June 3, 1919 (2)

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution, extending the right of suffrage to women.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution is before the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, and is open to amendment.

Mr. BORAH. Is there an amendment pending, Mr. President? The PRESIDEl\TT pro tempore. There is no amendment pending.

1\:lr. BORAH. What has become of the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD]?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has not offered an amendment.

1\ir. LA FOLLETTE. Vote!

1\Ir. BORAH. l\Ir. President, I have no desire to delay the consideration of the joint resolution. I realize · that it will be voted on at no distant hour, but before it is voted upon I desire to make some brief observations. I do not do so because of any particular satisfaction which I shall derive from the statement myself, but largely because I have the good fortune to represent a suffrage State and I do not wish my vote to be construed as a condemnation of suffrage when secured by State action. . r The fact that I am opposed to this proposed amendment has been construed in some quarters as denoting my opposition to woman suffrage as such. I am not opposed to woman suffrage. Indeed, I have been an advocate of it in an humble way for twenty-odd years. It has prevailed in my State for over 20 years, and after these years of observation I am still a believer in such suffrage. I realize, of course, that it does not and will not accomplish all that is claimed by its most enthusiastic · advocates in the way of elevating and purifying politics, but the effect of suffrage in the cause of better government and better politics, in my judgment, is all to the good. · . But while I have always been an advocate of suffrage, I have always believed the matter should be settled by the · action of the respective States. It is for that reason that I shall cast my vote against this joint resolution. That is a principle which does not change ·with the number, so far as I am concerned, of votes in favor · of or against a proposition . . It is fundamental to my way of viewing things, and I am not in a position, therefore, doing justice to myself and my own convictions, to waive my views. If I felt the objections which I have were one of minor importance, a subsidiary proposition, I should unhesitatingly vote for suffrage. If I were called upon, in other words, to weigh one against the other, I might support suffrage as the IIUljo:c..proposition; but suffrage can be enjoyed through the action of the respective States. There is, therefore, no occasion for doing violence to what I conceive to be a very fundamental principle in our Government. There are two reasons why I think that suffrage ought not to be achieved in this way: The first is that of the principle with reference to local selfgovernment or home rule, and the second is one of policy.

Mr. President, when this Government was being organized and men came forward from 1770 on to 1789, when they consummated their work in the Constitutional ' Convention, to take charge of the affairs of a new government, the thing which astonished the world was the capacity, the ability, the states- · and the leadership of the men who moved out of obscurity into the affairs of the world. Other peoples had undertaken; and have since undertaken, to accomplish revolution, to set up free institutions, and to assume for the people the burdens and responsibilities of free government. The enterprise has failed time after time by reason of the fact that the men who were called upon to take the leadership in such a movement were not fitted either in poise, experience, judgment, or wisdom to carry forward the work.

The revolution which took place in France only a few years after the Revolution in the United States failed because of the incapacity of the leaders. The revolution which has taken place in Russia within the last few months has broken down because of the incapacity of the leaders . But the American Revolution was a success, as the subsequent 150 years have demonstrated, because of the remarkable capacity and the leadership of the men who came out of the different Colonies to take hold of that great affair. Where did they get their training? From what uni'rersity had they graduated? In what school was it that they had been trained to assume these responsibilities? The university of the different Colonies, in the town meetings of New England, in the burgesses of Virginia, in the legislatures of the various Colonies. Under the principle of local self-government and home rule these men had been trained so that they were prepared when the task came to take on the work which was before them. Realizing the great worth of the . prin ­ ciple, when they came to organize the Government and to write the Constitution they were very careful to preserve self-govern ­ ment or home rule for local affairs and to provide a national government and a national constitution for national affairs.

It was not a mere matter of administrative efficiency oT a mere convenience of government, neither was it local prejudice or alone the bias of tradition which caused this principle to be so carefully preserved in the final framework of the Constitution. It was a deeper and profounder reason. These men understood perfectly that without it free institutions would be but a passing scheme with which to again delude for a season the advocates of liberty. They realized fully, and if we were not so deeply moved by the cry of party expediency we would realize, that this principle is the rock foundation upon which our whole vast fabric rests. Without it our house is built upon shifting sands. Without it the influence of the people in our Government will be wholly thwarted. Without it the right of suffrage is an illusion, a toy in the hands of an impotel!t constituency. Without it corruption and extravagance and the. whole pack of centralization's - treacherous and deadly evils will sweep on and on, imperious, rampant, and unrepentant, until Stutes. discontent and revolution finally seize the reins of government Without it there can be no splendid and sturdy citizenship or orderly, lawful, and responsible government.

Democracy carries in its system every hour of its existence the germs of autocracy. The tendency is always toward centralization. And only a brave and self-reliant and vigilant people can hold it within rea onable and proper bounds. There is, after all, only one guaranty for. the success of popular government, and that is the worth and capacity of _ ' the individual citizen, and self-government is ttie only school in which he can be trained to his task. Anything that keep him in touch with his government, which feeds his intere t and deepens his concern in public affairs ~ not as an officeholder but as he lives. his daily li'fe, is vital and fundamental. The watchman upon the walls is not the coddled and anemic satellite of a federal bureaucracy, but the selfhelping, self-reliant, wholesome individual whose intellectual and moral fiber in daily contact with his government has wrought its sense of duty and its a-ppreciation of responsibility. To give men, to give women, the right of suffrage and at the same time administer all the affairs and center all authority of government at Washington is, indeed, to keep the word of prom- ise to the ear and break it to the hope. It is not and can not be democracy. It is bureaucracy, the most vicious, the most expensive, and the most deadening form of government ever devised by the wit of man . .

The thing, therefore, which has strengthened us through all these years, which has given us success where others have failed, has been the fact that the Government through the local organizations or-processes ot government has been brought in touch with the citizen. He has been trained in the State and the subdivisions of the State in the duties of citizenship, as his great forefathers and forebears were in the century past. But for the last 25 years, step by step, day by day, and year- after year, we have been withdrawing from the States. all power and centeTing it in the Government at Washington. \Ve are gradually entirely destroying the principle of home rule or of local self-government, and this, to my judgment, is the most pronounced step in the utter destruction of that principle that we have yet taken. If I am correct in this - view, Mr. President, it can by no means be a matter of minor import. If I am correct in the - view which I entertain, it is a principle which is indispensable and . prerequisite to the wholesome maintenance of our Federal system of government.

It has often been said to me - that as a member of the Republican Party it would seem peculiar that I should be jealous of tht7 principle of State rights. The doctrine of State rights or the doctrine of local self-government o1· home rule is just as essentially a principle of the- Republican Party, and has been . through all its life, as of any other political organization in this country. The State-rights theory, based upon the proposition of the right of a State to ·withdraw from the Union, was settled at Gettysburg and Appomattox; but the- right of a State within the Union to govern its own affairs and control its own local concerns, to preserve and to manage its own local interests, was just as highly appreciated a principle of the organizers of the- Republican Party as it has ever been of any other political organization. This is a principle upon which Mr. Hamilton and Ml.. Jefferson never differed ; a principle upon which none of the framers or leaders of the Republic have ever differed. The right of a State to control its own local affairs exclusively and to manage its own concerns is indispensable to the preservation of the Federal Union, without which we can not as a Republic endure. It is because this constitutional amendment does violence. to that principle that I am going to cast.my vote against it. There is no necessity to bring in conflict the right to vote and the right of home rule.

1\ir. Lincoln, upon an important occasion when the question of State rights came pointedly before him; declared:

To maintain inviolate the rights of the States to order and control under the Constitution their own affairs by their own judgment exclusively is essential for the preservation of that balance of power on which our institutions rest.

This states the principle as all students of our Government understand it and have understood it from the beginning. We have not alwa;ys lived up to the principle. Expediency, party interest, or party advantage, or selfish and ulterior motives, may often cause us to violate this tenet of free government, but no one misunderstands it. ·

The same principle has been stated with reference to this particular amendment by President Wilson when he declared, in 19l7:

I am fud to n conviction which I have had all my life that changes of this sort ought to be brought State by State. It is a ' deeply matured conviction on my part, and therefore I would be without excuse to my own .constitutional principles if I lent my support to this very Important movement for :m amendment to the Constitution ot the United Yes; this has been a conviction with all of us who believe in our form of government. Whatever the causes or the excuses for its abandonment, or for doing violence to it upon any particular occasion, in sober moments we go back to the belief that it is vital to our whole scheme and purpose, our whole framework and plan or government. For myself I utterly reject the doctrine that party expediency can ever justify the breaking down of such indispensable principles of free government. Perhaps it was something of this kind that Washington was thinking of when in his Farewell Address he \\ warned against party divisions.

No one can be more interested ' in preserving · home rule tita n the women of this country. The woman is naturally tied to her home not only physically, but spiritually, and from her home she must exert her influence upon public affairs. if at all Not many of them will desire, and a still lesS' number will have an opportunity, to take part in affairs at points widely separated from their homes and their families. The nearer you. can bring the processes of government to the home the more clo ely you can associate affairs with the daily life of the woman who holds the ballot, the more serviceable you will make the ballot after she secures it. She will come to realize, if she does not now, that any act of Congress which has a tendency to remove government from local influence is so greatly to her disadvantage that it will practically overcome the advantage of the ballot, The great body of the- women of this country, upon. reflection, will not approve. of destroying home rule.

But there is another question, which I will refer to only very , briefly, and that is the question of policy.

1\Ir. THOMAS. Mr. President- . -

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the. Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Colorado? ·

:Mr. BORAH. I yield.

l\1r. THOMAS. Before the Senator takes. up the next topic may I ask him whether he voted for the amendment prohibiting the use of alcoholic liquors in the United States after tlle 1st of next Janua.ry?

Mr. BORAH. I did.

Mr. THOl\IAS. Well, I am rather curious to lmow how the Senator can differentiate between his action on that occasion and his contemplated action on this.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I voted for the constitutional amendment providing for national prohibition. I might an wer the Senator’s question bY a simple statement to the effect that, even assuming I was in error in that instance, there would be no justification for m:y being in error the second time. If I violated the rule of local self-government by voting for that amendment, that is positively no reason why I should continue in my course of error, and I would have just a much light to vote against this as if I had been correct in that instance. But there is a wide difference, indeed, between the two propositions. In the first place, the national prohibition amendment infringed the right of local self-government only to a very limited degree. It was impo ible under the Constitution · as it stood fo.r the States to settle • exclusively with the question of prohibition. Although the people of the State might wish to hu : have prohibition, under the commerce clause of the Con titution it was ·with in the power of the people outside of the State to prevent it. They could ship liquor into the State and could demoralize the entire situation under the commerce clause. In other words, already under the commerce clause the liquor traffic was very largely within the control of the National Government. The fight for national prohibition by national amendment began by rea n of this situation. I know, so far as I am concerned, that I was led to support the proposition in the first instance becau e witnessing the conditions in my o'wn State I found that Idaho could . not have prohibition of its own individual action. I ther fore became committed to the principle of national prohibition through constitutional amendment-not for the purpose of destroying local self-government but really in aid of it. There was no other way by which a State could be dry.

It is true that after the campaign for the national prohibition amendment began, what is known as the Webb-Kenyon law and the Reed amendment were adopted, which helped the situation very much. But the Webb-Kenyon law was for a long time in doubt, and is even yet in doubt in the minds of a great many able lawyers in this country. The Supreme-Court has sustained it. Whether it would in time modify that deci ·ion or not is a different question. We had had prohibition in the State of Idaho in so far as we could have it by a tion ef the people of the State. But liquor was shipped into the State under the commerce clause of the Constitution, and we were therefore at the mercy of the National Government. I conceive that to be a wholly different situation to that of suffrage, where each State may a<:t for itself and the National Government does not undertake to interfere. In other words, if any State in the Union wants woman . suffrage it can have it, and the people on the outside can not in any way change the situation. If the States could have settled the question solely and alone by their own action I do not believe I should have ever consented to cast my vote for action upon the part of the Government in regard to prohibition.

It should be remembered also that the Webb-Kenyon law and the Reed law were national enactments; that in, all these instances we were dealing with the matter from a national standpoint. Indeed, the liquor traffic had become a national enterprise carried on upon a national scale in utter disregard of the State lines. This condition justified a treatment of the matter in its entirety from the national standpoint.

I was going to refer, Mr. President, to another question, and that is the question of policy. I am not going to enter upon any defense of the South. The South needs no defense from me. She has her able and loyal Senators here who will wisely guard her interests. But as a part of our common country I servitude. am bound to consider her interests the same as I would that of my own great West. We are all influenced more or less by our local surroundings, and no man rises wholly above his environments. But in the great questions which affect the Nation as a whole I propose to consider the Nation as a whole. The South has bad her heavy burden to carry. I do not propose to add unnecessarily to the weight - of that burden. If I were wise enough I would help to lift it. I am sure that feeling is shared by all upon this side of the Chamber. If so, shall we go recklessly forward and thrust upon her a condition for which she is not prepared? Is that the way to maintain unity-to preserve national good feeling and to make us as a Nation strong? Is that a wise policy for a people so widely separated in territory and so diverse in local environment? No; that way lies dissension and dissatisfa-ction, and if pushed to extreme, disintegration and national weakness.

To impose upon the Southern States a rule for local affairs for which they are not prepared and which they do not want, simply because we have the voting power to do so, is Prussianism, while to give to them the right and privilege of settling these matters in their respective States according to their interests and as they see fit and in harmony with the views of their own people is democracy-American democracy. It is not the name which tests, defines, and distinguishes justice from injustice; it is the quality of the deed. Tyranny and force in the name of democracy are tyranny and force still. Utter disregard of the local conditions and local interests of a people, the compelling them to conform to laws which do not fit their situation, is the most sterilizing and discouraging form of modern tyranny. Shall we give of our treasure and shed our blood that Serbia and Rumania may have local government and deny it to Georgia and Alabama? When the people of Idaho and Wyoming impose their will upon a people 3,000 miles away, living under condi­ opinion. . tions of which the people of Idaho and Wyoming know but little, how shall you distinguish that from the Magyars, the imperious and conscienceless Magyars, imposing their will upon Bosnia and Herzegovina?

I want to ask my friends upon the other side of the Chamber, if this amendment is passed, do you propose to go home to your people and say, "We now have the fifteenth amendment, which inhibits discrimination on account of race or color, and the eighteenth amendment, which inhibits discrimination because of sex, and the power under each amendment in Congress to enforce · the rule, and we propose to see these guaranties of the Constitution of the United States faithfully carried out? Does anybody .suppose that this amendment is anything but a white amendment, unless party exigency leads to a different rule? On the other hand, let me ask my friends upon this side of the Chamber, when this guaranty is written into the Constitution, which gives to from two and one-half to three million Negro women the right to vote in the South and gives you the power to see . that the provision is carried out, do the men upon this side of the Chamber propose to see that that is done? Do you propose to put ' the South under Federal control as to elections? If you do, you will have a great task, which you seem lightly to contemplate.

I should like to have somebody rise and answer me here and now, and tell me whether or not this which we are writing into the Constitution is not a solemn lie. Nobody intends that the two and a half million Negro women of the South shall vote, unless as I say, party expediency compels action · for the sheer purpose of party advantage.

l\Ir. POINDEXTER. Mr. President--

. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Washington?

Mr. BORAH. I yield.

Mr. POINDEXTER. There is nothing in this proposed amendment that provides that they shall vote. All that this amendment provides for is that they shall not be prevented from voting on account of sex. .

Mr. BORAH. Precisely; that is the suggestion I would ex- pect. The fifteenth amendment provides that there be no discrimination as to color. For forty-odd years it has been there. It is a dead letter, as dead as if it were written in the private memorandum of the exiled Kaiser of Germany. It has been dead because the South could not submit to domination by the colored race and the North realized the task of enforcing it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Mississippi?

Mr. BORAH. I do.

Mr. 'VILLIAl\.IS. I understood the Senator from Idaho to say that the fifteenth amendment provided that there should be no discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of

Mr. BORAH. Yes.

Mr. WILLIAMS. And that that amendment has been a dead letter in the South. My own State has been held up to the world as the chief offender in that respect. I wish to ask the Senator if be can find in the laws or the constitution - of the State of Mississippi, or in their administration, one single thing which is a discrimination on account of race or color or previous condition of servitude, and I wish to ask him if he is not acquainted with the fact that in the case .of the State of Mississippi versus Williams the Supreme Court of the United States de­ .... cided that nothing at all in any of the provisions of the Mississippi constitution , or the laws enforcing th~ constituted any violation of the fifteenth amendment?

If the Senator will pardon me one moment, I am with him in his opposition to this measure. · Mr. BORAH. Why?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think the fifteenth amendment is a mistake, and ' I think this is a mistake.

Mr. BORAH. Why?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it is El mistake, because the entire people of the United States are called upon to say what shall · be the political constitution of a State, to say what shall be its political structure; and that is where the Senator from Colorado was altogether wrong in the question which he propounded to the Senator from Idaho. The prohibition amendment does not affect the political structure, the life and political soul, of a State, and a State ought to be allowed to take care of its own soul without the interference of people of other States. But I rose for the purpose of denying that there is one word or jot or tittle of violation of the fifteenth amendment in the consitution of the State of Mississippi, and to quote the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with me in that

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-­

Mr. WILLIAMS. One word.

Mr. BORAH . . Let me have a word, and then the Senator can go ahead with the rest of his speech.

Mr. w·ILLIAl\1S. I beg the Senator's pardon.

Mr. BOR.A.H. I realize that the State of Mississippi escaped the condemnation of the Supreme Court of the United States, but, nevertheless, the Negro does not vote in Mississippi.

l\1r. WILLIAMS. He does not when disqualified.

Mr. BORAH. No; and disqualification is adjusted to the situation of the colored man.

Mr. WILLIAl\1S. And he does not for several reasons: First, because a part of them are disqualified because they do not come under the educational qualification; a part of them are . disqualified because they do not pay their taxes ; a part of them are disqualified because they have been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, and that is all; and every white man is disqualified for the same reasons wherever the same reasons apply.

It is true that we took advantage of the fact that we knew there would be nine Negroes to one white man disqualified for these reasons, but not one of them is a disqualification " on account of race, or color, or previous condition of servitude." They are on account of the disqualifications themselves. Now, they may be made to apply to the Negro women, but thus far there is no law to make them applicable; and the Senator is exactly right in saying that every State in this Union ought to be left to take care of its own political soul. That is a different thing from a mere police regulation like that as to selling liquor. This goes " to · the very substance, it goes to the very life of the people.

Mr. BORAH. l\Ir. President, I only · wanted · to say that which I think I did s::ty-that it makes no - difference · how the juggling take . place; tlie · result is that the Negro · does not vote. because he is black . - That is the only; crime · which h.e ~ has committed: .

Mr. WILLIAMS. The white man does not vote fu . Mississippi under the same conditions: .

ll:r. BORAH. Oh, the white man votes because you are careful to .· apply tests which . do · not apply . tu the. white man: You pick out those tests. which ex-clude the Negro and -. write them into your law 1 and that excludes the Negro. . Take. the casewhich came- up in Oklahoma only a shor.t time ago, the. grand- father" clause of the constitution · or- Oklahoma. The ~ Supreme Court ofthe United ' States held that that was in · violation of the Constitution of the- United . States, and that it was · enacted; for the purpose of preventing the colored man from voting.

Now, I am not discussing at this time : the question as ' to whether or not the South could submit . to the domination · of the inferior race. I am not" discussing · the justification · of what you . have done . . We would do · the same thing in the N-orth if the situation was the same . That is not the proposition. I am saying that you do not do so, and the Senator from Mississippi will · agree with me that you never intend " to do so.

MT. WILLL<\.1\fS. Oh, I agree, cordially. We never intend to <lo it if we can lawfully and constitutionally prevent it . .

1\lr. BOR.A.H. No; but, on . the other hand, Mr. President, the North . takes- no interest in the enforcement of the fifteenth amendment. I believe there was an effort a. time · or two, . but it amounted to 1 nothing.

Why, l\Ir. President, . we sometimes - talk about the difference. in · the treatment of · the Negro · in the South · and the- North, 1\fr: Taft, in an article a few days ago ,· upon this subject, said that . the emigration of . the Negro to · the North would compel the southern men to treat him better : and to give him better consid- eration, , · and that that would go far toward solving: the race question . The case is not so simple. Did not Mr. Taft . know when those Negroes he was talking about' emigrating to the North reached the State of Illinois--the soil madEfsa.cred by t'he ashes . s of the martyr, the man who emancipated the · Negro-the northerner decimated them, massacred them because they would have : earned their bread in the. sweat of their brow? You can not . settle the. race question · or - the Negro question by enacting laws here in the Congress. Neither upon my side of the Chamber nor upon your side of the Chamber: Ito you expect this guaranty to be anything but a dead letter when it is passed . . Others- may do · as they think best, but when . I am called upon to- write into the Constitution of the United · States a solemn guaranty, I propose to · be prepared to see that it is en:forced; and that is · the reason why, . when this white amendment was pre ented, I voted to make it a . white amendment, because. that is · what it will be. . r have said that this amendment would not · be · enforced unless party expediency demanded a different course. The fifteenth amendment was passed as a matter of party expediency, and the only efforts that have ever been made to enforce it arose out of party necessity . . It will be. remembered when the fifteenth amendment was first brought forward Thadaeus Stevens, leader of the House, was . opposed to it for the very reason that it infringed upon the rights of the States; . but afterwards he yielded, because, as he frankly declared, he thought that it was necessary in order to maintain the Republican Party in · power. It may be that at some time · when some of the States seem to · be drifting permanently away from the Republican PartY. it will seek to recoup by taking: control of some. of the southern or border States, thus making it necessary for the Federal Government to . take control of the. elections. But if this constitutional amendment depends for its execution not upon the inherent justice of the amendment itself but upon mere party expediency, it will be · a disturbing and a vicious provision. and will serve neither the white people nor the colored people. To be entirely frank, I do not think we ought to force this situation. I believe that the wiser and the better solution of the · race · question runs along different line . I certainly want to see the Negro- secure justice, but I r.ealize, and every sane man realizes, that you can not force colored . rule . upon the South. It will bring - renewed racial war- fare, which in the end · will be vastly more injurious to the color ed race than to the white race, and heaven knows it w-ould be bad enough • for either. I think it infinitely better that we leave the situation · to be dealt with through the several Statesthan to · undertake to force a: rule which ~ is - not acceptable . . I regard the race question as the Nemesis-of American life. . l sympathize deeply with the people upon whom falls most . heavily the burden of solving · it. Sphinxlike, inscrutable, and intractab able it intrudes itself at every national feast and jubilee. There is no · phase of national life, no- outlook- but is colored; b'l! the · -sinister · shadow of this. ~ problem. We of th~ N1'>rtl1 cnn afford . to take c-ounsel upon tliis - matter-. We can afford to listen to the · :requ.ests of our · southern - friends. We ourselves are not without' fault. As I have just said, look at · East St. Louis— within : the grand old Commonwealth whose sen holds the sacred ashes o:L: the emancipator, the. man . who g.a-ve- the Negro his freedom. - Talk about enfranchising 3 000,000 ' Negro women, of widening the politieal power- ot the Negro: · of the South, when we massacre him, shoot him down like a dog, burn him · as we would. inanimate- rubbish merely because he appears · in our midst as- a: laborer. We - wi11 not even endure him . as a competitor in the field af ind'ustry. Let · us: see- tf we · can. not · first do · justice to this wa:rd of · ours, this. race among us by no volition- of his own, this race which sheds i~ blood for · the Republic when the Republic. is in peril. eLt us, I say, first do justice to ' the Negro in the industrial world ' that · h~ may · educate and train his children for the- · duties of citizenship 1 . then we- shall be mueh nearer a final solution o:t:the race-question.

But Mr: President; f - come back to · the point; from which I sta.rted.£-the. right · oo: · local self-government; of home rule, an illusion when you take from the. States . the control of suffrage . I would rmt fEn~ any ordina:r:y cause, for any transient or passing circumstances, place ! anything in the way of woman. to vote. But · this principle is · fundamental; without its preservation the Light to vote in time · will be fruitle S"-yes; f go further, and &.'l.y that' without its preservation our form of government must ultimately faiL It is · the source of character in citizenship, the fountain . from which · is fed the moral and intellectual life · of all · those who · must carry on in. the great and ever-increasing bur ­ dens of the Republic. I want the principle. of · democracy extended as - far as - possible. I know I am a believer in woman suffrage, but I would be blind to every page of printed history, from the experiment · at Athens to this hom· , if I did not know, and l would be recreant to my belief if I did not declare, that without the principle of local self-government democracy is a sham--aye, a 1 deluding and • deba:uching-li.e. _ The two great rights, the right to vote and the- right of local self-government, of home rule, are ~ the very pillars · of: sound and whol some free government. They are not in conflict. They are · not at . war with each other . They should not be brought into conflict. They should go hand in . hand. The friend-s of republican instt· tutions · shoald not consent that one shall destroy the other.

Is it our purpo e, our conscious and deliberate purpo e, to remove the last vestige: of this great principle which it took the human . family 2,000 years to discover and infinite. suffering and sacrifice to establish as a workable principle in government? Db we propose to tear away and obliterate the very foundation stones upon which rests the integrity of the. States? Do we propose; as serious men intru ted for n brief season with great responsibility and . with · fea.rfuL . power for good or evil, to disregard the · teachings of Hamilton and Marshall, of Jeff e r on and Monroe, of Jackson UD{l Lincoln? De we propose to break down the lines which separate the States and compound the .American people into one mass, , all to be. directed and governed from Washin gto n? Do we intend to enact again upon this western continent the tragedy of Rome-the fearful, de tr nctive, consuming: tragedy of centralization which destroyed that nation? If so, are we fully advised of the consequences? Have we measured the step we · are- about to . take, or are we simply moral delinquents. fleeing before a revolution 7 Are we pre ­ pared to take the responsibility . of:" such . a com · se and to r e ceive: the final judgment of po terity'? I recognize change as the law o1: life. Il understand fully that a government without the power of change is without the means of life . But when a principle long fought for, long sacrificed for, comes at la t to be established, and after more than a century- of experience has proven itself to be wise and just, it seems intole r-ab le, it see msa challenge · ge to reason and · a defiance of the first principle of human progress to disewn and disre gal'CI ft E s pecially does it seem so when- the thing: we are. seeking to accompli h can be achieved without such sacreligious iconocla m.

I: am told, I have been told ' over · and over · again, that we have outgrown · these things and : outlived the principles · so dear · and which seemed . so vital to the fathers. We are informed that : another . age has come and we are · moving forward under new duties and in . accordance with the great law of change. But this principle of focal self-government, of home rule, i not old ; it is not and . never can be antiquated. It is not one of those prtnciples · of government born of expediency and which passes away with. time . You had just ns wen tell me · that free government is old and out of date; that liberty is ob olete; that good citizenship is antiquated, as to tell me that this principle is no longer of sufficient moment to be preserved and vigilantly guarded. Like good citizenship which it helps us to build, it is just as imperative now us it was a century ago. It will only grow old and worthless when liberty and free government are rejected and disowned of men. It was the denial . of this great principle that contributed so much to the bringing on of this war. It was the belief that it was to be vouchsafed to millions ried of people that helped to lighten its burden and assuage its tors sorrows. It will be the failure to grant the principle to those of who are asking for it that will leave the world fallow for war of again. But while this principle is recognized everywhere else, of while millions have fought and suffered and sacrificed :for it, 33 step by step we are rapidly moving away from it; with an in- such difference incredible to every reflecting man we are about to abandon it. Not the stone which the builders rejected, but the upon stone which the builders put in and without which the temple could not have been reared we would tear away. They, the upon wisest in statecraft that the living God ever permitted to assemble for a common task, declared we will incorporate in the this new scheme local government for local affairs, national government for national affairs; and I can not get my consent to destroy both .or either. I have no reverence for things be- may cause they are old. I have no superstition for precedents. But the I have a conviction which amounts to a religion that this Republic can exist only and alone upon the underlying principles upon which it was built.

1\Ir. President, the historian has told us that the halo of ever power played with peculiar brilliancy around the brow of the elder Napoleon the night he first wore the crown of emperor . cause But to the more thoughtful minds who looked upon the emperor in .as the salvation of France there was just appreciation . also, they even a more substantial glory perhaps for the common soldier, who, standing guard, protected the body of the emperor from a the bullets and poisoned scimiter of the Bourbons. In these days of great moment when we are called upon to exercise vast of and unusual powers, in these extraordinary times when . the pendence: most stupendous problems that can vex and torment the minds of men engage our attention, and the most exalted energies of that th R · b · d 1 t t f "'-'h~ f e epu b lie are emg exerte , e us no orget LLUA.t, a ter an, to the life of this Government, the perpetuity of these institutions, their depend upon the constant presence in the affairs of government any f th e average Cl 't' 1zen from 4-h. Llle common wa lk so f life. w·t · ho his initiative, his self - reliance, . his sturdy strength of mind, and in his unswerving · purpose, we can not succeed. Let us · therefore happiness . never surrender the means by which he exerts this influence, the processes by which he is brought in contact with the Government and by which the Government is brought close to him. Without home rule, without local self-government, the average citizen soon ceases to be a law-abiding citizen and becomes an the irresponsible factionist or revolutionist. These are his heritages, these are the things which make this Government his Government, and when we surrender them we signify our will - . fourth ingness to exclude him from the affairs of the Republic .

Therefore, viewing this matter as I do as involving a gre-at an and vital principle of government, much as I dislike to vote when against the wishes of so many of the people of my State, I can not get my consent to record my conviction in favor of furllle~· destroying the fundamental principles upon which this Republic is established and without which it can not long endure.

1\Ir. LENROOT. 1\Ir. President, I did not intend to discuss the this joint resolution, as I am anxious, with others, for an early tions vote; but the argument of the distinguished Senator from Idaho is a has taken such a trend that I feel called upon to speak very ment briefly upon it, because there was a time when I held views very similar to those which he has just expressed, but which I was compelled to abandon if I would be consistent with the right principles of popular government that I have long advocated. desire. Let me say in this connection, 1\lr . President, that I know of no man who has been more zealous or influential in advocating popular government throughout the land than the distinguished from Senator from Idaho, and knowing that to be so, I have been use very greatly surprised at some of the things which he has said the in the speech which he has just concluded.

Before discussing that matter, l\1r. President, I want to make just one brief reference to the minor objection that he makes a.s to the guaranty that is embodied in this joint resolution shall which he says the Congress never intends to carry out, because tile guaranty contained in tile fifteenth amendment has been ignored and abandoned.

The Senator knows full well that the fifteenth amendment embodied the color question, and the Senator knows just as to well that there is no color question at all embodied in this itself amendment. It relates only to sex. There is no one in the means South who will attempt to differentiate between a black man Idaho and a black woman ; and if there were, either in the South or by . in the North, Congress would D{)f hesitate to enforce the terms ago of this constitutional amendment, because that peculiar Negro ments. problem would not be involved in it at all. I am not going to discuss at this time at any length the merits of the fifteenth amendment or the failure of Congress properly to enforce it. 1\Ir. President, the Senator from Idaho takes the position, carto its logical extent, that if there be 33 United States Senawho believe that a proposed alteration cf the Constitution the United States is not for the best interests of the people the United States, notwithstanding all of the other people the United States may be in favor of it, it is the duty of those Senators to prevent the people of this Republic from securing alteration of their Government as they desire.

Mr. President, I can conceive of no more dangerous attack popular government than such a theory as that. Why, especially during the past year or two, there is :riot one of us this floor this afternoon who has not said, in hundreds of speeches, that under our form of government the people have right in an orderly way, through the means provided by the Constitution, to secure such alterations in the for m of their government as they desire, and that in this Republic, whatever be said of other lands, there is not the slightest excuse for presence of the anarchist or the man who advocates" direct action"; and yet the Senator's argument is that if 33 Senators believe that an alteration in our Constitution is not for the best interests of the country, public opinion, however settled, how - deliberately formed, .shall be flaunted and cast aside.

Ur . President, because I believe in popular government, beI believe in the right of the people to rule, because I believe their right to .secure any amendment to the Constitution that desire if they go about it in an orderly way by using the methods provided by the Constitution, I can not subscribe for moment to the theories or the arguments advanced by the Senator from Idaho ; and in this connection it might not be out place to read just a paragraph from the Declaration of IndeWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by thei.r Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving just powers from the consent of the governed. That wheneve:r form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is th-e right Of the people to alter Or to abolish it !lDd to institute new govern- 1 ut ment, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and I believe that is good doctrine to-day, l\1r . President, and I believe that when the people of the United States form de - · Iiberately a judgment as to an amendment or change in the Constitution it is our duty to permit them, in the form provided by Constitution, to act upon it.

The Senator from Idaho talks about Prussianism, about three ­ fourths of the States being able to enforce their will upon oneof the States that may be unwilling. But the Senator forgets that in this Constitution, to 'vltich we are now proposing amendment, express provision is made for amendment, and ratified by three-fourths of the States after having b-een adopted by two - thirds of the Congre s, it becomes a part of the Constitution, and is as much a part of the Constitution of the United States as are any of the other provisions.

Prussianism? There can be no Prussianism in according to people of the United States the right to secure such alterations their government as they desire to secure. Prussiani.sm thing upon the slUe of the Senator from Idaho in the arguhe makes. Prussianism, indeed, it would be if 32 Senators against the will of the people of the country should, because they thought they were wiser than all the people, denied to them the to secure such alterations in the Constitution as they l\Ir~ BORAH. I doubt if there is very much difference of opinion between the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator Idaho with reference to fundamental matters. He makes of the word" people" as ag.ainst 33 · Senators who may have view that this ought not to be submitted . I ask the Senator from Wisconsin when the people are going to get a chance at this amendment? Will the Senator from Wisconsin vote for an amendment providing that before this constitutional amendment be made a part of the Constitution it shall be ratified by popular vote in each State of the Union?

Mr. LENROOT. Does the Senator ask me that question?

Mr. BORAH. Yes.

Mr. LENROOT. The Senator will say that we have no power attach such a condition to the amendment. The Constitution provides how it shall be ratified, and there is no other that can be provided. But I will say to the Senator from that I will gladly vote for the joint resolution introduced the Senator from Connecticut [1\Ir . BRANDEGEE] a day or two providing for a popular vote upon all constitutional amend ­ l\1r. BORAH. Will the Senator agree to an amendment which will provide for the election of delegates to popular conventions to ratify it? That is, of course, what I meant when I spoke of a popular vote.

l\1r. LENROOT. The Senator will say with reference to that, no; and for this reason : There are only two or three legislatures now in session. Before the great mass of the legislatures will have an opportunity to vote upon ratification they will have been elected by the people, and there is no occasion fer holding two elections for that purpose.

1\lr. BORAH. l\ir. President, they just had an election in , Texas upon this question, where the people were permitted to . vote. There . are about 800,000 voters in Texas. Two hundred and fifty thousand of them voted, and about 110,000 of them voted for woman suffrage. When the legislature meets in Texas the legislature can ratify this amendment without any expression from the popular will at all, and yet according to the present status of popular sentiment in Texas it is overwhelmingly against suffrage. I think there have been two votes on woman suffrage in the State of Iowa, where the majority rule obtains. In both instances it has been voted down. The majority of votes which have been cast against suffrage in this country in different States is something over p. million, as against a majority of about 254,000 in the States where it has obtained. The popular vote as a whole has been against suffrage. It is not the intention under this provision to have a popular vote upon this matter. That could be accomplished by a convention to ratify, but that will be rejected. The women who have been playing politics around the city o.f Washington for the last five or six years have learned their lessons well.

They much prefer to reason with the Members of Congress and to reason with the members of legislatures than to undertake to control the citizen's vote when he enters into the secrecy of the voting booth.

1\fr. WILLIAMS. And they do not want it left to any State convention.

1\fr. BORAH. We are more amenable to sweet reason than those who are in the voting booths. It is not intended that the people of whom the able Senator speaks are to be permitted to pass upon this question at all.

So far as the right of 33 Senators to hold up an amendment is concerned, the fathers provided that . when two-thirds of the Senators and Representatives determined to sub-mit an amendment it should be submitted. I assume that was intended to call forth the deliberate judgment and conviction of each Member of Congress as to whether or not it was wise to submit that particular amendment. Otherwise they would have said that when a certain number of petitioners came up from the people, it should be submitted. But the fathers so arranged that the judgment of the Senators and Representatives should be had upon the question, and I am exercising my judgment under the Constitution. I do not believe I would be performing my duty to vote for the submission of an amendment which I think ought not to be adopted.

Mr. LENROOT. · Will the Senator yield further?

l\1r. BORAH. In just a moment. If it could be provided in this amendment that the amendment should be ratified by conventions elected by a popular vote it would go far toward ameliorating my opposition to the amendment. In fact, I think I may say that if the Senator will assist me in putting into this amendment the provision that it shall be ratified by conventions selected by popular vote I will . withdraw my objection. I vield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

~Ir. LENROOT. Does the Senator differentiate at all between a Senator exercising his judgment as to the merits of a proposition and exercising his judgment as to . whether the people of the country desire an alteration in the form of government, and therefore it becomes his duty to support it?

1\Ir. BORAH. The Senator again lays stress upon the people. As I said a moment ago, if the Senator will provide me with a method by which the people can express themselves on this question, I will withdraw my objection to the amendment. I do not believe the people want to provide for suffrage in this way; the fact i , those who are advocating it are not willing to leave 1t to a vote of the people; that is precisely what they are seeking to avoid. I am willing to take the people's vote, but I am not willing to accept the legislatures' as a vote of the people. 1\fr. L.ENROOT. I want to say in reply that the States did not make the Constitution. The people made the Constitution and provided how amendments to it should be proposed and ratified.

Mr. BORAH. The Constitution provides two ways. The framers undoubtedly believed that there might come a time when it would be desirable to have a more direct voice of the people, so they provided ratification by legislature • and ratification by convention. It has been a long time since the people have had a say about it. Let us give them an opportunity to have a say and provide a convention elected by the people.

Mr. LENROOT. The people will have exactly the same kind of say . in the legislatures to be elected next year that they have on any question, some of them, I think the Senator will admit, even more important than this question.

Mr. BORAH. I understand; in other words, the Senator is not willing to have a convention?

Mr. LENROOT. Certainly not.

1\-fr. BORAH. The Senator knows if a convention is held the delegates will be elected upon that issue alone, and there would be no other question involved. The thousand questions which enter into an election of a legislature, the question of partisanship, the division of parties in the State, and so forth, would subordinate the suffrage question until perhaps it would not be considered at all in the question of the election; but if a convention were held and that were the reason for adopting the convention alternative, the people have but one issue before them and that is the ratification of the amendment. In that way a vote of the- people could be had.

Mr. LENROOT. I would like to ask the Senator whether he urged a constitutional convention to ratify the amendment proposing the election of Senators by direct vote, and if not why not, if his position now is well taken.

Mr. BORAH. I do not recall that that question was ever raised. I certainly should not have been afraid of the popular vote in that instance.

Mr. LENROOT. But the Senator could have raised it upon. that matter as well as upon this.

Mr. BORAH. The Senator has raised a question here that the people are arrayed against these 33 Senators, but I see that the Senator is not willing that the people should have a voice in this question, because this suffrage matter has been defeated over and over again in the States by majority votes. I am led to urge a convention because of the argument of the Senator that the people will settle this. I say the people will not in any true sense, if ratification by the legislatures is had.

Mr. LENROOT. I take it that my own State of Wisconsin is one by which the Senator makes up that majority. It is true that some years ago the suffrage amendment was defeated by a very large majority in the State of Wisconsin-if I recollect rightly, by nearly 100,000 majority, and yet in the last campaign both the great parties declared for it in th e ir State platforms.

1\Ir. BORAH. Exactly, ju s t as a <listingui hed Senator on the other side of the Senate told me a day or hYo ago that aU the people of his State were against it, and all the politic-ians in both parties were in favor of it.

The Senator says that no one has been a more arden advocate o! popular government than the Senator from Idaho. I de ire the Senator to understand that my conception of popular government is that there is no such thing as popular government unless the people are permitt e d to control their local affairs. If home rule or matters which concern communities in th e ir . s several localities are brought h e re to W as hington and e ttl e d by the Congress of the United States, it is the most deadly m e thod by which we could possibly attack popular government.

1\fr. LENROOT. Does the Senator think we have attacked popular government in the wet States in the prohibition amendment? · ·

Mr. BORAH. In a measure; yes. A s I ·Said n few mom e nts ago , if the State of Idaho, for instance, could ha v e voted dry and have been protected as a g ainst the National Government there would have been no rea on in the world for the adoption of the national amendment.

l\1r. LENROOT. Does the Senator think that prohibition is more important than popular government?

.Mr. BORAH. I do not think it is; but the National Con titU ·· tion has provide(}, and it was not within our power nor would it have been wise to repeal the commerce clause of the Constitution. The prohibition amendment was neces ary in that instance to enable the States to have what they wanted. Now, I want to be frank. If the Webb-Kenyon law and the Reed amendment could have been relied upon as standing the final te s t of the courts or the test against repeal, I should not ha vc felt that prohibition was justified. But for 40 years States had been voting dry and yet could not be dry, because under the commerce clause the liquor could be shipped in. That led me and others to support the amendment. If a State could adopt suffrage, and yet the National Government could interfere and prevent its enjoying suffrage, then I would vote for this amendment. But a State may have suffrage or may reject it, and no power may say nay. I see a wide difference.