February 13, 1932

This is my answer to my distinguished friend. I have great respect, of course, for the opinions of the able Senators who are back of this other proposition, but as long as I am in Congress-and I submit this to the candid judgment of my friend-! am going to stand here and vote what I think is right regardless · of any outside considerations of policy. I think this is what we ought to do. I intend to vote for the Norris resolution, if my amendment is defeated.

Mr. MORTON D. HULL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BANKHEAD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MORTON D. HULL. Would it make any difference to the gentleman from Alabama whether the 4-year term of a Representative coincided with the presidential-election year?

Mr. BANKHEAD. That is another argument that appeals to a great many people. When you go out, as we are going out this year; to make a presidential campaign for the people of America by popular vote to express their judgment n ot only upon the candidates but upon the policies of the Nation, I think it is entirely reasonable that we should have a Congress to carry out the policy of the successful presidential candidate. .

Mr. MORTON D. HULL. Does the gentleman believe · that is the way it would operate? The ratification might · come at a time when that would not follow.

Mr. BANKHEA.p. I am not considering here question of political expediency, I will say to my friend.

D. HULL. No; that is not it at all.

Mr. BANKHEAD. ! · misunderstood the gentleman.

Mr. MORTON D. HULL. It may happen in the ratification that the amendment would go into effect so as to make the 4-year term of the Representatives not coincide with the beginning of the presidential term. The amendment of the gentleman has not taken care of that phase of it.

Mr. BANKHEAD. That is a proposition that will have to take care of itself. I could not undertake, in a proposition of this sort, to work out all contingencies that may arise in a matter of this sort, because we do not know when the amendment will be ratified. [Applause.]

Mr. LOZIER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that this amendment must be considered and determined in the atmosphere which has just developed in this Chamber, but which situation I had no part in creating. May I say that for the gentleman who offered the pending amendment, Mr. BANKHEAD, of Alabama, I have not only a profound respect but an unfeigned affection, because of his sterling qualities of mind and heart. I regard him not only as a valuable legislator but a man of absolute sincerity, robust character, and integrity of purpose. And in opposing this amendment I want it distinctly understood that I recognize the right of the gentleman from Alabama to propose and aggressively advocate its adoption. In so doing he is not only within his rights, but he is performing his duty as he sees it. He should not be criticized, nor should his motives be impugned, because I am sure he is actuated by the same lofty motives which I have always found motivated him in his official and personal conduct. [Applause.]

But I can not bring myself to approve this amendment, and I am constrained to oppose it, notwithstanding my respect for and appreciation of the gentleman who proposed it. In my opinion the amendment strikes at important safeguards in our scheme of government, namely, the provision which gives the people the right to change their Representatives every two years if they are not satisfied with the manner in which they have discharged their duties. The provisions fixing the term of Representatives at two years and the term of Senators at six years were the result of a compromise in the convention that framed our Federal Constitution. There is a profound philosophy underlying this arrangement. The House is the popular branch of the American Congress, at least in theory, and that was the conception enter- · tained by our constitutional fathers. Taxation and revenue measures must originate in the House. Those who wrote our Constitution zealously guarded the exercise of the taxing power, and vested that authority in the House composed of Members who came fresh from the people every two years, and who would be disposed to exercise these powers wisely and moderately, because they would have to return to the people every two years for a new commission or election.

Our constitutional forefathers saw fit to write into the Constitution that the Members of the House must come every two years fresh from the people, and every two years they should return to the people to give an account of their stewardship, so the electorate would have an opportunity every two years to pass judgment upon the legislative record of their · Representatives, and to approve or disapprove the policies which their Representatives supported or opposed, with the further right to change their Representatives, if, in the judgment of the people, they failed to reflect the views and wishes of their constituents with reference to · legislative proposals. Inasmuch as the Senators have a . 6-year term and need not account to their constituents for six years, it is the more important that the people should . have Representatives in the House who well understood that if they were faithless to their constituents they would be replaced at the end of two years.

The longer the term of a public official the more liable he is to become indifferent to the interests of his constituents, and the greater the temptation to betray those who gave him a commission to represent them. It would be exceedingly unwise to change this system and to remove or postpone this responsibility and accounting to their constituents. If the Bankhead amendment becomes a part of the Constitution it will tremendously reduce the power of the common people to work their will and will make Representatives less responsive to public opinion and more indifferent to the welfare of the people they are supposed to represent. It is a wise system which requires every Representative to go to his constituents every two years, render an account of his stewardship, and allow the people to pass favorable or unfavorable judgment on his record. If a Representative is faithless to his constituents, under the present system the people l!laY repudiate him after a 2-year term; but under the plan proposed in the Bankhead amendment a faithless Representative will have four years in which to misrepresent his people. Under the present system a faithful Representative may with reason expect a reelection. The present plan enables a district to retire an unsatisfactory Representative at the end of a 2-year term but also enables them to keep a faithful servant in office · for a long term of years if they are satisfied with his legislative activities.

This House is supposed to be a progressive body, but our reputation as such will suffer severely if we incorporate the Bankhead amendment in the · pending resolution. I think it exceedingly unwise, and, may I say, unfair, for Members of this House to incorporate in this resolution a provision which is intended to lengthen the terms of Members of Congress from two to four years. This would be entirely foreign to the purposes of the pending resolution. · The proposition to lengthen the term of Representatives has not been advocated in or out of Congress, and there is no public demand for such a change. Why engraft this proposal on the pending resolution? Why take advantage of the popularity of the pending resolution to extend the term of Representatives in Congress? If the proposal in the Bankhead amendment is sound and there is a public demand for the proposed change, why not present it as a separate resolution and let it stand or fall on its own merits? It should not be tacked on to the Norris resolution, because combining the two propositions will, in my opinion, defeat the Norris resolution: for which there is a widespread public demand.

The proposal to abolish the "lame-duck" session of Congress has been discussed for many years, and there is a nation-wide demand .for this amendment. On the other hand, the proposal to extend the - terms of Members of Congress from two to four years has not been discussed in Congress, in the press, on the platform, or elsewhere; and why should that controversial subject be linked with the pending resolution . to abolish the short sessions of Congress and to provide for presidential succession? If the friends of the Bankhead proposal think it should be submitted as an amendment to the Constitution, they . should bring it forward as a separate and distinct proposition, so it can be · con- . sidered on its merits or demerits, · instead of tying it onto ' the Norris resolution, the effect of which will undoubtedly be to defeat the pending resolution and make its ratification by the States impossible. .

I am opposed to extending the term of Representatives from two to four years. I will vigorously oppose this. _ proposal, . not only as an amendment to the pending bill but also if the proposition is presented - in a separate resolution. I am convinced that it is not for the best interests of the American people to make this change. It is an insidious attack against popular government and the rights of the common people. The terms of Representatives should remain two years, which will continue in the people the power to change their Repres-entatives every two years if they so desire. · [Applause.]

Mr." STAFFORD. · Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Every Democratic · Member in this Chamber who superseded a Republican indicts himself as being the unworthy successor of the Republican whom he defeated if he votes for this amendment to make the term of office of Members of the House of Representatives four years instead of two. [Applause.] I have seen in my term of service here two distinct occasions when a Republican administration, with the President having the support of both Houses, was defeated by the people in their .might, so far as the House of Representatives is concerned, when they turned the Republican majority out and put in control a Democratic majority. Are you going, by your vote now, to say that the sovereign people of America were wrong in superseding the Republican majority?

A MEMBER. What do you say?

Mr: STAFFORD. I say no. [Applause.] The voice of the people in the election of their representatives is the supreme law of the land. I am a believer in the right of the people to have their say every two years to determine the personnel of this bodY, regardless of my personal convenience. There is no one in the House who during the last 28 years has had to fight more strenuously for his place here than have I against socialistic organizations, not alone in my home district but those of the entire country.

My people, too, have said to me, "Why not lengthen the term of office?" and I have replied to them that I bottom my position on the fundamental principle of the mandate of the popular will of the people to elect their House of Representatives every two years. I am perfectly willing to go back to the people every two years and give them an ac .. · counting ot my service here. ·

This proposal is merely a bid for the convenience of Members. It will be subversive of the principle of popular gov- · ernm.ent, of going back to the people and giving an accounting every two years.

Let me give you another instance. Back in 1910, under the administration of President Taft, . after the Republicans had been in control for 16 years of all branches of the Government, the people turned the Republicans out on the tariff issue and the Democrats came in, so far as the House of Representatives was concerned. Are you going to say that Speaker Clark and a majority of . the people did not have the right to say that the House of Representatives ­ should be changed in its political complexion when the ruling party was in opposition to the will of the people?

This is fundamental. Do you Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives want to enact an unpopular piece of legislation, want to kill this resolution entirely, which seeks only · one purpose, and that is to do away with the irresponsibility attendant _ on the hold-over session of Congress, by voting to lengthen the term of office of the Members of the House of Representatives to four years?

I am not in sympathy with any - such policy. I would rather go through the rigors of campaigns every two years, and have my votes held up to scrutiny, close scrutiny, of a well-informed popular electorate than merely to satisfy my own convenience by sitting here for four years.

Mr. PARSONS. Is it not a fact that the people will have the right to pass on this in · conventions or legislatures?

Mr. STAFFORD. It means the defeat of the one objective of this resolution, and that is to do away with the holdover sessions of Congress. You may ' defeat this resolution, but I hope · you will not do it with this undemocratic amendment.

Mr. RA.l'viSEYER. Mr. Chairman, if Members of the House can - get over their excitement and calm · themselves, I should like them to listen to me for a very few minutes. I want you all to understand the situation. Of course, every once in a while when we have a large representation here, as we have now, we develop a psychological situation.

Mr. KELLER. A psychological complex.

Mr. RAM:SEYER. Or a psychological complex, · as the gentleman from Illinois suggests. Respectfully I suggest the House is in what you might term a state of mob psychology at the present time. We had this amendment before us two years ago to extend the terms of Members of - the House from · two to four years. I made the point of order against the amendment when it was offered in 1928, and that point of order was sustained by the Chairman and the Chairman in turn was, on appeal, sustained by the Committee of the Whole. I th i nk the present chairman was right in his ruling a moment ago, but the judgment of the Committee of the Whole is different, and the amendment is before us. Now, I want you to know just what the s i tuation is. If you vote this Bankhead amendment on this resolution you can not get a separate vote upon it in the House when we rise, because this resolution will be reported with the House amendment as amended. I am opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama. I would be opposed to ~t as a separate proposition. I am opposed to it on this particular resolution. I am opposed to amending the Constitution to make the terms of the Members of the House four years.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I care to say at this time. I simply want the REcORD to show my opposition to this amendment.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSEYER. Yes.

Mr. BLANTON. I call my friend's attention to the fact in respect to his reference to mob psychology that it was largely the vote of his colleagues on the Republican side, many of whom are against the Norris amendment, who through expediency helped to overrule the decision of the Chair. [Cries of "No! "]

Mr. RAMSEYER. , Mr. Chairman, I contradict the statement of the gentleman from Texas. I was here and I saw the vote, and I know that more gentlemen rose on the Democratic side to overrule the decision of the Chair than on the Republican side.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAMSEYER. Yes.

Mr. MICHENER. As bearing upon the matter just stated by the gentleman from Texas, let me refer to the debates in the first session of the Fifty-ninth Congress, volume 40, page 827, where the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. NoRRIS, then a Member of the House, introduced a proposed constitutional amendment in the House, section 2 of which provides, " the term of office of Members of House of Representatives shall be four years." This was on June 20, 1906. The same constitutional amendment provided for the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. Considerable debate was had on the floor of the House on the proposal. At that time the distinguished Senator was very much of the opinion that the terms of Representatives should be changed from two years to four years, and it seems to me that it would be presuming much o suggest that the learned Senator had changed his mind on this proposition. A part of the argument presented by the Senator at that time is as follows:

The second proposition contained in the proposed amendment to the Constitution, extending the term of office of Members of the House of Representatives from two years to four years, is practically a new question, although the injustice both to the Member and to the country in general on account of this short term has long been recognized.

Under the existing provision Members of the House of Representatives are elected in November, but do not actually begin their official duties until a year from the following December. Their term of office has practically half expired before they take the oath. Before they are fairly started in the work for which they were elected they were plunged into a campaign for renomination. Their attention and energy are diverted from their official duties in the Capital City to the local political contests in their respective districts. This is an injustice to the Member and is likewise unfair to the people he represents.

A longer service than two years is required in the House before a Member can expect to have any voice in the actual solving of national legislative problems or in the shaping of the Government's policies. It is a recognized and well-known fact that the congressional district which changes its Representatives every two years has practically no voice in national legislation.

In a country , like ours, controlled by political parties, each stand­ ~n~ for different and sometimes antagonistic policies of government, 1t 1s but JUst and fau that sufficient time be given for the party successful before the people to properly inaugurate and fairly test the policies and principles for which that party stood in the elect i on. Two years is not sufficient time for any party to inaugurate th~ policies so approved by the people and give them sufficient trial to fairly and justly test their effectiveness and wisdom. Under our present system a party placed in power as a result of a campaign and election on some plain issue will often find itself dethroned and cast out before it has had time to enact into law, much less given a fair trial, the principles and policies approved by the people at the election.

_It is a recogni~ed truth that the necessary expense connected Wi t h a ~embership in the House of Representatives is frequently prohibitive to many able Members whose wise counsel our country can not well afford to lose. Many of the most able and efficient Members are continually withdrawing from the work for the sole reason that they can not afford, for pecuniary reasons, to remain. It has become quite generally understood that a poor man can not afford to retain a seat in the House of Representatives. The greatest item of expense connected with the retention of a membershi~ in the House is the cost connected with the nominating primanes and conventions, the campaigns, and the elections: The extension of the term of office to four years would materially lessen such expenses and would thereby enable men in moderate circumstances to live within the limits of the salary.

The national election at which Members of the House of Representatives are chosen always l1as a depressing and unhealthy effect upon all branches of business, and there is always during such campaigns and elections an uncertainty in business affairs throughout the country and a hesitancy on the part of business men in the extension and enlargement of their investments. This condition can but result in detriment and injury to the prosperity of the entire country. "' • • An uncertainty in the future policy of our Government, to be determined at an election, always retards our commercial advancement and affects the prosperity of our entire people.

The possibility also that a policy once adopted may be cast aside within two years is likewise detrimental to our advancement. The proposed change would tend to give stability and take away the uncertainty now existing.

There is a sentiment throughout the entire country that we have too many elections. The people are not free from the unpleasantness of one political controversy before they are thrust into another. They have become tired of and disgusted with the continual political quarrel and strife.

The people are tired of this continuous drama, and as a result are inclined to give no attention to the primaries and the conventions--the very foundation of our political system-the forum wherein the country's interests can best be guarded and protected. With an election every two years the political grafter who thrives on partisan strife and on the nervous uncertainty controlling candidates for office is able to live from one election to another by the boodle secured at his unholy business. The adoption of the proposed amendment would render it less possible for this creature to ply his trade. • • •

It is apparent to all of us that we can not perform our duty in justice to ourselves or to our people and have an election every two years as well as we could if the term was four years. It is perfectly prop,_., as we all know, that men who come here should be able to give their entire attention to public affairs; but as a practical truth, if they stay here, it is necessary for them to pay more or less attention-generally more-to political matters that go on at home in which they have a personal interest, while their attention ought to be attracted and given to public questions in which the entire people have an interest. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, it was said the framers of the Constitution intended that this House should be close to the people. I agree with that sentiment and the adoption of this amendment will not take away that idea from the Constitution. ·

Men of great ability and honor often refuse to become candidates for the House of Representatives because they know that before they become familiar with the duties of their office they will be compelled to again enter the arena of political controversy to retain it. It was no doubt the idea of the framers of our Constitution that Members of the House of Representatives should be close to the people and be required to frequently give an account of their stewardship. A change in the term of office from two to four years would be no violation of this principle, but would better enable Members to devote their energies and abilities to the actual service of the country and their constituents. Four years is not so long that there could be any valid objection from that source. The history of many of our States where the terms of office have been lengthened from two years to four years gives ample proof for this assertion. It is likewise true that the experience of States where some of the officials are elected for a term of four years and some for a term of but two years shows that the officials serving a 4-year term are more efficient than officials serving a 2-year term.

There is nothing sacred that !I know of in the 2-year term. If a short term makes Congress better, then we ought to change the tenure to one year. Then we would enjoy the distinction of going out of office before we got in, or at least within a month or two of it.

The reasoning advanced by the above distinguished Member of the House in 1906 is applicable to-day, and in view of the fact that that Member of the House is at this time a Member of the Senate and is the author of the resolution which the House is now considering makes the reading of his views at that time most interesting.

Mr. BLANTON. Is the gentleman from Michigan a follower of Senator NoRRIS?

The CHAffiMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I can not agree to this amendment. I have always objected to pulling up the sheet anchors that have guided the destinies · of this Republic for over 150 years. I have always said that this provision limiting the terms of Representatives in Congress to two years was one of the wisest provisions, from my viewpoint, that the fathers of this Republic engrafted into the fundamental laws of the land.

You gentlemen who have discovered something wrong with the Constitution should not forget that George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention, which was composed of a great aggregation of the greatest minds the world has ever seen. They put this provision in the Constitution in order that the people might have a check upon a bad administration. See how well it worked last year. [Laughter.] You Democrats who came in last year ought to be thankful for this provision of the Constitution, instead of trying to destroy it. [Laughter.] 1

The distinguished gentleman from Alabama tells you what the people think. No man in this House has a higher regard for the gentleman than I have, personal and otherwise. His district touches mine for more than a hundred miles. We represent the same kind of people. They speak the same language. They have approached me on the subject, and I have said I would go out of Congress before I would ever vote to change the term of Representative in Congress from two years to four years. Why? I said that was put there as a safeguard for the American people. It was placed there by men like Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton, the great founders of this . Republic. It has served a most salutary purpose, and as long as I am here I will never vote for such an amendment, and if it is adopted I will fight its confirmation by the legislatures of the various States. If it goes in, I expect to vote against the entire resolution. [Applause.] But that is not all. The American people do not have . the same view of . this measure that some Members effect. have who are running for reelection, and when this comes before the legislatures and these wise men, these old exjudges of the supreme court, these old Republican and these old Democratic judges and lawyers and statesmen, who are not running for Congress, will pick up their pens and show the people of this Republic that this 2-year provision is necessary and that it was placed here as a salutary safeguard for the American people, in order to protect them against misgovernment. You will find such sentiment against this amendment that the whole thing will got down to defeat. Not only that, but we Democrats are opposed to centralization of power. This is one of the greatest moves toward centralizing power in the White House that I have ever seen. We have heard all this cry of "Stand by the President." We will hear it this fall. You Republicans will hear it, and if we had a Democrat in the White House we would hear it. It will be the main issue in every campaign. Individualism in the House will disappear, but the only question will be: "Are you standing by the administration?" This is the greatest step, in my opinion, toward centralization of power in the White House and the perpetuation of the party in power, that has been proposed since I have been a Member of the House.

I had made up my mind to vote for the Norris amendment, although I did it reluctantly, but if this amendment is adopted I shall not only oppose it here but I will oppose it out of this House. I will do everything I can to prevent the legislature of my State and the legislatures of other States from tearing up the sheet anchor of safety that was planted by men who knew more about . government than any man in either end of this Capitol to-day. I shall do everything in my power to preserve this Constitution and pass it on to our posterity, that this grand old Republic may go down to the future with strength in her loins, hope in her soul, and a Miriam song of triumph on her lips. [Applause.]

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr . . Chairman, may I say to the committee that this resolution as it is now before us, having had stricken out all after the enacting clause of the Senate resolution and inserting in lieu thereof the House resolution, the language of the Rutherford bill is the result of long and careful study on the part of the House committee which reported the bill. We believe we are presenting a good resolution here now, one which probably will be presented to the States for ratification, just as we are submitting it to you here now for your consideration.

Now, this proposition of injecting this half-baked, illconsidered amendment for a 4-year term for Members of Congress is very unwise, in my judgment. Let me call attention seriously to this thought. It would take long and careful study to .work out a plan whereby it would be assured, if such an amendment should be adopted, that the beginning of the 4-year term of Members of Congress would coincide with the beginning of the 4-year term of the President. If it were not so, it would be a chaotic condition. We have been over this whole proposed constitutional amendment time after time in the commit~ee. We have been trying to think it through, in order that we might bring something in here to you which could be depended upon as being workable. If we now add any of these amendments we may make the whole scheme impractical, unacceptable, and unworkable, and I trust this amendment will not be injected into the resolution. I hope it will be voted down.

Mr. LEAVITT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JEFFERS. Surely, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LEAVITT. With regard to one of the fears of the chairman . of the committee permit me to state that if this proposed amendment should be adopted I intend to offer an amendment to section 5, following the word" year," to insert these words, " in which presidential electors are chosen next," so that section 5 would read:

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 30th day of November of the year in which presidential electors are chosen next following the year in which this article is ratified.

There would be no doubt then as to when it would go into

Mr. JEFFERS . . With all due respect to my friend the gentleman from Montana, it is an impracticable proposition to·take chances in proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to jump up here and try to decide in five minutes on such an amendment.

If we should submit a constitutional amendment to the Nation which is found by students of the subject to be unworkable and unwise, it will, of course, subject this Congress to criticism the Nation over.

· Mr. SWING. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JEFFERS. Yes.

Mr. SWING. I fully concur with what the gentleman says about the phrasing of legislation which is ultimately . to become a part of the permament Constitution of the United States. If an amendment such as the one now under consideration is to be adopted, language should be worked out which would stagger the terms of the Members so that half would be elected every two years, thus preserving the origina.l intention of getting the sense of the country every two years. That proposal would have to be worked out very carefully. It takes time to work out those things, and so important will be the result of whatever is done in connection with · a constitutional amendment that we should not at 3 o'clock in the afternoon be taking up entirely new amendments which have not been carefully considered by the committee.

Mr. JEFFERS. The remarks of the gentleman from California amply illustrate some of the questions which might arise. He has suggested that if thiS should be put into this - resolution the terms should be staggered, so that one-half of the Congress would be elected in one even-numbered year and the other half in the other even-numbered year.

I want to say that if you will look at sections 3 and 4 of this resolution, read them carefully, and consider them for a moment you will realize how difficult it has been to write the provisions which are now in this resolution. Therefore, this thing which we are talking about now should receive some real study before we take the serious step of recommending it to the States as a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Chairman, I am sure it is not nec­ people. essary before opposing an amendment to indulge in expressions of confidence in and love for the sponsors of it. Members have a right to offer amendments. I never did subscribe to any such custom. Let us get right down to the proposition. I believe I express the viewpoint of every Member of the House that the office of Representative in Congress is a mission and not a job. If anyone thinks it is a job, let him vote for this amendment. It is convenient; it is comfortable for the Member; it insures a 4-year tenure of office w i thout the necessity of going back to the constituency every other year. But, regardless of the personal convenience and regardless of any merit there may be in it, the term of two years for Representative in the House and six years in the Senate, with a 4-year term for the President, is typically an American institution. The 2-year term-just half of that of the President-gives the people a check and control on the Executive. Remove that and we will have absolute control of government in the Executive and his policies for a period of four years without the opportunity on the part of the people to protest by electing a House in opposition. We all know that little by little powers have been taken away from the people. We must not remove this necessary and wise provision which is so necessary as a safeguard in a democracy.

Imagine a President with a large majority in both Houses adopting policies contrary to the wishes or interest of the people. Why, under our present constitutional safeguard, as soon as the people realize that a check is necessary - they soon have the opportunity to protect themselves by electing an adverse House which has the power of thwarting any Executive. With a 4-year term this power is taken entirely from the people.

Mr. LEWIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS. Very many parliaments have been established in the world and constitutions written since ours was written.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS. Perhaps the gentleman will explain why only Mexico and Colombia have the 2-yearprecedentadopted here.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. In reply to that I will refer the distinguished scholar, the gentleman from Maryland, to the constitutions that have been patterned after ours but which have failed to retain this safeguard, and I will ask him if we have not outlived every other republic that has been established? [Applause.]

Others which have been patterned after ours have sought to overcome the inconvenience of submitting to the people every other year. It may be convenient to politicians, but it is contrary to the best interest of the country. A number of republics in South America have even ignored the constitutional provisions with reference to their elections. That is what happens when people lose direct contact with their own governmental affairs.

I say, my friends, that right now when the tendency is away from self-government and away from representative government toward dictatorship is the time we should be on guard more than ever. There is no telling how any presidential election may go, sweeping with it control of both Houses of Congress, and then a policy established directly in opposition to the viewpoint of the majority of the American people. Their only salvation is every other year to send a House of Representatives to protest against any such policy. [Applause.]

Mr. CELLER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes.

Mr. CELLER. Is it not true that in England and France, as well as in practically every European country, the tenure of office of the representatives in the lower houses of parliament _ is coterminous with the administration and that elections are far more frequent than once in every two years.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Yes. And more than that, whenever the administration loses control of the House, it automatically goes out of office and the decision is left with the Let us be frank about all this. There is opposition to the lame-duck " amendment, and every Member opposing it has the right to do so if he really has convictions against it. I believe the idea of coming here 13 months after election is as antiquated as the stagecoach and muddy roads which made that provision necessary 150 years ago.

But as to the method of approach, if you are opposed to the " lame-duck " amendment, stand up like men on the roll call and vote against; but do not load it down with impossible, un-American provisions. [Applause.]

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Chairman, I am intensely interested in the passage by this House of Representatives of the pending resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 14, which passed the Senate on January 6, 1932, which reads as follows:

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 by the legislatures of the several States as provided in the Constitution:

ARTICLE-

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. SEc. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 4th day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

SEc. 3. If the President elect dies, then the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President is not chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or 1f the President elect falls to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President has qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case where neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect has qualified, declaring who shall than act as President, or the manner in which a qualified person shall be , selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President has qualified.

SEc. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice devolves upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice devolves upon them.

SEc. 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 30th day of November of the year following the year in which this article is ratified.

Passed the Senate January 6, 1932.

In 1923, when a Member of this House, I introduced House Joint Resolution 65, similar to sections 1 and 2 now pending here, and which, as introduced by me, read as follows: Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing the commencement of the terms of Members of Congress

Resolved · by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following amendment to the Constitution be, and hereby is, proposed to the States, to become valid as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of the several States as provided by the Constitution: SECTION 1. That the terms of Senators and Representatives shall commence on the first Monday in January following their election. SEc. 2. That the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday 1n January, unless they shall by law appoint another day.

SEc. 3. That the terms of Senators and Representatives who may be in office at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall end at noon of the first Monday in January of the year in which such terms would otherwise have ended on the 4th of March.

Time and again has effort been made, particularly in the other body, to pass this proposed amendment to the Con- ­ stitution. Great credit has been properly given by the country to that distinguished progressive, Senator NoRRIS, of Nebraska, for the passage of this joint resolution, time and again to pass in the Senate, only to fail of passage in the House of Representatives.

It has been suggested that Senator NoRRIS, the author of the original resolution, while a Member of the House, favored a 4-year term for Members of Congress. Whatever may have been the then judgment of the author of this proposed amendment to the Constitution, as to whether it should be four years or two years, it comes here after full consideration by the Senate in the shape in which it is now before the House, without changing it from two years to four years.

If you should amend it by placing a 4-year provision in the resolution, you would not know whether it would run coterminous with the election of the President. I am not entirely out of accord with the thought that a Congress elected at the same time that the President is elected would better enable legislation to be enacted into law in response to the declared will of the people, but the amendment as now proposed does not seek to bring this about, as well stated by a Member on the other side of the _ aisle, for section 5 provides that sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 30th day of November of the year in which this article is ratified, which might result in election of Representatives in Congress in off years, rather than in presidential years. I am opposed to this proposed amendment, seeking to substitute 4-year terms for the present terms of two years for Members of Congress, for I earnestly desire the passage of this joint resolution now, in its present shape, and not its defeat at this session.

The proposed amendment has been thoroughly discussed throughout the country, and the sentiment of the country largely favors its adoption. The change from two years to four years has not been discussed before the people of the United States. This matter has been delayed long enough, and it ought not to be defeated or delayed by amendments that would tend to defeat it and prevent it from being submitted by this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, if the proposed amendment should go to the people or the legislatures of 48 States for ratification, with a provision lengthening the terms of Members of Congress from two to four years, it might meet defeat by those whose Representatives we are. The people are justly jealous of surrendering power, and in my judgment they might be reluctant to extend the terms of their Representatives from two to four years, and thus we would invite the defeat of this much-desired amendment to the Federal Constitution by the required three-fourths of the legislatures of the 48 States. I thought the amendment was germane as offered by the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Mr. BANKHEAD, · of Alabama, but on the question as to whether it should be adopted as an amendment to this resolution I am utterly opposed to it for the reasons I have stated. I want a change in the Constitution so that Representatives in Congress shall not only discuss before their constituents in their several districts every · two years legislation that has been pending in Congress or desired by the people, but I am anxious that Congress shall meet in January after the November election to carry into effect the will of the people to whom they are responsible, and not wait 13 months as now after their election before they are sworn in and take their seats in Congress, leaving to defeated Members the enactment or defeat of legislation pending in Congress in the short · session of Congress as now exists.

Let us pass this joint resolution seeking to amend the Constitution, and thus get rid of what we understand is called by the people and in the press the " lame-duck Congress. Let us allow , this proposed amendment to go to the country now without further delay, and let us not by adopting amendments kill it or delay its passage, or jeopardize its ratification by the legislatures of the several States. Amend by changing two to four years, and you will either fail to secure ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures of the 48 States or long delay this amendment of the Constitution, and thus continue for many years your " lameduck" Congresses, to be controlled as heretofore by those selfish interests that seek to dominate legislation.

I hope the amendment, proposed in good faith, I am sure. by my friend, Mr. BANKHEAD, [Applause.]

Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the com­ to me? mittee, I wish to appear on the record as against this amendment. While it has not been directly before the committee of late, we are familiar with its purpose, and the committee has always refused to add something to . the amendment which seemed to be of a selfish purpose.

We are trying to correct a principle of government. It has always appeared to us that this amendment would kill the resolution, as has been so ably expressed by the last speaker.

Mr. Chairman, if this amendment should prevail, I would plead with the proponent of the legislation to frame such a section to be added to the resolution that will allow it to be voted on separately when it is proposed for ratification by the people. I think that they should do this. May I remind the House that when the first 10 amendments were presented to the people, they were presented in such a way that each amendment was voted · on separately.

Mr. MAPES. Mr. Chairman, I should not have asked for _ recognition at this time except for the parliamentary situation with respect to this legislation.

As I understand it, we are proposing to strike out all after the resolving clause of the Senate resolution and to substitute the resolution of the House committee. This means that when the Committee of the Whole rises, it will have an opportunity to vote upon the substitute as perfected here in the Committee of the Whole in toto or en bloc, but not upon the different amendments separately that are put upon the substitute here in the Committee of the Whole.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I want to put myself squarely on record with regard to this particular amendment. I do not want to be a party to putting amendments upon thiS co-called " lame-duck " resolution which, in my judgment, are going to prevent its ratification by threefourths of the legislatures of the States, and I think if you couple the amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Alabama and by the gentleman from Maryland with the amendment as reported by the committee, it means the sure defeat of the whole proposition.

We know; we have seen what effect it has had on the membership of the House of Representatives here. Men have taken the floor who have said that they are in favor of the resolution as reported by the committee, but they say if this amendment is put onto it they will oppose the whole resolution-not only here in the House of Representatives but in their State and other States as well. ·

For myself I want to go on record and have the RECORD show that I will not be a party to loading up this resolution With amendments which mean its sure defeat. [Applause.]

Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. STAFFORD. I wish to inquire, for the information of the House, whether the amendment to the rule that was moved by the gentleman from North Carolina, providing that the substitute should be considered as an original bill, does not put it on the same status that any amendment that might be adopted by the committee would be subject to a separate vote when the committee rises and reports the resolution back to the House?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks that is a question which should be decided in the House.

Mr. STAFFORD. There are many Members present here who were absent when the amendment was offered by the gentleman from North Carolina providing that the substitute reported by the committee should be considered as an original bill. I think under those circumstances any amendment adopted as a substitute would be open to a separate vote in. the House.

Mr. MAPES. I think the precedents are so firmly established that there is no question about the parliamentary situation. I have discussed the matter with those who have some parliamentary responsibility in handling legislation here in the House, and I think there is no question about the parliamentary procedure so far as that is concerned. of Alabama, will be defeated. Mr. KELLER was recognized.

Mr. JEFFERS. Will the gentleman from Dlinois yield

Mr. KELLER . . I will

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chainnari, I bave no desire to take gentlemen off the floor, but I believe everybody here wants to get through with this bill this afternoon, and I wonder if we can not arrive at some decision as to debate on this amendment and the section.

Mr. DOWELL. I want a few minutes.

Mr. MICHENER. We only had three hours of general debate on this constitut i onal amendment. This is Saturday afternoon, and we are not going to take up anything else, and it seems to me that the membership should be allowed to express themselves on this most important matter.

Mr. JEFFERS. I have no desire to cut anybody off. ·

Mr. RAMSEYER. What limitation of time did the gentleman have in mind?

Mr. JE . FFERS. About 15 minutes.

Mr. ROMJUE. Will the · gentleman from Dlinois yield to me?

Mr. KELLER. I will yield . .

Mr. ROMJUE. I want to ask the gentleman for his opinion on this question. If this amendment is placed here in the resolution, when it comes to be ratified in the future, and is ratified so that it will be effective in a presidential election, so that Congress and the President are elected at the same time always, if the gentleman does not believe that it will have a tendency to deter and abrogate the checking power of the minority party and be detrimental and injurious to legislation and the public welfare; a great safeguard to our Government rests in the fact that we have two strong political parties, so that whichever is in power . the minority party for the time being is usually strong enough to serve as a check and balance on the party in power?

Mr. KELLER. I think you are right.

Mr. Chairman, I helped to bring this discussion up because I wanted to hear it. I am glad I have, for to me it has made one thing very clear, and that is that this amendment should not prevail. I doubt whether any other amendment should prevail any more than this one, for the simple reason stated by my colleague, Judge DICKINsoN, in which he said that the people of this country know all about this amendment , and are ready to ratify it. But if we put anything on it in addition, they are not ready to ratify it, and they will not ratify the resolution if amended. If this amendment is attached to this resolution, it will be defeated, in my judgment. We ought not to jeopardize the resolution. I thank you.

Mr. DOWELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe the decision of the Chair in holding this amendment not in order was correct, but the Committee of the Whole has overruled the decision of the Chair and has held by vote that it is in order. This subject matter is entirely different from the proposition that is before the Congress. There has never been any proposition of this kL."tJ.d submitted with reference to this constitutional amendment until it was presented here to-day. In my opinion, by the adoption of this amendment, you are going to · inject an entirely different proposition than the one we have been called upon to pass on.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman

Mr. DOWELL. Yes.

Mr. MICHENER. Did I understand the gentleman to say that the matter before this committee has never received consideration before?

Mr. DOWELL. Not on this resolution.

' Mr. MICHENER. Certainly not on this resolution that we have up to-day.

Mr. DOWELL. And not before the House.

Mr. MICHENER. Was the gentleman in the room when I called attention to a resolution introduced in the Senate by Senator NORRIS?

Mr. DOWELL. But it has not been considered.

Mr. MICHENER. Oh, it was debated extensively.

Mr. DOWELL. It has not been here for consideration. I believe the House should not adopt this amendment. I am heartily opposed to plac i ng on t his resolution such a proposition, and p r obably destroy the original resolution. I am opposed to this amendment, and hope the amendment will not be adopted.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment for two reasons. First, I think it will defeat this proposed constitutional amendment, and, second, it is a fundamental change in the principle of our Government. I want to outline to you in a few brief words what this will do. Had this amendment been in effect at the time of the election in 1928, we would still have a Speaker elected by the majority party who went in at that time, and that party would be overwhelmingly in the majority in the House of Representatives now, and this biennial appeal, which resulted in a Democratic House, could not have come about. I think this change has been and is valuable. I believe we should have this check on an administration. It is fundamental in that respect, and all throughout the history of our Government this check has justified itself. It would take more and more power a way from the people of the country, as has been attempted of late in various ways. I do not see how Members believing in the fundamental principles of democracy and progressivism can advocate tying this amendment on here. I very much fear that such an amendment will be a blow to democracy and check the voice of the people in their choice of the Members of the House of Representatives, that great body that enacts revenue legislation. We would have to change the organization of the House from two years to four years, and there could be no change of expression in the country even though sentiment changed as it does. You can point to two or three times in the past where a change of administration of the lower House of Congress was a splendid thing. Go back to 1910, when the Republican Party was in power.

In 1911 the Democratic Party organized the Congress, and there were some splendid reforms for the good of representative government. That would not have occurred if the 4-year term had been in existence, and there is no one who could tell what would have · happened two years later if those reforms had not been brought about.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 'Yield?

Mr. PATTERSON. Yes.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does not the gentleman think it is unfair for the advocates of extending the length of term of Members of the House to attempt to write it into the Constitution on a "lame-duck" amendment?

Mr. PATTERSON. I am opposed to the amendment but would not want to put it that way, for I have all respect in the world for my colleagues who differ with me on this and all other questions. I am like the gentleman from Mississippi, I would give up my term as a Member of the House before I would vote to extend that term, and as the gentleman from New York said, this is not a job, this is a mission where we are called upon to serve our people and speak their voice, and for me I shall not support any such legislation. ·

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does not the gentleman think that an amendment to the Constitution extending the term of office of Members of the House should stand upon its own bottom?

Mr. PATTERSON. Something as far reaching as this is should have long and careful consideration and should not be tacked on to a measure like this. I hope that the Members of this Congress who believe in democracy will defeat this amendment first, because it will prevent the ratification of this proposed constitutional amendment, and second, it will change the fundamental principles of our Government, which to me is the bright and shining star in the constellation of all governments. And in clos i ng permit me to point with a feeling of pride to the framers of this great Constitution as well as that great patriot whose birthday we celebrated on yesterday. As for me, I will stand here and battle as best I can for a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," and fight ra t her to increase the power and check of the masses on our Government, believing thereby I can come nearer pe r petuat in g the ideals of Americanism.

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, we have only one proposition here, and that is whether or not we will pass this " lameduck " resolution. I am just a little bit astonished that some of my splendid colleagues should wish to ride in on a " lame duck " with an amendment which, in my judgment, although I give them all credit for sincerity, can mean nothing less than the defeat of the original Norris resolution as amended by the House committee. I am in favor of the " lame-duck " resolution. Therefore I am opposed to any and all amendments to the report brought in by the committee. I am not a worshipper of committees. I follow no committee unless I think it is right. Do the American people desire the destruction of the " lame-duck " proposition, or do they want to continue to let it flutter along to the injury of the country as it has for these many years? I think they want to see this "lame duck" brushed off the earth for good. I have not time to argue at length nor eloquently, even if I had the ability, in behalf of this " lame-duck " amendment, but I take it for granted that every one of my colleagues occupies pretty much the position of myself in his own community. If he saw here a man of magnificent character, well posted along certain lines, and over there another one well posted along other lines, and he believed in the man, in his integrity, and when he did not have time to weigh a proposition himself, he would naturally follow the advice of that man. I am in that attitude right now. If I were blind and could not read, if I were deaf and could not hear, still if only by the sense of touch it could be made known to me that this resolution was prepared by the hand of that magnificent American patriot, GEORGE would say it must be a good thing anyway, and I would vote for it.

Mr. GLOVER. Mr. Chairman, I am very much opposed to this amendment and to the manner in which it is brought here. We are dealing to-day, in the resolution that is before us, with a matter that has been before the country, and the voice of the people has been heard upon it. Here is another proposition brought in and put on like a tail to a kite on this resolut i on. That is a very important matter and that is a fundamental part of our law now. I think if it is desired - to submit that question to the people, there should be two separate submissions. Submit each on its own merits, and let the people vote on it.

Much has been said to-day about "lame ducks." I want to say to you that if you tack this amendment on and send it back to the people and thwart the will of the people, you will make more " lame ducks " than you have heard of in a long time. [Applause.]

I say to you that when you tamper with the will of the people, you are tampering with that which is sacred. The gentleman from Alabama who offered this amendment is my personal friend, and I regard him highly as a legislator. The gentleman said that his people had come to hiin and wanted to know why he had to come back every two years. Oh, that man was his friend. But the other fellow, . who might not have been so well satisfied with what had been accomplished, has to wait for four years before he can - express his will. The man who is for you is glad to meet you and greet you every two years and indorse your acts. Let me say to you that one of the ways the country keeps posted wi t h reference to national affairs is by the policy that we have now in our Constitution, when we come back home and talk to _ our people face to face and tell them what we have done and what we have tried to do, and let them give us our marching orders for another term. [Applause ~ ] when you have the privilege of going back home in a short time, you will have the privilege of telling them all about the good things you did for them-about the two billion dollar bill which you have given- to the great wealth of the country, and you have given no bread to the poor. You boys would like to tell them about that. They want to hear you, face to face, and t hey will talk out. They will ask some questions why it wa s you did so and so, and they have a right to do that. That is where you hear the voice of the people.

Of course, you would like to have four years without a contest for reelection, but in my experience in public service there is no greater delight than going back to my people and letting them judge my acts in any representative body in which I have ever served, and have them let me know whether I am correctly representing them in their views. [Applause.] That is the only way you can feel the pulse of your district. Go back to them and get your indorsement and get your marching orders and stay two years.

Let us not change this. There is not a man here who is opposed to this resolution who will not vote for this amendment. I know when you go back to the legislatures of the various States of the Union, you will not get the constitutional number required to indorse this proposition. If you want a correction as is provided in the resolution, let us adopt it without amendment. If you want to kill it, vote for this amendment and vote for all the other amendments which are proposed.

I am going to vote for this resolution as it stands. I have some convictions with reference to some things in it that I would like to have changed; but I know that if we amend it, it will be the death knell of the bill, so I am going to support it just as it is written. [Applause.]

Mr. DOUGLASS of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, it has been some time since I have had the physical courage to address this House, but I hope to-day I have the political courage to oppose this amendment.

I shall have to fight as hard as any man in this House for renomination to this honorable body. I have had to do it for the last four elections. You should all be willing to do likewise to acquire the great dignity of this position. If NoRRIS, I there be any sound and logical argument for the adoption of this amendment, it has not been stated upon this floor · to-day. Whatever seemed to be the motives that guided the judgment of some Members, as I have been able to find them since this debate began to-day, those motives seem to come-! dislike to make the statement-but they seem to come from private interest rather than public good and necessity.

Mr. Chairman, under our beneficent Constitution, particularly that part of it which requires that election to this House shall be biennial, we have achieved the reputation of being the greatest deliberative body in the world, and it behooves you not to rush to judgment now, but calmly and deliberately consider just what we are doing. Are you willing, upon the specious reasons and private reasons that have been advanced-one class publicly advanced and the other secretly here to-day-to make this great change in our form of government? Are you going to lessen the dignity of this great body by changing it from a body that represents the popular will every two years to one that shall become a body which will be but a part of an elected administration? [Applause.] That is what you will do. You will change yourselves from Representatives of the people to puppets of the administration, whatever it may be, Democratic or Republican.

Have you consulted your constituents in this regard? Have you asked them how you should vote? Have they had notice of the calling up of this amendment to the Norris resolution?

My time is brief, and I would I had more, but I can not ask it. But one thought that has been running through my mind as I have sat here listening to-day is this: What is going to be the effect back home in your districts if you vote for and adopt this amendment? What will your people and the people of the country at large think of you as Members of Congress? In these days of depression, when 8,000,000 people are clamoring for work and public employment, when at least 3,000,000 people are clamoring for a bite to eat and a place of shelter for their shivering bones, are you going to go before the country and say, as you have said up to this time, "You shall not have a million dollars or even a thousand dollars for public works; you shall not have anything that can be considered in the nature of a dole to feed your hungry stomachs, but we Congressmen, we $10,000 a year Congressmen, elected for two years with our salaries coming regularly every month, are going to elect ourselves to two more years in the form of a 4-year term"? I dare you to do that and go back to your constituents. [Applause.]

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, there are a great many reasons of convenience which justify this amendment; but after the very best thought I have been able to give it for many years, am profoundly convinced that the 2-year term is a fundamental part of democratic government. [Applause.] There are a great many things that are worse, my friends, than the inconvenience of frequent elections. . Now, gentlemen, of course it is inconvenient for Congressmen to go before the people every two years. A great many men are . in districts where they have to go twice, once in the primaries and once in the general election. That is all true; but I am one of those who believes that the perpetuation of this Republic depends upon the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of this Government. [Applause.] When you adopt this 4-year provision, when you elect your President along with the Members of your House, - the tendency is to absolutely subordinate the legislative branch of the Government to the executive branch.

Now, do not do this. I beg of you, my friends, do not do this. We have in this country now too much centralization of all kinds. · We have too much pressure on us now from the executive branch of the Government. Let us remember, my friends, the words of the man whose birthday we celebrated yesterday and do · what we can to see "that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." [Applause.]

Mr. JEFFERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this section and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to take up any more time of the committee any further than to point out to the members something which was said upon this subject many, many years ago when the Constitution was adopted. It was Hamilton, in the - Federalist, fifty-third volume, who said:

Where annual elections end, then tyranny begins.

Hamilton, conservative as · he was, wanted the elections of the Members to the lower House to be annual. Why was it made every two years? That was a compromise . . :Hamilton bowed to the argument that there were great distances , to travel. The Representatives had to use the stagecoach and the horse in those days, and that was one of the reasons why the election was held every two years for representation in this House. Surely if distance then was used as an argument to increase the term from one year to two years, the shortening of distances through the use of our present rail transportation and airplane transportation should not be used as the reason for increasing the tenure for two years more.

Hamilton again said, in volume 52 of the Federalist, February 8, 1788:

Biennial elections will be as useful to the affairs of the public as • • • they will be safe to the liberty of the people.

Blackstone, in his Commentaries, volume 1, page 189, if you will go back as far as that for authority, speaking of the tenure of the more representative branches of government, had this to say: ·

A legislative assembly which is sure to be separated again would be bound to feel its own interests as well as its duties bound up with those of the community at large.

Story, the great authority on the Constitution, in tlie fifth edition of his book on the Constitution, section 588, page 588, says: · · ·

Frequent elections are unquestionably the soundest, if not the sole, policy by which dependence upon the people, sympathy with the people, and responsibility to the people that elected them can be effectually secured from the people's representatives.

In conclusion, if any more need be said upon the subject to persuade you to vote · down this . amendment, let me again call your attention to other remarks by the great Hamilton. He said (sec. 587, Story on the Constitution):

It may, therefore, be safely laid down as a fundamental axiom of republican governments that there must be a dependence on and responsibility to the people on the part of the representative which shall constantly exert an influence upon his acts and opinions and produce a sympathy between him and his constituents. He thus said that this nearness of people to Congress could only be brought about by most frequent elections. ,

Why is it that our Constitution provides that bills to tax shall originate in the lower House? This was put there because the framers of our Constitution knew that this House, of all parts of our Government, was nearest the people. The people can reach out to the membership here and quickly and effectively register their will, under penalty of defeat at the polls. They want this body, which has power to originate taxes, amenable to their immediate will. [Applause.] Vote for this proposal and you serve the best interests of yourselves only. ·