August 1, 1917

Population figures, census 1910.

Nevada-----~--------------~------------------------- 81,875 . \Vyoming--------------------------------------------- 21402G .• 93 ~ a2- Arizona Delaware--------------------------------------------- ________________ :_____________________________ 204, 3 ~ 5 4 IdahO--------------------------------------------- ~~~:~8f ~~~mo~f~~~:_:_:_:::_:_:_::_:_:_:_:-_:_::_::_:_:::.:::::::.:::::::::::~ 3 55 ,956 Utah_------------------------------------------------ 373 ,35 1 Montana --------------------------------------------- ng : ~ ~~ ~~~h H~'::~~~!r::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 577 , 03 6 South Dakota----------------------------------------- 5 83 , 8 88 Oregon---------------------------------------------- ____ 6_7_2 , _7_0_5 Total----------~------------------------------- 4 , 6:i7 ,0 ;;2 Population of Ohio, 1910 __ .:_ ___________________________ 4, 7 6 7, 121 Ohio's excess population over the combin e d population of these 13 States, 110,069.

Population figur e s, c e nsus 1910.

Nevada---------------------------------------------- 81 , 8 75 \. Wyoming-------------------------------------------- Delaware-------------------------------------------- ~6~· 4: ~~ 3 5! ~ Arizona-------------------------- · ------------------- 20 3:::5, 59 4 k~~ 0 M~xico.=-.:=_:_:_:_:=_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:_:-_:_:_: . :::::::::::::::::::=: 3 ~ 7, SO l Vermont-------------------------·-------------------- 35n . ~56 Utah - ------------------------------------------------ ~i~: 8 g~ 1\Iontana ____ _ --------- · ------------------------------- , "'72 New Hampshire-------------------------------------- 43 54 ~ 0 . (; ~~~t~ b~~~ra_-_-_-_-_-:.=-::::.=--_-.=-_-_-_-_-:.:::::::::::::::2:::::: 577. O f>5 South Dako t a--------------------·-------------------- 5 8 3 .~88 Oregon _____ ------------------- __ ---- - ---------------- 67:!, 7 6 5 J.\.laine _ __ ------ · --- ---------------~------------------ 7 42, 3 71 §t~~x~£::::::~:::::::::::::~==================== 1. U! : ~ii TotaL----------- ..=. ------------------- : --------- 8 , 60 8 , 4 3 2 . Population of New York in 1910 _________________ .: ______ 9, 113 , 614 N e w York's excess population over the combin e d population of th es e 18 States, 505,182.

1\fr. MYERS. Mr. Pre s ident , ever _ since the b e ginning of the world this old world has been steadily becoming bett e r; a better place in which to li>e; a better place for human i ty. Ever since the creation of man, mankind has be e n st e adily pressing onward, forwru·d , upward; slowly, awkwardly, s t u m ­ blingly, toilsomely, pain s takin g ly; painfully and uiscouragin g ly slow has been its progress, i n the face of innume r able difficultie3 , and beset with almost insuperable ob s tacles; but ev e r on wa rd and upward; often stumbling, falling, slipping backward, but ever animated by hope and faith in the future, mankind bas progressed steadily forward and upward. Man's face has en~r been set to brighter and better conditions.

The desire of man for the betterment of his condition i ., · heaven born and God given and -can be no more taken out of his breast than he can be bereft of his inb o rn desire for liberty, for freedom. In all the ages since the cr e ation of the wor l d the steady effort of mankind has been to climb out of the miasma, the mire, the fog, the darkness, the murkiness of the lowlands, the fog of ignorance, the fetters of tradition, ami to attain the heights of the mountain peaks, where God's bright sunshine of reason exists, and where the pure air is th a t of fr e e- dom rrnd liberty.

In making progress to that end, 6 mankind has had to contend with ignorance, superstition, tradition; has been f e tt e red by the obstacles of avarice . gr · greed, cupidity, oppression; but alw a ys looking up to the heights where is the sunshine and bright light of the future, where there are better conditions awaiting man's .As . results of long and · toilsome struggle, we witness many improvements in the condition of mankind. Slavery, once preva· lent nearly all over the world, is now happily abolished, and scarcely anywhere on the earth does there exist human bondage, except as punishment for crime; and who would go back to human slavery? Yet its abolition was the result not only of centuries but of thousands of years of steady, persistent effort of awakened conscience, in the face of tradition, immemorial sane­ · tion, and the efforts of man to subvert to his use even his fellow human beings, everything that might come to his hand.

In making every . improvement of human conditions, mankind has had to contend with avarice, greed, and every sordid element of human nature, but nevertheless mankind's progress has ever been onward and upward, and every century has marked progress in man's travel toward the betterment of humanity.

Feudalism, once dominant in nearly all the nations of the earth, so that a few owned nearly all of the land and the many were mere vassals, has disappeared from the face of the earth. Religious freedom is a thing that was once unknown on the face of the earth. Now happily it prevails in nearly every quarter of t.he globe, to the betterment of mankind, making the world a freer and better world in which to live, and making better conditions for humanity. Now, in nearly every quarter of the globe man may worship God as his conscience may dictate, and his worship is a free worship, not enforced worship. What centuries of struggle it took to bring about that happy condition. · . The sacred right of kings was once prevalent all over the earth and as acknowledged as a necessity of government in every quarter of the earth. ln fact, it had Biblical sanction it had the sanction of everybody, and it was necessary in early centuries. The people then were not capable of self-government. the day! Nobody questioned it. Fortunately the divine right of kings to ruie is rapidly crumbling and fading away, and I believe in a few generations more will he wiped from the face of the earth. So may it. be!

Formerly education was not prevalent nor general in the countries of the world. Even in our own country at the beginning of its existence it was generally held that "it is not my duty to see that my neighbor's children are educated; let them grow up in ignorance; that is the outlook of their parents; I have nothing to do with it." It is now realized that man may no longer say, "I am not my brother's keeper." Fortunately, early in the history of our country common-school education, public-school education at the expense of the Government, was provided for, and happily it has proven one of the greatest factors for liberty and freedom and enlightened self-government that the world has ever known.

In our own country, in the last 130 or 140 years, many notable achievements in the progress of mankind have been made. One hundred years and more ago, the right of suffrage in nearly all the States was confined to those who owned property, to freeholders. Happily that was abolished early in the history of our country, and ever since then suffrage has been becoming more-general, more dependent upon intelligence, upon the capacity of the voter, and extended to all who acquired sufficient intelligence to exercise it properly. To-day we have in a large number of the States of our Union universal suffrage, for men and women alike, and I believe the time is coming in the near future when there . will be in this country universal suffrage by an amendment to our Federal Constitution. ·

There are many things which are now on the statute books of our country by virtue of national legislation which in the beginning of our history were not considered proper subjects of national legislation. Pure-food control, sanitation, childlabor regulation, limitation of hours of labor for men. women, and children-all these things were attained in the face of intense opposition. It took time anti toilsome effort. The people in attaining them were fettered by traditions of the dark ages of the past, but by persistent effort they emerged and came out in tl1e bright sunlight of a better day.

I believe that the people of this · country, through an enlightened conscience and a sounder public opinion, have about arrived at a point where they are ready to adopt by a national constitutional amendment national prohibition of the manufacture and use of liquor. The time has come to strike for it. The people are ready to pass on it. They want a chance. It is the sense of an enlightened public, sustained by the best professional and scientific autho ··ues, that the use of liquor lias no merit in it, neither as food nor medicine. It is neither food nor medicine. It is a palpable evil , socially, physically, morally, politically, economically. The progress in this reform has been sl w, but steady and sure, and I believe the day for marking the milepost of that achievement is finally at hand.

lu regard to the argument that if three-fourths of the States adopt this constitutional provision the people of the remaining one-fourth of the States of the Union will be at their mercy, I simply have to say that '' ' when any State . came into the Union it knew the provisions of our Federal Constitution. It · did so with its eyes open. It accepted the conditions. It knew there was n provision in " the Federal Constitution that constitutional amen<1ments might be submitted and that if ratified by threefourths of the States the other one-fourth would have to submit to it as the dominant law of the · laml. There was nothing to compel any State to come into the Union. Any one of the Thirteen Colonies which did not like that provision in the proposed Fed: eral Constitution could have remained out of the Federal Union, and in that even would be to-day a sovereign, independent, separate, individual nation. The Colonies exercised their choice. They came into the Union to get all the benefits of a consolidated Union of States and of our Federal Constitution, and if they get the benefits they must submit to all the provisions which were inserted for the common welfare of all. There is nothing to -argument to the contrary. Ohio did not have to come into the Union. Montana did not have to come into the Union. They could have stayed out. Having come in voluntarily, they must submit to the Federal scheme of government and should not complain about it. I am for this amendment and shall support it. I believe it will be submitted, and the day it is ratified by three-fourths of the States, as I believe it will be in time, will be a great day for humanity. It will put us on a higher plane than we have ever occupied. It will be a greater day than the day that witnessed the abolition of human slavery. It will be a second Declaration of Independence. It should be observed ever after as a second Fourth of July May God speed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Montana has expired.

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, in view of the limited· time at my command, I must select a phase of the several questions involved in the resolution now before the Senate, and I select for an observation that phase of the general matter presented by the Senator from New York [Mr. CALDER] and the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. PENROSE] . Their view of it is that the power to deal with this question should remain with the States; that it is ill advised for the General Government to assume the control of the habits and customs of the people in this regard. I am compelled to disagree entirely and utterly with their view of the question. If there is one matter concerning which the United States should have the right of legislation and control, it is with regard to the use of intoxicating liquor.

Many things have become national. Mr. President, since our forefathers adopted the Constitution in 1789, and this is one of them. Every vital matter of legislation, every question which now deeply concerns the people of the United States, finds its way eventually to the Congress of the United States. It is for the Federal power to make this country great or contemptible. It is for the Federal power to give this country stability or confer upon it weakness. The General Government is vastly more concerned in the habits of the people, in their strength, in their sobriety, in their efficiency, than any State government can be. ' The people of my State are just as much involved in the conduct of the people of the State of New York as are the people of New York themselves, because in the great consensus of opinion that is finally expressed in national legislation comes either safety or danger not only for the people of New York but for the people of Iowa as well.

If it is true that the Republic will better serve its high mission in the world through sobriety than through the use of intoxicating liquors intemperately then it is for the Republic to erect a standard which shall control the habits, customs, and manners of the people. •

Mr. President, the view so honestly, I have no doubt, expressed by the Senator from New York and the Senator from Penn ylvania upon this subject can not be accepted in these days when the influence of the State so far as the world is concerned has well-nigh disappeared and the influence of the Republic alone is potential in determining our destiny. I repeat, if there is one subject which ought to be within the complete control of the Federal power it is the subject involved in the resolution.

I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from New York upon one phase of the matter-especially do I agree with the view taken by the Senator from Pennsylvaniathat there is an element of inequity in permitting 36 States with a population of 46,000,000 to override the wishes of 12 States with a population of 56,000,000. Our forefathers, however, have determined that for us. There is no other way to amend the Constitution at the present time.

I recall to the memory of Senators the fact that four or five years ago I introduced a resolution for an amendment to . the Constitution providing that a referendum through which a pro· posed amendment should be adopted or rejected should be taken by popular vote. I believe in that amendment to the Constitution now, but I found it utterly impossible to secure a favorable report upon the resolution from the Committee on the Judiciary. Why? Because of the influence of the very States whic~t are now complaining with regard to the present method of ratifying constitutional amendments. I think not only ought n referendum to be by a popular vote, but I think that the citizens of the United States · in their individual capacity ought to have the right to initiate amendments to the Constitution, and when they have initiated those amendments, supported by a fair and reasonable proportion of the people, they ought to be submitted for adoption without regard to the Congress of the United State . Logically and properly considered the Congress of the United States ought to have no more to do with an amendment to the Constitution than any other collection of citizens of similar number. Such is my answer to the contention that this particular power should remain with the States.

1\Ir. Pre. ident, I do not intend at this moment to discuss the policy of prohibition. I may, if I have an opportunity, speak. of it a little later, but I would vote to submit this amendment t•l the people or to the States even though I did not believe in the policy of prohibition. I believe it is the duty of Members of Congress, when they find there is a fair and reasonable demand upon the part of the people for an opportunity to express their opinion~ regarding an amendment to the Constitution, to submit it irrespective of our individual judgment or opinion upon the merits.

I am one of those who think that our forefathers made the way altogether too difficult for constitutional amendments’ . I do not think they ought to be submitted for light or trivial reasons. I do not think they ought to be submitted unless there is found a fair and decent proportion of the people urging or soliciting an opportunity to express themselves with regard to their organic la:w. We take ourselves, I think, altogether too seriously and impute to ourselves a guardianship of the Constitution which we ought no longer to hold -or to exercise. It is the Constitution of the people of the United States; aml when, as I said before, a reasonable proportion of the people want a chance to vote upon an amendment to it, it is our highest duty to see that they have the chance. .

'The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Iowa has expired.

Mr. CURTIS. 1\Ir. President, I have listened with some surprise to the speeches of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERwooD]. the Senator from Pennsylvania [1\fr. PENROSE], the Senator from Ohio [1\Ir. PoMERENE], and the Senator from New York [1\fr. CALDER]. One would imagine from these speeches that the friends of this measure were proceeding in some way · not authorized by the Constitution, when, as a matter of fact. the friends of this resolution are proceeding in the only regular way to. amend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution provides that-

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

.All the friends of tbi proposition are doing is to a, k that this question shall be submitted in the regular way. The Senators might just as well complain about the representation in the United States as to complain that three-fourths of the States shall not have the right to amend the Constitution because their population might be less than that of the one-fourth unfavorable to the amendment of the Constitution . . In this body, while the great StatE' of Kamms may not equal the State of Pennsylvania in ability in its representation, yet we equal.J:he State of Pennsylvania in our vote. The State of Kansas equals the vote of New York and all the other more heavily populated States, and it is right that we should have equal power with our vote. The Senators from Pennsylvania, _ l\1a sucbusE>tts, New York, Ohio, and Alabama might just as well complain of the vote we have and the power that the State of Kansas has here. ·

1\lr. President, I am going to vote for the submission of this amendment because I am personally in · favor of it and believe it to be right to submit the question to the States. In tile second place, I am going to vote for it because it carries out the sentiments of a vast majority of the people of the State I have the honor in part to represent.

But, l\lr. President, I ue ire to say a word or two in regard to the amendment offered by the · Senator from Ohio [l\Ir. HARDING]. I should like ordinarily to have this question submitted without limitation, but I have taken the pains to carefully go over the situation in the Senate with t11e Senator from Texas [l\1r. SHEPPARD], the SE:nator from Washington [l\fr. JoNEs], and other friends of this proposition, and I am sa.ti fied from the canvass we have made that there are several Senators who would like to vote for this amendment and who will vote for it if the limitation i · put in requiring the Stale to act within six years. Without that provision some of them may vote against it . . I am satisfied that without the provision the vote will be very cJo~e, and to assure the passage of this resolution to-day I am going to vote for that limitation, because I believe we should waive our personal opinion on questions of this kind if ­ we can help the passage of the prevision thereby.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President-- ·

Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the Senator.

Ml~. NORRIS. I de not wish to interrupt the Senator in his time unless it is agreeable to him ..

Mr. CURTIS. It is perfectly agreeable.

_ Mr. NORRIS. Does the Senator think it right to tack a proposition of this kind upon the resolution when "e have not attempted to do it on· any other proposed amendment of the Constitution?

:Mr. CURTIS. I would vote the same way on other amendments if the conditions were similar, and I think there should be a limitation upon all questions submitted.

1\fr. NORRiS. Does. the Senator believe that. there is any Member of the Senate who is opposed to the prohibition amendment who does not favor that proposition? In other words, it is favored by the enemies of the proposition?

1\fr. CURTIS. I would not say that. It is favored by some of the Senators who desire to vote for the resolution but do not care to vote for it unless this limitation is put in it. -

1\lr. NORRIS. Does the Senator think that any Senator is in favor of that limitation on it because he believes by that means he can defeat the amendment?

M . r. CURTIS. I do not know.

Mr. NORRIS. What other reason could there be?

1\Ir. CURTIS. So far as I am concerned, I believe that this · amendment will be adopted by three-fourths of the States in the legislatures of 19~1. The very first chance the States get to vote uoon this question. in my judgment. they will settle it; and if- this fight can not be won in 6 years . in my opinion, it can not be won in 16 years. For that reason also I am going to vote for the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. ·

1\Ir. NORRI'S. l\1r. President. I llad not intended to speak of any of these amendments, but ever since the offer.ing of the amendment by the Senator from Ohio to this proposition, although that amendment is not now technically before the Senate, I have felt that Senators who are friendly to the prohibition amendment are making a mistake if they support the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. I am finding no fault as to the offering of the amendment. If I were opposed to this joint resolution, 1 should certainly be for the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, becam;;e it gives to those who are opposed to t.he adoption of this constitutional a . amendment.

If f · th t h f a last chance. ' or six years they can · prevent e favor- a able action of enough States, so that the three-fourths for the ; ratification of this amendment shall be lacking, they will have defeated the amendment.

I am in favor of the proposition of the Senator from Ohio as a general amendment: If we should· add that kind of an amendment to the Constitution as a limitation which should apply to every proposed constitutional amendment, there would be some reason, it seems to me, to put it through. I believe there ought to be some limitaton; but why select this particular amendment and attach that kind of a limitation to it? 1Vhy not make the limitation general; put it through. the Senate as a general amendment, and let it apply to every proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States? It seems to me that would be the only fair thing to do.

There is another reason why this amendment ought - not to be tacked onto this proposed constitutional amendment. While I have not had the opportunity to examine any of the decisions of the courts on the subject, it seems to me that the amendment of very doubtful constitutionality The Constitution of the United States provides how the Constitution may he . amended, but it places no · limitation ·whatever as to the time within which the States may act through their legislatures upon any amendment which may be submitted by Congress. Now it iq proposed here to put in reality into the Constitution, having the same effect as . amending the Constitution, an amendment providing that the time for the 'ratification of this particular amendment on prohibition shall be limited. The proposition has, in my judgment, neither fairness n-or reason behind it. · I confe. s I am surprised that the Senator from Texas [l\1r. SHEPPAnD], and others like him, who have been father- · ing this proposition and who are the leaders in this contest, have surrendered to influences of that kind and have ag-T'Pefl to put on here an amendment which, in my judgment, means the defeat of the constitutional amendment. even though it receives a two-thirds majority in both branches of the National Legislature and is submitted to the States.

l\1 , r. WEEKS. 1\fr. President. it is my purpose to vote against the · submisson of this proposition . to the · States; and having but a limited tirile in which to discuss the proposition, I want to give the reasons, so far as I can within that time, f or my action.

The pending question is one which should be considered . d by Congress solely on its merits and not on the assumption . that it has reached a state ' of agitation and resulting favor which justifies its being submitted to the States without any reference to the individual opinions of Senators as to the advisability of such action. When a referendum is submitted in a State the people of that State have an opportunity to decide what action they wish to take; and, while I think that in many cases they decide public questions without the knowledge a n d information they should have before passing on proposed laws, yet it is their own fault if they do not decide the question wisely. This case is entirely different, and it should not be misunderstood by Senators, many of whom seem to have the impression that in passing along this important question to the States they are performing their full duty . . · It is true that the advocates of national prohibition-very l . ar g ely tho s e connected with the Anti-Saloon League-are urging this matter and doing so with the argument that they a re not asking any Member of Congress to declare that he is i n favor of national prohibition, but simply that he shall not "become an avowed exponent and protector of the liquor tr a ffic by refusing to vote to allow the people of the Nation, by States, through their Representatives, to determine this question." The proposed action to be taken by Congress in t J1is matter is not a function similar to that performed by a Cabinet officer in performing some ministerial duty, but it is pr o posing an amendment to the Constitution, to be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, and then for a long time leaving the question in the hands of the States, to be finally determined by their respective legislatures. Even if three-fourths of the States in the end should indor s e this proposition I suggest that it is distinctly different from submitting the question to the people, for by th e c e nsus of 1910 the population of three-fourths of the States of the Union is only about 41,000,000 and the population of the remaining 12 States is 51,0QO,OOO. Therefore this question might be decided in favor of national prohibition even though a very large majority of the people of the country were oppo s ed to it. ·

Too much emphasis can not be placed on the grot es queness of this proposition advanced under the catchword " Let the p <!o ple rule." As J have suggested, the people need not necess sarily rule in deciding a matter of this sort, and, moreover, the division between prohibition States · and those opposed to prohibition is very largely along the lines of size of the State; and therefore is essentially contrary to · the policy of l e tting the people rule. Why should the 90,000 people in Nev ada have the same weight that the . 9,000,000 people of New York have in determining what the social customs and pract tices of the 9,000,000 people of New York shall be in a matter of this kind? Then it must not be forgotten that while there are two distinctly differing interests in this matter-those who a re constitutionally opposed to the sale of liquor, believing it t o be without excuse, and those engaged in the liquor busi­ s t atutes. n es s-yet, as a matter of fact, these two classes comprise a very small part of the population of the country, and it is u n fair and unreasonable ta include those who oppose this measure-a measure which is of momentous importance in conn ec tion with our organic law-among the exponents and protectors of the liquor traffic. There are millions of people in the United States who do not sell liquor, but who do occasionally like to drink it; there are other millions who are quite indifferent to drinking, but who believe it un w ise and inexpedient to i n terfere with the action of other citizens in such m at ter s , and they honestly believe that national compu l s ion in a ma tt er of this sort, where every State wi s hlng t o !J e dry is now fully protected in its rights, is a disastrous bl un u e r.

Climatic, racial, and social conditions, as well as density of population, vary so greatly that a solution . which might logically apply to tl1e smaller and more sparsely settled States " · would no t apply with equal force to the larger States, and especially in those States having cities with great populations, like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, D et roit, Chicago, and St. Louis. If this question could be referred directly to the people and all of the people of the country could vote for or against it, Senators might be justi ti e d in avoiding their duty, but not otherwise.

I am now, and always have been, a believer in local option and firmly believe that this is a question which should be . de : cided by the people of the several States in accordance - with their own 'T'ishes. The police powers are inherent in · tiie States, and the question of controlling the sale of spirits largely comes within that constitutional provision.

Formerly there was some logic . in tie position taken by many that if liquor were sold in any States it could b e shipped into other States against the wishes of the people of the States that had adopted prohibition. That condition has been cured by the · Webb-Kenyon bill, for which I voted, which prohibits the shipment of liquor into dry territory; and the act making this prohibitive has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, so there is no possibility of such complaint . if the officers of the States are attending to their lluties.

Moreover, in order to prevent or discourage the purchase · e of liquor in dry territory, a bill passed Congress last winter prohibiting the carrying by mail of newspapers into dry territory if they contained liquor advertisements . I voted for that bill, and I shall vote for any other legislation to protect the desires of those living in territory which has become dry.

One of the serious weaknesses of this proposed measure is that it may be brought before the legislatures of the several States as many times as its proponents desire, or until the leg­ r islatures of three-fourths of the States are found favorable to the proposition. If it were submitted at one time, it might be found that the legislatures of 25 or 30 States would be favorable to it and the legislatures of the other States unfavorable; but it can be brought up again and again in the States which - have not adopted the provision until a legislature may be found, years hence, favorable to it. By that time, there might be legislatures in some of the States which had adopted the amendment unfavorable to it, but they could not retrace their steps. That makes the whole question a constant irritant in connection with our elections, distracting attention from t he issues which divide political parties, and very largely breaking down the party spirit and action which I believe essential to the best interests of the Republic. I need not cite any other instance of that condition than that found in the State of Maine, where prohibition has prevailed for substantially 50 years-a prohibition which most people admit has not prohibited, largely because the law officers have not performed their full duty, but really because the sentiment of the S t ate, or of localities within the State, has been against prosecutions for violations of the law.

No law can be enforced unless it accords with public sentiment; in fact, when a law does not conform to public sentimen t. ordinarily, there is no attempt to enforce it. We have a g o od illustration of that in the law passed a few years ago by Con ­ gress regulating the speed of automobiles in the District of C o­ lumbia, limiting their speed to 12 miles an hour, and this law -.. vas passed largely at the instance and urging of those unfamiliar with automobile traffic. It is unnecessary to say to the S e na te that this law is violated by every automobilist in the District of Columbia every day. ..- he uses his automobile, and unless an automobilist indulges in excessive or unreasonable speed no att e n­ tion whatever is paid to it. Therefore, while the law i ne g ­ lected, it becomes positively harmful, because it begets n dis ­ regard for all law and creates a tendency to evade rea on a ble No · one has stated the difficulties incident to the enfor ceme n t of liquor laws in large communities better than Hon. N ew ton D. Baker, the present Secretary of War, whose conclusions · ion s w e re reached as a result of his experience as mayor of etev e land. In a contribution to the Atlantic Monthly for July, 1915, be a id: All this shows · the wrought - up state of the public mind on the liquor que s tion. Into such a divided society the Anti-Saloon L e a g u es and other organized · temperance bodies, by their control of t he rur a l vote , bring regulations, wise enough and mod e rate enough for th e c ou nt r y di s trict s and small 1 towns, but violently di s ruptiv e of th e s e tt l eu hab it s of large city populations. The s e regulations th e police are to enfo r ce . If they do, the executive under whom they act is ft· e qu e ntly voted promptly out of office; if th e y do not, the more excit a bl e anti se n a­ tional ministers and other excellent but 'hasty p e opl e c onclud e and proclaim that the executive and police alike are in corrupt c oll us ion with the forces of evil, and the line s are lain f or a mu ni c ip a l e am ­ paign in which all the great interests of the city are l os t in the q u estion whether the re s pective candidates for mayor are "fanati cs " or " liberal s ."

Those familiar with Maine politics will justify me in saying that during all this time prohibition has prevailed in M a in e i t has been one of the campaign i sues which, perhaps, , ba s bee n discussed more than any other question and has pr ev ent c< l in many instances men making their natural political alignm ent s. I personally believe that one of the most desirable conditions in our form of Government is that there shall be two active, vigorous, contesting , political parties, divided along the line s of industrial and other questions forming the usual basis for political · differences, and that ' introducing any questions into our political life which distracts from those conditions breaks down political parties and, therefore, is essentially harmful.

I do not wish to unnecessarily . emphasize the financial phase of this question, for if all the people of the country could decide that they prefer to raise the revenue incident to this business in some other way I should not care to advance that argument in any form, but, as a matter of fact, it has been a large factor in our national revenues, and when we return to normal times we shall find some difficulty and a good deal of opposition to substituting other sources of revenue for it. Neither can th _ e revenue question be entirely confined to national receipts; they are important in a local way. All large cities, which vote more or less frequently on this subject and vote for the maintenance of a license system, obtain from this source a very considerable revenue, which will he taken from them against thei•· will if this proposition prevails. Then, again, there is no attempt made by the proponents of this legislation to make provision for any compensation on account of the destruction of a business which has continued to exist during the entire life of the Republic . . by national license. I am opposed to confiscation of property in any form at any time, whether or not I entirely approve of the individuals engaged in this . business _ or the character . of the business conducted. When we propose confiscation we are inaugurating a policy which is likely to be most far-reaching in its effect. Some one may conclude that some other form of business is not entirely for the public interest, and the fact that we have established a confiscation precedent may result in its being extended to other fields.

Finally, it seems to me that the individual has rights which should be protected. Tlfe vast majority of those who indulge in stimulants, in these <lays especially, do so to a very moderate degree. I am not satisfied that the multitudinous statistics which are given out about the harm coming from wines and light beers are well founded. Prof. William T. Sedgwick, president of the American Public Health Association, in commenting on public-health boards, says:

Their knowledge is based wholly on experiments on animals, or on statistical data of one sort or another. Medical science is now prepared to show how unreliable these two sources are in solving t is problem. There are innumerable things in which we indulge which are undoubtedly more or less harmful to individuals, and I think that statement would be equally true in its application to food consumed in unreasonable quantities and at unreasonable times. When the rights of individuals who are temperate are taken from them, not by those living within the same political division or even by the same number of people in some other political section, it seems to me that the action is illogical, unfair, and from every standpoint undesirable. I firmly believe that the world is advancing satisfactorily in its relation to · this question; that the good old times are a myth, as far as it is · concerned ; that the modern business rpan or professional man will not tolerate in an associate or employee a failure to observe proper temperance rules; and an J one who observes the social practices of to-day and compares them with those of 25 years ago must readily admit that gradually we are coming to a real temperance in the use of all forms of stimulants, and a temperance which not only satisfies the individual but does no real injustice to the community. Progressing as we are in this 1 ' respect, it seems to me particularly unfortunate that what many will consider an unreasonable course is likely to be taken by the National Government. They will resent it, and properly so, in my opinion. I honestly believe that this ill-advised attempt, if i: succeeds will be harmful rather than beneficial to real temperance. i hope not, as far as I am concerned, because I shall be glad to see moderation in the . use of stimulants as in an other matters, but I am fearful that the result will be unsatisfactory even to those who are most urgent in pressing this proposition.

Mr. HARDWICK. 1\.fr. President, I desire to viler the amendment which I send to the desk, so that it may be pending.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will state the amendment.

Tile SECRETARY. On page 1, line 9, after the word" sale" it is proposed to insert " purchase, use." '

Mr. HARDWICK. l\Ir. President, the joint . resolution of the .._ Senator from Texas proposing an amendment to the Constitution prescribes, , without reading the preliminary part: . ARTICLE - •. SECTI O ~ 1. The manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the Importation thereof into or the export~tion thereof from the United States · and all territory subject to the Jurisdiction thereof for . beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. I have proposed by the amendment which has just been read to amend this section so that it shall read as follows:

Th e manufacture - , s ale, purchase, use, or transportation-

If the amendment I have suggested is agreed to, we will not only prohibit . th e ma nuf a cture, sale, transportation, and importa· tion of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes but also pro· hibit, if this article . should be ratified by the requisite number of States,-the purchase and use of intoxicating liquors. · It is hard for me to see why it should be made unlawful to sell an article and not equally unlawful to buy it. It is hard for me to see why, if the manufacture and sale a . are to be forbidden, the purchase ought not also to come under the ban of the law. It is impossible for me to understand why, if it is to be unlawful to manufacture and to sell it, to buy it and • transport it, to import it or export it, it ought not also to be unlawful to use it.

Now. if we are going to perform this task thoroughly , if we are going to work it out completely, let us go the whole length while we are at it; let us prohibit not only the exportation, importation, transportation, and sale, but the purchase as well, and if all those things are to be forbidden, let us forbid its use as well. That is complete prohibition, practical prohibition, and it seems to me those who are so anxious to give the people real prohibition ought to be willing to vote for the amendment; that is, if they are really for real prohibition.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President--

1\.fr. HARDWICK. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BORAH. I desire to ask the Senator if that would not accentuate rather than lessen the evils which he presented so ably to the Senate yesterday with reference to the fundamental objections which the Senator has to the joint resolution?

1\Ir. HARDWICK. The answer is perfectly plain. It will be impossible for the Senator from Georgia to vote for this propo5~~ tion, because it is . inherently wrong, according to his viewpoint, and he could not vote for it, with or without the amendment; but from the standpoint of those who advocate this pro posal and who can get their own consent · nt to support the proposition surely there ought to be no objection to an effort to perfect it, even though it comes from a Senator who can not support it. 1\I.r. NORRIS. Mr. President--

1\fr. HARDWICK. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. NORRIS. I wish to ask the Senator if be does not think it would be more difficult to secure a conviction or to secure evi- dence of an illegal sale if the purchase of it also were made illegal, because the witness, who, as a rule, is the purchaser, would be protected from answering on the ground that the answer might incriminate himself.

1\fr. HARDWICK. I do not think that is true. It seems to me that evidence could be obtained without that. The people who buy very rarely give evidence anyway. .

1\Ir. NORRIS. Never willingly; but, as a rule, in the prosecu- tions for the illegal sale of liquor the purchaser is a witness, although an unwillil;lg on,e. If the Senator's amendment were agreed to----:- •

1\fr. HARDWICK. That could be very easily provided for. The witnesses could be given immunity by a statute Congress might pass. The joint resolution provides that power is conferred on Congress to. pass appropriate legislation to carry out this amendment. If we find any serious trouble of that kind, we can provide immunity for witnesses of the character suggested by the Senator. But it strikes me, 1\fr. President, that it is utterly and entirely dishonest to say that we will make it unlawful to sen this article and not equally unlawful to buy it. It strikes me that it is utterly and totally insincere and uncandid to say that we are going to make the manufacture. sale, importation, exportation, and transportation of this article unlawful, and yet are unwilling to make its use unlawful.

While I am not for this proposition, and can not support it, for the reasons I explained to the Senate yesterday, it does seem to me that we ought to perfect it and make it a rounded proposition before we vote on it, whether we intend to vote for it or against it. ·

Mr. SHERMAl~. 1\fr. President, hitherto in the world's wars disease and vice have been more destructive than the sword. Modern surgery and science have mitigated or cured or successfully avoided disease and treated wounds. The most signal chapter in history is written by the patient searcher in the realms of medicine and surgery. What a mighty debt humanity owes the · physician and surgeon and all those who in the laboratory and by ceaseless experiment have given their effort to enlarge the science, · e, the art, and the skill to save life ! They toil to preserve mankind from Ws follies and his crimes. The warrior strives to - destroy. One fans the flickering spark of life to renewed vitality and returns its possessor to live his allotted span. The other kills and ruthlessly destroys multitudes and cuts short the lives of nations. Marble and bronze rise to blazon the warrior's deeds, but comparatively few memorial shafts proclaim the preservative and enduring ~rentness of the physician, the surgeon, and the scientist. Mankind is yet constituted so as to . make a hero of those who spill blood and consign to oblivion thos~ who save life.

The Governments of the earth have promptly adopted all that medicine nnu surgery bn have offered for disease and injuries. The vices more insidious and deadly than disease or wounds are left by human government to work their destruction unchecked and unheeded, in peace or war. Why does Congress leave vice to besiege our Army and disable our m,en in the great • struggle for free government?

Drunkenness is the monarch of all human vices. Other evils are its mere satellites. It permeates and poisons and rots every department of life and every avenue nn<l faculty of the human body. Once in a distant age intoxicating liquor was the supposed instrument of fellowship and good cheer. · It is now the debased and adulterated instrument for the exploitation for profit and the promotion _ of personal vices. It has grown to astounding proportions. The longer it continues th~ greater its evil and the more potent its strength. It has intrenched itself with human avarice and become its ally to exploit the pitiable weakness of humanity to accumulate fortunes. The men who have made it their instrument of pecuniary gain have assumed to control political parties. to threaten candidates, to decide elections, to administer civil government, to make new law~. to promote profitable evils, and contemptuously to break existing laws they can not repeal.

The liquor interests have written their own indictment and nccumulated the evidence justifying their own extinction. The breweries have been asked for years to cease to promote the disreputable and irresponsible saloon keeper. They have been asked to clean up the vicious resorts that have been a bane . and a menace to decent communities. Their reply was a sneer' and the statement that it was the brewery's business to make and sell beer. Whisky has been denounced as a dangerous beverage and restraints demanded for · more than half a century.

The answer has been opposition or abuse of those who would regulate as well as those who would prohibit. All who have asked that present laws be obeyed have been stigmatized as fanatics, and f:resh infractions of regulatory laws have followed every effort for4:beir enforcement. Wine growers have been advised of the evils gathering about their heads. They, too, have been deaf to the developing hostilities of this generation to intoxicating liquor. If they _ are caught in tJ:te whirlpool of an aroused and righteous indignation. they will but suffer the penalty resulting from th-eir indifference or open sympathy with the more culpable of their kind. A business whose system is lawlessness and whose finished product is a drunkard ought to have no lawful abiding place in this Republic. It is an outlaw measured by its practices and a criminal tested by its results. A business that will not be regulated by law must at last be destroyed by law. The traffic in intoxicating · liquor has refused to be regulated, anrt therefore earned the penalty of legislative extinction. Its promises of reformation are to be weighed in the light of its past performances. The. breweries' efforts to reform the saloon keeper are to be measured by their creation of his disreputable kind.

From a broken-hearted mother I have a letter on the taking of her only son to be sent across the sea to help free the world from kingcraft and autocracy. Her own father died in our Civil ' War. She knows what it means. No braver blood ever ran in the veins of . the Spartans of old than the ruddy drops that visit her sad heart. She does not fear he may be one of that number whom we know will not return. She knows that a soldier keeps step with death and marches in the shadow of his own headstone. Her appeal is not against the inevitable risks of the hospital .and the camp, the perils of the trench and the battle field. She asks only that her own flesh and blood typified in her son b~ shielded from the insidious but more deadly perils of drunkenness and its kindred evils. .... She is a God-fearing woman, who believes in the immortality of the soul and the life of which .a human grave is but the threshold. She kno·ws that life is but the way we must pass through nature to eternity. She watched him in his cradle. Her hand wrought for him his tiny garments before he was born. She bent above his cradle on winter nights and tucked him in to keep him safe until the dawn. She watched over him as he grew to understanding and now putting off the garments of peace and wearing a soldier's garb, he has passed beyond her hand and eye. She h.a.s made the supreme sacrifice that mothers have always offered since man has scourged the earth with his endless wars. For all this she utters none but words of loyalty and hope. . From the deadly vices that stain the soul and corrupt the body she asks this Government to protect her son. She belongs to that mighty host of earth's women who wait and suffer and pray in obscurity and silence. While man has fought on the red billsides where every helmet caught a ray of glory, she has kept her · patient vigil unseen of men, unknown to u careless world. Shall not some one give voice to ne · r unspeakable anxiety? Are the rights of property superior "to the dumb, inarticulate woe of a nation's motherhood on the eve of its Gethsemane?

Why should not Congress vote to the uttermost limits to give her that guaranty and peace of mind in return for the priceless sacrifice she has made? When our final audit shall come before the Great Searcher -of human hearts, I would rather have one broken-hearted mother ask for me justice, tempered with mercy, than all the breweries, the saloons, and the institutions built upon intoxicating liquors this side of the bottomless pit.

Let it be considered by the Senate. Let the rights of property be considered more sacred than the rights of humanity, if you will; but in this great day of struggle let us at once rise to the level where moral sacrifices are made, and where regulation can be made possible by constitutional power that will keep pace with the requirements of a new world after the regeneration of • . the mighty war in the Old World. ·

Mr. STERLING. Mr. President, I have here a piece of evidence and an argument, too, that I consider very pertinent in connection with the remarks just made by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. SHERMAN], especially that part of his remarks first made in regard to the work and the experience of the medical profession. I find this evidence and argument in a short chapter in a book entitled "Alcohol; Its Relation to Human Efficiency and . Longevity," written by Eugene Lyman Fisk, medical director of the Life Extension Institute. The chapter I refer to is entitled "Attitude . of American medical profession,” and it reads as follows:

At thto meeting of the American Medical Association held on JuM 6, 1917, Dr. Charles B. Mayo, the noted surgeon, in his presidential address stated that the only legitimate use for alcohol was in the a.rts and sciences, and that its use in medicine · bad become greatly restricted because other less menacing drugs and remedial measures could he used instead. Be stated that the advisability of national prohibition as a war measure was beyond discussion, and that the medical profession would welcome national prohibition . . These expressions brought enthusiastic response from the assembled physicians, which left no doubt as to their 'Senti.ments.

At a later' meeting the house of delegates of the American Medical Association passed the following resolution : ~· Whereas we believe that the use of alcohol. is detrimental to the human economy . and

"Whereas its use in therapeutics :as a tonic or stimulent or for food has n<> scientific value : Therefore be 1t ·

"Resolved, That the American Medical Association is opposed . ed to the use of alcohol as a beverage ; and be it further

. H Resolved, That the use of alcohol ns a therapeutic agent should bo further discouraged." ·

Entirely apart from moral grounds, the judgment of the majority of scientific men is against even the so-called moderate use of alcohol, and this judgment, long withheld through scientific conservatism. but now unequivocally and boldly stated by the distinguished surgeon who has received the highest mark of confidence that the medical profession can offer, should be accepted by the lawgiver, business man, and patriotic citizen who wishes to best serve his .country with his total .and maximum efficiency of mind and body.

There, Mr. President. is what I regard . as one of the most valuable pieces o . f -evidence we can find in support of the submission of this amendment to the several States of the Union.

Mr. President, the liquor traffic is an evil, and I think we must all admit it, from the e-conomic point of view. Indeed. it is from that point of view that it is now for the most part being considered; but it is an evil from the moral point of view. It is an evil from the political and the social point of view. It is an evil from the physiological, the health, and the medical point of view, as is conclusively shown by the chapter I have just read, giving the resolutions · enacted by the American Medical Association and the opinion of Dr. Mayo.

The argument is made, Mr. President, that it will be against the will of individual States. and that if it were submitted to a vote in several States of the Union they would vote against prohibition. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. PoMERENE] a while ago stated what he believed to be the sentiment in his State and that it was opposed now to prohibition. That sentiment may vote against this amendment, Mr. President; and yet it must be remembered that even in those States whose legislatures would vote against the amendment, were it submitted now, there is a great body of progressive, patriotic, dependable citizens who would, if permitted, vote for State-wide prohibition in their respective States; who would, if they could be permitted, vote for this amendment to the National Constitution; and I have the confidence to believe that the votes of this class of people, combined with the prohibition vote in prohibition States, would in the aggregate give throughout the Union a majority in favor of . national prohibition.

Again, Mr. President, those who oppose the joint resolution and the submission of this amendment to the people do not take account of the rapid growth of public sentiment. States which to-day are opposed may a year hence or two years . hence, or 1)efore the legi&!atures meet to act upon this amendment, be in favor of prohibition, so rapid is the change of sentiment likely to be. Hence the amendment, though it should be adopted against the present will of a majority in certain States of the Union, may a year hence be quite in accord with the · majority sentiment in those States. I think those . who op _ oppose this resolution should take an account of the fact that the movement for prohibition · is, as it were, a great national movement, nn<l that several States now opposed to the proposed amendment will in all likelihood be ~n favor of · it . within a comparatively short time. . ·

Mr. President, it has been said by ~me great writer and critic of our institutions, still living, and . one whom I think sympathizes with and appreciates them as no other foreign critic has done, that the United States disclose a type of institutions, one growing out of the · principle of the rule of the multitude, toward which all the rest of civilized mankind have been forced to move as by a law of fate, some with swifter, other with slower, but all with unresting feet. A splendid thing it will be if to the United States of America, this great Republic of the west, toward which other · people . have looked as an example of free institutions, they can also look as an example on this great economic and moral question involving as it does the sobriety, • efficiency, the happiness of many · millions-an example toward which they, whatever their practices and traditions are, may move, "some, indeed, with swifter, others with slower, but all with unresting feet."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore . The pending question is on the amendment of the Senator from Georgia TMr. HABDWICK1.

· 1\Ir. SHEPPARD. 1\Ir. President, I hope the amendment of the -senator from Georgia will be voted down. It is not necessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of the resolution. We should employ the organic law as few terms as possible in order . to reach the purpose we have ill mind.

The amendment now framed prohibits the · manufacture of intoxicating liquors within the limits of the . Republic and the importation of such. liquors into the · Republic. · It destroys the traffic in intoxicating liquors. With that object accomplished, use will cease and purchase will cease, and therefore it is unnecessary to have specific provisions as to purchase and use embodied in the amendment. I trust that the amendment of the Senator from Georgia will be rejected. .

1\Ir. - HARDWICK. · Does the Senator state -· any · specific objection to my amendment? .

1\Ir. SHEPPARD. I say it is unnecessary, and I flo not want . to put any unnecessary language in the constitutional amend- • l\fr. KIRBY. Mr. President, I am glad to stand in this presence to-day and confirm the great truth as expressed by the poet: · .

Yet I doubt not through the ages one increasing purpose rims,

· And the thoughts of men are widen'd with the process of the suns.

I believe this proposal shows a distinct advance in the development of the civilization of our time. This is but another phase of the world-ol<l battle of right against wrong, DILLINGHAM]. another phase of that everlasting conflict between the forces which conduce to uplift and upbuild the race against those which tend to tear down and destroy it.

To-day I am glad that I can add my voice in support of this resolution, leaving to the people of the · States of this greatest ot all nations to say whether we shall longer be inflicted with the open saloon and the liquor traffic, from which we have suffered so terribly in times past, with its innumerable · difficulties and - obstructions thrown in the way of our progress.

l\fr , President, the saloon and the liquor traffic have been conv-icted at the bar of pub~ opinion of being an enemy to mankind, to the individual, fo the family, to the home, the community, the State, the Nation, . and the race; and this is but an effort to-day in self-defense: and I am glad to support it.

We must play the game according to the rules. I have but little patience with those Senators who insist that the people of the State of Arkansas, because- it does not have as much population as the State of New York, are not entitled to as great • weight in the adoption of this resolution into the national Constitution as other States. The people when we established the Union said that this Constitution must be amended in a particular way, and prescribed the rules therefor, and according to those rules this matter must and ought to be determined.

We hav-e not to go outside of the rules ' as already prescribed, . • and we do not expect that others than the friends of this sort of legislation shall have amendments tacked onto it to its injury, as would be the effect of the one proposed by the Senator f:rm~ Georgia. We believe it i~ better to submit it as it has been offered here, and I believe the people of the States will ratify it within less , than six years, the time proposed.

All of us understand what the liquor traffic means. All of _ • us understand its past. All 9f us understand that if has been the corrupter Of · honesty · and a destroyer Of virtue and a . lllUr• derer of happiness throughout this whole land. There is no excuse for its longer continuance now, and there never was any substantial reason for its inexcusable reign.

I have long thought · this way about the question, so far as I am individually concerned, and I believe that the time has come when the people of this Nation have come to that conclusion. I am anxious that they shall have an opportunity to ex- · press that conclusion if they have already formed it in · their minds, as I believe they have done.

There can be no objection certainly to submitting it as all other amendments to the Constitution have been submitted, ' . and there can be no objection; so far as I am concerned, in having it submitted in the language that its friends think ought to be used in its submission and that will tend most strongly to secure its adoption · when it shall come to the time for adoption by the different States.

I have not heard one single objection here that I regard a valid or substantial objection to the · submission of the amendment at this time to the people of the United States; mid I believe when it shall have been submitted and when it shall have been adopted we will wake up as we proceed with the different avocations and along the usual lines of employment, building up our Nation and improving it hereafter, we will look back upon the past ns a hideous nightmare, when this traffic was permitted throughout the United States by intelligent men and submitted to by women because, forsooth, they had no voice to prevent it. ·. • .

.A.s you all know, the great God omniscient, who has seen the rise and fall of all the nations of the past, the rise and fall of all the nations that are Iiow, and the rise and fall of all nations - ns that shall ever be, He did not say that the thunder~ng tread of marching millions, He did not say that proud riding navies heavily armored with long-distance guns, He did not say that all the wealth of the world stored up, but that " righteousness "­ simple righteousness-" exalteth a nation." . I believe that that righteousness has been inculcated into the minds and lives of the people, and that it has been accentuated to such an extent by the contrast with this awful curse that has afflicted the people, from which they hm : e suffered grievously so long, that it . has been so impressed that this amendment will be adopted ; and when it has been adopted, then indeed may we all say that the Nation has truly been exalted.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amend- ' ment of the Senator from Georgia [l\fr. HARDWICK] to insert the words "purchase, use" after the word "sale."

1\Ir. HARDWIC,K. I ask for the yeas and nays. -; ~ The yeas and nays were : ordered, and the Secretary proceeded .... to call the roll. · · ., Ilfr. PAGE (when Mr. DILLINGHAM's name was called). I wish to announce the necessary absence of my colleagUe [1\Ir, He has a pair with the senior Senator from :Maryland [Mr. SMITH]. I should like to have this announce· ment stand for the <lay. -

1\Ir. FLETCHER (when his name was called). I have a gen· eral pair with the Senator from New Hampshire [1\Ir. GAL· LINGER], who is absent, but under the terms of the pair I am at liberty to vote. I shall therefore vote. I v.ote "nay."

1\Ir: MYERS (when his · name was called). I have a pair with the Senator from Connecticut [1\Ir. McLean], who is absent from the City. Not being able to obtain a transfer of my pair, in · the absence of the Senator from Connecticut I withhold my vote. · ,

1\Ir. SHAFROTH (when 1\fr. THomas’s name was called). l desire 'to announce the unavoidable absence of my · colleague fl\Ir. THO . MASj. I will state that he is paired with the senior Senator from North Dakota [Mr. 1\IcCUMBER]. l\1y colleague is absent on account of sickness.

1\fr. Sl\liTH of Michigan (when 1\Ir. TowNSE:No's name was called). I desire to announce the unavoidable absence of my coUeaglie [Mr. TowNSEND] on account of sickness. He is paired · with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON]. It my colleague were present, he would vote "nay."

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. McCUMBER. I have a general pair with the senior Senator . from Colorado [1\fr. THOMAS]. He being absent, I am compelled to refrain from voting. ·

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN I have a general pair with the junior Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. KNox] who is _ absent. I understand that if present he would vote as r - do. I vote "nay."

Mr. THOMPSON. I desire to announce the unavoidable absence of the · Senator from Illinois TMr. LEwis] and also the ,· • unavoidable absence of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. RusTmol on important business.

1\Ir. BECKHAM. Has the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. SUTHEn:LAND] voted?