July 7, 1911

Mr. JOHNSTON of Alabama. On the 5th of July the Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW] caused to be printed in the R E CORD a communication from a citizen of Georgia in regard to the proposed amendment of the Constitution providing for the elec t ion of Senators by the people. I ask leave to have printed in t h e RECORD four editorials, short ones, from Georgia papers showing an entirely different opinion in regard to the amendment, and also one from the New York Press of the same tenor, denoting that the question is not at all sectional.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, permission is granted.

The matter referred to is as follows:

[The Atlanta Georgian (and News).]

SENATOR BRISTOW SETS A STUMBLING BLOCK.

The House re s olution providing for the direct election of Senators was proceeding merrily on its way to success when Senator BRISTOW set a stumb l ing block for it.

Senator SUTHERLAND, at the last session of Congress, had successfully pl a y e d the same little · trick, and Senator BRISTOW deemed it timely that he do likewise and gain like renown.

Accordingly, he offered an amendment providing that the United States Gov e rnment should retain the control of the time, place, and manner of holding the election, the meaning of which is that the Government will have the power of prescribing such suffrage requirements for the elections as it deems fit.

The Federal Government would thus be able when it so chose to nullify the suffrage laws of the Southern States-laws which these Stat e s have enacted from causes arising out of the truest meaning of the words self-defense and self-protection.

It should be stated, however, that Congress already has this power over the election of Representatives, but has never used it since the days of the military rule in the Southern States following the close of the Civil War. The force bill was an attempt to put it in operation, but it never succeeded even then, and will never likely succeed at any time.

The Nation has passed a century and a quarter of its existence witll the States in complete control of the elections, both of their Senators and Representatives. The House resolution, without the Bristow amendment, is ' merely writing this long practice in the Constitution. It c a n certainly, therefore, do the Nation no harm.

The Southern States are asked to give their approval of the direct election of Senators. This they do gladly and freely, but it is too much to ask of them that at the same time they approve it in such a form as to relinquish a safeguard of their prized, because long-foughtfor, suffrage laws.

The Federal Government will never likely disturb these laws, but the South wants to make sure and wants this surety incorporated in the fundamental law of the land. This is the price that it sets on its approval of the direct elections bill .

Accordingly, the House has refused to concur in the Bristow amendment, and it has been sent back for the Senate to ruminate over.

The Bristow amendment has already proved a stumbling block in the way of the resolution's final passage by Congress. It will prove an even greater stumbling block in the way of the amendment's ratification by the necessary number of States. The legislatures of the Southern States would never give it their approval.

[The Savannah Press.]

THE DIR.ECT ELECTION BILL.

The refusal of the House to concur In the Bristow amendment, with which the Senate sought to check the force of the bill for the direct election of Senators, naturally meets with the applause and approval of those who advocate State rights. The purpose of the amendment was s o lely to put into the hands of Congress the power to interfere with the action of the States by giving to it the power to regulate the time and manner of holding the elections for United States Senators. It was in fact, a direct threat to the Southern States from the Re· p u blican 'Party to interfere with their election arrangements, whereby the white people maintain control of their States and uphold their standards of civilization and government. While the Republican States wo u ld have little annoyance to fear should events so turn about as to put the Democratic Party in control of Congress, the Southern States would be open to difficulties and indignities from a Republican Con· gre s s which it would scarcely be possible for us to measure. Moreover, by the power of this - mischievous amendment the popular election of S e n at ors would be but a tragic farce and the interests behind the Repu b lican Party would be presented with a "good road to progress" into th e subjugation of the States.

Mr. RUCKER of Missouri was taunted by a Republican Representative, who said: " You are afraid that your grandfather clause will be declared unconstitutional."

It may be as well frankly to acknowledge that this issue ls to be avoided if possible. Self-preservation, which ls the first law of nature, and the most dominant of all laws, has obliged. the Southern States, by every possible measure to circumnavigate one of the constitutional am e ndments which was tacked on to the Constitution fabric at a time when the voice of the South was forcibly silenced. In almost every State in the South there could be found provisions which, under a strict construction of the Federal law, from an inimical point of view, might be declared unconstitutional.

But it is no longer the purpose of the Republicans to disrupt the country and bring on the trouble this sort of action would be obliged to precipitate. It is merely their object to hold this threat over the Southern States as a club and with it to clear the path for the further subjugation of the States to the power of the special interests of which the whole Republican Party has become merely an instrument.

Representative RUCKER, in his objections to the Bristow amendment, said : " I have no fear of the people, but of the combinations behind closed doors which trample on the most sacred rights of the people. Give the States just a little more power and we will take the Lumber Trusts, the Sugar and · all the other trusts out of politics."

This sums it up about as well as it could possibly be told, and whether or not the Senate will consent to giving the States a chance to remove the trusts from politics remains to be seen.

[Macon Telegraph.]

THE SENATE'S ACTION,

The Senate of the United States has passed by the impressive vote of 64 to 24 the resolution proposing an amendment to the Federal Constitution providing for the election of Senators by - direct vote and declaring-through the Bristow amendment-that the Federal Govern· ment shall have power over the manner, time, and place of holding elections for United States Senators. On the latter proposition the Senate was very evenly divided, the vote being 44 to 44, Vice :President SHERMAN casting the single ballot that fastened . this amendment on the resolution.

The vote for the resoluti o n in spite of the unde s irable amendment sh o ws that popular sentiment in favor of the change is, or is believed to be, overwhelming . . If the House acts favorably on the resolution in its amended form it will go to the States for ratification, and its final adoption as an amendment to the Constitution will probably depen d on the action of t h e Southern l e gislatures. These, it has been predicted, will never ratify it with the Bristow provision includedA

We note " with satisfaction that Senators BACON and TERRELL, of GRONNA] Georgia, were among the 24 who voted against the resolution on its final passage with the Bristow amendment attached.

[Macon News, June 17, 1911.]

SlGNIFICA..'i"CE OF THE BRISTOW A~ENDl\IFJNT.

If this amendment should be accepted by the House and finally ratified by the St a tes it would have to be construed in connection with section 4, Article I , which vests in the Congress the heretofore dormant power of maki n g and altering t h e regulations for the election of Representatives at will, which would then also apply to the election of Senators.

The mere fact that the Congress would have the power to tam pe r with the election of Senators under the new amendment, should it be finally adopted, does not infallibly imply that it would exercise the pow e r to do so, but it would leave a very uncomfortable feeling in the minds of all patriotic and thou g htful people to know that the power had been implanted in the Constitution, and the activity and determination displayed by th e Roots, the Smoots, the Gallingers, the Guggenheims, and o t hers of that sort to bring about this end means that they will make mischief of it in future if wey can do so.

We believe it safest, therefore, by all odds for southern Senators and considered. Representatives t& have none of it; for the Democratic House to refuse to concur with the Bristow amendment ; and, failing that, for the Southern States to refuse to ratify the amendment.

"So far as the letter of the Constitution is concerned," says the New York World, "the powers of Congress might not be increased b y the ratification of the amendment in the form drafted by Senator BRISTOW ; yet the feeling is general throughout the South that such an am e ndment would be perverted into a referendum in favor of Federal control of the franchise and would revive the latent powers that have never been exercised. It is easy enough to say that these fears are exaggerated, but they have to be dealt with, and it is doubtful if a single southern legislature would ratify the senatorial . rial amendment in the form in which it is presented by the Senate. Without assistance from the South the Constitution can not be changed, and there can be no popular election of Senators.

.. The Bristow amendment is unnecessary and mischievous. The powers that it emphasizes are fully reserved to Congress in other sections ot the Constitution . It merely arouses sectional animosities and imperils the movement for the election of Senators byi direct vote."

[New York Press . }

B.!ll FAITH IN THE. SENATE.

In appointing Senators CLARK of Wyoming, Bacon of Georgia, and NELs<rn of Minnesota as conferees on behalf. of the Senate over the Bristow amendment to the direct - elections resolution, the upper House of Congress shows little sign <>f yielding to the House . A majority of the Senate, as the roll call on the Bristow rider showed, is willing to run the risk of refusal by the States to ratify the direct election of United States Senators. For there is a great risk of rejectio.n of the amendment if the measure is coupled with a threat to enforce the constitutional rights of the colored citizen in the suffrage. Those who voted for the Bristow amendment are therefore either hostile to direct choice of Senators or lukewarm toward that plan when they insist on a clause attached to it which makes the reform odious to the Southern States.

No Senator can be considered a real friend of the principle of popularly elected Senators if he persists in voting for the Bristow amendment. No Senator so voting can escape the suspicion that he is more Interested in the promotion ot Lo.rimerism than in extending to the southern negroes the privilege of voting. No Senator believes that the restoration of the electoral franchise to the southern negro can be brought about as an incident to the enfranchisement of both white and black voters, both at the North and the South, who are now robbed in so many cases of the right to choose United States Senators.

The Bristow amendment is insincere. 1t is an obstacle in the way of a really feasible reform; and if th.Rt was not the purpose of its author, the character of a great deal of its support in the Senate is such as to show that it is being used in bad faith. The Senate ought to recede from its amendment and submit the resolution to the States in the form adopted by the House. Then. standing by itself, l the principle of popular election of United States Senators will be ratified by a unanimous vote.