April 13, 1911

Tlle SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

.l\Ir. DYER. Mr. Speaker, it is well and generally known tl.111t this is the.> most importnnt question concerning our organic law thnt has come up for consideration and decision since the adoption of the Constitution, and I agree that there is much force in the argument that in so important a matter as destroying the principle upon which the Constitution was founded we should deliberate long and well. The only other amendments to the Constitution have been to secure human rights or to ch::mge the mechanism for the election of a President. This amenclment changes the Constitution in one of its important principles. "'hen the Constitution was framed and adopted, its makers were composed of our most n.ble and learned statesmen. They believecl at that time that the best plan was to have United States Senators elected by the legislatures of the several States forming the Union. They dicl not believe that the people at that time should be intrustc<l with the direct election of Senators. We are all well acquainted with the arguments and reasons given at tlmt time for their action . In favoring this amendment to-day we are not questioning their judgment of that day. · Experience and time are .the best teachers, however, und from them and from long consideration by the .P....merica.n people I am thoroughly convincc<.1 that the best interests of this Government and of its people lies in the adoption of this n.menclment, thereby giving to the people the rlght to elect their Senntors by direct 1ote and not by the State legislatures . The juc1gment of the people, when forme<l. after long and serious intelligent consideration, is the best criterion for those to go by who have been intrusteu with making the laws. The people want to elect by <lirect vote United States Senatoirs-their minds arc made up on that proposition . They have had some splendid lessons in the necessity of taking a way from State legi latures this right. We all know that it is best that this amendment should pass. There is no division of this House as regards this amendment on partisan lines. Upon this side, as .well as upon the other, we are all in favor of the principle involved in this resolution . The American people are in favor of it, and it is proper and right that they should be; so I will not dwell at length upon this proposition, because there is practically no contention regarding it. . To me there is one thing to be seriously considered, and that is the pai't of the resolution which provides for an amendment of section 4 of Article I, paragraph 1, of the Constitution which is in the following language : '

The times, places, nnd manner of holding elections for Senators and Ilepresentatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof_; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators.

It !s proposed in this resolution to amend and strike out ~at portion of the Constitution which gives to Congress the r~ght t~ regulate the election . of Senators in the States, and to gl\'e this power over entirely to the State le.,.islatures so that it would re!ld as follows: "' '

The tlmes, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof.

. r. am op~oscd to that proposition; I am opposed to Congress g1vmg up its powers of regulating and having u supervisory power over the election of United States Senators. Not that this power will probably be exercised, but the fact that it is known to exist would have a tendency to cause corrupt legishtures, such as llas been known to exist in mn.ny States in recent years, to honestly and fairly provide for holdin 0 ... elections for United States Senators.

I therefore shall vote L"l favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from l\!ichigan [Mr. You:NG] to retain to the Congress of the United States the power to 're,.,.nlate 0 tbe manner and time of holding elections for Senators. If you gentle ­ men of the majority by your voles transfer tllis power from Congress to the State legislatures, you will be held to account by tile American people. We are amending the Constitution so ~s to take away from State legislatures tho power of choosrng Senators because they have in many cases abused their power . Now, the resolution of the gentleman from MiEsouri [1\fr. IlUCKER] l)ropcses to gwe the legislatures auclitional power as to the time, manner, and place of electing Senators and to depri-re the Congress of the United States of n rightful supervision 01er this matter, a supervision which Congress never has nnd never would abuse . You mnl~e a serious mistnke in my judgment., to vote down the amendment of the gentle~ man from Michigan [Mr. YouNG J, thereby depri"\ing Congress of the rights it is now given in this regard by the Constitution. However, I nm for the resolution. I prefer it be amended as above indicated, but, whether amendeu or not, I intend voting for it and thus give to the people the right and power that they demand-rightfully demand-being proud indeed of the honor to cast my first vote in this House in favor of so important a matter, one that is so universally demanded and so unfrersally needed. This Government will never suffer by listening to and granting the demands of the .Americun people. [.A.pplause.]

Mr . YOUNG of 1\fichigan. Mr. Spea.ker, I yield sen~n minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. N1.'"E].

Mr . NYE. .Mr. Speaker, there is but one question which seems to be an issue. I believe that history is a record of persistent human advance, and that the movement of the Americ.an people toward the exercise of more direct and more complete regulation of legislation and of the election of their officers is coming and will come to stay. I believe in this, I believe in the essential thing in this resolution, the election of United States Senators by the people. If the people make mista.kes, let them make mistakes. The world is full of mistakes. We learn by makin"' 0 mistakes .

nut we do touch upon a question which seems to me to bC! sacred, the one that eliminates from the Constitution the power given to Congress to legislate as to the manner an<l. time of tl1e election of Federal officers. Under thnt clause of the Constitution Congress has passed legislation. Back, I think in 1872 such legislation was passed. I call attention of the House to some of the statements or languabe of the Supreme Court of the United States while passing upon this legis1atlon.

It is impossible in the time that I have to give any thorourrh consideration to these cases. The first one that I ha.1e in ' mi~<l. is reported in 100 United States Reports, and is the case of Ex Parte Siebold, n habeas corpus case . The other is re_ported in 110 United States, and is the case of Ex Parte Yarbrou..,h.. These cases involve the laws which were passed regulathig elections of Federal officers, Representatives, and Federal officials. I call attention to some of the language used by Mr. Justice Miller in the case which I Inst mentioned, and I can of course, only read a small portion of the opinion : '

Thu~ a government whose essential character Is republican, who~e executive head and lc..,.1slntlve body are both elective, whose most numerous and powerful branch of the legislature ls elected by the people directly has no power by appropriate laws to secure this election from the influence of violence, of corruption, and of fraud is a proposition so startling as to arrest attention and demand the gravest consideration.

If this Government Is anything more than a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other States and governments, each of which is superior to the General Government, it must have the power to protect the elections on which its existence depends from violence and corruption.

If it has not this power, it is left helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics-open violence and insidious corruption • • *

Will it be denied that it is in the power of that body [the Congress] to provide laws for the proper conduct of those elections? To provide 1 if necessary, the officers who shall conduct them and make return or the result? And especially to provide, in an election held under its own authority, for security of life and limb to the voter while in the exercise of this function? Can it be doubted that Congress can by law protect the act of voting, the place where it is done, and the man who votes, from personal violence or intimidation and the election itself from corruption and fraud? ·

If this be so, and it is not doubted, are such powers annulled because an election for State officers is held at the same time and place? Is it any less important that the election of Members of Congress should be the free choice of all the electors because State officers are to be elected at the same time?

These questions answer themselves i. and it is only because the Congress of the United States, through long habit and long years of forbearance, has, in deference and respect to the States, refrained from the exercise of these powers that they are now doubted.

But when In pursuance of a new demand for action that body, as it dicl in the cases just enumerated, finds it necessary to make additional laws for the free, the pure, and the safe exercise of this right of voting, " they stand upon the same ground and are to be upheld for the same reasons. • * *

If this were conceded. the Importance to the General Government of having the actual election-the voting for those members-free from force and fraud is not diminished by the circumstance that the qualification of the voter is determined by the law of the State where he votes. It equally affects the Government, it is as indispensable to the proper discharge of the great function of legislating for that Government, that those who are to control this legislation shall not owe their election to bribery or violence, whether the class of persons who shall vote ls determined by the law of the State or by law of the United States or by their united result. • • •

In conclusion the court says :

If the Government of the United States has within its constitutional domain no authority to provide against these evils, if the very sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by violence and outrage, without legal restraint, then, indeed, is the country in . danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it. are at the mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute force, on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.

Mr . Speaker, this case and the other that I referred to deals with legislation which was passed pursuant to this clause of the Constitution which we have debated here this afternoon and from both cases it would seem that the legislation rested wholly and purely upon that clause, n clause which seems to me to be sacred. I do not understand why gentlemen in the House want to take this out of the Constitution, at least upon so hasty consideration.

Can we afford to divest Congress of a constitutional power which in its very nature is essential to the preservation of the Nation? What emergencies may arise in the future we can not tell, nor in what State or section nor at what time. But the provision is a wise one and was designed to provide against any condition of lawlessness or corruption that might defeat or tend to defeat honest elections of Federal officers.

We do not distrust the people of any State, as intimated by gentlemen on the other side, but in matters of Federal su ­ premacy our trust . should be in all the people rather than a part. I regard the amendment of the gentleman from :Michigan as essential, because it leaves, as the framers of the Constitu tion intended, this necessary power with the whole people. The amendment should be adopted. [Applause.]

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [.Mr . NORRIS] .

Mr . NORRIS. Mr . Speaker, there are involved in this proposed amendment two propositions . The one providing for the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people is the first one. That, I think, practically every :Member of the House is in favor of. I regret that anyone should undertake to gain, or to try to gain, any partisan advantage in the discussion of this particular proposition. I have no desire to discuss it in any partisan way whatever, but I want briefly to call the attention of my friends on the other side-those who undertook to make political capital out of it when they were boasting of the fa.ct that the Republican Party had not seen fit to place this amendment in the Constitution when they were in power in both branches of the National Legislature-to the fact that when the Democratic Party was likewise in power in both branches of the Congress it likewise failed to put it in the Constitution or to submit the amendment.

As I ham said, this resolution to amend the Constitution contains two separate and independent propositions. The first one, as I have mentioned, is the election of United States Senators by the direct vote of the people. The other one is to change section 4 of Article I of the Constitution by taking a way from Congress the power and the right to legislate in regarcl to the election of United States Senators and give such control entirely and exclusively to the several States. These two changes in the Constitution are combined in this one re~olution to amend . Unless the resolution can be amended, we must accept both of these amendments or reject them both . They have no connection with each other; they refer to separate parts of the Constitution, and I can see no logical reason why they should be combined in this way . The proposed amendment to take this power to legislate in regard to senatorial elections away from Congress and give it to the States has never received, so far as I know, the approval of any political party. and has never been favored by any considerable portion of our people . If we adopt the amendment to this resolution proposed by the gentleman from Michigan, the effect of such amendment will be to take out of the resolution that part which proposes to take this jurisdiction and power of legislation in regnr<l to senatorial elections away from Congress. It will lea>e intact the proposition to elect Senators by a direct vote of the people. It is, in my judgment, to be very seriously regretted that the gentlemen who have charge of this resolution have seen fit to combine these two propositions into one. I am extremely anxious, and I believe the country is extremely anxious, ~o change the Constitution of the United States so as to provide for the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people themselves; but there are many citizens all over the country who, while they favor the election of Senators by direct vote , are conscientiously and unalterably opposed to the proposition of taking away from Congress the right to control congress elections.

While, personally, I think it would be unwise to take this power away from Congress, yet I do not regard it myself as a serious proposition, and the greatest objection I have to incorporating these two propositions together is that there is great danger of defeating the main proposition by so doing . You will give to some of the special interests throughout the country who are opposed to electing Senators by a direct vote an opportunity to get behind this other objection and thus defeat what we are really trying to accomplish. Other men who seriously object to this other change but yet honestly think we ought to elect Senators by direct vote will be inclined to oppose the adoption of the amendment because you have coupled on to the proposition which they favor another proposition which they condemn, and it will therefore lose many votes and much of its force .

This resolution to become effective must be approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. If we are in earnest, if we want to give the people of the country the right and the opportunity to change the Constitution and provide for the election of Senators by direct vote of the people, then let us in good faith amend this resolution so that it will provide only for the election of Senators by the direct vote of the people . There would be no doubt, in my judgment, of the approval of this amendment by a sufficient number of the legislatures if we would submit it in this simple form and not couple it up with something that many people honestly and conscientiously oppose . If you desire to submit an amendment on this addi ­ tional change, then let it be a separate amendment. . Let each one stand on its own merits and then the legislatures can choose both if they want to, but they will have the rigllt to reject one and accept the other. The danger is that this amendment in its present form will fail because you have conpled on with a popular and desirable proposition one that is not demanded by the people and is condemned by a large number of people all through the country.

I want also to call his attention to the fact that at the present time had the Democratic provision contained in the Democratic national platform been complied with by the Members of the United States Senate belonging to the Democratic Party, !’ we would have the question now submitted to the legislatures of the several States.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I did not exactly understand , Mr. Speaker. Is the gentleman making some assault on some Democratic Senator?

l\fr. NORRIS . No; I am not; I am simply answering a couple of gentlemen over on that side of the House who undertook to lay all the blame on the Republican Party because we hacl not before bad the election of United States Senators l>y direct vote, and I want to say that, as a matter of fact, tlle men who are against the election of United States Senators by direct Yote are in my party and they are in yoP . rs, and those who are in favor of it are likewise in both parties .

Under no circumstances do I want to impugn the motives of any man regardless of his politics on this question, and yet I heard the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr . JAMES] say in this debate that he was almost brought to the conclusion that there wns- something ulterior in the motives of men. who wanted to amend this proposition, this resolution to change the Constitution , and I thought a complete answer to that would be tha.t for the same reason it might be said that we should be ready to im pugn your motives because you have two propositions to am end in this resolution. You have coupled with one that e-r ery body favors another one about which there. is a serious dis vu te as to whether it ought to be adopted or not. Everybo d y here is in favor, as far as I know, of the amendment providing n g for the election of Senators by direct vote of the people. l\fr. JAMES. Will the gentl e man yield?

hlr. NORRIS. In a moment. Why, then, for God's sake, should you couple · that proposition with another proposition that men are divided on ancl that is going to control the votes of many m e n on this pr o P-Osition, not only here but before the legi s latures of the difie re nt State s , and \Yhicll may defeat the wh o l e thing? This amen d m e nt will have to be approved by Senator. thr ee -fourths of the legislatures, and you have coupled two pro pos itions to g ether, one that is popular anc1 everybody wants, as I take i~ and--

The S PEA K ER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. NORRIS. Can I have a little more time?

l\I r . YOUNG of Mich i gan. I can yield to the gentleman.

Mr. NORRIS. And you ba>e. coupl e d it with another proposition o n which to me. does not mean -very much. I will favor the re sol ution w he ther the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan is adopted or not, but there are men rul over the United Sta te ~ conscientious antl honest, who are going to oppose in the legislatures of the States the approval of this amendment unless you take out of it everything _ except the simple election of United Stat e s Senators by the people.

. Mr. JAMES. The gentleman states that all on that side favor the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. ·

Mr. NORRIS. If I said that, I will say all as far as I know. I do not know of any man who is against it on either side of thi s House.

J\lr. JAMES. Is not it true that the gentleman's own political party has never yet llad the courage in national convention to declare for it in any form?

l\Ir. NORRIS. That is true, but while your own political party hac1 the courage to put that in your platform, yet when you had an opportunity in the United States Senate to redeem that pledge to the people you failed to do it.

Mr. JAMES. No; that is not true.

l\fr. NORRIS. I think it is.

l\Ir. RUCKER of Missouri. That is a long time ago, before they commenced buying up legislatures.

Mr. NORRIS. I did not understand the gentleman.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I say it has been n long time since we had power in the United States Senate.

hlr. NORRIS. No; in the Inst Congress you had votes enough on tlle Democratic side to submit this proposition if they hru1 all voted for it.

Mr. JAMES. Oh, no.

Mr. NORRIS. I want to say I have not looked the record up, but I think that is true. If the Democrats bac1 voted solidly for this platform pledge, of which you boast, this proposition would hn Ye passed last Congress.

JHr. HAMILTON of Michigan. Why, certainly; of course.

lUr. NORRIS. I hnse. favored the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people during all my public life. The evils of the present system are so great and so apparent that it seems- to me this change ought to appeal to every reasonable thinking citizen. Within. the observation of us all ther.e has always been whenever the time. comes for the election of United States Senators several State legislatures that have devoted their entire session to the consideration of this one subject alone, and very often without results. The State legislature s have duties to perform to their own States, and should be able to giv-e their undivided attention to the discussion and the consideration of laws pertaining to their respective States. Wherever, however, n United States Senator is to be elected this question overshadows all other questions, and very often prev-en t s the legislature from giving consideration to and passing the necessary bills of which the States sometimes are sorely in need. It is not an uncommon thing for an entire session of the legislature to be frittered away because of a -dendlo c k on the ques-tion of the election of a United States Senator. Needed legislation is forgotten. The real duties pertaining to the membership are unperformed and not given proper considerntion on account of the election of the United States Senator The Stnte laws are just as important to the people as national legislation, and often of more importance. Moreover, the pres~ ent system is not fnlr to the individual voter. He- often finds= it impossible for him to express his choice at the ballot box as between a candidate for United States Senator and a candidate who represents his own ideas as to State laws and State regulation who is running for the State legislature.

The voter often is compelled to vote against a man for the State legislature who agrees with him absolutely and entirely as to his views regarding what laws should be enacted and put upon the statute books jn his State, because only by so voting can he vote for a man who does agree with him as to who should repr e sent the State in the United States Senate. The citizen must often surrender one conviction or the Other and in such case, if he would work and vote for the candidate who would stand for his ideas of State government and State laws, he must surrender his conviction and not only give up his choice as to United States Senator, but he must vote for a man whom be knows will v-ote against his preference for United States We have reached a stage in the development of political and social problems where great combinations of wealth have often too much influence in the framing of laws and in the selection of public officials. Too often it has been disclosed, in the history of the last 15 or 20 years, that money has taken too important a part in the control of the legislature when it comes to the election of a United States Senator, until it had almost become common knowledge among our people that no poor man need apply. In other cases men have been elected to the Senate through the legislature by trading patronage for legislative votes. Members of the legislature who give their "Votes for the successful candidate have been rewarded by having dealt out to them some ~at political job, or if not to them directly, to some of their closest friends. It is a question in my mind whether an election controlled by patronage is not a greater evil than one which is controlled directly by money. Both are wrong; both ought to be eradicated, and both ought to be made impossible . The purchasing of an - office directly by money in some respects at least is not as bad and not as much evil follows from it as though the bargain and sale were made for a consideration of official place and patronage. When the den.I is made with money, the contract is ended when the votes are delivered and the person elected, but when the office is- purchased by the giving of patronage or position, then the Government very likely secures the appointment of incompetent, if not dishonest, men and so the taxpayers must pay in the end !or the unholy alli:mce.

I do not charge that these things have occurred often or frequently, but there are none of us who can not call to mind in recent years or in recent days many illustrations of this kind. During the present winter several legislatures frittered away the entire legislative session in senatorial deadlock. In some instances there has been no charge, either direct or indirect, of any dishonesty or anything wrong. Men simply disagreed as to who should be their Senator. In other cases the newspapers ba1e been filled with charges of all kinds, · where it has been openly charged that money has been offered ancl refused, and in other cases where positions of honor, profit, and trust in official place have been offered in return for political votes, and in one of the great Sta t es of the Union the disclosures hnv-e been so remarkable and have shown such a disgraceful and dishonorable condition of barter and sale that it must bring the blush of shame to the countenance of every honest, patri otic citizen.

If Senators were elected by a direct vote ot the people, these things could not occur. In n government founded upon the consent of the governed the largest possible participation in governmental affairs on the part of the people them s el-res is to be desired. It has been argued in the past by those who have opposed this amendment that the people themselves are not as well qualified to elect a Senator as are the members of the State legislatures. I am confident that the past history of our senatorial elections has demonstrated that this is an error. I do not expect the change to bring about perfection; that can not come to any government composed of mortal men. Mistakes will be made by the people, but if rt is the people'~ government and they desire to select their officials and make mistakes, they themselves wm be responsible. They will undoubtedly profit by whatever mistakes they may make. In Mtdition to this, this new responsibility placed upon the shoulders of the citizens will have a tendency to increase the Intelligence and the interest that people generally will take in these elections. When you place n new responsibility upon an intelligent and honest man, he does the best he can to prepare himself for the proper performance of his new duty, to intelligently inform himself as to the- best way he can perform his additional responsibility. There is no- doubt but what the citizenship of our country generally are dissatisfied with the present method of selecting United States Senators. They have seen I too many cases where the will of the people has . been absolutely nullified and where special interests and wealthy combinations lrn.ve succeeded in absolutely naming the United States Senator. ·

The Senate of the United States is one of the highest and most honorable tribunals in the civilized world. I have great respect for its membership. It has to-day upon its roll some of our greatest statesmen, our ablest mcm, our most patriotic citizens. The history of our country shows that liberty and freedom ha >e had many able defenders in this forum. This change of electing them by ~e people ~ill not detract from th~ ability of the Senate. It will relieve it, however, of all suspicion of question? being too .far removed from the people themselves and of all charge of its Members being too often elected by the illegal ~se of money and political patronage. It will prevent the election to the ~m~ed States Senate of some Members. who have not honored it m the past. and who could under. no circumstances be elected to the Senate if .the entire citizenship had a voice rn the settlement of the question. . .

. '.Ibis change is demanded by almost a unanimous sentiment ?f well-meaning ai;id patriotic people. Our forefathers, rn framing the Constitution, were not confronted with many of the great questions that confront ?S to-day. They were not called upon then ~o make an.y laws m regard to great railroads, and transportation corupnmes, because m those days ~he~e wet e no railroads. Neither were they called upon to consider the qu~s- tion of great combinations of. capital and wealth, because m that day there was nothing similar to the great combinations . that have grown up under modern conditions. A great many other dissimilarities between the conditions then and now might be mentioned. It is but reasonable for us to recognize what is recognized by all the people-that these great corporations and combinations have too much of a. voice in modern legislation. Their activities in politics and in legislation have created preju· dice against them that, in some instances perhaps, goes too far. But there can be no doubt but what their activities in legislation in many cases have resulted in laws tha.t gave them an unfair advantage over the ordinary person.

'rhis is a step toward placing · the real government in the hands of the people themselves. It is upon the citizens tlrnt we depend for stability as a government. It is upon the patriotic, common, industrious people of our country that our Government must always lean in time of danger and distress. To this class of people, then, we should give the right to control by direct election the selection of our public officials and to permit each citizen wllo is a part of the sinew ancl backbone of our Government lu time of danger to exercise his influence by direct vote in time of peace.

:Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. Will the gentleman from Missouri use a little of his time now?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I . desire to yield five minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. O'SHAUNESSY].

Mr. O'SHA.U~~SSY. Mr. Spea'Ker, I wish I could say to-day that I represented the Legislature of Rhode Island, but I feel confident in saying that I represent the people of Rhode Island in giving my advocacy and vote to the proposed amendment directing the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. It may seem strange for me to say that I do not represent the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island, but to you it will be made very plain when I state that the legislature of that State does not represent the people of the State. [Applause on the Democratic side .] Rhode Island unfortunately is one of those- distinct cases to which we can point unerringly as a victim of archaic laws and a moribund constitution. And I am gratified that the Democracy is in power in this House, in order that we may take a short cut across lots in Rhode Island and give to the people the power to vote for United States Senators, and in that way help them materially to an enjoyment of liberties which have been suppressed by moth-eaten charter~. [Applause on the Democratic side.] To-day in the State of Rhode Island they are battling for an enlarged franchise, which is to my mind a convertible term for an enlarged freedom. I can better illustrate it by telling you that the city of Providence, with a population of 225,000 people and a qualified electorate of 29,030, is represented in the State senate of Rhode Island by one member, and that another section of the population, containing 40,398 people and 5,620 qualified voters, is represented in the same senate by 20 senators. You can easily see the disproportion; and you can easily recognize how derelict I would be in my duty if I did not say something for poor, downtrodden Rhode Island to-day. [Applause on the Democratic side.] And it is that condition, and it is that frightful misrepresentation, a minority · of the people, a fraction, practically, of the people, represented in the legislature thr1 ; mgh a rotten borough system, that sent for so many years to tlle United States the gentleman who gave the Democratic Party its great opportunity when he wrote into the laws the odius and malodorous Payne-Aldrich tariff law. [Applanse on the Democratic side.] We can take virtue from that condition, and we can exercise a little joy in the thought that the gentleman misrepresenting the State of Rhode Island in the United States Senate clid not represent the people of the State of Rhode Ii::land but did represent only a poor fraction or minority of them. '

:Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield for a Mr. O’SHAUNESSY. I will.

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. The gentleman has spoken of the inequality of representation in the Rhode Island Legislature. Would tlie gentleman favor an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which would only give Rhode Island a representation in the Senate of the United States to which it is entitled by its population? [Applau se on the RepubHcan side.] Mr. O'SHAU:NESSY. I would not; and I will say to the gentleman from Michigan that that is a sort of threadbare argument down my way and they have been harping on it for a century. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very much, profoundly, in fact, in favor of this amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I believe that it will do away with the contest of moneybags. I believe it will restore the representation of the people to wher.e it belongs. ~ .

The srEA.KE~ 1 • The time of the gentleman has expired

Mr. 0 O’SHAUNESSY. .. I want but one minute more.

Mr .. RUCKER of Missouri. I will yield to the gentleman one minute more.

M:. O’SHAUNESSY. In the opportunity given to me to-day I wis~ to emp?as1ze my th?rough accord with an enlarged fr~nc?1se. I wish to emphasize my thorough accord with the principle that the people should rule; and i.f th.ere is :;my place ~n th1? whole country where ~h~t opportunity is awaited more impatiently than m another i~ is m the little State of Rhode Island. I can say, possibly with some sorrow for my brethren on the Republican side .of ~he House, that once we get this amendment to the Constitution and once we have the popular· _ election of Senators in tlle State of Rhode Island I beliern firmly, just as sure as I am standing here, that we shall have two Democratic Senators representing that State. [Applause on the Democratic side.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr . Speaker, I yield five min- ' utes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SAUNDERS].

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Speaker, tlle most interest ing feature of this debate is the evidence which it affords of the growth of a democratic idea whose evolution has been continuously and pertinaciously opposed, by the reactionary thought of this country.

I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to undertake to discuss at this time tlle conditions, and underlying reasons which have brou ght about the great change in tlle i101mlnr attitude toward the election of Senators by tile i 1co1ile . It is well understood that the country favors this principle. . Hence the unanimity with which the gentlemen on the minority side have come forward to commit themselves to its support. But after declaring themselves in favor of the principle, they find a stumbling block in the way of supporting the pending bill, in the fact that the proposed amendment does not contain the present provision of the Constitution reln ting . to the time, the place, and the manner of holding elections. They seem to apprehend danger in that portion of the joint resolution which gives to the respective States the right to control the time, place, and manner of holding the elections contemplated by the am endme nt.

I wish to discuss briefly this ground of objection, and to show why in my judgment the power to control the time, place, and manner of holding these elections should be given to the States. Some gentlemen say that when you take away this power from the Congress, you will impair the ·symmetry of the Constitution. Whenever you engraft upon the Con stit ution the principle of electing Senators by the people, you will thereby so impair the symmetry of the instrument as it came from the craftsmen who provided with such care against the popular selection of these officials that the additional impairment involved in extending to the States the right to control their election may well be overlooked. But why do I contend that this feature of the Constitution relative to the control of Congress over the time and manner of holding elections should be eliminated from that instrument? For this very sufficient reason, Mr. Speaker, that no one has ever been · able to ascertain the extent of the power conferred by the present language upon the Congress of · the United States.

It has been suggested that this language was inserted to enable the Congress of the United States-that is the Federal Government-to preserve itself in time of emergency. But, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say, that in time of stress, when the existence of a nation is at stake, the people of that nation do those things that are necessary and vital to protect themselves, and to preserve their integrity as a nation, without regard to the limitations of a written constitution.

Mr. KOPP. Will the gentleman yield?

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

l\Ir. SAUNDERS. I do.

l\fr. KOPP. Does the gentleman know of any reason why the Senate should release the supervisory control of elections and the House of Representatives should retain it?

Mr. SAU!l.'DERS . . None whatever. '

Mr. KOPP. Then why is this not made at least symmetrical in that respect, and why not strike out the whole provision?

l\fr. SAUNDERS. Simply because it would not be appropriate in this connection. We are now dealing with the popular election of Senators only, but there is no reason why in the proper manner and at the proper time the same power of control should not be extended to the States in respect of the election of Mc1 : Members of the House of Representatives.

But, l\ir. Speaker, if there is no occasion to retain the present language of the Constitution, on the ground that it is necessary for the vital existence of the Republic, then we ought not to retain in our organic law any language which is not susceptible of de.finite ascertainment and positive meaning.

l\Ir. MANN. Will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Virginia yield to the gentleman from Illinois?

l\fr. SAUNDERS. Yes; I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MANN. If we do not know what the language means, and the purpose is to correct the Constitution in that respect, why not at the same time strike out the same provision in reference to the election of Members of this House?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Inasmuch as this amendment relates to the election of Senators, the language used is pertinent and germane, but it would be inappropriate in this connection to undertake to strike out the provision of the Constitution relating to the control of Congress over the election of Members of tl10 House. Personally I have no · objection to such action being taken, and would be glad to see it done at the proper time. I hope this answers the gentleman's question.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

l\Ir. SAUNDERS. l\.Ir. Speaker, I will ask two minutes more of the gentleman from Missouri.

l\1r. RUCKER of Missouri. So many gentlemen are asking for time, Mr. Speaker, that I will have to limit the gentleman to one minute.

Mr. SAUNDERS. So many questions have been asked me, . Mr. RUCKER tbnt the answers have consumed a large portion of my time.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I will give the gentleman from Virginia two minutes.

l\Ir. SAUNDERS. Now, Air. Spen ker, in conclusion, I wish to say that that which is · unknown is always terrifying, and to retain in a written instrument language which does not convey a precise and definite authority is to retain that which will be a lurking element of danger. In the history of our Government, in all our times of stress, the time has never yet arrived when the statesmen of the country hayc been able to ascertain what this language means, or to enact any legislation under its authority. Looking down the vista of time, I can not sec that tlle retention of this provision in the organic law in relation to the election of Senators is in any wise necessary for the preservation of our liberties, or rights, or for the promotion of the national safety.

For wlmt purpose, may I ask those gentlemen who insist upon its retention-for what purpose should this vague and indefinite power of control over State elections, be retained in the hands of Congress? There is no question of partisan politics involved. If the Constitution, is changed in this respect, the change will enlarge the power of all the States alike. It will not afford an exclusive, or dangerous power to any section of the United States.

There is no portion of our common country that is interested in the retention of this indefinite power by Congress. This fact I call to the attention of the gentlemen who profess to favor the general principle of popular election of Senators manner. but oppose the present bill, merely because <:me of its provisions gives to the States a . Power which they should have had from the beginning. They are ready to imperil the principle which they profess to be willing to support, on a ground which is palpably flimsy and unsubstantial. No gentleman in this debate has undertaken to de.fine, or to declare the extent of the power which it is supposed that Congress now enjoys over the time and manner of holding elections to elect the Members of this House. The Congress of the United States to-day enjoys no control over the place of holding the elections. It possesses a power, over the time and manner only, which no expositor of the Constitution has ever been able to fix in any precise terms. This bill should pass in the form in which it was reported. The people have demanded this reform, and the enactment of this law in terms that can not be misunderstood, and the response to that demand should be its passage by a unanimous vote of this House. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. GARBETT].

l\Ir. GARRETT. l\fr. Speaker, I think gentlemen on that side of the aisle are alarming themselves unduly over the effect of the modification of the paragraph of the Constitution to which so much reference has been, made. I frankly state that I should not vote against this proposition if the proposed modification was not contained in the resolution; but I do prefer that it should be contained therein. And what, in common reason, may I ask, l\Ir. Speaker, can be tbe objection to retaining it? What is this resolution itself? It is but the expression of a confidence in the judgment, the wisdom, and the patriotism of the people of the States. If the people can be trusted to elect their Senators, may they not be trusted to regulate the manner and the time of choosing the Senators?

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CANNON], in addressing the Chamber this morning, referred to what he himself declared to lJe an extreme case, that of a State seceding, and asked how the Federal Government could preserve and perpetuate its organization under such a condition as that. l\Ir. Speaker, there was a time when many States seceded. The Federal Government at that time possessed this power. · Did it preserve its power and its prestige by regulating the election of Senators in the States under the power that it then possessed? Oh, no; it preserved its power and its prestige by force and arms, just us it will have to do again should such a condition arise. The leaving of that power in the Congress of the United States will not aicl in preserving the power of the Government under such conditions as that. It is consistent with the thought that underlies this amendment, in that it is adding to the power of the people of the States; and, as I have said, being not only willing but anxious to give to the people of the States the power which they demand, of acting directly upon those who shall represent the States in the coordinate legislative branch of the Government, I nm willing to go still further and say that if they are cnpnhle of doing that they certainly are capable of dealing patriotically and wisely with the question of the manner and the time of choosing those officers. [Applause on the Democratic side.] of Missouri. l\Ir. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Michigan if he will consume the balance of his time? As far as I know, there will be only one more speaker ou this side. l\fr. YOUNG of Michigan. Will the Chair state how much time we have left on each s ide?

The SPEAKER. 'J'he gentleman from l\fichiiran has 47 minutes and the gentleman from .Missouri [Ur. Rucker] has 42 minutes remaining.

l\Ir. YOUNG of Michigan. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. UTTER].

l\Ir. U'.rTER. Mr. Speaker, I hardly expected that the necessity would arise to-day to defend. Rhode Islnnd, and I am glnd to say that Rhode Island does not need any defense. · when the opportunity arises for this House to consider Rllodc Islal1<l under the state of the Union, Rhode Island will l>c fonud mat.:­ ing a. favorable report. [Applause.] I do think it is proper fo!." me to say, however, that though I have been a resident of t118 State of Rhode Island for half a century, and my colleague from that State [Mr. O'SHAUNESSY] has been a resident of the Stn:e for a little less than four years, I doubt if he is any more re :i c1;v to leave the State to-day than I am. Indeed, both of us intend to stay. [Applause.]

The resolution which we have before us to-day pro>ides for two things. This Congress has put upon it two cluties. Tllc first is the duty of providing a way by which the people cnn express their opinions in amending their Constitution; the second is the duty of doing that in such a form that the people can pass upon that amendment in a clear and unclerstancling This resolution proposes two things: The first is open an cl frank; it proposes to give to the people of the various States the right to elect- their Senators by- direct vote. It proposes, in the second place, a thing. that is not open, a thing that is not frank, and tlmt is to ch:mge the Constitution in such n way as to rob Congress of the right to protect itself. [Applause . ]

I have heard nothing hei:c on either side of criticism of the first open and frank proposition. Members on both sides, almost unanimously, hn:rn stated that they believed 1 in the election of United States Senators by the people. The only criticism that has come has been criticism of submitting to the people i;:o important a change in such a manner that they can not- pass upon one change without also passing upon another. lUr . Speaker, I have been listening as a new ·Member, and I have been pleased by the remarks made by members of the maj o rity that they wanted . to play fa.ir. If you want to play fair :is a body, play fair by placing before the people the resolution of amendment in such a form tlmt they can understand it :incl -vote on the prime purpose, and not be held back by a secondary amendment. I therefore ask you to accept the amendment offei:ccl by the gentleman from Mlclligau [Mr. YoUNa], and having accepted the amendment to ratify the resolution and ratify it practically unanimously. As the gentleman from Illinois has well said, while the people . of the United States have plainly asked for the privilege of electing Senators by the votes of the people of the several States, they have not and will not demand that the Senate and the House of Representatives yield their power to protect themselves. Therefore, in order to protect ourselves us we legislate for the great American people, we should adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, and then unanimously pass the constitutional amendment asked for by the people. [Applause.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the gentleman from Michigan understands that there is but one more speech ta be made on this side?

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. I so understood the gentleman.

1\lr . RUCKER of Missouri. I expected to yield to a gentleman whom I supposed had. changed his mind. I now understand differently, and I will yield to him now .

M r. YOUNG of Michigan. Very well. _ l\Ir-. RUCKER of Missouri. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr . BARTLETT].

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr . Speaker, I can not hope to add anything to this discussion. I am iIL favor of the resolution ns it comes from the committee. I.t is the same resolution that has been passed by this House and which for three times the House has almost unanimously voted, both Republican and Democratic, when the House was overwhelmingly Republican. . It is the ~amc resolution that the Judiciary Committee of the Senate reported word for word, unanimously at the last session . It is the sum~ resolution-in fact, it contains the same language-that would have passed the Senate and been now the law upon the statute book-submitting to the people of the United States the great change in our Constitution which the people hn.vc demanded, which the Democratic Party in its platform and pledges have for years demnndeu-had not the enemies of the resolution in the United States Senate injected into the resolution an amend· ment which is now offered on the floor of this House to accomplish the same purpose, the defeat of. this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if we can. submit to the people of the States of this Union this resolution, amended ns is proposed, we take away from them the right to prescribe the qualifications of voters in the election of Senators and destroy the form of government that was intended by the fathers-a union of States, and not a consolidated confederate empire, simply nn empire with provinces. Those of us who believe in local self-government ought not to be asked to gi-ve into the hands of Congress expressly the power to invade the States and regulate the franchises of their citizens and the manner of holding their elections. While I heartily approve of the election of United States Senators by the . people, I can not support tlle proposition that Congress shall ha"Ve the power to regulate and supervise these elections in the States; and if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan shall be adopted I can not support the resolution.

I have stated tlmt the amendment offered here is the same as that pr.oposed in the Senate. I find it is the exact amendment which, being adopted in the Senate, accomplished the defeat of the resolution in. the Senate at the last session, which was as follows :

Senate joint resolution 1S4.

Amendments intended to be proposed by lUr. SuTIIEnLA~D to the. joint resolution (S. J. Res. 134) proposing nn amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by .the people of the several States, viz:

On page 1, line 7, after the word "vacancy," strike out the words " and in lieu of an of paragraph 1 of section 4 of said Article I, in so far as the same relates to any authority in Congress to make o:r alter regulations as to the times or manner of holding elections for Senator." .And on page 2 strike out, 1n lines 0, 10, and ll, the words "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof."

I recall that there have been times, Mr. Speaker , when . the Congress of the United States has endeavored, with reference to the election of Representatives in Congress and. other matters that affected certain sections of this country, to pass stringent, violent, and forceful laws . In many cases it took the decision o:t the Supreme Court of the United States to decide that those laws were unconstitutional, and the question as to whether Congress can invade the States and regulate the election even of Representatives is one of some doubt, because the cases decided by the Supreme Court were not decided by a unanimous court, but IJy n bare majority of the court. In a case to which I desire t? allude, and which I hold in my hand, the Supreme Court decided. that the State of Michigan had a right to prescribe tlie manner of holding the election for electors for President . Tl.le State of Michigan. prescribed for this election of electors for President by congressional d1stricts.

Thnt was the case of McPherson v. Blocker (146 U. S. Repts ., p. 1), in which the court decided:

Under tile Constitution the. legislatures of the several States have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President nncI Vice President shall be appointed.

Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly ox: by popul:u.: vote in districts or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislatures.

In the same case, and . in many others, cited in this case, the court decides that the right to vote in the States comes from the State~; and that the right to vote intended to be protecteu by the .fourteenth and fifteenth amendments refers to the right to vote as established oy the laws and constitutions of the States.

Surely, if we can lea.-ve to the States the right to determine who shall vote for the Chief Executive, we can and should not depart from that safe and sound constitutional rule in the election of Senators. The great end in view sought to be obtaineu by this resolution, and which has been so constantly demanded by the people, is not that the Congress shall regulate the election of Senators by invading the rights of the States and local self-government, but that the qualified voters of the States, qualified. as such by the laws and requirements prescribed by the State legislatures, shall ha.ve the right to choose directly United States Senators, and that power shn.11 bo no longer lodged. in the legislatures of the States.

Quoting from l\Ii:. Jefferson :

The Senate was intended as a check on the will of the Representatives when too hasty ; they nrc not only that, but completely so on the wi11 of the people a:lso; and in my opinion are heaping coals of fire not only on their persons, but on their: body :rs a. branch of . t11c legislature. It seems that the opinion is fairly launched into public that they should be placed under the control of n. more frequent recurrence try the will of their constituents . This seems requisite to complete the experiment, whether they do more harm or good. Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively. Of this the Senate has furnished many proofs.

I do not know whether this was true at the time . when Mr . Jefferson wr.ote these words, but we do know that in more recent years the action of the Senate on many important questions has been such that the demand has constantly grown that the manner of electing United States Senators shall be changed . Aml I trust that the day is not f'ar distant when this demand of the people shall be complied. with. The passage of this resolution !Jy Congress will bring to the people a realization of their hopes, so long deferred. [Applause.]

l\Ir . YOUNG of Michigan. l\lr. Speaker, I yield two minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr . FAIIB].

l\Ir. FARR. l\fr . Speaker, it was my purpose to offer an amendment to Une 4, nnge 2, to insert. after tlie word "the" the following words, '"direct vote of the"; but I. yield my time to the gentleman from Dlinois [l\fr. Mann], wllo contemplates offering some amendments, one of which will cover the point 1 have in. view . I shall take this opportunity, however, to say that the people of the district I have tlle honor to representScruntont Pa., and Lackn.wanna County-are very generally in fa"Vor of. United States Senators being elected by the direct '"°otes of the people, and, in accordance with their wishes and my own convictions, I. shall cheerfully vote in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to give the people that privilege .

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman. from Wisconsin [M:r. CooPEil].

Mr. COOPER . Mr. Speaker, it has seemed to me from the discussion this afternoon that there is here more or less misapprehension as to the law; and, with due deference to the distinguished gentlemen who entertain views different from my own, I desire to state- the filw as I understand it . The right to vote is not a Federal right It does not come from the Constitution ot the United States. Under the Constitution each. State has always had the sole power to prescribe the qualifications of its electors. The pending amendment leaves this power unchanged, and under it the States would still have the right to amendment. say what shall be the qualifications of those who are to vote for United States Senators. Those qualifications this amendment pr esc rilJes shall be the qualifications of electors for the lower branch of the resp e ctive State legislatures.

All that the Federal Constitution does by the fifteenth amendment, to which reference has been frequently made, is to guarantee that a certain kind of discrimination therein specified shall not be practiced by the States. The right of suffrage itself, the qualifications of electors, comes from the State statute. Here is the fifteenth amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or pr e vious condition of servitude.