THE TWO HOUSES OF CONGRESS
=The House of Representatives.=--The Constitution provides that the
national house of representatives--the lower house of Congress--shall
consist of members chosen every second year by popular election. Under
the Articles of Confederation members of the old Congress were chosen
annually, but that term was too short to enable them to acquire that
familiarity with their duties which is essential to efficient
legislation. The term of a representative begins on the 4th of March in
the odd-numbered years, though Congress does not meet until the first
Monday in December following, unless the President calls it together in
extraordinary session earlier.
=Sessions of Congress.=--There are two regular sessions of every
Congress; the long session which begins on the first Monday in December
of the odd-numbered years and lasts until some time in the following
spring or summer; and the short session which begins on the same date in
the even-numbered years and lasts until the 4th of March following, when
the terms of all representatives expire. Each Congress is numbered,
beginning with the first, which began March 4th, 1789. The sixty-seventh
Congress began March 4, 1921, and will end March 4, 1923. Extraordinary
sessions are sometimes called by the President to consider matters of
special importance which need to be acted upon before the meeting of the
regular session. From 1789 to 1921 there were only nineteen such
sessions, the last being that called by President Harding to meet in
April, 1921, to consider tariff and revenue measures and readjustment of
international relationships.
=Number and Apportionment of Representatives.=--The Constitution
provided that the first house of representatives should consist of
sixty-five members, but that as soon as a census of the inhabitants
should be taken the number was to be apportioned among the several
states on the basis of population, not exceeding one for every 30,000 of
the inhabitants. After each decennial census is taken a new
apportionment is made by Congress on the basis of the new population.
The total number of representatives at present is 435,[25] being in the
proportion of one member for every 211,877 inhabitants, which is known
as the congressional ratio. The largest number from any one state is
forty-three, the number from New York. Pennsylvania has thirty-six,
Illinois twenty-seven, Ohio twenty-two, and so on down the list. Five
states are entitled to but one member each, namely, Arizona, Delaware,
Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming. As the population of several of these
states is less than the congressional ratio, they might not be entitled
to a single member but for the provision in the Constitution which
declares that each state shall have at least one representative.
[25] Each of the Territories is represented in Congress by a delegate
who is allowed to serve on certain committees and to take part in
debate but not to vote. The Philippine Islands are represented by two
Resident Commissioners, and Porto Rico by one. By courtesy they are
allowed seats in the house of representatives, like territorial
delegates, and may serve on committees.
The numbers of representatives after each census have been as follows:
1790, 105; 1800, 141; 1810, 181; 1820, 212; 1830, 240; 1840, 223; 1850,
234; 1860, 241; 1870, 292; 1880, 325; 1890, 356; 1900, 386; 1910, 435.
=Election of Representatives.=--The Constitution provides that
representatives shall be chosen in each state by vote of such persons as
are qualified to vote for members of the lower house of the legislature
of that state. Thus it happens that the qualifications for participating
in the choice of national representatives varies widely in the different
states. But the choice must be made by the people, not by the
legislature or by executive appointment, and, under the Fifteenth and
Nineteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, the states cannot, in
fixing the suffrage, discriminate against any class of persons because
of their color, race, or sex. Subject to these restrictions the states
are practically free to limit the right to vote for national
representatives to such of their citizens as they may see fit. It is
true that the Fourteenth Amendment declares that whenever a state shall
limit the right of its adult male citizens to vote except for crime its
representation in Congress shall be proportionately reduced, but this
provision has never been enforced. Some statesmen hold that it was
really superseded by the Fifteenth Amendment.
[Illustration: UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER]
[Illustration: UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES]
_Manner of Choosing Representatives._--As in fixing the qualifications
of the electors of representatives, so in the choosing of them, the
states are left a free hand, subject to the provision of the
Constitution which gives Congress power to alter the regulations of the
states in regard to the manner and time of choosing members. For a long
time Congress did not exercise its power in this respect and each state
chose its representatives when it wished and in such manner as it
pleased. Some states chose their representatives on general ticket from
the state at large, while others chose theirs by districts; some chose
by secret ballot, while others did not. To secure uniformity in regard
to the method of choice, Congress enacted in 1842 that representatives
should be chosen by districts of contiguous territory containing
populations as nearly equal to the congressional ratio as possible.
In 1871 it enacted that they should be chosen by written or printed
ballots (later choice by voting machine was also permitted). In 1872
it enacted that representatives should be chosen on the same day
throughout the Union, namely, Tuesday after the first Monday in
November.[26]
[26] By a subsequent act, those states whose constitutions provided a
different day for choosing representatives were exempted from the
provisions of this law. In pursuance of this act, elections for members
of Congress in Maine are held in September.
"_Gerrymandering._"--When the number of representatives to which each
state shall be entitled has been determined, after the decennial census,
it devolves upon the legislature to divide the state into as many
districts as it is entitled to representatives.[27] In the exercise of
this power the political party in control of the legislature may arrange
the districts in an unfair manner so as to make it possible for the
party to elect a larger number of representatives than its voting
strength entitles it to. This is done by putting counties in which the
opposite party is in a large majority in the same districts so that it
may choose a few members by large majorities, while the other party
carries the remaining districts by small majorities. Thus the voting
strength of the party in power is economized while that of the other
party is massed in a few districts and made to count as little as
possible. This practice is known as "gerrymandering" and has often been
resorted to by both the two great political parties, sometimes in such
a manner as to result in flagrant injustice to the minority party.
[27] In case the legislature neglects to redistrict the state when
additional representatives have been assigned to it, the latter are
chosen from the state at large. In 1916, for example, Pennsylvania
elected four such representatives; Illinois, Texas, Montana, and Idaho,
two each; Alabama and West Virginia, one each.
The requirement that the districts shall contain as nearly equal
population as possible, is sometimes flagrantly violated. Thus one of
the Republican districts in New York recently contained 165,701
inhabitants while one of the Democratic districts had a population of
450,000. In 1910 one of the Illinois districts contained 167,000 while
another contained 349,000.
Sometimes districts are so constructed as to have fantastic shapes. Thus
a district in Mississippi some years ago was dubbed the "shoe string"
district from its long irregular shape. It followed the Mississippi
River for the whole length of the state though in one place it was less
than thirty miles wide.
=Qualifications of Representatives.=--To be eligible to the house of
representatives, a person must have been a citizen of the United States
for at least seven years, must have attained the age of twenty-five
years, and must be an inhabitant of the state from which he is chosen.
Residence in the particular district which the member represents is not
required by the Constitution or laws of the United States, but is nearly
always required by public opinion. A nonresident, however able and
distinguished he might be as a statesman, would have little chance of
election.
_Objections to the Residence Requirement._--This custom of insisting
upon residence in the district has frequently been criticized,
especially by foreign writers, as being a serious defect in our system
of representation. It contrasts widely with the practice in Great
Britain, where members of Parliament are very often chosen from other
districts than those in which they reside. London barristers of promise
are not infrequently chosen to represent country districts in which
they are practically strangers. The late William E. Gladstone, a
resident of Wales, represented for a long time a Scotch district. When
an important leader of any party in the House of Commons happens to be
defeated in his home district, it is a common practice for him to be
made a candidate in some district in which his party has a safe
majority. In the United States, in such a case, the man's service in
Congress would probably be ended.
Finally, one of the worst evils of the district system is that it tends
to make the member feel that he is the representative, not of the United
States as a whole, but of the locality which chooses him. Instead of
entertaining broad views upon purely national questions his views tend
to become narrow and he votes and acts with reference to the welfare of
his own district rather than with reference to the good of the whole
country. On the other hand, it may be said in favor of the district
system that it is better adapted to secure local representation and
makes responsibility to the member's constituency more effective.
=The Senate.=--_Purposes._--Regarding the desirability of creating a
national legislature of two houses there was little difference of
opinion among the members of the convention. Experience with a
single-chambered congress during the period of the Confederation had
revealed certain defects in such an organization. Moreover, all the
state legislatures except two were composed of two houses and these
exceptions were destined soon to disappear. If a state legislature ought
to consist of two houses, it was all the more important that the
national congress should be bicameral in organization, because, the
union being composed of states, it was desirable to provide a separate
house in which they could be represented as constituent political units
just as the other house was to be a body representing the people
without regard to political divisions. Aside from considerations growing
out of the character of the federal system, there were the usual
advantages which we associate with the bicameral system, such as
protection against hasty and ill-considered legislation, insurance
against the possible despotism of a single chamber, and the like. Having
decided that Congress should consist of two houses, the convention felt
that if the upper house was to exert an effective restraining influence
on the lower house it ought not to be a mere duplication of the latter
but should be differently composed. It should to a certain extent be a
more conservative body than the lower house, which, being elected by the
people, would incline toward radicalism; it should, therefore, be
smaller in size, its members should be chosen for a longer term and by a
different method, higher age and residence qualifications should be
required, and it should be given certain powers which were not conferred
on the lower house, such as a share in the appointing, treaty making,
and judicial powers.
_Term._--As already stated, the Constitution provides that the states
shall be represented equally in the senate. It also provides that each
state shall elect two senators and that each senator shall have one
vote. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state had one vote in
Congress, and the vote of the state could not be divided; but under the
Constitution the two senators from a state frequently vote on opposite
sides of a question, especially if they belong to different political
parties. On the question of the term of senators there was much
difference of opinion among the members of the convention. Some favored
a two-year tenure, some four years, some six, some nine, while Alexander
Hamilton favored a life tenure. The term finally agreed upon was six
years, which seemed to be long enough to give the senate an element of
permanence and independence, and yet short enough to secure
responsibility to the people.
_Classification of Senators._--The Constitution provided that
immediately upon the assembling of the senators after the first election
they should be divided into three classes and that the seats of those in
the first class should be vacated at the end of the second year, those
of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and those of
the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that thereafter
one third might be chosen every second year. The purpose of this
provision is to avoid having the entire senate renewed at the same time.
As a result, not more than one third are new and inexperienced members
at any particular time. When a new state is admitted to the Union, its
first two senators draw lots to see which class each shall fall in. In
1921 there were thirty-two senators in the first class, and their terms
expire March 4, 1923; thirty-two in the second class, and their terms
expire March 4, 1925; and thirty-two in the third class, and their terms
expire March 4, 1927. The three classes are kept as nearly equal as
possible.
_Reëlection of Senators._--While the term of a senator is six years, he
may be reëlected as often as his state may see fit to honor him, and in
practice reëlections have been frequent. Justin S. Morrill of Vermont,
John Sherman of Ohio, and William B. Allison of Iowa, each served
continuously for a period of thirty-two years. Nearly one third of the
senators in 1911 had served twenty years or more. Thus the senate is an
assembly of elder statesmen and is a more conservative and stable body
than the house of representatives.
=Mode of Election of Senators.=--In regard to the mode of election of
senators there was a wide difference of opinion among the members of the
convention. Some favored choice by the people; others favored election
by the lower house of Congress; some proposed appointment by the
President from persons nominated by the state legislatures; while others
proposed election by the state legislatures, which was the method
finally agreed upon. Choice by the legislature, it was felt, would be
the means of forming a connecting link between the state governments and
the national government and would thereby tend to attach the former to
the latter--an important consideration then, in view of the prevailing
jealousy of the state governments toward the national government.
Finally, it was believed that choice by the legislature would tend to
secure the election of senators of greater ability since the members of
the legislature would be more familiar with the qualifications of
candidates than the masses of the people could hope to be.
=Objections to the Method of Choice by the Legislature.=--One of the
practical objections to the original method of choosing senators was
that it frequently led to long and stubborn contests which sometimes
ended in deadlocks. Not infrequently the legislature failed to elect a
senator and the state was left with a vacancy in the senate. In such
cases the governor could not fill the vacancy by appointment as he did
when a senator died or resigned; the seat remained vacant until a
senator was chosen by the legislature. From 1890 to 1912 not less than
eleven states at one time or another were represented in the senate by
one member only, and in 1901 Delaware, on account of repeated deadlocks,
had no senator at all at Washington to speak for the state. Not
infrequently such contests were broken through the selection of a
second-rate man or by an alliance between the members of the minority
party and certain members of the majority.
_Bribery._--The breaking of deadlocks was sometimes accomplished by
bribery or other improper influences. Indeed charges of bribery and
corruption in connection with the election of senators came to be very
common, and there is little doubt that between 1895 and 1910 a number of
wealthy men found their way into the senate through the votes of
legislators who were liberally paid for their support. Under these
circumstances it was frequently said that the senate was no longer truly
representative of the interests of the people.
_Interference with Legislative Business._--A prolonged senatorial
contest also interfered too much with the regular business of the state
legislature. Where the session is limited to two or three months, as it
frequently is, the inroads upon the time at the disposal of the
legislature for looking after the needs of the state were
considerable.[28] Members were badgered by candidates, passions and
animosities were engendered, a party coloring was given non-partisan
measures, and the votes of members on legislative measures were
sometimes determined by the senatorial contest, rather than by the
merits of the measure on which they were called to vote.
[28] In 1897 the business of the legislature of Oregon was completely
tied up for months because a sufficient number of members of the lower
house, in order to prevent the election of a certain senator, absented
themselves from the chamber and prevented a quorum. Not a bill could be
passed or a dollar of money appropriated for meeting the current
expenses of the state.
=Popular Election of Senators.=--The dissatisfaction with the old method
of choosing senators led to a movement to secure an amendment to the
Constitution providing for the election of senators by the people. But
the senate itself for a long time blocked every attempt of this kind.
Five different times between 1893 and 1911 the national house of
representatives by a large majority proposed an amendment for this
purpose, but each time the senate refused its concurrence. In one form
or another the legislatures of thirty-one states approved of the method
of popular election and wherever a referendum was taken on the
proposition, as was done in California, Nevada, and Illinois, the
popular indorsement was overwhelming. Finally, in 1912, the senate
yielded, and both houses of Congress adopted a resolution proposing an
amendment providing for the popular election of senators, which was
ratified by the necessary number of states during the following year.
Under this seventeenth amendment the senators of each state are elected
by vote of such persons as are entitled to vote for members of the lower
house of the legislature.
The seventeenth amendment provides that whenever a vacancy occurs in the
senate the governor of the state in which the vacancy occurs shall issue
a writ of election for the filling of such vacancy, but that the
legislature may authorize the governor to fill the vacancy by a
temporary appointment, the appointee to hold until a senator may be
chosen by popular election. In practice special elections are rarely
called for filling vacancies. In most states the governor makes a
temporary appointment, the appointee holding until the next regular
election when the people elect his successor.
=Qualifications of Senators.=--The qualifications prescribed for
eligibility to the senate are the same in principle as those required of
representatives, though a little different in degree. Thus a senator
must be at least thirty years of age, must have been a citizen of the
United States for nine years and must be a resident of the state at the
time of his election. It was thought that the longer term and higher
qualifications would tend to give greater dignity and strength to the
upper chamber than would be found in the lower house, and at the same
time a higher average of ability.
There is no provision of the Constitution which requires a senator to be
a resident of a particular part of the state, but in some states there
is a custom that the two senators shall be taken from different
sections. Thus in Vermont custom requires that one senator shall come
from the section of the state east of the Green Mountains and the other
from the west side. Sometimes when there is a large city in the state it
is the custom to choose one of the senators from the city and the other
from the country. For a long time Maryland did not trust this matter to
custom but by law enacted that one of the senators should be an
inhabitant of the eastern shore and the other of the western shore.
=Character of the Senate.=--In the early days when the states were
generally regarded as sovereign communities, senators were looked upon
somewhat as ambassadors to the national government, and the right to
instruct them as to how they should vote on important questions was
sometimes claimed and asserted by the legislatures. Sometimes the
senators obeyed the instructions, sometimes they refused; and in the
latter case there were no means of enforcing obedience. Not infrequently
senators are "requested" by the legislature of the state which they
represent to vote for or against a particular bill.
The Senate undoubtedly possesses elements of strength and efficiency
which are not to be found in the lower house. As it is a much smaller
body, debate there can be carried on with more effectiveness, and the
individual member has greater opportunity to make his influence felt
upon legislation. The efficiency of the Senate is further increased by
the fact that its members are generally men of more mature age and
larger legislative experience, many of them having already served their
apprenticeship in the lower house. Moreover, owing to the longer term,
they are more independent of the popular opinion of the moment and,
therefore, under less temptation to yield to popular clamor and vote for
measures which their better judgment condemns. These facts, it may be
added, have tended to increase the attractiveness of the Senate as a
legislative body and to draw into it statesmen of larger ability than
the lower house has been able to attract.
At the same time, these elements of strength have to some extent been
sources of weakness. The attractions of the Senate have stimulated the
ambitions of rich men who have few other qualifications than the
possession of great wealth, and so it came to pass that a considerable
proportion of the members of the upper house were representatives of
great corporations and of other forms of wealth. This was not
necessarily an evil, but it was often said that the senators were
irresponsive to public opinion. Moreover, the Senate has been criticized
for usurping to a considerable extent the powers of the executive
department in regard to appointments and the conduct of foreign affairs,
and has encroached upon the powers of the lower house in respect to the
initiation of revenue bills. Finally, the tradition of senatorial
courtesy, which makes it possible for a single senator to deadlock
indefinitely the proceedings of the Senate, has been criticized as being
quite out of harmony with reasonable notions of legislative procedure.
All these charges, however, have been vigorously denied by many
defenders of the Senate. Some of them are well founded, but all in all,
the Senate compares favorably with the best upper chambers of other
countries.
=Decisions as to Congressional Elections and Membership.=--Each house of
Congress is the judge of the election, qualifications, and returns of
its own members, that is, it is empowered to determine whether a member
who claims to have been elected has been legally chosen and whether he
really possesses the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution for
membership in the house. It seems to be admitted that either house may
also refuse to admit a member for other reasons than those prescribed by
the Constitution, as, for example, for having been convicted of a crime
or because he is insane or suffering with a dangerous contagious
disease. Thus in 1900 the house of representatives refused to allow a
member from Utah to take his seat because he was living in violation of
the anti-polygamy laws, and in 1919 it excluded a Socialist member from
Wisconsin for disloyalty during the war.
_Contested Elections._--Frequently there is a contested election from a
state or district, that is, two men claim to have been elected to the
same seat, in which case the house must decide which one is entitled to
the seat. In such a case the claims of the contestant and the contestee
are heard by the committee on privileges and elections, which makes a
report to the house with a recommendation as to which shall be given the
seat. Unfortunately, contested election cases are not always settled on
their merits, the seat being usually given to the claimant who belongs
to the party which has a majority in the house. In England this source
of party favoritism is removed by vesting the settlement of cases of
contested elections in the courts, which are more apt to decide such
contests on their merits.
_Power of Expulsion._--When a member has once been admitted to his
seat, he can be deprived of it only by expulsion, and to prevent the
employment of this power for party purposes, the Constitution provides
that the concurrence of two thirds of the members shall be necessary to
expel a member. Several instances of expulsion have occurred in the
past. Senator Blount of Tennessee was expelled from the senate in 1797,
and a number of other cases occurred in each house during the Civil War.
=Compensation of Members of Congress.=--The Constitution declares that
senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their
services, the same to be paid out of the treasury of the United States.
Under the Articles of Confederation, each state paid its own members of
Congress, and there was no uniformity in respect to the scale of
compensation. Some states paid much smaller salaries than others and in
order to reduce the burden of maintaining their representatives, the
states generally sent to Congress the fewest number of representatives
required, and as each state had only one vote, nothing was lost by
having a minimum number present. One other objection to the method of
state payment was that it tended to make the representative dependent
upon his state and caused him to feel that he was the representative of
a state rather than of the country as a whole.
In fixing the amount of the compensation of its members, Congress is
subject to no restrictions. It may fix the salary at any amount it
pleases, may make it retroactive in effect or may increase the amount at
any time during the term for which the members are chosen. The present
salary of senators and representatives is $7,500 per year, but the
Speaker of the house receives $12,000 per year. In addition, each member
receives an allowance for a secretary, a small sum for stationery, and
mileage of twenty cents per mile going and coming by the nearest route
between his home and the national capital. This mileage is intended to
cover the traveling expenses of the member and his family.
In some of the countries of Europe until recently members of Parliament
did not receive any compensation from the public treasury unless they
happened to be members of the cabinet; this was the rule in Great
Britain prior to 1911. Sometimes, however, members who represented the
socialist or labor party were paid by voluntary contributions by the
members of their party. The advantage of paying members of Congress a
reasonable compensation is that it enables competent men without private
incomes to serve the state equally with the well-to-do, who are not
dependent upon their public salaries for a livelihood.
_The Franking Privilege._--Another privilege which Congress allows its
members is to send their mail through the post office without the
payment of postage. The spirit of the law restricts the privilege to the
official correspondence of members, but the privilege is generally
abused. Thus a senator from South Carolina was recently criticized by
the post-office department for franking his typewriter through the
mails. President Taft in his annual message to Congress in December,
1910, dwelt upon the abuses of this privilege by members of Congress and
other government officials. The postmaster general in 1914 called
attention to a recent instance in which more than 300,000 pamphlets were
circulated under the frank of a member of Congress, the postage on which
would have amounted to $57,000. They related not to public business but
to the interest of a certain industry in which he was concerned.
=Rights and Privileges of Members of Congress.=--The Constitution
provides that members shall not be arrested in any case except treason,
felony, and breach of the peace, during their attendance at the
sessions of their respective houses and in going to and from the same;
and for any speech or debate in either house, they cannot be questioned
in any other place. The purpose of the first provision is to prevent
interference with members in the discharge of their high and responsible
duties, through arrest for trivial offenses or trumped-up charges. If a
member, however, commits an offense amounting to a breach of the peace,
his immunity from arrest ceases and he may be dealt with by the courts
as any other offender. The object of the second provision is to secure
to members absolute freedom of speech on the floor of Congress by
relieving them from the liability to prosecution for slander for
anything they may say in the course of debate.
_Disqualifications._--On the other hand, the Constitution provides that
no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member
of either house of Congress during his continuance in office. This
provision was adopted in pursuance of the view that the executive and
legislative departments should, as far as practicable, be kept separate.
Moreover, no senator or representative may, during the time for which he
is elected, be appointed to any civil office which shall have been
created or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during such
time. The purpose of this provision is to prevent Congress from creating
new offices or increasing the salaries of existing offices for the
benefit of members who might desire to be appointed to them.
=Special Functions of the Senate.=--The senate is not only a coequal
branch of the national legislature but it possesses in addition certain
powers not enjoyed by the lower house.
_Share in the Appointing Power._--First of all, it shares with the
President the power of appointment to federal offices. The Constitution
makes its approval necessary to the validity of all appointments made by
the executive, the idea being that the participation of the senate would
serve as a restraint upon the errors or abuses of the President and thus
insure the appointment of honest and capable men to office. But it was
never intended to give the senate anything more than the negative power
of rejecting the nominations of the President. It is his power to
nominate and that of the senate to approve or disapprove the nomination.
Nevertheless, there has grown up in the senate a practice by which the
senators from a particular state in which an appointment to a federal
office is to be made, claim the right to select the appointee themselves
and when they have agreed upon him to present his name to the President
for appointment; provided, of course, that they are of the same party as
the President. If the President refuses to comply with the request of
the senators from a particular state, and nominates an official who is
unacceptable to them, the custom of "senatorial courtesy," which has
become one of the traditions of the senate, requires that the senators
from the other states shall stand by their associates in question and
reject the nomination of the President. In this way the senate has, in
effect, assumed the power of dictating to the President appointments to
many federal offices in the states, such as those of postmaster, federal
judge, attorney, revenue collector, and the like. If the two senators
from a state belong to different political parties, the one with whom
the President is in political sympathy controls the federal patronage in
the state.
_Share in the Treaty-Making Power._--The senate also shares with the
President the power of making treaties with foreign countries. The
ordinary procedure is for the President, through the Department of
State, to negotiate the treaty, after which it is laid before the senate
for its approval. Approval by a two-thirds vote of the senators is
necessary to the validity of the treaty. The purpose of giving the
senate a share in the treaty-making power was to provide a check or
restraint upon the possible abuses or errors of the executive. The
extraordinary majority required for the approval of the treaty, however,
has frequently proved a handicap and led to the defeat of a number of
valuable treaties. Thus a small political minority can prevent the
ratification of a treaty and sometimes does so when it sees an
opportunity to reap political advantage thereby.
The Constitution speaks of the "advice and consent" of the senate, but
in practice all the senate does is to give its consent. In the early
days, however, the President not infrequently requested the "advice" of
the senate before starting the negotiation of a treaty, and if the
advice was unfavorable the proposed negotiations were abandoned. Even
now if the President has doubts as to whether a proposed treaty would
receive the approval of two thirds of the senate he will sometimes
consult with the members of the senate committee on foreign relations
and with other influential members, before beginning the negotiations.
The senate may reject a treaty _in toto_, and has done so in many
instances, or it may amend a treaty laid before it, in which case it
must be sent back to the government of the other country which is a
party thereto for concurrence in the amendments. After the senate has
consented to the ratification of a treaty, the President may ratify it
or not as he likes.
[Illustration: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, D.C.]
[Illustration: THE WHITE HOUSE,--THE PRESIDENT'S HOME AND OFFICE]
_The Senate as a Court of Impeachment._--Another special function of the
senate is that of acting as a court for the trial of impeachment
cases. The Constitution declares that the President, Vice President, and
all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on
impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors. Military and naval officers are tried by court-martial
and are not therefore liable to impeachment.[29] To impeach an officer is
to bring charges against him. So far as federal officers are concerned
this power belongs exclusively to the house of representatives, which
acts somewhat as a grand jury does in finding indictments against
ordinary criminals. When sitting as a court of impeachment the senators
are under a special oath, and when the President is on trial the chief
justice of the Supreme Court is the presiding officer instead of the
Vice President, who, in such a case, would be directly interested in the
outcome of the trial, since in the event of the conviction and removal
of the President he would succeed to the office. Managers appointed by
the house of representatives appear at the bar of the senate to
prosecute the charges preferred by the house, witnesses are examined,
evidence presented, and the accused is defended by counsel of his own
choosing. In order to prevent the employment of the impeachment power
for party purposes, the Constitution provides that the concurrence of
two thirds of the senators shall be necessary to convict.
[29] That members of Congress are not liable to impeachment was
determined in the case of William Blount, a senator from Tennessee in
1797, the senate deciding that it had no jurisdiction of the case.
The punishment which the senate may inflict in case of conviction is
limited to removal from office and disqualification from holding office
in the future. The Constitution makes it mandatory upon the senate to
remove the convicted official, but whether he shall forever be
disqualified from holding office in the future is left to the
discretion of the senate. In England the House of Lords, which tries
impeachment cases, is not limited in the extent of punishment which it
may inflict, but may, at its discretion, sentence the convicted official
to imprisonment or the payment of a fine. While the senate of the United
States cannot do this, the person convicted and removed may,
nevertheless, be indicted and tried by the courts as any other criminal
may.
The procedure of removing an officer by impeachment is so cumbersome and
unwieldy that it has rarely been resorted to. During our entire history
there have been only eight impeachment trials of federal officers, and
of these there were convictions in but three cases.[30] If this were the
only method of removal it would be difficult to get rid of corrupt and
incompetent officials, but it must be remembered that any federal
official except the judges may be removed from office by the President
for any reason that to him seems fit and proper; and the power is
frequently exercised.
[30] The first was that of Judge John Pickering of the United States
District Court of New Hampshire, March, 1803. The second was that of
Judge Samuel Chase, of the Supreme Court, March, 1804. James H. Peck,
District Judge of Missouri, was impeached in April, 1830; West H.
Humphreys, District Judge of Tennessee, May, 1862; Andrew Johnson,
President of the United States, February, 1868; William W. Belknap,
Secretary of War, March, 1876; Charles Swayne, Judge of the United
States District Court for Florida, 1905; and Robert W. Archbald, Judge
of the Court of Commerce, 1912. Of these, Pickering, Humphreys, and
Archbald were convicted and removed from office, while Humphreys and
Archbald were in addition disqualified from holding federal office in
the future. Belknap resigned before impeachment charges were preferred,
but the senate decided that it had jurisdiction, nevertheless, and the
trial was proceeded with only to result in his acquittal.
=References.=--ANDREWS, Manual of the Constitution, pp. 47-68. BEARD,
American Government and Politics, chs. xii-xiii. BRYCE, The American
Commonwealth (abridged edition), chs. ix-xii. HARRISON, This Country of
Ours, ch. ii. HART, Actual Government, ch. xiii. HINSDALE, American
Government, chs. xvii-xxiii. WILSON, Congressional Government, secs.
1273-1293.
=Documentary and Illustrative Material.=--1. Copy of the Congressional
Directory. 2. Copies of the Congressional Record. 3. A map showing the
Congressional districts of the state.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How many representatives in Congress has your state?
2. Is there any evidence that your state is "gerrymandered"?
3. In what congressional district do you live? How many counties are
there in the district? What is its population? How much does the
population vary from the congressional ratio? Who is your
representative? How many terms has he served? What is his party? By how
large a majority was he elected?
4. Who is the senior senator from your state? The junior senator? How
many terms has each served? To which of the three classes does each
belong?
5. If the first congressional ratio of one member for 30,000 inhabitants
were now in force, what would be the number of representatives in the
house? Give arguments for and against the proposition that a house of
435 members is too large.
6. Is the present salary of members of Congress sufficiently large to
attract the best men? Do you think the European custom of not paying
salaries to members of Parliament a wise one?
7. Do you think members of Congress are morally entitled to
"constructive" mileage, that is, for mileage not actually traveled, as
where one session merges into another?
8. Members of the British Parliament are elected for a term of five
years, those of the German Reichstag for five years, those of the French
Chamber of Deputies for four years. In view of these rather long terms,
do you think a two-year term for American representatives is too short?
9. Do you think the practice of members of Congress of distributing
large quantities of garden seed among their constituents at public
expense a wise or a vicious one?
10. Do you think public documents printed by authority of Congress
should be distributed free of cost to all who desire them?
11. What is your opinion of the practice of members of Congress of
printing in the Congressional Record long speeches never delivered in
Congress?
12. Would the nomination of members of Congress by direct primary be a
better method than nomination by convention?
13. What would be the advantage in requiring a newly elected Congress to
assemble shortly after the election instead of about thirteen months
thereafter, as is the present rule?
14. Ought the qualifications for voting for representatives in Congress
to be determined by national authority instead of by the states?
15. Ought a representative to be required to be a resident of the
district from which he is elected?
16. Do you think the states should be equally represented in the
senate?