July 30, 1917
I see no : reason myself Why -we · ~an not now trust, as we · MVe in the past. the enlightened electorate of each State to lJ.sss lJlm necessary laws fCJr the · domestic control of their 'O"Wll people. I see no : reason Why the people 'Of Alabama .. or New York should be haled before judges .appointed by th~ !President nf the United States instead of being 'tried by :magistrates of their mvn choosing. I . see ' DO reason why it .should be necessary to establish any army o1: United States 'depUty marshals to enforce the law in the Federal courts tlmt rcan ibe ;as sa'tisfa:ctori.ly telltorced in the State -courts 'if, the ; people '()f the , several States are Jn 'favor · of it.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- ~an The scans read: “can” (microfilm scan), “~an” (main scan)
- MVe The scans read: “have” (microfilm scan), “MVe” (main scan)
- lJ.sss Only one scan has this word: “lJ.sss” (main scan)
- lJlm Only one scan has this word: “lJlm” (main scan)
- fCJr The scans read: “for” (microfilm scan), “fCJr” (main scan)
- 'O"Wll The scans read: “own” (microfilm scan), “'O"Wll” (main scan)
- .. Only one scan has this word: “..” (main scan)
- th~ The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “th~” (main scan)
- nf The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “nf” (main scan)
- mvn Only one scan has this word: “mvn” (main scan)
- DO The scans read: “no” (microfilm scan), “DO” (main scan)
- o1: The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “o1:” (main scan)
- tlmt The scans read: “that” (microfilm scan), “tlmt” (main scan)
- rcan The scans read: “ean” (microfilm scan), “rcan” (main scan)
- ibe Only one scan has this word: “ibe” (main scan)
- telltorced The scans read: “enforeed” (microfilm scan), “telltorced” (main scan)
- '()f The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “'()f” (main scan)
- Jn The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “Jn” (main scan)
If the Federal Go-vernment .is onc-e ;c;m.D~ an to ;enter the field, a,pprehend, and punish the rpetty vices ot the citizens e.f the States in respect rto the matters · authorized by this resolution, it will not be long before .efforts Will be made to "further extend the police powers of the Federal Government and result m destroying State boundaries .and the abolition of · State governments. '
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- ;c;m.D~ The scans read: “called” (microfilm scan), “;c;m.D~” (main scan)
- an The scans read: “on” (microfilm scan), “an” (main scan)
- rpetty Only one scan has this word: “rpetty” (main scan)
- ot The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ot” (main scan)
- e.f The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “e.f” (main scan)
- rto Only one scan has this word: “rto” (main scan)
- m The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “m” (main scan)
When that time comes we will have abandoned the great principle that -enables 100,000,000 . people of divergent views, dissimilar modes of life, , different political, , climatic 1 and industrial surroundings to live in harmony in on~ great Re-public.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- on~ The scans read: “one” (microfilm scan), “on~” (main scan)
We -will fhave !broken down the principle at !local self-government. A national .force. bill providing lfo'l" the :supervision of State · elections by United · States marshals was at : one time proposed in the Congress of the United States. The :theory of this bill and the · one • now under consideration are . identical. H was an attempt · on the . part of the Federal Government. to interfere with the sovereign power of 'the States, · 3.1ld · wll.S !t'e- pudiate€1. by · the unanimous sentiment of r the constituency that I have the honor 4n :part to t'etn~~nt. .
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- fhave Only one scan has this word: “fhave” (main scan)
- lfo'l" The scans read: “for” (microfilm scan), “lfo'l"” (main scan)
- 3.1ld Only one scan has this word: “3.1ld” (main scan)
- wll.S The scans read: “was” (microfilm scan), “wll.S” (main scan)
- !t'e- The scans read: “re-” (microfilm scan), “!t'e-” (main scan)
- pudiate€1. The scans read: “pudiated” (microfilm scan), “pudiate€1.” (main scan)
- 4n The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “4n” (main scan)
- t'etn~~nt. Only one scan has this word: “t'etn~~nt.” (main scan)
Let me call to your · attention · :what Was said on this subject by t'he ~ foremost ' democrat’ to ': f' his ~ day. Gen. A:ndrew :Jackson sa:t(l:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- to The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “to” (main scan)
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- sa:t(l: The scans read: ““said” (microfilm scan), “sa:t(l:” (main scan)
In the domestic policy of this Government there are two object~ : which especially · deserve the attention of the people and their representatives, and creasing . which · solicitude. have been They and will are t:he continue preservation to be the of subjects the rights of my of the inse-veral States and the integrity of the Union.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- object~ The scans read: “objects” (microfilm scan), “object~” (main scan)
- creasing Only one scan has this word: “creasing” (main scan)
- inse-veral Only one scan has this word: “inse-veral” (main scan)
These great objects are necessarily connected, and can only be attained by an enlightened exercise of The powers of each within its ap- 'propriat:e · sphere in conformity with the public will constitutionally expressed. To this end it becomes the duty of -an to yield a ready and patriotic · submission to the lAws constitutionally enacted, and thereby promo:te .and strengthen a proper · confidence ln those institutions of the sev-eral states and of the United · states which the people themselves have ordained . 'for their own "government.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- ln The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “ln” (main scan)
My experience in · public concerns .and the observation of a Ufe someult what advanced con.firm the opin:ion long since imbibed by me that the destruction of our 'State governments or the annihilation of their control over the local concerns of the people would lead directly · to revo· lution and.1DllU"chY .nnil finally to despotism .and military domination. I In proportiOn, therefore, as a general government encroaches upon the r rights of the States, . b:J. the . sa;me proportion does it impair its own power · and detract from it11 ab-Ility to fulfill the -purposes of its creation. In my hlllllble jUdgment, no man has ever lived within the confines of this Republic who has had a clear-er conception of the great principles o~ democracy and the right of a free . people to govern themselves tbah did the author of the Declaration of Independence. .
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- Ufe The scans read: “life” (microfilm scan), “Ufe” (main scan)
- someult The scans read: “some-” (microfilm scan), “someult” (main scan)
- and.1DllU"chY The scans read: “and anarchy” (microfilm scan), “and.1DllU"chY” (main scan)
- .nnil Only one scan has this word: “.nnil” (main scan)
- b:J. Only one scan has this word: “b:J.” (main scan)
- it11 The scans read: “its” (microfilm scan), “it11” (main scan)
- hlllllble The scans read: “humble” (microfilm scan), “hlllllble” (main scan)
- o~ The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “o~” (main scan)
- tbah The scans read: “than” (microfilm scan), “tbah” (main scan)
Bearing .on the subject before us, Thomas Jefferson said-:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. PnbUc · servants at · such · a distance and from under the eyes ot :their constituents must · from the circumstance .of distance be 1 unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the :gGo.d government . of the citizens, and the sam-e circumstance, by rendering detection · impossible to their constituents, will inVite · the ,public agents t-o corruption, 'plunder, - and '!ast-e . . -
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- PnbUc The scans read: “Public” (microfilm scan), “PnbUc” (main scan)
- ot The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ot” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- :gGo.d The scans read: “geod” (microfilm scan), “:gGo.d” (main scan)
- '!ast-e Only one scan has this word: “'!ast-e” (main scan)
, Jt [s not · bY the consolidation of centralization ; zation of powers but by their distribution that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made that -each might ao If-or iitself what concerns itself directly -and what it .can Th~y are .so much better do than a distant authority. .
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- Jt The scans read: “to” (microfilm scan), “Jt” (main scan)
- [s The scans read: “is” (microfilm scan), “[s” (main scan)
- ao The scans read: “do” (microfilm scan), “ao” (main scan)
- If-or Only one scan has this word: “If-or” (main scan)
- iitself Only one scan has this word: “iitself” (main scan)
- Th~y Only one scan has this word: “Th~y” (main scan)
When all government, domestic and foreign, i:n little .as m great things, shall be drawn to Washington as 'the center of all power it wrn render powerless .the che:cks provide~ of one government 10n imofber and will .become as venal and oppressive :as tim gove:nnmen:t ifrom which I we "Separated.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- m The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “m” (main scan)
- wrn Only one scan has this word: “wrn” (main scan)
- provide~ The scans read: “provided” (microfilm scan), “provide~” (main scan)
- 10n Only one scan has this word: “10n” (main scan)
- imofber Only one scan has this word: “imofber” (main scan)
- tim Only one scan has this word: “tim” (main scan)
- gove:nnmen:t The scans read: “gevernment” (microfilm scan), “gove:nnmen:t” (main scan)
- ifrom Only one scan has this word: “ifrom” (main scan)
I do not b~he_ye .there 1s such . "threatened danger ir~m m- temperance that it IS necessary . for us to take . .fr-om - our_.Stutes their control OVer local affairs and lodge the ,power ~th :tJle Government m Washington. Such principles ~ to this ~e have rnever · ~~ entertained :bY . the great men who fhave presided! over destinies ef the N.a.tion ..
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- b~he_ye The scans read: “believe” (microfilm scan), “b~he_ye” (main scan)
- 1s The scans read: “is” (microfilm scan), “1s” (main scan)
- ir~m The scans read: “from” (microfilm scan), “ir~m” (main scan)
- our_.Stutes The scans read: “our Siutes” (microfilm scan), “our_.Stutes” (main scan)
- ~th The scans read: “with” (microfilm scan), “~th” (main scan)
- :tJle The scans read: “tlie” (microfilm scan), “:tJle” (main scan)
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- ~e Only one scan has this word: “~e” (main scan)
- rnever Only one scan has this word: “rnever” (main scan)
- ~~ Only one scan has this word: “~~” (main scan)
- fhave Only one scan has this word: “fhave” (main scan)
- ef The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ef” (main scan)
- .. Only one scan has this word: “..” (main scan)
President Wilson expressed himself clearly and forcefully un the subject some . Years ago when he said:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- un The scans read: “on” (microfilm scan), “un” (main scan)
1 am in favor >i>"f local option. I am a thorough believer 'in local self gover:n.nrent, ~ believe that mrecy self-governing community which constitutes a. social · unit 'Should have ;the right to · control the ma.tter of the regulation w withholding of licenses. But the " questions involved are social 1 8Jld imOllal, c and . are r no.t 'Susceptible r of l being made . parts of a -party program. Whenever · they llll.-ve been made the subject - -matter of par;ty ~iliw~ ~~eftt:a:~t~n~J!iu~~~~s . ~l C~lifc~{~~~t . ~ ::~l2ra~d~ They : have thrown · every -Other question, however 1Jl1})0rta:nt, into the background, .and , have made construatlve party action '!Impossible if:or long years together.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- >i>"f The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “>i>"f” (main scan)
- gover:n.nrent, The scans read: “gevernment,” (microfilm scan), “gover:n.nrent,” (main scan)
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- mrecy Only one scan has this word: “mrecy” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- 8Jld Only one scan has this word: “8Jld” (main scan)
- imOllal, Only one scan has this word: “imOllal,” (main scan)
- llll.-ve Only one scan has this word: “llll.-ve” (main scan)
- ~iliw~ Only one scan has this word: “~iliw~” (main scan)
- ~~eftt:a:~t~n~J!iu~~~~s Only one scan has this word: “~~eftt:a:~t~n~J!iu~~~~s” (main scan)
- ~l Only one scan has this word: “~l” (main scan)
- C~lifc~{~~~t Only one scan has this word: “C~lifc~{~~~t” (main scan)
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- ::~l2ra~d~ Only one scan has this word: “::~l2ra~d~” (main scan)
- 1Jl1})0rta:nt, The scans read: “important,” (microfilm scan), “1Jl1})0rta:nt,” (main scan)
- construatlve The scans read: “eonstructive” (microfilm scan), “construatlve” (main scan)
- if:or Only one scan has this word: “if:or” (main scan)
If the people of my State desire to prohibit the manufacture and :sa:le of :al.cohqlic : beverages within the confines t of the State, it is · their :right rand privilege to :do so, .but .I can :s:ee rro reason 'WhY they should r desire to invade the ! lives :rod .homes .of the people afm. sister 'Sta'te and force U])O'll them :a. law that they are as . 'Yet unwilling to accePt.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- :al.cohqlic The scans read: “aleoholic” (microfilm scan), “:al.cohqlic” (main scan)
- rand Only one scan has this word: “rand” (main scan)
- rro The scans read: “no” (microfilm scan), “rro” (main scan)
- :rod Only one scan has this word: “:rod” (main scan)
- afm. The scans read: “a” (microfilm scan), “afm.” (main scan)
- U])O'll The scans read: “upon” (microfilm scan), “U])O'll” (main scan)
irb:e people !Of :the State 1 0f COlorado may ~ have .a -very firm · canvktion t that :ill ~h:e inhabitants . of · their State a over lth-e age ot 21 years, male or 'female, white or .bl£ ck, should have • an cequal right . to exercise the right of franchise and vote at all elections. If that system of government has proven satisfact-ory :to the people of Colorado, no one can complain that their laws have the breadth :and scope that they now · have. On the other hand, if the people of Alabama believ.e · tlurt a . somewhat restricted suffrage guards their civilization, :protects their homes, and establishes a safer and -sounder government, should they • be compelled 'to · change their present ideas .as to :their : local government because they are not satisfactory to the people in other Stmes? ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- irb:e Only one scan has this word: “irb:e” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- 0f The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “0f” (main scan)
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- canvktion The scans read: “eonviction” (microfilm scan), “canvktion” (main scan)
- :ill The scans read: “all” (microfilm scan), “:ill” (main scan)
- ~h:e The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “~h:e” (main scan)
- lth-e Only one scan has this word: “lth-e” (main scan)
- ot The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ot” (main scan)
- .bl£ ck, The scans read: “black,” (microfilm scan), “.bl£ ck,” (main scan)
- cequal Only one scan has this word: “cequal” (main scan)
- tlurt Only one scan has this word: “tlurt” (main scan)
- Stmes? Only one scan has this word: “Stmes?” (main scan)
There are "SSllle who wanld ha-ve us 'believe · that no one is concerned about ltllls matter ' exaept the }>rohibitionist on the one hand and the peop1e who make money out of the liquor tra<1e on the . other. Such an - assumption 1s not only · Untrue but is st>'monstrous1y "'false th~ it is amazin_g that . men · can J.:>e found to discuss the qrrestion solely from thRt sta.nijpoint. ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- "SSllle Only one scan has this word: “"SSllle” (main scan)
- wanld Only one scan has this word: “wanld” (main scan)
- us The scans read: “is” (microfilm scan), “us” (main scan)
- about The scans read: “not” (microfilm scan), “about” (main scan)
- ltllls Only one scan has this word: “ltllls” (main scan)
- matter The scans read: “attempt” (microfilm scan), “matter” (main scan)
- exaept The scans read: “great” (microfilm scan), “exaept” (main scan)
- }>rohibitionist Only one scan has this word: “}>rohibitionist” (main scan)
- on The scans read: “an” (microfilm scan), “on” (main scan)
- peop1e Only one scan has this word: “peop1e” (main scan)
- out The scans read: “short” (microfilm scan), “out” (main scan)
- tra<1e Only one scan has this word: “tra<1e” (main scan)
- an The scans read: “and” (microfilm scan), “an” (main scan)
- 1s Only one scan has this word: “1s” (main scan)
- not The scans read: “most” (microfilm scan), “not” (main scan)
- st>'monstrous1y Only one scan has this word: “st>'monstrous1y” (main scan)
- th~ Only one scan has this word: “th~” (main scan)
- it is The scans read: “citizens” (microfilm scan), “it is” (main scan)
- amazin_g Only one scan has this word: “amazin_g” (main scan)
- J.:>e Only one scan has this word: “J.:>e” (main scan)
- qrrestion Only one scan has this word: “qrrestion” (main scan)
- thRt Only one scan has this word: “thRt” (main scan)
- sta.nijpoint. Only one scan has this word: “sta.nijpoint.” (main scan)
The contention fhat tbe Members of Congress should abandon tbeil· lndtv1 . dual !l'espOJ.lsibility on : this subject untler the . idea tl:Uft tfuey can shift ~ tbfrt · t~ponsibillty to the : shoulders 1 of the people iiD the =seV'erril States :ffi • so =subversive · of the spirit • of represental:i<Ve go--vernment ' in :relation to the iiiiost : s:o1emn · re . - sponsfi>Hrty :that 'tne 1 0onstittttion itself places 11pon ~be 1\I.embers
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5555). View the page image
- fhat Only one scan has this word: “fhat” (main scan)
- tbe Only one scan has this word: “tbe” (main scan)
- tbeil· Only one scan has this word: “tbeil·” (main scan)
- lndtv1 Only one scan has this word: “lndtv1” (main scan)
- !l'espOJ.lsibility Only one scan has this word: “!l'espOJ.lsibility” (main scan)
- untler Only one scan has this word: “untler” (main scan)
- tl:Uft Only one scan has this word: “tl:Uft” (main scan)
- tfuey Only one scan has this word: “tfuey” (main scan)
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- tbfrt Only one scan has this word: “tbfrt” (main scan)
- t~ponsibillty Only one scan has this word: “t~ponsibillty” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- people iiD The scans read: “complicated” (microfilm scan), “people iiD” (main scan)
- =seV'erril Only one scan has this word: “=seV'erril” (main scan)
- :ffi Only one scan has this word: “:ffi” (main scan)
- so The scans read: “some” (microfilm scan), “so” (main scan)
- represental:i<Ve Only one scan has this word: “represental:i<Ve” (main scan)
- iiiiost Only one scan has this word: “iiiiost” (main scan)
- s:o1emn Only one scan has this word: “s:o1emn” (main scan)
- re The scans read: “secure” (microfilm scan), “re” (main scan)
- sponsfi>Hrty Only one scan has this word: “sponsfi>Hrty” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- 0onstittttion Only one scan has this word: “0onstittttion” (main scan)
- 11pon Only one scan has this word: “11pon” (main scan)
- ~be Only one scan has this word: “~be” (main scan)
- 1\I.embers Only one scan has this word: “1\I.embers” (main scan)
But, contrary to the opinion Which a few years since prevailed among many thinking people, within the past four years two amendments to the Constitution of the United States have been proclaimed.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
The framers of the Constitution were not sanguine enough to suppose that the organic law which they framed was so perfect that it would never be altered. · The experience under the Articles of Confederation had produced the ~elief that there was need of a system of amendment by which the Constitution could be made to conform to the requirements of future times. The idea that some provision should be made in the instrument ot government itself for the method of its amendment is peculiarly American. Provision for the regular and orderly amendment of an instrument of government first appears iu the Pennsylvania frame of government of 1683. A similar provision reappears in the act of settlement of 1683, in the Pennsylvania frame of 1696, and in the Pennsylvania charter of privileges of 1701. Each of these documents provides that it shall not be altered, changed, or diminished " without the consent of the governor" "and six parts of seven of the assembly." It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it was the expectation of the members of the Fed · Federal Convention that a frequent use of the amending power would be exercised. They doubtless thought that the plan adopted would secure the desired end whenever the popular will would justify a change.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
- ~elief The scans read: “velief” (microfilm scan), “~elief” (main scan)
- ot The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ot” (main scan)
- iu The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “iu” (main scan)
\Vhen our Federal Constitution was written in 1787 two methods of amending it were provided; and, unless I am mistaken, it was the first written Constitution in history which provides for two methods of amendment. ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
- \Vhen The scans read: “whenever” (microfilm scan), “\Vhen” (main scan)
I am in favor of this proposed amendment and believe it will be ratified by the requisite number of States if submitted, and believe it will be ratified at an early date. The Senate must pardon me if I indulge in the discussion of a matter which may not seem to be at all relevant to this question, but which is in truth a very important question in discussing constitutional amendments.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
It seems to me some provision ought to be proposed, not only to this amendment but to all other proposed amendments, limiting the time within which a submitted constitutional amendment could be adopted or ratified by a State; and I think we ought to begin, as a part and a parcel of our great civil and constitutional polity, to set a time within which constitutional amendments may be or may not be ratified. Mr. President, it is startling to investigate and then reflect for a moment as to the abuses that have come and that may in the future come by a failure or a refusal to set a time within which an amendment may be adopted. I am delighted now to see that I have the attention of the Senators, and · especially the distinguished Senator who presides temporarily [Mr. JoNEs of Washington], because he has been a great leader for this reform, and his temperateness and his sanity in this reform reflects credit upon him.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
On September 15, 1789, 12 constitutional amendments were presented by the first Congress to the various States for their adoption or their ratification. I ask leave to incorporate- the first thereof in the RECORD at this point without reading.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
The PRESIDING OFFICER (:M.r. JoNEs of Washington in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
The matter referred to is as follows:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
ARTICLE 1. After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution there shall be one Representative for every 30,000 until · tbt> number shall amount to 100, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall be not less than 100 Representative~>, nor less than one Representative for every 40,000 persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to 200, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not oe less than 200 Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every 50,000 persons.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
- tbt> Only one scan has this word: “tbt>” (main scan)
- Representative~>, The scans read: “Representatives,” (microfilm scan), “Representative~>,” (main scan)
- oe The scans read: “ve” (microfilm scan), “oe” (main scan)
1 connection
- cites Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (suggested)
1.\fr. ASHURST. The first two amendments were not adopted. No. 1 failed by one State to secure- ratification . . The second amendment then proposed-and I will read it—was:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
- 1.\fr. The scans read: “Mr.” (microfilm scan), “1.\fr.” (main scan)
ART. 2. No law varying the compensation for the services of, the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556). View the page image
That was known as amendment No. 2. The other 10'; numbered from 3 to 12, inclusive, became a part of our governmental system and a part of our Constitution, and they may be found on page 97 of the First Statutes ; Opposite amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 is marked by the early printers the word " Adopted " ; " Adopted " ; and so forth ; but after the first two that were proposed to the Constitution there is a blank, indicating to us, of course, that those two amendments are still pending. They are before the American people now and have been for 128 years, and are subject to ratification or rejection by the States. And now, 1\Ir. President, after those two prop · osed amendments, to wit, Nos. and 2, had been in nubibus, · '• ill the · clouds," for 84 years, the State Senate of the State "' of Ohio · in 1873 ' resurrected amendment No.2, that was proposed _ in 1~89, and _ passe.d n resolution of ratification through th - e Senate of U~e State _ of Ohio _ . It would seem to me that a period of - 128 years or _ 84 years within which a State may act is altogether too long, and I _. am prepared to and will support an amendment limiting the time iR the case of this amendment or any other amendment to 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, or even 20 years, so that we will . not hand down to posterity a conglomerate mass of amendments floating around in a cloudy, nebulous, hazy way, which a State here may resurrect and ratify and a State there m~y galvanize and ratify. . . I believe that we ought to have a homogeneous, constant, united exer· tion and certainly a contemporaneous action with reference to these various proposed amendments.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5556–5557). View the page image
- 3 The scans read: “8” (microfilm scan), “3” (main scan)
- 1\Ir. The scans read: “Mr.” (microfilm scan), “1\Ir.” (main scan)
- prop The scans read: “proposed” (microfilm scan), “prop” (main scan)
- osed Only one scan has this word: “osed” (main scan)
- No.2, The scans read: “No.” (microfilm scan), “No.2,” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- 1~89, The scans read: “1789,” (microfilm scan), “1~89,” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- th The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “th” (main scan)
- U~e Only one scan has this word: “U~e” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- _. Only one scan has this word: “_.” (main scan)
- iR The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “iR” (main scan)
- m~y The scans read: “may” (microfilm scan), “m~y” (main scan)
Mr. Nt>RRIS. Mr. President- . - .
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- Nt>RRIS. The scans read: “NORRIS.” (microfilm scan), “Nt>RRIS.” (main scan)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arizona yield to the Senator from Nebraska?
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
Mr . . ASHURST. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
Mr. NORRIS. I am very much interested in the historical account which the Senator from Arizona is giving us; but I should like to suggest to him that it does not seem to me to be fair to attach to - any particular amendment such a provision. That ought to be, I should think, an independent, separate amendment, and become part of our Constitution, so that it would apply to all amendments. I agree with the Senator that there ought to be some limitati.on. . _
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
Mr. ASHURST. The Senator is entirely correct about that; and while I would probably vote for an amendment limiting the time within which this amendment may ~e adopted, . d, provided the time is reasonably long, I do believe that a general amendment to the Constitution should be adopted limiting the time on all amendments, especially when we remember that Congress is in session every year, and can resubmit the same amendment again and again at any time it pleases.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- ~e The scans read: “be” (microfilm scan), “~e” (main scan)
Mr. President, I havE' pointed out two amendments, floating around about us for 128 years, and have stated that one of them, after having reposed for 84 years by reason of a great burst of indignation that swept over the land regarding the "back-salary grab" in 1873, was picked up by the State of Ohio, through its State senate, and passed through the Ohio Senate.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
There is yet another reason why I think a reasonable time limit should be set:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
When the 12 amendments were submitted in 1789, when there were only 13 States, Vermont had not yet been admitted, if I remember correctly. Should three-fourths of the States then in the Union, or three-fourths of those now in the Union, be the test as to what shall be the number required for ratification? In 1810 the following amendment was proposed to the Constitution of the United States by a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, and that joint resolution was submitted to the States - under one of the most interesting and peculiar ~et of auspices that ever came before a legislative body. The proposed amendment was passed by the two Houses of Congress on May 1, 1810, and it read :
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- ~et The scans read: “set” (microfilm scan), “~et” (main scan)
It any citizen of the United States shall accept 1 claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and -retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to b(' a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- It The scans read: “If” (microfilm scan), “It” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- b(' The scans read: “be” (microfilm scan), “b('” (main scan)
Unfortunately, the annals of Congress and contemporary newspapers do not give any of the debate upon this interesting proposition. · The only light thrown upon the subject by the annals is the remark of Mr. Macon, who said "he considered the vote on this · question as deciding whether or not we were to have members of the Legion of Honor in this country." What event connected with our diplomatic or political _ history suggested the need of · such _ ch an amendment is not now apparent, but it is possible that th!! presence of Jerome Bonaparte .in i:pis country a few years previous, and his marriage to a Maryland lady, may have suggested this measure. ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- th!! The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “th!!” (main scan)
- i:pis The scans read: “this” (microfilm scan), “i:pis” (main scan)
An article in Niles's Register (vol. 72, p. 166), written many years , after this event, refers to an amendment having been adopted to prevent any but native-born citizens from being Presi- . dent of the United States. This is, of course, a mistake, as the Constitution in its original form contained such a provision; but it may be possible . that . t the circumstances referred to by the writer in Niles relate to the passage of this amendment through Congress in regard to titles of nobility. _ ty. The article referred to maintains that at . the time Jerome Bonaparte was in this country the Federalist Party, as a political trick, affecting to apprehend that Jerome might find h~ way to ' the Presidency through "French influence,!' propose~ the amendment. They though,t the Democratic Party would oppose it as unnecessary, which would thus . appear t _ o · the · public ~~ a . fU!ther proof of their subserviency · to French influence. The Democrats, t~ avoid . this imputation, concluded to . carry . the amendment. "It can do no harm" was what reconciled it to all. · -
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- h~ The scans read: “his” (microfilm scan), “h~” (main scan)
- propose~ The scans read: “proposed” (microfilm scan), “propose~” (main scan)
- t The scans read: “to” (microfilm scan), “t” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- ~~ Only one scan has this word: “~~” (main scan)
- fU!ther Only one scan has this word: “fU!ther” (main scan)
- t~ The scans read: “to” (microfilm scan), “t~” (main scan)
I see no harm in the proposed amendment. That amendment was submitted 107 years ago, and it was ratified within two years by Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Tennessee, Georgia, North Caro. lina, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. It was rejected by two or - three of the States, and when the last State that acted favorably upon it ratified that amendment it only lacked the vote of one State of becoming a part of our organic law; and, indeed, Mr. President, for years the schoolbook histories and the public men believed that it was a part of our organic law, because in the early days of our Government the Secretary of State did not send messages to Congress or promulgate to the public any notice whatever as to when an amendment became a part · of the Constitution. Indeed, I have caused the journals, records, and files in the Department of State to be searched, and there can not be found any notice of any proclamation or promulgation of the ratification of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. It was not an unwarranted or violent assumption, hence the States assumed that when the requisite number of States-the last one was Virginia-had ratified this amendment it was then and there a part of our organic law. · So we find that schoolbook histories and journals published years after 1810 believed that this amendment which was proposed in 1810 was a part of the polity and policy of our constitutional form of government.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
1\Ir. President, when the great conflict known as our War between the States began to throw its dark shadow over the people of this land, men rushed with a compromise here and with compromise there to heal the breach and tried to avert the shock that was apparently about to come to our structure. Compromise after compromise was proposed, and just before the adjournment of Congress, to wit, March 2, 1861, the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known - . as the Corwin amendment, was proposed to the States and was submitted to them for their ratification or adoption. It read as follows:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- 1\Ir. Only one scan has this word: “1\Ir.” (main scan)
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the Jaws of said State. (12 Stat., 251.) Proposed by Congress March 2, 1861.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- Jaws The scans read: “laws” (microfilm scan), “Jaws” (main scan)
That was submitted by Congress on the 2d of March, 1861. I warrant there are not 5,000 people in the United States today who know that that amendment is now pending before the various States of our Union for their adoption or ratif1'cation. That amendment was ratified by the State of Obi~ it was ratified by the State of Maryland through the State legislature and by the State of Illinois in 1862 by a convention.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- ratif1'cation. The scans read: “ratiffeation.” (microfilm scan), “ratif1'cation.” (main scan)
- Obi~ The scans read: “Ohi” (microfilm scan), “Obi~” (main scan)
So I say a system which permits of no limitation as to the time when an amendment may not - be voted upon is not fair to posterity. It keeps historians, publishers, and annalists, as well as the general public, constantly in doubt.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
Having searched closely ~s to whether · there is in the Constitution itself any expressed or implied limitation as to when an amendment may not be adopted, I am driven irresistibly to the conclusion that once having proposed an amendment to the Constitution, though it were proposed September 15, 1789, it could not be recalled even by the unanimous vote of both Houses, if Congress wished it recalled, because the power to submit an amendment is specifically pointed out, no power being given to recall it, and when power is denied, silence is negation. Mr. President, I am not without authority on this subject, and I wish for a moment to read from Jameson on Constitutional Conventions, paragraph 585, fourth edition:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
- ~s The scans read: “as” (microfilm scan), “~s” (main scan)
. DISCUSSION Oil' CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
(Jameson.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
SEc. 585. VI. Two further questions may be considered: (1) When Congress has submitted amendments to the States can it recall them, and (2) How long are amendments thus submitted open to adoption or rejection by the .States?
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
1. The first question must, we think, receive a negative answer. When Congress has submitted amendments, at the time deemed by itself or its constituents desirable, to concede to that body the power of afterwards recalling them would be to give to it that of definitely rejecting such amendments, since the recall would withdraw them from . the consideration of the · States and thus render their adoption impossible. However this may be, it is enough to justify a negative answer, to say that the Federal - constitution, from which alone Congress derives its power to submit amendments to the States, does not provide for recalling them upon any event or condition, and that the power to recall can not be considered as involved in that to submit as necessary to its complete execution. It therefore can not exist.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557). View the page image
2. The same consideration will, perhaps, furnish the answer · r to the second question. The Constitution gives to Congress the power to . submit amendments to the States; that is, either to the State legislatures or to conventions called liy the States for this purpose, but 'there it stops. No power is granted to prescribe conditions as to the time within which the amendments are to be ratified, and hence to . do so - would bet · o transcend the power given. The practice of Congress in S'Ot!lr cases has always conformed to the implied limitations of the Constitution. It has contented . itself with pro{)-osing amendments, to become valid as parts of the Constituti-on, according to the terms of that instrument. 2d sess.) It is, therefore, possible, th-ough hardly probable, that an amendment on<!e proposed is always open to adoption by the hona'cttng or nonratlfying States. ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5557–5558). View the page image
- . The scans read: “sub-” (microfilm scan), “.” (main scan)
- liy The scans read: “by” (microfilm scan), “liy” (main scan)
- S'Ot!lr Only one scan has this word: “S'Ot!lr” (main scan)
- pro{)-osing The scans read: “preposing” (microfilm scan), “pro{)-osing” (main scan)
- 2d Only one scan has this word: “2d” (main scan)
- on<!e The scans read: “once” (microfilm scan), “on<!e” (main scan)
- hona'cttng The scans read: “nonacting” (microfilm scan), “hona'cttng” (main scan)
- nonratlfying The scans read: “nonratifying” (microfilm scan), “nonratlfying” (main scan)
The better opinion would seem to · be that an alteration of the Consti i>ess.) tution propo se d to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of to-day, and that, if not ratified early, while that sentiment may fairly sess.) be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived and not again to be voted upon unless a second time proposed by Congre s.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- i>ess.) Only one scan has this word: “i>ess.)” (main scan)
- Congre s. The scans read: “Congress.” (microfilm scan), “Congre s.” (main scan)
SEc. 586. In di cussing the question of the right of the States to vote upon proposed amendments at any time after the date of · their pro- posal it is proper to l'Ook into the consequences of su c h a right. If they have the right there are now floating about us, as it were, in nubibus, several amendments to the · Constitution proposed by Congress which have received the ratificati'On of one or more States but not of enough to make them valid as parts of that instrument. Congress could not with 317.) draw them. and there is in force in regard to them no recognized statute ' of limitations. Unless abrogated by amendments subsequently adopt e d they are, on the hypothesis stated, still before the American. people . to be adopted or rejected.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- di cussing The scans read: “discussing” (microfilm scan), “di cussing” (main scan)
- su c The scans read: “such” (microfilm scan), “su c” (main scan)
- 317.) Only one scan has this word: “317.)” (main scan)
- adopt e The scans read: “adopted” (microfilm scan), “adopt e” (main scan)
In 1873 the Senate of Ohio, acting upon the theory that once proposed -an amendment to the Constitution is always o~n to ratification, adopted a joint resolution ratifying the second of the 12 amendments submitted to the States by Congress in 1789, but then reJected, providing that "no law varying the compensation of Members of Congress shall take effect until an election for Representatives shall have inter• vened." This resolution, prepared by Madison . was an excellent one; bu.t suppose it had been unjust, proposed, perhaps, in the interest of a section or Of a . party, and, failing at the time to receive the requisite majority, 1 , it had sub equently by a; concerted rally of those interested in its adopucm, been carried without discussion or a clear express of the existing public will; is that a true construction of the Constitution which may be followed by so dangerous consequences? . .And, supposing the right referred to exists', by what majo-rity shall ' the resurr-ected amendments be adopted? If proposed in 178'9, when the States numbered but 13, and when ~ majority · of 10 States might have ratified the amendment, how many would have been requisite in 1873, when there were ' a8 States-- which would have been called ttpoJi to vote? If the answer should be that 29 StateS' must have voted to ratify, since that number was three-fourths of all the States in 1873-, however reasonable Such an answer might seem, tt · would be founded upon no statute or custom <if the country, and therefore different opinions as to its reasonableness might well be entertained. Hence the danger of confu• sion of conflict. We discuss this question here merely to em,pha 1ze the dangers involved in the Constitution as it stands and to show the necessity of legislation to make certain those points · upon which doubts may arise in the employment of the constitutional process for amending the fundamental law of the nation. .A constitutional statute of limitation prescribing the time within which proposed amendments shall be adopted or be treated as waived ought by all means to be passed. (Jameson, John .A. .A treatise on constitutional conventions (4th ed., 1887), pp. 634-63{).}
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- o~n The scans read: “open” (microfilm scan), “o~n” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- sub equently The scans read: “subsequently” (microfilm scan), “sub equently” (main scan)
- adopucm, The scans read: “adoption,” (microfilm scan), “adopucm,” (main scan)
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- a8 The scans read: “38” (microfilm scan), “a8” (main scan)
- ttpoJi Only one scan has this word: “ttpoJi” (main scan)
- tt The scans read: “it” (microfilm scan), “tt” (main scan)
- <if The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “<if” (main scan)
- em,pha 1ze The scans read: “emphasize” (microfilm scan), “em,pha 1ze” (main scan)
- 634-63{).} Only one scan has this word: “634-63{).}” (main scan)
I ask consent to incorporate in the REconn Without reading some. copious extracts on this subject.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- REconn The scans read: “Recorp” (microfilm scan), “REconn” (main scan)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, leave will be granted.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
The matter referred to is as follmvs - :
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- follmvs Only one scan has this word: “follmvs” (main scan)
A · M.ENDMENTS T6 THE CONSTITuTION OF THE UNlTED STATI!lEf PROPOSE!'> BY CONGRESS BUT NOT RATIFIED BY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- M.ENDMENTS Only one scan has this word: “M.ENDMENTS” (main scan)
- T6 Only one scan has this word: “T6” (main scan)
- UNlTED The scans read: “UNITED” (microfilm scan), “UNlTED” (main scan)
- STATI!lEf The scans read: “STATES” (microfilm scan), “STATI!lEf” (main scan)
- PROPOSE!'> The scans read: “PROPOSED” (microfilm scan), “PROPOSE!'>” (main scan)
APPORTIONMENT OF RE.PRESENTA.TIVES".
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every 30,000 until the number shall amount to 100 ; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall be not less than 100 Representatives nor less than one Representative for every 40,000 persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to 200 ; after Which the Proportion shall be so regulated by Congrel;ls that there shall not be less than 200 Representatives rror more than one Representative for every 50,000 persons. (1 Stat. , 97.) (Submitted at the same time as those which became part of the Constitution as .Amendments I to X.) : ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- Congrel;ls The scans read: “Congtess” (microfilm scan), “Congrel;ls” (main scan)
- rror The scans read: “nor” (microfilm scan), “rror” (main scan)
1 connection
- cites Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (suggested)
Proposed by Congress September 25, 1789. 1 Ratified by the following States:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
New Jersey, November 20 ~ 1789. (Senate Journal, }). 199, 1st Con:r~ 2d sess.) • •
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- }). Only one scan has this word: “}).” (main scan)
- Con:r~ The scans read: “Cong.,” (microfilm scan), “Con:r~” (main scan)
Maryland, December 19, 1789. (Senate Journal, p. 106, 1st Cong., 2d sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
North Carolina, December 22, 1789. (Senate J'ournal, p. 103, 1st Con g., 2d sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- Con g., The scans read: “Cong.,” (microfilm scan), “Con g.,” (main scan)
South Carolina, January 19, 1790. (Senate Journal, p. 50, 1st Cong.., 2d sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- 1st Cong.., The scans read: “Ist.Coung.,” (microfilm scan), “1st Cong..,” (main scan)
New . Hampshire, January 25, 1790. (Senate J'ournal, p. 105, ist Cong., 2d sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
New York, March 27, 1790. (Senate J'ournal, p, 53, 1st Cong., 2d sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Rhode Island, June 15, 1790. (Senate Journal, p. 110, Ist Cong., 2d sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Virginia, October 25, 1791. (Senate J'ournal, p. 30, 2d Cong., Ist sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
P e nnsylvania, September 21, 1791. (Senate . Journal, p. 11.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- e nnsylvania, The scans read: “Pennsylvania,” (microfilm scan), “e nnsylvania,” (main scan)
Vermont, November 3, 1791. (Senate Journal, p. 98, ' 2d Cong., 1st se s.) _
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- Cong., The scans read: “Ceng.,” (microfilm scan), “Cong.,” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
Pennsylvania had first rejected the proposed amendment March 10, 1790.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Rejected by Delaware January 28, 1790.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
The Journals give no record of the action of the Legislatures of Mas a chu etts, Connecticut, and Georgia. (Ames, Proposed Amendments, p. 320.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- Mas a The scans read: “Massa-” (microfilm scan), “Mas a” (main scan)
- chu etts, The scans read: “chusetts,” (microfilm scan), “chu etts,” (main scan)
CO::U:PENSA~lON OJi' MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. I
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- CO::U:PENSA~lON The scans read: “COMPENSATION” (microfilm scan), “CO::U:PENSA~lON” (main scan)
- OJi' Only one scan has this word: “OJi'” (main scan)
No law varying the compen atlon 'for the services - ot the Senators and Repres e ntatives shall take effect until an election of RepreS'entatives shall have intervened. (1 Stat., 97.) (Submitted at thl' ame tlmP a& those which became part of the Constitution as .Amendments I to X:)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- compen atlon The scans read: “compensation’” (microfilm scan), “compen atlon” (main scan)
- ot The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ot” (main scan)
- Repres Only one scan has this word: “Repres” (main scan)
- e ntatives The scans read: “Representatives” (microfilm scan), “e ntatives” (main scan)
- Stat., 97.) The scans read: “Stat.,'97.)” (microfilm scan), “Stat., 97.)” (main scan)
- thl' ame The scans read: “the:” (microfilm scan), “thl' ame” (main scan)
- tlmP The scans read: “time” (microfilm scan), “tlmP” (main scan)
- a& The scans read: “as” (microfilm scan), “a&” (main scan)
Proposed by Congress September 25, 1789. -
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Ratified by the following , S'ta-tes: . ,
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Maryland, Dec e mber 19, 11-89. (Senate JoutM~ p. 106-, Ist CO'ng., . 2d sess.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- Dec Only one scan has this word: “Dec” (main scan)
- e mber The scans read: “December” (microfilm scan), “e mber” (main scan)
- 11-89. The scans read: “1789.” (microfilm scan), “11-89.” (main scan)
- JoutM~ The scans read: “Journal,” (microfilm scan), “JoutM~” (main scan)
- CO'ng., The scans read: “Cong.,” (microfilm scan), “CO'ng.,” (main scan)
North - Carolina, December 22, 1789. (Sena'te ' Journal, _ p. 10'3, 1st €ong., 2d sess.) •
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- 1st The scans read: “1s¢” (microfilm scan), “1st” (main scan)
- €ong., The scans read: “Cong.,” (microfilm scan), “€ong.,” (main scan)
South Carolina, January 19, • 17:90~ (Senate Journal, p. 50, Ist Cong. Delaware, January ' !tS, 171)0'. (Senate J'o'urnal, p. 35, 1st Cong 2d sess. · ., Vermont, November 3, 1791. (Senate Journal, p. 98, 2d Cong., 1st Virginia, December 1o, 17'91. (Senate Journal, p. 6'9, 2d Cong., ist Rejected by New Jersey, 1 November 20 , 1780 · (Senate Jourrtal,. p. 190 ist COng'., 2d sess.) New Hampshire, January 25, 11'90 (Senate Jour: nal, p. 105, Ist Cong., 2d sess.) ; Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790 (Senate Journal, p. 39, Ist C(ing., 2d se:;s.J; New Yol'k Mal'ch 27. 1790 · (Seiiate Journal, p. 53, 1st Cong .. 2d sess.); Rhode Island, .Tune 15 1 17'90 (Senate Journal, p. 110, 1st Cong., 2d sess.). ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- 19, Only one scan has this word: “19,” (main scan)
- 17:90~ The scans read: “19,1790.” (microfilm scan), “17:90~” (main scan)
- !tS, Only one scan has this word: “!tS,” (main scan)
- 171)0'. The scans read: “1790.” (microfilm scan), “171)0'.” (main scan)
- ., Only one scan has this word: “.,” (main scan)
- 1st The scans read: “1s:” (microfilm scan), “1st” (main scan)
- 1o, The scans read: “15,” (microfilm scan), “1o,” (main scan)
- 2d The scans read: “24” (microfilm scan), “2d” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- 20 Only one scan has this word: “20” (main scan)
- 1780 The scans read: “20,1789” (microfilm scan), “1780” (main scan)
- Jourrtal,. The scans read: “Journal,.” (microfilm scan), “Jourrtal,.” (main scan)
- 190 The scans read: “199,” (microfilm scan), “190” (main scan)
- COng'., The scans read: “Cong.,” (microfilm scan), “COng'.,” (main scan)
- 11'90 The scans read: “1790” (microfilm scan), “11'90” (main scan)
- C(ing., Only one scan has this word: “C(ing.,” (main scan)
- 2d Only one scan has this word: “2d” (main scan)
- se:;s.J; Only one scan has this word: “se:;s.J;” (main scan)
- Yol'k Only one scan has this word: “Yol'k” (main scan)
- Mal'ch Only one scan has this word: “Mal'ch” (main scan)
- 27. Only one scan has this word: “27.” (main scan)
- 1790 Only one scan has this word: “1790” (main scan)
- (Seiiate Only one scan has this word: “(Seiiate” (main scan)
- 53, Only one scan has this word: “53,” (main scan)
- 1st Only one scan has this word: “1st” (main scan)
- .. Only one scan has this word: “..” (main scan)
- 2d Only one scan has this word: “2d” (main scan)
- 15 Only one scan has this word: “15” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- 17'90 Only one scan has this word: “17'90” (main scan)
- 110, Only one scan has this word: “110,” (main scan)
- 1st Only one scan has this word: “1st” (main scan)
The Journals give no record of th ' e action of the Leg! latures of Mas a chusetts Connecticut, and Georgia. (Ames, Proposed Allle'D.AI1lents, p.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- th The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “th” (main scan)
- Leg! latures The scans read: “Legislatures” (microfilm scan), “Leg! latures” (main scan)
- Mas a The scans read: “Massa” (microfilm scan), “Mas a” (main scan)
- Allle'D.AI1lents, The scans read: “Amendments,” (microfilm scan), “Allle'D.AI1lents,” (main scan)
TITL.ES OF NOBlLITY.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- NOBlLITY. The scans read: “NOBILITY.” (microfilm scan), “NOBlLITY.” (main scan)
If any citizen of th«! United States- shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or- honor, or shall; without th-e consent' ot Congress, . . accept and retain an.y present, pension, office, or emolument of any Kllld whatever, from any empero-r, king, prin<'t>, or foreign power such person shall c.ease to be a citizen of the United State and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them · or either of them: (2 Stat,~. 613.) :
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- th«! The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “th«!” (main scan)
- Kllld Only one scan has this word: “Kllld” (main scan)
- prin<'t>, The scans read: “prince,” (microfilm scan), “prin<'t>,” (main scan)
- State The scans read: “States” (microfilm scan), “State” (main scan)
- Stat,~. The scans read: “Stat.,” (microfilm scan), “Stat,~.” (main scan)
- 613.) Only one scan has this word: “613.)” (main scan)
Proposed by Congress May 1, 1810.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Ratified by the follow · ing States:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- follow The scans read: “following” (microfilm scan), “follow” (main scan)
Maryland, December ~. 1810.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- ~. Only one scan has this word: “~.” (main scan)
Kentucky, J'anuary 31, 1811. Ohio, J'anuary 31, 1811. Delaware, February 2, 1811. Pennsylvania, February 6, 1811. New J'ersey, February 13 . 1811. Vermont, October 24, 1811. Tennessee, November 21 , 1811. Georgia December 13, 1811. .
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
North Carolina, December 23', 1811.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Mas ach-usett&; February 21', 1812.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- Mas ach-usett&; The scans read: “‘Massachusetts,” (microfilm scan), “Mas ach-usett&;” (main scan)
- 21', The scans read: “27,” (microfilm scan), “21',” (main scan)
New - Hampshire. December 10, 1812. .. -
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- .. Only one scan has this word: “..” (main scan)
Rejected by New York (senate) March 12, 1811 ~ Connecticut, May session. 1813 ; - south Carolina, approved bY' senate November 28, 1811, reported unfavorably in flo use. and not further considered December 7, • 1813; Rhode Island, September 15, 1814. (.Ames, Proposed .Amend• ments, pp. 329, 330.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
- flo use. The scans read: “house” (microfilm scan), “flo use.” (main scan)
- 1813; The scans read: “2813;” (microfilm scan), “1813;” (main scan)
AMENDMl!:NT ABOLISHING OR INTERFERING WITH S'UVEl!Y PROHIBITED ' (CORWIN Ali:ENDMEN>rl.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- AMENDMl!:NT The scans read: “AMENDMENT” (microfilm scan), “AMENDMl!:NT” (main scan)
- S'UVEl!Y The scans read: “SLAVERY” (microfilm scan), “S'UVEl!Y” (main scan)
- Ali:ENDMEN>rl. The scans read: “AMENDMENT).” (microfilm scan), “Ali:ENDMEN>rl.” (main scan)
No amendment shall be made to th'e Constituti-on which · will rl.uthorlt(l or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere. within any State, with the domestic instltut r ons thereof, including that of p~rsons h ' held to labor or service oy the laws of said State. (12 Stat, 2!>1.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- rl.uthorlt(l The scans read: “authorize” (microfilm scan), “rl.uthorlt(l” (main scan)
- instltut The scans read: “institut:ons” (microfilm scan), “instltut” (main scan)
- ons Only one scan has this word: “ons” (main scan)
- p~rsons Only one scan has this word: “p~rsons” (main scan)
- oy The scans read: “by” (microfilm scan), “oy” (main scan)
- 2!>1.) The scans read: “251.)” (microfilm scan), “2!>1.)” (main scan)
Proposed by Congress March 2, . 1861.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Ratified by the ·. following States :
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Ohio, March 13, 1861.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- 13, The scans read: “18,” (microfilm scan), “13,” (main scan)
Maryland, J'anuary 10 186.2.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Illinois (convention), February 14, 186.2.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
(Ames. Proposed Amendments, p. 363.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
Mr. ASliURST. So, Mr. President, I believe if we should begin and lay down as a part of our organic law and a part of the policy of our Government the _ limit of time within which an amendment under a particula-r submission may be adopted. we would be doing a public service. · I ha.ve pointed out already that there are now pending before the States four amendments for their · action, for ratification or rejection. The whirlwinds, simooms ; and siroccos of politics do strange things. I advert for a moment to what happened in one of the sovereign States of this Union, now so well repr~~ sented by her two Senators-the State of Delaware. Mark you, the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was, by proclamation of the S€Cretar;rof State, declared adopted March 30, 1870. The requisite number of States ratified ttie same, for by- that time the Secretary of State had begun the wi e · policy of announcing . by proclamation When the required number of States, the requisite three-fourths, had ratified amendments. Yet in the turmoil, struggle, and the tumult of a political situation in the .State of Delaware it seems that the State got temporarily under the dominion of the Addicks " machine," and that that "machine," thinking to flatter, thinking to pander to, and do what we can "' catCh " the negro vote, dealt With the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution, . which had already been ratified for 31 years. Delaware ratified - that ' amendment solemnly and gravely on the 12th day of February, 1901-a:dopted a proposed amendment which had been a part of our system since 1870. ,
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- ASliURST. The scans read: “ASHURST.” (microfilm scan), “ASliURST.” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- in The scans read: “ii” (microfilm scan), “in” (main scan)
- repr~~ The scans read: “repre-” (microfilm scan), “repr~~” (main scan)
- S€Cretar;rof The scans read: “Secretary of” (microfilm scan), “S€Cretar;rof” (main scan)
- ttie The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “ttie” (main scan)
- wi Only one scan has this word: “wi” (main scan)
- required The scans read: “require!” (microfilm scan), “required” (main scan)
- can The scans read: “call” (microfilm scan), “can” (main scan)
- dealt The scans read: “deal!” (microfilm scan), “dealt” (main scan)
So r say there ought eo · be a limitation on the time when an amendment should be l ' ratified. We ou o ht not to have a State waiting 84 years and then pa s s a re olution m· wait until an amendment is adopted for 31 year and then solemnly pass a brutum fulmen, a harmless thunderbolt.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558). View the page image
- eo The scans read: “to” (microfilm scan), “eo” (main scan)
- o ht The scans read: “ought” (microfilm scan), “o ht” (main scan)
- pa s The scans read: “pass” (microfilm scan), “pa s” (main scan)
- re olution The scans read: “resolution” (microfilm scan), “re olution” (main scan)
- an The scans read: “a)” (microfilm scan), “an” (main scan)
- year The scans read: “years” (microfilm scan), “year” (main scan)
Mr. President, I have some copious · data in relation to this subject which I wish to incorporate into the Rt<;conn. I shall not detain the Senate by reading the same at this time, but 1 ask to be allowed to incorporate: it in th~ REcoR'D. It gtre the history and the date ' s of ratification of the various amendments. • It - sets out- in extenso those now pending and, I think, show the necessity and the need for setting up orne sort of - a statute of limitation as to when a State may no longer ad favorably or unfavorably upon a submitted amendment. ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5558–5559). View the page image
- Rt<;conn. The scans read: “Recorp.” (microfilm scan), “Rt<;conn.” (main scan)
- 1 Only one scan has this word: “1” (main scan)
- th~ The scans read: “the” (microfilm scan), “th~” (main scan)
- gtre Only one scan has this word: “gtre” (main scan)
- show The scans read: “shows” (microfilm scan), “show” (main scan)
- orne The scans read: “some” (microfilm scan), “orne” (main scan)
- ad The scans read: “act” (microfilm scan), “ad” (main scan)
Personally, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, I would be glad for a limitation of 12, 14, 16, 18, or 20 years, but I think that when the State acts it should act in the light of the evidence and discussion before it. It should act contemporaneously in some degree, at least, with the _ resolution of Congress.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- be The scans read: “he” (microfilm scan), “be” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE RATlFICATIO:\,
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- RATlFICATIO:\, Only one scan has this word: “RATlFICATIO:\,” (main scan)
On May 23, 1866, when the resolution proposing the fourteenth amendment was under consideration, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, submitted an amendment to add to the resolution the following additional section : ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- 23, The scans read: “238,” (microfilm scan), “23,” (main scan)
"SEc. 6. This amendment shall be passed upon in . each State by the Legislature thereof which shall chosen, or the members of the most popular branch of which shall be chosen next after the submission of the amendment, and at its first session; and no acceptance or rejection shall be reconsidered or again brought in question at any subsequent session; nor shall any acceptance of the amendment be valid if made after three years from the passage of this resolution." (Con g. Globe, vol. 36 . p. 2771.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
When the fifteenth amendment was before the Senate on February 3, 1869, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, proposed to add to the resolution submitting it. to the States the words:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
"That the foregoing amendment shall be submitted to the legislatures of the several States, the most numerous branch of which shall be chosen next after the passage of this resolution." (Cong. Globe, vol. 40, p. His speech in support of this proposal on February 5, 1869, is reported in the Congressional Globe, volume 40, pages 912 to e13. On February 9, d G9, this amendment was rejected-yeas 13, nays 43.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- e13. The scans read: “913.” (microfilm scan), “e13.” (main scan)
- G9, Only one scan has this word: “G9,” (main scan)
On February 17, 1869, an amendment practically identical with the above was offered by l\lr. Hendricks, of Indiana, and the constitutionality of such a limitation was discussed by Senators Morton, Bayard, Buckalew, Dixon, and Yates. The question being taken, the amendment was rejected-yeas 12, nays 40. (Cong. Globe, vol. 40, pp. 1311-131.4.]
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- l\lr. The scans read: “Mr.” (microfilm scan), “l\lr.” (main scan)
On January 30, 1882, Mr. Berry, of California, introduced a · joint resolution (H. J. Res. 116, 47th Cong, Ist sess.) proposing an amendment to the Constitution to regulate ratification, as follows:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
" SECTION 1. The legislature of a State shall not vote upon a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States except at a regular session held following an election of the members of the most numerous branch of the State legislature, which election must take place subsequent to the time of submission by Congress or a convention of the proposed amendment.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
"SEc. 2. This amendment shall not take etl'ecf untU the 5th of March. 1885." - - ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- etl'ecf Only one scan has this word: “etl'ecf” (main scan)
- untU Only one scan has this word: “untU” (main scan)
- 5th Only one scan has this word: “5th” (main scan)
On March 17, 1869, Mr. Morton of Indiana, introduced in the Senate, and on March 29, 1869, M.r. Sha . nks, of Indiana, introduced in the House identical joint resolutions (S. J. Res, 32 and H. J. Res. 57, 41st Cong., Ist sess.) which read as follows:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- Sha The scans read: “Shanks,” (microfilm scan), “Sha” (main scan)
- nks, Only one scan has this word: “nks,” (main scan)
- 41st The scans read: “Aist” (microfilm scan), “41st” (main scan)
"B e it resolved, etc., That on the sixth legislative day of a regular session, or of a legally called special session, of any State legislature, each house of said legislature, at the hour of 12 meridian, shall proceed to the consideration of .any amendment of the Constitution of the United States that- IIUl.Y have been submitted . by the Congress of the United States to the legislatures of the several States for ratification, according to the provisions of the fifth article of the Constitution of the United States: Provided, That such amendment may not have been acted upon at any preceding session of said legislature. And 1!, upon the consideration of such amendment, it shall receive the votes of a majority of the members elected · to each house of said legislature, it shall be held to be duly ratified by such legislature. And 1! ft . final action is not taken upon the first day, then the house shall meet the next day at the same hour and so continue to meet from day to day (Sundays excepted) until final action is taken upon such amendment. Nor shall the action of either house of said legislature upon such amendment be hindered or preventea b:y the resignation or withdrawal, or the refusal to qualify, of a minority of either or of both houses of said legislature.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- IIUl.Y The scans read: “may” (microfilm scan), “IIUl.Y” (main scan)
- 1!, Only one scan has this word: “1!,” (main scan)
- 1! Only one scan has this word: “1!” (main scan)
- ft The scans read: “if” (microfilm scan), “ft” (main scan)
1 connection
- cites Article V, Clause 1 (suggested)
- "SEc. 2. And be it further resolved, That if such amendment or amendments shall be ratified according to the provisions of the preceding section, the same shall be duly certified by the officers of each house and shall be transmitted by the governor of the State to the President of the United States." · .
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
(Cf. Ames, H. V . The proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States during the first century of its history. pp. 287-292.)
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
Mr. SHAFROTH. l\lr. President, I did not think of addressing the Senate to-day upon the. prohibition constitutional amendment, but the reference of the Senator from Alabama [1\Ir. UNDERWOOD] to the laws of the State of Colorado has made me believe that I ought to put into the RECORD, following his speech, something with relation to the operation of the State constitutional amendment for prohibition in Colorado, which was adopted by the people at an election · and took effect January 1, 1916.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- l\lr. The scans read: “Mr.” (microfilm scan), “l\lr.” (main scan)
- [1\Ir. Only one scan has this word: “[1\Ir.” (main scan)
- 1, The scans read: “,” (microfilm scan), “1,” (main scan)
The Senator from Alabama has said that if Colorado is satisfied with the laws which that State makes, it is all well and good. but that when it comes to Colorado attempting to interfere with the laws of the State of Alabama, it is all wrong.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
Mr. President, we have found from comparing the result or· carrying out the amendment to the Constitution in the State of Colorado with the previous condition that great good has been produced in that State. I hold in my hand a collection of some of the facts with relation to the effect of prohibition in Colorado. There were 1,615 saloons closed and 17 bre _ breweries by that act, which took _ effect January 1, 1916. Denver is a city of 250,000 population.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- or· The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “or·” (main scan)
- bre Only one scan has this word: “bre” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
The arrests during the year 1915, which is termed the wet year, were for drunkenness in that city 3,219, but in the year 1916, which was the first year of the . operation of the prohibition law, the number was reduced to 1,549. In other words, more than half of the arrests for drunkenness in 1915 were caused by the fact that we did not ha-ve a prohibition law in the State of Colorado. · ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
The arrests for -vagrancy in Den-ver dropped from 3,714 in 1915 to 1,148 in 1916. In other words, by the passage of at con- · stitutional amendment the cases of -vagrancy were reduced more than two-thirds.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- at The scans read: “that” (microfilm scan), “at” (main scan)
The arrests for gambling in Den-ver decreased from 515 in 1915 to 252 in the prohibition year of 1916. In other words, gambling was not indulged in to the extent of more than one· half. A person can readily see the reason. As long as the saloons were open the games were going on; if not openly, they were being played in a back room ; and while the arrests would not represent the violations of the law in every instance, it shows that there was ~ considerably less gambling in the prohibition year of 1916 as contrasted with the wet year of 1915.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
The average number of arrests for all offenses in the city of Den-ver for the six years preceding the adoption of the prohibition amendment were 13,922. The total number of all arrests during the dry year was 9,985; in other words, they were reduced about one-third.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
Before prohibition was adopted in Colorado 402 cells in the city and county jail were occupied nearly all the time. Since prohibition the daily average number of prisoners has fallen to approximately 75. Thus the number of those who were guilty of all offenses punishable by the laws of the States was dimin- . , . ished more than two-thirds by the enactment of that law. ~
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- ~ Only one scan has this word: “~” (main scan)
In the State penitentiary the record is startling. Prohibition has reduced, according to the warden of the penitentiary, l'tlr. Tynon, the prisoners committed to that institution by 40 per cent. The prison population dropped from 782 on May 5, 1916. to 676 April 11, 1917. In other words, while discharges are being made from the penitentiary the number that are sent back to the prison is · not nearly equal to the number of discharges. Mr. President, it is · a little misleading to refer to the per cent of decrease in the population of the penitentiary, because many are in the penitentiary for life and ' many are in for long terms of years, and, of course, they must be counted in the population during the wet year and also during the dry year. So the statement of the warden to the effect that the decrease is fully 40 per cent is undoubtedly correct. One entire wing of the cell house of the State penitentiary of Colorado has been closed. That speaks for itself of the great good that is . resulting from prohibition in that State.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
- l'tlr. The scans read: “Mr.” (microfilm scan), “l'tlr.” (main scan)
Upon the other hand, we find that the amount · of savings accounts in the State of Colorado has - increased enormously since prohibition has been adopted. There was an increase of 26 per cent in the amount of savings-bank deposits in Denver alone for the first nine months of the year 1916 compared with the same period of the wet year 1915. New savings-banks accounts were opened in Denver the first dry year in a larger number than in any similar period of the city's history. There was an increase of more than 16 per cent in deposits in the banks and trust companies of Denver compared with the same period in the previous year.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
Mr. President, when it was proposed to adopt prohibition in the State of Colorado the predictions were - made that particularly Denver would be wiped off the map, The prediction was made that there would be -vacant stores throughout all the business portion of the city and that the places made vacant by the numerous saloons would not be filled by those engaged in any other business. In fact, it was predicted that bank ac· counts would not be so numerous; that deposits would not be so great, and that business would be stagnant. Yet the very" statement that I have read shows that there was a large increase instead of a decrease in business.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
In the first dry month the Denver Gas & Electric Co. increased its gas and electricity current sales more than $10,000, whereas it had figured upon a probable loss of $15,000. In other words, they argued with themselves, no doubt, that as the saloons were brilliantly lighted, each of them having a brilliant electric-light sign, there would be a great loss in the amount of electricity sold. Yet during that first month the amount sold was increased instead of decreased. It was the same way with the building permits. The building permits for the year 1916 were almost double those of 1915 in the city of Denver. The financial transactions of the Denver post office indicated the enormous increase of $1,258,000 over the year 1915.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559). View the page image
But, l\fr. President, there was one thing that was said with a great show of reason, namely, that · there - would be a falling off in the tourist trade of Colorado. It was said people will not come to a State where they can not buy liquor, and there seemed to be perhaps some reason in that declaration and prediction. But, 1\fr. President, when we compare the number of tourists to Colorado for the year 1916 with that of 1915 we fin.d that directly , the - opposite occurred. ln other words, we. find that the number of tourists who visited the Rocky Moun- tain National Park in Colorado in 1915 was 31,QOO and in the 1'1ry year of 1916 the number increased to 51,000-neal·ly double the number. It was found that the men . who wanted to take their families concluded that they would rather go to- a . dry State than to go to resorts where there might be carousing produced by the use o.f intoxicating liquors. Thus the tour-ist trade which it was predicted with absolute confidence would be ruined, as. a matter of fact almost doubled the very. first year Qf prohibition. The. reports this. year indicate that the tourist travel to Colorado is still greater than in 1916.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5559–5560). View the page image
- l\fr. The scans read: “Mr.” (microfilm scan), “l\fr.” (main scan)
- 1\fr. Only one scan has this word: “1\fr.” (main scan)
- ln The scans read: “In” (microfilm scan), “ln” (main scan)
- 31,QOO The scans read: “31,000” (microfilm scan), “31,QOO” (main scan)
- 1'1ry The scans read: “dry” (microfilm scan), “1'1ry” (main scan)
- 51,000-neal·ly The scans read: “51,000—-nearly” (microfilm scan), “51,000-neal·ly” (main scan)
- Qf The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “Qf” (main scan)
. Mr. President, I wish to read right here n. statement which I clipped from a paper the other day as to the attitude of .the mayor of the city of Denver on. this question. This is bjs statement:
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- n. The scans read: “a” (microfilm scan), “n.” (main scan)
- bjs Only one scan has this word: “bjs” (main scan)
At last Mayor Speer, of Denver, has come- out for prohibition. H~re is an extract from what he sa.id in a recent public address :
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- H~re Only one scan has this word: “H~re” (main scan)
·" I voted against p-rohibition when · the question was before the p~opie. Yet, notwithstanding what I have said, if the question · were s~bmitted again I would vote fQ.I' it. Tlte success of no city depend$ u~n the- S~Jlc of liquor, a . and Denver to-day is better off tha-n it was when saloons were ~unning. -
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- p~opie. The scans read: “peopie.” (microfilm scan), “p~opie.” (main scan)
- s~bmitted The scans read: “submitied” (microfilm scan), “s~bmitted” (main scan)
- fQ.I' Only one scan has this word: “fQ.I'” (main scan)
- Tlte The scans read: “The” (microfilm scan), “Tlte” (main scan)
- depend$ The scans read: “depends” (microfilm scan), “depend$” (main scan)
- u~n The scans read: “upen” (microfilm scan), “u~n” (main scan)
- S~Jlc The scans read: “saic” (microfilm scan), “S~Jlc” (main scan)
- ~unning. Only one scan has this word: “~unning.” (main scan)
"Abou-t $6,000-,000 . was spe:nt for liquor in Denver during the y~ 1915, when saloons were running; about $2,500,000 was spent for ll in 1916, being for liquor shipped in-to Colorado for private use, a. saving . ot $3:,50o,oeo a year. ·
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- y~ Only one scan has this word: “y~” (main scan)
- ll The scans read: “li” (microfilm scan), “ll” (main scan)
- ot The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ot” (main scan)
- $3:,50o,oeo Only one scan has this word: “$3:,50o,oeo” (main scan)
"The shipments last year were generally made to people- who could afford to. buy. it . and the saving of $3,5.00,000 was largely to those who could least afford to spe-nd their money tn that way. What became of this large amount saved?' Many men who fo.rmerly spent their even- ings i . n saloons can now · be- seen taking their entire- families to rnf;)vil.lg. picture shows at a less cost than they formerly. spent in saloons. ~.rhe sun is now shining in manY' home.s of Denver where gloom and fear formerly shut it out!'
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- tn The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “tn” (main scan)
- i The scans read: “in” (microfilm scan), “i” (main scan)
- rnf;)vil.lg. Only one scan has this word: “rnf;)vil.lg.” (main scan)
- ~.rhe The scans read: “‘Ihe” (microfilm scan), “~.rhe” (main scan)
Mr. President, it seems to me that that testimony o.! a man w-ho had been upon the . other side of the question and who voted against the prohibition constitutional amendment of Colorado ought to have great weight in t.he determination of this question.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- o.! The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “o.!” (main scan)
There is one fact that is lamentable but nevertheless true. While Colorado is a prohibition State, there is a large quantity of liquor that has been coming into that State by shipments from a neighboring State. It seems almost impossible to stop the shipment of liquor · to Colorado from outside of the State. Shipments to the extent of at least $2,500,000, a:ecording to the statement of the mayor of Denver, came from outside sources, 1\Ir. Pre ident, the very :fact that large quantities of liquor have gone into the State of Colorado, most of it illegally, is the clearest proof why an amendment to the Constitution of the United States · is absolutely imperative.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- 1\Ir. Only one scan has this word: “1\Ir.” (main scan)
- Pre ident, The scans read: “President,” (microfilm scan), “Pre ident,” (main scan)
States can not fully ' enforce their constitutional prohibition amendments; States are powerless to do. so, except «J a limited degr-ee. When a prohibition State has across its border, as is the case in Colorado, a State that does not at all prohibit the use of intoxicating . liquors, it can readily · be seen that absolute · prohibition ls impossible.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- ls The scans read: “is” (microfilm scan), “ls” (main scan)
1\Ir. President, it is not the fault of the laws of Colorado, and it is not the fault of those who administer- the laws of the minutes? State of Colorado, that pro-hib i tion in that State is not as e.ffective as it should be. It is almost impossibl-e to discover ever-y individual sale of liqu:or and e v ery illegal importation of liquorfrom one State to another. The line between: States might almost be said to be imaginary so far as th-e enforcement of liquor laws.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- 1\Ir. Only one scan has this word: “1\Ir.” (main scan)
- pro-hib i The scans read: “prohibition” (microfilm scan), “pro-hib i” (main scan)
- v ery The scans read: “every” (microfilm scan), “v ery” (main scan)
Mr. President, that i the reason I have always believed that an amendment to the Constitution of the United States would stop the use of intoxicating liquors and bring the beneficial effect prohibition is designed to accomplish.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- i The scans read: “is” (microfilm scan), “i” (main scan)
This joint resolution is not to enforce a law except in a legitimate way; it is not to make a law for one State by singling · it out. That State has joined in the ratification of a constitution which provides. that an amendment applying to all the States of the Union can be submitted to the States, an.d if ratified by, three-fourths. thereof. shall become binding on each State. I can not s.ee how · anyone can contend, under- the mode of prcr cedure prescribed by our national Constitution, that we are impairin<>' . or annulling any right of a State.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- prcr The scans read: “pro-” (microfilm scan), “prcr” (main scan)
- impairin<>' The scans read: “im-” (microfilm scan), “impairin<>'” (main scan)
- . The scans read: “pairing” (microfilm scan), “.” (main scan)
1 connection
- cites Article V, Clause 1 (suggested)
I can say that Colorado has found it beneficial to have even partial prohibition and I must say that we can not have prohibition to the extent that we should have, without a United States constitutional amendment. It is for Colorado's own protection, as well as for the beneficial effect which will. be · the result in other States that we desire the amendment. We know the Federal . ral courts would more effectively enforce such a measure. Violators . r of the law fear the Federal courts more than the . State courts. We c,an not in Colorado get absolute prohibition without the aid ot a national _ constitutional amendment, ~d consequ-entJy when we vote for this joint r-esolution we believe it tct be for the purpose of accomplishing that enforcement. We therefore believe that it should be adopted and should become a part of the Constitution of the United States .
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- Colorado's The scans read: “Coigrado’s” (microfilm scan), “Colorado's” (main scan)
- ral Only one scan has this word: “ral” (main scan)
- ot The scans read: “of” (microfilm scan), “ot” (main scan)
- _ Only one scan has this word: “_” (main scan)
- ~d The scans read: “and” (microfilm scan), “~d” (main scan)
- consequ-entJy The scans read: “conseHere” (microfilm scan), “consequ-entJy” (main scan)
- tct The scans read: “to” (microfilm scan), “tct” (main scan)
- . The scans read: “Mr.” (microfilm scan), “.” (main scan)
Ml·. SHEPPARD. Mr. President, it seems that no other Senawr desires to speak this afternoon. I therefore move that theSenate adjourn.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- Ml·. Only one scan has this word: “Ml·.” (main scan)
- Senawr The scans read: “Seyator” (microfilm scan), “Senawr” (main scan)
- theSenate The scans read: “thc Senate” (microfilm scan), “theSenate” (main scan)
The motion was agreed to; and (at 4 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Tuesday , July 31, 1917, at 12 o'clock me:uidia.n.
Read from OCR scans of the printed page (p. 5560). View the page image
- 31, The scans read: “21” (microfilm scan), “31,” (main scan)
- me:uidia.n. Only one scan has this word: “me:uidia.n.” (main scan)