June 21, 1911

Mr. WILLIAMS. l\Ir. President, I rise for the purpose of more clearly than the text itself." asking unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD an article from the Charleston News and Courier of June 17 upon the subject of the Bristow amendment.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection?

Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator what will be the permanent value to insert it in the RECORD. Some of the newspapers of my State have had editorials on that question, but I had not thought of making them a part of the RECORD.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I can only say to the Senator from New Hampshire that unless I had thought it was a valuable contribution to the discussion and a valuable thing in the way of forming public opinion through the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I would not have asked the unanimous consent; and I can hardly answer the question more in detail without reading the article itself. I think it contributes to clarify the atmosphere upon that particular subject. I think it will have an influence with some Senators when the question comes back to the Senate from conference.

Mr. GALLINGER. The matter was very thoroughly debated on both sides. I did not participate in the debate, because I am not in the habit of talking much in the Senate now; but after the joint resolution has passed the Senate and gone to the other body, it seems to me we ought not to lumber up the RECOBD here with all sorts of newspaper articles. That is the only feeling I bave about it Still, if the Senator particularly desires it, I will not object, of course.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do desire it, and I would rather not be forced to read it out aloud.

Mr. GALLINGER. I will not ask the Senator to do that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It would put me to trouble unnecessarily.

Mr. GALLINGER. I want to say that I think never in the history of the Government has so much extraneous matter been inserted in the RECORD, as newspaper editorials and speeches of individuals, as during the last year. While I am not going to object to the request of any Senator, I am very careful myself not to ask leave to insert these matters. I had a very interesting newspaper article the other day on the textile industry of the United States, which I thought ought to be printed, but I sent it to the Committee on Printing, because I was not quite sure that I ought to ask that it should go into the RECORD.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I quite agree with the Senator from New Hampshire as a general rule, and my only reason for asking this unanimous consent now was that I thought it would contribute to general information and to molding public opinion. The question having passed beyond the Senate, we expected that it would come back later on a different proposition, which is under discussion now, and I did not want to wait and take up the time of the Senate away from gentlemen who desire to discuss the immediate proposition before us.

Mr. GALLINGER. I have been hoping that the House would accept the joint resolution as it was amended by the Senate, and that it would not come back. . The VICE PRESIDENT. No objection is heard, and the paper referred to by the Senator from Mississippi will be printed in the RECORD.

The matter referred to is as follows:

THE BRISTOW AMENDMENT.

[From the Charleston (S. C.) News and Courier, June 17, 1911.J

It is a rare event to find so many newspapers, of all shades of political opinion and in all parts of the country, united in the opinion that the adoption by the Senate of the Bristow amendment to the resolutions providing for the adoption of a constitutional amendment so that Senators might be elected by direct vote of the people was, in the language of Mr. Hearst, a piece of political hypocrisy. It is interesting, furthermore, to follow the discussion as to what would happen or what should happen in case the House should acquiesce in the Bristow amendment. That stanch Ogdenite journal, the Brooklyn Eagle, thinks that "the effect of the constitutional amendment in its amended form would be the nullification of the restrictions now imposed by the Southern States upon negro suffrage." This surprises the New York Tribune, which proceeds to argue that " there is no grant of power in the Senate amendment which is not as old as the Constitution," but, stran~ely enough, omits to explain why in this event the amendment should have been proposed or adopted.

The New York Press, like the Tribune, a Republican organ, but with decided " progressive" leanings, and which has strongly advocated popular election of Senators. declares that "nothing could more clearly show the insincerity of the Bristow amendment to the Borah joint resolution for popular election of United States Senators than the character of most of its supporters," and thinks that " under cover of protecting the freedom of suffrage in the black belt the promoters of this insincere and unenforcible project intend to deny the people of all the States the right to elect their Senators."

The New York World, the most forceful Democratic newspaper of America and an advocate of direct elections, declares that " the Bristow amendment is unnecessary and mischievous," that "it merely arouses sectional animosities and repels the movement for the election of Senators by direct vote," and thinks, like the Press, that "the fact that LORIMER, DU PONT, GALLINGER, GAMBLE, GUGGENHEIM, ROOT, SMOOT, PENROSE, and STEPIDJNSON voted for it explained its real meaning far The New Haven Journal-Courier, a strongly edited independent newspaper, regrets that the issue should have been beclouded by the injection of the Bristow amendment, and declares that " the people of this country have a right to decide what is best for them in the organization of their political household, and if in this regard the Senate has played fast and loose with them, those responsible will feel the lash of popular discredit when the time comes." The Hartford Daily Courant, Republican, quotes from a speech delivered in the Senate by Mr. RAYNER, of Maryland, last week, in which he predicted that It would take " a tremendous struggle in the Southern States if you put it (the Bristow amendment) in to carry, perhaps, any of them,” and also from an interview which he gave to the Baltimore Sun, after the adoption of the Bristow amendment, in which he said: "I am satisfied that no practical danger will result from the adoption of this amendment." "Our own impression," remarks the Courant, "is that the Marylander was a better prophet last week than this." The New York Globe, Republican, thinks that the Senate amendment as passed was " fathered in prejudice or of a desire to mix things up and to prevent action."

These are the views of some of the most influential of the northern newspapers. Let us turn now to the South. That the resolution will meet with great opposition in this part of the country, if submitted to the States for ratification as passed by the Senate, is made plainly evident. The Montgomery .Advertiser, for example, thinks that " the proposed reform is prohibitively dear if we have to buy it with our complaisant acceptance of th e atrocious force bill which a small band of devoted and courageous Senators defeated in the last generation when it appeared certain of enactment." Another influential Alabama newspaper, the Mobile Register, thinks that " the legislatures of the South are not likely to accept the amendment upon the terms that it is offered. Fortunately, there ls available the State primary which meets the needs of the people in expressing their choice for Senators, so that no lo s will be suffered if the amendment fails of confirmation."

The Petersburg Index-Appeal does not think that the evident attempt which has been exhibited to embarrass the South would succeed, but It is not surprised that " Southern Senators oppose the Bristow amendment, remembering the attempts by the Republican Party to enact the force bill, giving the General Government absolute control of the elec tion of Members of the Senate. The attempt failed, but tt showed the anunu of the Republican Party-."

The Athens Banner entertains - the view that " if the advocates of tile direct vote are in earnest and really want to see this amendment ~o tlre Constitution passed they will be speedy in their work of defeating the Senate amendment when it comes to the House for action. With that amendment tacked on, there is practically little hope for the ratification of the amendment to the Constitution, and there should be no hope for favorable action thereon, for such action would be to the detriment of the country."

The Newberry Observer and the Charlotte Evening Chronicle are agr-eed that, in the language of the Observer, "it might be better for the Southern States and' for all other States that advocate State rights and are opposed to Federal interference in their elections to let things remain as they are for the present."

"'Ye ought," says the Houston Post, "to have direct election. of Senators unhampered by such a provision as Mr. BRISTOW would insert in the amendment.” The New Orleans States hopes that "the Democratic House will think well and carefully before accepting the resolution as amended by the Senate." A like sentiment is expressed by the New Orleans Times-Democrat. "The voters," says the Times-Democrat; "understand the i sues involved, and most of them have read between the lines of the Bristow and Sutherland riders. If the question is left open for a season, they can be depended upon, we think, to insure its early settlement in the right way.

Thus the matter stands. It is not likely in the circumstances that the House Democrats will accept the resolution. as it has come from the Senate. Indeed, it would not be surprising if the tricke17 which ~gain has been _ resorted to by that body should have the effect of bring-­ mg about a Federal constitutional convention, at which the matter could be settled once for all. That is not desirable in the present mental state of the American people, but the United States Senate seems determined to force it.