[132] 69 Cong. Rec. 1718 (1928).
[133] Hinds" Precedents of the House of Representatives, I: -- 414 (1907).
[134] Ibid. ---- 415-417.
[135] The part of this clause relating to the mode of apportionment of Representative among the several States, was changed by the Fourteenth Amendment, -- 2 (p. 1170) and as to taxes on incomes without apportionment, by the Sixteenth Amendment (p. 1191).
[136] Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 457, 536 (1871).
[137] 46 Stat. 21 (1929). This same act penalizes refusal to cooperate properly with the census taker by answering his questions and in other ways. 13 U.S.C. 209.
[138] The Senate is a "continuing body"--McGrain _v._ Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 181-182 (1927).
[139] 5 Stat. 491 (1842). This requirement was dropped in 1850 (9 Stat.
428, 432-433) but was renewed in 1862 (12 Stat. 572). _See also_ Joel Francis Paschal, The House of Representatives "Grand Depository of the Democratic Principle", Spring 1952 Issue of Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University School of Law), 276-289.
[140] 14 Stat. 243 (1866).
[141] 16 Stat. 144 (1870); 16 Stat. 254 (1870); 17 Stat. 347-349 (1872).
[142] 28 Stat. 36 (1894).
[143] United States _v._ Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876).
[144] Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Clarke, 100 U.S.
399 (1880); United States _v._ Gale, 109 U.S. 65 (1883).
[145] 241 U.S. 565 (1916).
[146] Smiley _v._ Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932); Koenig _v._ Flynn, 285 U.S.
375 (1932); Carroll _v._ Becker, 285 U.S. 380 (1932).
[147] 46 Stat. 21 (1929).
[148] 37 Stat. 13, 14 (1911).
[149] Wood _v._ Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932).
[150] 328 U.S. 549 (1946).
[151] Ibid. 556, 566.
[152] Ibid. 570-571.
[153] Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 661 (1884); United States _v._ Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915); United States _v._ Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944).
[154] In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731, 752 (1888).
[155] Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Clarke, 100 U.S.
309 (1880); United States _v._ Gale, 109 U.S. 65 (1883).
[156] United States _v._ Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930).
[157] Newberry _v._ United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921).
[158] United States _v._ Cla.s.sic, 313 U.S. 299, 318 (1941).
[159] Barry _v._ United States ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597, 616 (1929).
[160] In re Loney, 134 U.S. 372 (1890).
[161] Cannon"s Precedents of the House of Representatives, VI: ---- 72-74, 180 (1936). _Cf._ Newberry _v._ United States, 256 U.S. 232, 258 (1921).
[162] Barry _v._ United States ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597, 614 (1929).
[163] Ibid. 615.
[164] Hinds" Precedents of the House of Representatives, IV: -- 2895-2905 (1907).
[165] 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
[166] Ibid. 5-6.
[167] Rule V.
[168] Hinds" Precedents of the House of Representatives, IV: -- 2910-2915 (1907); Cannon"s Precedents of the House of Representatives, VI: ---- 645, 646 (1936).
[169] United States _v._ Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892). It is, of course, by virtue of its power to determine "rules of its proceedings" that the Senate enables its members to prevent the transaction of business by what are termed "filibusters". The question has been raised whether the rules which support a filibuster are const.i.tutionally compatible with the clause in the preceding section: "A majority of each [House] shall const.i.tute a quorum to do business". _See_ Franklin Burdette, Filibustering in the Senate (Princeton University Press, 1940), 6, 61, 111-112, 227-229, 232-233, 237-238. The Senate is "a continuing body".
McGrain _v._ Daugherty, 273 U.S. 139, 181-182 (1927). Hence its rules remain in force from Congress to Congress except as they are changed from time to time, whereas those of the House are readopted at the outset of each new Congress.
[170] 286 U.S. 6 (1932).
[171] 338 U.S. 84 (1949).
[172] t.i.tle 22, -- 2501.
[173] 338 U.S. at 93-95, citing Field _v._ Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 669-673 (1892); United States _v._ Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892); and other cases.
[174] Burton _v._ United States, 202 U.S. 344, 356 (1906).
[175] In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669, 670 (1897).
[176] I Story, Const.i.tution, -- 840, quoted with approval in Field _v._ Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 670 (1892).
[177] United States _v._ Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 4 (1892).
[178] Field _v._ Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Flint _v._ Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 143 (1911). A parallel rule holds in the case of a duly authenticated official notice to the Secretary of State that a State legislature has ratified a proposed amendment to the Const.i.tution. Leser _v._ Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922); _see also_ Coleman _v._ Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). In Christoffel _v._ United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949), a sharply divided Court ruled that, in a case brought under the Perjury Statute of the District of Columbia (-- 22-2501 of the D.C. Code) for alleged perjurious testimony before a Committee of the House of Representatives, the trial Court erred in charging the jury that it was free to ignore testimony that less than a quorum of the Committee was in attendance when the alleged perjury was committed. Four Justices dissented; and curiously enough only four of the majority were present when the opinion was delivered, the fifth being indisposed. Remarks Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in United States _v._ Bryan (339 U.S. 323 (1950)), in which the ruling in Christoffel was held to be inapplicable: "It is ironic that this interference with legislative procedures was promulgated by exercise within the Court of the very right of absentee partic.i.p.ation denied to Congressmen." Ibid. 344. It seems unlikely that the Christoffel decision seriously undermines Field _v._ Clark.