seem," as a well-known American writer has truly said, "that no impulse short of the impulse of self-preservation, no force less than the force of revolution, can nowadays be expected to move the cumberous machinery in Article v.”1

When we contrast this paucity of amendments with the frequency of constitutional revision and change in the States, it is the more striking.2 Only one of the original States lives under its first constitution, namely, Massachusetts, and that instrument has been amended far more than the Federal document. It is doubtless true that this tendency to change has been in some instances carried too far, and that the constitutions of some of our States enter so much into detail that their provisions partake more of the nature of the statutory than the fundamental law. Still many salutary changes have been effected, and these constitutions are, in consequence, much better adapted to meet the needs of the present age. The fact that the modern State constitutions have entered so largely into technique and detail render them less likely to be permanent and increases the necessity of amendment. This being true, one of the demands of the time is for greater facility in procuring amendments.4

5

Fortunately, the Federal Constitution, owing to the fact that it deals only with the most general elements of government, has proved so elastic as to adapt itself to new contingencies and circumstances, and thus the necessity of amendment has been reduced to a minimum. There still remain, however, certain desirable reforms, rendered apparent by more than a single proposition in the exact form proposed." Ibid., p. 138. "Only five times in a cen tury of constitutional government has the Constitution been changed, an immunity which must be attributed not only to its original completeness, but to the conservative spirit of the national and State legislatures and the intrinsic difficulties attending the process." Ibid., p. 141.

1 Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, pp. 242–243.

2 The total number of distinct constitutions, either newly adopted or completely revised in the one hundred and ten years subsequent to the Declaration of Independence was 104, and to these several constitutions 214 partial amendments have been adopted. The average life of a State constitution has been twenty-seven years. Hitchcock, American State Constitutions, pp. 13, 14. Davis, American Constitutions, pp. 475, 476. See also Bryce for later figures, 113 constitutions and 240 partial amendments. Vol. 1, pp. 457, 458. See also ibid., chaps. 38, 39. Up to 1897 the number of partial amendments is 300.

3 Reasons for this, see Bryce, 1, pp. 458-462, 490-493. Hitchcock, pp. 34-47.

4 Jameson, J. F. An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution and Political History of the States, p. 14.

5"If there is any one thing to which we owe the permanency of our government, it is this, that so little is settled dogmatically; that so much is left for experiment." McMaster in Shaler's, United States, II, p. 500.

century's experience and the changed conditions of our people and age. Although constructive statesmanship did not end with the adoption of the Constitution, as some would have us believe, and although there exists to-day more wisdom and capacity in matters pertaining to the science of government than at the time the Constitution was formed, still it has proved to be impossible to secure these reforms because they can be effected only by a formal amendment.2

Nearly all Americans will agree that a rigid constitution has its excellencies," but is there not a limit to the degree of rigidity desirable? Did not the framers of our Federal Constitution, while seeking "to avoid the dangers attending a too frequent change of their fundamental code," advert "to an opposite danger to be equally shunned-that of making amendments too difficult?”

Has not the mode provided proved to be of

1At no time in the century have there failed to be present in Congress members who, out of regard for the memory of the "fathers," "look at the Constitutions," as Jefferson said, "with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched." Two examples will suffice: Speech of Mr. Purviance of North Carolina, December 7, 1803; Annals, pp. 692, 693. He opposed "any innovation on the sacred charter, because when we shall have once begun to make incursions on it, there is no knowing at what point of progress we shall stop. As for myself, while one fragment of this

*

*

*

sacred charter remains, I will hug it to my heart and cherish it as I would the vital juices of my existence. I believe that it is now absolutely perfect; if it be once invaded the work of destruction will not be arrested until the happiness and liberties of our country are destroyed." Mr. English of New Jersey, in a speech January 10, 1893, said: "I object to all and any of this tinkering with the Constitution; the horror that is in my nature at any profane touch upon the Constitution" etc. "Let us pause before we further amend the Constitution and lay profane hands upon it, to reflect whether or not we are setting a precedent which may be evil or bring evils upon the Republic. Let the Constitution stand. Go no further if you value that inheritance which your fathers gave you and which their sons are bound to defend and support." Record, Fiftysecond Congress, second session, p. 491. Such persons should read Jefferson's comment, (Works, VII, pp. 14, 15), and also Jackson's message, where he says, "Evils which can be clearly traced to an organic defect in the Constitution ought not to be overlooked through a too scrupulous veneration of the work of our ancestors." Senate Journal, Twentyfirst Congress, second session, pp. 21-22.

*

2 Changes which could be effected by interpretation it has been possible to secure, but any change affecting any provision in regard to the form of the government it has been impossible to secure, as for example, the abolition of the Electoral College, the popular election of Senators, the lengthening the term of Representatives, conferring upon the President power to veto items in appropriation bills, etc.

3 Cooley, Constitutional Law, pp. 21, 22.

4 Jameson, Constitutional Convention, p. 549. "Provisions regulating the tice and mode of effecting organic changes are in the nature of safety valves, they must not be so adjusted as to discharge their peculiar function with too great facility, lest they become the ordinary escape pipes of party passion; nor, on the other hand, must they discharge it with such difficulty that the force needed to induce action is sufficient to explode the machine. Hence the problem of the constitution maker is, in this particular, one of the most difficult in our whole system, to reconcile the requisites for progress with the requisites for safety." Ibid.

such a character that in some instances "discovered faults" have been perpetuated? While continuing to follow the wise injunction of the "Father of the Country""to resist with care the spirit of innovation upon the principles of the Constitution," may we not do well to make such constitutional modifications as "experience"-"the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of existing constitutions"-has shown desirable? Certainly the facts plainly show that the cause of the difficulty is, to use the words of Chief Justice Marshall, that the machinery of procuring an amendment is "unwieldy and cumbrous." The majorities required are too large. Under the present system, according to the population given in the census of 1890, it was possible for eleven States with a population of less than 2,350,000 to defeat any constitutional amendment although it was desired by the more than 60,000,000 inhabitants of the other States."

"When in a democratic political society," says Professor Burgess, "the well matured, long and deliberately formed will of the undoubted majority can be persistently and successfully thwarted, in the amendment of its organic law, by the will of the minority, there is just as much danger to the State from revolution and violence as there is from the caprice of the majority, where the sovereignty of the bare majority is acknowledged."6

See the Federalist, No. 43, Hamilton's ed., p. 346; Story, Constitutional Law, II, par.

1828.

2 Washington's Farewell Address, Sparks, Writings of Washington, XII, pp. 223, 224. 3 Baron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 761.

4 Patrick Henry anticipated this and advanced it in the Virginia convention as one of his reasons for opposing the ratification of the Constitution. Elliot's Deb., III, pp. 48–50. 5 The eleven States of Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming, with a total population of 2,344,115, or 3.7 per cent of the total population of the United States (1890). The figures are equally striking if the vote instead of the population is taken. The minority report of the House Committee on Election of President and Vice-President in 1878 showed that on the basis of the figures of the election of 1876 the legislatures elected by 282,230 voters could successfully resist a constitutional amendment desired by 8,123,559 voters, or more than 96 per cent. House Reports, Forty-fifth Congress, second session, IV, No. 819, p. 18. See also Burgess, Political Science and Constitutional Law, 1, pp. 150-154.

ADDENDA.

Since the pages upon the legislative department were sent to press six additional resolutions of State legislatures proposing amendments to the Federal Constitution have been found.

Add to page 66, note 7: The legislatures of Georgia and Pennsylvania passed resolutions concurring with the resolutions of the legislature of Tennessee changing the term of Senators to four years. App. Nos. 419a, 419b. Ten States passed resolutions of nonconcurrence. See also App. No. 419. Add to page 35, note 1: The legislatures of Kentucky and Georgia in 1817 also passed resolutions proposing an amendment to prohibit Congress from passing any bill changing the compensation of Members which should take effect during the life of the existing Congress. App. Nos. 461a, 467a. For resolutions of nonconcurrence from four States, see App. No. 461a.

Add to page 57, notes 2 and 3: The legislature of Vermont in 1818 and the general assembly of Illinois in 1821 passed resolutions recommending an amendment providing for the election of Representatives and Presidential electors by districts. App. Nos. 480a, 480b, 506b, 506c.

H. Doc. 353, pt. 2- -20

APPENDIX A.

A CALENDAR OF AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM THE DATE OF ITS RATIFICATION TO MARCH 4, 1889.

The endeavor has been made to make this list of proposed amendments as complete as possible, and it is believed that all the most important resolutions have been included, but owing to the poor indexing of the early volumes of the journals and debates, it is probable that some propositions have been overlooked. Amendments recommended by State legislatures have been found in several cases not recorded in the journals. It is likely that there are other such cases. The system of numbering employed does not always indicate a separate resolution, for often one resolution relates to several different subjects, hence it has been found convenient to separate an amendment into its distinct subjects, and number accordingly. Since this calendar was first compiled several additional propositions, as well as the text of other proposed amendments, not given in the official records of Congress, have been found through the examination of the original printed resolutions on file in the Senate document room at Washington. Likewise various resolutions from the legislatures of different States have been found in the Massachusetts Archives in the Statehouse, Boston, and also recorded in the journals of the senate. and house of representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl vania for the earlier years of the century. Without changing the original numbers, these have been inserted in their proper chronological order, by making use of alphabetical suffixes, as 319a, 971b, etc.

In cases where the text of the proposed amendment is not given in the journals or Record, the files of the original printed resolutions, covering the last thirty-five years of the period, may be consulted in the Senate document room.

EXPLANATION OF SIGNS.

A single star (*) placed before the number of an amendment indicates that the resolution passed one House of Congress.