Notes of Decisions 1. Acts of Congress as evidence.-The acts of Congress, as they stand approved by the President and enrolled in the De partment of State, are conclusive evidence of the written law. (1857) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 1. § 31. Sealing of instruments. In all cases where a seal is necessary by law to any commission, process, or other instrument provided for by the laws of Congress, it shall be lawful to affix the proper seal by making an impression therewith directly on the paper to which such seal is necessary; which shall be as valid as if made on wax or other adhesive substance. (R. S. § 6.) Historical Note This section was derived from Act of May 31, 1854, c. 60, 10 Stat. 297. It was incorporated in the Revised Statutes as § 6. Notes of Decisions 1. Impression on paper or parchment.Any forcible indentation on a parchment, though it be not wax, wafer, or a scrawl, may be a seal, if so intended. Follett v. Rose (C. C. Ind. 1844) Fed. Cas. No. 4,900. Where courts can recognize the identity of the seal, they should not be called upon to analyze the material which exhibits it. Pillow v. Roberts (1851) 13 How. (U. S.) 474, 14 L. Ed. 228, reversing (C. C. Ark. 1851) Fed. Cas. No. 11,909. The court also said "It is the seal which authenticates and not the substance on which it is impressed." 2. Scroll other or mark.-The word "Seal" in a scroll is a sufficient seal. U. S. v. Hedges (C. C. Dist. Col. 1812) Fed. Cas. No. 15,339. The common-law rule, that a seal must consist of wax, or some tenacious substance, does not apply to a bond taken under an act of Congress; and, under the general usage, a scroll is sufficient to make the instrument a sealed instrument. v. Stephenson's Ex'rs (C. C. Ill. 1839) Fed. Cas. No. 16,386. U. S. A scroll made with a pen, inclosing the letters "L. S.," will be held to be a seal, if so intended, though not expressly stated in the instrument. Burton v. Le Roy (C. C. Cal. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 2,217. A mark with ink, acknowledged by the maker of a deed, has been held sufficient to create a specialty. U. S. v. Coffin (D. C. S. C. 1799) Fed. Cas. No. 14,823. 3. Joint seal.-There cannot be a joint seal for diverse persons not incorporated. Tingey v. Carroll (C. C. Dist. Col. 1829) Fed. Cas. No. 14,056. 4. Official seal.-Any impression upon sealing wax or wafer adhering to the paper, without any device or words indicative of the particular official, is evidence of the official character of the offcer signing. In re Phillips (D. C. Mich. 1876) Fed. Cas. No. 11,098. 5. Evidence and determination of fact. -Person acquainted with parchment patents may be examined, as to the traces of a seal, on the question whether such a writing had been originally sealed. Follett v. Rose (C. C. Ind. 1844) Fed. Cas. No. 4,900. Where there is doubt whether an instrument has been sealed, the fact is properly referable to the jury. Id. Cited without specific application.— Clough v. U. S. (C. C. Tenn. 1891) 47 F. 793, 795, modified (1893) 55 F. 373, 5 C. C. A. 140. Chap. TITLE 2 THE CONGRESS 1. Election of Senators and Representatives. 2. Organization of Congress. ........................ Bec. 1 21 81 61 131 191 201 241 271 Section 1. Time for election of Senators. At the regular election held in any State next preceding the expiration of the term for which any Senator was elected to represent such State in Congress, at which election a Representative to Congress is regularly by law to be chosen, a United States Senator from said State shall be elected by the people thereof for the term commencing on the 4th day of March next thereafter. (June 4, 1914, c. 103, § 1, 38 Stat. 384.) Historical Note Chapter of title II of the Revised Statutes, comprising sections 14 to 19, inclusive, constituting an Act of July 25, 1866, c. 245 (14 Stat. 243), which provided for the election of senators by the Legislatures of the several states, was superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment, providing for the election of senators from each state by the people thereof, was proposed, in lieu of Notes of 1. Time, place and manner of election of senators.-Under section 4 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, the legislatures of the several states for a long time proceeded by law to determine the time, place, and manner of the election of senators of the United States, until Congress, in exercise of the same power, determined by law the time and manner of the election of such senators. Matter of Engle (Md. 1877) 1 Hughes, 592, Fed. Cas. No. 4,488; State v. Frear (1910) 142 Wis. 320, 125 N. W. 961, 20 Ann. Cas. 633. the first paragraph of section 3 of article 1, and of so much of paragraph 2 of the same section as related to the filling of vacancies, by a joint resolution of the Sixty-second Congress, on the 15th of May, 1912 (37 Stat. 646), and was certified by the Secretary of State on May 31, 1913 (38 Stat. 2049), as having been adopted by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the whole number of states. Decisions 2. Decisions under 8 2 of Act of June 4, 1914, c. 103.-Section 2 of Act of June 4, 1914, c. 103, relating to the mode of election of Senators pending state legislation was construed in U. S. v. Gradwell (1917) 37 S. Ct. 407, 243 U. S. 476, 61 L. Ed. 857, affirming (D. C. R. I. 1916) 234 F. 446, and U. S. v. O'Toole (D. C. W. Va. 1916) 236 F. 993; State v. Schmahl (1918) 167 N. W. 481, 140 Minn. 219. 3. Seal of state to executive appointment of senator.-In an early case in Florida it was held that affixing the seal of a state to an executive appointment of a United States senator and countersigning the same did not commit the Secretary of State of such state to the legality of such appointment, and implied no opinion as to the legality either of such appointment or of a previous elec tion of another person to the same place by the legislature. State v. Crawford (1891) 28 Fla. 441, 10 So. 118, 14 L. R. A. 253. Cited without specific application.-U. 8. v. Aczel (D. C. Ind. 1915) 219 F. 917. $ 2. Number and apportionment of Representatives. The House of Representatives shall be composed of four hundred and thirty-five Members, to be apportioned among the several States as follows: Alabama, ten. California, eleven. Colorado, four. Delaware, one. Illinois, twenty-seven. Kansas, eight. Kentucky, eleven. Louisiana, eight. Maine, four. Maryland, six. Massachusetts, sixteen. Michigan, thirteen. Minnesota, ten. Mississippi, eight. Missouri, sixteen. Montana, two. Nebraska, six. Nevada, one. New Hampshire, two. New York, forty-three. Pennsylvania, thirty-six. Utah, two. Washington, five. West Virginia, six. Wisconsin, eleven. Wyoming, one. (Aug. 8, 1911, c. 5, §§ 1, 2, 37 Stat. 13, 14; Jan. 6, 1912, 37 Stat. 1723; Feb. 14, 1912, 37 Stat. 1728.) Historical Note The apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States which was incorporated in R. S. § 20, was made originally, under the Ninth Census, by Act Feb. 2, 1872, c. 11, 17 Stat. 28. Thereafter, apportionments were made under the successive Censuses, as follows: Under the Tenth Census, by Act Feb. 25, 1882, c. 20, 22 Stat. 5. Under the Eleventh Census, by Act Feb. 7, 1891, c. 116, 26 Stat. 735. Under the Twelfth Census by Act Jan. 16, 1901, c. 93, 31 Stat. 733. Under the Thirteenth Census, by Act Aug. 8, 1911, c. 5, § 1, 37 Stat. 13. Section 1 of the Act of Aug. 8, 1911, just mentioned, provided for four hundred and thirty-three members. Section 2 however provided: "That if the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico shall become States in the Union before the apportionment of Representatives under the next decennial census they shall have one Representative each, and if one of such Territories shall so become a State, such State shall have one Representative, which Representative or Representatives shall be in addition to the number four hundred and thirty-three, as provided in section one of this Act, and all laws and parts of laws in conflict with this section are to that extent hereby repealed." Arizona and New Mexico became states in 1912 by virtue of Proclamation of the President, set out in 37 Stat. 1723, 1728. Their admission has increased the membership of the House from four hundred and thirty-three to four hundred and thirty-five shown in the text. Provisions for representation of Alaska and Hawaii by Delegates in the House of Representatives are contained in Act May 7, 1906, c. 2083, post, § 131 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions, and Act April 30, 1900, c. 339, § 85, as amended by Act June 28, 1906, c. 3582, post, § 651 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. Provisions for two Resident Commissioners from the Philippine Islands are contained in Act Aug. 29, 1916, c. 416, § 20, post, 1091 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. Provisions for a Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico are contained in Act April 12, 1900, c. 191, § 39, post, § 891 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions. 83. Election by districts. In each State entitled under this apportionment to more than one Representative, the Representatives to Congress shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants. The said districts shall be equal to the number of Representatives to which such State may be entitled in Congress, no district electing more than one Representative. 8, 1911, c. 5, § 3, 37 Stat. 14.) Historical Note (Aug. R. 8. 23, providing for election of Representatives by districts, was superseded by provisions to the same effect in Act Feb. 25, 1882, which were repeated in substance in each of the subsequent apportionment acts. Notes of Decisions 1. Members elected by districts as representatives of entire state.-Under the provision of Act June 25, 1842, c. 47, 2, 5 Stat. 491, for election of representatives by districts, carried forward as R. S. 23, it has never been doubted that representatives thus chosen represented the entire people of the state acting in their sovereign capacity. McPherson v. Blacker (Mich. 1892) 13 S. Ct. 3, 7, 146 U. S. 1, 36 L. Ed. 869. 2. Validity of act redistricting state. Laws N. Y. 1917, c. 797, dividing state into congressional districts pursuant to Act Cong. Aug. 8, 1911, c. 5, reapportioning number of Representatives, etc., was held valid, although Laws N. Y. 1911, c. 890, also redistricted state immediately following said congressional reapportion ment. People ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Voorhis (1918) 119 N. E. 106, 222 N. Y. 494, affirming (1918) 168 N. Y. S. 1124, 182 App. Div. 927. 3. What statute controls election.A New York statute (Laws 1917, c. 797) dividing state into congressional districts, was held to apply to a special election for filling a vacancy caused by resignation of a Representative whose district at the time of his election was fixed by Laws 1911, c. 890, and it was further held that an executive proclamation calling the special election referred to the district as fixed by the later statute. People ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Voorhis (1918) 119 N. E. 106, 222 N. Y. 494, affirming (1918) 168 N. Y. S. 1124, 182 App. Div. 927. $ 4. Additional Representatives at large. In case of an increase in the number of Representatives in any State under this apportionment such additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected by the State at large and the other Representatives by the districts prescribed by law on August 8, 1911, until such State shall be redistricted in the manner provided by the laws thereof and in accordance with the rules enumerated in section 3; and if there be no change in the number of Representatives from a State, the Representatives thereof shall be elected from the districts prescribed by law on August 8, 1911, until such State shall be redistricted as herein prescribed. (Aug. 8, 1911, c. 5, § 4, 37 Stat. 14.) Notes of Decisions 1. "In the manner provided by the laws thereof".-The words "in the manner pro vided by the laws thereof" authorize a state to submit to referendum a Congres |