and act in concert, so that a disposition was soon created to regard any special facilities which either Senate or House possessed as belonging to the same general fund of political opportunity. What members of the House could not accomplish in their branch, they sought to obtain through their allies in the Senate. The first Congress had been in session just one month when Maclay noted in his diary, “The moment a party finds a measure lost or likely to be lost, all engines are set to work in the upper House." This tendency gave the Senate a free hand in legislation, and it was soon altering and amending bills at its pleasure without exciting any serious contention as to the extent of its powers. Its privileges in this respect being put on an equality with those of the House, its advantages of position soon made themselves felt. Having a small membership, it could act quickly, and, since its organization was perpetual, it had time to wait in order to carry a point, so that it was apt to get the best of the House when disputes occurred. This superiority, which it has always since manifested, was fully developed during the first session.

While the Senate thus successfully stretched its legislative authority to lengths beyond the reckoning of the framers of the constitution, it was equally as prompt in seeking to extend the powers which it derived from its partial association with the President in executive functions. An

"1

abuse of the power of confirmation in order to coerce the President's exercise of his right of making appointments to office was perpetrated by the Senate during Washington's administration. Speaking of the agency of the Senate in regard to appointments, Hamilton had remarked that "there will be no exertion of choice on the part of senators." But while the Senate was still fresh from the hands of its creators, Washington's nomination of a naval officer for the port of Savannah was rejected because he was unacceptable to the senators from Georgia. This action elicited a special message from Washington, defending the fitness of his first nomination; but he avoided further contention by making a new nomination. The distrust with which the Federalist party leaders regarded Adams caused an extraordinary degree of interference with his freedom of choice, and Madison also had to endure much dictation from the Senate. 2

Nevertheless, in political prestige, the Senate long remained inferior to the House. The House

1 The Federalist, No. 66.

2 These instances do not seem to have attracted the attention of the early commentators on the constitution. Kent, in 1826, said of the Senate: "Having no agency in the nominations, nothing but simply consent or refusal, the spirit of personal intrigue and personal attachment must be pretty much extinguished for a want of means to gratify it. Commentaries, Vol. I., p. 288. Story, writing in 1833, spoke of the Senate as having "but a slight participation in the appointments to office." Commentaries, section 752.

nown.

took the lead in legislation of all kinds, the Senate devoting more time to the revision of House bills than to originating bills of its own. The Senate originally sat with closed doors. It was a private conference of provincial notables, affording no opportunities to talent ambitious of political reIts members might be really influential in dispensing patronage or directing legislation, but they did not appear upon the stage of affairs. In this respect the situation was somewhat like what it was in England, when the famous statesmen were those who, like Pitt or Fox or Burke, had the ear of the people; while lords and privy councillors were determining the personnel of ministries and really controlling the management of public affairs. This distinction was, however, more important in the United States, for it meant for the Senate the exclusion of its members from the highest office in the state - the great goal of political ambition. Presidential timber was not grown in the Senate.

The parliamentary régime which grew up under the Virginian dynasty depreciated the Senate in a peculiar manner. The Congressional Caucus determined the presidential succession, and senators as Caucus members were in about the same position as the delegates-at-large to a modern national convention — few in number as compared with the district delegates, and undistinguishable from them in privilege and opportunity. In this field the

united influence of the Senate could not rival that of a popular Speaker like Henry Clay. The House made Presidents and exercised a controlling influence upon public policy. Madison could not be reëlected President until he had accepted the policy of the leaders of the House, which brought on the War of 1812.

The Jacksonian revolution had a remarkable effect upon the Senate. It seemed actually to be exalted by the general overthrow of parliamentary rule, even as a tower shows its height more impressively when the edifice which it had buttressed lies in ruins. The permanency of its organization, and the independent foundation of authority which it derived from the principle of state authority on which it was constituted, protected it from the sharp vicissitudes to which the House was exposed, so that its chamber became the refuge of the great parliamentary leaders, -Webster, Clay, and Calhoun, and public attention was concentrated upon its proceedings. The prestige of the Senate both at home and abroad was the creation of this period. The superior dignity and intellectuality of the Senate made a deep impression upon foreign observers. De Tocqueville contrasted the two Houses with expressions of wonder that one body should be "remarkable for its vulgarity and its poverty of talent, while the other seems to enjoy a monopoly of intelligence and sound judgment." The only reason by which he could account for this was that

"the House of Representatives is elected by the populace directly, while the Senate is elected by an indirect application of universal suffrage." The Senate still retains a higher reputation abroad than it has ever had in this country. So late as the year 1896, Mr. Lecky referred to it as "this illustrious body, which plays so important a part in American history, and has excited the envy and admiration of many European statesmen and writers on politics."

1

It was very natural to conclude that the conservatism and dignity of the Senate were the normal characteristics of a body so constituted, for the course of events long tended to impress such qualities of behavior upon the Senate. The War of 1812 caused a strong reaction against the strict and narrow views of national authority to which Jefferson and Madison had resorted in combating the Federalist administrations; and a movement towards a broad and liberal interpretation of constitutional powers was started under Southern leadership. This movement was checked by the struggle over the admission of Missouri and the passage of the Missouri compromise, which excluded slavery from so large a section of the country as to make it certain that the preponderance of congressional influence would pass to the free states. It therefore became the policy of the Southern leaders to limit as strictly as possible the field of

1 Democracy and Liberty, Vol. I., p. 445.