May 24, 1911

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will ask the Senator from Idaho this question: Frankly, does not the Senator believe that the reason why these 1"9 States have asked a constitutional convention for this purpose is because they thought that the Senate of the United States would never pass a resolution for amending the Constitution in the first manner provided for in the Consti· tution?

Mr. HEYBURN. No, 1\Ir. President, I do not think so; and I think that a wide inquiry regarding that question would satisfy the Senator from Mississippi · ppi that that reason, if it ever prevailed, was in a very limited number of cases. I have taken some pains, in fact I have the record of the proceedings 'by the various legislatures, to find out how much consideration the question has received, and I challenge . any Senator to show me that the matter received in any.legislature where .the reso- · lution was adopted such consideration as would be given to a measure of the least importance. It has been brought .forward in response to the cry and the appeal of the selfish interests of self-serving men .

Mr. REED. Mr. President--

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

Mr. HEYBURN. Certainly.

Mr. REED. I desire to be clear about one matter .. I may have misunderstood the Senator. Does the Senator. claim ~t Congress ha.s not the right to pass ~ joint resolution submitting a constitutional amendment until, as a prerequisite, twothirds of the States by their legislatures have demanded that action from Congress?

l\fr. HEYBURN. Oh, · no. There are two separate methods provided for amending the Constitution. The provision m the Constitution under which Congress ~a~ propose amendments without the action. of the States is distinct and separate, and that is the proceeding that it is sought to be had here. . l\lr. REED. I thought so, but I had understood the .senator the other way, and I thought that I had probably misunderstood HEYBURN. No; I am thoroughly familiar--

MARTINE f N Jersey. Will the Senator permit me Mr. . ? o ew a. question? PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho . The P yield to the Senator from New Jersey?

l\fr. HEYBURN. Certainly. .

Mr. MARTINE .of New Jersey. In relation to the Senators statement that this measure is m behalf of and is demanded by the selfish interests and not by the people, I protest Every Democratic convention in the State of. New J erse~, county as well as .State, and as wen the Republican conventions, county and State, have declared unequivocally for. this change, a~d "the interests'.' ha ye been decidedly against it. The Senator is utterly wrong m his position. .

Mr. HEYBURN. Mr. President, I do not use the word m- terests" in the same sense as the Senator from New Jersey uses it. I have never, at least, gone so far as to denominate one class of the people "the interest~" .ru;td the other " the people." They are each of them to me individuals, and each of them stands upon his own merits .. I have known some very bad poor men and some very bad nch men, and I have known some very good rich men and some very good poor men. I do not classify them .

The Senator speaks of the action of the State of New Jersey 1n regard to this matter. I have the record of the action of the State of New Jersey, and before I close I will advise the Senator exactly as to the record of the State of . New Jersey upon this question.

I reiterate that no part of the people have ever voted upon 'this question; and, in further .response to the inquiry of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. REED], I would say that when the 'Constitution provides that Congress may, upon the occurring of a certain event, take certain action, it means just that; that the jurisdiction comes from the occurring of the event; the jurisdiction attaches when the event occurs. Had it not been 'SO, had the Congress been at liberty at any time to propose amendments, we perhaps might have been led far out into the wilderness long ago. ·

It was a very wise provision that placed a limitation upon Congress to submit amendments to the Constitution to the \ States or to the people. The Constitution provided two methods-first, upon the legislative appeal or demand of the requisite number of States Congress shall c.:'1.Il a convention. That authorizes the calling of a constitutional · convention with wideopen doors, that shall be the people of the United States-all -of them. That · is one method. That does not originate with us; it does not originate in Congress, but with the people in the States, acting through their organized government, and in no other way; but the other method that we are seeking here to in-voke is that by which Congress submits to the legislatures of the States certain amendment to the Con titution to l>e vote upon by the legislatures. Congress has no power under the Constitution to submit amendments to be voted upon by the people. We submit amendments to the legisl::itu reE, and that is the only step that we can take in regard to th e amendment of the Constitution.

We want to keep those methods separate, been use we have here petitions from some States-but not the requisite number in either case-that a constitutional · convention shall be called . That is because they do not care f-Or Congress to be im· ested with the power of formulating the amendments; they want to formulate the amendments to be considered, as they h:rrn n right to do under the Constitution; but when Congress, regardless of -any expression from the organized government ~f the people, shall of its own volition submit amendments, it is not at the call of the States at all; the States have nothing to do with it; and it is a piece of political impe1·tinence on the part of the States to ask Congress to submit amendments to the Constitution except in the manner provided by the Constitution.

Mr. REED. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Mi souri?

1\fr. HEYBURN. Certainly.

Mr. REED. I understand the Senator, then, to claim that if the legislature of any State or the legislatures of all of the States were to respectfully petition Congress to submit an amendment it would be a piece of impudence?

Mr. HEYBURN. Well, I said a political impertinenee. I did not mean to be rough in my express.ion. I think I used a conservative one. It is a question of jurisdiction.

Mr. WORKS. Mr. President--

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

.M HEYBURN Certa "nl

M~: WORKS. The Senator from Idaho has made the broad statement. that there is. no demand made for O' this change ~ the Constitution by the intelligent and th mkm 0 people of this country. If it were necessary, or if I believed 0 that the charge made by the Senator would ?e seriously considered, I should desire to enter a protest against this imputation upon the m- telligence of the people of my State. Both of the political parties , in the State of California have declared in their platforms in favor of the change in the Constitution . The sentiment in my . State is almost unanimous for it. No political party in the State of California even dared to raise the issue with respect to this · change in the Constitution, knowing, as they did, what the sentiment of the whole people was on that subject.

Mr. HEYBURN. I hope that the Senator from California and all other Senators will understand that I make no per onal .. . reference and impugn no person's integrity in this Senate or in an individual sense. I am speaking of a principle, and of that principle as applied or invoked in regard to the people generally and if I do not make good before I have finished my remarks, I will then be a subject for judgment. I, of course, would make no personal allusion to any Senator.

Now, Mr. President, as to the manner. I want to see whether we have jurisdiction to act. The Constitution says how we shall act, and it says it in no ambiguous terms. It does not say that if the people clamor for something we shall submit amendments to the Constitution. It does not say that if some man or a million men stand up and clamor for it we shall submit it to the legislatures. It says we shall do it upon our own judgment here, and the clamor may or may not reach the ears of the Members of this body. If in the judgment of the Senate it will submit these matters to the legislature, it performs an act so inconsistent as to be utterly irreconcilable. To submit this question to the very tribunals that we a.re seeking to discredit would be a most singular performance.

Mr. REED. Mr. President-- j The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho I Mr. HEYBURN. Yes. further yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. REED. I am not seeking to interrupt, but I asked the · Senator awhile ago if he claimed that Congress did not have the power J: to , sn f nnit this umerrilinent until, as a prerequisite, . two-thircl s of the legislatures of the States had petitioned for it.

Mr. JillEYB:lJRN. I answered ' that.

Mr. REED. I understood the- S'enator to say that he cmr not claim th at , and a little later to sa-y that there were two diS'­ trnct me 1! 1lodB of amendment laid down-on~ by the ' ealrmg of n constitutional convention in response to. the requests of the legislatures ot the- Sta:tes; and the other by submitting it in this way. Now, I understand the Senator in his last few words to say that we are proceeding here without authority; and I aslt film again if' he- makes the serious claim that Congress does not have 1Jhe right and! authority to submit to the · various legislatures this proposed amendment in th,e way fn which it is being- submitted? '

Mr. HEYBURN. The Senator misunderstood mer At the time the Senator addressed his remarks to · me I was- referring only to the- calling of a constitutional convention, met my reply questi-on? applied OE.Ty to that method . We need no insistence from any one to submit to the legislatures an amendment to the Constitution I was addre s sing myself to the propriety of submitting it to the legislatures if the demand ot ' the people is based upon the- assumption that the legislatures are- not fit. tribunals to select Senators.

There are the two propositions. Should we- submit this question to a discred i ted tribunal because- the people- are- crying out, as the- Senator from California [Mr. Works] . s] says, . for the- right to select a Senator directly? Where- is the consiste-ncy between that cry and this acti-On? .

J.Ur. REED. Mr. President--

Tire PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to- the Senator from Missouri?

MY! HEYBURN. Certainly.

Mr. REED. Does the Senator' :from Idaho claim that fiy submitting to the various State- legislatures a proposition which ' ell will give to the very people who elect them tfie right to · vote upon the · election of United States' Senator that that necessarily implies a discrediting of the legislature!

Ur. HEYBURN. Yes; · there is no question about it You can nor get a way from that conclusion.

Mr. REED. I just wanted to get the · Senator’s view.

Mr. HEYBURN . '!here i's no way of' escaping that conclu:­ sion. I started upon an inquiry as ta why this was necessary, and I inquired, Is it because the people can n-ot" exercise · this function through their legislature; ~ and if they can not da this through their legislature, is the legislature any better qualified to pass upon the amendment to the Constitution? Is the legislature better qualified to a:mend the Constitution of the United States than it is to elect a Senator? Can its integrity be relied . upon any more surely to. amend the- Constitution than it can to erect a Senator? Those a-re the questions, and that takes it out of' the line of demagogy. You · hear men say, "The people should elect their Senators." The people elect the legislatures; and if they are corrupt, then probably the character of the legislature might show some evidence of ft; but if they are capable and pure and clean and intelligent enough to elect a legislature, then their selected' men are competent to elect the Senators of the United States. I am looking for a reason for this .

I asserted that the only reason that was evident to me was that some men carried away, rightfully or otherwise, by their ambition to accomplish something that they could not accomplish in a direct way, were seeking indirect methods, and they were doing what is often done-asserting in support of their position that the people demanded it, and the- people probably consisted of that man and a half a dozen friends under a lamppost. If the people want this they can call for it, and Congress will act in the manner prescribed by the- Constitution. Let them do it, and you will not see me standing up here opposing it. When the requisite number of" States in the constitutional manner ask that Congress shall call a convention of the people of the United States for the purpose of revising · their Constitution, I shall not shirk my duty to vote for it, because tile Constitution that I have sworn to uphold says you shall do i1l. Not body. that I would approve of it personally, but that I would perform a public duty under the Constitution.

But we are not in . that position. The · people- are not asking US' to do this in the numbers required by the Constitution. It is Congress, and Congress only, that initiated this movement to send it down to the legislatures and to place the final judgment in the hands of the very people whom it is ciaimed the people want to be relieved against.

Mr. REED. Mr . President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Missouri 1

Mr · HEYBURN l yield.

1\J.r. REED. If it were true ,, as the Senator :from Idaho assumes it ta bE; that this movement is based upon the corruption 0'11' incapacity o:.t the State legislatures, and, therefore, that it is'. absurd to submit the proposition to those bodies assumed to be corrupt, and if that condition existed, would it not absolutely bar the possibility of having the demand mad'e by the necessary number of · States?

Mr. HEYBURN. Na.

Mr: REED. AncI would that not leave US', · o:n the Senator's theory, without Key means: of relief?

Mr. HEYBURN. No.

Mr . REED. Would not that condition, if it existed, call loudly upon Congress to pass this measure . and submit it to the various legislatures and present. to the people of the various, S:tates sharply the proposition that the men they were about to- elect to the legislature wo-uld have to pass. upon this

Mr. HEYBURN. No The people- o-t the United States repre­ ~"ellt something more than the legislature of the States . The people of the United States are not a proper m subject for impeachment i:n determining their capacity far self-government upon. any history o:r experience we have had. They have selected the · great Presidents- of the United States 0f all par t ies. They have selected th-e Congress · at the United States, with all of its grand achievements and magnificent manhood. The people mn : e dmm it through the · constitution.al agencies and methods that have prevailed during tire history of the country . Mr. REED. Just one further question

Th~ PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from IclahQ yield to th Senator from Missouri?

:fr: HEYBURN. . Yes. .

Mr. MED. If the: peopl-e possess all these virtues and all this intelligence, then why can. th-ey not be trusted to pick their Senators directly?'

Mr. HEYBURN. The people: have not made a demand in th~ manner prescribed by the Constitution. The people are given the opportunity of changing the Constitution. When I srry the- pee.pie l do Ilflt mean the coterie- of people who are connected with office seeking and office holding. I mean the great silent mass of this ' people who speak only in the silence rl the ballot box. Those people have not spoken. Men. have volunteered t0> speak. for · them, but tile people have not spoken, and if this is. a crying need and a great necessity, we can rely upon it that the people- will ask Congress for redress against these evils, if they be evils.

Now, Mr. President, the history of a government is its · rec:­ ord to which we appeal in determining the wisdom of its action . I bad started to say that the number of Senators that have been selected from . 1789 to 1909-I have not included this wiutei:·-was eleven hundred and eighty who served in this body. Some- Qt them have been contested. There have been 161 contests, including the existing contests. The number of Senators. who have been denied a seat is 1. That is a pretty good record. Can you take any body of men on earth that will show a better record than that? Can you go into the churches, and into- the. colleges, and into any walk of life, and show me where out of eleven hundred and eighty men elected' to the performance of such duties aS' rest upon Senators but 7 of them have been found not entitled ta the.ir seats? That speaks something for the record.

Is not that some justification of a system of government? Do you think that if you take the power of the election of Sena t o rs from the accredited and selected representatives of the people. in the legislatures you will get better results? Do you think that if you throw the election of a United States Senator into the downtown wards of a city you will get a purer- deliverance of right? Do you believe that if the question of the election of a Senator is subject to all of the trades and the bargains and the vicissitudes of an election you will get a better result than you will at the hands of the selected af the peop:le? It does not appeal to me that you: will, and it is not the highest purpose that we could have in view that we maintain and keep up to the · high standard the personnel of the members of this

Mr. REED. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senato-r from Missouri?

Mr. HEYBURN. Certainly.

l\fr . REED. A moment ago- the distinguished Senator pronounced a eulogy upon the purity and intelligence of the Ame"Fican people. Now · I understand that he challenges the purity and intelligence of a portion of them. I want to ask him if that same impure, vicious, and bad element which he thinks should not vote direct for United States Senator does not now vote direct for the men who erect United States Senators?

Mr. HEYBURN. If the distinction is not obvious, I am afraid the Senator will have to appeal to some one else to make it so. I have not challenged the integrity or the ability of the American people to perform the duties of citizenship, but am I to be understood in that as accrediting the discredited citizenship of the country that languishes in prisons or has discredited itself so that it can not live in one place long enough to acquire the right to vote?

Mr. President, I can not dwindle this discussion down to a point-and I say . it with due respect to the Senator-that would necessarily present the criticism and the challenge of the Senator. I think the Senator seems to be quite devoted to the idea of finding that I am not consistent in my remarks.

:Mr . REED rose.

Mr. HEYBURN. If the Senator will be patient until I have concluded my remarks-I do not mean by that that I object to interruptions, because I do not; I r athe r prefer, when matters arise in the minds of Senators that would seem to be antagonistic to my expressions, that they should make them known-but when I said that the American people could be intrusted with citizen- ship, I meant the American people who are entitled by their training and their integrity to exercise those rights, and I did not mean th at there would not be within that great body of just men knots and curls an d quips of irregularity that would affect the elec tion either of Representatives or of Senators; but when those people have selected the legislature they have taken picked men from their community to · represent them; they have expressed their contentment to be so represented.

Now, Mr. President, there are some facts in regard to this matter that are pertinent. There is no need to amend the Constitution of the United States to do away with the evil of what you might ca.11 deadlocks in legislatures. Congress has the power by legislation to remedy it, because Congress can provide under the Constitution as it is how the legislature shall elect a Sen a tor. It needs no amendment to the Constitution. It is competent for Congress to say, as the legislatures of some States have said and, under the rules, conventions have adopted, that after a certain number of ballots the low man shall be dropped, and so on. That always results in a very speedy determination of a deadlock.

I have seen it in operation at times during my political c aree r _ where, the inability of a convention to nominate a candi date being demonstrated, a rule would be adopted that after th e third ballot, or the fifth, or any other number, the low man should be dropped, and then after the next ballot the next low man should be dropped, and so on. It speedily resulted in the cases. un tyin~ of these knots.

The Senator from New York [Mr. RooT] has proposed a method of resorting to a plurality vote after so many ballots. That is feasible, but I prefer the rule of dropping the low man, perhaps because I have been somewhat familiar with it; but either of them would answer. Dropping the low man still elects by a majority, which I think is a better plan. When you have dropped the low man until it is down to two men of a party, if you please, it will be determined by that ballot and by a majority vote.

I started to inquire as to the necessity of this amendment. I have not found it yet. No Senator has pointed out any neces sity for this amendment to me, except that it comes in a cry from somewhere, and when you undertake to trace that back to the source you find that it is somebody who could not get what he wanted very often in the regular way, and he thought if some new rule could be found for him he might possibly stand a better chance. I do not say that to be invidious . I do not intend to apply it to any Senator. I am talking now of matters of experience in political life, and when I use the term " political life " I mean the pursuit of the study of government, the science of government.

Has any necessity presented itself for this action? I am now t all\:ing about the simple question of changing the Constitution so that the legislature shall not perform the duty of selecting the representatives from the State-the big State and the little State alike. It is not the people, the body and mass of the people, that is represented by the Senator from a · State. He represents the people from all States. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. WILLIAMS] is as much a Senator for the State of Idaho as he is for the State of Mississippi; yes, he is, under the Constitution, and his duty is the same, the pledge of his faith is the same in the making and the consideration of the making of law. The Senator from New York is as much a Senator for the State of Ohio as is the Senator that Ohio selected. That has been recognized throughout the history of . this country. Your vote is not confined to its effect upon the interests of your own people. In three-fourths of the questions upon which we vote the State of some Senator has no particular interest, but you vote because you are a Senator of the United States as a whole.

This goes to the question of the character of representation for which a Senator stands, and that goes to the question as to · how that character should be represented. The State has a medium provided by the Constitution of the United States. Its legislature speaks for it. A Senator in this body may speak and does speak for his State. When he votes upon a question affecting the whole Nation if he does not rise above that, he falls below the duty of a Senator .

Now, Mr. President, I approach a que stio n directly involved in th~ amendment of .the Senator from Kansas [Mr. B&rsTow]. T_h~ joint re solutioi;i itself provides for the repeal of that provision ?f the Constitution which authorizes Congress to change or modify the rules which a State makes in regard to this matter. Yesterday the inquiry came from somewhere as to how the United States could compel a State to continue to exist. It seemed to be assumed or conceded by some that a State might cease to exist and the Government of the United States would be helpless.

Mr. President, such a contention is to me so startling, so threatening to the continuity and continuance of this Government as to appall me. Do you think that a State by failing to exercise its constitutional duty of sending representatives to this body or to the other could terminate its obligations as a State of the Union? In this age, in the light of this experience of most of us or some of us, such a proposition can not be su s­ tained . You can not destroy this Government by inaction any more than you can by action. The failure to exercise the duty on the part of a part of the people would not affect the right or the fact that the other part of the people would exercise it.

If none exercised it, it is no longer a State government. A State government is not constituted alone of the State officers or the officers within the State. To be a State it must be a part of the Nation. To be a part of the Nation it must be represented in the departments of the Government wherein the Constitution provides that it shall be represented. If it fails in this it is only a Territory. Statehood is not geography; it is men; it is constituted of the actions of men; and if men do not or will not act there is no statehood. _ If any State in this Union failed or refused to respond to its constitutional duty to be represented in Congress, Congress would and could take possession of that territory, because it is all the territory of the United States, and they could organize a Government in that territory according to and within the constitutional provisions in such I never want to see the day when the truth of that assertion will have to be tested, but it the day does come, those who delude themselves with the idea that a State may sulk itself out of existence will be rudely awakened from their dream. Congress can organize a territorial government in the absence of a State government, and a State government is not complete or efficient unless it is represented in Congress in the constitutional manner. Congress can enforce its action in taking possession of the affairs of those people as it would enforce its power over an alien foe.

It is not fashionable among patriots to consider how this Nation may be destroyed by neglect. It is not wise among statesmen to consider how that the Government is so powerless and weak that it can not maintain its own existence, and it is not maintaining its own existence when it permits one of the States to dissolve itself out of the Union by inaction. That territory belongs none the less to the Go1ernm en t of the United States, the lord of the fee, the sovereign of the domain, becau s e that the people within it refuse to perform constitutional duties. .

Why should not Congress then retain the power peacefully by allowing section 4 to remain as it is, where the express power is given to compel representation in both Houses of Congress? If you, if any part of the people, take the nominal power away from Congress, , and, acting upon that, the people of any State decline the duties of citizenship, Congress will nevertheless have the power to act from a different standpoint, but none the less effective, in the absence of any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress in express terms to compel the performance of its nationalism or nationalship by a State, to go in and perform it for them. · Why should they not? There is no man within the sound of my voice so unpatriotic as to maintain that he would not by his effort, official or personal, undertake to uphold the supremacy within any State that refused to exercise its political duty or to perform its political duty toward the maintenance of the Government. It takes all the States of this Union to make the Government. No one can drop out of the ranks. Now, they are proposing by this amendment to the Constitution to take away from Congress the power to compel a State to perform the constitutional functions of a State. That is what they are doing. I do not need to go out beyond the pages of the history of our country to call attention to what might have happened. It is a difficult question to discuss and one for which the necessity of discussion should never arise. I am not going to enter into the question from an individual standpoint nor at any length. I will merely say that there was a time in this country when it was claimed and strongly maint.ained that a State had a right to withdraw from this body or from Congress or from any department of the Government, and that the Government should have no power to prevent it Why, that was the very commencement of the troubles that resulted in war. It started right over there. Look up the history of it and see where the first declaration was made, and by whom it was made, that a State could exercise its own pleasure about being represented here, and that Congress hacl no power to compel its representation, or in any manner to control it.

Without going over any part of that terrible time when that question was being thrashed out, it is sufficient to say that it was, and I do not believe that there is a man within the sound of my voice who ever wants to see such a question thrashed I out in the household of the American people. If we have war, let it not be within our own household; let it be for the defense and the honor of our flag and our country as against some other nation than our own.

Do not raise this question. I have been accused in the public press, and I do not know where else-I do not care-of waving the bloody flag in my discussion of these questions. Great God, Senators r they must be discussed when you force their discussion upon us. It is discussed, not in anger, not in terms of recrimination, but weighed in the balance of patriotic and generous discussion.

The question of State rights is involved in this fourth section of the Constitution. As It was written in that section, so was it the cause of the great strife which no sane man can but regret. . It was the question of the right of Congress to interfere where the necessity for interference existed in the affairs of a State, and in the great arbitrament of war it was decided tilllt that section 4 should not be written out of the Constitution of the United States. That was in the verdict, because it was in the indictment. I am not appealing to Senators on this side in regard to that, because if I thought there was- in the breast of any one of them a difference of opinion in regard to it I would lose faith in the great party of which I have always been a member. I do not believe there is a remnant of that sentiment in the heart of any man on the other side of the House. I have heard you say, and I believed you when you said it, that those were buried questions and abandoned claims, and that you would stand as ready to defend this country against dissolution either by sword or by ballot as your ancestors did. I believe you, and I have no desire to bring up those- questions. But they are forced upon us here in that we are asked to repeal the provision in the Constitution that was the battle cry of our armies, and I protest against it.

Necessity for its enforcement or application might never arise. Generations come and go. Before me to-day there are only a handful of men on either side who participated in the settlement of that question, but it is just as necessary for the generations that follow those who did participate in it to correctly understa:nd the bearing of the question upon our existence and upon the integrity of our Government as it was for those who took the responsibility in that hour. Shall we be less thoughtful, shall we be less patriotic and less quick to respond to an attack upon the Constitution, civil or military, than were our ancestors? Is it a small thing to take away from Congress a power that was given it by the founders merely because there is nothing at the moment that would seem to make it material one way or the other? Since I was born there ha.ve been men who ridiculed the idea here in this Chamber that any difficulty could ever arise by reason of the exercise of the rights of the Government under this section 4. Why should it be taken out? Let us look for a reason for that. Does anyone want to do anything that the Government of the United States would be justified in stopping? Does anyone want to do anything that would be interfered with by this just provision of the Constitution? If they do, why do they? If they dor should they be permitted to do it? . I sa.y those who are proposing that we take this power away from the Government, and it is a power, what would they do that they can not do now? Why do they want it repealed? Is it because they anticipate some conditions where the Government under existing provisions would interfere, and under the conditions that would exist after its repeal could not? Is that it? Be candid, brave, and fair, and tell us why you want this section 4 of Article I repealed. It is not sufficient to cry out "Repeal ! Repeal ! " It is necessary in the deliberations which properly accompany the consideration of these great questions that reasons should be given, and reasons that convince the reason of men.

This is not a place for negative action. There must be an affirmative. reason in this body for the exercise of the functions of office by every Senator and all the Senators. There must be an affirmative reason for doing it, and I challenge any man to state here the affirmative reason why section 4 of Article I of the Constitution should be abolished, wherein it provides for the Government of the United States, which is as great as the aggregate of all of them, to perform its functions in the hour when its judgment dictates that it should act. I speak of that in support of the provisions contained in the amendment of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow]. Were his amendment confined to that I would support it, but I speak against the provision in the resolution of that Senator, more properly speaking, wherein it provides for a change in the method of the election of Senators in an unconstitutional manner-that is, by a direct vote o'f the people.

What next'! What will we face next here in this Chamber? The recall perhaps of officers of the United States at the changing whim of local communities. Do you think that you would get a self-respecting man to occupy a position in this Chamber when his right so to do was likely at any time to be challenged and canceled? I would not care for the acquaintance of a man who would accept a place of responsibility on such terms. Is there nothing left of the spirit which actuated the generations that have gone before us, who have maintained that the value of a government rests in its stability, that the value of a law rests in its stability and its certainty of apJ.)lication? Those are the very foundation principles upon which our Government was founded. The violation of those principles sent our patriots to battle against England and her- allies and to win out the Constitution and the government we enjoy. It was because we never lmew in New England or Pennsylvania or Virginia or the Carolinas 01• Georgia whether the law that you were striving to obey to-day, that you are striving to rest your personal property rights upon to-day, would be the law of to-morrow, when royal edict might change overnight the law of property and person.

We recognize the necessity for stability in government; we recognize the necessity of a fixed tenure of office, not changeable at the will of any monarch or superior power, except for cause defined and limited by the people, and yet to-day seems to be the day of amendment Some congregation or aggregation of people to-day are in session who have proposed to amend the Ten Commandments, seriously, not in jest, and I have the proceedings of their meeting in my desk here. They are only a little in advance of the kind of men who are to-day looking rather how to change the law than how to obey it; how to degrade the law rather than to elevate it as the standard of stability, fixed, - stable government of the people, by the people-. n representative form of' government that we have all sworn allegiance to. When we take our oath of office we pledge om~~ selves to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That means its principles; and the conditions under which we are justified in attempting to change those principles are mighty uncertain. The principle of representative government is the very first underlying groundwork of our system. When the fathers were in session to determine our form of government, the first question was, What kind of a government? There was a school for a democratic government along the · lines and principles of' the town meeting, where the people would come together and declare their will. Of course, that was impracticable. Men who ha.d seen a little more of this limited world knew that was impracticable. The wise men who hacJ read the history of mankind ancf mankind's government said we can . not all go on every occasion to determine these questions, but we will send the best we can select." A bad man may select a good man to represent him, and is more apt to do it than people generally think, because if the man realizes that he is bad, he generally realizes the necessity of having a good man, more perhaps than does the good man. They settled up<JII that principle of representative government, divided into units, ascending upward from the little coterie of citizens who select a representative, to a convention of the first magnitude, and that to the second, and so on up until, in the great electoral college, we select men who select the President of the United States. We have never been betr ayed in the history of the country. That speaks well for represen fati\' e gcrrernment. No man was ever eleCted to the electoral college who did not perform the duty as his constituency had electecl him to perform it You wipe out in a large measure this principle o:f self-government. I know the old argument. I have heard it. They say, Is not an election by the people of the State for Senator just as inuch an election as it is if they act through one me- . dium-the legislature? No; it is not. The people of the States are individual members of this great Government. In some States there are millions of them and in others hundreds of thousands, but the hundreds of thousands represent as much in this body as do the millions.

I am astonished at the Representatives of some of the smaller States supporting a measure of this kind, knowing that they are only adding to the agitation of the hour that may-pray God it will not-result in a constitutional convention. When the constitutional convention has signed its work, the old Constitution with all its restrictions is gone.

I have been reminded-and I have heard it even spoken here in terms of confidence-that the prohibition in the Constitution against the destruction of the equal representation in the Senate could never be cha ng ed. A constitutional convention is bigger than the Constitution; a constitutional convention can just as well change that clause as it can change any other. It can adopt a constitution that is different in every respect in principle or in detail if it wants to. When the people of the United States meet in constitutional convention there is no power on earth greater than the will of that body, and they can, and they will, provide that the States shall be represented in this body according to their population. We should then have two Houses of Congress upon the same basis, representing the same element of our people. One of them would be a little larger than the other, and its Members would have a longer term of office, but there would be no other distinction. Instead of representing the States of which this Nation is composed, they would represent themselves, subject to review by the people at intervals.

Mr. President, the question is most serious; it involves the principle upon which the Government will some day rest with its life at stake. The habit of amending the Constitution is a · dangerous one.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER (.Mr. WORKS in the chair). Does the Senator from Idaho yield to the Senator from Utah. . l\Ir. HEYBURN. Yes.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I was struck with one statement which the Senator from Idaho has made, and that is that he thinks it would be possible for an amendment to be made to the Constitution, without the consent · of all the States, which would deprive a State in the Union of its equal representation.

Mr. HEYBURN. Absolutely. •

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I call his attention to the fact that Article V, which provides how amendments shall be made, provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the two Houses of Congress, when two-thirds consent, or by a convention; but in either event the amendment is simply proposed. The convention has no more power to adopt an amendment to the Constitution than has Congress. Congress iil the one case proposes it and the convention in the other case proposes it, but no amendment can be made to the Constitution . until it has been ratified by three-fourths of the States. Does the Senator think it would be possible to adopt an amendment to the Constitution without the consent of three-fourths of the States of the Union?

Mr. HEYBURN. A constitutional convention is without limit as to its power. When the people of the United States meet again for the purpose of making an organic law, that prohibition is at an end.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Then the Government is at an end.

Mr. HEYBURN. The Government is being reborn.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. That is revolution.

Mr. HEYBURN. That is a possibility, and within the power of a constitutional convention, because a constitutional convention represents all the people, and all the people can do as they please.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. But when that is done, that is not an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. HEYBURN. I am not speaking of anything except it be under this joint resolution. There is nothing proposed in this legislation that calls for the determination of that question. I was speaking of the tendency of the age, as to certain people and certain bodies professing certain principles. · , .Mr. SUTHERLAND. Well, does the Senator think that under this Constitution it would be possible to amend it so as to deprive any State in the Union of its equal representation without the consent of every State in the Union?

Mr. HEYBURN. Not under this amendment; but I am speaking of the age of amendments and the proposals or propositions for change. I was merely directing the eye into the sky of the future to see a reflex from the idiosyncracies and the insanities of some organizations of to-day; that is all.

:Mr. President, I have been met with that proposition so · often that I always think I am going to make it plain that I am not cl _ aiming that they can do it under this amendment, but I am decrying the age of innovation and change. Men do not realize the responsibility involved in change. One change breeds another. Familiarity with change is apt to make men hunt for changes rather than investigate the necessity for such changes. That is the idea that I have. I do not want it to appear, and it must not appear, that I have claimed that under this joint resolution it would be possible; but just let a certain element in this country once get a way from the shackles of the law, once forget the respect that is due to the fundamental law of our land, and no man can foresee where it will end.

Do you imagine for a moment that the people are not greater than the Constitution? Do you imagine for a moment that the people are not capable and able to throw down any obstructions to their free will in the making of a government? When I say " the people " I mean a majority of the people, because this is a government of majorities.

Mr. President, if the consideration of this question is circumscribed or is to be circumscribed by the tumult of the hour or by a consideration of the result that will follow the discussion of it upon the fortunes of this man or that, we had as well let it go to a vote and allege as a reason that this was not a reasoning body; that men would not listen to reason and did \_ not care for it.

Mr. President, I would not undertake to conclude the discussion of a question of the magnitude and importance of this within the short ti.me that I have been discussing it. The · Senator from Wisconsin -[Mr . LA FOLLETTE] is now in the Chamber and, I believe, is ready to proceed, and, with the consent of the Senate, I will yield to the Senator from Wisconsin and resume the consideration of this question at another convenient time. l\Ir. BORAH. Mr . President, if the Senator from Wisconsin will allow me a moment, I desire to make a motion. I move that when the Senate adjourns to-day it be to meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

Mr. HEYiBURN. Mr. President, without discussing the motion, I would say there are two committees which will meet tomorrow of which I am a member. To appear before one of those committees a large number of men, as I am advised, have come from Chicago and even from a greater distance to be heard, pursuant to a resolution of the Senate. In addition to that the Committee on Finance is sitting and there are many men in attendance, waiting, I think, to appear before that committee. I think if the Senator will be patient for a few days we shall make better headway . To-morrow the committee having under consideration the cold-storage bill will meet, and I should like to have from 10 o'clock to-morrow until 2 to dispose of that matter, and then I will accommodate myself, so far as the Committee on Finance is concerned, to the 12 o'clock arrangement, but I wish the Senator would postpone his motion for one day. .

Mr. BORAH. I would be glad, indeed, to accommodate all Senators with reference to the matter, and I will undertake to do so. With that in view, I ask unanimous consent that upon the ist day · of June, immediately after the morning business, the pending joint resolution, together with all amendments, be taken up for consideration, and that a vote be had upon the amendments and the joint resolution before the close of that legislative day .

Mr. HEYBURN. .Mr. President, I object to that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is made.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I move that when the Senate adjourns to-day it adjourn to meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I wish the Senator would consent to leave the hour of meeting at 2 o'clock to-morrow. I only ask for to-morrow for the reason that there are a number of gentlemen in Washington who wish to conclude their testimony before the Committee on Finance, and if the Senator will consent to let the hour of meeting be 2 · o'clock to-morrow, it would give those parties a chance to finish their testimony and leave the city to-morrow afternoon, and many of them tell me that they must go to-morrow afternoon.

Mr. HEYBURN. I shall not object to the motion to meet at 12 o'clock on Friday.

Mr. SMOOT. On that account I ask the junior Senator from Idaho to let the hour of meeting be 2 o'clock to-morrow.

Mr. STONE. .Mr. President, I should like to inq.uire of the Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT], who asks that the Senate adjourn until 2 o'clock, instead of 12 o'clock, to-morrow, because of some hearing before the Finance Committee, · can the · Senator from Utah tell the Senate whether, in his opinion, we will likely conclude the hearings before that committee by an adjournment until 2 o'clock to-morrow?

l\fr. Sl\fOOT. l\fr. President, in my opm10n we can get through with the hearings on the paper schedule to-morrow by no 2 o'clock. I know of but one or two other witnesses who intend to appear before the committee, and I have every reason to believe that it will not be later than Friday when all of the witnesses will have had a hearing before the committee.

l\fr. HEYBURN. Well, l\fr. President, I do not think the a motion to discharge it. · Senator from Utah would, with a full knowledge of the facts, undertake to fix Friday as the time for closing the hearings, be­ · cause there are men here representing interests that have not yet been heard at all.

l\fr. SMOOT. There is another day for the hearings.

Mr. HEYBURN. There are men representing certain interests who have not been able to obtain a hearing, not because on they were not ready to be heard and anxious to be heard.

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I desire to say, if I may. be per­ back mitted, without assuming the prerogative of criticizing the not Committee on Finance or any other committee, that the Committee on Finance has now been engaged well on toward three weeks on these hearings, and the time has come when they should be concluded and some action taken by the committee to I / on the bill referred to it, so that it may either be killed iri the J committee, or at least that the Senate may know what the disposition of the committee is. Not only that, Mr. President, but I / the Committee on Privileges and Elections has a bill before it, and has for a month or thereabout. The Committee on the Census, of which the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LA FOLLETTE] is the chairman, has a bill before it, and other im­ If portant measures have been sent here by the House of Repre­ to .sentatives; and these committees are delaying action and postponing and procrastinating in a way that ought not to be per­ my mitted to go on without protest, and I protest against it.

Mr. SMOOT. 1\Ir. President--

Mr GALLINGER. I rise to a question of order, . Mr. Presi­ would end the hearings at once. dent. I inquire whether the motion of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH] is pending?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending, and the Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT] has the floor.

Mr. GALLINGER. That motion is not debatable, and, unless publicity bill-- the Senator from . Idaho withdraws it, I shall insist upon the regular order.

Mr. BAILEY. What is the motion?

Mr. GALLINGER. That when the Senate adjourns to-day it adjourn to meet at 12 o'clock to-morrow. ·

Mr. SMOOT. I should like to answer the statement made by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. STONE], so far as the Finance from Committee is concerned.

Mr. GAL . LINGER. I think that should be done when it can and properly be done. I think we had better observe the rule. ·

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I think I shall withdraw my been motion, but before doing so I feel compelled to say that I doubt tee . rery much whether or not I am doing the proper thing.

Mr. BAILEY (to Mr. BORAH). Renew it later.

Mr. BORAH. The difficulty with the situation is that it i3 lmpossible to accommodate everyone in a question of this kind, from _ and there is no way that I know of to close up the matter except to come here and dispose of it.

After to-morrow—and I say this for the benefit of Senators ) who may desire to be away or otherwise-if there is a majority of Senators in this Chamber in favor of proceeding with this matter until it is disposed. of, I shall feel compelled to ask that know that be done. If there is a majority who desire otherwise, of course it is in the hands of the Senate; but, so far as the Sen· the ator who has charge of the joint resolution is concerned, I shall insist upon a disposal of it after to-morrow and consideration of it during all the hours that the Senate is in session.

Mr. STONE. We have been hearing that for a good while. the I should like to have it go on now.

Mr. BORAH. I desire to say to the Senator from Missouri The VICE PRESIDENT. that this is done just as much to accommodate Senators on the other side of the Chamber as upon this side. There have b e en repeated requests for postponement upon both sides of the none. Chamber, and there is no partisanship in this move.

Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I want to say for the benefit of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. STONE] that I happen to be word a member . of all three of the committees under criticism-the sort Committee on Privileges and Elections, the Committee on the [.Mr. Census, an · d the Finance Committee-and I cheerfully bear want whatever share of that criticism belongs to me. Not in the , way of exculpating myself, for that is not necessary, but to do justice to the chairman of the Census Committee, who is also a member of the Finance Committee, I will say that I have conferred with him about the apportionment bill, and he has assured me that he will call that committee together as soon who as the matter before the Finance Committee is disposed of.

I want to say · to the Senator from :Missouri also tl-at 1. have doubt that the Committee on · Privileges and Elections will report the publicity campaign bill; and, without intimating a th.reat, because that would not be in order nor would it be justified. by the conditions, I have no doubt that that committee will report that bill, and if it does not do so, I mean to make As for the Finance Committee, I am ready to conclude its labors even if there are some gentlemen who have not been heard; but it has not been the practice of Senate committees to close their doors in the face of any American citizen who comes in good faith and asks to be heard respecting any matter under consideration. While I myself would be ready to take a vote the measure before that committee in the morning-indeed they could not please me better than to summon the committee to their room this afternoon and take the vote-I would consent to terminate the hearings so long as there is any American citizen asking in good faith to be heard.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President--

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Texas yield the Senator from Mississippi? ·

Mr. BAILEY. Certainly.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think perhaps the · senator from Texas ought to modify his statement somewhat. The Senator from Texas does not intend to give the Senate and the country to understand that just so long as anybody would come to the committee desiring to be heard we would continue to hear them.

that were the case, an organized movement might be made keep on sending people there.

Mr. BAILEY. The Senator from Mississippi did not catch expression. I said so long as they came "in good faith." Of course, if I should become convinced that there was any such understanding amongst the people who appeared there, I

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I desire to say just a word in reply to the remarks of the Senator from Missouri in regard to the status of the bill which was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The bill that he has in mind-the

Mr. STO.NE. That is the bill.

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Was by direction of the committee placed in the hands of a subcommittee, which has been appointed and notified, and two members of which have been necessarily absent this week, so that they could not attend the meeting of the committee. One of them is the junior Senator Iowa, who is necessarily out of the city. I expect that the next regular meeting of the committee will be on Saturday, I. fully expect that the subcommittee will be prepared at that time to make a report to the full committee. There has no disposition on the part of any member of the committo make delay in respect to that matter, and I think that the Senator's fears are entirely groundless .

Mr. CULBERSON and .Mr. NEWLANDS addressed. the Chair.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair understood the Senator Wisconsin desired to proceed. Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. President-- The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Texas? Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I do. Mr. CULBERSON. Before the Senator proceeds, I desire to what became of the motion of the Senator from Idaho.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Idaho withdrew motion in reference to the time of meeting.

Mr. BORAH. I desire to ask unanimous consent to have the unfinished business temporarily laid a side. Mr. CULBERSON. Do I understand the Senator will renew motion to-morrow to meet hereafter at 12 o'clock? Mr. BORAH. Yes. The Senator from Idaho asks unanimous consent that the Senate temporarily lay aside the unfinished business. Is there objection? The Chair hears