Precedents Established in the First Congress
| DOI | 10.1177/106591295801100302 |
| Date | 01 September 1958 |
| Published date | 01 September 1958 |
| Author | George B. Galloway |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
454
PRECEDENTS
ESTABLISHED
IN
THE
FIRST
CONGRESS
GEORGE
B.
GALLOWAY*
Legislative
Reference
Service,
Library
of
Congress.
HE
FIRST
SESSION
of
Congress
under
the
new
Constitution
was
scheduled
to
meet
in
New
York
City
on
March
4,
1789.
But
only
thirteen
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives,
from
five
of
the
eleven
states
that
had
ratified
the
Constitution
up
to
that
time,
appeared
and
took
their
seats
on
that
day.
So
the
House
met
and
adjourned
from
day
to
day
until
a
quorum
finally
appeared
on
April
1.
They
came
by
ship,
wagon,
and
stagecoach;
some
were
delayed
by
bad
roads,
others
by
storms
and
shipwreck.
In
its
composition
the
first
House
of
Representatives
resembled
the
membership
of
the
state
legislatures
of
that
period.
&dquo;The
members
were
good
eighteenth
century
Americans,&dquo;
Harlow
remarks,
&dquo;average
representa-
tives
of
the
ruling
class
of
the
time.&dquo;
1 Mostly
men
of
moderate
views,
the
First
Congress
&dquo;contained
many
men
of
talent,
character,
and
wide
legis-
lative
experience.&dquo;
2
We
are
indebted
to
Fisher
Ames,
a
Federalist
member
of
the
first
four
Congresses
from
Massachusetts,
for
a
contemporaneous
description
of
his
colleagues.
An
impulsive
and
prolific
letter
writer,
Ames
said
of
the
first
House:
&dquo;The
House
is
composed
of
sober,
solid,
old-charter
folks....
There
are
few
shining
geniuses;
there
are
many
who
have
experience,
the
virtues
of
the
heart,
and
the
habits
of
business.
It
will
be
quite
a
republi-
can
assembly....&dquo;
3
After
two
months
in
the
House
we
find
Ames
writing
to
a
friend
as
follows:
I
felt
chagrined
at
the
yawning
listlessness
of
many
here,
in
regard
to
the
great
objects
of
the
government;
their
liableness
to
the
impression
of
arguments
ad
populum;
their
State
prejudices;
their
overrefining
spirit
in
relation
to
trifles;
their
attachment
to
some
very
distressing
formalities
in
doing
business,
and
which
will
be
a
curse
to
all
despatch
and
spirit
in
transacting
it.
I
compared
these
with
the
idea
I
had
brought
here,
of
demigods
and
Roman
senators,
or
at
least,
of
the
first
Congress
[meaning
the
Congress
of
the
Confedera-
ton].
The
objects
now
before
us
require
more
information,
though
less
of
the
heroic
qualities,
than
those
of
the
first
Congress....
But
since,
I
have
reflected
coolly,
that
in
all
public
bodies,
the
majority
will
be
such
as
I
have
described
-
I
may
add,
ought
to
be
such;
and
if
a
few
understand
business,
and
have,
as
they
will,
the
confidence
of
those
who
do
not,
it
is
better
than
for
all
to
be
such
knowing
ones;
for
they
would
contend
for
supremacy;
there
would
not
be
a
sufficient
principle
of
cohesion.
The
love
of
ease
makes
many,
who
are
knowing,
submit
to
the
judgment
of
others,
more
industrious,
though
not
more
knowing,
than
themselves,
and
this
cements
the
mass.
It
produces
artificial
ignor,
ance,
which
joined
with
real
ignorance,
has
been
found,
in
fact,
to
furnish
mortar
enough
for
all
public
assemblies.
The
House
is
composed
of
very
good
men,
not
shining,
but
honest
and
reasonably
well-informed,
and
in
time
they
will
be
found
to
improve,
and
not
to
be
much
inferior
in
eloquence,
science,
and
dignity,
to
the
British
Commons.’
1
Ralph
V.
Harlow,
The
History
of
Legislative
Methods
Before
1825
(1917),
p.
123.
2
Charles
O.
Paullin.
"The
First
Elections
Under
the Constitution."
Iowa
Journal
of
His-
tory
and
Politics,
January,
1904,
p.
28.
3
Fisher
Ames,
Works
(1854),
I,
33.
4
Ibid.,
pp.
44-45.
To continue reading
Request your trial