June 21, 1911

The SPEAKER laid before the House the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 39) proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States, with a Senate amendment.

The Senate amendment was read, as follows:

Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert :

"That in lieu of the first paragraph of section 3 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, and in lieu of so much of paragraph 2 of the same section as relates to the filling of vacancies, the following be proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified l>y the legislatures of three-fourths of the States:

" ' The Senate of tl1e United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

" ' When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. ·

" ' '£his 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.' "

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker-­

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. OLMSTED] desires to submit a motion.

Mr. OLMSTED. I move that the House do concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, has this amendment been printed?

Mr. OLMSTED. It has not been printed.

Mr. CANNON. It occurs to me that the House ought to be in possession of the amendment in some other form besides the copy on the Speaker's table.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois that the amendment has been printed.

Mr. OLMSTED. The amendment has been printed in the Senate, but only in the form of an amendment proposed to be introduced by Mr. BRISTOW.

Mr. CANNON. I listened to the reading of the amendment from the Clerk's desk, and, as I caught it, I do not think the reading conformed to the print of what purports to be an amendment proposed in another body by a Senator. It occurs to me that the House ought to be in possession of the official copy of the amendment as reported at the Clerk's desk, and that it ought to be in print.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois that the Clerk is in possession of the official copy of the Senate amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Precisely.

The SPEAKER. And the Chair is in possession of a printed copy of that amendment.

.Mr. CANNON. I have not been able to get it.

Mr. MANN. It is the same as the Bristow amendment.

Mr. OLMSTED. If the Speaker will observe, what he holds in his hand is a copy of an amendment intended to be proposed by Mr. BRISTOW, and so forth. I will state, however, that I understand it is precisely the amendment which the Senate did adopt.

The SPEAKER. What is the trouble about it then?

Mr. CANNON. The trouble is that we must resort to the Senate files, if the gentleman is correct in his statement, rather than to our own files, to get a printed copy. And, having listened to the amendment as read from the Clerk's desk, I am not sure that the printed copy which we have is identical with what was read by the Clerk.

Mr. FOSTER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be again read, so that we may compare it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois and to the House that, while this amendment has been suggest? on the Speaker's table for three or four or five days, by agreement all around it was not to be precipitated on the House until after we had disposed of the wool bill, so that nobody has hours? bad a chance to have it printed.

Mr. CANNON. Well, if we are to depend on the Senate print of the proposed amendment, I should be glad to have the official amendment read again so that it can be compared.

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection, the Clerk will report the amendment again.

The amendment was again read.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I received recognition from the Chair for the purpose of making a motion, and I do not want to lose the floor. I want to have rn control of it pending this consideration. I desire to make a motion to disagree to the Senate amendment.

Mr. FLOYD of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I yield for a question.

l\fr. FLOYD of Arkansas. In comparing the original House resolution with what is known as the Bristow amendment, I find that that does not seem to be in the resolution as read from the Clerk's desk at all. I will state in the first place that I endeavored to get a copy of the resolution as it pa sed the Senate and was informed that it . had not been printed. I examined the RECORD, and when the resolution was read from the Clerk's desk it did correspond with the original resolution passed by the House, except some amendments, which do not strike me as very material. The Bristow amendment, as I understand it from report, does not appear in the resolution read from the Clerk's desk.

l\Ir. MANN. The gentleman is mistaken; the Clerk read the Bristow amendment.

Mr. FLOYD of Arkansas. If the gentleman will look on page 1938 of the RECORD-

Mr. MANN. But the original papers are here.

Mr. FLOYD of Arkansas. I think this is material if the gentleman will let me proceed, and if I am wrong I can' be corrected. On page 1938 of the RECORD we find this language :

The SECRETARY. It is proposed to amend the substitute proposed by Mr. BRISTOW by adding, on page 2, after line 2, the following:

" The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof· but the Congress may make or alter such regulations in any State when· ever the legislature thereof shall neglect or refuse to make such re"'U· lations, or from any circumstances be incapable of making the same.'? Now, I would like to know whether or not that is in the resolution as read by the Clerk?

l\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. The gentleman has not read the Bristow amendment; he is reading the so-called Bacon amendment.

l!tir. FLOYD of Arkansas. The RECORD, as I understand refers to it as the Bristow amendment; if wrong, I stand 'corrected; I was asking for information.

The SPEAKER. But the RECORD does not c,ontrol. The House acts upon the engrossed copy of the bill.

Mr. MANN. The RECORD is right, and the gentleman is mistaken ; he has not read the Bristow amendment.

The SPEAKER. It does not make any difference, the House is bound by the papers in its possession.

Mr. GREGG of . Pennsylvania. l\fr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Missouri if, on page 2, lines 10 11 and 12, the Bristow amendment did not eliminate those three 'lines and leave section 4 of Article I of the Constitution just as it was prior to the offering of the amendment? · l\fr. l\fANN. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. MANN. What is there now before the House?

The SPEAKER. The motion of the gentleman from Mis omi to disagree to the Senate amendment, followed by the preferential motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to concur in the Senate amendment , and the debate will take place in the first place on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to concur.

Mr. RUCKER of :Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I would like to confer with the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to the question of time, because it is important that we do not prolong the debate. I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania how much time is desired for debate?

Mr. OLMSTED. I have received requests for about two hours and a half on this side.

l\fr~ RUCKER of Missouri. A great many gentlemen are very anxious to get through with this matter as speedily as po sible.

Mr. OLMSTED. What would the gentleman from Missouri

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. An hour and a half on each side.

Mr. OLMSTED. Could not the gentleman make it two

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Can not the gentleman agree to an hour and a half on a side?

Mr. OLMSTED. Well, make it an hour and three-quarters on a side.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Very well. M . r.- Speaker, r will ask unanirmms consent for an hour and three-quarters on each side for general debate; that the time on this side be controlled by myself and on the other side by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri asks unanimous consent that there be a debate of an hour and threequarters on a side, and that the time on the Democratic side be controlled by the gentleman from Missouri [l\Ir. Rucker] and on the other side by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. OLMSTED].

Mr. MANN. And at the end of that time the previous question shall be ordered?

1\lr. RUCKER of Missouri. Yes; and at the end of that time the previous question shall be considered us ordered.

The SPEAKER. And he further asks that at the end of that time the previous question shall be considered as ordered.

Ur. CARLIN. And the general debate is to be on both motions?

The SPEAKER. Upon both motions.

.Mr. OLMSTED. If my motion prevails there will not be any motion to disagree.

The SPEAKER. Upon that question the Ohair will express no opinion. [Laughter.] Is there objection to the request? l\Ir. NORRIS. Mr. Speaker, there was so much confusion I could not hear what the request _ was.

The SPEAKER. If the House will be in order the Chair will state the request again. The gentleman from Missouri asked unanimous consent that there be a debate of an hour and . three-quarters on a side on these two motions; that the time on one side be controlled by himself and on the other by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and that at the expiration of that time the previous question shall be considered as ordered upon both propositions. Is there objection?

Mr. OLMSTED. I would like to add, and that all gentlemen who address the House on either motion may have five days to extend remarks.

The SPEAKER. And that all gentlemen who make remarks on this subject shall have five days to extend remarks in the RECORD. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.

l\1r. RUCKER of Missouri. 1\Ir. Speaker, I expect the gentleman from Pennsylvania [1\fr. OLMSTED] would like to lead off in behalf of his motion, and I will ask him to use some of his time.

Mr . OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, the convention presided over by George Washington, which framed the Constitution of the United States, was composed of very wise and very farseeing men, whose names will be honored in the history of this Republic so long - as the Republic itself shall endure. The instrument they framed with such wondrous care is the most valuable and important of its kind the world has ever known, and each added year brings fresh testimony to the wisdom of those to whom we so often refer as "the fathers." Only three times within the past 107 years have the people of the United States seen fit to alter or amend it The organic law under which this Republic has so long lived, so wonderfully grown, and so marvelously prospered, should not be made the subject of experiment nor amended in any particular, except for the most weighty reasons, and then only with the utmost care and consideration . That Constitution, under which the First Congress assembled, in 1789, contains, in section 3 of Article I, this provision:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.

The proposed amendment of that provision is not the result of recent suggestion. There has been for some years a demand for the election of Senators by the people. That demand has grown from year to year. It has been widely discussed, and the proposed change is well understood. Three times since I lmve been a Member of this body resolutions have passed this House proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to permit the election of Senators by the people. With some misgivings as to the wisdom of the proposition, and some doubt whether the proposed method would result in improving the per onnel of that body, I have in at least three different Republican Congresses voted to permit the election of Senators by the people, or at least to submit the proposition to the States for their approval. At this time there is not in this body any substantial opposition to that proposition. House joint resolution No. 30 as it passed the House, and also as it passed the Senate, contains a modification of the clause of section 3, which I have just quoted, to make it read as follows:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote. '!'he electors in each State shall have the q.ualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. ·

There is no longer any serious opposition to that change, and if that were all the resolution contained there would be hardly an opposing Tote in this body. There are some other provi ­ sions in the resolution with reference to the :filling of vacancies and providing that the amendment shall not affect the elections or terms of Senators chosen before it shall become valid as a part of the Constitution. There is no objection to those provisions. They all bear directly upon the single amendment of section 3, so as to provide for the election of Senatqrs by the people instead of by the legislatures of the States.

The demand for such an amendment of section 3 of Article I of the Constitution is very great and very pressing. It comes from different parts of the country, in the form of petitions and resolutions of State legislatures and other bodies. That demand is borne to us upon a great wa-ve of popular favor . Some of the supporters of this resolution are trying to ride that wave for a Tery different purpose and to bear away upon its crest the amendment of an entirely separate and distinct provision of the Constitution, for which there is no demand whatever, for which not a single petition has been presente<L and for which, I venture to say, no :Member of this House has received a single request from a constituent. Section 4 of Article I of the Con­ -stitution says-

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Repre entatives 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 places of choosing Senators.

Now, if you will turn to lines 10, 11, and 12, on page 2, of House joint resolution No. 39 as it passed the House, you will find that, not content with changing the method of electing Senators, not content with amending the third section of Article I of the Constitution so as to provide for the election of Senators by the people, it proposes also to amend section 4, for the lines I have named contain this language:

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

This is declared, on page 1 of the resolution-

To be 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 regulations as to the times or manner of holding elections for Senators. It omits these words, now found in section 4:

But the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

In other words, it takes away from Congress the power which it now has under the present Constitution to make or alter any regulations touching the election of Senators, as well as Representatives, and makes their election entirely subject to State control.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? .

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to the gentleman from Missouri?

Mr. OLMSTED. Certainly.

1\Ir. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I presume it is in the gentleman's mind, having stated that it was that portion of the proposed amendment to which he objects, to tell the House why he objects to it, and I would like to know.

Mr. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, I shall proceed to do so, and I hope to make my objection clear.

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

Mr. OLMSTED. Certainly.

Mr. KE.i."\IDALL. If the Bristow amendment, which is now before the House for action, shall be adopted, the Constitution will remain the same, except that Senators will be directly elected by the people.

Mr. OLMSTED. That will be the only change.

Mr. KENDALL. And if the Bristow amendment is rejected, as proposed by the gentleman from Missouri, and the House resolution should be enacted into law, the Congress of the United States would surrender all authority over the election of Senators?

1\Ir. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, as another gentleman was speaking to me at the moment, I did not quite understand the gentleman's question.

Mr. KENDA . LL. If the _ resolution as it passed the House should be finally enacted into law, it would amount to a sm·­ render on the part of Congress of any authority over the election of Senators.

Mr. OLlISTED. It would, indeed; and it is very questionable whether it would not so emasculate section 4 as to make it inoperative and ineffectual for any purpose.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr . . OLMSTED. Certainly.

Mr. LONGWORTH. I understood the gentleman to say that the proposition for the election of Senators by the people has passed this House in different times.

.Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

11 r. LONGWORTH. Has it ever passed this House with the amendment proposed in this House resolution-amending section 4?

Mr. OLMSTED. It never has to my knowledge-never. The demand for the change of that section sprung up only after the recent elections had changed the political complexion of this House .

.Mr. KEThTDALL. Has that amendment ever been proposed in all the numerous times that the subject has been under discussion in the House until now?

Mr. OLMSTED. It never has.

This House joint resolution No. 39 has been amended by the Senate. That amendment, known as the Bristow amendment, is now before us. If we concur in the Bristow amendment then the constitutional amendment which will be submitted to the people will be precisely the same as the constitutional amendment which the House resolution in its original form proposed to submit, except that the words "The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof" will be omitted. In other words, as amended by the Senate this resolution proposes to submit to the people the single question of the amendment of section 3 so as to provide for the election of Senators by the people. It eliminates the proposed amendment of section 4 and permits that section to remain in the Constitution in the same form in which it has always existed. .. As I have already stated, there is no popular demand for the amendment of section 4. The amendment of that section has never been the subject of popular discussion. It is not under­ mum. stood by the people that anything of the kind is seriously contemplated.

Mr. HARDY, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman submit to a question?

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman yield?

l\fr. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, I will in this instance, but my time is so limited that I must ask gentlemen not to interrupt. · .Mr. HARDY. I just wanted to ask whether or not, historically, the Congress had ever undertaken to dictate as to the time or manner of the election of Senators under the clause of the Constitution to which the gentleman referred?

Mr. OLMSTED. Whether it has or has not does not affect the question.

1\Ir. HARDY. Except that it would be a very small matter to " kick " at, if in a hundred years--

Mr. OLl\lSTED. Then why "kick" at it? Why not leave it out, concur in this amendment, and let the matter go. [Applause on the Republican side.] As matter of fact, by the act of 1866, Congress has declared both the time and the manner in which Senators shall be elected.

Mr. HARDY. But the gentleman's objection is that it has not been utilized heretofore in the history of our country.

l\Ir. OLMSTED. No; that is the gentleman's objection-not mine-and it is not sound. It has been utilized. It is utilized to-day. Every Member of the United States Senate to-day was elected in pursuance of the dictation of an act of Congress passed in pursuance of authority contained in section 4 of Artile I of the Constitution. I call the gentleman's attention to sections 14 to 19 of the Revised Statutes.

The impression has gone abroad that the so-called · Bristow amendment proposes to put into the Constitution something which is not now and never has been there, which in some way may be used to enforce certain results in the election of Senators. Nothing could be further from the fact. The Bristow amendment is an amendment to the House resolution. It does not propose any amendment to the Constitution. Its design and object is to prevent any amendment to the · constitution except in the single matter of providing that Senators shall be elected by the people and not by the legislatures of the States. The Bristow amendment proposes that whatever power the Constitution now gives to Congress in the matter of regulating elections of Senators and Representatives in Congress shall remain untouched. It neither adds to nor subtracts from, that power.

Why should section 4 be amended at all? The Senate and the House are simply separate branches of the law-making body. Senators and Representatives are all Members of Congress ; they are all officers of the Federal Government. It is intended that Senators as well as Representatives shall henceforth be elected by the people. What process of reasoning justifies any distinction or discrimination in the power of Congress to make or alter regulations touching the times, places, and manner of electing the Members of these two bodies? The fact that Senators are now to be elected in the same manner as Representatives affords all the more reason why the same power should continue to exist in Congress in the one case as in the other.

It has been urged in argument that there is no necessity for retaining this power in Congress at all as to either branch; that the power conferred by section 4 is not now used and is not likely to be. This is a grave mistake. The law which Congress heretofore put upon the statute books prohibiting corporations from making campaign contributions in Federal elec· tions finds its sanction in section 4. Unless it be there found, Congress has no authority to pass any such law; unless section 4 authorizes Congress to require publicity of, or to limit, campaign expenses, then there was no authority in Congress to paf>s the law which it did pass one year ago, or for the further act which recently passed this body, and both those acts are invalid and of no account.

As long ago as 1842 it was found necessary for Congress to provide that the election of Representatives should be by districts. The only authority for that congressional action is found in section 4, and the same is true of the act of February 28, 1871 ( 16 Stat. L., 440), requiring nil votes for Representatives to be by written or printed ballot; and then there is the act of 1872, and it is not necessary to mention the so-called enforcement acts, all of which were deemed necessary at the time of their passage, but all of which were repealed in 18n4. The act of 1866, providing when and how Senators shall be elected, is in full force and operation.

The Democratic national platform of 1908 contains this plnnlr: We demand the enactment of a law preventing any corporation from contributing to campaign funds and any indlvldual from contributing an amount above a reasonable minimum, and providing for the publication before election of all such contributions above a reasonable miniAdopt resolution No. 39 in the form in which it passed the House and Congress will be deprived of all power to pass any such enactment touching the election of Senators; and I am not sure but that you will have so emasculated section 4 as to take away from Congress the authority to pass any enactment whatever upon that subject. But, in any event, are you willing, Mr. Speaker, while placing the election of Senators in the bands of the people, to deprive Congress of the power to see that those elections are free from corrupt and contaminating influences? As there are only 2 Senators from each State, while some of the States send 10, 20, and one will soon send 40 Representatives, it follows that each Senator has vastly more power and influence in the making of laws than the average Representative. The argument is made that vast business interests seek to control legislatures in the election of United States Senators. If that be true, will they be any less likely to seek to control the election of Senators by the people? If it is so important to prevent corporations and individuals from controlling or influencing the election of Representatives, is it not vastly more important to prevent them from contro1Iing the election of Senators, in whose elections they will be vastly more interested? Why shall not Congress retain the power which it now has to make or alter regulations for the election of Senators and Representatives. who are officers of the Federal Government?

Mr. BARTLETT. Will the gentleman permit an interruption?

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. OLMSTED. I do.

Mr. BARTLETT. The proposed amendment which the Senate adopted would lea-ve section 4 of this article unchanged, would not it?

Mr. OLMSTED. Entirely and utterly unchanged just as it exists now in the Constitution and as it has existed for more than a century and a quarter.

l\fr. BARTLETT. I was going to ask the gentleman, under that section 4 would the gentleman think that Congress now would have any power to regulate the election of United States Senators in any way by prescribing qualifications for electors, registration laws, or returning boards. Does the gentleman think the power exists in the Congress now with reference to the election of Senators to prescribe any regulations for electing Senators?

Mr. OLMSTED. It has whatever power the Constitution now gives to Congress. That power we propose to preserve and we do not propose to do a way with nor add to it in any way. We leave it unchanged. You propose to take that away--

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman yield right there?

Mr. OLMSTED. I do.

Mr. SHERLEY. While technically an · accurate statement, is that practically an accurate statement? Does not the very , change of method from election by legislatures to election by direct vote change inevitably the power of the Federal Government over such election in a practical sense?

l\Ir. OLMSTED. Of course we change the Constitution so that the people elect the Senators; of course we change it to that extent.

Mr. SHERLEY. But do not we also by that change actually enlarge the power that the Federal Government has.as to the election of Senators?

l\fr. OLMSTED. The power remains precisely the same.

Mr. SHERLEY. Oh, the language of the power remains the same, but the application of that power under certain circumstances is so different as to enlarge the power.

l\Ir. OLMSTED. Changing from the legislature to the people, of course, provides different circumstances to which the same power will apply.

Mr. SHERLEY. .And does not that practically serye to enlarge that power?

Mr. OLMSTED. It does not enlarge it at all. You bring certain conditions within that power, and why not?

Mr. SHERLEY. That is a different question. I am challenging the gentleman's statement that there is no change of power.

Mr. OLMSTED. There is no change of power whatever. You bring other conditions and other circumstances within the application of that same power. Why should not there be the same power? These two bodies are coordinate bodies; they have the same powers; they exercise the same authority. The Members are all Members of the Congress ; they are all Federal officers; why should not the Federal Government have power to regulate, when it may be necessary to regulate, the election of its own officers? Why should it not continue to have the - same power?

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. OLMSTED. I do.

Mr. BARTLETT. If the gentleman's argument is correct, why should not the same power exist as to electors that elect the President and Vice President of the United States?

Mr. OLMSTED. Perhaps it should.

l\Ir. BARTLETT. But it does not.

Mr. OLMSTED. When an amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted touching that point, we will consider it, but we are are not discussing it now. It is not involved in this pending resolution.

In my judgment it is absolutely essential that the power now conferred by the Constitution upon Congress shall continue to exist. Upon that point perhaps no better or higher authority can be found or better reason given than is contained in the language of distinguished Justices of the Supreme Court in the cases to which I shall refer. In ex parte Siebold (100 U. S., 371) the Supreme Court of the United States had before it in habeas corpus proceedings the case of a man who had been found guilty of stuffing a ballot box in Maryland, ill the city of Baltimore. He had been convicted under an act of Congress. The Supreme Court sustained the conviction and found that under section 4 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States Congress had power to pass the statutes in question touching the election. l\fr. Justice Bradley, speaking of the statutes passed by Congress upon the subject, said: They relate to elections of Members pf the House of Representatives, and were an assertion on the part of Congress of a power to pass laws for regulating and superintending said elections, and for securing the purity thereof and the rights of citizens to vote thereat peaceably and without molestation. It must be conceded to be a most important power and of a fundamental character. In the light of recent history and of the violence, fraud, corruption, and irregularity which have frequently prevailed at such elections it may easily be conceived that the exertion of the power, if it exists, may be necessary to the stability of our frame of government.

The right to vote for Senators or Representatives in Congress is not and can not be derived from State authority. It is derived from the Constitution of the United States.

.M:r. BARTLETT. l\fr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield to the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. OLMSTED. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Does the gentleman think be is accurate in stating the Supreme Court decided that the right to exercise the franchise to vote even for Members of Congress was derived from the Constitution of the United States?

Mr. OLMSTED. The court did say it.

Mr. BARTLETT. Where?

Mr. OLMSTED. .And it does not require any argument to show it Can any man vote for Senators of the United States said: now? No. How can he get that right? Through an amendment to the Constitution, and in no other way.

The people can not vote for Senators now; they will derive that right only from an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Senators as well as Representatives are very important functionaries of the United States. One very important branch of the Government can not be carried on without them. As declared by the Supreme Court in the Yarbrough case (110 U. S., 651):

The right to vote for Members of Congress is fundamentally based upon the Constitution of the United States and was not intended to be left within the exclusive control of the States. -

Why should we now so amend the Constitution as to leave it within the exclusive control of the States? Was there ever any Government on earth having legislative officers which did not retain control of the power to regulate the elections? [Applause.] · Mr. BARTLETT. I understood the gentleman to say that the Supreme Court had decided that a man has the right to vote for a Member of Congress.

l\fr. OLMSTED. No; except as that right is conferred by the Constitution. The State prescribes the qualifications of voters for the most numerous branch of the State legi lature. The Constitution provides that persons possessing those qualifications may vote for Representatives in Congress. The State could not confer that right. I am unable to extend in the short time that L have the courtesy that I would like to extend to the gentleman for further interruption.

l\f r. BARTLETT. I thought I had permission to interrupt, or J would not have done so.

Mr. OLMSTED. I did give the permission, but I find that I can not yield further now.

l\fr. BAR'l'LETT. I maintain the gentleman can not find any such law.

l\Ir. OLl\ISTED. The reasons why Congress must have power to regulate elections are forcibly stated by Mr. Justice Miller, who delivered the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in the Yarbrough case, wherein he said:

That a Government whose essential character is republican, whose executive head and legislative body are both elective, whose most numerou and powerful branch of the legislature i 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 consid e ration_ If this Government is anything more than a mere aggregation of delegated agents of other States and governments, it must t 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 h e lpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence and insidious corruption.

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman permit an inquiry right there?

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

Mr. OLMSTED. I would like to do so, but the time is so short that I trust the gentleman will excuse me.

.And, again, Mr. Justice Miller, in the same case, said-and I commend these words to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BARTLETT):

But it is not correct to say that the right to vote for a Member ot Congress does not depend on the Constitution of the United States. The office, if it be properly called an office, is created by that Constitution and by that alone_ It also declares how it shall be filled, namely, by election. • • * It is not true, therefore, that electors for Members of Congress owe their right to vote to the State law in any sense which makes the exercise of the right to depend exclusively on the law of the State.

.And he concludes his opinion in these terms:

It is as essential to the successful working of this Government that the great organi ms of its executive and legislative branches should be the free choice of the people as that the original form of it should be so. Jn absolute governments, where the monarch is the source of all power, it is still held to be important that the exercise of that power shall be free from the influence of extraneous violence and internal corruption_ In a republican government like ours, where political power is repos e d in representatives of the entire body of the people, chosen at short intervals by popular elections, the temptations to control these elections by violence and by corruption is a constant source of danger_ [Applause_]

Such has been the history of all republics, and, though ours has been comparatively free from both these evils in the past, no lover of bis country can shut his eyes to the fear of future danger from both sources.

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.

In the celebrated .McCullough case, Chief Justice Marshall No trace is to be found .in the Constitution of an intention to creat e a dependence of the Federal Government on the governments of th ~ States for the execution of the great powers assigned to it. Its means are adequate to its ends, and on those means alone was it expected t~ rely for the accomplishment of its ends.

This is the first attempt to make · the Government of the United States dependent entirely upon the will of the States. If there is reason for the existence of power in Congress touching the election of members of one branch of the la w-ma.killg body, there is equal reason for its existence as to the 0th . er. There · is, indeed, much more reason for congressional authority in the election of Senators than there is in the election of Representatives. It may be seldom necessary to exercise it as to either, but the time may come when it will be necessary to exercise it as to both. The Constitution was not made for a day, and amendments are not made for a day.

Let me show to gentlemen upon the other side of this Chamber what Mr. Madison, speaking in the Virginia convention, gave as the reason for the adoption of section 4, .Article I of the Federal Constitution. These are his words:

It was found necessary to leave the regulation of these (times, places, and manner) in the first places to the State governments as being best acquainted with the situation of the people, subject to the control of the General Government, in order to enable it to produce uniformity and prevent its own dis olution. Were they exclusively under the con· trol of the State governments, the General Government might easily be dissolved. nut if they be regulated properly by the State legislatures, the congressional control will very probably never be exercised. "Easily dissolved."· Is that the position in which gentlemen desire to place the General Government?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlemen upon the other side of the Chamber really and honestly desire to bring about the election of Senators by the people, let them not attempt to burden that proposition with an entirely different matter. Let them be content to amend section 3 of the Constitution without attempting to amend section 4.

How many States would ratify a proposition to amend section 4 alone? How many States would ratify a separate proposition to take a way from Oongre s the power now vested in it by the Constitution to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Federal offices? Very few, if any. How many States desiring to secure to the people the right to vote for United States Senators would fail to ratify a proposition to give them that right, merely because it did not at the same time take away the power which now e:x:i t in Congress to alter or runend regulations for Federal elections? Not one. But many States would be unwilling to ratify any amendment depriving Congress of the power it now posse se in that re­ · gard. Leave section 4 alone. Do not touch the power which now exists in Congress to act, as the necessity shall arise in such way as to secure and protect that freedom, fairness, and purity of elections, in which lies the safety of the Republic. Leave untouched that authority, the very existence of which in the Constitution serves to prevent the necessity for its exercise. Concur in thiS Senate amendment and there will not be a dozen .votes in this House again t the adoption of this resolution. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. RUCKER of :Mi ouri. ~fr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [.!Ur. CULLOP].

l\Ir. CULLOP. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. OLMSTED] for his construction of what is known as the Bristow amendment. The original amendment does not add to or take away from the Constitution, as to the election of United States Senators, the power to review their election if the Bristow amendment was eliminated altogether. Section 5 of the Constitution, which it is not proposed to ame-nd, reads as follows :

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members.

The construction put upon that provision of the Constitution has always enabled the body itself to determine the right of any person elected, or purporting to be elected thereto, to have the seat. Now, the Bristow amendment, if adopted, would provide a means for a dangerous precedent to be set. It is a step in the direction of taking from the people of the several States the right to conduct their own elections. It means the transfer of power from the States themselves to the General Government, u proposition that is dangerous within itself. It would give ample foundation for striking down powers now exercised by the States and transferring it to the National Government.

By the provisions of the Bristow amendment the elections of the several States might be held at a different time from the general elections of those States and under different election laws and by different election machinery. The expenses of the elections to be borne by the States could therefore be multiplied upon the people of the several States. It takes from them the right, if Congress sees fit, to hold their elections as they may desire and the -right to hold them at the time that they hold other elections. Now, the purpose of the Bristow amendment is plain. It is not offered in the interest of the election of Senators by the direct vote of the people, but it is offered for the purpose of preventing an election by a direct vote of the people of the seV"eral States-for the purpose of . defeating the movement. '[Applause on the Democratic side.] Certain States in the Union are opposed to the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people. A great majority of the States-but perhaps not three-fourths of themare in favor of the election of the United States Senators by a direct vote of the people. These States which are not in favor of it as an original proposition are advocating this amendment, with the hope of securing the aid of other States which fear the effect of this amendment to join them in refusing to ratify this amendment; and that is the purpose of the Bristow amendment, and the only purpose of it. If by the adoption of this amendment to the proposed measure they hope to secure by indirection what they are unable to accomplish by direction, they hope, by incorporating it into the proposition, that it will drive certain States against its ratification and thereby defeat its ultimate adoption by three-fourths of the States and therefore never become an amendment to the Constitution.

Our action, therefore, becomes the more important, not because of what we do but because of its future effect upon the result of this important question.

Now, what does it mean? It means to defer this proposition election of the United States Senator~if this proposition is adopted, more than a quarter of a century before the ratification by enough States to adopt the amendment will occur. It is proposed in order to have States which have had experience in Federal control of elections, because of the hardships they have had to bear under such procedure, to register their disapproval of this amendment and join with the other States that are opposed to it as an original proposition.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

l\fr . RUCKER of Missouri. l\1r. Speaker, I yield three more minutes to the gentleman.

l\fr. CULLOP. Now, l\fr. Speaker, it resolves itself into this kind of a proposition: The Democratic Party stands, as a party, in favor of the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. If this amendment, the Bristow amendment, is adopted, it mean the defeat of that proposition or the postponement of it for at least a quarter of a century. It endangers its success when referred to the people for ratification. Why? There are certain interests in this country, as every man knows, opposed to the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, because they can manipulate the election of these Senators under present conditions and continue their control in one of the great legislative bodies of the United States. Numerous illustrations might be given. The present method of electing Senators is destroying the influence and the integrity of one of the great legislative bodies of the United States. It is minimizing its influence and disparaging its influence with the people. It is taking away the confidence of the people in the action of that body, and that has been done because of the manner in which elections of United States Senators have been made in the last 20 years.

We have an illustration to-day before that body. The State of Colorado has only one Senator in the United States Senate to-day. If they had had a direct election by the people, that question could have been settled at the ballot box and not by a legislature tying up the election for a whole se sion of the legislature, and now the State has only one-half of its representation in the United States Senate. It is a well-known fact that legislatures do not always reflect the will of the majority of the people of the State. Numerous examples of betrayal in this respect are familiar to us all

This proposition when submitted to the people, in order that they might vote by ballot for their choice for United States Senators, is absolutely fair and is in keeping with the original traditions and best thought of the people who founded our institutions. Let the people control this question and not the little cliques that gather around the legislature for the purpose of manipulating the election of a United States Senator · in behalf of some special interest. If you had had an election of United States Senators by the direct vote of the people, much of the time and expense to the Government would not have been consumed, as it is to-day, by inT tigating the election of a certain Member of the United States Senate at this time. [Applau e on the Democratic side.] By popular vote that kind of procedure would be eliminated and su c h disgraceful scandals avoided. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

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

:Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. l\Ir. Speaker, does the gentleman desire to use any more time now?

Mr. OLMSTED. I yield to the gentleman from Michiga.13 [Mr. YOUNG].

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. YOUNG] is recognized.

l\Ir, YOUNG of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on the 12th day of last April the Committee on the Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, as the result of about one hour's deliberation, reported to this House two important measures : One the resolution now under discussion, for an amendment to the Constitution providing for the election of Senators by a vote of the people, and, as a part of the same resolution, another amendment taking away from Congress all power to regulate the time and manner of holding elections for Senators. The other measure was a - bill for the publicity of campaign expenses.

The resolution and the bill were twin measures. The period of gestation had been brief, as I have previously explained in this House. The parturition was painless, and no one on the Democratic side of this House seems to have noticed that there was any incongruity between these two, the offspring of a common mother. No one over there seems to have noticed that they were born back to back, one looking in one direction and the other in precisely the opposite direction.

Where did Congress derive its power to pass the publicity bill? Clearly from paragraph 1 of section 4 of Article I of the Constitution, which it is now proposed. to amend. There is no other word or line in the Constitution upon which the power to pass the publicity bill can be based.

But this is precisely the section that the resolution seeks to have amended. The power under which Congress acted in passing the publicity bill is precisely the power that the resolution to amend the Constitution proposes to abolish so far as it relates to Senators.

So you have the novel spectacle of the committee and the House saying in the bill that it is necessary for Congress to exercise the power given by this paragraph to prevent fraud and corruption and the subtle and furtive influence of malefactors of great wealth in the election of Representatives, and saying in the resolution that those malefactors should be left entirely untrammeled by Congress to exercise that crafty, silent, corrupt influence in the election of Senators. It has been often charged on the Democratic side of the House that the Senate is the seat of the corrupt influence of wealth, the last citadel of monopoly, and in an amendment intended to make that body more directly responsive to the will of , the people it is now proposed to withdraw from the election of its members every safeguard against fraud and corruption.

It will not do to say-it is not honest either with this House or with yourselves to say-that you have removed this danger when you have changed an election by the legislature for an election by the people. You know better. The position of a Senator of the United States in power and in the estimation of the people is of greater dignity than that of a Representa- tive in Congress. It is a greater prize to struggle for. The temptation to seize it by fair means or foul is greater than in the case of a Representative. Not only does the Senate exercise equal power with this House in legislation, but the Senate must be consulted in the enactment of all treaties and the appointment of all officials named by the President. To a selfish moneyed interest, seeking to control legislation for its own benefit, a Senator is four times as great a prize as a Representative. But this Democratic House of Representatives proposes, while guarding the elections where there is least danger of corruption, to thrown down the bars entirely in the case where there is the greatest danger of corruption. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. The gentleman from Michigan has spoken of the great power exercised by a Senator, and the supposed anxiety of special interests to take advantage of that power. Does not the gentleman believe it would be infinitely harder · for these special interests to control the election of a Senator when that election is by the people of the State, rather than by - the legislature?

l\Ir. YOUNG of . Michigan. I think it would be somewhat harder, and I have been in favor of that proposition, but that is not what I am discusing at this time.

Why did not some patriotic gentleman upon that side of the House point out the danger from this source to the palladium of our liberties, to the rights of the people from great combinations of capital, large employers of labor, Wall Street, Morgan, and the trusts, all seeking to capture a United States senatorship? Oh, I know that the gentleman from California gave us on this bill the first exhibition of the marvelous agility of the contortionist which our Democratic friends in this House have brought to such wonderful perfection, and which enables them on any and all occasions to talk one way and vote the other.

But it is said that the power to regulate the election of Senators has never been used. Oh, yes, that is true. Our fathers who sat in the Constitutional Convention placed many powers in the National Government which have never been exercised.