however, failed to concur in either of these propositions. The first was never reported from the committee to which it was referred; the second gave rise to an interesting discussion. At about this same time a resolution which had been introduced by Mr. Crain of Texas three times since 1886, was reported favorably. It proposed an amendment to the Constitution substituting the 31st of December for the 4th of March as the commencement and termination of the official term of members of Congress, and provided that Congress should hold its annual session on the first Monday of January. Mr. Crain now wished to have the provisions of his amendment incorporated in the Senate resolution, and advanced an interesting argument in favor of the change. He showed that under the present system a Representative does not enter upon the discharge of his duties until thirteen months after his election, and then frequently comes to his office to find that the issues upon which he was elected have been determined and settled by the second session of the previous Congress. Thus, Representatives who have been defeated at the polls defy the will of the people by legislating in accordance with a policy that had been adopted before their repudiation.

Mr. Crain further dwelt upon the fact that under the proposed plan there would be no election between the two sessions of a Congressional term; that there would be no short term, and no necessity for extra sessions; Representatives elected in November would begin to perform their duties early in the next January, and thus would come fresh from the people and be in touch with the people. The necessity of a Representative's answering to his constituents after the second session would tend to make him as faithful, zealous, and efficient as in the first session.

Some speakers questioned the need of a constitutional amendment to change the date of Inauguration Day, as the present date, the 4th of March, is fixed by law and not by the Constitution. The greater number, however, considered this necessary, but thought that the object desired by Mr. Crain could be obtained by law. It was further shown that by the Senate amendment the short session would be made into a long one, and thus give Congress more time to transact its business. The House finally refused to suspend the rules and pass the resolution by a vote of 129 yeas to 128 nays. Party 'App., Nos. 1682, 1686, 1707.

See Manual of the Rules and Practice of the House of Representatives, p. 428.

lines were not drawn in the division.' Later in the same session Mr. Crain presented a resolution containing the Senate proposition coupled with his own, but the motion to suspend the rules and pass was rejected.2

Both the suggestions deserve to be incorporated in the Constitution. The great practical inconvenience of closing the second session of Congress on the 4th of March and the desirability of abridging the present long interval which elapses between the time of the choice of Representatives and the time of their entering upon the duties of their office becomes more evident from year to year. In addition to the sentimental reasons for changing the date of Inauguration Day to the 30th of April, the inclemency of the weather of early March often seriously interferes with the exercises of the day, which has become a gala day, thus exposing thousands to the dangers incident to that season of the year.3

Only one resolution has been submitted proposing to do away with the annual sessions of Congress. This was in 1878, and made provision for biennial sessions. The proposed change was doubtless suggested by the practice of the great majority of the States and the increasing fear of the danger of overlegislation.*

16. EXTRA SESSIONS OF CONGRESS: QUORUM AND VOTE.

Among the amendments proposed by President Grant in his annual message at the opening of Congress in December, 1873, was one providing that when an extra session shall be convened by Executive proclamation legislation during the continuance of such extra session shall be confined to such subjects as the Executive may bring before it. There is no record to show that Congress ever considered the subject. The reasons which influenced the President in making this recommendation were evidently a desire to make the term of the extra

1 For discussion, see Congressional Record, Fiftieth Congress, first session, pp. 1345–1353. 2App., No. 1719. Mr. Crain has proposed the same amendment in each Congress since. In the Fifty-second Congress it was reported favorably, but rejected. Record, Fiftysecond Congress, second session, pp. 483-500. Some objected to this plan because it would bring in a new Congress before the new President, and thus they would canvass the vote for President.

3 It is said that General Harrison's death resulted from a cold caught at his inaugu ration.

4 App., No. 1470. Extra sessions were provided for. All of the States save five have biennial sessions. Bryce, Vol. 1, p. 487.

App., No. 1371. A common provision in State constitutions in eleven States. See Davis, John Hopkins University Studies, third series, pp. 479, 528.

session as short as possible and to guard against overlegislation, for he says: "One session in each year is provided for by the Constitution, in which there are no restrictions as to the subject of legislation by Congress. If more are required, it is always in the power of Congress during their term of office to provide for sessions at any time."

The constitutional quorum-a majority of all the members in either House-was larger than is usual in parliamentary bodies, but no serious inconvenience was felt, and there has been no effort to change the provision of the Constitution until nearly the close of the first century of its history. In the Fiftieth Congress, Mr. Wheeler of Alabama introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution so that "one-third of the members of each House shall constitute a quorum," instead of the existing requirement-a majority. The need of some change was suggested by the growth in the recent Congresses of the practice of "filibustering," which has reached such proportions as to seriously interfere with business. The claim of no quorum has been one of the favorite means of "filibustering." Since the Fifty-first Congress, rules have been adopted to check this practice in the House of Representatives.3

Another proposition, made by the ratifying conventions in New York and Rhode Island, would, had it been adopted, put an engine of irresistible power into the hands of the filibusterers, for the clause which provides that the yeas and nays shall be entered on the journals at the desire of one-fifth of those present was to be so changed that two members in either House might require it.4

17. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

5

The Constitution adopted the English and Cabinet practice of relieving members from responsibility for their utterances in Congress before the regular courts, but it gave to each House power to discipline its own members. But one proposition has ever been presented to decrease that power. In 1789, Mr. Tucker of South Carolina moved that this clause should be struck out." The ground for his motion was not

Constitution, art. 1, sec. 5, cl. 1.

2 App., No. 1728.

3 Manual and Digest, Fifty-first Congress, second session, Rule xv, cl. 3, p. 527.

stated, but probably it was that a member should be responsible only to his State or constituency.'

18. PUBLICATION OF THE JOURNALS.

The clause in the Constitution which provides that the journals of each House shall be published from time to time? seemed too indefinite to some of the ratifying conventions. Four of the conventions, therefore, included in their series of proposed amendments one which required their publication "at least once in every year."3 An unsuccessful attempt was made to add to the series of amendments recommended by the First Congress such a proposition. Subsequent history

has shown that the fear that the proceedings of Congress might be withheld for some time was groundless. The journals of each House have appeared annually, except that the proceedings of secret sessions have been made known only at the later discretion of the House concerned. In addition to the journals, the official debates of Congress since 1833 have been published by the Government.5

19. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The House of Representatives, as the most numerous of the two constituent elements of Congress, and as the branch which springs most directly from the people, has been the object of many propositions for amendment. Some 150 amendments have been proposed to the provisions of the Constitution relative to this branch of Congress. Many attempts have been made to alter the qualifications of its members, to change their number and apportionment, and to control their election."

20. QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS.

In addition to the resolutions proposing to alter the constitutional qualifications of members of either branch of Con

From 1789 to 1870 there were seventy-six attempts to discipline members of Congress. Of these twenty-six were cases of abusive language or disorderly behavior on the floor of the House and twenty-five for treason. Out of this number the actual censures for all causes in both Houses have been ten and the expulsions eighteen. Stated by Mr. C. F. Gettemy, a member of the Historical Seminary, Harvard University, 1890-91, from his research in the journals.

"Constitution, art. 1, sec. 5, cl. 3.

3 Virginia, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island. App., Nos. 30, 59, 82, 113.

4 App., No. 274.

The Congressional Globe, 1833 to 1873; the Congressional Record, 1873 to the present time.

No proposition has been made to take the right of election from the people. See Story, I, p. 409.

gress, two others have been introduced applying only to the House. In 1806, owing to the defeat of a bill to exclude "contractors or any one participating in any way in the profits of such contracts" from the House of Representatives, because many believed it was not within the competency of Congress to add to the qualifications for members required by the Constitution, an amendment with the same end in view was introduced. It is evident from the references in the course of the debate that persons holding Government contracts were members of Congress. The danger and evil of this practice was urged by Randolph and others, but the only thing accomplished was the calling upon the Postmaster-General for a list of all persons holding mail contracts. Two years later a somewhat similar provision was introduced, which applied to the Senate as well."

One resolution has appeared bearing upon the qualifications of residence. By the Constitution the only limitation was that the member should be a resident of the State in which he was chosen a clause suggested by the parsimonious practice of the States in the old Congress of selecting persons who lived near the seat of government as their agents. The ratifying convention of New York proposed as an amendment a resolution to the effect that the legislatures of the respective States may provide by law that a Representative must have been an inhabitant of the district he represents for at least one year immediately preceding his election. Congress does not appear to have taken into consideration the subject. of this amendment, but some of the States have enacted laws requiring the Representative to be a resident of the district he represents. The constitutionality of such laws is so doubtful that the Massachusetts law was repealed. It amounts to the imposition by the States of a qualification not specified in the Constitution." Positive law has in any case been little needed since both in

1 Ante par. 11.

2 Introduced by Randolph. Annals, P. 508.

Annals, p. 880.

8

4 By Mr. Newton. App., No. 374. The example of England (see 22 George III, c. 45) and possibly the presence of some of Burr's relatives may have suggested it. Mr. Newton, however, said "he would wish to see an American Congress composed of very different material from a British Parliament." Annals, p. 894.

5 Annals, pp. 761, 828.

App., No. 387. Ante par. 11.

"Constitution, art. 1, sec. 2, el. 2.

App., No. 77.

Story, I, p. 447, note 1. Foster, Com. on the Const., I, p. 363, note 10.