February 20, 1933

Mr. RAINEY. For this reason I shall object to such a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield one and one-half minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. OLIVER].

Mr. OLIVER of New York. Mr. Speaker, the fight for repeal is not led by the hierarchy of any church; it is led by the " lower archy " of all of the churches of America. We are endeavoring to lift up the pulpits to the level of the pews.

The legislative road to heaven has been ipfested with bandits. In order to abolish the bandits we have got to abolish the road. The taxpayer has paid the police to catch the bootlegger. The customer has paid the bootlegger to run away from the police. No wonder the bootlegger has considered himself the hero of a victory, while the policeman considers himself the victim of a double-cross. The customer is the taxpayer.

The budget of crime shows a surplus. The Budget of Government shows a deficit. Let us abolish the fortune of crime and reestablish the integrity of the finances of Government, the enemy of crime. Let us have one on the House. Prosit! [Applause.]

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SABATHJ.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed, gratified to have the chance of voting for this resolution. The resolution carries out the pledges and the promises not only of the Democratic convention but of the Republican convention. and has been approved by over 22,000,000 people and 42 States, notwithstanding that the Anti-Saloon League in Washington has been endeavoring to thwart the mandate of the 22,000,000 people by injecting sectionalism into the matter and to mislead willfully the membership of this House, as was done when the eighteenth amendment was first submitted.

All this resolution does is to submit the question to the people for approval or disapproval, and it protects the rights of every State. The charges by gentlemen that this will bring back the saloon is unjustifiable and unwarranted, and I hope will not mislead anyone. The threats by the forces of Bishop Cannon will be of no avail, as the membership of this House must recognize that this law-destroying, crimebreeding prohibition law should and must be repealed if law and order are to be restored. The sooner favorable action is taken the sooner law and order will be reestablished and the will of the people carried out.

In answer to the gentleman from Georgia, let me say that if the Members vote as they profess to vote at home, the resolution will be adopted.

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. BEEDY].

Mr. BEEDY. Mr. Speaker, in order that the record may be clear, I ask that my statement, which I have sent to the desk, be read by the Clerk in my time.

The Clerk read as follows:

A vote for to-day's repeal resolution is a vote of surrender on the main issue between the two great parties on the proposed repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

There was and is no issue as to the submission of a proposal to repeal or modify the eighteenth amendment. It is the right of the people to vote on any outstanding question. This is particularly true when it atfects their own Constitution. On this both parties are agreed. The on!ly question was and is what form the proposed modification or repeal amendment should take.

The Democratic Party indorsed naked repeal. The Republican Party opposed it. The Republican Party insisted that the repeal amendment contain some constitutional guaranty against the return of the saloon. The entire campaign, so far as it concerned the eighteenth amendment, was fought on this outstanding difference in the two major platforms.

The resolution which comes before the House to-day contains no such provision. It is an abandonment of any attempt at such action. The task of writing such a proposed constitutional guaranty is simple. No definition of a saloon is needed. A plain provision to take private profit out of the liquor business or to declare that the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises where the sale 1s made be illegal is wholly sufficient. In the absence of such a provision it seems to us that no Republican who took the 1932 party platform seriously should vote in favor of this resolution.

FRANK CROWTHER. JOHN G. COOPER. CARROLL L. BEEDY. WILLIAM E. EvANS. F. M. DAVENPORT. ROBERT LUCE. ROBERT L. HOGG. CLYDE KELLy. FRANK L. BOW M AN. CLIFFORD R. HOPE.

W. P. LAMBERTSON. U.S. GUYER. ScOTT LEAVITT. DAVID HOGG.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. NoRTON].

Mrs. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, I am glad that I have lived to see this day. For 13 years the American people have looked forward to it. Let us do our part to make it a happy day by voting to sustain our party platform, restore confidence, bring back temperance, and reduce taxation. [Applause.]

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PARKER].

Mr. PARKER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the repeal resolution that was considered by the House on December 5 because I believed an effort would be made by those sponsoring the legislation to have the Federal Government call and supervise the conventions to be held in the several States for the purpose of ratifying or rejecting the proposal.

I am now of the opinion that those plans have been abandoned and that the States themselves will be permitted to refer the question of repeal to the people.

For these reasons, and in conformity with my campaign pledges, I am supporting the resolution. [Applause.]

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. WEEKS].

Mr. WEEKS. Mr. Speaker, this is an hour that may be fraught with gravest consequences to every home in America. It is on behalf of the American home that I rise in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution No. 211 which has for its ultimate purpose the invasion of that home by the liquor legions of the world. Not by my vote shall they enter lawfully. It has been bad enough to have such unlawful intrusion as we have witnessed in recent years, and I for one shall not sanction an effort to return to the lawful liquor desecration of the American home which was permitted prior to the passage of the eighteenth amendment.

If I appear pronounced in my convictions, let me assure you that they are founded on facts. For nearly 25 years I was connected with institutional work in Vermont. Thousands of cases came under my observation; many of them had my personal attention. It is a matter of record that in approximately 75 per cent of those cases, liquor was the underlying cause for the unfortunate circumstances in which the victim found himself. May the American home be uppermost in our minds when we cast our votes on this resolution.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BEcK].

Mr. BECK. Mr. Speaker, to-day we are making history. For the first time we are giving to the American people an opportunity, through the convention method, to determine directly and authoritatively whether they wish to repeal an amendment to the Constitution. The repeal does not seek to change the fundamental law which was subscribed to by Washington, Franklin , Madison, Hamilton, and the other immortals of the Constitutional Convention. To them the eighteenth amendment would have been an unforgivable affront. The resolution now to be adopted proposes to repeal an amendment to the Constitution which, in a period of hysteria, was incorporated by a later generation in the fundamental law without any mandate of the American people.

It is a satisfaction that the repeal · of this un-American amendment is not the proposal of any party but is now supported by a majority of the two historic political parties. That this repeal of the eighteenth amendment will be ratified by a large majority of the States and by at least three-fourths of the American electorate is reasonably sure. If, unhappily, 13 States. numbering less than one-fifth of the American people, should fail to ratify this amendmentand such failure is improbable-then the basic right of majority rule will not be defeated, for, if a large majority of the people on this solemn referendum favor such repeal, then their representatives in Congress will in that event enforce the will of the people by repealing all enforcing legislation. Happily, this will not be necessary. We propose the direct method of tearing up by the roots this upa.S tree of prohibition, whose blighting shadow has too long lain upon our people.

The American people, after a practical trial of the eighteenth amendment of over 10 years, are now convinced that it was a fatal error to write into the Constitution an amendment which was not only subversive of the fundamental principle of local self-government but also offended the greater and even more basic ideal of American individualism in vainly attempting, by governmental edict, to dictate to the citizen a narrow moral code of conduct in a matter of personal habit. This ill-fated experiment, which may have been "noble in motive," was doomed to failure from the beginning. It was alien to the individualistic spirit of America. The revolt of the American people against the eighteenth amendment is one of the most hopeful signs of the times, for it clearly indicates that the American citizen has not wholly lost his ancient love of individual liberty and his jealous hatred of government tyranny.

On February 7, 1930, I first had the privilege of expressing my views upon the eighteenth amendment in the Seventyfirst Congress. I then tried to base the argument not upon the ponderables of the problem but upon the higher principle of the right of the individual, within reasonable limits, to order his own life and to be the judge of his own moral code. At that time those who shared my views were but a small minority in · the House. This did not discourage me, for I had faith in the American people, who sometimes think slowly but, in the long run, surely. I believed then, and expressed my belief, that this great people were too wise not to acknowledge a demonstrated error, and I added:

Above all, they have not lost their love of individual liberty and their jealousy o~ governmental power, and if they do not, in their own good time, end this " witches' sabbath " of moral demagoguery, hypocrisy, and corruption, then I have much misjudged the character of the American people.

To-day we may be making history even in a larger sense than the mere repeal of the intolerable eighteenth amendment. For the last 25 years there has been a seemingly irresistible movement in this country to convert these United States into the united state. If history teaches anything, it is that a unitary state is not possible in a territory so vast as ours and with a people who are so numerous and heterogeneous. The unitary state, if it should finally triumph, would inevitably fall of its own weight, and of this the eighteenth amendment is a striking example.

To-day may mark the turn of the tide and the restoration of the Constitution of the fathers. If we shall return to the federated Republic which they founded, and respect the great and essential principle of local self -government, then many of the evils of the present hour will pass away, for the causes of our present discontent can be largely found in the impossible attempt to govern more than 100,000,000 people from Washington. “Back to the Constitution of the fathers" should be the rallying cry of all Americans. The broad path to complete centralization is the path to destruction. Let us take the straight and narrow path which returns to the earlier and nobler ideals of the Republic.

To-day is a new emancipation day for the American people, an emancipation not of one race but of all the people.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. DYER].

Mr. DYER. Mr. Speaker, this is not the question as to whether or not there shall be a return of the saloon, but the bigger · and broader one as to whether or not we shall take prohibition out of the United States Constitution. The matter of the return of the saloon will then be for the States, and if the people of the respective States do not - want saloons there will be none. Prohibition is not the business of the Congress. The writers of the Constitution never intended it should be. It has been clearly demonstrated after 14 years of Federal prohibition that you can not legislate sobriety and temperance into a great free people. Drunkenness and disregard for the law, as a result of prohibition, are greater to-day than they have ever been. Mr. Speaker, I was a Member of Congress when the resolution, out of which came the eighteenth amendment, was adopted the 17th of December, 1919. I voted against it and did all I possibly could to prevent its passage. Ever since that day I have looked forward to the time when we would repeal it. This vote to-day is the first step. In quick order I look for the 48 States to ratify this amendment to repeal the eighteenth amendment. This vote will itself have a good effect upon the country. The ratification will have a better one. This is not a Democratic or Republican victory. It is one of the people. Thousands of Republicans voted the Democratic ticket on November 8, last, believing that party more than the Republican Party would hasten the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. A majority of the Republican Members of this Congress will join to-day in voting with a majority of the Democratic Members in carrying out the mandate of the country, and that mandate is to take the prohibition issue of Congress, and prohibition itself, out of the Constitution and return it to the States, where it belongs and where it will be safely handled, as previously. [Applause.]

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON l.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Speaker, in my football days, in a hospital, on an operating table, with my leg and ankle being set where they had been broken in three places, there was still pounding in my ears the cry, "Hold that line! Hold that line! Hold that line! " And from America to-day here in this Chamber comes the earnest cry of anxious mothers and fathers of 48 States, " Hold that line! "

It is the open saloon that is bucking the line. Are we going to hold it? It is the hideous liquor traffic that is trying to break through. Are we going to hold it?

It takes brave men here to-day to hold the line. It takes men who are not afraid of wet newspaper criticism; who a - are not afraid of wet radio attacks; who can withstand barbed ridicule; who can not be destroyed by frame-ups; who do not quail under unjust misrepresentation; who do not lay down when obstacles arise; who can resist all pressure political and otherwise; who love their country better than they do public office and position; men who are willing to carry on, even when they receive threats of being " put on the spot," such as I received this morning; no other kind of men need try to-day to hold the line. Let me read you one of these threats I received in my mail this morning. Mr. SffiOVICH. Hold that line. [Laughter.]

Mr. BLANTON. You wets ought to be good enough sports not to interrupt a 2-minute speech on a most serious question. Saloons and liquor may break through this line today, but down the field this side of the goal stands an unerring fullback who never fails when downing a runnerthe fathers and mothers of America--by whom saloons shall not pass. And let wet politicians now carrying the ball beware of the final tackle, for the fall will be hard. Here is the threat I received.

This letter says:

The people are tired of tactics 1n reference to prohibition . You believe the hypocritical preachers can keep you in office. Maybe they can, but they can net keep you alive. We are sending you an ultimatum. Vote right. Keep your nose out of prohibition or we are going to " bump you off ...

It takes men who are not afraid of being “ bumped off to fight to hold the line. We will likely not hold it to-day, and I will likely be defeated for voting dry, and I may be "bumped off,” but I will have been faithful to the trust my constituents have in me.

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. LAGUARDIA].

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, this is the only method by which the question of prohibition can be settled. After all, the final decision under our Constitution is left to the people. I am in favor of the resolut i on, not because I believe that liquor is good but because I know that prohibition is bad.

A change in our liquor policy is necessary, not only because of the widespread violation of the law by the criminal element but the general and universal disregard of the law by well-meaning, law-abiding people.

I am in favor of the resolution not because I favor the licensed saloon but because I am opposed to the unlicensed speakeasy.

I am in favor of the resolution because it will be possible to tax liquor, not only because of depleted Federal and state treasuries but because of the dangerous em·ichment of the racketeers and the criminal element.

Mr. Speaker, the lines of prohibition have broken. Twelve years' experimenting has demonstrated the impossibility of enforcement and the widespread use of liquor. We must place the liquor traffic under proper control. Mr. Speaker, we have been fighting for this resolution for the past 10 years. We are now too weary and too law-abiding to celebrate our victory. Congress will now be able to give its undivided attention to economic matters, less controversial but far more important. [Applause.]

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER].

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I shall vote to do a way with the eighteenth amendment and its handmaiden of iniquity, the Volstead Act, with its highjackers, rum runners, snipe entrapments, " dirty business of wire tapping," shotgun murders, poison alcohol, use of children as spies, of c~ds as stool pigeons, and of prostitutes as decoys, with its moral knavery and its political skullduggery. Let us flee from prohibition as one would from a foul dungeon, from a charnel house.

I am one of those who believe that a platform is something to stand upon, not something merely to get in on. The Democratic platform advocates this resolution. I am for it.

I will say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON], who wants " to hold the line," that his line is nothing but a " rope of sand." I say to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. GUYER] that his talk about the failure to include some provision against the saloon is a lot of idle chatter. He would not vote for the resolution if it did include such a provision. Each State must determine for itself the type of supervision it wishes over the distribution of liquor. Kansas shall not dictate to any State.

I say to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON] that there was a preponderating majority for this resolution during the recent election; 21 , 000,000 people spoke in thJ.l.Ilderous tones. They want the eighteenth amendment consigned to limbo. The verdict of the people last November is a tribute to the returning common sense of our Democracy-the Democracy of Wilson, who vetoed the Volstead Act as not setting well on the stomach of the Nation.

Repeal of the eighteenth amendment, as has been argued, does not mean the return of liquor, since liquor has always been with us; its flow has never been dammed. Prohibition simply opened wider the sluices. New York City had 26 , 000 saloons before prohibition; it now has over 32,000 speakeasies. Under our very noses here in Washington during the 10 years after prohibition as compared with the 10 years before prohibition there have been five times as many arrests for drunkenness of persons under 21 years of age. Save the youth of the Nation by voting for this resolution. We, wet veterans, have been patient. We have been battling for 10 years or more. Our struggle at first seemed hopeless, but we have carried on despite catcalls, howlings, and abuse heaped upon us. We kept on even despite threats of impeachment from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BLANTON]. I pay tribute to my wet colleagues, who, during 10 years, have had the Wisdom, foresight, and courage to know the truth and to battle for it. To them, rather than to the belated wets, the half -hearted wets, the frightened wets, and the bandwagon wets, belongs the palm of victory.

Ratification is to be by conventions. There seems to be much pother about the convention procedure. There should be none. I may be wrong, but I incline to the belief that by reasonable interpretation the word " convention " as used in Article V of the Constitution precludes and repels the idea that the convention shall be called, elected, organized, or governed by congressional fiat. I incline to the belief that that must and shall be a State matter exclusively. Without going into the question of the power of Congress in this regard, I would say as a matter of expediency, as a matter of policy, that even if Congress had the power to do all this, it should not exercise that power. In doing so Congress would irritate the · States; it would stand in the role of interfering with the liberty of the States. The States would deem themselves affronted. Ratification might thereby be imperiled.

Each State shall set up its own procedure. There may be 48 different types of machinery. That is unfortunate, but can not be helped.

I would prefer to say that Congress compel each State to elect its delegates to a convention at large. But I do not dare advocate this for fear that I would again be imperiling ratification. The States would resent even this dictation from above. The election of delegates at large would prevent gerrymandering by the drys.

It may be necessary, however, to blink the possibility of gerrymandering and refrain from exercising compulsion of any sort upon the States, in order to get the · amendment ratified expeditiously.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Lesser against Garnett, held that the · ratification by the States and the acceptance by the Secretary of State of the appropriate certificate is conclusive on questions of procedure in ratifying legislatures. There can be no different ruling on ratifying conventions. If the Secretary of State of the United States certifies to the certificates of ratification as submitted by the States, that should end the matter. Even the Supreme Court can not go behind the certificates submitted by the States certifying to the ratification. Therefore, no matter what method the State pursues as to the calling, electing, and organizing the convention, just as soon as the certificate of ratification by the State is submitted to Washington the method of conduct or procedure of delegates at the convention becomes a closed incident.

See interesting argument in this regard made by United States District Judge William Clark, page 12, Senate Document 181, Seventy-second Congress, second session.

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. HocHJ.

Mr. HOCH. Mr. Speaker, the fair question about prohibition is not whether there are widespread violations, but what conditions would be to-day if we had no prohibition. If prohibition is to be repealed on the ground of its violation, the same logic would compel the repeal of most of our criminal statutes. Theft and robbery and murder are rampant in the country. Is that any reason for repealing the penal laws? Is there anyone who believes for a minute that in this day of world chaos, with its demoralizations, with its lowering of ethical standards everYWhere, pay-day nights would be better, family life would be happier, highways would be safer, drinking among young people would be less, industrial life would be more secure, and political life would be cleaner if we had a legalized liquor traffic?

Let no one delude himself with the idea that the liquor traffic can be made decent simply by repealing the laws against it. It will be as it has always been, a destroyer of family life, a demoralizer of industrial and social life and a corrupter of political life.

Oh, this resolution may comply with the Democratic platform, but let no Republican here contend for a moment that it complies with the Republican platform. It plainly violates it. It tears from the Federal Government every vestige of power to prevent the return of the open saloon. Gentlemen may express a pious hope that the saloon will not return; but if this resolution is ratified, the saloon will return.

This is a surrender to the liquor forces which have always been lawless, and at a time when above all else we need to promote a spirit of law observance in the country. We boast of our liberty. But we can not long maintain liberty unless side by side with liberty we maintain respect for law, which alone makes liberty possible in the world. It is a vain delusion to imagine that surrender to the lawless liquor traffic will help to maintain it. [Applause.]

Mr. MOORE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, we are considering an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Article V of the Constitution provides:

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

When we deem it necessary we shall propose amendments to this Constitution. I am unwilling to propose an amendment to which, under the circumstances, I am opposed. This resolution repeals the eighteenth amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this resolution because I believe it is the first step toward the return of the saloon. It may be said that matter will be left to the States, but gentlemen sitting here that I can see have told . me privately that the adoption by the States of this resolution means the return of the saloon. The Republican Party in its national platform declared against the return of the saloon, but this resolution permits its return.

If this proposal were anything new in the control of the liquor traffic we might be willing to try it, but we are going back to what we left after more than 100 years of trial. I am supporting prohibition, with all the difficulties we have had, because I think it is still the best method thus far advanced to control the liquor traffic. [Applause.] There is insistent demand for the consideration of economic questions to afford the people of the country relief. Instead of giving relief to the country to-day, what this resolution will do will be to take the first step to give relief to the liquor traffic.

My friends, let us vote down this resolution. As a member of the Judiciary Committee I listened to the arguments in support of prohibition, by teachers, religious leaders, economists, athletes, the representatives of home and school associations, parent-teachers' associations, social workers, and the representatives of many other groups from all over this country who enumerated the benefits of prohibition.

I am willing to cast my vote with those unselfish persons and with the thousands of others who to-day are praying that we shall not take a backward step upon this important question. These earnest, sincere, and unselfish persons desire a sober nation. I believe prohibition helped to bring this about. I am unwilling to return to a system of State control that we found unsatisfactory.

Let us not take the first step to bring back the liquor traffic which, in many instances, debauched our manhood, prostituted our womanhood, and pauperized our childhood. [Applause.] .

[Here the gavel fell.]

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days within which to extend their own remarks in the RECORD upon this resolution.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. RAINEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'CoNNoR].

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Speaker, to my mind this day is not only an historical day in this country and throughout the world, but to those people who are interested in a demo­ Clague cratic form of government it points a new way and inaugurates a new era in the conduct of our democratic form of government, because for the first time the Congress of the United States is recognizing that we are made up, not of States, not of State legislatures, but that all Federal powers Connery come from the people of the States, and we are sending this resolution back to conventions in the States for the nearest Corning thing to a direct referendum that was ever had in this entire country. [Applause.]

I have always favored the convention system of ratifying constitutional amendments. I tried to have the convention system incorporated in the child-labor amendment and in Cullen the lame-duck amendment.

I am for rep · eal of the eighteenth amendment and always have been. I do not attempt any alibi that I am merely for the submission of the question to the people. I have some sympathy with the sentiment of the gentleman from Georgia DeRouen [Mr. TARVER]. If his personal views coincide with those of his con s tituents, then I have no complaint against the Dies right course he is following; but I frankly state, after this resolution is submitted, I am for the ratification of it and the repeal of the eighteenth amendment. I am going into my State, if anybody asks me, and openly advocate the repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see this question taken out of our hands and placed in other hands, for one reason if for no other-it has furnished every · possible form of alibi that can be conjured in a legislative mind. Some Members are for submission only, careful not to go so far as to say they are for repeal; others would be for it if it has a specific provision abolishing the saloon-whatever that is; others would be for it, if it were submitted to legislatures; others Fish would be for it, if it were not brought up under suspension of the rules, and so forth. I am wondering if each and every one of these provisions were incorporated in the resolution would one vote be changed here to-day. In the last analysis the real test is whether you are against the eighteenth amendment or for its retention. As for me, I am against it.

As to the saloon alibi, let me point out to those who fall back on that as their reason for not voting for the resolution that the resolution permits every State to determine for itself whether it will have the saloon. During the Ayres last week the great Empire State of New York practically determined that there would be no saloons in the State of New York. When the State of New York leads the way Bowman upon such a question other States usually follow:

It is we who shall vote for this resolution who are "holding the line," let me say to my friend from Texas [Mr. BLANTON]. We are "holding the line" to-day in the cause of a true democratic form of government for these United States. So let us dispose of this question now and forever. Let us send the repeal amendment to the States where it belongs and from whose jurisdiction it never should have been taken. [Applause.]

The SPEAKER. The question is on suspending the rules and passing the joint resolution.

Mr. BLANTON. On that, Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and there were--yeas 289, nays 121, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 161]

YEAS-289

Abernethy Bacon Boland Camp bell, Iowa Aldrich Baldrige Bolton Campbell, Pa. Allgood Bankhead Boylan Canfield Almon Barbour Briggs Cannon Amlle Barton Britten Carden Andresen Beam Brumm Carley Andrew, Mass. Beck Brunner Carter, Call!. Andrews, N.Y. Black Buchanan Carter, Wyo. Arentz Bland Buckbee Cary Arno l d Bloom Bulwin.kle Castell ow Auf der Heide Boehne Burch Cavicchia Bacharach Bohn Burdick Celler Bachmann Boileau Byrns Chapman

Chase Ga.va.gan Lewis Romjue Chavez Gibson Lichtenwalner Rudd Chindblom Gliford Lindsay Babath Gilbert Lonergan Schafer Clancy G11len Loofbourow Schneider Clark, N.C. Golder Lozier Schuetz Cochran, Mo. Goss McCormack Seger Cole, Md. Granfield McDuffie Selvig Colller Green McLeod Shannon Condon Gregory McMillan Shreve Griffin McReynolds Sinclair Connolly Griswold McSwain Sirovich Cooke Hadley Major Smith, Va. Haines Maloney Smith, W.Va. Cox · Hancock, N. Y. Mansfield Snell Coyle Hancock, N. C. Martin, Mass. Somers, N.Y. Cross Harlan Martin, Oreg. Spence Crosser Hart May Stafford Crowe Hartley Mead Steagall Crump Hastings Michener Stewart

Hess Millard Stokes

Curry Hill, Ala. Miller Stull Darrow Hill, Wash. Milligan Sullivan, N.Y. Davis, Pa. Hollister Mitchell Sullivan, Pa. Davis, Tenn. Holmes Montet Sumners, Tex. Delaney Hooper Moore, Ky. Sutphin De Priest Hopkins Nelson , Mo. Sweeney Horr Nelson, Wis. Taylor, Colo. Dickinson Howard Niedringhaus Thomason Dickstein Huddl e ston Nolan Tierney Hull, William E. Norton , N.J. Tinkham Dieterich Igoe O'Connor Treadway Disney Jacobsen Oliver, Ala. Turpin Dough ton James Oliver, N.Y. Underwood Doug l as, Ariz. Jeffers Overton Vinson , Ga.. Doug l ass, Mass. Johnson, Mo. Owen Vinson, Ky. Doutrich Johnson, S. Dak. Palmisano Warren Drane Johnson, Tex. Parker, Ga. Watson Drewry Johnson, Wash. Parker, N.Y. Weaver Dyer Jones Parks Welch Eagle Kading Parsons West Eaton , N . J. Kahn Peavey White Engle bright Keller Perkins Whitley Erk Kelly, m. Person Whittington Estep Kemp P e ttengill Wigg l esworth Evans, Mont. Kennedy , Md. Pitten g er Williams, Mo. Fernandez Kennedy, N.Y. Polk Williams, Tex. Fiesinger Kerr Pou Wingo Kleberg Prall Withrow Fishburne Kntifin Pratt, Harcourt J. Wolcott Fitzpatrick Kunz Pratt , Ruth Wolfenden Flannagan Kvale Purnell Wolverton Flood LaGuardia Ragon Wood , Ga. Foss Lambeth Rainey Woodruff Freeman Lamneck Ramspeck Woodrum Fulbright Lanham Ransley Wyant Fuller Lankford, Va. Rayburn Yon Fulmer Larrabee Reilly Gambrill Lea Rogers, Mass Gasque Lehlbach Rogers, N. H.

NAYB--121

Adkins Ellzey Leavitt Shallenberger Allen Eslick Lovette Shott Evans, Calif. Luce Simmons Beedy Finley Ludlow Snow Biddle Frear McClintic, Okla. Sparks Blanton French McClintock, Ohio Stalker Garber McFadden Strong, Kans. Brand, Ohio Gilchrist McGugln Strong, Pa. Browning Goldsborough McKeown Summers, Wash. Burtness Greenwood Magrady Swank Busby Guyer Manlove Swanson Cable Hall, Ill. Mapes Swick Cartwright Hall, N.Dak. Mobley Swing Chiperfield Hardy Moore, Ohio Taber Christopherson Haugen Morehead Tarver Clarke, N.Y. Hawley Mouser Taylor, Tenn. Cochran , Pa. Hoch Murphy Temple Cole , Iowa Hogg , Ind. Ne ! son, Me. Thatcher Collins Hogg, W.Va. Norton, Nebr. Thurston Colton Holaday Partridge Timberlake Cooper, Ohio Hope Patman Underhill Cooper , Tenn. Houston, Del. Patterson Wason Crall Jenkins Ramseyer Weeks Crowther Johnson , Okla. Rankin Williamson Culkin Kelly, Pa. Reed, N.Y . Wilson Davenport Ketcham Rich Wood, Ind. Dominick Kinz . er Robinson Wright Dowell Kopp Sanders, N.Y. Yates Doxey Kurtz Sanders, Tex. Driver Lambertson Sandlin Eaton, Colo. Lankford, Ga . Seiberling

NOT VOTING-16

Brand, Ga . Hall, Miss . John s on, lll. Montague Christgau Hare Kn u tson Reid, Ill. Free Hornor Larsen Smith, Idaho Glover Hull, Morton D. Maas Stevenson So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the joint resolution was passed.

The following pairs were announced.

On the vote:

Mr. Knutson and Mr. Hornor (for) with Mr. Christga.u (against). Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Montague (for) with Mr. Hare (against). Until further notice:

Mr. Brand of Georgia with. Mr. Free.

Mr. Hall of Mississippi with Mr. Smith o! Idaho.

Mr. Larsen With Mr. Reid of Illinois.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Speaker, I am requested by my colleague, Mr. GLOVER, who is confined to his bed by illness, to announce that if he were present he would vote " no."

Mr. BLAND. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. MoNTAGUE, is confined to his bed by sickness. He desires me to state that if he were present he would vote" aye."

Mr. SMITH of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. HoRNOR, is unavoidably absent. If he were present, he would vote "aye."

Mr. FRENCH. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. SMITH of Idaho, is absent on account of illness. If present, he would officers. vote "no."

Mr. KVALE. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. MAAs, is unavoidably and unexpectedly absent and can not secure a pair. If present. he would vote " aye."

Mr. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. SMITH, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. REID, are unavoidably absent, and if here they would vote "no."

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.