the apportionment and compensation of members of Congress,' were ratified by a sufficient number of the States, and the first ten amendments, or, as they are sometimes termed, the American Bill of Rights, became part of the Constitution." 98. DOCTRINAIRE PROPOSITIONS ON THE RIGHTS OF MAN. Of the various amendments proposed during the consideration by Congress of this series of propositions, the greater part involved only slight change, and more often merely verbal. Several, however, are worthy of notice as showing the political philosophy of the day. Mr. Madison placed as the first amendment in the series presented by him an article defining the basis of power. It provided "that there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration that all power is origi nally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it may be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution." The committee reported a much briefer preamble, declaring that the government was derived from the people. After being adopted in Committee of the Whole it was stricken out by the House. App., Nos. 243, 295. Sce ante pars. 13, 22. 2 App., No. 297, for list of States ratifying. All the States except Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Georgia acted favorably. In Massachusetts and Connecticut the influence of the Federalist leaders who had foolishly opposed the amendments in Congress predominated. The Massachusetts legislature on a concurrent resolution, rejected the first, second, and twelfth amendments, and agreed to the others, and ordered the appointment of a committee to bring in a bill or resolve declaring their adoption. The committee does not seem to have reported, and finally action was not taken. Senate Journal, Massachu setts, vol. 10, p. 192; Journals of the House of Representatives, Massachusetts, vol. 10, pp. 168, 169, 209, 217, 218. At the same time a concurrent resolution was passed appointing a joint committee "to consider what further amendments are necessary to be added to the Federal Constitution and report." The committee reported a series of twelve propositions, inasmuch as they were "convinced that the people of this State, when they adopted the Constitution of the United States, wished for and expected other and further amendments than those which have been recommended, and that they are now anxious to have their liberties more explicitly secured to them." For reprint of the report, see the American Historical Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 99-105. "This group of ten amendments may, therefore, be regarded as a supplement or postscript to the original, and should not be regarded in the same category with the subsequent independent amendments." Report of New York State Bar Association, Vol. XIII, p. 139. 3App., No. 127. 4App., No. 147. Subsequently there were three attempts, when the amendments were being considered in the Senate, to add an additional paragraph containing sentiments similar to the preamble quoted from Mr. Madison, all of which, however, proved unsuccessful. That the social-compact theory was popular in that day is shown by one of these resolutions,' which opens with the declaration that "there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, can not deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty," etc. Another declares that magistrates are the trustees and agents of the people, and are therefore "at all times amenable to them." 2 The third asserts that the Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit and protection and security of the people, and that "the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind." 3 Two further attempts were made in the Senate to add a further guaranty of individual liberty. One of these proposed amendments declared that "every freeman restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy, to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied or delayed." The other proposition was similar, only still more explicit. Both were rejected. 99. TITLES OF NOBILITY. The provisions of the Constitution forbidding any person holding office under the United States Government, without the consent of Congress, from accepting any present or title from any king, prince, or foreign State did not seem sufficiently stringent to some of the State conventions. The ratifying conventions of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and, later, Rhode Island," proposed amendments either forbidding Congress from ever granting its consent, or for the accomplishment of the same end proposed eliminating the clause. "without the consent of Congress." A similar change was proposed in the Senate and twice in the House of the First Congress, during the discussion of the subject of amending the Constitution, but failed to meet the approval of either branch. No further amendments on this subject were presented until 1810. Early in that year Senator Reed of Maryland introduced an amendment relative to the acceptance of titles of nobility by American citizens." The resolutions were referred to a select committee of three, and twice afterwards recommended to a larger committee, who finally reported them in a modified form. Several amendments were presented during the debate, one of which was accepted. It was in these words: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them." 3 Thus amended, the article passed the Senate by a vote of 19 yeas to 5 nays. The amendment was immediately considered in the House and passed by that body on the 1st day of May, only three votes being cast against it. Unfortunately, the Annals of Congress and contemporary newspapers do not give any of the debate upon this interesting proposition. The only light thrown upon the subject by the Annals is the remark of Mr. Macon, who said "he considered the vote on this question as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the Legion of Honor in this country."4 What event connected with our diplomatic or political history suggested the need of such an amendment is not now apparent.5 4 Annals of Congress, Eleventh Congress, second session, p. 2050. The files of four of the leading papers of the time have been examined without any additional light being thrown on the question. It is possible that the presence of Jerome Bonaparte in this country a few years previous, and his marriage to a Maryland lady, may have suggested this measure. An article in Niles' Register (vol. LXXII, p. 166), written many years after this event, refers to an amend ment having been adopted to prevent any but a native-born citizen from being President of the United States. This is of course a mistake, as the Constitution in its original form contained such a provision; but it may be possible that the circumstances referred to by the writer in Niles relate to the passage of this amendment through Congress in regard to titles of nobility. The article referred to maintains that at the time Jerome Bonaparte was in this country the Federalist party, as a political trick, affecting to apprehend that Jerome might find his way to the Presidency through "French influence," proposed the amendment. They thought the Democratic party would oppose it as unnecessary, which would thus appear to the public as a further proof of their subserviency to French influence. "The Democrats, to avoid this imputation, concluded to carry the amendment. 'It can do no harm' was what reconciled it to all." Possibly there was no particular event which suggested it, but it probably was only another means of expressing that animosity against foreigners and everything foreign, which manifested itself in various ways in the trying period just previous to the war of 1812. That the amendment was in the line of popular sentiment may be inferred, otherwise we can not account for the nearly unanimous vote it received in Congress and the favorable reception it met with from the States.2 The amendment lacked only the vote of one State of being adopted. It received the ratification of twelve States, and was passed by the Senate of South Carolina. It was generally supposed that the amendment had been concurred in by the requisite majority of the States. In the official edition of the Constitution of the United States, prepared for the use of the members of the House of Representatives of the Fifteenth Congress, the article appears as the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. This led to a resolution of inquiry," as a result of which it was discovered that the house of representatives of South Carolina had not confirmed the action of the senate, and so the amendment had not been adopted." However, the general public continued to think that this I am indebted to Professor McMaster for this suggestion. Good examples of the antiforeign spirit may be seen in the laws enacted at this time by some of the States. In Kentucky a bill prohibiting the citation of the decision of any British court or any British treatise on law was proposed. With difficulty Henry Clay succeeded in obtaining an amendment limiting the restriction to such decisions as had been rendered, and to such works as had been written, since July 4, 1776. In this form it passed. In Pennsyl vania a similar bill was introduced in 1809, and passed in 1810, and remained on the statute books for a generation. Schurz, Life of Henry Clay, 1, pp. 49-50; McMaster, 1, pp. 417-418. For other attacks on the system of English common law, see McMaster, 111, p. 512. Another manifestation of the same spirit was the action of the House of Represen tatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. February 10, 1814, by a vote of 47 to 38 the House passed the following resolution: "Resolved, That this House dispense with the use of the Mace." Journal of the 24th House of Representatives of Pennslyvania. (1813-14) pp. 283, 292, 309. 2 It passed both branches of the Legislature of Pennsylvania unanimously. Journal of Senate of Penn. (1810-11) p. 180; Journal of House of Representatives pp. 290, 294. 3 See list given after App., No. 399. 4 Also given in Vol. 1, p. 74 of "The Laws of the United States of America." Phila. and Washington, 1815. Annals of Congress, Fifteenth Congress, first session, p. 530; Niles' Register, Vol. XIV, p. 150. App., No. 399. Certified copy of the proceedings of the State legislature of South Carolina in Bureau of Rolls and Library, Department of State. The minutes of the House of Representatives of South Carolina do not state the reasons for their opposition. Thus four States rejected it, viz, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Virginia does not appear from the records in the State Department to have taken any action. amendment had been adopted,' and this misconception was perpetuated for over a third of a century in editions of the Constitution and school histories." 100. DUELING. 3 Another attempt to regulate the behavior of American citizens by constitutional amendment arose out of the growth of public sentiment inimical to the practice of dueling; the first was presented in 1828, by Mr. Long of North Carolina, and was intended to prevent the practice of duelling. Ten years later two other resolutions were introduced. The reason for their presentation at this time is apparent. On the 24th of February, 1838, Jonathan Cilley, a member of Congress from Maine, was killed in a duel with William J. Graves of Kentucky, also a member of Congress. On the 5th of March, Mr. Morgan of Virginia introduced the first of these resolutions, restricting all who should be connected with a duel, even including the seconds or the bearer of the challenge, from holding office. The attempt to expel Graves from the House took place in the following December. Mr. Cushman of New Hampshire, a Northern man, offered a similar amendment." This was the last attempt to amend the Constitution in this particular. 101. POOR RELIEF. The disposition to make the Constitution a code of laws reached the fullest expression in an amendment to invest the central Government with the power and duty of legislating for the care of the poor. This suggested a radical departure from the system then in use and since followed. This amendment was proposed by the convention which ratified the Constitution in Rhode Island in 1790. It provided "that Congress should have power to establish a uniform rule of inhabitancy and settlement of the poor of the different States throughout the United States."" 1 Illustration, see Niles' Register, Vol. XX, pp. 191, 255. 2 Illustrative of this, the following: "A History of the United States," by B. J. Olney, A. M., New Haven, 1836. "Constitution of the United States of America.' Printed by Francis Hart & Co., 63 Cortland street, New York. (No date.) "A History of the United States," by John Frost, Philadelphia, 1843. In History of the United States, by Emma Willard, New York, 1829, it appears as the XV amendment. The first twelve sent out by the First Congress all being given as if ratified. 3 App., No. 587. 4 App., No. 685. App., No. 687. |