Mr. Dawes, (Republican, of Massachusetts): The time will be extended to the gentleman.

Mr. Washburne, (Republican, of Illinois): I object to that.

Mr. Conkling: I knew that. And do you know how I knew it? Because the member for Illinois is the only man in this House surly enough to interpose objections in such a case.

Mr. Washburne rose to reply, when Mr. Ashley called the member to order.

Mr. Washburne, (excitedly): I call the creature to order.

The Speaker demanded the preservation of order.

Mr. Conkling: The member from Illinois understands the rules of the House, and must understand that this is not the place for personal altercation. He knows the proper place for that is outside these walls. Mr. Washburne, (excitedly): Yes, sir, and I am ready for it.

Mr. Conkling: No individual in this House better knows than the member from Illinois that I stand by what I say, until I am convinced that I am in error; and, therefore, there is no necessity for any interruption here."

This affair also ended in smoke, moral, not actual. The above were the two most glaring specimens of brawls in Congress while I was there; and it would not be difficult to match them by incidents which have

occurred not so long ago in our own Parliament. The fact is, and it is worth noting, that the rowdy element disappeared from Congress with the secession of the slaveholding Democrats.

So much of the House of Representatives. The Senate is more interesting to a stranger, from the simple fact that you can hear and follow readily what is going on, which you cannot do in the Lower House. In shape and arrangement, the building is the counterpart of the representative chamber, only smaller. With so scant a number of members at its fullest-diminished as it is now by the absence of the seceding senatorsand with the widely-parted rows of arm-chairs, fronted by the small mahogany tables, the aspect of the Senate is not a lively one. It seems impossible that with such an audience any actor could work himself into a passion; and the whole look of the scene is so very staid and decorous, that it is hard to realize the stormy, passionate discussions which have taken place within these walls; harder still to imagine that bludgeons and fire-arms could ever have been wielded amongst men so sober and respectable-looking.

To me it was a surprise to learn how very much of the business of both Houses is conducted secretly. On all executive questions, that is, on questions of the appointment or dismissal of public officials, &c., the discussions are held with closed doors. Then too the real business of both Houses of a deliberative character is

carried on in the committee rooms, where no strangers or reporters are admitted. Whenever leave has been granted to bring in a bill, it is referred, before discussion, to the standing committee appointed to investigate the class of subjects on which legislation is proposed. If the committee reject the bill, their vote is not final; but the rejected bill is laid upon the table, and it requires a two-thirds' majority to remove it from the table, or, in other words, to resume its consideration. This, of course, is rarely done, and, practically, the framework and substance of every measure is discussed in the committee rooms, not in the open House. The party in power in either House manages the selection of the committees, so that one of the party should always occupy the chairmanship, and that the majority of the members should belong to their own side. It is in the committee rooms that the real work of legislation is done; and members go into the House, as I have often heard Congress-men declare, to deliver speeches, or write their letters. With all this, with the early hours (generally from noon to five), with the fresh air and easy seats, the position of a member of Congress must be, to my mind, a more comfortable one than that of an English M.P., not to mention the 600l. a year of salary, with the mileage, stationery, and franking perquisites.

66

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

66

I RECOLLECT talking about the Constitution of the Union, not long after my arrival, with an old diplo matist from one of the Scandinavian kingdoms. He had lived for some fourteen years in the States, and was as shrewd as northern diplomatists generally are. suppose," he said to me, "I have studied the Government "of this country as much as most men ; and yet, to the 66 present day, whenever I disagree with an American on any question of politics, he always settles the argument "by telling me that a stranger can never understand the "institutions of his country." Subsequent experience proved to me that the remark was a just one. Amongst all Americans, even the most intelligent and impartial, there is a settled conviction that, just as the knowledge of the books of Veda is confined to the Brahmins, so the power of interpreting the mysteries of the American Constitution is reserved to the native-born American. Yet, judging à priori, the subject would not seem to be surrounded with extraordinary difficulties. There is

no unwritten constitution, as with us. A hundred clauses or so, written in the clearest and most forcible of English, describe and define the powers and limits of the Government. There is no hazy past, no dim tradition about American history; while, as to the manner in which the theory of the government has been reduced into practice, we have the evidence, not only of written records, but of men still living, whose recollections date back almost to the days of the Revolution.

That the American Constitution is very imperfectly understood abroad, I admit freely. That it is so frequently misunderstood I believe to be, in great measure, the fault of the Americans themselves. From the time of Washington to the present hour, every political struggle in the States has been based upon contending interpretations of the Constitution; and a very simple subject has been obscured by the rancour of rival factions. Though the letter of the Constitution has been seldom, if ever, violated, its spirit has been constantly modified, if not disregarded; and a very casual perusal of its contents shows that the practical development of the system has been very different from what its authors intended it to be. Moreover, there is a tendency in the American mind to surround the founders of the Republic, their acts and their works, with an unreasoning and, I think, an exaggerated respect. As the ablest of living American novelists once said to me, "We are always struggling painfully to