Page:Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson - Volume 1.djvu/415

 399

Here then are three kinds of majorities. 1. Of the people. 2. Of the States. 3. Of the Congress: each of which is en trusted to a certain length.

Though the paragraph in question be clumsily expressed, yet it strictly announces its own intentions. It defines with precision, the greater questions, for which nine votes shall be requisite. In the lesser questions, it then requires a majority of the United States in Congress assembled: a term which will apply either to the number seven, as being a majority of the States, or to the num ber four, as being a majority of Congress. Which of the two kinds of majority, was meant? Clearly, that which would leave a still smaller kind, for the decision of the question of adjournment. The contrary construction would be absurd.

This paragraph, therefore, should be understood, as if it had been expressed in the following terms. The United States, in Con gress assembled, shall never engage in war, &c. but with the consent of nine States : nor determine any other question, but with the consent of a majority of the whole States, except the question of adjournment from day to day, which may be determined by a ma jority of the States actually present in Congress.

2. How far is it permitted, to bring on the reconsideration of a question which Congress has once determined ?

The first Congress which met, being composed mostly of per sons who had been members of the legislatures of their respect ive States, it was natural for them to adopt those rules in their proceedings, to which they had been accustomed in their legisla tive houses; and the more so, as these happened to be nearly the same, as having been copied from the same original, those of the British parliament. One of those rules of proceeding was, that a question once determined, cannot be proposed, a second time, in the same session. Congress, during their first session, in the au tumn of 1 774, observed this rule strictly. But before their meet ing in the spring of the following year, the war had broken out. They found themselves at the head of that war, in an executive,, as well as legislative capacity. They found that a rule, wise and necessary for a legislative body, did not suit an executive one., which, being governed by events, must change their purposes, as those change. Besides, their session was then to Become of equal duration with the war; and a rule, which should render their legis lation immutable, during all that period, could not be submitted to. They, therefore, renounced it in practice, and have ever since continued to reconsider their questions freely. The only restraint as yet provided against the abuse of this permission to reconsider, is, that when a question has been decided, it cannot