May 13, 1912 (3)

" SEC. 2030. Nothing in this titl e s hall be con s trued to authorize the appointment of any marshals or d ep u ty mar s hals in addition to tho s o authorized by law, prior to th e 10 t h day of Jun e , 1872." (A.ct of June 10, 1872, cb. 415, 17 Stat. L., 349.)

" SEC. 2031. There shall be allo we d and paid to the chief sup e rvi s or, for his services as such offic e r, th e followin g c omp en s ation , a pa rt from and in excess of all f e es allow e d by law f o r the pe rfor ma n ce o f a ny duty as circuit court commissioner : For filin g and ca rin g fo r e v e r y return report, record, document, or oth e r pap e r r equ ir e d to be fi le d by him' under any of the preceding provi s ion s , 1 0 cents ; o f r affixi ng a seal to any paper, record, r e port, or instrum e n t, 2 0 cents ; o f r e n te ring and indexing the records of his offic e , 15 c e n t · per foli o; and fo r arranging and transmitting to Congre ss , as provid ed fo l' in sectio n 2020, any report, statement, record, return, o r e x am i natio n , fo r eac h folio, 15 cents ; and for any copy thereof. or o f an y paper on file, a lik e s um. And there shall be allowed and paid t o ea c h supervisor of elec ti o n , a nd each special deputy marshal who is ap po in ted and per f orms his duty under the preceding provisions, comp e n sa ti o n a t the r ate of 5 per day for each day be is actually on d uty , n o t exceedi n g 10 d ays ; but no compensation shall be allowed. in any case, to suoet · v i so r ~ 9 f e l e c­ tion except to those appointed in citi es or t owns of 20 , 000 o r m ore inhabitants . And the fees of the chief sup e rv is or s s h a ll b e pa id at the Treasm·y of the United States, such accoun t s to b e ma de out , v e rifi e d, examined, and certified as in the case of a c c oun ts o f c ommL lon e rs, save that the examination or certificat e requ>r e d may be mad e b:v either the circuit or district judge." (Act of F'eb. 28, 1871, ch. !)9, 16 Stat. L., 438 ; act of June 10, 1 872, ch. 415 ; 17 Stat. L., 349.)

"SEC. 5506 . Every person who, by any unlawful means, hind e rs, de ­ lays, prevents, or obstructs, or co~bines and confederates with others to hinder, delay, prevent, or obstruct, any citizen from · doing any act required to be done to qualify him to vote, or from voting at any election in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be fined not less than $500, or be imprisoned not les s than one month nor more than one year, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment." (Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. L., 141.)

"SEC. 5511. If, at any election for Representativ e or Delegate in Congress, any person knowingly personates and vot es, or attempts to vote, in the name of any other person, whether living, dead, or fictitious ; or votes more than once at the same election for any candidate for the same office ; or votes at a place where he may not be lawfully entitled to vote; or votes without having a lawful right to vote; or does any unlawful act to secure an opportunity to vote for himself, or any other person ; or by force, threat, intimidation, bribery, reward, or offer thereof, unlawfully prevents any qualified voter of any State, or of any Territory, from freely exercising the right of suffrage, or by any such means induces any voter to refuse to exercise such right, or compels, or induces , by any such means, any officer of an election in any such State or Territory to rec eive a vote from a person not l egally qualified or entitled to vote; or interferes in any manner with · any officer of such election in the discharge of his duties ; or by any such means, or other unlawful means, induc es any offi ce r of an election or officer whose duty it is to asce rt a in, announce, or declare the result of any such election, or give or make any certificate, document, or evidence in relation thereto, to violate or refuse to comply with his duty or any law regulating the same; or knowino-ly receives the vote of any perso:i not entitled to vote, or refuses to receive the vote of any person entitled to vote, or aids, counsels, procm·es, or advises any such voter, person, or officer to do any act her eby made a crime, or omit to do any duty the omission of which is hereby made a crime, or att empts to do so, he shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, or by imprisonment not more than three.,, years , or by both, and shall pay the costs of the prosecution." (Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. L., 141.) " SEC. 5512. If, at any registration of voters for an election for Representative or Delegate in the Congress of the United States, any person knowingly personat es and registers, or attempts to register, in the name of any _ other person, whether livfng, dead, or fictitious, or fraudulently registers, or fraudulently attempts to register, not having a lawful right so to do; or does any unlawful act to secure registration for himself or :my other person ; or by force, threat, menace, intimidation , bribery, reward, or offer, or promise thereof, or other unlawful means, prevents or hinders any person having a lawful right to r egister from duly exercising such right; or como e ls or induces by any of Rueb means, or other unlawful means, any officer of registJ:ation to admit to registration any person not legally entitled thereto, or interf e r e s in any manner with any officer of registration in the discharg e of his duties, or by any such means, or other unlawful means, i.I,lduces any officer of registration to violate or refuse to comply with his duty or any law regulating the same ; or if any such officer knowingly and wlllfully registers as a voter any person not entitled to be regi ste red, or refuses to so register any person entitled to be registered ; or if any such officer or ofher person who has any duty to perform in relation to such registration or election, in ascertaining, announcing, or declaring the result thereof, or in giving or making any certificate, docum e nt, or evidence in relation thereto, knowingly neglects or refuses to perform any duty required by law, or violates any duty imposed by law, or does any act unauthorized by law relating to or affecting such r eg istration or election, or the result thereof, or any certificate, document, or evidence in relation thereto, or if any person aids, counsels, procures, or advises any such voter, person, . or officer to do any act hereby made a crime, or to omit any act the omission of which is hereby mad e a crime, every such person shall be punishable as prescribed in the preceding section." (Act of Fe11. 28, 1871, ch. 99, 16 Stat. L., 433; act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. L., 145.)

"SEC. 5513. Every registration made under the laws of any State or Territory, for any State or other election at which such Representative or Delegate in Congress may be chosen, shall be deemed to be a registration within the meaning of the preceding section, notwithstanding such registration is also made for the purposes of any State, Territorial, or municipal election." (Act of Feb. 28, 1871, ch. 99, 16 Stat. L., 433.) " SEC. 5514. Whenever the laws of any State or Territory require that the name of a candidate or person to be voted for as Representative or Delegate in Congress shall be printed, written, or contained on any ticket or ballot with the names of other candidates or persons to be voted for at the same election as State, Territorial, municipal, or local officers, it shall be deemed sufficient prima facie evidence to convict any person charged with voting, or offering to vote, unlawfully, under the provisions of this chapter, to prove that the person so charged cast or offered to cast such a ticket or ballot whereon the name of such R ep resentative or Delegate might by law be printed, written, or contained, or that the person so charged committed any of the offenses denounced in this chapter with reference to such ticket or ballot." (Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. L., 145.)

" SEC. 5515. Every officer of an election at which any Representative or Delegates in Congress is voted for, whether such officer of election be appointed or created by or under any law or authority of the United States, or by or under any State, Territorial, district, or municipal law or authority, who neglects or refuses to perform any duty in regard to such election required of him by any law of the United States. or of any State or Territory thereof; or who violates any duty so imposed; or who knowingly does any acts thereby unauthorized, with intent to affect any such election, or the result thereof; or who fraudulently makes any false certificate of the result of such election in regard to such Representative or Delegate ; or who withholds, conceals, or destroys any certificate of record so required by law respecting the election of any such Representative or Delegate; or . who neglects or refuses to make and return such certificate as r equire d by law ; or who aids, counsels, procures, or advises any voter, person. or officer to do any act by this or any of the preceding sections made a crime, or to omit to do any d~ty the omission of which is by this or any of such sections made a crime, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as prescribed in section 5511." (Act of May 31, 1870, ch. 114, 16 Stat. L This section was amended by the act of February 18, 1875, chapter 80, Eighteenth Statutes at Large, page 320, by changing the last word from "ten" to "eleven,'' as above given.

" SEC. 5520. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote from giving his support or advocacy, in a legal manner, toward or in favor of · the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Memner of the Congress of the United States, or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy, each ot such persons shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than $5,000, or by imp risonment, with or without hard labor, not less than six months nor mor e than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment." (Act of Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, 17 Stat. L., 13.)

" SEC. 552L If any person be appointed a supervisor of election or a special deputy marshal under the provisions of title 'The elective franchise,' and has taken the oath of office as such supervisor of elec ­ tion or such special deputy marshal, and thereafter neglects or refuses, without good and lawful excuse, to perform and discharge fully the duti es, obliga tlons, and requirements of such office until th e expiration of the te1·m for which he was a ppo inted, be shal l not only be subject to removal from office with loss of all pay or emo lu ments, but shall be puni shed by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than on e year, or by a fine of not le ss than $'.WO and not more than $500, or by both fine atld imprisonment, and shall pay the costs of prosecution." (Act of Feb. 28, 1871, ch. 99, 16 Stat. L., 437.)

" SEC. 5522. Every person, whether with or without any authority, power, or process, or pretended author ity, power, or proc ess, of any State, Territory, or municipality, who obstructs, hinders, assault , or by bribery, solicitation, or otherwise interferes with or prevents the supervisors of election, or either of them, or the marshal or his general or special deputie,s, or either of them, in the performance of any duty required of them, or either of them, or which ht! or they. or either of them, may be authorized to perform by any law of the United States , in the execution of process or otherwise, or who by any of the means before mentioned hinders or perverts the free attendance and presence a1; such places of registration or at such polls of election, or full and free access and egress to and from any such plac.e of registration or poll of election, or in going to and from any such place of r egistrat ion or poll of election, or to and from any room where any such registration or election or canvass of votes, or of making any returns or certificates thereof, may be had, or who molests, interferes with, remov es, or ejects from any such place of registration or poll of election , or of. canvassing votes cast thereat, or of making returns or certificates thereof, any supervisor of election, the marshal, or his general or special deputies, or either of them ; or who threatens, or attempts, or offers so to do, or refuses or neglects to aid and assist any supervisor of election. or the marshal or his general or special deputies, or either of them, in the performance of his or their duties, when required by him or them, or either of them, to give such aid and assistance, shall be liable to instant arrest without process, and shall be punished by imprisonment not more than two years or by a fine of not more than $3,000, or by both such fine and imprisonm en t, and shall pay the cost of the pro e cution." (Act of Feb. 28, 1871 , ch. 99, 16 Stat. L., 436.)

"SEC. 5523. Every person who, during th e progress of any verification of any list of the persons who may have registered or voted, which is bad or made under any of the provisions of title ' The elective franchise,' refuses to answer, or refrains from answering, or, answering, knowingly gives false information in respect to any inquiry lawfully made, shall be punishable by imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or by a fine of not more than $100 or by both, and shall pay the costs of the prosecution." (Act of Feb. 28, 18Tl, ch. 99, 16 Stat. L., 437.)

I believe in the common sense of the American people. I do not believe that the apprehensions of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. BARTLETT] are justified. I do not believe­

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. TAGGART] has expired.

Mr. TAGGART. l\lr. Speaker, I ask for two minutes more.

l\!r. RUCKER of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, how much time has the gentleman used?

The SPEAKER. Five minutes.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. I will yield to the gentleman two minutes Illore. · l\ir. TAGGART. In the brief time allowed to me, I want to call attention to section 4 of the Constitution, as follows:

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. (Const., Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members. (Const., I, 5.)

And in conclrn;ion I wish eEpecially to call attention to chapter 13 of the Autobiography of Senator Hoar, in wbich that late distinguished and beloved Senator called attention to an act that was proposed to regulate elections in the United States and what became of it.

CH.APTER 13.

THE FEDFlllAL ELEC'l;'IONS BILL.

In December, 1889, the Republican Party succeeded to the legislative power in the country for the first time in 16 years. Since 1873 there had been a Democratic President for four years, and a Dem_ocratic House or Senate or both for the rest of the time. There wus a general belief on the part of the Republicans that the House of Representatives, as constituted for 14 years of that time, and that the Presidency itself when occupied by Mr. Cleveland, represented nothing but usurpation, by which, in large districts of the country, the will of the people had been defeated. There were some faint denials at the time when these claims wern made in either House of Congress as to elections in the Southern States. But nobody seems to deny now that the charges were true. Mr. Senator TILLMAN, of South Carolina, stated in my hearing in the Senate :

"We took the Government away. We stuffed ballot boxes. We shot them. We are not ashamed of it. The Senator from Wisconsin would have done the same thing. I see it in his eye right now. He would have done it. With that system-force, tissue ballots, etc.-we got tired ourselves. So we called a constitutional convention, and we eliminated, as I said, all of the colored people whom we could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments.

" I want to call your attention to the remarkable change that has come over the spirit of the dream of the Republicans ; to remind you, gentlemen of the North, that your slogans of the past-brotherhood of man and fatherhood · of G<>d-have gone glimmering down the ages. The brotherhood of man exists no longer, because you shoot negroes in Illinois, when they come in competition with your labor, and we shoot them in South Carolina, when they come in competition with us in the matter of elections. You do not love them any better than we do. You used to pretend that you did; but you no longer pretend It, except to get their votes.

"You deal with the Filipinos just as you deal with the negroes, only you treat them a heap worse."

No Democrat rose to deny his statement, and, so far as I know, no Democratic paper contradicted it. The Republicans, who had elected President Hanison and a Republican House in 1888, were ag-reed, with very few exceptions, as to the duty of providing a remedy for this great wrong. Their presidential convention, held at Chicago in 1888, passed a resolution demanding, " effective legislation to secure in te g rity and purity of elections , which are the fountains · of all public authority," and charged that the "present administration !llld the .Democratic majority in Congress owe their existence to the suppression of the ballot by a criminal nullification of the Constitution and the laws of the United States." •

In the Senate at the winter session of 18 88 and at the beginning of the December se:ssion of 1889, a good many b ills were introduced for the security of naticn a l elections. Similar bills were introduced in the House. A special committee was appointed there to deal with that subject. I had, myself, no doubt of the constitutional ·authority of Congress, and of its duty, if it were able, to pass an effective law for that purpose.

I was the chairman o:!' the Committee on Privileges and Eelections, and it was my duty to give special attention to that subject. I had carefully prepared a bill in the vacation, based on one introduced by Mr. Sherman, providing for holding, under nation al authority, separate registrations and elections for Members of Congress. But when I got to Washington, I found, on consult at ion with every Republican Senator except one, that a large majority were averse to an arrangement which would double the cost of elections throughout the country, and which, in States where personal registration every year . is required, would demand from every citizen his presence at the p lace of polling or registration four times every alternate year. That is, in the years when there were Congressmen to be elec te d he must go twice to be registered-once for the State election, and once for the congressional-and twice to vote. So I drew another bill. I say I drew it. But I bad the great advantage of consultation with Senator Spooner of Wisconsin , a very able lawyer who had lately come to the Senate, and I can hardly say that the bill, as it was finally drafted, was more mine or his. This bill provided, in substance, that there should be national officers of both parties who should be present at the registration and election of Members of Congress, and at the count of the vote, and' who should know and report everything which should happen, so that all facts affecting the honesty of the election :md the return might be before the House of Representatives. To this were added some sections providing for the punishment of bribery, fraud, and misconduct of election officers. · In the meantime the House of Representatives had appointed n special commit-tee charged with a similar duty. Members of that committee saw me and insisted, with a good deal of reas o n. that a measure which concerned the election of Members of th e :iio:lSe of Representatives should originate in that body. Accordingly the Senate committee held back its bill and awaited the . action of the House, which sent a bill to the Senate, July 15, 1890. 1 ‘The House bill dealt not only with the matter of e ection, but also with th e selection of juries, and some other important kindred subjects. Our committee struck out from it everything that did not bear directly on elections ; mitigated the severity of the penalties, and r e duced the bulk of the bill very considerably. The measure was reported in a new draft by way of substitute. It remained before the Senate until the beginning of the neAI: session, when it was taken up for action. . It was a very simple measure.

It only extended the law which, with the approbation of both parties, had been in force in cities of more than 20 , 000 inhabitants to congressional districts, when th e re should be an application to the court, setting forth the necessity for its protection. That law had received the commendation of many leading Democrats, including S. S. Cox, Secretary Whitney, the four Democratic Congressmen who represented Brooklyn, and lien. Slocum, then Representative at large from the State of New York. It had been put in force on the application of Democrats quite as often as on that of Republicans. We added to our bill a provision that in case of a dispute concerning an election certificate, the circuit court of the United States in which the di st rict was situated should hear the case and should award a certificate entitling the Members to be placed on the clerk's roll, and to hold his seat until the House itself should act on the case. That provision was copied from the English law of 1868, which has given absolute public satisfaction there. This was the famous force bill, and the whole of it-a provision that, if a sufficient petition were made to the court for that purpose, officers appointed by the court , belonging to people. both parties should be present and watch the election; that the judge of the circuit court should determine, in case of dispute, what name should be put on the roll of the House of Representatives, in the beginning, subject to the constitutional power of the House to correct it and that a moderate punishment for bribery, intimidation, and fraud' on indictment and conviction by a jury of the vicinage, should be im- posed. That was the whole of it.

But the southern Democratic leaders with great adroitness proceeded to repeat the process known as " firing the southern heart" They persuaded their people that there was an attempt to control elections by national authority. They realized that the waning power of their party at the South-many of whose business men saw that the path of pro perity for the South as well as for the North lay in the adoption of Republican policies-might be reestablished by exciting the fear of negro domination. The northern Democrats, either very 1gnorantly or willfully, united in the outcry. Gov. Wiliam E. Russell, of Massachusetts, a gentleman of large influence and popularity with both p a rties, telegraphed to President Cleveland a pious thanksgiving for the defeat of this "wicked bill."

Some worthy Republican Senators became alarmed. They thought with a good deal of reason, that it was better to allow existing evils and conditions to be cured by time and the returning con sc ience and good sense of the people rather than have the strife, the result of which must be quite doubtful, which the enactment and enforcement of this law, however moderate and ju s t, would inevitably create.

On reflection I came myself to the conclusion that while the bill was reasonable and there was no reasonable doubt of the power of Cengress to enact it, yet the attempt to pass it if It were to fall would do the cause infinite mischief. It would be an exhibition of impotence. always injurious to a political party. It would drive back into the Democratic Party many men who were afraid of negro domination, who looked with great dislike on the assertion of national power over electioni::, and whom other considerations would induce to act with the Republicans. So I thought it was best to ascertain carefully the prevailing opinion and see if we were likely to get the bill through, and if we found that unlikely not to proceed far enough to have a debate in either House.

Accordingly I visited the House of Representatives. saw several o! my Massachusetts colleagues and some other leaders. They agreed that if I found that the bill could not in all probability pass the Senate it should be arranged to Jay it aside in the House wnnout making any serious movement for it there. After that arrangement was made there was a Senate caucus. I br ou1?ht up the matter and moved the appointment of a committee to consider the whole question of l eu legislation with reference to the security of elections. A gentleman who had ~ec ently become a Member of the Senate rose and quite a ngrily obJected to taking up the matter for consideration. He declared that he would n ot consent o have the subject introduced in a Republican caucus. The proc ee ding-s of such caucuses are suppose d to be kept from the public. But they are pretty sure to leak out. I could not very well get up and say that my reason for asking for a comm ' committee was to see whether the law should be suppressed or not. So I did not urge my motion. But I did the best I could.

Before r e porting the bill I saw every Republican Senator and obtain e <l his opinion upon it. I have in my pos s ession th e original m e moranda of the various answers. Not only a majority of the Republican Senators, but a majority of the whole Senate declared emphat ­ ically for an election bill. I further consulted them whether the authority, in case of a disputed election, to ord e r, upon hearing, the name of the person found to be elected to be placed on the roll should be lodged in the United States courts or in some special tribunal. Two or " three preferr e d that ~ the court should not be invoked. But a majority of the whole Senate favored vesting the power in the courts, and those who preferred another 1• way stated th a t they were willing to abide by the judgment of the committee. .

When the House bill came up it was, on the 7th of August, u:rno. reported favorably with my bill as a substitute. :Meantime the McKinley tariff bill, which Mr. Cleveland had made. so far as he could, the sole issue in the late election, · had been matur e d and r epo rted. It affected all the business interests of the country. . They were in a state of uncertainty and alarm . Mr. Qu ay, of Penn sy lvania, proposed a resolution to the effect that c erta in enumerated measures, not including the election bill, should be considered at that session, and that all others should be postponed. That, I suppose, would have had the entire Democratic support and Republicans enough to give it a majority. It would have postponed the e l ection bill without giving any assurance of its consid e ration at the short session. So a conference of Repub licans was held at which an a~reeme nt was made, which I drew up, and signed by a majority of the entire Senate. It entitled the friends of the election bill to be assured that it would be brought to a vote and passed at the short se sion. if there were the n a majority in its favor. This is the agreement, of which I have the original, with the original signatures annexed, in my possession :

"We will vote: 1. To take up for consideration on the first day of the next session the Federal election bill, and to keep it b efo re the Senate to the exclusion of other legislative business, until it shall be dispose d of by a vote. 2. To make such provision as to the time and manner of taking the vote as shall be decided, by a majority of the Republican Senators. to be necessary in order to secure such vote, either by a general rule like that proposed by Mr. Hoar. and now pending before the Committee on Rules, or by special . al rule of the same purport, applicable only to the election bill."

At the next December sess ion the bill was taken up for con sideratio n and, after a few days' debate, there was a motion lo lay i t aside. Since the measure had been first introduced, the s e ntim ent in certain parts of the country in favor of the free coinage of silver had been strengthened . Several of the ReP'Ublican Senators were among its most zealous advocates. There was a motion to lay aside the election bill, which was adopted by a bare majority, the Democrats voting for it and several of the silver Republican Senators, so-called. All but one of these bad signed their names to the promise I have printed. I never have known by what process of reasoning they reconciled their action with their word. But 1 know that in heated political strife men of honor, ev n men of ability, sometimes deceive themselves by a casuistic reasoning which would not convince them at other times.

The election bill deeply excited the whole country. Its supporters were denounced by the Democratic papers everywhere, North and South, with a bitterness which I hardly knew before that the English language was capable of expressing. My mail was crowd ed with letters, many of them anonymous, the rest generally quite as anonymous, even if the writer's name were signed, d en ouncing me with all the vigor and all the scurriUty of which the writers were capable. I think this is the last great outbreak of anger which has spread throughout the American 1 got, however, a good deal of consolation from the stanch fri e ndship and support of the Republicans of Massachusetts. which never failed me during the very h eight of this storm. Whittier sent me a volume of poetry which he h . ad just published, with the inscription written on the blank leaf in his own h a nd. " To George F. Hear, with the love of his old friend, John G. Whittier." I think I would have gone through ten times as much objurgation as I had to encounter for those few words.

There has never since been an attempt to protect national de c ti-Ons by national authority. The last vestige of the national statute for securing purity of elections was repealed in President Cleveland's second administration, under the lead of Senator Hill, of New York. I have reflected very carefully as to my duty in that matter. I am clearly of the opinion that Congress has power to regulate the matt e r of elections of Members of the House of Representatives and to make suitable provisions for honest elections and an hon es t ascertainment of the result, and that such legislation ou g ht to be enacted and kept on the statute book and enforced. But such le gis lation, to be of any value whatever. must be permanent. If It only be maintained in force while one political party is in power and r epea led when Its antagonist comes in, and is to be a constant matter of political strife and sectional discussion, it is better, in my judgment, to abandon it than to keep up an incessant, t, fruitless struggle. It is like legislation to prohibit by law the selling of liquor. I believe that it would be wise to prohibit the sale of liquor, with the exceptions usually made in prohibitory laws. But if we are to have in any State, as we have had in so many States , a prohibitory law one year, another with different provisions the next, a license law the next, and the difficulty all the time in enforcing any · of them, it is better to give the attempt at prohibition up and to adopt a local option, or high license , or some other policy. In other words, it is better to have the second best law kept permanently on the statute book than to have the best law there half the time.

So after Senator Hill's repealing act got through the Senate, I announced that so far as I was concerned and so far as I had the right to express the opinion of Northern Republicans, I thought the attempt to secure the rights of the colored people by national legislation would be abandoned until there were a considerable change of opinion in the counfry, and especially in the South, and until it had ceased to become matter of party strife. To that announcement Senator Chandler, of New Hampshire, who had been one of the most zealous advocates of the national laws, expressed his assent. That statement has been repeated once or twice on the floor of the Senate. So far as I know, no Republican has dissented from it. Certainly there has been no bill for that purpose introduced in either House of Congress, or proposed, so far as I know, in the Republican press or in any Republican platform since.

rhe question upon which the policy of all national election laws depends is, At whose will do you hold your right to be an American citizen? What power can you invoke if that right be withheld from you? If you hold the right at will of your State, then you can invoke no power but the State for its vindication. If you hold it at the will of the Nation, as expressed by the people of fbe whole Nation under the Constitution of the United States, then you are entitled to invoke the power of the United States for its enforcement whenever necessary. If you bold it at the will of the white Democracy of any State or neighborhood then, as unfortunately seems to be the case in a good many States, you will be permitted to exercise it only ii you are a white man, and then only so long as you are a Democra.t.

I have had during my whole life to deal with that most difficult of all political problems, the relation to each other, in a Republic, of men of different races. 1t is a question which has vexed the American people from the beginning of their history. It is, if I am not much mistaken, to vex them still more hereafter. First the Indian, then the Negro, then the Chinese, now the Filipino, disturb our peace. In the near future will come the Italian and the Pole and the great population of Asia, with whom we are soon to be brought into most intimate and close relation.

In my opinion. in all these race difficulties and troubles, the fault has been with the Anglo-Saxon. Undoubtedly the Indian has been a savage; the Negro has been a savage; the lower order of Chinamen have been gross and sometimes bestial. The inhabitants of the Philippine Islands in their natural rights, which, as we had solemnly declared to be a self-evident truth, were theirs beyond question, have committed acts of barbarism. But in every case these inferior and alien races, if theft had been dealt with justly, in my opinion would have been elevated by quiet, peaceful, and Christian conduct on our part to a higher plane and brought out of their barbarism. The white man has been the offender.

I have no desire to recall the story of the methods by which the political majorities, consisting in many communities largely of negroes and led by immigrants from the North, were subdued.

This is not a sectional question.

It is not a race question. The suffrage was conferred on the negro by the Southern States themselves. They can always make their own rules. lf the negro be ignorant, you may define ignorance and disfranchise that. If the negro be vicious, you may define vice and disfranchise that. If the negro _ be poor, you may define poverty and disfranchise that. If the negro be idle, you may define idleness and disfranchise that. If the negro be lazy, you may define laziness and disfranchise that. If you will only disfranchise him for the qualities which you say unfit him to vote and not for his race or the color of his skin, there is no constitutional obstacle in your way.

So it was not wholly a race or a color problem. It was largely a question of party supremacy. In three States-Alabama, South Carolina, and Florida-white Democrats charged each other with stifling the voice of the majority by fraudulent election processes, and in Alabama they claimed that a majority of white men were disfranchised by a false count of negro votes - in the black belt.

It was not wholly unnatural that the men who, in dealing with each other, were men of scrupulous honor and of undoubted courage should have brought themselves to do such things, or at any rate to screen and sympathize with the more hot-headed men who did them. The proor in the public records of those public crimes is abundant. With the exc ep tion of Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, there is no record of a single manly remqnstrance or expression of disapproval from the lips of any prominent southern man. But they had persuaded themselves to believe that a contest for political power with a party largely composed of negroes was a contest for their civilization itself. They thought it like a fight for life with a pack of wolves. In some parts of the South there were men as ready to murder a negro who tried to get an office as to kill a fox they found prowling about a henroost. These brave and haughty men who had governed the country for half a century, who had held the power of the United States at bay for four years, who had never doffed their hats to any prince or noble on earth, even in whose faults or vices there was nothing mean or petty, never having been suspected of corruption, who, as Macaulay said of the younger Pitt, " If in an hour of ambition they might have been tempted to ruin their country, never would have stooped to pilfer from her," could not brook the sight of a legislature made up of ignorant negroes who had been their own slaves, and of venal carpetbaggers. They could not endure that men, some of whom had been bought and sold like chattels in the time of slavery, and others ready to sell themselves although they were freemen, should sit to legislate for their States with their noble and brave history. I myself, although I have always maintained, and do now, the equal right of all men of whatever color or race to a share in the government of the country, felt a thrill of sadness when I saw the Legislature of Louisiana in session in the winter of 1873.

There was a good deal of to provoke them · also in the character of some of the northern men who had gone to the South to take an active part in political affairs. Some of them were men of the highest character and honor, actuated by pure and unselfish motives. If they had been met cordially by the communities where they took up their abode they would have brought to them a most valuable quality of citi . citizenship. It northern immigration and northern capital had been welcomed at the South it would have had as helpful an influence as it had in California and Oregon. But the southern men treated them all alike. I incline to think that a large number of the men who got political office in the South, when the men who had taken part in the Rebellion were still disfranchised and the Republicans were still in power, were of a character that would not have been tolerated in public office _ in the North. Gen. Willard Warner, of Alabama, a brave Union soldier, a Republican Senator from that State, was one of the best and bravest men who ever sat in that body. Gov. Packard, of Louisiana, was, I believe, a wise and honest man. But i'n general it was impossible not to feel a certain sympathy with a people who, whatever else had been their faults, never were guilty of corruption or meanness or the desire to make money out of public office, in the intolerable loathing which they felt for these strangers who had taken possession of the high places in their 48tates.

President Grant gave the influence and authority of his administration toward maintaining in power the lawfully chosen Republican State governments. But in spite of all he could do they had all been overthrown but two when the presidential election was held in 1876. Those two were South Carolina and Louisiana. The people of those two States had chosen Republican governors at the State election held on the same day with the election of the President. But these governors could not hold their power 24 hours without the support of the national administration. When that was withdrawn the negro and carpetbag majority was powerless as a flock of sheep before a pack of wolves to resist their brave and unscrupulous Democratic enemy, however inferior the latter in numbers.

In attempting to give a dispassionate account of the history of this great question which has entered so deeply into tb · e political and social life of the American people almost from the beginning, it is hard to measure the influence of race prejudice, of sectional feeling, and of that other powerful motive, eagerness for party supremacy.

Suffrage was conferred upon the negro by the Southern States themselves. Under the Constitution every State can prescribe its own qualifications for suffrage, with the single exception that no State can deny or abridge the right of a citizen of the United States to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

But I am bound to say-indeed, it is but to repeat what I have said many times-that my long conflict with their leaders has impressed me with an ever-increasing admiration of the great and high qualities of our southern people. I said at Chicago in February, 1903, what I said, in substance, 20 years before in Faneuil Hall, and at about the same time in the Senate :

Having said what I thought to say on this Question, perhaps I may be indulged in adding that although my life, politically and personally, has been a life of almost constant strife with the leaders of the southern people, yet as I grow older I have learned not only to respect and esteem, but to love, the great qualities which belong to my fellow citizens of the Southern States. They are a noble race. We may well take pattern from them in some Qf the great virtues which make up the strength, as they make the glory, of free States. Their love of home, their chivalrous respect for woman, their courage, their delicate sense of honor, their constancy, which can abide by an opinion or a purpose or an interest of their States through adversity and through prosperity, through the years and through the generations, are things by which the people of the more mercurial North may take a lesson. And there is another thing-covetousness, corruption, the low temptation of money has not yet found any place in our southern politics.

"Now, my friends, we can not afford to live, we don't wish to live, and we will not live, in a state of estrangement from a people who possess these qualities. They are our kindred, bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood, and whatever may be the temporary error of any Southern State I, for one, if I have a right to speak for Massachusetts, say to her, 'Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to return from following af.ter thee. For where thou goest I will go, and where thou stayest I will stay also. And thy people shall be my people and thy God my God.'"

In July, 1898, I was invited to deliver an address before the Virginia Bar Association. I was received by that company of distinguished gE'ntlemen with a hospitality like that I had found at Charleston the year before. Certainly the old estrangements are gone. I took occasion in my address to appeal to the Virginia bar to give the weight of their great influence in sustaining the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court, in spite of their disappointment at some of its decisions of constitutional questions. They received what I had to say, although they knew I differed from them on some of the gravest matters which concerned the State and had been an antislavery man from my youth, with a respect and courtesy which left nothing to be desired. At the banquet which followed the address this toast was given by William Wirt Henry, a grandson of Patrick Henry, himself one of the foremost lawyers and historians of the South. I prize very highly the original which I have in his handwriting.

" Massachusetts and Virginia.

" Foremost in planting the English colonies in America;

" Foremost in resisting British tyranny ;

" Foremost in the Revolution which won our independence and established our free institutions;

" May the memories of the past be the bond of the future."

My own endeavor during my long public life has been to maintain the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, which declares the right of every man to political equality by virtue of his manhood, and of every people to self-government by virtue of its character as a people. This our fathers meant to lay down as the fundamental law of States and of the United States, having its steadfast and immovable foundation in the law of God. It was never their purpose to declare that ignorance or vice or want of experience of the institutions of a country should not disqualify men from a share in the Government. Those things they meant to leave to the discretion of the power, whether State or National, which was to prescribe the qualifications of suffrage. But they did not mean that th~ accident of birthplace or the accident of race or the accident of color should enter into the question at all. To this doctrine I have, in my humble way, endeavored to adhere. In dealing with the Chinese or any class of immigrants I would prescribe as strict a rule as the strictest for ascertaining whether the immigrant meant in good faith to be an American citizen, whether he meant to end his life here, to bring his . wife and children with him, whether be loved American institutions, whether he was fit to understand the P _ political problems with which the people had to deal, whether he bad individual worth or health of body or mind. I would make, if need be, 10 years or 2 years as the necessary period of residence for naturalization.

I . would deal with the negro or the German or the Frenchman or the Italian on the same principle. But the one thing I have never consented to is that a man shall be kept out of this country or kept in a position of inferiority while he is m it because of his color, because of his birtbplace, or because of his race.

One matter in connection with the management of the elections bill I have never been able to think of since without a shudder. The Democrats in the Senate, led by Mr. Gorman, the most skillful of their leaders, endeavored to defeat the bill by the tactics of delay. If the debate could be prolonged so that it was imP.ossible to get a vote with- out the loss of the great appropriation bills, or some of them, the bill of course must be laid aside. So the Republicans, on the other band, as is usual in such cases, refrained from debate, leaving their antagonists to take up the time. Every afternoon at about 5 o'clock some Democrat would come to me saying that he was to take the floor, but that lle · did not feel well or was not quite ready with some material, and a:sk me as a per onal favor to let the matter ~ over until tlte next morning. 'fhis happened so often that I became satisfied ite was a coneerted scheme, and made up my mind that I would not yield tQ such a request agnin.

But one aftemoon Senator Wilson of Maryland a quiet and most estimable gentleman, whom I had known very well, and for whom I had a high regard, came to me and said be felt quite unwell; be could go en that afternoon, if I insisted upon it ; but he would like much better to put off speaking till the next day. I was just beginning my an wer to the effect that I had heard that so often that I Jl1ld determined I would not yield again to the request. J3ut I said to myself, It Cfill not be possible that this man would undertake to deceive me. Ile is a gentleman of high character, absolutely honorable and incapa- • ble of falsehood. So I answered, 11 Of cour e, l\Ir. Wilson, if you .are ill, I will .consent to your desire." Mr . Wilson made his speech the 11ert day. '!'his wn December 15. A few weeks after, on the 24th of February, Mr. Wilson died suddenly of heart disease. It was an affection of whi.ch be bud been conscious for so.me years, and which he had for some time expected would cause sudden death. I dare say if he had been compelled to proceed with his speech that day it would have been fatal. In that case my life would have been embitte1·ed 'by the ID.f!mory.

We had a meeting ot the Republican members of the committee, for consulta.tion, before we reported the bill. Mr. Evarts. while he approved the principle of the measure, shared very strongly my own hesitation, cau ed by the tear of the political effect of the defeat of a measure likely to excite so much angry strife throughout the country. After hearing the opinion of those who favored going on with the bill, Mr. Evarts said : " I spent a Sunday with Judge Kent on the Hudson a good many years ago, with several New York lawyers. We all went to the Episcopal Chul'ch in the forenoon. and dined with the judge after church. During the service one of the company kept far behind • in the responses, , which annoyed the judge a good deal. At dinner he broke out, 'Davis, why can't you -descend in.to bell with the rest of the congre~ation?' I will descend into hell with the rest of the eong.rega tion.'' .

Mr. Evarts made the des.cent an~ stood loyally by the measure m the debate to the best of his great ability.

I do not know of anything quite so instructive as the manner in which the attempt to regulate elections was disposed of at that time. [Applause.] .

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. RUCKER of MissourL Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [l\Ir. UNDERWOOD].

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD] is recognized for 10 minutes.

l\fr. UNDERWOOD. l\Ir. Speaker, some 10 or 12 years ago I offered an amendment to a pending bill in this House to elect United States Senators by the people, and the bill was amended and passed by this House practically with the unanimous vote of this side of the House and most of the votes on that side of the House providing !or the election of United States Senators by the people without any more limitations than are contained in the bill now offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RucKER]. [Applause on the Democratic side.)

I have no fear of a force bill. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I have no fear that the people of the North desire any .more to control the election machinery of the Southern States to-day than the people of the South desire to control the election machinery of the North. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

l\Ir . Speaker, I am in favor of the maintenance of the funda· mental principles of the Constitution of the United States in their integrity, as established by our fathers. I believe that those great fundamental principles that are written in the Constitution of the United States a.re there to protect the rights and the liberties and the property of the minority, and to see that they are not destroyed by the ruthless hands of a brutal majority any more than they should be destroyed by a czar or a kingly power. [ pplau e.]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Government of the United States should be controlled by the people of the United States .[applause], and be responsive to the sober, deliberate judgment ot a majority of the peo,Ple of the United States, as determined and exercised by their chosen representatives in the Congress of the United States. I believe that in the past it has been votes. demonstrated that our present method of electing United States Senators does not make them responsive to th~ deliberate and sober judgment of the American people at all times. [Applause on the Democratic side.]

I do not believe that the election of United States Senators by the people will overthrow the guaranties of the Constitu­ of one? tion of the United States . On the other hand, I believe it will bring our Government in closer touch with the American people than it is to-day. [Applause.] ·

It will make it more responsive to the real will of the American people , and in this day and hour , when new theories are being advanced, when it is being proclaimed that we should te.ar down the fundamental principles , that we should go back body. to the old idea of a direct Democracy and le g islate absolutely by the -voter himself instead of his rep r esentative , I d o not believe you can pass any b ill , Mr ~ Speaker, that will do so much to strengthen and sustain th e Constituti o n of th e U n it ed States ~ as it was established by our f ather s a s this bill , author· awaiting the people of the United States to elect by their own votes their representative£ in the Senate of the United States as well as in this House. [Applause.]

Now, if I could select, I would enact the bill that we voted for in the Hou e originally . I prefer that form of the bill, but I realize, as e-very other man within the sound of my voice realizes, that if you do not pass this bill as it is proposed by the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. RUCKER], you defe a t the proposition and it will not be submitt.ed to the people .of the United States for them to pass upon.

We are not enacting this into law . If it is a vicious proposition, one more than a fourth of the States can defeat it It goes to the people and the State for their deterqlin tion . I would vote for the proposition offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr . BARTLETT] if I h d not reached the conclu ion that the adoption of his amendment would end.anger the vital proposition that is pending before the Hou e. If I were as sured that the proposition offered by the gentleman from Georgia could be adopted as an amendment antl passed by the Senate of the United. States; if I were assured that we could adopt his amendment and that it would go to the Sen.ate and the bill would yet come back here and we would get a chance to . vote on it I would vote for the proposition offered by the gentleman from Georgia. But, believing as I do, that if we adopt that amendment and send the bill back to the Senate of the United States we would thereby ring its death knell, and that the only chance, after awaitin<Y for decades, of giving the people of the United States an opportunity to vOte on a constitutional amendment that will give them the free right to select their representutives, to voice their will in both · branches of Co;ngress, is to pass this resolution . a.s proposed by the gentleman from Missouri [l\fr . RucKER]. I, with my -rote, will sustain him when the roll is called. [Applause.]

:Mr . Speaker, I yield back the remainder of my time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri [1\Ir. RUCKER] is recognized .

l\Ir. BARTLETT. How much time is there remaining, Mr. Speaker, upon this side?

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri [1\Ir. Rucker] has 31 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BARTLETT] 24 minutes.

l\Ir. BARTLETT . ' Does the gentleman from Missouri want me to proceed now?

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. If the gentleman will.

1\Ir . BARTLETT . l\fr, Speaker. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. SAUNDERS].

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr . SAUN ­ DERS] is recognized for five minutes,

Mr . SAUNDERS. Mr. Speaker, the original resolution pro - : posing to amend the Constitution so as to provide for the popu - lar election of Senators, was n House resolution . After full 1 debate it was pas.sed in this body by an overwhelming majority . I Prior to its passage the House voted down two amendments de - . signed to leave in the bands of Congress the paramount authority to make regulations relating t-0 the time, place, and mallller 1 of holding elections for United States Senator . In the form in which the joint resolution passed this body, it was expre sly , provided that this power of regulation should be exclusively I lodged in the legislatures of the respective State . The vice of the Bristow, or Senate amendment to this resolution consl ts in the fact that it strikes out this provision for exclusive State regulation, a.nd leaves the power in the hands of the States, subject to Federal control We are now asked to recede from a position which we maintained by three separate votes of record, I and agree to a proposition which we solemnly rejected by those ' I would like to know what sufficient argument has been ad - . vanced to-day to justify this House in receding from an atti- , tude which 1t so deliberately adopted, or why it is so strenu- \ ously insisted that we should accede to an objectionable amend- ~ ment that was adopted in the coordinate branch by o. majority Why does my friend from Alabama [Mr . UNDERWOOD] insist with such confidence that if we adopt the amendment offered ' by the gentleman from Georgia, we sound the death knell o f . the movement for the popular election of United States Sen - ' a tors? The attitude of the Senate has for many years, been one of hostility to this method of selecting the Members of that Should the Senate with its well-known record of hostility, o r 1 in difference to this ' amendment, designed to bring the .Member s of th e so-called upper branch, into more direct and l · . responsive ' 8 relations to th e people, decide to reject the whole proposition u from hosti li ty to the . Bartlett am e ndment, . there will ~ D P difficulty on the part of the American people in placing the blame for this rejection where that blame belongs. Should manner? we lose the amendment at this session we will not lose it for all time. It will be at most a mere temporary defeat that the real friends of this movement can well afford to hazard, to gain the greater victory. [Applause.] There is another House of Representatives to be elected this fall. There are other Senators to be elected, in the near future, and I have no apprehension, l\fr. Speaker--

!\fr. RUCKER of Missouri. The gentleman means that we could introduce a new resolution and put it through the Senate agai.E. at the next session? ·

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. The gentleman means that we could probably get votes enough to pass it?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes.

.Mr. RUCKER of Missouri. Does not the gentleman know uncertainty . that it would be impossible to get a two-thirds vote of that Senate now on any proposition like this?

l\Ir. SAUNDERS. I only know this, that on a great, funda­ trouble in applying this. mental proposition like this, on the one side of which is the popular branch of Congress, and the great American people, . and on the other, the Senate of the United States, that body can not . continuously maintain an attitude of opposition to the popular will. I know ·this as well as I know anything. I know that the history of all reforms is that · the House of Representatives continues to put a proposition up to the Senate, until finally the pressure of public opinion compels that body to adopt it. This is the history of progressive legislation in this country. It is, I may say, the history of progressive legislation in all free countries. ·

A sectional element has been injected into the· consideration of this question, which has no proper place here. We of the South are no more acutely interested in this amendment than the l\f Members from the East, or the North, or the West.

The possible danger of force bills, brings no greater apprehension to us, than it should bring to the Members from other sections who believe in the rights of the States.

This proposition should be considered on its merits, unrelated to the unhappy legislation of the era of reconstruction, save -only as that legislation illustrates the powers claimed by Congress under the paramount au ~:.i ority to make regulations for the manner of holding elections for Representatives. I would like to ask my friends on the other side, and for that matter some of my friends on this side, why it is that they reiterate the assertion that they have no apprehension that the time will ever come again when deputy marshals, or Federal supervisors, or Federal soldiers will attend the elections for Members of this body. They say that these things have passed away, never to return; and yet they insist upon retaining in the Federal Constitution that provision upon which, and upon which alone, rests the authority to order this interference with the orderly conduct of elections in the States.

I favor the amendment as it originally passed this House, because it remits to the States the authority to prescribe the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators. . There is no man on, or off this floor who can define the limits of the Federal authority to interfere with the regulatkms of the States touching the manner of holding elections for Members of Congress.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the gentleman three minutes more.

.Mr. SAUNDERS. When the Constitution declares that the Congress shall have paramount authority to provide regulations with respect to the time, the place, and the manner, of holding elections, we are at no loss to know the meaning of that instrument so far as it relates to the time, and the place. But there is no participant in this debate who can inform this House what is comprehended in the power to make regulations as to " the manner of holding elections," or who will undertake to establish its delimitations. I affirm that it is a dangerous thing for a free people to preserve in their organic law, a provision of indefinite authority, one never likely to be used, save in time of political stress, and then used only to be abused. Why this insistence upon the retention of a provision affording a power which it is stoutly insisted will never be exercised?

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

The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Virg~a yield to the gentleman from Kansas?

l\1r. SAUNDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas. . Mr. JACKSON. Does the gentleman mean to argue that he would advocate the repeal of that provision concerning the election of Members of this House? 't

Mr. SAUNDERS. With respect to the time, place, and

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

Mr. SAUNDERS. I certainly would, for this reason, Mr. Speaker--

1\Ir. JACKSON. Then, the gentleman believes that this House and the Senate should have no power whatever over the manner in which their Members should be elected?

l\fr. SAUNDERS. Does the gentleman from Kansas know what are the limits of the power conferred by that language?

Mr. JACKSON. I think the courts have settled that pretty well.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Never so far as I am aware. The extent of that authority has never been fixed, or its limits ascertained to any definite or certain degree. A large power of some sort is conferred, a power that is dangerous in proportion to its

Mr. JACKSON. The gentleman can say the same thing about a great many other definitions, but the courts have had no l\fr. BARTLETT. Oh, but they ha\e.

Mr. JACKSON. They have had no trouble in applying this in a way entirely just to everyone concerned. ·

Mr. SAUNDERS. This is a matter of fundamental power, of fundamental relation between the States and the Nation, and the language by which this power is conveyed, and this relation is established, is vague, and indefinite. The unknown is always terrifying, and the indefinite should always be ma.de definite, or else eliminated. The State of the gentleman from Kansas is as much interested in opposing the Bristow amendment as is my own State.

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

Mr. BARTLETT. I yield to the gentleman two minutes.

l\fr. JACKSON. Will the gentleman allow me?

Mr. SAUNDERS. I can not yield in two minutes. I have no objection if you will give me the time.