proposed amendments: "That the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers of the Government should be separate and distinct." Then follows a few phrases of political moralizing, to the effect "that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating

'App., No. 144. Very similar to famous clause in the constitution of Massachusetts (1780), Part 1, art. 30, and doubtless suggested by it. See also constitution of Kentucky (1792), art. 1.

2 App., No. 230.