initiating legislation. Their establishment is entirely a matter of the rules adopted by either house. According to these, the preparation of a bill is mainly incumbent upon the standing committees, which, in the house of representatives, are appointed by the speaker, and in the senate are elected by the majority.1 Special committees may

1 In the 48th congress (1883-85), the senate had twenty-nine and the house forty-seven standing committees. For the introduction of a bill the committees require the permission of the respective house. This is, however, usually given either when the committee is appointed or by a permanent provision of the rules. The house must likewise be asked whether it will receive the report of the committee. As a rule the question is not actually put. An affirmative answer is assumed if no objection be made. Many of the customary formalities of the English parliament have been set aside. Minority reports are received as a matter of fact, although really, as a matter of parliamentary law, only the committee as such can report, and, of course, in a strict sense, only one report is possible-that of the majority. It is odd that the committees are bound by their decisions and cannot reconsider them. Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 1915. The committees need an especial authorization in order "to send for persons, papers and records;" but the examination of voluntary witnesses may take place without such authority. In exceptional cases the committees are authorized, that is directed, to continue their labors after the close of the session. In the house of representatives, in the "morning hour" of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, that is, after the reading of the journal, the standing committees are called upon by the speaker, in regular order, to present their reports and to make motions. An hour's time is given the maker of the report. He usually gives up a greater or less portion of this short time to general debate. The speaker, however, recognizes only those persons who have previously come to a private understanding with the maker of the report, and these only upon their promise to limit their remarks to a certain number of minutes. Immediately before the expiration of the hour the maker of the report demands the "previous question," that is, moves to close the debate, and this demand is generally granted, because it is to everybody's interest that the work of legislation be done in the speediest manner. For each one of them is particularly interested in some other bill, and the whole number of the bills is always so enormous that only a small

also be appointed, and each and every individual member, with the consent of his house, may introduce a bill.1 What further treatment a bill once introduced experiences, when it is taken up for discussion; whether a

fraction of them can ever be disposed of. The great majority are buried forever by reference to some committees, for the committees will not, or cannot, ever report upon them. When the previous question is carried no more amendments are in order, and the maker of the report has another hour for the discussion of the measure before the final vote takes place. An immense number of laws are thus passed in the house in the course of two hours. When a committee is called by the speaker, only the morning hours of two successive days belong to it. If, however, the morning hours of the second day have elapsed without arriving at a conclusion upon the bill in hand, then it becomes "unfinished business," and as such is at the head of the order of the day for the morning hours until it is disposed of. The four committees on printing, elections, ways and means and appropriations hold a privileged position. The remaining standing committees must be content with the time that is granted them by these four. Senator Hoar calculates that, on an average, not more than two hours is accorded each of them during an entire session. This fact is the more significant, since most of the bills are really discussed only in committee, and the committees have the right to meet with closed doors. To mention in the house any occurrence in the committee room, except upon the basis of the official report, makes the offender guilty of a "breach of privilege." It is, moreover, quite usual for the committees to examine experts, and as these are, for the most part, specially interested, the laws are based to a large extent upon ex parte testimony, while the whole body of legislation is far removed from anything like uniformity. It is only in regard to the appropriation bills that the house of representatives has retained the character of an advisory body. The appropriations are discussed in committee of the whole; the previous question cannot be moved; and the right to propose amendments is not only formally, but also actually, unlimited. See G. F. Hoar, The Conduct of Business in Congress, in the North American Review, February, 1879, p. 113 et seq.

A standing opportunity to do so is presented in the morning hour of Monday. For then the states and territories are called in regular order for this purpose. It is also to be observed that on Mondays, after the morning hours, and on the last ten days of the session, the

committee is to pass upon it; whether it is subjected to preliminary consideration in the so-called committee of the whole, etc., all this is regulated by the general provisions of the rules or decided by resolution. When a bill has passed, it is sent over to the other house with a message to that effect. Whether the other house will consider and pass upon it is entirely at its pleasure. If it

"suspension of the rules" may be moved in order to take up and pass any bill. To pass the motion to suspend the rules a two-thirds majority is necessary. If passed, there can be no debate on the bill, and no amendment offered. Consequently, so far as the house of representatives is concerned, a bill may become a law by one vote, without any discussion and without the possibility of any changes whatever. At every session a vast number of bills are actually passed in this

manner.

ever.

1 The committee of the whole is actually the whole house (or senate). In the senate it is called the quasi-committee of the whole. In passing upon a measure it is subject to the same rules as prevail in the house. In truth the committee of the whole is not a committee at all, but the house itself transacting business in a peculiar, and in fact a simpler and freer, way. Its function corresponds with that of the committees in being simply a preparatory one. Its conclusions are only recommendations to the house, without any obligation whatThe most significant advantage of the arrangement is the greater freedom and exhaustiveness of the discussions, as each member may speak as often as he chooses. The committee of the whole can consider only definite resolutions. In sessions of the "committee of the whole house on the state of the Union," every member may speak on any question he desires. The speaker does not preside over the committee of the whole. Any member whom the house may appoint takes the chair. In the house of representatives, since 1841, no speech is permitted to occupy more than one hour. At the expiration of the last minute the speaker's gavel stops the orator short, even in the middle of a sentence. By calling for the previous question, debate can not only be closed at any moment, but entirely prevented. Debate on the motion for the previous question is not allowed.

2 That a simple majority of the members voting suffices to pass a bill is not expressly declared in the constitution, but it is regarded as self-evident, and it follows, too, from the exceptional provisions mentioned further on.

passes it without amendment, the bill goes to the president for his approval. If, on the contrary, it passes it with amendments, the bill is returned to the other house, which, when it again considers the matter, either concurs in the amendments or refuses to do so, or offers new amendments of its own. Thus, a bill may be bandied from one house to the other as long as there is any hope of its passage. If that cannot be directly attained and yet seems attainable, then one or the other house proposes the appointment of a conference committee. If the other house agrees to this and the conference committee arrives at any agreement, its report is, as a rule, concurred in by both houses, although, of course, neither is obliged to do so. If the conference committee does not come to an agreement, the usual process of bandying the bill back and forth can be taken up where it was interrupted, or a second or third conference committee may be appointed, until one of the houses in some way or other declares that it will no longer protract the discussion.

33. THE CO-OPERATION OF THE PRESIDENT IN LEGISLATION. A bill passed by both houses of congress becomes law as a rule by the approval of the president. Yet this right of approval must not be considered as a part of the legislative power, for the constitution expressly declares that "all" the legislative authority granted shall vest in congress. The co-operation of the president in the matter of legislation is intended only as a control. Congress alone is the author of the laws. If the president has objections to raise against the legislative conclusions of congress, he is in duty bound to submit the latter for reconsideration. Then, in order to become laws, they must receive a two-thirds majority in each house.1 It is,

1 The phrase used in the constitution admits of various interpretations, as it is not very precise. Congress has adopted the view that a two-thirds majority of those voting, not of all the members elected,

therefore, unquestionably an abuse of language that the refusal to approve a bill should be called a veto, not only in ordinary speech, but also in official terminology. The word is not to be found in the constitution. It is borrowed from a state of affairs essentially different and does not harmonize with the constitutional nature of the president's co-operation in legislation. The president has no right to forbid congress to do anything. He can only state that he does not agree with it and declare his reasons therefor. Thereupon the constitution subjects the exercise of the legislative powers of congress in the particular case to more stringent conditions.1

is required. Since a simple majority is sufficient to transact business, under certain circumstances a bill may be made a law over the objections of the president by the majority of each house.

1 On the other hand it is entirely within the discretion of the president as to what reasons he shall regard as sufficient in order to make use of this power. The exercise of it has led to many violent collisions between the executive and the legislative departments. In these conflicts the attempt has been made with much acumen to limit the president's freedom of action by invoking all sorts of doctrines. It is true that some of them have great political weight, but they lack a firm constitutional basis. During the "forties" the whigs agitated the entire repeal of the veto power, but only to their own hurt. Very recently an agitation has begun in the opposite direction. The president can refuse to approve only the whole bill, even if he takes exception to but one or two points in it. It is now proposed to give him, so far as the appropriation bills are concerned, the right to return individual appropriations for reconsideration and to give the others the force of law by approving them. It can scarcely be doubted that this decisive reform will surely be enacted sooner or later, but the battle for it will certainly be severe and probably be long. The president must state his objections in writing and return the bill to the house where it originated. The new vote upon it must be by roll-call. The vote of each member must be entered on the journal. The same rules apply in the other house, to which the bill and the president's objections are sent, if the first house has passed the bill again by a two-thirds majority. If the president does not