May 23, 1911

The VICE PRESIDENT. The morning business is closed.

Mr. BORAH. I ask unanimous consent to take up House joint resolution 39.

There being no objection, the Senate as in Committee of the . Whole resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 39) proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas [1\Ir. BRISTOW].

Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President, there have been a great many inquiries made as to just what the joint resolution I have offered as a substitute provides. I want to invite the attention of the Senate to the changes which it proposes in the Constitution, and I shall occupy but a very few moments.

I offered the substitute for the joint resolution chiefly for the reasons: First, I think it desirable, because it makes the least possible change in the Constitution to accomplish the purposes desired; that is, the election of Senators by popular vote; and, second, because it is in the same form in which it was voted upon at the last session, when it received within 4 votes of enough to insure its adoption. Since that vote was taken 10 Members of the Senate who voted against the joint resolution have been succeeded by other Members, and I run advised that a majority of the 10 new Members will vote for the joint resolution, so that I have no doubt of its pass a ge if it is sub ­ mitted to the Senate at this time in the form in which it was submitted at the last Congress.

If Senators will take the Constitution, Rules, and Manual of the Senate, and turn to the Constitution on page 1 84 , in section 2, Article I, I will call attention to the changes which are pro ­ posed. First, I will direct the Senate's attention to section 3 of Article I , which reads as follows:

SEC. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State', chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years ; and each Senator s . shall have one vote.

This substitute of mine proposes to change that section by the striking out of the words "chosen by the legislature thereof" and inserting rting "elected by the people thereof."

The only change in section 3 is the substitution of the words elected by the people thereof ·~ for the words " chosen by the legislature thereof." That certainly is as simple a change as can be made. It involves no other question · except the transferring of the election of Senators from the legislatures to the popular electors.

Then a change is made in section 2 of the same article, the section which refers to the House of Representatives. It now reads:

SEC. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

TU.at provides for the election -0f 'Jembers of Congt·ess; it provides the qualifications of the electors in such an election , and I have inserted that in my substitute, . so that it reads: .

The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the St:ite legislature.

I have used the exact language used in the Constitution pre scribing the qualifications of electors who will vote for Senator that is used in prescribing the qualifications of ele c tors who vote for Members of Congre s-nothing more and nothing less. So this substitute of mine simply transfers the election of Senators from the legislatures to the people, and provides that the electors, when they cast their vote for a Senator, shall have exactly the . same qualifications as the electors who cast their votes for a Member of the House of Representatives.

The only other change that is proposed to be made in the Con ­ stitution as it is now is a provision for the filling of vacancies . The Constitution as it now reads, referring to vacancies in the Senate, says:

And if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the re-. cess of the le g islature of any State, the execu t i v e th e reof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies .

Instead of that, I provide the following · :

When vacancies happen in the repre s entation of any State ill the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall . issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

Which is exactly the langua g e used i n providing for the fill- I ing of vacancies which occur in the House of Re p resentatives , with the exception that the word " of n is used in the first line for the w.ord "from," which, how e ver, . makes n,o material I dlff erence.

Then my substitute provides that- .

The legislature of any State ma:y- empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

That is practically the same provision which now exists in the case of such a Tn.cn.ncy. The governor of the State may appoint a Senator until the legislature elects. l\Iy amendment provides that the legislature may empower the governor of the State to appoint a. Senator to fill a vacancy until the election occurs, and he is directed by this amendment to " issue writs of election to fill such vacancies."

That is, I use exactly the same language in directing the governor to call special elections for the election of Senators to fill vacancies that is used in the Constitution in directing him to issue writs of election to fill vacancies in the House of Representa tives.

It is unnecessary for me to make any ex t ended remarks in regard to my substitute for the join . t resolution. I believe it is the best proposition, because it is the simplest of any that has been presented. It is substantially in the same language as the resolution which I introduced some two years ago, from which the joint resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary was formed. A very . extended discussion was had on the joint resolution in the last Congress. A great deal of outside controversy was injected into it. I do not believe that section 4 of Article I of the Constitution should be in any way touched by the pending joint resolution. It is a se p .arate ~d section. distinct proposition, and I do hope that Senators will not m­ sist that we repeal a part of section 4 of Article I of the Constitution in order that we may give the people of the various States an opportunity to elect their Senators at a general election, instead of by tM legislature.

I do not intend to enter into any elaborate discussion of section 4, Article I, of the Constitution as to the wisdom or unwisdom of its being repealed or modified in any way, because I do not think it ought to have any part in this discussion. I am going to vote for the joint resolution, whether any substitute shall be adopted or not, because the great question here is whether the people shall have an opportunity to elect their Senators instead of having them elected by the legislature. · I believe the joint resolution .is better in the form proposed by the substitute: I believe that it will be more satisfactory to the people of the country in that form, and I sincerely trust that the issue will not be confused by injecting into the discussion controversies that are foreign to it.

Mr. BRA.NDEGEE. Mr. President, I want to call the attention of the Senator from Kansas to the fact that section 2, Article I, of the Constitution, as read by him, provides:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen even second year-

And section 3, as quoted by him, provides:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two S e nators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof.

Section 4 also u1t0s the word " chosen," only it is spelled in a different way. It provides:

But the Congress ma.y at any time by law make or alter regulations, exc e pt as to · the places of c h using Sena t ors.

The Senator's proposed amendment inserts the word " elected," in line 9, on the first page, instead of the word "chosen," and yet be preserves the word" chosen" in the tenth line, on page 2. I desire to know if there is any distinction between the use of the two words, and whether it would not be better to have the language uniform through all sections of the Constitution.

Mr. BRISTOW. Well, I do not think there is any material difference. The phrases "chosen by the legislature" or "elected by the legislature," it seems to me, mean the same thing. I have used the phrase "elected by the people thereof" because that is the phrase that · is generally used in discussing the matter.

Mr. BRANDEGEH1. If the Senator will permit me, I am aware of that fact; but I ask, if that is so, why does he not use the same word in line 10 of page 2 of his amendment, where it provide5t-

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen, etc.-

Whereas previously the amendment provides that Senators shall be elected 1

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. President, if the Senator from Kansas will allow me a moment--

Mr. BRISTOW. Certainly.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I think the language the Senator from Kansas has used is entirely appropriate to accomplish the purpose which he intends to accomplish. In the first part of the proposed substitute the provision is:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected b7 the people thereof.

That is providing for a new method of selecting Senators. Heretofore they have been chosen by the legislatures; now they are to be elected by the people; but in the latter part of the proposed substitute, where the provision is that the amendment which alters the method by which Senators shall be elected shall not be construed so as " to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid," the word " chosen " is there used with reference to the selection by the legislature, while in the first part the word "election" is used with reference to the selection by the people.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. l\Ir. President, if I may be permitted, if that distinction is intentional and of any significance whatever, why should not section 2, Art i Gle I, of the Constitution, which prescribes that " the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every · second year by the people," be amended also so that it will read " elected by the people," instead of " chosen by the people "?

Section 2 pro v ides for the manner of electing Members of the House of Representatives and uses the word "chosen." My point is that if there is any subtle distinction between the use of the word " chosen " and the word " elected," the language should be uniform in the different sections of the Constitution which we · are proposing to amend. I do not know that there is any distinction between them, and I am inclined to think there is not; b u t I do think that the word ought to be · used uniformly at least for the appearance of the diction of the

Mr. BRISTOW. I desire to s a y that, in line 2, page 2, of the proposed amendment, the . w o rd should be "legislature" instead of "legislatures"; that is, the "s" should be s t ricken off of the word , so that it will be sin g ular in s te a d of plural.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment will be so modified, if there be no objection.

Mr. BRISTOW. The p o int rai s ed by the Senator from Connecticut [l\Ir. BRANDEGEE] I do not think is at all materi a l. The word "chosen," which is in line 10, on p a ge 2 , simply refers to. Senators who have been chosen under the phraseology of the Constitution as it now exists; and I can not see any objection to it in that connection.

Mr . . SMITH of Michig a n. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator from Kans a s whether the substitute which he has offered is in the same form and la n gua g e as the substitute submitted by the Senator from Utah [Mr. SUTHERLAND] upon which we voted at the last session?

Mr. BRISTOW. It is in the same form as the joint resolution which was amended on motion of the Senator from Utah at the last session. _

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Then , it will lea·rn the question of the election of Senators by direct vote of the people stripped of every other proviso or rider with reference thereto, the sole question involved being the manner of their election?

Mr. BRISTOW. It simply i n corporates the words "elected by the people" for the words " chosen by the legislature." That is the only change that is made.

Mr. SMITH of Michi g an. The safeguards which the Constitution has thrown around the authority of the General Government in the choice of these offi c ers i ~ em a ins unimp a ired?

l\Ir. BRISTOW. The Constitution is left just as it is now in that respect

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. President, I am only going to say th a t I am strongly in favor of the resolution providing for the direct election of Senators by the people. In many ways I have contributed toward that result and have voted for such a resolution while a Member of the House of Representati v es. That proposition places me in direct harmony with the expressed wishes · of the people of our State, and I desire to redeem that promise made by my party.

I do not believe it to be wise to burden this proposal a l with any race rider or kindred problem of any kind or charact e r. I think it should be shorn of every burden or subterfuge calculated to defeat it before the legislatures of our States.

Mr. BORAH. l\fr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator from Idaho?

Mr. Sl\IITH · of Michigan. Yes.

Mr. BORAH. What particular feature of the joint resolution as it was introduced does the Senator consider to be a subterfuge?

Mr. CLAPP. We can not hear what the Senator from Idaho says.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan . . I did not mean to use the term "subterfuge" as a criticism of the honored Senator from Idaho. I think perhaps he has his measure in as good form as he has been able to get it from the committee to which it was referred, and I am :finding no fault with him about it. I think he is as zealous and as honest as any other Member of the Senate in his desire . for this reform, but I regard the element of time and the general supervision which the Federal an thority may now exercise over the choice of Senators, as well as Representati'ves, as very desirable to be retained in ~e Con · stitution , and it is my intention to vote for the substitute of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow].

If we can have this naked proposition, providing for the direct election of Senators by the people, unincumbered, I shall be \ e ry glad, but if the substitute of the Senator from Kans as shall fail, I then propose to cast my vote in fav-or of the joint resolution reported by the Senator from Idaho, and feel that by so. doing I am discharging a solemn duty which I owe to the people of my State. ·

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I desire to ask the Senator from Kansas whether his substitute takes into account section 4 of Article I of the Constitution? Section 4 pro v ides: · The times ~lac es , and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives 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 chusing Senators.

Mr. BRISTOW. We leave that just as it is. It does not affect or change it in any way.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Then if his substitute were adopted there would still be a distinction between the power of Congress as it affects the election of Senators and as it affects the election of Representatives. That is, as it is now, Congress would have no power to alter the action of the legislature--

Mr. BRISTOW. It will have just the power that it now has. I do not undertake to change in any way the authority which the Congress has now over the election of Senators--

Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is to say, Congress would then have power to dictate to the States the places at which the election of Representatives should occur, while having no power to dictate to the States the places at which the election of Senators should occur.

Mr. BRISTOW. " But the Congress may at any time J:>y law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." We leave that just as it is.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I should like to ask the Senator whether that would not create possibly an awkward conflict where Congress has reserved the power in one case and not in the other?

Mr . BRISTOW . I do not myself think it is a matter of any consequence .

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I nm merely inquiring to know whether they should not be placed in harmony . Does the Senator intend that Congress shall have no power over the States with relation to the places of choosing Senators, while it does retain that power over the States in the election for the · choosing of Repre- sentatives?

Mr. BRISTOW . I can say no more than I said before, that I do not think the question of regulating the place where Senators should be elected is of any consequence. I nm perfectly willing to leave the Constitution just as it is . Congress ne-ver has exercised that authority, and what I am seeking to do . is to change the Constitution just as little 3..S it can be changed in order to bring about a direct election of Senators by the people instead of an election by the legislature.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I merely ra.ised this question because in the joint resolution as passed by the House of Representatives Mr. ROOT. and as p 1·essed by the Senator from Idaho that matter is made clear by the paragraph which provides thatthe times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators shall be as prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof--

Mr. BRISTOW. Yes.

.Mr. HITCHCOCK. And in the joint resolution proposed as a substitute by the Senator from Kansas there seems to be an ambiguity possibly, between the two provisions .

Mr. BRiSTOW. I regret that the Senator should think there is an ambiguity. I think that the resolution as reported by the Senator from Idaho undertakes to amend section 4, and I did n ot want to amend section 4 in any way. I wanted to leave it alone because I do not think it is neces s ary to amend it in order' to accomplish the purpose that we are undertaking to accomplish here by this amendment.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the nm e ndment offered by the Senator from Kansas.

l\lr. ROOT. Mr . President, this subject has been very fully debated in the Senate, and I do not wish t o occupy the time o f the Senate by going over the same arguments that I myself have already made or by repeating the ar g uments of others. I do wish, before the vote is taken, to state the position I take and the views which influence me to vote as I shall vote.

I shall vote for the substitute offered by the Senator from Kansas, and I shall then vote against the proposition to amend the Constitution . I shall vote for the substitute because it strikes out from the proposed amendment the amendment of section 4 of Article I, and I shall vote against the vropo sit ion as a whole because I am opposed to the amendment of section 3 of Article I .

There are two separate, distinct, and inde p endent amendments of the Constitution included in the joint resolution as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. One . is an am e ndment to section 3, so as to provide for the election of Sena t ors by the people instead of their election by the State legislat u res. The other is an amendment of section 4 of Article I, so as to take away from the Congress of the United States the power to make or alter the regulations which may be prescribed by the several State legislatures in respect of the choosing of Senators .

The second amendment-that to section 4-is wholly unnecessary to the effectiveness of the first amendment, relating to the election of Senators by the people. There is no occasion w hatever to destroy the power and authority of the Governm e nt of the United States over the process of constituting its own legislative body in order to secure the change of election from the State legislatures to the people of the se v eral States. It is a new, . additional, independent, disconnected, and unneces ary amendment of th e Constitution. It has no place in the deli b erations of this body or of any body upon the change in the manner of electing Senators. A change from the election by the legislature to an election by the people can be made with or without the ' other amendment, and . wholly unn.ff ected by it. The people of the United States may wish for one and may not wish for the other. They ought not to be compelled to vote for one, which they may not wish for, as a condition for securing the other, which they may wish for. Each should stand upon its own basis . The people of the country should have an opportunity to vote to change the manner of the election of . Se na tors, if they wish for it, without being compelled, as the price of getting it, to vote for the destruction of that control which the National Government has had from the beginning over the constitution of this great branch of the national institution .

I believe, sir, that the adop ti on of this amendment to section 4, which takes away the power of Congress to make in the last resort, if it finds it necessary, T ' regulations to secure the effective, the honest, the uncontrolled sele c tions of Members of the Senate, would be a reversal of the theory Elf th e Constitution . I believe that it would strike a blow at that power of independent self - support which is essential to the perpetuity and the effectiveness of government. I believe \ e that it W()Uld be a re ­ vertal to the theory of the old Confederati o n, under which the Government of the United States w a s dep en dent upon the States, and an abandonment of the theory of the Constitution under which we live, which was that the Government of the United States should st.and erect and self-susta in ing and have all the powers necessary for the main t enance of na tion :i l life, dependent upon no State. upon no State legi s l a ture, an d upon one power and upon no power wha t e v er exc ev t tlie p owe r of the Nation itself .

Mr . BORAH. Is it not true that the State l egis lature at this time has the sole and exclu s ive power to pre scri be the manner of electing the electors who elect the President?

It is. . .

Mr . BORAH. In what re s pect d o es this w e akening of na ­ tional powers differ from t h at which you ch oo s e to call a weakening with reference to th e electing of elector s?

.Ur . ROOT . In this re spec t, Mr. Pre s id ent, if any St ate chooses not to take part in the elec ti on of t h e President , the President would be selected by the other S ta t es . Only the failure of all the States to perform their duty would prevent the election of a President.

Mr. BORAH. Is that not equally true wi t h reference to Senators? · ' Mr. ROOT. No; it is not.

Mr. BORAH . If the State of New York sh o u1 d s e e fit not to choo s e her Senators, it would not hinder th e State of I<la ho from choosing hers?

l\Ir. ROOT. It would not; but it . would prevent th e St':iat o of the U n ited St ate s from having the r epresenta tio n of the State of New York in the m e mber ship of the bod y, and won ld render the Senate liable to ha v~ seats in the body fil leJ by practices which might involve · e coercion, inti midat ion, and c corruption, , which it would have no po we r to pr e ve n t.

1\fr. BORAH. The . same effect preci s ely would be ba.d a pon the electoral college us to vacancies in the chair . , which should be filled in that college as would be had should the State fall to elect Senators.

Mr. ROOT. In the ultimate result, Mr. President, we would receive the votes and count them, and the President would be elected. Any State which failed to perform its function would lose its voice in the selection of a President. · But, Mr. President, there is no proposition here to change the provision of the Constitution in regard to the election of the President. The proposition here is to change the Constitution so as to take away from the National Legislature the power to make any regulations with regard to its own creation, and it is to that that I object.

We have had occasion to exercise the power of · regulation both in regard to the election of Members of the House of Representatives and in regard to the election of Senators. Congress in 1842 passed a statute to regulate the election of Mem ­ ber s of the House . It was found necessary in order to have effective and proper elections. It has passed repeated statutes since then, notably in 1872, and our elections are being conducted now under those statutes passed by the Congress. Con gress has found occasion to regulate the election of Senators, and those el ectio ns are being conducted now under the statute passed in 1866. No man can say that the time will not come again when it will be necessary for the Congress, in order to secure uniformity, in order to secure effectiveness, in order to prevent abuses, to exercise its power in respect of regulating the times and the manner of electing Members to each House of the National Legislature.

But, Mr. Pr e ident, it was not my purpose, as I have already said, to rear gue this case. I have stated the substantial grounds upon which I prefer that the substitute offered by the Senator from Kansas shall take the place of the original joint resolution. I shall oppose the resolution, then, on the ground that I think it is inexpedient and unnece sary to make any amendment of the Con s titution at all in regard to the election of Senators. I believe that it will result in a deterioration in the personnel of the Senate. I believe that it will keep out of the Senate a large and important element well adapted to the performance of the peculiar and special duty of the Senate in our system of government. I believe that all the abuses which have led to such a desire for this change on the pa.rt of the people of the country can be cured by a simple amendment of the law, by amending the statute rather than by amending the Con stitution of the United States.

Such a step I have already introduced. It was introduced at the last session and favorably reported by the Committee on Pri vileges and Elections. It has been introduced again at this ses · on and is now pending before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. It provides for the election of Senators by a plurality, which is something that would be inevitable if we transfer the right of election from the legislatures to the people. It cures the evils which we have bad by a simple amendment of the law. It affords an opportunity for a majority rule to control for a period which is stated in the bill as introduced at 20 days after the first convening of the two houses of the leg islature . After the operation of 20 days has failed to pro duc e an election by the majority rule, it provides for the appli cati on of a plurality rule.

Mr. President, I fully recognize the fact that we have going on throughout a large part of the country a process of change, a pro cess of experiment in the way of modifying our governmental institutions. I recognize the fact that the people of many States have become dissatisfied with the way in which their political machiriery has acted . and that they desire to change it. I have great sympathy with the feeling and take great interest in the exper ime nts that are being tried. I believe that good will come from the awakened interest of the people of the cou ntry in their own political affairs and from their determination to take a part in their affairs and to make their will effe ctive.

But, sir, it is a process of experiment. We can not . change the institutions of more than a century without long trial and consideration. Experiments will fa.il; experiments will succeed. All of us will see opportunities for modification and improvement. No one of us can evolve from his own thought, not all of us together can by conference produce, results which we may much. feel sure are better than the methods devised by the framers of our Government until the results have been put to the test of practical application.

The system under which we live, Mr. President, has produced the be.st re sults that ever ha.ve come from the experiments of mankind in government. We have rec.eived from our present institutions manifold blessings, and in the providence of God have wr . wrought out under those institutions results which ha.ve made for the happiness, for the liberty, for the advancement of all mankind. With all history strewn with the wrecks of effort in government, with human nature still unchanged, I would hesitate long before assuming that my own judgment or the judgment of all of us can improve the system and frame ­ work of our Government except upon experiment and demonstration by practical application.

Mr. President, I do not like to see experiments begin or proceed in their early stages by amendments to the Constitution in advance of their being tried out fully. Amendments should be the result of long deliberation and trial. They should not initiate deliberation and trial

For these reasons, sir, I shall take the course regarding the substitute and the joint resolution, whether the substitute be adopted or not, which I have indicated.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I had not intended to open my mouth at this session of the Senate of the United States, but it seems to me that it is necessary that my own position upon this question should be made clear. This is one of those curious and interesting cases where by keeping the language of the law just as it is in one place after a change in another place you change the facts, and where the only way of not changing the facts in their practical operation is to omit or change the language.

The Senator from New York [l\Ir. ROOT] is not only distinguished but notorious for his intellectual ingenuity, and with all of his ingenuity he can not cover up this practical change. The fact to-day is that when the people of Mississippi undertake to elect a legislature which is to elect a. Senator the United States Government can not, does not pretend even to have the right to, interfere at the polls where the people are voting. If this change is made and the language in section 4 left just as it is and not omitted, then the power of the Federal Government is extended just that much further than it is - to-day, to wit, that afterwards the Federal Government can at least pre ­ tend to the right, whether it have it or not, to interfere at the polls in the State of Mississippi when a Senator is being elected . Now, gentlemen may refine all they please. They may split hairs " as betwixt the nor' and the nor'west side," but they know, just as well as the country, if intelligent, will know, that when they are pleading that the Constitution shall not be changed in section 4 they are really pleading that the relations between the Federal Government and the people at the polls shall be changed by adding a power which the Federal Government now has not, with regard to the presence and supervision of the election of a Senator .

I am not astonished at the position taken by the Senator from New York, because his object is to defeat the amendment to the Constitution making Senators to be elected by the people, and, of course, if he can force a large body of southern representatives by the adoption of the amendment of the main joint resolution as reported by the committee to a position of opposition he has with him upon the final vote against the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution just that many votes; and I presume, knowing his intelligence, that he has taken a reckoning of that fact. But I am a little astonished that the Sena ­ tor from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW], who desires the adoption of the amendment electing Senators by the people, should push his natural allies upon this subject, southern Senators, into that unnatural position.

:Mr . President, the Senator from New York tells us that we should go slowly about changing the Constitution of the United States. It is strange that a New York Republican should tell a Democrat of my school that. I feel that, too; but the people of the United States have not gone rapidly about this. They have been considering it a long time. The Senate of the United States bas been "tried in the balance" and, rightfully or wrongfully, wisely or foolishly, the people of the United States have concluded that a.s now constituted it has been found wanting. I do not believe that the election of Senators by the people will result in any deterioration of the intellectual ability which will represent the States upon this floor. I know~ as the Senator from New York says, that it might result in excluding from this Chamber "a certain element" which is of the highest ability in administering affairs, but it is an element that the people of the United States have concluded has been represented here too Mr. President, I can not for the life of me see why the Senator from Kansas should desire to put us in the attitude in which he will put us if his amendment to the joint resolution shall prevail. Can no popular reform of any description be instituted in the United States without mulcting the South somewhere along the line-without demanding of her some special sacrifice? The Senator from Kansas, of course, knows as well as I do that if the joint resolution as it has come from the committee shall prevail there will be no change in the facts, in the practical operation of things, in the present relationship between the Union and the States, whereas if he makes the change of fact by keeping the words which he proposes to keep in section 4, he does bring about practically the condition of things which our people at home would not admit for a moment of our overlooking, and concerning which they would condemn us if we omitted to take proper notice here and now.

Mr. President, I had not intended to be heard at all. That much I thought I ought to say.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. President, I have no intention of discussing this question at any great length. It was very fully discussed by the Senate within the last two . o or three months. But I do want to say a word or two to point out my position with reference to the joint resolution, and with reference to the substitute for it which has been proposed by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW].

In _ the first place, I am in hearty sympathy with the general proposition to amend the Constitution so as to provide for the election of United States Senators by the direct vote of the people. I am not going into any discussion of my reasons for that position. They have been stated very often. A United States Senator is a representative officer precisely the same as a Member of the House of Representatives, and I can see no reason why such a representative officer should not · be elected by a direct vote of the people the same as a .Member of the House of Representatives. I do not agree with the suggestion which has been made that we will in some unfortunate way affect the efficiency of this body or of the individual members of it. I think the tenure of office, six years, will of itself operate to mark whatever difference is desirable between these two great bodies-the House and the Senate.

It has been suggested that if we shall adopt this amendment and provide for the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people, it will next be proposed to destroy the equal representation which the States of the Union now enjoy in the Senate, and that we shall have a proposition, which ultimately will be adopted, that will provide for the same measure of representation that prevails in the other House, and that Senators will be elected in proportion to population and there will not be, as now, an equal representation from each State.

I do not well see how that can be brought about under that tion. clause of the Constitution which provides that no State shall be deprived of its equal representation in this body without its own consent. I know it has been suggested that even that might be amended; but to destroy that provision would not be a change of the Constitution by the orderly processes of constitutional him. amendment. It would be equivalent to a revolution. That is the one thing which the people who framed this Constitution stipulated among themselves should never be altered so long as one State in the Union objected. to it. I am not at all afraid that any serious attempt will ever be made to bring about that result.

But, Mr. President, while I am strongly in favor of this general proposition, I am opposed to the joint resolution as it has been presented, because the resolution as presented proposes not to accomplish the one result of electing Senators by direct vote of the people, but it proposes to accomplish that and another and an additional result, namely, the surrender of the power which the Government of the United States has possessed over the election of Senators from the foundation of this Government to the present day. The Constitution of the United States provides, in the first instance, that the legislatures of the various States shall regulate the times, places, and manner of choosing Representatives and of United States Senators, but that Congress may at any time make or alter such regulations. If we shall take out of the Constitution so much of it as provides for the exercise of this power on the part of Congress with reference to the election of United States Senators, we shall introduce into the Constitution, as I view it, an inconsistent and an altogether inharmonious condition.

The Constitution is entirely consistent and harmonious with it elf. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH], interrupting the Senator from New York [Mr. RooT] a few moments ago, called his attention to the fact that Congress had no power to regulate the time, place, or manner of the election of electors for President. That is true .

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yield to the Senator from Idaho?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do.

l\fr. BORAH. The Senator from New York only addressed himself to the question of the "manner."

Mr. SUTHERLAND. The Constitution expressly provides respecting the time. The Senator is correct. He calls attention to the fact that the Constitution does not provide for the exercise of the supervisory power on the part of Congress over the manner of electing electors, but the Constitution does preserve the power of Congress over the action of the electors themselves. In other words, the Constitution all the way through preserves the power of the Government of the United States to regulate the · ultimate electors of the officers for whose election provision is made. In the case of Representatives the people vote directly for the officer; they are the ultimate electors. So the Constitution preserves the supervisory power of Congress over the people, who in that instance are the electors. In the case of United States Senators the people are not the ultimate electors, but the legislatures of the various States are. So the Constitution preserves the supervisory control of Congress over those bodies as the ultimate electors. In the case of the President of the United States the electors, so called, are the ultimate elective power. So the Constitution preserves the authority of Congress over those electors. The whole system is entirely consistent and entirely harmonious.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Utah yield to the Senator from Idaho? •

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I do.

l\lr. BORAH. Mr. President, the Senator from New York [Mr. RooT] was addressing himself to the question of the power under the Constitution to control elections for the purpose of insuring proper elections, and, with that end in view, I asked if it were not true that the legislatures prescribed the manner of electing electors. So far as the local election is concerned, the State legislature · has absolute and exclusive control over the manner of electing electors. After the electors are elected they are in the same attitude that we are after elected. But, so far as the election of electors in the several States are concerned, to prescribe the manner of election, that is a matter which rests exclusively and alone with the legislature of the State.

Mr. · SUTHERLAND. That is all quite true, but ~t in no manner, as it seems to me, affects the contention which I have made with reference to it.

Mr. BORAH. I think, Mr. President, that that is true, but I think it affects the proposition which the Senator from New York has made as to the manner of controlling a local elec­

Mr. SUTHERLAND. The Senator from New York has demonstrated that he is quite capable of taking care of himself.

Mr. BORAH. I think that is true.

l\fr. SUTHERLAND. I shall not undertake to do that for The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS] has said that the substitute offered by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. BRISTOW], while it ostensibly preserves the constitutional provision as it is, in reality makes a change in it. If I understand him, his position is that now, under the Constitution, Senators are not elected by a vote of the people, but are elected by the legislatures, and that, therefore, under the Constitution, Congress has no supervisory power over the acts of the voters themselves, and that by preserving this section 4 in the Constitution unaltered Congress will hereafter have an authority over the voters of the States which it does not now possess with relation to the election of United States Senators; but, as it seems to me, that argument is somewhat misleading and disingenuous. The Constitution provides that Congress shall have the supervisory control over the election of Repre .. Representatives and the su- . pervisory control over the election of Senators. The manner in which those different officers shall be elected has nothing whatever to do with the provision in the Constitution that the ultimate supervisory power shall exist in Congress; in other words, if the Constitution had provided in the beginning for the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, as it did for the election of Representatives by direct rnte of the people, can there be the slightest doubt in the mind of anybody that the framers of the Constitution would have provided for the ultimate supervisory control of Congress over the election of Senators in that way precisely as it did over the election of Representatives?

Can any man give me any good reason why the supervisory control of Congress over the election of Representatives should be preserved when they are elected by the.people and the supervisory control of Congress over the election of Senators should be destroyed when they are elected in precisely the same way? There is no change in principle. It is simply the application of an existing principle of the Constitution to new conditions.

We have illustrations of that in other parts of the Constitution. When the clause which gives Congress authority to regulate commerce among the several States was first adopted, it had no application to railroads; it had no application to tele-'. graph fines ; it had no application to teleplione8. Why? B'e­ ea use they were not in existence; but the- moment those · instrumentali'ties came into existence · that provision 1 of the Constitution applied to them of · itfY own force a1! once. So, when this provision was put into the- Constitution it was int.ended to operate irrespective of the manner of election, and when we provide for ~ new method of election. the supervisory- power, of Congress already provided for - in the Constitution at · once and automatically attaches- to that new condition or affa'.irs.

The Senator from Mississf PIJi ~IT. WrnLIA..MST undertakes to find fault with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] for having presented this substitute and made- it impossible-, ac• cording to his statement, for some , Senators upon the other side to support it, and' he warns the - Senator from Kansas that it may result in the defeat of the joint resolution. I have no doubt in my own mind that if the subs:titute- of tJie - Senator from Kansas is not adopted it spells the d " defeat of this- joint resolution-I do - not mean necessarily in the- Senate, but I mean before the country and before the legislatures of the country. If Senators who are in favor of giving- up this supervisory control of cOngress believe that the country is ready for it, let them present it by · itself; let- it stand. upon its . own feet· let it stand or fall b:y its- own: strength. 1 think ii it should be - separately proposed by Congress, not only would' i1 not obtain m vote of · three-fourths of the- States o.t the- Tiniorr, but it would not obtain the vote of a fourth o.f them.