Social Civics

Congress.—The lawmaking branch of the national government is made up of two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress of the Confederation consisted of one chamber only; but the members of the constitutional convention were strongly impressed with the desirability of establishing a bicameral legislative body. There is a story that Thomas Jefferson, who believed a single chamber to be sufficient, was engaged in a friendly argument with Washington on this matter shortly after the constitution had been completed. The two were taking tea together and Jefferson, following a common practice of the time, poured some of his tea from his cup into the saucer. “Why do you do that?” asked the Father of his Country. “To cool it”, replied Jefferson. “Quite so”, added Washington, “and the Senate is to be the saucer into which the laws which come hot from the House of Representatives will be poured to cool.” That story may or may not be true; but it gives a clue to the principal reason why there are two branches of Congress instead of one. There is some significance, moreover, in the fact that every state of the Union, and every foreign country, has a legislature or parliament of two chambers.

The bicameral system is commonly justified on two grounds. In the first place, it is believed to afford a safeguard against hasty and unwise legislation. A single chamber might be moved by a passing wave of prejudice or enthusiasm to take action without sufficient reflection. When all measures have to be considered by two legislative bodies, this danger is not nearly so great. One chamber serves as a check on the other. |2. To permit two types of representation.| A second reason is found in the desirability of having the lawmakers chosen in different ways, some by small districts and some by large districts, some for long terms and some for short terms. A good lawmaking body should be thoroughly representative; it should represent the whole country and all parts of the country; it should be kept in close touch with public opinion by frequent elections, but the entire body of lawmakers ought not to be changed at short intervals, for there would then be no steadiness of policy. The framers of the constitution tried to meet all these requirements by providing for a Senate, whose members should be chosen by the states for six-year terms, and a House of Representatives, made up of members elected by the people every two years.^[109] The former represents the states on a basis of equality; the other affords them representation according to their respective populations.

The Senate: Its Organization.—In the constitution, as originally adopted, it was provided that each state should have two senators, elected “by the legislature thereof”. For more than a hundred years that method of election was followed. The two houses of the state legislature chose the senators. But this plan became unpopular and in 1913 the constitution was amended to provide that the senators should be chosen in each state by popular vote. The term remains fixed at six years, but one-third of the senators retire every second year.^[110] Every state, large or small, has two senators. Nevada, with only 80,000 population has equal representation in the Senate with New York, which has above ten million people. Proportionally, New York ought to have about two hundred and fifty senators. This may seem to be unfair to the larger states, but it was a necessary concession to the smaller states at the time the union was formed. |The principle of equality.| Population, moreover, is not the only thing that should be taken into consideration. A state may be large in area, with great natural resources and a splendid future before it, and yet be very thinly settled. The Senate was created to represent the states as such, and all the states are equal in rights, if they are not equal in area or population. At any rate the provision for equal representation is in the constitution and if you read the provision, you will see that it cannot be easily changed (Article V, last clause).

The Senate holds regular sessions each year at Washington. It may be called in special session, even when the House of Representatives is not sitting. This is because the Senate has some special powers apart from those which it shares equally with the lower house. It makes its own rules of procedure, decides any disputes as to the qualifications of its own members, and has power, by a two-thirds vote, to expel any senator from its membership. Most of the Senate’s routine work is done by committees, the members of which are assigned every second year by an unofficial “Committee on Committees” subject to the approval of the whole chamber. There are about thirty of these committees, but many of them are of small importance. The more important are those which deal with revenue measures, appropriations, foreign relations, and interstate commerce. Each committee has its own chairman.

The Senate: Its Exclusive Powers.—The Senate has three special powers in which the House of Representatives possesses no share. These powers relate to impeachments, the confirming of appointments, and the ratification of treaties.

The Senate, as the constitution declares, has “the sole power to try all impeachments”. The procedure known as impeachment is of English origin and goes back to mediaeval times when the only way of holding a king to account was to impeach and punish his advisors. The framers of the American constitution regarded impeachment as a useful means of checking any arbitrary use of executive power and they, therefore, made provision that “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States” should be subject to impeachment before the Senate in case of wrong-doing. The term “civil officers” includes members of the cabinet, judges, ambassadors, even postmasters; but it does not include the members of either branch of Congress nor, of course, does it include either state or local officeholders. Civil officers of the United States can be impeached only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”; and if convicted can be punished only to the extent of being removed from office as well as disqualified from ever holding any federal position again. They cannot be put to death, or imprisoned, or fined.

When it is desired to impeach any civil officer, the charges against him are laid before the Senate by the House of Representatives. The Senate sets a date for hearing the case; the evidence is presented; and the Senate then frames its verdict behind closed doors.^[111] A two-thirds majority is necessary for a conviction.^[112]

All the more important appointments made by the President require the confirmation of the Senate. The President sends to the presiding officer of the Senate the names of his proposed appointees and the Senate thereupon refers them to the appropriate committees for consideration. When the committees make their report the Senate then votes to confirm or reject. A bare majority, not a two-thirds vote, suffices. Rejections take place at times, but the great majority of the President’s nominations are confirmed without delay. The Senate understands that the chief responsibility for selecting federal officers rests with the executive branch of the government and that confirmation should not be refused without good reason. There is, however, a practice known as “senatorial courtesy”, which has frequently led to the rejection of names proposed by the President. According to this custom the Senate will not confirm the appointment of any local officer, such as postmaster or internal revenue officer, unless the person named for the appointment is satisfactory to the senator or senators from the state concerned, provided, of course, that these senators are of the same political party as the President himself. Or, to put it more concretely, if a Republican President nominates as internal revenue officer at Philadelphia someone who is not approved by the Republican Senators from Pennsylvania, the Republican majority in the Senate will not permit the appointment to be confirmed. This unwritten rule of senatorial courtesy has been enforced at some times and not at others. Some presidents have been able to persuade the Senate to disregard it; but in general it is a custom which ties the hands of all presidents to a considerable extent. When the Senate is not in session, the President is free to make appointments at his own discretion. These are known as “recess appointments” and are temporary only. If the Senate, at its next session, fails to confirm them, these recess appointments lapse and the appointees get no pay for the time they may have served.

All treaties between the United States and other countries must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate before they can go into effect. This gives the Senate an important influence in the control and direction of foreign affairs because the relations between the United States and other countries are fixed, to a considerable extent, by treaties. The whole subject of treaties and foreign relations is so complicated, however, that it may best be reserved for study in a later chapter.

The Senate: Its Concurrent Powers.—In all other matters, apart from impeachments, appointments, and treaties, the Senate has concurrent power with the House of Representatives. There is a provision in the constitution to the effect that all bills for raising revenue must “originate” in the House of Representatives, but that the Senate may amend such bills as it pleases. This is a partial reproduction of an ancient rule in the unwritten constitution of Great Britain which gives the House of Commons the initiative in all financial matters. By usage, also, all bills for spending money originate in the lower house. But the Senate, as a practical matter, uses its amending power so freely that it can virtually originate measures of either sort whenever it desires to do so. When a bill comes up from the lower chamber it can strike out virtually the whole measure, put a new bill in its place, and send this back to the House of Representatives. In matters which do not relate to revenue or expenditure the powers of the two chambers are precisely the same both in theory and in practice.

The House of Representatives: Its Organization.—The House of Representatives is nearly five times as large as the Senate, having 435 members at the present time. It is much too large for the effective debating of measures.^[113] Every ten years, after the population of each state has been determined by the census bureau, Congress by law fixes the total membership of the House for the ensuing decade. Dividing this figure into the total population of the country gives a “ratio of representation”, that is the uniform quota of population which is entitled to one representative. For example, if the population of the country is one hundred millions and the membership of the House is fixed at 400, the ratio would be one representative for every 250,000 people. Having found this ratio, it is a simple matter to determine how many representatives each state shall have. New York, with ten million people, would be allotted forty congressmen; Maine, with seven hundred and fifty thousand people, would get only three. Nevada, Wyoming and Delaware would not get any, if the ratio were strictly applied, but the constitution requires that every state, no matter what its population, shall be given at least one representative in the House. When the quota to which each state is entitled has been figured the several states proceed, through their legislatures, to lay out congressional districts and from each such district one congressman is chosen at the next election.

This work of “redistricting” the state gave rise at an early date to a practice commonly known as “gerrymandering”.^[114] The national laws require that all congressional districts within a state shall be approximately equal in population and that they shall be composed of contiguous territory. Apart from these restrictions, the state legislatures are free to map out the districts as they see fit and they do this, very frequently, with an eye to gaining advantage for the political party which happens to control the legislature. By adding one county or town and taking off another, always with party motives in mind, it is possible to “gerrymander” a district into such form that the candidate of the favored party will have an advantage over his opponent. True enough, these gerrymandered congressional districts, when drawn on the map, often look like a lizard or a starfish, but there is nothing in the constitution or the laws of the United States which requires congressional districts to be uniform in shape.

How Representatives are Chosen.—Every second year elections are held in all the congressional districts of the country and one congressman is chosen from each. Each state determines how the nominations are made and is responsible for conducting the election. The qualifications for voting are the same as those established at state elections. There is no legal requirement that a representative must be a resident of the district which elects him; it is enough that he be a resident of the state in which the district is located. But as a matter of practice congressmen are nearly always residents of their districts. American usage in this respect differs from that of some other countries, particularly Great Britain, where members of the House of Commons are frequently chosen from districts in which they do not reside. |The residence requirement.| The advantage of this plan is that a capable statesman can secure a seat in the lawmaking body even though his own home district may be one which the opposite party controls. In the United States, on the other hand, if a capable man belonging to the Democratic party happens to live in a strongly Republican district, there is practically no chance of his ever being a member of the national House of Representatives no matter how strong his personal qualifications may be. One congressional district, moreover, especially in the residential portion of a large city, may have many capable men living in it. But only one of them, under American usage, can sit in the House. The argument that, in order to know the needs of his district, a congressman must actually live in it, is on everyone’s tongue, but it deserves no considerable weight. The first duty of a congressman is to promote the interests of the whole people and not merely those of his own district.

The Speaker and the Committees.—The House of Representatives elects its own presiding officer, who is known as the Speaker. He has general charge of the proceedings and until a few years ago appointed all the committees. All questions of procedure are decided by him and he determines which member of the House shall be “recognized”, that is, permitted to speak, when several members desire to have the floor. The Speaker is always a prominent member of the majority party and usually one of its leaders. He has a considerable influence on the work of the House.

In a body of more than four hundred members, it stands to reason that a great deal of the business must be done by committees. There are now nearly sixty of these committees, the most important being those on rules, appropriations, ways and means, interstate and foreign commerce, post-offices, military affairs, naval affairs, and agriculture. |The committees: how selected.| Since 1910 these committees have been appointed by a complicated plan which places the selection in the hands of the whole House.^[115] The majority party in the House obtains a majority on each important committee.

The Process of Lawmaking.—The work of the committees may best be explained by describing the various stages through which a bill passes before it becomes a law. |1. Introduction of bill.| In the first place, any member of the House may introduce a bill (which is a draft of a proposed law) either for himself or for someone else. He does this by writing his name on the back of the bill and dropping it into a large basket at the Speaker’s table. During the course of each session many thousand bills are placed in this “hopper” as it is called. One of the Speaker’s assistants takes each bill from the basket and refers it to the proper committee. If the bill relates to taxation it goes to the Ways and Means Committee; if it relates to railroads it goes to the Committee on Foreign and Interstate Commerce. Every bill goes to some committee before the House looks at it.

When the various committees receive their bills they place them on a list for consideration and each is taken up in order unless the committee decides to give some bills the right of way. Hearings on the important measures are then held. The members of the committee meet in their committee room and listen to the arguments of those who desire to support or oppose the bill. Any citizen has the right to appear and be heard. Sometimes, in the case of some important bills, such as a tariff measure, the hearings may continue for several days or even for weeks. The committee hearings, however, are usually held in the mornings only, for the House is in session during the afternoons. When the hearings are concluded the committee decides what action it will take. It may recommend to the House that the bill ought to be passed, either with or without changes. Sometimes a committee completely redrafts a bill and reports it to the House in the entirely new form. But in the great majority of cases the committees feel unfavorably towards the bills and make no report or recommendation on these bills at all. |How bills are killed in committee.| Such measures are merely “killed in committee” and never get before the House. The House can, of course, require any committee to send up a bill; but this it hardly ever does. Most of the bills introduced by congressmen are put to death in this way; in fact more than eighty per cent of them never survive the committee stage.^[116] One committee acquired such a reputation for slaughtering bills that its committee room was nicknamed the “legislative morgue”.

But let us suppose that a bill is favorably regarded by a committee and duly reported to the House. What happens next? It is placed on one of the calendars or lists; printed copies are made; and when its turn comes, it is laid before the House. A debate on the bill may take place, amendments may be proposed, and votes taken.

In considering measures, the House often sits as a Committee of the Whole. This merely means that the entire membership forms a great committee, but there are some important differences between the House in Committee of the Whole and the regular session. In Committee of the Whole the Speaker does not preside (but calls some member to the chair); the strict rules of procedure do not apply; one hundred members form a quorum (in regular session a majority of the members are needed to furnish a quorum) and there are no roll calls. In a word, the system enables the House to do business with less formality. |5. Bills are then sent to the other chamber.| At any rate if the measure safely passes the House, it is engrossed on parchment, signed by the speaker, and sent up to the Senate where it goes through the whole procedure of committee hearings and discussion on the floor.^[117]

Having passed the Senate it is signed by the presiding officer of that body and is then sent to the President for his signature. The President, as will be shown a little later, may sign it, veto it, or allow it to become a law without his signature.

If one chamber amends a measure, and the other chamber agrees to the amendment, the bill also goes directly to the President. But what happens in case either the Senate or the House make amendments to which the other chamber does not agree? That is just what very frequently occurs. In such cases a conference committee is appointed, made up as a rule of three members from each chamber. These conferees meet and try to reach a common ground by compromise. Then, when they have agreed, they report to their respective chambers and the latter must accept or reject the conference report without further amendment.

Some Tricks of the Lawmaker’s Trade.—Lawmaking is a skilled profession; it takes the average congressman most of his first term to learn just how it is done. He must acquire a knowledge of the rules, written and unwritten, the traditions, and what may rightly be called the “tricks of the trade”. Ability as an orator does not count for much, particularly in the House. The house chamber is a big, noisy place where only a leather-lunged speaker can make himself clearly heard. Congressmen, moreover, do not take kindly to long speeches; they expect members of the House to say what they have to say in five or ten minutes. If a congressman desires to make an impression upon the voters of his home district by sending them accounts of his able speeches in their behalf, he can usually obtain from the House, by unanimous consent, permission to have his speech printed at the public expense and distributed without its ever having been delivered on the floor of the chamber at all. When long speeches are made it is usually to waste the time of Congress and prevent the passage of some measure to which the speakers are opposed.^[118]

Attempts to talk a measure to death are known as “filibusters”. Both chambers are now able to put an end to filibusters by applying rules which shut off further debate when a specified majority of the members so desire; but in the old days, before these rules were adopted, senators sometimes kept the floor hour after hour all day and all night long, talking on every irrelevant matter, reading long extracts from books, and employing all their ingenuity to lengthen the debate. The proceedings in the Senate are often interesting; but the visitor to the House gallery is likely to be disappointed if he goes with the expectation of hearing some good speech-making. The real work of the House is done in committee.

The Powers of Congress.—The powers of Congress, as the lawmaking branch of the national government, are set forth in eighteen clauses of the federal constitution. Hence it is customary to speak of the “eighteen powers of Congress”, although there are in fact more than eighteen separate powers, as anyone will find if he takes the trouble to count them. These powers may be conveniently grouped together under eight heads: (1) financial, the power to levy taxes and to borrow money; (2) commercial, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states; (3) military, the power to declare war, to raise and support armies, to maintain a navy, and to provide for organizing, arming, and calling forth the state militia; (4) monetary, the power to coin money, to regulate the value thereof, and to protect the currency against counterfeiting; (5) postal, the power to establish post-offices and post roads; (6) judicial, the power to constitute tribunals subordinate to the Supreme Court; (7) miscellaneous, including powers in relation to bankruptcy, naturalization, patents, copyrights, and the government of the national capital; (8) supplementary, the power to make all laws which may be found “necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers”. This is a rather tedious classification of congressional powers, but the section which enumerates these powers is, by all odds, the most important part of the whole constitution and no one can claim to know much about the government of the United States unless he understands, at least in a general way, what these eighteen clauses express and imply.

It will be noted that all the powers except the last are express powers, that is, they are conveyed to Congress in so many words. The last is a grant of implied authority, in other words it is a provision for supplementing the express powers. Where Congress has the express right to tax, to borrow, to regulate interstate commerce, to raise and support armies, or to coin money, it has the implied right to make whatever laws may be “necessary and proper” to carry its express powers into full operation. Having the express power to borrow money, Congress may therefore establish a system of banks if this is needed to render more easy the operations of borrowing. Having the express power to support armies, it may place almost any sort of restriction upon industry in war time. By the implied powers clause of the constitution the authority of Congress is given great elasticity.

Are the Powers of Congress Broad Enough?—If the words of the constitution had been strictly interpreted, the powers of Congress would now be too narrow for the work which a strong national government must perform. It is easy to understand why the framers of the constitution were cautious about conferring broad powers upon the new government. They were anxious that no legislative despotism should be built up in America. But as time passed the express powers of Congress have been steadily widened by the process of interpreting them broadly so that today the real authority of Congress is much greater than one would suspect from a mere reading of the constitution. For all practical purposes they are broad enough although it is probably true that if the constitution were to be redrawn tomorrow, the authority of the national government would be increased. Nearly all the amendments proposed in recent years have been in the direction of expanding the powers of Congress.

The Efficiency of Congress.—In comparison with the other great parliaments and legislatures of the world, the Congress of the United States does its work fairly well. It is rather too large in membership, and the House of Representatives would probably gain in efficiency if it were reduced in size. Another handicap to good work arises from the enormous grist of measures which comes forward at every session. Congress is always under constant pressure for time. Many millions are often voted in a single hour and it is impossible for the congressmen to go carefully through the long list of financial items. Until very recently, the absence of a budget system afforded an incentive to extravagance; but this defect has now been remedied.^[119]

Congress also lacks leadership. In European countries every parliament and legislature has a recognized leader, usually called the prime minister. He or his colleagues present the business and carry it through.^[120] There is nothing of this sort in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is true that each political party has a floor leader, but he has not effective control over his followers. The chairmen of the various committees also supply a certain measure of leadership, but their work is not unified. |The lobby.| Mention should also be made of the pressure which is applied to individual members of Congress by the lobbyists. These lobbyists are hired workers, usually lawyers, who are paid to help get measures through, or in some cases to prevent the passage of certain laws. They are employed by corporations, or by labor organizations, or by anyone who is deeply concerned in measures pending before Congress. They use every form of persuasion in their efforts to have congressmen see their side of the case. The “lobby” has been placed under various restrictions in recent years, but it is still an influential factor.

The Congressional Oligarchies.—We are in the habit of assuming that the power in national lawmaking rests with the 531 men who constitute the Senate and the House of Representatives; but the dominating influence is in reality exercised by a relatively small group of men in both chambers. The chairmen of important committees and certain others of long congressional experience are the men whose influence counts. The rest follow their lead for the most part. Important measures, moreover, are often discussed in a caucus of the majority party, and the action of the caucus is considered binding on all who attend it. A member in either chamber, especially a new member, who displays a disposition to be wholly independent, and to disregard the advice of his party leaders or the decisions of his party caucus is not likely to get many favors for himself or for his district. The senator or representative who desires to be effective finds it necessary, therefore, to help others with their plans whether he approves them heartily or not, in order that he may be, in turn, helped with his own. It is almost always true that a group of thirty or forty members, on the majority side, can secure the passage of measures which they desire and can prevent the passage of measures to which they are opposed.^[121] In this respect the Congress of the United States does not differ much from legislative bodies the world over. Large deliberative bodies are invariably prone to follow the lead of some relatively small group in their own membership; otherwise they would never make headway, and the larger the chamber the more likely is this to be true.

James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 97-208;

Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, pp. 58-129;

C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 231-293; Ibid., Readings on American Government and Politics, pp. 214-271;

Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 308-378;

W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 146-218;

S. W. McCall, The Business of Congress, pp. 43-84;

Lynn Haines, Your Congress, pp. 67-109.

1. Is it desirable to restrict the present powers of the Senate in relation to treaties? Reasons for giving the Senate special powers in relation to treaties. The meaning of “advice and consent”. Washington’s attitude and experience. The action of the Senate on important treaties during the past hundred years. The practical difficulty of obtaining a two-thirds majority. Confirmation as a barrier to secret diplomacy. References: Ralston Hayden, The Senate and Treaties, pp. 169-195; H. C. Lodge, The Senate of the United States, pp. 1-31; Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 549-551; 573; S. B. Crandall, Treaties: Their Making and Enforcement, pp. 67-92; Congressional Record, 1919-1922.

2. The personnel of Congress. References: Types of men elected. Their occupations at home. Their legislative experience. Are there too many lawyers? Length of service. How the personnel might be improved. (Material for this study may be had in the Congressional Directory, and in the various autobiographical works such as James G. Blaine’s Twenty Years in Congress; Champ Clark’s Autobiography, etc.)

3. The merits and faults of the committee system. References: James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 156-166; S. W. McCall, The Business of Congress, pp. 43-60; L. G. McConachie, Congressional Committees, pp. 58-86; Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 344-356; P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 257-264.

1. The old and the new method of choosing Senators. George H. Haynes, The Election of Senators, pp. 36-129.

2. The procedure in impeachments. W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 168-173.

3. The Speaker of the House. C. A. Beard, American Government and Politics, pp. 280-289; M. P. Follett, The Speaker of the House of Representatives, pp. 296-330.

4. The rights of minorities. F. A. Cleveland and Joseph Schafer, Democracy in Reconstruction, pp. 446-467.

5. The general powers of Congress. W. B. Munro, Government of the United States, pp. 208-218.

6. How Congress legislates. Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 350-356; P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, pp. 290-296.

7. An Englishman’s observation on the work of Congress. James Bryce, American Commonwealth, Vol. I, pp. 191-208.

8. The rules of the House and Senate. Everett Kimball, National Government of the United States, pp. 333-344.

9. Obstruction in Congress. S. W. McCall, The Business of Congress, pp. 85-92.

10. Party organizations in Congress. W. W. Willoughby and Lindsay Rogers, Introduction to the Problem of Government, pp. 334-351.

11. The lobby. P. S. Reinsch, American Legislatures and Legislative Methods, pp. 228-298.

12. The Library of Congress. F. J. Haskin, American Government, pp. 287-288.

1. Do the merits of the double-chamber system outweigh the objections? Why should the members of the two chambers be chosen by different methods? Name at least three different methods of selecting representatives.

2. What is the present value of equal representation of the states in the Senate? What legal and practical obstacles are there to changing this system?

3. Look up and explain the following terms which are commonly used in Congress: executive session; morning hour; union calendar; ranking member; filibuster; leave to print; pigeon-holing a bill; pork barrel; rider.

4. What are the practical difficulties which arise when the Senate declines to confirm appointments proposed by the President?

5. Explain the difference between an impeachment and a bill of attainder.

6. The Senate usually exercises more influence than the House in matters of lawmaking. Can you give reasons why this should be so?

7. Tell how congressional districts are mapped out. Mark on an outline map the districts in your state. Have any of them been gerrymandered?

8. The chairmanships of committees usually go to senior members. Do you think this a wise or unwise practice?

9. What would be gained, and what would be lost by lengthening to four years the term for which representatives are chosen?

10. Two women, Miss Rankin of Montana and Miss Robertson of Oklahoma, have sat in Congress. What are the arguments for and against electing women in future?

11. Members of the House of Representatives receive salaries of $7500 per year. Is this too much or too little? Give your reasons.

12. Congressmen are entitled to the free use of the mails. (This is called the franking privilege.) Some years ago one senator sent nearly 750,000 copies of his speeches through the mails free. Do you believe this privilege should be withdrawn or retained?

13. Should the rules of the House provide for unlimited debate?

14. Can you suggest any practical way in which the work of Congress might be improved?

1. The English practice of choosing non-resident representatives is advantageous and should be adopted in the United States.

2. The states should be represented in the Senate according to their respective populations.

3. The provision relating to a reduction in representation, whenever citizens are excluded from voting (see Amendment XIV) should be enforced.