June 12, 1911

I have sat here in my seat for months, one Congress .after another" and witnessed a select coterie on that side exploit and attempt to appropriate Democratic ideas and policies, and claim them .a.s their discoveries. I repeat what I sa.id the other day, that I look with -disfavor a.nd distrust upon this abduction of our children and the forcible taking of them over into an inhospitable land. When I -see one of the babies we have been taking care of for many years nabbed and run aw.ay with {laughter] and taken -0ver there filllong you bearded oJd standpa:tters, can you wonder that some of us should run after it, as I am doing to-day, in the hope of rescuing it, or at lea.st branding it? [Laughter.] If there be among you 'fmy who really car.e for these Demoerntic children, then eome over here and help us take · care of them in the right spirit and in the right way,

.NEW MEXICO AND ARIZONA.

-One other thing now and I a:m done, and that one other thing is about New Mexico and Arizona.

Somehow I can not :get it out of me that there is same sort of scheme-ruid a wicked -scheme-being concocted. in some way to let New Mexico in and keep .Arizona out of the Union, because Arizona is Democratic and New Mexico is supposed to be Bepublican.

Mr. President, the Democratic House of Representatives passed a bill about .a. month ago admitting both these Territories as States -and sent the bill over here. I have personally inquired of members of the Committee on Territories here to-day, and they tell me that there has been no meeting of that .committee since that bill was referred to it and laid upon the committee table. Why? What have they been doing? UD to this time this has been, so far a.s the Senate is concerned, a session of leisure for most Senators. The Committee on Finance has been holding sessions, listening to useless hearings, useless for the most part, and thereby wasting time for political reasons, but the Committee ()Il Territories has had .nothing to do during all the weeks of this . s session.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. .Mr. President--

The PRE.SIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Michigan 1

Mr. STONE. I do, for the Senator is the chairman of the Committee on Territories.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. The suggestion of the Senator from Missouri I can not permit to J>aES unnoticed.

Mr. STONE. It ought not to be permitted to pass unchallenged.

Mr. SMITH -Of Michigan. The Senator need not give himself any concern about it It will not be permitted to pass until he is set right. about it, although it is a very difficult task :for me to assume.

Mr. STONE. No; it is not. I h11-ve great faith in whatever the Senator says.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I tha.nk the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. STONE. When be speaks with authority.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I will say to the Senator from Missouri, 1\Ir. President, that the me e ting day for the Committee on Territories is Friday. A week ago lust Friday the House bm w11s not before the Committee on Territories, and did not reach that committee until Saturday.

Mr. STONE. Last Saturday?

Mr. 'S!tllTH of Michigan. No; a week ago last Saturday. That day the leader of the minority on that committee, the Senator from Oklah o ma [Mr. Owen], had been called out of the city by the illness of his mother, I believe. Other Senators who are members of that committee have been absent since. . I was unavoidably absent last Friday. The committee will be called together on the meeting day this week. Not the slightest disposition is manifest either in the majority or the minority members of that committee not to act promptly and fully upon that legislation.

Mr. STONE. There is no reason for the minority not to act promptly, but every reason why the minority should. · · l\Ir. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. President, I desire to say further that the Committee on Territories organized, I think, · more promptly than most of the other committees which were appointed a few weeks ago. We proceeded almost immediately to consider this very question to which the Senator from Missouri has referred. We have been asked to give hearings to citizens of .Arizona and New Mexico upon both sides of the question involved, and this afternoon we have agreed upon a day of meeting to hear those who are interested. in this legislation.

I want to say again, in order that there may be no misapprehension whatever in the mind of the Senator from Missouri or of any other Senator, that, so far as I am concerned-and I think I may speak for every member of the Committee on Territories-there is not the slightest disposition to delay or hinder that legislation at all. It will be brought here from the committee to which it has been properly assigned for consideration, and the Senate will be asked to take such action upon it as it may deem best.

Mr. STO:NE. Mr. President, I have once or twice called upon committees which have House bills pending before them, and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MARTIN], the leader of the minority, and other Democratic Senators have several times called upon the committees to know when we could expect bills that are before them to be acted upon and reported. to the Senate. The chairman of whatever committee it might be has always risen and told us that his committee was proceeding with all due dispatch and expedition, and that they would get the bills in here in due course and as soon as it could be done, but the bills do not come, and they are not here.

Mr. President, you know, and we all know, that we have been adjourning over here from Monday to Thursday and from Thursday to Monday, and for the most part doing nothing.

Why a bill like this New Mexico-Arizona bill should be practically three weeks in the hands of the Committee on Territories, without action by the committee, I do not understand; and, moreover, I do not understand why there is any need for hearings before the committee. The question of the admission of these Territories has been before the other House and before the Senate for a long time. We have had many hearings about it. Who wants to be · heard now? Who needs to be heard now? Is there anybody in Arizona or New Mexico opposed to the admission of these Territories, or either of them, as States? If there be, has he not already stated his objections in hearings already had, and are not his objections preserved in the prints of the committee? Are these Territories to be put off again with some vague promise of some wholly unnecessary hearing before this committee at some indefinite time in the future? In the name of Heaven when will Arizona and New Mexico have a hearing before the Senate? Sir, before I sit down-and I am about through-I want to give a rea son why delay might be desired and sought by some. Rather than look it up myself, I asked my friend and colleague the Senator from Missouri [Mr . REED], the other day when we were talking about this matter, to look over the enabling acts and into the facts and advise me as to the situation. We bad been reading something in the papers about it, and I asked him to look it up, for I have great confidence in the judgment of my colleague. I have faith in his judgment because he is a lawyer well trained, of wide reading and large experience, and when he speaks he can be depended upon. He looked the matter up and then went over it with me. I understand the situation to be this : The enabling act provides for the admission of New .Mexico after the calling of a constitutional convention, the adoption of a State constitution, and the submission of the same to the qualified. -voters of the Territory. Those are preliminary steps. Then section 4 of the enabling act provides as follows:

A certified copy of the same shall be submitted to the President of the United States and to Congress for approval, together with the statement of the votes cast thereon and upon any provisions thereof which were separately submitted to and voted on by the people; and if Congress and the President approve said constitution and the separate provisions thereof, or if the President approves the same and Congress fails w disapprove the same during the next regular session thereof, then and in that event the President shall certify said facts to the governor of New Mexico, who shall, within 30 days after the receipt of said notification from the President, issue his proclamation, etc.

Section · 5 of the enabling act, after providing for the election of a State legislature, Members of Congress, and so forth, provides:

And In case the President of the United States and Congress approve the same-

The constitutionor in case the President approves the same and Congress fails to act in its next regular session, all as hereinbefore provided, an election shall be held, etc.-

And then the section goes on to provide that after the election has been held the result shall be certified to the President, who shall thereuponimmediately issue his procla.mation announcing the result of said election so ascertained, and upon the issuance of said proclamation by the President of the United States the proposed State of New Mexico shall be deemed admitted by Congress Into the Union by virtue of this act, etc.

The Arizona enabling act is substantially the same as that of New :Mexico.

Now, Mr. President, how does the case stand? New Mexico held a convention and submitted a constitution which was ratified. by the voters of the Territory, and has taken all the preliminary steps required by the enabling act. Everything required to be certified. to the President and to Congress has been certified. What is true of New Mexico is also exactly true in all particulars of A .. Arizona. Both Territories have done all they are required to do or can do. But here at Washington the two Territories do not stand on the same level. The President has acted upon and approved. the constitution of New Mexico, but he- has taken no action upon, either approving or disapproving, the constitution of Arizona. Congress has not acted upon the constitution of either Territory. The House of Representatives has passed upon both and approved both, but the Senate has taken no action on either. The approving bill passed by the House of Representatives is now before the Senate committee. That committee ought to have acted upon that bill with promptitude and reported it to the Senate, so that the Senate rnight have declared its approval or disapproval of the constitutions adopted by these Territories. That has not been · done. The Senate has no chance to act. Now, in a few days the Senate will be in the thick of tariff discussions with the reciprocity bill and later with tariff bills on the calendar as the unfinished. business, and thus everything else will be put aside until they are disposed of. In all probability that may mean that the bill for the admission of these Territories will fail of consideration at this extraordinary session.

Remember the enabling acts provide that Congress shall oass upon the constitutions adopted by the people of these Territories not later than the next regular session following the certification of the same to the President and to Congress. Remember the act further provides that if the President approves these constitutions, or either of them, and if Congress fails to approve or disapproYe-that is, to take action-at the next regular session, then the Territory whose constitution the President has approved shall, upon the proclamation of the President, be admitted as a State into the Union. The President has approved the constitution of New Mexico, but has taken no action on the constitution of Arizona. Now, if our Republican friends over there can by parliamentary manipulation and delay prevent the Senate acting upon this House bill, either at this extraordinary session or at the next regular session beginning in December, then New Mexico can come into the Union on the proclamation of the President and Arizona be left out in the cold.

There are those who desire the admission of New Mexico, but do not want .Arizona admitted. Every scheme of delay helps those who wish to accomplish that end. If we · . fail to pass the resolution approving the constitutions of both Territories at this session, and then again fail to approve them at the next regular session, the President can let in New Mexico and close the i door in the face of Arizona. i Mr. President, is this another scheme of smart politics being enacted here under our eyes? It looks like it to me, and I want the people of the United States to understand just what the situation is, and then they can judge for themselves. Your Republican national convention, as well as our Democratic national convention, declared in favor of admitting both of these Territories-not one, but both-and we are bound in honor to keep faith with the people of these Territories and with the people of the United States. We Democrats are here to keep faith. How is it with you? I pray you let there be no political juggling to keep one Territory out and let the other in because of some possible political ad'Vantage. Mr. President, I have said this much because I want the great constituencies we represent in this high tribunal to know what is going on with respect to these various matters in the Senate of the United States.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON] to the substitute offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW). _

Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia .[Mr. BACON] is ln substance the same as the provision which is stricken out of the joint resolution as reported from the committee by the substitute which I offer, except that it provides that Congress may make or alter the regulations of a State-

Whenever the legislature thereof shall neglect or refuse to make such regulations, or trom any circumstances be incapable of making the same.

That is, the amendment .repeats practically the phraseology of the first paragraph of section 4 of Article I of the Constitution, and then limits its application by saying that the Federal Government may make such regulations whenever the legislature of a State refuses to do so.

If I were required to choose between the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia and the joint resolution reported by the committee, I should prefer that of the committee, because it simply repeals a part of the first paragraph of section 4, Article I, of the Constitution, while the amendment proposed by the Senator from Georgia repeals that part ot the paragraph and then adds another provision, which, in my opinion, would probably deprive the Federal Government of authority which it ought to have. It goes a step further, it seems to me, in the restrictions which it would place on the Federal Government than the joint resolution as reported by the committee, and I can not see how anyone who is opposed to amending section 4 of Article I would prefer the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia to the joint resolution reported by the committee. '

Mr. BACON. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Georgia?

l\lr. BRISTOW. Certainly.

Mr. BACON. Does not the Senator recognize that the amendment offered by me provides against the contingency which has been commented upon by various Senators, that a St.ate might fail to make proper provision for such election, and in that case there would not be the machinery provided for carrying on the Government? The amendment provides that in case of such failure the Federal Government shall do it. Would there not be an advantage in that proposition?

Mr. BRISTOW. If the Senator from Georgia wants the Federal Government given authority to compel the election of a Senator or Senators when the State refuses, by going into the State and by some process compelling it to elect, I think that his amendment would gh'e nt least the semblance of authority to do that.

Mr. BACON. Ob, no; the Senator misapprehends the amendment altogether. The Senator does not properly conceive its purpose or effect. The purpose sought to be effected is that which was avowed by all of the States, without exception, when they ratified the Constitution-to limit the exercise of the power of the Federal Government to cases whfil"e the States failed to exercise the power and to give the Federal Government the authority to exercise that power in all cases where any State should fail to provide the proper machinery. There is no question of compulsion in the amendment. For that reason, I say, the Senator entirely misconceives it and has not his argument based upon the proper predicates af all. He is clear off the track.

Mr. BRISTOW. Of course~ I may--

Mr. BACON. I will give the illustration to the Senator if he desires that I should do so. I do not conceive that a case \ ) would eTer arise, but in the .beginning of the Government there was an apprehension as there had been the difficulty, which has been alluded to by some Senator bere to-day, under the Articles of Confederation, in having the States pay the proper attention to keeping the Federal Congress supplied with Members. They neglected that duty ; they wonld not provide for I \ the election.

At the time of the formation of the present Government, which grew out of the Government under the Articles of Confederation, there was evidently in the minds of the framers of the Constitution an apprehension growing out of the fact that there hnd been such failure when the Government exlsted under the Articles of Confederation, and, therefore, as explained by Mr. Madison, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Hamilton, and as expressed in the various articles adopting the Constitution by the various States from New England down to South Carolina, there wn.s recognition of the propriety of some legislation by Congress providing the machinery of election · for these officers in case the States should neglect their duty.

Now, with that premise, the illustration I propose to give to the Senator is this-again saying that I have no idea that there could be now any such realization of the danger which was then apprehended : If we should pass the amendment providing for the election of Senators by direct vote of the people, and if a State should fail to fix a day when there could be an election, or fail to provide any of the machinery of election, under the amendment offered by me it would be competent for Congress to say that in the State of Kansas, for instance, a Senator should be elected on a certain day by general vote of the people, among the qualified electors, those who are qualified to vote for members of the most numerous branch Qf the legislature, and that the -election should be held thus and so and that the returns should be made in such a manner and that the result should be decla.red in such a manner.

There is the illustration of the function which would be per· formed by the Government if those circumstances should arise and the amendment I have offered should be adopted. The Senator, of course, will recognize that in that there is no possible element of compulsion which Senators have spoken of as being one of the things whi-ch would be resorted to under the amendment offered by me . .

Mr. BRISTOW. I do not intend ID--

Mr. BACON. In order that I may not interrupt the Senator again, I wish to say that, as I understand, the substitute offered by the Senator, now known as the Bristow amendment, is identically the same amendment as that offered by the Senator from Utah [Mr. SUTHERLAND] in the last Congress and known as the Sutherland amendment

Mr. BRISTOW. I will explain that matter in a very few minutes, because I want to present this right if I can.

Mr. BACON. 1 have not a shadow of a doubt about their being identical, but I should like to have the Senator state it. I a.m not denying at all that they are.

Mr. BRISTOW. 1 am not denying at .all that they are exactly the same in phrase. Unfortunately the discussion of this amendment to the Constitution, which is, in fact, an amendment of section 3 of Article I, has been almost wholly in regard to the amendment of section 4. This joint .resolution was originally introduced by myself, and at my request, as the Senator from Georgia will remember, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. It provided, in as simple language as I know how to express it, that section 3 should be amended so as to read as follows:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.

That was the provision of the original resolution which I introduced some two years ago. The only change that is made in the Constitution was to substitute for the words which I now read, "chosen by the legislature thereof," the words . "elected by the people thereof." That was the only change which was sought to be made, it simply providing that Senator should be elected in the respective States "by the people thereof,” instead of " by the legislatures thereof." The remaining words of section 3 were left just as they were, without any change. The Committee on the Judiciary reported the joint resolution out, or what has been referred to as the Tucker resolution, I f I believe, as a substitute, and the only material change between the substitute reported by the Committee on the Judicia.ry and the joint resolution that I introduced was an amendment by the Committee on the Judiciary to section 4 of .Article I. Paragraph 1 of the section now reads as follows: " The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and RepresentatiYes shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress · may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.''

The committee amended it by providing that in lieu of all of the paragraph, in so far as the same relates to any authority in Congress to make or alter regulations as to the times or munner of holding elections for Senators, the following be proposed: " The times, places, nnd manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof."

My original amendment did not amend section 4 and did not seek to change that section in any way. The Committee on the Judiciary, in its report, did amend section 4, as stated.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. BRISTOW. I do .

Mr. DAVIS. I want to renew the request of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON], and ask the Senator from Kansas if the Bristow amendment as proposed now is not the Sutherland amendment proposed at the last session?

l\lr. BRISTOW. If the Senator from Arkansas will wait just a few minutes, I will come to that part of it.

1\lr. DAVIS. I want an answer to that question, and then I ha · rn another one.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas has the floor. swle~~., DAVIS. If the Senator from Kansas declines to anl\Ir. BRISTOW. If the Senator from Arkansas will permit me to proceed, I will answer his question. . .

l\lr. DA VIS. If the Senator from Kansas declines to yield--

The VIC~ PRESIJ?ENT. The ~enator from Kansas has the floor, ~d i~ answermg the question of the Senator from Ar- correct me. kansa~ m his own way, so he states. The Senator from Kan-1 sas will proceed. .

l\Ir. DA VIS. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas has the tloor.

Mr. BRISTOW. After the Committee on the Judiciary had reported this amendment in the form that I have referred to the Senator from Utah [Mr. SUTHERLAND] offered an amendment to the report of the committee striking out that part of the resolution as reported by the committee which sought to amend section 4, leaving the resolution, in substance, the same as I introduced it, not identic~l in form and language, but in substance the same. That amendment offered by the Senator from Utah [Mr. SUTHERLAND]. was adopted by the Senate, and the Senate then voted upon the joint resolution as amended by the Senator from Utah, and · it lacked, as I remember, three or four votes of a sufficient number to carry it. When this Congress met I went over the membership of the Senate as it is now composed and ascertained that 10 of the Senators who had voted against the joint resolution when the - roll was called on February 26 were not now Members of the Sf'nRte, and from inquiry I was convinced that . more than a snfficient number of the 10 new Senators would have voted for the joint resolution if they had then been 1\fembers of the Senate to have carried it.

1\Ir. DA.. VIS. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. BRISTOW. I will yield for any question that is to the point.

Mr. DAVIS. Assuming that the Bristow amendment as now proposed is the same as that offered by the Senator from Utah at the last session of Congress, I want to ask the Senator from Kansas why he has changed his mind on that question?

Mr. BRISTOW. If the Senator will wait he will find out exactly why I am taking the position I am, and I shall have no hesitation in presenting my views upon any question which is appropriate to this case.

1\fr. DAVIS. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. yield further to the Senator from Arkansas?

.Mr. BRISTOW. I do not care to yield any further.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas declines to further yield.

Mr. BRISTOW. I was convinced that if the Senate had asking the Senator. been composed on the 26th day of February of the same membership which it now has the joint resolution would have been adopted instead of having been rejected.

Being exceedingly anxious that the Constitution should be amended in this respect, I believed when I introduced this joint resolution on the first day of the session, which is Senate joint resolution No. 1, that if we could get a vote on the joint re olution as it was voted on at the previous session it would be adopted, and that the States would ratify it, and the Constitution would be so amended. I believed then, and I believe now, that it can get more votes in this body in that form than in any other form in which it can be presented . . I believed then, and I believe now, that it will command more support . before the people of the United States in the form we voted on it and in the form in which I introduced it on the first day of the session than it will in any other form; and being convinced of that, I preferred to present it to the Senate ill that way.

1\Ir. BACON. Will the Senator permit me to make an inquiry of him?

Mr. BRISTOW. Certainly.

?!fr. BACON. I want to know if I correctly understand the Senator. I understand this to be the effect of what he says: That the joint resolution in a shape where · the Federal Government will have the power to interfere in a State in the making of registration laws and in the-appointment of registrars and in the appointment of supervisors of election and in the appointment of judges of the election, and in the appointment of marshals to carry out the authority of these officials and in the calling on the troops, if necessary, to support the marshals-I understand from the Senator that he believes that an · amendment to the Constitution which shall give tllat power to the General Government will command more strength because of that fact than if the amendment did not give it that power. Am I correct in that?

Mr. BRISTOW. The Senator from Georgia is wrong in every statement he has made, from my point of view.

Mr. BACON. I will be more than glad to have the Senator

Mr. BRISTOW. In the first place, the amendment which I have offered does not add to or take away any power that the Federa~ Government has now or will have in the future.

Mr. BACON. Does the Senator from Kansas deny the constitutional power of the Federal Government, if it sees proper to enact such laws, to control the election of Representatives in the particulars I have mentioned?

Mr. BRISTOW. The Senator from Georgia has devoted a great deal of time to and has demonstrated--

Mr. BACON. I think the Senator from Kansas might answer that question.

Mr. BRISTOW (continuing). Very great learning in the discussion of the Constitution of the United States, and what the fathers meant and what they did not mean. Now it is not my purpose to disturb section 4 in any way.

Mr. BACON. I hope the Senator will pardon me.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kansas yield further to the Senator from Georgia?

Mr. BRISTOW. I do.

Mr. BACON. I am not now talking about what the fathers . understood or what they proposed to accomplish. I am talking about what the Supreme Court of the United States has determined to be the power of Congress in regard to the election of Representatives, so far as the authority of Congress to legislate is concerned.

Now, I say that the various things which I have suggested have been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States as within the power of Congress in the making of laws to control the election of Representatives.

I understand the Senator now to mean, conceding that there is that power-and I do not think there is any question about it-in the Congress of the United States to legislate with reference to the election of Repre entatives, and that there would be the same power as to Senators if the clause as it now exists . in the Constitution was made applicable to Senators-I understand the Senator to, mean, conceding that-and there is no ) escape from it, so far as I can see, and there is a direct reply to it-that in his opinion the right to exercise that power-- 1

Mr. BRISTOW. If the Senator will please state his opinDoes the Senator from Kansas ions and not mine, I will appreciate it.

Mr. BACON. With the permission of the Senator, and without any disposition to intrude upon him unduly, the Senator had stated a proposition, and I am trying to find out if I understand him correctly. I am not saying what he said. I am The . Senator said that he became satisfied that the amendment in the form which would give this power to Congress was sh·onger by reason of the fact that that power wa~ given; and in order that I might correctly understand what the Senator meant, I put his proposition in a little different language.

Mr. BRISTOW. I can not permit the Senator from Georgia to make statements I have not made and attribute them to me.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas has the floor; and does he decline to yield further? '

Mr. BACON. Of course, I will not intrude on him.

Mr. BRISTOW. If the Senator from Georgia will be patient, I think I will relieve his mind.

The joint resolution which I introduced some two years ago and the joint resolution which I offer now as a substitute for the one reported by the committee do not seek to confer any new powers or take away any that the Federal Government now has to supervise the election of Senators or Representati"ves. I do not seek to change in any way the authority of the Government. What authority it may have now or may not have is a question that I do not propose to discuss. I propose to leave that authority just as it is.

The joint resolution which I am supporting here does not change section 4. It does not add to the Federal Government and any authority which it does not now have, and it does not take ceived. away from it any authority. It leaves the Constitution, so far as Federal authority over elections goes, just as it is now. It question? does seek to change the method of electing Senators by a simple amendment incorporating into section 3 five words in lieu of the language there now; namely, to strike out "chosen by the I legislature thereof," and to substitute "elected by the people ment thereof."

It does not in any way give the Federal Government any authority to appoint marshals or enact registration laws, or any lution means of controlling elections that it does not now have, nor does it seek to take away any of it.s authority. If it is desirable to amend the Constitution so as to restrict the authority of the Federal Government over the election of Senators and Representatives, that is a question for the consideration of Congress elect and the country. It is to be regretted, at least by those of us seek who are very earnestly in favor of the direct election of Senators, that this controversy, which is entirely foreign to the proposition I introduced originally or that is presented by me now, should have been injected into the consideration of this question. As to whether or not a limitation should be placed the on the authority of the Federal Government is a question that tion, has no place whatever in this discussion.

Now, it is declared here, and I regret it, that unless we consent to an amendment to section 4 taking from the Federal yield Government the authority which it now has, this amendment for the election of Senators by a direct vote will be defeated what by the States, and it · has been declared on the floor that Senators who would even vote for the proposition now would go grew to their States and undertake to defeat it because section 4 is . not amended as well as section 3.

Now, I do not believe that Senators, upon deliberation, will take that position. I voted against the Sutherland amendment a in the last session of Congress because I was advised by the Senator in charge of the joint resolution and by other Senators in whose judgment I had confidence that it would be it stronger with that amendment defeated than with that amendment adopted.

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. BRISTOW. Certainly. .

Mr. REED. To get it clearly on the record, was not the doubt Sutherland amendment identical, or substantially identical, with the Bristow amendment?

l\fr. BRISTOW. The Sutherland amendment sought to strike pass it. out certain provisions in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary.

l\Ir. REED. Mr. President--

1\Ir. BRISTOW. If the Senator will wait, I will answer the question. The Bristow amendment, as he calls it, is offered as wrong. a substitute for the present resolution. It is as it was voted on by the Senate at the last session in exact terms. It substitutes the resolution which we voted upon at the last session after it was amended for the resolution which the Committee on the Judiciary has reported.

1\Ir. REED. I am afraid, l\Ir. President, if the Senator will permit me--

. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kansas direct further yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. BRISTOW. Certainly.

Mr. REED. I am afraid that that statement might not be have sufficiently concrete to be understood by the people of either and Kansas or Missouri. I want to ask again if the Sutherland amendment did not leave the resolution in the identical words, vote or substantially the identical words, of the Senator's present them, resolution? ·

Mr. BRISTOW. Certainly; and I have stated twice this afternoon that I offered it as _ a substitute for the present reso­ ing lution because it is in the exact form that 'it was voted on 1 1. upon the 2uth of last February. I believed when I introduced it, and I believe now, that there is a sufficient number of eign to it. Senators in favor of the proposition in that form to carry it, while I have grave doubts whether it would be carried if pre­ paign sented in another form. My purpose is, if I can, to have this will resolution providing for the direct election of Senators adopted.

1\fr. REED. Did the Senator think at the last session when he voted against the Sutherland resolution that if the Sutherlancl resolution was defeated the proposition woJJld be stro11ger in the Senate? ·

· l\Ir. BRISTO,V. I believed at the time I voted a:gainst the I Sutherland amendment that the resolution would be stronger jf that amendment was defeated. I think now that I -was mistaken; that it was ' sh·onger with the Sutherland amendment he incorporated in it than it would have been if not so amended, lt received more votes than it would otherwise have re­

Mr. REED. May I interrupt the Senator for one more

Mr. BRISTOW. I believe, further, it is stronger before the people now, in that form, than it would otherwise have been. can not understand wby those who are in favor of the amendto the Constitution, as I believe some to be who are advocating the resolution as reported by the committee, want the controversies that have been had in this Cham_ber on this res~­ carried to every State in the Union.

I certainly feel that the southern question and the negro question and the State rigllts question have been discussed enough in American politics. This amendment of mine seeks to change the Constitution so that the people in the States will their Senators by a direct vote. It does not in any way to change or modify the authority which the Federal Government now has as to the- supervision of elections, but it iB proposed by this resolution, as reported by the committee, to change the authority that now exists. This change will surely inject into the campaign the question of State rights and all old dead issues that I thought had been buried for a genera· and which, I say, ought to remain buried.

l\Ir. REED. The Senator--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kansas further?

Mr. BRISTOW. I will yield in a moment. Let me ask benefit the American people are going to derive from fighting in every State in the Union the old controversies that out of the Civil War? Let section 4 remain as it is and provide . that the people may by direct vote elect their Senators. Now I yield to the Senator.

Mr. REED. I simply wanted information. The Senator said few moments ago that be believed the resolution with the Sutherland amendment, defeated at the last session, would be stronger. He believes now that with the same amendment to carried it would be stronger. Does the Senator mean in each instance stronger in this body or does he mean stronger before the legislatures of the various States?

Mr. BRISTOW. Both.

Mr. REED. I want to say to the Senator, if he has any about passing this resolution without . the SutQ.erland amendment, that if be will give us the insurgent vote on the other side of this Chamber there are enough Democrats to

Mr. BRISTOW. The Senator is under the impression that a majority can pass the resolution.

Mr. REED. No; two-thirds.

Mr. BRISTOW. Well, the Senator's mathematics are badly

Mr. REED. Perhaps I overcounted the insurgents. I think we do overcount them occasionally.

Mr. BRISTOW. There has been a very wide range of discussion here. I have been . at a loss to understand the purpose of it. I have in a measure concluded that there are two elements at work in this controversy. First, there are influences and individuals who are opposed to the election of Senators by vote who want to defeat the proposition, and they realize that they can not defeat that proposition by presenting the plain and simple question to the legislatures of the States. I no doubt but that the States of the Union, if the plain simple proposition was presented to them as to whether Senators shall be elected by the legislatures or elected by direct of the people, would decide, more than three-fourths of in favor of electing by direct vote.

There are some powerful influences throughout the United States which are opposed to this change in the system of electSenators, and those influences seek an opportunity here to develop political strife, both in the South and in the North, by injecting into this controversy ~ question that ought to be forIf the substitute which I have offered is adopted, the camagainst the change in the method of electing Senators be carried on in the South by arousing race prejudice and insisting that section 4 should have been changed also.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Kansas yield to the Senator from Georgia? Mr. BACON. I will not interrupt the Senator, if he object~ sat down before when he objected. Mr. BRISTOW. I "'l'lo not object to a question. Mr. 'BACON. I will wait until the Senator _ gets through, i! prefers it.

Mr. BRISTOW. I am perfectly willing to bear tmY question that may arise in ihe Senator' . s mind.

l\Ir. BACON. I would not allude to it, except that the Senator himself has alluded ro it. The Senator · has spoken about race prejudices and appeals io race prejudices and the conflict which arises out of them. He has also given the Senate the reasons why h~ has changed. Now, I want to ask the Senator if it is not within his knowledge that not 1n the South, but m 'Some Northern States, there has been raised the race issue upon this particular question?

Mr. BRISTOW. If the Senator will permit me, I will cover that field. I was getting to it.

Mr. "BACON. V.ery well; 1 will wait.

Mr. BRISTOW. I will cover it.

Mr. BACON. When the Senator has stated it I possibly may have to a-sk him some other question.

Mr. BRISTOW. I will be very glad to bea.r the Senator.

As I was saying when the Senator from Georgia rose, if the substitute which I have offered is accepted the influences which are opposed to the direct -election -Of , senators wiTI make a campaign against the ad-Option -0f th-e amendment through the Southern States, discussing not the merits of the proposition but a question foreign to it in order to arouse prejudices that unfortunately exist there. 1f the resolution as reported by the committee is adopted and the substitute I have offered is defeated, then the opposition. to this change in the Constitution will be transferred from the South to the North, and a Gml· paign against it will be made in every Northern State because it changes secti-On 4, and tak-es from the Federal Government powers which it now ha:s to .supervise elections.

Mr. BACON. I presume the Senator means because it does not keep the election of Sena.tors m the eontr-01 ot the Federal . Government.

Mr. BRISTOW. Because it changes section 4. I make the Mr. BORAH. statement now with all the filllJ)hasis I am that . my substitute does not in any way affect, directly or indirectly, the auth-ority of the Federal Government over the election of Senators anywhere. It simply changes the method of electing them. It ma . makes them elected by the people instead of by the legislature. I might say here, if the Senator will pardon me--

Mr. BACON. I will not interrupt the Senator U he does not wish it.

1\Ir. BRISTOW. 1 will gladly yield to the Senator in a few moments. I desire to say that the change in section 4, which front us. the Committee oa the .Judiciary J}rQ1>0SeS, apparently does change the authority of the Federal Government. A great Ilk"lllY very .earnest a.nd intelligent -and learned students of the Constitution believe that it changes it Jin .a vital way.

I do not presume to pass upon these profound constitutional questions, not being a constitutional lawyer, but I w.ant to let midnight. it alone, and for one I do not want, though the pa.rty to which I belo-ng might profit some by it, ro precipitate in every Northern State the old political controversies that existed more than a quarter of a century ago, and I can not understand why other Senators should want t-0 d-0 that

During the last session 1 made the statement .on the floor that I did not think the amendments made t:o my resolution by the Committee on the Judiciary were material as far as their actual practical -effect oo the powers of the United States Government wa.s concerned, that I would vote for it either way, .and I propose to vote for it either way now; · lmt when I see that the enemies of popular election · of United States Senators intend to make a desperate effort to defeat that proposition in the South if -one amendment is adopted, and ii.n the North if another amendment .iB adopted, then I want td appeal to the Senate to keep that controversy out of this qu.estion and let m; go to the people with the naked proposition us . to whether -0r not the election of Senators shall be transferred from the legislature to the people. I will be glad to yield to the Senator if he has any other question to ask.

l\Ir. WILLIA...."l\!S and Mr. BACON addressed tile Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GALLINGER in the chair). Does the Sena.tor from Kansas yield, and to whom?

. l\Ir. WILLIAl\IS. 1 beg pardon.

Mr. :B.RISTOW. I yield to either Senator.

Mr. WILLIAMS. l thought the Senator from Kansas had taken .his seat.

Mr. BACON. Mr- President, I do not want to interrupt the Senator now. I will say to him v-ery frankly ttm.t the questions floor. which I am going to ask him are not limited, and he might prefer that I should wait lJiltil he gets through. I will do whichever he prefers, because I have a good deal -Of ground to cover in the matters I propose to · submit to the Senator'from Kansas.

Mr. BRISTOW. If the Senator will pardon m~ then, I will close in a very :few minutes, and if the Senator in his remarks, which he says will be more or less extended, makes any stntement I think I ought to answer I will d-0 so.

Mr. BACON. There are things about which I am going to speak which are directly in response to the suggestion made by the Senator. I want to .ask him some questions as t-0 matters within his personal knowledg:e. That is what I am going to ask him about, but I will wa.it until he gets through.

Mr. BRISTOW. All right. Now, I have discussed and under. taken to present too methods that are being pursued and will be pursued by those who are opposed to the popular election of Senators. The enemies of the direct election of Senators-and I want to prevent it-want some question injected into the campa.ign -Other than the simple question of the direct election of Senators, and the adoption of the committee resolution would accomplish that purpose.

There a.re other Senators and citizens who are honestly in favor of the election of Senators by direct -vote, but who fear that the change of section 3 gives to the Federal Government authority O\el' the election ()f United States Senators it does not now have, and therefore they do not want to expand the power and auh-01ity of the Federal Government. In my humble judgment the changing of section 3 does not give to the Federal Government any authority which it does not now possess.

llr. LODGE. Mr. President, if the Senator from Kansas will allow me-

Mr. BRISTOW. Certainly.

Mr. LODGE. The Senate has now been in sesSion for more than six: hours. There is to be a good deal more debate on this question. It .is quite obvious that we can not reach a vote without sitting here late in the evening, and I suggest that the Senate take a recess until 12 o’clock to-morrow. I want to .say before that suggestion is acted upon that it will greatly disaccommodate some Senato.rs if a recess is taken until to-morrow. I should be very glad, per sonally, to yield to the suggestion, but there are Senators here who are almost compelled to be away to-morrow and they desire to vooo upon this measure. Personally, I d-0 not want a vote taken upon the question of a recess until the Senate understands the situation with reference to some of the Senators, because I have assured them that .n.s far as I am concerned I would not ask for a ~ under the conditions wbich con­

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BoB.ilI] in suggesting that there are some Senators nt lea.st who would be glad tD have this vote taken to-night. Perhaps it might be arranged to take a recess until half past 8 o'clock and finish the consideration of the joint resolution by ,

Mr. MARTIN of Virginia. Mr. President, of course I am uninformed us to the number of S-enators who desire to be heard, but it seems to me we might rim along awhile longer now and then take a short recess. There :a.re three or four Senators oo this side of the Chamber who are expecting to leave the city, and it will result ill ·rnry great incon"\"enience to lm\e their plans changed by the llll6.pected prolongation -0f this debate. It seems to me that we can well afford to finish this matter to-night. We might take a short recess for dinner, then resume the discussion fJf the joint resolution, and vote on it to-night.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, it is a matter 'Of indifference to me personally. I doubt very much from what I have been told whether we can get a vote to-night. I understand there ire a number ot speeches to be made and that the debate will -0eeupy the whole evening, and more, too.

l'i!r. l\IARTIN of Virginia. I think it would add to the comfo.rt of some Senators, even though we had to sit here until 12 o'clock, to finish the joint resolution o:r continue the discussion , of it until we get Ito .a vote. 1 do not see any objection to a short recess for dinner, if that is the desire, but I would rather see the session continue right along lIIltil we vote, a.nd take no recess for dinner or anything else .

Mr. LODGE. I h~u·e no desire to press the ma.tter, if Sen-t at.ors desire to stay and discuss the joint .resolution. I witn. draw the motion for a recess which I made.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The moti-on for a recess is withdrawn. The Senator from Kansas fllr. Bristow] has the

Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President, as I was saying before tha 'interruption, there are those who feel, or who have been made to believe, I wm say, that the change {)f section 3, of Article I, does indirectly confer on the Federal Government a power that it does net now have. They justify that conclusion fen: the following reasons: That Congress now has authority over the election of Representatives that it has not over the election of Senators, because Senators are elected by the legislature; that the legislature is a creature of the State, and the Federal Go v ernment could not go beyond the legislative vote; ft could not go back and take into consideration the methods by which the legislatures themselves had been elected.

In my humble opinion, the Federal Government, if it has any authority to call in question the manner in which a legislature proceeds to elect a Senator, if the result of the legislative action which might imperil the welfare of the Government was affected by anything that occurred in the election of the members of that legislature the Congress could go back and inquire into that matter. I do not believe the change proposed in section 4 has any relation whatever to the direct election of United States Senators; and it should not have. I am appealing t& the Senate to keep that question out of this campaign that we are making 1n favor of this great political reform.

Now, I want to read the provision in section 4, which is under consideration:

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Bepresenta ~ives-

For Senators and Representatives-- shall be prescribed fn each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the plac e s of choosing Senators.

It is proposed by this amendment to section 4 to strike that provision from the Constitution in so far as it relates to the elections of Senators, and to take away that authority which Congress has over the election of Senators, and which it has had since the Government was founded. I do not think that we ought in this amendment to take away any of the powers which the Federal Government now has. If those powers are to be limited, let that proposition s ta nd on its own merits, and do not couple it with the other. The only possible effect it can have is to precipitate the di sc us si on in all the States as to whether section 4 ought to be a m e nded.; and the controversy everywhere will be over the change in s ec ti o n 4, which deprives the Federal Government of a power which it always has had, and not over the changes in section 3, which only changes the methods of electing Sena tors.

I want to appeal to every friend of the measure to stand by the original resolution as it was introduced, which is practically the substitute which I have offered, and to refuse to let this great issue be clouded and prejudiced by injecting into the fight an entirely foreign subject. I repeat again, the amend- . ment as I present it is as it was voted on on the 26th day of February las t , after it had been amended on the motion of the Senator from Utah [Mr. SUTHERLAND], it being in terms exactly as the joint resolution was when the roll was called and we voted on it. If left in that form, it will, in my opinion, pass this body and become a part of the Constitution; otherwise, I fear it will fail.