The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-05-08
"THAT LAW" AGAINST BANKERS,
A MISTAKE TO BE AVOIDED,
Claim Nothing But What Can Be
Proved.
Editor NonconforJnist.

Editor NonconforJnist.
IN your issue OF the 14th inst. cor
respondent from Stafford, Kan, Mr..
L.. Z. Main, says: II have seen it
stated in some OF the reform papers
that during the administration Of
President Washington bill was sign
ed by him making bankers Ineligible
to seat in Congress. l have seen the
statement denied. Was such law
passed."
Mr.'Main will find the legislation re-
ferred to in the proceedings Of the
third Congress, in the adoption in
that Congress, December %, 1893, of
the following:
'si.esolved, Any person holding
stock in any Institution Of the nature
of d bank for issuing or discounting
;,lls or notes payable to bearer or or
der cannot be a member of the House
whilst he holds such Office or stock"
This resolution was signed by Presi-
scinded or repealed | find no record
Of it. READER.
Nashville, Tenn.
Note by the Editor of the Noncon-
formist:-Onr correspondent must
have made a very hasty and very in
accurate examination of this matter.
When Mr.. Mains letter was publish
ed, the editor appended a note saying
that he had not looked up the records,
but would pronounce off-hand the
opinion that no such law was passed
as it would be in plain contravention
of the constitution, which fixes the
qualifications for congressman and
these cannot be added to or detracted
from by any law Of Congress. After
receiving the above letter we went to
the city library and investigated the
documents. just as we expected, the
resolution was proposed amendment
to the constitution (the only way the
matter could be reached.) 1t was in
troduced in the Senate on January IA,
1894, and consideration postponed I'M
til January 16. On that day the orig
inal resolution was amended by vote
of 10 to y, then the last clause of it
as amended was stricken out and the
entire resolution. as amended, was
voted on and defeated. Then consid-
GRAFTON of the whole subject was post
poned without date. We could find
no record of it's having been consider
GU Ill UuO A1OOOC3 OAN NuA 1A0SlA
where our Nashville correspondent
gets his authority for saying that it
was adopted "by Congress, December
%, 1893" One branch Of Congress
might adopt something on particu-
lar day but Congress itself. which con-
sists of the Senate and House, can't
possibly pass any law at one time. It
must be by vote Of the separate
houses at different times. Our Nash
Vile correspondent is also clearly off
in saying that George Washington
signed the resolution in question. In
the first place. the president does not
sign joint resolutions. He only signs
laws Had the resolution above re-
ferred to passed the Senate. it would
have been sent to the House. If
aGonted there also it would have been
suhn. ,tted to the states for ratitca-
ticn. Ii ratified by three-fourths of
TIE states it would have become
part of the constitution of the United
States and that is the only way in
which it could have been made effec-
tive. In other words the only way
that bankers or anybody else can be
excluded from Congress is by the con-
stitution itself. No law or resolution
,i Congress can accomplish that Oh
jact.