such an amendment than all his predecessors.' In this connection it is interesting to read what recommendation he made in his first message, of December 8, 1829. Evidently having in mind his previous recommendation, and conscious of his own inconsistency, he writes: "While members of Congress can be constitutionally appointed to office of trust and profit, it will be the practice, even under the most conscientious adherence to duty, to select them for such stations as they are believed to be better qualified to fill than other citizens; but the purity of our Government would doubtless be promoted by their exclusion from all appointment in the gift of the President, in whose election they may have been officially concerned. The nature of the judicial office and the necessity of securing in the Cabinet and in diplomatic stations of the highest rank the best talent and political experience should, perhaps, except these from the exclusion.”2

It is somewhat surprising to find Clay in 1841 presenting a proposition similar to the one Jackson had been led to suggest because of Clay's acceptance of office in Adams's Cabinet. But times had changed. Clay was now attacking Tyler, the fear of Executive encroachments having taken full possession of him. His State likewise indorsed his views, and presented to Congress a resolution in favor of this restriction.*

The length of the period of ineligibility proposed varied somewhat. A large number provided that a member should be ineligible only during the term for which he was elected; others assigned a more extended period, varying from three months to two years thereafter. Still others provided that the ineligibility should last until the expiration of the Presidential term during which a person shall have been a Senator or Representative. One even of a retrospective character was introduced in 1822 by Mr. Blair of South Carolina, which provided that "no one should be appointed by the President

"Of his first Cabinet, three were members of the Senate and one of the House; and Mr. Van Buren had been a Senator up to the 1st of January preceding. Many other members of Congress received important appointments. During the first six months of General Jackson's Administration more Federal appointments devolved upon members of Congress than had before fallen to their lot from the commencement of the Govern ment, in 1789, down to the 4th of March, 1829-forty years." Salmon. Appointing Power, p. 55; Sargent, I, p. 164; Am. Register, v, 20; XXXVI Niles' Reg., p. 267. For protocol of orig inal Jackson men arraigning him, see XL Niles, p. 387-389.

2 Statesman's Manual, p. 702. See Benton's Thirty Years' View, I, p. 86, for comments. 3 App., No. 715. Schurz, Henry Clay, II, p. 222.

1

to any office who shall have been a member of either House of Congress in the last two years preceding the election of the President." This was doubtless intended to prevent the President rewarding a member of the preceding Congress who had been especially active in working for his interests in the Congressional caucus of the party, which at this time usually made the nomination of the candidates of the different parties for the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency.

Some of these resolutions made exceptions in favor of certain positions, such as appointments in the Army or Navy, while others, similar to the one introduced several times by Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, permitted the heads of the Departments to be selected from Congress.2

3

The above propositions were of a very comprehensive character, some excluding members of Congress from all offices, both civil and military; the majority, however, applying only to the civil offices. There were in addition a few amendments proposed, the provisions of which were less stringent than the preceding. One, introduced in 1846 by Mr. Bagby of Alabama, to render members of both Houses ineligible to a Cabinet position; also, a group of three amendments providing that no member of either House shall be eligible to the office of Presi dent or Vice-President. The first of these resolutions was introduced by Mr. Bagby in connection with the above-mentioned amendment. It extended the time during which a member was ineligible to four years after the expiration of the term for which he was elected. One of the remaining two which were introduced in 1872, fixed the end of the period of ineligibility at two years after the expiration of the term

In addition, Mr. Turner of Kentucky has twice proposed, during the later seventies, an amendment prohibiting the appointment of any Senator or Representative, during the term for which he was elected or two years thereafter, "to any civil office of profit under the United States which was created or the emolument of which was increased during the said term.

13. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.

The Constitution left the subject of the compensation of members to be regulated by law. In order to prevent members from arbitrarily increasing their own salaries, three of the State conventions included among the amendments they proposed a provision that no alteration of the existing rate of compensation should at any time take effect before the next election of Representatives. In the First Congress, Mr. Madison also suggested a similar amendment, which, slightly changed, passed both branches of Congress, and was one of the twelve submitted to the States for ratification. This proposition, together with that in regard to apportionment of Representatives," failed to receive the approval of a sufficient number of States to secure its adoption."

The modest per diem adopted by the First Congress as its salary did not arouse fears of extravagance. Accordingly no further amendment.was proposed on the subject until 1816. In view of the increase of the revenue after the war of 1812, the Fourteenth Congress saw their opportunity to push through a new compensation bill, and did so, "with a haste altogether unusual," in the session of 1815-16. The new bill changed the compensation of members, which had been fixed by the First Congress at $6 per day and $6 for every 20 miles of estimated journey, to $1,500 a year, which was declared to be the correct equivalent of $6 per day. Others declared that it more than doubled that amount. The popular indignation aroused by this bill was something remarkable, and the entire country expressed its displeasure at the Congressional election that fall by failing to return an unusually large number of their Rep resentatives, some of whom were leading members. Upon the reassembling of Congress, Mr. Barbour of Virginia introduced a resolution proposing an amendment similar to that which failed to receive the approval of the States. The popular disap proval did not disappear at once. A similar resolution passed

1 Virginia, New York, North Carolina. App., Nos. 43, 58, 96.

2 App., No. 129.

App., Nos. 154, 216.

App., No. 243.

See par. 22.

Ratified by Delaware, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Vermont, Virginiasix States; rejected by five, See App., No. 243.

"The Fourteenth Congress for ability, energy, and usefulness never had a superior," yet they received "the severest popular rebuke ever visited on a House of Representa tives." Adams, Hist. of U. S., Vol. 1x, p. 138. McMaster, iv. pp. 357-362.

8 App., No. 458. In 1818 Congress repealed the unpopular act and passed a law fixing the salary at $8 per day and $8 mileage for every 20 miles.

the Massachusetts legislature by large majorities, and the leg. islature of Tennessee presented one of the same purport to the Fifteenth Congress, which aroused considerable discussion in the Senate over its reception.' Three propositions were presented in 1822. The first of these was similar to those previously introduced; the second went further and forbade fixing the pay of members of Congress at a greater sum than that adopted by the First Congress; the third provided that the compensation should be fixed decenially, after the new apportionment of Representatives.2

No amendment dealing with this subject was again presented to Congress until after the passage of the well-known "salary grab" act of 1873.3 At the opening of the next Congress five amendments similar to the one sent out to the States by the First Congress were immediately introduced. Instead of acting upon these resolutions this Congress repealed the obnoxious law, and with slight modifications revived the act previously in force, which has not been changed since."

14. OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION.

6

To the clause in the Constitution providing for an oath, only one of the States suggested an addition. The New York convention, evidently desiring some guaranty that the rights of the States should be protected, recommended that the Senators and Representatives and other officers of the United States should be bound by an oath not to infringe or violate the Constitution or rights of the respective States. Another rather minute objection was phrased in an amendment suggested in the First Congress, which proposed to insert in the provision in the Constitution the word "other" between "no" and "religious." The idea that the taking the oath was in itself a religious test seemed to find no favor.

App., Nos. 458a, 473.

2 App., Nos. 510, 512, 513. The legislature of Illinois in 1821 presented a resolution of disagreement to the proposed amendment. Annals, Seventeenth Congress, first session, p. 35.

3 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. XVII, p. 486. It was retroactive, and is sufficient proof that the precaution might well have been taken which the First Congress proposed. The act of 1873 raised the salary to $7,500 and actual traveling expenses.

App., Nos. 1372, 1373, 1374, 1375, 1377. The senate of Ohio passed a vote, ratifying the amendment proposed by Congress in 1789, at this time. See post par. 180.

The previous act was that of 1866. The new act fixed the compensation at $5,000 a year and 20 cents per mile mileage. Stat. L., Vol. XIV, pp. 333, 334.

Art. 6, cl. 3.

'App., No. 76.

"Constitution reads, "but no religious test shall ever be required." App., Nos. 210, 238, 261. This suggests the case of Bradlaugh in the English House of Commons.

15. CHANGING THE DATE OF INAUGURATION DAY AND THE TIME OF THE SESSIONS OF CONGRESS.

The date of the expiration of the First and Second Congresses and of the first Administration was due to a vote of the Congress of the Confederation of September 13, 1788, fixing the date the new Congress was to begin. More than a score of resolutions have been introduced proposing a change in the commencement or expiration of the official term of Congress or the date of Inauguration Day. The inconvenience. of the arrangement of the sessions seems to have been early felt, as Senator Burr of New York, in 1795, proposed that the date for the expiration of the term of Congress should be changed to the 1st day of June. The amendment presented by Mr. Hillhouse, in 1808, to change the term of Representatives to one year, which is discussed elsewhere, provided that their term should expire on the first Tuesday of April.2 With one unimportant exception,3 no other change was suggested until 1876. Since that time there have been eighteen amendments proposed. Several attempts have been made to set the date for the commencement of the Congressional term on the 31st day of December, or some day in the first week of January.

The desire to transfer Inauguration Day to a more favorable season of the year led to the introduction of a proposed amendment in 1876, fixing upon the 1st day of May. In more recent years the above reason, coupled with the desire to bring the Inauguration Day upon the one hundredth anniversary of the inauguration of Washington, and thus appropriately round out the first century of our history under the Constitution, led to the presentation of several resolutions making provision for such a change. Two such resolutions passed the Senate unanimously; the first, introduced in 1886 by Senator Ingalls, desig nating April 30 as the commencement of the official term of the Executive and of the Congress; the second in 1888, presented by Mr. Hoar, fixed upon the last Tuesday of April, which in 1889 fell upon the 30th of the month. The House,

App., No. 327.

2 App., No. 391. See post par. 26.

6

* Proposed in 1840 to fix the 1st of December as the day for the commencement of the term of members. App., No. 706.

App., Nos. 1416, 1418, 1440, 1470, 1571, 1625, 1641, 1676, 1681, 1682, 1685, 1686, 1691, 1703, 1707, 1735, and 1672. The latter proposed to give Congress power to establish the beginning of the Presidential and Congressional term."

5 App., No. 1416,

6 App., Nos. 1676, 1691.