[178] For the history of what have been called place-bills, see Hallam's Const. Hist., III. 255, 256, 351. Macaulay, IV. 336-338, 339, 341, 342, 479, 480, 528.
[179] Mr. Justice Story has suggested, that, "if it would not have been safe to trust the heads of departments, as representatives, to the choice of the people, as their constituents, it would have been at least some gain to have allowed them a seat, like territorial delegates, in the House of Representatives, where they might freely debate without a title to vote." (Commentaries on the Constitution, I. § 869.) An officer of an executive department, thus admitted to a seat in Congress, must have been placed there merely in virtue of his office, by a special provision. He could have represented no real constituency, and must therefore have had an anomalous position. A territorial delegate is admitted as the representative of a dependency, somewhat colonial in its nature, whose inhabitants are not on an equal footing with the constituencies of the States. He has therefore no vote. When speaking for the interests of those whom he represents, he is in somewhat the same attitude as counsel admitted to be heard at the bar of the House. Whether the head of an executive department could with dignity and convenience be placed in a similar position, admits at least of grave doubt.
[180] Art. I. § 4 of the Constitution.
[181] Art. VI. § 1 of the first draft.
[182] Madison, Elliot, V. 401, 402. Journal, Elliot, I. 309.
[183] Elliot, V. 402.
[184] Elliot, V. 247.
[185] Art. VI. § 10 of the first draft. Elliot, V. 378.
[186] Massachusetts and South Carolina in the negative.
[187] See the discussion on Art. VI. § 10 of the first draft. Elliot, V. 425-427.