June 3, 1919 (2)

l\1r. ·wATSON. Did not the Webb-Kenyon law protect the people of Idaho in the-ir choice on the te-mperance question?

1\I-r . BORAH. It did ; but, a.s I said n few moments ago, the constitutionality of that law was disputed by some of the ablest lawyers in the Senate 11t the time i-t was passed, a.nd at the time the constitutional provision was first advocated by tho e who were urging it. It is true that before the amendment was finally submitted that the Webb-Kenyon law had been upheld. At least, that is my recollection. But · some of the ablest lawyers in this country still contend that decision w.as unsound and will ultimately be modified or overruled. I have no doubt at all but what if the Webb-Kenyon law .:md the Reed law had been sustained · by the Supreme Court of the United States before the campaign had committed the country to prohibition even the advocates of prohibition would not have been in fa-vor of the national amendment. The advocates of prohibition were -driven to it IJy reason of the fact that St-ates like Maine, or other prohibition States, which had been prohibition or dry for years, were supplied with liquor under the protection of the national ~lr. WILLIAMS. In aid of State rights?

l\Ir. BORAH. Yes. It was for that reason that the States were not permitted to settle the question and that the prohibitionists of the country were driven to protect themselves by a national amendment. Local self-government was denied to the States already by virtue of the commerce clause and especially by it abuse. I have never felt under the circumstances that I was untrue to this principle, in which I devoutly belie-ve. But if I erred in that instance. I have repented, and I do not propose under any pressure that may be exercised to err again. And there has been some pressure.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. 1\lT. President, we lla>e heard it repeatedly said that this and other amendments to the Constitution should be ratified or submitted because there is a popular judgment in their favor. Of course, I recognize if I were to propose an amendment to the pending resolution to submit the resolution to popular vote in the States, it would immediately be said that the purpose of the amendment was to defeat the resolution, because there is no such method of submission provided in the Constitution of the United States; and that might properly be said. But the Constitution does protide a meth-od that is analogous to a popuL..·u vote, just as close to a popular vote as the election of a President of the United States is by a popular vote.

In the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution providing for the election of a President. an electoral college was provided, in which the electorate selects certain . in men to cast their vote in the electoral college for their choice for President. 1 do not suppose there is .a man o1· -woman in file United States who really differentiates between the election of a President by the electoral college and a direct election of a President by the people of the United States, except in so far .as representation in tJ1e electoral college limits the right of suffrage -or the power of the people of each individual State to act. Otherwise, the election of a President of the United States is directly by the people.

The Constitution provides a method that never has been exercised ln the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution, and that is t<> authorize the Congress to submit amendments to the Constitution to conventions called for the purpose of ratification and for no other purpose. We hear the appeal re- States. sounding through this Chamber that the people of the United States have a sovereign right to pass on this question. I am no prophet nor am I the son of a prophet, but I am willing to stand here and prophesy that a most pronounced vote in this Chamber against an opportunity for the people of the United States to pass judgment on a proposed amendment to the Constitution tion. will he cast by those who have cried the loudest that the people of tlle United States should have the opportunity given them. But to give those Senators a chance to -voice their sentiments I propose the following amendment to the pending resolution.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will report pr0\'111 by con>entions. the amendment.

'!'he SECRETARY. On page 1, line 6 .. strike -out file words “ the I legislatures of" and in lieu thereof insert the words "com-entions in," so that the paragraph will read:

ResD"l-ved. etc., ~hat. the fo~owing article ~s p,ropos~ . as .an amendment to the Constitution, .wh1.ch shaH be valtd to all mt~1s and purfg~~h~s o¥au;e o;~~a10S~~.Vi~tion when ru tified by canventi@us in thx~-

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Tl!B language of tlre Constitution is familiar to the Members of this body, lmtin order that it may .appear in the fiECO.RD I will read Article v .of the Constitution of the United Rtat e R, which ::nys:

Til·• Congress, IVIJPnHN two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it neee> ssary , shall propose tm~en<llllt>nts to this Constitution or on the app !! :1lio n of 1:1(• l rg islatur < ~of two-thirds of the several 'states, shall -call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either ease shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by tllil legislatures of three--fourths . of the several States .or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode o:f ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provid-ed That no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth -clauses in the ninth section of the first article, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It does not take a revolutionary method to accomplish this result. The opportunity has been here from the be - beginning. There is .not a Senator in this Chamber who does not lmow that if this amendment is adopted to the :pending resolution conv.ention.s will be called in each of the several States for the purpose of .deciding whether or not the woman-suffrage amendment shall become the supreme law of the land.

l'llr. ASHURST. Ur. President, if the Senator will permit an interruption--

1\fr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the Senator "from Arizona.

]. _ k ASHURST. The Senator in the begi . beginning of his able speech stated that a convention for ratification of constitutional amendments had never been :reSorted to. Let me call the attention of the Senator to the Corwin amendment, submitted by Congress March 3, 1861, and which is still pending, by the way. It was :ratified by · the legislatures of two States, Maryland and Ohio, and the State of Illinois in 1862 called a convention arid delegates were elected upon the specific question as to whether ~r not they would ratify the so-called Corwin amendment, and th-e convention was held, which ratified or attempted to ratify that proposed amendment. For myself I do not believe that particular convention was of any efficacy, because the amendment was not submitted to conventions, but there was a convention called to consider the amendment in that form.

1\Ir. UNDERWOOD. I thank the Senator "for his contribution to the history of the matter, but what I referred to was that the Congress of the United States had never submitted an amendment to conventions for i ratification.

1\fr. ASHURST. · That is quite true.

1\Ir. UNDERWOOD. Congress must select one or the other ' r method. I do not believe if "\Ye referred this amendment to the legislatures vf the several States for ratification, a State could can a convention to ratify it by that method. On the other hand, if "e submit it to conventi-ons of the several States, th'e action of the legislatures in reference to the matter would be null and void. Yet Congress in submitting an amendment must first determine by which method it proposes to have the process of ratification take place.

].ir. F.ALL. 1\ir. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from Alabamu yield to the Senator from New Mexico?

l\Ir. ln\TDERWOOD. I yield to the Senator.

1\I.r. FALL. If the Senator's amendment were adopted, would the Senator then think it necessary for Congress to enact l egislation to -carry it out or w-ould it be self-O}lerating?

1\Ir. Ul\"DERWOOD. I think myself it would be self-operating, but I believe the power would still rest In tile · Federal Government, if it desires to do so, to provide the method b'y which the conventions should be called.

Mr. FALL. In the event the Senator did not go further antl follow his amendment, if adopted, by legislation, how would conTentions be called?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. They would be called by the s~wral lli. FALL. But the constitutions generally of the several States provide how a constitutional amendment, for example, shall be adopted and how a convention shall be called.

lli. UNDERWOOD. Yes; for an amendment to a State constitution, but not for an ame-ndment to the .Federal Constltu­

Mr. FALL. No; and they are silent upon it.

l\1r. UNDERWOOD. Certainly.

1\Ir. FALL. Therefore, you are up against exactly the reason why Congress has never submitted an amendment for ap- 1\Ir. UNDERWOOD. Ko one knows better than the Senator who has just addressed me that becau e the State constitutions a:re silent the legislatures of the several States have full power to act in the matter.

l\I.r~ FALL. Under the contention of the Senator from Ala- bruna it would be necessary if any nnH . •ndweut i s adopted, for the legislatures then to meet' and pass upon tJ1e proposition ~ to whether or no~ they would call a convention and provide for a method o~ calling It. _

1\!r. UNDERWOOD: 1\o~ at alL ?

for FALL. How '~ would Jt be done. then. _

1\fr. UNDE_InVOOD. It would be neces ~l'.Y fur ~he leglslatures to proncle for the calling of a COliYent10n . pron r lc the machinery for calling it, unless Congress itself, after tile submission of the amendment, chose to provide the machinery for the conventions to meet.

Mr. FALL. Does the Senator think that State rights would not be violated if the Congress of the United States submitted an amendment to be passed upon by the State conventions and proceeded to say how a State convention should be called and to call it itself? Does the Senator think that would not be a violation of State rights?

1\lr. UNDERWOOD. I am surprised that the able Senator from New Mexico should inject such an argument. I expect next for the Senator to charge me with being derelict to the principles I believe in, in local self-government, because at one time in my life I dared to bring before the Congress of the United States a revenue bill raising revenue for the Federal Government or, perchance, that I voted for a bill to . raise an army. The Senator has not forgotten, but his argument would lead us to suppose he has forgotten, that there are certain delegated powers to the Federal Government that it has the right to exercise, and one of those delegated pow e rs is the right to propose amendments to the Federal Constitution, and the power to propose them carries with it the incidents to see that the proposal is carried into effect. The Senator from New Mexico is too good a lawyer not to know that conclusion and to believe in it. But the Senator proposed to have a little fun with his colleague, and I understand his jokes.

l\Ir. FALL. No; if the Senator will permit me, the Senator has simply placed himself in the position I knew he would be compelled to o . occupy. In other words, if his amendment is adopted, then we proceed to fight over the question as to how he proposes to carry it into effect, as to how he proposes to submit it. You have to put all the machinery into operation, the machinery of the National Government into the different States, to call the v e ry conventions which the Senator is now calling

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Oh, no; not at all. There is no doubt the Federal Government has the power to fix the time and place of the election of Senators or Representatives in Congress. For many years it failed to exercise that power and left it to the State laws and the State legislatures to exercise the power; but in its wisdom and judgment it finally concluded to pass a law and define th e time when Members of Congress · should be elected. Yet, if my memory serves me right, even as to that Federal law, providing for the election of M e mbers of Congress and :fixing the date on which all Members of Congress shall be elected throughout the United States, there is one State in the Union that continues to follow its old laws and elect its Members of Congress on a different date, , and their places in the Congress have never b ee n opposed or cont e sted on that ground.

If you adopt this amendment, I do not hesitate to say that there is not a St a te in the Union whose legislature will not provide for a conv e ntion and hold the convention in proper form. The power to make quarantine regulations against disease coming from abroad rests with the Federal Government. As long as the National Governm e nt failed to act the courts sustained State quarantine laws, but when the Federal Government finally concluded to e x e r c is e its jurisdiction its laws superseded the laws passed by the Stat e s. In the failure of the F e deral Government to act the States can act, and they will act. There is no necessity for an y further legislation if this amendment is adopted, b e cause we can safely leave it to the States to call conventions that are in favor of woman suffrage, and if th e y are not in favor of woman suffrage it would be futile to call the con v ention, becau s e the assumption is they would not votes. ratify it.

But Senators on this floor say th e people are for it. If the -sonality. people are for it in the several State s , I think we can safely indulge the presumption that the people of those several States will provide conventions for its ratification. The only answer I make to the Senator in reference to the reserve power of the Federal Government in this matter is that I do not propose to admit the condition that neglecting exerci s ing the Federal power, not the State pow e r, the Federal Government does not lose the opportunity to act and protect itself.

l\lr. FALL. Mr. President, if the Senator from Alabama will allow me, in the first place, I will say to the Senator that I have not made an argument either in favor of or against woman suffrage. I am simply trying to get at the legal conclusion that the Senator has undoubtedly reached in his own mind, I presume, prior to offering this amendment, as to what the status will be afterwards.

First, as I understand him to say-and I agree with him-the Congress of the United States may have the power to put in operation the machinery for calling these conventions. I believe he agrees to that?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I do; Congress has the power; but I do not think it is necessary for it to exercise it.

1\fr. FALL. But the Senator says that in the absence of that undoubtedly the States would call conventions, and that, therefore, there would be no necessity following his amendment for congressional legislation, as I understand?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Undoubtedly not.

Mr. FALL. The Senator has stated, I think-at least, that is what I have understood him to say-that the States must act through their legislatures in calling a convention.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I know of no other power of the States that could appropriate the money, call a convention, prescribe how many delegates there should be, and pay them their salaries. If the-re is in some State the power vested in the governor already-! know of no such condition, but it might be-then it would not require the action of the legislature.

Mr. FALL. I think there is no other power, as the Senator said awhile ago, to call a convention for the amendment of the State constitution; but I do not think that there is any provision in the constitution of any State in the Union for calling a convention to ratify an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, it would require legislation to be adopted at once by the State legislatures. Those of us who propose to vote for this amendment are proposing to submit it to that very State legislature. The Senator has s aid that if the legislature was not in favor of the amendment, possibly it would not call a convention; and that, if it were in favor of it, that it would call a convention. If it is in favor of it, it will ratify the amendment; and if it is not in favor of it, doubtless it will not. Meanwhile very much time and a great deal of m o ney would be saved.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, we all congratulate ourselves that our f-riend, the distingui s hed Senator from New M e xico, after declining to be a Member of this body, was sent back here to be our colleague; · but I fear that the war and the fight on the political hustings have become so closely allied · with the Senator that since he has gotten back to Washington be can not forget it. Like the mustard gas of the battle field, it clings to him even after he has left the field of combat.

Of cour s e, if we are looking at this question purely from a political standpoint, of the swinging tides of political opinion, the Senator may say, and truthfully say, that this method might cause delay, or that it might can e inaction; but I offer the amendment to ·sustain the great principle for which men have been contending here for a n hour or more, that the people of the several States have the right to determine this question; and, I take it, there is not a State in the Union that, whether it be in favor of or adverse to the adoption of thi s am e nd m ent, when its legislature met would not provide a m e t hod by which the people of the several States might exercise their voice in this matter.

l\Ir. FALL. Will the Senator yield to me for a s t a t em e nt?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I will.

Mr. FALL. The Senator has s aid th a t he is afraid that I came back here so mew hat ex c ited.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Not excited; the S e na t or from New Mexico never gets excited.

1\Ir. FALL. However, that I r e turned at lea st yet influ e nced by the war which we have been through and by the political war in whi c h I have just been engaged. I s im p l y want to say to the Senator that my age precluded my entering the war, aml that during the last political campaign I did not leave my ranch home and made no spe e ch and no appeal whatsoev e r for 1\ . fr. UNDERWOOD. I did not ref e r to th e S e na t or's per­

Mr. FALL. No; I understand that.

l\1r. UNDERWOOD. I was referring to the atmosph e r e of a political campaign.

Mr. FALL. Well, in so far as the a t mo s ph e r e of politics is concerned, it did not reach Tln· ee Ri ve r s, I am gl a d to say.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am always glad to ba\ e the S e nator's interpretation of his own view.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. l\.Ir. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does th e Senn tor from Alabama yield to the S e nator from Montana?

1\fr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the Senator.

1\fr. WALSH of Montana. Before the Senator from Alabama leaves this very interesting question which has been precipitated, I desire to inquire of him whether, if the Congress of the United States has the right to provide the machinery through which the various conventions in the several States shall be called, it also has the right, as a part of that legislation, to prescribe who shall vote for the delegates to the convention?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No; I do not think it has, for the right of suffrage, either for a Federal or a State election, is now fixed in a definite way by the Constitution of the United States and could only be changed by an amendment to that Constitution.

1\Ir. WALSH of Montana. To what provision of the Constitution of the United States does the Senator refer? The Constitution of the United States fixes the qualifications of the voters for Members of the House of Representatives, and that is all, so far as my recollection goes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. That is the clause to which· I refer; but if that clause does not apply--

Mr. 'V WALSH of Montana. It certainly does not.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Then, of course, the Congress of the United States has no power ; for this is a Government of delegated powers, and, as has been said by a very distinguished jurist in a decision some years ago in the Supreme Court of the United States, ''ben you are asked whether the Government of the United States-the Federal Government-has a certain power, you must find that power defined in the Constitution; but when you are asked if a State has a power, you know that it has the power when you do not find it inhibited either by the Federal Constitution or the State constitution.

l\fr. 'V WALSH of Montana. So I understand; but I understand the Senator to say also that there is an implied power in the Congress of the United States to provide all the machinery by which the conventions are to be called and held.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Oh, no; the Senator is inserting a few ad)ectives in my remarks that I did not place there. The Senator says that I stated that I could define all of the machinery. No; I did not say that. I said that the Federal Government would have the power to define the machinery for calling the convention as an incident to the power granted in the Constitution to propose amendments to it.

Mr. W AL :::- -=r of Montana. Exactly; but I inquire of the Senator where he draws the line? All the rest of the machinery, all the other provisions concerning the election, are to be prescribed by Congress, but Congress can not prescribe who shall vote at that election?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. 011, no.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. How does the Senator draw that distinction?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I do not draw it. The Constitution draws it.

Mr. \V WALSH of Montana. Exactly. That is what I am asking the Senator. What provision of the Constitution draws it?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. When the Constitution prescribes the terms and the qualifications of the electorate for Members of the House of Representatives and of the electors for President and now for Senators of the United States, and thereafter is silent, unquestionably the power of the Federal Congress, in reference to the electorate, is exhausted, except when it is revitalized or vitalized anew by an amendment to the Constitution. But the Senator from Montana knows even better than I do-for I yield to his premiership, so far as I am concerned, as a constitutional laWYer-that the courts of the land have always held that a grant of power to the Federal Government carries with it all of the incidents that are necessary to put that power into effect.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. That is just the point for which I am contending.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Surely, but it does not carry the incidents that are not necessary. It will be necessary, if this amendment is adopted, for some provision to be made as to the time and place and manner of holding conventions in the several States for the ratification or rejection of this amendment, but it is not necessary as an incident of that power at all to define who shall be the electors to vote for delegates to that convention, because the electorate is already provided for by the several States of the Union. I take it that the fathers who wrote this Constitution did not intend to do a futile thing when they provided for the holding of these conventions. They certainly did not propose that the qualification of the electors of the several States should be changed, but they assumed that, if these conventions were held, those who have the powers of the electorate in the several States to-day would select the delegates to this convention.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Just one more question.

l\lr. UNDERWOOD. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. But the Senator will remember that different qualifications are prescribed in the various States for different elections. For instance, in my own State, for many years · before we had woman suffrage, women could vote on certain subjects. So when the Constitution provided in relation to the election of the Members of the House of Representatives, it provided that any person who bad the qualifications of an elector of the most numerous branch of the State legislature would have the qualifications of elector for Representative in Congress. But what are the qualifications prescribed in the various States for electors or delegates to a convention to ratify or reject a constitutional amendment? Are there any such?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, there is an electorate in all the States. There is an electorate, and also a limited electorate, in some States. I take it that when in any State a constitutional amendment is to be submitted to the electorate it means the general electorate and not the limited electorate. There is no real difficulty about this proposition.

I realize that this amendment may be embarrassing to some gentlemen who have contended that this resolution should pass, because the people of the United States have a right to have their· voice reflected in the Constitution. I realize further that it is possible that many men have on the hustings promised their constituents or have pledged themselves to vote for the pending constitutional amendment, and they fear the criticism of those to whom they have rendered those pledges, unless they dot every "i" and cross every "t" in the submission of this amendment as originally prepared.

I never criticize my colleagues. I realize that there are abler men than myself representing the people of the United States in the Senate. There is only one thing that I claim for myself, and so long as I have the right to represent my State in the Senate I shall exercise that right independently of every man and of every woman. I conceive that it is my duty to retain unto myself the high privilege to represent what I believe the best interests of my people; to reflect their views in this Senate; and, whenever I think that the existence of the Government or the liberties of the people may be endangered, to change my viewpoint and exercise my own free will on all questions that may come before this body at all times.

I think one of the most unfortunate things that happen in a legislative body is the modern tendency of men to commit themselves on public que tions before they come to the final day of submission in the legislative body, and therefore unthinkingly and .ill-advisedly sometimes they shackle their hands so that in the end they find themselves in embarrassing situations. I think that if we could free this question from all considerations of that kind this great issue could well be submitted, not to the people of the whole of the United States but to the people of the several States in the manner and form where the final decree of the electorate could be registered without any other conflicting interest to carry the question away from the real principles involved.

I do not know that I can hope or expect the Senate at this late hour to modify the proposed constitutional amendment, but I do know that if we want to read this proposed amendment into the Constitution so that it will really receive the approval of the American people at heart, then we had better adopt the amendment I propose and give the people of the several States a free and full opportunity to act in this matter.

Other Senators know as well as I do that there are legislatures of the various States in session now which if this proposed amendment were submitted to them within this week, or within the month, would act on it, ratifying or rejecting it. Why should that power be taken away from the sovereign people of the States? Why should they not have a full and free opportunity to act? I know of no reason except that it might cause delay. Well, there will be delay before this proposed amendment to the Constitution is ratified, but if it is delayed long enough to give the electorate a full and fair opportunity to reflect their sentiments in the final law of the land it will be far more satisfactory to all concerned.

Now, I wish to say on the main question that I am not opposing the adoptioAl of the proposed constitutional amendment giving the women of the United States a right to vote because they are women. There are far more disastrous powers to place in the hands of women than that of the exercise of the elective franchise. As a distinguished Senator said here this morning, in my study of this question I do not find that the high standards of the States that have given to women the right to vote for the past decade or two have been pulled down because the franchise has been granted to women; neither do I find, in my study of the question, that the States wherein women have bad the right to vote for the last quarter of a century have risen above the standard of their sister States where men alone exercise the franchise. It is not from that standpoint that I view the issue. If the women of America were a separate people there might be some question as to whether their views are reflected in the Government, but the women of America are a part of the American people; they have certain votes in their family circle, and those votes, whatever they are, whether they be cast by father and son, or hereafter whether they be cast by mother and daughter, will continue to reflect the sentiment of that family j' circle wh-ether it be for the good or the ill of the Nation. That is not the question about which I am concen1ed.

I hear men justify themselves in voting to submit an amend- in ment to tile Federal Constitution because they say the Constitution itself provides for its amendment, and therefore we are justified in proposing the amendment. That is an argument in a circle that continues to chase itself around the horizon in without a place to alight. It i not the amendment of the Fed- in Federal Constitution that is involved here; it is a great funlla.- mental principle of go'Vernment that we are considering to-day onJy in the Senate. Yes, we can propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution provides for a President of the United States to serve for four years. We couiU submit an amendment to it providing that the tenure of of the President shall be for life; aye, if the votes could be ob- not tained, by constitutional amendment a king could be enthroned at the White House; but would you be justified in doing that becau ·e · you· had the power to do so? No man can justify him- the self in voting for this amendment because we have the power to submit it. The real question involved is the fundamental pt·indpie of government.

The great di'Versity throughout the United States of race, of that climate, of geography, of business conditions, is such that, except for the great laws that are necessary for the Federal Government to enable it to uphold its strong arm, the central Govern- of ment at Washington is incapable of making laws for all of the as people of the United States. There is no mm·e po sibility of the no Legislature of Alabama being able to make ju t laws for the of people of Maine tllall there is for the people of · Maine to make the just laws for the people of Alabama. Not that the people of the two States are not akin; they are closely akin; in those two that States they come primarily from the same original stock, without much infiux: of alien blood, and yet, living in two different communities, in two different sections of the United State , they into think along different lines, they net along different lines, they live along different lines, and it would be impossible for the legislative body of one State to reflect into law the matured but wishes of the people of the other State for a government that And resp-onded to the will of the people. That is true of the Federal out Government. Our greatest differences upon the floor 'Of the your Senate grow out of geographical conditions. The interests and tell the wishes of our people are diversified, and because of that we from clash here. The stronger succeeds, often to the material detriment of the weaker Side.

So far as the exercise of the delegated powers of the Federal Government is concern~, the great powers of war and peace, is the control of our foreign a1Iau·s, the collection of taxes at the customhouse for the support of the Government, all of these great questions we must ~trust to the Federal Government the · at Washington; but when I~ comes to tl1~e powers · e.rs of govern- local ment which invade the family home and the fireside, that l_Yel- the come the , infant mt? J!fe and . .carry o~ . age to the c.eme~17, those laws of our Intimate life and llVlllg, if we want just ()f time. go'Vernment, must b~ determined by the local people who live under them. That IS the only way we can accomplish the desired result. . . .

You may say that this proposed constitutional amendment does not tear down the superstructure of local self-government. eral It may not tear down the principle at one fell swoop of the ax, but each time ~he ax stroke cuts the block from ~e h·ee the superstructure 1s gro""'lllg weaker at the root. This proposed :e t amendment involves the real pyramM of local self-go'Vernment, m~ because whenever you destroy the power of tl1e State to control its electorate the day is at hand when you destroy the State the. itself.

B t more than that · you may say that this proposal only a.ffe~t the electorate 'by adding voters to it. so might an amendment providing for universal suffrage, an amendment and providing for suffrage of all ages, all conditions, all races, and to all kinds of people only affect the electorate, but it is drawing that power that remained in the States, that reserved power, away from the States to that extent and placing it here in has Washington for final determination. What effect does that have on the voter? The more you centralize that power in Washington the more you diminish the reflected power of the individual citizen of the Republic and of the State . If you bad a plebiscite, and submitted your laws to the will of the electorate, to all the people of the United States, you might be have 10,000,000 people voting at the election. If yo.u submit _ my them to the people of Alabama, you may have 100,000 or 150,000 5.50 people voting at th€ election. If :ron submit them to some- morrow. smaller county in some State of the Union, you may only ha:rn an electorate of 1,000 people.

So far as the great powers of the Federal Government are concerned, of necessity they must be determined by the larger electorate; but when you come to the loeal questions of government, the questions that are in the home of every man and a part of his daily life, do you want those powers concentrated the city of Washington, where the voter, the citizen, only reflects one part in ten million; or uo you want him, as to local conditions, to reflect the voting strength of 100,000 or 2QO,OOO people in the State? Or, if it comes down to a minor question each county, do you want him to have his reflected strength that electorate of one in a thousand or two thousand or five thousand people, instead of the ten million of which his vote is a part, if the decisions in the last analysis be rendered in Washington?

Where are we going to stop on this downward road of popular goyernrnent or this upbuilding of centralized power at the seat the Federal Government? The proposal of this amendment only works -an injury in i tsel:4 but it reflects the injury in ib3 method of submission. Until the time came when those seeking additional power for certain purposes commenced knocking at door of the Congress to accomplish results, rather than working out their accomplishments through their own State legislatures, the question among the people of the several States of breaking down local self-government was far afield. But now certain great interests have determined that they must work out their plans through the power of the Federal Government, we hear the orator on every stump denying the protection the Constitution of the United States, some even going so far to proclaim that it would. be better for these people if we had Con-stitution at all, overlooking the fact that the brutal will a majority is a soviet government; that llie brutal win of leader of that body is anarchy; that the protection of our liberties and our rights grows out of the protection of law; our freedom is not guaranteed by me~ it is guaranteed by constitutional enactment; and where you tear down that Constitution for the purpose of writing the will of a brutal majority the law of the land you destroy the minority. You need no protection, if you ue in the majority, against the will of that majority, because that majority is your will; but who knows perchance to-morrow you may find yourself in the minority? when that hour comes, without a government of law, witha constitutional restriction for the protection of your life, home, your property, or the integrity of your family it elf, me whence the protection will come to you that you inherited your father of old.

No, 1\fr. President, it is not a question to-day as to whether the women of America should have the right to vote. It is a question of whether, in the end, our Government · shall live. It a question as to whether tile fundamental principles that are necessary for· the life of this great Republic shall survive.

There can be no doubt in the mind of any man who has studied fundamental question tlult when you destroy t11e principle of self-government and center the powers of government under dome of this Capitol, then the disintegration of this great Republic has begun and the hour of downfall is only n question The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon the .amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama. _ Mr. m'DERWOOD. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. 1\Ir WATSON. l\Ir. President I understand there are sevSenators wlio desire to be h~ard on this question, and it is t "ble to get a vote on it to-night. ::md I understand that ~n~or from Utah [Mr. Smoot] d~es to make a statement. It ·u take · st a few moments 1 will say to Sr. . to th t ~ 1 d J~ d that an executive e ion is ena r a 1 so un ers an desired. ·

Mr. W ATSO- T. As soon as the Senator from Utah shall ~U\C finished his statement I shall move for a~ executive session

then, at the end of the e:xecuti'Ve sessiOn, I desire t~ . say the Senators present that I shall move a reces.s until to­ ~o~row at 12 o elock, :md we ~e convene to-morrow I s~an 111s1st on the Senate Ie~o m sessiOn until this que tlon been finally disposed of.

Mr. SMOOT obtained ~he floor. ~

Mr. POMERENE. Will the Senator yield to me to make a brief statement?

1\Ir. Sl\100T. Certainly.

l\11'. POMERENE. I had very much hoped that. there · could a vote upon this matter to-day. I U?J-.very anxiOus to have vote recorded, but I am simply obliged to leave on tM train this evening, and I shall not be able to be lr~e tol\1r. '" WATSON. I very rnucll regret the situation :llr . Pre i- dent, because I know that the Senato.r from Ohio is quite anx, ious to be recorded on this question; but a number of Senators were compelled to leave this · afternoon, and it was not possible to hold them here in sufficient numbers to have this vote. Therefore, out of deference to their wishes, I consented earlier in the afternoon that the matter might go over for a :final vote until to-morrow.

I very greatly regret the situation, and I trust the Senator from Ohio will be able to procure a pair.

Mr. POMERENE. 1\Ir. President, I was informed, either yesterday or this morning-! have f-orgotten which-that pairs would be arranged for; and, in view of that fact, I certainly hope that one can be arranged for me. I am not in the habit ·:>f being away when it comes to voting upon matters of this ~ind, but the circumstances are such that I am simply compelled to go.