June 12, 1911

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I formed a very unhappy alliance a few days ago on the Lorimer resolution. I thought that the so-called insurgents in this body were in earnest; I thought that they were honest in their public expression that they wanted to reform these things. I joined with them reluctantly, Mt'. President, because I am not given to going with that crowd; but when I see the Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW], who represents an agricultural State, who represents a community of farmers, change front in this body and to-day recommend and insist that the Sutherland amendment of last session shall be passed now in connection with the joint resolution to elect Senators by direct vote of the people, I am amazed. I do not know whether the senior Senator from Iowa [Mr. CuMMINS] agrees with the Senator from Kansas or not; I do not know whether the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. CLAPP] agrees with him or not; I do not Im.ow whether the Senator from Wisconsin [:Mr. LA FOLLETTE] agrees with him or not; but I am amazed to see this crowd change front. They are not sincere, Mr. President, on any proposition that they have taken before the country.

I heard the senior Senator from Iowa [Mr. Cm!MINs], in a six-hour speech-and I listened t9 it with great care-on the railroad-rate legislation at the last regular session, state that he would not vote for the bill if it were not amended as he suggested.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will admonish the Senator from Arkansas that the rule does not permit him. to call in question the sincerity of Senators.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. President, I have been called down so much that it does not hurt me. I am used to it. Just call me down at any time. [Laughter.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a mere admonition.

Mr. DAVIS. But I say I heard-how can I express it [la.ughter]-the senior Senator from Iowa in a very extended speech declare on this floor that he would not vote for that bill if it were not; changed; but he did vote for it.

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator fom Iowa?

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly.

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I do not desire to interrupt the Senator from Arkansas particularly-­

Mr. DAVIS. It is no interruption at all.

Mr. CUMMINS. But what he has just stated is not true. Mr. DAVIS. The RECORD, Mr. Pr e sident, will speak for itself. The so-called "insurgents" of this body are pretending to the country to-day that they are in favor of reform. They are not in favor of it. They are in favor of "cussing" everybody and objecting to everything that does not suit them, and they want just a little political party to themselves. I am sorry that I got in with that crowd on the Lorimer resolution. [Laughter.]

How will the Senator from Idaho, and the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator from Minnesota, and the Senator from Wisconsin vote on the substitute amendment? It is the same thing as the Sutherland amendment offered at the last session. How are they going to vote? Are they going to vote to tack this amendment on? Why? Because if they do vote for it they know that it will fail to receive the indorsement of the people of the South. .

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRisTOw]-if I do not misquote him-said that the "interests" a.re interested in getting up this controversy and that they have thrown this apple of discord into this discussion. Mr. President, I can not understand why the Senator from Kansas changes his mind and absolutely turns a somersault.

Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly.

Mr. BRISTOW. It is only under great provocation that I would p a y any attention at all to wh a t the Sena t or from Arkansas says; but the Senator from Kansas believes it is due to him to say that he has not changed his mind; h e h a s not changed his attitude in any way wh a te\er. The re olution which I introduced as a substitute for the report of the committee is practically the same as that I intr o duced two yea.rs ago from which and out of which the j o int resolution reported by the committee grew. I hold the same opinion now that I have always held; and my attitude is the same. I voted against the Sutherland amendment, as I have explained, bec~use I thought it would help the purpose, which was to change the Constitution. I believe at this time that the amendment whi c h I have offered is stronger, because it cuts out of the controversy the very question that has been injected into it by the men who ought to be the .first to want to keep it out.

l\Ir. DAVIS. Mr. President, I am surprised at the Senator from Kansas . when he says that ordinarily he would pay no attention to what the Senator from Arkansas says. That is quite in line with the humor that he is usually capable of injecting into the RECORD. Upon what meat has this our great Cresar fed that he has grown so great? ‘The Senator from Kansas can not get away from the proposition that the Sutherland amendment of the last session is his amendment now. Then, I ask, Mr. President, why this change of mind? His explanation to the country will not suffice. Why this change of heart? What has come about? The Senator from Kansas says the "interests "-and I do not Im.ow what he means by tha.t­ are interested in having this matter so beclouded that the Southern States will not indorse it. The Senator from Kansas certainly has turned a somersault in a nighttime. Ha has seen a light somewhere. He has been instructed from some place; I do not know where. But, Mr. President, I want to say that when he goes back to Kansas, when he goes back to his people, I doubt if they will indorse the resolution which he has asked to be adopted to-day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Georgia [l\fr. BACON] to th~ substitute offered by the Senator from Kansas [l\Ir. BRISTOW]. Mr. l\fARTIN of Virginia. Mr. President, I had supposed that the debate would occupy more time than it has, and I Im.ow a number of Senators have left under that impression. I do not think it would be proper to proceed with a vote just at this moment, and, unless some Senator wishes to occupy the floor, I think it would be well to take a recess, say for an hour, or I will suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum being suggested, the Secretary will call the roll.

The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names : Bacon Cummins La Follette Rayner Bailey Curtis Lippitt Reed Bankhead Davis Lodge Richardson Borah Dillingham Lorimer Root Bourne Dixon Mccumber Simmons Bradley du Pont Martin, Va. Smith, Md. Brundegee Fletcher Martine, N. J. Smith, Mich. Briggs Foster Myers Smith, S. C. Bristow Gallinger New lands Stephenson Brown Gamble O'Gorman Stone Bryan Gore Oliver Sutherland Burnham Gronna Overman Swanson Burton Guggenheim Owen Taylor Chamberlain Heyburn Page Terrell Chilton Hitchcock Paynter Townsend Clapp Johnson, Me. Penrose Warren Clark, Wyo. Johnston, Ala. Percy Watson Crane Jones Perkins Wetmore Crawford Kenyon Poindexter Williams Cullom Kern Pomerene Works

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighty Senators have answered to their names. A quorum of the Senate is present.

The question is on the amendment submitted by the Senator from Georgia to the substitute offered by the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I desired to ask the Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW] a question or two, and as I thought 1t better that I should present it at a time when he was not occupying the floor, I postponed it until now.

The contention has been very strongly urged in the Senate, and it has been influential with n. great many of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber, that this was practically a moot question, and that the power which it is sought to retain in the General Government, or to confer upon it in a measure being the exercise practically of a new power, is one which it would never be called upon to exercise; that the passions of the past have been stilled; that the temper of the past has been cooled; and that there is no danger that the power will ever be invoked which would be given to the Federal Government to supervise the election of Senators in a direct vote by the people. That, I say, has been very influential in the control of the action of some Senators who utterly disapprove of the Sutherland amendment or the Bristow amendment, as it is now called; and 1t is not important which you call it, they are the same thing; everybody knows that. It has been influential with Senators who disapprove of that amendment but who will still vote for the joint resolution if the Sutherland amendment or the Bristow amendment prevails. Some few Senators on this side have expressed themselves in the strongest terms as opposed to the amendment the Sutherland amendment or the Bristow amendment, and they have announced at the same time that even if it is adopted they will vote for the constitutional amendment, proceeding upon the ground that it is practically a moot question and that these powers will never be called into exercise.

Now, we have the statement made by the author of the present amendment that it is so important, that it is regarded as so important by a large part of this country, and by so large a number of States, that in his judgment if it were not adopted and if the joint resolution amending the Constitution were adopted as it comes from the Judiciary Committee, it would invoke a storm of controversy throughout the Northern States and would result in the defeat of the constitutional amendment. Now, Mr. President, what does that mean? In saying "the Northern States" I speak generally, of course, not including a1I of the Northern States, for I do not believe all of them think and feel that way; but the Senator from Kansas spoke of the Northern States, and, therefore, in replying to him, I speak of them generally. Does it mean that the people of the Northern States, or such of them as the Senator contemplates, are so intent upon the right to exercise this control of the election of Senators by the people in the Southern States that if they can not have that control they will defeat the joint resolution? Mr. President, is that a moot question with them? Are they taking that position as a matter of sentiment or is it because of the fact that they recognize that the time may arrive when the Federal Government should intervene in the election of Senators by the people, and should have the power to appoint registrars and supervisors of election and judges of election and marshals at the polls, and place troops at the polls for the purpose of controlling the election of Senators? Is it true that to such an extent are they of that opinion that, unless it can be done, they would Qppose the adoption of the joint reso- 1 lution for the election of Senators by the people'l

Mr. President, do people contend with earnestness for the retention of a power that they never expect to exercise? Is it not because they do expect to exercise it? They have exercised it in the past so far as Representatives are concerned, and in thus insisting upon the power they must intend and expect to exercise it in the election of Senators in the future. If they did not they would not contend for it and insist upon it and prepare themselves, as the Senator from Kansas says, for a storm of contention throughout the North that the power may be retained .. The Senator says he Iias become satisfied that it is stronger that way than it is the other way. What does that mean? It means, Mr. President, that those who insist upon the exercise oi this power in the control of the elections in the States are more in earnest, more insistent, more determined than those who deny the right and the propriety of the General Government to interfere and control the elections in the States. What else can it mean than that in the opinion of the Senator from Kansas those who oppose the exercise of this power by the General Government are not as much in earnest as those who insist upon the exercise of that power?

Mr. President, as an illustration of the temper of those who insist on the exercise of that power, I desire to ask the Senator from Kansas some questions.

The Senator from Kansas himself introduced the subject I think I can appeal to those who heard what I had to say that I said nothing about race contention. I did not use the word " negro." I said nothing about election laws in the Southern States. I tried to debate it and discuss it upon a higher plane, although, of course, we recognize the fact that those questions will come in.

As the Senator from Kansas has alluded to that, I want to ask the Senator a question. The Senator has given us the reasons why he has changed in this Congress from the position he occupied in regard to this matter in a former Congress when he voted against the Sutherland amendment; and I run emboldened to ask the Senator some questions in regard to the change because he has rather complained of those who anticipate that that question will be hereafter raised in the South. The Senator speaks of the Southern State.s. He speaks of the controversy that is to arise in the Southern States. He says there is to be a storm of controversy there over this question; and I wanted to ask the question of the Senator from Kansas if he does not know personally that the question has already been raised in some of the Northern States, and if he does not know personally that the racial issue has already been introduced in some Northern States as to the votes of Senators who voted against the Sutherland amendment, and that some pressure has been brought to bear on Senators on this floor who voted against the Sutherland amendment, threatening them with that vote in the future If they do not now support and sustain this amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas which is identical with the amendment offered by theSenator from Utah [Mr. SUTHERLAND]?

Mr. BRISTOW. If the Senator from Georgia listened to what I said, he will remember that I stated that if the amendment I offered was adopted the fight would be made in the South, but that if it was defeated, it would be made in the North by men who do not want the Constitution changed. They want Senators elected by the legislatures as they are now. The ' fight will be made because the amendment changes Article IV and not because of the change it makes in Article m, because I they think that it will be a more successful way to arouse \ antagonisms to the submitted proposition. I

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, it is fortunate that I undertook to propound this question in my own time, from the fact that the Senator, failing to reply to my interrogatory and stating something which is not any reply to it, if I were speaking in his time, would put me in the disagreeable position of unduly occupying his time when I continued to press the inquiry. But I am now in my own time, and I propose to have the Senator come to the point.

It is not a question as to what the effect of it will be in the future. I asked the Senator this question-if he does not know the fact that already, since the vote upon the Sutherland amendment, through racial influences, the issue had been made in States and pressure brought to bear upon Senators who ,·oted against the Sutherland amendment, to make them now vote for the Bristow or Sutherland amendment-whichever you choose to call it-and that that pressure has been brought directly to bear upon Senators for the purpose of influence! their action 7 Does not the Senator from Kansas personal1Y . know that fact?

Mr. BRISTOW. l am perfectly willing to answer the question as directly as I know how. Of course the influences are at work exactly ns I stated they would be. The citizens of the various States who are honestly in favor of the direct election of Senators have appealed to Senators and Members of Congress not to change section 4 so us to inject another controversy into it, but to change only section 3.

I can not see but that I have answered time and again the guestions of the Senator from Georgia-that the opposition is ' in the North; that it will be made in the North. The fight ill be made throughout the North against this Proposition because it changes section 4, and I want to cut out the change in section 4 and thereby eliminate that controversy.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I fortunately have the fi~r, know and I sh.all again insist that the Senator answer the question which I have asked him, and which he has not yet answered, there 8lld that is this: If the Senator does not personally know that to be already in certain States represented by Senators who voted sisting against the Sutherland amendment in February last, Kansas ment, among them, it has already been attempted to bring to bear it? upon the Senators who voted against the Sutherland amendment a racial pressure for the purpose of compelling them now tion, to support what they then voted against? Does not the Senator Mr. know that personally?

Mr. BRISTOW. Oh, no. The Senator, as he frequently does, puts the question in a way that the answer yes or no reason can not be made. answer.

Mr. BACON. It is inconvenient to answer. I recognize that. Mr. BACON.

Mr. BRISTOW. Since he refers to the St.ate of Kansas, I upon am perfectly free to say that it has been made the subject of the more or less controversy in the St.ate as to whether or not, in insisted. amending section 3, section 4 also ought to be amended ; and I am free to say that there are a great many very worthy men in in Kansas who think that section 4 should not be changed.

They attribute to the change of section 4 a great deal more fact, . weight than I do, and the Senator from Utah attributes great a deal more weight to the change in section 4 than I do. But no man who is not blind can deny the fact that the adoption of the amendment as reported by the committee injects into have this a question that ought to be kept out of it. It is not the One question of taking from the Federal-Government a power which only U now has. •

I do not believe that it takes away from the Federal Government the power to appoint a marshal or to organize an army, around as the Senator from Georgia indicates with such emphasis. If who the Federal Government can organize an army now to protect them the honesty and the integrity of elections in the South, we can tended organize an army, in my judgment, just as well after the or amendment reported by the Committee on the Judiciary is them adopted, and no better. But the adoption of the amendment in I that form gives an opportunity for the men who oppose the threat reform in our political institutions to make the contest against there it upon broader grounds, and therefore more nearly encompass enforce its defeat. My sole purpose in the efforts I have made to get passed this adopted is to get it before the people in a clear and simple power form, so that the naked question shall stand out, Shall the sonally people of the United States elect their Senators by direct vote, or, in order to get permission to do that, shall they consent to power the change in section 4 and to taking from the Federal Govern­ in ment an authority which it now has? And that proviso ought not to be interjected into this fight.

Mr. BACON. I have listened with great patience to the Senator replying to a very simple question, to which I do not ful think he has yet replied. But I did not intend to interrupt the their Senator as long as he desired to continue the discussion of the of my general merits of the question.

The Senator himself lugged into this controversy what had not been brought into it before-the racial question.

Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia ators yield to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. BACON. I do.

Mr. BRISTOW. With the greatest respect for the Senator it is a moot question. from Georgia, I deny that I lugged into this question the racial Mr. question.

Mr. BACON. I withdraw the word "lugged."

Mr. BRISTOW. Or that I precipitated, or that I injected it, Mr. BACON. or that I brought it into the debate in any way.

Any man of ordinary intelligence knows that the controversy :which the Senator from Georgia has bee n carrying on here for Mr. months against this amendment has been because of racial Mr. prejudice that exists in that section of the country. There is no ceived use to deal here with obscure and indefinite terms.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, there are some things which are Inseparable and necessarily grow out of conditions. But still each there ls such a thing as a discussion of matters upon general tion; principles without reference to those special conditions, and I not think I can call the Senate to witness that the Senator from &estion. Kansas himself for the first time to-day brought in the racial Mr. question. That is all I meant to suggest in regard to it; and as the Senator did it, I want to ask him a question. I have asked Well, him several times, and I wanted to ask him to see if I could get a direct reply from him.

That is not only wh a t is going to happen in the future. I wanted to ask the Se n ator, and have asked him " , and again ask him, if he does not know the fact not simply that probably there will be a controversy such as he suggests, but does he not the fa.ct that in States represented on this floor by Senators who voted against the Sutherland amendment, since that time has been instituted. a. raci a l insistence and influence sought brought to bear on racial grounds against the action, inthat they should now vote for the Sutherland amendor the Bristow amendment, whichever you please to call The Senator knows the fact. Mr. BRISTOW. If I have not answered the Senator's quesI do not know how to do if.

BACON. Does the Senator say yes? Mr. BRISTOW. I can not say yes in direct terms to the question, because it would not be exactly true. That is the why I do not say yes. I have given the Senator my

Well, Mr. President, I will not insist further a more categorical answer, but I do not understand that Senator has either said yes or no. For that reason I have But, as we are on that question, I want to say another word regard to it. I know the fact, Mr. President, and there are Senators who sit within the sound of my voice who know the and none ot them will get up and deny it, that Senators who voted against the proposition known as the Sutherland amendment will now vote for it under the new name of the Bristow amendment, and that various and sundry influences been brought to bear on them to induce them to do that. was that I have mentioned. I know the fact that not in their own States was the racial influence sought to be brought to bear on them and that its political influence on their fortunes has been presented to them, but I know they have come this Capitol and called out from this Chamber Senators voted against the Sutherland amendment and have told that they had organized in this country and that they intha~ Senators who voted against the Bristow amendment the Sutherland amendment, as it might be, should hear from in the future. Imow the fact that under the Dome of this Capitol that has been made to Senators. Yet we are to be told that is nothing in this amendment; that there is no purpose to it; that it is a mere moot question; that the . time has when there is ever going to be sought the exercise of under it. Yet those who are insisting upon it are perthreatening Senators with what will be their political downfall if they vote to interfere with the exercise of this by the Federal Government i.B. the control of the election the St.ates.

Mr. President, if I am not speaking the truth, let any Senator here rise and question the truth of my statement.

That is not all, Mr. President There have been other powerinfluences sought to be exercised upon Senators to control vote in this matter. Would Senators within the sound voice be willing to send to the desk and have read from the desk the letters which they have received from persons of influence in this country insisting upon it that this amendment to the Constitution shall have engrafted upon it this power to interfere with the election in the St.ates? I challenge the Senators send to the desk the letters which they have received on this subject. Senators know they have received these letters . . It can not be accounted for, Mr. President, on the ground that

WORKS. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from California?

Mr. WORKS. I wish to ask the Senator from Georgia whether he makes that statement generally of all Senators?

BACON. By no means.

:WORKS. If he does, I want to deny that I have reany letters on any amendment of that sort.

Mr. l}ACON. I certainly did not have the Senator from California in mind. I would be very glad to have a denial from

Senator present. That would very soon settle the question; if each Senator will rise in his place and say he has received them, I will most cheerfully withdraw the sug­

GUGGENHEIM. I will deny it for the State of Colorado. Mr. BACON. Now, I will wait for the others. [A pause.] Mr. President, it seems that there are only two.

Mr. CUMMINS. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia a question.

The PRESIDING·OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINS. Is he imputing to Senators some wrong motive? Is he suggesting improper influence as being brought to bear upon them? If so, he ought to be very specific.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, when the Senator has finished his question . I will be more than pleased to answer. Has the Senator finished his question?

l\fr. CUMMINS. I have finished that question.

l\fr. BACON. Very well; let me answer it.

Mr. CUMMINS. I will say, however, to avoid interrupting him again--

Mr. BACON. No; I rather prefer that the Senator would let me answer that question.

Mr. CUMMINS. Very well.

Mr. BACON. Mr. President, the Senator certainly did not understand my proposition or he would not have asked the question. I was discussing the point whether this is a moot question, whether the insistence upon the incorporation of this feature in the proposed amendment to the Constitution is a harmless one, whether it is one never intended to be exercised. I have said simply as an evidence of the fact that it is not a moot question; that it is a live question; that it is one that is intended to be made a practical question; that prominent men are insisting upon it that this power shall be given the Government to interfere in the senatorial elections in the States. They have _ got a right to so insist. Nobody will claim that it is improper. Of course they have a right to so insist.

Every Senator is in a position where he can properly receive suggestions from his constituents or · from people throughout the country. There can not be any . possible suggestion of impropriety in it. The sole purpose I had was to illustrate my contention that it is not a moot question; that it is a live question; that it is a question people are insisting upon, because they recognize it as a practical question, and that it is not, as some of our friends say, a question that can never be practical and that the time will never come when the power is sought to be exercised. I am simply endeavoring to show to the Senate that there is a sentiment in the country in favor of it, an active sentiment and not a dormant one, a sentiment to make a practical use of it and not simply a sentimental one to retain it upon the statute books.

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield further to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. BACON. I do.

Mr. CUMMINS. I intended to add to the statement before the Senator from Georgia answered my question that I voted against the Sutherland amendment in February last, and I have received just one letter upon that subject since that time, and that letter came from the District of Columbia, not from my own State. I have never heard my vote criticized. Does that answer the Senator from Georgia with respect to that?

Mr. BACON. So far as the Senator from Iowa is concerned, it certainly answers the question as to him, and I wish again to disclaim any possible imputation on my part of any impropriety in any man who wrote the letter or any Senator who received it.

My sole purpose was to illustrate the contention which I made in the beginning, that it is not a moot question, that it is not a dormant question, but a live question, a practical question. That is illustrated by the fact that in certain racial circles there is an insistence, and outside of all racial considerations there is· an insistence which can not be possibly reconciled with the idea forward. that it is a moot question, a dormant question, something which shall never have any practical feature connected with it. That is my sole purpose in making the suggestion.

Mr. President, I have, of course, no disposition to insist upon Idaho? any · further disclaimers in regard to that. I simply use it for the purpose I have · re indicated. It is my belief, as I have endeavored to submit to the Senate this afternoon, that the adoption of this resolution amending the Constitution and, at the same time, denying to the States the right which they practically now have . to control the election of Senators, and to clothe the Federal Government with the power to go into the State and use all the machinery which they now can use as to the House of Representatives, is to unsettle the very foundation of this Government and to destroy the stability of the tenure of office of Senators, and that. it is the strongest blow which could possibly be stricken at the power of the States.

We hear, Mr. President, a great many protestations from Mr. LODGE. Senators as to their loyalty to the rights of the States. It is not true, as my distinguished and learned friend from Kansas says, that the question of State rights is a dead · issue, by any, means. Men of all parties-I do not say all men of all parties, but distinguished men of all parties-are rather proud of the opportunity to allege and avow their loyalty to the States and to the rights of the States, and the Senator who does not recognize that it is just as much his duty to preserve the rights of the States as it is to defend the rights of the Union, in my opinion, has not correctly read the Constitution and laws of this country and does not properly appreciate the relation which the one bears to the other.

I say we hear a great deal of that. Yet, Mr. President, when the time comes and this proposition is presented and the other proposition is presented in which there is an encroachment on the rights of the States, one by one the blocks are removed and the constitutional structure is weakened. I repeat that we should consider the great office which the Senate was intended to fill, the great office which it should fill, as the representative of the States, the great office which it should fill, in view of the fact that in the framework of this- Government the States were not only given the control of their own affairs, but they were given greater power in the direction of the govern.p:iental affairs of the United States than all other influences put together, in the fact that there is no governmental function but what the Senate in its representation of the States is required to ta:t.e its part and in which its assent is necessary, whereas there are other functions in which the Executive has no part, there are other functions in which the House has no part, and there are of course many functions in which the judiciary has no part ; but so far as constructive legislation is concerned or destructive legislation, if you please, because I think we have some of each kind, no step can be taken except the consent of the Senate is had for it. When we put it in a position where other influences outside of the State, such as can be brought to bear through registrars and supervisors of election and judges of election and marshals and troops, if you please, at the polls can determine the question who shall be sent as a Senator from a State, sir, in my opinion a greater blow will have been stricken against the power of the States and the rights of the States than has eyer been stricken in the history of government.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are confronted by a rather unique situation. The last session of congress witnessed the culmination of a battle for popular government that had been waged for a century. Into the contest there was at the last session injected a. question which was practically new to the American people. The proposition was embodied in what was then known as the Sutherland amendment.

The legislatures of, I think, more than 30 States had demanded an amendment to the Constitution · conferring upon the people the full right by direct vote to determine the member ­ ship of this body. I am not aware of the question which was I raised by the Sutherland amendment having ever been discu sed in a single legislature, or of it having been debated or brought forward in a State convention of either party. Four or five times the House of Representatives has passed resolutions purposed to confer the right of direct elections upon the people. In each instance the Senate has stood-I had almost said stubbornly-against the vote of the House of Repre entatives and opposed to the will of the people of the United States. At last, when recruits are coming to this great reform from the Republican side of this Chamber, and when it begins to look as though action is about to be taken in consummation of the prayer and demands of the people, just at the mom~nt when we apparently are about to give the sqvereign citizen an opportunity t<> vote, the " Sutherland " amendment-rechristened the " Bristow " amendment-is again suddenly brought

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GALLINGER in the chair), Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from

Mr. BORAH. Would the Senator yield while I prefer a request?

Mr. REED. Certainly.

Mr. BORAH. .As nearly as I can ascertain those . e who desire to speak upon this subject have in a large me :-i sure concluded. With the exception of one or two others, po sibly, and after consultation with a number of Senators . I am going to ask unanimous consent that the vote upon the re olution and the amendments begin at 8.15.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I do not think that it is possible for us to modify the unanimous-consent nf 1 ·c·" nen t. 1 •

Mr. BORAH. That is not modifying the tm m . imou s consent. 1 The unanimous-consent a gre c> 1J e nt was to 1 vote before the end of the legislative day. I t h i nk it is a very i bad form of unanimous consent, but that was the form. It 1tould be a distinct modification to fix a specific time.

Mr. BORAH. We · can undoubtedly modify it by unanimous consent.

.Mr. LODGE. No; I think not. The unanimous-consent agreement must stand. The same Senators who made it may Mt be here.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts objects. The Senator from Missouri will proceed.

Mr. ItEED Mr. President, the Sutherland amendment at e. last session placed direct election in jeopardy by interject- ~ tted to elect their Senators?" a proposition sectional in its g into the simple, great question, viz, " Shall the people be percharacter and in large measure subversive of the very object Sought to be attained by changing the Constitution.

Mr. JONES. Mr. President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Washington?

Mr. REED. I do.

Mr. JONES. Does the Senator mean to say that in the last session of the last Congress was the first time an amendment had been offered striking out the provision to which he refers?

Mr. REED. No; I did not mean that.

lli. JONES. I thought the Senator did.

Mr. REED. I mean to say that it is the first time the scheme to curtail the power of the people of the States to conduct the contemplated senatorial elections free from Federal interference was ever given real public and national prominence. That !Lt had been previously suggested is beyond question. But the suggestion was disregarded. It fell dead from the lips which uttered it.

Mr. JONES. I simply want to call attention to the fact that in the House of Representatives-I do not remember in just what Congress-a similar reS.Olution was reported by the committee, and upon objection being made, by unanimous consent, the provision that is objected to here was eliminated.

Mr. REED. Yes; it was not then regarded as meriting discussion: but it was brought forward in the Senate at the last session and a battle waged for it; the lines were then sharply 'drawn. ·

We now find this peculiar situation, that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW), who only last February voted against the Sutherland amendment, now introduces it as his OWIL It ts even stated, with how much correctness I do not know, that several Senators who are commonly known as "insurgents u have likewise reversed themselves and are cooperating with the Senator from Kansas in the effort to kill this bill by the very amendment they denounced and voted against only four months Mr. President, I have hitherto looked with great favor upon the movement known as "insurgency." I had begun to believe that once more in the history of the world a good thing was" coming out of Nazareth." If, however, it be true that so many of the insurgents have thus suddenly and mysteriously reversed themselves, I shall be forced to agree with a gentleman who the other day declared, "The standpatter occupies well-known ground, the Democrat likewise occupies well-known ground, but the insurgent has no ground whatever to stand on "-he is simply u up in the air." [Laughter.] The other evening the Hibernian conductor of a crowded street car thrust his red head through the door and shouted, "Will thim as is standin' in front move up so that thim as is standin' behind can take the places of thim as is standin' in front, and leave places for thim as is standin' nowh~re." [Laughter.] The latter class of unfortunates aptly typifies the insurgent, particularly if he intends to change in this ready and shifty manner. If he is not now, he soon will be standing nowhere, and for no thing, long enough to be located or classified.

What is the reason assigned by the Senator from Kansas for this change which has come over the spirit of his philosophy? He asserts that there are "influences at work.” What does he mean by u “influences”? Judging by the dramatic and withering manner in which he pronounces the word "influence," and considering also his favorite theme upon the hustings, one would I \ imagine that he m'eans by “influences at work,” the "dark, sinister methods of corporate powers"; that the" great trusts," the " criminal combines," the " fearsome octopuses 0 the Senator from Kansas so persistently and so valiantly fights, constitute the diabolic "influences at work.” Yet the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACON] during a half hour's cross-examination was utterly unable to extract a categorical declaration as to what these" influences” were, where they came from or how manifested. The Senator from Kansas did not specify the trusts, neither could he be cajoled or coerced into a direct an- . swer to the question whether u the influences” 0 were not the colored man and brother who hibernate in the State of Kansas. Pressed again and yet again, he continued to avoid an answer by painful evasion and involved circumlocution. I venture the assertion that the d.istinguished Senator from Kansas can not point to a trust magnate, can not point to a great corporation that has, since he cast his vote against the proposition he now introduces, begun a crusade against this measure. The trusts and trust magnates have been at all times, and under all circumstances, against any and all efforts to confer upon the people the :right to elect the Members o.t the Senate.

I greatly fear that the "influences at work "-the influences which have reached the ear and changed the opinion of the Senator from Kansas, the influences which have sent him to the "right-about" and started him scurrying to the rear-originated with the colored voices and colored voters of the State of Kansas. Dark therefore are the “influences,” even it not sinister. I wage war against no race, nor kind, nor class of men, but if it be true that the Senator from Kansas has changed his position because of subserviency to the colored voter; if that influence is so potential in the councils of the Republican Party; if it can make Senators load this century-old struggle with the incubus of an iniquitous amendment curtailing the powers of great States and limiting the rights of the people thereof, then it is time for every man who is devoted to his country and its constitution, who loves the State where he resides and finds protection under just laws enacted without Federal interference, who yields loyal fealty to this indissolvable Union of sovereign State~ to pause and consider well before he allows a contemplated amendment tG the Constitution to be emasculated at the dictation of such an ic influence."

. Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. REED. I do.

Mr. BRISTOW. I call the attention or the Senator from Missouri to the fact that the amendment which I introduced some two years ago last April was in substantially the form in which I introduced it on the opening of the present session, and it embodied my general views then as it does now.

Mr. REED. Then the Senator is a living illustration of the doctrine that "statesmen oft to shifty uses bend." He was for the Sutherland amendment two years ago; he changed and was against it four months ago; he has changed a second time and is for it now. If we should take a "continuance of the case," I have no doubt he would be against it next week-always provided the colored " influences" became in the interim innocuous. 1ttr. CULBERSON. He would be for it.

Mr. REED. Nay, I have it right. If he is for it now, he will likely be against it next week.

Mr. President, I want to discuss this question for a. few minutes from another standpoint. It is a mere playing with words, a mere juggling with the English language to say that, because the proposed amendment omits all reference to section 4 of Article I, it does not radically change the effect of that section. The vice of the Bristow amendment lies in the very fact that it does fail to mention section 4. The truth, however paradoxical it may appear, is that the failure to change section 4 does in fact work a change of a most radical character, because, as the Constitution now stands, section 4 applies to elections by the legislatures, but when we change the Constitution so that the legislatures shall no longer elect and confer the power of election upon the people, then the language of section 4, if it be not also changed, will immediately apply to elections held by the people. Section 3 provides: ·

Senators of the United States • • • shall be chosen by the le~is· latures thereof. • • •

The language of section 4 is :

The times, the places, and the manner of holding elections of Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislatures thereof, but Congress may at any time by law make or filter such regulations except as to the places of choosing S e nators.

This right of Congress therefore to regulate the election of Senators is, as the Constitution now stands, strictly limited to regulations applicable t<> elections held by the various State legislatures. But when we change, as we propose in the joint resolution, section 3, so that it shall read:

Senator& of the United States shall be • • • chosen by the people of the various Statesthen it we do not at the same time change the language of section 4 it will become applicable at once to elections held by the people. The words of section 4, which now in their application are llmitoo to a control of legislative elections, will at once extend the power and control of Congress over elections held by the people themselves. Thus there will be a direct extension of power and a direct authorization to the Federal authorities, giving them the right to invade the polling booths, - take charge of the machinery of the election, and supervise the · action · of the sovereign .citizens when they come to cast their votes in their home precincts, And yet gentlemen have the temerity to stand in this body and argue that the Bristow amendment, simply because it does not refer to section 4, does not in effect change that section of the Constitution, when the patent fact is that because the Bristow amendment fails to change section 4 to conform with the proposed change in section 3 the powers conferred by section 4 become immediately · applicable to popular elections instead of, as at present, being confined to legislative elections.

Why, sir, under the law, as it now stands, when the people assemble to cast their votes for members of the general assemblies, the Federal Government can not appoint a supervisor o.f elections; the Government can not send a man into the State for the purpose of supervising the registration of voters; the Government can not in any manner interfere in that election when it is confined to State officers; its powers are strictly limited to congressional elections. But if this act is passed, as drawn by the Senator from Kansas, the power of the Government to invade the ballot box of the citizen and to interfere with the vote of the citizen becomes absolute and complete.

It is mere begging of the question for gentlemen to say that we are interfering with the fourth section of Article I because we provide that it shall not apply where it does not now apply. The truth is, the advocates of the Sutherland amendment-now introduced by the Senator from Kansas and rechristened by his illustrious name-are making the fourth section apply where it does not now apply, and are conferring on Congress for the first time the power to interfere with the people in the selection of a United States Senator. As it is to-day the sovereign voter goes to the polls without let or hindrance of the Government and casts his vote for a member of the legislature. That is the crucial thing. The crux of the matter is the right of the citizen to cast his vote without Federal interference. After the citizen has cast his vote and after he has elected a man to represent him in the legislature, then the right of the Federal Government for the first time attachesfor the first time it may be exercised-to do what? Merely to designate the time when and the manner in which the agent of the voter, to wit, . the man he sent to the legislature, may cast the vote of his principal-the citizen. Congress can not go into the ballot box; Congress can not interfere with the sovereign right of the citizen to name the men who, as members of the general assembly, name the Senators. Let me illustrate how the Bristow bill will result in a vast extension of Federal authority. I will take, for example, a city in my own State, the city of St. Louis--

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Missouri yield to the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. REED. Certainly.

Mr. LODGE. I merely desire to ask the Senator a question. The Senator did not mean to imply that Congress had no power now in regard to the election of members of the legislature? .Mr. REED. I meant to say that Congress had no power now except its general power to interfere in the matter of election of Members of the House of Representatives, and that Congress does not have the power to interfere with the citizen who is voting for a member of the general assembly of his own State. Congress has no power to take charge of such an election. The State, and not the National Government, regulates and conducts such an election. ·

Mr. LODGE. The Senator, I . think, has for the moment forgotten the provision of the second section of the fourteenth amendment, which is as follows:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice ot electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, etc.

1\fr. REED. Do I understand that the Senator maintains that under that provision Congress could appoint registrars for the election . in a State, take charge of the election machinery, and conduct the election?

Mr. LODGE. Oh, not at all. I do not know what the Senator means exactly by " registrars," but I mean · that Congress has the power over the election of members of the legislature to the extent that it is granted by the fourteenth amendment--

Mr. REED. Yes; and no further. That section simply provides that when any of the male inhabitants of a State over 21 years of age are denied the right to vote, the basis of representation in Congress shall be correspondingly reduced. We are not at variance on that subject

Mr. LODGE. And no further.

Mr. REED. When I was interrupted, I was about to illus· trate how the powers granted by the Bristow amendment might be so e;xercised by the Federal Government as. to completely control an election and absolutely subvert the will of the people of a State. For the purpose of illustration, I take the great city of St. Louis. Under the law as it now exists, it the citizens of St Louis are about to elect members of the general assembly, they do so without any interference on the part of the Federal Government. The Federal Government neither interferes nor has it the power to interfere. Prior to the election, the recorders of the voters-registrars of the election, if you please-are appointed by the governor of the State. These recorders of voters, for all practical purposes, have absolute power to say whose names shall be recorded upon the voting lists. Thus these local officers, appointed by local authority, determine who shall vote; but, Mr. President, when you pass the Bristow amendment you will have conferred on the Federal Government the right to · name · the officers who shall register the voters. The power to determine who may register is the power to determine who may vote. The power to determine who may vote is the power to determine the result of the election. In practical operation this too frequently occurs. Indeed, it is openly charged that the result in a recent election in St. Louis was accomplished simply by means of a padded registration list.

Again, as the law now stands, the judges and clerks of elec· tion are appointed by local authority, but if you pass the Bristow amendment, the Federal Government will have the right to appoint supervisors or judges of election, to control the ballot boxes, and to cast up and certify the result. These judges may be appointed of the. citizens of a State or they may be mere Federal carpetbaggers sent into a Commonwealth for the purpose of procuring a fraudulent result. It will not do to answer this objection by asserting that there having been corruption under local authorities-as admitted in the illustration I have just used-therefore we need the interposition ot national authority.

The point I am trying to drive home here is this: That the power to say who shall register means the power to say who shall carry a · State; the power to supervise the ballot and certify the returns likewise means the power to say who shall carry a State. That power now exists in the States, but the moment you pass the Bristow amendment the local authorities of the State, nay, even the people thereof, no longer possess their present power. You take it from them and confer upon the Federal Government the absolute authority to take charge of the entire election machinery and to determine by their certification, false or otherwise, who shall sit in this body.

Mr. President, I do not desire to take the time of the Senate except for a few minutes longer. It has been said by the advocates of the Bristow amendment that the question of race and race prejudice has unfortunately been thrust into this debate. Who thrust it in? If the Bristow amendment had not been offered in this body, the joint resolution adopted by the House of Representatives would have been passed here to-day or long before this date, and the people of the United States, in their several general - assemblies, would have been privileged to vote upon the proposition at once or as soon as their general assemblies might be convened. The joint resolution comes here from the House of Representatives, backed by an overwhelming vote; why should we at this time-at this late hour-load it down with amendments? Who are for the Bristow amendment? I frankly admit some men are for it who honestly favor conferring the power upon the people to elect their Senators. But who else is for it? Every man who does not believe in the direct election of United States Senators is for this Bristow amendment. · Every single Senator on the other side of this Chamber who is against granting this power to the people will vote to load it with the Bristow amendment.

These Senators are not voting for the Bristow amendm e nt because they think it strengthens the joint resolution, but because they believe it will load the resolution with an incubus that will postpone its adoption by the State legislatures; nay, more, they indulge the desir.e and hope that this amendment will effectually kill for all time the joint resolution as reported to us by the House of Representatives. Who else will be for the Bristow amendment? If it be true that the great interests of this country are opposing this measure, such interests will with one voice support Senator BRisTow's proposition, and every newspaper owned or controlled by the sinister influences at which the Senator from Kansas darkly hints will be found arrayed in support of his amendment. But if you kill the Bristow amendment, if you pass the joint resolution here as it was passed by the House of Representatives, then, Mr. President, the people of this country will at last and at once have the opportunity through their various State legislatures to pass upon this great question which has so long been dear to the hearts of the American people. -

Load it with the Bristow amendment, and the joint resolution must go back to the House of Representatives. Then will, in all probability, come the delay of conference and possibly failure of agreement. If finally the joint resolution as passed by the House is passed after conference here, comes before the general assemblies for their action, unburdened by the Sutherland-Bristow amendment, what argument can be presented against it by the enemies of popular government? They can only say, "You are conferring too much power upon the States. You ought not to accept this power yourselves. You ought to express a doubt of your own honesty and of your own capacity. You ought to resolve that you are incapable of self-government. You should go back and place yourself under the wings of Congress. You need the supervising help of the Federal Government. You can not trust yourselves."

Will that argument obtain in the legislature of your State, or yours, or yours, or yours? Will not · the Legislature - of Massachusetts say: "We do not need Federal interference; we can pass laws that will guard our elections and will keep the ballot safe and sacred"? Will not the Legislature of New York say the same thing? Will not the Legislature of the proud State of Kansas also say that Kansas is able to regulate the elections of Kansas? And, if Kansas, and New York, and :Massachusetts, then why not all the other States of this Union? Why are they not all, my fellow Senators, able to keep the ballot pure and to see that the will of the · sovereign people is fairly expressed and registered?

And now a final word to the real friends of popular govern­ cruel. ment-to all Members of this body who honestly desire that it be purged of every influence save that which emanates from the hearts and brains of the people; to those whose favorite aphorism is, " The voice of the people is the voice of God," I want to make a most urgent appeal, especially do I appeal to the insurgent Senators-who, after all, I believe 1 will by their votes respond to the voice of conscience-I ask you this question: If by loading this joint resolution with the amendment offered by tlle Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW] you are not emasculating, nay, assisting in destroying that great principle of popular government which you so much profess to love? Why, sir, what is the essence of the great question now before the Senate? It is that there shall be taken from the State legislatures the powers they now possess and that these powers shall be directly conferred upon the people. Why? Because it has been found by experience that the agent does not so well represent. his master's interests as the master can himself. Why now repudiate the doctrine that the people can be completely intrusted with the power to govern themselves?

The devices which were originated as safeguards against action by the people have in the bitter school of experience been proven obstacles to progress and instruments of fraud and oppression. That is the pith and kernel of the matter. Therefore the nearer you place the Government to the people the more perfect control you give the people; the more complete domination you give the people the nearer you come to realizing the ideal which has been in the hearts and brains of patriots since the days of Jefferson-that is in your heart and brain at this hour. _

What does the Bristow amendment propose to do? · Reduced to plain language, its declaration is: "Yes, you are a sovereign people, a great people, a people that we trust; therefore we will give you the right to vote for United States Senators; you are endowed with the intelligence to select a United States Senator; you possess the honesty to select a United States Senator, but you neither possess the honesty nor the intelligence to conduct such an election. We will therefore not give you the right to select your - senators clean-cut and clear; we will have Congress put hobbles upon this right; we will confer upon some Federal understrapper the power to supervise the elections which you I ~ as a sovereign people hold. We will give to these Federal agents the right to take charge of your ballot boxes and determine your qualifications as electors."

One further observation directed to those who advocate this amendment because they still entertain a desire to maintain Federal domination over the Southern States. Senators, we do not legislate for a day or for an hour. I do not believe that any political party or any government ever gained substantial advantage by doing a thing for narrow, temporary, or prejudiced reasons.

We are legislating not for to-day, but for the conditions and circumstances which may arise in the long years to come. We are often told that "a great cloud hangs over the Republic; that vast aggregations of wealth already are extending their potentiality in so many direetions and controlling in so many departments of the Government that the very liberties . of the people are in peril." I do not desire to engage in extreme or inflammatory declamation regarding this danger; but let us for a moment concede that the danger exists. Let us assume that the present trend and march of events continues for a few more years. Let us assume that wealth heaps high its hoard and that mammon continues to grow great and powerful in the Republic . It does not require an inflamed imagination to conceive that under such conditions the power of massed and fortified wealth could become sufficiently great ·to ultimately secure the election of a President of the United States who may bend to its will and become the subject of its purposes. If such a President shall ever be unfortunately selected, and we by our acts to-day have conferred upon him the power to appoint United States marshals, legally authorized to surround our polls; to appoint registers of elections, lawfully empowered to invade the election booth; to appoint men duly vested with authority to count the ballots in every State of the Union, how think you that power will be exercised in the great battle then to be wagedaye, even now being waged-between men and money, between the creatures created by God and the monsters erected by cupidity? Insurgents, I put it to you; when that time comes, if it shall ever come, the battle will not be one originating in race prejudices; it will not be a question between the black man and the white man, between the North and the South; but it will be a mighty struggle between the people of this country and the only "influences" we have reason to fear in the · pres ­ ent hour-the tremendous and overmastering power and force of wealth, organized, mighty, and too often unscrupulous and Let us therefore not place the power to control elections in the hands of a President who may unfortunately become a wicked instrument or weak tool in the hands of those great "influences . " Let us give to no man and to no central govern ­ ment the right of interference. Rather let us place this power in the hands of the people untrammeled and unrestricted. Let us tie no cords about it. Let us not hamstring popular government at the very moment we are pretending to confer it. Let us give to the people the fullest right, the amplest authority, under their own laws, in their own way and in their own good time to elect the Members of the United States Senate. Let us so hedge this right of the people about that no Federal officer-aye, though he be the President himself-dare lay the hand of power upon it.

There may have been corrupt elections in some States; there may be _ here and there something of evil done, but I tell you , Senators, that the man who does not believe the sovereign citizens of the different States will not in the end pa s just laws, hold fair elections, maintain honest government, and preserve the Union, has lost faith in the Republic and does not belong beneath our flag.

I affirm that you can trust the people. You can trust the people of Colorado, although they are at present invorved in legislative turmoil. You can trust the people of Kansas, although their Senator believes they need Federal supervision. You can trust the people of Missouri and New York and Massachusetts. You can trust the people of the great Western Statess whose Representatives for the most part are here to-day giving their support to popular government. You can trust the peoplG.. of all the States of this Union, whether of the North or of thf South, of the East or of the West.

To those of you who oppose popular government; to those or you who fear to intrust to the State legislatures the enactmen ~ of proper laws for the conduct of honest elections; to those o~ you who insist that the people should not be granted the righ' of a direct vote for United States Senators, I ask you. in God'$ name, if you can trust the people to elect general assembliet wise enough to elect Senators, why can you not trust them tc themselves wisely elect Senators? If you can trust a Stato legislature at the pre ent time to elect UnitPd States Senators. why can you not trust the same legislature to pass wise and just laws regulating the election of United States Senators by the people? A man who votes for the Bristow amendment votes his lack of confidence in the State he represents; votes his lack of confidence in _ the people of the various States , and gives the lie to every protestation he may utter of confidence in th• people of the United States.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I had not intended to say a word in this debate until within the last few minutes, and would not speak now did I not feel that it is just to myself that I should say something concerning my position.

In the first place, it is very apparent tha t after an agitation extending over several years a majority of the people of this country favor the election of Senators by direct vote of the people. A large majority of the States of this Union have so declared. I bow in submission to the people's will, and shall vote in favor of conferring the power upon the people of the States by direct vote to elect their Senators.

I have not found in any of the resolutions passed by any of the State legislatures any request that section 4 of Article I of the Constitution should be repealed. While the people have asked, through their legislatures, for the privilege of electing their Senators directly, they have not asked in any instance that all power of the Congress of the United States to protect itself should be withdrawn.

One . would think from speeches that have been made here that an effort is being made now to give Congress the right to fix time, place, and manner of electing Senators. Such right has been in the Constitution of the United States from the time it was adopted, and during all these long and eventful years I do not remember any Senator who has referred to an unjust exercise of that power in any election of n. Senator. If it has ever been unjustly exercised, so far as the Senate of the United States is concerned, I am not aware of it, but all at once there seems to be a terrible dread that the Congress of the United States, or those who may be in the majority, are preparing in the future to take some sort of reprehensible step. We have gone through all these years of travail, and we have never felt it necessary to engage in anything of this sort. Those of us who favor the Bristow amendment are asked, "Why do you favor it? Do you expect to do something in the future? Do you expect to enforce this section of the Constitution in the future to the detriment of Southern States?" We might as well ask them, "Why do you desire to obliterate the Constitution of the United States, under which we have lived for so long, to prevent the Congress of the United States from exercising any power in a matter of this sort? Do you expect in future to do some reprehensible thing?" One question is just as legitimate as the other. I do not believe that a great body like the Congress of the United States should surrender all power and control over fixing the time, place, and manner of electing its Senators.

Such has not been asked, so far as the -election of Members of the House is concerned, although it is claimed that great injustice has been done by legislation as to that body in the past concerning the election of its Members. Yet there is no proposition now, so far as the lower House is concerned, to deprive Congress of its power to fix the time, places, and manner of electing Members of that body. But, strange to say, the Senate, and the Senate alone, is asked to be deprived of this power.

What does it mean? We have been asked what it means for us to oppose it. r ask what does it mean that you who ask it do not desire to elect Senators by direct vote of the people of the States unless the legislatures of the different States can control that matter and the Senate be deprived of the power it has exercised for so many years?

Now, Mr. President, I want to make more pointed my objection to the legislatures of the States controlling this matter, and I shall make it by a reference to my own State. In 1893, more than 17 years ago, an apportionment bill was passed by the Legislature of the State of Kentucky and an apportionment made such as I declare here and now is a disgrace and a shameful denial of representation to the people. What was that apportionment bill? In the first place, I will refer to the fourth, the seventh, and the eighth congressional districts as now constituted. The eighth under the census of 1910 has 148,313 votes; the fourth, 210,4-06 votes; the seventh, 151,051 votes; while the eleventh congressional district, a Republican district, has 308,348 votes.

Now, t at is a specimen of congressional apportionment Let us go a little further to the apportionment of State senatorial · districts. In the ninth district there are 5 2 ,9 2 5 people; in the twenty-first, 35,586 people; in the thirtieth, 31,595 people. These are Democratic districts.

Now, turn to the other side-Republican districts: In the on thirty-third there are 145,075 people; in the seventh, 72,04.5; in the seventeenth, 163,610.

Now, let us proceed a little farther and see what the legislative apportionment was: In the eighth Democratic district of Kentucky, 14,539; in the twenty-fifth district, Republican, 26,274; in the twen ty -first district, Democratic, 11,460; in the ninety- us here? eighth, Republican, 43,511; in the seven te enth district, Democratic, 13 , 241; in the ninety-third, a Republican district, 59,244; in the twenty-ninth legislative district, Democratic, 8,512; in the nine t y- se v e nth, Re p ublican, 40,037 ; in the thirtieth district, Democratic, 9,763; in the ninety-ninth, a Republican district, 18,475; in the sixty-fourth, a Democratic district, 14,063; in the slrty-ninth, a Republican district, 54,098.

I ha've given only a. few of the most glaring inequalities contained in the apportionment bill of 1893.

Five years ago the Legislature of Kentucky, upon whom it is now proposed to confer the power to fix the time, manner, and place of electing United States Senators, after having passed the constitutional limit of 10 years in which to make an apportion.­ ment by three years, passed a new apportionment bill much worse than that of 1893.

An appeal was made to the courts, and the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in passing on an appeal from the court below declared that apportionment to be unconstitutional and set it aside. (See Ragland v. Anderson, 125 Ky., 141.) And 1n the later case of Adams v. Bosworth (126 Ky., 64) that court expressed the opinion that the next legislature would comply with its duty and pass a constitutional measure. That legislature, however, met and ignore@é the opinion of the court of appeals, and this infamous gerrymander to-day stands the creature of the Democratic Legislature of the State of Kentucky, denying substantially the right of representation to our people, and yet we are asked to vote for a.n amendment here which will confer upon the Legislature of Kentucky the right to fix the time, the manner, and the place of electing United States Senators.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Ken.­ tucky yield to the Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. BRADLEY. Certainly.

Mr. GORE. I should like to ask the Senator, without re flecting upon the legislature in Kentucky or impeaching that in any other State, if he is not aware that even a worse condition is alleged to exist in the State of Rhode Island--

Mr. BRADLEY. I do not--

Mr. GORE. Where the city of Providence, with a population of 200,000-a voting population of 40,000-elects one member of the State senate and another town, with a voting population, I believe, of 126, elects a member of the State senate.

.Mr. BRADLEY. It may be, Mr. President, that the state ment is correct, but that is only another argument in favor of the position I assume. If the statement is true, the Legislature of Rhode Island can not be trusted to do justice to the people in the election of United States Senators.

Mr. REED. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield to the Senator from Missouri'?

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes.

Mr. REED. I should like to ask the Senator from Kentucky if he has examined the gerrymander that was perpetrated by the Federal authorities on the people of New Mexico recently, in which they gave the Republicans about four times the representation they did the Democrats-done by the Federal authorities?

.Mr. BRADLEY. I have not examined it. I never heard of it before, and if it be true, I condemn it. I condemn anything of that sort by any party anywhere, and I do not see why the Senate of the United States, that has been in.trusted with this power for all these years and has never done a wrong, never done a thing that can be complained of, can not be intrusted with the same power hereafter. We should not be compelled to give up every vestige of power that we have; to surrender it to the States and to say that we stand here in the presence of injustice and wrong unarmed and defenseless.

Let me ask the Senator from Missouri a question. What Federal authority in New Mexico fixed that proposition?