February 6, 1947 (2)

Mr. MICHENEa, . . . Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H. J. Res. 27) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of . the United States relating to the terms of office of the President.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 27, with Mr. WOLCOTT in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. ·

By unanimous consent the first reading of the resolution was dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the ru‘, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MICHENER] is recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER] is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I . yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. SPRINGER], the chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, which gave consideration to this resolution.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, the matter which is now before the House comes under House Joint Resolution 27, has beEn reported by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. ·

This resolution, · which is rather brief, provides for submission to the people of a constitutional amendment fixing the tenure of office of the President of the United States.

At this particular point and at the very outset of what I have to say on this question, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCoRMACK], indicated we were placing shackles upon the people. I · cannot subscribe to that statement, because we are merely passing upon the question as to whether or not we will submit to the people a constitutional amendment, and let the people pass upon it and decide that question themselves. I do not believe there is any Member on the floor of this House who opposes submitting to the people this constitutional question, and permitting the people to decide that question themselves and return to us what their decision is.

Let us see what the provisions of this resolution are. While I say it is brief, let us read it together

Section 1, which follows the preamble of the resolution, contains this language: Any person who has served as President of the United States during a~. or portions, of any two terms, shall thereafter be ineligible to hold the office of President; but this article shall not prevent any person who may hold the office of President during the term within which this article is ratified from holding such office for the remainder of such term.

Section 2 provides for ratification. That is the sole and only question which we are deciding today, a.s to whether or not we will submit it to your people, to the people of every district in our Nation, and to the people of this Nation, and let them pass upon this question as to whether or not they believe there should be a limitation u!X)n the terms of office of the President of the United States; and this question is not, as my good friend has said, that we are shackling the people. We are simp l y passing down to the people the right to de t ermine this very highly important and basic question.

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

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WALTER. I know that my distingUished friend from Indiana does not mean to make a misstatement, but I am afraid he has, ~cause~ after all, this qUestion will never be submitted to the people. It is submitted to the legislatures.

Mr. SPRINGER. Yes, this question goes to the legislatures, and the legislatures are the representatives of the people in the various legislative districts. That has always been construed, and is today construed, as submitting the question to the people themselves.

At the very outset of what I h a ve to say on this question I want to make clear that this question is not a political question in any sense of the word. I hope that it will not be treated as such by the member s hip of this great law-making body. The importance of this question, it being the s u bmis s ion of a constitutional amend e nt, far transcends all polit i cal implications and considerations. This p r opo s ed amendment to the Consti t ution, should it be finally adopted, would continue as a basic law of the land for years to come, and until some fu t ure amendment is adopted on this same subject. I therefore plead wi t h the M e mbers of the ' Hou s e to approach this problem in the spirit of the sacredness with wh i ch this question is enshrouded. We are meeting and facing a problem which will mean the writing of the scroll of our fundamental law, which will endu r e . throughout time and until our words have b e en erased in the future by other generations. .

This resolution has but one purpose. That purpose is to submit to the people of the coun.try by and through their State legislatures the important problem .. of Presidential tenure, and permit the people through their legislatures to decide whether or not they desire that limitation fixed or to leave the question of Presidential tenure just as it is now set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.

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

Mr. SPRINGER: I yield to nly colleague from Ma s sachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. Does my friend agree with my contention that if in the · future our country should be involved in war and the then President were in his second term, that no m a tter what the emergency, no matter what situation might confront the people at that time, that President must retire if this resolution becomes part of the Constitution?

Mr. SPRINGER. I understand the gentleman's qu esti on, and thanks for submitting it. May I say that if our · country were involved in any grave emergency in the fu t ure, such as war, the President do e s no t fi g ht the w ar . Our chiefs of st a ff, our g e nerals, our admi r als are the ones who fi g ht our · wars. Our Preside n t ta k es advice, of cou r se, and ac t s in conjunction with them. But where is the Pre s ident, of whatever political party he may be a member, who would not take that same counsel, that same advice, for the safety and for the protection of our Nation and the people in it?

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. SPRINGER. May I proceed further? I have but a short time. I appreciate the gentleman's interest.

Mr. Chairman, during the past many resolutions of this kind have been submitted but none have ever been enacted by both Houses of the Congress, and this question has not been submitted to the people. Throughout the years the Constitution has stood as originally written, and may I read just for our own consideration, as we deal with this vitally im­ · portant problem, section 1 of article II of the Constitution which contains this provision. · I know all of you are familiar with it, but let us re v iew it once more:

The executive power sh a ll be vested in a Pr es ident of the Unit e d St a tes of Ame r ica, who shall hold his office during the term of 4 ye ar s.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the ge nt leman from Indiana has expired.

M r. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I y i eld the gen tl eman three additional m i nutes. ·

Mr. SPRINGER. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that until the lame-duck amendment to this article, amendment No. 20, there had been no amendment adopted on this question. That amendment provided-

That the terms of President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of J a nuary and the · terms of Senators and R e presentatives at noon on the 3d · day of January of the year in which such terms should have ended if this article had not been ratified and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Mr- ~ RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, wilLthe gen t leman yield?

Mr. SPRINGER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

. Mr. RANKIN. Let me call attention to the fact that in 1861 when everyone knew we were on the verge of a war, the Confederate constitutional convention met, at a time- when we had one of the greatest soldiers of all time as President of the Confederacy, and they adopted a constitutional provision limiting the Presidency of the Confederacy to 6 years and providing that he could not succeed himself.

Mr. SPRINGER. In other words, they wanted to protect to some extent against any man perpetuating himself in public office.

Mr. Chairman, I want to recur to the words of Woodrow Wilson. Let us think for a minute what he s a id on this question . I obtained this interesting statement from his own remarks, now on file in the Congressional Library. This is what Woodrow Wilson said on this subject:

To change the term to 6 years would be to incre a se the likelihood of its being too long, without any assur a nce that it would, in happy cases, be long enough. A fixed constitutional limitation to a single term of office is highly · arbitrary and unsatisfactory irom every point of view.

He was thinking about the one-term proposal.

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

Before closing I want to quote the words of Abraham Lincoln when he left Springfield, Ill., to come to Washington to assume the Presidency. He came to Indianapolis. He was worried and distressed. He stopped there. A great group of people had assembled. They asked him to speak. He spoke, and in the course of his remarks he said this to the American people:

Remember, it is not wi.th the President nor the offi c eholder, nor with the poli t ician, but with the people alone rests the power of determin i ng our policies of government.

Mr. Cha i rman, we are today proposing to su b mit this highly impor t ant ques t ion to' t h e people , just as · Lincoln proposed.

Mr. CEL L ER. Mr. Chairman, I yield m ys elf 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, a number of the members of the minority of the Committee on the Jud i ciary realize that the Constitution t ion sets no limitation on the number of te r ms a Pre s ident may serve. The Members also realize that a tradition was es t ablished by Washington, followed by Jeff e rson, Madison, Jackson, Cleveland, McKinley, . and Wilson. Now attempts are being made to change the Constitution as to number of terms · a President · rna~ serve. ·

These Members feel a change is unnecessary, but if there is to be any change ~ these Members feel it would be preferable to change the Constitution sa . that a President could serve only years and not be eligible for reelection. ·

It has always been natural for the incumbent President to have his eyes fixed on reelection, and all the a"cts of the first . term, directly or indirectly, in some measun, are affected by the ambition for a second. term. It is only natural for the · incumbent President to make appointments even to his Cab i net with due consideration for political repercussions. Even appointments to important judicial positions have been at times · tinctured · ed with politics. I make no specific charge against any specific President. I speak generally. The President is one to ask himself and his intimates, "Will the appointment enhance or diminish my prospects for reelec t ion?" You know and I know that even Ambassadors and Ministers have been appointed because of politic a l campaign a i d and a s sistance and in the hope of renewal of that aid at reelection time : If there is no pos s ibility, we feel, for reelection, there is no need for the President and his Cabinet and those as s ociated with him to canv a ss for dele g ates at the national conven ti on; no need for the Pre s ident to placate certain sections of the country that may be hostile; no need to suggest legi s la t ion that m i ght mean the garnering of additional votes that might be useful at the national convention.

During the first term the ambition for reelection to a second term and to serve four additional years casts an ominous shadow, in my humble estimation, over all the acts and all the works of the incoming President. I could, but shall not, quote you at length the arguments advanced by numerous Presidents, notably Jackson and Hayes and Taft, in favor of a 6-year term, with no reeligibility, but I will give you the statement made by Grover Cleveland when he accepted the nomination for President. He argued for a 6-year term, with - no . right to reelection. He said:

Then an election to office shall be the selection by the voters . of one . of ' their number to . assume for a time a public trust, instead of his dedication to the profession of politics; when the holders of the ballot, quickened by a sense of duty, shall avenge truth betrayed and pledges broken, and when · the suffrage shall be altogether free and uncorrupted, the full realization of a government by the people will be at hand. And of the means to this end not one would, in my judgment, be more effective than an · amendment to the Constitution disqualifying the President from reelection. When we consider the patronage of this great office, the allurements of power, the temptations to retain public place once gained, and, more . than all, the availability a party finds in an incumbent when a horde of officeholders, with a zeal born of benefits received and fostered by the hope of favors yet to come, stand ready to aid with money and trained political service, we recognize in the eligibility of the President for reelection a most serious danger to that calm, deliberate, and intelligent political action which must characterize a government by the people.

I could not and you could not put in better language, or express more succinctly or more wisely, the argument for a 6-year term, with no right to reelection. I feel that the desire to be reelected tends to build up, beyond peradventure of a doubt, for the incumbent a dangerous political machine. ~ The attendant political strains and stresses are inconsistent with good government. Too often the President, having his eye on the reelection possibilities, wants to be all things to all people at one time. Too often in our history Presidents in their first term have actually-and I can give you chapter and verse-appeased the bosses and appeased the machines. His efficiency thereby becomes greatly impaired. Not infrequently he has the · overweening desire, in order that he may get the renomination, to punish his enemies unduly and to reward his friends too lavishly.

Elections every 4 years are too often, and a great burden of taxation thereby is saddled upon the people. We know that the approach of any election sets the demagogues at work hunting issues · and inventing party slogans to stir up the country, and thus the blight of discontent and uncertainty as well as fear descends upon all of us. Business is greatly retarded, and industry is hurt and hampered. That evil should not come upon us too often. It is too often, indeed, to have it come before us twice in 8 years and four times in 16 years.

For that reason, among others, I . do believe it would be well for this Committee to vote for an amendment which will be offered, a substitute amendment for the amendment offered by the majority of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which substitute amendment would set up a tenure of 6 years, with no right to reelection.

I also believe this: The President's health, with a 6-year limitation, would be better protected. I believe that if President Roosevelt had not run a third and fourth time-r do not say he should or ' should not, I am addressing myself now to his physical condition-he might have been spared to us and we could use now and use well his prescience, his prophetic wisdom, and his statesmanship.

Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM].

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks, in order that we may become properly oriented, let us remember how many efforts and attempts have been made to amend the Constitution of the United States. Inquiry today of the Congressional Reference Service, available to the Members of this House, reveals that 4,500 attempts have been made to amend the Constitution, of which number 1,300 were made · ' in the first 100 years of the Constitution.

It has been argued here today that we are doing something new, dangerous, and untried.

In those first 100 years of the 1,300 attempts, 125 went to the tenure of office of the President of the United States and in a; period of 39 years, from 1899 to 1928, 85 additional attempts were made to affect the tenure of office of the President of the United States. Therefore, all told, in a period of 139 years 210 attempts have been made to fix the tenure of office of the President of the United States. So we are not doing anything new, unusual, or out of the way at this time. We are s - imply trying to carry out the mandate of the people in order that they may have an expression and voice in the amendment of the Constitution . . We must remember that our guide in this question is the Constitutional Convention. When Edmund Randolph appeared in Philadelphia on the 25th day of May 1787, and the Convention finally got down to work on the . 29th the seventh ordinance that .he had in his propositions was as follows, which I desire to read into the RECORD:

7. Resolved, That a National Executive be instituted; to be chosen by the National Legislature for the term of -- years, to receive punctually at stated times a fixed compensation for the services rendered, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect the Magistracy, existing at the time of increase or diminution, and to be ineligible a second time.

It is true that no time was fixed to limit the debates of that Convention and in the 91 days in which they were engaged, from the 29th day of May until the 12th day of September, you will find that nearly · 14 days of the time of the Convention was consumed in fixing the mode of election of the President, the time that he would serve, and the length of his term. After these propositions had been referred to the Committee of the Whole and was first debated on the 1st and 2d and 8th days of June, finally on the 26th day of July the committee made a report and in that report they fixed the term at 7 years and proposed that the incumbent would be ineligible to serve , a second term. This carried through until finally the great report came through on the 4th of September under the direction of Judge Brearley, of New Jersey, chairman of the Committee on Postponed Matters. Their report was to this effect: that the term should be 4 years and the ineligibility clause stricken out. Now that is our polestar by which we must be guided today. What did the framers of the Constitution intend and what did they want done? It was known that George Washington would become the first President. Everyone knew that. The great doubt at that time was whether the country would endure for, on the 8th day of August, Nathaniel Gorman, in the Committee of the Whole, addressed George Washington, who . was then presiding, and said, "Can it be supposed· that 150 years hence this great country, including the western territory, will remain one nation?" Well, 160 years have gone by and Nathaniel Gorman's question has been answered. Incidentally, he was a gentleman from Massachusetts. On that score; when Washington came to the end of his second term, his Farewell Message went out to the people and thereby the precedent was established which grew into tradition which endured down through the years. What was the result of that? A few years ago that tradition was broken. What may be the other effects, if you please? Our founding fathers intended that this should be a great system of checks and balances, that the judiciary should be independent, that the legislative branch should be independent, and that the executive branch should be in- . dependent to the extent that the Execu- tive could go ahead and administer laws enacted by the legislative bodies. I read from a statement issued by the Attorney General of the United States that in the period from 1932 down to the present there have been appointed to the United ­ States judiciary 192 Federal judges, both district and circuit court judges, 25 in the Territories, and 14 in the lower courts, a total of 231 judges. Of that number 17 have been Republicans-9 in the United States, 6 in the Territories, and 2 in the District of Columbia. This has now reached the point where the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate has taken this matter up and publicly declared through the press and through the medium of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD · that there must be a different division in the appointment of men to fill these great and . high offices of our judiciary.

That is just one illustration of the case of a President having more than two terms and · entrusting too much power to one man.

I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. In order to have the record clear, I just want to ask the gentleman if he does not agree that this was the procedure: that the 7 -year term, without further eligibility, which was changed to eligibility and -~ then changed back again, was then sent to the Committee of Eleven, after the Committee on Detail had reported it to the Committee of the Whole? Was not that election by the National Legislature?

Mr. GRAHAM. Up to that . point the Senate was to have elected the President. At that point the electoral college was brought in.

Mr. McCORMACK. But the 7-y ea r term was election by the National Legislature?

: Mr. GRAHAM. That was · the first matter . presented, but afterward _ it came down to _ the writing of the Constitution and the formation of the electoral college. . Mr. McCORMACK. And the electoral college came out of the Committee of Eleven?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Mr. McCORMACK. But prior to that [Mr. GRAHAM] it was a 7-year term, to be elected by the National Legislature?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

There has been a great lack of emphasis here on the mode of election. That is what those men were principally driving toward at that time, because at the time and in that period the relative number of voters was considerably less than it is today.

In conclusion this is one point I wish to make: Our fathers realized, of course, that the day would come when it would be necessary to amend · this Constitution. The . great bulk of the American people have been hesitant to touch this charter of Government. The very number of amendments · I have cited, nearly 4,500 attempts with only 21 successful, is proof jn itself of the strong hold that this great charter of human rights has upon -- the minds and hearts and consciences of the . American people. But by the same token, inasmuch as it has been amended, I quote you in substance the w.ords of James Madison when he submitted the original amendments in the First Congress. .This is approximately what he · We never need to fear an executive in this country because he will always be weak : The legislative branch will always be the stronger. Had Mr. Madison lived within the last two decades he would have reversed that statement. Now we have come face to face with the situation where we · have seen the evil of perpetuation of centralization of · government, of control through great bureaucracies, appointment of courts and control of our foreign relations, all due to the built-up, accumulated potency and power of one man remaining too long in public office. . The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman · from Pennsylvania [Mr. GRAHAM] has expired.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. WALTER]. . , Mr. WALTER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is extremely important, when an attempt is made to amend the Constitution, to have as the objective something more than what I believe is . being attempted here today. It is very important for us to remember in connection with the present resolution that perhaps as much 'time was devoted in the discussions of the tenure in office of the President as was devoted to any other section of the Constitution. For 18 days the founding fathers labored with the question of whether or not the tenure should be limited, and, significantly enough, the only proposal made toward limiting the time during which the Chief Executive could serve was in connection with one term of either 6 or 7 years. It was not until after this complete debate when, in my judgment at least, the entire commit tee was worn · out and tired, that they did nothing about it. But bear this in mind, that a great deal of thought was given to this particular section of the Constitution. I believe that if we are going to do anything at all we ought to do what the founding fathers almost did, namely, provide for one term of 6 years. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has touched to some extent on the abuses that could follow when there is no limitation on the number of terms. He overlooked, however, the extremely important question of selection of personnel by the Chief Executive. · under present conditions too much attention is given to geography and politics. I could well understand there being two or three very capable men in the State of my distinguished friend the gentleman from Iowa, who could not possibly be considered because of the population of that State compared with States 1n which there was a much larger number of voters. No man ever occupied the seat in the White House who did not during his first term think of his reelection. It is only human nature. So I repeat, if we are going to take the first . st step incident to doing something as important as amending the Constitution is, we should advocate a real improvement and only after greater consideration than has been given the proposal now before us; · _ - The CHAIRMAN. The time of · the gentleman from . Pennsylvania haS ex- . pired. · Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr . .BRYSON].

Mr. BRYSON. Mr. Chairman, the age-old question of the third term for President is before us again. The question arose in the early days of the Republic. In 1787 when our Constitution was first adopted our · founding fathers debated the question of tenure of office - ce for the President. First, it was proposed that the President should have one 7-year term. That proposal was adopted and later thrown out. Then a 6-year term was proposed, but rejected. Finally, in its great wisdom, the Convention settled on a 4-year term, with no limit to the number of terms. During the 170 years since the establishment of tenure of office for all our elective Federal officials many proposals have been made to change or limit the length of their service, but no change has ever been made. For many years, some Americans, particularly Republicans, believed that the precedents set by Washington and Jefferson, when they refused to serve three terms, had established an unwritten law that no President should ever serve his country more than 8 years.

In 1940 opponents of Franklin D. Roosevelt called on that unwritten law to help them prevent his · election for a third term. But this so-called precedent or tradition proved a poor substitute for th~ will of the people, who swept the President back into office for a third and a fourth term. To have had a constitutional limitation on the Presidential tenure of office in 1940 an ' d again in 1944 would have been disastrous. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the gross fallacy of such a proposal as we have before us today was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt · when in the face of a grave national cris i s in 1940 the people of the United S tates believed it inadvisable to ch ang e their Chief Executive; and the utter stupidity of such a proposal was proved in 1944 when the people believed that such a change would have thrown our Nation into chaos and jeopardized our security in the face of the g rav est mili tar y crisis in our Nation's history.

The proposal before us utterly ignores the possibility of future crises and exigencies which could well make it mandatory that we · continue a Chief Magistrate in office beyond an 8-year period.

Before 1940 the · precedent for the President's tenure of office had been established by the Presidents themselves, notably Washington and Jefferson. But in i940 the precedent was established by the people, and that is as it should be. The President is the servant of the people, and each 4 years the people themselves should have the privilege of deciding whether their chief servant is to continue in office or be replaced. Pr.esident Wilson said, "We singularly belie our own principles by seeking to determine by fixed constitutional - provision what the people shall determine for themselves." · If the people believe it unwise to continue a President in office after he has served 8 years, or 4 years, let them make that " choice at the ballot box when and if the incumbent President seeks reelection and in the light of the issues involved and in consideration of the relative merits of the - parties and their candi­ , dates. But · in the name of democracy their exercise of free choice of a President should not be limited for all time to come by a constitutional amendment passed with only present partisan political considerations involved. It has been suggested that a constitutional amendment may at any time be repealed in the event the people should at some future · time change their minds about the third term. The fallacy of that is obvious, since the President is elected by a mere majority, whereas the passage or repeal of a ' constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States. - Much · has · been said about the danger to democracy in allowing a President to remain in office beyond 8 years. There can be · no · danger to democracy so long as the people themselves may freely exercise the franchise. Parliamentary governments have preserved their democracy with indefinite tenure for their prime ministers.

Manifestly,if the people of the United States can be trusted to elect a President for one term, or two terms, they also can be trusted to determine whether he should , be continued in office for a third

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. JENKINS].

Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I shall favor this resolution. The two-term rule for the position of President is an American tradition which was established by Washington, ratified by Jefferson in forceful and unambiguous language and likewise ratified expressly or impliedly by every other President until the day of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The tenure of Franklin D. Roosevelt proved that Washington and Jefferson were wise.

I introduced a resolution to the same import as the resolution that we are now considering. I would have voted for my resolution and I shall vote for the one before us today.

My resolution was · introduced by me several years ago and has been reintroduced in this session of Congress as House Joint Resolution 36. A copy of that resolution is as follows:

House Joint Resolution 36

Joint resolution proposing im amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the President

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United State$ of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when rat i fied by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

"ARTICLE -

"SECTION 1. No person shall be chosen or serve as President of the .United States for any term, or be eligible to hold the office of President during any term, if such person shall have theretofore served as President during the whole or any part of each of any two separate terms; but · this article · shall not prevent any person · who may hold the office of President during the term within which this article is ratified from holding such office for the ' remainder of such term.

"SEc. 2. This article shall be . inoperative · unless it shall have been ratified , as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of th . three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress." ··

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con­ '!..-. sent to . revise and extend my remarks and include a resolution that I introduced on this same subject.

The CHAIRMAN . . Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

There was no objection.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. RoBsiON].

Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 27. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. MICHENER], one or two others, and myself introduced identical resolutions, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the tenure of office of the President to the . whole or any part of each of two separate terms; in other words, making ineligible any person who has served as President for a whole or part of two separate terms, and thereby placing a maximum limit of 8 years. No man could serve more than 8 years if this proposed amendment is submitted to the States and ratified by 36 of the 48 States. ·

I am expressing the view that I have en te rtained over a long period of years. My expe1 ~ experience and observations have strengthened my position on this matter. There has been so much discussion of this subject that I feel that we should at least give the American people, through their respective legislatures, the right to determine whether or not they desire such a limitation.

President George Washington, the Father . of Our Country, in his wide experience and great wisdom, declined to be considered for a third term even though there was a universal demand that he do so and at a time when our country was having serious problems with France and other nations. Thomas Jefferson, another one of our very great Americans, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and who had served our country in the highest offices in this country and in foreign countries, certainly believed in representative democracy and in protecting the liberties and freedom of the American people. He had seen at first hand in Europe how free people had lo~t their freedom, not through parliaments and congresses, but through · ambitious heads of the executive branch of the government. Therefore, 2 years before his second term expired, he made the following statement:

. The general solicitations I have received to continue another term give me great consolation, but considerations for public as well as personal determine me inflexibly on · that measure. That I should · lay ~own my charge at a proper season is as much a duty as to have borne it faithfully. • • • These · changes are necessary, ' y, too, for the security . of republican government. · If some period be not fixed, either by the Constitution or by practice, to the services of the First Magistrate; his office, though nominally elective, will in fact be for life; · and that will soon degenerate into an inheritance. I have therefore . requested . my fellow citizens to think of a ·· successor for me, to whom I shall deliver the public concern with greater joy than I received them.

· In this wonderful statement Jefferson reemphasizes the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. He truly believed that the hope of this Nation and the security of our people could only be achieved through our republican form of government. He, too, realized the danger to our freedom in too long a tenure of the powerful office of the President. At the time he made this declaration and 2 years before his term expired we had very serious foreign problems with both Great Britain and France, and it might be said at that time our Nation was weak in numbers, naval and military forces, as well as · wealth. We had not yet become thoroughly established. Jefferson might well have said that by reason of the perils that confronted this new Republic there was an emergency and listened to the general solicitation not only of his own political party but many of the opposition party to consider a third term.

James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson, all great . Americans and popular heroes, declined to be considered for a third term. The first to attempt to override the wise example and admonition of Washington and Jefferson was President Ulyss e s S. Grant. He was a very popular war hero. Many Americans felt that he had contributed greatly in saving the Union and freeing millions of slaves. Many of his comrades in arms and many and perhaps more influential of his appointees insisted that he seek a third term. His friends made a long and determined fight to secure for him the Republican nomination. Three hundred and six delegates stood out to the end but the Republican Party refused to . give to the hero of Appomattox the nomination for a third term. The Republican Party thereby rendered a great service to our country.

Theodore Roosevelt was nominated as the running mate of President McKinley in 1900. They were overwhelmingly elected. President McKinley lost his life at the hands of assassins in September 1901, less than 6 months after his second inauguration and Theodore Roosevelt entered upon his duties of President. He was nominated in 1904 and elected by an overwhelming majority. A host of admirers and friends urged him to seek another term as he had had only one full term.

. The records show that 30 of our American Presidents were conscious of this threat to the freedom of the American people and they pointed out that there should be a limitation as t . o the tenure of the Presidential office and one of them, a great Democrat, favored 4 years, some . 6 years, others not more than 8 years. Republican and Democratic · National Conventions, from time t<> time, have declared in favor of a limitation of the tenure of this office.

Whatever may be said of the mental attainments and the winning personality of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, he must have impressed the American people that he was an ambitious man. He insisted on having control of not only the executive branch of the Government but control of Congress and control over the courts. He created hundreds and hundreds of bureaus, commissions, and agencies and at one time had more than 4,000,000 Federal civil officeholders in this country and in foreign countries and through these agencies and officials, they attempted and did, to a large degree, control agriculture, industry, labor, and many of the normal activities of the American people. Power feeds power.

When history finally records · what transpired in our Nation for the last 14 years, they will likely write that the twoterm tradition was broken by these controls and by the expenditure of enormous sums of money and the granting of special favors to blocs and groups.

Soon after the election of President Roosevelt to his fourth term many of his friends and admirers were declaring themselves in favor of a fifth term, and we heard that attitude substantially expressed today by at least one of the able Members of this House, confirming the prophecy of the immortal Jefferson nearly 140 years ago. Jefferson said that there should be a limitation on the tenure of this great office, and that these changes are necessary for the security of our republican form of government, and he also stated that he should lay down his charge at a proper season and that the l a ying down of his duties of President is as much a duty as to have performed the duties of this office faithfully.

Who can say that some other great American, Democrat or Republican, could not have handled the affairs of this Na-. tion from 1940 to 1945 equally as well as President Roosevelt? To take any other view we must assume that we have and do produce in this country indispensable men. This "idea was only sold to one other man before President Franklin D. Roosevelt and that was President Grant. My sincere prayer is that we shall never live to see the day when this great Republic becomes so bankrupt of leadership and patriotism that we accept the principle of the indispensable man. I am against the 6-year one term. If we should happen to pick a bad President, 6 years is too long, and if we picked a good President, under this amendment, the American people can elect him for another term. Furthermore, unless we amend the Constitution as to the election of Members of the lower House, there would be great confusion.

The two-term President would be encouraged to select suitable men for high places in our Government and conduct himself in a way that would meet the approval of the American people. - Eight years of honest and faithful service is enough to break down the vitality and them. health of any man. While President Roosevelt won a fourth term, yet the burdens of the office greatly lessened his activities during his fourth term. The Constitution, as written provides that the term of office of the President shall be 4 years. It makes no provision for his reelection. But he set his face against this proposal He recognized at that time that the two-term principle declared by Washington, Jefferson, and other American Presidents was generally regarded as being embodied in our country's political system.

President Wilson, our great war President, so far as I know, never showed any inclination or desire to seek a third term at the height of his popularity. President Coolidge, as the running mate of President Harding, was swept into office by a landslide in 1920. He and Mr. Harding assumed office on March 4, 1921. President Harding, after less than 3 years' service, died suddenly and Mr. Coolidge assumed the Presidency. He became a very popular President, though he had been in office less than 2 years. He was nominated by almost a unanimous vote in the Republican Convention in 1924 and was triumphantly elected. His administration of the affairs of the Nation was marked by honesty and high purpose. Tremendous pressure was brought to bear to have him seek another full term, but more than a year before the national election in 1928 he made known to the American people that he would not be a candidate. He recognized that the two-term principle was fully embodied in our political system. At the end of his term he would have had less than 6 years of service. Mr. Coolidge recognized that by accepting another full term he would have had more than two terms and violate this political principle. This is not and must not be made a partisan issue. It is a great policy in the interest of freedom and our republican form of government laid down by the Father of our Country and followed by such great Democrats as Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and such outstanding Republicans as Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge, and in only two instances in all of our history has any serious attempt been made to set aside this great political principle, in the persons of President Grant and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. No doubt, in the days of President Grant, some of his stalwart admirers looked upon him as the indispensable man but that Republican Convention believing, as we strongly believe, that this country has never had an indispensable man, refused to nominate him.

Through the 50 centuries of the world's history, chief executives, emperors, kings, princes, czars, as well as some presidents of the nations of the earth, by their ow.n thinking and by reason of the urging of their appointees, have considered themselves the indispensable man or woman. Some of these have been cruel tyrants, ­ others have been benevolent dictators or rulers, some have sought power a~d more power to accomplish their own selfish aims and those of a small coterie of favorites surrounding and cooperating with Then, there have been the benevolent group of executives who, with high purposes and motives. through their own thinking and the thinking of their friends and supporters have come to believe that they alone know what is best for the people or country over which they have control, and they regard themselves as indispensable men and women. They seek power and more power to continue what they regard as their benevolent rule over the nation and the people.

As we read history no free people ever . lost their liberties through their parliament or congress except in some instances through the influence and power of the executives, the law-making body is whipped into · subservency and they abdicate their powers. The real hope of a republic or democracy is in a strong parliament or congress, freely chosen by the people. The parliament or congress has great power, especially in this country, to protect and preserve the rights, freedom, and liberties of the people, but such bodies do not have the power of the sword or the expenditure or disbursement of enormous sums of money, or the appointment of millions of great and small public officials. We have many examples of "yes men" in parliaments and congresses who were made subservient through the tremendous power of the chief executives. Long tenure of the Chief Executive office in this Nation was considered dangerous to the liberties and freedom of the American people, even by our early Presidents. This danger has increased many hundredfold since the days of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson. In those days we had a very small Army and Navy. It was numbered by thousands rather than millions. The appointees were numbered by thousands rather than millions. The expenditures at the disposal of the President were limited to millions rather than tens of billions as it is today. In those days there were few blocs and groups that were demanding special benefits, aids, and hand-outs from the Government. It was generally accepted that the people supported their Government instead of the Government, through special privileges . and benefits, supporting the people.

If long tenure of office of the President · was a threat to our republican form of government as stated by President Jefferson nearly 140 years ago, with his limited powers, small disbursements, small Army and Navy and a small number of appointees, how much greater must that threat be to our republican form of government and to the liberties of the American people today. The threat to the security of our country with 48 great States and approximately 135,000,000 people with untold wealth could not have been as great as they were to our security from foreign attacks as they were in the days of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, when our country was threatened by the French on one side and the British on the other side and the French and the British had control of the seas and much of our own North American Continent which is now . a part of the United States. We have observed that even so-called benevolents, chief executives ~ can find emergencies and other reasons that appear to them to be good and sufficient.

I cannot believe that President Roosevelt could have or would have been nominated for a third term or even a fourth term but for the use of the Executive powers ef himself and supporters to bring about his nomination for a third and fourth term. During that period the number of Federal officeholders increased by leaps and bounds. The billions of dollars of money at the disposal of the President and his subordinates increased by billions from year to year, and with all these extraordinary powers were given to the President, and practically blank checks were voted by a Congress that admittedly was dominated and controlled by the President. Immense sums of money were distributed to various groups. Of course, in each case the American people were told that all of these acts were made necessary by reason of the threat of some emergency. At one time we reached - the point that there was not only control of the executive branch of the Government but a very large · control of the legislative branch and, last but not least, control of an overwhelming majority of the members of the Federal courts. All of these things violated the expressed provisions of the Constitution providing for three coordinated branches of our Government. The American people now begin · to realize clearly the wisdom of Washington, Jefferson, and other great American ~:residents in establishing and holding to the principle that a longer period than two terms was a real threat to our republican form of government.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. CHELF.]

. Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, I am unalterably opposed to House Joint Resolution 27. I voted against it when it . €arne before the full Committee on the Judiciary. I joined in the minority report which sets forth our reasons for our opposition to what, in my opinion, is a legislative i ve abortion-an untimely arrest of democr a t i c process. I shall vote against it tod a y on final passage.

I sincerely believe that this attempt to limit the tenure of office of the President of the United States is unwarranted, unneeded, unwise, undesirable, unthinkable, unbeli e vable, unconscionable , and that it ac t ually - reeks with putrefact i on insofar as keeping good faith with our · r basic precepts of democracy is concerned.

We are considering today a proposal that str i kes r i ght at the heart of our form of government. We are considering a proposal which would limit the rights of the American citizens as free people to govern themselves according to their expressed will as guaranteed by the tenets upon which our Nation was founded.

Perhaps one might say I am going far afield in attaching too deep a significance to this proposed amendment to our Constitution, an amendment which would do nothing more than merely limit the term of the President of the United S t ates to two 4-year terms. Indeed, it could sound innocuous enough. Why consider over carefully a proposal that apparently does no more than limit the tenure of office of our P r esident. To my mind, there are several vitally important factors involved which call for careful, deliberate, conscientious and even prayerful consideration.

F i rst and foremost, we are proposing to recommend an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. For 160 y e ars that document · has outlined the principles of liberty, justice, and democracy, but it has done more than that because in guaranteeing freedom, it has also indirectly espoused the cause of the teachi n gs of Christianity. Our Constitution i on has been the beacon li g ht of hope, of faith, of comfort, and of peace to freedom-loving peop l es all over the world. I do not mean to say that the founders of our Nation were able to frame an infallible b le pattern of government for our people throughout the ages. Quite naturally, there must be changes in our methods of oper a tion to meet our governmental needs in a changing world. But I do say that the principles laid down in our Constitution have proved themselves to be remarkably sound, just, and practicable. These principles have proved their roots of fairness . and truth in the steady growth of our Nation.

I am informed by constitutional experts that in the 160 years of our existence as a nation, there have been some 3 , 000 attempts to amend our Constitution. Out of this number, only 21 have proved wise or appealing. When one pauses to consider that 10 of these amendments were the original Bill of Rights which were adopted at the same time as our Constitution itself, there are really only 11 actual amendments which were sound enough to merit favorable consideration and final adoption. :rma g ine, only 11 changes to our American way of life and its meaning in all of our glorious 160 years of progress and development in which we have arisen from a young, obscure, sprawling country to the greatest Nation on earth today. Incidentally, each of the 11 adopted amendments, in every instance, gave more rights, responsibilities, freedom and power to our people-only 1 of the 11 was later repealed by the people.

Whenever we can amend the Constitution to further democracy and to give a large segment of our country's population broader rights of citizenship, it should be done. For instance, when slavery was abolished, such action strengthened a link in our chain of government. When that segment of our people were given the rights of suffrage irrespective of their race, color, creed, or previous condition of servitude, this, likewise, placed another strong support in our citadel of freedom. When the people were given the right of voting directly for the Members of the Senate, such action brought more securely within the grip of the people, an additional opportunity to govern themselves. When the right of franchise was given to the women of America, that, too, was a step forward in the right direction. The Norris amendment abolishing the lameduck session of Congress was likewise a healthy contribution. These and other amendments constitute enlargements of the democratic process and with this long history of additional responsibilities being given to the people, I profoundly regret that the majority party has now seen fit to propose this amendment which, in my humble judgment, seeks to impede and curt a il the freedom and democratic power of the voter.

Mr. Chairman, we have been in session now for 33 days, and this is the second piece of legislation that has come to our attention; and will . you believe it, we have only 2 hours to discuss a constitutional amendment that means so much to the people of this great Nation of our s -2 hours, 1 for the opponents and 1 for the p r oponents of the measure.

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

Mr. CHELF. I am sorry, I cannot yield at the moment. I will later.

It has been argued that the American people must be protected from dictatorship by statute or constitutional fiat. But the simple fact remains that nobody can protect the American people from dictatorship because it is a well-known fact, thank God, that dictators are not bred or conceived in free and open elections such as are held in the United States of America.

Yes; only once in all of this magnificent 160 years of achievement and expansion did Americans see fit to elect any one person President for the third and then the fourth term. And as every gradeschool child knows, this would never have been done had our Nation not been tottering on the brink of a horrible and ~hastly world conflagration. Yes; for the first time in all of our existence as a nation, Americans realized that conti• nuity of service, experience, and leadership were in demand far over, above. and beyond our normal and natural tendencies to restrict, through the medium of the ballot, a President to two terms. We cannot change the past, for what is past is prologue. Mr. Chairman, future generations are involved in this great decision which we here today must make. Who are we to say that our posterity yet unborn shall not have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities such as we ourselves have en j oy e d and participated in? If we defeat this proposed amendment today , I will make the prediction that in future ages countless thousands will laud and praise our names. We have a golden opportunity today, not only a rendezvous with destiny, but, what is more, we have a rendezvous with the future, because if by our actions we vote down this unconscionable proposal, we of our time will ring down the curtain with such a spectacular performance that the applause and acclaim therefrom shall resound and echo in the ears of grateful generations yet unborn.

The people, at present, by a mere majority vote, have the opportunity of deciding every 4 years whether they want to terminate the services of the President if he stands for reelection. I do not feel that any further limitation is justified. The American people have done nothing to warrant this restriction upon their democratic process. The fact that they saw fit in their wisdom and judgment to el e ct Franklin Delano Roosevelt for a third and then a fourth term is no offense.

As I see it, the man selected and the number of times he is elected or reelected comes under the heading of the people's business. That is their business. They will know how many times they want to elect a President or any other man. If they want to elect him once, twice, three times, or four times, that is the present right of the people of the United States.

Let us pray that the time may never again come when the United States may be in the throes of another global war with a dangerous enemy, but should this come to pass, by adopting this amendment-! repeat-we assume to speak for the generations to come. We have no crystal ball to gaze into and we cannot anticipate their dilemma; therefore, we should not attempt to tie their hand s and require them in the midst of a titanic struggle to change leadership, be he a Republican or a Democrat, and, therefore, invite defeat and destruction of Christianity, democracy, and decency.

Does Congress propose to set itself up as a guard ~ an or curator of the American people? By this amendment we say quite frankly that the people of this great Nation have not sufficient intelligence or judgment to l mow their own minds, that they cannot think for themselves, and, as a result, their Representative .::; in Congress must appoint themselves as the peoples' committee in order to protect the people from themselves. Yes; a committee of · the people, by the people, and for the people, with malice toward none but with a straitjacket for all.

Mr. Chairman, if thfr Congress has nothing more ta do at the present time than to attempt such legislation which seeks to detract from the rights and privileges of its cit i zens, then I say to you, sir. that we had better adjourn and return home.

We know we have a job to do here. Much · important legislation is being held up. Let us vote this constitutional amendment down and get on with the people's business.

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

Mr. CHELF. I yield.

Mr. SPRINGER. I understand the gentleman's own State has a limitation of one term for your own Governor; is that correct?

Mr. CHELF. Yes; and I was not alive when that limitation was adopted, I will tell you that. I still believe the people themselves can best judge whether a man should be elected for one or more terms.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. BYRNE].

Mr. BYRNE of New York. Mr. Chair- man, it seems to me this proposal today is self-answering. I do not think anyone in the country denies that ordinarily and reasonably no party should elect a President for more than two terms. I think that is fundamental. I think it is axiomatic in a democracy. I believe the reason that this particular proposition has never been enacted or placed in the Constitution is simply because the people did not know how to make an exception to it, which exception they realize is necessary at times. Six years does not answer it, nor does 8 years answer it, because the necess i ty will arise suddenly, and in these times will arise more suddenly than ever right out of the clear when the absolute necess i ty and need for a particular man is imminent, evident, and manifest, and when everybody knows that that particular man is the logical man for that par':'• ticular spot. By the way, we must not overlook the ladies because there is no question at all but what some of these days, although it may be in the distant future, there is going to be an application to this rule to the women of this country. But we cannot find, and I do not believe Solomon could have found, nor do I believe that my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GraHam], in spite of his erudition, can find the exception to the rule. Unless we can find an exception to this rule, we make our Constitution so rigid that it is unworkable. If it is unworkable, then it is not in . any sense a proper democratic manifesto; That is the answer to this whole problem today, as I reason it out in my own mind. I do believe that this particular proposal is absolutely invalid because for 158 or 160 years the finest minds in our country have been attempting to find a means by which we could place in the Constitution a regulation for two terms and yet have the exception to that regulation.

They never can give us the exception. There is no question about it. When Jefferson, when Washington, when McKinley, when Cleveland, when Grant, wh e n all of the others, including Coolidge, were looking around for a method by which they could jump the barrier and do it logically and successfully, they found it just could not be done. They found it could not be done. Today we cannot find it any more than we could before, and less readily do we find it today because the exception to the rule in Roosevelt has been proven beyond peradventure. In other words, he goes down in the pages of history unquestionably as the one man up to date who was absolutely essential and . necessary at the time he was nominated and at the time he was elected. The results prove the case. In other words, it now becomes an aXiom that Roosevelt was correctly placed, correctly selected, correctly elected. If you find the exception to the rule I will be happy to go along with the proponents. Otherwise I go along with the opponents.

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

Mr. BYRNE of New York. I yield.

Mr. SPRINGER. The gentleman, I know, believes in submitting questions of this kind to the people?

Mr. BYRNE of New York. Highly so.

Mr : SPRINGER. And the gentleman certainly has no objection to a matter of this kind coming before the people and letting them determine · it?

Mr. BYRNE of New York. Unless the people at this time can tell me I am wrong. And I am too conceited to believe they can tell me just at the minute.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BYRNE], has expired.

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, it is not to be determined here today that hereafter no President shall serve more than two terms. We are simply giving the people of this country, through the legislatures of the various States, the right to settle that question. ·

The founding fathers · anticipated there might be need, from time to time, to .amend the Constitution. They therefore provided a method by which it might be done.

One of the anomalies of · human history is that people sacrifice and fight and die for the privilege and right to :::et up a government to defend themselves against the aggression and oppress i on of foreign powers and to protect themselves against the fraud and violence of the lawless members of society. Then, having done that, they find it necessary from time to time to protect themselves against encroachments upon their rights and liberties at the hands of their own government.

The framers of our Constitution were speaking and acting for a people who had just fought and won the Revolution to free themselves from the repeated injuries and usurpations inflicted upon them by the King of Great Britain.

The men who wrote the Constitution were familiar with every experiment in government from the dawn of history to their day. They were governmental experts. They thought in terms of government. They themselves had felt the heavy hand of despotism. They resolutely intended to protect the dignity and inviolable personality of man. They set their hands to the task of making workable under g~vercnment the eternal principles and truths of the Declaration of Independence. And I quote from that immortal document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these ar.e life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these . rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-that when any form of gove r nment becomes destruc t ive of these ends, it 1s the right of the people to alter or to abolish 1t.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution were proposed to the leg i slatures of the several States by the First Congress on the 25th of September 1789. They were ratified by a sufficient number of States to make them a part of the Constitution within a little more than 2 years thereafter. These 10 amendments are our Bill of Rights. They cover the citizens all over with the armor of the law.

I favor this proposed amendment. Only by its adoption can the people be assured that we shall never have a d i dictator in this land. Without such a limit on the number of terms a man may serve iri the Presidency, the time may come when a man of vaulting ambition becomes President. Such a man, clothed with the vast powers of the Presidency and backed by a subservient Congress, , as Commander in Chief of our Army and Navy, could well have in his hands the two mightiest instrumentalities of governmental power, the sword and the purse. He would have the power to put the Nation into a war without Congress having voice in or control over o:ur going to war. The · President by vetoing an act passed by Congress can kill such measure unless two- thirds of the House and Senate vote to . override his veto. He appoints the members of his Cabinet, all our representatives to foreign countries, and millions of other Federal ' o'fficials who have control over the businest: a~ti daily live~ of the people. He appoints all Federal law-enforcement officers and all Federal judges. Such a . President could well name to the Supreme Court of the United States ' es men of his politicai faith and economic thinking, and these men in passing upon and interpreting acts of Congress, acts of the legislatures the of States, and in construing the Constitution of our country would have the power to substitute the.ir · economic philosophy for the law of the land. They coulc. : . thus sweep aside and overthrow the safeguards of the Constitution. They could ove r rule the settled rules of law that have been declared and recognized for a hundred years. Such a court could legislate by judicial decision. It could transform our form of government.

Such disaster cannot hereafter happen if the proposed amendment is adopted. A vast majority of the American people favor this amendment, and rightly so. Under our constitutional form of government, the American people have made the greatest progress , have enjoyed the widest measure of liberty, and have achieved the d-eepest intellectual and moral and spiritual growth of any people in the - history of the world.

Under the proposed amendment, no President will have the power to perpetu- ate himself in office, to create a dynasty, and to substitute a succession for an assured rotation in the Presidential office.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. JENNINGS J has expired.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. MURDOCK].

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I shall vote "no" on this proposition to deny the people the right to elect whom they please President unless the people specifically vote to deny · themselves that right by constitutional limitation. The first three word~ in the Constitution of the United States are: "We, the people," and the enacting clause is: "We, the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” As this bill is now written it could be _ made a part of the Constitution without being specifically voted on by the American people. . There has been a great deal of discus- · sion about the nature of our Govern ment. Of course, it is not a pure democracy. Yes, it is a representative democracy with sovereign power resting in the people. I think our Government · is getting more democratic with each passing year. I believe that more and more a greater degree of responsibility is being placed upon the people, exactly where it belongs, because sovereign ' power resides in the people.

It is true that ' by our vote here today, if it carries, we are not yet making · this proposal a part of the Constitution, as we are merely taking the first step; but it is conceivable that it could be submitted to the States and adopted by the necessary three-quarters of the States and then become a part of the Constitution without being subjected directly to a vote of the people. This is because the members of the State legislatures now in session or in existence were not elected on this specific issue only, they were elected on many other issues. I do not, therefore, take much stock in the argument that we are by our vote today, if this carries, merely submitting it to the vote of the people.

I believe the question of whether a man is to be _ elected to _ the Presidency for more than two terms should be left to the American people at those · future times, and that we should not try to determine that question today · for them or this year, or at any time without their instruction. Whether any President should or should not be elected for a third term should be decided by the people themselves when the necessity arises. I myself do not favor a third term in normal times and under normal conditions, but as the gentleman from Massachusetts, the whip on our side of the House, pointed out, · some time 1n the future the country may be faced with an emergency. We cannot forecast these emergencies. We must not tie the hands of our people thus without their specific vote to · do so. This proposed constitutional amendment should not ' be adopted except by affirmative action by conventions chosen for the purpose in three-fourths of the States-. I know there are certain republics in the Western Hemisphere who practice rotation in office, who are apparently afraid of the man on horseback, and so place limits; but I do not believe that the American people need have any such fears nor need to place any such limits to guarantee that the man on horseback shall not appear and make himself supreme.

Each passing decade we have given more power to the people by taking away · from the State legislatures the power to elect members of the other body and subjecting Senators to popular election. We have given the ballot to women. I cite these only as illustrations of extending the people's power.

I come · from a far-western State . that prides itself on extending the principles of democracy - to a · greater and greater degree. To adopt this measure into the Constitution would reverse the modern trend. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that if we should adopt this amendment providing that no man shall have more than two terms of office as President that we will be denying 'the people of the future the fundamental right American people have always had to select the man whom they pleased even tho'ugh he has already served two terms. Let our people decide at that time what is their sovereign will.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.

Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. - Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 'illinois [Mr. REED]. · Mr. REED of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the Presidential tenure of office is not a political question. It is a constitutional question of the highest order. In . · one form or another it occupied the attention of the Constitutional Convention from the introduction of Mr. · Ran­ - dolph's resolutions on May 29, 1787, until the adoption of the report of the Com­ · mittee on Style submitted on September 12, 5 days before final adjournment.

In one form or another it has been before the people · or the Congress, or both, ever since 1803-more than 140 years-when resolutions introduced after the election of 1800 came before the House of Representatives. Indeed, it has been calculated that between that date and 1889 more than 125 amendments were proposed to change the term of office of the President or to fix the period of eligibility; and it is estimated that almost as many have been introduced sine~.

It is hardly necessary to remind Mem; bers of Congress that when the matter of the Presidency was cons i dered in the Conventon the members of that body repeatedly expressed the importance of placing some limitation upon the tenure of the office. That was particularly so when it was contemplated that the Chief Executive was to be chosen by Congress and that long continuance in office would lead to autocracy, intrigue, or cabal. 'For a long time the · sentiment prevailed that the President should be · limited to a single term of 7 years. When it became apparent that choice by the legislature would not be adopted, the plan of the electoral college wit . h a provision for a fixed term o! 4 years was substituted.

Members of the Constitutional Convention feared autocracy. They feared perpetuation in the Executive Office. They had but emerged from war against a king with unlimited tenure of office. They had seen their State legislatures dissolved by royal governors appointed by a king. And they proposed that there should be no such usurpation of power in the Chief Executive they were about to create. And while they did not expressly - prohibit reeligibility, they were not without the belief that the electoral college, as they contemplated its operation, would provide an adequate check ag aL1st · perpetuation in office. · · Regardless of the inadequacies of the electoral college, however. the principle of a limitation upon the Presidential tenure came to develop by tradition. Even though it be contended that Mr. Wash- ington's refusal to accept a third term was based upon circumstances other than those intended to establish a precedent, the fact . remains that his action was . regarded as a precedent bY his immediate successors, and the tradition of only two terms of 4 years each became . attached to the Presidential office.

Jefferson expressed this sentiment in a letter dated January . 1805, in which he wrote:

- My opinion · origi-nally was that the - President of the . United States should have been elected - for 7 years, and . for:ever . ineligible - afterward. I have since become sensible that 7 · years - is too long to b . e irremovable, and that there should be a peaceable way of with- drawing a inan in midway who · is doing wrong. The service for 8 years, with a power to remove at the end of · the first four, comes nearly to my principle as corrected . by experience; and it . is in adherence - to that , that I determine to withdraw at the end . of my second term. The danger is that the indulgence and attachments · of the people will keep a · man in the chair after he becomes · a dotard, that reelection . tion through · life shall become habitual, and election. for life follow that. General Washington set · the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it. And a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit t . o anyone after . er a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution. ·

In his first annual message, December 1829, President Jackson said: