Government in the United States, National, State and Local

by James Wilford Garner

Character of the Senate.—In the early days when the states were generally regarded as sovereign communities, senators were looked upon somewhat as ambassadors to the national government, and the right to instruct them as to how they should vote on important questions was sometimes claimed and asserted by the legislatures. Sometimes the senators obeyed the instructions, sometimes they refused; and in the latter case there were no means of enforcing obedience. Not infrequently senators are "requested" by the legislature of the state which they represent to vote for or against a particular bill.

The Senate undoubtedly possesses elements of strength and efficiency which are not to be found in the lower house. As it is a much smaller body, debate there can be carried on with more effectiveness, and the individual member has greater opportunity to make his influence felt upon legislation. The efficiency of the Senate is further increased by the fact that its members are generally men of more mature age and larger legislative experience, many of them having already served their apprenticeship in the lower house. Moreover, owing to the longer term, they are more independent of the popular opinion of the moment and, therefore, under less temptation to yield to popular clamor and vote for measures which their better judgment condemns. These facts, it may be added, have tended to increase the attractiveness of the Senate as a legislative body and to draw into it statesmen of larger ability than the lower house has been able to attract.

At the same time, these elements of strength have to some extent been sources of weakness. The attractions of the Senate have stimulated the ambitions of rich men who have few other qualifications than the possession of great wealth, and so it came to pass that a considerable proportion of the members of the upper house were representatives of great corporations and of other forms of wealth. This was not necessarily an evil, but it was often said that the senators were irresponsive to public opinion. Moreover, the Senate has been criticized for usurping to a considerable extent the powers of the executive department in regard to appointments and the conduct of foreign affairs, and has encroached upon the powers of the lower house in respect to the initiation of revenue bills. Finally, the tradition of senatorial courtesy, which makes it possible for a single senator to deadlock indefinitely the proceedings of the Senate, has been criticized as being quite out of harmony with reasonable notions of legislative procedure. All these charges, however, have been vigorously denied by many defenders of the Senate. Some of them are well founded, but all in all, the Senate compares favorably with the best upper chambers of other countries.

Decisions as to Congressional Elections and Membership.—Each house of Congress is the judge of the election, qualifications, and returns of its own members, that is, it is empowered to determine whether a member who claims to have been elected has been legally chosen and whether he really possesses the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution for membership in the house. It seems to be admitted that either house may also refuse to admit a member for other reasons than those prescribed by the Constitution, as, for example, for having been convicted of a crime or because he is insane or suffering with a dangerous contagious disease. Thus in 1900 the house of representatives refused to allow a member from Utah to take his seat because he was living in violation of the anti-polygamy laws, and in 1919 it excluded a Socialist member from Wisconsin for disloyalty during the war.

Contested Elections.—Frequently there is a contested election from a state or district, that is, two men claim to have been elected to the same seat, in which case the house must decide which one is entitled to the seat. In such a case the claims of the contestant and the contestee are heard by the committee on privileges and elections, which makes a report to the house with a recommendation as to which shall be given the seat. Unfortunately, contested election cases are not always settled on their merits, the seat being usually given to the claimant who belongs to the party which has a majority in the house. In England this source of party favoritism is removed by vesting the settlement of cases of contested elections in the courts, which are more apt to decide such contests on their merits.

Power of Expulsion.—When a member has once been admitted to his seat, he can be deprived of it only by expulsion, and to prevent the employment of this power for party purposes, the Constitution provides that the concurrence of two thirds of the members shall be necessary to expel a member. Several instances of expulsion have occurred in the past. Senator Blount of Tennessee was expelled from the senate in 1797, and a number of other cases occurred in each house during the Civil War.

Compensation of Members of Congress.—The Constitution declares that senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, the same to be paid out of the treasury of the United States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each state paid its own members of Congress, and there was no uniformity in respect to the scale of compensation. Some states paid much smaller salaries than others and in order to reduce the burden of maintaining their representatives, the states generally sent to Congress the fewest number of representatives required, and as each state had only one vote, nothing was lost by having a minimum number present. One other objection to the method of state payment was that it tended to make the representative dependent upon his state and caused him to feel that he was the representative of a state rather than of the country as a whole.

In fixing the amount of the compensation of its members, Congress is subject to no restrictions. It may fix the salary at any amount it pleases, may make it retroactive in effect or may increase the amount at any time during the term for which the members are chosen. The present salary of senators and representatives is $7,500 per year, but the Speaker of the house receives $12,000 per year. In addition, each member receives an allowance for a secretary, a small sum for stationery, and mileage of twenty cents per mile going and coming by the nearest route between his home and the national capital. This mileage is intended to cover the traveling expenses of the member and his family.

In some of the countries of Europe until recently members of Parliament did not receive any compensation from the public treasury unless they happened to be members of the cabinet; this was the rule in Great Britain prior to 1911. Sometimes, however, members who represented the socialist or labor party were paid by voluntary contributions by the members of their party. The advantage of paying members of Congress a reasonable compensation is that it enables competent men without private incomes to serve the state equally with the well-to-do, who are not dependent upon their public salaries for a livelihood.

The Franking Privilege.—Another privilege which Congress allows its members is to send their mail through the post office without the payment of postage. The spirit of the law restricts the privilege to the official correspondence of members, but the privilege is generally abused. Thus a senator from South Carolina was recently criticized by the post-office department for franking his typewriter through the mails. President Taft in his annual message to Congress in December, 1910, dwelt upon the abuses of this privilege by members of Congress and other government officials. The postmaster general in 1914 called attention to a recent instance in which more than 300,000 pamphlets were circulated under the frank of a member of Congress, the postage on which would have amounted to $57,000. They related not to public business but to the interest of a certain industry in which he was concerned.