February 6, 1947

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 91 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read as follows:

_ Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 27) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the President. That after g-eneral debate, which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; the joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the joint resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. ~ Mr. ~ Speaker, immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself · into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution CH. J. Res. 27) proposing an · amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the - President. That - after general debate, which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by _ the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the joint resolution for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the - joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

This resolution has but one purpose. That purpose is to submit to the people, by and through their State legislatures, this very - important problem of the Presidential tenure of office, and to let the people decide whether or not this limitation should be written into the Constitution :

' Heretofore many resolutions have been - introduced · upon this very question" but for some reason or another they have fallen by the wayside, and no legislation has been passed upon this question, and our Constitution remains without amendment to this date resp · respecting the tenure of the office of President.

Section 1, article II, of the Constitution provides:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years.

Again, under amendment 20, section 1, of our Constitution, we find, in that amendment, the following language:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d 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.

By reason of the lack of a positive expression upon the subject of tenure of the . office of President, and by reason of a well-defined custom which has arisen in the past that no President should have more than two terms .in that office, much public discussion has resulted upon this subject. Hence it is the purpose of this legislation, if passed, to submit this question to the people so they, by and through the recognized processes, may express their views upon this questi.on, and, if they shall so elect, they · may amend our Constitution and thereby set at rest this problem.

This is not a political question. The importance of the problem to the people transcends . all political implication!'! and considerations. This proposed amendmen~ - to our Constitution, if adopted, will contmue throughout the future years, unless and until a further amendment may be adopted upon · this subject. Therefore, in the face of general public discussions, in the face of , the custom which has developed throughout the years, we are here presenting a resolution to submit this basic problem to the people. ·

When considering House Joint Resolution 27, amending the Constitution to limit tenure of the President to two terms, Congress must decide whether or not the people of the United States shoUld still be permitted to choose the type of government under which they will live. This resolution merely enables our citizens through their State legislatures to express their opinion on this important question. I believe the people should make the decision, and I recommend adoption of this resolution as our expression of faith in their judgment.

When he refused nomination for a third term, George Washington warned the people that they might again be subjected to the tyranny of monarchy if they permitted any individual to become too firmly entrenched as the Chief Executive. This precedent established by our first President made unnecessary constitutional limitation of tenure of Presidency. As the precedent no longer stands to protect them, the people should be given the opportunity to set a limit on the time an individual can serve as Chief Executive. ~ a President can be elected by the electoral college, even without the popular vote, our citizens now have really little protection against totalitarianism. The question of Presidential tenure has never before been submitted to the people. To protect them from the oppression of dictatorships that have arisen in other countries, I recommend this resolution be adopted, allowing their expression of sovereignty.

THIS UNDEMOCRATIC AND UNWANTED CONSTITUTIONAL • AMENDMENT IS BEING RUSHED THROUGH WITH UNSEEMLY HASTE

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may desire.

Mr. Speaker, the rule has been correctly stated by my colleague, the new chairman of the Committee on Rules, with whom I have had the pleasure of serving for many years. I have always found him to be fair, and consequently I was rather · surprised that he should have yielded to the demands for depriving the House of a reasonable time for · general debate on this important legislation.

NO OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SO RESTRICTED IN DEBATE

If I am not mistaken, this is the first time that any resolution amending the Constitution that has served us so well for 170 years has been brought before the House under a rule which permits only two short hours for general debate. 0 I recollect in days and years gone by that on many occasions the Republicans demanded not 2 but 6 and 8 hours, sometimes even 3 and 4 days, on minor and inconsequential proposals; but on this resolution weighted with such grave importance, proposing to change the Constitution of the United States and to limit the right of the people to choose their own President, they are liberal enough to allow only two measly hours for general debate.

REPUBLICANS IN HURRY TO Br FREE TO ATTEND BANQUET

Of course, I understand that the gentlemen of the majority are anxious to get through with the sad business of passing this resolution in order to be free to attend a · Republican feast this evening. Doubtless this pitiful victory over a great man now sleeping on the banks of the Hudson will sharpen their appetites and give zest to their banquet. I know it will be a splendid feast, and I wish that I could be with them to taste the delicious food, which I am sure I should find palatable and digestible enough; but I fear that I could not digest the words which would follow after the feasting.

Yet, still I ask, Why should the Members of this House and the people of America be deprived of the right to know the facts attending the passage of this resolution and of being informed by extended debate? Why should not the people know what this proposed constitutional amendment means? Is a banquet sufficient excuse to cancel out the democratic processes? Such haste seems indecent.

VAST MAJORITY FAVORED ROOSEVELT

I recall that my colleague, the majority leader, the genial gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK], stated . yesterday that a vast majority of the American people favor this legislation. Frequently . the gentleman from Indiana is right; but this time, I am sorry to say, he is entirely wrong; and I think that he knows in his heart that this unseemly haste is due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the American people are opposed to this amendment, and the Republican leadership is hurrying to pass it through the Congress before the public clamor , grows too loud to be ignored. I know, and the Republican leadership knows, that a vast majority of the Amer-ican people voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt not just once, or twice, nor even three times. but for four consecutive terms. That . shows how the American people stand, and how they loved this great leader.

REPUBLICANS HAVE NO CANDIDATE FOR EVEN A SINGLE TERM

Of course, I realize that my Republican friends have no man that they could · possibly elect President for a fourth term, nor even for a third term. In fact, I do not believe they have anyone at this time, or will have in the foreseeable future, who can even be elected for a first term, notwithstanding the fact that " they succeeded in misleading sufficient of the American people to gain, in the last election, a temporary majority in and control of thi"s House.

I do not know whether or not all of you know it; but, though I am and have been always a progressive Democrat, I am ready and willing to cooperate with the Republicans whenever they are right. Unfortunately, they are not right very often. In . view of the tremendous responsibility which is now theirs, I hope that they will henceforth be right; but they will not be if they follow the tactics they have followed in this case, for certainly the Republican leadership has not indicated by this procedure that it is their aim and intent to deal fairly and justly either with the minority or with the American people.

REPORTED BY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 0~ Y YESTERDAY

Mr. Speaker, this joint resolution was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary only day before yesterday. They did not give that committee even time to introduce the amended resolution, nor to print the hearings for the benefit of the House membership. They were obliged to come in with a resolution which will have to be amended in accordance with the majority vote of the Judiciary Committee. I hope that in the future the · Republican majority will not act so hastily and so harshly, bringing in legislation of major importance without giving this House and the country an opportunity to become familiar with the bills on which we are acting, and, in this instance, without any effort to explain why they believe the Constitution should be amended.

For 170 years this country has prospered and grown strong under the Constitution, without any amendment deviating from our true course toward more and more democracy , nor from the true principles of representative government laid down by the founding fathers. Today we are enjoying greater _ prosperity and greater liberty and greater equality than ever before in our history. I hope the Republicans will not be able to do anything to destroy that prosperity, which was brought about by the Democratic Party under the inspired leadership of our greatest President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the third and even the first part of the fourth term, until his untimely death, and despite the incalculable burdens of carrying a world-wide war to final victory.

CANNOT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT BE PERMITTED TO REST IN PEACE?

What hurts most, and what I strongly resent, are statements made by several · Republican Members that they "must vote for this anti-Roosevelt resolution." P e rhaps, had I not overheard those remarks, I shou l d not have said anything at all here today.

Can we not be fair enough to let rest in peace a man who has done so much for our country and for humanity? I think it is manifestly unfair for anyone to make such remarks. It was a Godsend to the world that we had Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom the people freely chose four times to direct our Government and our destinies, and who served the Nation and all mankind as no other man has ever done before.

Though Franklin Roosevelt now rests in eternal sleep, I trust and I hope that his views and his policies, for which he fought and for which he gave his life, will continue for years to come to shape our national destiny, and that this country will continue in the great material prosperity which he brought about. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the people of the world can reach his greatest objec tl . ve-a just and lasting peacenot only for America, but for all people everywhere. That is his dream, and my dream, and the dream of the common people Roosevelt so loved.

STATES WII\1:. NOT RATIFY THIS AMENDMENT

In thus assailing President Roosevelt, and in attempting to besmirch his memory, Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are overlooking the fact that just as Roosevelt loved the common people, they loved him. I do not believe that threefourths of the States will ever ratify this amendment, which is by its nature insulting to the memory of our greatest President. I have no doubt but that many of the legislatures even in solidly Republican States will refuse to approve it. Not only do the people remember Roosevelt's magnificent leadership through war to victory; they remember his stirring words in the depths of depression, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." They remember that our living standards, our wage levels, not only in America but the world over, rose steadily under his influence and democratic leade r ship. They know that he gave his life to hts country as truly as did any soldier hero fallen in the battle.

THIS AMENDMENT RESTRICTS. '!'HE DEMOCRATIC RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO FREELY CHOOSE THEIR OWN PRESIDENT

But, Mr. Speaker, there are other reasons why the people will rise up in anger against this proposed constitutional amendment once the fact~ are known.

Anyone · familiar with the history · of the formation of the Union and the writing of the Constitution, and with the debates in the Constitutional Convention and the commentaries of the founding fathers after the convention, knows that it was not the 'purpose of the delegates to that convention, nor of any of those who ag r eed to the language of the Constitu­ -tion, to res t r i ct the right of the people to choose their Pres i dent freely, nor to limit the terms which a President could serve. No such limitation was written into the Constitution, and it would have been placed there had there been a majority sentiment for it. Our Constitution is a noble instrument of human rights, forged by the hammer of human necessity on t he anvil of compromise.

We have frequently amended our Constitution, as the need arose, to extend - and strengthen the democratic processes on which our Government is solidly built. Th i s amendment goes backward, and limits the right of the majority to choose the President.

But on that score I know that the former majority leader, the great scholar and gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCORM A CK] will in his speech bring home the views of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and of others who helped to frame our Constitution; therefore I will not dwell upon it.

REPUBLICANS ARE INCONSISTENT IN ATTACK ON CONSTITUTION"

0 Mr. Speaker, how well I remember how often my Republican friends have clamored to "stand by the Constitution"-the many statements they have made, the tears they have shed, in its name. I remember how often they have charged that we, the Democrats, were trying to change or ignore the Constitution. i\rid now, lo and behold, today and for the last 2 days, drunk with their temporary power-and by temporary I mean short-lived-they are boldly trying to change that Constitution, and the principles of our democratic form of government, by restricting the right of the American people to decide for themselves who will be their President. This denies the long-standing principle of majority rule; it restricts and dilutes the rights reserved to the people under the Constitution. I cannot and will not concur in such a backward step, and I have confidence that the American people will make their opposition known before the Senate can ever act on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK].

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important questions that . any Member of this body will have to pass upon and I hope each Member will determine the question in accordance with his conscience. It is not my purpose to discuss politics in connection with the · proposed amendment to the Constitution, an amendment which will not have any effect upon you and me of this generation but which might have a very important effect upon generations to come after you and I are dead and gone. If this amendment is incorporated in the Constitution, it will make the Constitution rigid. It ties the hands of future generations of Americans and deprives them of the opportunity to meet any problem that might confront them. Of course, we have lived through . the experience ourselves, but I can picture two generations from now, or one or three generations from now, when Americans may be enveloped in a war with their back to the wall. We will not be here. We will have - passed on. But we will have imposed this prohibition upon them. They may be with their back to the wall with a President approaching the end of his second term. Let us assume the people of that future generation have complete confidence in their President. I do not know what his party may be. I do not care. That future President will be compelled to terminate his service as Pres i dent of · the United States when he niay be the best man qualified to lead the people of our country at that time in meeting the cris i s that confronts them. I beg of you as we sit here today to realize just what we are doing. I believe in custom. A custom is one thing, but a rigid prohibition is another thing. If this amendment becomes a part of the Constitution-and you cannot say, "We are sending it to the several State legislatures"; that is not the question; that is not the answer-if this amendment becomes a part of the Constitution, it imposes upon Ame r icans for all time until and unless the Constitution is reamended the rigid hand of a rigid prohibition that no matter what crisis may confront America in the future when a President's second term is drawing to a close they cannot reelect him so that he may continue his service to the Nation which might be vitally necessary at that particular time. I think it is too · great a risk to take. For myself, I do not want to take it. Let us see what some of the eminent men of the past have said on this question. George Washington did not want a first term even. He accepted it reluctantly as a patriotic duty. He expected to serve about 2 years. He reluctantly served a second term because of the conditions abroad. He withdrew , voluntarilY at the end of his second ' term. But what did Washington say? This is what he said in a letter to Marquis de Lafayette on April 28, 1788, in relation to the second term. This is probably the only quotation of George Washington in relation to this question which I think can be found. He said in discussing or writing about the limitation of the terms of a President:

Under an extended view of this part of the subject, I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,

What about Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson, historically, is the father of the . two-term custom. There is no question about that. Thomas Jef­ . ferson, however, only wanted one term. He served a second term because of the calumnies hurled upon him by the Federalist Party and the effect they were having abroad at the time. He served patriotically. He could have had a third term. As we look back in history, I think we would all agree as to that. Jefferson retired at the end of his second term, but back in the days of the Constitutional Convention he believed in rotation in office. That was the big issue then. But what did Jefferson say about this? Jefferson himself said:

There is, however, but one circumstance that could engage my acquiescence in an ­ other election; to wit, such a diviSion about a successor as might bring in a monarchist. But this circumstance is impossible.

In other words, Jefferson himself recognized an emergency might exist where he would run for a third term, and in those days the emergency was the danger o f a division existing that might establish a monarchy in our country. So Jefferson himself definitely saw that there was a distinction between custom and rigid prohibition. He recognized that in case of an emergency he might have been compelled, patriotically, to run for a third term, but he said this circumstance was impossible, because the danger of a monarchy did not exist at that time. But he said if there . was such a danger he would have run for a third time.

John Quincy Adams said it should not be incorporated in the Constitution as a rig i d prohibition.

Theodore Roosevelt said:

If, for instance, a tremendous crisis oCcurred at the end of the second term of a man li k e Lincoln, as such a crisis occurred at the end of his first term, it would be a veritable calamity if the American people were forbidden to continue to use the services of the one man whom they knew, and did not merely guess, could carry them through the crisis. ·

He further said:

While it is well to keep it as a custom, it would be a mark both of weakness and unwisdom for the American people to embody it into a constitutional provision which could not do them good and on some given occasion might work real harm.

James Buchanan, in this very House, when he was a Member of this House, said:

Shall we pass · a decree, as fixed as fate, to bind the American people, and prevent them from ever reelecting such a . man? I am not afraid to trust them with this power. Woodrow Wilson, when he was asked about a 4-year term or one · 6-year term with no reelection, made this remarlc

Put the customary limitation of two terms into the Constitution, if you do not trust the people to take care of themselves, but make it two terms (not one, because 4 years is often too long), and give the President a chance to win the full service by proving himself fit for it.

"If you do not trust the people to take care of themselves," you will note he said.

Senator William E. Borah:

One of the fundamental reasons for opposing the joint resolution is that the people who could be trusted to determine whether or not they desire a President for a second term may also be trusted to determine whether or not they desire a President for a third term.

Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr.:

I have no fear that they-

The American peoplecan be fully trusted with the power to say whether a man shall serve a second t1mc or a third time,

General Grant also took the same position. Ulysses S. Grant took the position that we should not impose upon the American people a rigid proh i bit ~ on that would preclude them for all time of meeting any grave emergency that might arise.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party; this is a question where as we are sitting here we are acting for tomorrow, a tomorrow when you and I in all probability will no longer be alive. What we do today, however, will be operative and binding upon Americans who come after us. Now, we are going to ' impose the dead hand of the past upon them on some occasion when a grave emergency confronts them, when, as I said, they might be engaged in war, with a President coming to the end of his second term but possessing the confidence of the American people of that day-not the indispensable man, but the best man; there is such a thing as the best man under certain conditions to lead a people-when the best man was the President of the United States approaching the end of his second term, what are they going to do? What can they do? The "law of the jungle" confronts them . Just as people respond to emergency situations that confront them, especially that of self-preservation, sc likewise do nations.

They might be compelled to demand that such a President act extra-constitutionally, the very fear some men have in mind now might be the vehicle under certain conditions when grave danger confronts our country for the people to demand of a President: "You should continue; it is your duty to continue until the danger is over." But outside of that, when that situation exists, and it may occur again, our country is likely to be faced with that danger again in the future; it might be even worse than it was in the last war; fighting with our backs to the wall, a President, as I say, nearing the end of his second term, the people wanting him, he being the best man in the country to lead them under those circumstances, and he being a, good man, the people cannot follow that which custom dictates they should do because they are met with a rigid prohibition that says that under no conditions can they reelect such a man who is President and whom the country needs, the end of whose second term is drawing near, to continue in office no matter how grave the danger that . confronts the country.

0 Mr. Speaker, to me it is too great a . risk. I am talking not as a Democrat but as an American. I served in World War I. Other Members here served in World War I, and many Members served in World War II. We are all interested in our country no matter whicl. side of the aisle we sit on; we all believe in its fundamentals. We have got to view this from the angle of tomorrow. This amendment will operate upon future generations of Americans. This amendment at a particular time of grave crisis confronting our country in the future might place our country in a strait-j g c ~c et and it might be a contributing factor to harmful results.

In no part of the Constitution will you find any limitation, any prohibition except against Congress itself: Congress shall pass no law abridging the right of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assemblage. You will find limitations in the Constitution, but they are limitations upon Congress; and those limitations were imposed to protect the rights of individuals to assure that the legislative body would not take away the fundamental rights that our people believe in and for which the framers of the Constitution fought. This amendment is . a limitation upon the people. This is not a limitation upon the Congress. It is a limitation upon the action of the people · of the future, no matter what the danger - may be, no matter how urgent it may be . that the second-term President continue, he cannot if this amendment becomes a part of the Constitution. 0 Mr. Speaker, it is too grave a danger to take this step, too grave a danger for us who will be dead at that time in all probability, to impose such a limitation upon future . generations of Americans. Let their . hands remain unshackled. Let us · not put them into a strait .. jacket, ,- a straitjacket toot might be the factor - resulting in the destruction of our country at some _ time in the future. Leadership - is im­ . · · portant. Leadership is the big thing and , a President in his · second · term-in -the future might be the leader who will - bring . our people - to victory. - His going out at such a . time might be the : difference be­ . tween victory and - defeat. - We are ' tying . the . hands of - Americans in the future from exercising . ihg.i~ a grave emergency the - judgment which they may: deem is for the . best interests . of our country.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired. . Mr : ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HALLECK].

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, while I . do not agree with - the burden of the argument just made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, I have listened with interest to what he had to say. I commend him for his approach, which is clearly one devoid of partisanship. I join with JUm in the statement that the matter we are discussing today is not one of partisanship but rather of what best to do, be we · Democrats or Republicans, · looking to the future of this great land of ours. He has pointed out certain things which he says might be dangerous in their effects. Without undertaking to say that there is no force at all to his argument, speaking for myself I think that · the dangers that the gentleman envisages, if they rpay be said to be dangers, are certainly outweighed by the real danger that obtains from the absence of the constitutional amendment as now proposed.

We are discussing here a proposal to perfect our American system of constitutional government. In such a discussion there can be no divisions on mere lines of partisanship, for in · this House, Democrats, · no less than Republicans, are devoted to our Constitution. We all want to - see our system work for the benefit of the entire Nation, and for posterity.

Throu g hout our entire national history, - we have amended the - Constitution from time to time as experience appeared to dictate.

The Constitution has served us well. It was once described by the great Gladstone as the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man. _

Yet the Constitution itself clearly provides the methods of amendment, demonstrating that it was never the intention of the founding fathers to regard their _ work as finished for all time.

These are the reasons why I am happy today to call as our witness for this pro­ . posal one of the founders of the Democratic Party, a man who was himself one _ of the principal . architects of the Bill of Rights, so vital a part · of our Constitution today-Thomas Jefferson.

Toward the end of Jefferson's second administration, in 1808, there arose an insistent demand among many of his supporters that he stand for reelection. When the legislatures of 7 of the then 17 States had adopted petitions urging a third term, Jefferson responded: That I should lay down my charge at the proper period is as much a duty as to have borne it faithfully. ·

If some termination to the services of ' the Chief Magistrate . be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice; his office, nominally for 4 . years, will, in fact, become · · for life; · and ' history ' shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance. , · Believing tha't a representative government, - responsible at - short periods by - elec- -tion, is that which -produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind, I feel it a duty to do no _ act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be th . e person, who, disregarding sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should · fur- - nish tll'e first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office. ·

Now, - we do not need a Philadelphia · lawyer . to int . interpret what Thomas Jefferson thought about tlfe principle embodied in the proposal before . us today. . · If . he were here today, · in my · opinion ' he would be supporting it.

As history demonstrates, _ the only reason this matter was not pressed to formal amendment many years ago was the deeply · rooted belief of the American people that the principle had been firmly established by usage and broad general acceptance, to such · a degree that no legal or constitutional limitation of Presidential tenure was required.

It is, of course, a common thing in American life to omit from the body of the law those things which are accepted as commonplace in the habits, customs, and traditions of the people. Indeed, our whole system of law and government is reared on certain basic assumptions of morality and attitude which are not specifically enumerated in the _ corpus juris. So it was with the matter of Presidential tenure.

By way of illustrating how deeply the two-term tradition had become imbedded in our legal and political assumptions, let me read to you a plank from the Democratic national platform for 1896. The plank is headed, "Third term." It reads: We declare it to be the unwritten law of this Republic, established by custom and usage of 100 years, and sanctioned by the examples of the greatest and wisest of those who founded and have maintained our Government, that no man should be eligible for a third term of the Presidential office.

With Thomas Jefferson as his mentor, and with the Democratic national platform of 1896 as his guide, no Democrat in this Congress need experience the slightest qualms of partisan conscience in giving unequivocal patriotic support to the amendment before us.

General Washington, the · president of the Constitutional Convention, himself entertained some doubts concerning the ·· failure of the Constitution, in its draft stage, to place a firm · limitation upon - Presidential tenure. · In a letter to the · Marquis de Lafayette under date of April 28, 1788, while the Constitution yet was in process · of ratification by the States, George : washington said - : - ·

There cannot, in my judgment, be the least danger that the President will by any practicable intrigue ever be able to continue himself one moment in office, much less perpetuate himself in it-but in the last stage of corrupted morals and political depravity. It was this · view, supported by the tre­ - mendous ihfiu(mce and · prestige of Gen- - eral Washington, which at length pre- - vailed, and led to the ratification of · the -- Constitution without a · specific limita- . tion on · Presidential tenure, as had been proposed before the convention by Ed­ - . niund Randolph, - , of Virginia, and Charles Pinckney, of · South Carolina.

But having- so ' greatly influenced the adoption of the Constitution without - that limitation, General Washington was c tJ:ie great author of the two-term tradi­ : tion, · which prevailed as almost the unwritten law of the land for 140 years. · In his historic Farewell Address of September 17, 1796, · General Washington sharply · ply warned his fellow countrymen against . "that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart."

His experience in the Presidency had confirmed him - in - "the ne - necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power." ·

He warned against excessive partisanship, on the ground that such activities often defeated measures of sound' progress and enlightened administration. And thEm he traced the dangers which are the very inspiration of this amendment: ·

The · disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to see~ security and repose 'in the absolute power · of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to . the purposes of his own elevation, 6ri · the ruins of public liberty.

When Washington and Jefferson had, by deed and precept, firmly placed the foundations of the two-term tradition, the matter was at rest for many years, for Thomas Jefferson wrote in his biographical · notes, shortly before his death in 1826:

Though this amendment has not been made in form, yet practice seems to have established it. The example of four Presidents voluntarily retiring at the end of their eighth year, and the pro g ress Qf public opinion that the principle is salutary, have · given it in practice the form of precedent ~iid usage-=-ins · omuch - that should a · president consent to be- a; candidate · for a third election, I trust he would be rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views .

The House of Representatives supported and confirmed the WashingtonJefferson tradition in a. resolution passed on December 15, 1875, in which it was declared to be the judgment of the House that any departure from the two-term tradition would be "unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free institutions."

At that time the House of the Fortyfourth Congress was composed of 181 Democrats and · 107 Republicans. The resolution I have quoted was adopted by a vote of 234 to 18.

That resolution quieted all third-term discussion for a quarter century.

Immediately after his second inauguration in 1901, William McKinley became the focus of much third-term chatter, which he promptly squelched with the declaration:

· I will say now, once for all, expressing a long-settled conviction, that I not only am not and will not be a candidate for a third term but would not accept a nomination for it if it were tendered me.

I will not burden the House with a detailed review of the many minor incidents in our political history which reflect the same national sentiment--the same abiding faith of the people-that custom usage, and tradition adequately protected their constitutional system against the o . occasional ambitions of extended Pre~i~ dential ' tenure.

Suffice it to say that at no point in our history has the matter ever been one of partisan decision.

On the contrary, great men of . all parties have subscribed to and sustained this unwritten law of America. -

Our only task today . is to place the AMENDMENT matter firmly in the Constitution.

Mr. SABATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. RAYBURN J.

Mr. RAYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the greatest expressions I have ever heard is "just a minute"; wait a little while and cool off a bit.

The gentleman from Indiana said our Constitution has been amended many times. That is true. But since the first 10 amendments were adopted-and they were practically agreed upon before the Constitution was ratified-it was said by men in high office that they would be adopted-! cannot find anywhere in any of the other amendments to the Constitution that a fundamental change has been made in the Constitution. This Government of yours and mine was founded upon the theory that it was to be a representative democracy. It was, it has been; and it is just that. None of the changes made in the fundamental law have ever countenanced · ced a change from that fundamental.

Without putting any partisanship into this thing, and I do not intend to, for it is too big for that, when I say "just a minute" I think it might be well for us · to take a little more time, look the situation over, and heed some of the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK] when we are away from . the third and the fourth terms just a little. This is a representative democracy, For the people to have the privilege of choosing whom they please to be their leader is democracy, real democracy, in action.

Let us not lightly change a document that has served us well and which has been a beacon to people throughout the earth who longed to be free and who wanted to get away from the heavy hand of the few that the people themselves in a free election might choose whom they would to be their leader. I do not know- I do not know, and neither do you know, whether a time may come when one man may be the individual to carry on in an hour of great strain and stress-and danger. I believe it would be well for us to take just a minute more to consider this fundamental change in our fundamental law.

The SPEAKER . The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to.