The persons to compose the Standing. Committees are usually designated by the President of the Convention.

To the Standing Committees, thus appointed, the part of the Constitution they are severally to consider is apportioned by the Convention either in the original resolution appointing them, or by special motion ordering the reference to be made. In a few instances the existing Constitution has been taken up and read in Convention, section by section, and such parts as were deemed to require revision, have been referred to the appropriate committees.

§ 297. After the work has been placed thus in the hands of committees, since the reports expected from them require time for their preparation, it is usual for the Convention to occupy itself in the interim, whilst the committees are in session, in miscellaneous business, as in considering cases of contested elections, or in discussing, in a general way, resolutions relating to the principles to be embodied in the new Constitution. Often resolutions of the latter character contain instructions to the standing committees, now in session, to institute inquiries in reference to the expediency of particular amendments. Usually, however, until the reports of its committees begin to come in, the Convention is in a more or less chaotic condition, proposing and voting upon a variety of resolutions relating to reforms conceived desirable, or to modes of proceeding imagined to be more advantageous than those adopted. But this period is generally short, for the reason, that reports upon parts of the Constitution not needing much change, are early presented, and thus the Convention is enabled to commence its work without delay.

§ 298. The mode of reporting in Conventions is different from that adopted commonly in legislatures. In the former, reports of committees usually consist merely of articles and sections, drawn up in the precise form the committees propose they shall bear as parts of the Constitution; whilst in legislative bodies they generally comprise discussions of facts and principles, intended to justify particular conclusions, appended in the form of resolutions, though sometimes to those abstract discussions, instead of resolutions, are added drafts of bills proposed for enactment. Of prefatory argumentation, the reports made to Conventions contain, as a general rule, nothing whatever. In about one-third of the cases, instances have occurred

in which one or more committees have accompanied their reports by illustrative argument in writing, but that has been confined to reports upon topics of unusual importance or interest. This mode of reporting, in the earlier Conventions, pursued without rule or order to that effect, has in some of the later ones been specially required, as in the New York Convention of 1846, the Illinois Convention of 1847, the Maryland Convention of 1864, and perhaps others. The earliest instance I have found in which the subject was mentioned was in the New York Convention of 1821, where Gen. Tallmadge, chairran of the committee on the Council of Revision, on presenting a report from his committee, stated that they had not gone into any explanation of the reasons which influenced them in making the report. This, he admitted, was a departure from the parliamentary usage, but the committee had done it not without consideration; "they had omitted to do this, because, in their opinion, the Convention might be induced to adopt the amendment for different views from those assigned by the committee. The reports of committees would remain of record, and might hereafter be used to give a false and imperfect construction to the proceedings of the Convention." He added, that the committee "hoped it would be considered by the other committees as a precedent." 2

§ 299. In the case mentioned there was no discussion, and apparently no feeling upon the subject. Not so in the Convention of the same State in 1846. Early in the session a resolution was introduced, and, without much discussion, carried, declaring it to be "inexpedient for the several committees on the Constitution to accompany their reports with written explanations of the reasons which may have influenced them in agreeing thereto." A week later, a motion was made to reconsider this resolution, which, after a debate, the spirit and pertinacity of which it is difficult to understand, was negatived. In this

1 Reports without written or other illustration were made in the following Conventions: Massachusetts, 1779; New York, 1821 and 1846; Louisiana, 1844; Illinois, 1847 and 1862; California and Kentucky, 1849; Ohio and Indiana, 1850; the two Minnesota and the Iowa Conventions, 1857. In the following Conventions written arguments or illustrations in a few cases accompanied reports: Massachusetts, 1820 and 1853; Pennsylvania, 1837; Virginia, 1829; Wisconsin, 1847; Michigan and Maryland, 1850; and Louisiana, 1852. 2 Deb. N. Y. Conv. 1821, p. 42.

discussion, in addition to the reason for the restriction given by Gen. Tallmadge, it was urged, that if all the reports were acaccompanied by statements of the reasons which induced the committees to adopt them, the records of the Convention would become excessively voluminous; that if not so much so as to cause them to be wholly neglected, of which there was danger, they would be likely to be consulted mainly for the sake of the reports which would thus have imparted to them too powerful an influence; that the committees being composed of leading members, likely to be most eminent in debate, to allow them to express their reasons in writing would be to commit them to the opinions advanced, and for the reasons therein mentioned, and that it would be nearly impossible for the Convention to convince or to refute them; so that, in truth, it was not a question of gagging the committees so much as whether the committees should be allowed to gag the Convention; that the true course was, to let the members of the committees stand on the same footing as the other members of the Convention, each giving his opinion orally in debate; that thus, the remarks of all being reported with proportionate abbreviation, each would secure for his views the public estimation which they deserved, and no more.

§ 300. Against the restriction it was urged, that the work of a Convention was unlike that of a legislature; that it was to go before the people in the shape of recommendations, to be by them either adopted or rejected; that, therefore, the people ought to know the grounds on which they had been made; that those would be best determined from perusing the carefully drawn reports of committees, giving to the subjects committed to them calm and mature consideration; that such had ever been the parliamentary course, and, besides, it would be absurd to appoint committees to report conclusions, and to suppress the information - often consisting of statistics, or scientific or historical data - upon which they were based; that, in regard to the Convention itself, it was idle to talk of the exces sive influence of committees, they, as a general thing, having no influence which they do not deserve to have; that there was no danger of their abusing the privilege proposed to be denied them of expressing in writing their reasons for their recommendations; that the natural indolence of every man would lead him

to avoid the task, always irksome, of drawing up long written reports, and to rely for explanations of his views, except in rare and important cases, upon speaking rather than writing; that when cases of real importance arose, it was for the interest no less of the Convention than of the committees, to arrive at clear and definite ideas in the shortest time possible, upon the subjects in hand; that to this end it was highly desirable that committees should be allowed and encouraged to present their views in writing, in order that the members might take the reports with them to their rooms and examine them without the distraction of mind so inevitable in the Convention itself; and, finally, that by allowing written reports, many members who had no skill in debate, but who could wield their pen with real ability, would be able to make to the public counsels valuable contributions.1

§ 301. Without stopping to consider particularly the arguments above detailed, it is proper to say, that the true course seems to be that pursued by most Conventions, and recommended by Gen. Tallmadge in the New York Conventions of 1821 and 1846, to leave the matter of reporting their reasons in writing, or not, to the committees themselves, without any rule to fetter their discretion. Thus left, it is probable, in a majority of cases, committees would prefer to report merely articles and sections, trusting to debate to illustrate and enforce their recommendations. When a case, however, arises, in which, from the abundance or complexity of the data on which the conclusions of the reports are founded, and by which, if at all, they are to be justified, it is deemed important that those data should be marshalled in a succinct and orderly array, it will be an act of folly to interdict it, since only when thus presented can they be grasped and appreciated.2

§ 302. On the coming in of the reports of committees, the first proceeding commonly is to lay them on the table and order them printed, preparatory to their being submitted to the action of the Convention. In some cases this preliminary is dispensed

1 See Deb. N. Y. Conv. 1846, pp. 97-99, 131-138, 142–149.

2 An article in the Democratic Review for November, 1846, p. 340, referring to the New York Convention of that year, impeaches the motives of those who concurred in defending this restriction, declaring them, under the circumstances under which the proposition was initiated, to have been "discreditable in the highest degree." What those circumstances were I am not informed.

with, and the reports are at once referred for consideration and discussion to a committee of the whole. This reference, either at this or at a later stage, after the reports have been printed, is nearly universal, there being in all the Conventions whose journals or proceedings are known to me only two or three exceptions to it. In those cases, the reports were taken up directly in Convention, and put on the way to final passage, without referring them to a committee of the whole. When so referred, after full and often very extended discussion in that committee, the reports, as amended by it, are passed through their several stages to final adoption, as in case of other laws, by the Convention itself.

§ 303. Before the scattered reports of the standing committees, amended by the committee of the whole, and afterwards by the Convention, are put upon their final passage, it is usual to refer them to a committee of revision, or on phraseology and arrangement, whose duty it is to file them down to uniformity of style, and establish the proper locus of each section in the Constitution. A committee charged with this duty is sometimes appointed among the standing committees, and sometimes is raised toward the close of the session, when the occasion for its services arises. It has been usual to regard this committee as of very slight consequence, as though its operation could only be to add to the polish of the instrument, or to the perfection of its logical arrangement, but I am persuaded the idea is a mistaken one. It is always in the power of such a committee perhaps I might say it is liable, even without intending it, in the process of manipulating a Constitution for the purpose indicated to change its language so as materially to alter its legal effect. In the hurry of its final passage, such a change would be apt, unless very conspicuous, to escape detection. It is said, I think by Mr. Jefferson, that Gouverneur Morris, to whom the duty of revising the style of the Federal Constitution was intrusted, in performing it, insensibly gave a cast to that instrument which it did not bear when it passed into his hands, and that the Convention did not discover the change. The same thing, as I am informed, occurred in the case of the first Constitution of Michigan, in which very important changes were effected, perhaps unintentionally, in the manner I have indicated.