The Constitution the United States

,THE CONSTITUTI0T^;:.OT

THE UNITED STATES.

ITS SOURCES AND ITS

APPLICATION

BY

THOMAS JAMES NORTON

BOSTON

LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY

1922

Copyright, ig22",

By Little, Brown, and Company.

All rights reserved

Published June, 1922

Printed in the United States op America

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA

Adopted July 26, 1788

In Effect March 4, 1789

THE PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States,^

^ It is important to notice that this is a government ofthe people,not of the States. Under the Articles of Con-federation,

in effect as our firstsform of government from

1781 to 1789, the States as politicalentities,and not the

people,entered into *'a firm league of friendship",eachState retaining ^'its sovereignty,freedom and independ-ence."

The new Constitution brought in a new Nation,derivingits *' justpowers from the consent^of the governed."

"The people, the highest authority known to our sys-tem,"said President Monroe, *'from whom all our institu-tions

spring and on whom they depend, formed it."*'Its language, 'We the people,' is the institution of

one great consolidated National government of the peopleof all the States, instead of a government by compactwith the States for its agents," exclaimed Patrick Henryin the Virginiaratifyingconvention while leading opposi-tion

to its adoption. ''The people gave the [Constitu-tional]Convention no power to use their name." Some

States restricted the authority of their delegates to re-visingth" Articles -"' Confederation. It was clauned that

tlie castfig aside of .the Articles of Confederation (which

2 * "' Constihttibh''of the United States

could be aTtered'or amended onlyby the concurrence ofevery State)for a constitution to become efifectivewhenadoptedby nine of the thirteen States was revolutionary.Revision only was uppermost in the minds of many. OnFebruary 21, 1787,the Congressexistingunder the Arti-

"

cles called a convention ''forthe sole and express purpose^

of revisingthe Articles of Confederation and reportingtoCongressand the several legislaturessuch alterations andprovisionstherein as shall,when agreed to in Congressand confirmed by the States,render the federal Constitu-tion

adequateto the exigenciesof government and the^^preservationof the Union." But it was the belief of the

Constitutional Convention that as the new instrument was

to go to the peoplefor ratification or rejection,the objec-tionsstated by Henry and others were reallyunim-portant.

in Order to form a more perfectUnion,^2 Meaning "a more perfectunion" than had been

achieved by the Articles of Confederation."In the efficacyand permanency of your Union," wrote

Washington in his Farewell Address,^'a government forthe whole is indispensable.

...

Sensible of this momen-toustruth you have improved upon your firstessay [the

Articles of Confederation]by the adoptionof a Constitu-tionof government better calculated than your former for

an intimate Union and for the efficaciousmanagement of

your common concerns."

The Union, made ''more perfect"by the Constitution,was nevertheless in later times said to be dissoluble at the

pleasureof any State that might desire to secede. In hisFarewell Address (1796)Washington had called upon thepeople"indignantly"to frown "upon the firstdawningofevery attempt to alienate any portionof our country fromthe rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link to-gether

the various parts."To put the questionbeyond

Its Sources and Application * 3

controversy it requireda four-yearCivil War, after thesecession of the southern States,beginningwith that ofSouth Carohna in December, i860,followingthe electionof Abraham Lincoln to the Presidencyin the precedingmonth.

In a great debate in the Senate between Daniel Webster*

of Massachusetts and J^hnC. Calhoun of South Carolina,the former contended^-Ihat the National Government,throughits Suprgne Court,is the ultimate expounder ofits own powers, [whilethe latter stood for what was knownas the doctrine of States' Rightsand arguedfor the rightIof the individual State,under its reserved sovereignty!(Note 163), to determine such questionsfor itself,as jSouth Carohna had done (1832)by an ordinance declaringnjilJa tarifflaw of Congress.\Secession,he said,was theState's remedy of last resorl/)Of Calhoun's theory,andof the historicfacts with which it assumed to deal.Presi-dent

Lincoln said,in a message (July4, 1861)to a specialsessionof Congresscalled to prepare for the CivilWar :

"The States have their status in the Union,and they./have no other legalstatus. If theybreak from this,they '

can onlydo so againstlaw and by revolution. The Union,and not themselves separately,procuredtheir independ-ence

and their liberty.By conquest or purchasethe Uniongave each of them whatever of independenceand Kbertyit has. The Union is older than any of the States,and,infact,itcreated them as States."

The citizen was not, under the theoryof States'Rights,in contact with the National Government. He owed alle-giance

to his State,and the State,in turn,dealt with theNation. After the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendmentset that theoryaside by declaring:"All persons born ornaturaHzed in the United States,and subjectto the juris-diction

thereof,are citizensof the United States and of theState wherein they reside." Every citizen now owes anallegianceto the Nation as well as to the State.

4 ' Constitution of the United States

It is interestingto notice with what singularclearnessJames Wilson of Pennsylvania,a scholar from Edinburgh,laid down in the Constitutional Convention the doctrinewhich was, eightyyears later,removed from debate bythe Fourteenth Amendment (Note171),the questionunderdiscussion beingwhether the State or the peopleshould berepresentedin the Senate :

"A citizen of America is a citizen of the generalgovern-ment,and is a citizen of the particularState in which he

may reside. ... In formingthe generalgovernment wemust foregoour loc^l habits and attachments,lay asideour State connections,and act for the generalgood of thewhole. The generalgovernment is not an assemblageofStates,but of individuals."

Profitingby the experienceof our country, the UnitedStates of Brazil,which was established in 1890,after theoverthrow of a monarchy, carefullyprovided,in a consti-tution

closelycopyingthe fundamentals of ours, for a *' per-petualand indissoluble union between former provinces

into the United States of Brazil." And in 1900, when the

various provincesof Australia were united as the Common-wealthof AustraHa,the Constitution,also closelyfollowing

ours and adoptingour terms, *' State,"^' House of Repre-sentatives,"and "Senate",providedfor an ^^indissoluble

Federal Commonwealth."

establish Justice,insure domestic Tranquillity,pro-videfor the common defence,^

^ Under the Articles of Confederation the expenses of the

common defence were to *^be defrayedout of a commontreasury" supplied ''by the authority and directionof the legislaturesof the several States." The Nationitselfhad no power of self-defence in the raisingof moneyand in some other importantrespects. It turned out inpracticethat some of the States signallyfailed in emergen-cies

to make thdr contributions ^o the ''common treas-

Its Sources and Application

ury." Indeed, only New York and Pennsylvaniapaidtheir fullproportionof the costs of the Revolution. OneState,which had suffered none from the ravages of war,contributed nothing. But (toillustratethe difference be-tween

a leagueof States and a Nation)when the UnitedStates entered the World War in 191 7 the Congresspromptlyexerted its power under the Constitution andraised by the issue of LibertyBonds,by income taxes,andby other means all the money that it needed for "thecommon defence." The States as such were not concerned

exceptin providingmiHtia,a subjectto be noticed later.^Soithad been in the War of 181 2, in the Mexican War, in theCivil War, and in the War with Spain. The Articles ofConfederation were whollydeficientin this most importantof all respects,in the power Vof "common defence."

promote the gene;;alWelfare,and secure the Bless-ings^of Liberty^oourselves and our Posterity,do

ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for theUnited States of America.

^ Comment has been made that God is not mentionedin our Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence"firm reliance on the protectionof Divine Providence"is expressed,and in the Articles of Confederation it ismentioned that " ithas pleasedthe Great Governor of theworld to incHne the hearts of the legislatureswe respec-tively

represent in Congressto approve of and to author- iize us to ratifythe said Articles of Confederation and^-*^perpetualunion."

The Commonwealth of Australia put in the preambleof the Constitution which it submitted to the EngHsh Par-liament

for approval(1900)that "Whereas, the peopleofNew South AVales,Victoria,^SouthAustralia,Queensland,and Tasmania,humbly relyifigon the blessingsof AlmightyGod,have agreedto unite,"etc.

6 Constitution of the United States

A very interestingdiscussion of the propositionthat"this is a religiouspeople"is contained in a decision of theSupreme Court of the United States (1892)holdingthatthe Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 (prohibitingthebringingin of "foreignersand aliens under contract oragreement to performlabor in the United States"),whileapplyingto an ahen broughtin to perform"labor or serviceof any kind",did not relate in purpose

^

" althoughit didin language" to a minister of the Gospelwho had beenemployedto come from Englandto accept service in a.NewYc^k church. In applyingthe rule of statutoryinterpre-tation,

that the intent of the legislaturemust be followed,the court said that "no purpose of action againstreligioncould be imputed to any legislation"when the languagedid not clearlystate it,for the reason that from the commis-sion

givenby Ferdinand and Isa:bellato Columbus downthrough all the charters to the colonies,as well as in theDeclaration of Independenceand in the constitutions ofall the States,there is to be found a "profoundreverencefor religionand an assumptionthat its influence in allhuman ajffairsis essential to the well-beingof the UnitedStates."

In a dark day of the Civil War, on July 2, 1864,shortlyafter the disastrous Red River expedition,butonlyeightdays before General Sherman drove the army ofGeneral Hood within the defences of Atlanta (astepleadingto the march to the sea which broke the Confederacyintwo),the Senate and the House of Representativespasseda concurrent resolution requestingthe President to "ap-point

a day for humiHation and prayer by the peopleofthe United States

...

to implorethe compassionand for-givenessof the Almighty ... to imploreHim as the

Supreme Ruler of the World not to destroyus as a people,nor suffer us to be destroyedby the hostilityor connivanceof other nations." AccordinglyPresident Lincoln issued,three days before the investment of Hood's army, a proc-


lamation appointing Thursday, August 2, 1864, as a day

to be observed as the Houses had "so solemnly, so earnestly

andso reverently recommended."

"Although the Preamble indicates the general purpose

for which the people ordained and established the Consti-tution,"

said the Supreme Court (1905), "it has never been

regarded as the source of any substantive power con-ferred

onthe Government in the United States

or on any

of its Departments."

IARTICLE I

Section i. All legislativePowers herein grantedshall be vested in a Congress pi the United States,which shall consist of a Senate and House of Rep-resentatives.^

*

"

^"The whole system of the National Government," said,President Monroe, speaking of the powers given by theConstitution to Congress, ''may be said to rest essentiallyon the powers granted to this branch. They markHhe

limit within 'which, wtth few exceptions,all the branchesmust move in the discharge of their respectivefunctions."

In the Colonial Declaration of Rights of October 14,1774, it was said to be indispensablynecessary to goodgovernment th^^t"the constituent branches of the legis-lature

be independent of each other*" ' ^

It was in the reign of Edward III (1341)that the Parlia-mentof England divided into two Houses, " " '

The Congress which had existed under the Articles of

Confederation consisted of only one House, which wasmade up of ''delegates. . . appointed in such manneras the legislatureof each State shall direct",who mightbe replacedby others at any time within the year for

^

which they were chosen. A_Congress_XQnsi"tinfi:..of two-Hoiisesmjk:.^L-.Uie^fost^fundament between

-^ tfe new ConstitutipjL"aiid.thcL A^rticles of Confederation.In

^

the Constitutional Convention the first resolution

adopted declared for a Congress of two Houses.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be

composed of Members chosen every second Year ^

^As already noted, the Congressmen under the former

government were chosen for one year and were changeablein the meantime at the pleasureof the State.


By an act of the EnglishParliament in 1694 the termof a member of the House of Commons was fixed at three

years. In 1716 the SeptennialAct was passedextendingthe term to seven years. Because it extended the term of

the members who passedit instead of applyingto futureParliaments,and because it was intended to keep a partylongerin power than the time for which the members wereelected by the people,some authoritiesconsidered itillegal.The ParHament Act of 191 1 reduced the term from seven

years to five.

Congress,unlike Parliament,is,by virtue of this clause,without power to fix its term.

In France the term of a member of the House of Deputiesis four years. A member of the House of Commons in

Canada sits for five years, and the term in the AustralianHouse of Representativesis three years.

by the People ^ of the several States^ Emphasis should be here laid upon the fact that ours

is the r"n[y^government in the world in which all tlie^cHief

constitutional officersof the Executive and Legislative

Departmentsare elected by the votes of the people.^'Itstands unprecedentedand unparalleledas a '^governmentof the people,by the people,for the people."Even in thecountries which have closelypatternedtheir governmentson our Constitution,the electionof officialsisnot so general.Thus in Canada, in Australia,and in South Africa the Gov-ernor

Genjralis appointedby the Englishsovereign.Inthe RepublJpof France the President ischosen by the Senateand the Chamber of Deputiessittingtogetheras the Na-tional

Assembly. In BKazil.thesenators are chosen by thelegislature(asours once were)instead of beingelected bythe people.

and the Electors in each "tateshall have the Quali-ficationsrequisitefor Electors of the most numerous

Branch of the State Legislature.^

10 Constitution ofthe United States

^ The property qualificationsof the voters in the differentStates,as well as other requirements,were so various thatit was concluded to let the.practicein each State determinewho should be qualifiedto vote for a candidate for a seat inthe National House of Representatives."To have reducedthe different quahficationsin the different States to oneuniform rule,"wrote Hamilton in the ''FederaHst","wouldprobablyhave been as dissatisfactoryto some of the Statesas it would have been difficultto the Convention."

No Person shall be a Representativewho shall nothave attained to the Age of twenty-fiveYears, andbeen seven Years a Citizen of the United States,andwho shall not, when elected,be an Inhabitant ^ ofthat State in which he shall be chosen.

^ A member of the EnglishHouse of Commons neednot be an inhabitant or even a resident of the districtofhis constituency.

This Hmitation had no reference to sex; and thereforeit was permissiblefor a congressionaldistrictin a Stateto elect a woman to a seat in Congress. The firstwomanthus to be distinguishedwas Miss JeannetteRankin of Mon-tana,

who was elected to the National House of Representa-tivesin 191 6, four years before the adoptionof the Nine-teenth

Amendment (Note 187) gave suffrageto womenunder both State citizenship(where the State had notalreadygrantedit)and National citizenship.Representativesand direct Taxes ^^ shall*be appor-tioned

among the several States which may be in-cluded

within this Union,accordingto their respectiveNumbers,

^" Confusion and contention springingfrom thislanguagebroughtabout the adoptionin 19 13 of the Sixteenth Amend-ment

(Note182),which givesCongresspower ''t9layandcollect taxes on incomes,from whatever source derived,'

ItsSources and Application 11

without apportionmentamong the severalStates,and with-outregardto any census or enumeration."

Althoughin the Constitutional Convention there wassome questionof the meaning of direct taxes, Congressearlyplacedan interpretationupon the term by an act(July14, 1798)"to layand collect a direct tax within theUnited States."

This act had been precededfive days by an act "toprovidefor the valuation of Lands and DwelKng-houses,and the enumeration of slaves within the United States."

A tax of two mills was by the laws mentioned laid onbuildingsworth from one hundred dollars to five hundreddollars;and this was graduatedup as highas ten mills onhouses valued at thirtythousand dollars or more. A taxof fiftycents was laid on each slave.

In 1880,in upholdingthe Income Tax laws of 1 864-1865,the Supreme Court pointedout that whenever the Gov-ernment

had imposed a direct tax it had never appliedit except to real estate and slaves.^

The Income Tax Law of 1894imposed(withother taxes)a tax on the rent or income from J^nd. But the tax onthe income from land was not apportionedamong or allottedto the States accordingto population,as other direct taxesalwayshad been. In 1895,the questionhavingbeen raisedby numerous taxpayers,the Supreme Court held that thetax upon the income from land was in realitya tax onthe land itselfand therefore a direct tax which should havebeen apportionedin accordance with the command ofthe Constitution. It was held. on rehearingthat as inEnglishhistory,and also in Canadian cases arisingundera constitutionwith a provisionlike that in ours, an incometax had been treated as a directtax,it was therefore neces-sary

to apportionthe income tax as to incomes from per-sonalproperty as well as to incomes from land. Fourteen

years thereafterthe Sixteenth Amendment was proposedby Congressto permitthe taxation of income from what-

12 Constitution ofthe United 'Hates

ever source derived without apportionmentaccordingtothe populationas ascertained by the census. The Amend-ment

had been pending for over three and one half yearswhen it received the ratificationof the requisitenumber ofStates to make it a part of the Constitution.

which shall be determined by adding to the wholeNumber of free Pêrsons, includingthose bound taSeîce for a Term of Years, and excluding.Indiansnot taxed,thrê fifths of all other Persons.^^

" Referringto slaves. The word slave or slaverydoesnot appear in our Constitution until we reach the

Thirteenth Amendment, adopted (1865)after the CivilWar. This is the firstof the three *' compromisesof theConstitution" (Notes61 and 121),which have been calledthe beginningof the Civil War that burst in fury threequarters of a century after. Akhough^sjayes,.were^ji^citizens or voters,the niîaberof themjâs_considered_inJlaying^^recttaxes and in ascertaininghow many membersat State should have jn the House of Representatives.The fraction "three fifths" had been agreedupon in Con-gress

three years before,when the questionwas whether,in the levy of direct taxes,slave-holdingStates would beundertaxed (asNorthern men contended)by not count-ing

the slaves as populationor overtaxed (asthe Southclaimed)by countingthem. The compromisethen made asto taxation was employedas to representationin the House.While these compromiseswere under discussion at Phila-delphia

the last Congressunder the Articles of Confedera-tion,

sittingat New York, passed the ordinance creatingthe Northwest Territory(laterOhio, Indiana,Illinois,Michigan,and Wisconsin)and forbiddingthat slaveryeverexist within its limits. Fiske ("Critical Period in Amer-ican

History")says that in 1787 slaverywas a doud e,largerthan a man's hand. The institution had been

Its Sources and Application 13

dying slowlyfor fiftyyears. It had become extinct inMassachusetts and in nearly all other northern States,and it had justbeen prohibitedby Congressin the Na-tional

domain. In Virginiaand Maryland there was astrongparty of aboUtion and the movement had alsogainedsome strengthiiTNorth Carolina. It was onlyin the riceswamps of the far South that slave labor was wanted.

The slave States,for receivinga disproportionaterepre-sentationin the House of Representativeson account of

their slave population,gave their support in the Conven-tionto the Constitution ; and when the abohtion of the

slave trade was postponedby one clause for twenty years(Note 6i) the South agreed in return to the commerceclause (Note 45) providingfor absolutelyfree trade be-tween

the States. In the Constitutional Convention

George Mason of Virginiaand other southern delegatesspokeseverelyagainstslavery.Virginiacontributed to the Union a largepart of the

Northwest Territory,and delegatesfrom Virginiain Con-gressunder the Articles of Confederation aided in drafting

the ordinance which forever prohibitedslaveryin thatdomain. The ordinance received the votes of delegatesfrom Virginia,Georgia,South Carolina,and North Caro-lina,

as well as those from Delaware,New Jersey,NewYork,and Massachusetts.

But the invention of the cotton gin,which could cleanas much cotton as two hundred slaves,and the comingin of spinningmachinery,changed the course of events.The actual Enumeration shall be made withinthree Years after the first Meeting of the Congressof the United StatA,and within ^very subsequentTerm of ten Years,in such Manner as they shaU byLaw direct.12

^^ Under acts of Congress'a completecensus has beentaken every ten years, the last in 1920. The census of


1790 showed a total populationof 3,929,326,of which679,681were slaves. The populationof the United Statesin 1920 was 105,683,108.

The Number of Representativesshall not exceed onefor every thirtyThousand,^ bût each State shall haveat Least one Representative;

^^ The number of peopleauthorizinga State to have arepresentativein the lower House of Congresshas beenchanged from time to time after the decennial census. In192 1 each State had one member of the House of Represent-atives

for every 211,877. After the census of 1920 a billto increase the number of members of the House of

Representativesfrom 435 to 483 was defeated,and in192 1 another billfailed to pass which proposedto increasethe number of members to 450.

and until such enumeration shall be made, the Stateof New Hampshire shall be entitled to Qîa^ three,Massachusetts eight,Rhode-Island and Providence.Plantations one, Connecticut five.New- York six^New Jerseyfour,Pennsylvania eight,Delaware one,Maryland six,Virginiaten.North Carolina five,SoutjiCarolina five,and Georgia three.^^

^* That would have made a House of sixty-fivemembers.But Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratifytheConstitution until after the new government had goneinto effect. In 192 1 the House had a membershipof 435.

When vacancies happen in the Representationfrom

any State,the Executive Authoi^tythereof shall issi^Writs of Election to fillsuch Vacancies.^^

^Ît often happens that the governor of a State mustcall a specialelection for choosinga member of the Houseof Representativesto take the place of one who re-signed

or died. j

It' Sources and Application 15

The House of Representativesshall chuse theirSpeaker ^^ and other Officers;

1^ So in England,in Canada, in Australia,and in SouthAfrica the presidingofficerof the House is elected by themembers, and alsoin the ArgentineRepublicand in Brazil.In England the Speakerof the House of Commons is toa degreenonpartfsan,usuallyholdingofficethroughsuc-cessive

administrations.

and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.^^*^ The House formulates the chargeagainstthe official

and reduces it to writing.Then the Senate sits as a court(withthe Chief Justiceof the United States presidingwhenthe accused is the President)and hears the witnesses andpronounces judgment. It is to be said with pridethatthere have been but few impeachmentsin our history.One judgeof a United States Court was impeached,triedand removed for drunkenness,another for disloyaltydur-ing

the Civil War, and a third for conduct not becomingto a judge. A member of President Grant's Cabinet wasimpeachedby the House of Representatives,but as heresignedthe Senate did not try him.

The great impeachmentwas that of President AndrewJohnson, which the House of Representativesbroughton February 24, 1868. The President and the Congresshad been in passionateconffictover the reconstruction ofthe southern States which had seceded from the Unionand which had been overcome in the Civil War. It wasthe belief of the President that he, as commander in chiefof the victorious army aiftinavy (Note 85) and pos-sessed

under the Constitution of the pardoningpower(Note 87),which he had exercised toward those latelyin hostile arms, should superviseand control the returnof the southern States,which had never been legallyoutof the Union. He claimed to be carryingout the planof

16 Constitution ofthe United Sates

Lincoln. But Congress,insistingthat it had the author-ity,and that as many of the southern States had enacted

vagrancy laws and other statutes designedto put theliberated Negro practicallyin his former state of bondage,it became its duty to effectuate the decision reached bywar, passed two Reconstruction Acts over the President'sveto. The President denounced the acts as not only un-constitutional

but as also indefensiblyharsh,especiallyas they affected a great number of peoplein the southernStates who had been loyalto the Union. In 1867 Congresspassed over the President's veto the Tenure of OfficeAct, which forbade him to remove his appointeesto officewithout the consent of the Senatew^hich is requiredbythe Constitution to approve (Note 89) the appointments.That Act of Congresswas in disregardof an earlycongres-sional

interpretationof the Constitutional clause citedand of the practicewhich had been sanctioned throughthe administration of sixteen Presidents. President Johnsontransgressedthe Act by removing Edwin M. Stanton,Secretaryof War, who was openly hostile to the recon-struction

poHcy of his chief. For this the House of Rep-resentativesvoted articles of impeachment, and from

March 5, 1868, to May 16 the Senate sat as a trialcourt.Chief JusticeSalmon P. Chase presiding.The managersof the impeachment failed to secure the two-thirds votenecessary under the Constitution to convict (Note24).

In messages to CongressPresident Grant and President

Hayes requestedthe repealof the Tenure of Office Act.It remained upon the statute book until Cleveland's

administration,when (1886)gthatExecutive sternlyre-fusedto give to the Senate his reasons for removing an

officialwhose appointmentthe Senate had of course con-firmed.He said that it was his duty to maintain the

Chief Magistracy''unimpairedin allitsdignityand vigor";and he denied "that the Senate has the rightin anycase to review the act of the Executive in removingor

Its Sources and Application 17 y

suspendinga publicofficer." Later (1887)the Tenure

ent of President Johnson,was repeale3by CongressTA humorous writer of the day who was opposed to the

theories of President Johnson,as expressedin a series ofspeechesby the Executive,said that the President wastrying"to arouse the peopleto the dangerof concentratingpower in the hands of Congressinstead of diffusingitthroughone man."

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall

be composed of two Senators from each State,^^

^^ It has alreadybeen remarked that the Congressunderthe Articles of Confederation consisted of only one House.The provisionfor two senators from each State,regard-less

of sizeor population,while populationwas to determinethe number of members in the House of Representatives,was agreedto so that the^mallerStates mightnot be over-borne

in both Houses of Congressby the votes of the largerStates. Besides,it waTHesiredthat the States as politicalorganizationsbe representedin Congress. So at logger-heads

over this were the largeStates and the small Statesthat more than once the Constitutional Convention wasat the pointof breakingup. Benjamin Franklin was soaffected by the disagreementthat he suggestedthat themeetingsbe opened with prayer. Lord Bryce says that\the Americans invented this planof havingone House rep- \resent the peopledirectlyon. the basis of population,and i^"'^the other (theSenate)representthe States on 'the basis ofState equalityas autonomous communities. He beUevesthat it was this device which made federation possiblein the United States. The device has been adoptedinmany other countries.

,^ ^

^

In 1890 the United States of Brazil followed our exampleand providedin its Constitution for the equaHty of theStrifesin the Senate, \.hile the number of members in the


Chamber of Deputiesis determined by population.Brazilhas three senators from each State chosen by the Statelegislature(as ours were chosen before the adoptionof the Seventeenth Amendment in 191 3) for a term ofnine years, one third of the number goingout of officeevery three years, instead of every two years, as oursenators go out.

The Constitution of Canada (North America Act ofthe British ParKament of 1867)contains provisionsforkeepingthe provincesin a definite (thoughnot equal)re-lationship

in the Senate.In the Commonwealth of Australia the Constitution

(1900)providesfor not less than six senators from each ofthe five States,whose term is six years. One half of thesenators go out every three years. Par^^^entmay in-crease

the number of senators from each State,but it can-notimpairthe relationshipof the States in the Senate.

chosen by the Legislaturethereof,^^ for six Years;and each Senator shall have one Vote.

^^ Election of senators by the legislaturesof the Stateswas supersededby direct election by the peopleupon theadoption(May 31, 19 13)of the Seventeenth Amendment,which should be here referred to (Note iB^ and* read. 4'^

In the Constitutional Convention it was3elerminedto have the States as politicalbodies representedin theSenate,the people themselves being representedin theother House. As the State itselfwas to be representedinCongress,it was concluded that the State government(thelegislature)could best choose its spokesmen. A planto have senators elected by the House of Representativeswas rejectedbecause it ''would create a dependence con-trary

to the end proposed."A plan to have senatorsappointedby the President was opposed as "a stridetowards monarchy." There were strong advocates of thepopularelection which the Seventr.jnth Amendment long


afterbroughtabout,such as James Wilson of Pennsylvania,who became a Justiceof the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Con-sequenceof the firstElection,they shall be divided

as equallyas may be into three Classes. The Seatsof the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at

the Expirationof the second Year, of the second Classat the Expirationof the fourth Year, and of the thirdClass at the Expiratio^of the sixth Year, so thatone-third may be chosen every second Year ; 20

2^ As has been seen, Brazil and Australia have similar

provisionsfor making the Senate a perpetualbody,so thatit cannot be made up (asthe House may be) entirelyofinexperiencedmembers.

and ifVacancies happen by Resignation,or otherwise,during the Recess of the Legislatureof any State,the Executive thereof may make temporary Appoint-ments

until the next Meeting of the Legislature,^!which shall then fillsuch Vacancies.

2^ Now, under the Seventeenth Amendment, appoint-mentsare made until an election by the people can be

held.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have

attained to the Age of thirtyYears, and been nineYears a Citizen of the United States,and who shallnot, when elected,be an Inhabitant of that State ^for which he shall be chosen.

22 See Note 9.

The Vice President of the United States shall bePresident of the Senate,but shall have no Vote, un-less

they be equallydivided.^^


23 A search of the records m 191 5 showed that in the

course of our historythe Vice President had cast the de-cidingvote in the Senate 179 times,often with respectto

the most momentous matters.

In Washington'sadministration the vote of Vice Presi-dentAdams more than once saved the policyof neu-

trahty. On April 22, 1793, President Washington pro-claimed,notwithstandinga strong publicsentiment for

France because of its help to us during the Revolution,that as a state of war existed between France on the one

hand, and Great Britain,the United Netherlands,Austria,Prussia,and Sardinia,on the other,he thoughtit fittingto declare the dispositionof the United States ''to adoptand pursue a conduct friendlyand impartialtoward thebelHgerentpowers" and to exhort and warn citizens care-fully

to avoid all acts which might in any manner tend tocontravene such disposition.It was further stated thatany citizen violatingthe proclamation*'will not receivethe protectionof the United States." Thus was estab-lished

a pohcy which has ever since been pursued. Thedecidingvote of Vice President Hobart on February 14,1899,ratifiedour treatywith Spainafter the war. But ofcourse one vote cast in conformitywith the Constitutionas fullyexpressedthe people'swill as though theyall hadvoted so.

In Brazil the Vice President is,like ours, President ofthe Senate and in case of a tiecasts the decidingvote.

Under the Constitution of Canada the Speakerof theSenate is appointedby the Governor General instead ofbeingelected,and a tie vote in the Senate is recorded asa negativeand the measure or motion is lost,while in theCanadian House of Commons, which elects its presidingofficer,the Speakercasts the decidingvote in case of a tie.

In the AustraHan Senate the members elect from their

number a president,who votes with the others,and there-forea tieis recorded as a negative.


When President Harding took office (1921) he gaveVice President CooUdge a seat at the Cabinet table. There-tofore

the Vice President had been practicallyapart fromthe executive affairs of the Nation. Of course much ofhis time is devoted to the LegislativeDepartment as theconstitutionalpresidingofficerof the Senate.

The Senate shall qhuse their other Officers,andalso a President pro tempore, in the absence of theVice President,or when he shall exercise the Officeof President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all

Impeachments. When sittingfor that Purpose, theyshall be on Oath or Affirmation, ^hen the Presi/^dent of the United States is tried,the Chief Justiceshall preside: And no Person shall be convicteiwitEbut the "Concurrence of two thirds of the Memllbers present.

^^ The ''concurrence of two thirds of the members

present"in an impeachment trial may produce widelyvaryingnumerical results. To illustrate: in 1922 the Senatehas ninety^sixmembers,of whom forty-nine(amajority)area quorum for doing business. If the whole membershipshould be presentthe two thirds necessary to impeachwouldbe sixty-four.But ifonlythe quorum of forty-nineshouldbe present,the accused might be convicted by two thirdsof that number, or by thirty-three.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not ex-tendfurther than to removal from Office,and dis-qualification

to hold and enjoy any Office of honor,Trust,or Profit under the United States : 25

2^ This means that none of the imprisonments,confis-cationsof property, or degradationsof name and family,

common under European law, should be known to our


system of government. Any law of Congressprescribingpunishmentsupon impeachment beyond those named thecourts would be in duty bound to declare void and for thatreason to decline to giveit effect.

but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liableand subjectto Indictment,Trial,Judgment and Pun-ishment,

accordingto Law.^^

2^1That is,if one be impeached and removed from anoffice of honor, trust, or profitbecause of theft or othercrime,he will,notwithstandingthe judgment in impeach-ment,

be liable to punishment for such theft or othercrime.

Section 4. The Times, Places, and Manner ofholding Elections for Senators and Representatives,shall be prescribedin each State by the Legislaturethereof;but the Congress may at any time by Lawmake or alter such 'Regulations,except as to thePlaces of chusing Senators. ^^^

26* This provisionrespectingthe time and manner ofholdingelections was not touched by Congressuntil 1842,when it was enacted that members of the House of Rep-resentatives

should be elected by districts. Until thar,time theyhad been elected by ''generalticket",each voter Iin a State votingfor as many candidates as the State was^entitled to; but that method gave undue preponderanceof power to the politicalparty having a majorityof votesin the State,when it might not have a majorityin eachdistrict.

In 1872,to cure various evils.Congress requiredallelections for the House to be held on the Tuesday afterthe firstMonday in November, b *-:i^mgin 1876.

To prevent the i^luivi of "the election of a senator bythe legislature,where one Hou:^ voted for one candidate


and the other for another and they refused to reconciletheir differences,Congressdirected the two bodies to meetin jointsession on a fixed day and requiredtheir meetingevery day thereafter.

Congressalso fixed the day for the votingin all Statesfor President and Vice President,the firstTuesday afterthe firstMonday in November.

"

In 192 1 the Supreme Court of the United States passedupon the Corrupt Practices Act of Congressof June 25,1 9 10, which forbids a candidate for a seat in the House of

Representativesor for a seat in the Senate to contributeor expend*'inprocuringhis nomination and election anysum, in the aggregate,in excess of the amount which he maylawfullygive,contribute,expend or promise,under thelaws of the State in which he resides." The defendant was

chargedwith havingmade use of more money than the lawof his State permitted,not in an effort to control a nomi-nating

convention or a generalelection,but in the primaryelection which has in some of the States supersededthenominatingconvention. The decision was that the Actof Congresscould not constitutionallyinclude the primaryelection. The selection of a party candidate who will

later run for election ^'isin no real sense",said the Court,

"partof the manner of holdingthe election." Howeverf the candidate may be offered " by convention,by primary,by petition,or voluntarily" that "does not directlyaffect",said the Court, "the manner of holdingtheelection." The "manner of holdingelections for Sena-tors"

is the onlysubject,the Supreme Court held,that theConstitution empowers Congressto regulate.

Elections in the United States to-day are cleannessitselfin comparisonwith what they were in earlieryearsand in England. "The elections for the new Parliamentwhich met in 1768,"says, Green's "English People",Section 1501, "were more corrupt than any that had as yetbeen witnessed; and even the stoutest opponents of


reform shrank aghast from the open briberyof constit-uenciesand the prodigalbarter of seats."

The Congress shall assemble at least once in everyYear,2 a^nd such Meeting shall be on the first Mon-day

in December, unless they shall by Law appointa different Day.

^^ This rendered impossiblesuch conflicts as existed inEngland when the King convened and dissolved Parlia-ment

at pleasure;and when, in retaliation,Parliamentresolved that it could be dismissed onlyby its own action.During those troublous times the Short Parliament satthree weeks and the Long ParHament over nineteen years.

Charles I ruled England eleven years (1629-1640)withoutcalHng a Parliament. He obtained money for his needsby so-called loans from wealthy barons, by taxes uponships,which were called tonnage, by many kinds of finesfor trumped-up offenses,and by revivingmonopolieswhich Elizabeth and other Tudor sovereignshad employed.The hopes of the country were finallyraised by the sittingof the so-called Short ParHament, which was abruptl)^dismissed by the King at the end of three weeks because'it would not vote money to carry on a war againsttheScots. With England in defection and the Scots invadingIthe North, Charles was driven (1640) ''with wrath andshame in his heart" to ''summon again the Houses toWestminster." This was the Long ParKament, which

lasted for nearlytwenty years. This Parliament havingdetermined upon perpetuatingitself,Cromwell and hissoldiers dissolved it. "But you mistake,sir,"said JohnBradshaw, "if you think the Parliament dismissed. No

power on earth can dissolve the Parliament but itself,be sure of that !V Subsequentlyit was revived and againexpelled.In 164P itcalled the election of a new Parliamentand then dissolvexlitself.'


As far back as the reignof Edward III (1327-1377)it had been enacted that ParHament "should be held

every year or oftener ifneed be" ; but Hallam (''Constitu-tionalHistoryof England") says that this enactment had

been respectedin no age. A complaintin the Declarationof Independencewas that King George III "has dissolvedrepresentativehouses repeatedlyfor opposingwith manlyfirmness his invasion of the rightsof the people; he hasrefused for a long time after such dissolution to causeothers to be elected."

The Canadian Constitution requiresa session of ParHa-mentevery year, and it forbids that twelve months

intervene between sessions,and the like provisionis inthe Austrahan Constitution and in the Constitution of

South Africa.

It isrequiredby the Constitution of Brazil that the Na-tionalCongress(theSenate and the Chamber of Deputies)

shall convene every year in May for four months. Theduration of a Congressis three years, as compared withours of two years.

The Constitution of France requiresthe Chamber ofDeputiesand the Senate to convene at least once eachyear for at least fivemonths, and the sessions of the Housesmust beginand end together.

In Froissart's time (1396)it was the custom (Chronicles,Ch. 174)for the EngHsh Parhament to sit in the King'spalaceat Westminster for fortydays; but as Richard IIwas goingto Calais to marry Isabella of France,he attendedonlyfive days and that ended the session.

Until May, 1789,the month after Washingtonenteredupon hisduties as President,the States General of France hadnot been convened by the King for 175 years. Upon com-ing

togetherthey immediatelyprecipitatedthe Revolution.Enough has been stated to,make plainwhat lies back

of this clause for orderlyand stable government, whichhas been copiedthroughoutthe world.

Constitution ofthe United States

Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of theElections,Returns and Qualificationsof its ownMembers,^^

2^ The English Parliament always claimed this right.After the World War a member of our House of Repre-sentatives

was denied his seat on the ground that he hadbeen disloyalto the RepubHc. Hallam givesas the firstinstance of record the expulsionfrom the House of Commonsin 1 581 of Arthur Hall, a burgessfrom Grantham. Inaddition to beingexpelledhe was fined five hundred marksand then sent to the Tower, where it was the intentionof the Commons to leave him,but the dissolution of ParUa-ment by the King ended its jurisdictionover him and hewas released.

and a Majorityof each shall constitute a Quorum todo Business; but a smaller Number may adjournfrom day to day, and may be authorized to compelthe Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner,and under such Penalties as each House may pro-vide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Pro-ceedings,

punishits Members for disorderlyBehaviorand, with the Concurrence of two thirds,expel aMember.29

2^ But that power cannot be extended to outside matters.Thus in 1876 the House of Representativesappointedacommittee to inquireinto the insolvencyof a firm withwhich the Secretaryof the Navy had depositedmoneyof the government. A witness who was called by the com-mittee

declined to give names requestedor to producepapers. Repeating his refusal when brought to the barof the House,he was adjudgedin contempt and was com-mitted

to the common jail,from which he was releasedby habeas corpus after forty-five days. I

'

w'-eurM^n


broughtan action for money damages againstthe Speakerof the House and others on the ground of false imprison-ment,

and Congresspaidby appropriationthe judgmentwhich he recovered. When the case reached the SupremeCourt of the United States it was held that ftheHouse

doesnotpossess^uadex-the-Constitution any generalpowerto punEh for^Joatempt.While it m^y punish its ownmembers and pass upon questionsof election and someothers,the Court said,it was without authorityto imprisonas it did. Because the United States was a creditor of

a man whose business methods were questioned,said,theCourt, that did not warrant the House of Representativesin subjectinghim to the unHmited scrutinyor investigationof a Congressionalcommittee; and the recourse of thegovernment was, Hke that of any other creditor,an actionin a court of law for the recovery of its money. Thus wesee how; needful to the citizen,even in a republic,are defi-nite

constitutional safeguards,and how effectivelytheyare worked out under our system. ^

As late as 19 16 the libertyof the citizen was againthreatened in a hke manner. The House of Representa-tives

issued a warrant for the arrest of a United States

attorney in New York for making statements which wereconsidered ** defamatoryand insulting"and as tending"to bringthe House into publiccontempt and ridicule."After he had been taken into custodyby the sergeant atarms of the House he sought release by a writ of habeascorpus,which the trialcourt denied. The Supreme Courtreversed that holding.It referred to the provisionsinthe earlyconstitutions of the States which were intended*'todestroythe admixture of judicialand legislativepower"which had been possessedby the Houses of Parliamentin England. That blendingof power does not exist underour Constitution. For redress on account of slanderousor Hbelous accusations a riiember of the House must,like other citizens,resort to a court of law.


Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceed-ings,and from time to time publish the same, ex-cepting

such Parts as may in their Judgment re-quireSecrecy ;^" and the Yeas and Nays of the

Members of either House on any question shall,atthe Desire of one fifth of those Present,be enteredon the Journal.

^^ Every word uttered in the House and in the Senate

(exceptin executive sessions)istaken down stenographicallyand appears in printthe next morning as the CongressionalRecord. Each House keepsa journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress,shall,without the Consent of the other,adjourn formore than three days, nor to any other Place thanthat in which the two Houses shall be sitting.^^

^^ The reignof Charles II of England (1630-1685)washardlymore remarkable,says Hallam, for the vigilanceofthe House of Commons againstthe arbitraryuse of authorityby the King than for the warfare which it waged againstthe House of Lords whenever it saw, or thought it saw,a usurpationby that body. In one instance it becamenecessary for the King to resort to successive adjourn-ments

for fifteen rftonths to stop a quarrelbetween theHouses. A few years later the strife againappearedandthe King made peace once more. /The provisionin ourConstitution requiresthe House of Representativesandthe Senate to sit at the same placeand to work together)As the Constitution defines quiteclearlythe powers andduties of each House, the disputesabout authoritywhichare blots on Englishhistorynever occur in the UnitedStates. If either House could adjournat pleasureit mightcompletelyobstruct publicbusiness and practicallyde-stroy

a session of Congress. The two Houses must agreeupon adjournment,and if they cannot agree the President

Its Sources and Application 2"

may (Note94)adjournthem. But except in case of theinabilityof the Houses to agree, the President has nocontrol over the adjourningof Congress.

The Congressof one House under the Articles of Con-federationwas authorized to adjourn to any time (not

beyondsix months)and to any placein the United States.In Canada and Australia the Governors General are

empowered by the Constitutions to prorogue (postponeor dissolve)the legislativebody or Parliament. In Chileboth Houses (Deputiesand Senate) must convene andadjournat the same time. In France the President mayadjournthe Chamber of Deputiesand the Senate (whichmust meet at least once each year and continue in session

for at least fivemonths),but not for a longertime than onemonth and not more than twice during one session. InFrance a meetingof one House when the other is not insession is illegal,except when the Senate sits as a court.

Section 6. The Senators and Representativesshallreceive a CompensaH5nfor their Services,to be as-certained

by Law,^'^2 That is,a bill must be passedby themselves and

signedby the President,fLxingtheir salaries.

and paid out of the Treasury of the itnitedStates.^^^^ This was another American innovation. In the Parlia-ment

of England members had not been paid. Thedistinction of the ofl"cewas considered enough. The prac-tice

excluded the poor citizen. But members are paidinParKament now.

As far back as the reignof Henry III (1265)the shiresand boroughspaidthe expenses of the persons summonedby the King to his Court of Parliament. In the reignofEdward II (1322)the salary"^ia knightwas fixed at fourshillingsa day, and that of a citizen or burgher at twoshilHngsa day ; but the tax rate for payment ran against


the constituents. In the course of time the practiceofallowingany compensationpassedaway. As the ReformBill of 1832 left the working classes almost altogetherwithout the privilegeof voting,a programme was drawnup for numerous reforms,which was named ''The Charter '\and the movement was called Chartism. One of the thingsdemanded was pay for the members of Parliament. In

1893 and againin 1895 the House of Commons voted bya small majorityfor an adequateallowance ; but in 1906,by a vote of more than three to one, a definite salaryofthree hundred pounds was fixed. In Canada the membersof both Houses receive $2500a year, with a deduction of$15 for each day absent. In Australia each member re-ceives

six hundred pounds a year. In South Africa eachmember receives four hundred pounds a year, less threepounds for each day'snonat tendance. In Argentineeachmember receives 1060 pounds a year; and in Francefifteen thousand francs.

The Articles of Confederation required(Art.V, sec. 3)each State to maintain its delegatesto Congress.

In 1789 the compensationof our senators and represent-ativeswas fixed at $6 for each day'sattendance; in 1815

at $1500a year; in 1817 at $8 a day; in 1855 at $3000 ayear; in 1865 at $5000; in 1871 at $7500; in 1874 it wasput back to $5000; in 1907 it was made $7500.

Madison thoughtit an "indecent thing"that congress-menshould be empowered by the Constitution to fix their

salaries. After the advance in 181 5 many of the members

of the House were defeated for reelection. The advance

of March 3, 1873, a;ffectingthe President,the Congress,the Cabinet,the Supreme Court, and some other depart-ments,

made on the lastday of Grant's firstterm and oper- 1atingretroactivelyduring "the term for which he shallhave been elected",was denounced by the country as a"salarygrab." On January 20, 1874,it was repealed"i^to all"exceptthe President of the United States and the


Justicesof the Supreme Court", whose salaries the Con-stitution(Notes82 and 98)forbids Congressto reduce.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony,and Breach of the Peace, be privilegedfrom Arrestduring their Attendance at the Session of their re-spective

Houses, and in goingto and returningfrom thesame ;

^^*

^^* This privilege,which isgivenfor the despatchof publicbusiness,does not extend to the member's family.Oncein England the privilegecovered the family,the domestics,and the property of the member, in consequence of whichcreditors and others seekingredress were helpless.Inthe reignof George III an act of Parliament abolished theprivilegeas to domestic servants,lands,and goods. Thecharters of the colonies did not mention the privilege.Itfirstappears in this country in the Constitution of Mas-sachusetts

of 1780.The privilegefrom arrest,except for treason,felony,or

breach of the peace, was granted(Art.V) by the Articlesof Confederation to members of Congress.

and for any Speech or Debate in either House, theyshall not be questioned^^ in any other Place.

^^The privilegeof having debates unquestionedwasdenied to members of Parliament in the reignof Eliza-beth

when they began to speak their minds freely,andthey were punishedby that ruler and her two successors,but the privilegewas soon afterwards firmlyestablished.Hallam says that the singlefalse step by Charles I whichmade compromiseimpossibleand civil war certain washis attempt to seize five members (Pym,HoUis,Hampden,Haselrig,and Strode)within the walls of the House.Hampden and his associates were accused of hightreason

''againstthe sovereignor the government, as distinguishedfiom other treasons,of which there were then many).


Followed by a body of armed men the King left his palace(1642)at Whitehall,after having told the Queen (Henri-etta,

daughterof Henry IV of France,and accused of hav-ing^'ncitedCharles to the rash action)that he would re-turn"master of my Kingdom", and proceededto the House

of Commons. Apprisedof his approach,the House orderedthe accused members to' withdraw. The King enteredand told the Speaker that he needed the chair. Callingfor the members wanted and hearingno response, ''I seemy birds are flown,"he said. He went out in defeat,pro-testing

that he had not intended to use force. As he re- |turned he heard everywherein the streets the cry of "privi-lege."

Macaulay says ("Historyof England '^ Vol. i,p. 107) that at the very moment when the subjectsofCharles I were returningto him with feelingsof affectionafter a long estrangement "he had aimed a deadly blowat all their dearest rights,at the privilegesof Parhament,at the very principleof trialby jury."

The Articles of Confederation provided(Art.V) that"freedom of speech and debate in the legislatureshallnot be impeachedor questionedin any court or placeoutof Congress."

The privilegefor "any speechor debate" was held by^the Supreme Court of the United States to cover a resolu-^ '

tion offered by a member of Congress.

No Senator or Representativeshall,during theTime for which he was elected,be appointedto anycivil Office under the Authority of the United States,which shall have been created,or the Emolumentswhereof shall have been encreased during suchtime ; ^^

^^ After a senator's term began Congressincreased)(1889)the emoluments of our Minister to Mexico. Beforethe expirationof his senatorial term the President appointed


him Minister to that country. The Attorney-Generalruled that under thisprovisionhe was not ehgible.

President-elect Taft selected Senator Knox to be Sec-retary

of State in his cabinet. Then it was found that

duringthe senatorial term of Knox the emoluments of thesecretaryshiphad been increased by Congress,whichrendered him ineligible.Congress thereuponqualifiedhim by reducingthe emoluments of the officeto what theywere before.

One may conceive of great abuses which might arisedid thisprohibitionnot exist. Of course, after the term ofa senator or a representativehas expired,he may acceptthe officecreated duringhis term or the officethe emolu-ments

of which were increased while he was in Congress.

and no Person holding any Office under the UnitedStates,shall be a Member of either House duringhis Continuance in Office.^^

^^ But few provisionsin the Constitution were moreearnestlydebated in the Constitutional Convention.Hallam says that it appears possiblethat persons in office

formed at alltimes a very considerable portionof the Houseof Commons in the time (1485-1603)of the Tudors. Inthe reignof Henry VIII (i509-1 547)most of the membersof the House of Commons held officesfor the appointmentsto which they were indebted to the King. Parliament,beingthus interested,passedan act "releasingthe King'shighnessfrom all and every sum of money" which theParliaments or his subjectshad givento him "by way oftrust or loan." As mentioned elsewhere,the practiceof "borrowing"from the rich subjectswas a commonpracticeof the kingsof those times,but it was stoppedwith the dethronement of James II and the acceptingbyWilliam and Mary of the Declaration of Rightsin 1689.

Scores of other historical facts might be given toillustratethe meaning Mng'back of the simplelanguage


of this clause. If Congresswere to become partlyfilledwith appointeesof the President to other offices underthe United States,or by holders throughelection of otheroffices,the independenceof the LegislativeDepartmentwhich the Constitution undertook to safeguardwould soonbe undermined.

The Constitution of Georgiaof 1777 declared that ''noperson shall hold more than one office of profitunder thisState at the same time." The Constitution of Marylandhad a similar provision.

It was forbidden by the Articles of Confederation (Art.V)that any delegatein Congresshold ''anyoffice under theUnited States for which he, or any other for his benefit,receives any salary,fees,or emolument of any kind."

So this clause,like many another in the Constitution,took risefrom colonial experience.

Section 7. All billsfor raisingRevenue shall origi-natein the House of Representatives; ^^ but the Sen-ate

may propose or concur with Amendments as on

other bills.

^^ That is,money bills must originateJn the body thenelected directlyby the people. Senators have been so ielected (Note 183) since 19 13. One of the almost irre-pressible

confficts between the King of England and theHouses of Parliament was respectingthe power of raisingmoney for the support of the King and the conduct of thegovernment.

In a Congress (calledthe Stamp-Act Congress)com-.^

posed of delegatesfrom the Colonies a Declaration ofRights was promulgated in New York on October 19,1765,which said:

"That it is inseparablyessential to the freedom of apeopleand the undoubted rightof Enghshmen that notaxes be imposed on them bu" with their ovm consent,


givenpersonallyor by theirrepresentatives; that the peopleof these Colonies are not, and from their local circum-stances

cannot be, representedin the House of Commonsin Great Britain ;(that the onlyrepresentativesof the peopleof these Colonies are persons chosen therein by themselves,and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionallyimposed on them but by their respectivelegislatures;that allsuppHesto the Crown beingfree giftsof the people,it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principlesand spiritof the British constitution for the peopleofGreat Britain to grant to His Majestythe property of theColonists."

In the Declaration of^P^ightsof October 14, 1774, thedelegatesfrom the severalColonies in Colonial Congressassembled protestedagainst^^ctsof Parliament passedinthe fourth,fifth,sixth,seventh,and eighthyears of GeorgeIII, ^' which imposed duties fof the purpose of raisingrevenue in America", and th^ condemned them asmeasures

-^^which demonstrate a systemformed to enslaveAmerica."

,,

In the earlytimes in England i\eHouse of Lords andthe House of Commons made separa g^rants of supplytothe King for the maintenance of tl\egovernment andhimself. Later,as the Commons' proportionof the taxes

*

was greater,that House made the grant with the assentof the Lords. In the reignof Henry VIII they joinedinthe grants. But in the last Parliament of Charles I the

grant recited that it was made by the Commons. Sincethen that House originatesmoney bills.

The Kings of England always found need for more,

money than they got from Parliament. Some of the^

earlykings,Henry III (i2i$-i272)and Edward I (1272-1307),for example,introduced the scheme of grantingtotheir militarytenants the privilegeof knighthood; buttbDse who wished to decline the honor (costlyto maintain)could excuse their absence by a moderate fine. Once in


^the reign of Elizabeth (i558-1603)and often in the timeof James I (1603-162 5) this ancient method of raisingmoney without the aid of ParHamentwas employed.

Another lucrative plan of those two monarchs was togrant exclusive or monopoHsticprivileges.A monopolistinthe making of soap, for example,agreedto pay the Kingeightpounds in money ($40)on every ton of soap made, in .addition to ten thousand pounds ($50,000)for the charteror grant of the monopoly. Almost every necessitywasunder monopoly, but in 1639 the grants were revoked be-cause

of publicdispleasure.Enormous revenues flowed tothe monarch from such sources.

Another device of resourceful royaltywas to borrowheavilyfrom wealthy nobles and never (orseldom) pay.It was not often that a wealthy man had the temeritytorefuse. Elizabeth always discharged such obligations.In the reignof James I a forced loan of this kind was frus-trated

by the declaration of the House of Commons that noone be bound againsthis will to lend money to the King.While such practiceswere believed to be in violationof Magna Charta (1215),signedby King John,Parliamentmade the matter certain by requiringJames' successor,Charles I,to assent((i628)to the Petition of Right wherein ^it was said that *'no man shall be compelledto make or Iyieldany gift,loan,benevolence to or such like charge*;;"without common consent by Act of Parliament ') that nonebe called upon to make answer for refusal so to do."

And in 1689William and Mary acceptedthe(.DeclarationofRights,which prohibitedthe levyingof money for the useof the sovereignwithout the grant of Parliament.) Couldthe King raise money (whichprovidesarmies and navies) ^without the consent of Parliament there might soon be n(\^Psrliamrrt A disputebetween Charles I and Parliamentinvohdng this money questionand some others was earnedinto civilwar and the sovereign'shead was severed by t^ieexecutioner.


Mentioningthat in [Tudorand Stuart times "the crownwas alwaystendingto bankruptcyand alwaysrequiringhelpof Parliament '5an Englishwriter (Jenks'''ConstitutionalExperimentsof the Commonwealth", p. 39) states: ''Itmight almost be said that the developmentof the EnglishConstitution is due to the fallin the value of money. Itis certain that many of the constitutionalcrises of Englishhistorywere brought about by that fact." ^It has beenstated that the value of money in the time of Ehzabeth,whose reignended in 1603, was about twelve times whatitisto-day.}

The foregoingreferences to historic facts show why theframers of the Constitution so carefullyentrusted theraisingand expendingof the publictreasure to the repre-sentatives

elected by the direct vote of the people. Itwas the desire not only that pubHc funds should not bewasted,but also that they should pever be diverted touses dangerousto the government.

A "bill for raising revenue" is onefor levyingtaxesin the strict sense of the word and not one which inci-

dentallybringsin moneys Thus a currency act of Congresswhich,to meet ex^fenses,put a tax on notes of bankingassociations in circulation was held by the Supreme Courtnot to be a revenue billwhich should have originatedinthe House of Representatives.

Under the Canadian Constitution billsfor raisingrevenueoriginatein the House of Commons, but not before recom-mendation

by the Governor General. The AustrahanConstitution forbids that the Senate either originateoramend money bills.

In Brazil the Chamber of Deputies (electedby thepeople)originatesall billsfor raisingrevenue, and so doesthe House of Deputiesin Chile.

The Constitution of France permitsthe Senate to origi-nateallbut revenue bills,which must firstpass the Cham-ber

of Deputies.


Every Bill which shall have passed the House of

Representativesand the Senate, shall,before it be-comea Law, be presented to the President of the

United States ; If he approve he shall signit,but ifnothe shall return it,with his Objectionsto that House inwhich it shall have originated,who shall enter the Ob-\jectionsat large on their Journal,and proceed to re-(consider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds 1

of that House shall agree to pass the Bill,it shall be Isent, togetherwith the Objections,to the other House,by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,and if ap-proved

by two thirds of that House, it shiillbecome aLaw. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses

shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and theNames of the Persons voting for and againstthe Billshall be entered on the Journal of each House re-spectively.

If any Bill shall not be returned by thePresident within ten Days (Sundays excepted)afterit shall have been presented to him, the Same shallbe a Law, in like Manner as ifhe had signed it,unlessthe Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Re-turn,

in which Case it shall not be a Law.^^

3^ That paragraphwas designedto prevent any questionas to how and by whom a bill may be passedinto a law.

Could the House of Commons enact a law without

the concurrence of the Lords? Could it do so without

the signatureof the King? Could both Houses ignoretheKing and make a law? Could the King prevent at willthe takingeffect of a bill passedby Parliament? Thosewere questionswhich had often stirredEngland deeply.

A bill returned by the President ''with his objections"to the House in which it originatedis said to have been

: vetoed,^nt the word ^'veto" does not appear in the Con-


stitution. In most of the colonies the governors had the

power to veto legislationand their misuse of it was oneof the grievancescausingthe Revolution. Massachusettswas the firstof the originalStates to grant (1780)the vetopower to the governor. This power in the executive officer

is carried down in our country to the mayors of cities,whoare generallyauthorized to veto ordinances. Jt is thepopularbelief that the interpositionof the veto is a salu-tary

(and indispensable)check upon hasty or otherwiseobjectionablelegislation.Many billspassedby the two Houses of Congresshave

been vetoed by the President because he regardedthem ascontrary to some provisionof the Constitution,or atvariance with the policyor promiseof his politicalparty,or againstsound financial principles,or as inopportuneor injudicious.Althoughthe languageof the Constitution"

'* ifhe approve ithe shallsignit,but ifnot he shallreturnit with his objections"" placesno limitation upon theveto power, it has been contended that the President reallyhas authorityto veto only bills which he considers ob-noxious

to some Constitutional provision.Others havearguedthat the power should be exercised only to preventencroachments by Congressupon the domain of the Execu-tive.

But Madison's writinp^sshow that the veto was tobe ^'a check to the instabilityin legislation,which had beentound the besettinp;mhrmily of populai-gm^nments^and been sufficientlyexempUfiedamong ourselves in thelegislaturesof the States." Jeffersonsaid that the vetowas to protect from '^y^/''^"hv ^^^if^^^gg(i)"the rightsof the Executive",(2)those of the Judiciary,and (3)thoseof "the States and State Legislatures."The firstbill(oftwo) vetoed by Washington (April,1792)was for appor-tioning

members of the House of Representatives(Note10)accordingto population.He beheved that the apportion-ment

proposed was unfair. When the bill was returnedto the House of Representatiteswith his objections,"a few


of the hottest friends of the billexpressedpassion,"wroteJefferson,*'but the majoritywere satisfied,and both inand out of doors it gave pleasureto have at lengthan in-stance

of the negativebeingexercised." Adams, Jefiferson,John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, WilHam Henry Harrison,Taylor,Fillmore,and Garfield never vetoed a bill passedby Congress. Generally,the other Presidents vetoed butfew. Washington vetoed 2 ; Madison, 6 ; Monroe, i ;Jackson,9 ; Tyler,8 ; Polk, 3 ; Pierce,9 ; Buchanan, 7 ;Lincoln,3 ; Johnson,22 ; Grant,46 ; Hayes, 8 ; Arthur,4 ;Cleveland (firstterm),^,^a[,many of which were privatepensionbills; Benjamin Harrison,19 ; Cleveland (secondterm),42; McKinley, 6; Roosevelt,40; Taft,26,andWilson,26.

Exceptin times of unusual feeling,or when a billof extra- Aordinaryimportancehas been involved.Congresshas butseldom repasseda measure over the veto by the President.Much deference is shown by the LegislativeDepartmentof the government to the opinionof the Executive Depart-ment,

to which the Constitution commits a share of the

law-makingpower.But many vetoed billshave been repassedby Congress

and have so become laws despitethe veto. Many othersCongresshas tried to repass and failed because it could notmuster a two-thirds vote in each House " not two thirds

,

of the membership of each House, the Supreme Court!held (1919)where that claim was made by a citizenaffectedby a law,but two thirds of the members present,assuming^1the presence of a quorum or majoritynecessary to do busi- \ness. The Reconstruction acts and many others affectingthe return of the southern States after the Civil War were

quicklypassedover the veto of President Johnson as thoughCongressfound pleasurein domination. Generally,how-vever, the power of veto in the President has been a positiveJquantityin legislation.''A power of this nature in theExecutive,"wrote Alexander Hamilton in "The Federal-


ist" (No. LXXIII), "will often have a silent and unper-ceived,though forcible,operation."That statement hasbeen amply justifiedby experience.

The sovereignsof England,says Bagehot, "must signtheir own death warrant ifthe two Houses send it to them."

The King stillhas legallythe veto power, but he has notexercised it since the accession of the House of Hanover

(George1,1714).The colonists had often felt the evils of slow,uncertain,

or capriciouslegislation."He [GeorgeHI] has refused,"says the Declaration of Independence,"his assent to lawsthe most wholesome and necessary for the publicgood.He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of in^ediateand pressingimportanceunless suspendedin their opera-tions,

tillhis assent should be obtained....

He has

refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of largedistrictsof people.

...

He has obstructed the adminis-tration

of justiceby refusinghis assent to laws for estab-lishingjudiciarypowers."

Therefore the Constitutional Convention formulated a\method which at once checks haste or unwisdom in the \LegislativeDepartment and obstructiveness in the Execu- "^tive.

Our Constitutional provisionhas been adopted sub-stantiallyby many nations. The Constitution of Chile

(1833,which has been frequentlyamended) providesthatthe President must return the vetoed billwithin two weeks ;and that the two Houses of Congressmay repass it by atwo-thirds vote. Under the Constitution of Canada (1867)the Enghsh sovereignmay veto ("disallow")within twoyears an act of the Dominion Parliament,even thoughtheGovernor General has approvedit and it has gone intoeffect.

The Australian Constitution providesfor disallowanceor veto by the sovereignwithiif one year of a billapprovedby the Governor General. But both in Canada and


Australia the Governor General may veto the billor with-holdassent for the sovereign'spleasure.But of course in

AustraHa and Canada there is no way to overcome theobstruction of a veto.

The foregoingreferences to other constitutions are madeto illustrate how widely extended has been the influenceof thisprovisionof our Constitution for careful and orderly^,legislation.

Every Order, Resolution,or Vote to which the Con-ciirrence of the Senate and House of Representativesmay be necessary (excepton a question of Adjourn-ment)

shall be presented to the President of theKUnited States; and, before the Same shall takeEffect,shall be approved by him, or, being disap-proved

by him, shall be repassed by two thirds ofthe Senate and House of Representatives,accordingto the Rules and Limitations prescribedin the Caseof a BHU'

^^ That is designedto prevent Congressfrom ignoringor evadingthe constitutional prerogativeof the Presidentand in disregardof him enactinglaws under the guiseoforders or resolutions. The historic tendencyof one depart-ment

of government to usurp the functions or prerogativesof another was clearlyunderstood by the authors of theConstitution.

But a resolution proposingan amendment to the Consti-tutionof the United States (Note 1 29)is not, the Supreme

Court has held,an act of legislation,and therefore it neednot be submitted to the President for signature.Although the signatureof the President is not necessary

to a congressionalresolution proposing an amendment,President Lincoln signed the jointresolution " inadver-tently

'^ as it was said,proposingthe Thirteenth Amerid-merit- The re:.oiu' iv;-. tm;,," -.'.n.'i;.; ..:"' leenth Ameiid-


ment was not submitted to President Johnson,who pro-testedon that account, and who said that an Amendment

should not be submitted to a State legislatureor Stateconvention which had not been chosen by the peoplesincethe proposalto amend was made. v

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power ^"

^" By this section the sovereignpeople,in whom re-sidesall authority,conferred upon Congress exclusive

power to deal with twenty subjectsproperlywithin thesphereof National authority; and they concluded byauthorizingit to make all laws necessary to effectuatethose powers. -Under the Articles of Confederation the

State,which *' retains its sovereignty,freedom,and in-dependence",exercised too many such powers. In trade

and commerce, and in other ways^ the States treated oneanother as foreigncountries,imposingduties and othertaxes and enactingmuch selfish legislation.After''*"52years of experienceit would be difficultto improveuponthe followingenumeration of National powers. Everyconstitution that has been drawn since,those of France,Switzerland,Chile,Brazil,Argentine,New Zealand,Canada,Australia,South Africa,and others,have followed quitecloselythis chart of legislativeNational powers. It willbe at once interestingand usefulto studyit in detail.

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,Imposts and Ex-cises,^^

^^ Reference has been made (Note lo)to the failure inoperationof the *' common treasury" created by the Articlesof Confederation,which was to be ^'supphedby the severalStates." Often a State failed to provideits supply andof course the National Government was therebyhamperedand sometimes crippled.Now the Nation would raisenecessary money itself. In the Constitutional Conventionthere was questionof the meaningof *_'duties",*' imposts",

44 Constitviion of the United States

and "excises." The comprehensiveword "taxes" wouldhave been enough. By the use of that languagethe pur-pose

was manifested to authorize the Nation to raise needed

money by any of the known methods of taxation " "apower of vast extent",wrote President Monroe, "not

grantedby the Confederation,the grant of which formed ione of the principalinducements to the adoptionof this/Constitution." 1

In the enumeration of National powers the firstnamed

in the originaldraft and in the suggestionsbroughtbeforethe Constitutional Convention was the power to lay taxesand raise money. "Money is one of the essentialagenciesof Government," wrote Hamilton. "Without it no Govern-ment

can exist,and without the power to raise it,it cannotbe had."

While the direct break with England was caused by tax-ationby the Stamp Act of Parhament (1765),which re-quiredthe use in the Colonies of paper bearingcostlystamps

for notes, bonds, deeds,wills,and other documents, theframe of mind to revolt had been developedin the colonistsby over a century of oppressivelegislation.Colonial com-merce

had been hindered by the Navigationacts of 1660and 1663,requiringthat buyingand sellingbe done in Eng-land

and that goods be moved in Englishships;by theAct of 1732, prohibitingtrade in woolens among the Col-onies,

a trade which was growingrapidly; by the MolassesAct of 1733, placinga duty or tax on all rum, molasses,and sugar importedinto any Englishcolony,a heavy blow toa great trade with Spanishpossessions; by the Act of 1750,prohibitingthe sendingof pigiron to England and forbiddingthe manufacture of certain iron articlesat home, a manufac-ture

which had alreadybecome important; by the SugarActof 1764,restrictingtradingwith the West Indies in lumber,food stuffs,and some other articles; and by an act in thesame year legalizingwrits of assistance,by which revenueoiiicersof the Crown (seekingto prevent smugghng In vio-

Its Sources and AppHcation 45

lation of the restrictive laws)made .searches and seizuresand were empowered to call citizenb to their aid. When,therefore,the EnglishGovernment attemptedby the StampAct to impose upon the Colonies a part of the tax burdenof the French and Indian War (thename of the Americansection of a world-wide engagement between England andFrance),after they had spent eleven million dollars andgivenup thirtythousand lives,the step was denouncedin a Colonial Declaration of Rights (1765)by a Continen-tal

Congress as part of a policy*'to enslave America."That declaration said that as the colonists were not

representedin Parliament,and by reason of distance couldnot be,no tax by Parliament could be imposed upon them.That could be done only by their elected representativesin the colonial assemblies or legislatures.

Resistance to the Stamp Act practicallynulHfied iL

to pay the Debts and providefor the common D^enceand general Welfare of the United States ; ^^

^^ Those are the three purposes for which the moneyraised may be spent " and for no others. The power ^'to

lay and collect taxes" is not unlimited. It is restrictedto securingmoney *'to pay the debts and providefor thecommon defence and generalwelfare of the United States."Beyond those purposes money cannot be raised and spentby Congress.

President Monroe vetoed a bill for the improvementofthe Cumberland Road because he did not beheve the work

to come within this clause. President Jackson,for the likereason, vetoed every bill for pubHc improvements thatwas not clearlyfor National welfare,as distinguishedfrom local or State advantage. *'We are in no danger,"said he,''from violations of the Constitution from whichencroachments are made upon the personalrightsof thecitizen.

.. .

But againstthe clangersof unconstitutionalacts which,instead of menacingthe vengeance of offended


authority,profferlocil advantagesand bringin their trainthe patronage of the government, we are, I fear,not so safe."

River and harbor bills were vetoed by Presidents Tyler,Polk,Pierce,Grant,Arthur, and Cleveland. A billappro-priating

$19,000,000was passed over President Arthur'sveto in 1882, and a billwhich President Cleveland vetoedin 1896,appropriating$80,000,000,was repassedby Con-gress.

The Presidents regarded the appropriationsaslargelyfor local rather than National purposes, and there-fore,

as President Arthur put it,*' beyond the powers givenby the Constitution to Congressand the President." De-claring

that when the citizens of one State found that

money of all the peoplewas beingappropriatedfor localimprovements in another State they naturally''seek toindemnifythemselves

...by securingappropriationsfor

similarimprovements",he concluded :''Thus as the billbecomes more objectionable,it secures

more support."President Cleveland deplored"the unhappy decadence

among our people of genuine love and affection for ourGovernment as the embodiment of the highestand bestaspirationsof humanity,and not as the giverof gifts,"

It is a questionunder discussion to-daywhether the de-sireof communities and States to share in congressional

appropriationsfrom the National treasuryhas not operatedto extend unconstitutionallyNational power and weakencorrespondinglythe constitutional authorityof the States.

On thissubjectPresident Harding said in 192 1 :"Just government is merelythe guarantee to the people

of the rightand opportunityto support themselves. Theone outstandingdanger of to-dayis the tendencyto turnto Washington for the thingswhich are the tasks or theduties of the forty-eightcommonwealths."

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uni-formthroughoutthe United States ; ^^


^^This prevents preferenceto one State or localitytothe prejudiceof another. Otherwise,such oppressivein-equalities

mightexist as to affect the pursuitsand employ-mentsof the people.The agricultureof one State or sec-tion

mightbe heavilyburdened to the upbuildingof thatin another. So of commerce. So of manufacture. The

rivalriesof States under the Articlesof Confederation had

taughta lesson.

To borrow Money on the credit of the United

States ;^^

^^ In addition to raisingfunds by the various forms oftaxation shown in the precedingparagraph,Congressisauthorized,when the present resources of the Nation areinsufficient,to borrow on itscredit " that is,to raise moneyupon the resources and payingpower of future years. Evenifsufficientfunds could be raised at once for a war or other

great emergency, it would not be fair to lay the burdenwhollyupon the present generation.Therefore Congressraisespart of needed funds by heavy income taxes,by stamptaxes on many kind of sales and other transactions,and byvarious sorts of specialtaxes devised for the emergencyand removed when it has passed. But it transfers a partof the burden to future generationsby the issue of bonds,which are like the promissorynote of a person, a simplestatement that at a time named the United States will

pay to the bearer a specifiedamount of money, with interestpaidtwice a year in the meanwhile. The peopleat largebuy those bonds as an investment,but the taxes out ofwhich the Nation finallypays the holder of the bond ornote are collected in later years and generallyfrom a latergeneration.Thus,there are bonds stilloutstandingwhich cover part

of the debt incurred in the Civil War. That debt reachedits highestin August,1865, when it was $2,756,431,571.The report of the Treasurer of the United States for 19 19


showed an estimated gross cost of the World War to June 30of that year as $30,177,000,000."-.

The Articles of Confederation forbade Congressto borrow

money or "emit bills" unless *'nine States assent to the

same." It was too often impossibleto secure the supportof that many. Hence this National power in our Consti-tution,

which isentirelyindependentof State will.In the Constitutional Convention the words "or emit

bills",followingthe word "money" in the foregoingclause,were stricken out. Billsof credit or paper money had been

the bane of the Confederation and the States. Madison

raised the questionwhether it would not be enough toforbid that such bills be made a legaltender,that is,equivalentto goldor silver coin. He thoughtthat wouldcheck the paper-money evil. Seventy-fiveyears thereafter(February,1862) the questionstirred the country whenCongress issued $150,000,000of paper money known(becauseof the color)as "greenbacks",'which were made"a legaltender in payment of alldebts,pubHc and private,within the United States." 7 A woman who had beforethe passage of this Act become bound to pay a stated

number of dollars in what was at that time the moneyof the United States tendered "greenbacks" (worth lessthan coin),which were refused. When the case reachedthe Supreme Court of the United States,Salmon P.Chase, who as Secretaryof the Treasury in Lincoln'sCabinet had advocated the law, had been made ChiefJustice.In an opinionwritten by him (uponfuller study,as he explained)the Act (and one of 1863) was held(1869)beyond the constitutional power of Congress,thechief ground beingthat the power of Congresscould notbe implied,and that the acts of Congresscould not applyto debts contracted before their passage. Soon after the

Greenback Case was decided,the Supreme Court was en-larged(Note97)from seven judgesto nine. In 1872 two

similar cases were disposedof by the Court,one involving


a debt contracted before the acts of Congressand one an

obligationarisingsubsequentlythereto. The SupremeCourt overruled its decision in the firstcase and held that

the war powers grantedto Congress(Notes 55 and 56)bythe Constitution warranted the legislation.

Next the questioncame up whether Congresscould issuelegaltender paper in time of peace, as well as in time of war.In 1878 it passedsuch an act. The other cases had beenrested by the Supreme Court on the war power of Congress.It was believed by many that the Supreme Court could gono further. But in the lastLegalTender Case (1884)itheldthat,whether in peace or war, when the exigencyisso great,owingto ''unusual and pressingdemands on the resourcesof the government, or of the inadequacyof the supplyofgoldand silver",that itisexpedientto resort to such means,the questionof exigencyis poHtical

Documents

The Constitution the United States