United States Bank from Congress. The original motion was so amended as to exclude only the officers of the bank, and thus amended it was rejected by a vote of 12 yeas to 13 nays.2 The presence of contractors in the House led to the introduction of an amendment in 1806 to exclude contractors of the Government from the House of Representatives. Two years later a similar resolution was offered, but included the Senate as well as the House. This may have been suggested by the connection of Senator Smith of Maryland with a Baltimore firm which had large contracts with the Government. A third unsuccessful attempt was made in 1836 to secure an amendment making members of Congress ineligible to civil office and prohibiting their holding or making any contract with or under the authority of the United States." The The exclusion of naturalized persons from Congress was sought by another group of propositions. The New York ratifying convention and the Massachusetts and Connecticut legislatures in 1798 recommended an amendment making foreigners naturalized since the Declaration of Independence ineligible to the office of Senator and Representative in Congress. political significance of these amendments is referred to else. where." One of the amendments framed by the Hartford convention and recommended to Congress by the legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut, through their Senators and Representatives, stipulated that no person hereafter naturalized should be eligible to either House. 12. INCOMPATIBILITY OF OTHER FUNCTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. No less than thirty-three resolutions have been introduced proposing that members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall not be eligible to any appointment or office. 'App., No. 318. 2 App.. Nos. 320, 324. 3 App., No. 374. 4 App., No. 387. stitution of North 5 App., No. 655. See post par. 20 for further discussion. The constitutions of some of the States had such a provision. See con- 6 App, Nos. 50, 330-333, 333a b. 7 Post par. 36. 8 App., Nos. 430, 438, 446. For replies of the various States, see post par. 22. The reply of the legislature of Pennsylvania declares "the number of foreigners now in office does not threaten any, inconvenience. Out of 182 Representatives in Congress it is believed that there are not more than four who were born out of the limits of the United States. .and in the Senate not one." This proposition was first suggested by the conventions that ratified the Constitution in Virginia, New York, and North Carolina,' and the attempt was made in both branches of the First Congress to add such an amendment to the series about to be sent to the States for their ratification.2 Amendments of this nature were also introduced in 1793, 1808, 1810, and 1818;3 and from 1820 until the early "forties" similar amendments were submitted at almost every session of Congress. The last one proposing a general disqualification from all offices was presented in 1850.+ The amendment proposed by the legislature of Tennessee in November of 1825 is of especial interest, as it was evidently prompted by the utterances of Andrew Jackson." When Tennessee, in the fall of 1825, nominated him as a candidate for the Presidency for the election of 1828, Jackson immediately departed from Washington, and in a speech before the Tennessee legislature resigned his office of Senator in order that he might not be open to the suspicion of using that office to promote his candidacy. At the same time he declared he would "impose a provision upon the Constitution rendering members of Congress ineligible to office under the General Government during the term for which elected and for two years thereafter," except in the case of judicial office. "The effect of such a provision," said he, "is obvious. By it Congress would be free from that connection with the executive department which at present gives strong ground of apprehension and jealousy on the part of the people. If the change should not be obtained and important appointments continue to devolve upon Congress, corruption will be the order of the day." However desirable, theoretically, Jackson believed this change to be, in practice he did more to create the need of App., Nos. 29, 62, 81. 2 App., Nos. 199, 275. 3 App., Nos. 317, 387, 400, 401, 479. 4 App., Nos. 493, 511, 516, 544, 546, 549, 569, 581, 595, 612, 642, 652, 655, 662, 670, 678, 680, 696, 715, 723, 727, 749, 7554, 703. App., No. 549. See also similar resolutions of the legislature of Tennessee of 1827, arraigning Adams and Clay, which were unanimously adopted by the house of representatives and only two dissenting votes in the senate. App., No. 581a. Niles' Register, XXXII, pp. 161, 183-186, 198. Counter resolutions of disapproval from the legislatures of Indiana, Ohio, and Maine. Ibid., XXIX, pp. 369, 429. "Niles Register, XXIX, 125, 155-157. Sumner's Jackson, p. 104, note 2. 7 Ibid. 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 Presi dent, 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. 287–389. 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. 4 App., No. 727. 5 App., Nos. 569, 655. 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." 996 App., No. 511. 2 App., Nos. 549, 569, 612, 652, 678, 723, 755d, 763. 4 App., Nos. 746, 1347, 1351. 5 App., No 1347. 6 App.. Nos. 1474, 1482. H. Doc. 353, pt 2-3 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 Representatives, 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 disapproval did not disappear at once. A similar resolution passed 1 Virginia, New York, North Carolina. App., Nos. 43, 58, 96. 6 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 Representatives." Adams, Hist. of U. S., Vol. IX, 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. |