of the Supreme Court. The vote in the commission, which was made up of eight Republicans and seven Democrats, was given on strictly party lines, and the Republican candidate was elected. In 1887 an act was passed by Congress requiring the choice of electors to be settled by the laws of the state at least six days before the meeting of the electors. In case such settlement is not effected, the dispute is referred to Congress, and if Congress fails to decide, the electoral vote of the state is lost. Time and Method of Choosing Electors. The Constitution gives to Congress the right to determine the time for choosing the electors in the various states, as well as the right to fix the day when the electors shall cast their votes. The only restriction is that the day fixed for the final vote shall be the same throughout the United States. The time of choosing electors and the time when they should meet and vote for president and vice president has been changed by Congress at different times. These changes have been made with a view to making it easier to settle disputed elections. The law now is that electors shall be chosen on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and shall meet and vote for president and vice president on the second Monday in January following. The method of choosing the electors was left by the Constitution to the decision of the state legislatures; consequently it would be possible for them to be chosen in a great variety of ways. As a matter of fact, the method is now uniform. Electors are chosen in every state on a common ticket by direct popular vote. At one time the district plan of election was used in some of the states, but this had long been abandoned when, in 1891, it was revived in Michigan by an act of the legislature. The law was contested in the courts, but it was declared (1861-1863) 1026 bills were introduced. In the Fiftyseventh there were 22,000. The proportion of those that pass is very small, and the vast majority never reach a third reading. Many bills are introduced in the expectation that they will be" buried" in committee or on the calendar. They are introduced to satisfy a constituency or to gratify some private or local interest, and the House understands well enough what their fate is to be. Most of the bills introduced are private bills, local or personal in character — bills for satisfying claims against the government, granting pensions, etc. 66 Contrast between the. Houses. More than one writer has described the impression made upon him on seeing Congress at work, and all have noted the contrast between the two Houses. About the Senate there is an air of gravity and dignity. It has been described as making somewhat the impression of a diplomatic congress. At the same time it is modern, severe, practical." "The faces are keen and forcible as of men who have learned to know the world and have had much to do with it." The House, on the other hand, makes a general impression of disorder, due in part to "the raising and dropping of desk lids, the scratching of pens, the clapping of hands to call the pages, . . . the pattering of many feet, the hum of talking on the floor and in the galleries," but due in part also to an "absence of dignity both in its proceedings and in the bearing and aspect of individual members." Yet it may be questioned whether the House is not after all in some respects the more impressive body of the two. Mr. Bryce says of it: "This huge gray hall, filled with perpetual clamor, this multitude of keen and eager faces, this ceaseless coming and going of many feet, this irreverent public, watching from the galleries and forcing its way onto the floor, all speak to the beholder's mind of the mighty democracy, destined in another century to form one half of civilized mankind, whose affairs are here debated. If the men are not great, the interests and the issues are vast and fateful. Here, as so often in America, one thinks rather of the future than of the present. Of what tremendous struggles may not this hall become the theater in ages yet far distant, when the parliaments of Europe have shrunk to insignificance?" Desirability of Career in Congress. It would seem as if a career in Congress, the supreme legislative body of one of the greatest nations in the world, ought to offer attractions at least equal to those of the professions and the higher spheres of commercial and industrial life. As a matter of fact, however, political life attracts comparatively few of the most highly gifted and ambitious. Not only is the congressman's tenure of his position very precarious, but the position itself offers little opportunity for distinction. The real work of legislation is done in the committee, and the world sees and knows nothing of it. Real merit and ability will gain recognition in Congress as everywhere else, provided its possessor is permitted to remain there long enough to make his influence felt; but comparatively few are so permitted. This is particularly true of the House. By the time a new member has mastered thoroughly the procedure of the House, his term is at an end, and he has had no opportunity to distinguish himself. If he is returned for more than a second term, he is one of a fortunate few. The position of senator is naturally more desirable than that of representative. He has more power, more dignity, a more permanent and more independent position. In some respects, indeed, the position of senator is the most desirable in the political world. It is more permanent than that of president or cabinet officer, it requires less labor, it involves less vexation by office-seekers; but it is open to only a few. Of those who seek a political career the great majority must content themselves with the much less attractive work of the House. Library References. Macy, chap. xxxiv; Macy, First Lessons, chap. xvii; Dawes, chaps. iv-v; Bryce, Vol. I, chaps. xii-xv, xix; Hinsdale, chap. xxiv; Wilson, §§ 1061–1062, 1071–1077, 1080–1081; Congressional Directory; Wilson, Congressional Government, chap. ii, pp. 168-169, 193-219, chap. vi; Harrison, chap. iii; Alton, chaps. v-vi, viii, xi, xv-xvi, xx-xxiii, xxv-xxviii, xxx-xxxii; Lalor, Article on Parliamentary Law; Woodburn, pp. 223-226, 230-231, 257-301, 313-315; Fiske, pp. 228-230. QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT 1. What are legislative bills? under the national government? tween a bill and a law? Where may they originate 2. State the provision of the Constitution regarding bills vetoed by the president. Give a reason for this provision. 3. Give the different steps by which a bill becomes a law. 4. What are legislative committees? What are their relations to legislation? 5. Explain the necessity of legislative committees. State two evils that may result from transacting business through such committees. 6. State the advantages of committees in legislative bodies. What is meant by "committee of the whole"? State an advantage of considering a bill in committee of the whole. 7. What power has the Speaker of the House over legislation? 8. How is a bill introduced in the Senate? in the House? 9. If a committee attempts to smother a bill, how may Congress regain possession of it? 10. How is a vote on a bill taken? In cases of doubt, what means may be resorteď to? 11. Explain the meaning and use of the following terms as applied to Congress: " caucus," "log rolling," "jobbery," " bolting," "special order," "counting a quorum," "filibustering." 12. Which house of Congress is the more dignified, and why? Discuss fully. 13. Define the "cabinet, or ministerial, system" of government; the "congressional, or committee, system." 14. In how many ways may a committee kill a measure referred to it? In what other way may a committee shape legislation? |