PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.

Many causes have combined to delay the publication of the revised edition of, and supplement to, this work. The editor's labors in other fields have become known to the public. The publication of eleven large volumes, which have received the approbation of the profession, and the labored revisions of some of these, together with a varied practice, have delayed the final preparation of a work which ought to have employed his whole time. Indeed, a careful and thorough annotation of the Constitution of the United States would require the continuous study of an industrious life. The history of the Constitution is the history of the nation; and its thorough criticism would be the repetition of the indoctrinations of the thinking minds of the age. Nevertheless, the kind reception and general commendation which this production has received have encouraged the author to increased labor and expense. No week has been passed, indeed, few days, without some additions being made. To cut these amendments down to readable length has been the greatest labor. This has not been so practicable in the Appendix as in the original text.

When the first edition of this book appeared, the Constitution was undergoing a severe strain. The reconstruction laws, which had resulted from the mad efforts at secession, had not completed the work of rehabilitating the Union; the fourteenth amendment, consequent upon the destruction of slavery, had not received the ratification of the necessary number of States; the fifteenth amendment had only been thought of by a few advanced minds; the differences between the executive and Congress threatened the peace of the coun. try; the events of the seven preceding years had sown a vast ( xix )

crop of litigation involving constitutional questions; the condition of the newly-emancipated population had not been settled; the passions of the five years of civil war were far from being allayed; and the minds of millions of active men were revolutionary, and only needed seductive leadership to change the whole organization of our Government. But the work of reconstruction has been accomplished; the new amendments have not only been adopted by recognized form, but the nation, by popular platforms, has become pledged to their support; and what is better, they have been construed to the general satisfaction of the country; a sense of popular liberty is gradually recovering ground; and there is greater uniformity as to popular suffrage than at any former period in our history.

It cannot be disguised, that our people are studying the Constitution and its foundations with greater accuracy and a more intelligent understanding of the true character of our complicated governments.

Nevertheless, much yet remains to be done. The Constitution has to be taught in all our schools, and taught by thousands who have yet to acquire its rudiments. This work has been found a useful instrumentality in that direction. The new matter must greatly increase its usefulness.

To embody the new interpretations an Appendix has been found necessary. This may cause occasional repetitions and some contradictory authorities. But it should be remembered that there can never be a fixed standard for the Constitution. It is continually undergoing official interpretation; and the only mode of reaching the truth is by the comparison of ideas and practical results. The Appendix should always be read as a part of the text. Where there is doubt, let the student consult the references.

The book having been introduced into many of our best academical institutions, its future success is assured.

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 1, 1876.

GEORGE W. PASCHAL.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

No amendments to the Constitution have been adopted since the second edition appeared. And little has been done which is valuable as precedent. The Belknap trial resulted in an acquittal for want of a two-thirds vote. The discussions extended over a vast deal of ground and involved much learned research by counsel and court. But the only point really decided was, that when the accused resigns before he is impeached, (possibly before trial,) the Senate, as a court, loses jurisdiction. over him.

There has also been a presidential election, and an alarming time over the returns. The world was filled with much speaking upon the words, "AND THE VOTES SHALL THEN BE COUNTED." By whom, and what power the houses of Congress had over the count and the acts of the States relative to the count, were the questions of debate. If the word cOUNT is to receive its ordinary signification, it is wholly immaterial who does the reckoning. The Speaker of the House held that the 22d joint. rule, never having been concurrently annulled, was still in force. And the Democrats almost unanimously held, that its principle was inherent in the Constitution, and that no vote objected to could be counted unless with the concurrent vote of both houses.

But the reader is referred to the Record and the great trial for the theories and arguments. Few of the actors, after a year's reflection, would like an epitome of what they said preserved in any standard book. Yet the universal madness became so threatening that it was found necessary to improvise a law creating five Senators, five Representatives, and five. Supreme Judges as a high commission to settle the points (xxa)

involved. This law rested upon the propriety and necessity of legislating to prevent a very probable conflict for its constitutionality. It provided for the manner of objecting to the votes of States where there were two sets of returns; for a reference of such questions to the high commission for its decision; for a congressional review of such subject; and for a power of the houses, by a concurrent vote, to reject the vote of any State, notwithstanding the favorable decision of the commission. An adverse finding of the commission would amount to such rejection.

The law was intended particularly to apply to the States of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon, from which States duplicate certificates had been sent.

When objections were made and the questions referred to the commission, the first subject for consideration was one of jurisdiction; that is, how far Congress had power to constitute itself into one or two grand returning boards and to go behind what the States had done in appointing presidential electors, and rejecting votes for sufficient or insufficient reasons. The view taken by the commission was that no such power existed, and that it could not go behind the final action of the officers appointed by the States to certify the appointments of the electors. It would be idle to attempt to discuss the amount of violent dissatisfaction at the fact that States which had popularly chosen electors for one candidate were counted for another. But the country acquiesced, and the history has become a precedent; and the precedent goes even further. It holds that the two houses, by a concurrent vote, may reject the electoral choice of any State or set of States, and thus transfer the choice of President from the States to the House of Representatives. Surely the sober second thought of the people will lead to a constitutional amendment which will avert so great a danger to the government. I apprehend that were an amendment proposed which should declare that when the two houses assemble, the Vice President, or presiding officer of the Senate, shall open the electoral returns from the States,

but not count the votes, that any member of either house may, for any reason, or no reason, object to all or any number of the votes cast by the State electors, either because of unfitness of the electors, integrity to party fealty in casting their votes, ineligibility of the person voted for, fraud or irregularity in the appointment, (election,) or mode of certifying such appointment of the electors, such objections shall be considered by each house of Congress, and if either house sustain them or any one of them, such votes shall not be counted, and if the majority of a person voted for be thus destroyed, the House of Representatives shall proceed to elect in the manner provided for in the Constitution,-such amendment, however worded, would be shocking to the people. And yet this is about the theory of both political parties in Congress upon the subject.

The time for that sober second thought may not have arrived. But the late events have proved that when great political ends are to be reached, no absurdity is too great for partisans who act upon divided responsibility.