June 21, 1911

S EC . 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 one vote.

The amendment seeks to elect Senators by the people and change the manner in filling vacancies. The other article of the Constitution involved in this important question is Article I, section 4:

ARTICLE I.

SEC. 4. The time, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legis· lature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The joint resolution as it passed the House left the matter of the time, place, and manner of election of Senators to the respective legislatures of the different States. The Bristow amendment strikes out or leaves out the words of the joint resolution as it passed the House that directed that the legislature shall prescribe the manner and time for the election of United States Senators, and leaves such authority entirely dependent on section 4, Article I, of the Constitution, which I have just read. That, Mr. Speaker, is the situation, as I understand it. The question is asked: How is it that any of us object to the amendment?

It is generally conceded, and that in a much broader sense than I am willing to admit here now, that the Federal Government has the right to supervise and provide for the election of Members of the House of Representatives, under the provisions of section 4, Article I, of the Constitution. But I shall not undertake to elaborate my views on that line now. But it is not denied that under section 4, Article I, that the Government has exercised some authority and control over the election of Members of the House of Representatives. But the vital and far- . reaching inquiry is, If by a constitutional amendment the election of United States Senators is taken from the legislature and the authority granted to the people, what effect will that have on section 4, remaining as it now is, in the Constitution? That section provides for " holding elections for Senators and Representatives."

It looks to me that is a clear proposition that the Federal Government would assume, under section 4, the same control over election of Senators that it has exercised, or can ever exercise, over the election of Members of the House. That is why the opposition to the Bristow amendment is emphatic and decided. There are strong corroborative circumstances to substantiate these views and warn us all against the dangers lurking in this amendment. The election of Senators or the manner, time, and place of election has never, under section 4, been invoked by the Federal Government It would have been unreasonable and impracticable. United States Senators are chosen by the legislatures, and the people elect the members of the legislative bodies that elect Senators. · . Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I do not think any sectional feelrng can properly enter into this discussion. I find that many of the old Colonial States, . in the ripeness of their wisdom and acquainted with the grasping power of monarchy, frankly expressed their views at the time our Constitution was framed as to · what control or supervision the Federal Government should have or exercise over State elections; and they were pronounced in their convictions that the Federal Government should not interfere in elections provided for, unless the State had neglected or failed or refused to hold such elections as were necessary to carry on the Government. They simply said if the State should, for any cause, neglect to perform its highest duties to the Federal Government then the Government to protect its own existence could step in and take charge of the elections. No sane, pariotic man can object to that policy, and that is what our side of the Chamber wants.

Mr. Speaker, I say again, the fear that we have about this is not a sectional matter. That gives us no trouble. In fact, our section feels practically safe. Some man might, by some overzeal, bring in a racial question, which would be unjust and unfair, because race feeling has developed itself in all parts of the North. It is no longer confined to any one section. We are conscious of the fact that some few people of the North object to our State constitutions as to its limitations on the manhood franchise. The State I have the honor in part to represent­ .Alabama-makes no discrimination in its requirements of suffrage qualifications. .As I am advised, the Supreme Court of the United States passed on a similar suffrage qualification and held it not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. We are getting along very well on that line. The South is becoming rapidly one of the most prosperous sections of the Union. Better drop that.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Illinois [1\Ir. MADDEN] a few minutes ago-and I have great respect for the gentleman-put this question, as I understood at this distance: "Why is it that Senators should not be subjected to the same election rules and regulations as Members of the House? " Why, Mr. Speaker, if a man studies the theory of our dual form of government, I am surprised that he should ask that question. We know that, not the South alone, but Massachusetts and other colonial States, with Hamilton and Madison to help, who contributed so much to the strength, virtue, and wisdom of our Constitution, stood strongly for the view that a Senator represented an entity, represented the sovereignty of a State-representing all the people. The Senate as a body can and does engage in a great many things that the House can not engage in. We represent districts and subdivisions of · the people. . The Senate represents the sovereignty of the State, with equal power given every State in the Union. It may be that the next proposition will be to give the large States not more than a certain number of Senators and the small States shall have not I11ore than a prescribed number. We are, as a Government, stepping in that direction. I said just now that possibly a racial qu es tion might be brought into this contest. But I am rel u ctant to belie v e that any Member on the other side of the Chamber would willingly do that injustice and wrong to our peaceful condition. There is no occasion for sectional pyrotechnics, and I h a rdly think anyone will so indulge. It is a plain, open question as to whether the Senators should be subject in their election to the same restrictions as are Mernbers of the House. I say that to do that is to menace da.ngerously the perpetuity of our Republic.

No extreme measure of legislation for control of elections has ever been applied to Senators. Look at the Force bill that was attempted here years ago. I refer to it merely as an example. Did it apply to Senators? Why, no. It applied only to Representatives. [Applause on the Democratic side.] -

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HEFLIN].

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. Speaker, the war is over. [Applause]. I did not intend to speak upon this question, but the sarcastic remarks and bitter insinuations of ex-Speaker CAi~NON about the South and the war between the States are responsible for my part in this debate. Dr. Ellis-and he is a northern man-in his History of Our Country, says that the question of secessivn was ne\"er authoritatively settled until the war settled it. Charles Fr~ncls .A.dams, of Massachusetts, said that prior to the war betw~n the States the opinion was universal that in case of conflict between State and Federal governments sovereignty resided with the State a.nd to it allegiance was due.

:Hr. Speaker, good men and true fought on opposing sides in that conflict, fought for the right, as God gave them the power to see it. The South accepted in good faith the settlement of the sword, and we have supported loyally the flag of our common country. But the South since that struggle has suffered humiliation and persecution, and the ex-Speaker of this House, who was so ungenerous in his remarks a little while ago, has contributed to that humiliation and per.seeution.

He voted for the force bill, and he voted to reduce the South's representation in Congress, and he has voted against the election of United States Senators by direct 1ote of the peo])le. He has been repudiated by the country, humiliated by his own party, that refused to make him minority leader, and now he invites upon his head the contempt of the South-the section that gave him birth. [Loud applause on the Democratic side.] He may talk about the war and say that we are slow to forget and forgive.

Mr. Speaker, when my country was embroiled in war with Spain I sn w " Fighting Joe " Wheeler stand side by side with Gens. Shafter and Fitzhugh Lee and the son of Gen. Grant, fighting beneath our country's flag, and when I saw Worth .Bagley, a southern boy, spill the first blood in that struggle nt Cuba and the Stars and Stripes wrapped about his lifeless form and buried with him in North Carolina, I said: " Thank God! The war cf the sixties is over; we are a reunited people, with one heart, one country, and one flag." [Loud applause.] Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentlemen who represent the trusts, who do not want United States Senators elected by the people, that they can no longer deceive the North, the East, the West, nor the South by appealing to prejudice and trying to stir up strife between these sections. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Gentlemen, you can no longer hide your opposition to meritorious measures by appealing to the prejudices of the people. Your real position on this question shall be known. Stand up like men and show your hands, and never again try to hide behind a struggle long since dead and gone. Let the dead of that war-the blue and the gray-sleep, each in the mellow moonlight of his own proud memories-sleep until the light of eternity's morning shall break beyond the mystic mountains. Let East and West and North and South all work together for the good of each, and each for the good of all. Let us in the living present strike hands about a common center, for the good of the Republic, and bury this sectional feeling forever. [Loud and prolonged applause on the Democratic Eide.]

l\fr. OLMSTED. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Missouri how many speeches will be made on his side?

:Jfr. RUCKER of .Missouri. Only one more.

Mr. OLMSTED. I yield the balance of my time to llie gentleman from Illinois [.Mr. lliNN].

:Jlr. Mann]. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield two minutes to my colleague [Mr. Cannon].

l\Ir. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I just came into the House at the close of the remarks of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HEFLIN]. I am told that he took occasion to criticize my remarks as well as myself. I look in his eye nnd say that in my judgment the threat that you claim came to the South on account of the ignorant yotes, especially the far South, nas been for years removed; and in my judgment, it is just such gentlemeJl as the gentleman from Alabama, instead of accepting the situation, gets up the scarecrow of negro domination to play upon the minds of the people of the South that he may be perpetuated in political power. [.Applause on the Republican side.] :Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Illinois the former Speaker of this House, did not need to say a word defending himself from the aspersions of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. HEFLIN], because the mere birth of the gentleman from Illinois in North Carolina has cast more luster on the Sori ' th than all the labors of the gentleman from .Alabama ever has or ever will [.Applause on the Republican side.]

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States now provides that Congress may at any time by law make or alter regulations in regard to the time, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives which may be prescribed by the several State legifilatures, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

The distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [.Mr. SHERLEY], usually very accurate in his statements, challenged any exercise of the power by Congress under this provision of the Constitution as to the election of Senators, forgetting, apparently, that every Senator now in the Senate was elected, not in pursuance of State law, but in pursuance of the law Df the Congress of the United States. [Applause on the Republican side.] We ha, ~ e not exercised the powers thu.t we have to regu1a.te the manner of electing Members of the House, but we have exercised the power of regulating the time and manner of electing Senators. You do not ha-ve to read far in the Revised Statutes, until you find the third page, and it is in n.ccordan.ce with the provisions of the third pa;e of the Re"ised Statutes of the tJnited States that e1ery senatorial election has been held in e-rery State for years in the past. And yet the gentleman from Kentucky thinks that this po\\er llils not b~en exercised.

Mr. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman permit?

Mr. MANN. I na-re not the time to enter into a controyei·sy with the gentleman on that subject.

Now, what is this proposition? It is to take out of the Con ­ stitution this po\i·er which has been nnd is now exercised by the Congress. We bnxe passed the law gOTerning the election -0f Senators. It is to take out of the Constitution the power uader which we paE.,ed that law. We would still retain, it is true, the power to regulate the time and manner of elecU.:::ig Member of the House. Is it proposed, then, to have a separate election for Members of the House and Members of the Senate that gentlemen on that side of the aisle are so strenuous? We will retain the power to regulate the election of Members ot the House, but we shall have no power over the election of the Members of the Senate.

What is the reason for this? Mr. Speaker, it is not far to seek. Gentlemen on that side of the House have referred to • sectionalism, have decried the rn.ising of sectionalism. Who has raised the issue of £ectionalism on this point? Here was a case where tl.J.e people \\er·e asking that we giYe to them the power of direct election of Senators. No word said about chan O' ing the other prm·ision in the Constitution; and lo and behold ihat side of the House sprang sectionalism into this issue, _proposinO' to amend nnother prOTision of the Constitution. They thren te~ thnt if that does not go into the Constitution they and their Stutes in the South will refuse to ratify the amendment to the Constitution. '.rbey hn.1e raised the issue of sectionalism on this . The proposition invol\ed is fundamental to the perpetuation of our Government. If the pro1ision now being sought for had been in the Constitution when the War of the Rebellion broke out, the South could have paralyzed the Government with ­ out rebellion, without actual secession.

What you want on that side of the House is now, after the war has settled the fact tbat the States can not secede you want to accomplish indirectly what you were not permitt~a to accomplish directly. Since we by force of war declared tm t all the Rtates in the Union shall remain in the Union, you v.-n.nt to give the power to the States to take away her representation in the Senate and refuse to participate in the Senate of the United States, indirect secession.

...Ir. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANN. Yes.

lo.Ir. SHERLEY. Will the gentleman, speaking for his side, ngree on an amendment that will limit the power of the Fed ­ eral Government to those cases where the States fail i'o send Senators?

Mr. MANN. I will consider that question when we get to it.

Mr. SIIERLEY. It is presented now.

Mr. M.Al\TN. The gentleman from Kentucky is great, but he has not the power at this stage of the proceedings to present that question to the House.

Now, I do not wn.nt to waste any more time on that. The gentlerean knows as well as I Ile can not do it. [A.pnlause on the Republican side.] The gentleman's party had the ~power to make that motion, a preferential motion. The gentleman from Kentucky himself had the power this morning to offer that as a preferential motion, which would have come first before either of the motions now pending in the House, but the gentleman dld not seize the opportunity.

Mr. SHERLEY. Why, the gentleman knows that the motion to concur is ahead of the motion to concur with an amendment. Mr. M.A..NN. I know quite the contrary, that the motion to amend takes precedence of the motion to concur. The gentleman himself ought to know that much.

l\1r . SHERLEY. Well, declamation does not make law.

1\Ir. MANN. Now, what is the proposition? That side of the eignty. House says that it will not ratify the amendment to the Constitution, and why? You are no more interested in the South in the election of Senators than we are in the North . Any law which Congress might pass that affected the South would affect the "Xorth. What is your peculiar interest in the matter? · why do you object to a possibility of Congres controlling the election of Senators in the outh any more than we should object in the North? Why are you so tender on the point? Why are you so touchy about ele c tions in the South if they are on the square? If the Constitution as we propose--

,Jr . RUCKER of Missouri. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANN. For a question .

l\1r. RUCKER of l\fissouri. Why does the gentleman always 1ote against el e cting Senato r s by the people, if you want to elect them and not buy them?

1\Ir. MANN. The gentleman is mi taken. I have not done anything of the kind. I voted against this proposition. Now, why is it that gentlemen on that side of the House from the South · claim that they are so afraid of Congre s interveniuq anrl requiring honest and fair elections? I shall speak th~ plain truth, be c ause the truth ought to be spoken. The gentlemen on that side of the House are afraid that the (J'rnndfather clauses in the constitutions and elsewhere wlll be declared unconstitutional.

'Ibey are afraid that Congress may interfere to prevent the disfranchisement of the Negro vote in the South . They are in favor of the repeal of the fifteenth amendment to the Con stitution, which says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

You southern Democrats believe that if you can insert in the Constitution, as you a re now proposing, the following provision, "the times, places, and manner of holding elections for • Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof," that this may be construed as a partial repeal of the fifteenth amendment, and whether it so operates as a matter of theoretical law, you know that you intend that it shall operate so in fact The southern Democrats are not satisfied with the noninterference by the General Government which so far has prevailed in regard to the election laws of the Southern States. You want us in the North, by the adoption of this provision in the constitutional amendment, to condone and approve your acti o ns in the Southern States in depriving people of the right to vote solely because of their color. Having kept the blacks in the South in slavery for many years, you now again wish to reduce them to a condition of practical serfdom and servitude. You want the National Government to give to you a power under which you can deprive them of the right to vote, which means, in the long run, to deprive them of the right of education, which means, in the long run, the creation of a caste of lab o rers and practical serfs .

We of the North have had patience with you, probably more th a n we ought to have, in your struggle growing out of the freeing of the slaves. It was not possible for the ex-slaves and their descendants to fully embrace or appreciate in a short time the blessing or responsibilities of our American civiliza tion and our form of popular government. But we certainly protest against depriving the General Government of power to require and compel honest and fair elections in the South and el s e-where when it shall become necessary to the preservation of our Union or our progressive civilization .

You ought to be more than satisfied that we of the North hn re not been unduly oppressive in regard to your elections and ele c tion laws. But now, nearly 50 years away from the War of the Rebellion, you are seeking to minimize the results of that war. You are trying to take away from the General Government a power which it has always had and you are endeavoring to force the North to agree to this by attaching it as a rider to an amendment providing for the election of Senators by direct vote.

The method of electing Senators is after all a mere incident in government. But the power of the General Government to pr es erve and perpetuate itself by regulating, if necessary, the election of Members of Congress, both Members of the House and of the Senate, is fundamental and necessary to the perpetuation of the Union.

With your minds inflamed and your heads swelled by a temporary partisan victory in the country you gentlemen of the South are now attempting the role which the southern people before the war performed, that of forcing the northern Democrat. to yield to your leadership and to blindly follow you in matters which you propose in the selfish interests of Southern I States and which tend to the destruction of national soverYou believe in giving to the States power which the General Government now has and ought to exercise. On this side we believe in preserving to the National Government national sovereignty. You wish to aggrandize the sovereignty of the States at the expense of the sovereignty of the Government. We wish to pre erve intact the distribution and balance of power between the National Government and the States a laid down in the Constitution.

You believe in the impossibility of the progre sive civilization of the Negro. We believe that the Negro is part and parcel of our community, and that we ought to do everything within our power to educate the Negro into the responsibilities of citizen. ship. We recognize him as a man with equal political rights. You object to his being anything bµt an inferior . We propose to protect his rights. You believe he has no rights. You declaim your devotion to the national flag, but you e e k to strike the national power a blow, which in the course of time may become deadly and tend to the destruction of the Union.

vVe are willing to vote for the amendment to the Constitution providing for the <?le ~ election of S e nators by vote of the people, but we are not willing, in order to obtain your rnte for that propo ition, to pay you the price of adding to it the other propo ­ sition to destroy the power which the Government now has to regulate, in ca e of necessity, the election of Members of both Hou .. es of Cong~e .s. . . .

We are not willing to abandon national sovereignty and na ­ t10nul preservation and forsake the race which we set free. The slave power of the South in its palmie t days was no more imperious and impudent in i~s demands than yo.u are in this dernanfl. _ to-day. But there ~v1ll come an. awakening . I repeat there will come an awakening. . You will not always be per - mitted to stamp d e ri s ively upon the colored race which is mak ­ mg an heroic struggle for proper place and position.

Mr . RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, it is surely the irony of fate that brought the eloquent discussion of the learned gentleman from Illinois [l\fr. l\IANN] to a close just while he was in the midst of the grandfather clause, found in the consti ­ tution of some States, because that is about as near a live, pertinent question pertaining to the great moral reform demanded by the people of this country in the election of United States Senators as any Republican leader ever get . It is en ­ tirely appropriate that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr . .MANN] , who boldly asserts his oppo ition to any and every measure looking to the election of Senators by direct vote , should bo chosen to close this d e bate for those who pretend to favor · popular election, but who insist on a form of resolution which they think would be rejected and which they know would withdraw from the States some of the power they now have . [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. Speaker, it was no t necessary for the di tinguished exSpeaker, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr . C A NNON], to make his last speech, deli v ered a moment ago. His fir t speech put him correctly on rec o rd. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. IlEF ­ LIN] made no reference to the negro question. He does not have to appeal to sectional or ra c e i ss ues to perpetuate his service here. His vote and his el q u ent voice e-rer raised in behalf of the people of his country are a guaranty that Alabama will keep him here. [Applause on the Demo c ratic side.]

I had sincerely hop e d that nothing of a parti an character would be inje c ted into this debate . I app e aled to my very non ­ partisan friend fr o m Pennsylvania [l\fr. OLMSTED] to keep the lid on and not i n je c t partisan politic s into this discussion, but he took the lid off; and following him came the distinguishecl gentleman from Michigan [l\Ir . YouN o ], th e n the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [l\Ir. CANNON], and others, all dig~ing into the gr a Ye of the pn t , s e eking to arou s e passions which have long since been subdue d , and which I had hoped were" in the deep bo s om of the ocean buried" forever and forever.

l\Ir. CA:\"NON. l\lr. Spe a k e r, does the gentleman think tha t my remarks to which I aru informed the gentleman from Ala. - bama repli e d abounded in partisanship?

Mr . HUCI~.J!m of Mis. ouri. Oh, I am not going to enter into a discu s sion with the geil t lernan. He has just expressed thG fear that with popular el ec tion of Senators it might be possiblo to elect a Senator by a minority vote. This may be true, but I confess I would pref e r to ha v e a Senator elec t ed by eYen a minority of hon e st, loyal vo te rs rather than to have that higb office b o ught in and con tro lled b y special intere s ts. Would he? He is the most distin gu isheu expon e nt of the remnant of theonce great Republican Party. He is the only man here who has the courage of his con v i c tion-always wrong, but ne v er afraid to ch a m p ion the cau s e of error. LLaughter and applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend that the question now before the and House shall be confused. The issue presented is a. plain one. for Permit me to say to my Democratic friends, let no man fear and that in following the lead of Democracy he will ignore the oftexpressed will of the people of the United States. We stand for that great reform which our party has so long and so often world. demanded, that the gentleman from Nebraska [l\Ir. NORRIS], who is sometimes right, but generally wrong, says we insert in our party platforms with a rubber stamp. The Democratic Party intends to keep this great question before the people and which before Congress until popular sentiment aroused by the sober judgment and unconquerable will of a determined people shall have lashed those who oppose us into submission. . n.

Let me remind the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. NORRIS] that the only time the party to which he gives allegiance ever the voted in convention upon this issue they voted down this reform demanded by millions of people, and which he says he favors, by a vote of about 700 to a little over 100. There was not righteousness enough in that Republican convention to save his MANN] party from the fate which befell Sodom and Gomorrah, if the good Lord in his mercy and compassion had not changed his We mode of punishment.

Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that every man who sincerely, where honestly, and conscientiously desires to respond to the voice of the the people, a voice which has been echoing and reverberating to through the corridors of this Capitol for 50 years, but which the only penetrated the Senate Chamber in the last few months, to will vote to nonconcur in the Senate amendment now under consideration. The command of the American people is plain and unmistakable. We are charged and commissioned to take the and election of United States Senators out of the market. I do not want the price of a Senator from my State fixed by boards of exchange, in counting rooms, or in the offices of corporations gent, · or trusts. [Applause on the Democratic side.] The gentleman from Virginia [l\Ir. CARLIN] suggests that so-called jack pots and have recently been resorted to for the purpose of corrupting legislatures and controlling the election of Senators. We want and no jack-pot business in the election of Senators hereafter .

.My learned and distinguished friend, Mr. Mann, like his say distinguished colleague, Mr. CANNON, fearlessly and defiantly the tramples upon the will of his constituents, as I believe I know and that will, and opposes this reform ; but I admire him. I admire us him not for the good he does, but for his abandon in boldly saying to the people of that State which he so well represents in many respects, a people to-day discussed and sympathized with them by everybody, a State which to-day in sack cloth and ashes is lamenting a condition which has placed a stigma upon its fair name, which time only can efface. [Applause on the Demo­ ship cratic side.] I am sorry, under the circumstances--

1\Ir. JACKSON. Will the gentleman yield?

l\Ir. RUCKER of Missouri. Not now; I will get to Kansas in a minute-I am sorry he [Mr. MANN] will not vote the senti­ body, ments of the great majority of the people of his State, Democrats and Republicans alike; that he will not by his vote reflect with the judgment and wishes of the people and help to send this erned amendment to the several States in a form in which he knows it too will be ratified. Let me warn you that if the Bristow amendment which is agreed to by this House we will have evaded and not dis­ and charged our sworn duty. We are not simply directed to submit a proposed amendment to the Constitution, but we are charged with the duty of submitting a proposed amendment which we believe noun will be ratified by the States, thus securing the reform so long and so earnestly demanded. Concurrence in the Bristow amend­ I ment means the submission of an amendment for ratification Mr. MOON which entire delegations on this :floor tell us is objectionable to . their people. Let me say, personally I do not share the appre­ from hension that is expressed by gentlemen from one section that the Bristow amendment is fraught with dangerous and deadly menace to the welfare, happiness, and prosperity of that section, and I spurn the arguments made by gentlemen from another section that without the Bristow amendment the perpetuity of I am this great Republic is threatened. I can not believe the Fed­ the eral Government will ever invade any sovereign State in this comes Republic to destroy it, and I will not believe that of all the 46 who States, or of thos~ which may hereafter come into the Federal for Union, a solitary State can be named where any one man can ceive ever be found who will be so unpatriotic as to seek to snatch from that flag a single star of that constellation representing ence the Union of States and the glory and the power of this great Republic. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I want to say, to gentlemen, that treachery, insubordination, rebellion, and trea­ buying son are not nurtured into the children of this country by the have mothers who girn them birth and under whose tender care they it grow to manhood and womanhood. God bless the good mothers upon wives of our land. [Applause.] It ls to them that we look the patriotism which in all the years to come will guarantee preserve the Union of States, and a continuation of our onward and upward march which will forever make this the beacon light of all the civilized and patriotic nations of the Mr. Speaker, I proudly proclaim we do fear the people of our country. God knows the safety and perpetuity of this free Government lies in and with the plain people. The danger we may with good reason fear is the machinations, combinations, and conspiracies formed behind closed doors, in great counting rooms, in boards of exchange, in the private rooms of special interests, which seek to make a merchantable and commercial article of the most important and sacred right of American people, the right to say who shall serve them.

I hope that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. NORRIS], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. CooPER], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. JACKSON], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. do not mean to say that it would be dangerous to intrust the people of their States with a little more power. propose to take just a little power from the Federal Government, not to lose it-God knows, not to lose it-but deposit it it can and will be used-to give a little more power to patriotic citizens of sovereign States, to those who respond the country's call in the hour of peril, to the men who make Nation great, and permit the loyal citizens of each State determine the time, place, and the manner of electing their United States Senators. Do this and we will take the Lumber Trust, the Sugar Trust, the Leather Trust, the Steel Trust, every other trust out of the Senate of the United States. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Does the · gentleman from Michigan, and these other gentlemen, want to say to the intellipatriotic people of their State$," You are not worthy of this confidence”? "? Are the people of your States not patriotic enough intelligent enough to be trusted with this small increase of power? Way down in the southland, the abiding place of virtue beauty, of chivalry and patriotism, the hearts of those gallant people, those loyal sons of America, beating in unison, to you: "We believe in the patriotism and intelligence of people of the North, and we want to enlarge your powers ours, we want to join with you and want you to join with in amending the Federal Constitution so as to permit each sovereign State, unhampered and uncontrolled, to purify her elections, and secure the election of the people's choice to serve in the Senate of the United States."

Our position is one of confidence in the great body of the people. You Republicans repudiate and denounce the citizenof your States as wanting in intelligence, patriotism and civic pride. They will soon repudiate you because you 'have proven yourselves unworthy of the trust reposed in you.

A distinguished gentleman, one of the great lawyers of this the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Moon], spoke of treason to the States. I was surprised at that. One trouble him, and those who think as he does, is that they are govtoo much by their personal views and inclinations and little by the desires and wishes of a great constituency reposed confidence in them. They subordinate the will welfare of the people to their individual wishes and desires-sometimes the result of unpatriotic motives. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MooN] used the prowe" where he ought to use the pronoun " them " or "they." I am proud to be intrusted to do the will of the people represent. I have no patience with a political boss.

of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker--

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman yield to the gentleman

Pennsylvania?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Not now. I have passed Pennsylvania and I want to get to Kansas. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I have said that I do not believe the Federal Government will ever invade the States; but suppose I do not not one of those self-constituted bosses who trample upon will of the people and who deny and spurn the voice that to them from every n . ook and corner in their district, and undertakes to read a lecture to the people on what is best them. I do not believe that any of you gentlemen will deany considerable part of the people by your eulogies and panegyrics, your magnificent, beautiful expressions with referto the fathers. The fathers specifically empowered and commanded us in that sacred instrument itself, the Constitution, amend it just as soon as the trusts in this country commenced

United States Senators. [Laughter and applause.] We a duty to perform which now invites us. We can not put off. If we delay one hour we violate the injunction imposed us by the fathers. I tell · you to-day, my good friends, ! and especially you Republicans, who hail from that State whose people were first to catch the glad tidings of liberty, flung to tlie morning breeze by old Liberty Bell, that those- immortal patriots who framed that matchless charter of liberty, the Constitution of the United States, with prophetic wisdom looked down the corridors of time and saw that the time would come and the necessity would arise to amend the Constitution they gave us. And let me say to you further in the words of the great Irish patriot, "If the spirits of the departed participate in the cares and concerns of this life, 11 I doubt not that the spirits of the fathers are to-day hovering about this Chamber, solicitous for the preservation of the liberty they secured for us, and by their silent presence seeking to arouse you Republicans to patriotic action in your response to the known will of the people who confided in you.

Mr. MOON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has now gotten the Bristow amendment. back to Pennsylvania. Will he permit an inquiry now?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. If the " gentleman will make it very short.

Mr. MOON of Pennsylvania. I want to ask the gentleman whether the very object of forming the Constitution of the United States, as contained in the preamble, namely, that "in order to form a more perfect union "--

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri I am not going to discuss- that. You gentlemen on that side would lead me into a discussion of the Ten Commandments, which you know nothing about and care less about [Laughter.]

Mr. MOON of Pennsylvania. Will not the gentleman permit me an inquiry?

Mr. RUCKER of Mi souri. Let me tell you: something. Four or fi:-ve Senators--

Mr. MOON of Pennsylvania. I have not flni bed the question.

Mr. RUCKER of Mis ouri. I Im.ow I am not permitted to mention a Senator's name on this floor. I can criticize my colleagues here on this side of the House or on that side, if I want to do so, but parliamentary usage forbids that I refer to a Member of another august body.

In the language of the poet-

A subject's faults a subject may proclaim,

A. monarch's errors are- forbidden game.

But let me say to you, and if, perchance, my words should be wafted on the breeze to a distant part of this Capitol, let me state with all the emphasis I can command: Backed by the will of the people of this Republic, people who have been oppressed in the exercise of their rights, people who have ·rn been degraded and States that have been tainted; supported by the will of millions of loyal people, I say to the representatives of special interests everywhere, I say to you Republicans who refuse to do your duty, you may do yo1ll'" worst; the will of the people will be accomplished. And I say, " So mote it be." [Applause on the Democratic side.]

Mr. MOON of Pennsylvania. The gentleman has not permitted me to finish my question.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. The gentleman will pardon me. My time is limited. We are going to pass this resolution sub- mitting to the States for ratification an amendment to the Constitution providing for the direct election of Senators by the people. We are going to see to it hereafter that the taint of scandal shall not attach to the election of Senators in any State of the Union, if we are given the power, and it will be given. The Federal Government has had the power for 120- years, but it has lain dormant. .

The Government of the United States, through Congress, has never exercised the power given by that clause of the Constitution which you talk so much about. It has been a dead letter. We want to put it in effect in Illinois and in Pennsylvania and in Missouri. We want to put it in action in Kansas and in Colorado. We want to put it in effect in New York. We want to put it in operation wherever that flag floats to the breeze [applause on the Democratic side] and guarantee to the American people honest elections to the United States Senate and to the House of Representatives. ·

Now; let me digress u little for a minute .or two. Let me call your attention to a few things that give me hope. Let me make some observations on the vote in yonder body on the Bri tow amendment, an- amendment which some gentlemen say ,vn.s offered for the purpose of killing the measure. I will not say that, because it might be unparliamentary even if true, and besides, in the language of Mark Antony, "Those who did that deed are honorable men and will with reason answer " their constituencies. [Laughter.] Oh, if Senators could only be required to an wer at the bar of public opinion to-day, at . the time our messenger re t urns to the Senate the Bristow amendment with our disagreement noted, my word for it. the 44 Senators who voted for it would simultaneously spring to their feet, each vieing with the other for the privilege and honor of moving to recede from the Bristow amendment and to concur in the resolution as it passed the House. The trouble is, the people can not confer with their Senators to-day. But they will before the ides of November, 1912, and do not a single one of you Republicans forget it. [Applause on the Democratic side.] Remember, 44 Senators voted against and 44 Senators voted for the Bristow amendment. Those votes, strange to say, came from 30 States. Thirty States cast 44 votes for the amendment, and 30 States cast 44 votes against the Bristow amendment

On the vote on the Bristow amendment both Senators from 14 States voted for the amendment, and both Senators from 14 States voted against it. The Senators representing 14 States divided, one voting for and one voting against the adoption of Senators from two States, only one Senator being present from each and voting, voted for the Bristow amendment, and Senators from two other States each having but one Senator present, voted against the Bristow amendment.

That was u peculiar state of affairs. The 14 States whose Senators voted solidly for the Bristow amendment are Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

The 14 States whose Senators voted solidly against the amendment of the resolution are Alabama, Florida Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennes ee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. The 2 States represented by 1 Senator each which supported the amendment are Colorado and Vermont.

The 2 States repre ented by 1 Senator each which ' opposed the amendment are Maine and South Carolina.

On the passage of the resolution in the House, after haVing first voted down here by a large majority an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Jackson] similar in all essential respects to the Bristow amendment, the vote was 207 in favor of the resolution, just as reported by your committee, and only 15 against it

The decisive vote by which the resolution was passed in this House was cast by public servants who were elected last fall and who in April stood before the bar of this House and before Almighty Goer and swore they would respond to their duties as Representatives. It was a phenomenal ·rnte-297 for the resolution against the pitiful number of 15 against it. I am not going to tell the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. MANN] where 2 or 3 of those 15 came from, or even remind him of the fact that some of them came from the city of Chicago, the home of a distinguished member of his political party who has demonstrated that he has more confidence in results obtained through the medium of a jack pot than through a ballot box. [Laughter.]

Mr. MANN. I was one of them. [Applause and laughter.] The gentleman never need ' stop telling how I voted for fear of hurting my conscience. [Laughter.]

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. No; I could not hurt your conscience. [Laughter.] I regret to have to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is not saving grace enough in any political party to rescue and save that man from his political sins. [Laughter and applause.]

Mr. MANN. The gentleman sees there was not, does he not?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I conscientiously believe that the just God which Patrick Henry said presides over the destiny of nations and to whom he appealed does in fact preside over this Nation, and that some day He will deign to stoop from :Ens great white throne and touch the heart of the gentleman from Illinois and make him respond to what he knows to be right. [Laughter and applause.]

The figur.es which I gave you a Moment ago show that when the vote was taken in the House on the passage of the resolution as reported to the House the Members of this body, chosen . at the last election by the people of the various districts in the 30 States represented, in whole or in part, by the 44 Senators who voted for the Bristow amendment, cast 176 votes for the adoption of the resolution and only 14 votes against it, 59 Members being absent or paired with ab entees. .

The vote in this House of Members representing · tlle 14 States whose Senators voted solidly for the Bristow amendment was 82 for and only 11 against the resolution in the exact form reported by your committee.

The vote in this House of the Members representing the 14 States whose Senators divided on the Bristow amendment was 91 for the resolution as reported to the House and only 3 votes against it

The vote of the Members representing the 2 States which each bad only one Senator present and voting for the amendment was 3 votes for the House resolution and none against it. Macon The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. OLMSTED] told us that this House bad never gone on record in favor of a resolution in the form of the one we now contend for until we passed it a few days ago. He is mistaken. I call his attention to the fact that a resolution, of which the pending resolution is an exact copy, was introduced in the Fifty-second Congress by a distinguished Democrat from Virginia [Mr. Tucker], and passed the House with the necessary two-third vote, without division or roll call. Of course it failed to pass the Senate. The same Post resolution, in language exactly like this, was again introduced in the Fifty-third Congress by Mr. Tucker, and pa.ssed on a roll call by a vote of 141 for to 50 against it. It may also be interesting to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. OLMSTED] to know that among those who voted for the resolution in the Fiftythird Congress were ex-Speaker Henderson, Hon. W. P. Hepburn, Hon. RICHARD BARTHOLDT, and Hon. H. s. Cooper, all prominent and distinguished Republicans, whom Democrats Austin forced to meet the issue, and who had courage enough to discard all other considerations and vote the will of the people they represented.

Mr. Speaker, Members of this House know they will have to show their constituents by their votes tba t they are sincerely in harmony with the public sentiment which demands the pas­ Cary sage of this resolution for the direct election of Senators by the people, and pass it in a form which will be acceptable to the States, if they hope to ever come back here again after Speaker CLARK is elected President, and- [Prolonged applause and cheering.]

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired. Draper All time has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I do not think my time ought to be curtailed by this unnecessary and unusual Fornes demonstration. [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the gentleman from Peµnsylvania [Mr. OLMSTED]

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were-yeas 111, nays 171, answered "present " 9, not voting 97, as follows:

YEAS-111.

Akin, N. Y. Foss Lawrence Pray Anderson, Minn. Foster, Vt. Lenroot Prouty Anthony French Lindbergh Ilees Barchfeld Gardner, Mass. McCall Reyburn Bartholdt Gillett McCreary Rodenberg Berger Good McKinley Simmons Bowman Green, Iowa. l\fcKlnney Slemp Bradley Griest 1\fcLaughlin Sloan Burke, Wis. Guernsey Mc:Uorran Smith, J. M. C. Butler Harris Madtlen Speer Campbell Hartman Mal by Steenerson Cannon Haugen Mann Stephens. Cal. Catlin Helgesen Matthews Stevens, Minn. Cooper Henry, Conn. Miller Sulloway Copley Hill Mondell Taylor, Ohio Crago Howell Moon, Pa. Thistlewood Currier Howland Moore, Pa. Towner Dalzell Hubbard Morse, Wis. Utter Danforth Humphrey, Wash. Mm·dock Volstead Davis , Minn. Jackson Needham Wedemeyer Dodds Kahn Nelson Wilder Driscoll, M. E. Kendall Norris Willis Dwight Kennedy Olmsted Wilson, Ill. Dyer Kent Patton, Pa. Wood, N. J. Esch Kopp Payne Woods, Iowa Farr La fferty Pickett Young, Kans. T •'ocl1t J,a Follette Plumley Young, Mich. Fordn<.'y Langley Porter

NAYS-171.

Adamson Cnrlin Faison Heflin Aiken, S. C. Carter Fields Helm Alexander Claypool Finley Henry, Tex. Allen Clayton Fitzgerald Hensley Anderson, Ohio Cline Flood, Va. Ilolland An sbe rry Collier Floyd, Ark. Houston Asllbrook Connell Foster, Ill. Howard Ayt'CS Conry Fowler Hughes, Ga. Barnhart Cox, Ind. Francis Hug-bes, N. J. Bartlett Cox, Ohio Gallagher Hull Bathrick Cullop Garner Humphreys, Mil!ll!I. Beall, Tex. Curley Garrett Jacoway Rell, Ga. Daugherty Glass Johnson, Ky. Blackmon Davis, W. Va. Goeke Jones Boehne Dent Goldfogle Kinkead, N. J. Booher Denver Goodwin, Ark. Kitchin Borland Dickinson Graham Konig Brantley Dickson, Miss. Gray Konop Broussard Dies Gregg, Pa. Korbly Buchanan Difenderfer Gudger Lamb Bulkley Doremus Hamill Lee, Pa. Burleson Doughton Hamilton, W. Va. Lever Burnett Driscoll, D. A. Hamlin Lewis Byrnes, S. C. Dupre Hardwick Linthicum Byrns, Tenn. Ellerbe Hardy Littlepage Callaway Estopinal Harrison, Miss. Lloyd Candler Evans Hay Lobe ck

McCoy Pou Scully Taylor, Colo. McGillicuddy Raker Sells Thayer McHenry Ransdell, La. Shackleford Thomas Rauch Sharp Townsend Maguire, Nebr. Rediield Sherley Tribble Martin, Colo. Richardson Sims Turnbull Mays Robinson Sisson Tuttle Morrison Roddenbery Slayden Underwood Moss, Ind. Rothermel Smith, N. Y. Watkins Murray Rouse Smith, Tex. Whitacre Oldfield Ru bey Stedman White O'Shaunessy Rucker, Colo. Stephens, Miss. Wicklitre Page Rucker, Mo. Stephens, Tex. Wilson, Pa . Palmer Russell Stone Witherspoon Pepper · Sabath 'l'albott, Md. Young, Tex.

Saunders Talcott, N. Y.

ANSWERED " PRESENT "-9

Clark. Fla. Hinds Longworth Morgan Davidson Kinkaid, Nebr. Maher Smith, Sarni. W. Gregg, Tex.

NOT VOTING-97.

Adair Gardner, N. J. Legare Reilly Ames George Levy Riordan Andrus Godwin, N. C. Lindsay Roberts, Mass. Gordon Littleton Roberts, Nev. Bates Gould Loud Sheppard Bingham Gre e ne, Mass. Loudenslager Sherwood Brown Hamilton. Mich. McDermott Small Burke, Pa. Hammond McGuire, Okla. Sparkman Burke, S. Dak. Hanna McKenzie Stack Calder Ha'rrison, N. Y. Madison Stanley Cantrill Hawley Martin, S. Dak. Sterling Hayes Mitchell Sulzer Covington HPald Moon, Tenn. Sweet Cravens Higgins Moore, Tex. Switzer Crumpacker Hobson Mott Taylor, Ala. Davenport Hughes, W. Va. Nye Tilson De Forest James Padgett Underhill Dixon, Ind. Johnson, S. C. Parran Vreeland Donohoe Kindred Patten, N. Y. Warburton h .. 1p11 Peters Webb

Edwards Know land Powers Weeks Frrirchild Lafean Prince Wilson, N. Y. Ferris Langham Pajo

Latta Rainey

Fuller Lee, Ga. R a ndell, Tex.

So the motion to concur was lost. to concur. The following pairs were announced:

For the session :

Mr. RIORDAN with Mr. ANDRUS. Mr. MAHER with ~Ir. CALDER. Until further notice: Mr. MOORE of Texas with Mr. HAYES. Mr. SWEET with Mr. WEEKS. Mr. DIXON of Indiana with Mr. MADISON. Mr. CRAVENS with Mr. LoUDENSLAGEB. Mr. JAMES with Mr. HAMILTON of Michigan. Mr. LEGARE with l\Ir. Loun. Mr. SPARKMAN with Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. CANTRILL with Mr. DE FOREST. l\fr. CLARK of Florida with Mr. NYE. Mr. TAYLOR of Alabama with Mr. GREENE of Massachusetts. Mr. McDERMOTT with Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. SHERWOOD with Mr. TILSON. l\lr. FORNES with l\lr. HANNA. Mr. HAMMOND with Mr. CRUMPACKER. Mr. CovINGTON with Mr. PARRAN. Mr. REILLY with Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. FERRIS with l\Ir. MORGAN. Mr. LITTLE"l'ON with Mr. VREELAND. Mr. GREGG of Texas with Mr. DRAPER. Mr. PuJo with Mr. HUGHES of West Virginia. Mr. Enw ARDS with Mr. MARTIN of South Dakota. Mr. HOBSON with Mr. FAIRCHILD. Mr. KIPP with Mr. LANGHAM . Mr. SULZER with Mr. McKENZIE. .Mr. PADGETT with Mr. GARDNER of New Jersey. Mr. WEBB with Mr. w ABBURTON. Mr. UNDERHILL with Mr. MOTT. Mr. DONOHOE with Mr. SWITZER. Mr. STACK with l\Ir. MITCHELL. Mr. LEVY with Mr. STERLING. Mr. LATTA with Mr. PRINCE. Mr. KINDRED with Mr. McGumE of Oklahoma. Mr. GoDWIN of North Carolina with Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. GEORGE with Mr. FULLER. Mr. DAVENPORT with Mr. CARY. Mr. ADAIR with Mr. HEALD. • Mr. GOULD with Ur. HINDS. Mr. PATTEN of New York with Mr. Bares. On this vote : Mr. STANLEY (against) with Mr. ROBERTS of Nevada (for amendment). Mr. LEE of Georgia (against) with Mr. HAWLEY (for amendment).

Mr. · SM.ALL (against) with Mr. Burke of Pennsylvania (for amendment) .

i\lr. JOHNSON of South Carolina (against) with Mr. HrGGINS (for amendment). Mr. RANDELL of Texas (against) with Mr. KmKATI> of Nebraska (for amendment). For two weeks : l\Ir. Brown with Mr. ROBERTS of Massachusetts. Mr. MOON of Tennessee with Mr. LAFEAN. F-0r three weeks : Mr. RAINEY with Mr. BURKE of South Dakota. Ending June 26: Mr. SHEPPARD with Mr. A.MES. Commencing June 21, ending July 1: Mr. lliruusON of New York with lli. LONGWORTH. After vote on woolen bill, ending with consideration of cotton bill:

Mr. WILSON of New York with Mr. SAMUEL W. SMITH.

The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded.

The SPEAKER. The motion to concur fails because twothirds have failed to vote for it, and that carries with it the vote to 'disagree to the Senate amendment.

Mr. RUCKER of MisS-Ouri. Do I understand the Chair to rule Congress. that it is unnecessary to make the motion to disagree?

The SPEAKER. That is what the Chair holds.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. If the Chair should put the motion to the House to disagree to the Senate amendment, that would not hurt anything, would it?

The SPEAKER. It would not, except that you might accidentally lose it, and then what? [Laughter.] At first the Chair was inclined to take the gentleman's view of it, but after consultation with the parliamentary clerk and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Mann, and finally with the great authority on parliamentary law, Mr. HrNDs, ()f Maine, we all agreed that the failure of the motion to concur was equivalent to a motion to disagree.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri I think we can safely leave the situation as it is, then; I have implicit confidence in the Speaker and in his parliamentary clerk, as well as in the gentleman from Maine, who formerly held th'at :position. I understand that there is agreement among them that no further motion is necessary. Now, if there should be error in that, and it should be called to our attention from the other end of the Capitol, -we would have a chance to take action, because the longer this thing goes the stronger the 'Situation will become.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the gentleman that there can be no condition of affairs arising in the Senate of that kind, because the message which the House sends to the Senate will be that the House does not concur in the Senate amendment.

The SPEAKER. The House refuses to concur in the Senate amendment.