June 4, 1919

It the ' arguments against this proce s will not prevail in the case of two such shining abuses of the exercise of this power, simply because you have the power, as are furnished by this woman suffrage amendment and by the prohibition amendment, they will not prevail in other cases where the clamor is sufficiently strong to intimidate people to violate their traditional policies and the historical traditions of their party.

Mr. President, the last expression in national convention of both the Republican and Democratic Parties was opposed to this constitutional amendment. Both political parties ueclar d in solemn national convention, after due consideration, that it was a matter that ought to be left to the several States; while they approved the principle of woman su.ffrage, they said, if it came, it ought to come through the action of th States. TlHS President of the United State was the first one to say o, but, of course, like every other is ue with which he deal • he says the other way, too; and there has not been a single is ue of importance before the country, and there · will not be during his administration, upon which he would not with equal facility and sincerity _ take either or both sides. lfow, having resided for the last six months jn a foreign country, he cnbles to his subservient idolator s here how they shall Tot on this constitutional amendment, and · they will "come to hee-l" with due humility, I have no doubt. ·

Mr. President, if this proces · goes on of governing this country by constitutional amendment on questions that are not at all of constitutional size or of constitutional quality, I for one say that if the people are to be governed by constitutiollill amendment in their daily habits and life then it becomes n necessary that the people themselves should be consulted about what shall be the constitutional amendments to which they are to bend the knee and have the yoke adjusted to them. · Is there anything unfair or unreasonable about that? 'Ve know perfectly well that after Congress by a two-thirds majority ' of both branches has . submitted a proposed amendment to the legislatures · of the States that, although it has been extorted from Congress on tile theory that we need not CO.lll.ID.it ourselves to it, but simply not ob truct it and pass it along to the legislatures for their action, that immediately we have taken them at their word and dignified ourselves into the bonomble function of being a funnel, and funneling thing through without responsibility on to the various legislatures of the States which are of so much superior ability and knowledge to us, and then they immediately turn around and say, "~ “Congress, , by a two - thirds majority , , has set the seal of its approval on this and demands that we act. and is any one State legi lature to set its judgment up above that of the great United States Senate a.nd House · of Repre entath·es! " · Then they use us as the argument in favor of the very thing that we were doubtful about. _

It is not a pleasant thing to contemplate that a Senator of the United States, having walked up to that desk before that starry b~\DJ!er, :Mr. President, which, thank God, till waves and parkles back of your chair, and holds up his right hand and takes a solemn oath to support and sustain the Constitution ' of the United States without equiYoca.tion or mental re erva.tion, that the minute an embarrassing . sing question i · pre ented to him he runs like n dog a way froni if and says, " I do riot know RllY· t() thing about it ' ; but there is a cry in my district that I shall not it stand in the way of it; and while I do not believe in it; while r regret it, still it is coming anyway; I do not want to have any· body say that I did not vote for it, and therefore I will sluice it this along on to somebody else."

The Senate of the United States ' was not always composed of are men of that backbone and caliber and virility. In the days of do Calhoun and Webster and Clay, Sen a tors of the United States this were not too proud to think nor t o o cowardly to stand for their do convictions, Mr. President; and there are a few left here to-day, can I think, who, mistaken and old-fashioned as they may be, are the actuated by the same motives which moved those gentlemen, and sit in the same Chamber, breathe the same air, and have try been nurtured upon the same doctrine.

So if we are going on with this sort of thing, putting all not kinds of police regulations and ordinances into the Constitution the of the United States, for God's sake let us amend the Constitu­ and tion of the United States so that we can submit to the electors of pre. the States the amendments which we propose to the Constitution. I Then we · will not have so many propositions for constitutional into amendments; but if we do, and they are approved, the people, then, will have no cause of complaint. They haye a cause of com­ of plaint now, Mr. President, when we are prostituting the Con­ for stitution of the United States and using it as a vehicle to ac­ the complish indirectly the destruction of home rule and local self­ more goy e rnment and the exercise of the functions which have made free men in this country. When we now initiate a series of acts and constitutional amendments which deal with the things the that we men of New England have been used to dealing with in ciates our town meetings, where we carry our sovereignty under our own hats and take orders from nobody-when we put such pro­ hands visions into the Constitution at the behest of the legislatures of that our States, dominated and controlled by a clerical lobby and in oth e r kinds of lobbies. highly :financed by charitable and mffi. tak e n people all over the country, then we are going to kill the American spirit in this country unless we submit these ques­ ment tions to the people themselves.

This is a Government of the people, for the . people, and by the people, and they have a right · to say what is going into . the Con . ~a stitution of the United States. · As I said th.e other. day when I . introduced the proposed constitutional .amendment which I have pending now, I have provided that whenever Congress in the Ball future shall think it wise it may submit proposed amendments Beckham to the electors of the States as well as to the legislatures of the Calder States · or conventions to be · called therein. Although that pro­ Capper posed amendment has no relation either to the prohibition amendment or to the woman-suffrage amendment, and would not affect them, because, if adopted, it will not be adopted until Curtis after they have been acted upon, I hope that the Senate will Dial see the consistency and the logic of the position I take. If we are going to dabble in these local affairs, let us submit them to Edge Elki . ns . the people of the localities, and then we will have a contented, Fall submissive, and loyal support o;f such amendments instead of having them the cause of dissension and disunion in this France country.

There is another feature, 1\fr. President, that was called to Gay our attention by the great Senator from New York when he was a Member of this body-Senator Elihu Root-and that is this: It is easy to conceive that by the process of amending the Constitution three-quarters of the State legislatures might approve an amendment, while the other quarter of the States that are to be governed by it are opposed to it. The other IMr. quarter to be governed by it against their will may contain not t.Iie majority of the wealth and the majority of the people of am this country, and so under the boasted democracy and home pose rule and independent Government in this country you have a situation wherein the minority of the voters and the minority by of the wealth of the country are imposing their will upon the majority of the people and the majority of the · wealth; and in a minority of the people and a minority of the wealth represented under that system can control the financial policy of thi s country, levy tax e s all upon one section of the country, and arrange L'1e bills so that one section shall pay all of the tax e s practically. It can be done by scientific jugglery. I do as not say that it · will work . out in that way in every case, but much it works nearly enough that way to make it, as the then Sena­ not tor from New York suggested, the most terrifying portent port that is now in the sky against the perpetuity of the Union of American States, for one-quarter of the States of this country will not continue to be governed in that way. It was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution that they should. They were supposed to be governed by a majority of voted Congress, of course, but they were not supposed to have the process of amendment of the Constitution, which was supposed with be only amendable as to the fundamental matters of which treats-it never was supposed that that process would be resorted tO to accomplish these ulterior purposes. Now, to be brief, and in conclusion, I am simply opposed to amendment because it deprives the States of this Union of · the power to fiX the qualifications of their own electors who to vote for their own officers. I think they can do it, and it better than the Congress can do it. I am opposed to amendment because it is not demanded by my State. I not take the view that suffrage, whatever may be its merits • .

be better . determined by this Congress than it can be by local States. I believe that the great majority of' the women of this country opposed to it. When it comes, of course, I know they will exercise the franchise to the best of their ability. I do think it will make much difference politically. I suppose women will probably divide as their husbands and fathers brothers do, and they will divide upon the issues that are presented to them probably about as the men do.

have deplored from the beginning the dragging of politics this question. I have regretted the unseemly and undignified haste of political managers to get themselves in front this woman movement, to claim the credit of getting suffrage the women. I believe the women will vote as honestly as men and as intelligently as they can; perhaps they will vote . intelligently than the men do now. I do not look for additional uplifting and purity and the hastening of the millenium by their participation in politics. I think very likely better of them will soon become disgusted with their associates the polls, and the practical administration of political affairs, so far as the women are concerned, will be left in the of those who are less desirable to manage them; put is simply my opinion, and I hope I will be a false prophet that respect.

Mr. President, I have said all I care to say. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on tlie a.illendof the Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD]. Mr. WATSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Secretary will . call the +he Secretary called the roll, - "3.1ld the following Sen..'ltor s an­ :s'wered to ' their names:

Gronna McLe8.n Smoot

Hale McNary Spencer

Brandegee Harding Moses Stanley

Harris Myers Sterling

Harrison Nelson Sutherland

Chamberlain Henderson New Swanson Culberson Jones, - N. Mex. , Newberry Thomas Cummins Jones, Wash. Norris Trammell

Kellogg Nugent Underwood

Kendrick Phelan Wadsworth

Dillingham Kenyon Phipps Walsh, Mass.

Keyes Pittman . Walsh, Mont.

King Poindexter Warren

Kirby Ransdell Watson

Fernald Knox Reed Williams Fletcher La Follette Sheppard Wolcott

Lenroot Sbernuun

Frelinghuysen . ysen McCormick Smith, Ariz.

McKellar Smith, S. C.

.Mr. UNDERWOOD. I desire to announce the absence of my colleague [Mr. BANKHEAD] on account of illness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventy-three Senators have answered to their names. There is a quorum present.

Mr. THOMAS. 1\Ir. President, until the Senator from Idaho BoRAH] made his very interesting speech yesterday, it had been my purpose to take any part in this discussion ; for I as anxious as any one to reach a vote, and thus finally illsof the subject, as it undoubtedly will be disposed of on this occasion. I think, however, in view of the argument submitted the senior Senator from Idaho, which unquestionably impressed his audience as it did myself, something should be said reply to one or two of its features.

During its delivery I asked the Senator how he differentiated between his position at this time and that taken by him on the occasion of his vote upon the prohibition amendment; and his explanation, if I correctly comprehended him, was that inasmuch a number of the States had adopted prohibition, and inasas it could not be made effective so long as other States having adopted it were permitted to manufacture and im· alcoholic liquors therein, . which neutralized prohibition, it being necessary to enable the States to enforce their laws, and, in the interest of local self-government, that the constitutional amendment providing for general prohibition should be submitted to the States for ratification . or rejection, the Senator for the amendment,

I have no doubt that this reason was conclusive and controlling the Senator from Idaho; but I am unable to perceive the force of that logic which ju tifies the enactment of a prohibition amendment to the Constitution but which rejects the proposed suffrage amendment. Each of them deals with a subject which was reserved to the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Were it not so, these amendments would be unnecessary. That it is so is most obvious by reference to the general proposition that powers not expressly or by necessary implication delegated · to the Federal Government are reserved to the States, or to the people.

If the argument be a substantial one, it could be made, as I think it has been made, against every amendment _ hitherto proposed to the Constitution, whether adopted or rejected. Fundamentally, the people of th-e United States, when conforming to the machinery and the requirements of the Constitution in their action, may incorporate into the Constitution of the United States anything they please. It is a matter of judgment-a matter, if you please, of necessity-in the opinion of that majority which is required to make the fundamental change. Whether it encroaches upon the rights of the States or interferes with local self-government, or abolishes local self-government, is entirely a practical question, and, in my judgment, has nothing to do with the constitutional right and power of the people to amend their organic act as they may see fit.

Prohibition and the suffrage are both matters of local concern; and they will be matters of local concern, subject, of course, to national legislation within the purview of our powers, until constitutional amendments are not only proposed by the Senate and House of Representatives but actually ratified and enforced by a two-thirds majority of the States voting thereon. l\1r. President, when the prohibition amendment was before Congress for its consideration Congress had already solved the problem of interference by legislation-! refer, of course, to the Webb-Kenyon bill, under whose provisions the invasion by one State with its prohibited goods of another State where the prohibition was in effect had been effectually provided against; and I think that at that time the Supreme Court of the United States had sustained the constitutionality of the law. Therefore, conceding the argument of the Senator from Idaho to be perfectly sound, its application in this instance fails, because under the powers of the National Government whereby and in pursuance whereof it could make this regulation, no constitutional amendment to that end was essential. So it would be just as pertinent to offer the same objection to the consideration of that amendment as is offered to this.

I can readily understand, Mr. President, how a Senator who had cast his vote against the prohibition amendment could consistently oppose this amendment upon the ground that it interfered with local self-government; but I am unable to understand the logic which justifies a favorable vote for the one and an unfavorable vote for the other.

I am as much concerned for the integrity of local selfgovernment as any lover of his country can be. I concede all that was said in its favor yesterday by the Senator from Idaho. I am glad that he has become so fervent and capable a champion of that great principle; and I freely admit that never in this country did it stand in as much jeopardy as at present and in the recent past. The right of the people to meet in their prevailed. separate and several communities and legislate in their own interest and for - their own welfare may be said to Ue at the very foundation of Anglo-Saxon liberty-a right which should be safeguarded at all times and respected everywhere; a right the disregard or lowering or abandonment of which will, · in my judgment, be inevitably followed by all the consequences so eloquently pictured by the Senator from Idaho. But, 1\Ir. President, I am unable to perceive how this amendment, should it become effective through ratification, can affect the principle of local self-government, while that regarding prohibition certainly will; for the right of a man to eat or to drink or to conduct his personal affairs as he sees fit, provided only that be pays the same respect for the right of others to do the same thing, is infinitely more of a subject for local self-government than the right of suffrage.

I do not refer to the moral or police aspect of the subject. This is not the time or place for that, but I assert fundamentally that the one affects local self-government much more than the other.

l\fr. KING. Mr. President--

1\lr. THOMAS. In just a moment. If I had been present when the vote was taken upon the prohibition amendment I should have voted for it, not because I believe it is the best thing for the people, but because I was instructed by the people of my State to do it, and I would have respected that instruction. I yield to the Senator from Utah. · l\1r. Kll~G. I agree with what the Senator has said that the support of the prohibition amendment to the Constitution, if a man acted logically, ought to call for a vote in favor of amending the Constitution with respect to suffrage. And yet, does not the Senator think that this amendment is more of an assault upon the States than the other, because one of the inevitable characteristics and indispensable qualities of a sovereign State is the right to determine who shall bold office within the State, determine the qualifications of electors, and this amendment is a restriction upon the right of a sovereign State to exercise their sovereign power.

Mr. THOl\lAS. No, Mr. President, I do not. It is unques .. tionably an invasion, an absorption, if you please, of a right which the States may now, subject to another amendment regarding suffrage, exercise without national interference, except in so far as · national elections are concerned. We had at one time a law upon the statute books enacted by Congress and ens forced for many years under which at all elections where any national officer was chosen the entire machinery of the election was in the hands of the Federal authorities represented by United States marshals and supervisors. It was a deliberate and unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the States, ­ but it was a law, nevertheless, within the power of Congress, if it saw fit to do so, to enact. Inasmuch as State elections are constantly narrowing or decreasing in number, so that State officials and presidential electors and Members of Congress are chosen at the same time, there is no reason in the world why, if Congress saw fit to do so, it might not independently of this proposed amendment take charge of and control those elections. But, Mr. President, whether that be so or not, the time for applying that argument has gone, for there can be no question that in spite of the obstructive tactics of the so-called National Woman's Party, which has prevented the successful submission of this amendment heretofore, the overwhelming majority of the people of the United States are in favor of the amendment. There can be no more significant evidence of the fact than that the vote about to be taken will be confined to no particular section of the country.

Mr. President, a word about local sel:f-government and the dangers which menace it, and I am done. I do not believe local · self-government is being directly assailed anywhere. I do not think it will be directly a sailed under the provisions of this amendment, which after all only ser.ves to double the vote. I believe that is the only practical consequence of the adoption of the amendment, and those who regard this matter as a subject for political influence will find to their sorrow before they are very much older, for women like men will cast their vote according to their convictions upon political questions and issues as they shall from time to time arise and be considered. Frankly, if I felt that half the people of the country would cast a vote for one particular party, locally or generally, simply because that party happened to be in power at the time the right was conferred, I should vote against the amendment. Such a conclusion is a reflection upon the intelligence and patriotism of womankind. As Democrats and as Republicans, as dissidents from both of the great parties, they will act hereafter precisely as they have acted heretofore, and in national affairs precisely as they have acted in State affairs where the franchi e bns Mr. President, what is it that is jeopardizing the fundamental principle of local self-government in America? It is largely the indifference of the average citizen to his public duty, largely the desire of the people to escape obligations by transferring them to the National Government, and largely because the States have themselves with regard to certain fundamentals broken down, either in their efforts to enforce the local laws, preserve peace and order, or have been ~able to do so. If these conditions continue, as I am afraid they will, then it will make no difference whether this amendment be defeated or whether it be ratified. We must change fundamentally in some thing. or the old institution of local self-government, of community government, will become a tradition in this country instead of a living fact, as it has been and ought to be.

Mr. President, for the last quarter of a century and more every State in the Union has not only been willing but anxious to exchange its obligations and its powers of local self-government for Federal appropriations ; and it would seem that as long us appropriations can be secured for the exercise by the Government of the United States in whole or in part of those duties which rest upon the States fundamentally and primarily, the exchange will continue. I shall not detain the Senate by attempting to enumerate a list of the various duties and powers which the States have passed on to the shoulders of the Federal Government and now feel free to inSist that the Government itself shall observe them if they are observed at all. Great combinations of capital in the past have laughed at State laws and restrictions. The enforcement to-day of law and order for the protection of the individual in his fundamental rights in the States can only be secured, and sometimes not then, by Federal interference.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if it will not interrupt the Sen- ator, does he think the Federal Government has afforded any better protection against the great aggregations of capital than the States?

Mr. THOMAS. I do not think it has done so; but that does not affect the soundness of my proposition.

Mr. REED. I am not questioning that at all.

Mr. THOMAS. My proposition is that the States are passing on this duty to the Federal Government 1 which I think they could more effectively perform if they would do it themselves.

Mr. REED. I agree with the Senator in that.

Mr. THOMAS. To-day, Mr. President, we are confronted with a measure which clamored for recognition at the last Congress, which proposes that the States shall release themselves from still another burden and require the Government of the United States to assume the duty and bear the expense of educating the people of the country. If there is a phase of the duty of local self-government more obligatory than any other, it is that of the State to educate its citizens and to assume the financial obligations necessary to effectuate that great obligation. Yet Members of this body during the expiring days of the last session and since the commencement of this one have been deluged with letters and petitions from associations and individuals from one end of the country to the other urging them to support the measure creating a new cabinet department and clothing the Federal Government with the duty and authority of educating the children of the country.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMAS. I have no doubt it will pass, because it brings Federal money into the various districts of the country, and that is unfortunately regarded as a cure-all for every subject of public discontent.

I yield to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. KING. Has it not been the experience of the Senator from Colorado that many of the movements which look to the extension of the activities of the Fed."eral Government into the States, and to that extent a destruction of the States, emanate do this? from Federal employees who want to extend their authority and aggrandize the Federal Government increase their compensation, and extend their opportunities into the States, and to that extent diminish the powers of the States?

Mr. THOMAS. Oh, Mr. President, there is no question that Federal employees, who are now organized, seem to indicate a desire to _ encourage every movement that increases the number of Federal employees and extends the activities of the Federal Government. That is one of the beauties of civil service in itl3 ultimate stages of development.

But, Mr. President, I do not think it would be fair to place all these measures upon one class of people. Every city in the . United States, every community, incorporated or unincorporated, so far as I know, sooner or later comes clamoring to Congress for appropriations for the accomplishment of things that ought to be done at home, and to say that a Federal amendment striking out the distinction of sex in the matter of suffrage is a fundamental blow at local self-government in the face of these conditions is to assume a position which I do not believe can be sustained either by reason or by logic, as it certainly can not be by pr~cedent.

I hope and believe that the good women of this country, who in my State study and therefore understand political questions quite as well as, if not better than, t!Ie average man, who regard their enfranchisement not as the grant of a privilege, but as the imposition of a public duty, will IJe a powerful aid in the restoration as well as the preservation of local self-government and not become a mere numerical addition to our electoral franchise whose influence and whose power will be extended in some · e other and less laudable direction.

Mr. KIRBY. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak on this question, and shall do so but briefly. My remarks are chiefly provoked by the statements of the Senator from New York [Mr. WADSWORTH] and the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] that the action of this Congress and the action of the people of the 45 States in the adoption of the prohibition amendment has a tendency to bring the Congress into disrepute has a tendency to make the people have less regard and respect for the Constitution. ·

'Vhe . n I heard the statement of the Senator from New York that there were many men in the United States who already now feel aggrieved because of the prohibition amendment to the Constitution, and that they are proceeding to avoid or evade the effect of this amendment, and that such action would have the effect to bring the Constitution into disrepute with the people of this country, I could not help but think of an instance I remembered from a way back yonder in the days of my youth when I used to read the Scriptures more than I do now. I want to read it here now. This has reference to the time when Paul was in Asia, and had preached over there, and his preaching had caused the people of that country to quit worshipping idols. Here is the Biblical account of it:

For a. certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen ;

Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

Moreover ye see and bear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made by hand :

So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought, but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. · And the whole city was filled with confusion-

And so on.

The adoption of the amendment to the Constitution, compla . plained of by the Senator f-rom New York, interfered with the business of those engaged in this prohibited traffic, as· did the preaching of Paul in ancient days with the sale of images of the idol by Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen.

There existed in this country a kind of business that had Government support, a kind of business that had debauched the people of the United States of - America; that was entrenched with special privileges; that the people of this country said had existed too long; that such business should be destroyed. The sentiment began to grow in the States, in the counties, fn the towns, in the cities, and finally it impressed the Congress of the United States. The people said," We want the Constitution amended to abolish and · destroy this - system that has grown up, this special privilege, in which the Government had given the privilege to certain people to debauch with the liquor traffic the other people of the country and call it business. we want it destroyed. We want it destroyed forever, effectually and finally, and it must be done by writing an amendment into the Constitution of orir Nation." How did the people proceed to Sentiment crystallized. It spread and extended throughout' the country, and it demanded to be voiced here. and that the opportunity be given for the States to ratify the amendment that should be proposed. They proceeded With the amendment through the Congress of the United States, according to the rules laid down by the Constitution. It came here from these representatives of the people . everywhere. Then it was proposed by Congress, two-thirds of the Members voting for it. It was submitted to the States of the Union, and 45 of the 48 States of the Union voted for it overwhelmingly, according to the rules laid down for adopting amendments to the Constitution.

And now the Senator fr.om Connecticut comes upon the floor and says it was in effect a willful interference with the rights of the people of the other States, dl!e to the desire and preference of the South. That is the sort- of idea he has about it. The Senator from New York, because the liquor interests' gain has been taken from _ them, because they have stirred up this confusion or attempted to, because they have attempted to bring the Constitution of the United States into disrepute on account of their gain having been affected, says now you ought ' to be careful about adopting this proposed amendment lest you increase that sort of feeling, lest you cause it to spread throughout the country. The saloon people and the liquor traffic . do not appear to recognize that the world has progressed. - They seem to be in the attitude of the man who stood still; and yet they have learned a little, I judge, from the procedure heretofore of people who have been opposed to the · traffic.

The other day in Baltimore they attempted to have a great parade, and the papers announced that the antiprohibition committee would regard all keepers of saloons as traitors to the cause who refused to close their saloons during the three _ or four hours in which the parade was expected to march. They learned that they themselves could not even have a parade and demonstration without closing the saloons, the agencies that an the people have insisted shall be closed for all time.

The Senator from New York thinks we will bring the Constitution into disrepute by adopting an amendment as provided in the Constitution.

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD] has offered this amendment, and he has offered it not to improve the condition but in the hope of defeating the resolution. He is an enemy to the cause. He is not in favor of the proposition of permitting women to vote. He makes no concealment of that fact. He has not been in favor of it. He is not in favor of it now. He offer this amendment to injure the cause and not to help it. Why should his amendment be adopted? No other amendment of the 11 amendments to the Constitution of the United States has ever been submitted to conventions in the States. It has never been attempted to be done before. It is permitted under the Con tit_ution, yes; but it has never been availed of. It has never been done heretofore, and why should it be employed now on this question, and why should it be proposed by an enemy of the resolution and expected to be indorsed by those who are its friends? I say it should not be done.

Is there any reason to fear that in the United States of America in the adoption of this amendment the people will not have a fair expression of their views about it? Women only vote in comparatively a very few States. The men in all the States vote. They vote to elect members of the legislature, they vote to elect Members of Congress, they vote to elect United States Senators, and they will vote yonder upon this proposition of the ratification of this amendment, which is proposed in accordance with the rules laid down for amending the Constitution.

Can you say it is wrong to amend the Constitution according to the rules laid down for the purpose. If all the people of the country can not be trusted to amend the Constitution according to the rules provided in the Constitution, then is it not time that we have no further amendments? Some of these gentlemen, I believe from the arguments they have made, would be willing and think it better for the interest of the country in future that we have no further amendments to the Constitution, that the people can not be trusted to amend their own Constitution in the way they laid down when the Constitution was made for amending and changing it. That seems to be the idea some of them have.

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] against the degeneracy of the times. He talked about those ancient Senators of great ability and great courage who stood here and took the same oath that these Senators in these degenerate days take. He said they were courageous, that they were patriotic, that they regarded their oath when it was taken. I do not know whether the Senator thinks'he is more loyal and more patriotic and more courageous than the Senators who are supporting this amendment or not. He may be more able, but I will not even make any concession on that point.

That is the condition we are confronted with here to-day. No other amendment to the Constitution has ever been proposed in such a way as it is attempted to propose this. It never has been done. All the legislatures in the States are elected by the people. They are sent to their different assemblies representing their people. They will vote on this _ question, and if you had a convention and elected these representatives for this particular purpose they would be no more representative of the people than they are now. You are attempting here an innovation, so far as that practice is concerned.

As to what the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. SMITH] has said, the Senator still seems to be in the unreconstructed period. I live in the South. I have lived under the fifteenth amendment since I was born, practically. It is the law of the land, and what is the use in discussing conditions under which it became so? Where is the harm that shall come to us if hereafter as to one-half of our people who have been denied the right to vote we shall utilize their ability and their judgment in the settlement of questions that affect local conditions and affect national interests? There has been, so far as I am concerned, no good reason urged here to-day at all why this amendment should not be adopted. I did not expect to say anything to-day and would not have done so except for those remarks from the Senator from New York [Mr. WADSWORTH] Senator from Connecticut [Mr. BRANDEGEE] that provoked it.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. . Mr. President, only a few words. I bama [Mr. UNDERWOOD] have listened with interest to what the Senator from Arkansas [1\Ir. KIBBY] has just said. Of course, I am opposed to th~ pending joint resolution, and have been from the beginning, but that does not affect the question of the amendment to it, as to which is the better way to reflect popular sentiment in its adoption or rejection. ·

The Senator says that this is an innovation; that he desires to have this amendment adopted along , the lines of the Constitution. It is no more an innovation if my amendment is · adopted than the joint resolution would be as it stands as originally drafted, because the Constitution itself provides two modes of ratification, and it is left entirely optional with the Congress as to which mode shall be adopted. The Congress can determine that it shall go to the legislatures for adoption or the Congress can determine that State conventions called for this sole purpose shall pass upon the ratification or the rejection ot the amendment.

The Senator from .Arkansas says that this amendment of mine is introduced for the purpose of defeating the joint resolution. That is a very candid confession by one of the proponents of the measure. In itself it could not defeat the measure. There can be no question that every State in the Union would call a convention for the ratification or rejection of the amendment if we adopt this method. More than that, if they did not call it, the Federal Congress could call a convention.

But it narrows itself to this, that if a legislature is elected, this, being one of the issues, may become subordinated in many States to other issues. It may become subordinate to the personal equation of the candidates, and men may be elected to vote on this issue who will not directly reflect the mature judgment of their constituents. But if a convention is called for the sole purpose of ratifying or rejecting this measure, then the delegates to that convention will be merely the instrument of the popular will, as the Electoral College is the instrument of the · popular will in the election of a President of the United States. When the Senator advances the argument that the adoption of this amendment would defeat the woman-suffrage amendment he concedes in that moment that the popular sentiment in the States is not for the Susan B. Anthony amendment, and that the proponents of the measure dare not submit it to the popular will of the people of America.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I simply want to add a word in connection with the statement just made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD]. We are already informed through the press that the purpose has taken shape of immediately convening legislatures in extraordinary se sion to ratif-y this amendment. Those legislatures were not elected upon the issue of suffrage or nonsuffrage ; they were elected upon totally differinveighed ent issues; and now it is proposed that men who were not selected by the people for the purpose of pa. sing upon this i ue shall pass upon it before the people even have the opportunity to again elect a legislature.

Mr. KIRBY. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator · from Arkan. as?

1\Ir. REED. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. KIRBY. The Senator suggests that there is a purpose to call the legislatures of the different States to get immediate ratification. Where does the Senator get any such idea? Where is there anything upon which to base such a statement as a fact?

Mr. REED. I will answer the Senator. I have already stated it, if the Senator had been listening. I said it had been repeatedly stated in the press that that is the purpose of the leaders of this movement. I have seen what profes ed to be quotations by those who have been leaders of the movement. I have generally found that. the newspapers have been pretty able to prognosticate the movements to a reasonable extent in the future of the suffrage program. I have just been informed by a citizen of the State of Texas that two of the great papers of Texas are already advocating the calling of the legislature in extraordinary session for the purpose of ratifying this amendment, although the State of Texas by popular vote held . within the last · few days has defeated suffrage, I understand, the majority amounting to nearly 30,000. ·

So we may as well understand that it is the purpose of the proponents of this measure to do everything within their power to keep from submitting it ih any way to the popular will and to obtain ratification in any manner possible. I expect to hear all of these proponents within the next few months loudly proclaiming their belief in the doctrine that the great people of the country shall in all respects rule. I wish they could bring and the themselves to an adherence to that doctrine to-day. · The amendment which is pro-posed by the Senator from Aladoes give the people of the State , at least, the opportunity to have a vote on the selection of men to constitute the members of the convention. It will not work necessarily any delay, unless the delay is merely the vote to be attained by the extraordinary methods I have spoken of; that is, extra sessions of the legislatures called to ratify, the members of those legislatures having been elected for entirely different purposes. Why is it that men who claim to be in favor of government by the popular will are not willing to accept this amendment which will · afford the people some chance to express themselves? It seems to me there ought to be some Senators here, even from the suffrage States, who are willing to let the people of · the States of this Union have the opportunity to cast a vote at least for delegates to a convention that will debate and consider this important amendment to the Constitution.

- Mr. KING. l\Ir. President, will the Senator yield to me?

~ The PRESIDENT pro tempore. - Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Utah?

Mr. REED. I yield.

1\fr. KING. I ha-ve not been privileged to hear all 'Of the debate upon the resolution under discussion, and the question I am about to ask may have been fully answered in the debate. The question which I desire to submit to the Senator is this: Is there any valid reason why the question of amending the Constitution of the United States, as contemplated in the resolution now before the Senate, should not tie submitted to a vote of . the people of the States? For myself, if the Constitution is to be amended, I see no reason for denying the people the right to vote upon the proposed amendment. There is no question but what the proposed amendment to the Constitution materially changes the framework of our organic law and commits to the Federal Government authority which now belongs to the States. The proposed amendment is a limitation upon the powers and rights of the States, and likewise is a restriction upon the rights of the people within the States. To deprive them and the sovereign States in which they reside of rights now enjoyed by the States and the people is a very serious matter. If I may be pardoned for further occupying the time of the Senator, I would like to state, because I do not intend to discuss this question, that I can not bring my judgment to approve of the plan to amend the Constitution of the United States to grant woman suffrage through the Federal Government. While I have for many years been a believer in woman suffrage, and earnestly advocated within my State the right of women to vote, and urged that in the State constitution they should have the same political rights as men, I have always entertained the view that the question was one for the States to determine for themselves. This has been the view of all Democrats and those who believed in our form of government: The proposition now is to overturn the principles held sacred for so many years, and to further intrench upon the prerogatives of the States and the reserved rights of the people. Under our form of Government the States . alone have the right to determine the qualifications of electors. If States may not ordain their own constitutions and determine their own dom es tic and internal affairs, this Republic will soon be destroyed. We often speak of the" sovereign States of the Union," and the Supreme Court of the United States has referred to the States as "indestructible." One of the indispensable attributes of State sovereignty is the power to determine who shall hold office within the State. An elector is an official, and therefore an -el e ctor holds an office within the State. To deprive the States of the right to say who shall vote and who shall hold office is an abridgment of the rights of the State. It seems to me that this proposed amendment is along the lines of centralization, which, · if persisted in, will lead to disastrous consequences. However, I am in the unfortunate situation of being unable to vote in harmon y with my convictions. I represent, in part, a sovereign State; and the mandate of my party and the people of my State requires that I vote for the submission of an amendment to the Constitution providing for woman suffrage. · It is a matter of sincere regret to me that I am compelled to support a proposition by my vote which is so repugnant to my conceptions of the r; g h ts of the States, and, indeed, the rights of the people themselves, es , and which will prove to be a dangerous precedent and a continuing menace to the peace and welfare of this Nation. Howe v er, I rose merely to propound the question which I have submitted e d to the Senator, and not to argue the question so ably discussed se d by the Senator from Missouri.

l\It·. REED. The only reason I have heard was the one advanced ce d by the Senator from Arkansas [l\fr. KIRBY], who, as I und e rstood him-- : Mr. KIRBY . . I should like to ask the Senator from Missouri a qu e stion.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. REED. I was trying-- , Mr. KIRBY. The Senator stated he could not understand why the proponents of this measure insisted on the amendment being adopted regularly, as all other amendments to the Constitution ha >e been adopted.

Mr. REED. I did not make any such statement. , Mr . KIRBY. The Senator made a statement practically to that effect.

. Mr. REED. No; I did not make any such statement in effect. · 1\fr. KillEY. The question I want to ask is, Is it not a fact that all of the other 17 amendments to the Constitution have been adopted by being submitted to the State legislatures? Is it ' not true that a single amendment has never been proposed

LVIIJ--40 otherwise? . If that is true--and it is-then why does the Senator wish to oppose it in this case and insist on an innovation?

Mr. REED. Now, Mr. President-­

Mr. STANLEY. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Kentucky?

Mr. REED. I yield.

Mr. STANLEY. I shall vote for the amendment to the t stitution permitting women to vote. I do not think; however, that the statement of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. KIRBY] is entirely _ warranted----:-that it necessarily follows that I shall vote to deprive the people of my State or of any other State of the right to express their opinion on the subject. I shall there- · e­ fore vote for the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD].

Mr. REED. Mr. President, there are now p · ending two questions which have been propounded to me. I want to answer them in the order in which they _ were asked. The question was pro· pounded by the Senator from Utah [Mr. Krna] what reason has been advanced for denying to the people of the States an opportunity to express their desires with reference to this amendment? In answering that I have to say that the only reason - I have heard advanced-but I have not been here during the entire debate--was the one brought forward by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Kl:RBY], which was that it would work delay, arid his further reason that the method now proposed to be pursued is the method that has been pursued in adopting all other constitutional amendments.

The other questions propounded to me were those just asked by the Senator from Arkansas, which embraced the idea I have already expressed as coming from him, namely, Is it not true that all other amendments to the Constitution have been submitted in the same manner in which it is proposed to submit this pending amendment? All of the late amendments to the Constitution have been so submitted; but whether always that has been the rule I am not prepared to say. I confess to some little embarrassment when I must say that I can not answer with certainty.

Mr. KIRBY. They all have been.

Mr. REED. I think they all have been.

Now, Mr. President, the Senator asked me a third questionWhy should there be a different method followed here?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves that point will he yield to me?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Montana?

Mr. REED. I yield.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I want to say · to the 'Senator from Missouri that we have been admonished by him and by other Senators to : remember the teachings of the fathers and to guide and govern our actions by their practices and their teachings. Immediately upon the adoption of the Constitution there were at least 10 amendments submitted when the method was new. Those amendments might very properly have been submitted to a convention called in each State, for there was a large number of them; but my recollection is that the fathers chose the other system. We have followed that system invariably down to this time. Does not the Senator think that that is a good reason why we should continue to do so?

Mr. REED. Well, Mr. President, first let me answer the Senator's statement. I have frequently said in this Chamber that I have great regard for the wisdom of the framers of our Constitution and that I did not believe that those policies of government which they had inaugurated and under which we had lived and by virtue of which we have become the greatest nation of the world ought to be disregarded and treated lightly or set aside without mature deliberation, and all of that I reaffirm. But as to questions of policy of government, such questions as the Monroe doctrine, such questions as the United States keeping herself free from entangling alliances, to all of these ancient doctrines my distinguished friend and those who are with him have turned aside their faces. Now, the Senator comes to me and asks me, on a mere matter of procedure, not a matter involving the principle itself, that we should be bound by the procedure they took.

Mr. WALSH of · Montana. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Missouri again yield?

Mr. REED. I do .

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I do not understand that that is the position taken by the Senator from Missouri. I understand his argument is that it is a fundamental right of the people of the States in a referendum to decide this matter, rather than that it should be decided by the legislatures of the States. l do not understand that the Senator has here-tofore argued that this is a mere matter of choice between two procedures. I understand his argument" to be that it is a question o-f substantive right of the people to pass upon these questions . I called his attention to the fact that we are pursuing the policy that was pursued by the fathers, for obviously they thought it was the . better policy. Now, the Senator seems to think that at the present time, at least, the policy of the fathe-rs is not the one we ought to follow. · ·

Mr. REED. Oh, I do not think anything of the sort in the sense that the Senator puts it. There are really two questions presented here: One is, Shall the people of the States be deprived of the right, which they have reserved in their constitutions, to determine the qualifications of the voters of their _ respective States-shall that right be taken away from them by a Federal amendment? Upon that I answer that it ought not to be taken away, first, because to take it away is violati e of the very genius of our dual system o.f government, a government by independent States and by a central nation at the same time. Upon that we have the wisdom of tlle fathers, for they so wrote the law. We have the experience of the country and we have the principle of government that the people of every # State ought to have the power to name their own electorate, especially when that electorate is voting only on local affairs, and that when the Federal Go-vernment comes in, contrary to the wisdom &f the fathers-to which the Senator from Montana now appe~ ls for the first time in many months and which he has been assiduously denying all along-and proposes to deprive the people of the States of the right they have reserved in their constitutions to themselves to change the qualification CY:f voters, that is an impingement and an impairment of the · very structure of our Government. Now: that is the first question. But wh n you come · to the question how that Constitution shall be amended, the particular form to be followed is a matter of procedure and is not a matter of principle, except that you may follow a procedure which will be calculated to deny the people. a right or calculated to extend to them a right.

It is true, I believe, that in the past we have followed <1 the: method of submission to the legislatures, but it is also true that when the fathers . wrote the Constitution they provided two methods.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I am calling the attention of the Senator to tl:Ie :fact that, when they were called upon to make a choice between the two methods. they cho e the one we propose to follow while you propose another one.

Mr. REED . They proposed two methods-.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Yes; but when they were obliged to make a choice between the two method~ they chose the one that you propose to cast aside .

~lr. REED. They prop ed two methods, and when they ca.me to : submit their amendments it i true they submitted those amendments to the legislatures ot the States. Very well; let the precedent stand for whatever value there is to it; but let ID€"- call attention to the difference in conditions. In those days- the smaller population all over the country, the fact that every man was closer to the public questions of the day, the fact ruption? that every one of these questions had been discus ed for years and that the principles of government which were involved in Senator. the constitutional amendments upon which the vote was about to be taken had been the subject of debate, and political align· ments had been made, so that a legislature elected might be well said to go there :instructed and with a. full understanding of what the · people wanted, may have been very great factors in determining the question. ·

:Mr. WALSH af Montana. :Ur. President, I t.hin.k the Senator is quite right about that. The very subject before us, however, has been debated before the people of this country for 75 years or more.

1\!r. REED. Now, ·r will answer that. The very subject before us has been debated by the people of the United Statesby a few of the people of the United States.-for a good while; it has been debated by a few agitators-

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Does not the Senator think that as many have participated in that debate as participated in tile debate of the fundamental principles expressed in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution?

l\1r. REED. Not in the same proportion, nor anything Uke it. I will tell you how the debate has been conducted in my State. I know something about what has gone on there. It ha.s been the subject of laughter and jest more than of any serious eonsideration . Ladies have come, as I s id the other day, and a.sked to address audiences that · were called together by DemocYat or Republicans. They have been accorded the platform and have spoken their little piece, bowed themselves out, and • the business of the evening went . on. Nobody regarded it in a very serious way. We had a vote on it. There was not any debate during that campaign on woman suffrage, except on one side. Some of the ladies turned tmt and spoke for it. I believe I state the truth when I say that the great mass of the women of Missouri were totally indifferent to it, and when they got through the people voted it down by 140,000 majority. In the days when the Constitution was first amended, when the Bill of' Rights was added. when Thomas Jefferson was gathering in his two hands, figuratively speaking, the lovers or human liberty and molding them into a tremendous force for the perpetuation of liberty, the burning is ues of liberty were. flaming in the hearts of all the pe0ple.

all WALSH of Montana. And he submitted them to the . legislatures of the States.

1\Ir. REED. Yes· he submitted them to the legislatures. Take the full benefit of that. Now, I am going to show you a reason that ought to appeal-and would appeal to anybody but a suffragist-why this ought to be distinguished from the ordinary method of submission. Several States o-f the Union had the original right to fix: the. qualifications of their voters, , and they proceeded in nearly every instance to write those qualifications into their constitutions. They did so for the p.urpo e of depriving the legislatures of' any power Oli' right ever to change tho e qualifications. Now it is proposed to take m1. action by which three-fourths of the States of the Union may change the fundamental: law of thi.s country so as to change the qualifications of the voters of a State against the will of the people of that State. Upon such a question as that, where the :people. have :reserved to themselves in their con titution the right to fix the qualifications, the. least that this body can oo ts to · preserve to the people in the form ru1d manner of submission the. right to express tbeh· opinions. That is . what distinguishes this amendment from every other amendment, and the Jfne of demarcation and of distinction is so plain that any man, ex.cept a suffragist, @D see it: and a suffragist can see it. but will not admit it. Th t is tbe reaooD~

I will take a concrete case. I went over it yesterday, but r venture to repeat ft in substance. l\Iy own State with 3,50 000 people, has an elector te of many . hundred thousand. Tho e people have written a constitution and said "We will not · a:gai:n change the · qualifications of voters; · the · legislature shall not do it." Now, we propose- to say to those people', "The legi - lature shall or may do it; and not only your legi la.turet' but, if your legi' la.ture should -vote a:gaJn t it, the legislatures o:f other St tes can change the qualification of tiLe voter, which you. expressly reserved to yourselves.” We ask a:tr least that you give OID"' people in some ~er and form the opportunity to vote on this amendment; tlmt if you pass it you will at least · give ns the privilege- of having an election and! of selecting OUT delegates to a convention to. pru;s upon: this particular que tion, and to that extent you will save to them a portion of the rights they sought to reserve in their constitution. Why is not that fair? Why is not that rea.sona.b:le, and ' why should. not Democmts; here grant it?

Mr. KING. l\Ir. Presiden.t, will the Senator permit an inter-

Mr, REED. 1 am quite content to stop, l>llt I will yield to the

Mr. KING. Apropos of the discussion which was provoked b-y the statement of the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. KnmY], with respect to- the manner of submitting the fu· t 10: amendments and other amendments, my recollection of the historical circumstances attending the first 1o- amendm e nts. , is this: Patrick Henry, particularly, and orne other Virginians, tendered some 13 or 14 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 10 _ of which constitute the first 10 amendments to that instrument. Tho e amendments were submitted to the peop.le for discn sion, and were earnestly discussed from the North to the South, many of those who were afterwards followers of Hamilton and the Federalist Party opposing the amendments and the followers of Mr. Jeffer on and others' supporting them . The legislatures chosen to pass upon the amendments · were selected with reference to their views upon the amendment , so that in effect they constituted conventions selected by the people to vote upon the ratification of the amendment . The same can be said with respect to the eleventh amendment; tire same can b.e said with Ye pect to the fourteenth and fift e enth amendments, 'because they were live is ue ; they were presented to the’ people, all eyes were focused upon the arne, and the , members of the, legislatures were largely, if not entirel'y, selected because of their support of or their o-ppo ition to those amendments.

Now, with respect to the legislatures that are at pres nt in existence, some of which have been recently elected and some of which were elected avo years ago, with half of the Senators holding eYer for four years-many of them were selected with referen c e to local issues, with reference to questions not involv· States. ing woman suffrage at all; so that in submitting to the legislatures in many of the States the proposed amendment it will • be found that a portion or all of their members were elected upon other issues. The question of amending the Constitution of the United States, as contemplated in the resolution under consideration, was not an issue when they were elected, and they were chosen without reference to their views upon this question.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his statement; it is very clear. That is not all, Mr. President. In . ordinary elections in . the States, when there is no matter of special importance, it is frequently the case that you have great difficulty in getting anybody to go to the legislature who amounts to very much. I do not think that I would be guilty of a breach of courtesy even if I stated the plain fact that there have been times in this country when a man who was a member of the legislature of some State would apologize when he announced the fact; and, as was said the other day, it was because legislatures were so susceptible to influence, because so many scandals broke out in them, that the important matter of the election of United States Senators was taken away . from the legislatures altogether. In the Senator's own State of Montana one conspicuous case arose in which I know that the Senator and his colleague took a distinguished part in favor of purity and decency; but it was one of those cases that contributed materially to the sentiment in favor of a direct vote of the people. I do not know whether we improved the personnel of the Senate; I do not know, if we keep on having these expensive elections, whether we will have improved the moral tone of the method of election. That is a question to be determined in the future.

1\fr. President, there are some Senators here from the South. I want to talk to them for a minute, not on the lines pursued by my friend 1\fr. SMITH this morning. I leave that argument to Senators from distinctly Southern States. Missouri is in the twilight zone, in a way, between the North and the South. We have the virtues of both, and the vices of neither. I do not know in how many Southern States this question has been submitted to a popular vote in any form. It has just been submitted in Texas, the great Empire State of the Southwest, that came into this country as an organized and independent gov- ernment, that has always proudly asserted its independence as a State, and whose people have always justly exhibited a pride in their great Commonwealth. The people have just voted in that State, and in a very decisive vote have repudiated woman - suffrage. Now the Senators from that State, both of whom I esteem very highly, have this question to answer by their vote on this amendment; and I hope they will understand that I am not trying to make this unpleasantly personal, because that is not my object.

This is the question : Would you now cast a vote the effect of which may be, so far as Texas is concerned, to have the present legisla-ture, elected upon a different issue, convened and have it declare for the ratification of this amendment, in the face of the decision of the people at the election just held 1 Or will you, at least, say this to the people of Texas, "While I voted to submit this proposed amendment to the Constitution, I also voted for the Underwood amendment, which reserved to the people of the State of Texas the right to elect delegates to a convention and to give them the instructions of the people of Texas"?

That is the question that is presented there. Of course Senators will answer that as they ought to answer it.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Montana?

1\lr. REED. Oh, yes; I yield.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Before the Senator takes his seat, a . very interesting question was precipitated yesterday by the discussion of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD] respect to which I should like to have the views of the Senator from :Missouri. If this amendment should prevail, what is the Senator's view as to the machinery for conducting the election under which the delegates to · the conventions in the various States should be selected? Is it his view that it should be provided by the State legislatures, or that Congress should provide it?