February 13, 1932

There , must be some homogeneous will on the part of the entire people expressed, not necessarily a.t one moment but during a reasonable period of time, and the court has held that seven _ years can. be deemed a reasonable period. We are safe, therefore, in providing for seven years. The court might hold that 10 years would not be a reasonable period. This might not be "presently" or "contemporaneous." So in order to remove ambiguity, I think it is, indeed, well to insert in this bill that the ratification by the legislatures must be consummated within a period of seven years.

It is very significant that most of the successful ratifications have occurred within four years. Prior to the eighteenth amendment there were 17 amendments, and 17 were adopted in one year.

I respectfully urge that the amendment be adopted.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. JEFFERS. Mrr Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. '

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment has any virtue, which I doubt, and I am not going to argue the merits of the amendment at this time, because I think it is very clear that it is out of place where it is being offered; but if the amendment has any virtue and is entitled to any consideration, I think it should be offered at the end of the resolu- tion as an additional section, and then if it should be adopted it would - be a part of the constitutional amendment. As it is now offered it would only be a part of the proposal clause of the constitutional amendment but would not be in the constitutional amendment. · ·

Mr. CELLER. Does the last clause of section 5 refer to sections 1 and 2.? ·

Mr. JEFFERS. U the gentleman wants his amendment in the Constitution, it should go in · as a new section, or section 6. As he . has now offered it, it would be of no avail, as he is offering it as a part of the proposal clause and not as a part of the proposed . constitutional amendment. Let me suggest to the gentleman - th ' at he withdraw his proposed amendment at this point and then offer it, if he desires to do so, at the point where it might properly be considered.

Mr RAMSEYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. The amendment · proposed by the gentleman from New York is · somewhat similar to the amendment that I intend to offer at the end of the resolution. The gentleman will probably recall the amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ga.rrett, when the resolution was up in 1928. - The amendment I shall offer is the same as the Garrett amendment.

The gentleman from New York referred to the Supreme Court decision, which held valid a like provision in . the eighteenth amendment. The eighteenth amendment carried that 7-year provision as section 3,.and it was that provision that the Supreme Court held to be valid. The gentleman from New York has a good deal the same ideas about . this that I have. · . I think we should play safe, inasmuch as the Supreme Court has held the provision valid. Would it not be better for the gentleman to withhold his amendment until after the resolution is read and offer it as a separate section?

Mr. CELLER. The gentleman will offer his amendment in section 6?

Mr .. RAMSEYER. · I intend to offer section 6 as it was i . n the resolution that passed the House a year ago word for word.

Mr. CELLER. 1 am inclined to withdraw my amendment in the light of what the gentleman from Iowa has said, but I want to be certain that if he offers it as a separate section, that our purpose will not be defeated by virtue of the fact that on page 3 of the bill it provides for the . ratification by legislatures without specifying any limit at that point. If the gentleman is certain that it will not defeat our purpose, I am willing to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. RAMSEYER. I am confident-! will not say certain— that it is. not subject to a point of order. Section 6 goes to the entire article, as to how it shall take effect. It appears in the eighteenth amendment as the last section of the amendment. It has appeared at the end of the resolution both times it was · before the House ill 1928 and again in 1929, and I am confident that is the place for it.

Mr. MICHENER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSEYER. I yield.

1.\.lr. MICHENER. Yesterday, when the rule was up I inquired about section 6 of the resolution as it passed the House last year and gave notice that an amendment would be offered-is that the amendment to which the gentleman referred?

Mr. RAMSEYER. Yes.

Mr. MICHENER. The amendment included a provision--

Mr. PARSONS. Mr. Chairman, we can not hear what is going on.

Mr. RAMSEYER. The gentleman from Michigan wants to make sure that the amendment I am going to offer is the same he proposed yesterday in the debate on the rule.

Mr. PARSONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSEYER. Yes.

Mr. PARSONS. I want to say that the legislatures of some States meet every two years, and some every four years. Why not make it four years or five years?

Mr. RAMSEYER. Well; the amendment is not up now. I shall be glad to discuss that when it is up. Right now, I am trying to get the gentleman from New York to withdraw his amendment and offer it at the end of the resolution.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. McKEOWN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have not attempted to take any time to discuss this resolution. The . question of the " lameduck " Congress is a question, to my mind, that is not the important thing in this resoLution. Congress can change the time of its meeting when it sees fit. That is in the Constitution. It does not take a constitutional amendment to change it. But the vital thing that underlies this legislation ture. is, in the event an election of the President of the United States is thrown into the House of Representatives that that election will be conducted by new Congressmen coming directly from the people, who have the interest of the people at heart when they come to cast their votes in that election. What right has the House of Representatives to sit and determine an election at which perhaps more than half of the Members have gone down to defeat in the previous election of the President? The fundamental thing that underlies this amendment is to have the new Congress elect act, a Congress that will come so recently from the people as to respect the sentiment and votes of the people in the election of a President of the United States. In view of the fastgrowing blocks in this country, in view of the fast-growing groups in this country, in view of the great difference in the ideas of economic conditions in this country whereby the interests of one particular part of the country are in opposition to another part of the country, it seems to me that this matter ought to be considered very carefully. If we ever have any trouble in this country, it is going to be over economic conditions, because the economic situation in one part of the country is different from that of other portions of the country, and what will help that part of the country is possibly detrimental to other portions of our country. The one great thing that we have to guard against in the future to preserve the country is going to be a determination on the part of the lawmakers of the country to do exact justice between all parts of the Union. It will be the obligation of men coming from my part of the country to see to it that proper laws are enacted to protect the interests of the great Northwest and the great Northeast, just as it is to see that fair and equitable laws are passed to protect the economic conditions of the people that I represent. That is going to be in the future the great contest in America for its preservation, and it will be the obligation of Congressmen to meet the economic requirements with fairness and justice to all varts of the country. I repeat, the underlying principle, the main thing in this resolution, is not the " lame-duck " feature, because Congress can change that under the Constitution as it is at the present time; but the main thing is the fact that the election for President may be thrown into the House of Representatives, and it should come before a Congress recently elected at the time when the election is held for the President of the United States. I withdraw the pro forma amendment.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Mr. Chairman, I offer the following amendment, which I send to the desk:

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. LeHLBacH: Page 3, line 3, after the word "by," strike out the words "the legislatures of" and insert " conventions chosen for that purpose in."

Mr. LEHLBACH. Mr. Chairman, the purport of my amendment is so plain that it does not require any extended explanation. It substitutes for ratification by the legislatures of the States, ratification by conventions chosen for that purpose. Every amendment to the Constitution is of sufficient importance that it be dealt with upon its merits, to the exclusion of other questions, and not as a sort of petty chore for legislatures when matters are pending which to the legislators may seem to be more important. Particularly this amendment is entitled to careful consideration by the people and to action by the representatives of the people chosen by them after they have had an opportunity to give it careful consideration. Many questions are to be considered with respect to this resolution. Is it proper for a defeated, outgoing administration to prepare the Budget for the next administration; or, on the other hand, is a new administration with new department heads, the first thing it comes in, before it knows what its functions are, qualified to prepare estimates and the Budget. There are many questions of this sort in this resolution that are not apparent, but that can be brought out in debate in a campaign in which members of a convention are elected to pass upon them. As I say, every amendment to the Constitution merits consideration by itself, and not as a side issue by a legisla­

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Very few people have anything whatever to do with the selection of delegates to a convention, and the people generally have very little voice in conventions. Delegates are usually selected through the manipulation of two or three politicians. After you elect the delegates and they go to a convention and the convention takes action, the convention is responsible to nobody. There is no one who can hold it responsible, but legislatures are responsible to the people for what they do. The members of a legislature are elected by the people. They are the chosen representatives of the people, and if they do not do as they promised the people they would do, the people have a means of redress by removing them from office in the next election. Therefore I am in favor of ratification of . all amendments by legislatures chosen by the people and not by conventions, the acts of which would be the result of manipulation.

I can see where my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LEHLBACH], would want it done by convention, because he has so long been a member of a party that manipulates through conventions, led by a few important leaders, of which he is one, that such method suits him: but I prefer for the people to have their little voice in all such matters, and - I am strictly against ratification by the convention method.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLANTON. I yield.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Does not the gentleman utterly confuse a convention for the purpose of passing on a constitutional provision with a convention to make nominations? .

Mr. BLANTON. Oh, no. No matter how it is chosen or for what purpose it is chosen, to whom is it responsible? It is responsible to nobody. It can do what it pleases and there is no power that can call it to account. A legislature can be called to taws by the people who elect it.

My views on this " lame-duck " resolution are known already. I do not have to debate this question again. I have debated this matter from the :floor in several Congresses. The RECORD contains my views.

But I do want to say that I am uncompromisingly against the amendment that is going to be proposed from the :floor to increase the term of office of a Member of the House of Representati v es from two years to four years. One of the greatest safeguards which the American people now have to insure their wishes being observed is the fact that every one of us every two years has to go back and account to them for our stewardship and get our commission fresh again from the people. It is a great safeguard to the people, and I hope that if such amendment is passed here, attaching to the Norris proposal a 4-year term, that the people, exercising their sovereign rights, will cause their legislatures to refuse to ratify it, because it is safer for them to have Representatives come back to them and be indorsed every two years.

Mr. LEWIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLANTON. I yield.

Mr. LEWIS. How about the 6-year term of Senators?

Mr. BLANTON. Oh, they are so far removed from the people already that the people have ceased to regard them as of very much value. [Laughter.] The people look to the Members of the House to carry out their wish and will. The people back home look to the Members of this House to protect them in their rights.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLANTON. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is it not a fact that during the past few years the Senate of the United States has been far more progressive and more responsive to the will of the people than has the membership of the House? [Applause.]

Mr. BLANTON. I am not permitted to discuss tlle Senate. But, with all due respect, I know of a legislative body other than this House which is known better for its dignity than anything else, and, with all due respect to it, I have never heard it praised for economy until this year.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed . ed for three additional minutes. ·

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.

There was no objection. .

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair desires to call the attention of the committee to the nile of the House in regard to speaking • about the other body. The gentleman will proceed in order. .

Mr. BANKHEAD. Will the gentleman yield? .

Mr .' BLANTON. I yield.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Inasmuch as I am the one who pro- posed the 4-year term, in view of what the gentleman just said about the United States Senate, I am wondering if the gentleman himself has changed his opinion since he was a candidate for that high office? [Laughter.]

Mr. BLANTON. That is a fair question. We all make mistakes. I made one. I discovered that I made . a terrible mistake · when I thought there was more honor over there than there is here.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLANTON. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I would like to ask the gentleman if Mr. CELLER. the contempt in which the gag rule is held by people throughout the country did not originate in the House of Representatives?

Mr. BLANTON. Oh, that is because we Members for a while permitted it. There is not any gag rule here now; not a bit. The most humble Member of this House has an opportunity, if he knows the rules, to get up here and express his sentiments at any time. If he does not learn the rules, he ought to get out of here, because without an intimate knowledge of the rules he is as helpless as a carpenter without a hammer and saw trying to build a house. I say this body is the real representative body of the people who look to us for proper redress.

What is the condition of the country now? The people are all dissatisfied. They want us to change unbearable conditions. The people are dissatisfied with the administration. They are highly displeased with the way public affairs Congress. have been mismanaged. They want us to stop wasting public money. They know how it has been spent by the White House. They do not like the policy of the retiring Secretary of the Treasury, who retires to-day. Who, aside from Secretary Mellon and probably Ogden Mills and probably the President, are as well off now as they were when Secretary Mellon went into office? Nobody. They are the only three that I know of who are as well off to-day as they were when that regime started. All the rest of us are worse off, and people are looking more to the House of Representatives right now for proper protection and proper relief than they are looking to any other agency in the United States.

Mr. HOWARD. Will the gentleman yield? ·

Mr. BLANTON. Certainly; but I only have three minutes.

Mr. HOWARD. I just wanted to ask the . gentleman if he could point to any action that this House has taken since · it assembled that is in harmony with the wishes of the people? · .

Mr. BLANTON. Oh, that is because the President has deluged us with his many hurried and desperate so-called relief measures. He has demanded that Congress pass them immediately. I am afraid that Congress has passed many of them blindly. But when we recover our equilibrium things will be different.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been considered each time the resolution has been considered. No amendment to the Constitution has ever been ratified in that manner. I took great pains to read from the Debates of 1803 why the twelfth amendment was not ratified by convention rather than by the States.

I want to quote the exact words of Mr. LucE in the debate of last year.

A State convention once having assembled 1s the embodiment of the sovereignty of the State, is a law unto itself, and may consider any question that it sees fit to take up.

It has always been the feeling of those who oppose the convention system or- ratifying amendments that such convention might bring something else before it. We were told • last year that the State of Illinois had long resisted a convention for any purpose lest the question of redistricting might be brought up. It has been stated that other States have resisted conventions because there were outside questions that would surely be brought before the convention.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GIFFORD. Yes.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Of course, a State convention may deal · with anything after it is constituted, but a convention called for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the United States can only deal with that which is submitted by twothirds of the votes of both Houses of Congress.

Mr. GIFFORD. That is a question which I hope the Supreme Court will settle some day, but up to date all au- · thorities have resisted that argument. It is claimed that once a convention is assembled it can bring · forward anything it pleases.

Mr. CELLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GIFFORD. Yes.

Is not the gentleman confusing the question of proposal with ratification? State conventions may propose and consider other matters at a ratification convention.

Mr. GIFFORD. That is it exactly.

Mr. CELLER. But that would not militate against the argument of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LEHL· BACH], and it has nothing whatsoever to do with it, as far as I see. The States may propose, but as far as the deliberations of that convention are concerned they need oi:.ly be limited, as far as a national amendment is concerned, to the ratification of it.

Mr. GIFFORD. The gentleman is exactly correct. I stated that once called into session they can propose any subject they may desire.

Mr. LEHLBACH. But the Constitution itself says that no amendment may be considered unless it is submitted by

Mr. GIFFORD. That may be as far as considering a national amendment is concerned, but I was speaking about any other proposal that might be made.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, may the amendment be again reported?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will again report the amendment.

There was no objection.

The Clerk again read the amendment.

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think there can be no question as to the power of Congress to determine in what manner a proposed amendment shall be ratified, whether it shall be submitted to the legislatures of the several States or to conventions called for that purpose. Dual plans are authorized, and Congress, in its wisdom and judgment, may designate which plan shall be followed.

I am opposed to this amendment, because I think it is absolutely unnecessary and because it would entail a tremendous expense upon the 48 States of the Union, an unnecessary expense which would increase the almost unbearable burdens under which the Commonwealths of this Nation are now staggering.

If this · resolution were a new proposition that had not been the subject of discussion for more than a decade, if the newspapers of this Nation had not for many years discussed this proposition in au - of its details, if it had not been discussed in Congress for 10 or 15 years, and if it had not already been sold to the American people there might be justification in the proposition to call conventions in the several States for the purpose of bringing this proposed amendment directly to the electorate, to the end that they might have an opportunity to inform themselves as to the provisions of this proposed amendment; but the pending resolution has been thoroughly discussed and its provisions thoroughly understood by the American people. Under our system of government and under our procedure for amending the Constitution, may I say that there never has been a constitutional amendment submitted for ratification that had not previously been the subject of years and, in many instances, decades of public discussion and disputation. No amendment has ever been submitted until the American people, - through the Congress, by the press, from the platform and forum had not been advised as to the details of the proposed amendment. Consequently, the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey would lay upon 48 Commonwealths an enormous burden in the form of increased expenditures which would have to be raised by taxation, and if there ever was a time when this Congress should not place a burden of that kind upon the 48 American Commonwealths now is that time. No useful purpose could be served or promoted by submitting this amendment to conventions rather than to the legislatures of the several States, and would impose a heavy and unnecessary burden of expense on the States. Therefore I hope the committee will not adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.

The amendment was rejected.

The Clerk read as follows:

SECTION 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 24th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 4th day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. BANKHEAD: After the period, 1n line 11, page 3, insert a colon and the following: "Provided, That the terms of Representatives shall end as herein provided every fourth year after they are chosen by the people of the several States."

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order aga.inst the amendment that it is not germane to the bill or to the section which has been read, and in support of my point of order I call the attention of the Chair to the decisions upon similar amendments to similar resolutions in this House, especially the decision by Chairman LEuLBACH, which is printed in the House Manual, volume 31, section 952 (a), in which the decisions of Speakers and Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole House on this question are collated, analyzed, and applied, and from which it conclusively ' appears that this amendment is not germane either to the section or to the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama desire to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. BANKHEAD. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in as few words as I may properly do so, I desire very earnestly to ask the indulgence of the Chair while I undertake to show that while a former decision has been made upon this proposition, presented in a somewhat different form, yet, in my opinion, the conclusions reached by the then Chairman of the committee are unsound.

The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. LoZIER] has interposed the point of order against this amendment that it is in contravention of the following rule:

And no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment. I realize, of course, as I said in the beginning, that I am in the position of an attorney appealing for a new trial, as it were; but I have undertaken to give some consideration to the philosophy of these rules and to the common sense upon which they are based, and I feel that times do arise in the history of a legislator when he is justified in appealing not only to the judgment of the Chair but sometimes to the judgment of his colleagues upon a question of this importance; and, of course, the importance of the question that is now presented is not the merits of this amendment but the proper construction of the rules of the House as to the germaneness of this proposition.

Now, what does this resolution undertake to do, Mr. Chairman? It will be observed that the original proposition, the Senate bill, proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the commencement of the terms of President and Vice President and Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling of Congress, and then followed the Senate resolution. The House committee, in its wisdom, struck out the entire Senate bill and has substituted in its stead an entirely different proposition, and it does not undertake, in the title of the House bill which we are now considering, to propose an amendment to the Constitution fixing the commencement of the terms of President and Vice President; but, upon the contrary, it provides-

That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of said Constitution when ratified.

So that in its essence, Mr. Chairman, the amendment here, in its various sections, is proposing a new amenduJ.ent to the Constitution of the United States in terms therein set There is nothing said in this House resolution about the time when any term shall commence. Upon the contrary, section 1, to which I am now addressing myself-and I desire to read it and have it incorporated in the RECORD in connection with this argument-provides:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 24th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 4th day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. So what is the essence of the problem with which we are dealing? What is the _ language of the bill itself? What is the material out of which this proposition is constructed? What are the essential features in connection with it? Why, it deals wholly and exclusively with the ending of the terms of three different sets of persons, President, Vice President. United States Senators and Representatives in Congress.

They say it is not germane under the rules of the House, where a proposition here is proposed fixing the ending of the term of Representatives · to undertake to extend that principle of the ending of a term and say when, in the judgment of the House, it shall end. This is the crux of this whole proposition and why, upon a sound basis of reasoning, is it not fundamentally germane to the issues involved in this section?

The Chair, of course, is familiar with the proposition that where there are a number of subjects set out in a measure that an amendment setting up some different phase of the same proposition-that is, the essentials of the proposition-may be held to be germane and ought to be held germane for the consideration of the committee.

My friend from Missouri cited some precedents that had been cited by the then Chairman LEHLBACH in his opinion, which appears in the Manual, but I can also cite for the consideration of the Chair-and I am not going to undertake to elaborate them, because I want to conserve the time of the committee as much as possible--well-considered opinions, delivered by able Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole, which, it seems to me, sustain the fundamental soundness of my attitude upon this proposition.

In Hinds' Precedents, volume 5, section 5582, this principle is announced:

To a bill proposing one mode of arranging the presidential succession, an amendment proposing a joint resolution for submitting a constitutional amendment on a plan differing as to details was held germane.

Now, when I merely seek to extend by amendment the term of a Representative, surely that is more germane than the proposition proposing a joint resolution for submitting a constitutional amendment on a plan differing as to details. What is the effect of the amendment? They - will _ argue that it merely fixes the commencement of these terms. As a matter of fact, when you analyze the effect of it, it is going to be a shortening of the term of a Representative by two months. How ridiculous it appears to me, in the matter of cold reasoning, that to a bill shortening the term it would be beyond the scope of the rules of the House to offer an amendment extending the time of a Representative, or saying when it should end.

That is all that is involved here. The whole subject relates to the end of the term, and my proposal simply provides, as it was read from the Clerk's desk, when the term should end. That is the exact language--

That the term of the Representatives shall end at noon on the 4th day of January.

My amendment provides that it shall end every fourth year.

When this matter was up for consideration on the floor of the House, when one of these decisions was rendered by the same Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey-! w · want to read the exact language of a statement made by a former , BANKHEAD] Member of this House-and I say this without any criticism of the ability of my present colleagues, this man had the most luminous intellect of any man that I have come in contact with in my service, a man who was as familiar with the philosophy of the rules of the House as any man who has served here.

He sustained the reasoning that I am now suggesting. yield? He said:

Mr. GARRETT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I am addressing myself purely to the parliamentary situation and in no way to the merits of the amendment, because I Jo not happen to be in sympathy with the amendment.

We have here before us a resolution which contains three distinct, separate, and unrelated propositions. Sections 1 and 2, standing alone, would be complete. In other words, the integrity of those sections would not be affected in any way if the House should conclude to strike out all the remainder. So of section 3 and so of section 4. Therefore it would seem to fall within the line of decisions that where a measure contains two or more subJects it is in order to offer a third subject of the same class. I call the Chair's attention to citations from the Manual, which state:

"Thus, the following have been held to be germane: To a bill adm ittin g several Territories into the Union, an amendment adding an other Territory; to a b111 providing for the construction of buildings in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar buildings in several other cities; to a resolution embodying two distinct phases of international relationship, an amendment embodying a third."

In other words, Mr. Garrett, by asserting the proposition that here was the resolution that in three essentials undertook to amend different sections of the Constitution of the United States-and in this which I am setting out it does not even undertake a departure in undertaking to set up a separate section dealing with this matter-held it might well be; but I am merely undertaking to add language that will continue for two years the ending of the terms which are set out in the resolution which we are now considering.

I am not going to argue the merits of the amendment here now. I would be very glad to undertake to do that if in - the wisdom of the Chair this matter could properly be presented to the committee for consideration. The purpose of it is to extend the term of the Members of Congress from two to four years, and that is the object I am seeking to effect by proposing this amendment. I could cite other authorities upon it, but the matter has been fully discussed, and that is all I believe I care to say upon the proposition.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Mr. Chairman, I do not desire at this time to discuss the merits of the point of order, but to correct an error on the part of the gentleman from Alabama. He referred to a decision in the last Congress as a decision of the Chairman of the committee, but by reason of the appeal from the Chair to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union the decision of the Chair was merged in the decision of the House itself.

Mr. BANKHEAD. But I think we have a considerably different personnel in the present House.

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, unless the Chair has made up his mind, I would like to be heard for a few minutes. Otherwise I do not care to take up the time of the committee in discussing this mooted question of germaneness.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman. '

Mr . STAFFORD. The Chair will notice that the pending resolution in no wise seeks to change the term of Representatives as the Constitution, in section 2 of Article I, provides, or the time of Senators as the Constitution, in section 3 of Article I, provides, but merely seeks to fix the date when the terms of Representatives and Senators and the term of the President of the United States shall begin. In no par ­ ticular does it seek to change the 2-year term of Representatives as provided by the Constitution, the 6-year as provided for Senators, or the 4-year term as provided for the President. It merely seeks to change the date when their terms shall begin. In no way does if seek to lengthen their term other than as it may be affected by the date of the commencement of that term; and with all due respect to the logic of the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. I respect.fully contend that it is · rather sophistry to argue that because merely the date is attempted to be affected when the term will begin, that, ergo, we have authority to change other substantive provisions of the Constitution which pertain to the fixed length of terms of Representatives, Senators, and the President.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, will the gentleman

Mr. STAFFORD. Yes.

Mr. BANKHEAD. The gentleman constantly refers to the fact that this seeks to change the term when it shall begin. . I would like the gentleman to refer to any clause in my proposed amendment which does that. On the contrary, the whole proposition is based on the idea of when terms shall

Mr. STAFFORD. The words are coterminous, so far as the language of the section is concerned. It says that the terms shall end on a certain date. True; but the term that ends is the beginning of another term, and in no wise here · in this resolution is there an attempt made to extend the length of the terms of the respective officials whose terms of office are sought to be terminated, except in one instance only, and that is the ending and the inferential beginning of the succeeding term. .

I direct attention to the fact that this bill also affects the method of electing the President in case there is a vacancy either by death or by some happening that may occur after the President elect has been elected by the Electoral College, tives. or in case the Vice President has not qualified to fill that position. · The gentleman relies for his major support on the argument that his amendment shall be in order because this resolution relates to more than two subject matters. It is true that it relates to more than two subject matters, namely, the change of the date when the terms of the Representatives and Senators shall begin or end-I care not so much which way he wishes to refer to it-and of the President; and also how the office of the President and Vice President shall be filled in case of certain eventualities, but the very basis for the rule of germaneness as supported by the later decisions of the Chair is that the House should be protected against the consideration of any proposal unless it may appear as a reasonable presumption that that proposal has first received the deliberate consideration of the committee. No one can reasonably claim that this committee, whose one purpose has been to seek to terminate the hold-over sessions of Congress after an election, has given by any phrase or clause in the Senate proposal, or in the House substitute, consideration to the lengthening of the terms of Representatives or Senators, or of th~ President. The mere fact that this resolution embodies two distinct proposals does not give a Member the right to add another proposal foreign to that which has been considered by the committee and which is being now considered by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. That is the very fundamental principle of the rule of germaneness.

Otherwise the House would never come to an agreement on any proposal. There is one thing for consideration, as submitted by the Senate resolution and as submitted by the substitute offered by the committee, and that is merely these proposals changing or ending the date of the terms of Representatives, Senators, and President when this proposed amendment to the Constitution is ratified. Other than that, the question is foreign. The Chair will find many decisions where the Chair has held that although the bill relates to 2, 3, or 4 distinct, substantive propositions you can not engraft, for the consideration of the House or the committee, another distinct, substantive matter that has no direct relation t · o the matters proposed.

The rule of germaneness is for the protection of the House. Being for the protection of the House it is for the protection of the legislative integrity of the House in safeguarding againSt ill-advised, unconsidered legislation that has not been given consideration by the committee, or can not be presumed to have been given consideration by the committee.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STAFFORD. I yield.

Mr. BANKHEAD. I have great respect for the gentleman's opinion as a parliamentarian. but I do not believe that upon reconsideration the gentleman would definitely take the position that the Chairman of the committee, in undertaking to construe a question of germaneness, should have put upon him the burden of undertaking to determine what was in the mind of the committee reporting the bill. but, upon the contrary, he should be confined strictly to the language contained within the four corners of the document. That is the only definite expression of what the committee had in mind.

Mr. STAFFORD. I agree with the gentleman's statement that the Chairman should consider only what is within the purview of the definitive propositions that are submitted to the House. What are those definitive propositions? There are only two. One, when the present term of Representatives, Senators, 3tnd the President shall end, after ratification of this proposed amendment; and, two, the filling of the vacancy of President, in case of death or otherwise, in case of some unforeseen occurrence. Those are the two substan- . tive propositions.

Now, it is proposed to bring up a question which has not been under consideration in general debate, which has not been given any consideration by the committee, which has not been given any consideration at any time, so far as I which is: recall-the question of lengthening the term of Representa­

Mr. KELLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STAFFORD. I yield.

Mr. KELLER. Is it not true that this amendment shortens the length of the term?

l'v!r. STAFFORD. It only shortens the length of the term in that contingency when the amendment has been adopted, and must necessarily shorten the term. Otherwise there could be no change in the date as established by law when our Government began.

· rt was a legislative anachronism that March 4 was determined · upon as the date for the beginning of the Government and of the congressional terms and senatorial terms. Now we are seeking to change that one date, March 4, and bring it back to January 4, and to that extent only, after this amendment, the terms of Representatives and Senators will be shortened, and thereafter the provisions of the Constitution, to which I have referred, as to the terms of Representatives and Senators and President will be applicable, namely, 2 years, 6 years, and 4 years.

Mr. KELLER. Will the gentleman yield further?

:Mr. STAFFORD. I yield.

Mr. KELLER. If this amendment does shorten the term, is it not equally true that it may lengthen the term?

Mr. STAFFORD. Oh, yes; in this one particular: It was once proposed that instead of having March 4 as the date when Congress should begin its work it should be April 30. All this arose as the result of bad weather conditions during President Taft's inauguration, when we had a tremendous snowstorm and the proceedings had to be held indoors. It was then proposed that we would extend the time until April 30. If in the judgment of the House they wish to change the date from March 4 to April 30 or May 4, that is within their province, but you can not effect something that is not under consideration, namely, the lengthening of the terms of Representatives, President, and Senators.

Mr. LOZIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STAFFORD. I yield.

Mr. LOZIER. If I understood the gentleman from Alabama when he interrogated the gentleman from Wisconsin, I the gentleman said this section dealt with the time the terms should end, and nothing with reference to the time when the terms should begin. The last sentence provides: And the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The section not only provides when the term shall end, but it provides when the term shall begin.

Mr. STAFFORD. If the gentleman will read section 2, instead of stating that the term shall end, it says the term shall begin.

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

The CHAIR:rv1AN. The Chair is ready to rule.

The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. BANKHEAD] offered an amendment to section 1 of the resolution in words as follows: Provided, That the terms of the Representatives shall end as herein provided, every fourth year after they are chosen by the people of the several States.

The gentleman from Missouri raised a question under a point of order as to the germaneness of the amendment to the pending resolution. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama seeks, as the Chair has stated, to amend section 1 of the pending resolution by lengthening the terms for which Members of the House of Representatives are elected. Article I, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, provides-

That the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States. Therefore, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama seeks to amend this section of the Constitution by electing the Members to the House of Representatives for a term of four years instead of for a term of two years.

The present section 1 of the joint resolution is one which seeks to amend Article I, section 4, of the Constitution, ~ The . Congress shall assemble at lea.st once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December unless they shall by law appoin.t a different day.

The pending resolution does not, therefore, seek to change by legislation the terms of the Members of . the House of Representatives, with the exception of the change which must necessarily follow if the amendment is ratified by the several States and becomes a part of the Constitution of the United States, :ln shortening the terms of Members for one Congress.

The subject of the resolution is for the time of the convening of the Congress. The subject of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama is for the lengthening of the terms of the Members of the House of Representatives. Clearly, in the mind of the present occ-upant of the chair, the amendment falls under the purview of section 7 of . Rule XVI of the House of Representatives, which is:

And no . motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be amendment under color of a-mendment.

Within the past four ye~ upon two previous occasions, the germaneness of a similar amendment, similar in sub­ amend. stance, the phraseology just a little different, to a similar resolution, has been ruled upon by the then Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. In view of section 7 r Rule XVI, of the House of .Representatives, as. to the germaneness of amendments, and in view of the previous. decisions of the former Chairmen, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Ml:. BANKHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully appeal from the decision o:f . the Chair and ask to be recognized.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for five minutes.

Mir. BANKHEAD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, of course I have, as I stated in the beginning, profound respect for the necessity of following, as far as they are consistent and logical, the precedents that have been established by the decisions of Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole. I have that character of respect for the present able presiding officer over this committee and for the ' views of the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey [Mr . L!:m.BA.CB], who was in the chair on both occasions before when. this question. was presented. But, nevertheless, gentlemen, without undertaking to repeat the argument I attempted to present to the Chair upon the presentation of this question, it appears, to me that the former Chairman. who sustained the point of order and the present Chairman of this committee have certainly made a very technical construction of the rules of the House as affecting this proposition.

The able Chairman in stating his views said that this matter dealt with the question of changing the times of the beginning of terms. With all due respect, it appears to me the · Chairman of the committee was improvident in making that statement, for, as I asserted in the beginning, this whole question is based l:lpon the proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States. I say it is con3istent with the precedents of this House and it is consistent with the terms. of the phraseology of the section we are now considering to hoid that we are dealing with the proposition of the ending of terms of three different classes of men. The comm1ttee p-resenting this resolution has undertaken to assert its convictions. upon that question. I contend that the Committee of the Whole has tbe right to differ with the conclusions of the committee with refereiK!e to the ending of the terms and that there should be · submitted to- the judgment of the Committee o-f the Whole the question as to whether or not it has an independent opinum as to when these terms should! end.

I do this with the greatest and most profound respect for my friend, the present Chairman, and the former Chairman, but I am so thol'oughly convinced of the correctness of my attitude upon this question and that it is a question of the hlghest privilege, else I wou1d not assume to appeal from the decision of the .chairman of my own committee. There · is no- politics involved. It is a more profound question than that. It is a question involving the Constitution of the United States, and when as Members of this House we go to dealing with that instrument certainly _ we ought to have some privilege of expressing our independent views upon it in terms other than already laid down for us to follow by the committee presenting it and only asking a change as to the ending of the terms there mentioned. [ApplauseJ

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask recognition in opposition to the motion. of the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Alabama.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is entitled to prior recognition.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, I submit to my colleagues oi the committee that the opinion of the Chair is clear, distinct, able, profound, and follows the decisions of previous chairmen of this House for several years, and especially follows an appeal to the House where the House itself upheld the decision of the Chair. The Chair has fairly stated that the proposal brought in by the committee does not in any way seek to amend the article of the Constitution which the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama seeks to

Mr. BANKHEAD. Why does it . not deal with that proposition?

Mr. BLANTON. It is an entirely distinct proposition. There is nothing in the Norris proposal here which seeks to extend the terms of Representatives in the House from two to four years. It provides that there shall be a meeting o{ the House ,_ after the election, on January 4; but after that first meeting the term of office of every Representative of this House remains just the same, namely, two years. There is no change in. the Constitution. They are elected in November for their term to begin on January 4, and it extends after that for two full years until January 4.

Mr. JEFFERS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLANTON. Yes.

Mr. JEFFERS. And the only reason for any change whatever on the part of the committee reporting this resolution was to enable that machinery to become effective. That is alL

Mr. BLANTON. Certainly. I want to say this: Our friend from Alabama, whom we all love and respect, is one of the finest p.arliamentalri.ans in this House. I had hoped that; he would be up here saying that " regardless of the merits of the amendment he would suppott the Chair in his honest ruling:

Mr. BANKHE.AD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLANTON. · I have followed the distinguished gentle· man from Alabama~ I sincerely wish that it were so that • I cou1d follow him now. But I am forced to a different conclusion. I have seen him on: occasions when he was in favor of a proposition stand up and uphold the Chair even though my friend may ha.ve differed from the honest opinion af tlre Cllair.

Mr. BANKHEAD Now, will my firend yield?

Mr. BLANTON. Certainly.

Mr ~ BANKHEAD. I appreciate the complimentary reference the gentleman has made to me. but I resent, as a per· sonal reflection, the statement the gentleman made that if I were not the proponent of this proposition I would be voting otherwise. [Applause.]

Mr. BLANTON. I did not mean that as a reflection. I have a high regard for my friend from Alabama, and I know he is honest and sincere. · He wants his amendment submitted to the House; but I do know the gentleman is in favor of upholding the Chair, whether the Chair is Democratic or Republican, when the Chair is honest and sincere and is backed up by the precedents of the House, as is true in the present case ..

I know that there is: a desire an the part of many Members here this afternoon to have the amendment of the gentleman from Alabama considered so that they may have an opportunity to discuss it on its merits. I would not be adverse to that discussion but for the fa.ct that to overrule the decision qf the Chair would be to establish a very unwise precedent, one which on the last occasion when a similar appeal was made from the identical decision the House refused to establish. Expediency may cause you to change and establish as a precedent just the opposite of that already established by the House, but I want to register my protest against it.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the committee?

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BLANTON) there were-ayes 56, noes 106.

So the decision of the Chair did not stand as the judg­ Mr. MORTON ment of the committee.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I ask recognition in favor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hardly think it necessary for me to add anything whatever to what I have already . stated with reference to the purpose of this amendment. We have now submitted to the judgment of the committee the question of the wisdom of the amendment. I did not undertake to argue the merits of the amendment in presenting the statement which I made to the Chairman of the committee.

I want to be entirely candid with the committee in stating to you that the prime reason that actuated me in undertaking to raise this question four years ago in the House of Representatives was based upon the constant and unremitting inquiries submitted to me by my constituents at home in my district, as well as in other districts, women and men of intelligence and of character and of patriotism, why it was, taking me as an illustration, I had to run every two years in a primary and every two years in a general election. Why, we were only sworn in on the 4th day of last March in our present term, and on yesterday I had to file my notice with the Democratic committee in Alabama as a candidate for reelection, one year or less than one year after my present term of office began.

My friends, it is my solemn opinion that the people of America will ratify this feature of the amendment if it stays on the resolution. It is i..'l conformity with principles of sound, common sense. [Applause.]

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BANKHEAD. Yes; I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I want to ask the gentleman if he is not thoroughly convinced in his own mind that if this amendment is attached to the resolution, it means the death of the resolution?

Mr. BANKHEAD. I may say to my friend that I am glad that he has asked me this question. I am not of that type of representative of the American people in the House of Representatives, representing a constituency of the character of mine, that wants to come here and vote upon questions of this sort because somebody else, somewhere else, has some form of opinion about this proposition. [Applause.] I am earnestly and sincerely in favor of this proposition, because I believe in its soundness, because I believe in its sense, because I believe the American people get tired of being constantly harassed with these continual biennial elections, and because I feel that in no sense will it impair the proposition that this is the popular branch of the people in the Govern- . ment of the United States.