the Massachusetts legislature by large majorities, and the legislature 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."

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 Instead of acting upon these resolutions this Congress repealed the obnoxious law, and with slight modifications revived the act previously in force, which has not been changed since."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.

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, 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, designating 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,

1 App., No. 327.

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

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

4.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.

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. 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 overlegis. lation, 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.

App., No. 1728.

3 Manual and Digest, Fifty-first Congress, second session, Rule xv, cl. 3, p. 527. App., Nos. 59, 124.

4

5 Constitution, art. 1, sec. 5, cl. 2.

App., No. 198.