June 21, 1911

Mr. KE DALL. 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 colloquy is a nice frame up on its face, but it is not in accordance with the facts.

l\Iy friend 1\Ir. GoonwIN, of Arkansas, called my attention, and that of several other Members of the House, after this colloquy ended, to the fact that all of these gentlemen were entirely mistaken, and but for Mr. GooDwrn's attention and alertness it would not have been corrected in this discussion. The entire credit for the facts, as I now state them, is due to l\Ir. GooDWIN, who did not want the RECORD to go to the country without stating the facts.

Mr. KENDALL and l\Ir. LoNGWORTH, in this colloquy, both were in error, and led the distinguished lawyer, Mr. OLMSTED, into the same error when they asked him if at any time an amendment had been proposed in all the numerous times that the subject had been under discussion in this House until now similar to the Rucker amendment, and Mr. OLMSTED replied positively that “it never has."

These gentlemen also leave the impression that this amendment is one never before discussed on the floor of this House. But such is not the fact. The zeal of these gentlemen led them into this error.

This very resolution has several times passed this House, word for word and letter for letter, as it passed a few weeks ago. This identical resolution was introduced in the Fiftysecond Congress by the Hon. Henry St. George Tucker, of Virginia, and after quite a discussion was passed without a single dissenting vote, so far as the RECORD shows.

This resolution failed · to pass the Senate. The same resolution was introduced in the Fifty-third Congress by Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, and passed by a vote of 141 yeas and 50 nays.

The first time this resolution passed all the Republicans voted for it, or, to be more accurate, not a Republican voted against it. The second time it passed. in the Fifty-third Congress, such Republicans as the late Speaker Henderson and Mr. Hepburn, both of Iowa, voted for it, and the Hon. H. A. CooPER, of Wisconsin, and Dr. BARTHOLDT, of Missouri, also voted for it. These distinguished Republicans admitted that the resolution, identical with the one introduced and passed by this House, was a perfectly proper one.

Every intelligent vote cast against this measure and for the Bristow amendment is by a man who does not want the Senators elected by the people, and he wants it passed so that it will not be ratified by the States. Those followers and unintelligent Members who vote against it and for the Bristow amendment do not really appreciate how they are insulting their constituents at home and the people of their States and bayonets. do not have perception enough to see the real change in the power now vested in Congress.

So, Mr. Speaker, we must conclude that every man who votes for the Bristow amendment is really against the election of Senators by direct vote of the people, because the great and patriotic Republicans of the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congres es voted for the identical resolution which is now before the House.

This resolution is the one which has been most discussed before the people, because at the time it was being discussed in Congress the Populist Party was pressing it and made it a great national issue at that time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the statement of the gentleman from Iowa [Ur. KENDA.LL], in his question to the gentleman from Pennsyl· vania [l\lr. OLMSTED], that to pass the Bristow amendment will leave the Constitution just as it is, except that Senators will be directly elected by the people, and the answer by l\lr. OLMSTED, "That will be the only change," are also erroneous. These distinguished gentlemen are doubtless sincere in their position, but a careful examination into the question will convince them that they are in error.

If section 4 of Article I is left as it is and section 3 should be changed by amendment, placing the power to elect Senators in the people of the States instead of the legislatures of the States, it certainly extends the power, under section 4 of Article I, to the people who vote for Senators; whereas as it now is this power can only extend to the State legislature. So that a Federal election law passed by Congress now could not affect the manner in which a State will choose its own legislature. After that legislature is chosen then Congress can say in what manner that legislature must elect Senators. But this power in nowise affects the manner in which the people of the State have elected its own legislature or who had the right to vote or no right to vote in such State election. The people of the States are tlms beyond the reach of Congress in senatorial elections, as the Constitution now is, but if the people vote directly for Senators, then the power which elects is the people of the State, and section 4 of .Article I would apply to that power and thus enable Congress to control the State electorate in senatorial elections, which it can not now do. This is perfectly obvious, and the Democratic objection to the Bristow amendment is not foolish, sectional, or partisan.

Now, .Ur. Speaker, to summarize the case, let me say that I believe that no great reform in our legislation will ever be effected until we get Senators elected by a direct vote of the people of the States.

'The greatest indictment against our present form of govern- · ment is the corruption of our legislatures in senatorial elections. Within recent years every allegation in this indictment has been proven. We must not imagine that the verdict of the people is in doubt. It is made up. But we must not now trifle with the people. Let us not betray them by submitting an amendment which we know they will not and ought not to adopt.

We can trust the people of these States. They should have the right to send whom they choose to represent them in the Senate. They should not be , supervised by their servants, whom they send here. A Senator is and ought to be a servant of the people of the State and of the whole State. He should not in any manner have the right to prescribe the manner of his own election. This should be left to his masters, the people of the State. The servant should never be permitted to get beyond the reach of the master. The people should always be permitted to control their servants and the manner of choosing them. The Senator is the ambassador of the people of the State, and they should determine in what manner they shall choose him. It should never be in the power of the ambassadors to prescribe the manner in which they shall be chosen. Leave that to the wisdom of the people of the States.

Great and powerful influence can be used more effectively upon Congress than upon the people of the States.

You Republicans have been so recently repudiated at the polls that you fear the people.

Good governments have never been destroyed by the people, but by those who fear them. Bad governments should be destroyed by them. No government should ever be organized so that when it is bad that with its army and navy it is stronger than the majority of the people. The people should never consent in their organic laws that their servants be vested with a power which, when abused, they can not destroy with their ballots. Therefore any control of the people's ballot by our Federal Government, which controls the Army and the Navy, should never be permitted. Let ballots and not bayonets control. Ballots should always be out of the reach of the Gentlemen of the House, as you love the institutions of your fathers, do not extend the Federal control of the election of Senators so far that that control shall reach the sovereign voter of the State. You can not reach him now in senatorial elec· tions, and he will resent it if you undertake to do so.

The Bristow amendment, if adopted here and in the States, will reach him. You may adopt it here, but the States will not do so unless the people thereof shall say, We can not trust our· selves; we are unworthy; local self-government is impossible; we must have Congress to rule us and tell us who may and may not vote ; we can not hold fair elections ; we are too dishonest and too weak; we want the strong arm of the Federal Government made stronger, so that it will make us do right; the Declaration of Independence is a lie; local self-government is a failure; Article IX and Article X should never have been placed in our Constitution; government by the people is a failure; we want all power vested in Congressmen and Senators; they are wiser than we; we know not what we need; we are dishonest and can be bought; they are honest and can not be bought.

Gentlemen of the House, do you really think the people will ever say this? Do you not know that the people are aroused and will not thus be trifled with? You can not longer play upon their prejudices and passions. You can no longer make progress in the South, East, West, or North with the old "bloody shirt." Our people have a common destiny. The people of every section of our great Republic are ready to scourge from public life forever that man who would attempt to reopen the healed and healing wounds of the past.

Now, l\Ir. Speaker, coming as I do from that section of the country which has just been referred to by gentlemen on the other side; born, as I was, after the great conflict was over; taught to love this Government, taught to honor and respect my flag, I regret that any word should have been said on the floor of this House during this debate on this question affecting, as it does, the people of Maine, no less than the people of California, the people of Washington, no less than the people of Florida; affecting, indeed, the sovereign citizen in one section as vitally as in another. I had hoped that at this hour in the glory of this great country of ours we of the South might be permitted to speak our honest sentiments without having hurled in our faces the fact that our fathers differed as to great questions.

Is it possible that m these discus ions in the future they. will rake up the old embers? I trust not; because this amendment which we are presenting to you to-day did not originate with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Rucker], who has charge of it, but this was the work of the brain of the great Democratic statesman from Virginia, Mr. Tucker, and was introduced by a great and patriotic Republican Senator at the last session of Congress who hails from a State bordering upon Canada, a young gentleman who stands to-day as one of the leaders of this age, a man who rises above section, a man who looks at the question squarely and impartially; this same amendment was presented to the Republican Senate by this Republican Senator, and this amendment that the Democrats are supporting here is word for word and letter for letter as it was introduced by this Republican Senator. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Therefore you can not accuse this side of the House of acting in any partisan spirit.

I want to say that I fear more the concentration of power here in the city of Washington than I do the exercise of power by the people in their respective States. I have an abiding faith and confidence in the people of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and other States. I believe they will be able to take care of the situation. The time has passed when there can be any fear of a lack of representation in either branch of this body. The time has passed when anyone believes there will be a failure to elect, which was the fear confronting the fathers of the Republic.

Now, one gentleman on the other side of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. YouNG], referred to the fact that the power of the corporations and the great interests of this latures. country would be exercised, or might be exercised in the election of Senators. I say to him that if that be true, I would infinitely rather trust the sovereign people of these States than to trust the laws that might be made in this body regulating the election of United States Senators.

Gentlemen, I know-and I would not refer to it but from the fact that others have-I trust that no State in this Union will ever again be called upon to drink to its dregs the bitter cup of Federal control of elections. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I sincerely trust that that fear is, as our distinguished Representative from Illinois had to say a moment ago, a mere ghost. May God forever deliver the people from that criminal ordeal through which we had to go when our old Mississippi capital was a saturnalia of crime, and when bonds were issued for public works that never were built and the people loaded down heavily with taxation because laws were made, not by the people of the State, but made here in Congress. [Applause on the Democratic ' side.]

I trust the hour will never come when the people of Maine, Washington, Illinois, or any other State in the Union will be governed from the city of Washington. [AJ;>plause.]

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

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. RANDELL] .

.Mr. RANDELL of Texas. .Mr. Speaker, the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people has been a longcherished hope of a majority of our well-informed citizenship. The framers of the Constitution, having in mind both the expression of the popular will and the preservation of the sovereign States, provided in that instrument for Members of the House of Representatives to be elected by the direct vote of the people, while Senators were elected by the legislatures of the several States.

Article I of the Constitution of the United States provides: SEcTrox 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

SEC. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. • • •

SEC. 3. 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 ' ve one vote. • • • And if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any State, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until. the next .meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. • • •

SEC. 4. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, 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. • • • This resolution as it originally passed the House, April 13, 1911, provided for an amendment to the Constitution, as follows:

'l'he 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. The electors in each State shall have the qur.lifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

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

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.

'rhis amendment was in lieu of the first paragraph of section 3, Article I, and in lieu of so much of paragraph 2 of the same section as relates to the filling of vacancies, and in lieu of all of paragraph 1 of section 4, 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.

The Senate amendment to this resolution which is now under discussion, and upon which we will soon vote, strikes out the provision that " the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof," and places it in the power of the Congress to prescribe the time, manner, and places of holding elections for United States Senators.

To adopt this amendment would be to place in the power of the National Congress an absolute control of the elections held by the people of the various States in selecting United States Senators; a power that might be used despotically and in a manner subversive of liberty, preventing a fair expression of the people in the election of Senators.

Under the Constitution, the Congress has such power in regulating the elections of Senators and Representatives, but such control of the senatorial elections is adequately guarded, Senators being elected not by the people but by the State legislatures. popular idea that the Senate has, by reason of the manner of its election, been less responsive to the public will than was expected of it has occasioned a general demand all over the country that Senators should be elected directly by the people.

I most heartily favor this resolution; but I am unalterably opposed to the Senate amendment, which refuses to allow each State, by its legislature, to prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding an election for Senator without the power of Federal supervision. The abuse of elections by congressional authority, and the ever impending threat of interference with State elections of Members of Congress, should be a sufficient warning to every patriotic citizen, and should inspire this Congress to vigorously defend the right of the people in each State to manage their local affairs.

If the resolution without this amendment should become the · law, our purpose would be accomplished; United States Senators would be elected by direct vote of the people, under regulations prescribed by each State, and at the same time the integrity and efficiency of the Congress would neither be impeached nor impaired.

Our danger lies not in the liberty -0f the people, but in r~ stricting that . liberty. If the means of despotic interference with the .sacr·ed right of elections is made possible by the terms of our organic law, no one is wise enough to foretell where nor by what means the despotic power wm be · exercised. The interest of .any one State is the interest of all; and a power inimical to one is a threat to each.

Mr. Speaker, it is as unfortunate as it is unjust that gentlemen favoring the Senate amendment, evidently desiring to force Federal control over elections, should endeavor to drag into this debate the animosities <>f . sectional differences long since past The war has been over for nearly half a century, and the issues that grew out of it have :µo bearing upon the question now before Congress save to awaken a rational caution against unduly investing the National Government with supervisory power -over the political affairs of the States. It is, however, remarkable that those who adopt such questionable argument are the Members who seem to be opposed to this reform, .and are really not in favor of the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. That scho.ol of politicians a.re .always found against any proposition which seeks to put the people closer to the Government. They seem to distrust the people, and to consider that instead of the people c.ontroling the Government the Government should control the people, a theory that is contrary to the genius of the Republic. It is painful to observe :Members who have grown gray in the service exert themselves with all their might to make this a · sectional issue. The principle we contend for is not sectional; it is national. Democrats from all the States-No:rth, South, East, and West-recognize the importance of trusting the power of elections to the intelligence and patriotism of the citizens of each State, realizing that the expressed and implied powers · s of the National Government are fully adequate to protect its integrity. It is in no danger from any State, but each State may be endangered by it if the rights -0f local selfgov-ernment are foolishly sunendered. .

Mt·. Speaker, there is not a section in all this Union more loyal to the Constitution and the national flag than the Southern States. No section has more Americanism and none po s­ sesses greater patriotism. Our forefathers made the Constitution and unfurled the flag, and we are proud of both. The re­ . sults of a fratricidal war, in which was spilled the best blood of the Republic, have been accepted by our people, and their pledge of loyalty is without qualification. We make no apology and .ask none. Neither shame nor hate can be found in the bosom of the South.

The Southern States have never in all their history shown nor felt a disposition to interfere in any degree with the local -self-government of any - other section or any other State. Since the fires of war were extinguished and the smoke of its devastation has cleared away, the people of the South, instead of cherishing malice and ill will, have devoted themselves to the rebuilding of their homes, the fostering of their industries, and the uplifting of their citizenship, making a history that, were it truly written, would stand more resplendent than the achievements - of any people in .any country at any time. [Applause.] ln the last 40 years the South, arising from the ashes and deso l ation of war, has builded a prosperity that proclaims it to-day the most advanced and favored section of the Republic. Her people are in better condition than those of any other section of this Nation. They are not as wealthy as some, but their wealth is more justly distributed. They do not equ.al some sections in magnificence and display of wealth, but tl1e opportunities are open to all. Freedom waves her pinions over every hamlet, the hum of industry mingles with hosannas, and hope stirs the blood and quickens the noble ambitions of brave, God-fearing people, who are true to their ancestry and lOve their traditions. We have suffered interference by the National Government with our local elections in time of peace. That day is past. We hope it will never come again. But not for ourselves alone do we uphold this fundamental principle-the right of local self-go-vernment. We protest just as firmly .against the power of the National Government being exercised ad v ersely to the rights of the people of any other section. (Applause on the Democratic side.] We stand for the people of the States. When they elect a United States Senator, they should do it in their own way. It is safe to have the people the repository .of power; it is dangerous to take the power from them and unnecessarily intrust it to a delegated government. Such power in the Federal Government as the super- - vision 'Of our elections might, under norm a l conditions, in times of .absolute quiet, remain unexercised and do no harm. The danger would come in time -0f war, when, amid popular dissension, ambitious men, having · the reins -0f government, would exercise such supervisory power in · a manner dangerous to the liberties -0f the people and the life of the Republic. [Applause.]

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

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri l\.fr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].

l\lr. HUGHES of N-ew Jersey. Mr. · Speaker, I have voted on every occasion when this proposition was before the House in favor of electing United States Senators by the direct vote of the people. I have not given as much thought and attention to the Bristow amendment as perhaps I might have done, because I am perfectly frank to say that the Bristow amendment is not a burning issue in my section of the country. Amending the Constitution is a serious work, and one not lightly to be entered upon, .and, in search of light to guide one's actions it sometimes is useful to look np the RECORD and discover who 'are for and who are against the pending propositions. An ex.amination of the RECORD when this matter was before the House will disclose the fact that many of the gentlemen who voted for the 'Bristow amendment, then offered in substantially the same form by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. YOUNG] when it was before the House, on the final roll call voted against the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

l\Ir . .MADDEN. Is not the gentleman mistaken there? Did not all of the Republicans vote for the amendment and only 1.5 against the resolution?

Mr. HUGHES · of New Jersey. It may be that I have stated H wrong. I wm state it over again, that all of the gentlemen. who voted against the concurrent resolution, every single one of the gentlemen on your side of the House who finally Toted against the concurrent resolution voted in favor of the YounO' amendment, which is substantially the Bristow amendment. 0 Mr. MANN. We all voted for it.

Mr .. MADDEN. As a matter of fact, did not all of the Republicans vote for the Young amendment?

Mr. HUGHES of New Jersey. That does not alter my statement that every gentleman who voted in favor of the Young amendment voted against the proposition when he finally had it amended to suit himself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Rroonn will show that of those voting " no " on the concurrent resolution all of them voted in favor of the 'Bristow amendment. It has been said by gentlemen on that side of the House that a failure to amend this concurrent resolution as it would be amended by the 'Bristow amendment might cause its defeat in certain · sections of the country. Other gentlemen think that if the amendment prevails it will cause its defeat in certain sections of the country. I am inclined to the belief that perhaps there is more danger that this constitutional amendment will not become effective if the Bristow amendment is added to it. At any rate, as a Democrat who · desires this sincerely, interested in the welfare of his party, I would rather the responsibility of defeating this amendment would rise on that side of the House than this. [Applause on Democratic side.]

The SPEAKER. The time of tire gentleman has expired.

Mr. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Pnou:TY].

l\IJ.•. PROUTY. Mr. Speaker, I . have been sitting in this and the other Chamber listening to the discussion of this question in silence. I confess that I have been · somewhat annoyed by the evasion and dissembling that has been practiced in the discussion Qf this question. I am one of those persons who believe it is always best to be frank and discuss a question on its merits without evasion. -

I confess I have been rather pleased this afternoon to find g-entlemen on that side of the House at least becoming candid. {Applause on the Republican side.]

Now, what is the question involved here. It is the same question which has run through the history of this Republic and di'vided its people. The only difference between that side of the House and this is the difference between them on the question of State rights.

Every man familiar with the history of discussions which have · taken place upon this floor during the progress of this country knows that the same question being discussed her e to-day is the question that was discussed in these Halls just prior to the Civil War. It was the insistence of the South upon the doctrine of State rights that :finally culminated ill the Civil War. 1 1 •

There has been a group of States in the South that from the very foundation of this Government have entertained ideas upon the scope and power of the Federal Government . :;it variance with the ideas of a large majority of the people of the United States, and this fact has made a constant conflict between these people, or, more accurately speaking, between these two ideas, and it seems to crop out in every effort of general legislation. We are discussing here to-day the very questions that were discussed by Calhoun and Webster years ago. The same arguments are being offered on that side of the House that were offered by Calhoun. Now, gentlemen, I had hoped that that question had been settled and settled forever. I had hoped that that question would never again be the one upon which the fate of great legislation depended; but it is here, and there is no use in trying to disguise it. Let us strip off the mask, gentlemen, and look each other in the eye. You people are afraid that if the Federal Government retains the power to control elections in the South some of your plans will be interfered with.

You must have some plan in mind that you have not revealed because you do not believe, gentlemen, that the people of the United States as a whole are going to pass laws or make regulations that will interfere with a fair and honest election in South Carolina or any other Southern State.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PROUTY. Certainly.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Do you believe if the people of Iowa had the unlimited power to regulate the election of United States Senators that they would unwisely exercise that power?

Mr. PROUTY. No; and therefore we are not afraid that the General Government will interfere with us. Men only fear interference when they are contemplating some wrong. [Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Did not this proposed amendment as it passed the House a few days ago enlarge the powers of the people?

Mr. PROUTY. No; not as I see it, except as to the election of Senators by the direct vote of the people.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Ah!

Mr. PROUTY. It is not changed because you say "Ah!" That fortunately does not change the Constitution of this interpretation.

l\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. I merely expressed regret that one gentleman can not see a thing so obvious to me.

Mr. PROUTY. I hope the gentleman's regrets will not be taken out of my time.

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

Mr. PROUTY. Mr. Speaker, I guess I will be compelled on • account of time to decline.

l\Ir. FINLEY. I did not catch the gentleman's remark about South Carolina.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman refuses to yield.

Mr. FINLEY. I did not catch what the gentleman said about South Carolina.

Mr. PROUTY. I refuse to yield; and if you can possibly stop that gentleman, I will go on.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman refuses to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. PROUTY. Again, what is the question involved?

It is a question as to whether or not the Federal Government shall have the power to preserve its own existence and purity by determining, if necessary, the manner in which United States Senators shall be elected.

You gentlemen from the South seem to be extremely nervous for some reason. Why is it? Do you contemplate doing something that is wrong? I want to say to you that I am northern bom and northern bred, and I know that these people contemplate no wrong toward you or your people. So long as you attempt to elect a man to the United States Senate from the South fairly you will not be interfered with by the North. I want to say with equal candor, if you have in your mind the contemplation of the election of United States Senators by methods that are unfair and unpatriotic, the North wishes to reserve in its Constitution sufficient power to interfere and secure for your people fair elections, if you are either unable or unwilling to secure them for yourselves.

You gentlemen say we are raising a sectional question. Now, who raised it? This constitutional provision applies to the North and to the South. This provision applies as well to Iowa as to Florida. It can not be said to raise a sectional question unless the South is contemplating doing something or attempting something that she does not expect the North to attempt. Then it is sectional. If the gentlemen put an interpretation upon the Constitution that clearly reveals the intent upon the part of the South to fraudulent:Jy elect United States Senators if necessary, then I concede that we are raising a sectional question; but if sectionalism has crept into this discussion, it has been due to the attitude of the gentlemen from the South. They have always fought for the doctrine of State rights. They have always chafed under the power reserving in the Constitution the right of the l!.,ederal Government to supervise the election of Congress, both in the lower and in the upper House, and they think they are now in a situation where they can force an amendment of the Constitution in ' that respect.

They frankly say that the little coterie of Southern States will defeat the adoption of this amendment to the Constitution providing for the popular election of United States Senators unless another amendment is made to the Constitution limiting the powers of the Federal Government and extending the power of the States.

Almost everybody seems to be in favor of the popular election of United States Senators, and the gentlemen from the South are taking advantage of this situation to force into the Constitution that which they were not able to accomplish by the debates on this floor prior to the Civil War, nor by the decisions of the Supreme Court, nor by the terrible conflict · of arms.

The gentleman from Kentucky was the first gentleman on that side of the House to admit or declare that the adoption of this constitutional amendment as proposed by his side of the House would limit the power of the Federal Government and extend the power of the State government beyond that now contained in the Constitution. It was his remark that caused me to rise and make this protest.

I am extremely anxious for the election of United States Senators by popular vote. For more than 10 years upon the stump in Iowa and elsewhere I have advocated such elections, believing it would do much to restore this Government to the people; and I say frankly that I know of no measure that would more quickly produce results along that line than by placing the gentlemen at the other end of the Capitol in a position where they would have to respond to popular demand; but if it comes squarely to a decision on my part between the election of United States Senators as now by the legislature or surrendering to the South all the power of the Federal Government to interfere with their elections; if it comes squarely to a decision between the popular election of United States Senators and the extension of the doctrine of State sovereignty, I shall choose what I believe to be the least of the two evils and shall content myself by allowing the Constitution to remain as it is until such time as you gentlemen in the South are willing to have a Constitution that applies to you as well as to us. You have thrown down the gage of battle clearly. I for one accept it without faltering.

Mr. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MADDEN].

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have always been in favor of the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, but I am in favor of the Federal Government retaining control over the manner of their election. Gentlemen from the Democratic side of the House have said that in all likelihood this constitutional amendment would not be ratified by the States if it is adopted in the form in which it is presented by the proposed amendment; that is, if the Federal control is not taken away. Why do the Democrats say this? Why do they insist on taking the power to legislate on this subject away from the Congress? Why do they want to strike from section 4 of the Constitution the words "but the Congress shall have the power to legislate"? The reason must be apparent to ever yb ody who reasons. It takes no superior intelligence to understand their purpose. Their motive is that certain wellknown States may have unlimited and unrestricted power to destroy the franchise of the negro. They want him while ostensiby free to remain the chattel of the designing politicians of the South.

They are willing to · use the negro to do their menial service, but they wish to prevent his advancement in the scale of civilization. They are opposed to him as a man. They look upon him merely as an instrument to serve their purposes; they are not willing to accord him the rights of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution and the right vouchsafed by God to all men. They disregard the Biblical injunction " Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." They are not willing to concede that this is a government of manhood suffrage; they do not believe it is; in fact, they declare against it, not in words, but by acts, which are much stronger than words. They say this amendment to the Constitution can not be ratified unless it takes the power to legislate from the Congress. They know it, because there are enough Southern States to prevent its ratification. They want the States to have unrestricted control. '.rbey want to be able to pass laws through the State legislatures which can not be set aside by the Congress. They will not admit it, but if they are given the unlimited and unrestricted power to do so they will forever prevent a black m a n from exercising the rig h t to v o t e.

I want the Congress to retain. the power of control which i t now has under the Constitution. You, my Democratic friends, want to take this power away. I want every man, black and white, guaranteed in his right of citizenship. The Democratic oligarchy of the South wants no interference with its arbitrary power. The Democrats are in control in this body-they have y e the votes to pass the amendment in any form they choose-the responsibility is yours, gentlemen; exercise it if you will give this additional evidence of your hatred of the negro. Sta.mp him under foot as you have always done, but remember that a just G-Od still reigns and that the day will come when your present discrimination against the black man will be looked upon with disfavor by an unselfish, intelligent, and liberty-loving .. ou thern citizenship. Until that time comes it is my earnest hope that the Federal Government, through the Congress, may r ela in the power now given by the Constitution to prevent any un j ust, unwise, revolutionary legislation by the States by which millions of human beings IilllY be robbed of the right of :participation in governmental affairs. ·

There is no reason why we should curtail the power of the United States Government as to the right to regulate the election of United States Senators. The Congress has the power to legislate on the question of how Members of the House shall be elected. Is a Senator any more sacred than a Member of the House?

Is there any more reason why the power of the Congress should not be extended to the regulation of election of Senators than there is that it should be retained as to the regulation of the election of Members of the House?

We are to have one set of rights under the proposition presented by the Democratic side of the House with respect to the election of United States Senators, and .another set of rights with respect to the election of Members of the House. Do gentlemen from the Southern States wish it understood that the people of these States through their legislatures will fail to ratify a constitutional amendment which does not take away from the Congress the power to regulate?

The proposition, it was stated was originated by a .certain Member of the Senate. But the Democrats in the Fifty-second and Fifty-third Congresses presented this same proposition; they have presented it every time they have had power. They have endeavored to take away the right of the Congress to regulate the election of Federal officers.

The power of the Congress should not in any wise be curtailed. It is in no wise extended by this amendment proposed and known as the Bristow amendment. The rights of the people of the Union should be sacredly guarded by the Congress, and no State should ·· be given the power to regulate the election of United States Sena.tors without retaining in the Congress of the United States the power to control the action of the State in the event that that State undertakes to do what it ought not to do for the best interests of the people of the United States. We have 8,000,000 freemen in this country, liberated as a result of a civil war, and these men have rights, and those rights should be protected. Ah, it is true that Congress never has attempted to exercise special power with respect to the regulation of these elections, but it is because Congress has had the power that these States have :failed to enact radical · legislation discriminatory against certain classes of citizenship. To-day they are compelled to pass laws which, on their face, treat everybody alike, but which, as a fact, discriminate against a large number of our citizenship. They plead for the Filipino, but they do everything they can to crush to earth the American negro. [.Applause on the Republican side.]

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

Mr. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, I will ask the gentleman qualifications of the voters. from Missouri [Mr. RucKER] how many more speeches he expects to have on his side?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri Why, two or three. How many more has the gentleman on his side?

Mr. OLMSTED. Two.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri If the gentleman will recognize the gentleman. some gentleman on his side for a speech now, I will put mine in immediately following.

Mr. OLl\ISTED. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. JAoKsoN].

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, I concede that every Member who really wishes that the people shall elect the Senators wants this question submitted to the people of the country untrammeled by any other question, untrammeled by any question of race prejudice, and untrammeled by any questions of special interests.

Now, that being true, I think enough has been said to show one question and one fact on the floor of this House that ought t o lead to a solution of this proposition. Anil that will come, I believe, Mr. Speaker, from submitting this question to be voted upon by the people, changing the Constitution only so as to give the people the right to vote for Senators. Now, why do I say that enough has occurred here to show that that is right and the way it ought to be done? I say that the intensity of this demand coming from the people of the country and the anxiety of the people of the South to shoulder the responsibility of defeating this amendment, if it is submitted, upon the people of the North, and, on the other hand, the anxiety of the northern people to shoulder it upon the southern people, if it is defeated, show one fact. Now, · what is it? It is that the election of a Senator of the United States is a national question and not a local one. The people of Kansas are not alone interested in the proposition of electing their own Sena.tors. They are also interested in the proposition that when they do elect a Senator by a direct vote of the people that his vote shall not be annulled by the vote of another Senator who was not elected by the vote of the people, but was elected because of race prejudice or ignorance, or, if you please, by special interests in some other State of the Union.

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman permit a question?

Mr. JACKSON. Just a moment. Replying to what the gen· tleman from Kentucky, who now seeks to interrupt me, said when I interrupted him, I had no idea of reflecting upon the people of the South. In my judgment, . Mr. Speaker, the demand for laws enacted by the Federal Government to regulate elections will more likely, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. CANNON] has already indicated, come from the Eastern States, where special interests have too often controlled State legisla· tures, or the Western States, where · industrial prejudices have at times threatened the safety of life and property, or the extreme West, where a new race problem is fast becoming imminent. rather than from the South, or at least it is · just as apt to do so. But I protest that gentlemen upon that side of the House should stand here and declaim in favor of the rights of the people day after day, and yet the very moment that somebody proposes to give the Federal Government power to do the will of the people through the power of the people they vehemently object.

Now, I would like to know how you are going to make this a Government of the people ; I would like to know how you are going to establish in the Constitution of the country the right _ to elect Senators by the people, unless you give that same Government, which you profess to have confidence in, the power to regulate those elections.

Mr. SHERLEY. Now, will the gentleman permit an inquiry?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kansas yield to the gentleman from Kentucky?

Mr. JACKSON. I will.

Mr. SHERLEY. Does . snot the logic of the gentleman's position carry him to the point where the Federal Government should determine the qualifications of the voters themselves? .Mr. JACKSON. It does; and I claim tha.t it has the power now as to the Representatives who sit in this body.

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman permit anothe.r question?

· Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

Mr. SHERLEY. The gentleman does not mean to contend that the Congress -can now determine the qualifications of voters in the States?

~Ir. JACKSON. I contend that it can prevent fraud and discriminations, and it has done so.

Ur. SHERLEY. The gentleman does not meet the question.

Mr. JACKSON. In certain respects it does determine the

Mr. SHERLEY. The gentleman is mistaken in that.

Mr. JACKSON. I ca.n not yield any more.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes more to

Mr. JACKSON. Referring again to the question of the gentleman from Kentucky, which . ch has been discussed heretofore, I desire to call attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ex parte Yarborough, which has been cited back and forth in the . debate on this resolution. I read:

" Counsel for petitioners, seizing upon tlle expression found in the opinion of the court in the case of Minor v. Happersett (21 Wall., 162) that ' the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone,' without reference to the connection in which it is used, insists that the voters in this case do not owe their rights to vote in any sense to that instrument.

•;But too court n.s cflmha.tting the argument that this right was. conferred on all citizens, and therefore upon women as well as men. •

"In opposition to that idm it was . said the Constitution adopts as the qu lifi~ation for voters of Members of Congress. that which prevails in the- State where. the Totmg is to. be done; therefore, ~mo the: op.inion, the right is not definitely conferred on :my person or class at persons by the Constitution alone, beca use JOtli have to look to the mw of' the State foll' the- descriir tion of the class. But the court did not intend to say that when the class or the person is thw ascertained this right to vote for a Member of: Congress: was not fundamentally based upon the Constitution, which created the office of Member- of Congress, and decl3I'ed it should be elective, 1 and pointed to- the means of ascertaining who should be electors."

This answers the gentleman's question more fully 1mm I can do.

Now, I say if the Federal Government means anything, it must h.'lV'~ the power tu protect its elections, to protect its eleetors, and in that way only can ?€Jl'I secure the :real rights or the people to control the election o:f Members of Congress and Senators-.

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman yield? 1 l\k J'ACKSON. Yes.

l\!r. SHERLEY. I agree with the gentleman in that very opinion that the gentleman read 1 and it is fortified by :r. long list of cases where it is held that, so far as the qualifications oi the electors are concerned, it is a State right and not ni Federal right.

l\Ir. J"ACKSON. 'The gentleman can read those decisions for himself. I do not care to go into a further discussion of them.

This decision makes the- matter as plain as can be. The Constitution fixed the qualification of the vot.e:r in its own way. In the language of the court, when the: class, or person is thus ascertained, Ws right to vote is based upon the Constitution, which created the ottke of l\femhe~ of Congress, declared it should f>e elective, and pointed to the means of ' ascertaining who should be the electors-.

The whole law of this subject is clearl'y set forth in this decision, a.s well as ex:cellent reasons why it should be maintained us it is and why it should be made tu apply to elections of Senators. I read into the RECORD, the language of the court, at pages 660 and 661 of the decision (110 U. S. Rep.) :

'' So also has the Congress been slow to exercise the powe.rs expressly conferred upon it in relation to elections by the fourth section of the first article of the Constitution.”

This section declares tllilt-

" The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives- shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress: may at any time take or alter such regulations, except ns to the place of choosing Senators.

"'" It waS' not until 1842 that Congress , took any action under the power here. conferred, when. conceiving that the system of electing all the- Members of the House of Rep.resentati:ves from a. State by general ticket, n.s it was called; that is, every elector voting for as many na.mes as the State was entitled to Rep.resentaUns in that House, worked injustice to other States which did not adopt that system, and gave an undue preponderance of power to the political party which had a majority of votes in the Sta.te; however small, enacted that each Member should he elected l>y ft separate district composed'. of contiguous territory. (5 Stat., 491.)

aA.nd to remedy more flmn one evil arising from the election ot Members of Congress occurring at different times in the di.f­ ferent States Congress, by the act of February 2, 1872, 30 years later, required all: the elections for such Members to be held on the Tuesday after tire first Monday in November in 18T6, and on the same day every second year thereafter.

"The frequent failures of the legislatures of the State to elect Senators a.t the p-roper time by one branch of the. legislature voting for one per.son and the other branch for another person, and refusing in any manne:r to reconcile their cTiff erences, led Congress to pass an act which compelled the two bodies to meet in joint convention, and fixing the day when this should be done, and requiring them so to meet on every day thereafter and vote for a: Senator until one . was elected .

" In like manner Congress has fixed a day which is. ta be the same in all the States-, when the electors for President and Vice President shall be appointed.

'-'Now the day fixed for electing Members ot Congress has been established by Congress without regard to the time set for election of State officers in each State, and but for the f.a.ct that the State legislatures ha for th.el' ewn accammooation,. :required State elections to. be held at the same- time-, th-ese elections would be held for Con~en ~Jone- at the time fixed lzy" the conduct o.i Cong:ress. ·

"Will it be denied that it is in Ure . power of that body · to provide laws for- the proper conduct of those elections? To- provide, i1 n-ecessary, the- officers who shnll condnet them and ma.ke- return of the result? And especfan.y to provide; in :m election held under its own authority, for- security of life and limb to the voter while in the exercise o1 this function 1 Can ft be <Imibted that Gengr~s can oy lrl:w protect the act of voting, the place where it is done, and ti:Ie man wh<> votes from personal violence or intimidation 1 and the election. itself from corruption and fraud? u

We have been treated in this House ta a long dissertation from the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. O'S'HAUNESSY] describing the rotten boroughs at his own State and appealing to the national Democratic Party n.s- tlre great delivere~ of the people- of Rhode Island from tlmt eondlticm.

Now, r do not mean here to approve of what he- sa.id of conditions in Rhode Island. I do not know ab-Out them. But what I would like · to know is how in. the. worrcI can. the Congress of the United States, through the Democratic Party m· any other party 1 guarantee to the people of Rhode Island the right to elect Senators unless the Government has the power ta secure honesty of elections? [Applause an the Republican side-] The gentleman from Indiana [Yr_ Cur.Lop I so far fo:rgets himself in this- debate. as to assert that the proposer of this amendment is not really in favor of the erection of Sena.tors by the people. The gentleman probably does not lmo.w that the mo1el" of this amendment is one of the few Sena.tors who was really elected by the people of the State which he xep:resents. .And r assert that the Senators c.a.n. as wen be elected nnde.r the present laws of Kansas and Oregon, with the consent of the legislature, as under the laws to oo prescribed by State leo"ljsiatw:es under the proposed resolution, if it shall be adopted. If the State legislature so wills, Senators can no,w be elected by the people. It is the failure oi the State legislatures to. faithfully perform the duties conferred upon them by the Constitn.. tion which necessitates the proposed amendment frf the Consti· tution. 4- ) The same gentleman refers to the- failure- at the Legislature of Colorado to do its duty. What is the remedy! According to the gentleman :Uom Indiana, increase the power ()f the legislature. The gentleman from Indiana bemm:ms certain unfortunate circumstances which have be.en revealed in Illinois concerning the election of Senators. What is the remedy? Increase the poweF &f the Legislature 0f IDinois; make it greater than Congress and more powerful than the Gov-ernment of the United States. Then the gentleman delivers himself of this mighty truth :

ult is a well-known fact that legislatures do not always reflect the will of the majority of the people. Numerous examples of betrayal in this respect are familiar to us ru.J..."

And yet the gentleman pleads t& fuLve the. power of the legis lature increased. Down with ·~ “Federal eontrot l ,,. Let us ha-ve more power for the State . legislatrrre ! Tu the South these legislatures can continue to keep nearly haJ:t of the people from vo.ti.J.J& and in the North they can con.tinu-e the conduct the gentleman so eloquently deserr1>es-that of betraying the public will.

The position of the gentl'eman us well :is tlult of the party to which il'e belongs shonM fJe descrihcd as an attempt to. increase the power of the State legisiaturest anif not as 311 endea T"or- to inerease the power of tire people o-yei· the election. of Senators. 'Fhe whole truth is that these gentrem.en themselves. do n.ot believe in the lopsid'ed government which would result in giving into the hands of Sta.te. legislatures unrestrruned power over the election of one branch of . Congress. But they fe:ll'., unless this- trade of giving up Federal rights tQ the State ns a bribe to persuade them to let the people zote for their Senators is carried through, the resolution can not; secure tha approva.l of the States in the South.

But what will become. of it in the Northern Sfate~ where it must meet the. app1wvaI of: representati'ies of tho.usauds . of intelligent colored. men who really vote? Toou...~s af these industrious well-to-do citizens are: intelli:gent enough to, vote · e.ven in the Santb, and would do so if theJr lived there. The,y a.re human beings, they Ila.Ye . min.ds and Ilea~ and (a.DI think nrul feeL They are not likely to come fm-w::u:rl. und . say to the.tr former mas.ters in. the South, "We. will now vote: t°' help rou continue your imposition on our brothers in the So~ an~ we will do this in order that you may be given the right to vote directly for United States Senator."

- The Constitution now says when a man is entitled to vote for the most numerous branch of the legislature, he is entitled to vote for a Member of Congress, and the Federal Government is back of the guaranty. Why not leave it this way and adopt the same rule as to United States Senator? What is this "Federal control " which the Southern States fear so much? The control of a Government in which both Houses of Congress are to be elected directly by the people. There .can be no great danger there. And it is manifest that the will of the people of the whole country as to election laws will be wiser and more whole· some than that of any one part of the Union, subject as it will always be to local causes and prejudices.

I want every jot and tittle of the States' sovereignty on local matters under the Constitution retained, but I also want the integrity of the National Government secured.

The hour has struck for the Democratic Party. It has come again to the parting of the ways. As so well said by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Norris], "The hour of promise is over and the hour of performance is here." Choose this day between the right of all the people to elect their Senators and the exploded doctrine of State rights.

You say this right which you propose to take away from the National Government is inconsequential; then, why contend for it? Let no one deceive himself; this resolution must be passed now or it will not be passed this session, and every Democratic Member of this House knows it When you refuse to consent to the Senate amendment you have killed the entire resolution and declared to the country that you are more interested in securing a little more State rights than in securing the election of Senators by direct vote.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. RICHARDSON].

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is a Member of this House who is more reluctant than I am to see the Constitution of the United States altered or amended, unless the welfare of the people of the country demands the change. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that any sectional feeling can properly be brought into the consideration of this subject. I do not see how it can justly find a lodgment in this discussion. The object of the joint resolution we are discussing now is to elect United States Senators by the people. The joint resolution passed the- House and was amended in the Senate by the narrow margin of one vote, known as the Bristow amendment. It is that amendment that provokes opposition. In order to make myself intelligible I shall read Article I, section 3, of the Constitution:

ARTICLE I.