great excitement. Even during the presidential election of 1824, with four candidates in the field, each with enthusiastic partisans, the total vote cast in Virginia was less than 15,000; and Massachusetts, which had cast more than 66,000 votes for governor in 1823, cast only 37,000 votes at the presidential election. Ohio polled 50,024 votes; but the election for governor two years before had drawn out 10,000 more votes, and in the same year as the presidential election the vote for governor aggregated 76,634. The Jacksonian era marks the beginning of a concentration of popular interest on the presidential election. After 1824, the popular vote shows a rapid increase. The aggregate in 1824 was 356,038. The aggregate vote cast by the same states in 1828 was 817,409. The increase in some of the states was amazing. In New Hampshire, the vote rose from 4750 to 45,056; in Connecticut, from 9565 to 18,286; in Pennsylvania, from 47,255 to 152,500; in Ohio, from 50,024 to 130,993. The popular tendency thus suddenly developed has been constant. It is now a commonplace of politics that the presidential vote is the largest cast at any election. In the presidential election of 1896 there were cast for President 218,658 votes more than were cast for Congressmen. When it is considered that the practice of putting presidential and congressional candidates on the same ballot is almost general, this popular disposition is certainly very remarkable.

This change in the attitude of the people towards the President took away much of the importance of Congress, and had effects upon its character which soon became very manifest. The framers of the constitution anticipated for the House of Representatives a brilliant career, something like that of the House of Commons. The natural ascendency which the House would possess as the immediate representative of the people, is the stock argument of "The Federalist" in justification of the exclusive privileges conferred upon the President and the Senate. It was held that no danger to the constitution could result from an excess of power in them, since "the House of Representatives with the people on their side will at all times be able to bring back the constitution to its primitive form and principles"; while, on the other hand, the coördinate branches of the government could not withstand the encroachments of the House without special safeguards.1 The result, on the whole, during the early period of the republic, verified this calculation. Although never developing such an authority as that of the House of Commons, the House of Representatives was the most important branch of the government. The Senate was composed of provincial notables who sat as a privy council, transacting business behind closed doors. The floor of the House was the

1 The Federalist, No. 63.

era.

field where political talent might obtain distinction. The Senate became tired of its dull seclusion from popular interest, and in 1799 admitted the public to its debates; but the superior prestige of the House was maintained until the Jacksonian Calhoun remarks that the House was originally "a much more influential body than the Senate." 1 Benton says, "For the first thirty years it was the controlling branch of the government, and the one on whose action the public eye was fixed." 2 The democratic revolution overthrew the pillars of its greatness. It ceased to make presidents; it ceased to control them. Instead of being the seat of party authority, — the motive force of the administration, it became in this respect merely a party agency. National party purposes, having to seek their fulfilment through the presidential office, had nothing to ask of the House but obedience to party demands, and at once began the task of devising machinery to enforce submission.

Burke long ago had foretold, "If we do not permit our members to act upon a very enlarged view of things, we shall at length infallibly degrade our national representation into a confused and scuffling bustle of local agency." Precisely such a change rapidly took place in the House of Representatives.

1 Calhoun's Works, Vol. I., p. 341.

2 Thirty Years' View, Vol. I., p. 208.

Its decadence was rapid and soon became notorious.1

From this period dates the disposition of the people to make use of the House to reflect their passing moods rather than their settled habits of thinking. The early contests between the Federalists and the Republicans were faction struggles that did not establish strict party lines in the House. Although in the Fourth Congress the opponents of the administration were strong enough to vote down a resolution of confidence in the President, a Federalist was chosen speaker. Under the Virginia dynasty the political complexion of the House was constant, and its membership exhibited a stability of composition approximating that of the House of Commons at the same period. Henry Clay was elected speaker five times in succession, and might have continued to hold the position had he so desired. But after the Jackson upheaval the House became the shuttlecock of politics. A graphic delineation of changes of party strength appears like storm waves in ascent and reflux. In the Twenty-first Congress the party division in the House was 152 to 39; in the Twenty-second Congress, 98 to 97. In the Twenty-fifth Congress the majority in the House was Democratic; in the Twenty-sixth, it was Whig. In the Twenty-seventh

1 Benton makes some doleful comments on this fact, which he greatly deplores and tries to extenuate. Thirty Years' View, Vol. I., Chap. LVII.

Congress, it was Whig; in the Twenty-eighth, it was Democratic. In the Twenty-ninth Congress, it was Democratic; in the Thirtieth, it was Whig. During the Civil War the waves were flattened down, so to speak; but the fluctuation was still remarkable. Since the reconstruction period the vicissitudes of party strength in Congress are so enormous that they simply daze and confound the politicians. They come in exultingly at one election, on a wave of victory that seems to have swept away the opposition, and a few years later they find themselves swept from power in a condition of utter rout and demoralization, wondering what on earth has befallen them.

So periodic is the fluctuation of public sentiment that it is expected as a matter of course that "the off-year "the congressional election intervening between presidential elections will show a gain in the strength of the opposition. Nothing being at stake but the composition of the House, the particular interests of localities are not so heavily weighed upon by the necessities of national party interest, so that faction aims and individual predilections have more to do with shaping results. The popular vote is smaller, opposition is active and ardent, while support is languid, so that it is a common thing to hear of candidates defeated by "the stay-at-home vote." The popular mandate is

1 Johnston's American Politics gives the congressional strength of parties down to 1889.