April 13, 1911

I come from the State of Oregon, a State that stands out pr e eminently in favor of the direct election of the Senators In fact, we are so strongly impressed with this belief and so strongly in favor of this reform that we have adopted in our State a direct primary, whereby we have provided that each par t y shall nominate a candidate for United States Senator at the primary, ancl that the candidate so nominated shall be placed upon the ballot a.t the general election ancl voted for by the people.

Tl.J.e primary law of Oregon further provides that candidates for the l e gislature may, if they choose, subscribe to either statement No. 1 or statement No . 2, statement No. 1 being tlrnt the candidate pledges himself to the people of his district and the people of his State that if elected he will always rnlc in the election for Senator for that candidate who shall have received the highest number of the people's votes at the Ia s t preceding election. It has come to pass, after six years of tr bl of that system, that no man can be elected to the legis lature who does not sign statement No. 1 .

Therefore I um not only personally favorable to this resolu ti o n, which bas be e n under the peculiar circumstances presented by a Democratic House , but my constituents are in favor of it. I want to see it become a part of the Constitu t ion of the United States . I nm not here playing politics upon the Republican side of this Hall. I nm here acting independently . I am here, as some have said, as an insurgent Republican . I am against machine rule . [Applause . ] I shall vote for every proposed law that I believe ought to be passed during. my service here, whether it comes from a Democratic or a Republican source . The Oregon system of electing all officers by the people and I nominating all candidates for office by the people breeds independence, and it breeds insurgents . The reason why the people of the United States want the direct election of Senators is that it makes United States Senators accountable directly to the public for their election, the same ns Representatives here are accountable to the public for their election . When the time comes tllnt Senators are elected by the people, the people will get the legislation that they are entitled to, that they are demanding; and if you gentlemen over there want the legislatures of the several States to approve this amendment, then >ote to cut out this part of yonr proposed amendment which takes away from the Federal Government the power of supervision .

The SPEAKER . The time of the gentleman has expired .

Mr . YOUNG of Michigan . Mr. Speaker , I yield to the gen - tleman from Wisconsin [Mr . Lenroot] 10 minutes. .

Mr . LENROOT . Mr . Speaker, I shall not discuss the main proposition involved in this resolution, because I hope and belie-.e it will receive the unanimous vote of this House . [Applause . ] I do wish to discuss for u moment, however, the

,1 t d b th tl f l\i"ch " [ 1r amenumen propose Y e gen - emun from J.l 1 Michigan lhr . YOUNG] . Tlle resolution as reported from the committee depri-.es the Federal Government of any power to regulate the time and manner of holding elections . It does more than that . Through the insertion of a word of two letters, the word "as," it also changes the present Constitution, so that there is no duty laid upon any State to prescribe the time and manner of holding elections. Under the Constitution as it exists to-day it provides that the legislature shall prescribe the time and manner and places of holding elections, and also reserves to the Federal Government the power to alter and amend such regulations . This amendment, however, as reported from the committee, contains this language : "The time, places, and man - ner of holding elections -for Sena.tors shall be," not prescribed, but "as prescribed," therefore imposing no duty upon the legislature to prescribe the time and manner at all. Now, I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigun for this reason : The right to elect Senators by the people will be of little value to any State unless there shall also accompany that the right to nominate the men who are voted for at the polls. There are many States in this Union to-day need not undertake to mention them-where this amendment to the Constitution will be of little . value, because special interests will nominate in both political parties the candidates for the United States Senate, and the people will be compelled to choose between two, neither of whom will be representative of them. If this right was reserved to control the elections by the Federal Government, if this amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigan shall be adopted, that right can be guaranteed to the people of every State-the right to nominate as well as elect

It would be entirely practicable and feasible for this Congress to puss a primary law providing for the nomination of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives providing that that law shall be operative only in States where direct nominations have not been provided for by their State legislatures, and, further, that it shall cease to be operaUrn whenever any State by its legislature provides for the direct nomination of these officials . But under this resolution as it comes from the committee and as you propose to adopt it to-day it will be absolutely impossible for the Federal Governm e nt or this Congress to ever pass such a law in the future, and is there any gentleman upon that side of the House who would not be in favor of that kind of a law, who would not be in favor of dir ac t nomination of Senators and Ilepresentatives in Congress u s well as their election; and yet you are deliberately deprivi ng the Congress of the power to secure to the people that ri ght of directly nominating as well ns directly electing. I understand, of course, the fear upon the part of the gentlemen up o n that side of the House of the Federal Government controlli ng the elections in certain portions of our country, perhaps int e r­ fering with the legislative restrictions that would be c:-i s t around the ballot, but I wish to remind you that that is fully safeguarded in the resolution as it comes from your committee and is not touched in any way by the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigan . The resolution provides that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors in the most numerous branch of the State legislature, and that wi11 remain as it is, and if the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigan is adopted Congress will have no power to change in any way these State laws with reference to who shall be entitled to vote for United States Senators.

Are you asking anything more than that, and are you afraid of anything else than that? I believe that if this committee that has reported this bill had considered the matter fully, and especially bad considered the suggestion that I make as to the nomination of Senators by the different political parties, as well as their election, they, too, and this House, would have been in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Michigan. [Applause.]

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. :Mr. Speaker, I yield :frrn minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. : MADDEN].

Mr. 1':IADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. I think the time has come when tlle Senators should be as responsive to the public will as the Members of the House are. The people of the United States justly believe that the Senators are not now responsive to the public will. The resolution, as reported from the committee over which the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [l\fr. Rucker] presides, is not complete, and I regret very much to discover in the reading of it that it ex- · that? excludes the Congre s s of the Unit e d States from the privilege of regulating the method of electing United States S e nators. It seems to me that the Congress should retain the power to regulate the election of the men to this office. It should control the fies it. power to perpetuate it s elf. It should not leave to the States the right to m a ke such laws as they choose on a question that involves the integrity of the country. States may have different interests than the country may have as a whole, and the Congress should always !Je in control.” · I regret that we are not time. to be able to vote for a bill which gives that right to the Congress.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. Do e s tlle gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman · from :Missouri?

Mr. MADDEN. C e rtainly.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. As I und e rstand the gentleman, he is ill favor of the re s olution but opposed to that feature of it which takes away from Congress the power to regulate.

Mr. MADDEN. · Yes, sir.

Mr. RUCKER of ~fi s souri. This Constitution has been in operation for more than a century. Has the Federal Government ever attempted to control or regulate the election of Senators by rea s on of that power?

Mr. MADDEN. That is no reason, however, why the Government should have the power to control taken away from it1 and the very fact that it has not exercised it should not be a reason why it should not have the power to exercise it.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Does not the gentleman believe lution. that, in view of what we know, historically at least-and none of us know anything about it personally-and what we know of the methods by which Senators are sometimes elected, and of deadlocks existing all over the country, and that the Federal Government has not in a hundred years exerci s ed its powers, it is about time the people should begin to exercise it?

Mr. MADDEN. I believe the people should exercise the power. I believe that delegating to the people the power to elect Senators in Congress would prevent deadlocks. I believe the power should be taken away from the legislatures to elect Senators. The people are best qualified to elect the men to represent them, and the men r e pres e nting them in any legislative branch of the Government, whether in the Senate or in the House, or in the le g i s lature s of the various States, ought to be responsive to the public will; ancl the time has come when the people of the United St a tes are going to insist up o n the enactment of a law which will give them jurisdiction over their own servants.

l\fr. YOUNG of Michigan. l\ir. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [.Mr. PRINC E ].

l\Ir. PRINCE. Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln, the greatest man Illinois ever gave to the Nation or to the world, said: " This is a government of the people , for the people, and by the people." He implicitly trusted in the plain p e ople of this country. We on this side of the House, who believe in him and in his utterances, can safely trust this question to the people of this country. True it is that the fathers saw · fit to put the provision in the Constitution as it now exists. That constitutional convention which finally adopted this great instrument was presided over by the greatest man this country ever gn>e to the world, George Washington, who acted as president of the constitutional convention, and deputies, representing 12 States of the Union, signed and approved this Constitution.

Here is a provision to amend that Constitution. I am ~n favor of the election of Senators by the people. I so voted years ago as a member of the Illinois Legislature. Every time that question has been presented in this body I have so voted.

I regret exceedingly that the movers of this amendment have seen fit to strike · out these words:

But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such r 0 gulaJ.ions except as to the plac e s of choo s ing S e nators. ·

They leave in this resolution these words:

The times, places, and mann e r of holding elections for Senators shall be pr e scribed in each State by the le g islature thereof.

There are to-day 46 States in the Union. Two more are knocking at tlle door, making 4 8 . This provision allows 48 States to provide 48 different times, 48 different places, and ~8 different manners of holding elections for Senators of tlie United States, without limiting in the slightest degree any power vested in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. COOPER. Will the gentleman permit a question?

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin?

l\Ir. PRINCE. Yes.

Mr. COOPER. The gentleman mys this will permit elections nt 48 different times in 48 different pla ce s. How will he help l\lr. PRINCE. We can control it IJy limiting the manner, IJy limiting it except as to the places of c h oo sing Senators. As to that we are forbidden. As to the time and place, this modi· l\fr. COOPER. Will the gent le nrnn yield?

The SPEAKER Will the g e n t l e rnnn yi e ld to the gentleman from Wisconsin?

l\fr. PRINCE. I regret, Mr. Sv e nkcr, that I hardly have the

The SPEAKER. The gentleman declines to yield.

l\fr. PRINCE. What have w e ? This body here, made up of 3!:>2 men, comes from the b o dy of the people. Yonder body comes from the body of the people through the selectmen. w · e propose to have the other body selected by the same class of people as that which selects this body.

Where do they come from? From the people. Why should we say that this body and another body coming from the body of the people shall not have the right by law to make or alter such regulations except as to the places of choosing Senators? Tlle power comes from the people. The power of this House comes from the people. We are amenable to them. We go back to them. The other body will n h :; o be amenable to the people of the United States, and I am frank to say that · I believe tlle people will make fewer mistakes in the selection of Senators than perhaps the interests of this country have made in the selection of Senators. For that reason I favor the amendment, and if I can not get that, I will favor the reso-

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [l\1r. S1ssoN].

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 10 minutes.

l\Ir. SISSON. :Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that gentlemen are nnnece :-; sarily alarmed about the provisions of this bill. In the fir s t pla c e, I cnll tlic attention of gentlemen to the fact that under the pre s ent Constitution it is utterly irupo s silJJe-

A ~!EMBER. Louder !

l\fr. SISSON. That is the first time that request was ever rna<le of me in my life. [Laughter.] I call the attention of gentlemen to the fact that under the present Constitution Congress has no right to regulate who shall vote for the various memb e rs of the State legislature or the State senate. Therefore the States have un.der the present Constitution the right to provide for the election of their own legislatures in their own way, provided they do not violate any provision of tho fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Federal Constitu· tion. That power is sacred, and ought to be sacred to all the States. That power is necessary to the small States like Rhode Island. It is necessary to all the States, like Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, · because in yonder body they can protect and defend themselves from the strong representation that comes from tllc more populous and larger States. It was upon that id.ea that this pow e r should lirn and be a vital thing and ha-ve a vital force in these smaller States that the Constitution was framed. Otherwise you never could have formed this great Government. The smaller States would never have consented to the compact. Why? Because in the House of Representatives as the large States increased. in population their power correspondingly increased in the House, and relativ.ely the smaller States would have less power. As new States are carved out of the vast territory west o~ the small State~J:~~ power of the sm&.11 State would be less effective in the Senate to control Federal legislation. It was therefore not only put in the Constitution at the instance of the small States-the provision that no State should be deprived of its equal suffrage in th e Senate without its own consent-but it was nowhere permitted in the Constitution that Congress could regulate the election of State officers; and since the power to elect Senators !s placed in the various State legislatures Congress could not m any way reach the State elector or his right to vote for a State senator or representative.

Now under this provision in this amendment it does just exactly thut thing. It does no more than that. It is intended to do no more than that. It is intended that the qualifications of the State electors when they go to vote directly for a Senator, shall be exactly' what their qualifications would be if they vot ed for a State legislator, who, as the constitution now is, votes for a Senator because he is in the legislature of the State. Now, if you permit the authority in Article I, section 4, of .the Constitution to be extended to the power that elects United States Senators, and if that power is the people, then, to leave Article I, section 4, as it is, you take away from the electors of the small States the right to send their Senators to the United States Senate with the State integrity absolutely secure from congressional interference. Senator LODGE-I believe it is against a rule of the House to call the name of a Senatormnde a very strong speech, the strongest that has been made upon that proposition, that this was a direct blow at the doctrine of State sovereignty and the integrity of the State. Now, the amendment under consideration was intended to meet that objection and for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the State, and enabling each and every State to . elect its own Senators by those who are qualified under their own State laws and constitutions. But if election laws could be written and prescribed by Congress, it would deprive the smaller States of that protection which they now enjoy and the safeguard which is now thrown around them. For example :

Th e times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall l.Je prescribed 1n each State by the legislature th ereof .

Under the present law it does not matter what sort of · regulations this Congress may make in referring to the manner of electing the Senators by the legislatures of the States. They do not and can not under the Constitution interfere with the present election laws of the States, which prescribe the qualifications of the electors for the various branches of the State legisl:i tu re.

But if this clause is permitted to remain in the Constitution just as it is now, and Senators are elected by the people, then you would extend the power of Congress so that it could do with the Senators what it now · does with the House of Representatives, to wit, it might pre s cribe election laws that differ with the election laws of the various States, and might enlarge or reduce the suffrage in each State in accordance with the wisdom of Congress. It is for that very reason that Article I, section 4, was modified by the distinguished Senator who prepared the proposed amendment. A Republican Senator of distinction prepared this bill with a great deal of care, in order that it might maintain the Government of the United States in its exact form, reserving to all the States the equal power which they now have, and not depriving the States of that power.

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. Even if the amendment which I have proposed should be adopted, would not the resolution contain this language?-

The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

And if that be true, how can the United States interfere with the qualifications of electors of the State and reduce the num­

Mr. SISSON. That is the Constitution as it now is; but if you leave section 4 of Article I just as it isnut the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators-

That can only affect the body which now has the power to elect, which is the State legislature. The sovereign State now as the sole right to determine who shall vote for the Members of the various branches of the legislature.

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. And they would still have it.

Mr. SISSON. No; they would not. The power of election of United . States Senators is now lodged in a delegated body in the State, the State legislature, and that delegated body in the State having the power to elect is the only thing that could be regulated . by Congress under the present Constitution. The power to regulate does not reach back to the suffrage that elects the members of the various branches of the legislature of the several States. ·

.Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Mississippi yield to the gentleman from Kentucky?

Mr. SISSON. I do.

Mr. SHERLEY. Perhaps a reply to the question asked by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. YOUNG] may be found in this fact, that the amendment would give to the Congress of the United States control over the manner of holding elections, and while it could not determine what were the qualifications of · electors, could not fix the qualifications of electors in regulating the manner of holding the election, it could pass upon the question as to who came within the qualifications as fixed by the State; and by having the power to determine whether a given individual did or did not come within the State qualifications, the Federal law might be able to override the State law; and that position was admitted by Senator RooT.

Mr. SISSON. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, who states the position that I take more clearly than I can state it, because he is always clear on every proposition.

Now, I want to call your attention to another thing. No member of any State delegation here ought to be afraid to trust the people of his State.

This Government is no better than the States. You can not make this Government any better than the States. You can not make a good government out of States that are themselves corrupt and bad. You can not make out of it any better Government than the States make themselves. Now, under the present law the great trouble is that the election of a United States Senator overshadows the Sta.te election. The qualifications of the various candidates for the State legislatures are lost sight of, and we vote for or against a man because he favors or does not favor a certain man for the United States Senate.

The SPElA.KER. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman five minutes more.

Mr. SISSON. I thank the gentleman. Now, in those States where they have no primary election law, but have nominating conventions the nominating convention in the county and sena-: torial districts will be controlled in the interest of a certain candidate for a United States Senator. Therefore we would, if we could have election laws so that a man would vote for a State legislator or for a member of the State senate upon his qualifications for that particular office, and not because he has a preference for a certain candidate for the United States Senate. Each State must have the right, which it now has, of electing its own State officers in its own way, without disturbing in the least the integrity of the State in its own election laws. How much better it would be if, in addition to this, we could elect Senators directly, so that our State legislators would be elected on their merit, and not because they are for or against a certain candidate for the Senate. But any resolution that receives my support must be one which will not permit Congress to pass a law to supervise elections in a State. l\ir. KENDALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Mississippi yield to the gentleman from Iowa?

Mr. SISSON. Yes.

Mr. KENDALL. The power now resides in Congress to have a general supervision over the membership, and it has never been abused in the history of the country, has it?

Mr. SISSON. Mr. Speaker, I do not want my distinguished friend to put it up to me to answer that question.

Mr. KENDALL. I thought that the gentleman would not want to answer it.

Mr. SISSON. If I had time, I would like to tell my distinguished friend from Iowa some facts that would cause him to be uneasy sometimes about partisan control, when passion runs high; but I thank God that that time is passed. This is no time or place to reopen the wounds of the past ; they are healed. Let us not even refer to our differences of the past while discussing this great question, which means so much to our great Republic. The day is long since passed when we should inject these questions into our discussions on this floor. My distinguished young friend should not try to do this, and I will not at this time allow him to lead me into a discussion that would tend to revive the old feeling. I thank God that it has gone; and may He never send any more fratricidal strife, but may the dove of peace forever hover around this Capitol, and may we be permitted to discuss these questions apart from those recollections. [Applause.]

I come from that section which has sometimes been charged with being without patriotism and without love for the common country, but I yield to no man in my love and devotion to this Government. I can point with pride to the devotion of the noble people of the South whose faith and love for this Governm e nt have been tried in the fires of persecution and the crucible of oppression, and who have been found to be pure gold . . We will defend with pride our common country with our lives, and I pledge that every able-bodied man who lives in my section of the country, if need be, will die in defense of our Federal GoV'­ ernment. [Applause.]

So let us not go back and dig up any embers of the past in discussing this matter; let us discuss it on its merits. I have confidence in the people of Maine, in the God-fearing, honest people of Vermont and Massachusetts, California and Oregon. I believe these people may be trusted in their integrity and patriotism to do the right thing for the common country, and that our flag will not have a star dimmed in its beauty unless the Federal Government should lay violent hands upon the SO\e . reignty of these States and deprirn them of the right to hanclle their own local questions in their own local way. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield fi-re minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. SULZER].

Mr. SULZER. l\fr. Speaker, ever since I have been a Member of this House-going on 17 yea.rs-I have advocated and worked faithfully to bring about the election of Senators in Congress by the direct vote of the people. In every Congress in which I have served I ham introduced a joint resolutionsubstantially similar to the joint resolution now under consideration-to amend the Constitution to accomplish this most desirable reform, and the record will show that I have done everything in my power, in Congress and out of Congress, to secure its accomplishment.

Without any vanity I can justly say that I am the author of this reform. On several occasions my resolution has passed the House, only to fail in the Senate, but it is just as sure to be written into our Constitution, sooner or later, as the sun is to rise to-morrow.

I am opposed to delegating away the rights of the people, and where they have been delegated away I would restore them to side . ] the people. I trust the people, and I believe in the people. With Jefferson I belicrn that all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and hence I want to restore to the people the right now delegated to the legislatures by the framers of the Constitution, so that the Senators as well as Members of Congress shall be elected directly by the people, and the Government thus become more and more a representative democracy, where brains, fitness, honesty, ability, experience, and capacity, and not wealth and subserviency, shall be the true qualifications for both branches of the Federal Legislature.

The people all over this country now demand ' this muchnceded change in the Federal Constitution, so that they can ·rnte directly for Senators in . Congress, and they appeal to us to enact this law to give them that right. It is not a partisan question, neither is it a sectional issue. The demand reaches us from all parts of the land and from men in all political parties with a degree of unanimity that is quite surprising. It is our duty to respect the wishes of the people and to give them n uniform law allowing them to vote for Senators in Congr es s just the same as they now vote for Representatives in Congress.

Tllc United States Senate is the l:ist bulwark of the predatory trusts. Here is the citadel of every unscrupulous monopoly. And more and more the special interests of the country, realizinll' the importance of the Senate, are combining their forces to control the election of Federal Senators through their sinister influence in State legislatures. Forty-six United States Sena tors can prevent the enactment of a good law or the repeal of a bad law. The United States Senate is the most powerful l eg i s l a ti'rn body in the world, and its Members should be elected by the people of the country just the same as the Ilepresentati \es in Congress arc elected. This is of the utmost importance to every man in the Republic, because when the Senate is directly respo n sible to the people they will control it; and then, nml not till then, will that important legislative body respond to t h e will of the people.

. The right to elect United States Senators by a direct vote . of the lw o plc is a step in advance and in the right direction. I hope it will speedily be brought about. It is the right kind of reform, and I hope it will b~ succeeded · by others, until this Gonrnment becomes indeed the greatest and the best and the freest Go-rernment the world has ever seen, where the :will of the people shall be, as it ought to be, the supreme law of the land . [Applause.] .

Mr. RUOKER of Missouri. Mr . Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. STANLEY] .

Mr. STANLEY . Mr. Speaker, I have been deeply impressed by what has been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr . McCALL] and by other gentlemen on that side of the Chamber about the sacredness of the Constitution of the United States ; nbout the care and the hesitancy with which we should approach it in any attempt to alter it in any material respect. I am firmly convinced that as eras have produced great explorers or poets or soldiers, so there are times in the affairs of men when . great jurists and great statesmen execute an immortal work, not for a single generation, but for all their chil ­ dren and their children's children who are to follow them in the succeeding centuries . I believe that Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and Washington erected an edifice so perfect in all its details, so beautiful in its structure, so firm and immutable in its foundations, that it shall live through the centuries, and that when nations and languages and empires shall have perished, the Constitution of the United States, still intact and still preserving these institutions uncler the flag, shall be the wonder and the admiration of all men a thousand years from now . [Applause.]

Mr . COOPER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STANLEY. Certainly.

Mr. COOPER Did I understand the gentleman in his eulogy of Washington and Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison and those other great men, to found it largely upon their magniilcent work in making the Constitution of the United States?

Mr . STANLEY. Mr . Speaker, I did not catch the question.

Mr. COOPER. Did I understand the gentleman when he spoke with such splendor of language and imagery of Washington, of Jefferson, of Hamilton, and Madison, and other great men , that he was at the same time eulogizing or speaking in complimentary terms of their master product, the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. STANLEY. In roy feeble way I intended to do so.

l\lr. COOPER . Will the gentleman please tell me what Thomas Jefferson had to do with the Constitution? Ile was not in the convention at all. [Laughter . on the Republican

Mr. STANLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will take pleasure in doing so. The Declaration of Independence itself was the spirit of which the Constitution is the letter. [Applause.] I happen to have here in my desk a letter from Thomas Jefferson to M.t. Madison, and I thought I could lay my hands on it, discussing this very question . It is true that the Sage of Monticello throughout that discussion before the Constitution was written, and after it was written, was consulted by the men who wrote it as an oracle and as a guide. [Applause on the Democratic side.] It is true that to Thomas Jefferson more than to any other we owe the Bill of Rights, now in the Constitution, which is in veri.ty the shield and sword to the oppressed of lhis cou11 - t.ry. [Applause on the Democratic side . ] I woul<.1 commend to the gentleman to study the life, the writings, and the achievements of Thomas Jefferson. With his splendid intellect, with his broad statesmanship, could he get out of the bog, cease to follow the narrow politicians, and stand for a few months under the effulgence of Jefferson's eloquence and his wi sc lom, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin would surely adorn this side of the Chamber. [Applause and laughter on the Democratic side.]

1\Ir. LAFFERTY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman yield?

Mr. STANLEY. With pleasure.

1\Ir. LAFFERTY. I want the gentleman to understand that my query proceeds from a friendly motive.

Mr. STANLEY. Certainly.

Mr. LAFFERTY. In an endeavor to arrive at a compromise that will be approved by the people and by the legislature s , if poss.ible, I desire to ask if we who are opposed to the surrender of the supervisory power of the Federal Government which has never been exercised, in our opinion, to the u e trimcnt of the South, are asking the gentlemen on the other side to surre n der or give up anything that they are now entitled to under the Constitution when we ask them to simply be satisfied with n constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of Senators without going further and asking for an additional amendment to the Constitution which destroys its symmeh·y, which destroys section 4, splits it in twain, and leavc8 the anomalous condition of the Federal Congress having tll e authority, if it should ever come to pas.s that it was prop e r .for it to exercise that authority, to supervise the election of Representatives, and no longer having authority to amend any regu~ lations that may be made in regard to Senators? And I woulcl desire the gentleman now to answer-and I am friendly to the resolution-whether or not it would not be better for the gentlemen on the other side to be satisfied--

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky has expired. [Laughter.] ~ l\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. 1\-Ir . Speaker, I yield 10 minutes more to the gentleman from Kentucky, and forbid anybody int e rf e ring with him in that time . [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 10 minutes additional.

l\fr. STANLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would answer the question of m y friend from Oregon had he propounded a question. [Laughter.] Now, if all that the gentleman says is true, the Speaker . only thing that this amendment does is to give to the States the power that it has never exerci s ed in a hundred years and with it? will probably never exercise in the next hundred years.

Mr. LAFFERTY. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, why gen t l e men on the other side-- .

Th e SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Kentucky yield to t he gentleman from Oregon?

l\lr. STANLEY. Certainly.

l\Ir. LAFFERTY. In the same friendly motive, I would ask why gentlemen on the other side object to leaving the Constitution ill that regard stand just where it is and be satisfied with an a mendment for the direct election of Senators.

Mr. STANLEY. I do not object to leaving the Constitution stay just where it is, and I am of the opinion it will be found in the same locality whether we pass this amendment or not. l\fr. SHERLEY. If the gentleman will permit.

Mr. STANLEY. Certainly.

Mr. SHERLEY. Perhaps the answer to the gentleman from and the State GoYernments . Or ego n might be found in the fact that when you provide for the dir e ct election of Senators by the people, you do then enlarge the power that the Federal Government will have over the p o w e r that it now possesses when they are ele c ted by the le g i s latures of the various States, and it is not possible, as stat e d by the gentleman, to offer simply an amendment for the dire c t election of Senators and leave the situation in that par tic ular in statu quo.

Mr. STANLEY. Now, speaking in all seriousness to my friend from Oregon, the founders of the Constitution discussed at g reat len g th the wisdom of allowing the States to be represented te d according to their population in this body and in another e r body according to their autonomy. Thomas Jefferson, immediately after the passage of the Constitution, wrote to l\ia<li s on and said that he was delighted with the compromise macl e between the large and the small States at that time. The manner of tlJe election of United States Senators was a detail whi c h was almost entirely overlooked by the makers of the Con s titution. This amendment does not take any power from the Constitution which it now possesses, because over the m e th o d of ele c tion of United States Senators by the legislatures th e Federal Government was absolutely prevented from interfering with their election, not in hrec verba, but from the very natm :-e of things. It is not contended that the Federal Government ever has or ever can interfere--

Mr. LAFFERTY. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Kentucky yield to the gentleman from Oregon?

Mr. STANLEY. Yes.

: Mr. LAFFERTY. I desire to ask the necessity, if there be an y necessity, in submitting this constitutional amendment or making any provision for the amending of section 4, which reads:

Th e tim e s, place s , and manner of holding elections for Senators and R e p1· rse ntativ e s shall be pre s cribed in each State by the legislature t he r eo f. but th e Congress may at any time by law make or alter such r eg ul at ion s .

l\lr. STANLEY. I am speaking to that point right now. The Co ng ress never has and never will interfere with the time, the m a nn e r, or the places of selecting Senators under the law as it now exists. Will this Congress ever think of interfering-- 1\fr. LAFFERTY. Mr . Speaker--

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Kentucky yield? l\Jr. S'l'ANLEY. Yes.

Hr. LAFFERTY. In order to arrive at a decision it is neces s nry to ask the question-I do not desire to interfere or to l> e rir e suruptuous in the matter--

1\Ir. STANLEY, I know it. · 1\Ir. LAlJ'FERTY. I want to ask this question : If Congress has neYer interfered, there ought not, it seems to me, to be any fear that it ever will; but in the very nature of things it shocks the conscience or the intelligence of a lawyer, as suggested · by the able gentleman fr o m Massach u setts [Mr . CALL], that Congress should surrender the power of providing for its own perpetuity.

Mr . STANLEY. Mr . Speaker, I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman that in different language he has asked me the same question four different times.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. STAN ­ LEY] declines to yield further.

Mr . STANLEY. I will let the gentleman finish that question. l\:Ir. LAFFERTY. Since it does appear that there is a division upon that material point between the North and the South, as you understand, as to the surrender of this power, which is not material according to the gentleman's own statement--

Mr. STANLEY. I wish to be patient with the gentleman, Mr. l\fr. LAFFERTY (continuing). Why burden the umendment

Mr . STANLEY. I desire to be courteous, but I hope to finish this sentence, and I will not have any more time than is necessary to do that. Now, in effect, we are not depriving the Federal Government of any actual power which it now possesses. It could not in the nature of things interfere with the election, by the very wording of the Constitution, of members of the legislature or of Senators. The States have the sole and the absolute right to choose the members of both bodies of the legislature without any interference by the Federal Government. Those members, when elected, in the very nature of things , have the right to fix the manner of the election of United States Senators. The reasons which have led the Federal Governll}.ent to interfere with the election of Members of this body, being founded upon representation, upon population, there has come, and there may come, a clash between the Federal The number of Senators being absolutely fixed by the Constitution, the detail s of their election being arranged under the Con s titution, as it now exists, the Federal Government never could, never has, and n ev er can suc c essfully interfere with a State in the selection of her Senators.

The whole purpose of this amendment is simply to allow the people, acting directly, to exercise their power just as they do now when acting through the members of the legislature.

I favor this amendment because it is a mere detail that the framers of the Constitution could not anticipate. The personnel of the Senate for '50 years after the adoption of tll;e Constitution of the United States shows that Senators then were responsive to and were named by the people. Conditions have changed, both social and industrial, so that it b ec omes necessary that we should now change the method of electing United States Senators in order that they may be directly responsive to the people and be named by them, as they were in the days when the Constitution was first adopted.

Your fears are unfounded for another reason. You must remember that when the Constitution of the United States was adopted there were two mooted questions, one of which was whether a State was absolutely sovereign, clothed with the right to retire peacefully from this bond of sisterhood .

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has again expired .

Mr. STANLEY. I would like one minute more.

Mr . RUCKER of Missouri. ~ I yield to -the gentleman the time he desires in which to finish the sentence .

Mr. STANLEY. The other position was that the States were indestructible. The question of the right of a State to secede has been settled by the . arbitrament of war . From that hour until this the indestructibility of the State is the thing that has been in danger. If this Government is ever destroyed, it will be because of the fact that we have become a compact Federal Union, an empire, and not because the States have encroached upon the rights of the Federal Government Those who would preserve the Union as founded by the fathers need not look with a jealous eye upon the authority of the States as such, but we owe it to ourselves to preserve and encourage the States in exercising to the utmost all of their local authority and preserving inviolate their local autonomy . [Applause . ] l\Ir . RUCKER of Missouri. l\fr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. RAKER) .

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.

Mr . RAKER. Mr . Speaker, I am most heartily in favor . of the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, and there can be no question but that the people of the United States are in favor of electing United States Senators by direct vote of the people . The Democratic Party has stood for this for many years . The Democratic Party in the last three national conventions has passed a resolution declaring that its members were in favor o f the election o~ United States Senators by direct vote of the people. The people of the State of California for the last 20 years have been studying and trying in every way possible how they might secure n representation in the United States Senate of their choice, selected by the people and not by the system, and I have presented here a resolution that passed the State Legislature of California in favor of electing Senators of the United States by the people. We in California passed n constitutional amendment giving the State legislature the power to adopt n law so that we may designate our choice by a direct vote of the people, and at the last legislature we succeeded in passing a bill which is, in substance, the law of Oregon, providing that the people might express their will ancl might put up to their State senators and representatives the question as to how they stand upon that subject of election of United States Senators in order that the voters might vote intelligently and in order that the great body of the people might be represented and know where their representatives stood on this subject before they were elected.

But I want to ask my friends on this side of the House, In what Democratic convention, or at what time, or at what place it has ever been discussed, it has ever been determined as a question of Democratic principle, that we should amend paragraph 1 of section 4 of Article I of the Constitution? [Applause on the Republican side.] At what time have we ever gone before the American people telling them that while we were in favor of electing United States Senators by direct vote of the people, we were in favor of changing that wise provision of the law which gives this Congress the power to supervise the election of Representatives and the election of Senators? [Applause on the Republican side.]

And now I appeal to you, my Democratic friends, and I want you to think before you vote on this side. If we are in good faith, if we are in earnest, if we are determined that this proposed constitutional amendment to the first paragraph of section 3 of Article I shall go to the several States and be adopted, and thereby give the people the right to elect the United States Senators by direct vote, let us put the amendment in the form that has been discussed for the last 20 years by the American limited. people and the form that they stand for. Do not have a rider to it. Do not put something to it that they have never discussed. You know that State after State in this Union may defeat this proposed constitutional amendment that we are so ardent for, · that we have prayed so long for, that we have de­ minute. served-that we might have it for the purpose of rectifying the wrongs that have been committed, that we might have it for the purpose of giving the people a chance in the United States Senate and dragging from that body the moneybags, and putting men in there who will represent the people and not the system, if we burden it with too many riders. [Applause.] I ask my Democratic friends now--

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Will the gentleman from Michigan [Mr . YouNo] use some of his time now?

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I will yield five minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Ur. MORGAN].

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for frre minutes.

Mr. MORGAN . Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let this opportunity pass without expressing my approval of the principle of the election of United States Senators by the direct vote of the people . I believe now, as I have believed for years, that the Constitution of the United States should be amended so as to permit the electors of the several States to elect the United States Senators by direct vote as they now elect Representatives in Congress. It is unfortunate that the proposed amendment is made objectionable by the provision which takes from Congress the authority, as provided in Article I, section 4, of the Constitution, to control the times and manner of electing Senators, but leaves Congress the authority to control the manner of electing Representatives in Congress. This injects a new question into the proposition, which in the end may defeat the amendment itself. If so, the Democratic majority in this House will be responsible for the defeat of the legislation that is so universally demanded by the people. I shall vote to amend the resolution so as to present the one proposition, allowing the people to vote directly in the election of Senators; but if this amendment shall be lost, I shall then vote for the proposed amendment to the Constitution as it comes from the committee, trusting to the other branch of the Congress to properly mnend the proposition so as to make it unobjectionable. I shn1' vote for the amendment to the Constitution for the following reasons :

First. Because I believe in so doing I express the will of the great majority of my constituents, and while I remain a Member of this House I shall always feel it my duty to represent my constituents in every vote I cast. I represent a district very evenly divided in politics, and in casting my vote for this measure I believe I express the will of my constituents— · era.ts, Socialists, and Republicans alike.

Second. I am in favor of this amendment, because my own judgment approves it. In affairs of our National Government, and especially in legislative matters, I am in favor of the distribution rather than in the concentration of power . I believe it is safer to let all the electors vote on the el e ction of Senators than to limit the number to the very few who may happen to be elected members of the various legislatures.

Third. I believe, on the average, better men will be elected to the United States Senate. By this I do not mean to reflect upon those who have been elected to the Senate under our pr e sent system. But under the present system unknown men arc often elected to the Senate as so-called "dark horses." If the p e ople elect directly, the men elected will be more apt to be men who have attained great prominence in the State, who have a wide reputation for ability, and who are known for their integrity and high character.

Fourth. In my opinion, the change in the manner of e1 c~ tion of Senators will give us, on the whole, better laws ancl wiser legislation. If we get better men, we will have better laws, because the ability, patriotism, and character of legislators will always be reflected in the laws which they enact .

Fifth . I believe, when elected by a direct vote of the people, Senators will be more responsive to the will of the people . A Senator is elected for a term of six years. To my mind, it seems wise that after six years of service he should go back to his State and submit his record to the electors of his State.

Sixth. In my judgment this change in the manner of olccting Senators will tend, at least, toward the purity of the election of Senators. Corrupt methods may be used even when the people shall vote directly, but the danger is not so great, and it is more difficult to corrupt the people constituting the many than to corrupt the legislators constituting the few . There are other reasons that I might give, if I had the time, but my time is

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired.

:Mr . MORGAN . I should like to have one minute more.

l\lr . YOUNG of :Michigan . I yield to the gentleman one l\lr. MORGAN. I believe my colleague [l\:fr. li'ERRIS] is no t in the Hall of the House at this time. I regret he is not here. In his remarks a few minutes ago he criticized the Republican Party for not enacting this legislation during its long lease of power. I wish to remind the gentleman that it was the Re ­ publican State of Oregon that first adopted the legislation that in practice permitted the people to elect their Senators by direct vote, even without any constitutional authority therefor . And that, notwithstanding this example set by the Republican State of Oregon, the Demo . Democratic leaders of Oklahoma who controlled the constitutional convention which framed the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and have controlled by large majorities the legislatures of our State, have failed to give the people o:fl Oklahoma any opportunity to express, at the general election, their choice for United States Senators. This, too, in face of the fact that Republicans have been demanding that the people be given this right.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Oklnhoma has again expired.

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. FRENCH].

Mr . FRENCH. Mr . Speaker, in the time at my disposal I can not hope to add anything to the broad question of the election of Senators by tlle direct "Vote of the people. Personally I am in favor of that proposition. It would be academic for me to refer to the principles that were advocated by the framers of the Constitution when the provision which we are conslclering was drafted into it. The words of Roger Sherman and of Gerry and others of that time indicate that some of them were imbued with the idea that the Senate should be u body that would represent the wealth of this country; that would rcpre· sent the interests as against the masses of the people; that should be elected by a few because the people dare not bo trusted. I shall not argue this point, because I take it that the majority of the Members of this body believe, as I believe, in the intelligence and the responsibility of the people .

I do, however, want to call attention to one or two matters that have arisen this afternoon with respect to the amendments that have been proposed and the substitute that was offered · by the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr . MONDELL] . The gentleman in addressing himself to his substitute, as I understand it, indicated that he was fearful that the language of the proposed constitutional amendment, if adopted, would give to the States the power to provide in any way they might choose for the election of Senators, taking away from the people that which we seek to give to them, the power of electing Senators.

Only a word with respect to that. It seems to me the language in lines 6, 7, :m<l. 8 nullifies his argument, because that language is to the effect that the qualifications of electors of Senators shall be those requisite for the "electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

And. more than that, lines 15, 16, and 17 indicate that that is the meaning of this whole amendment, when the language reads, with respect to the filling of vacancies, that the legislature of nny State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments "until the people fill the -vacancy by election." Words could hardly be plainer, and I am opposed to the substitute, and pass from its discussion to another point that has been raised, namely, to the question whether or not we shall delegate to the States the power to elect the Sena.tors without the United States Congress exercising control over the manner of tlle election.

So far ns I nm concerned, I have no objection to the amendment that has been proposed. I believe in passing the amendment to the Constitution, however, in such n. manner ns will ap:peal to the most of the States of the Union. If the one mmmer will appeal to most of them, I nm for that manner; if the other manner, I am for that manner, because I belie-re the resenation to the Congress of the right to control election of Senators is not a vital principle that we need to stumble over. As I see it, the essence of the question is the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people.

I find myself in favor of that proposition, even without congressional control, for two reasons. In the first place, I believe thn t the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution provide an adequate safeguard of the citizenship of this country, and that in addition to this a sufficient safeguard of our form of government is found in the constitutional guaranty of a republicnn form of government. In the second place, I find myself in accord with it when I reflect that the people of this country to-day, the peop1e of the several States, ha1-e already as great a responsibility upon them as is involved in tlle election of Senators, and they have proven themselves worthy of the responsibility. For more than a century our people hn.-re full well assumed the responsibility involved in the election of governors, the election of supreme courts, the election of :Members of tllis great body, and tlle determining of the great policies and problems confronting thq diITerent Commonwealths, and for that reason I am for the amendment to the Constitution. [Applause.]