June 4, 1919

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, .resumed th e on - siuera.tion of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 1) pr . oposing :.m ::unendment to the Constitution extending the Tight of suffrage

The PRESIDENT pTo tempore. . The 11e11din~ question . h; on mnendmerit · proposed by the Senator from Alabama [.)Ir . 1\Ir. W.ADSWOUTH obtn.inea. the fl.ool". Mr. BRANDEG:EE. I sb(}uld like to have tlle 1l.tnentlme . ut Mr. WADSWORTH. Let the nmcndm c nt he rend.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will read the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama.

The SECRETARY. On page 1, line 6, strike out the words " the legislatures of " and in lieu thereof insert the words " conventions in," o that the paragraph will read:

That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the several States.

1\fr. WADSWORTH. Mr. President, like the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoR.!.H], I represent in part a State which has extended the franchise to women residing within its borders. In view of that fact and my decision to vote against the proposed amendment to the Constitution, as I have done upon two prior occasions, I desire to make my attitude clear before the Senate. · No vote of mine cast upon this amendment will deprive any of the electors of the State of New York of any privilege which they now enjoy. The people of that State, as the people of several other States, have decided for themselves, in an orderly and constitutional manner, to extend the franchise to the women. I feel so strongly on this question that the people of the several States should be permitted to decide this matter for themselves that I desire to say that were this amendment, instead of being drafted for the purpose of extending woman suffrage all over the country, drafted for the purpose of forbidding the extension of the franchise to women, I would vote against it.

The Senator from Idaho yesterday discussed the right of the people to settle their own affairs, particularly in matters which were local and - intimate. My feelings upon that question are somewhat like his. The people of the several States when they organized their governments and adopted their constitutions delegated certain powers to their legislatures and to their executives. Then they set up their judiciary to see to it that both their legislative and executive departments should keep faith and should not transgress the limits set by the people.

When a society organizes itself to do business, about the first thing it does is to prescribe the qualifications of its voting mem­ possess. bers, and it is the usual procedure for an organization in the process of formation to prescribe in its constitution that the voting membership shall not be extended or restricted except by a vote of the members of the society. And so the regulation of the franchise in the States, and I think I can say in every State, when they _ were organizing their governments, was left to the voting members; in other words, the people of those States.

Acting upon that theory and in accordance with that principle, which I believe lies at the bottom of a truly democratic government, several of the States have voted from time to time by popular referendum and have decided to extend the franchise to the women. Many other States have voted in popular referendums and have decided against the extension of the franchise. Even though one might be opposed on general principles to the extension of tlle franchise to women, one can not logically object to the people of a great Commonwealth voting upon that question, settling it for themselves, and if they settle it in the affirmative with respect to woman suffrage one can not then logically object, even though one may have voted against it as a citizen of the State. Nor can I see how one can logically object to the application of the principle, even though in its application the people, voting freely and openly, decide that they shall not extend the franchise in this way.

Something has been said in the debate which has thus far taken place upon this amendment as to the popular demand in favor of it all over the country. Some criticism has been uttered by one or more of its advocates against Senators who are oppos· ing it and who have. consistently opposed it in times past. An examination of the record of the different States which have voted upon this question does not, I venture to say, indicate that there is any overwhelming popular · demand thus far evidenced in the elections.

If my computation is correct, there are at least 30 States of the Union which have either refrained from voting on the question at all or have voted upon it and rejected it. In the States which have voted upon it, if a computation is made of the majorities tn favor of the proposition and the majorities opposed to the proposition, we find that the aggregate majorities opposed to the proposition is about 1,300,000 votes, whereas the aggregate majority in favor of the proposition in these referendums amounts to " 254,000. So from the standpoint of popular demand it would not seem that the Senate or the Congress should feel itself driven to adopt an amendment to the Constitution which revolutionizes the rule and practice of the American people in regulating the franchise. . Mr. President, it may seem somewhat old-fashioned for a Senator to express his reverence for the Constitution of the United States, his reverence and his devotion not only to its letter but to its spirit . When one views modern tendencies and the influences that are at work in this country to-day, one is tempted to suggest that now is an appropriate time to rededi ­ cate and reconsecrate ourselves to a proper understanding of the letter and the spirit of our Constitution and to a better understanding of its meaning. The tendencies of the day, without any question, are traveling fast along the road which, if followed to its ultimate goal, will mean its destruction ol.· its altei:a­ tion to such a degree in spirit, if not in letter, that it .will be scarcely recognizable . It is now proposed in this amendment, as a part of this tendency which has been so evident in recent years, to take away from the people some of that sense of ~e­ sponsibility the exercise of which is the only safeguard for ~he intelligent conduct of a democracy and to assume that responsibility .at the seat of government.

The central Government is remote, comparatively, and eventually, if this tendency continues, that responsibility will be borne in such a way that the individual citizen will not be able to understand what is going on in the maze and confusion of a great centralized Government. - I assume that a Senator, when di cussing this matter, should endeavor to remember that he is a Senator of the United States and not confined in his functions to representing merely the State, and only the State, that sends him to Congress. I assume that it is the function of a · Senator to take into consideration the Nation as a whole, to have some concern and to give some consideration to the condition of public contentment and the wishes of the people as a whole.

It is very true, of course, that a Senator elected from a State should exert every influence and power that he can wield to protect his State from injury by Federal legislation, if in his judgment the legislation proposed is unjust and discriminatory against the people of his State. That question does not arise in the discussion or consideration of this amendment, for no Senator who may desire to vote against this amendment is depriving the people of his State of anything which they already If the people of his State have already voted to extend this franchise, no vote of his, no vote of mine, can take it away; but a vote in favor of this proposal does in several instances impose upon the people of certain States things which they have said they do not want. When that side of the question is presented it seems to me that it is incumbent upon a Senator to regard the Nation as a whole and to give his consideration to the wishes of the people of the States that have expressed themselves freely upon the question at issue.

Mr. President, the conduct of government of a great Commonwealth is of concern to us all, for it is from the governments of the Commonwealths and their constituent parts that this Federal Government derives its inspiration, and which, as the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoraH] said yesterday, provide our schools of political education.

Let us take the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an example. The people of Massachusetts in their own way. in conformance with their constitution, in the exercise of their undoubted right and privilege, held a referendum on the question of suffrage, and the proposal to extend the franchise to the women of the State of Massachusetts was defeated. It was defeated in every city of the State, in every county of the State, and in every town of the State, and bad three votes in the aggregate been changed it would have been defeated in every ward. The people of the State of Maine, by a vote of nearly two to one, defeated woman suffrage; the people of the State of New Jer s ey, in spite of the interposition of the President of the United States, who is a resident of the State, defeat e d it by 50,000 majority; the people of Pennsylvania defeated it by a similar majority; the people of West Virginia defeated it in a popular referendum in the approximate proportion of three to one; the people of Ohio have three times defeated it within six years, the last defeat being registered only last year, if my memory is correct, and the last majority against it was over 140,000 votes. The people of Iowa have defeated it; ~he people of Louisiana have defeated it; and only the other day the people of Texas defeated it. The people of Wisconsin have defeated it, as was referred to yesterday, and there may be some other States which have defeated it which I do not at this moment recall.

Now, the question is, were the people of Massachusetts, the people of Pennsylvania, and the people of Ohio competent to settle that question for themselves or not? There is nothing to prevent them under their form of government from securing the franchise of women if they want it.

There is no tremendous emergency facing the country, no revolution or rebellion threatened which would seem to make it necessa r y to impose upon the people of these States which have given their verdict upon it something which they have said, as free citizens, they do not require or desire. Is it unreasonable to ask that they be permitted to continue to govern · their own affairs in this respect? Is it contrary to the spirit of Ameri c an institutions that they shall be left free to decide these thi n g s for themselves?

Other States besides those I have named have voted to extend the franchise. The State of Michigan did it but a few months ago; the State of South Dakota did it but a ' few months ago. No man can logically complain against a system which permits such a practice.

Mr. REED. Mr. President--

Mr. WADSWORTH. I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. REED. I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but he has named a number of States where in the not remote past a direct vote has been taken and the people have repudiated this proposition. I wish he would include in that list the State of Missouri, which in 1914 repudiated the proposition by 140,000 votes. I merely want Missouri included.

Mr. WADSWORTH. I stated at the time that my recollection w _ as imperfect and that there might be other States besides the ones I mentioned which had repudiated the proposition; and I now remember, of course, that the State of Missouri is in that category.

Now, without discussing the merits of woman suffrage as such, the question is simply this: Why is it that this power, resting in the people of this country in their several States, ls to be taken a way from them and lodged elsewhere? What is the reason? Is the principle faulty? Is it undemocratic? Is it un-American? Does it fail to satisfy the people themselves? I think not. No such contention has thus far been made.

Let us speak frankly. The advocates of this movement-and I do not criticize them for exercising whatever power or influence they may bring to bear or for resorting to whatever device they may find ready at their hand to bring about their purposethe advocates of this proposal for the extension of the franchise all over the United States through a Federal amendment believe that that is the easiest way for them to achieve their purpose. To them it has become a purely practical question. Regard for the spirit of our institutions does not enter into their discussions. The Constitution of the United States means nothing more to them than that it shall be used as a vehicle to achieve a set purpose; and, being intent upon the purpose, they pick up the instrument and use it. They do not want referendums. They have said so in many of their public utterances.

I am not reflecting upon their intelligence when I describe their reasons. As a matter of fact, I rather admire their skill and resourcefulness in carrying this movement up to this point. They were skillful, and have been skillful, in using the mechanics of the situation, but they have not gone to the people of the country. They have believed-and I think most men in their honest second judgment will agree-that it is easier to persuade a legislature to ratify a proposal of this sort than it is to get the people of a State to do the same thing in a popular referendum. It can be done more quickly and with less expense in the rna tter of propaganda, and, as was said here yesterday on the floor, the members of legislative bodies-and I do not e:xcept the Congress of the United States-are peculiarly susceptible to pressure, to insistent and persistent agitation and propaganda . .

There have been in s tances in this very matter of the extension of the franchise which illustrate that very thing. The people of Ohio on two separate occasions voted down the propo s al for the extension of the franchise to women. The year following the second defeat by the people of Ohio the legislature of that State, in the face of the mandate of the people, promptly pas s ed a st a tu t e to extend the presidential franchise to womenan exact illustration of how much easier it is to persuade or cajole a l e gislature to do something that the people have refused to do. It became necessary for the people of Ohio to repeal th a t act of the le g isla t ure wi t hin a few months after it had souls. be e n put upon the s ta t ute books, and they repealed itby popular vo t e. -

1\ly cont e ntion has always been with respect to amendments to t he Federal Constitution that if an amendment be placed in the Constitution it should command the reverence and devotion of all the people of the country. . The discussion here upon the floor ye s t e rday makes it perfectly apparent that in part at least, in a cer t ain section of this country, this proposed amendment will be a dead letter. No pretense is made that it will be lived up to in spirit, and it is the spirit of our Constitution which we, it seems to me, should have some reverence for at this hour.

I have discussed this matter with people from different portions of tile country, and I have been surprised upon occasion to note the frivolous and casual way in which · so many people discuss the Constitution of the United States and what it means, and to hear the suggestion made, " Oh, well, you mus t not take it so seriously as all that; things can be arranged here and there in such a way that it will not be strictly enforced." That is a spirit which is abroad in the United States to-day. That same spirit has been made manifest in the recent discussion of the last amendment to the Constitution which was ratified last winter. To-day there are thousands of people all over the United States who are attempting to contrive ways and means by which the prohibition amendment to the Constitution can be evaded, showing an utter lack of regard for the instru· ment itself, showing an utter failure to understand that if that instrument is not held sacred by the people of this country, then there is no use of our endeavoring to continue our experiment in self-government.

Unlike the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH], I voted against the prohibition amendment to the Constitution, because I believed that such a proposal had no place in the Constitution, and, second, because I believed that the people in great and important communities of this country were competent to decide that matter for themselves; and I feared the very thing that · is making itself so apparent to-day-a settled determination upon the part o! hundreds o! thousands of people living in those communities which were not consulted, to evade it, to urge some act of Congress or State legislature under that peculiar provision for concurrent jurisdiction, which in part at least would make a laughing stock of that particular amendment to the Constitution. The danger is, if we go on in this way and deprive the people of important communities of their right to · decide these questions which they are competent to decide, which in dozens o! instances they have decided to their own satisfaCtion. that a contempt for the Constitution of the United States will gradually and inevitably spread all over this country. It will be regarded by hundreds o! thousands of people as merely :1 vehicle for the exercise o! a will to power upon the part of some group of people who desire to impose their ideas upon another group of people.

Mr. President, I can not blind myself to the fact that this is . the tendency of the day; I do not blind myself to the fact that slowly, but surely, not so much by constitutional amendment perhaps, although this is a glaring instance of it, but by statut e s passed by the Congress and by statutes passed by the State legislatures, we are whittling away the sense of responsibility of the individual citizen. We are teaching more people every year that the Government owes them a living; we are teaching more people every year that the Government should and can do things which they as individual citizens can do for themselves; we are urging t . he "easiest way." Scarcely a year goes by but what that tendency becomes more marked, and when we whittle away that sense . of responsibility which should live in the breast of the individual citizen and teach him that the Government at Washington, remote as it is and rapidly becoming top-heavy with a bureaucracy, the intricacies of which I challenge any Senator to understand to-day, when we teach him that the Government at Washington, with its so - called bott o m­ less Treasury, can take over, and should take over, all of th e se functions and duties and that the people of the communities of this country need not be expected to do those things for themselves, that they shall not even be expected to decide as to who shall vote for sheriff or district attorney or county judge, then I say that step by step we are building in this country a paternalistic system such as was the curse of Germany. There was a people, as we all know to-day, 70,000,000 of them, who were educated, one might say, almost from the cradle by the teachers in the schools, educated by the profes s ors in the universities, educated by all their public men, at th e in s piration of the autocracy that topped that Governm e nt, edu c at e d, drilled, coached, guided out of all sense of individu a l re spo n s ibility until they reached the condition where they lo s t their v e ry I' frankly confess, Mr. President , that I fear this tendency in the United States. I do not want to se e it go any further. I know, of course, that there are some thin g s ha t t only a gov ­ ernment can do. I know, of course, , that every man and every woman who calls himself or herself human wants the burd e n of the overladen. members of society ligh t en e d; an d if me mb ers of society as individuals, or as volunt ee rs organized in a r e a­ sonable way, can not perform that function th e n it i s the duty of government, the protector of society, to perform it. But it seems to me that we might well call a halt. It is not that any one of the statutes or amendments to the Constitution which are proposed is fatal. It is the fact that we pile one upon another, year after year. Some say, "Let us enact the second one because we have enacted the first, and · the two proceed along parallel lines, and therefore the sec.ond, th third, t'he fourth, the fifth, and the sixth are justifiable . " But tlle trouble is. 1\lr. President, that as we proceed in taking R\>ay the sense of responsibility from the people . in their communities year after tion. year and decade after decade w do -not proceed along :parallel :lines. ' The lines .of t110se pieces of legislation slowly con\el'<:>e, and when they reach the · point of conTergence the citizen will have become the · servant and dependent of · government instead of being its master; and it is exactly along one of tho e COll­ · Verging lines that this amendment of the Constitution is pro-. ceeding. The people of some ' 3 States, if this constitutional amendment i ratified, cease being the master of their government in so far as th franchise ... is concerned. And that, according to my way of thinking, is contrary to the spirit of our institutions.

l\fr. SPENCER. l\1r. President, the hl ~ torl e al r ferenc which my di ti:ngui hed colleague .[l-1r. ittrnn1 :made Ito the action of Missouri tis :i:J"'Ue. It was some re:n· · old. Perl1aps it might be fair to add that the \ote .of IDs ouri ' taken . ome -yrun.·"' ago 1s l1ardly · a fair mdieati<Jn of to-day, beeause .in th 1eg:islature just . adjourned both house were in a-c or<l 'With tile ~rant­ Tho ing of suffrage to women in 1i' ouri. [Mnn:ifestation of p­ plau.-e in the galleri~.]

Mt·. REED. Mr. Presl<lent, the statement whieh tbe . , nator :fJ.•om fissourl [1\-lr. : SPE"-cEit] ha made a c-orrect~ n.nc.l it e~­ ac-tly 1Uustrates tbe vice to whicl1 I :all-uded and to which 'the Senator from ~ w ~ork [1\ir. WAD wonTH] lul· o tfittlugly alldres ed 1limse1f .

~he last time the people 00: the Stat~ o'f Mis. onrl ' hnd - an oppor'tl.Hlity to ~ote on tthis question w.n:s in i914.. ' TJu~y def.eated su1Irage by · OTer il4G,OOO 'llUljo:rity. Since tkc1t trme tlli>y :haT elected 1egislatu1' without ;f.tlly re.gn;rd to til suffl11~e .qTI1 tion . ! It : n:eveT .ha · been made a:n · ue to tlte iPCOple. The Jast legiSlature of 1\J"J£; oati, in .ffisregar<l of the l:i mandate , of the peeple :of Mis~ oru.·i ana <in defiance · .of it, l\:tS · d a statute :authoi · izing votes il:>J· ''Omen at pre idential leetwns. That e-'C­ actJy pro-ves til case. It ' demonstrates tt at le.gisl: : rtt.Tre · • et~:n 'be handleu whcu the people cru1 not be. It w · ib •cause 16f tll notoriou incompetency .of . legislatures, Mil becau. e .of tlle · fact that :th y · could be 1I'eaC:hed !by mfinence anu often by slni ·tet• meru1s, 'tlmt the people tOOk frorn legislntnres fu-e right ito -elect Unitt'd · states · BenatorR and · oeelRI•ed that the 'People 111one shoultl exercise that high Tight. It i becnus of the fact that legislati-ve bodies veTy frequently do not T~Tesf'".nt the sen e of the :people, t11a t they m·e · 'ery o'ften -eompo ro.f men g1 · ossly incompetent, That ;pro.t st 'is llO'iV being made against taldng away r: fr()m the <people of th State of l\lis~O'lU'i h right of f;ettJiElg this . question for themselves.

ince my distinguished colleague lla seen 'fit to challenge Now:, when a me to this · question, l want to ask irhn if he is willing 'by bis vote to deprive the people ' Of the State ~ 1\fi ouri ef a : rtgllt to themselves fix the qualifications n.f the voters within rtbe State which they expref:: ly reserved to themselves in their eonstitution-to take that power from the people :of the State Missouri and confer 1t upon · a legislature · ?

1\Ir . · s~IITH of South Carolina. Mr . President, as -other have said before me, nothing that 1 can · say, perhaps, can change a vote ; but in view of the pending -amendment .and the vital issues that a . are now a1 stake, 1 should be derelict to duty l:f 1 did 11ot enter my prote t against the pa sage of this amendment, which to all intents and purposes .is exactly similar to one that has already been passed, the result of ~vJll.ch is 1l.ll illustration o f the point that has been made so splendidly by the Senator f r om Id.'ll1o [l\fT. BonAII] and emphasized this morning by the Senator from New York [Mr. W .ADSWOBTH].

In our dual form of . government the principle of it duality is the -one that makes it poa ible .for every :part of this vast domain of 011rs to progress ns conditions justify. ' Were we a homogene ous people, were the loca'l conditions, both social, commercial, and industrial, the same, it might be less destructive of the spirit of democracy for us to take the principle that underlies democracy and emasculate it as this 'Will. emasculate it. But when the conditions are so divergent, when local conditions throughout the United States are so · different, the splendid principle incorporated into tlle Constitution finds its sanction.

I referred a moment ago to another amendment, incorporating exactly the arne principle as this, that was made into · Our organic law . The fifteenth amendment-but who does not know and realize that the .fifteenth amendment, when it ~·as J)assed, was pas ed in a moment of 'heat, passion, sectional strife, and bitterne s? There is not a man in America to-day capable of exercising the function of citizenship but that recognizes that that amendment, pas ed when antl how it was pas eu, jeopardized the civilization that you aml I T present in a section · of our country. The alien population amongst us · was not like it was in other States. Even if the franchise had been granted :to them in other States, their fewness of number made it possible for those .States to absorb them · without danger to their civillz!f. But unlimited franchise in certain -other States would have -deluged and destroyed with a horde of ignorance and incompetency · the civilization that it . had taken all of the e years to bnilcl TII> and perfect. It placed a burden upon those States that has eclipsed every other, and that has been the .main cause of the retardation of the progress of the South. It has can etl that section, in every line of endeavor . an(} in every line of work, to be retarded, becau e unless there was a · united front to this menace the absolute submergence and de · truction of our . social ~u -political edifice was threatened. o · t1u1 t tbe work of the South for years has been not · one <>f the unified attention of the :people to constructiv-e work b.11t one .of unified operati n to . avoid the great-er {lang · .

No~v, I want to appeal to ·ome of my southern · eolleagu . · we contended tlwt ~ the pa age of t'he .fifteenth amen(lment wa · a crime agrun t the civilization of the white men -of America. on tl1e ot11er ·ld , when sanity reas umed it <lommi:on ~er the :minus .of men, recognizeil that fact. We vus1ed otu ­ sel-res with the pa age of such laws as would minil:nb: the <('!i!;lastrous effect of unlimited suffrage t-o the Negro in the outh . Be iit s:ti<l t<> the honor · of those who wer.e in position to enforee it 'tlta t, recognizing the en'ls ~at :-.·ou1<1 gro\ out of the rmlimite<l franchise ~ ir.Ovided in t11e fift-eenth mnendment, th y aeqni-e ~ ed 1n lence to ucll 'laws as we pa ed to minimiz :its .e l'i l e ffects; and be. it sa1d to their honor that they did b - cause they recognized, as we recognize . an<l a · fhe · worlt11'ecog ­ nizes. that loeru e{)nditlons there have · to b mci · bv such 'laws .and uch acts as wm protect an<:l pre. ·en·e the ctvtl1zntion that ChaTacte:r. · ~s t'he wllite man.

' 'I'hat was ~OUl' reason, founded a.s it vas h1 ju ti :mltl Jn rightco11sness. Tho e men fr·on1 the ontll wlw -ar ·ltt..ing here to-d-ay, wl)O are goietl' to vote for the ~·ntifieati{)u · of :fui · 'R:mendment o1· .-ate to snbmit thl a:menclm nt ito the -peopl<', · by that <r=ote il'ati'fy and cou:firrn the fifteenth nmemlm nt, 1:> eau ii mai11taln to-<l:l:y that ther j no ilifferenc w . hat Yer i> eu . the nfteent:h HIDelllllll€'11t and the ' }WOposed 'usan B . Anfllony amendment. · ~r~I<e , Susan B . Anthony amendment is th fttte nth . amendment W · ltih ibe tins("rtion 6f · one ward nl.on~, unmely:

The Tight .o! a citizeu o! the Unitea tat.E-s to vote sllall not u tl1'11ietl <Or abridge-d by the -pnite<l 'tatcs o-r vy any ~tate n aecomrt of aer, color, previou cond1tlon or erdtutle, or sex.

Those of us from tll . e · outh, -n·bere tlle p . r p<mderance or tll.B :reg:ro vot jeopar . <Iizecl · Olli' Civilization, have maintained that the iifteenth amendment was a crime a.gain t our cinlization. ~uthern man -votes for the usnn B. !Ult.J.toBy amendmeot he Totes to enfranchi e tbe otb r half · of that Tace, and Tntifies, not in a moment of heat .a.nd I!Xl ion, what we il~Ye :Claimed \vns a crime, lmt in .a moment of profound ca1mne anu sec-tional .amity lle Yotes :to ratify the .fifteenth runenclment and give the lie to .every protestation that we heretofore hav made that the · eufranchisement · of the Negro men, unlimited, was a crlme -against white civilization. 'Vhen Senators and other, of the N<>rth, Ea t,:and We t vlewed conditions calmly the fifteenth amendment did · become a deau letter, anu infJnitely bettet· that it shoula become a dead letter tha-n that the eiTilization ef the South shonl<l be destroyed and in its de~tructio:n jeopardize the clvili7.ation of America.

Here is e:xactly the identical same amendment .applied to the .other half o'f the Negro race . The southern man ~-110 votes for the Susan B . Anthony amendment votes to ratify the fifteenth amendment. Senators on the other side have acquiesced in silence when .in desperation we passed such ~"t"W"S a. would nullify the disastrous effect of the fifteenth amendment. South- ­ un Senators voting for this amendment puts them without ex ­ cuse to still further withhold their hands.

I can understand how a man from the 'Vest or a man from the East, viewing it strictly from his own local impre ion, might get the idea that we ought to extend it to all, but tbo ·e · of us from the South who have seen the evil effect upon om· section o f country from this menace-worse than poverty, worse than . retarded commercial and industrial growth-those of us who have seen the very sanctity of the fireside and the sacredness of womanhood jeopardized, can not vote for this amendment with­ · out once again making possible all these evils that we have for weary years combated and overcome . How southern Senators ean vote to turn loo e upon the Sontll an<~th r era simil-ar to that through which \Ye lla\'e passed I can not understtrnd.

Not only that, Mr. President, but I ltaYe heard it tlipJ)autly remarked by those who propo e to vote for this amendment, " You found a way to keep the ” ~egm l11fl11 from Yotin~ :mel y011 will fino :t ,,·ny to ke p the umYoi·thy _ ·C'gro \\ ' OIIlflll fr01:1 Yoting" ~· We found the way because of · the recognition on the - part of our colleagues on the other side that it was their blunder, perhaps, that had deluged the South ' or made it possible for the South to be deluged by an alien and unfit race.

We had their moral support in maintaining the civilization of the white man of the South. Can we appeal to them after to-day if southern men vote to ratify the fifteenth amendment? When the clamor comes to you now from that race, that they demand that they shall be recognized, what excuse will you have when southern men vote to ratify it? You of the other sections have said, and said rightly, that in spite of the fifteenth amendment, let the South work out its own salvation and we will give our brethren of the white race our support. Now, if your brethren of the white race of the South vote for an amendment which ratifies the previous amendment, what support can we hope from these other sections? I warn every man here to-day that when the test comes, as it will come, when the clamor for Negro rights shall have come, that you Senators of the South voting for it have started it here this tlay for reasons it is not necessary for me to try to state.

The other features of this proposed infraction and destruction of the Constitution of the United States have been given ably; No man would attempt to gainsay or deny that democracy means the vote of the people under the sensible restrictions that the people themselves in their local statutes see fit to impose. The very conditions that might arise in the State of Utah might make it impossible for Utah to rise and progress with a certain condition of franchise enforced upon her by Washington. Left alone to adjust her own internal affairs through her franchise, she might rise to a point where , it would be perfectly proper for that franchise to be extended. The splendid principle of our dual form of government was never against. better illustrated than in the condition of the South and the condition of the East and the West.

I say, when we have - taken from the several States the right to modify, qualify, and determine their franchise, the sovereignty of the State in every other particular has ceased to be; we shall all be living in a centralized Government; there will be nothing else left.

Local self-government presupposes the right to meet local conditions by peculiar local franchise law. If there were no other remedies, there might be an argument for us , to come to the Federal Government to extend this franchise; but where each State has the right to extend the franchise in whatever manner it deems best, for my State to come and ask that Massachusetts, Montana, and California shall take charge of the affairs in my State, because the voters in my State are incompetent to determine what is best for them, is to make a statement that is proof that democracy has passed.

Mr. President, I a.m not going to take up the time of the Senate any further on this question. All the legal phases of it, and all the democratic phases of it, have been discussed; but I felt that I would not do my duty if I did not warn -southern Democrats-southern white men-that this day they solemnly ratify what they have for the last 50 years denounced as the crime of the century. We protested against the act that incorporated into our organic law the right of an alien and _ ignorant race to be turned loose upon us, and it numerically in the majority. When you vote for this amendment to-day, you vote to ratify it, and say to those who enacted that amendment that they did not make a mistake but that you are now ratifying it.

Let me repeat, the Susan B. Anthony amendment provides that the franchise shall not be denied on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, or sex, and if it was a crime to pass the fifteenth amendment, why is it right to pass this amendment? If it was a crime to enfranchise the male half of that race, why is it not a crime to enfranchise the other half? You have put yourselves in the category of standing for both amendments, and when the time comes, as it will come, when you are to meet the result of this act, you can not charge that it was a crime to pass the fifteenth amendment.

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. - Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. I yield.

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. I have been listening to the very positive statement made by the Senator from South Carolina, and I have felt like not making any interruption, even for the purpose of asking a question. However, 1 have finally concluded that unless something be said at this juncture it will go to the people of the State of South Carolina and other Southern States that the remarks just made by the Senator from South Carolina have been universally accepted here in the Senate.

I do not · want to provoke any discussion of the subject, but I do want at this time to protest most earnestly against the construction which the Senator from South Carolina has placed upon this proposed constitutional amendment. If I am able t¢ read the English language, the amendment does absolutely nothing more than to prevent discrimination in the franchise on account of sex. · I think it requires an extreme imagination for one to draw any inference or to fabricate any argument to the effect that the passage of the amendment is a reaffirmation or readoption of the fifteenth amendm e nt.

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. Does it not extend suffrage to female Negroes?

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. T h at is true; but the Senator knows that the fifteenth amendment was directed to a class of people only, and this amendment is intended to liberate the women of the entire country, the millions of white women of the country. It is to operate upon them and is not confined to the black women of the South.

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. But it includes them.

1\fr. JONES of New Mexico. Yes; it includes them.

1\Ir. SMITH of South Carolina. Certainly. I said it did not differ from the other. You went specifically after the Negro men in the fifteenth amendment. Now you go specifically after the Negro and white women in this amendment. By thus adding the word "sex" to the fifteenth amendment you have just amended it to liberate them all, when it was perfectly competent for the legislatures of the several States to so frame their laws as to preserve our civilization without entangling legislation involving the women of the black race. You simply have amended the fifteenth amendment by adding the Negro women. When we could hav-e had all the white women vote by State action, you want to add the Negro women by Federal action. That is what you have done, and that is what I am prote s ting

Mr. JONES of New Mexico. · That, I take it, is the Senator's construction, and, of course, I do not expect to convince him , but I want the statement to go into the RECORD that in my judgment this amendment is entitled to no such interpretation.

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. There is no use to quibble about what is the language of the amendment. When it says that there shall be no restriction of the suffrage on account of sex, it means the female sex, and means the millions upon millions o! Negro women in the South. .

Mr. DIAL. 1\fr. President, may I ask my colleague if it is not true that the legislature of our State meets every year?

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. Certainly.

Mr. DIAL. Is it not also true that at the last session of the legislature no request was made to submit this question ot woman suffrage to a vote of the people o! the State!

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. That is true.

Mr. President, ! · sincerely hope that the Senators representing the South and the splendid advocates of our dual form of Gov• ernment representing other States on the other side can see their way clear to vote• for the Underwood amendment and let thi!l matter be submitted to the people. If South Carolina, the State that I in part represent, shall be given the privilege of calling a convention to elect delegates for that convention specifically charged with the purpose of deciding this question there will be no mistake made. It will be put squarely before the people o1 the State of South Carolina. I really have no fear of what my legislature would do. I know the women of my State pretty well, and I a.m quite sure that if they had wan t ed suffrage, with all the dangers and evils that it would entail, they would have said so. But they have resolutely refused to be stampeded by a few hysterical propagandists or propagooses, I do not know which is the proper term. They have refused to be stampeded, and a vast majority of our women are opposed to opening this Pandora's box of evils and threatening once again the civilization of that State and other States with similar conditions.

I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that tho s e of t he South who for some reason or other have committed themselves to this destructive proposition will at least have the grace, in the moment of our passage into the unknown, to vote for the am e ndment pro· posed by the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. Mr. President, I shall be very bri e f in the statement that I make to the Senate upon this question. 1 heard quite a large portion of the speech made by the S e nator from Idaho [Mr. BoRAH] yesterday. I was th e n called f rom the floor on business, and I did not hear the lat te r part. I see that it is withheld from publication in the RECORD , so that I am unable to read it, - but, so far as I h e ard it, I entir e ly agree with his views upon this - matter.

The Senator from Idaho comes from a Stat e that has for years had woman suffrage. I come from a S t ate which has never had it. The legislature of my State has ju s t declined to submit to the people of the State a constitutional amendment providing for it in that State. There is no way of ascertaining, so far as I have been informed, what th e t-: t•ntim 0 nt of the voters of - my State i upon that question other than the individual opinions that people may entertain upon the · question. From information that I have received-and I think I have been ~n pretty close touch with the sentiment of the State-! believe ' that a vast majority of the present voters of the State who are men are opposed to woman suffrage in the State of Connecticut. I believe that a vast majority of the women of the State are opposed to woman Suffrage in the St.ate of Connecticut. I am absolutely certain that a vast majority of both the women and the men of Connecticut are opposed to Congress and three-quarters of tlie · other States of the Union telling them what the qualifications of the electors of the State of Connecticut shall be.

However that may be--and that, of course, I admit is a question of opinion about which I have stated mine, find others are welcome to theirs-! am opposed to putting in the Constitution of the United States a provision which will force the ideas . of Congress and three-quarters of the States, if three-quarters of the States concu..: with the ideas of Congress, upon that State and their ideas of what the qualifications of the electors of the other quarter of the States shall be. I believe that this country has become prosperous and great and strong by the exercise of home rule and the people of the different localities in this country minding their own business . and, by minding it, developing a capacity to manage it. I may be wrong about that. It may be that the various localities of this country should transfer all the powers which the States which formed this Union reserved to themselves to the Federal Government here in Washington, but it is contrary to the biological and physiological laws of the world that we will get stronger by abandoning the exercise of these functions than we would be by exercising them. It contradicts the laws of history n:nd e~peJ;ience.

1\!r. President, in my judgment the framers of the Constitution designed that instrument to be the broad charter of our liberties and the · definition of our form of government. They never _ expected the use of the process of amending the Constitution to be prostituted to putting a lot of police regulations, ordinances, and laws _ into the Constitution of the United States. They left th.e police power and the rules which should govern the inhabitants of this country in their respective subdivisions in the hands of the people who were to be affected by those rules. They wisely thought that the people in a country differing in climate, population, habit~. and historical traditions could better administer their own affairs in the :fft.r-removed sections of the country ill accordance with their local traditions and ideas than they could be administered by th~ - fiat of a body sitting ill the city of Washington. They - wisely thought that the Senator from South Carolina and his colleague were better adapted to say what was for the best interests of the · people who - elec~ed them, and to whom they are responsible, than the Senator from Connecticut or the Senator from New York, and vice versa. r think the Senators from South Carolina 'will agree that th~ · Senator from New York and myself from my State are better qualified to state to this body what sort of laws are best adapted for our section of the country than the Senators from South Carolina would be. If that were not so, there would be no sense in having Senators · of the United States required to be residents of the States which they pretend to represent here.

Now, 1\!r. President, we have come upon this situation in this country: Our southern brethren suddenly, owing largely to a local condition, go crazy about :prohibition, largely because they do not want the Negroes in their States to indulge in alcoholic drinks. Not satisfied with passing their own laws upon that subject, they come here and vote to jam a prohibition amendment into the Constitution of the United States and make other States-- _

Mr. KIRBY. Mr. President——

Th~ PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PoiNDEXTER in the chair). Does the Senator from Connecticut yield tp the Senator from Arkansas! .

Mr. BRANDEGEE. Yes; ; I yield.

Mr. KIRBY. Does the Sena,tor from Connecticut regard the adoption of the prohibition amendment by 45 States as conclusive evidence that it is a local and southern proposition!

Mr. BRANDEGEE . . I regard it as a violation of the principle about which I am talking, and I say that you Senators voted to perpetrate that which I regard as an outrage upon the States that do not want it. It does not make any - difference whether 45 or 47 States wanted it. The great Empire State of New York, with about 10,000,000 people, does not want it; it never liad a chance to say so; but because your States want it and certain other States want it for their States, you think that you ought, in the Constitution of the United States, the fundamental law of the land, to force your views upon the Empire State of New York without its consent, except by the consent of the legislature, which is managed by the prohibition lobby.

You may think that L~ democracy. I do not. I think it is _ tyranny. I think it is tyranny, becau e I do not think that class of subjects was ever designed by the framers of the Constitution t0 be put into the . Constitution of the United States. . I think they regarded them as rules and local law to govern the people in their respective localities as they wanted to be governed. Having established that principle, however, you find it rather difficult to refuse to put this woman suffrage amendment into the Constitution of the United States, and because - se certain States have adopted woman suffrage and desire it yuu it is your duty to imp-ose your notions upon ti~at question upon States which do not desire it and to which it is not adapted, provided you can get three-fourths of the States to concur.

1\fi.·. President, if this proce s is to be continued, if the people of this country want to be governed in their local customs, to be told what they are to eat and what they are to drink and how much, and when they are to go to bed, and what language they are to use, and to be regulated in every move they make in their daily lives and in their personal habits by a con titutional amendment in the United States Constitution that can never be got out except by a two-thirds vote of each branch of Congress and then a vote of three-fourths of aU the State legislature in addition, you have made a set of police regulations of the Constitution of the United States, and, as the Senator from ' New York has wisely warned you, it is a proce s that is calculated beyond all others to drag the Constitution of the United States into the - mire and to destroy all respect for it, because you can not enforce a law or even a constitutional amendment against people who do not believe in it.