April 13, 1911

The Congre s s shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate le g legislation.

Now, if the proposed amendment shall become a part of the Constitution, then when a State has fixed the qualifications of the citizens who can vote for members of the lower branch of tile State legi s lature, those citizens will be the persons who can vote for United States Senators. If any State should pass a law declaring that white citizens could vote for United States Senators, but that colored citizens could not, the Supreme Court, of course, would pronounce such a law unconstitutional.

While I would prefer that this amendment, in order that it might have been insured passage by the requisite number of States, should not contain the provision it does contain nullifying part of paragraph 4 of section 1, nevertheless I am unable to see such possible harm to come as has been talked about so frequently and so forcefully here to-day. There is now a Federal statute which would punish any conspiracy of election commissioners or other persons in a State who should undertake, in violation of the fifteenth amendment, to deprive qualified electors of the State of their right to vote.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan . I yield one minute more to the gentleman.

Mr. COOPER. l\Ir. Speaker, I regret that I have not time to nmplify this.

There is another phase of the question about which I wish to say a. word . I hope gentlemen appreciate my pleasure on hearing distinguished Republicans rise on this floor to-day and in exultant tones proclaim that there is unanimity among Re ­ publicans everywhere as to the wisdom of having United States Senators elected by the people. But, Mr. Speaker, it was not always so. I had the honor on behalf of the State of Wiscon ­ sin in the Republican national convention of 1908 to present a plank calling for the election of United States Senators by the people. It received 114 votes out of a total of more than 900 . [Applause on the Democratic side.]

I remember that a distinguished Republican, tile chairman of the committee on resolutions, Mr. Hopkins, then United States Senator from the State of Illinois, denounced that plank and rejoiced when Republicans repudiated it. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I cite this at this time only to remind the House that, in the language of the Rev. John Jasper, of Richmond, Va., "The world do move." [Applause . ]

The SPEAKER. The time o~ the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Does the gentleman desire more time?

Mr. COOPER. I would like a minute more.

Mr . RUCKER of :Missouri. In order to have this matter fully, fairly, and freely discussed, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman. [Applause on the Democratic side . ]

The SPEAKER The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized e d for 10 minutes additional.

l\Ir. COOPER. I am under very great obligations to the gentleman from Missouri. I appreciate the disinterestedness of his motives. [Laughter and applause.] . ] Not for the world would he see any trouble on this side of the Chamber! [Laughter and applause.] But I shall not say another word about the Chicago con v ention. [I .,, aughter.] Nor shall I proceed any further to elaborate upon the law--

Mr. HAYES. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. COOPER. I do.

l\Ir. HAYES . I want to ask the gentleman if he does not think that the resolution as proposed by the majority, if it should be submitted to the people of the several States and receive their approval, would not nullify a portion of the fifteenth amendment to which the gentleman has referred?

Mr. COOPBil. I do nQt at all think so .

Mr. HAYES . The last expression of the popular will, the gentleman thinks, would not control?

Mr . COOPER. It would not nullify any part of the fifteenth

Mr. HAYES. I think it would.

Mr . COOPER. Just a moment. My contention is this: That the right guaranteed to every voter in the United States by the Constitution of the United States is that the State of which he is a citizen shall not discriminate again s t him as a voter on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. There is nothing in the Federal Constitution to prevent a State from fixing a property qualification for the suffrage and saying that no man not possessed of $50,000 worth of property should have the right to vote . No State ought to pass a law of that kind; but any State might pass such a law unless its own State constitution would prevent. ‘The Federal Constitution would permit the State of the distinguished gentleman from California to enact a statute providing that only citizens worth $50,000 might vote, but thereupon the fifteenth amendment would guarantee eYery citizen of that State worth $GO,OOO the right to vote whether he were white or colored.

The qualifications of electors are fixed by the State statutes, and the Constitution guarantees, let me repeat, that there shall be no discrimination between citizen voters because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This right being guaranteed by the Constitution, the United States, as a sovereign Nation, has the power to pass a law which shall protect that right and punish those who violate it . Congress has already enacted such a law-section 5508 of the Revised Statutes:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege granted to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, etc, • • • he shall be punished, etc .

That is broad enough to cover violations of the provisions o1 the fourteenth or fifteenth amendments . It could be made specifically to cover cases coming under the fifteenth amendment. And it could be amended--

Mr. HAYES . Mr . Speaker--

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

l\Ir . COOPER. In just a moment. Now, there is in this connection another subject to which we as Republicans ought to direct our attention. As a Republican born and bred, reared in a Republican atmosphere, coming from among a people who con· ducted stations of the underground railroad to help men and women to liberty, I greatly deplore the fact that in certain portions of the Republic citizens are disfranchised by statute practically, and only because of their color . Every disfranchisement, as I understand it, is under a statute.

Mr. BARTLETT. Under the constitution of the State .

l\Ir . COOPER. Under the constitution of the State, and those statutes have been taken-the "grandfather" statute and others-to the Supreme Court of the United States and declared to be constitutional . ,

Mr. HAYES. Will the gentleman yield?

l\1r. COOPER. There are a good many phases of this question . But I do not believe-

The SPEAKER . Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [l\Ir. CooPER] yield to the gentleman from California [l\1r. Hayes ] ?

l\Ir. COOPER, In just a moment. As I said, this resolution would have been more certain of receiving the support of the requisite number of States if it had been drawn somewhat differently, but if it should pass in this form I do not believe that the rights of any citizen would be jeopardized. And the men who believe in the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the 1 1 people ought not to jeopardize the necessary twothirds vote by voting against the re s olution in its original form if it becomes necessary to vote upon that naked proposition . There are good men here who believe the resolution as pre s ented is dangerous; but there are bad men, cunning men throughout the country who want this resolution defeated at all hazards. [Applause.] No mere technicality conjured up here should suffice to defeat a thing so vital to the welfare of the Republic .

One of the gentlemen said that when our forefathers enacted the Constitution conditions were not as they are to-day. That is true . There is to-day such a concentration of wealth and power-often of dangerously corrupting influences-around State legislatures as our forefathers never dreamed of, as the world never imagined until within the last 40 years. Therefore this amendment ought to pass, and will pass, in some form or other, I sincerely hope . I shall vote for the amendment proposed, and if that does not pass then I shall vote for the original resolution.

Now, I yield to the gentleman from California [Ur. HAYES] .

Mr . HAYES . I wish to ask the gentleman if he has not failed to discriminate between the amendment to the Constitution which controls the Congress of the United States and the 'Statute passed by Congress which a majority af both Houses may repeal at any time?

l\1r . COOPER. Not at all. And the · gentleman fails to see the point which I attempted 1o make , which is, that this amendment leaves with the States the right to fix the qun.'ltiicn­ . tions of the electors .

Mr. HA.YES. Surely; but it takes: away from tl:i:e Congress of the United States the right to supervise the election <:>f Senators ' and to regulate the manner in which fu.ey shall be elected, which it has -at present under the Constitution .

~.ir . COOPER. We baye not the -right to-day to · fix -the qualifications of electors. The gentleman is · entirely mistaken. We huye never had that right under the Constitution .

The SPEAKER. The time of the · gentleman 'from Wisconsin has expired .

l\Ir. COOPER. Congress never had the right to fix the quali fications of the electors of tile States. [A : [Applause.] . ]

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan . Mr. Speaker, I now yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois HTr. 1\1.A.'!'IN] .

Mr . MANN . Mr. Speaker, 1: offer the following amendments, which I send to the Clerk's desk.

· The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendments.

The Clerk read as follows: :

Amend: page 2, line 4, :by .inserting after the word " . by " the follow- . ing : ".A direct vote of."

Amend page 2, lines 7 nna 8, by striking out the word " legislatures" and inserting 'the word legislature.”

Amend IJa&e 2, line 1G, . by striking out the words " that the legislature oi ally .State may . empower," and on line lG, by · striking out the l\'Ord "to" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "shall." ·

Amend on page !!, line 18, by striking out the • words " so " and " ns 1\Ir . MilTN. Mr . Speaker, this House has on a number of occasions in the past passed a joint resolution providing for a · direct vote · on the election of Senators . · So far as I remember, · 1 have never voted for that resolution. I shn11 not vote for this resolution.

I am · not -prepared to say whether, in my own 'judgment, Sen ­ ators should be elected by a direct vote or by the method now }lrov1d.ecl 'by -the Constitution. But I think .I am able to see far enough into the future to see that lf it shall be · pro-vided that Senrrt01·s sba1l be elected by a direct vote of the people of the various States it is but the · beginning of fue end of State sovereignty, of the sovereign rights · of n State, or "the powers of n State, as they · now -exist, over local matters.

The gentleman 'from "Rhode Island [Mr . O’SHAUNESSY] -a moment ago complained of the constitution and laws of ms State, which g1rn to one district with · n small _ population the same representation in the . senate · of that State that the city of 'Providence .bus, with TI: :population · of more than 200,000 . So long a-s -we have maintained the principle that the 'Senators · were delegates · of the State, elected by the legislatures · of the State, we could well claim that each State should .have the same representation .

'But the -very reason that causes the gentleman from Rhode Island to refer with invective to the laws of his State which take away equal · representation will, 1n the course of a few yea.rs, when the Senators are elected by the States oy «lirec t -vote of the people, en use the great State of New York · the great State of Illinois, aye, the people of the great country in which we live, to say, " “There is no reason why n man in Rhode Island voting for a United States Senator should ! be the equal o'f 20 men in the · state of New York."

Mr . BORLAND. . Will the gentleman yield?

Mr . MANN. I wi.11 not yield at this time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman refuses to yield .

Mr. MANN. It J.s the logic of events, 1\Ir. Speaker, which controls us in the long run . And there ls nothing -so inexorable as the logic of events. We think now that if we change -the method of electing Senators and provide that they shall be elected by a direct \Oto of the people we do not change the theory of the Constitution. Aye, but we do, and when but a short time goes on-it may l>c shorter or longer-the -people will say that it is unfair to have rotten boroughs in States, as the gentleman from Rhode Island would say they have rotten boroughs in Rhode Island. For many years · in England .members of Parliament were elected .from rotten boroughs, without population to speak of, · but having the same power and the same influence that those members had who came from great cen ­ ters of population, representing great numbers of people.

Now, so far as I am concerned, I am yet undecided in my own mind . as to llow far the . Present tendency of events ought to proceed in the abolition o'f the powers and the rights ~ the States.

1J:uc1er . the commerce clause of the Constitution we .har.c already largely deprived the States of their powers, and as fa business we meet the commercial affairs of the country , we are constantly im:po-rtuned on every · side to add t-o the powers of -the -General Government and to take · away the powers of the loca1 governments. if do not undertake ta say which is the proper course, but so long .as I have been in this leg1slati'rn body ! have endeavored to maintain the - rights of the States as originally contemplated, , believing t1mt if the time ca.me when ~ State lines should be practically abolished, it ought to be done with knowledge and by the direct : representation and mm1a.ate of the - people, instead of being done indirectly.

Mr. '. Speaker, · one -Of the greatest benefits which the citizens • o'f -0nr · country enjoy is the right of local self-government . I do not wish to be a party in any degree to the taking a way from the people of the right of locaJ. seLf-goyernment .

Now, Mr • .Speaker, I had :not intended to discuss the merits of this proposition to any - extent, forced upon us in the way tbn t it has been, without a fair chance to consider it

Mr. COOPER. Mr . Speaker——

1\fr . MANN. I hope the gentleman will not interrupt me at present.

The . S-PEAKER. The gentleman -refuses 'to yield.

Mr. MANN. I will be · glad to yield to the gentleman l ater . When .I say that this proposition has been forced upon us in the way that it I.ms been, without . a fair chance to consider it, I · do not mean merely the opportunity to talk about it on the floor of the House. _ '.J: mean the opportunity to offer runerad.­ mC!Ilts, the chance to really consider tile proposition . In the last Congress -the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [MJ'. LLuYD], the colleague of tire distinguished gentleman from. Missouri [1\I-r . RucKER], introduced a resolution on this subject. There had been many .re-solutions -passed before it. In the · Fifty-fourfu · Congress, 1n the Fifty-iiftil Congress, in tne Flfty. · slrlb. Congress, in -the Fifty-seventh Congress a resolution il~d been passed providing for the direct election of Senators . A resolution simila:r to those four which had -previously passed was introduced in the Inst Congress by the gentleman from Missouri [l\'rr . LLoYD] 11.Ild reported favorably .from :tllc com~ mittee, though neyer passed through the House. 'The gentleman from 1\lissolll'i [Mr . RucKER] introduced on April 4, the first da-y of this session , a resolution quite similar to the one w.hich had been four times passed ancl which, one other time, had been introduced by the · gentleman from Missouri [Ur . "LLoYD] and re.Ported into the House; lmt the resolution 11s it - comes before us for action, without a chance to give it consid - · crnfion, is an entirely different one . .

I propose to call attention to some of the particular things in the resolution now l)ending. Gentlemen may say that the · criticism 1: make is n carping criticism. '.i\fr . 'Speaker , it hns mways -seemed to me i:hat the Constitution of the United States wus sufficient1y important to consider both the merits Imel the form · of the n.men.Clments wllich might be adopted to it. It has always seemed to me that · Congress might · cTcn consider rhetoric and c grammar when adding an amendment to tbe Omsti tufi-0n.

When 'We remember that there have been so few amendments ' added in · all t'he many years of the existence of om -Oonetitntion, 'it .has seemed t-0 me that we might take sufficient time · at least 'to -put an : amendment in proper grammatical nncl rhetorical shape. Considering the fact that there ha-ve been only three amendments · auilec1 to the =constitution in more than 1-00 -years, I think we might take sufficient time to say what we meun in proper grammatical form, so that one who runs may read anil understand .

Mr. RUCKER of 1\fissouri. Will the gentleman l)Crmit me to -srry--

1\Ir. MANN . I will permit the gentleman to say anything tn :the way of . a question. -Otherwise r hope he wm wnit until I get further along .

1\fr . RUCKER ;of Missouri. I will not ask the gentleman a question if he does not want me to, but will reserve it until later.

Mr. COOPER . Will the .gentleman yield.?

~ . f-'r. MANN. . Oh, yes .

!llr . ' COOPER. Did I understand the gentleman from Illinois to say that if we were to elect Senators by - the people there would be great danger of the . large States oyerriding the smaller States?

.l\fr . :PiiA.NN . Oh , I suppose the gentleman proposes to read me ; fl. constitutional provision rtha-t that can not be done.

.l\ : h: . COOP:m!L I wish simply to remind--

Mr . MANN . .I .am familiar with the Constitution on the subject.

l\Ir. COOPER. It seems to me tl.lut there jg a sufficient answer to the gentleman, . I a · ask him if he does not think this answers No State , without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate .

l\1r. l\IANN. Yes; and that provision of the Constitution is subject to amendment; and when the tendency runs. as it will run, so strong against the gross injustice of permitting--

Mr. COOPER. That particular provision Is not subject to nmeuclmcnt, :incl it is the only one in the Constitution that is not. [A.pp la use.]

Mr . .J\L.UT~ .... The gentleman is mistaken; that provision of the Constitution is subject to amendment. Every provision of the Constitution is subject to amendment. That provision itself must first lJe nmencled before you can deprive a State of its equal rights in the Senate; but when that provision has been amended. as it will be some day, then they will make the division among the States equitable, because in the encl it is absolutely unfair that the State of Delaware should have 2 Senators in the United States Senate and 1 Representative on the floor of the House anc1 the great State of New York should have, as it is now proposed, 40 Members of the House and only 2 Senators. What is there in that to carry out the will of the people? Gentlemen talk about obeying the will of the people. If the will of the people is to be executed, then the people must have the chance to elect their Representatives upon equal terms, and the logic is as inevitable as that the sun will rise to-morrow morning. In

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Illinois Ilas expired.

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. I yield 10 minutes more to the gentleman from ill.inois.

Mr. l\IcCALL. Will the gentleman yield?.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman from l\fassachusetts'!

1\fr. MANN. I will yield.

Mr. McillLL. In reference to what the gentleman from Wisconsin [1'-Ir. CooPERJ has sai<l, if' the States refuse to yield their representation, would it be possible to amend the Constitution, taking all the vower away from the Senate?

l\1r. MAl~. You can amend. the Constitution in any way. Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the amusing things, it seems to me, in reference to this amendment is, in the first pill.cc, the whole theory of the proposed amendment is that the legislatures of the States can not be trusted. That is the whole. theory of the amendment-that the legislatures of the different States can not be ti·ustecL The Constitution provides that an amendment may l>e ratifie<l by the legislatures or by conventions called in the States. .And yet the distinguished gentleman from Missouri seeks to cast odium, as it would be by the amendment, on the legislatures. reject ing the right of a State to determine. whether it shall ratify this amendment by convention, but requires that it shall be left wholly to the legisiature. If he has such n wonderful belief in the rights of the people as expressed by direct vote, why has it not been left in a way that the State may elect conventions to :pass upon this resolution 1

It provides further, in reference to legislatures, that the legislature may or it may not empower the executive to fill vacancies temporarily. No requirement has been carried in all resolutions heretofore that the executive shall make an appointment to fill vacancies. It proposes t<> leave to the legislature that authority. In addition to that, stating on the one hand that the legislature is unworthy of trust to elect United St.ates Senators, it proposes to say that the legislature is so worthy tl.ult it shall determine as to the time and places and manner of holding elections, and placing the legislature above Congress. On the one side this resolution says that the legislature is unworthy of confidence-, and on the other that it is worthy of more confidence tllun Congress itself. That is logic for you. [Applause.]

Now, gentlemen an tlle afternoon han~ been talking about election of Senators by direct vote of the people. The resolutions which have heretofore passed this body, the resolution ·which was introduced by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LLoYn} iu the last Congress, provided-

That the Senate of the. United States shall be composed of two Senator s from each State, who shall be elected by the direct vote or the people thereof for o: term of six years.

" Ele<."tc<l by the direct vote of the people thereof." .Anybody can understancl what that means. .Anybody knows what that says, and it snys that they shall be elected by a direct vote of the vcoplc. The gcntlema.n from Missouri [1\Ir. Rum:amJ this morning announced that there woulcl be no amendments to this resolntion of his--no clotting of " i's" or crossing of " t's,.; he lrnd perfected it : : m<l <llc1 not propose to ha>e it amended.

Ur. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. Does tile gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman from l\Iissouri?.

Mr •. MANN. Yes.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I want to say to the gentleman that the gentleman f-rom Missouri said nothing of the kincl, but said just the contrary, and stated that opportunity would be permitted to offer amendments.

Mr. MANN. To present amendments; yes.

Mr. RUCKER of l\Iissouri. And I did say that I wanted to vote every one of them down.

Mr. MANN. That is what I n:m tall;:ing about.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. This resolution--

1\fr. MAJ\TN. Ob, do not take so much of my time.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Well, the gentleman ought not to refer to me unless he talks the facts.

Mr. l\IANN. The gentleman has the time. I am not the one who limited it.

l\1r. RUCKER of Missouri. But the gentleman's friencl did. Mr. l\lAl'\"N. Oh, not at all The gentleman from l\Iissouri limited the time.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I do not want to get into a controversy with the gentleman; but that is not correct, because debate was limited by consent of the House.

l\Ir. l\'IANN. Oh, that is true.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri Did I not ask for the longest limit of time desired on that side?

l\fr. 1\IAl~. Oh, the gentleman is mistaken. I suggested. that we haye more than one day's debate on the proposition.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. But the gentleman has nlways been opposed to this measure, and I did not pay very much respect to his wishes in the matter.

Mr. MANN. That is all right; but do not take my time or bother me now.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I am not going to bother the gentleman. I want only to express my opinion.

Mr. MANN. I <lo not wonder that the gentleman gets restive when his resolution is under consideration.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. A Republican resolution, as I have already told the gentleman a hundred times, but I am supporting it.

.M.r. l\IANN. WelI, it is quite likely that the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the chairman of the great Committee on the Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, seeking for an opportunity to make fame :for himself-running around and hunting for a form-it is very likely that he has picked up some Republican thunder. [Applause and laughter on the Republican side.] We have learned before this that that which we baYe discarded that side of the House joyfully embraces as something good and new. [Applause ancl laughter on the Republican side.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Illinois yield? l\Ir .. l\.IANN. I prefer to discuss the resolution. The gentleman has plenty of time.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I will girn the gentleman as much time as I consume of his.

l\fr. l\IAJ\"N. If the gentleman will wait until I finish, I will be very much obliged.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. If the gentleman does not want me to ask him a question when it is proper--

Mr. MANN. Oh, . I would be very glad to let the gentleman ask me a question.

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman yield?

Mr. l\fANN. Ob, certainly; I always yield in the end, though I prefer to get through.

l\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. The gentleman has consumed. more time now than it would take to ask the question. He does not want me to ask him any question.

Mr. MANN. Oh, I will permit the gentleman to ask me a question. What is it?

M.r. RUCKER of Missouri. No; I will not ask any question. I am getting tired of that display, and I will get along without it.

Mr. l\IA.l'\"N. Mr. Speaker, I learned long ago when I was in control of a bill to keep my temper. Gentlemen on that sicle of the House will have that lesson to learn in the course of time. The gentleman has left out the direct vote of the people. What more? The resolution provides:

The electors in each State shall have the qulllifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Plural I How many legislatures does a State have, for Gou's sake? [Laughter and applause on Republican side.] Oh, no; that is not the fault of the printer, as some gentleman near me suggests. That is the fault of the gentleman who introduced the resolution. The resolution which formerly passed the House had the correct expression, providing that the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the legislature thereof, or of that State, but the gentleman from Missouri-I will apologize to the gentleman-I do not think the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RucKER] is the one who made the discovery, for it is quite likely, and I agree with him, that that was in the bill as it was presented in the distinguished body at the other end of the Capitol. But if my friend from Missouri had watched that distinguished body as closely as I have, he would have learned before this that it is not safe to rely on other legislative bodies either as to substance or as to form.

Mr. RUOKER of Missouri. It depends on who composed the body.

Mr. MANN. Well, the gentleman has this side of the House now. Who composed the body I do not undertake to say. It is a fine-looking body of men, I will say, whom I see upon that side of the House, but their grammar is a little off; [Laughter and applause on Republican side.]

Then it says :

When vacancies happen-

When " vacancies " happenin the representation of any State in the Senate the executive authority of such States shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

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

Mr. MANN. I would ask for five minutes more.

Mr. YOUNG of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman whatever time I have.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has 12 minutes remaining.

Mr. MANN. I will not want to take so much time.

l\ir. YOUNG of Michigan. I will yield whatever of that time tile gentleman desires.

l\Ir. MANN. If I were writing that language I should have written-

When a vacancy happens in the representation of any: State in the Senate the executive authority of such State shall issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy.

The statutes of the United States provide that when the plural or singular number is used in the statutes it shall apply to the other when applicable, and that often corrects mistakes like this of using the plural instead of the singular, but the statutes do not govern in the construction of the Constitution of the United States, and one would think that after being out, as they say, for 1G years they would discover that when they wished to say a vacancy they would say a vacancy instead of vacancies. There is vacancy enough now on that side without making it plural. [Laughter on the Republican side.]

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANN. I prefer not; the gentleman has time. Now, I do not wish to be carping, but here is a constitutional amendment, and the last provision is-

Thi's amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term . of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The first principle of language is to reduce the number of words to express the thought to as few as possible. That is a principle which I know, though I do not always follow it.

Mr. JAMES. It does not apply to speeches, does it?

l\lr. MANN. The provision ought to be-

This amendment shall not be construed to affect the election or term of any Senator.

And if my friend from : Missouri was writing it and had his attention called to it, he would agree to it; but, of course, now he will feel compelled to stand by the provision. :Mr. Speaker, but a few words more. In the first part the joint resolution provides, among other things, that-

In lieu of all of paragraph 1 of section 4 of said Article I, in so far as the same relates to any authority in Congress to make or alter regu­ maining. lations as to the times or manner of holding elections for Senators. Think for a moment of the rhetorical expression of stating that it shall be "in lieu of all" of the paragraph, but really in lieu of only a part of it; but coming to the gist of it, what authority has Congress to say what part of the Constitution an amendment is " in lieu of "? The amendment, when it is agreed to by three-fourths of the States and becomes a part of the Constitution, is for the courts to determine as to its meaning. This part of the resolution is no part of the amendment. We may legislate here and say that a certain amendment is in place of the whole Constitution, but that is not before the legislatures of gentleman. the States which ratify the amendment; but when the amendment is ratified it speaks for itself, and the courts, not Congress, will construe the part of the Constitution it is in lieu of. But the purpose of that, and that is the first time the provision in that form has appeared in any of these resolutions, the purpose of that resolution is to take out of the Constitution the power which Congress would otherwise have when it so desired to regulate the time and manner of holding elections for Senators. Ever since the Government was organized Congress has had the power to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Representatives.

Wa have had the power to regulate the time and manner of conducting the election of Senators, not the place, because the place was supposed to be within the power of the State to fix as being the capital of the State, and it was not designed to give Congress the power to fix the capital of the State.

Now, under this amendment, as I read it, though there is some doubt, Congress will still have the power to regulate the time, and place, and manner, for holding elections for Members of Congress. Why is it proposed that Congress shall not have the same power over the election of Senators by the same electorate-probably at the same time? It ought to be. We have so provided in course of time that we have required, in effect, the election of electors at a fixed time, in fact, and their meeting at the same time. Through the power of Congress to regulate the election of Representatives, and the fear that that power might be exercised in course of time, most of the States have fixed their fall elections for Members of Congress at the same time. Senators ought to be elected at the same election that Members of the House are, and yet it is proposed to take away from Congress the power to control these elections and · to place it absolutely in the hands of the States.

It is true that Congress has not exercised the power, but it often happens that when a superior body possesses a power it is not necessary to exercise it, because the inferior body acts with fairness and justice. Under this provision of the Constitution, if made as it stands in the resolution, Utah, Delaware, Rhode Island, Illinois, or Indiana, or New York, or any State in the Union, may make provisions which have never yet been heard of as to the election of Senators. I contend that under the wording of the amendment, as it now stands, the election of Senators by the people, that it does not require a direct vote of the people. If we had a central body to be composed of delegates to be elected from various subordinate bodies, it would often be the case that those delegates would be appointed by the executive committee of the lower body. No one would suppose from reading the rules of this House that it meant that the committees were to be elected, possibly, by ballot.

There is no provision here that Senators shall be elected by a ballot or by a vote even. We elect committees by resolution, not by ballot, and under this provision, if it should be put into the Constitution, there will come a time when some of the States will find other methods of electing Senators than by a direct vote of the people; and, if history should repeat itself, there would come times when from some of the Southern States Senators would be elected without a direct vote. Under this provision, in the carpetbag days of the South, some of the gentlemen in control of those States would have claimed that they had elected a Senator by the people if the governor issuecl a commission, without anything further. And remember that, under this, Congress has no control. I appeal to the gentlemen in power on that side of the House, that if you propose to amend the Constitution in this regard now before it comes up for construction, make it plain, so that those who come after may know what it means without court, judicial, or war proceedings.

Mr. COOPER l\Ir. Speaker, I was about to ask the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RUCKER] to yield me two minutes in which to reply to one question.

l\lr. RUCKER of Missouri. .!\Ir. Speaker, I stated a while ago to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. YouNG] that after the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MANN] delivered his speech there would be only one other speech on this side.

Mr. MANN. .!\Ir. Speaker, I think I have a little time rel\1r. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. COOPER. .!\Ir. Speaker, I wish to say to the gentleman from Michigan, and to the gentleman from Missouri also, that I do not intend to make a speech, but I do think that the provision of the Constitution of the United States, one construction of which I gave, and which was contradicted point-blank by the gentleman from Illinois, ought to be read to the House, and I just ask for two minutes.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Yes; certainly, I will yield to the

Mr. COOPER. l\fr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois prophesied that the large States would force an amendment depriving the smaller States of their equal rights in the Senate. I said that the large States could not force upon a smaller State a constitutional amendment to deprive it of its equal suffrage in the Senate except with the consent of the smaller State. With this the gentleman from Illinois did not agree.

Here is Article V of the Constitution :

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this ‘ - nstltution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of 1 l1 e several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, us the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress ; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall In any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[App la use. J

Mr. MANN. I read that very carefully before I ma.de my remarks. [Laughter.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. l\fr. Speaker, there will be only one more speech made on this side in concluding this debate. I desire to use three or four minutes, if I may do so with propriety, in order to answer some things which were said here, about which I was not permitted to interrogate the gentleman from Illinois [l\Ir. Mann] while he was on the floor.

It is a great misfortune, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman who delivered that magnificent lecture to the House this evening had not lived in olden times and in his own happy style of English framed the Constitution of the United States in language so perfect that m·en a genius like himself would not dare attack it. [Laughter.] But he did not, and therefore we have got to try to get along in some old way with the Constitution which was handed down to us by those distinguished men who did frame it as best they could. [Laughter.]

The gentleman here this evening makes a great speech in behalf of the rights of the people and the rights of the States and the rights of the Constitution, and would lead us to believe that he is probably reluctant in opposing this measure because of the numerous and clerical grammatical errors to which he has called the attention of the House in a jocular and very instructive speech. [Laughter.]

The gentleman lauds and presents as practically perfect and free from criticism, even at his hands, the resolution offered in the last Congress by my distinguished colleague, l\:Ir. LLOYD. But the gentleman will bear with me when I say this, that when the committee, at that time presided over by n. distinguished Republican from West Virginia, Mr . Gnines, brought in n. report and recommended to this House that that resolution should pass the gentleman from Illinois arose in his place and objected to the passage of the resolution which he to-day tells us is absolutely perfect, because of a misprint in the Government Printing Office of one word-the addition of an " s." Is not that true? [Laughter.] .

Mr. MANN. I did not say it was perfect.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. But the gentleman objected to it for the reason that it contained an "s" when there ought not to have been one, and that was the only objection made.

l\:Ir. MANN . I objected to it when I discovered an "s ,, on the word "amendment," and that was enough to put me on guard as to the rest of the language.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Yes; and the gentleman is "on guard" and has been for some time. [Laughter.]

l\ir. MANN. And will be for some time. [Laughter.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I will not discuss that. Of course what I am now going to say has no application on earth, Mr. Speaker, but I read a long time ago . in some poetry-I think Pope's incomparable poems; no; it was in Cowper-a couplet that sometimes forces itself into my mind. When I see a gentleman laboring so arduously and earnestly, apparently, for public welfare and yet one who is never able to find anything on earth quite good enough for him to take at the command of the people, sometimes I can not help, to save my soul, having that couplet flash through my mind. The poet wrote:

With smooth dissimuln.tion skilled, to grace

A devil's purpose with an angel's face.

[Laughter.]

It has no application here, and I would not have quoted the language if it had not been that the gentleman has criticized my grammar, and I wanted him to understand that if I <lo not know all about grammar, I do know some things about the application of poetry. [Laughter.]

But the gentleman said that this resolution is woefully bad because it reads :

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State fn the Scnn.tC', the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies-

.And he criticizes that word "happen" as an error.

But the gentleman forgets that this old Constitution which ho is guarding so sacredly from the amendments which the people have been pleading for for 40 years uses that identical language:

When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of e l ection to fill such vacancies-

Word for word the language in the resolution now pending before the House. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

He forgets also that in the second clause of the second paragraph in the Constitution the identical language is found which is found in this resolution, where it says: