Representatives appeared, and in that year Senator Barbour of Virginia introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution so as to limit the number of Representatives to 200. He said: "There is a recommendation in favor of the smallest number consistent with the great principle of representation growing out of our peculiar form of government. As you multiply the number of the House of Representatives you give to it more the form and eventually more of the character of a National in contradistinction to a Federal Government." The author of the resolution asserted only his desire to counteract any tendency which might lead to a centralized government. After considerable discussion the resolution was postponed indefinitely. In 1842 Mr. Underwood of Kentucky offered an amendment to the effect that "in the apportionment of Representatives, which is made based upon the census taken in the year 1850, the number of Representatives shall not exceed double the number of Senators." The resolution was referred, and the committee reported adversely."

No other resolutions suggesting amendments upon this subject were presented in Congress until the early "eighties," when there were four amendments introduced, two of these at the time the bill for the reapportionment of Representatives was under consideration. They all proposed a reduction in the membership of the House as at present constituted, although they all fixed upon a different number. One provided that the House of Representatives should be composed of 300 members.* The others placed 325,5 350,5 and 351, respectively, as the maximum number. Two of these were presented by Mr. Herbert of Alabama. None of these resolutions were reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which they had been referred. The latest change suggested was in 1888, when an amendment was proposed to limit the House to 250 members.

The desirability of reducing the size of the House of Representatives can not be seriously questioned, for it is a wellknown fact that the House has become such a large and

App., No. 504.

This was the time of the beginning of the "Crawford machine."

3 App., No. 725.

4 App., No. 1507.

5 App., No. 1530; 1553.

App., No. 1585.

7 App., No. 1716, with the proviso that in case a new State was admitted the representa tion to which it shall be entitled shall be in addition to the limit fixed until the next suc ceeding apportionment.

unwieldy body that the greater part of the business has to be left to the committees. There is little prospect, however, of effecting this change either by ordinary law or by amendment, for there is a constant tendency to increase the number of members more rapidly than the growth of the population would call for.' The present House consists of 357 Representatives and 3 Territorial Delegates.2

24. ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The Constitution provides that "the time, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators."3 Congress has always desired to assimilate its system to that of the States, and this is almost the only case where the United States permits the States to perform its functions. Thirty-four resolutions have been introduced in Congress proposing some change in the provision quoted above in the case of election of Representatives. These for the most part were introduced between the years 1800 and 1826.

The variety of methods in use in the different States, both for the choice of electors and Representatives, suggested the attempts made during the early years of this century to provide a uniform system. These resolutions commonly proposed amendments applying both to Presidential and Congressional elections. The first resolution of the kind was offered by Mr. Nicholas of Virginia, in the year 1800. It proposed a division of each State into districts, the people in each district to choose one Representative in the manner in which the legislature shall provide. In 1802 the legislatures of Vermont and North Carolina presented resolutions of a similar character. Again,

The amendment sent out to the States by the First Congress would have enabled Congress to limit the House after the number had reached 200; see ante par. 22, Part 1.

2 By the last apportionment bill the House was to consist of 356 members, the admission of Utah as a State added one more Representative. The present ratio is 1 to 173, 901. For table of apportionments, see Hinsdale's Am. Govt., pp. 158-159.

3 Constitution, art. 1, sec. 4, cl. 1. See ante, par. 9.

4 In the early elections the following methods were in use: First, by districts in Massa chusetts, Virginia, New York, Maryland, South Carolina. Second, by general ticket in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia. Third, in Connecticut a prelimi nary election was held to nominate a list three times the number to be chosen, from which at a subsequent election the Representatives were selected. See also Story, I, p. 583. App., Nos. 339, 341. Jefferson favored election by districts and not by general ticket. See letter of January 12, 1800, Works, Vol. IV, p. 308.

App., Nos. 343, 347, 349.

after a lull of a few years, the legislature of North Carolina renewed, in 1813, their resolution. From 1816 to 1826 there were twenty-two resolutions proposing the choice of Repre sentatives by districts. During the years 1816, 1817, and 1818 the legislatures of six of the States applied to Congress for an amendment of this nature.3 The earlier movement was championed by Mr. Pickens of North Carolina, the later by Senator Dickerson of New Jersey, who offered an amendment regularly almost every year from 1817 to 1826. The Dickerson amendment passed the Senate three different times, namely, in 1819, 1820, and 1822, but each time failed to be brought to a vote in the House. The desire for local representation gradually led to the general adoption by the States of the district system of electing their Congressmen, and caused the introduction of amendments on this question to cease."

For a long time Congress made no use of its undoubted power to regulate Federal elections. Owing, however, to the prolonged contest in the Twenty-sixth Congress, resulting from the disputed election in New Jersey in 1838, which State still adhered to the method of election by general ticket, the Whig majority enacted in 1842 a law making the election of members of the House of Representatives by districts mandatory on all the States. The law was opposed by the Democratic party, and some of the States for a time refused to comply with its terms, but after a few elections it was submitted to everywhere. Consequently, only once since has it been proposed to amend the Constitution in this particular, and this was in connection with a proposition to choose the Presidential electors by districts. During the reconstruction period it was proposed to so amend the Constitution that it should be the duty of Congress, at the first session after each

1 App., Nos. 406, 408.

2App., Nos. 449, 452, 452a, 454, 459, 462, 468,471, 481, 483, 486, 487, 490, 498, 499, 502, 505, 518, 525, 528, 533, 576.

3 Massachusetts, in 1816; New Jersey and North Carolina, in 1817; New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Connecticut, in 1818.

4 Eight in all. App., Nos. 468, 486, 498, 499, 505, 518, 528, 576.

5 App., Nos. 486, 596, 505. See choice of Presidential electors by districts, post, par. 39. "At the same time the general-ticket system was adopted for Presidential election. See post, par. 40. In 1828, in the election for the Twenty-sixth Congress, only New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Georgia adhered to the old method of election by general ticket. Story, 1, pp. 582, 583.

See post, par. 25; Von Holst, II, pp. 336-340.

9 App., Nos. 1247, 1248.

1

decennial census, to divide the several States into Congressional districts equaling in number the Representatives in Congress. The purpose was to prevent "gerrymandering,” but it is probable that this change would simply have caused bad districting on a grander scale.

Although Congress has refused to recommend any of these proposed amendments to the States for ratification, it has from time to time enacted additional laws extending its control over Federal elections. In 1871 Congress passed a law requiring that all votes for Representatives must be by written or printed ballots, and further made provision for the appointment of supervisors, who should supervise the registration and casting of the ballots for the election of members of the House of Representatives. Again, in 1872, it exercised its authority by appointing a uniform day for the election of members of the House. Since this last date in its apportionment bills Congress has prescribed that the districts shall contain as nearly as possible an equal number of inhabitants. These laws mark the extent to which Congress has gone in regulating the election of its members. The recent attempt made in the Fiftyfirst Congress to pass the "Federal election bill," which would have extended Federal supervision even further, is familiar to all. Although there can be no doubt of the right of Congress to assume control over Federal elections, there seems to be some hesitancy on the part of Congress to exercise this right. This undoubtedly contributed much to the defeat of the abovementioned "Federal election bill," and led the Democratic majority in the Fifty-third Congress to repeal the statute of 1871 relating to the supervision of elections.8

App., No. 1310.

2 In 1866 it passed a law to regulate the procedure of State legislatures in electing Senators, 14 Stat. L., p. 243, c. 245, s. 1.

3 February 28, 1871, 19 Stat. L, p. 440, c. 99, s. 19.

4 To be appointed by the Federal courts in any election district upon the petition of a specified number of citizens. Ibid., p. 348, ch. 415.

5 February 2, 1872, 17 Stat. L., p. 28, ch. xi. The law was modified to legalize elections in certain States on other days. All except Maine, Vermont, and Oregon elect at the stated time. An amendment, App. No. 1355, was proposed in 1872 authorizing Congress to fix a uniform day for State elections.

6 During the debate the opponents of this measure threatened that if it became a law several of the States would return to the old system of electing their Representatives by general ticket in defiance of the laws of Congress.

7 Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S., 371; Ex parte Clarke, ibid., 299; U. S. v. Gale, 109 U. S., 65; Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U. S., 651.

8 Feb. 8, 1894, 28 Stat. L., p. 36.

25. PROVING ELECTIONS TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

During the turmoil and discussion in the Twenty-sixth Congress, connected with the settlement of the contested election of five Representatives from New Jersey-which led to a contest lasting several months, as the election and the control of the House depended upon the issue of the controversy-a resolution was introduced authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into the expediency of amending the Constitution so that the same shall define and prescribe the evidence upon which persons claiming to be members of the House of Representatives shall take their seats in the House and be entitled to exercise the privileges of members, until an investigation and decision by the House.2

Although the subject of determining the results of contested elections has continued to agitate the country at times ever since, there has been no further suggestion of an amendment to the Constitution. Party exigency has usually proved more powerful than considerations of right and justice, but no suggestion of adopting the English practice of a judicial decision has been made. The power of Congress, as the Constitution now stands, is incontestable.3

26. TERM OF REPRESENTATIVES.

5

At the time of the formation of the Constitution in all of the States but South Carolina the members of the lower branch of the legislature were chosen annually. Many of the members of the Philadelphia Convention favored annual elections inasmuch as a longer term might make the Representatives independent of their constituents. Others, including Madison and Hamilton, desired a term of three years or even longer, on the ground that in a short term new members could not become accustomed to their duties, and that too frequent elections tended to make the people indifferent to the election." The two-years term was finally agreed upon as a compromise."

'Const., art. 1, sec. 5, cl. 1.

2 App., No. 703. This contest lasted from December, 1839, until March 10, 1840, when the Democratic contestant was seated. See ante, par. 24, for references; also Benton II, p. 159. Story, 1, p. 585, note 1.

In re Lonly, 134 U. S., 372.

4 Story, 1, p. 430. Robinson, Annals of Acad. of Pol. Science, I, p. 214.

"Gerry considered frequent elections the only defense of the people against tyranny. Elliot's Debates, vol. v, p. 184.

Mr. Jenifer's speech. Elliot, v, p. 183.

"Triennial elections were first adopted by vote of 7 to 4, later struck out and two years substituted by vote of 7 to 3, one State divided; finally agreed to by unanimous consent. Elliot, v, pp. 184, 226.